Loading...
1982 04 08 e e e MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 8, 1982 AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS A~~~DON~-~_~ Members Present: Chairman Art Partridge, Ladd Conrad, Carol Watson, Bill Swearengin, J. Thompson and M. Thompson. Members Asbent: Howard Noziska Staff Present: Bob Waibel, Craig Mertz, Bill Monk, Scott Martin, and Becky Foreman The meeting was called to order by Chairman Partridge at 7:35 p.m. Subdivision Public Hearing and Site Plan Review, Outlot 2, Chanhassen Estates, McDonalds Restaurants, Inc.: Present: Mike Assad, McDonald's Mark Schostag, McDonald's George Frey, 8117 Erie Circle Mike Murphy, 8021 Cheyenne Spur Ron Pilgrim, 8026 Dakota Avenue Gary Arnor, 8022 Dakota Avenue R.W. Connell, 8022 Cheyenne Avenue Bill Potterf, 8003 Dakota Avenue George Largay, 8006 Dakota Avenue Gerald Wassink, 8004 Dakota Avenue Conrad Fiskness, 8033 Cheyenne Avenue Marie Weber, 8034 Erie Dr. Steve Bensen, 8026 Erie Tom Kotsonas, 8001 Cheyenne Avenue Alex Krengel, 8009 Cheyenne Avenue Marilyn Krengel, 8009 Cheyenne Barb Husemon, 8015 Cheyenne Mr. & Mrs. Chuck Koivisto, 8106 Dakota Lane Rollie Winebrenner, 8102 Dakota Lane Terry Muldoon, 8017 Cheyenne Merlyn Johnson, 8054 Erie Spur Al Stumpf, 8027 Cheyenne Avenue Mary Stumpf, 8027 Cheyenne Avenue Dave Schollmar, 8011 Dakota Circle Paul O'Dell, 8012 Dakota Avenue Kathy Schollman, 8011 Dakota Circle Louise O'Dell 8012 Dakota Avenue Malcolm & Dorothy Small, 8031 Cheyenne Avenue George Thomas, 8029 Cheyenne Avenue Gerald Fischer, 8042 Erie Avenue John Hanson, 8046 Cheyenne Avenue Lynne Pilgrim, 8026 Dakota Avenue Sandra Connell, 8022 Cheyenne Mary Arndt, 8022 Dakota Avenue Tim Herbery, 8113 Erie Circle Kenneth Groen, 8108 Dakota Lane e e e Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 2 Bill Wellman, 8018 Dakota Avenue Skip Rothe, 8025 Erie Avenue Bruce G. Frykman, 8020 Erie Avenue Kay Rothe, 8025 Erie Avenue Joe Betz, 8107 Dakota Lane Nina Cottrell, 8044 Cheyenne Avenue Verma Husemon, 8018 Cheyenne Avenue Carmen Lenander, 8103 Dakota Lane Chairman Partridge called the Public Hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. Bob Waibel, the City Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Waibel explained that the applicant, McDonald's Corp, is proposing to replat Outlot 2 of Chanhassen Estates to locate a restaurant on a 1.3 acre parcel. The property is presently zoned C-2, and McDonald's is a permitted use in that district. Waibel stated that Outlot 2 is presently an 8.5 acre parcel, and McDonald's is planning to split off 1.3 acres for their reseaurant. The property is located at the northeast corner of the, inter- section of Dakota Avenue and Lake Drive East. Waibel explained to the Planning Commission that they are required to hold a public hearing on this request according to Subsection 6.0lf, Section 6, of Subdivision Ordinance #33. Section 10.06 of Zoning Ordinance 47 states that "no building permit for a principal or accessory structure in the C-2 district shall be issued until it has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the Council." Waibel stated further that the replat, s~te plan and proposed use are all consistent with the requirements of the subdivision and zoning ordinances with the exception that the plans do not show a required five (5) foot side yard utility and drainage easement along the proposed easterly property line. The buildings and parking setbacks and number of parking spaces provided meet or exceed the zoning ordinance standards for property zoned C-2. Waibel presented pictures of the proposed signage. There will be two directional signs, one at the entrance and one at the exit. According to the Sign Ordinance (Section 4f) this type of signage is not permitted. Waibel stated that presently the Planning Commission is recommending to the City Council to amend this section of the ordinance to allow for directional signs at private faci<l:1i.. ties and functions. Waibel explained that the proposed McDonald's signs will meet the area requirements of 4 square feet if they do not place their trademark "the Golden Arches" on them. Waibel stated that the staff recommends approval of this request as proposed. Waibel pointed out the_conditions that the staff is recommending for this proposal. He stated that this subdivision be carried out as a replat with a 5 foot utility and drainage easement along the easterly restaurant side lot line, that the signage be in conformance with the area requirements from the sign ordinance, that one additional directional sign be permitted on Lake Drive East to direct traffic to the appropriate access. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 3 e He also stated that the trademark "Golden Arches" should not be permitted on the directional signs. The subdivider should construct a public sidewalk along the east side of Dakota Avenue, between Highway 5 and the south lot line of Outlot 2, Chanhassen Estates, according to the City EngineerB specifications. Other recommended conditions were that the applicant post a letter of credit with the City for all unfinished improvements at time an occupancy permit is requested. All roof top mechanical equipment shall be screened, that all parking and manuevering areas be lined with concrete curb and that the applicant receive a land alteration permit from the watershed district. Mike Assad, a representative of McDonald's Crop, stated that the Planning Report gave a full explanation of their request. He explained that the access will be onto the frontage road with 2 accesses,' an "in only" and an "out only". The building will pe 2800 square feet and located on 1.3 acres of land. They will be able to seat 80 people and will have 73 parking spaces. Assad stated that the staff has looked at the landscaping plan and feels that it is acceptable. Conrad asked Assad how much of the lot will be covered by an impervious surface and how much green space will there be. Assad answered that approximately 90% of the lot will be covered and 10% green space. 4It Partridge asked if the applicant has met with the Watershed District yet, and if this will create a run off problem. Monk stated that they have not yet met with the Watershed District, but he has looked at the property and stated that there will be some run off problems, but they are not unworkable problems. Mike Murphy, 8021 Cheyenne Spur, stated that he was the spokesman for Chanhassen Estates. He stated that the residents of Chanhassen Estates are not opposed to having a McDonald's in Chanhassen, just not in that location. He expressed their concern for the children of the neighborhood who use that access into Chanhassen Estates every day. Murphy explained that according to the traffic pro- jections for McDonald's, there will be an increase of 700-800 cars per day which will be very hazardous to the children of the area. He further stated that since Chanhassen Estates only has one access to their subdivision, if the traffic would pile up, or an accTIdent occur because of the extra traffic, the access in Chanhassen Estates would be totally blocked off and an ambulance or a fire truck would not be able to answer any emergency calls if needed. He suggested that McDonald's locate in the Downtown, Redevelopment Project area. He felt that this area would work well for a medical arts building; something that would not generate much traffic. Murphy submitted a petition with 178 signatures on it of those opposed to a McDonald's in this area. e e e e Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 4 Bob Mason, the owner of the property, stated that he was the developer of Chanhassen Estates, and at the time of development he had Outlot 2 zoned commercial. Since that time a bowling alley has been proposed for that spot, and Chanhassen Estates residents didn't want it, also Country Kitchen was interested in the property, but the residents didn't want that either. Mason said that; he doesn't think that the residents want anything in that spot. George Frey, 8117 Erie Circle, express~di hi~ concern regarding the potential traffic problems. He read from the City Engineer's report were it states that all intersections along T.H.5 are presently marginal but will reach unacceptable limits in the near future unless T.H.5 undergoes drastic improvements. He further stated that the traffic stacks now, and with CPT and McDonald's it will be terrible. He stated that the intersection is a dangerous one now. Al Stumpf, 8027 Cheyenne Avenue, stated he is also worried about the children from the main part of town, who will be running, walking and riding their bikes across Highway 5 at that inter- section. George Thomas, 8029 Cheyenne Avenue, also expressed concern for the safety of the children at that intersection. He stated that on March 4, 1982, at 12:00 noon, he was a witness of an accident at the intersection of Dakota Avenue and Highway 5. He indicated that if that can happen in the middle of the afternoon, then it is a bad intersection. He also stated that because of the accident, there were fire trucks and police cars that were blocking the access into Chanhassen Estates, he stated there needs to be another access into Chanhassen Estates farther down the road. Partridge explained to the public that the City is planning on extending a frontage road from Dakota Avenue to 184th Avenue, that would give the Chan Estates residents another access. It was stated that at one time the Dakota Avenue access onto Highway 5 would someday be closed. The Planning Commission stated that it is highly unlikely that that will happen. Dick Connell, 8022 Cheyenne, asked Assad if the road would be closed at that point, would McDonald's still be interested. Assad indicated that McDonald's has existed in the past on locations that have not had a direct access onto a major street. Assad stated that according to t~e Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, this is where the City has planned for this type of business. A motion was made by Watson, seconded by J. Thompson, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e e e Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 5 Partridge presented a letter dated April 8, 1982 that the Planning Ccmnission received from J. T. and Jerri Martin expressing their desire to locate McDonald's in Chan Estates. They feel it would be beneficial to the area. M. Thompson asked what this parcel is going to be zoned according to the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Martin stated that it is planned to be rezoned to a B-1, Neighborhood Business District, and that McDonald's would not be a permitted use in that district. Partridge stated that in the minutes from the neighborhood meeting dated April 1, 1982, that it was asked if Burger King and others will soon follow. Assad stated that .M::DJnald's has a covenant in their contract that the rest of the 8 acre parcel cannot be used by another fast-food chain. This covenant is good for 20 years. M. Thompson asked if there have been any other proposals for the remainder of the property. Waibel stated that there haven't been any at this time. M. Thompson asked if a walkover could be set up so that people will not have to cross Highway 5 to get to McDonald's. Waibel stated that that would be a State project. There have been no proposals for that to date by the City or State. Conrad asked what the setbacks are for the front yard in this commercial district. Martin explained that for this proposal, there are two front yards. There is a 25' setback requirement for the yards that face Highway 5 and Lake Drive East. There are no building setbacks for the- rear and side yards. Conrad asked if the lights from the cars in the evening will be bothersome to the residential area. Martin explained that McDonald's is planning on berming and landscaping, he stated that that should shelter the lights from shining directly into the residential area. Conrad asked if the Planning Commission should make recommendations according to the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Martin stated that the Planninq Commission can ask the aRPlicant to comply with the proposed ordinance, hIlt they can' not Iorce him to comply. He only has to cO!TIPly with the" adopted ordinance. Watson stated that she sympathizes with the residents because of the traffic, but this is a permitted use in this area. Partridge asked if this McDonald's could function without a drive-through window. He expressed concern regarding the trash that is tossed along the side of the road because of fast-food items. Assad stated that McDonald's pays $30,000 just for the drive-through window, it is a convenience for the customer. It is also used to cut down the number of parking spaces needed. Assad stated that once a month employees go out up to 1 mile to clean up the trash along the streets, and once a week around the block. e It e Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 6 Swearengin asked how much more traffic the Hwy. 5 and Dakota Avenue intersection can handle before it has to be illpraved. Bill Monk, City Engineer, stated that the intersection can handle approximately 1200 vehicular conflicts. He also stated that his projections for estimated traffic generated by McDonald's and CPT would bring the number of oonfli~ts to just under 1200. He pointed out that this will only be a short term problem until Lake Drive East and 184th Street are extended to hook up with TH 5to the east. Monk also pointed out to the commission that his report strongly suggests to the City Council that they consider ordering a_feas~bility study for these roadway extensions. He also stated that these roadway extensions would include improvement to Highway 5 at the proposed 184th Street intersection. Partridge asked how small McDonald's could make their fGolden Arches II sign and still be acceptable. Assad stated that the sign will have to be large enough to be seen by traffic far enough ahead so that they can get into the lane that they will n~ed. Partridge asked the Assistant City Attorney his feelings on this request. Mertz stated that a potential traffic problem is not sufficient grounds for denial of this request. M. Thompson made a motion, secoridedby Conradtto deny the request for a replat of Outlot 2 of Chan Estates, and for McDonald's site plan approval. The following voted in favor,: Watson/Swearengin, M. Thompson and Conrad. Partridge - nay, and J. Thompson abstained. !-10tion carried. M. Thompson stated that even though this parcel is zoned C-2 and may be appropriate use for McDonald's, McDonald's may not be the best use for this property. He suggested another site, perhaps in the Downtown Redevelopment project. He also stated that because of the traffic situation, pedestrians, and vehicular problems both from the south and north sides of Highway 5 he voted to deny this request. Also he stated that the Planning Commission has no idea what is going to happen with the remainder of the 8 acres and would like to see a proposal for that before this parcel is split. Partridge stated that he voted nay for the reason that this parcel is zoned for this type of use, and cannot be denied on the grounds of a potential traffic problem. J. Thompson abstained because of a potential conflict of interest. Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review Request to Rezone Lots 3 and 4 Frontier Development Park from 1-1 Industrial District to CBD Central Business District and Construct an Office/ Retail Facility, Dolphin Construction, Inc., Public Hearing: Present: Dave Schulz, 7900 Great Plains Blvd Lee Miller, 6897 Rolling Acres Road Reynold Roberts, 1100960 Von Hertzen Circle Stella Roberts, 1100960 Von Hertzen Circle Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 7 tit Partridge called the public hearing to order at 9:00 p.m. Waibel presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. He explained that this request is to rezone Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Frontier Development Park to CBD, Central Business District, and for a Conditional Use Permit request for a 19,000 square foot building for office and retail. The property is presently zoned I-l, Industrial District and is located 400 feet west of the intersection of West 79th Street and Great Plains Blvd, on the north side of W3st 79th Street. ' Waibel stated that according to the Land Use Plan, this property is shown as being commercial. Waibel explained that staff feels this should be rezoned to CBD since the other lots to the east had been zoned CBD as they were developed. Waibel pointed out that Ordinance 47, section 12.02 and 12.04 states that a general retail sales is not permitted in an I-l District. Also Section 13.02 states that a conditional use permit must be obtained before receiving a building permit in a CBD District. e Waibel stated that there is some concern regarding the front yard parking setback. He stated that the three buildings to the east of this site have front yard parking setbacks between 10 and 12 feet. According to the proposed zoning ordinance, the front yard setback should be 25 feet in this area. He explained that the applicant is requesting an 11 foot front yard parking setback, and staff feels that this request is consistent with those in the area. already approved. The staff also feels that the 25 foot setback can be better applied tQ the larger16ts to the west. Waibel further explained that the applicant is requesting to have a 1 foot rear yard setback, but this is inconsistent with the proposed zoning ordinance. Waibel explained that the recommended setback is 10 feet. He stated that staff has no problems with a 1 foot setback for the rear yard since this lot abutts a rail- road right-of-way. WaibeL explained that the CBD District does not have any minimum standards for amount of green space to be provided, but the Planning Commission has discussed having 30% green space in that area. Dolphin's plan shows just over 20% of green space. He stated that some of the off street parking has been eliminated on their revised plan based on the proposed parking standards for retail and office buildings of this size. By eliminating unnecessary parking spaces, the applicant was able to provide additional green space as shown on the revised plan dated "Received April 8, 1982". e Waibel stated that the 1st and 2nd recommendations from the staff report have been fullBilled by the applicant, as shown on the revised plan dated April 8, 1982. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 8 e He stated that other staff recommendations were that the applicant post a letter of credit before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, that all roof-top mechanical equipment be screened, that all parking areas have concrete curbing, and that the applicant receive a sign permit from the City Council.:) Dave Schulz, the applicant, explained that 3/4 of the building will be used for retail sales, and the rest of the building will be used for office space. He stated that all of the parking as shown on the sketch plan dated April 8, 1982 is needed for their business. A motion was made by Watson, seconded by J. Thompson, to close the Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A motion was made by Watson to recommend to the City Council to rezone Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 of Frontier Development Park from I-I, to CBD, Central Business District. Motion was seconded by Conrad. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A motion was made by Watson, seconded by Conrad, to recommend to the City Council approval of the conditional use permit and site plan as requested, as shown on ~xhibit N'dated April 8, 1982. Motion was withdrawn. e Waibel explained that the applicant had originally shown 13% green space on their plan, he ind~cated that the applicant afiter eliminating some of the parking has brought the amount of green space up to 20% in trying to conform with the proposed 00ning .ordinance. Conrad asked if the building could be made smaller to reach the suggested 30% green space. Schulz indicated that he would have to remove a significant amount of the building in order to provide 30% green space on a site this small. A motion was made by J. Thompson, seconded by Conrad, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site P Ian dated "Received April 8, 1982 II . 1. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant post a letter of credit with the City in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of any required off structure improvements not yet completed. 2. All roof-top mechanical equipment be screened from view at street level. 3. That all parking and manuevering areas be lined with concrete curb. e 4. That the applicant receive sign permit approval from the City Council prior to the installation of any signage. 5. Approval is also subject to Watershed Distric.t and City Engineer approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 9 e Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request to Establish a Minimum Residential Lot Size of 40,000 Square Feet along Western Pleasant View Road: e Present: Kathy Schwartz, 690 Pleasant View Road Jules Smith, Box 88, Chaska Walter G. Roberts, 5640 Covington Road Carol Machay, 5925 Christmas Lake Road Sharon Davis, 20885 Radisson Inn Road, Shorewood James David, 20885 Radisson Inn Road Steve Bruce, 6030 Ridge Road, Shorewood George T. Everett, 1145 Willow Creek Hebur Everett, 1145 Willow Creek Bob Fayfield, 6005 Christmas Lake Road Sharon Graef, 855 Pleasant View Road Gordy Whiteman, 825 Pleasant View Road Gail Mathisen, 850 Pleasant View Road Margaret Thompson, 695 Pleasant View Road Jim Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road John Kraemer, 6170 Ridge Road John Edwards, 6270 Ridge Road Miles Lord, 1009 Holly Lane A.W. Owens, 6535 Peaceful Lane Nancy Osgood, 745 Pleasant View Road Laurie Cousins, 5955 Christmas Lake Road, Excelsior Gordon Schwartz, 690 Pleasant View Road Dean Wetzel, 6260 Ridge Road Horton Brooks, 21195 Radisson Inn Road, Excelsior Bernice Brooks, 21195 Radisson Inn Road Billy Maddy, 5780 Christmas Lake Road Bohdan Witrak, 21200 Christmas Lane Mr. & Mrs. Helmut Mauer, 5810 Ridge Road Partridge called the public hearing to order at 9:35 p.m. Waibel stated that the City has received a petition to create a residential zoning category that would have a minimum required lot size of 40,000 square feet. He explained that the Planning Commission should first decide if there is a need for this distric~ and if so then standards should be developed. He stated that the public may petition after the district has been established to have this district applied to a particular part of the city. tit Waibel pointed out that this request could fall under the R-District review in the Planning Commission's present work schedule. He stated that this request will take a good deal of research and study, and he also suggested some of the things the Planning Commission should consider when looking into this. He stated that the Planning Commission should consider the size of the district, minimum lot sizes, how public improvement assessments will be affected, and whe~r such a district will impair the City's ability to economically extend trunk utilities and have streets dedicated and constructed ' to serve other properties. He further stated they should look into what the dimensional requirements i.e. frontage, setbacks, lot length and width should be. Waibel also asked the Planning Commission if they are willing to amend their work schedule and make this Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 10 e issue a higher priority. Jules Smith, an attorney, indicated that he had drafted the petition for the new district. They are also requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, if necessary. He indicated that most of the area around Pleasant View Road is developed in larger lots, and the residents simply want to keep it that way. Kathy Schwartz, a homeowner on Pleasant View Road, read a letter she had written to the City of Shorewood. She stated that Shore- wood has 40,000 square foot lots around Christmas Lake, and Chanhassen permits 15,000 square foot lots on the other side of Christmas Lake. She explained that smaller lots next to larger lots makes the property values go down. Partridge asked Schwartz if the petition was submitted only to slow Derrick down with his development. Smith stated that they are requesting establishment of a new zoning district, and are not attempting to stop any reasonable proposals. He stated he is just asking the Planning Commission to consider this issue. Miles Lord, 1009 Holly Lane, stated that he feels Derrick could make more money if he developed larger lots. e Partridge explained to the public that the Planning Commission realize~ that there isa need for this issue to be considered, but the Planning Commission has a Work Schedule that they are trying follow. He indicated that this item is in the work schedule to be looked at later this summer. He stated that he does not like the idea of spot zoning, and this should be available for other areas of City too. It was stated that Derrick was not notified regarding this public hearing. No hearing notices were mailed to property owners upon the advise of the City Attorney's Office. Nancy Osgood, 745 Pleasant View Road, stated that she has called other cities to find out what their districts standands are. She indicated that she had called Shorewood, Mound, Minnetrista, and Chaska. Each of the cities had large lot districts, and expressed that they are interested in maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and are concerned about the wetlands. Miles Lord stated that he feels it is unfair that lakeshore owners bUYlarger lots and right across the street can be much smaller lots. He stated that having smaller lots and getting more people to move into the city isn't necessarily going to get the City more money. e Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 11 It Bob Fayfield, 6005 Christmas Lake Road and presidenbofthe Christmas Lake Homeowners Association, stated that no one from their association is opposing this request. He suggested that the Planning Commission send a resolution to the City Council to rezone the south end of Christmas Lake, because the two cities should have some order between them. Jim Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road, stated that this request is not to slow Derrick up, he indicated that he had requested this rezoning 3-4 years ago, long before Derrick had applied, but did not pursue it. Bohdan Witrak, 21200 Christmas Lane, indicated that he owns 8 acres on Christmas Lake and doesn't plan to split his lot no matter what. He stated that the state is trying to conserve open space, so Chanhassen should too. M. Thompson stated that he agrees that there should be more than one residential district in Chanhassen. He stated that if the Planning Commission would move this item up on their work program, it still would not change De~ric~s proposal. Partridge stated that the city does need to redo the residential districts, and every item on the work schedule is going to effect someone. He commented that he feels some of the people who have signed the petition may not be aware of the effects on sewer and water tt assessments this will have if it goes through. It was stated that this request was brought to the Planning Commission when they were working on the Comprehensive Plan. They were told then that these types of residential districts would be incorporated into the Comp Plan. He stated that it is not in the plan as stated. Waibel explained that the area by Christmas Lake is planned as a low density residential area. Watson made a motion, seconded by Conrad, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson stated that she agrees that the city should try to maintain the character of the neighborhood, but they have to go by their work schedule. Conrad explained that according to the work schedule this will be finished by June of 1983. J. Thompson stated that the council has expressed their desire to keep the character rural, he feels that the Planning Commission should stick to their schedule. Swearengin stated that the new district will not effect Derrick and so the Planning Commission should stick with their schedule. e Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 12 e A motion was made by M. Thompson, seconded by Conrad, to direct the staff to advise potential buyers that the Planning Commission is considering an R-District with a minimum 40,000 square foot lot size along Pleasant View Road. The following voted in favor: Watson, Conrad, Partridge, Swearengin, M. Thompson. J. Thompson voted nay. Motion carried. J. Thompson stated that he is not sure if 40,000 square feet should be the specific criteria for lot sizes in this area. Proposed Commercial/Industrial Zoning Ordinance Revisions: Watson asked if it was necessary to have a 10 foot parking lot setback when the lot is next to a railroad right-of-way. Swearengin indicated that there should be no setback for parking or building when next to the railroad right-of-way, but they should be required to berm. The Planning Commission's concensus was to have 0 parking setback when abutting a railroad. Martin gave a brief review of what the Planning Commission had decided on at previous meetings. e Conrad asked if there was any way to have low traffic activities only. Planning Commission should make a they do not want in this area. Service District,11however, and is to regulate the B-2 district Martin indicated that the list of what types of uses B-2 is a Highway and Business designed for auto-oriented businesses. Swearengin asked if there should be a green space requirement in the B-2. The concensus was to have 30 % green space on all non-residential districts and 15% in industrial districts. Martin suggested that the B~4 District be allowed to have car dealerships, outsdde display uses, or larger users of land. He recommended that a place like a "D-haul" dealer be placed in the Industrial-Office Park District, but only if they are screened from view. Martin indicated that he is not comfortable with the 30% green space provision, and said that he would like to look at some land use intensity ratios from resource materials before setting any green space requirement. Swearengin stated that on a small lot, the building will have to be very small to fit the requriements. Martin indicated that this may increase shared parking and multi use buildings. - Martin suggested office uses and retail sales in the B-4 District. Watson indicated she would not want to see hotels with convention centers or greenhouses in that area. Martin stated that the B-4 District is one of the largest districts and could accommodate a use like a hotel. He indicated that if the Planning Commission would not want to permit a hotel in the B-4 District, they would likely encourage a hotel to locate in the down town area. B-4 should have multi-use buildings and large land consumer uses allowed, if such are to be permitted within any of the new commercial districts. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 13 e The Planning Commission concensus was to have no height limitation in the B-4 District. Partridge asked if they could wait in making any decision on the B-5 District until they hear from Minnetonka, Inc. to see if they are still interested in that piece of property. Conrad stated that that area would be a good spot for a motel or a resort. Martin indicated that the Industrial-Office Park District should be protected because that is where new jobs are going to be located. Watson indicated that this district should provide that no hazardous waste treatment plants be permitted. Martin said that limited business and service activities are appropriate in the lOP District. He felt that a restaurant is a legitimate service activity in an industrial area. Martin indicated that he will put the Planning Commission ideas together and get back to them at their next meeting. Minutes Watson made a motion, seconded by Conrad, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 25, 1982 alS: presented. The following voted in favor: Watson, Conrad, Partridge, Swearengin, and M. Thompson. J. Thompson abstained. Motion carried. e Watson made a motion, seconded by J. Thompson to note the minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission dated March 2, 1982. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A motion was made by Conrad, seconded by Watson, to note the minutes of the February 18, 1982 HRA meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Open Discussion Environmental Protection Committee: Conrad move~ seconded by Partridge, to appoint Court MacFarlane to the Environmental Protection Committee in place of Kathy Schwartz, because of the desire of the City Council to retain the services of former Lake Study Committee members who want to serve on the new Environmental Protection Committee. Partridge commented that it is always a very difficult and unfortunate situation when the Commission must pass over qualified volunteers simply because there are more qualified committee candidates than there are vacancies on the committee. All voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. e Conrad stated that due to the delay in approving the Environmental Protection Committee members, the support of the University of e e e Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1982 Page 14 Minnesota including Dr. Mitt Weller and a group of his graduate students will not be available. They were willing to help survey and map our wetlands as well as provide assistance in drafting a wetlands ordinance. Staff was directed to notify the seven committee appointees of their appointment and to invite them to the April 22, 1982 Planning Commission meeting to discuss the committee's goals and objectives and to establish an acceptable work program. The first one-half of the Commission's meeting agenda should be reserved for this purpose, if possible. Staff was also directed to notify those candidates not appointed to the Committee, and to express the Commission's desire that they be involved in the preparation of the environmental protection ordinances, even though they could not be appointed to the Committee because of the "numbers" problem. Adjournment Watson moved, seconded by Conrad, to adjourn the meeting at 12:35 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.