Planning Commission - 09/08/1986 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 8, 1986
7:30 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. WILSON LEARNING, by Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.85
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District
Amendment with variances within the Office zoning district on 17.19
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.19 acres into two lots for
• construction of a nine-story office building. Location: East of
Highway #169, west of Valley View Road, south and west of Flying
Cloud Drive. A continued public hearing.
(8:05) B. REUTER dRDF PLANT, by Reuter, Inc. Request for Zoning District
Change from Public to I-2 Park on 1.3 acres and Preliminary Plat of
10.63 acres into one lot. Location: Southeast corner of County
Road #67 and Indian Chief Road. A public hearing.
(8:35) C. WESTON BAY, by The Pemtom Company. Request for. Planned Unit
Developent Concept Amendment on approximately 100 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review on approximately 100 acres with
variances and Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 13.5
acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 13.5 acres into 24 single family
lots and one outlot. Location: South and east of Mitchell Lake,
west of Timber Lakes Drive. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
• NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER,
OR LATER, THAN LISTED.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 8, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Robert Hallett, Charles
Ruebling
MEMBERS ABSENT: Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner
STAFF PRESENT: Chairs Enger, Director of Planning; Don Uram, Assistant
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the agenda as
• printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the minutes of
the August 25, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Chairman Schuck abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. WILSON LEARNING, by Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.85
acres; Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District
Amendment, with variances, within the Office Zoning District on
17.19 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 17.19 acres into two lots for
construction of a nine-story office building. Location: East of
• Highway #169, west of Valley View Road, south and west of Flying
Cloud Drive. A continued public hearing.
Planner Enger recapped the issues discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting of August 25, 1986, during which the Commission had first reviewed
Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 8, 1986
this item. The major issue discussed at that time was traffic generation
from the site as compared to the acceptable levels for this area of the
community based on the traffic study prepared by BRW in 1985.
Mr. Dick Koppy, traffic engineer for proponent, reviewed the additional
information about the structure and the Wilson Learning use with the
Commission. He outlined the various characteristics of the structure and
the work schedule of employees which were considered be of significance with
respect to traffic generation. Mr. Koppy stated that an on-site survey of
all the current buildings occupied by Wilson Learning indicated that the
average number of trips per employee was 2.9. He noted that part of the
structure had been allocated to a restaurant, classrooms, deck space, and a
large lobby, adding that this was not necessarily the case with all office
buildings. Mr. Koppy added that, even if Wilson Learning no longer occupied
the structure at some point in the future, the type of structure, itself,
would be limiting to any future user of the building.
With respect to landscaping, Mr. Koppy stated that the plan had been revised
in order to meet the requirements of the City Code. Also, with respect to
the sight distance on Flying Cloud Drive, sight lines had been prepared
indicating that the sight distance at that access point was adequate.
• Mr. Bill McHale, Ryan Construction, explained the relationship between
Wilson Learning Center and Ryan Construction. He stated that Wilson
Learning would have equity interest in the development and that they were
planning on an initial ten-year lease with an additional twenty years of
options on the building. Ryan Construction, however, would be the owner of
both parcels. Mr. McHale noted that Wilson Learning owned two other lots
within the overall 60+ acres of the Wilson Ridge Planned Unit Development.
Planner Enger stated that the traffic information presented to the
Commission was new to the Staff as of Friday, September 5, 1986, when the
proponents presented the rough draft of the traffic data to the Staff. He
noted that the pertinent items to be reviewed included the information
contained in the letter from Mr. Tom Holtz, Coldwell Banker, which indicated
that in Class A buildings such as the one proposed, the average square
footage per employee was 325 sq. ft. . This compared favorably to the figure
of 250 sq. ft. per employee used by the Institute of Traffic Engineering
(ITE) for average office buildings.
Also, the proponents had completed a traffic study of all the existing
Wilson Learning sites which concluded that the average number of occupants
per vehicle was 1.1, compared to the 1.3 Metropolitan Area average, and that
the average number of trips per employee was 2.9, compared with 3.6 based in
ITE standards. Planner Enger stated that Staff was concerned about the
validity of the traffic statistics if Wilson Learning Center was no longer
the tenant of the building at some point in the future. He stated that this
• was where the design of the building became important, and noted that the
information from Mr. Holtz regarding Class A buildings appeared to indicate
that the occupancy of the structure would be dictated by its interior
design, and, therefore, traffic for any future user(s) should be at similar
levels to that proposed for Wilson Learning.
Mr. McHale explained that the building was designed to be approximately 78%
Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 8, 1986
efficient, versus a standard office building which could usually be designed
to be 84% efficient in terms of use of space. This was due to the design of
the building for more "professional" office space than the standard office
building.
Planner Enger stated that, for the Wilson Learning building, it was Staff's
opinion that adequate information had been provided to substantiate the
traffic generation numbers predicted for that building as being lower than
standard office uses. However, Staff. was still concerned about the traffic
with respect to the "remnant" lot of 6.5 acres, for which no development was
shown.
Mr. McHale stated that there were several reasons for not showing another
building on the "remnant" lot. He stated that, originally, parking for the
Wilson Learning office structure was shown across the entire 17+ acres.
This idea was rejected in favor of structured parking in order to allow for
greater protection of the employees from the elements and to avoid the long
walk from one end of the parking lot to the building. Another reason for
not showing another building was to allow for the potential expansion of the
Wilson Learning business onto that lot in the future, if necessary.
Mr. McHale stated that Ryan Construction would be willing to accept a
condition on the development of this "remnant" parcel which would require
site plan review subject to receipt by the City of a satisfactory traffic
study for any proposed use. He added that Wilson Learning had plans for
working out mass transit alternatives for its employees and for encouraging
car pooling.
Anderson asked what percentage of the employees operated with flexible
hours. Mr. McHale responded that approximately 80% of the employees had
such schedules, noting that this was based upon all employees in all
buildings currently occupied by Wilson Learning.
Planner Enger stated that Staff was also concerned about the existing Office
zoning on the remnant lot. While the Office zoning on the Wilson Learning
portion of the property was proposed for amendment by the plan being
reviewed, there were no revised plans presented for the use of the "remnant"
parcel . Therefore, one of the recommendations of the Staff Report of August
22, 1986, was that the "remnant" parcel be rezoned to Rural, in order to
allow the City as much review as possible for the future use of the site.
If the zoning remained as Office on this property, proponents would be able
to build any office use on the property in accordance with City Code
requirements, but it would not be required that the project be reviewed
through the zoning public hearing process.
Planner Enger reviewed the concerns noted in the letter from Vantage
Corporation, located south and east of the proposed development, with
• respect to traffic concerns in the area. The Commission directed that the
letter become part of the permanent record on the proposed development.
Ruebling asked if other properties in the area would be impacted by the
traffic generation from this use and whether these other properties might be
required to reduce the intensity of their development because of possible
over-development of this site. Planner Enger responded that the "remnant"
Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 8, 1986
parcel would be the only parcel impacted. Ruebling asked if any of the
remaining undeveloped parcels within the Wilson Ridge Planned Unit
Development would impacted. Planner Enger stated that this would not be the
case. He added that the City was trying to make certain that development of
one lot would not impact development of another lot. Ruebling stated that
he did- not feel it was appropriate to constrain development of other sites
by virtue of an approval of any project.
Ruebling asked how much square footage was remaining for development within
the Wilson Ridge Planned Unit Development. Planner Enger responded that
approximately 87,000 sq. ft. was available. Ruebling asked if that was an
adequate amount of square footage for completion of the Wilson Ridge Planned
Unit Development.
Mr. Pat Ryan, Ryan Construction, stated that he felt the difference was that
the square footage being discussed for the remainder of the Wilson Ridge
Planned Unit Development was speculative space, with tenants, or owners,
unknown at this time. With respect to Wilson Learning, Mr. Ryan stated that
the detailed information as to the exact tenant and how that tenant would be
using the building was available for review. This was not the case with any
other use in the Planned Unit Development.
. Hallett stated that he felt the City should remain in a position to control
the use and, therefore, the amount of traffic generation, from the "remnant"
parcel. Ruebling concurred.
Mr. McHale stated that Ryan Construction would prefer to maintain the zoning
of Office on the "remnant" parcel . He stated that the previously approved
zoning for the Vantage property to the southeast had not been removed upon
proposed redevelopment of a portion of their property.
Planner Enger explained that the City would be in the best position to
control the use on the "remnant" parcel if rezoning of that parcel was
necessary prior to construction. This would require a public hearing
process and detailed Staff review and report to the Planning Commission and
City Council .
Mr. Ryan stated that the reason for the request to maintain the Office
zoning was financial, and based on requests and understandings of the
mortgagers of the property. Mr. Ryan added that proponents were willing to
work with the City to find a position which would satisfy both the
proponent's financial concerns and the City's requirements for flexibility
for future development on the property, pending traffic generation from any
future use.
Chairman Schuck asked proponents if the mortgage company would accept a
square footage limitation within the developer's agreement on the property.
Mr. Ryan stated that a square footage limitation would be preferred to
rezoning the property to Rural. Mr. Ryan asked that any limitation made in
the agreement make reference to the data base used to cause the constraint.
Hallett stated that it may be possible that the use of the "remnant" parcel
would be required to be reduced based on future information, instead of
possibly increased, and he asked proponents if they would be willing to
Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 8, 1986
accept such consequences. Mr. Ryan stated that proponents would be willing
to do so. He stated that he felt that they must be willing to live with
either alternative.
Chairman Schuck asked for Staff's opinion regarding a restriction within the
developer's agreement. Planner Enger stated that this would be an effective
tool for accomplishing the purpose. He noted that the traffic generation
from the Wilson Learning site would have to improve substantially if Ryan
Construction expected to receive the benefits of such a reduction for the
development of the "remnant" parcel in the future.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Ryan Construction for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 60.85 acres for Wilson Learning for
construction of a nine-story office building, based on plans dated August 6,
and September 5, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports
dated August 22, and September 5, 1986, with the following amendments:
Deletion of reference to rezoning the "remnant" parcel to Rural and addition
of a requirement in the developer's agreement for the property that there
shall be a reduction in the amount of traffic generated in order to meet the
1985 BRW traffic generation volumes for the property. Further, through the
developer's agreement, the proponent shall agree that the intensity of
development of the "remnant" lot shall be based upon available ADT to meet
the 1985 BRW trip generation volumes.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Ryan Construction for Planned Unit
Development District Review for 17.91 acres including Zoning District
Amendment, with variances, within the Office District for 9.49 acres and
Zoning District Change from Office to Rural for 7.7 acres, for Wilson
Learning for construction of a nine-story office building, based on plans
dated August 6, and September 5, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Reports dated August 22, and September 5, 1986, with the following
amendments: Deletion of reference to rezoning the "remnant" parcel to Rural
and addition of a requirement in the developer's agreement for the property
that there shall be a reduction in the amount of traffic generated in order
to meet the 1985 BRW traffic generation volumes for the property. Further,
through the developer's agreement, the proponent shall agree that the
intensity of development of the "remnant" lot shall be based upon available
ADT to meet the 1985 BRW trip generation volumes.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 8, 1986
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the preliminary plat for Ryan Construction for Wilson
Learning for construction of a nine-story office building as proposed in
plans dated August 6, and September 5, 1986, based on findings regarding
traffic in the Staff Reports dated August 22, and September 5, 1986, with
the following amendments: Deletion of reference to rezoning the "remnant"
parcel to Rural and addition of a requirement in the developer's agreement
for the property that there shall be a reduction in the amount of traffic
generated in order to meet the 1985 BRW traffic generation volumes for the
property. Further, through the developer's agreement, the proponent shall
agree that the intensity of development of the "remnant" lot shall be based
upon available ADT to meet the 1985 BRW trip generation volumes.
Motion carried--4-0-0
B. REUTER dRDF PLANT, by Reuter, Inc. Request for Zoning District
Change from Public to I-2 Park on 1.3 acres and Preliminary Plat of
10.63 acres into one lot. Location: Southeast corner of County
Road #67 and Indian Chief Road. A public hearing.
Planner Enger explained that this item involved "housekeeping" matters to
bring the land into compliance with current zoning requirements based upon
the use of the property and to consolidate all of the property being used
for the dRDF plant by Reuter, Inc.
As part of the platting process, Staff was recommending a 50-foot wide
perpetual easement, measured from the nearest bank of the channel of Nine
Mile Creek, be dedicated to the City and recorded at Hennepin County. Other
standard conditions included dedication of necessary drainage and utility
easements as required by the City Engineer.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
. Council approval of the request of Reuter, Inc., for Zoning District Change
from Public to I-2 Park for 1.3 acres for the Reuter dRDF Plant, based on
plans dated August 20, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated September 5, 1986.
Motion carried--4-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 8, 1986
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Reuter, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of
10.63 acres into one lot for the Reuter dRDF Plant, based on plans dated
August 20, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
September 5, "1986.
Motion carried--4-0-0
C. WESTON BAY, by The Pemtom Company. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on approximately 100 acres; Planned
Unit Development District Review on approximately 100 acres with
variances; and Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 13.5
acres, with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals; and Preliminary Plat of 13.5 acres into 24 single family
lots and one outlot. Location: South and east of Mitchell Lake,
west of Timber Lakes Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Dan Herbst, representing Pemtom, reviewed the history of the development
approvals for the property by Richard Miller for the Mitchell Lake Estates
Planned Unit Development (PUD) . Proponents were requesting amendment of
this PUD.
Mr. Herbst explained the development constraints of the property, noting
topography, proximity to the shore line of Mitchell Lake, the existing pond,
the heavily wooded areas, the future location of the park, etc. He noted
that the proposed lots met, or exceeded the size of the lots located in the
single family subdivision to the north of the property.
Planner Uram reviewed the variances requested from the requirements of the
Shoreland Management regulations. He stated that it was necessary that
these requested variances be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, that they
could not be granted as part of the PUD process. Planner Uram stated that
the variances requested from the lot frontage requirements were due to the
location of an existing utility easement which caused the structures to be
located as indicated in the plans.
With respect to tree replacement on the property, Planner Uram stated that
it was recommended that the proponents replace 360 caliper inches of trees,
based on the amount of trees that would be removed during the construction
process. He stated that, should building pad locations change in order that
more trees are saved, Staff would be willing to recommend a "credit" towards
the total number of caliper inches of trees to be replaced. Also, Staff was
suggesting that credit be given to the developer for landscaping done at the
entrance of the property and for trees installed near the park to the south.
Additional concerns of Staff, other than standard requirements regarding
utilities, erosion control, and park dedication, included a requirement for
screening of the area adjacent to the future City park to the south,
provision of a 75-foot wide scenic easement along the shore line of Mitchell
Lake, and prohibition of individual docks on lots fronting the lake. It was
noted that the outlot at the southwest corner of the plat was intended for
use by the residents of this subdivision only.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 8, 1986
Planner Uram also pointed out that it would be possible to eliminate the
need for four variances if one lot was removed from the subdivision. The
Commission considered this possibility in further discussion.
Ruebling stated that the requested variances seemed numerous and asked if
this was a "normal" situation. Planner Enger explained that this was a
transitional area for this .lake in terms of meeting the Shoreland Management
requirements of the City Code. He pointed out that the intent of the
Shoreland Management regulations was being met by the development of the
parcel .
Chairman Schuck asked if there would be a dock located on the outlot for use
by the future residents of the subdivision. Mr. Herbst responded that one
dock would be allowed. Planner Enger stated that the intent of the
Shoreland Management regulations in this regard was to control, or limit,
the number of docks and structures that would be located close to a lake.
The location in this area of one dock would serve that purpose.
Hallett asked about the length of the proposed cul-de-sac. Planner Enger
stated that it was quite long, due to the fact that Timber Lakes Drive was
the only access/egress for the property at this time. In the future, at the
time the access road to the City park was built, alternative access/egress
would be available. He added that it would be difficult in a situation like
this along the lakeshore to provide for road access that met the City
requirement of a maximum of 500 ft. in length.
Hallett asked if the City owned the property intended for park use, south of
the proposed subdivision, at this time. Planner Enger responded that a
portion of this property had been purchased by the City. Hallett asked if
it would be possible to provide access to the property south of the proposed
subdivision in the event that the City did not develop that land as park.
Planner Enger stated that it would be possible.
Hallett stated that he felt elimination of one of the lots may make sense
from several points of view. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt
elimination of the lot would make the remaining lots larger and more
attractive. Anderson concurred. Staff had recommended elimination of Lot
10, Block 2. Mr. Herbst stated that he would prefer to eliminate Lot 6,
Block 2, if it became necessary to eliminate any lots at all from the
proposed subdivision.
Anderson stated that he preferred the single family development of this
property, with variances, to development of the property as multiple
residential .
Mr. Ed Bellerive, 8050 Timber Lake Drive, member of the ,Board of Directors
of the townhouse homeowners' association, and also representing Mr. Ed Nash,
stated that he was concerned about the proposed price of the homes. Mr.
Herbst responded that the homes were planned to be sold for prices ranging
from $150,000-$190,000.
Mr. Bellerive stated that his biggest concern was regarding the pond located
in the north central portion of the property proposed for development. He
explained that, originally, the residents of this townhouse area had been
Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 8, ,1986
promised that the pond would remain in place and that many of the owners in
this area had paid a premium for being located in close proximity to this
pond. He stated that he was concerned that there be some assurance that the
pond remain, even though the property upon which the pond was located would
be owned by four separate individuals.
Mr. Herbst explained that the pond would be reshaped according to the plans
shown. He noted that the total surface area of the pond was intended to be
reduced somewhat, but that the volume of the pond would likely remain the
same. Mr. Bellerive asked if it would be necessary to drain the pond in
order to "reshape" it as shown on the plans. Mr. Herbst responded that he
did not think this would be necessary, but that the final engineering
details would be the determining f actor.
Ms. Joanne P. Colin, 8079 Timber Lakes Drive, asked if the reshaped pond
would be extended closer to the townhouses located to the north. Mr. Herbst
stated that this was not the case. Ms. Colin suggested that the proponents
consider extension, or enlargement, of the pond area to the townhouse
property.
Mr. Richard Vogel, 8071 Timber Lakes Drive, stated that he had lived in this
area since 1979 and that, upon purchase of the property, the owners had been
promised many things by the developer. He asked if the owners in the
townhouse development would have access to the pond to walk around it,
whether there would be a trail around it. Mr. Herbst stated that there were
no such plans. Mr. Vogel asked if the owners could erect fences on their
property lines through the pond. Mr. Herbst responded that the City would
control a utility easement over the ponding area which would prevent such
things from occurring. Mr. Herbst added that he would have no objection to
a scenic easement also being placed over the pond area in order to restrict
its use by the single family residents.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the northerly most 20 feet of the lots upon which
the pond was located would not be accessible by the owners of those lots
because of the pond location. Owners of these lots would not be able to mow
grass, or access, the north end of their lots without trespassing upon
another property. He added that the north end of the pond was currently
being maintained by the townhouse association owners, even though it was not
located on property owned by them.
Mr. Charles Weber, 8068 Timber Lakes Drive, stated that he felt splitting
the ownership of the pond amongst the four lots in the manner shown was an
invitation for problems between neighbors.
The Commission discussed the location of the pond in greater detail .
Planner Enger stated that the proponents may wish to consider transferring
the small sliver of property along the north side of the pond to the
townhouse association to eliminate the problems discussed.
Mr. Bellerive invited Mr. Herbst to attend the next homeowners' association
meeting to discuss this matter. Mr. Herbst stated that he would attend and
try to mitigate this situation with the association.
Ms. Sheryl Vogel, 8071 Timber Lakes Drive, stated that she appreciated the
Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 8, 1986
i
cooperation of the proponent on this matter.
Ms. Colin asked when the second access to Eden Prairie Road would be
completed. She expressed concern about traffic congestion due to the
existing residential development in the area, the 95 townhouses under
construction at this time in the Lake Park development, and the proposed
single family development of this property. Planner Enger responded that
the park access would likely be built between 1988-89, but not sooner. He
pointed out that this development, along with the recent development of
other property within the original Mitchell Lake Estates Planned Unit
Development, had been constructed at less density than originally approved,
but that the road system had not changed at all. Planner Enger added that
there may be congestion for a small period of time, but that it would be
relieved.
Mr. Tim A. Crain, 7919 South Bay Curve, president of the single family
homeowners' association, asked if the single family homes proposed would be
similar to those located along Island Road and South Bay Curve in terms of
restrictions on docks. Mr. Herbst reiterated that there would be one dock,
only, constructed on the outlot. Mr. Crain stated that, in general, he
viewed the proposed development as an asset to the area.
MOTION 1:
• Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
The Commission discussed the elimination of one of the lots from the plat in
greater detail as to the significance of such a reduction on the overall
plat. Hallett stated he had no objection to the elimination of Lot 6, Block
2, instead of the lot recommended by Staff for elimination. Chairman Schuck
concurred. Ruebling stated that he felt the regulations should be upheld
with respect to the Shoreland Management requirements. Anderson stated that
he was uncertain that it would make any significant difference if one lot
was eliminated, or not.
The Commission discussed the future location of the park road adjacent to
the lots along the south portion of the property. Mr. Herbst pointed out
that the road would likely begin at the rear of Lot 4, Block 2, as depicted
on the plans. Anderson stated that he felt the berming and plantings would
aid to mitigate the impact of the road upon the future residents of this
subdivision. The elimination of one lot was discussed in terms of the
possibility of creating a better situation for those lots which would be
adjacent to the future park road, also.
Planner Enger stated that the proponents had made revisions to the plans
. prior to review of the development by the Planning Commission. Many of the
revisions proposed eliminated variances to the Shoreland Management
regulations as originally proposed for the site. He stated that the City
could consider this a transition area to the remainder of the existing PUD
whereby density was decreased and the impact on the lake was subsantially
lessened from the possibility of multiple family development to single
Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 8, 1986
family lots.
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Pemtom Company for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment of the Mitchell Lake Planned Unit Development,
for approximately 100 acres, for development of single family homes to be
known as Weston Bay, based on plans dated August 14, and September 3, 1986,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 5, 1986,
with the addition that, prior to review by the City Council , proponent meet
with the townhouse association for the property to the north to mitigate
matters related to the pond as discussed at this meeting.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Pemtom Company for Planned Unit
Development District Review Amendment for approximately 100 acres, with
variances, for the Mitchell Lake Planned Unit Development and Zoning
District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 13.5 acres to be known as Weston
• Bay, with Shoreland Management variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals, based on plans dated August 14, and September 3, 1986, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 5, 1986, with the
addition that, prior to review by the City Council, proponent meet with the
townhouse association for the property to the north to mitigate matters
related to the pond as discussed at this meeting.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Pemtom Company for Preliminary Plat
of 13.5 acres into 24 single family lots to be known as Weston Bay, based on
plans dated August 14, and September 3, 1986, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated September 5, 1986, with the addition that, prior
to review by the City Council, proponent meet with the townhouse association
for the property to the north to mitigate matters related to the pond as
discussed at this meeting.
Motion carried--4-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 8, 1986
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Ruebling. Chairman
Schuck adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.