Planning Commission - 03/09/1987 AGENDA
• EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, March 9, 1987
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye,
Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebl ing
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
A. Swearing in of New Members.
B. Election of Officers.
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
*(7: 35) A. 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.
*(7:40) B. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA. Request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential and Public Open Space
to Elementary/Secondary School on 55.6 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to Public on 55.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 55.6
acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of a
private school. The request also includes an amendment of City Code
Chapter 11, Section 11.35, entitled "Public District", Subdivision
2, to allow private schools as a permitted use and private schools
with boarding as a permitted use, and to require park dedication of
such uses. Location: North of Bryant Lake, west of Rowland Road,
and east of Beach Road and I-494. A continued public hearing.
*(8:40) C. BERNE ADDITION, by Donald P. Berne. Request for Preliminary
Platting of 1.04 acres into two lots, with frontage variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: 7332 Franklin Circle.
A public hearing.
*(8:55) D. TOPVIEW ACRES 5TH ADDITION, by Jerrold T. Miller and Mary A. Miller.
Request for Preliminary Plat of 3.7 acres into six single family
lots and one outlot. Location : Northwest quadrant of Gerard Drive
and Beehive Court. A public hearing.
Agenda
Monday, March 9, 1987
Page Two
*(9: 10) E. PRAIRIE VIEW CENTER 2ND ADDITION, by Prairie View Associates for
Preliminary Plat of 14.6 acres into two lots. Location: North of
Plaza Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
*(9: 25) F. LUNDS CENTER, by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 6.1 acres with variances
to be reviewed by Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 6.1
acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of 59,000
square feet of commercial uses. Location: Southeast corner of
Franlo Road and Prairie Center 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, March 9, 1987
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Robert Hallett, Rich Anderson, Christine
Dodge, Doug Fell
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Chuck Ruebling
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald R. Uram, Assistant
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Dodge to approve the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--3-0-1
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
A. Swearing in of, New Members
Commissioners Rich Anderson and Doug Fell were sworn in by Planner Franzen
for three-year terms, expiring in 1990.
B. Election of Officers
The Commission discussed the election of officers for the 1987 term. They
concurred that it would be appropriate to hold the election of officers at a
meeting of the full Commission.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Fell , to continue the item of
election of officers to the March 23, 1987, agenda.
Motion carried--4-0-0
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Dodge, to approve the minutes of
the February 9, 1987, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Fell abstained)
• Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 9, 1987
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. 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.
Proponents had sent a letter to the City requesting a one-month continuance
of this project at this time.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Dodge, to continue the public
hearing to the April 13, 1987, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--4-0-0
B. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA. Request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential and Public Open Space
to Elementary/Secondary School on 55.6 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to Public on 55.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 55.6
acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of a
private school . The request also includes an amendment of City Code
Chapter 11, Section 11.35, entitled "Public District", Subdivision
2, to allow private schools as a permitted use and private schools
with boarding as a permitted use, and to require park dedication of
such uses. Location: North of Bryant Lake, west of Rowland Road,
and east of Beach Road and I-494. A continued public hearing.
At its meeting of February 23, 1987, the Commission continued the public
hearing on this item pending resolution of several issues.
Ms. Tracey Whitehead, proponent, reviewed the changes made to the plans
since the February 23, 1987, meeting. She stated that proponents had agreed
that the athletic fields would remain unlighted. She added that she
believed it would be possible to work out the details of the right-of-way
needs for the future access to the Crosstown Highway with the County, as
well .
Ms. Whitehead stated that it seemed to be the perception that the
International School had unlimited funds available for the development of
their property. She stated that the school was started by a minister and a
nun years ago, adding that there was no outside income from any other source
than education for the school . Ms. Whitehead stated that too many demands
on the project development would dilute the educational package that was
• planned to be offered. She stated that the gymnasium had already been
eliminated, adding that if the proponents could not afford to develop
because of the demands on them for development, that it may require
returning the property to Kraus-Anderson.
With respect to other amendments that were made since the previous meeting,
• Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 9, 1987
Ms. Whitehead noted that the storm water drainage information had been
completed and submitted to the City Engineer; the parking lot location had
been revised to be an additional 75 ft. away from Bryant Lake; and, grading
along the private access road now included slopes of 3 to 1.
Ms. Whitehead stated that there were four remaining issues regarding the
development plans: 1) Road width--She stated that proponents were suggesting
a compromise of a 28 ft. wide road for the first 800 ft. and then a 32 ft.
wide road beginning at the pool and for the remainder of the road length; 2)
Design of the Crosstown Highway future access to the property; 3) Design of
the roofs for the structures; and 4) Park Dedication requirements for the
development. '
Mr. Jim Steilen, attorney for proponents, stated that the City Staff
insisted that the proponents apply for Public zoning, instead of Commercial
zoning for the proposed use. He stated that proponents believed that this
would reduce the overall property value by 10-20%. He stated that City
Staff was also asking that 20% of the property be dedicated for park
purposes and that approximately 20% be designated for no development and
placed within a conservancy easement. He added that another five acres of
property was necessary -for dedication of the road. Mr. Steilen stated that
this represented 60-70% of the property as being restricted, or dedicated to
the City.
With respect to charging park dedication fees for the use, Mr. Steilen
stated that the law did not allow for difference of treatment between "for
profit" and non-profit uses. He stated that the law also provided that the
use involved must create a need for park land. Mr. Steilen stated that
greater park needs would be created by other uses, such as residential uses,
than would be created by the school. He stated that proponents did not want
to fall into the target sights of other governmental agencies that may want
the property because proponents could not afford it.
Regarding the intersection with the future Crosstown Highway, Mr. Steilen
stated that the City Staff had asked for a "T" design of the intersection.
He stated that there appeared to be confusion about this after the
proponents' discussions with Hennepin County Staff since the City Staff and
the Hennepin County Staff did not seem to agree on an appropriate design.
Mr. Steilen stated that the proponents did not feel that the school should
be responsible for this. He said if the City made a mistake, it should
correct the mistake and not make it a burden on the school .
With respect to the roof design of the structures, Mr. Steilen stated that
the school had been designed with flat roofs. He noted that all the public
schools in Eden Prairie had flat roofs. Mr. Steilen stated that there would
be no pipes sticking out of the roofs. He noted that interior pipe control
structures would be used for erosion control purposes for control of storm
water run-off. Mr. Steilen stated that it was the opinion of the proponents
. that the flat roofs, as designed, were less obtrusive than larger, pitched
roofs for the structures, which were more massive.
Regarding roadway width of the access road through the property, Mr. Steilen
stated that proponents were suggesting a compromise, as depicted in the
exhibit presented for this meeting.
• Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 9, 1987
As to other matters of concern, Mr. Steilen stated that the proponents had
located the parking an additional 75 ft. away from Bryant Lake. He added
that the proponents were also willing to have a scenic easement placed over
the flood plain area.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of March 6, 1987. He noted the following concerns:
1) The internal road was to be 32 ft. wide according to the
recommendations of the City Engineer. Staff had not had an opportunity to
review the proposed alternative suggested by proponents at this meeting.
The alternative would require the review of the City Engineer, as well .
2) The additional 75 ft. of setback to the parking lot from the lake
had been provided by the proponent. However, it would be necessary for the
landscaping and grading plans to be revised to meet Code requirements and
grading needs.
3) It appeared that there was a difference of opinion as to what
"residential character" meant between Staff and .the proponent. Planner
Franzen stated that proponents still believed that the buildings were
designed with residential character, that different roof lines would not
provide residential character to the structures. Planner Franzen stated
that Staff did not believe that providing residential character only meant
different roof lines for the structures, but that it could be accomplished
in other ways, as well .
4) The intersection with the future Crosstown Highway was set based on
the design requested by Hennepin County Transportation Staff. If some other
design could be proven to work, City Staff would be willing to review any
information supporting it.
5) The emergency vehicle access through the Hennepin County Park
Reserve property was considered essential for safety purposes. No progress
had been made as yet by proponents in establishment of such an access.
6) The proponent should provide for conservancy easements over the
wooded areas and slopes in order to protect the natural features of the
property. A covenant, or set of restrictions, would be necessary to
accomplish this.
Planner Franzen stated that the Fire Marshall had requested better
information regarding Phase II development in order to plan for proper
protection of the property at full development.
It was noted that the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission
had recommended that the proponents provide for scenic easements over the
designated flood plain areas and that the proponent be required to pay
• standard cash park fees for the property. Planner Franzen stated that this
would ultimately be a decision for the City Council.
Anderson asked about the reasons for recommendations to provide for scenic
easements and conservancy easements. Planner Franzen stated that this was
considered necessary over the areas described in order to protect the
• Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 9, 1987
natural features of the site and to guarantee that these areas would remain
undisturbed by development in the future.
Anderson asked what Staff considered to be necessary in order to establish
an emergency vehicle access to the property. Planner Franzen stated that,
currently, there was no alternative access available to the property for
emergency vehicles. An easement would be necessary to allow such access
through the Hennepin County Park Reserve property from Rowland Road.
Ms. Whitehead stated that there was an existing easement to the house on the
property allowing access from the house through the Hennepin County Park
Reserve District Bryant Lake Park to Rowland Road. She stated that it was
proponents' position that the easement would transfer.with the property and,
therefore, allow for the emergency vehicle access requested by the City.
Planner Franzen stated that the City would need evidence of this easement to
see if it would allow for emergency vehicle access.
Dodge asked about rationale for the recommendation for payment of cash park
fees from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. Planner
Franzen stated that, Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services, reported
that the Commission made the recommendation based on a determination that
park needs would be created by the use. Also, that Commission was concerned
with equal treatment of developers.
Fell asked about the impact of the grading proposed on the one-acre lot at
the edge of the property. Planner Franzen stated that it would be necessary
to grade in this area in order to accomplish storm water run-off properly.
He stated that there would be no difficulties, if the property was purchased
by the proponent from Hennepin County. However, if it was not purchased
from the County, proponents would actually be grading on property they did
not own and would have to receive permission to do so.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked how many acres of property were involved in
the proposed development with respect to the recommendation of the Parks,
Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission to charge cash park fees.
Planner Franzen stated that the entire property was involved, or
approximately 55 acres. It was possible that the acreage covered by scenic
easement would not be included in the total, thereby reducing the amount of
the fee somewhat.
With respect to the providing residential character to the structures,
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that there appeared to be a simple
disagreement between the proponent and Staff as to what was meant by
"residential character." Mr. Winston Close, architect for proponent,
explained the "stepping" of the structures into the hill . He * stated that
this was done to allow for maximum view of Bryant Lake from each structure,
with each structure being approximately 10-12 ft. higher in elevation than
the next in order to see over the other buildings to the lake.
Ms. Elizabeth Close, Close Architects, stated that the proposed roof line
was designed with both aesthetics and function in mind. She stated that,
due to the slope of the property, erosion control was a very important
consideration. The roofs were designed to control the run-off from rain and
snow melting.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 9, 1987
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he did not believe that the property was
suffering from any "history" on the property with respect to the request for
park dedication. He stated that, originally, when the property was guided
only for Low Density Residential development, the City would have required
park dedication fees for development of the property.
Mr. Gar Hargens, Close Architects, stated that the buildings disappeared
into the topography of the site with flat roofs, and that proponents
believed that the buildings would be much more visible with the massiveness
of pitched roofs. He reiterated concern for control of erosion and storm
water run-off for the property. Mr. Hargens stated that proponents were
strongly opposed to the additional road width recommended by the Staff
Report.
Ms. Harriet Berne, 7332 Franklin Circle, stated that she did not believe tht
a flat roof meant that there was no residential character to a structure.
She stated that there were other flat roofs on single family homes around
Bryant Lake.
Mr. Steilen reiterated his point regarding the charging of park dedication
fees, stating that the law did not allow the City to differentiate between
private and non-private uses. He added that the City could only require
dedication proportionate to the needs created by the use, itself.
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that this matter would be referred directly
to the City Attorney.
Dodge stated that she felt it should be clear that residential character did
not only mean pitched roofs on a structure and that the Commission did not
mean that pitched roofs were the only acceptable way to introduce more
residential character to the structures.
Dodge stated that she did not feel that the proposed Comprehensive Guide
Plan amendment had been substantiated and that there were too many
unresolved issues at this time to recommend approval of the project.
Fell stated that he was concerned about the number of unresolved issues and
that the school may not be an appropriate use if these issues could not be
mitigated. He suggested that more time may be needed in order to handle
these matters.
Anderson stated that he felt the proposed use was an attractive one. He
stated that he felt the charging of park dedication fees was reasonable
based upon how other developers were treated in the community. Anderson
expressed concern regarding the need for an emergency vehicle access. He
stated that he felt the status of the easement referred to by Ms. Whitehead
should be clarified prior to review of the issue by the City Council .
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he, too, felt the use was an attractive
one for the property and that the development could be an asset to the
community. He added that he did not feel that pitched roofs were necessary
in order to provide residential character, particularly since it appeared
that the existing residents in the area had no objections to the style of
the architecture. Regarding the road width, Acting Chairman Hallett stated
• Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 9, 1987
that he supported the City Staff recommendations, unless the compromise
proposed by the developers, which had not been reviewed by the Staff, was
found to be acceptable. He stated that he was also in favor of charging
park dedication fees of the developer.
With respect to the design of the intersection, Acting Chairman Hallett
stated that he felt it should be the responsibility of the City to work out
the design difference with the Hennepin County Transportation Department
Staff and that, if possible, this should be worked out prior to City Council
review of the proposal . He stated that, since this was a difference in
requirements between the County and City Staff, he did not feel the design
of the intersection should be an item that would keep the proponents from
proceeding through the City review process, if at all possible. The other
Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Steilen stated that proponents wanted to proceed forward through the
process, rather than being held up at this time. Acting Chairman Hallett
stated that he felt the project could proceed to the Council, pending
resolution of the various issues by the proponent and Staff prior to review
of the proposal by the Council .
Ms. Whitehead and Mr. Steilen stated that they understood that the
Commission had already acted to recommend approval of the development to the
City Council at its meeting of February 23, 1987. The Staff reported that
the Commission actions were to continue the item to the March 9, 1987,
Planning Commission meeting, and to publish the item for hearing before the
Council at its March 17, 1987, meeting. Also, the Commission had acted to
recommend approval of the necessary City Code amendment to Chapter 11 which
would allow the school as a permitted use in the Public Zoning District,
allow the school , with boarding in that zoning district, and that the use
under either circumstance be charged park dedication fees.
Dodge restated concern that the Comprehensive Guide Plan not be amended
without adequate substantiation. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if she felt
it was the use, itself, that was a problem, or the fact that the issues had
not yet been resolved, that was of major concern. Dodge stated that it was
the fact that the issues had not yet been resolved. Acting Chairman Hallett
stated that he concurred, that the use was acceptable, but that the issues
needed resolution.
The Commission discussed the development and enumerated the issues requiring
resolution. During discussion of the traffic considerations, Planner
Franzen stated that additional data regarding traffic would be helpful . He
stated that Staff would be comfortable with the "T" design for the
intersection with future Crosstown Highway, but that they would be willing
to review any alternatives if the proponents had evidence that they would
work. Planner Franzen stated that the City could also contact with one of
their traffic consultants regarding these issues for advice.
Fell asked if proponents intended to light the athletic fields. Ms.
Whitehead stated that they would not do so.
Dodge stated that she felt the proponents should return to the City for
review of any future development plans for Phases II and III. In addition,
• Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 9, 1987
she stated that she concurred that development should not be allowed in any
area designated for conservancy.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Fell, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of International School of Minnesota for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential and
Public Open Space to Elementary/Secondary School on 55.6 acres for a private
school, based on plans and written materials dated February 17, and March 6,
1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated February 20,
and March 6, 1987, and subject to the resolution of the following issues:
1) Width of the access road shall be 32 ft., unless, after working with
City Staff, . it is determined by the City Engineer that the
alternative road width proposed by the proponent, or some other
compromise, is acceptable for safety and traffic purposes.
i2) Park dedication fees shall be paid, assuming equal treatment and
consistency of such requirements for all developers.
3) Proponent shall furnish available information regarding the existing
easement from the property to the Hennepin County Park Reserve
District Bryant Lake Regional Park, which is to function as an
emergency vehicle access for the property. If it is found that the
easement is not adequate for City use as an emergency vehicle
access, proponent shall make necessary arrangements to allow such
access by City emergency vehicles.
4) The design of the access to the property from future Crosstown
Highway shall be coordinated between City Staff, County Staff, and
the proponent.
5) More residential character shall be introduced to the structures.
It is not necessary that it be accomplished through pitched roof
lines on the structures, but other roof lines, or materials may be
used.
6) Development within the Conservancy Area, the designated flood plain,
and in wooded areas shall be restricted. Proponents shall work with
the City Staff to determine the most appropriate method to
accomplish this (i .e. easement, dedication, covenants, etc.)
7) Future phases, beyond Phase I development, shall be subject to
Planning Commission and Council site plan review, prior to issuance
of any building permit for any future phase beyond Phase I.
Motion carried--4-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 9, 1987
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of International School for Minnesota for
Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 55.6 acres for a private
school, based on plans and written materials dated February 17, and March 6,
1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated February 20,
and March 6, 1987, and subject to the resolution of the following issues:
1) Width of the access road shall be 32 ft., unless, after working with
City Staff, it is determined by the City Engineer that the
alternative road width proposed by the proponent, or some other
compromise, is acceptable for safety and traffic purposes.
2) Park dedication fees shall be paid, assuming equal treatment and
consistency of such requirements for all developers.
3) Proponent shall furnish available information regarding the existing
easement from the property to the Hennepin County Park Reserve
District Bryant Lake Regional Park, which is to function as an
emergency vehicle access for the property. If it is found that the
easement is not adequate for City use as an emergency vehicle
access, proponent shall make necessary arrangements to allow such
access by City emergency vehicles. .
4) The design of the access to the property from future Crosstown
Highway shall be coordinated between City Staff, County Staff, and
the proponent.
5) More residential character shall be introduced to the structures.
It is not necessary that it be accomplished through pitched roof
lines on the structures, but other roof lines, or materials may be
used.
6) Development within the Conservancy Area, the designated flood plain,
and in wooded areas shall be restricted. Proponents shall work with
the City Staff to determine the most appropriate method to
accomplish this (i.e. easement, dedication, covenants, etc.)
7) Future phases, beyond Phase I development, shall be subject to
Planning Commission and Council site plan review, prior to issuance
of any building permit for any future phase beyond Phase I.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of International School of Minnesota for
Preliminary Plat of 55.6 acres into one lot and road right-of-way for
construction of a private school, based on plans and written materials dated
February 17, and March 6, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Reports dated February 20, and March 6, 1987, and subject to the resolution
of the following issues:
. Planning Commission Minutes 10 March 9, 1987
1) Width of the access road shall be 32 ft., unless, after working with
City Staff, it is determined by the City Engineer that the
alternative road width proposed by the proponent, or some other
compromise, is acceptable for safety and traffic purposes.
2) Park dedication fees shall be paid, assuming equal treatment and
consistency of such requirements for all developers.
3) Proponent shall furnish available information regarding the existing
easement from the property to the Hennepin County Park Reserve
District Bryant Lake Regional Park, which is to function as an
emergency vehicle access for the property. If it is found that the
easement is not adequate for City use as an emergency vehicle
access, proponent shall make necessary arrangements to allow such
access by City emergency vehicles.
4) The design of the access to the property from future Crosstown
Highway shall be coordinated between City Staff, County Staff, and
the proponent.
5) More residential character shall be introduced to the structures.
It is not necessary that it be accomplished through pitched roof
lines on the structures, but other roof lines, or materials may be
46 used.
6) Development within the Conservancy Area, the designated flood plain,
and in wooded areas shall be restricted. Proponents shall work with
the City Staff to determine the most appropriate method to
accomplish this (i.e. easement, dedication, covenants, etc.)
7) Future phases, beyond Phase I development, shall be subject to
Planning Commission and Council site plan review, prior to issuance
of any building permit for any future phase beyond Phase I.
Motion carried--4-0-0
C. BERNE ADDITION, by Donald P. Berne. Request for Preliminary
Platting of 1.04 acres into two lots, with frontage variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: 7332 Franklin Circle.
A public hearing.
Planner Uram explained that this proposal involved the platting of a small
parcel surrounded by an existing subdivision. He noted that it would be
necessary for the proponent to receive frontage variances for the lots from
the Board of Appeals.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
• Planning Commission Minutes 11 March 9, 1987
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Donald P. Berne for Preliminary Plat of
1.04 acres to be known as the Berne Addition, for two lots, with frontage
variances to be reviewed by - the Board of Appeals, based on plans dated
February 20, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of
March 6, 1987.
Motion carried--4-0-0
D. TOPVIEW ACRES 5TH ADDITION, by Jerrold T. Miller and Mary A. Miller.
Request for Preliminary Plat of 3.7 acres into six single family
lots and one outlot. Location: Northwest quadrant of Gerard Drive
and Beehive Court. A public hearing.
Planner Uram explained that this property represented a remnant parcel from
a previous subdivision reviewed by the City in 1979. He noted that all lots
met the requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning District and explained how the
City's Tree Replacement Policy would impact the site.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if the neighborhoods in this area were ever
proposed to be connected by a trail system. Planner Uram stated that there
were no plans made at the time of development of this area.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell , to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Jerrold and Mary Miller for Preliminary Plat of
3.7 acres to be known as Topview Acres 5th Addition for six single family
lots and one outlot, based on plans dated February 18, 1987, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 6, 1987.
Motion carried--4-0-0
E. PRAIRIE VIEW CENTER 2ND ADDITION, by Prairie View Associates for
Preliminary Plat of 14.6 acres into two lots. Location: North of
Plaza Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
Planner Uram reviewed the request with the Commission, noting that the
proponent had submitted revised plans for the meeting and that Staff had not
had an opportunity to review the revised plans.
Mr. Mark Rooney, Prairie View Associates, stated that the plan submitted
originally showed three lots for this development, but that Lot 3 was a non-
• Planning Commission Minutes 12 March 9, 1987
conforming lot because it did not have frontage on a public street. This
would require a variance from the Board of Appeals. Mr. Rooney stated that
he felt this was too complicated, especially considering that it was still
unknown at this time as to what the use would be for this lot. He stated
that the main reason for the platting request at this time was to add more
property into the existing lot for purposes of providing adequate parking
for one of the tenants in the existing structure. Mr. Rooney stated that,
at such time as a user was known for Lot 3, he would return to the City for
review and that he would make certain, at that time, that the lot size for
the use was appropriate.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Prairie View Associates for Preliminary Plat of
14.6 acres into two lots to be known as the Prairie View Center 2nd
Addition, based on revised plans dated March 9, 1987, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 6, 1987.
Motion carried--4-0-0
F. LUNDS CENTER, by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 6.1 acres with variances
to be reviewed by Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 6.1
acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of 59,000
square feet of commercial uses. Location: Southeast corner of
Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. David Shea, architect for proponents, stated that proponents had
reviewed the Staff Report and believed that the majority of the
recommendations, such as those dealing with landscaping, screening, etc.,
were items that proponents would be willing to comply with, or that could be
worked out with the Staff. With respect to traffic, however, Mr. Shea
stated that there appeared to be a need for additional information.
Therefore, he stated that proponents were requesting a continuance of this
item in order to have this information prepared.
Planner Franzen stated that Staff concurred that traffic was the major issue
with this proposal. He stated that it may be necessary to have the City's
traffic consultant involved, as well, since the Major Center Area traffic
study prepared by the City's consultant was the basis for the Staff
recommendations on this matter. Planner Franzen stated that Staff would be
willing to look at any evidence provided by the proponents which would
support their traffic projections.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 March 9, 1987
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt this would be an appropriate use
in the Major Center Area. Anderson agreed.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Fell , to contine the public hearing
to the April 13, 1987, Planning Commission meeting pending receipt of
additional traffic data from proponents and review of the information by
City Staff.
Motion carried--4-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Dodge. Acting Chairman
Hallett adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.