Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/13/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 13, 1986 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; Don Uram, Assistant 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. DOUGLAS CORPORATION HEADQUARTERS, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 68 acres for construction of 320,000 square feet of office/warehouse. Location: West of Highway #169, South of New Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing. (8:30) B. PRAIRIE VIEW, by Weis, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service on approximately 16 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of approximately 16 'acres into three lots for construction of 114,371 square foot retail center. Location: Northeast quadrant of Highway #5 and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. (9:00) C. ALPINE VILLAGE, by Herlitz Construction. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.36 acres and Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 17 lots for construction of 16 single family homes. Location: East of Alpine Trail , south of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. A public hearing. (10:00) D. THE FARM, by Countryside Investments. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.2 acres and Preliminary Plat of 22.5 acres into 44 single family lots and one outlot. Location: North of Duck Lake Trail , West of West 175th Avenue. A public hearing. (10:30) E. REUTER, INC., by Welsh Companies, Inc. Request for Site Plan Review on 10.663 acres for site grading within the designated flood plain and shoreland area of Nine Mile Creek. Location: East of Birch Island Road, South of County Road #67, and Northwest of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. 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, January 13, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge (8:40 p.m.), Virginia Gartner (7:35 p.m.), Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Scott Kipp, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motin was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to approve the minutes of the December 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--2-0-3 (Bye, Johannes, and Marhula abstained) (Gartner arrived at 7:35 p.m.) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. DOUGLAS CORPORATION HEADQUARTERS, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 68 acres for construction of 320,000 square feet of office/warehouse. Location: West of Highway #169, South of New Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing. At the request of the proponent for additional time to provide more Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 13, 1986 information, the Planning Commission continued this item to this meeting from the December 9, 1985, meeting. Staff reported that, since that time, proponents had not met with Staff, nor provided any changes in the plan for Staff review. A letter reiterating the original request was submitted to the City prior to delivery of agenda packets. Mr. Arlyn Grussing, representing Douglas Corporation, stated that the proponents had decided to leave the plan as it was, that they felt it was a "special plan" as originally designed. Mr. Grussing reiterated several points from the previous meetings, noting that the building was being constructed on a concourse system; the amount of development shown in the plans would likely not be built out until the year 2000; the waste water facilities for the plant would be amongst the most modern available. He referred to the letter submitted to the City, which outlined the proponent's response to the fifteen points of the Staff Report of December 6, 1985, regarding the development. Mr. Grussing stated that the entire development would likely have an "institutional" look to it, like a school , which, he felt, would blend well with the Vocational-Technical School to the south. Bye stated that she was uncomfortable with the idea of depleting the City's stock of High Density Residential land, especially since this was one of the last locations for this land use within the Comprehensive Guide Plan. She stated that she felt that proponents had not provided a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan to the designation requested by the proponents. Hallett asked how many of the total housing units in the community would be single family and how many of the total units would be multiple family when the City was completely built up. Planner Enger responded that, based upon the Comprehensive Guide Plan, approximately 60% of the units would be multiple family units and 40% of the units would be single family units. Hallett asked how this compared to other communities. Planner Enger responded that the percentage of single family would be similar to Bloomington, more than what was present in Edina, and probably slightly less than what was present in Minnetonka. Planner Enger stated that, based on land uses in place already, the City would not be able to reach these ratios, but would likely end up with more single family units, instead. Planner Enger noted that the amount of land area to be occupied by single family land use was five times as great as that which would be occupied by multiple family land use. Hallett stated that he was uncomfortable with these ratios and felt the two numbers should be interchanged to provide for more single family units than multiple family units. He added that he felt there was already enough multiple development within the community, as planned. Bye stated that people in the 20-30 year old age range were not necessarily choosing to purchase single family detached dwellings for many reasons. She noted that multiple housing fit the needs of families which were starting out, as well as the needs of the "empty nesters" whose children had grown and were no longer living at home. Bye stated that because of the various needs multiple housing could fill, she did not feel the City should be short-sighted in terms of providing the type of housing that would meet the needs of many residents, now, and in the future. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 13, 1986 iHallett stated that the City had approved approximately 1,500 units of multiple family, High Density Residential development in this area within the past year. In addition, he noted that the City would soon be reviewing an 800-unit multiple family, High Density Residential project just to the north of this site in the near future. He stated that he felt the City was concentrating alot of High Density Residential development in this area and questioned whether this was wise. Hallett added that he felt this site could be suitable for the type industrial development proposed by the proponent. Bye stated that she had 8-10 years of background in the housing field for the county government. She stated that she had seen many changes to Comprehensive Guide Plan land use designations from housing to Industrial use, but that she had not seen any changes made from Industrial to housing use. She stated that it appeared that once a housing use was eliminated from a Comprehensive Guide Plan, it was not replaced elsewhere within that Comprehensive Guide Plan. She stated that, if she knew that there were other areas within the community where this amount of housing could be relocated, she would be more comfortable. She noted that the Staff had pointed out that this was the last parcel of any size available within the community with a designation for High Density Residential and that any other parcel of comparable size would require a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. • Marhula suggested that it may be possible to convert an area designated for Low Density Residential over to High Density Residential in order to keep the population ratios approximately the same. He stated that he felt the site plan presented was a good one and that the uses proposed were clean manufacturing uses, adding that he felt the proponents were offerring an attractive proposition to the City. Johannes stated that he concurred with Marhula about the opportunity for population balance. He stated that he was not convinced that this was the only remaining area within the community which was suitable for High Density Residential development. Johannes expressed concern regarding the architectural appearance of the structures proposed. He stated that he felt the buildings appeared bulky, with few windows, more like a manufacturing plant. He stated that, if this was the type of building proposed, that there were other areas of the community which would be better suited to support this type of structure in a designated industrial park. Johannes stated that he felt this should be a "special" structure, if the City was to change its Comprehensive Guide Plan for it. Gartner stated that she felt there were other areas of the community which could support High Density Residential development, that this was not the only suitable location. With respect to the site plan, Gartner stated that she felt the building architecture could be improved and that she liked the open space areas proposed as part of the plan. Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, real estate brokers for the property, stated that his company was in the process of preparing an application to the City for a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment to change the designation Planning Commission Minutes . 4 January 13, 1986 of the Industrial property in the west, southwest area of the community to residential . He stated that, currently, the Comprehensive Guide Plan did not indicate any multiple family housing in this area of the community. Mr. Putnam stated that he had suggested to the proponents that, instead of open space along the west portion of the property, they should perhaps construct the multiple family residential units as designated on the Comprehensive Guide Plan in order to provide a transition of unit type to the adjacent single family residential area. Planner Enger stated that the proposed mixed residential use in the southwest portion of the community could make sense, but that this matter was under study at this time. He stated that he agreed that it would require the change of currently designated Low Density Residential property to Medium, or High, Density Residential in order to make up the unit balance that would be eliminated by the conversion of this site to another land use category. Planner Enger expressed concern about the future land use of the property along Highway #169, currently designated for Office use by the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that he was concerned that the amendment of the property proposed for an Industrial designation for the Douglas Corporation could have a significant influence on the property designated as Office along Highway #169. Planner Enger stated that, should Industrial zoning be . granted for the Douglas proposal, it would make it easier to substantiate Industrial, or Commercial , zoning in the place of the Office land use currently in place. He stated that, while Douglas Corporation was looking ahead for a period of fifteen years, the City would have to live much longer with its decisions. Hallett asked if the public would be allowed to make use of the property designated as open space on the western portion of the development. Mr. Grussing stated that this would not be open to the public for liability reasons. Hallett asked if the covenants proposed by the developer to make this a permanent arrangement could be changed. Planner Enger stated that the covenants could be changed, if all parties agreed; however, the covenants proposed did not involve the City. Mr. Grussing stated that the City could use its legislative tools, such as the developer's agreement, to make this a permanent situation. Regarding the appearance of the buildings, Mr. Grussing stated that the proponents had only prepared enough information to deal with the Concept Stage level of plans. He stated that, based upon the decisions of the City regarding the Planned Unit Development Concept, Douglas would proceed to more detailed plans, which would include architectural renderings in greater detail . Johannes stated that he was concerned about the exterior appearance of the structures. He asked whether the City would have enough control within its Code to impose construction requirements at a any stage beyond the Concept Stage, if approval was granted of the request as presented at this time. Planner Enger stated that, within the next phase of the Planned Unit Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 13, 1986 Development, the City could request a development framework manual within which Douglas would be required to develop. He noted that any approval at this point would include the proposed clustering, or "concourse style" buildings, the relationship of the structures to the open space, and other land use elements shown by the proponents. Chairman Schuck stated that he saw nothing new in what was presented by Douglas Corporation at this time and that this concerned him, based upon statements made by the proponents about showing what was "special" about this plan at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Bob Worthington, Opus Corporation, representing proponent, stated that proponents were requesting a land use decision regarding the appropriateness of Industrial use on this property. He stated that he felt the design issues were issues that could be worked out with the City, once the land use issue was settled. Mr. Worthington stated that if the proposed land use was not appropriate for the site, then it was likely that even good design would not help in this situation. He added that he felt the opportunity for control would be present at future stages of development of the property, if the City decided the Industrial land use was appropriate for this site. Johannes asked if this had been done previously with other sites in the community, whereby development controls were initiated afterwards. Planner Enger responded that a similar situation had been created with the Prairie Center Business Park. Planner Enger stated that there had not been any reasons offered by the proponents for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan land use designation to Industrial. He pointed out that proponents had told the Commission that they would return to this meeting with changes; however, this had not been done. Planner Enger stated that the project should probably stay at the Planning Commission level for a longer period of time, if the Commission was not comfortable with the plan as shown. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the proponents were inflexible, in that it did not appear that they were willing to amend their plans. He stated that he did not feel there was room for negotiation with the proponents, based on the comments made by Mr. Grussing. Hallett stated that, while he was not adverse to an industrial land use on this site, he was expecting to see more from the proponents before arriving at this point in the process. Gartner stated that she liked the concept of the open space, but that she was uncomfortable with the industrial use as proposed in this location. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing and to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Douglas Corporation for Planned Unit Development Concept for approximately 68 acres for 320,000 sq. ft. of office/warehouse use, based upon the following findings: Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 13, 1986 A. The land use request does not represent Industrial development above and beyond other developments of this type, which currently exist in the City within Industrial areas. B. The request for land use change has not been substantiated acceptably to the City. C. The City currently has adequate available acreage within its boundaries which has been designated for this use on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Motion carried--4-2-0 (Johannes and Hallett against) Hallett stated that he felt the proposed mix of 60% multiple family units and 40% single family units for the community represented too high an amount of multiple family units, adding that this area would have as many as 1,500- 2,000 multiple family units, concentrating a large amount of multiple family units into one area. He stated that he liked the open space portion of the plan and felt there was an advantage to the use being located in close proximity to the Vocational-Technical School and the airport. He added that he felt a compromise was possible, and, therefore, he was not in favor of the motion. Johannes stated that his main concern was the exterior view of the • structures, which, he believed, was something which could be mitigated by the proponents and City. Therefore, he was not in favor of the motion. C. PRAIRIE VIEW, by Weis, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on approximately 16 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of approximately 16 acres into two lots for construction of 114,371 square foot retail center. Location: Northeast quadrant of Highway #5 and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponents, reviewed the changes which had been made since the previous meeting as outlined in the Staff Report of December 6, 1985. He noted that the stacking distance had been increased in the area of concern, internal circulation was changed, revisions were made to the architecture, and parking spaces were added. He stated that the requirements of the landscape portion of the City Code, while not reflected on the amended plans, would be complied with by the proponents. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of January 10, 1986. Marhula stated that it appeared that the access to the Rainbow Foods store was more circuitous than direct. He asked if this was an acceptable situation to the store representatives. Mr. Brauer responded that it was. Hallett asked if any of the trees currently located on the site would be saved. Staff noted that the existing trees were located where buildings were proposed, and would, therefore, be removed. Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 13, 1986 Marhula asked about screening of the use from the day care center located to the north. Planner Franzen stated that this had been one of Staff's concerns in review of the initial plans. He noted that, in discussions with the proponents, it had been determined that this "back" view of the structures could be screened through the use of landscaping and that this would be incorporated into the landscape plan. Planner Franzen stated that there should also be a sidewalk connection from the front of the structures to the eight-foot wide bituminous trail along Plaza Drive, tying into the trail located along Valley View Road. Mr. Brauer stated that proponents agreed to installation of this connection. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2• • Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Weis, Inc. for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service for approximately 16 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a 114,371 sq. ft. retail center, based on revised plans dated January 3, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated December 6, 1985, and January 10, 1986, with the added condition that proponents provide for connection of the sidewalk in front of the structures to the City trail system at Plaza Drive. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Weis, Inc. for Preliminary Plat of approximately 16 acres into three lots for construction of a 114,371 sq. ft. retail center, based on revised plans dated January 3, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated December 6, 1985, and January 10, 1986, with the added condition that proponents provide for connection of the sidewalk in front of the structures to the City trail system at Plaza Drive. Motion carried--7-0-0 (Chairman Schuck departed from the meeting at 9:15 p.m.; Acting Chairman Hallett assumed the chair.) C. ALPINE VILLAGE, by Herlitz Construction. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.36 acres and Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 17 lots for construction of 16 single family homes. Location: East of Alpine Trail, south of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. A public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 13, 1986 Staff reported that this property had recently been reviewed by the City for multiple residential development. Proponents were returning at this time with a request for single family residential development of the land. Mr. Charles Habiger, representing proponent, reviewed the plans for the single family development with the Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of January 10, 1986. Marhula asked if proponents had met with the neighborhood regarding this single family proposal, as had been done with the multiple family proposal . Mr. Habiger stated that this had been done. Mr. Habiger stated that he was asking the City to consider a 50 ft. wide right-of-way, instead of a 60 ft. wide right-of-way, for the public road through the project. He stated that this would aid in reducing the amount of grading necessary for the development of the property. Planner Enger stated that Staff would have to review this, prior to making a recommendation as to the benefits of a 50 ft. wide road. Marhula expressed concern about the proposed grading at the back of some of the housing pads, noting that there was little provision made for "usable" back yards, and that many of the back yards seemed to be sloped. He asked about the sanitary sewer connection to be made from the east. Mr. Habiger stated that he was still working with Mr. Anderson, owner of the property to • the east, regarding a potential utility easement for this purpose. He added that he had discussed the situation in greater detail with the City Engineering Department. He stated that it was pointed out that Mr. Anderson would not be able to tie directly into the 60-inch pipe running through his property, since he would only have a few buildable lots from all of his property. Mr. Dwight Harvey, 16190 Alpine Way, asked if there would be an appreciable difference in the amount of grading necessary, if the homes were moved closer to the railroad tracks. Planner Franzen stated that the difference would not be significant. Mr. Harvey asked what would be happening to the existing vegetation on the property, particularly in the northeast and southwest portions of the property. Mr. Habiger stated that the developer would be doing what he could to maintain the vegetation where possible, but that he would have have control over what individual landowners would do with their properties. He added that the vegetation behind Mr. Harvey's property was shown to be preserved on the plans. Mr. Harvey stated that he felt that a suggestion made at a previous meeting, regarding the replacement of Yield signs with Stop signs, was still an appropriate one for this development. Acting Chairman Hallett asked for Staff's opinion regarding the proposal for a 50 ft. wide right-of-way for the street. Planner Franzen stated that it appeared to be an acceptable alternative, pending detailed review. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if there were plans to continue the public street through the property to the east, eventually connecting to Edenvale Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 13, 1986 Boulevard. Planner Franzen stated that this was not planned currently, but that it may happen in future. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if any sidewalks were planned for the development. Planner Franzen stated that there were none planned for this street, and pointed out that there were none existing in this neighborhood to which a sidewalk, or trail, from this development could connect. Mr. Al Bode, 16090 Alpine Way, asked about the eventual disposition of the property located within the designated flood plain. Planner Enger stated that the property would be protected from development by existing Code requirements. He stated that, basically, property within a designated flood plain was unavailable for development. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Herlitz Construction for Zoning District • Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 8.36 acres construction of 16 single family homes to be known as Alpine Village, based on plans dated January 7, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1986, with the added condition that Staff review the impact of narrowing the width of the right-of-way for the public street to 50 ft. in order to minimize grading. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Herlitz Construction for Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 17 lots for construction of 16 single family homes to be known as Alpine Village, based on plans dated January 7, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1986, with the added condition that Staff review the impact of narrowing the width of the right-of-way for the public street to 50 ft. in order to minimize grading. Motion carried--6-0-0 D. THE FARM, by Countryside Investments. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.2 acres and Preliminary Plat of 22.5 acres into 44 single family lots and one outlot. Location: North of Duck Lake Trail, West of West 175th Avenue. A public hearing. Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the development plans with the Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of January 10, 1986. Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 13, 1986 Marhula asked if it would be possible to accommodate this development without connection to the lift station located north of the property. Planner Franzen stated that this was possible. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if the existing structures on the property would be removed. Mr. Arvid Schwartz, Countryside Development, stated that all existing structures would be removed from the property. Marhula asked if it would be possible to eliminate direct access to Duck Lake Trail for the few lots shown to do so on the plans. Mr. Krueger responded that this alternative had been reviewed, but rejected due to the preference to align the street access to Duck Lake Trail from this development with Boyd Avenue on the south side of Duck Lake Trail . Mrs. Alan Johnson, 6600-175th Avenue West, expressed concern about the extension of sanitary sewer to the development. She explained that, in order to accomplish this, the developer may need to access the sanitary sewer via an easement across her lot. Mrs. Johnson added that she had no objections to the type of development proposed. Planner Enger stated that the decisions about access to the sanitary sewer would be a negotiated process between the developer and the Johnsons from this point forward. Mr. Krueger stated that the proponents were willing to work with the Johnsons in order to make arrangements most beneficial to both parties. Mr. Mike King, 6720-175th Avenue West, expressed concern about potential assessments which may be precipitated by this development. Planner Enger stated that this was a matter for the City Council, but that it was his understanding that the existing lots in Mr. King's neighborhood would not be assessed for additional public facilities, or utilities as a result of this development. Mr. Jim Bass, 17440 W. 66th Street, stated that several years ago, the sanitary sewer backed up in his home. He stated that he would be in favor of elimination of the lift station as soon as possible. He noted that this had not happened again since that time, and that he was aware of the City's efforts to monitor the lift station. Mr. Alan Johnson, 6600-175th Avenue West, asked if the City would be compelled to force extension of the sanitary sewer line through his property in the future, if the lift station proved to be a problem. Planner Enger stated that this would be a decision of the City Engineer, noting that the development of this property would be an opportune time to take care of such a problem. Dodge asked about the final grading plans with respect to preservation of the trees on the property. Planner Enger stated that the developer's plans indicated preservation of the majority of the trees on the property; however, after purchase by an individual homeowner, the homeowner had ultimate responsibility and control over the preservation of trees on the lots. Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 13, 1986 MOTION 1: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Countryside Investments for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 20.2 acres for construction of 44 single family lots, to be known as The Farm, based on plans dated December 26, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Countryside Investments for Preliminary Plat of 22.5 acres for construction of 44 single family lots to be known as The Farm, based on plans dated December 26, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 E. REUTER, INC., by Welsh Companies, Inc. Request for Site Plan Review on 0.663 acres for site grading within the designated flood plain and shoreland area of Nine Mile Creek. Location: East of Birch Island Road, South of County Road #67, and Northwest of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. A public hearing. Planner� Kipp explained that, although the property was currently zoned I-2 Park and required no platting, it was located within a shorelarrd area, required alteration of the flood plain, required review under the land alteration section of the City Code, and required a variance for height of the building. Because of this, the proponent was requested to submit information for a site plan review. Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponent, reviewed the permitting process which was required by the Metropolitan Council for this use. He explained that during the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process, it had been determined that the use would generate approximately 200 truck trips per day. Mr. Brauer stated that this would likely be closer to 130 trips per day as the use had been authorized to have refuse delivered in larger trucks. The amount of refuse would be the same. Planner Kipp reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of January 10, 1986, noting that Staff was concerned about berming along the south property line in order to screen the use from the existing residential area. Mr. Brauer stated that proponents would prefer to have the timing of the Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 13, 1986 recommended conditions changed to indicate that the grading permit must be issued prior to utility construction. Staff stated that this would be satisfactory. Marhula stated that he would prefer the berming to be extended in order to eliminate the possibility of dumping on the property. He also asked if there were any plans for the upgrading of Indian Chief Road at this time. Planner Enger responded that there were none. Mr. Gary Hilden, owner of A & H Welding & Manufacturing Company, 14301 W. 62nd Street, adjacent to the proposed development, expressed concern about the cost of any watermain extension. Acting Chairman Hallett asked about the potential noise generation from this use. Mr. Brauer explained that the noise levels would not exceed and State, or local, standards. Acting Chairman Hallett asked how the City's interests were being protected, considering the use proposed. He stated that the City had once been told that the landfill would be safe, and now this use was making the same type of statements. Planner Enger responded that many of the questions of safety had been raised in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet review of this project. He added that the type of processing proposed by the developer was one which had a 30-year track record in Europe, which was not the case in consideration of the landfill . i Acting Chairman Hallett asked if trucks would be stored on the site over night. Mr. Brauer stated that they would not. Mr. Brauer stated that one of the reasons that the proponents wanted to be located on this property was due to its proximity to the railroad tracks. He noted that part of the operation in the future may include the shipping of the compost fuel and metal by rail . This would reduce traffic from the site by 50-60%. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Welsh Companies for site plan review of 10.633 acres for site grading and land alteration within a designated flood plain and shoreland area for Reuter, Inc., based on revised plans dated January 9, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1986, with the change that the grading permit be issued prior to utility construction on the property. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 13, 1986 to VI. NEW BUSINESS Architectural Review Committee--New City Hall Planner Enger reported that two members of the Planning Commission were needed to participate in the Architectural Review Committee for a new City Hall . Ed Schuck and Dennis Marhula had agreed to participate. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT Joint Meeting with City Council Planner Enger reported that a joint meeting with the City Council had been tentatively' set for February 4, 1986, at 6:00 p.m. Agenda items and materials, including 1985 year-end reports, would be forwarded to the Commission and Council prior to the meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner. Acting Chairman Hallett adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. r �