Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/24/1985 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 24, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS' 7:35 A. HAMPTON INN, by Eden Prairie Hotel Investors. Request for Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a hotel . Location: West of Highway #169, South of Valley View Road, East of Highway #5. A continued public hearing. 7:50 B. MOUNT CURVE ADDITION, by Mount Curve Developers. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.24 acres, rezoning from Rural to RM- 6.5 for 2.24 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.87 acres into ten lots for eight townhouse units. Location: Southwest corner of Franlo Road and Mount Curve Road. A continued public hearing. 8:30 C. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES, INC., to amend Chapter 11 of the City Code to rezone approximately 149 acres described below from the Rural District to a District which permits its use for first, landfill , and second, Public-Recreational and Industrial uses; and, to amend the City Comprehensive Guide Plan to designate approximately 149 acres described below for Public- Recreational/Industrial Uses. Location: Southeast of Flying Cloud Drive-In Theater. A public hearing. 9:30 D. CROSSROADS CENTER, by Vantage Properties. Request for a Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service on 2.99 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of approximately 11.4 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way, for construction of a commercial center. Location: East side of Highway #169, South and West of Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT **NOTE** The times listed above are tentative and may be significantly earlier, or later than listed, MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 24, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes (7:50 p.m. ), Dennis Marhula STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--6-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the May 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--5-0-1 (Gartner abstained) (Johannes arrived at 7:50 p.m.) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. HAMPTON INN, by Eden Prairie Hotel Investors. Request for Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a hotel . Location: West of Highway #169, South of Valley View Road, East of Highway #5. A continued public hearing. • Mr. George Watson, Brauer and Associates, representing proponent, reviewed the revised plans with the Commission. He indicated where landscaping would Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 24, 1985 be added per the Staff recommendations, along Highway #169-212 and aloe � p 9 9 Y 9 Highway #169. Mr. Bosio, proponent, stated that he was now able to commit to brick as the major exterior material, instead of stucco, as required by Code. Planner Enger stated that Staff had met with proponent and with the potential user of the restaurant site, Perkins, which would be located on the site split by the private access road. He noted that the redesigned plan would allow for the restaurant to have the majority of its parking on the same side of the access road as the restaurant structure, itself, with additional parking located across the access road. Planner Enger stated that the restaurant, according to Code, would require 50 parking spaces and that the revised site plan would allow for 52 parking spaces to be located on the same side of the access road as the structure for the restaurant. Hallett stated that he was concerned with the massive look of the buildings from the adjacent site, the Residence Inn, from the Highway #169-212 view. He asked whether screening would be adequate on this site to avoid this. He also asked whether more landscaping could be required of the Residence Inn to mitigate the massive look of the structures. Planner Enger stated that the screening proposed for this site was adequate. He noted that the landscaping for the Residence Inn was not yet completed. Bye asked how proponents had planned to deal with snow removal on their site. Mr. Bosio responded that the snow would be stockpiled on the north end of the site. Bye expressed concern that the stockpiling of the snow not be such that it would damage the landscaping located in this area. Gartner asked if Perkins found the Hampton Inn plans acceptable. Mr. Mike Dimond, representing Perkins, stated that the plans had been approved by his clients. Marhula asked if the restaurant lot would still be divided into two parcels by the private access road. Staff explained that there would be two lots to be partially owned by both the restaurant and the Hampton Inn. Mr. Dimond stated that there would be cross access and cross parking agreements between the parties. Marhula asked if there was a chance that this lot would become unbuildable, or unusable, in the future if Perkins did not follow through and build. Planner Enger stated that it was Staff's opinion that, if the site was suitable for Perkins, it could be suitable for other restaurant uses, as well . Hallett reiterated concerns for the landscaping being adequate along the north and west perimeters of the site. Dodge and Bye concurred. Hallett asked if 52 parking spaces took into account spaces needed for employees, as well . Staff responded that it did and noted that, in total, there would be 78 parking spaces available for the restaurant use. It was suggested that employees could be required to park on the opposite side of the access drive. Hallett asked how many employees would be working the busiest shift for Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 24, 1985 Perkins. Mr. Dimond responded that it would be approximately 25 employees; however, he noted that many of the employees of a restaurant did not drive cars, or would be taking mass transportation to work as they may be too young to drive, or would perhaps have parents dropping them off at work. Mr. Dimond noted that the busiest time for a restaurant would be the noon hour. However, the busiest time for motel would be the evening hours. Therefore, Perkins was pleased with the parking arrangements and considered this an asset to the location. Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hampton Inn for Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on revised plans dated June 20, 1985, subject to the Staff Reports of June 7, and June 21, 1985. Motion carried--7-0-0 B. MOUNT CURVE ADDITION, by Mount Curve Developers. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.24 acres, rezoning from Rural to RM- 6.5 for 2.24 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.87 acres into ten lots for eight townhouse units. Location: Southwest corner of Franlo Road and Mount Curve Road. A continued public hearing. Ms. Laurie Johnson, engineer for proponent, and Mr. Bill Havek, attorney for proponent, reviewed the plans and reasons for the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment with the Commission. Mr. Havek stated that proponents had reviewed the Planning Commission proposed option to relocate the driveway access directly across from Clubhouse Road, but had found that it caused the loss of a large oak tree in that vicinity and that it would cause a sharp angle in the driveway on the site. Mr. Havek noted that, in response to the concerns of the neighbor to the north, proponent would be sloping the driveway down at a steeper slope to avoid headlights beaming directly into windows of his home. He stated that the proponent would be adding screening to the southwest border in order to more effectively screen the units from the single family home to the south. Mr. Havek stated that a meeting had been held with surrounding residents in the area, at which time many of the questions raised by residents at the last meeting had been answered. Regarding architectural control, Mr. Havek noted that the residents to the west requested that this project be constructed with cedar roofing shingles. He stated that the homes to the Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 24, 1985 north, south, and east all had asphalt shingles, therefore, the proponents had decided to offer cedar shakes as an option for the roofing material . Bye asked about restrictive covenants for the project. Mr. Havek responded that the ,covenants and restrictions were being drawn up at this time. The builder for all the units would be the same builder, thereby assuring uniformity in the construction and style of the buildings. He stated that the price range of the units would be $150-175,000. Hallett asked if the Olympic Hills architectural review committee would be reviewing the development. Planner Enger explained that this development was not part of Olympic Hills. It had been a suggestion at the previous meeting that this project be reviewed by that committee as a "good faith" gesture toward fitting into the neighborhood. Since this project was part of Olympic Hills, the committee would not have veto power over the development, but conditions they would suggest may be helpful . Planner Enger stated that a letter from the committee regarding their review would be sufficient for Staff. Hallett asked if proponents would be willing to submit the plans to the Olympic Hills architectural review committee. Mr. Havek stated that he would. Marhula asked how drainage would be handled for the site. Ms. Johnson reviewed the connections planned. Marhula stated that, with respect to the land use and density, he was concerned developers in the City were assuming that it was a foregone conclusion that clustering units within an area designated for Low Density Residential use automatically meant that density could be increased. He stated that he had no difficulties with the type of units planned for the site, that it was better plan in terms of preservation of natural features. However, density was another question. He stated that he felt six units would work well on this site, too, perhaps mitigating some of the concerns of the design of the project such as proximity to the single family home to the south, location of the drive access, and preservation of trees. Marhula stated that some developers give the argument that the added density is needed to spread costs more evenly across the property. Marhula stated that he did not feel that would be the case for this small development. Gartner concurred. Mr. Havek stated that originally eight units had been proposed on the site. He added that he felt development costs would be a problem for this project, if the density were decreased. Mr. Robert Hawkinson, 9505-15 Clubhouse Road, stated that he was not concerned about the looks of the structures. He reiterated his concerns from the previous meeting regarding the need to eliminate box elder trees, and, therefore, box elder bugs, concern about peak hour traffic in the area, and concern about the lights from the driveway through the site shining into his home. Johannes asked if Staff had determined whether Mr. Hawkinson would be affected by the headlights from the driveway, or not. Planner Franzen Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 24, 1985 stated that the plans would have to be reviewed, as well as the berm in front of Mr. Hawkinson's home, in order to determine whether there was a problem, or not. He stated that the headlights would most likely hit a second story window of the house. Johannes asked if trees would be lost with relocation of the driveway to match up with the intersection of Clubhouse Road and Mount Curve Road. Planner Franzen stated that the trees would probably not be damaged, but that Staff would want to review the extent of grading necessary to accomplish the relocated road. Mr. R. S. Gillman, 10861 Mount Curve Road, stated that the developer had held a meeting of the neighborhood, which had answered many of the questions raised by his neighbors at the last meeting. He stated that he felt the developer had mitigated most of the concerns. The Commission discussed the merits of a six-unit plan, the five-unit single family home plan previously presented by the developer, and the proposed seven-unit plan. Marhula expressed concern for the safety of the driveway access as located on the plans. Planner Enger stated that the plan would be improved if the driveway access were relocated to align with the Clubhouse Road and Mount Curve Road intersection from a safety point of view. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--4-3-0 (Gartner, Johannes, and Marhula against) MOTION 2: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Mount Curve Developers for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.24 acres, based on revised plans dated June 3, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 7, and June 21, 1985. Motion carried--4-3-0 (Gartner, Johannes, and Marhula against) MOTION 3: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Mount Curve Developers for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 for 2.24 acres for seven townhouse units, based on revised plans dated June 3, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 7, and June 21, 1985. Motion carried--4-3-0 (Gartner, Johannes, and Marhula against) MOTION 4: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 24, 1985 approval of the request of Mount Curve Developers for Preliminary Plat of 2.24 acres into nine lots for seven townhouse units, based on revised plans dated June 3, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 7, and June 21, 1985. Motion carried--4-3-0 (Gartner, Johannes, and Marhula against) Those voting against stated that they had voted against the project based upon the increased density proposed. C. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES, INC., to amend Chapter 11 of the City Code to rezone approximately 149 acres described below from the Rural District to a District which permits its use for first, landfill , and second, Public-Recreational and Industrial uses; and, to amend the City Comprehensive Guide Plan to designate approximately 149 acres described below for Public- Recreational/Industrial Uses. Location: Southeast of Flying Cloud Drive-In Theater. A public hearing. Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing proponent, reviewed the status of the previous request before the Planning Commission, explaining that proponents had not requested amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, nor zoning over 149 acres with their previous request. Proponents were asking that these two matters be considered with this current request. Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents did not feel that a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment was necessary for the site, but were applying for the amendment per the advice of the City. Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents understood that one of the reasons for the Planning Commission recommendation for denial of their previous request was because proponents' plan was not considered in compliance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that it was proponents' opinion that they were in compliance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, both short-term and long-term. Mr. Hoisington stated that the Commission had also denied the request for non-compliance with zoning requirements in that the landfill was no longer considered a quasi-public use. He stated that, at ' one time, prior to the amendment to the City Code, the landfill was considered a quasi-public use. Also, the Commission had found that the zoning for the use was improper as landfills were not a permitted use in any of the zoning districts within the Code. Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents were of the opinion that their application for a temporary landfill zoning district, or an amendment to an existing district to allow a temporary landfill , would mitigate this situation. Mr. Hoisington noted that another finding of the Commission for their denial of the previous request was that the landfill was incompatible with surrounding land uses. Mr. Hoisington stated that the location of the landfill in proximity to the surrounding land uses was not an ideal situation, but the use, as proposed, would likely be better than the current situation. He added that there was better compatibility with some of the surrounding uses, than others, specifically airport to the west, the open space to the north, and the Minnesota River Valley to the south, were more Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 24, 1985 compatible with the landfill than the residential to the east. Regarding incompatibility with the airport, as stated in the City Staff Report, Mr. Hoisington noted that, other than bird strikes, it was proponents' opinion that the landfill had a great deal of compatibility with the airport. He stated that it was proponents' opinion that both uses, in terms of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, could be considered as public uses. He added that proponents felt the landfill provided a good transition between the residential developments to the east and the airport. Regarding compliance with the Metropolitan Council 's Policy Plan for Solid Waste Management (Policy Plan), Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents felt there was room for discussion. He noted that the Metropolitan Council had recommended approval of the expansion of the landfill by a vote of 9-7, with conditions, including placing a specific closure date on the use of the property for landfilling and the condition that any refuse in the vertical expansion, after April, 1986, must be processed waste. With respect to the potential for environmental impacts of the landfill, Mr. Hoisington noted that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dealt with these impacts and that proponents had offered supplemental information in that regard. With respect to conformance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) regulations, Mr. Hoisington stated it appeared that most of the concerns revolved around the construction of the cap of the landfill and the second uses proposed on top of the cap, and specifically, whether the slope should be between 5-6%. Mr. Hoisington stated that, typically, such decisions were not made until 3-6 months after a permit would be granted by the PCA. Mr. Hoisington stated that another finding of the Commission was that there was no final grading plan presented for the property, nor a plan indicating that it was feasible to construct the end uses proposed by the proponents. He stated that he had been authorized to proceed with a grading plan to show this. As to an end use of the property, Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents would comply with any end use the City wished to have. As to future decisions to be made on the proposed landfill expansion, Mr. Hoisington noted that the City Council would be reviewing the request on July 2, 1985, and that proponents had extended the time period to July 16, 1985, if the City Council determined that one additional meeting was necessary. Proponents would be taking the conceptual grading plan to the City Council at that time, perhaps with additional narrative regarding the project, as well . Tentatively, the PCA would be making a recommendation regarding the proposed expansion at a meeting to be held on July 23, 1985 and Hennepin County would be acting on the proposal on July 25, 1985. Mr. Rick Rosow, City Attorney's office, stated that since the last time the Planning Commission had met on the proponents' request, the Metropolitan Council had met and recommended approval of the plan. It was required that they review the proposal for compliance with their Policy Plan. Mr. Rosow stated that the Staff Report by the Metropolitan Council Staff and the public testimony given recognized that the Policy Plan would have to be Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 24, 1985 amended to make the proponents' proposal be in compliance. This, in fact, was done with their vote on the issue. He pointed out that even though the Policy Plan had been amended to fit with the proponents' proposal , the Planning Commission could consider the matter based upon the original Policy Plan, which was in effect at the time of the submission of the proponents' request. Planner Enger stated that the Commission could also still rely upon the information from the EIS and the May 23, 1985, Staff Report, for review of this item, along with the new submissions of the proponent. He stated that Staff did not feel that the EIS assured mitigation of potential problems from the landfill, and referred to the charting of complaints received over the years. He added that any mitigation from the berm would likely be lost because the landfill would be rising vertically above grade, and become closer and closer to the residents of the area. Planner Enger noted that the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission had recommended denial of the proposed expansion due to the use's incompatibility with the airport, citing bird problems, including collisions, many of which did not necessarily result in accidents, but did result in substantial damage to aircraft. Planner Enger stated that, in proponents' information, the supposition had been made that the landfill not be considered an industrial use, but be considered a transportation use, like the airport. He stated that proponents indicated the landfill could be considered a low intensity, temporary use. Planner Enger stated that City Staff disagreed with this position, and that the use would be more like an on-going construction project for its entire life. Planner Enger stated that the City was asking no more of this proponent than of any other proponent--basically the City wanted the proponents to provide detailed information about what was being proposed and what it would look like. Proponents, however, had not presented the City with a plan indicating these things in sufficient detail to be evaluated. For example, the City had not yet received a grading plan for the site from proponents. He noted that the plan proposed and considered by the EIS did not meet the PCA requirements, therefore, the City was reluctant to consider that plan at all . Furthermore, the plan considered by the EIS represented a 2% slope for the dome, or cap of the landfill . The PCA required a 6% slope. Planner Enger stated that, based upon conversations related to the City Staff which proponents had had with the PCA, the PCA would be willing to accept 40-50 acres at a 2% slope. He stated that this may be the reason a "flat" area of the dome was proposed by proponents, upon which to locate the proposed ball fields of the second use. Planner Enger noted that this was pure speculation by City Staff since final plans had not been submitted for the City's review. Planner Enger stated that no sight lines had been presented by proponents indicating the elevations of the proposed 15 ft. high berm, nor had information been presented indicating how the berm would serve to attenuate noise, litter, dust, or visual impacts upon the residential areas to the east. Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 24, 1985 Planner Enger noted that the EIS pointed out that the operation of the landfill would be visible from the Hillsboro area from the 923 elevation. He stated that, if the "conversational plan," the one which proponents had been saying would take place, included 40-50 acres at that 923 elevation, Staff would be concerned that neither the City, nor the Metropolitan Council had had opportunity to review it and evaluate its impacts upon this neighborhood. In summary, Planner Enger stated that the City was being asked to approve a plan without being shown what it would look like until after all approvals had been granted in about 120 days. He pointed out that he did not feel it would be prudent for the City to make a decision based upon inadequate information. Marhula whether grading plans had been prepared for the site. Mr. Hoisington stated that they were in process. He stated that proponents were hoping to be able to show conceptually how the end use could be accommodated on the site and present this at the July 2, 1985, City Council meeting. Marhula stated that, from the beginning of this process, one of the problems had been that no one had been able to present any type of "picture" or rendering by plans of exactly what had taken place to date in the kettle area, nor what was proposed to happen in the future to this property. He asked if a grading plan could be drafted indicating cross sections of the progress of the landfill and indicating the future intended elevations of the property, as well as the intended uses. Marhula suggested that such a grading plan could perhaps indicate the excavation limits and the fill limits, as well as the location and proposed elevation of the berm, the original elevation of the kettle, and the proposed ultimate elevations and slopes for the property. Mr. Hoisington responded that the proponents had originally considered construction of a model which would provide much of that type of information; however construction of such a model proved to be difficult. He stated that he would discuss this with other members of the consulting groups for the proponents to see if they could better illustrate the situation. Marhula asked if proponents were able to establish the limits of its excavation and fill, if records of this had been kept over the years. Mr. Hoisington responded that topography for the site was obtained each year. Marhula asked if there were yearly records of the amount of land which was backfilled, or if there was any way to draw a line showing where the excavation ended and backfill started. Mr. Hoisington stated that he would review the files available on this with the proponents. Gartner stated that she felt it was significant that the Federal Aviation Administration had regulations stating that no landfill should be allowed within a certain distance of an airport, yet this landfill was within close proximity to the airport. She stated that she did not feel such regulations as these should be changed to fit this particular situation. Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 24, 1985 MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc. for amendment of Chapter 11 of the City Code to rezone approximately 149 acres from the Rural District to a District which permits its use for first, landfill, and second, Public-Recreational and Industrial uses and for amendment to the City Comprehensive Guide Plan to designate approximately 149 acres for Public-Recreational/Industrial uses, based on the findings and conclusions of the Staff Reports of May 23, and June 21, 1985. Motion carried--7-0-0 (Bye left at 10:00 p.m.) D. CROSSROADS CENTER, by Vantage Properties. Request for a Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service on 2.99 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of approximately 11.4 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way, for construction of a commercial center. Location: East side of Highway #169, South and West of Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Matt Nichol , representing Vantage, reviewed the plans for the proposed development with the Commission. He explained the project within the context of the surrounding development within the overall Vantage Southwest Crossings Planned Unit Development. Mr. Nichol noted that the two adjacent sites which had been shown as potential office sites within the PUD Concept would likely become hotel sites, adding that the peak hour traffic generation from hotel sites was much different than that of office buildings. Mr. Nichol stated that the restaurant site to the north of the proposed retail center had been reduced from 9,500 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft. , also. Regarding the Staff Report of June 21, 1985, Mr. Nichol stated that the proponents were willing to work with the Staff to mitigate issues of traffic circulation at the southeast corner of the site, landscaping and screening concerns along Highway #169, use of brick around the entire structure, and screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of June 21, 1985. He stated that Staff also was concerned about the proposed reduction in curb-to-curb parking area dimensions and had checked with other communities to see what their requirements were by comparison. Staff had determined that the 63 ft. dimension was an average requirement, based on a phone survey of other communities. In addition, Staff was concerned about replacement of approximately 104 caliper inches of trees, Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 24, 1985 which would be lost with construction. Proponent had proposed to locate p these trees on another, adjacent site. Chairman Schuck stated that he did not feel it was an unreasonable request to have the proposal meet the 0.20 Floor Area Ratio requirement. Mr. Nichol stated that he did not feel the proposal, as revised, was a problem in terms of traffic generation, in that proponents and the City would have the opportunity to work with traffic generation for the entire area as each site within the Southwest Crossings PUD was reviewed. Planner Enger discussed the need for a right-turn lane off the Viking Drive extension in order to allow for stacking of vehicles entering the site. Mr. Nichol stated that he would be willing to work with Staff on this matter. He asked for additional time to review the need for the right-turn lane on the Viking Drive extension and to prepare a small traffic study, if necessary. Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public ihearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Vantage Companies for Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service for 2.99 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based upon the findings of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1985, commitments made by the developer at the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1985, including all sides of the building being brick, screening of rooftop mechanical equipment in an architecturally compatible material, additional screening and landscaping along Highway #169 for screening of the parking lot, mitigation of the stacking area for vehicles entering the southeast corner of the site to be reviewed and approved by Staff prior to City Council review, 104 additional caliper inches of trees removed with construction to be relocated on an adjacent site, the restaurant site be reduced in size to 7,500 sq. ft., and the ability of proponent and the City to work with traffic generation on adjacent sites within the Southwest Crossing PUD, and, if necessary reduce the traffic generation on the other sites. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Vantage Companies for preliminary plat of 11.4 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way based upon the Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 24, 1985 findings of the Staff Report dated June 21 1985 commitments made by the developer at the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1985, including all sides of the building being brick, screening of rooftop mechanical equipment in an architecturally compatible material, additional screening and landscaping along Highway #169 for screening of the parking lot, mitigation of the stacking area for vehicles entering the southeast corner of the site to be reviewed and approved by Staff prior to City Council review, 104 additional caliper inches of trees removed with construction to be relocated on an adjacent site, the restaurant site be reduced in size to 7,500 sq. ft., and the ability of proponent and the City to work with traffic generation on adjacent sites within the Southwest Crossing PUD, and, if necessary reduce the traffic generation on the other sites. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m.