Planning Commission - 08/27/1984 AGENDA
wonday, August 27, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virgina Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:40) A. REYNOLDS PRINTING, INC., by Sigmund J. Helle. Request for Site Plan
and Zoning District Amendment for office/assembly/warehouse use on
4.9 acres of Norseman`s 6th Addition. Location: Northeast quadrant
of Valley View Road and W. 74th Street. A continued public hearing.
41 7:45) B. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots.
Location: South of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive. A
continued public hearing.
(8:00) C. LEARNING TREE/MINNESOTA TREE 2ND ADDITION. Request for Zoning Dis-
trict Change from Rural to Commercial-Regional-Service for 1.07
acres 'and Preliminary Plat of 5.46 acres into one lot and two
outlots for day care center. Location: Southeast quadrant of
Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road. A public hearing.
(8:30) D. VALLEY VIEW PLAZA, by Frantz Klodt. Request for Zoning District
Change from C-Regional to Office for 2.91 acres and Preliminary Plat
of 5.22 acres into one lot and one outlot for a 46,000 sq. ft.
office building. Location: South of Valley View Road at Office
Ridge Circle. A public hearing.
Agenda
Qigust 27, 1984
ge 2
( 9:00) E. EDEN COMMONS, by the Chasewood Company. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for 218 multiple family residential
units and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location:
Northwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard. A public
hearing.
(10:00) F. VANTAGE. Request for Preliminary Plat of 56.25 acres into three
lots and three outlots to be known as Golden Strip East. Location:
North of I-494, west of County Road #18. A public hearing.
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. OLD BUSINESS
(10:30) A. Flying Cloud Airport Commission Proposed Si nage Ordinance
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
TE: The times listed above are tentative--the item may be significantly earlier,
or later than shown.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 27, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett
(9:15 p.m.), Stan Johannes (8:45 p.m.) Ed Schuck, Hakon
Torjesen
MEMBER ABSENT: Dennis Marhula
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Schuck, to adopt the minutes of the
August 13, 1984 Planning Commission meeting, with the following addition:
on Page 7, paragraph 4, second sentenced be deleted and replaced as the
following, "He stated that letters received by the Planning Commission from
the Uherkas and the Kinions, property owners to the west, stated opposition
to the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change for differing reasons.
Motion carried--2-0-2 (Gartner and Schuck abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. REYNOLDS PRINTING, INC., by Sigmund J. Helle. Request for Site Plan
and Zoning District Amendment for office/assembly/warehouse use on
4.9 acres of Norseman's 6th Addition. Location: Northeast quadrant
of Valley View Road and W. 74th Street. A continued public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 27, 1984
0 This item had been postponed to this meeting by previous Commission action.
Proponent will not be proceeding with the project.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to close the public
hearing and return the item to the proponent.
Motion carried--4-0-0
B. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots.
Location: South of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive. A
continued public hearing.
Chairman Bearman noted that letters had been received from Ellen and Charles
Koshenina, dated August 23, 1984, and from Kate Laseski, dated August 22,
1984, and asked that they be made part of the permanent record for the
project.
Mr. Lloyd Erickson, representing proponent, reviewed the revised plan with a
cul-de-sac road design off Riverview Road. He stated that, due to the
topography of the area, the road would be at a 7% grade, only slightly less
than the maximum allowable by City Code. Mr. Erickson stated that sewer and
water services were available within Riverview Road for the lots shown as
fronting Riverview Road on the revised plat. He explained that turning the
lots along Riverview Road to access the other roads within the plat would
make the lots difficult to develop. Due to the grade change in this area of
the property, slopes of 4/1 would be needed at the back of the lots, which
would be hard to maintain. Therefore, proponents preferred the plan as
presented, with several of the lots fronting Riverview Road.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report. He presented an alternative plat design showing larger lots
adjacent to the existing R1-22 lots along the south border of the property,
creating a transition between existing and proposed development. This
design would result in the loss of several lots within the project for a
total of 27 lots.
Gartner asked how many lots would be possible, if the property were
developed as R1-22, instead of R1-13.5. Staff responded that approximately
23-25 lots would be possible.
Gartner asked if the Cash Park Fees for this property would be allocated to
this neighborhood. Staff responded that they would not. However, at this
time, two totlots were in the development stages, as well as a neighborhood
park of approximately 15 acres on Homeward Hills Road, just north of this
property.
• Torjesen stated that he felt the overriding issue was justification for
change of the zoning district from R1-22 to R1-13.5. He stated that, while
he was comfortable with the majority of the plan as redesigned, he was
uncomfortable with the transition between the existing R1-22 residential
Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 27, 1984
area south of the project and the proposed lots. He stated that he
preferred the Staff's version of this area, enlarging the lots along the
south boundary of the project. Torjesen added that he felt the proponent's
argument for having the lots along the north border of the project access
Riverview Road was a valid one based on the topography of the property.
Chairman Bearman stated that he had no objections to the project, as
designed. He stated that he felt the project met the intent of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan for Low Density Residential development of the
property. Chairman Bearman added that, from testimony given at previous
meetings, and from the history of the area presented by Staff, it was clear
that this area had been zoned R1-22 based on situations which had now
changed, particularly involving sewer and water availability and definitions
of Low Density Residential development and Rural zoning.
Torjesen stated that he felt the area residents had expectations of this
property being developed as R1-22, which were valid. He questioned whether
the established zoning district or the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation
would take precedence in a situation like this.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt it was the Commission's responsibility
to review each project, based on its own merits, as to whether it fit a
site, or not. Torjesen stated that he agreed. Chairman Bearman stated
that, in his opinion, this project fit the site and the intent of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Mr. James Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, stated that he preferred the
larger lots shown by Staff's design to be located across from his property.
He stated that he did not feel that developers should design projects to the
maximum limits just because sewer and water had become available to an area.
Ms. Ellen Koshenina, 10541 East Riverview Drive, expressed concern regarding
the storm water drainage in the area. She stated that she did not feel it
was appropriate for the same engineering firm to be working for the
developer and the City in a situation such as this and suggested that an
independent firm be hired to prepare the study necessary for this project.
Ms. Koshenina questioned the status of the study. Staff responded that the
City Engineering Department was in the process of gathering information now,
and that the report would be forthcoming. Staff added that the engineering
firm in question was providing information, only, to the City Engineering
Department, but that the study was being conducted by City Staff.
Torjesen stated that he did not feel it was appropriate to prejudge the
Staff, or the engineering firm involved with the project, but that it was
the responsibility of the citizens and the Commission and Council to stay
involved in the process to the point that they were satisfied with the
results.
Mr. Brendon O'Donnell , 11590 Riverview Road, presented a petition from the
surrounding residents. He stated that they, as a group, had four major
concerns: that a permanent solution to the storm water drainage problem in
the entire area be instituted; that a compelling reason for changing from
R1-22 to R1-13.5 zoning had not been presented by the proponent; that the
Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 27, 1984
development of R1-13.5 lots would lower the value of their lots in the
surrounding area; and, it was their opinion that the only one to benefit
from the smaller lots would be the developer, that no benefit would be
forthcoming to the surrounding property owners.
The Commission disagreed with the concern regarding lowering of property
values. Chairman Bearman stated that there had never been a case of this
type proven in the City. Torjesen stated that he was unaware of any
situation where adjacent properties were devalued based on a future
differing development and that, to his knowledge, it was almost as difficult
to prove that property values increased at a slower rate because of a new
development. Schuck stated that the Cardinal Creek development in his area
certainly had not experienced such a devaluation based on surrounding
developments.
Mrs. Gayle Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, stated that she was in favor
of the Staff's design for the plat as it affected her property to the south
of the proposed development.
Gartner asked if there would be a difference in the amount of review time
for the project if the Commission made their recommendations prior to the
storm sewer study being completed, or postponed their recommendation on the
item until the storm sewer study was completed. Staff responded that the
. Council already taken action such that no development of a previous Bluffs
area project could take place until this study was completed and that they
were aware of the future Bluffs area projects coming to them. Staff stated
that they felt it was the Council 's intent, and that it would be Staff's
recommendation, that all Bluff's projects not be developed until the storm
sewer situation was resolved.
Gartner stated that she felt the project should return to the Commission for
review, if the storm sewer study resulted in a substantive change to the
project design. Other Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Erickson, engineer for proponent, confirmed that, as Staff had stated
earlier, their firm would only be providing information to the City
Engineering Department for the City's purposes in preparing the study of the
storm sewer. Their firm would not be making any recommendations to the City
on the matter.
Mr. Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, reiterated concern that the
developers, just because sewer and water had become available to a property,
felt they could automatically develop at the highest density possible. He
stated that he felt the property should remain as R1-22 and be developed as
such.
Ms. Koshenina, 10541 East Riverview Drive, stated that she found the process
frustrating. She stated that, based on information presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission should be reviewing the entire area, not
just this project, in relationship to the overall storm water drainage
problems in this vicinity.
Chairman Bearman responded that the Planning Commission relied on the
Engineering Staff for review of the engineering details of a development.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 27, 1984
Furthermore, questions relating to assessments resulting from engineering
projects involving streets or utilities were dealt with by the City Council,
not the Commission. The Commission had been organized as a recommending
body to the Council on planning matters.
Mr. Darrell Dilling, 11441 Riverview Road, stated that, in his opinion, the
engineering work done in this area had been poorly done, as was evident by
the current problems being faced by the surrounding residents. He suggested
that a completely independent firm be hired to deal with the storm water
drainage plan for the area.
Torjesen stated that the question for the City on such matters was how much
money should be spent to solve a problem of this type, to what level of
perfection. He stated that the citizens had a responsibility to remain
involved to be certain that the amount of money spent would be enough to
answer and solve the problem to the level of perfection they expected.
Torjesen stated that the political question was one of the amount of money
to be spent.
Staff stated that, at the time of development in any area, the City also had
to consider the burdens upon open property where owners were not yet ready
to develop. There was a political feeling for not placing burdens upon
undeveloped property prematurely. Chairman Bearman reiterated that these
• decisions were the responsibility of the City Council , not the Planning
Commission, and that the Planning Commission was a recommending body on
planning matters, only.
Ms. Kate Laseski, 12155 Riverview Road, asked if assessments would affect
all the properties in the area. Staff responded that the entire area would
be notified of any proposed assessment and that anyone notified should be in
attendance at any meeting held regarding the assessment.
Mr. Mike Furst, 8693 Darnell, stated that he felt the Planning Commission
was a political body and that, in his opinion, it should have all the facts
available on these matters before it acted on a proposal .
Chairman Bearman responded that the Commission was not a political body,
that it was a recommending body, only, to the Council, whose responsibility
it was to make political decisions. The issues being discussed regarding
cost of a study and possible utility extensions were issues for the Council
to decide, not the Commission.
Torjesen stated that the Commission was made up of seven people who, just
like the members of the audience, were concerned about the City. They are
not elected to their positions, but appointed.
(Johannes arrived at 8:45 p.m.)
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Johannes abstained)
Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 27, 1984
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council, approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Zoning District
Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres for 29 single family residential
lots to be known as Bluffs West 5th Addition, based on revised plans dated
August 20, 1984, removing one lot from the south boundary of the project as
per the Staff-designed plan, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report of August 24, 1984, and with the following added conditions: 1) No
development of the property be allowed until a workable storm water drainage
plan for the entire area has been approved by the Engineering Department and
acceptable to the City Council ; and, 2) Any substantive changes resulting
from the final, approved storm water drainage plan shall be returned to the
Planning Commission for review.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Johannes abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council, approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Preliminary Plat
of 14.5 acres for 29 single family lots to be known as Bluffs West 5th
Addition, based on revised plans dated August 20, 1984, removing one lot
from the south boundary of the project as per the Staff-designed plan,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of August 24, 1984, and
with the following added conditions: 1) No development of the property be
allowed until a workable storm water drainage plan for the entire area has
been approved by the Engineering Department and acceptable to the City
Council ; and, 2) Any substantive changes resulting from the final, approved
storm water drainage plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for
review.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Johannes abstained)
Torjesen stated that he felt it was important that temporary solutions to
the storm water drainage plan, such as the temporary retention ponds
proposed by proponents of this project, be specifically disallowed in any
recommendation that would be forthcoming from the Engineering Staff of the
City. He stated that he felt a more permanent solution was necessary.
Other Commissioners concurred.
C. LEARNING TREE/MINNESOTA TREE 2ND ADDITION. Request for Zoning Dis-
trict Change from Rural to Commercial-Regional-Service for 1.07
acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.46 acres into one lot and two
outlots for day care center. Location: Southeast quadrant of
Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road. A public hearing.
Ms. Gwen Roberts, Project Developers, representing proponent, reviewed the
project with the Planning Commission. She stated that there would be a
modified gable roof for the structure, with a brick exterior. Ms. Roberts
also reviewed details of the site plan and the interior floor plan for the
structure.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 27, 1984
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the August 24,
1984, Staff Report with the Planning Commission. He stated that the major
concerns of Staff included access, screening, building materials, and the
preliminary plat. Staff was suggesting a protected lane along the north
border of the property, which would connect to adjacent property and provide
for safer access for this vicinity. Planner Franzen stated that better
screening of parking areas was needed. He added that the brick exterior
material was preferred in the Major Center Area, particularly to provide
consistency with the already approved building to the east of this site. Of
concern regarding the preliminary plat, Planner Franzen pointed out that two
of the lots, which would not be built upon at this time, should be
designated as outlots on the preliminary plat. These two parcels would have
to be returned to the Planning Commission for review, at which time zoning
could also be reviewed.
Chairman Bearman asked if information was available from proponent regarding
the impact this use would have upon traffic in this vicinity, particularly
within the area of Highway #5. Planner Enger responded that last year,
traffic in this area was a concern. Since that time, an independent traffic
consultant had been hired to study the entire area. It was concluded by the
consultant that there was plenty of capacity at the intersection of Valley
View Road and Prairie Center Drive, just west of this parcel . Also, there
would be plenty of capacity in Valley View Road. Planner Enger stated that
• the intersection with Highway #5 was anticipated to include an interchange,
which would provide access at Prairie Center Drive. The amount of traffic
impact that would result from the construction and use of the day care
center in this location would be very small taken within the context of the
other uses in the vicinity.
Johannes asked if there would be sidewalks, or bituminus paths, along Valley
View Road in this area. Staff responded that a bituminus path, five feet
wide, would be located on the south side of the road. Johannes stated that
perhaps a sidewalk should be considered along the north side of road.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Learning Tree for Zoning District Change
from Rural to Commercial-Regional-Service for 1.07 acres for a day care
center, based on plans dated July 13, 1984, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated August 24, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 27, 1984
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Learning Tree and Minnesota Tree for
Preliminary Plat of 5.46 acres into one lot and two outlots, based on plans
dated July 13, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated August 24, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
D. VALLEY VIEW PLAZA, by Frantz Klodt. Request for Zoning District
Change from C-Regional to Office for 2.91 acres and Preliminary Plat
of 5.22 acres into one lot and one outlot for a 46,000 sq. ft.
office building. Location: South of Valley View Road at Office
Ridge Circle. A public hearing.
Mr. Doug Arndt, representing proponent, reviewed the project with the
Planning Commission. He stated that, since submitting the plans to the
Planning Staff for review, it was found that soils in the proposed location
of the building were unsuitable for construction. Therefore, they were
proposing relocation of the building towards the center of the lot. All
other building and site plan features would be essentially the same.
• Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the August 24,
1984, Staff Report with the Commission.
Schuck asked about the signage for the project. Mr. Arndt responded that
there would be a pylon sign identifying the building on the front elevation.
Chairman Bearman asked about the private road through the project. Planner
Enger responded that previous plans for this area had shown a loop road
through this property to adjacent properties. At this time, however, two
cut-de-sacs were shown. He added that the private road would allow the
proponents to locate the structures and parking closer to the setback lines,
which would not be possible with the public road. Planner Enger stated that
this was preferred by proponent due to the narrowness of the parcel towards
I-494 and Valley View Road.
Chairman Bearman expressed concern regarding maintenance of the private
road. Planner Enger responded that no one parcel would depend on access via
the private road, only. It would provide better circulation and additional
access for the parcels concerned.
Torjeson asked about the cross access easement to the west. Staff responded
that the property to the west of this parcel would have better access if a
private easement and shared driveway could be accomplished for cross access
purposes. This would be providing a right-in, right-out, access on Valley
View Road on the properties, not a full access.
Mr. Don Brauer, 7751 Flying Cloud Drive, representing Condon-Naegele, owners
of the parcel to the west, stated that the owners of the parcel to the west
would prefer a common driveway access, but two drives at this location with
a cross access easement would be acceptable also.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 27, 1984
•
Torjeson asked if any variances were requested for this parcel . Staff
responded that proponent was requesting a height variance only, which would
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
Planner Enger explained that there was a "jog" in the right-of-way in Valley
View Road. There would be a possibility for a vacation of that road "jog"
upon completion of the improvements in Valley View Road, if it was found
that this additional right-of-way was not necessary. This would eliminate
the need for a possible front yard setback variance needed by proponent. In
any event, Planner Enger explained, it would appear as if this "jog" was
part of the front yard of the project, as it would be covered in grass. In
this manner, a front yard setback variance could be justified.
Torjeson asked if Staff had had an opportunity to review the revised plan
with the relocated building. Planner Enger responded that Staff had time to
review the revised site plan and was comfortable with the result. It was
Staff's opinion that the relocated building provided a better site plan for
this property.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen against)
Torjeson stated that he recalled the overall plan for this area called for
low profile buildings. He asked if any of the other buildings in this area,
which were built, or proposed to be built, exceeded the height requirements
of the Code. Staff responded that this building would be within a few feet
of the height of other buildings in the vicinity. Buildings across the
street from this structure were two stories in height and had pitched roofs.
Torjeson stated that this area had views upon one of the nicest amenities in
the City, Bryant Lake. He stated that he felt the profile of this building
should be consistent with the profiles of others in the vicinity. Planner
Enger pointed out that this building would be located behind the high hill
in the area, and would not be within view of Bryant Lake because of the
hill.
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Frantz Klodt for Zoning District Change
from C-Regional to Office for 2.91 acres based on plans presented at the
Planning Commission meeting dated August 27, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of August 24, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Frantz Klodt for Preliminary Plat of 5.22
Planning Commission Minutes 10 August 27, 1984
acres into one lot and one outlot for development of an office building,
based on plans presented at the Planning Commission meeting dated August 27,
1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 24,
1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
(Schuck left the meeting at 11:00 p.m.)
E. EDEN COMMONS, by the Chasewood Company. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for 218 multiple family residential
units and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location:
Northwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard. A public
hearing.
Mr. Dick Campbell , representing Chasewood Development, reviewed the history
and construction record of Chasewood with the Planning Commission. He
stated that studies that they had done had shown that their buildings did
well with 1.42 to 1.7 parking spaces per unit, whereas this project was
being proposed with 1.8 parking spaces per unit. He stated that he
understood this was a concern of Staff in review.
Mr. Joe Crook, architect for proponents, reviewed the site characteristics
. and features of the development with the Planning Commission. He pointed
out that all of the drives through the project would be private, not public.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of August 24, 1984.
Hallett asked how the City determined whether parking problems existed and
how situations of this type were policed. Staff responded that the City had
not experienced parking problems in the multiple residential projects in the
City. In Staff's review of existing mulitple residential projects in the
City, it was found that two parking spaces per unit was about right for the
amount of parking necessary for a multiple project.
Johannes asked what the overall density for the project would be as
proposed. Staff responded that it would be 17.4 units per acre. This would
be the maximum allowable by the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Johannes asked about the distance between the proposed structures as shown
by proponent. He asked how this project compared in its building to
building setbacks with manor homes. Staff listed several examples, stating
that the common distance was 25-30 feet between manor homes. However, these
buildings would be three stories in height in some areas, unlike manor
homes. Also, Staff pointed out that the distance between the buildings was
necessary for snow storage during the winter months. Planner Enger stated
that the proximity between the living structures and the garages was the
major consideration. He added that these buildings would be three stories
in height in some areas whereas manor homes were not.
Johannes asked if there were elevators in the buildings. Mr. Crook stated
that there were not. Johannes asked Staff to check into the requirement for
Planning Commission Minutes 11 August 27, 1984
elevators in structures.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the project was too dense as proposed.
Chairman Bearman also expressed concern regarding the need for elevators.
Hallett asked what the rent would be for the units. Mr. Campbell responded
that rent would range between $400 and $450 to start.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt a berm should be located along Franlo
Road to better screen the parking and to buffer the project from adjacent
differing uses.
Torjeson stated that he agreed with Chairman Bearman's earlier statement
regarding the project being too dense.
Hallett stated that he, too, felt the density should be decreased for the
project. Hallett added that he did not feel the elevators were a major
issue, and that people would be aware, immediately, if they were renting in
the structure as to the availability of an elevator. He asked how many
people would live in a development of this size. Mr. Campbell responded
that it would be approximately 650.
Ms. LaVonne Barac, 11011 Arboretum Lane, Chanhassen, stated that she was an
• owner of one of the duplex parcels located to the south of this project.
She stated that she did not feel the 20-foot setback proposed by proponent
was sufficient. Ms. Barac suggested that the transition between the
differing types of residential projects, the apartments proposed to the
north and the duplex which she owned to the south, should be accomplished
with greater distance and better screening. She stated that she objected to
viewing only the garages and to using the garages structures as a
transition. Ms. Barac pointed out that the three story buildings proposed
by Chasewood would appear to be almost four stories in height to the
property to the south, as the property to the south was lower in elevation
by comparison.
Johannes stated that he was not as adverse towards the proposed density as
other Commissioners. However, he stated that he was concerned that there be
adequate parking and enough green space on the project.
MOTION:
Move to continue the public hearing and return the item to proponent for
revisions per the recommendations as listed in the Staff Report of August
24, 1984, and with the following noted concerns: density, parking,
relationship to the surrounding properties, a more detailed landscape plan,
and open space and recreational amenities.
Motion carried--5-0-0
F. VANTAGE. Request for Preliminary Plat of 56.25 acres into three
lots and three outlots to be known as Golden Strip East. Location:
North of I-494, west of County Road #18. A public hearing.
Mr. Dale Beckman, representing proponent, reviewed the request with the
Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 27, 1984
Planning Commission. Proponents were showing three lots and three outlots
in the proposed plat. Mr. Beckman stated that Outlot A was being dedicated
to the City. Outlot C would also be for public purposes for future
construction of road access throughout the project. A warranty deed would
be issued to the City for this purpose. Mr. Beckman stated that they were
requesting the road to be platted as an outlot at this time to allow for
flexibility in plans for the overall development of the property, which
would be presented to the Planning Commission in the near future.
Torjeson asked if it would be possible to allow flexibility within the
east/west alignment of Outlot C for the future. Mr. Beckman stated that
this would not be a problem.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Vantage for Preliminary Plat of Golden
Strip East for 56.25 acres for three lots and three outlots, based on plans
dated August 22, 1984, subject to the Staff Report dated August 24, 1984,
and subject to receipt of a deed to the City, if determined necessary, for
Outlot C.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. Flying Cloud Airport Commission Proposed Signage Ordinance
The Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to the sign portion of the
Code as it would affect the Flying Cloud Airport. Recommendations of the
Flying Cloud Airport Commission Advisory Committee on Signage were
considered.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the Flying Cloud Airport Signage Ordinance amendments,
Version 2 as recommendedby the Flying Cloud Airport Commission Advisory
Committee on Signage.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 13 August 27, 1984
0
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
KP
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary