Loading...
Planning Commission - 10/25/2004 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, William Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Al Gray, City Engineer; Mike Franzen, City Planner; Julie Krull, Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Brooks, Koenig, Nelson, Rocheford, Seymour, Stoelting, and Stoltz. Absent: Kacher and Sutherland II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. III. MINUTES A. COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 Koenig requested a change to the minutes as follows: page 4, paragraph 6, should read: Koenig asked if conservation easements would have any relevance to the ordinance the Board was discussing. Schmieg responded by stating that this would have no relevance to conservation easements; that it's primarily aesthetic and based upon structures. MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Koenig. Motion carried 6-0. Nelson abstained IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS A. THE HARTFORD CAMPUS by Hartford Group, Inc. at Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 2 This is an informational meeting to discuss a plan by the developer to build 22 townhouses and a 24,800 square foot office building. Frank Janes, General Counsel of the Hartford Group, conducted the presentation. Assisting Janes was Patrick Sarvert, landscape architect and director of land developing and planning for the Hartford Group, which is located at 12100 Singletree Drive. Janes stated that the Hartford Group is a locally based mixed use development company that develops parcels in the area of 20 to 100 acres with mixed use projects incorporating housing styles, senior housing, residential retail and commercial uses and are very strong proponents of new urbanism. He stated that this project is a bit different for the Group because it's on a smaller parcel of land, approximately 2.6 acres. Hartford Group has an interest in this project for the location of their corporate offices. The area for this site is at the southwest corner of Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road. It is made up of three separate parcels. One parcel is owned by Robert Bouten and the other two parcels on the south side are owned by a limited liability company, called Marianus, Scotus. Janes stated that their proposal would be to combine the parcels and develop the land with two principal uses. On the corner of the site fronting Prairie Center Drive and Franlo, Janes proposed an office building of approximately 24,800 sq. feet, which would constitute the new corporate headquarters for the Hartford Group. He stated that they would occupy a third of the building initially and use the rest of the building for office suites. The remainder of the site on the south side would be proposed for a higher density residential use. Janes stated that having a residential site would act as a buffer and a transition to more residential uses. Currently the sight is guided for regional commercial uses and Janes stated that by taking the corner of the site and leaving that as a commercial use and then having an alternate zoning for the southern portion to a higher density residential, that it would provide a more positive use for the site, given that it would provide for a transition into the residential uses behind it. Currently there are two single-family homes on the site. Janes stated that the information presented was more of a summary but that the Hartford Group would be asking for a PUD and some changes to the existing zoning requirements, as they pertain to the building with regards to setbacks and exterior building materials in exchange to provide a more comprehensive project. Those details would certainly be part of a discussion and would be submitted in further detail with the formal application. Janes stated that because of the topography of the site and the parking situation that they would propose a shared parking situation between the town home residential site and the office site to a small extent to accommodate the parking requirements. In that regard, the Hartford Group is very interested in maximizing the look of the site and making sure that the development and property looks good because it is a Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 3 representation of the company and the neighborhood. Janes stated that they would be very proactive both in the planning of the site and in its operation and use down the road. He stated that there were examples in the packets. Janes stated that was an overview of their project and that their intent is to listen to what the residents have to say. That they want to be respective and responsive and to try and create a development of this site that makes sense both for Hartford Group as the user and for the City of Eden Prairie and also the community surrounding it so that it works for everybody. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen responded by stating that it might be beneficial if the developer could show the site plan on the overhead document camera so that the people in the audience could see what they are proposing and what it might look like. Patrick Sarvert presented the plan on the overhead document camera. He stated that Franlo Road is on the east side of the site, and the edge of Prairie Center Drive is along the north side, with the commercial development located on the west side of the site. He also stated that 30 feet of the proposed Medcom Boulevard is under the existing platting of the south development; as could be seen by the presentation. The color rendering of the presentation shows that there will be a substantial tree loss, but Sarvert stated that they will save as many trees as possible, given the topography of the site and the grading of the proposed Medcom Boulevard. Sarvert went on to say that the office building will be two stories of offices with two floors of underground parking. He also stated that because of the configuration of the building, it provides a unique opportunity to mitigate grade across the site. There will also be a major architectural feature located at the entrance to the building; this would be a detailed landscape and two-story glass elevation to provide a prominent introduction to the building. There will also be the same feature on the other side of the building, which will create an architectural presence and identity. Sarvert stated that Hartford's hope was to provide architectural variety along the side of the building so that it has more of a row home appeal. Franzen stated that there are a lot of questions in the staff report but that they can be grouped into three categories; working from very general down to the specific. The first question would be what is the best use of the site. This site has very little exposure on Prairie Center Drive, which creates more of a residential character than commercial. It is even more prevalent at nighttime coming from all the commercial light. Franzen continued by stating that when the Board starts looking at compelling reasons to change the guide plan, the site is so small that it is difficult to see some of the clear and obvious reasons that can be seen in the larger proposals. Franzen stated that when you get into a small site the reason to change the guide plan falls in the category of what is the most compatible use for the particular area. He also stated Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 4 that when he looks at this site he feels it has the potential to be hybrid site; a soft commercial office on the corner, and residential on the south side. Franzen stated that the next question would be how intensely should you develop the site. He stated that the site has a hill and it full of trees; which is part of the site's character. And when looking at this particular project the question that needs to be addressed is, is the impact on this site due to the fact that its a slope or is the impact created by the proposal being developed more intensely than what the code requires. Franzen's suggestion would be to look at the site plan developed as commercial and a commercial center in this site would be about 21,000 sq. ft., which is very similar to the Applebee's Restaurant. And then if you take the proposal and if you complied with the setbacks and the density requirements, what would the impact be? If the impact ends up being the same it is not really a development proposal that is causing the tree loss; it has to do with the fact that it is on a hill. Franzen stated that the third question would be whether or not there are reasons for granting the waivers. He stated that the reasons should be clear and obvious. Hartford Commons was used as an example because of the land use compatibility issue. There were some waivers that were granted for the density, but the tradeoff for the density was not just that of the land use change but the physical expression of the project. Franzen stated that he is not convinced at this point that there are enough architectural reasons to grant the waivers because the plan seems to have more of an apartment appearance than a condominium or townhouse appearance. Stoelting asked Franzen if there was a history associated with the road that would be of any benefit or understanding. Franzen stated that Al Gray would have additional information on that subject. Gray stated that Medcom Road went back to the transportation plan of 1996 and there could be found an element in there of the Medcom Boulevard extension. The Franlo Road also goes back to prior of 1996. That is some of the basic history. Franzen opened the discussion up to the Public Hearing. Brent Mattson of 11971 Tiffany Lane presented a power point presentation. Mattson lives on the southwest corner of Franlo Road and Tiffany Lane;just southeast of where the proposed development is to be located. Mattson stated that he has been a resident of Eden Prairie for 8 years and even though he had the opportunity to leave Eden Prairie he chose not to because of the neighborhood feel of the Tiffany Lane/Eden Hills town home complex. He stated that his town home complex consists of 40 plus residents, including parents, children and retirees. The active association reflects the strong sense of community and they are interested in maintaining a good neighbor feeling. Mattson stated that the residents are attracted Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 5 to the proximities provided by the Eden Prairie Center,but also the fact that they have a secluded and private atmosphere. He stated that they have a few concerns with the proposed development. This first is in the area of the neighborhood itself and the second has to do with the Medcom extension. Mattson stated that the association did like that there is space for a residential transition to the area but that the look of the units would be incompatible with the neighborhood look. They are also concerned with the loss of trees. As for the Medcom extension, there is a concern for additional traffic volume. Mattson stated that they would propose a maintenance of the required 35 foot setback to push the residential units back and they would also like to see more tree preserved. Also, a request for a stoplight at Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive to accommodate the additional traffic volume. Meg Smith of 11955 Tiffany Lane stated that she had the same concerns as Brent Mattson but one point she wanted to make was the need for the stoplight at Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. She stated this was discussed in the council meeting when the final plans for the library were being done and at that time she stated the Board approved a light but it has not been put up yet and she is concerned about that. Doug Mertz of 11933 Tiffany Lane stated that he also has a concern with the additional traffic flow that the Medcom extension would generate and he also would like to see a stop light at Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. Jeff Saunders of 8500 Franlo had some questions. His deck is the closest to the project and he would like to know if these units would be rental units or town homes. The next question was who was going to build the road and would there be any privacy fences put up. Steve Curusa, who lives at the Eden Hills Condominium complex stated that this is not a bad concept mixing commercial and residential but he feels that it is very high density for this particular area. And the additional traffic is also a concern. Stoelting summarized the comments by stating that one of the issues that was heard was that the intersection of Franlo and Prairie Center Drive was a major concern. There was a comment on the traffic light there and we can have staff address some of the past decisions of the City Council as it related to the traffic light. There was also a question as to who is going to build the road. Will the City build the road or will the project proponent be building the road and then a discussion of the traffic flow. Tiffany Lane had a blind entrance and access was a little dangerous and would this development increase the traffic flow and would these residents on Tiffany Lane experience more of a traffic flow problem. There are a lot of issues associated with the waivers on the setbacks and if we could get a project proponent to talk about the waivers that we are requesting here, and also to hear more about the setbacks and why the need for those waivers. There was also a question about rentals versus ownership and an issue of privacy fences and trees. Stoelting requested the project proponent address these issues. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 6 Frank Janes, with the Hartford Group, started out by stating that they proposed a 15- foot setback and the reason for that was that the site is limited by its dimensions and that they are trying to create a driving circulation so that they will be able to comply with the specific parking requirements of the City. If the setbacks are pushed back to 35 feet there would perhaps not even be enough room for a building, let alone the landscape buffer. If we went with just one building with six or eight units then we are dealing with site economics of the acquisition and the building costs versus whether it would make fiscal sense to do the project in the first place. Janes stated that what Harford proposed would be to maximize the use of the site while still retaining beneficial characteristics of landscaping and trying to fit it in so that the parking works and the drive circulations works and the site esthetics works as best as possible. With regards to trees, there will be a significant loss of trees because there is a significant amount of trees on the site. The way this site is zoned and guided now as a commercial use, a potential alternative would be a retail strip center or something with a major commercial user on the end, with about a 20,000 square foot use given the size of this entire site. But in doing that, in order to meet the parking requirements, the entire site would have to be graded and dealt with in order to utilize that use. Janes stated that their proposal of putting residential back there mitigates that, than rather having a big parking lot around the site, you have residential units which soften it and transition better into the other higher density uses that have joined the site. Stoelting asked if Janes could address the issue of fencing and retaining walls. Janes stated that as far as what the site would require, given the topography, there is about a forty-foot difference in heights from the high point on the southeast corner to the low point on the northeast corner. There would be 8-12 feet of retaining wall required in order to provide for the appropriate topography. Janes stated that some calculations have been done and if the site were to be a complete retail site, for example, a strip mall with parking, there would have to be a more significant retaining wall. There will also be some retaining wall issues just because of the sloping nature of the site. As far as fencing, Janes did not think they were proposing any. Stoelting asked Janes about the ownership issue. Janes stated that currently they are proposing to construct these buildings themselves or sell the site to a town home developer to construct for sale town homes to the extent that they would have individual property identification numbers and could be marketed to individuals one unit at a time. At this point, given the economics of the situation, one or two buildings could be sold to an investor who may or may not operate them as rental townhouses. But they would be a rental property to the extent that they would be an apartment building. Janes stated that it would be their intent to have them sold as for sale units up front. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 7 Stoelting asked Janes what type of individual would they sell the units to. Janes stated that the target price for the units would be approximately $250,000 and so they would be targeting individuals looking to enter into such type of units. Stoelting asked Janes what type of demographics they would be looking for. Janes stated that they will have 2 to 3 bedroom units so they would be marketed to individuals who want to live in this area and benefit from the proximity of the commercial areas. We would target people who would be interested in an upscale town home with underground parking. Stoelting asked Franzen and the City staff to address the issue of the roads and traffic situation. Al Gray responded by stating that the City is working with MNDot to reconstruct the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Hwy 212. Bids were taken for this project in the fall but because of the bidding condition at the time and the time frame of the project, the City has elected to reject those bids and re-bid in spring. When this project is completed it will double the left turn lanes to the lights at the intersection; this should handle the high volume turning movements that occur there and eliminate the backing up onto Franlo Road. That project should start next summer. The next issue would be that of the Medcom Boulevard extension. We have to look at it from all different viewpoints and see if it will be a benefit for both the residential and commercial areas that center around Joiner Way and Medcom Boulevard. Gray stated that at the current time they have begun an overall study of the area, which includes a look at the future land alternatives and traffic. In that study, they will look at each of the current intersections, their current traffic capacity, and their operating problems that they may have. They will also look at traffic volumes, accident rates and severity. They will also address the issue of signalization. This is not always a solution for an intersection and most studies show that signalization doesn't necessarily reduce accidents, in fact, in some cases it may increase them. Gray stated that one factor that contributes to the accident rate is volume. Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road are going to have a large traffic volume, which will result in a certain amount of accidents. Gray stated that they will be looking at that and also what to do in conjunction with all the intersections in the area. The decision to signalize this intersection or not is not centered around this project but rather asking the question, is it an appropriate thing to do for the overall traffic and at what point and time should we do that. Stoelting asked the audience if there was any issue that was missed. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 8 Jeff Sanuders, at 8500 Franlo,replied by stating that his question about the fence issue was not for the developer because it was between Medom Boulevard and Eden Hills Condominiums. He stated that he was asking if there would be a privacy fence from Medcom Boulevard along Eden Hills Condominiums. Rocheford asked Gray just how large of an impact this improvement on Prairie Center Drive and Hwy 212 is going to have on the traffic that is going north and south and would this alleviate any traffic on Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. Gray responded by stating that it will significantly reduce the traffic backing up at the intersection of westbound Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road, particularly the left turn lanes. The project will provide more intersection capacity for those movements through the Prairie Center Drive and Hwy 212 intersection and will provide more storage volume because there will be a double left turn lane in that direction rather then the current single left turn lane. One point that was not brought up previously was the fact that there is more volume on these roads due to the fact that some of the ramps were closed for construction on 494; so some of the traffic coming off of 494 tended to exit onto Prairie Center Drive in a larger volume that might not ordinarily occur. We need to wait until 494 is back up and running and all of the entrance and exit ramps are operating and let traffic settle back into the normal patterns and then look and see what the traffic volume is in the area. Rocheford responded by stating that a traffic light was put up across from Von Maur,by Petsmart, to allow all the traffic to come out of all the multi-family areas that are back there to the east. Rocheford states that there seems to be more of a volume of traffic coming out of the Franlo area and asked if that was a correct assumption. Gray responded by stating that he didn't have the exact numbers but that is was probably a correct assumption. The difference between the two areas is that the area of Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road has a connection to Preserve Boulevard on the east side and Medcom Boulevard would be a third alternative. The residential area by Von Maur does not have another alternative so that was one of the factors that warranted a signal. Brooks stated that his concern for the use of this property would be the density that it brings to the area and because the waivers asked for does not see enough benefit to the City in approving the project as presented. At present, Brooks feels that he doesn't know that he could be in favor of this project. Nelson commented that this space is too dense; 15-foot setbacks leading into a commercial area with shared parking that is a long way away from the units doesn't work. There will be an attempt for people to park on the street so they can be near the front doors of their town homes. Nelson also stated that there would be too much tree loss and feels that there should be some green space where people are Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 9 living. Another concern is that even though these units are large enough for families, there is no play space. The main play space would be the parking lot of the office building. Nelson questions whether this is the right development for this site and stated that she has no problem with this site staying commercial. Koenig stated that she agreed with Nelson that the density is overwhelming. Her concern is that this is a quiet neighborhood right now and for this plan to work she wants to see some type of buffer between this neighborhood and whatever is put adjacent to it. Stoelting commented from the staff reports that there seems to be a lot of issues that the Board is raising that revolve around the discussion points that have been outlined for us. The central issue seems to be the question of what is the best use for this site. Should the site be either all commercial, all office, all residential or a combination. The difficulty of looking at the combination is that it is just too dense. There does not seem to be compelling reasons to change this plan. I would like the Board to address the three questions that were outlined in the staff report. Koenig state that she would like some examples of what might theoretically go in there in terms of commercial. Franzen responded by stating that it would be community commercial versus regional commercial, so as to be more localized in terms of traffic patterns. When looking at commercial usage the City needs to look at the lighting impacts, the loading and trash facilities and the noise impact that this will have on the site. As in terms of square footage for this site, it could possibly fit 21,000 sq. ft.,but that is not considering the trees or the slope of this site. Stoltz stated that he is not convinced that the architecture of the proposed buildings fit in the area. He also expressed concern over the traffic issue and stated that it should be resolved regardless of acceptance of this plan. Stoltz stated that overall he would lean more towards commercial versus a combination because it would be a better fit; but also that it would need to be scaled back and with less tree loss. Stoltz stated that he is not 100% convinced that this project is a good fit for the area. Seymour stated that he liked the idea of a combination of residential and commercial because there is a buffer to the neighborhood but feels that the site is too small for both. Having all office would also fit and would be beneficial because they are not there on the weekends. Seymour also stated that he is uncomfortable with the tree loss on site and feels that there are not any compelling reasons for the change in the guide plan and how it is laid out. Stoelting questioned Seymour as to whether Seymour wanted to leave the guide plan as is, which is regional commercial. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 10 Seymour responded by stating that at this point, that was his answer. But he would also be comfortable with residential if it was not for the density issue. Koenig stated that she agreed with Seymour in not changing the guide plan at this point. Koenig stated that it is a bad corner for all residential and in terms of commercial she would be concerned with traffic and noise. Because of that, office would be a better alternative. She stated that there was also a concern with the shared parking. Koenig expressed that she would like to see a different plan or this one changed somehow, if at all possible. Nelson stated that she could see a possibility of mixed commercial with residential, like the building over by Old Chicago Restaurant where the first floor is commercial and the residential is above it. Nelson stated that it could conceivably work on this site in a different configuration. She stated that her first choice would be some kind of carefully picked commercial, second choice would be office, third choice would be mixed and last choice would be residential. At this time, there is no compelling reason to change the guide plan. Brooks stated that since it is guided regional commercial, it would be a fine use of this property. He also stated that what is proposed today might be a better fit for the residents. Brooks stated that he believes that this is not the best project for this site, given the density and other issues discussed. He stated he sees no compelling reason to change the guide plan for this project. Stoelting asked the Board if there were any issues with the waivers. Brooks stated he felt the same way about the waivers as he did about the density issue. Rocheford stated the he sees no compelling reason to change the guide plan. He stated that the best use for this site would be commercial,possibly a restaurant. Rocheford stated he would be in favor of extending the road to give another outlet off of Franlo Road. Stoelting summarized by stating that the Board would not see any compelling reasons to change the guide plan from regional commercial. He stated that he heard a lot of concerns about the density of the residential part and that the Board would be looking for some significant design changes in this proposal. Janes responded by thanking the Board members and stated that they would like the opportunity to come back with a revised proposal. Stoelting closed the informational meeting and recessed for five minutes. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 11 A. VARIANCE#2004-15 by Mary Lou and Richard Carlson at 10129 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota for an expansion of a non-conforming use of the property. Cory Miskawits, a designer with Sawhorse Builders, stated that they were called out to look at the home at 10129 Eden Prairie Road to enlarge the property by putting on a second floor over an existing walkout basement. The home had originally been designed like a prairie style with a lot of stone features stretched out overlooking the river valley. It was never completed. What we planned was to complete the plan and alleviate some of the problems that were occurring. One being that water was standing on the flat roof. We would plan to fill in this flat roof. When we applied for the permit we were told that the site was not buildable for what we were asking for. We were told that if we wanted to do this it needed to be 10 acres and this was 2, so that is the variance we are asking for. We will not be expanding the house or taking down any trees. Stoelting asked, as part of the variance review, what is the hardship of trying to meet these regulations. Miskawits stated that the residents wanted to finish the home and add a larger living room and office to the main floor,rather than the basement, and create a house with a main floor and a walk-out basement. The original owners had put on an addition of the second floor but did not comply with the original plan. The hardship problems are the water problems and the flat roof. Stoelting asked that Franzen review the staff report. Franzen stated that it was unfortunate that 1/2 of the house was built there and if they had built the second addition before changing the code to 5 acres it would have been a conforming house on a conforming lot. Franzen added that the staff report lists multiple reasons for considering the variance, including the site is in the MUSA line, the footprint is not larger and no trees are impacted. Stoelting opened the meeting to the public. There was no public input. Nelson stated that this was a reasonable request. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Brooks to close this public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Brooks to recommend approval of an expansion of a non-conforming usage of the property at 10129 Eden Prairie Road. Motion carried 7-0. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 12 B. DAIRY QUEEN GRILL AND CHILL,by Frauenshuh Companies at 8868 Aztec Drive. Nick Speredies, an architect with Wellman Speredies Architect, presented the project to the Board. He stated that the Dairy Queen Grill and Chill, which is a new concept, was formally Dairy Queen. The new Grill and Chill is a casual dining atmosphere and that it is different than the old fast food Dairy Queen. He stated that they created an opportunity to develop this site adjacent to Amoco on Anderson Lakes Parkway and Aztec Drive. Sparedies stated that they previously met with the Planning Staff and are returning with an improved site plan. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated there is one minor item that needs to be addressed before the City Council and that would be to screen the parking lot with a berm, a wall, fence or other plantings. Stoelting opened the meeting to the public. There was no public input. Nelson asked if this restaurant had a drive-thru. Speredies responded that is does. Nelson asked if the signage was conforming to code. Franzen replied that they are reviewed at the time the building permit is issued, so unless they requested a waiver in size, it should be conforming. Koenig questioned how the other restaurants were doing in Minnesota. Tom Lehman, from the Frauenshuh Hospitality Group, stated that this concept has been well received by consumers. It has an up-scale menu in a family orientated restaurant versus the fast food atmosphere. It has a very inviting dining area and is competitive with other restaurants. Koenig asked if all the Dairy Queens were converting. Lanman responded that at some point they will. Stoltz asked about a time frame for this project. Lehman stated that they would like to have the project completed by May 30, 2005. Stoltz asked why this particular location was chosen. Lehman responded that this one is a good mix of residential and has the traffic flow that would serve the demographics of the customer base. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson to close this public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Planning Board Minutes October 25, 2004 Page 13 MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson to recommend a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on .84 acres, a Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on .84 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Community Commercial Zoning District on .84 acres, Site Plan Review on .84 acres. Motion carried 7-0. VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS Koenig questioned Franzen about the Transit Hub apartments and if they went to condominiums. Franzen stated they did go to condominiums and it does not require any City legislative action for them to use them as condos or rentals. It would be whatever the market could handle. They do have a time frame for filling up the building and if it is not met they go back to rental units. Stoeltz questioned Franzen about the reconstruction that was suppose to take place at Amoco. Franzen responded by stating that he has not heard anything back from Amoco about continuing the project. IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen stated that there are two items for the report. The first one is that he received plans for the fountain at Fountain Place and it will be located in the little nook between the retail building and the strip mall on the south side of the complex. The second item will be addressed at the next meeting. It is for re-approval of a variance that the Planning Commission has granted to Enterprise Car Rental to operate cars for lease at the Anderson Lake Shopping Center. Their three-year term is up for renewal. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks to adjourn the Planning Board meeting of October 25, 2004, at 9:12 p.m. Motion carried 7-0. Franzen informed the Planning Board there would be no November 8, 2004, meeting.