Loading...
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.