Planning Commission - 04/28/1986 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 28, 1986
* p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge,
Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling
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. BLUFFS EAST 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS, by Hustad Development. Request for a Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 184 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5,
with variances, on 38.15 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of approximately 184 acres into 72 lots and 9 outlots. Location: West of
County Road #18, west and south of Franlo Road, east of Homeward Hills Road. A
continued public hearing.
(8:05) B. FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB, by Flagship Athletic Club. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment Review on 20.15 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to C-Regional-Service on 2.45 acres and Preliminary Plat of approximately
31 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots and road right-of-way for parking lot
expansion. Location: West of Prairie Center Drive at Singletree Lane. A public
hearing.
(8:20) C. WILLIAMS MINI-STORAGE, by Finn Daniels, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Amendment
from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3.4 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to I-2 Park of 4.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 45.28 acres into
one lot and one outlot. Location: East of Highway #169, South of Darnell Road.
A public hearing.
(9:20) D. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER, by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 15
acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots for construction of a commercial center
Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public
hearing.
(9:50) E. WESTOVER WOODS, by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment Review on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review
on 15 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 11.9 acres with
variances and Shoreland Management variances to be reviewed by the Board of
01 Appeals, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Open
Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres
into 42 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: South
of Anderson Lakes Parkway and New Cumberland Roads intersection. A public
hearing.
AGENDA
Monday, April 28, 1986
We Two
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, April 28, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge (7:35 p.m.), Virginia Gartner, Charles Ruebling
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Hallett
STAFF PRESENT: 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
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded to Ruebling, to adopt the agenda as
• printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of
the April 21, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--3-0-2 (Bye and Gartner abstained)
(Dodge arrived at 7:35 p.m.)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BLUFFS EAST 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS, by Hustad Development. Request
for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 184
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with variances, on 38.15 acres,
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
approximately 184 acres into 72 lots and 9 outlots. Location. West
of County Road #18, west and south of Franlo Road, east of Homeward
Hills Road. A continued public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 28, 1986
Mr. Bob Smith, representing proponents, reviewed the revised plans with the
Commission. He reviewed issues of traffic, sensitivity to Purgatory Creek,
the intersection of County Road #1 and County Road #18, blending of this
development with the existing lots along Bluff Road in the Creek Knoll
Addition, density of the development, and phasing.
Ms. Nancy Heuer, BRW, traffic consultant for proponents, explained the
results of the traffic study prepared for the development. She stated that
one of the conclusions was that through the development of Phase III,
traffic at the intersection of Franlo Road and County Road #1 would be at
Level of Service A, the best possible situation, with free-flowing traffic.
She stated that this would change to Level of Service C with the
construction of the development through Phase V, and would include the need
at that time for alternative access points and additional improvements to
the intersection of County Road #18 and Bluff Road. Ms. Heuer stated that
the Hennepin County Department of Transportation and the Minnesota
Department of Transportation were still working on traffic projections for
County Road #18.
Mr. Wally Hustad, proponent, stated that there was still no decision as to
the final form of the proposed multiple residential portion of the
development. He stated that he would prefer to have the density set at six
to ten units per acre as part of the Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment, instead of five units per acre as recommended by Staff.
• Regarding the Wilkie property, south of the proposed development, Mr. Hustad
stated that he was aware of concerns regarding provision of access to the
parcel and that he felt this could be worked out.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of
April 25, 1986, with the Commission. He noted that the proponent had
reduced the amount of area proposed for R1-9.5 lots and increased the amount
of area proposed for R1-13.5 lots, thereby providing for better transition
between the larger lots on the north side of Bluff Road and the proposed
development.
Planner Franzen stated that the Staff's concerns had not changed regarding
the multiple portion of the proposed development since it had been first
proposed. He stated that it was difficult to make further judgments about
the proposed multiple portion of the development without greater detail to
the plans for this area. He added that the developer could make a case for
greater density in the future, based on the merits of the plan proposed at
that time.
Regarding traffic, Planner Franzen expressed concern with respect to the
need for signalization at the time of development of the fourth and fifth
phases, and for the potential need for another intersection at County Road
#1. He noted that the proponents were in the process of a second phase of
the traffic study at this time to answer more detailed questions regarding
. the location of an intersection at County Road #1 with the proposed
collector road through the development. This information was to be
available in time for the Council review of the proposal .
Ruebling asked about the proposed sidewalk and bituminous trail along Franlo
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 28, 1986
•
Road. Planner Franzen explained that it was City policy to provide for both
types of pedestrian access along roads of this size in the community,
carrying large volumes of traffic.
Mr. Martin Diestler, 9905 Bluff Road, expressed concern about potential
traffic problems on Bluff Road as a result of this development. He also
expressed concern about the safety of the access of Bluff Road with County
Road #18.
Ms. Anara Guard, 10300 Riverview Road, asked about the level of use which
would be allowed in the area designated for park in the proposed
development. She expressed concern about the potential impact of the
development upon the wildlife in the area. Planner Enger stated that a
study of the Purgatory Creek corridor had been done several years ago. At
that time, the question was raised regarding whether the City should
purchase the property along the creek valley, or not. It was determined at
that time that the City would instead designate the valley areas as scenic
easements, rather than purchase the land. Also, it was determined at that
time that the City would not locate a trail within the valley. Planner
Enger stated that he had been informed that the Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Resources Commission would be reviewing this policy and, in
particular, the idea of a trail within the creek valley, at the meeting of
May 5, 1986, at which time this project would be reviewed by them.
• Mr. Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, stated that he was concerned about
traffic along Bluff Road as a result of the development. He also expressed
concern about accessing County Road #18, particularly north-bound, from
Bluff Road in the future. He stated that it was difficult and dangerous
now. Mr. Gensmer also expressed concern about the density of the
development and its potential impact on traffic, as well . He also stated
that he did not want to be forced to hook up to sanitary sewer and water and
asked if there was a procedure by which he could avoid doing so until he was
ready. Planner Enger explained that these issues would be decided at the
time an assessment hearing for the area was held by the City Council. He
noted that the City had offerred to defer assessments in some situation like
this, but that this was a Council decision.
Mr. Joel Pucket, representing the Wilkie family, owners of property south of
the proposed development, requested that access be preserved to the Wilkie
property for the future to avoid the property becoming land-locked. Planner
Franzen stated that he had spoken with representatives of the Wilkie family
and had discussed several alternatives for provision of access to the
property and potential development possibilities for the land, as well .
Bye expressed concern about the multiple portion of the development and
asked about the concerns of the Staff in greater detail . Planner Enger
explained that the portion of the property proposed for multiple residential
development had steep topography, making it difficult to assume the exact
location of structures. He added that there were not detailed plans
available about the structures at this time, either. Planner Enger stated
that the City had several examples of property such as this where
development at five units per acre had worked. However, he stated that it
was Staffs position that, even though the property made sense as a multiple
use in this area, the developer would have to prove a case for more than
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 28, 1986
i
five units per acre with more detailed plans than what was available at this
time. Planner Enger stated that another possibility would be for the
developer not to proceed with the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change
at this time for this portion of the property, and to provide more detailed
plans for Staff review prior to City action on this portion of the proposed
development. Mr. Hustad stated that he would prefer to receive action on
five units per acre, rather than postpone action on the Comprehensive Guide
Plan at this time.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, 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 Hustad Development for R14nned Unit
Development Concept Amendment Review of approximately 184 acres for the
Bluffs 4th and 5th Additions, based on revised plans dated April 25, 1986,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11, 1986.
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 Hustad Development for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium - Density
Residential on 28.7 acres for the Bluffs 4th and 5th Additions, based on
revised plans dated April 25, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated April 11, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-
13.5, with variances, for 38.15 acres, for Bluffs East 4th and 5th
Additions, based on revised plans dated April 25, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 5:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Preliminary Plat
of approximately 184 acres into 72 lots and nine outlots for Bluffs East 4th
and 5th Additions, based on revised plans dated April 25, 1986, subject to
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 28, 1986
• the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11 1986.
p p
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB, by Flagship Athletic Club. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 20.15 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service on 2.45
acres and Preliminary Plat of approximately 31 acres into 1 lot and
2 outlots and road right-of-way for parking lot expansion. Location:
West of Prairie Center Drive at Singletree Lane. A public hearing.
Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponents, explained the reasons for the
request and the need for additional parking area for the Flagship Athletic
Club. He noted that the intention was to have a shared access to the median
cut in Prairie Center Drive with the use to be located north of the proposed
parking lot addition. He stated that cross-easements could be arranged at
the time of review of the use to the north.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of April 25, 1986. He stated that Staff was concerned about the cross-
easement arrangements proposed since the use to the north was not known at
this time. Also, City Code required that all off-street parking facilities
be on the same parcel of land as the structure they are intended to serve.
Because of this, Staff was recommending elimination of the lot line between
• Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed preliminary plat at this time. Otherwise, it
would be necessary for proponent to obtain a variance to allow for the off-
street parking off the site from the Board of Appeals.
Gartner asked if there was any risk to the City in doing so. Planer Enger
stated that the replatting of the property could take place in the future,
too, but there was the possible problem of setting a precedence by allowing
the off-street parking to be on another lot.
Anderson asked if the reasons for the platting as proposed were mainly
financial for purposes of transfer of title, etc. Mr. Brauer stated that
this was the case.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
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 Flagship Athletic Club for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment of 20.15 acres and Zoning District Change from
Rural to C-Regional-Service of 2.45 acres, based on plans dated April 24,
1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 25, 1986,
eliminating item 1c of the recommendations.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 28, 1986
MOTION 3:
Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Flagship
Athletic Club for Preliminary Plat of approximately 31 acres into one lot,
two outlots and road right-of-way for a parking lot expansion, based on
plans dated April 24, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report of April 25, 1986, eliminating item lc of the recommendations.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. WILLIAMS MINI-STORAGE, by Finn Daniels, Inc. Request for Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3.4 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park of 4.1 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 45.28 acres into one lot and one outlot.
Location: East of Highway #169, South of Darnell Road. A public
hearing.
Mr. Mark Finneman, Finn-Daniels, Inc. , representing proponent, reviewed the
site plan with the Commission. He stated that the use proposed would not
generate a great deal of traffic, or noise, which would be considered
positive aspects of industrial developments. He added that there was very
little, if any, electricity, or heat, needed to operate such a facility,
either. Mr. Finneman stated that there would be a structural wall facing
i the existing residential area, not loading doors. He added that the
proponents were willing to work with the City with respect to the
landscaping on the property in order to screen sight lines into the property
from the existing residential area. Mr. Finneman stated that the proponents
were also amenable to alteration of the roof line in order to provide more
residential character to the structure.
Mr. Finneman stated that proponents felt the use of a mini-storage provided
for a good transition between the existing single family homes and Highway
#169.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of April 25, 1986, with the Commission. He stated that one of
Staff's concerns was the adequacy of the transition between the existing
single family area and the proposed use and discussed possible methods by
which the transition could be improved.
Gartner asked about the need in the City for additional mini-storage uses.
Planner Enger stated that there was apparently a high demand for such uses
due to the strict controls of the community and the various homeowners'
associations in the community regarding outside storage of various items,
the mobility of people with respect to jobs and their needs for storing
their possessions, and the lack of storage provided in multiple residential
areas for such items as boats, or recreational vehicles.
Gartner stated that she felt the use could be made more attractive.
Anderson asked if the site could be used for commercial development in the
future. Planner Enger stated that the City had not seen this happen in the
past, but that it would require City review if such a change were made.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 28, 1986
Rueblin asked about the 100-ft. wide buffer g planned by the mini-sector
study done by the City several years ago at the north edge of this site.
Planner Franzen explained about the buffer and stated that it could possibly
be located completely on the property to the north of this site, as opposed
to straddling both sites.
Mr. Dan Stormquist, 8984 Darnel Road, presented the Commission with
additional signatures to a petition which had been submitted to the City
stating opposition to the proposed use of a mini-storage on this property.
He stated that those signing the petition were concerned with the fact that
the proposed buildings would be 50 ft. from a residential street. Mr.
Stormquist stated that he did not see the use proposed as a buffer, but that
he saw it as a continuance of the commercial and industrial uses further
north along Highway #169. He also expressed concern about preservation of
the oak trees on the property and the impact of this proposed industrial use
on land uses to the south and east of the property.
Mr. Mark Janda, 8981 Darnel Road, stated that he agreed with the concerns of
Mr. Stormquist, and that in general he did not feel this use would enhance
the neighborhood.
Mr. Dan Bussey, 8944 Darnel Road, stated that he agreed with Mr.
Stormquist's concerns and was further questioning whether the entire 45
acres may eventually become industrial if this project were approved.
Mr. Douglas Waterman, 8506 Darnel Road, stated that he agreed with the
concerns mentioned by Mr. Stormquist. He pointed out that his home would be
approximately 35 ft. from the proposed structure, which would be clearly
visible from his second-story deck. Mr. Waterman also expressed concern
about the maintenance of the property and the fact that it appeared as more
of a warehouse, rather than residential in character.
Mr. Jim Grindeland, 8510 Darnel Road, stated that he concurred with the
concerns of the previous speakers, and that his home, too, would be only 35
ft. away from the proposed use, which he did not feel was appropriate.
Mr. Jim Simchuck, 9145 Flying Cloud Drive, stated that he felt too little
consideration had been given to the plans for the remainder of the 45 acres
with respect to land use, access, etc. He added that, in general, he
concurred with the concerns listed in the Staff Report.
Mr. Finneman stated that it was the intention of the developer to rezone and
develop only that portion of the property proposed for the mini-storage use
at this time, which amounted to approximately four acres. He stated that
proponents were willing to work with the City to redesign the wall which
would be facing the existing residential area in order to make it more
acceptable as a transition.
Dodge asked what types of uses were anticipated for this area. Planner
Enger stated that this was a difficult area to deal with, due to the
previously existing uses, the highway adjacent to the site, and the
relatively new development which had taken place in the general vicinity.
He added that Staff did not feel that single family use was appropriate
adjacent to the highway.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 28, 1986
Bye stated that she did not feel it would be appropriate for there to be
additional industrial uses beyond that area shown on the Comprehensive Guide
Plan.
Ruebling stated that he did not feel it was appropriate to change the
Comprehensive Guide Plan from Low Density Residential to Industrial.
Anderson concurred.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Mr. Dan Dege, architect for proponents, asked how the neighborhood would
feel about multiple residential development instead of the proposed
industrial development. Mr. Stormquist responded that this had been
discussed in meetings held by the neighborhood and that they did not feel
that industrial, or multiple family residential , was appropriate for this
area.
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council denial of the request of Bob Williams for Williams Mini-Storage for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Industrial on 3.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for
4.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 45.28 acres, based on a finding that the
land use is inappropriate for this location because of a lack of transition
between existing and planned adjacent residential uses, and the proposed
development does not adequately address the impacts of the site development
on adjoining existing and future land uses, including the intersection of a
public road with Highway #169 at its existing intersection with the entrance
to the Hennepin County Vocational Technical School .
Motion carried--6-0-0
D. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER, by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood
Commercial on 4.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board
of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 3 lots and 2
outlots for construction of a commercial center Location: Northwest
corner of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public
hearing.
Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponents, reviewed the site characteristics
and development proposal with the Commission. He also reviewed the
recommended changes to the plans in the Staff Report of April 25, 1986. He
noted that the plans had been amended to include redesign of the stacking
aisle for the proposed fast food restaurant. Mr. Brauer stated that the
shared access shown on the site was intended to aid in providing for better
traffic circulation throughout the site. He added that the proponents would
prefer to keep the right-in only access from south-bound Highway #169.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 28, 1986
Regarding the recommendation for additional green space in the plan, Mr.
Brauer stated that proponents had amended the plan to meet the City Code
requirements as recommended in the Staff Report.
Mr. Dan O'Brien, architect for proponent, reviewed the exterior materials
and architecture of the structure. He also presented sight lines from the
various public roads, in particular from Columbine Road.
Planner Uram reviewed the Staff Report of April 25, 1986. He stated that it
appeared that the majority of the issues raised in the report could be
worked out with the proponents. Planner Uram stated that there were still
concerns regarding the architecture, orientation of the fast food
restaurant, and internal green space.
Gartner asked about the proposed shared driveway. Planner Enger stated that
while Staff did not disagree with the idea of shared access and parking for
provision of better circulation, the Staff did not feel that shared access
should be done to the exclusion of the internal green space on the property.
He added that he felt this could be worked out with the proponents before
the next Planning Commission meeting. Planner Enger stated that Staff was
also concerned that this not serve as a precedence for elimination of all
the side lot lines in the remaining 15 acres of this commercial area, nor
for the elimination of internal green space in the remainder of this
commercial area.
Ruebling stated that he concurred with Staff's comments regarding the
stacking patterns of the fast food restaurant portion of the plan.
MOTION:
Move to continue the to the May 12, 1986, Planning Commission meeting,
pending revision of the plans per the recommendations of the Staff Report- of
April 25, 1986, and as discussed at this meeting.
Motion carried--6-0-0
E. WESTOVER WOODS, by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment Review on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 15 acres with Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-9.5 on 11.9 acres with variances and Shoreland
Management variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and
Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 15 acres into 42 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road
right-of-way. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway and New
Cumberland Road intersection. A public hearing.
Mr. Richard Putnam, proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the
Commission. He discussed the development in terms of its relationship to
the surrounding existing land uses. Mr. Putnam stated that, with respect to
the Staff concerns regarding the Shoreland Management regulations, the
structures proposed in the development were similar to those already
constructed in adjacent plats which were subject to Shoreland Management
regulations. He added that the trees that were to be removed as part of the
Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 28, 1986
construction process were not quality trees, but more "brush" type
vegetation.
Mr. Dennis Marhula, engineer for proponent, reviewed utility and street
design details with the Commission. He noted that the street had been
realigned in order to maintain as many of the mature trees as possible. Mr.
Marhula reviewed the proposed grading plan and the location of the mature
trees.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of April 25, 1986. He stated that one of Staff's major concerns was
the impact of the proposed development upon Purgatory Creek. He added that
Staff was also concerned about the preservation of the trees on the
property, in particular those along the slopes. Planner Franzen then
reviewed the proposed alternative plans for development of the site as
suggested in the Staff Report.
Gartner stated that she felt a compromise may be in order in terms of the
density for the proposed development; however, she stated that she felt the
proponents should meet the requirements of the Shoreland Management portion
of the Code.
Chairman Schuck stated that he concurred with Gartner regarding the
Shoreland Management provisions. He added that he was concerned that the
• entire ridge, which was the location of the secondary growth of trees and
brush, not be completely taken out. Anderson and Bye concurred.
Mr. Jim McGlennen, 8888 Knollwood Drive, expressed concern about the impact
of the development upon Purgatory Creek. He also expressed concern about
the impact upon the wild life in the area. He stated that he had no
objection to the housing proposed, but that he was concerned about the
removal of the vegetation in this area.
Planner Enger stated that the alternative plans proposed by the Staff would
eliminate approximately the same amount of vegetation as that proposed by
the developer. However, trees would remain behind the homes along the slope
and the Shoreland Management requirements would be met.
Mr. Keith Orner, 8880 Knollwood Drive, stated that he would prefer to see
the creek corridor remain in its natural state as much as possible. He
stated that he also felt the density could be decreased to 30-35 lots in
order to impact the land less.
Mr. Marhula stated that the center portion of the development could be
adjusted to accommodate R1-9.5 lots. He asked if the five lots located
along the north were satisfactory to the Commission as shown.
Planner Enger stated that he felt there may be validity to having the
interior lots of the development be R1-9.5; however, he noted that the
current proposal was for the development of the entire property as R1-9.5,
but that the majority of the lots did not meet R1-9.5 minimum dimensional
requirements.
Mr. Putnam stated that he was uncertain that any further adjustment could be
Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 28, 1986
i
made to the plan, except to propose multiple family residential development
on the property.
Mr. McGlennen stated that the run-off due to tree loss on his property was a
serious problem. He stated that he felt this would be a problem for the
lots of this proposed development which backed up to the creek, too, since
the topography was even steeper than for his lot.
Gartner, Dodge, and Chairman Schuck stated that they felt the five lots
along the north were satisfactory as shown.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to continue the public
hearing to the May 12, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, pending revisions
to be made by the developer prior to additional Planning Commission review.
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 Anderson, seconded by Ruebling. Chairman
Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.