HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-22-1981Page1`
3`L k3Y i ft C s# x P9V3€
Citty of lut
April 221, 198",
The a ineeting of the Plwnouth nlanning Cutmmission was called to order in the
Council h mb r of the Plyak-outh City Center at 3400 Plymouth Boulevard at 7.04
P.M. y "Ci ry mia n Vi i cru
MT,UQSERS X3 11 C }.'[ ilnr St rro
suNrr PREM . Ctmmuni y Development Di t r Blair Treniere, C.rtmuni y Develop-
iapnt Coordinator Sara, *M1cConn,, City Engineer Fred 114,bore rr
l rear rrg_ Se*;retary Barbara Anderson
PUBLIC HIARI
n.awx=uuxty.x.xsw.mrt.
The ftem r r rChairwoman r rr r requested DENTIALINSURANCE
to review tip t,)rt*l 17, 1931 staff r port . She mated that there COMPANY- MIND PRE -
had been a a It i rrg earlier in the day at Hennepin County among ' LIKINARY PLAi L r ,
County ransportation staff',, the petitioner.,, the petitioner's R NG,Gtr G,,
ions l tint) the Assistant Cady Engineer,,; nd the City's Traffic
Cops, t She to the Commission
AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (80062) i . asked staff inform if any new
information was presented t this hearing as a result that
meet i nq,
Chair om-an Vasil i n recognized Mr. Dickman and Mr. Mike
l aero who represented the petitioner And who presented asl'ide
presentatin regarding tyre site end several other large, ,!l
uv el opmn r demia lnsuraItle,omparry. has developed through-
out he country. Mr. _ Knutson explained the revisions which have
been made to the Cameral Development Plan subsequent- to the City
Council approval of the Coicept Plan.
Mr,, Knutson explained the proposed rpii- --itructl`oll schedule
nd referred to the project; phasing Brat*- k, xhibi
noted that n that exhibit the. year 1983 shoold be substituted
for 1982*
He stated that discussions;brad4n, held with the Department
Na-Wral Resources r pyrdi ngbre mod1fication of the we # "d areas
also referred to the traffic tirculaMon data in the net*
tanner' booklet(including Exhibit Wand e that one
difference between the petitioner's traffic analysis and h
conducted by °rareiIty was the projected r f , generationation t-om
the ri m y and frot'n, Vie south.
Mr. K:i€.soddalso a4S"!Yx#i,*t 4r #++ the. Ti ## fA.AF iI1B% in
the northwest torner of the site rioting that tyre proposed guid-
ing, CL, w consistent with the, already aper° v gc r n o the
99—
Manning Commission Minn es
2, 198,11
Page 100
aimama n Vasil iou cited the, -Ci t -Y Council it c i as. to Consider-
t.
I ng 'ble, rogt;W ng arr"I that -
15 -
171 shout d be cons i de s art f tune
uis hearing discasqioft-
ChairwomanVasilioa alsoindicated tbat the Commission had received
th.* sum.mary of the traffic study drape for the City # fir,,
Rvinshoof who she introduced.
Cha.nioraan Vasiliou alsonoted that a number rr 1hr arars had called
inquiringt the -,mr*ci a ` uses conte-alplated in the
d jpmra . She revievied Cotincils e ar No. 81-89and
particularly condition relative the mixx caabmercial usps
Staff
I
reviewed the issues before Commission for the second
stage of the "PUD Preliminary Plan/Plat, Rezoning,, Coalitional Use
4' r,n zaf Requidig.
cbain.loman Vasiliou noted, thalt a letter had been received `r olm the
State.Departrent. of Transportation on Agri l22, 191,11 and thatno
formal input had been received r m Hennepin *Clounty. Staff indicated
that (-*0unty had been provided with a set of the submitted plans
an- hsd been involved i t the research conduced by he City'
Traffic Consultant 6ur7nq the development of the report.
Conmaissioner Wire commented on the height of proposed buildings i n
terms`of ordinance maxinum heightstandards and, s Of motel that
tri lar height standards could be establishedf(.r a planned unit
m ent.
ty Enqiieer Fred Moore brieflynevi Adel the traffic report and
the rng'A nis %moranduiiii and commented hat the meeting held
earlier in the day at Hennnepin 11.ounty had apparently been requested
by the petitionerls consultant but that the, raun had called the
City that nnrrr rag and asked that a City representative als present.
Chairwoman V sil iou again recognized Mr. Jifa Bensf%,00f Who commented
in detail on the submitted traffic study. He revievied specifically
the r c%omm nc road improvements wtri a should s a" i sued before
Phase I occupancy and thecritical nature af the proposed northerly
intersection wi a (new) Aen um, Lane,. lie stated that thepetitioner's
proposals owl d not n County Road `61 to thatncrtherly intor-
sec"I-ion and that that was one essential difference between the peti.
tionOrllk.s rr orl -and the CityS report
fle also reviewed subsequent pcase and the importarce of access to
and from the surrounding area. lie reviewed improvements tieeded
before Phase 1 occupancy and before Phase III occupancy.
ha razor,aan Vs l i u n(i! red whether n rrrr is had been
they bard at themeetingn at Hennepinn County that would affect the
abmitted study. Mr. Be_nslioof and City Engineer Fred Moore responded
n the ra i t).
Comimlssioner Wire observed rd the Ci ty traffic study i di a d
t;,jre Xl*UM LaTTR wr (I exterM to new County Road
V9
rather
herr to fthe easy' over County Read 611154 g 1 "I"Uternate
o" in, '.11-he trafficreport). 'r. Benshoof stated t that di ;
was nten , o 1 and was d er .;o consistent t x l
aorouo ar Guide Plan d should avoid fature problems with
traffic access`rou ti d he nore convenient*
iii i s ono!r 1411re inquired as to any probleins on Xemiivn
Lane and particularly h precise, location of the intersec`**#ionof
gi ut,en at vft ;Count, Road . l that err could be sight
distance prople"Ms considering the t p r a of CountyRoad 9.
City Engineer VI'loore noted that the plan wa' -,eneral and not design,
specific and that it anticipated intersectton i m, Large w
future County Road 9 and not existingCounty Road 9. He stated
some grade changes would occur when new Couqty Roadwas e l*
a iv;;, pan Vasiliou then opened the public ari g.
far, Scharmer, 12740 - 30th Avenue North, stated he represented th
Westminster neighborhood inclu hvi and 62 children n
rioted the petition wh car had been suhutitted earlier. (".hairwoman.
Vasiniou stated that "',hU- m ssion rs had all received the petition
and az'Jkd Mir. Scharimer to summarizetyre concerns. Scharmer
stated thhat h neighbors w the rr i is the development i n
the area ul- had several concerns: recomimended Oosiag o-IF 30th
art t' intersection rt r u e
Road 1with an energency access being designed into the cul-de-
sac; a ; tyrepaid ° 1 1 11.r operations on thewetlands and the
expectation than. the Deptirtiaent, of Natural Resources permit will
a i,wit for the substantial 0i d fi ti ns proposed; theheight
buildingsings ars their visual impact on 1-he residential area, a
recomixr rid d ma if;lm-r heiolit feet; the need for substantial
screening of tt indust;idl uses pdrf' "- *Ment *oil of
k-Noping lighting dir c tedy. f rom Ithe riesidential neighborhood-
and finally, leaving thei n r"I s: ared quided as approved bhw
City Council without a for more comiercial.
Ira I r° 011-ran Vasiliou responded as to the Commissiondeliberation Oil
all of the i tqexcept the one involviop fill and modifica11-ion of
wetlands which would be subject t 'Department of Natural Resource
permits. Sty F nfiri d that 'no grading work it -those areas would
e allowed until sheepar*'-en attrrl Resource prmiCs had
surd
Steven Oj r 3350 Xenimm Ulm,stated concertir with traffic on
UF67and the condition of ex"sting Xeni m Lane which created
dust problems already in the area. ` He stated that neighbors realize
this s a collector street hut recomnended that it be improved
includinq bitum.1nous paving with the first phase of the d e l men
not the third phases fie, stated that this should bQ a benefit to
the petlitioner as well as thev , t- progressed.
y xanning C ana$ e :a i lin 114inutas
R
p 9-0
Va g 10
R, -4 c h a rd Lees 901 Professional 3uidn, Hopkins, MN, attorney
o. s t i n Mr. Ed Heins, owner o property Orr the w< ll side, o
the ` development. Mr. Lee reiterated previous concernts entered,
the record at. etre concept hearing regarding 40,
41
i npi of the
development on his clients property. He stated grate would be
direct Ulipact with the changed across and it was has client's
ohserrat'lion that damages tvould ha suffered. H -Inquired s wh-,--
would assumevarious rests of inproveizionts sr r as storm sewers,
roads and thelike, Chairwoman Vs l ort responded that the Planning
am,,,O s i n does nq t detetmine the assess'ment policynny,given
pro:, >,1 tin rat ' matter for h City Council., Mr. Lee t
he pre fated 6at but wished have soune direction as to veilat
his client might expect. Chairwoman Vasiliou aimed that as to
arc ss it was the obligation of the Flanging ;Coor-iission to assure
that existing devel%)ments woOd have access btit it was clear that
viable access deemed appropriate for this deve cpm n,"; differed goon
tri the ` petpeti ti oner felt was cippropriate access. She stated that
o e errCommission'sneern, that the Hei yrs ` property not
be landloct d.
Ch rwo;-J n V s i l iou c*,osed` the ptiblic hearing.
The meeting recessed '-:40 P .M. and resumed t 3.50 `P.M.
r wor,r,; n Vasiliou r ottniz Mr. Dickvian V,tr s n who stated he
d some additional comments about tete proposed development and she
specific staff recommendations. tie stated that regarding the ireet-
inq at the County it had b t requestedstthe petitioner for
Thursday., the y following the l ren ng Commission nieeting. Ile
indicated that to unty had called and requested V nleeting t
be moved up to earlier Wednqsday so that a draft le,*.terrep
etre County lvr ubin tt l to the City couldbe discussed. lie stated
that ary-dog0iienti had then been changed nd at the iiiieet';ng earlier
that dad when the County observed the various road design revisions
which had been made the County retracted the draft letter stating
that additional tints would e needed before a final response con d
be4 developed for the itt .
Ir. , nu -son commented on the differences, between the petitioner's
propos and the N41, ' . traffic stcr ; specifically the petitioner
g$iL §51PId gj{+..t rtt r t ion a tob i -t Td gay 1 he q''+ r'C i ^ l s* r e ]$,', N '
7JTL 3#<$'i 5$e. :n E e,F 4 hi' k Mi%d S+. #Y i. ld + A F$ i } 4a & k#ii6 "5ee W F '.
tiorth r, f 111ighway 55 ;indnot beyond. He glen revievied various
dlt,ernate designs as to turning lane, movements in the area ` between 1
State Highway and the first intersection to the north., tie stated
these alternates had been shown to City staff and etre City's traffic
consultant* an
Regarding tho, recommendation on` the puhl`kc trail, Mr. Knutson stated
that they felt a tetter sir would have the trait at a Iowan
elevation which would mean' Possible flooding during high eater periods.
0
Planning C !
Apr 19 1,11
pegs 104
61 throuqhthe r j t-- t l east tthe second intersection north
cf State f3iig w a s r l-Maend d by the City's traffic sk dye
She steted she, was concerned with tt' r coming from the County
te Knutson
reiterated that the p titi n r find no inv l v rr nt wiltwillth the diiv op-
nt of that letter and that the meeting with the County as originally
requested by'tP alt tio.-i r had bean for, entirely different reasons.
Ir. Knutson stated that he wished t record to show, he took
exception with the Chairwoman's ins nutations that they wvdr o
responsible for the lack of a formalCounty response to, proposed
project.
Staff omment&Id t1t t State Law requires ee nagencies such c s
the County Tr nsp rt 'on r twtent t nevi pr el iro r r is
when those plats abut i r vean nts within their ur i sd fiction. H
stated that the City provided the County with the originally sub-
Itted preliminary plataraerel tddrawinsandthatthe it's
traffit nsv t nt had been in communication with the n during
the development the report. ' stated that the County,,
Statute, bras,30 drys to respond and that that period brad expired.
Staff further observed that apparently when Hennepin County became
awdre that sous rood design changes had been tmade they concluded
further revise should be iaade of the current plans, and that any,
written response would 5e submitt-A to the City prior to City
Council r v w.tall' explained that any material submitted after
ate Planninq tCOMMiSsiun hearing- wontd be so noted anlA that the
County's i nnut wds advisory And not mandatorily a ar.11- of the
approval ` conditions.
Further dls.Assion ensued regarding' the traffic repu"t and staff
ind cat ft}1, *t was to be considered part of the st-.1,iff r °and-_
tlo d = W
r r. r ire pet. i r rw'
concerns W. t the staging, and imprtivements for County Roaul
should be reflectod in Lie Minutes but that the tre,,,ffic study pre-
pared
r -
prk d for the City should be part of the n neW,_,r Memorandum and
part. of the recommendation to the City Council.
Covaissioner Wire stated that the neighbors' nr)rn about improving
Xcnium Lanewith the first phase should ilso be discussed and Mr.
Knutson responded' that the petitioner dad not object to the City
considering apetition from tete ares: pro r towners for a pu
a nt project for ni€} , n ut that at s u d now, ,be a
reui r m nt of the development itself.
n response questions ? the Commission, staff and t d
concurrencewith most of tete p tationt#r's observations on the staff
recommendation; staff noted, however,, t '* the trail recd nd ti n
was per City policy and that some methaJ, of pedest-rian trapsport-a-
tion sho,. Id be provided trrr ougho rt the entire project includir'ng tho
industrial area.
Apri 1 22 1981
W9 discussion ens e
E
a *
4 3
of it
k, itiXi 3 7.; a nA 'g - $J 9#ru V'. i L' '. .. A,* I a& U U. 1 b$it Aw ff if # Ulf ko.
v1sual imipact`rc13 the east and Com.missioner 1,11ire noted the eleva-
tion differences tetween theproposed site and the freekwood !1eights
area
Regarding the reguiding matter, isirwom n Vasil*ou S,499ested that
that be treated separately prior tofurther acti, i on the preliminary
plat and plan.
M,111'111 "I by Commissioner 'W r, seconded by Commissicner Pauba t o
re-co.-m,vap-ndapproval the Land Use Guide PlanARienurient in the
for hw area froiq Public/Semi-Public to with she itl'o c
recd,.'rilanda i a that the Land Use Guide Plan M'ap be revised to
i l athe indicated LA -4 area within the subject; property,
moving it 91) to the north property line with that, area bec,UPO,11
Co"wiissioner Pauba staged concerns about Eaters access to the
northwesterly site where the regulding was proposed. He stated
that tie agreed with the staff report that street access should b
nr vidod in lieu of specific legal assurance that the anticipa d
site would not be' divided the future,
a rwovi n Vasiliou called for a vote on the iliotion.
t4otion carried on a Roll Call vote, four ayes, Commissioner Larson
ands a z T wo ar, i t z Y T1
Comnissioner Larson and Chairwoman Vasiliou statedtheir concerns
about the lack of direct street access and the land is In an isolated
c* d plain area and should be preserved in it's na ur state con-
sistent
c -
sispent with tete ordinance PUD design cr ter a,
MOTIONN by Commisysioner` Wire,, seconded b Commissioner Larson to
recormma d approval of the Preliminary Plan,, Plat,, Rezoning and
ondition,dl Use Permit for "Northwast Business"North Campus `MOUD`:for
r d r TMsurance Company America at the northeast quadrant
of State Highway 55 and -494 subject to the 'following conditions.-
1. Compliance witlh the City Engineer's Meitnorandtxa for this roj,:c .
Finao plan to include design of the public trail on, that port`orf
of the corridor above e Hundred Year 117gh eater Elevation;
compliance with City Park, Dedication Rolicy to be in njun( i o
with individual site plan- approvals based uion the approved
final plans for the development and upon the Park Dedication
iolicy in effect at the time of site plan approvals*
3. De5ign consideration shall be applied at final plan stage and at
tidivid a it Ian stage to clustering individual and
commercial buildings with themerit of providingbuilding and
105-
vlis;ion 'MinutesPlanningCon-
Apri 1 2.2, 1981
age 10
yard areas toviard the public streatswith paekingand driving
10id1 ad WereI TM
4, Design consideration sial be responsive to preservation o
natural woodlands throughotti, the site and in particular in
Areas A,, 31, G arid, 1.
S. Issuance of conditional use p(m4t per Section 6 of the Zornln
Ordinance regarding development, in or abutting he 'Genera`
Flood Plain District shall be a function of approval i4y, the
epar ,v,ie f Natural Resources as verified by:. he City
Engineer,. n
itL',.
Completion " required ENW review pr cod re ri or to final
plat and prior to commencement of site gradin
1,4i rntubuilding sethNtck re uirex ents from front property
nes tom_ be reduced tinoless than 35 feet in those cases
where sites have been designed to provide for internal park-
ing and itirculation with yard areas toward 'Z"he street*
Q- . Building ei greater than the ord spa
allowed per the additional height provisions of Section It`s
of the Zoning Ordinance provided all applicableordinance
requirements including vninitrium parking standards are me
exceptions to this provision shall be in the following
areas: Antis 11 and C where the niaximum bar -Nina height shall
e no greater hftn six ( stories and Area 11 where the
riaxinum structure height. shill be two stories on those
sites east of County Road 61.
9. there shall be no loading or outside storage '°r it es on the
east side of "6"*Ie bu4ldings east 6' proposed ".ounty Road 61 and
north of 26th Avenge North, such activities Awn the north and
sotAh sees of those '-iuildings shall be substanttially screened
from vie4 to the east -
10* There shall be no twits de trash d1!\>posa7 ficilities.except". In
specific art,. as appropriately screen d as approved.by the City
in con, uncti tt with site plan approvals, Restrictive covenants
to be filed with the final plat shall address this provision
for, .rash disposal facilities.
i. rinai plan shall include a masLler walkway system to provide for
pedestrian circulation to individual sites and/or along , ubl i c
street -4; said master plan Co apply to individual site plan
approvals.
12. Provision sha l e made for bus drop off/pick up facilities
throughout tete development, either Incorporated with public
rights-of-way or on private dri vee!
k 406-
Mannino rafim n 1'41naltess
Apr
e 10
3. The design h construction of County Road 61 and other public
streets`Mtonin the Development s cc rd,nc v tlr the
final transportation stip pprove by the City l; Xenium
Lane shoulld be installed t` "',he approziriate urban, section with
Passe r c° ra rrt to County a
shou7d be cul-de-saced andnot intersect with County Road 61*
14. tllrb cuts onto County load 61, not to exceed 5, shell be allowed
in the vicinity between 26th Avenuer n the north hrundar y
1 at Final determinat i 4un, of locatiort of those curb cutsofthefit0
well as curb, cuts throughout the ftelopment willl be made with
approvals., Joint t access throughout the develop-
me it
5. Direct access to Highway 5 shall be l l,ar a teconcurrent ixti t
the construction of the new public st s Bets adjacent to pr` posed
Block
16. Final plans n plat shall be in accordance with Section oil ;;'r
Zoning Ordinance relative to plenned unit dqvelopnients and shall
inc1ude proposedd restrcve covenants relative u matter
as signage, rasth di-,zposal facilittiles, outside storage erre the
like. Building setback r (int i t terns for rpro Lot ,' c
relative to the south exposure shall b i n fNw.m 50 feet
cOnsid,'2enno that the use the residential property across Nth
ntle North is a church which is institutional in character and
does not n ude iiny residential dw irigs
17. Final p a,t shall address the small remnant parcel n the south
side of flighwayto Include ultimate is sit n by rnearis of
s is' di t,i n or incorporation with adjacent sites.
18. All areas within the development sball be inclided n the final
gr t eit r the or ri is- - a , jJl tt r log. t-
lots.
Commissioner Stn berg stated that relative to condition #4 Area G
should be includedwith respect to preservation of natural wood-
lands and Mr Knutson responded that that was satisfactory to the
petitioner. missi n r Stulberg also stated that with regard t
condition #P consideration tai girt be given to stating a specific
number of fil,.et for building height rather than the number of stories.
r` rther discussion ensued regareling building height acid C %ais ion r
Wire stated he felt that Areas t and P were too close to the
Creekwood Heights residential area to providefor extensive height
above the ordinance requirements. mmi s on r Stelgerwald stated
that the proposal was consistent with the intent of toe PUD ordinance
x
In that the burden o creativitywas on the petitionr t r tthe
distance fromm tyre Creekwood fleights tired should provide good spatial
bufferi nq.
107-
PT( Pion ss i on 14i nut es
April 21981
Page ot8
11103 by Colimaissioner Steiger-wald, secondee by Chair r1a gas "Ho
isanand d
F where the ma i.amm building h ig o 9 -eater h six
rle';'.
Y rI ssioner Larsora stated concern that while the site plans -can, be
k 5„- E.§..e ,Y'w.«d in Yxk. e -S a C,"ef i R t e. UI concerned mbu as aaa i+`.n yr
on the residential area to the east and felt that direction should
bq given to the petitioner at this time as to height limitall
Mr. Doan Perrenoud, the petitioner's architect, noted that the view
sbould not be negative noting the distance and the I n r ven A
industrial ui dines.
Motion to emend carried on a Roll Call vote, four ares,, Commissioners
Larson and Wire opposed*
MOTION ',r Cormissioner Paun, seconded by C .missi rr r Steigerwald
fo ar!end- ` the main, motion by adding a 19th condition as fol oris:
i . e proposed structure in Area A on Block 1, Lot 5 (tho area
r id d s.a have direct street access unless by, legal
vegan a ov4d by the City no future subdivision of the
panel will vada.
Motion ., aie d arr _a a Rol Call vote, : i ayes, ' iir
Larson opp s d for reasons;cited earli, r that the; wren should not be
regid.
Chairwomian Vasiliou them called for a vote on, tw IMain Motion a
wi cc Amendedo
Motion carried on a moll Cali vote, six ayaso,
The meeting recessed at 10:14.0 P.M. and r sumd at 10:15 P. -M.
NEW N
The reading of the April,16, 1981 staff report was waived, WALLACE FREEMAN
xFF RAIOLAT
Commissioner ars n inquired about the provilslon. for two buildings, "NILLOW GROVE 2N
on a single parcel in Oudot A f explainedd a* this outld
would he subject to replatting in the future to"t subject
replatting and eventual site plan approval it should be noted to
the'petitioner at` i time hat the ordinance generally does not
allow two primary di the same parcel and that as previously
discussed with the petitioner, direct access onto Betty Crocker
Drive should ' not be assum.ed without i`omi written approval the
Planning Corm ss n 'Minutes
11 2 9
Page 109
Cit of -Y . Lou -is Park* Thas, only a sinqlin-amay b
eventual permittedl.,
ha i rwona n Vasiliou recognlze,4 1 11r. Craig Freeq.an, Mir. Bob ffi rr,
Mr. Howard Milgren, and Mm,.Geoff Zi ar' '. i rr who represented the
petitioner.
MO I OIC by Commissioner i g r a d s seconded by Co;.Imissioner Stillbr
to r ecoau r rrd approval f the final plat for "'WfilloW Glrove2nd
Addition" forWallace Freeman b the following conditions:
Compliance with the City Engineer's -Memorandumfor this project.
Develop the property is subject 'to finalsite plan
approval; applicable nv r omit r a review regulations; and the
r ulremen; , of Section 6 of teeZoning Ordinance regarding
General Flood Plain District.
Payment of park dedication; fees ind provision for atLy. necessary
rail srnmissal gad with
4.
1
Development ars sial be subject to review by tyre Basset (.reek
Watershed District.
Ro buildingpermits shall be issued until the fire l plat has been
fl -led with Hennepin County.
6. Patera curb cut sM, along east side o Nathan Lane shall
he aligned w ter the al,proved access :point at g)rrr the west side
uthan Lane.
Removal of all deall or diseased r s from the pr p r at the
8. Approval of the General Development Plan does not approve
rosrofrrd Conditioncurbsotherthane
6 itid must awaitapproval i i i developmgtit site plans.
Motibn carried on a Roll Call votes.six ayes.
OLD BUSINESS
The reading of the April 16, 1981 say report wa, waived. WALLAU FREEMAR
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Discussion sued regarding the proposed landscape plan and in FOR "WILLOW GROVE
ar i ta1 ar the reqfiested variance a slope of certainberms Ml IUMSU
Chaff rr rr rr s l lou agreed with the intent of the landscape
criteria for a three to oneslope to assure viability ,and
maintenance f turd` on the ` bare.
109-
Planning Commission Min
April 22 199.1
page 110
Mr.`Geoff Martin representing the, petitioners sura ri oo hi
memorandtim which had been ug i d with the staffreport, nottng
that a two, n te-m could be maintained and that the Intent OF
the twoone slope vias to provide additional buffering. tic stated
that the landscape treatment proposed was consistent w1th the City
Mr. Hotward Dahl9ren stated that the petitioner d2sd not object to
the City's Landscape Criteria Policy regarding berfns but fell-t-hat
a two to one slope on the berm as proposed was appropriate for this
Area because it would lora for addi f I ° her d screenin
which had been a concern he neighbors to the *wii .
MOTION by Chairwoman Vasiliou, seconded by Coma -.* ssionu !1auba to
remr; friend ap p d site plan for Willow Grove Condominiums
noting the Commission action on January. 23., 19,31 area subject to the
following conditions:
Compliancearc with hc ` r" Memorandum f h prej, C
2. "h) building p rniis to be issued until the final pat has been
pprov d for the site and has been filed with Hennepin County#
3., The approved number of dwellingi units shall be 76 based upon
density allowances per Ordinance criteria #1 and 2; and add-
itional units per Criteria T06 will be permitted onl upon
demonstration by the P +M?, fa bona fide I owl to moderate
incomehousing approval by _ral and/or state agencies prion
a not tototheissuanceofperWI, ;.e maximum number of unii#
exceod 2*
Comp d i ance w th City;i ,ance and Policy regarding urd rig
anJ driving tied parking areas.
r Compliance with City Code as to fire lane and fire hydrantt
requirements.
6. Positive a-ri r t ioughe,,1 n and landscaping in the
northwest area to prohibit . ,hiuars traffic from t4he site
to uaker drama*
7. Any signage shall not oxceed rdinau rrdard .
Pavraent of o'n-rkdedication fees inliieu of T rrd dedication
bn sed upon approved number of units, in accordance' with
Park Dedication Policy in effectat the time build 'ng
pratit sudeA
Submittal ordinance-required fir r i a guarantee for
completion of app-owed site improvements termed for 24 months
Troia date of building pennit i u rid
flanCo-, ission Minutes
Page 1114
10. Tr -,sh disp-sal facilities shall be contained within the
building i manner consistent with appropriate codes.
There shall be no utsid 'storage or trash disposal
facility*
1. Beming shall be in accordance: with the City's adopted
p a c " r f grid s .a rr a + one
tI or
1 urinq further discussion, ; representing r
stated that the ni si should realize that a 'three to one slnne
x proposed. The
Commission res on that the devloper could proves for planting
a a s r i v screening.
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five i1yes, Commissioner t4f i re
opposed.
Commissiener Wire stated fig favored she developer's proposal Foix a
t-wo to one slope berm.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chaiirwotnan Vasiliou indicated that Commissioner Larson would
wor `ono with om ssion r Barron relative to the City's Planned Unit
punkt standards and would developing the report for the
3sx 's revise later his spring.
Further disucssion ensued regarding application 810413 (preliminary
plat for "Rock-r.Square" quare" on . Countyu' 9 and Nathan Lane). ne). 2#sJly+6 Wire 7£
r5concern
l} e area neighbors be notified
of any further ari a
aivwo an Vasiliou stated that the ordinance required notice to be
sent to prop r„ owners (if record within 100, feet and that since
the neighborhood ass is i n was sears of the ratter every though i
was outsi4e (if that legal not,*e area they could check with the City
sta-f to see when it was coming back. Followin3. further discussion,
Chairwoman Vasiliou directed staff to renotice theproperty owners
reg. ord per ordinance when this item, returned=
MWOURNMENT
x
re bei no Emyr kns; n ss r e t e Coimi ssO n h meeting
adjourned at 10:50 P*M*