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 �