Planning Commission - 02/09/1987 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 9, 1987
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. RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT SIXTH ADDITION, by Centex Homes Corp. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 101
acres with variances, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to RM-2.5
on 8.1 acres and Preliminary Plat of 8.1 acres into 11 lots and 4
outlots for construction of 76 condominium units. Location: North
and east of Wellington Drive, north and west of Cumberland Road. A
continued public hearing.
*(7:45) B . SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi
Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office on 1 .09 acres with variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres
into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building.
Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18.
A continued public hearing.
*(8: 15) C. CARDINAL CREEK 6TH, by New American Homes Corporation. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendement from Medium Density Residential
to Low Density Residential on 31.2 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5 on 31.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 39.5
acres into 59 single family lots, three outlots, and road right-of-
way. Location: North of Cardinal Creek Road, west of I-494. A
continued public hearing.
*(8:45) D. DEER CREEK 2ND ADDITION, by Thomas M. Carmody. Request for a Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 80 acres with variances and Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 10.5 acres, Preliminary
Platting of 13.3 acres into 31 single family lots, one outlot, and
road right-of-way. A public hearing.
Agenda
February 9, 1987
Page Two
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. Code Changes
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VI I . 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, February 9, 1987
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck; Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Chuck Reubling
(7:35 p.m.)
STAFF PRESENT: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Assistant
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the agenda as printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the
January 12, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, as printed.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Anderson abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT SIXTH ADDITION, by Centex Homes Corp. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 101
acres with variances, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to RM-2.5
on 8.1 acres and Preliminary Plat of 8.1 acres into 11 lots and 4
outlots for construction of 76 condominium units. Location: North
and east of Wellington Drive, north and west of Cumberland Road. A
continued public hearing.
Proponents submitted a letter to the City requesting withdrawal of this item
at this time. Planner Franzen stated that, due to the neighborhood concerns
and the issues raised by the Planning Commission at previous meetings, the
developer was rethinking the project at this time.
• Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 9, 1987
Mr. John Ginn, 8961 Knollwood Drive, stated that he was relieved to see the
plan withdrawn, adding that he felt his neighborhood would remain interested
and concerned that any future plan for the property be more in keeping with
the character of the existing surrounding neighborhood.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public
hearing and return the item to the proponent, without prejudice.
Motion carried--7-0-0
B. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi
Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres with variances to be
reviewed by'the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres
into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building.
Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18.
A continued public hearing.
Planner Franzen stated that some of the concerns mentioned in the previous
Staff Report and during the previous Planning Commission review of this item
had been addressed, but, not all of them. The Staff Report outlined three
alternatives of action for the Commission's consideration: Denial, if the
changes were not adequate; approval, contingent upon the remaining changes
being made; or referral back to the developer for revision.
Mr. Ron Erickson, architect for developer, reviewed the changes that had
been made to the plans since the Planning Commission review in November,
1986. He stated that the building had been scaled back to be 39 linear
feet, reduced to 10,000 sq. ft. , the exterior elevation changed to give
residential character to the structure, the rear elevation was changed to
include a pitched roof, revised traffic circulation patterns, and proponents
had altered the location of the intersection with County Road 18 so that the
"offset" situation had been eliminated.
Mr. Erickson stated that the addition of the bank building to the area would
not increase the traffic at the intersection of County Road 18 and Anderson
Lakes Parkway. Regarding trash removal, it was planned that the trash
removal would be accomplished through the use of the drive-through lane.
With respect to landscaping, Mr. Erickson stated that the developer would
work with Staff to make certain that all requirements were satisfied.
Regarding the land use to the south, Mr. Erickson stated that he had spoken
to the property owners of the parcels to the south of the proposed
development. He stated that he found that the property owners in the
surrounding area preferred Low Density Office use to any type of Multiple
Residential land use.
Planner Franzen stated that the Planning Staff had not been aware of some of
the changes proposed at the meeting this evening and that more time may be
necessary to evaluate the additional changes. He stated that the structural
changes to building size and length were positive. Also, the improved
• Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 9, 1987
traffic circulation and access alignment to County Road 18 were positive
amendments to the plans. The redirection of traffic within the existing
shopping center in order that a perimeter road would be used may be a
positive amendment to the plan. Planner Franzen stated that the Hennepin
County Transportation Department had indicated the possibility of a diamond-
shaped interchange at the intersection of County Road 18 and Anderson Lakes
Parkway. In that event, it may be necessary to extract additional right-of-
way from the existing shopping center parking lot, which would impact the
feasibility of being able to place a perimeter road within the shopping
center parking lot. It may also impact the available number of parking
spaces in the lot at this time, depending upon the amount of right-of-way
needed for a diamond-shaped interchange, which would place the shopping
center in the position of not having enough spaces for their own use.
Another item of concern to Staff was that the proponents were still
requesting a variance to allow for a portion of the parking spaces needed
for this development to be provided within the shopping center parking lot,
adjacent to the north. Planner Franzen noted that, if the proponents
eliminated the drive-through lane for the bank portion of the structure, the
site plan could be altered to provide adequate parking on the property
itself.
Planner Franzen stated that one other major item of concern of Staff was the
lack of transition to the property to the south He stated that the parcels
to the south would be under pressure to change their land uses from Low
Density Residential to Office in the future and that it was Staffs opinion
that a transition was necessary, regardless of nature of any future use on
these properties.
With respect to the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Planner
Franzen noted that, although the size of the site would not have an adverse
impact on the land use balance within the community, itself, it could have
an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that this
could be in the form of increased traffic, noise, etc.
Anderson asked about signage for the property. Mr. Erickson stated that
there would be signage, eventually, and that it would be constructed to
comply with City Code requirements.
Anderson asked if the entrance to the site from County Road 18 would be too
close to the access of the next use to the south for safety purposes. Mr.
Erickson responded that the next access was 300-400 feet south of the
proposed access to County Road 18 from the bank. Planner Franzen stated
that it was possible that each site could be allowed to have its. own
individual access to County Road 18; however, the Hennepin County Department
of Transportation preferred that there be shared access to County Road 18,
if possible.
Anderson asked about the internal traffic patterns. Mr. Erickson explained
the internal circulation. He noted that tapers would be constructed at the
point of access to southbound County Road #18. He stated that the length of
the taper, and therefore, curve of the taper at this point, would discourage
people from turning northbound onto County Road 18.
• Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 9, 1987
Bye asked how much stacking distance was available. Mr. Jeff Bedner,
Strgar-Roscoe, traffic consultants for the proponent, stated that there
would be approximately 980 south-bound trips during the P.M. Peak Hour
traffic period and 350 north-bound trips during the P.M. Peak Hour. He
explained that the road system should be adequate to provide for the free
flow of traffic through this access point with County Road #18.
Reubling asked if left-turn movements could be eliminated from the site onto
County Road #18. Mr. Erickson stated that the proposal originally indicated
a right-in, right-out only situation. He stated that the shape of the
concrete tapers directing the traffic at the access point with County Road
#18 would service to discourage left-turns for north-bound traffic onto
County Road #18.
Bye stated that she felt the addition of the concrete tapers for south-bound
traffic was a positive design change. She expressed concern . about the
potential for left-turn movements for north-bound traffic, however.
Gartner asked about the use of stop signs on the property, indicating that
it appeared that several would be necessary within the parking lot for the
property. Mr. Erickson noted the location of stop signs as currently
proposed for the site development.
Anderson asked if the City had adequate information regarding the future of
County Road 18 in this area, specifically with respect to the impact the
expansion of the road would have on this property and the property to the
north. Planner Franzen responded that it had been determined that County
Road 18, as it currently exists, would become the frontage road for future,
upgraded County Road 18. He added that there had been discussions with the
County with respect to the possibilities of improvements to the turning
movements onto the road in the future.
Hallett asked about the magnitude of the requested variance for the number
of parking spaces for the proposed use. Planner Franzen stated that some of
the parking proposed was off-site, located in the shopping center parking
lot, adjacent to the north of the property. He stated that Staff
recommended approximately 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area
of the use.
Hallett asked about lighting for the property. Mr. Erickson expalined that
the lighting would be constructed to meet Staff recommendations. Planner
Franzen stated that the Staff had recommended that the lighting not impact
the residential neighborhood to the west. He noted that there would be some
screening of lights on poles due to the height of the structure and the
berming. Mr. Erickson stated that the proponents had committed to the
neighborhod that there would not be any visible lighting from the proposed
development.
Dodge stated that she was concerned about the proposed Comprehensive Guide
Plan amendment. She stated that she felt it was important for the City to
consider whether the request would change property, itself, or whether it
would ultimately dictate a different land use for the properties to the
south. She added that she was not in favor of any action on this property
having such an impact on the property to the south. Planner Franzen stated
Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 9, 1987
that the amount of property lying south of the proposed development was
approximately five acres in size, total . He stated that it would be setting
a precedent to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan on this property, thereby
impacting the land use(s) that would be allowed on the five acres south of
the property.
Planner Franzen stated that transition to this property, or to properties
south and west of the proposed development would be difficult, due to the
small amount of space available to accomplish a transition to adjacent,
differing uses. He stated that the Staff had not seen any landscaping plan
that worked to provide adequate transition as yet.
Mr. Erickson stated that the proponent would do whatever was recommended by
Staff to make the situation work.
Bye asked about deliveries and how they would be handled for this structure.
Mr. Erickson stated that all deliveries would be accomplished through the
front door of the structure.
Mr. David Oliver, 9661 Clark Circle, stated that his main concern was what
would happen on the property to the south of the proposed development. He
stated that he found it interesting that owners of the property to the south
also were employing the same consultant as the proponent and that the uses
proposed on the property to the south appeared to act as inducement for
amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the property being discussed
at the meeting.
Mr. Oliver stated that the remaining five acres south of the proposed
development were surrounded on three sides by existing Low Density
Residential development. He questioned whether County Road #18 upgrading
was not the cause of such proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments and
stated that he felt the City should not feel compelled to amend the Guide
Plan just because County Road #18 was involved. Mr. Oliver suggested that
it may be possible that these properties may be acquired by Hennepin County
for right-of-way purposes at the time of upgrading of the road.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt there had been some improvement to the
plans as proposed, but that he was not certain that it would be appropriate
to await decisions on County Road #18 before making a recommendation on this
request. He added that he was not prepared to approve any uses other than
Low Density Residential south of the existing proposal at this time.
Mr. Norm Ziesman, 9425 Garrison Way, stated that he concurred with Mr.
Oliver's comments. He stated that he felt it was improper that the
properties to the south be offerred as an enticement to the City to approve
the proposed use at this time. He added that his other main concern was
that of diminishing privacy in the neighborhood.
Mr. Ray Torgerson, 9320 County Road #18, stated that he had lived in his
• home for thirty years and had watched the traffic steadily increase. He
stated that the commercial uses across County Road #18 in Bloomington had
caused disruption of the neighborhood; for example, compactors could be
heard grinding at 3:00 A.M. when garbage was being picked up across the
road. He noted, too, that it was necessary to operate with the flow of
• Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 9, 1987
traffic during peak hours of travel , stating that it was impossible to turn
north-bound during the A.M. Peak Hour and impossible to turn south-bound
during the P.M. Peak Hour.
Mr. Floyd Siefferman, Jr., 6997 Edgebrook Place, stated that, as a lawyer,
he was appalled by the number of requests for variances in Eden Prairie. He
stated that he understood that variances were to be granted when conditions
were beyond the control of the owner, not because the design of the owner
causes a problem before a site is built.
Mr. Jim Laskowski, 9445 Garrison Way, stated that he concurred with the
concerns of his neighbors. He added that he was concerned about traffic at
Anderson Lakes Parkway and the shopping center currently. He noted that
Garrison Way was located one street west of the shopping center and that
people currently used it as a secondary access to the center.
Mr. Ziesman stated that he was concerned about the amount of traffic that
would be generated by the development, the circulation of the traffic, and
concerned about whether there would be an adequate amount of parking spaces
for the use as proposed.
Hallett stated that he felt the majority of the changes made by the
proponents had been positive, adding that he felt some issues still needed
to be worked out with Staff, including transition to the property to the
south. Hallett stated that, because of what Mr. ". Torgerson had said
regarding the access to County Road #18 during peak hour traffic, that he
was hesitant to located any additional residential uses in this area.
Reubling stated that he felt there was still too much intensity of land use
proposed for the property than was appropriate. He stated that he felt
residential use of the property may not be appropriate, either.
Gartner stated that she felt the amendments to the plan were positive, with
the exception of the drive-through. She stated that she felt it caused the
traffic circulation problems for the property.
Anderson stated that he agreed with Hallett regarding the positive changes
in the plan. He asked about the number of parking spaces with respect to
proposed expansion of County Road #18. Planner Franzen stated that it would
depend upon whether the County planned on using a diamond interchange at the
intersection with Anderson Lakes Parkway. If a diamond interchange was
used, additional property would be needed from the shopping center, thereby
eliminating parking spaces for the shopping center, and possibly eliminating
the excess parking spaces in this parking lot that were proposed for use by
the developer.
Bye stated that she was reluctant to have two access points to County Road
#18 located so close together. She questioned the safety of the situation.
Mr. Bedner stated that the rate of traffic through the intersection was
. predicted to be approximately one car every 25 seconds. He added that,
typically, a car would be able to clear this intersection in seven to eight
seconds.
Mr. Oliver expressed concern regarding traffic circulation to the major
Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 9, 1987
roads, stating that trying to exit from the shopping center parking lot was
already difficult at this time. Planner Franzen stated that it would be
possible for the City to retain its own traffic consultant if the Commission
felt that the information provided needed to be re-evaluated.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the traffic patterns and access
situations had been improved by the proponent from the last review of the
proposal , but that more information appeared necessary before the Commission
could make a decision.
Anderson stated that he concurred with Chairman Schuck. He also expressed
concern for problems which may arise in the future if it was determined by
the County that additional taking of property would be necessary for
upgrading of County Road #18 from the shopping center parking lot, thereby
eliminating parking spaces for both uses. Anderson stated that he felt it
was necessary that pedestrian access to the site be reviewed, also, prior to
additional Commission review.
Gartner stated that she felt the revised building design was better suited
to the site. She noted that it would be necessary for people parking in
front of the building to walk across the bank drive-through lane in order to
enter the building. Mr. Erickson stated that this area would be designated
for employeed parking.
Bye stated that she felt a better transition to the south was necessary,
especially considering the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment
for the property. She added that she did not believe it was appropriate to
predetermine the land uses for the five acres south of this property with
action on this property, alone..
Dodge stated that she concurred with the statement of Reubling stating that
she believed there was too much intensity of development proposed for this
property. She stated that she felt that if County Road #18 upgrading was
causing confusion as to appropriate land use for property in this area, then
perhaps it would be in order for the City to review the entire neighborhood
in terms of land use, instead of looking at each individual parcel , one at a
time.
Gartner asked how long it would take to have a traffic study prepared by the
City. Planner Franzen stated that similarly sized projects had taken
anywhere from two to three weeks, depending upon the availability of the
consultants. Gartner asked if the traffic counts for this area were
available for County Road #18 since the race track had been opened, south of
this area in Shakopee. Planner Franzen responded that these figures were
available, and that the figures indicated that County Road #18 would be in a
"stop and go" status by 1990, based on that information.
MOTION:
• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to continue this item to
the March 9, 1987, Planning Commission pending receipt of additional
information from the proponents.
Motion carried--5-2-0 (Dodge and Reubling against)
Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 9, 1987
C. CARDINAL CREEK 6TH, by New American Homes Corporation. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendement from Medium Density Residential
to Low Density Residential on 31.2 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5 on 31.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 39.5
acres into 59 single family lots, three outlots, and road right-of-
way. Location: North of Cardinal Creek Road, west of I-494. A
continued public hearing.
The Commission had continued this item from the January 26, 1987, meeting in
order for the proponents to work out the road access to Baker Road for this
property and the two intervening and adjacent parcels to the west, which had
direct access to Baker Road. Staff met with Countryside Investments, Inc.,
the proponent of the Griffith property, through which it was necessary to
obtain access to Baker Road. Representatives from Countryside Investments
met with Mr. Oscar Miller and have negotiated a tentative agreement for
development of his property that will allow the access to Baker Road to be
shifted further south, where it fit the site topography best, in Staff's
opinion. The trees on the wooded point that would have been removed under
the original Cardinal Creek 6th Addition proposal could now all be saved
since the road would be realigned further to the south.
Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed alignment
with respect to the existing topography, impact on adjacent properties in
terms of design of the sites, and impact on the existing trees. He noted
that the proposed alignment would save approximately 640 caliper inches of
oak trees.
Mr. Oscar Miller, 6521 Baker Road, stated that he had been contacted by the
developers of the Griffith property, north of his property and west of the
proposed development. He expressed concern that all final lot lines be
accurately drawn, as this had not occurred in several versions of the
proposed development, which showed a portion of his property owned by the
proponent. He added that, while his negotiations were not yet completed, he
was confident that a mutually beneficial arrangement could be reached by all
parties involved.
Mr. Floyd Siefferman, Jr., 6997 Edgebrook Place, reminded the Commission of
the concerns of the homeowners' association for the existing Cardinal Creek
area. He stated that they requested that the name be changed for the
development and for the main road through the property, that a construction
road be established to avoid use of the existing residential streets, and
that the property be limited to single family development.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of New American Homes Corporation for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low
Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 9, 1987
Density Residential on 31.2 acres for Cardinal Hills, based on plans and
written materials dated January 5, 1987, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report of January 23, 1987, and including the following additional
conditions: 1) Realignment of the access road to Baker Road;. 2)
Establishment of a construction road other than through the existing
residential area; 3) Revision of the name of the proposed plat to be
Cardinal Hills; and, 4) Revision of the name of the main road through the
property.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 3•
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of New American Homes Corporation for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 31.2 acres for Cardinal Hills,
based on plans and written materials dated January 5, 1987, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of January 23, 1987, and including the
following additional conditions: 1) Realignment of the access road to Baker
Road; 2) Establishment of a construction road other than through the
existing residential area; 3) Revision of the name of the proposed plat to
be Cardinal Hills; and 4) Revision of the name of the main road through the
property.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of New American Homes Corporation for
Preliminary Plat of 39.5 acres into 58 single family lots and three outlots
for Cardinal Hills, based on plans and written materials dated January 5,
1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 23,
1987, and including the following additional conditions: 1) Realignment of
the access road to Baker Road; 2) Establishment of a construction road other
than through the existing residential area; 3) Revision of the name of the
proposed plat to be Cardinal Hills; and 4) Revision of the name of the main
road through the property.
Motion carried--7-0-0
D. DEER CREEK 2ND ADDITION, by Thomas Carmody. Request for a Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 80 acres with variances and Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 10.5 acres, Preliminary
Platting of 13.3 acres into 31 single family lots, one outlot, and
road right-of-way. A public hearing.
Mr. Mike Carmody, representing developer, stated that they were planning to
. build homes in the $90-120,000 range within this area. He briefly reviewed
the site characteristics and design features of the proposed development
with the Commission.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 9, 1987
i
of February 6, 1987, with the Commission. Other than standard development
concerns involving sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, water, erosion
control, park dedication, and grading, Planner Uram indicated the following
matters of concern: 1) need for a five-foot wide, five-inch thick concrete
sidewalk along the north side of Carmody Lane, connecting to Anderson Lakes
Parkway; and 2) Need for architectural variety in the housing unit types
such that no two units would be alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally
across from each other in order to provide variety in the housing unit type.
It was pointed out that the original Planned Unit Development for this
property had shown 39 single family homes, whereas the developer was
currently proposing only 31 lots. Planner Uram stated that the lots within
this proposed subdivision were comparable, if not larger than, those lots
within Deer Creek 1st Addition.
Gartner asked if the variances requested could be eliminated by reducing the
total number of lots by one unit. Planner Uram stated that this was
possible; however, the proposed development was compared to adjacent
subdivisions and found to be comparable in terms of street frontages,
setbacks, etc. In addition, the proposed development was considered in
compliance with the approved Planned Unit Development for this property.
Pat and Dave Montgomery, 8574 Morgan Lane, stated that they were concerned
about the potential tree loss from the development of this property which
. would eliminate much of the screening of the apartment buildings in the
area. Planner Uram explained the tree replacement policy, adding that the
developers were planning to save the trees in this location as part of their
site design.
Mrs. Montgomery stated that there had been a pond in the area previously;
however, since construction of the apartments, the pond had been completely
dry. She asked if it would be filled again. Mr. Carmody responded that the
level of the pond had fluctuated substantially over the years. Planner Uram
stated that the Engineering Department and Watershed District would review
this matter prior to City Council review.
Bye stated that she shared the concerns of the neighbors with respect to
minimizing tree loss for this property.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Thomas M. Carmody for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres for Deer Creek 2nd Addition, based
on plans dated January 28, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated February 6, 1987, and with the added condition that the access
to Anderson Lakes Parkway be located 100 ft. further to the south.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 February 9, 1987
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Thomas M. Carmody for Planned Unit
Development District Review on 80 acres, with variances, and Zoning District
Change, from Rural to R1-9.5 on 10.5 acres for Deer Creek 2nd Addition,
based on plans dated January 28, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated February 6, 1987, and with the added condition that the
access to Anderson Lakes Parkway be located 100 ft. further to the south.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION A:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Thomas M. Carmody for Preliminary Plat of
13.3 acres into 31 single family lots and one outlot for Deer Creek 2nd
Addition, based on plans dated January 28, 1987, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 6, 1987, and with the
added condition that the access to Anderson Lakes Parkway be located 100 ft.
further to the south.
• Motion carried--7-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Code Changes
Jean Johnson and Steve Durham from the Zoning Administration portion of the
Planning Department reviewed the final changes to the Zoning Ordinance
changes proposed for. Chapter 11 of the City Code. Planner Durham noted that
the two major changes from the last review were that the City had been
advised to "readopt" Chapter 11 in its entirety and that the official zoning
map would become,a specific set of half-section maps to be kept in the
Planning Department, while the wall maps would be representations, only,
referring people to the half-sections for greater detail .
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend approval of the
proposed Zoning Ordinance changes to the City Code Chapter 11 as presented
at the February 9, 1987, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--7-0-0
VI. NEW BUSINESS
• None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 February 9, 1987
i
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner.
Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.