Planning Commission - 07/09/1984 l
AGENDA
Monday, July 9, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen,
Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
( 7:35) A. LANDMARK WEST. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Office to C-Regional ; Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment;
Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service (with
variances for the Board of Appeals) for 7.29 acres for service uses
(retail, 200-seat restaurant, health club, fast food restaurant, and
gas station/convenience store) . Location: Southeast corner of
Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway. A continued public hearing.
( 7:40) B. MUIRFIELD by Tandem Corporation. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for
approximately 25 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review,
with variances, and Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately
11.0 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 for approximately 25 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of 36 acres into 119 single family lots. Location:
North side of Valley View Road, west of Park View Lane. A public
hearing.
( 8:45) C. BLUFFS WEST 3RD ADDITION, by The Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately three acres
and Preliminary Plat of 14.3 acres into 20 single family lots.
Location: North of Burr Ridge Lane, south of Purgatory Creek. A
public hearing.
( 9:30) D. BLUFFS WEST 4TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of two
acres into six single family residential lots. Location: Northeast
quadrant of Riverview Road and Homeward Hills Road. A public
hearing.
Agenda
46my 9, 1984
age 2
(10:00) E. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots.
Location: South of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive.
(10:45) F. MIN-TEX PHASE III. Request for Preliminary Plat of 20.8 acres
within I-2 District for one lot. Location: W. 70th Street, south
of Shady Oak Road. A public hearing.
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Note: The times listed above are tentative--the item may be significantly earlier,
or later than shown.
•
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 9, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman (8:00 p.m.), Virginia Gartner,
Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen,
Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck to change the order of the
agenda to the following: Items under IV. would be A, F, B, C, D, and E.
Motion carried--4-0-0
• II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck to adopt the minutes of the
June 25, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed, with the following
amendment: The amount of acreage for the approval of the Turnbull issue on
page 5 be changed from 15.28 to 17.28.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Gartner abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
} A. LANDMARK WEST. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Office to C-Regional ; Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment;
Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service (with
variances for the Board of Appeals) for 7.29 acres for service uses
(retail, 200-seat restaurant, health club, fast food restaurant, and
gas station/convenience store) . Location: Southeast corner of
Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway. A continued public hearing.
Proponents had asked for postponement of this item to the July 23, 1984,
Planning Commission meeting to allow more time for the necessary revisions
in the plans.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 9, 1984
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to postpone consideration of
this item to the July 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--4-0-0
F. MIN-TEX PHASE III. Request for Preliminary Plat of 20.8 acres
within I-2 District for one lot. Location: W. 70th Street, south
of Shady Oak Road. A public hearing.
Bernie Frye, Min-Tex, reviewed the request for preliminary plat with the
Planning Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings of the Staff
Report with the Planning Commission, pointing out it had been Staff's
recommendation that proponent plat the property for this project.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked for comments and questions from the members
of the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to close the public
hearing.
• Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the requeest of Min-Tex for preliminary plat of 20.9
acres for Min-Tex Phase III, based on plans dated June 22, 1984, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 6, 1984.
(Chairman Bearman arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
B. MUIRFIELD by Tandem Corporation. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for
approixmately 25 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review,
with variances, and Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately
11.0 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 for approximately 25 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of 36 acres into 119 single family lots. Location:
North side of Valley View Road, west of Park View Lane. A public
hearing.
Mr. Richard Putnam, Tandem Corporation, presented slides depicting the
surrounding site features and site characteristics. He reviewed the
location of community facilities in the area and the traffic circulation
patterns that would service this neighborhood. Mr. Putnam pointed out that
the water table in the northeast corner of the site was not perched. Mr.
• Putnam also presented the slides of a project similar to the multiple area.
The multiple units were proposed to be located in the southeast portion of
the project, and were proposed to be split-level units.
Mr. Ken Adolf, Schoell and Madsen, engineers for the proponent, reviewed the
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 9, 1984
storm sewer system proposed for the project. Mr. Adolf pointed out that it
would tie into the system existing within Valley View Road. He also
reviewed the sanitary sewer and water connections proposed for the site.
Mr. Putnam reviewed the proposed zero lot line R1-9.5 District. He stated
that each of the units proposed for this zero lot line area would have three
separate elevations and a variety of colors available in order to provide a
good mixture of unit types within this vicinity.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
for this project dated July 6, 1984. Planner Enger stated that, in general,
the City would consider a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change under one or more
of the following circumstances: 1) If the Guide Plan Change proposed would
provide a transition between land uses; 2) If the Guide Plan Change would
provide for protection or conservation of peculiar site characteristics; or,
3) If the Guide Plan Change would provide for a variety of housing,
particularly for low to moderate income households. He stated that it was
Staff's opinion that this project did not meet all of these criteria.
Planner Enger added that the proponent had not persuaded Staff that there
was a reason for exceeding the allowable 3.5 units per acre with the R1-9.5
area, nor that the project would be enhanced by the additional density.
Planner Enger pointed out that the densities of the existing developments to
. the north and west were less than two units per acre, whereas the Muirfield
overall development was proposing 3.19 units per acre. He added that one of
Staff's major concerns with this project was the transition provided between
the R1-9.5 area and the larger lot R1-13.5 area, which took place across the
street from each other. Planner Enger stated that this was a rather abrupt
transition method used by the proponent.
Gartner stated that she saw no reason or argument given in favor of the
Guide Plan Change proposed by the proponents. Torjeson stated that he
agreed with Gartner.
Marhula stated that he was in general agreement with the overall plan,
however, he was concerned about the proponents exceeding the 2.5 units per
acre allowed for this property.
Chairman Bearman stated that, as a rule, the City would consider a Planned
Unit Development District for a project if the City would be receiving
something in trade, such as a conservation area or a preservation of a
natural feature. He asked proponents their reasons for the request of the
Planned Unit Development and what the City would be receiving in return for
granting of the Planned Unit Development with its flexibility.
Mr. Putnam responded that the assessments for the property were extensive
and that the property would be difficult to develop with these assessments
at the 2.5 units per acre, or less. Chairman Bearman reiterated his
question regarding what the City would receive in return for granting of the
Planned Unit Development. Mr. Putnam responded that the development by
Rutland Homes to the southeast, which would include the townhouse area would
provide a very nice project for the City. He stated that there were no
parks or other amenities being proposed within the development and that it
was considered by the proponent to be unnecessary to provide these amenities
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 9, 1984
due to the fact that there were so many City amenities within such close
proximity to the property.
Torjeson stated that the project to the south, while having received a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change for higher density, had provided a rather
sufficient buffer between the higher density and the lower density homes on
the north side of Valley View Road. Berming and larger lot single family
homes had been located at the periphery of the project to provide a
transition. He stated that he did not see such a transition provided within
this project.
Mr. Edward Farr, 17971 Evanston, stated that he had several concerns and
considerations regarding the project. He stated that he would prefer the
lesser density for the project; that he would prefer only one of the two
roads which met the northern boundary of the project be connected through
the project; that construction traffic be routed only to the property from
Valley View Road as opposed to entering from either of the two roads at the
north boundary of the project; and he expressed concern that these rolling
hills within this area would be cut down and graded flat as opposed to left
in a natural state by the higher density.
Mr. Warren Meyer, 6980 Loralee Lane, stated that he agreed with Mr. Farr
regarding his concerns about the project. He further expressed concern
• regarding the connection of one or both of the roads at the northern edge of
the property through the project due to potential traffic which would result
from the new homes within this vicinity. Mr. Meyer also stated concern for
the amount of traffic already existing on Valley View Road.
Mr. Bud Rotter, Rutland Construction, stated that there were many positive
features about his portion of the development. He stated that there would
be four off-street parking spaces per unit, the units would range in size
from 938 square feet to 1,670 square feet, and that each unit would have
ample storage space. Mr. Rotter stated that he felt the allowance for
smaller lots offered the developers an opportunity to put quality back into
the homes as opposed to putting more money into the lot purchase itself.
Mr. Bob Thurk, 6991 Boyd Avenue, stated that he would prefer the area be
built as R1-13.5 instead of R1-9.5. He stated that he wanted to be certain
that this project would not add assessment costs to the existing residential
homes to the north.
Ms. Maureen Brady, 18216 Valley View Road, stated that she felt the majority
of the neighbors in this area were against the higher density. She stated
that she felt there was a good possibility of putting too great a burden on
Prairie View Elementary School.
Chairman Bearman stated that he was concerned that proponents were
requesting a Planned Unit Development for this project without providing the
City a "trade off" such as open space or other amenities which were
• generally considered a requirement of Planned Unit Development projects.
Chairman Bearman questioned whether the City was losing its focus regarding
the purpose of R1-9.5 zoning districts and the Planned Unit Development
process with a project such as this.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 9, 1984
Planner Enger stated that the Planned Unit Development process was intended
to provide the ability for a plan to accomplish better site design and
livability to a project which, under strict interpretation of the zoning
districts, would not be as well designed, or save natural features. He
added that control was available within the R1-9.5 district for
architectural variety.
Marhula stated that he felt there were some good features about the plan.
He stated that, overall , the project would be within the Low Density
Residential Guide Plan densities. Marhula suggested that, in view of the
fact that the proponent was requesting a Planned Unit Development, the City
should provide as much control over the project as was felt necessary to
provide a good development for the overall community.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public
hearing to the July 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent
time to make revisions to the project according to the Staff Report of July
6, 1984, keeping in mind that the project should be within the 2.5 units per
acre Guide Plan density for Low Density Residential development, unless
there is a very compelling case for something other than 2.5 units per acre.
Motion carried--5-0-0
C. BLUFFS WEST 3RD ADDITION, by The Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately three acres
and Preliminary Plat of 14.3 acres into 20 single family lots.
Location: North of Burr Ridge Lane, south of Purgatory Creek. A
public hearing.
Included in this week's packets are the plans and written materials for the
subject project, along with the Staff Report evaluating the request.
After presentation by the proponent, report by the Staff, questions by the
Planning Commission, and comments from the audience, appropriate action
would be as follows:
Mr. Peter Knaeble, representing proponent, reviewed the site characteristics
and development features of the site with the Commission. He stated that
the Shoreland Management Ordinance requirements had been taken into
consideration with respect to setbacks from the creek. Utilities existed in
Burr Ridge Lane adjacent to the project. Mr. Knaeble stated that the
project would require filling of the ravine as proposed by proponent.
However, Staff had suggested an alternative plan, which proponent was
considering, and which would not require the filling of the ravine. Mr.
Knaeble added that there would be no grading done within the conservancy
area of Purgatory Creek. Due to the fact that the site was densely wooded,
Staff had also requested a tree inventory of the property to determine how
• many significant trees would be lost with construction of the project. Mr.
Knaeble stated that the tree inventory had not yet been completed.
Planner Enger stated that, due to the great amount of trees and the severe
topographic changes on this property, a cul-de-sac type development was
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 9, 1984
preferred and would preserve many more of the natural site features in this
area. He added that Staff had suggested changes to the storm water drainage
plan for the property as well . Of key concern to this property would be the
restoration of slopes, particularly along the ravine.
Marhula asked if the proposed road alignments of Staff would interfere in
any way with existing homes or lots in this area. It was determined that
they would not.
Mr. Erwin Templin, 11311 Burr Ridge Lane, expressed concern for the erosion
which was already taking place in this area. He stated that there were
three lots which were currently being built upon and for which erosion
controls had not been provided during construction, resulting in much dirt
and fill washing into the ravine and across the backyards of some of the
existing residents. Mr. Templin asked if it was possible that the developer
could exert more control over the builders in situations such as this.
Mr. Wally Hustad Jr., Bluffs Company, stated that there was little control
that a developer could exercise over the builders once the lot was sold.
Planner Enger stated that it would be possible for the City to require the
developer or the builder to post a bond prior to grading for purposes of
providing restoration for such development. The Commission concurred that
Staff should check with the City Attorney as to an instrument that would
. make this possible.
Mr. Mark Thompson, 11202 Burr Ridge Lane, stated that he had been told upon
purchase of his home that Burr Ridge Lane would not be a through street. He
stated that he had paid a premium for his lot due to the fact that it was at
the end of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Thompson pointed out that even if the road
were to be continued through, there would not be enough room between his lot
and the lift station located near him to put a fifty-foot wide road and
right-of-way.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to continue the public
hearing to the July 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting, to allow
proponent opportunity to revise the plans per the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated July 7, 1984, and to provide a tree inventory for Staff
review.
Motion carried--5-0-0
D. BLUFFS WEST 4TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of two
acres into six single family residential lots. Location: Northeast
quadrant of Riverview Road and Homeward Hills Road. A public
hearing.
is Mr. Peter Knaeble, representing proponent, reviewed the site characteristics
and development features for the project. Planner Franzen reviewed the
Staff Report evaluating the project.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 9, 1984
Chairman Bearman asked if there were alternatives to the access proposed for
these properties. Planner Franzen stated that there would be alternatives,
however, this would result in very restrictive buildable areas within many
of the lots for this project.
Marhula asked if access would be available in the future for these lots from
the east. Planner Franzen stated that this would be a possibility.
Gartner stated that she felt direct access to Homeward Hills Road, as was
shown on the plans, was not the best alternative for access to this
property.
Torjeson asked if it would be possible to allow for eventual access to the
property from the east by providing for an easement at the north end of the
property. Staff pointed out that the proponent did not own the property to
the east.
Ms. Feyda Aldridge, 10492 Wimbledon Court, asked where the through street
would enter the property as proposed by Torjeson and what impact this would
have on her lot to the west. Staff reviewed this on the maps available from
the proponent.
Mr. Dennis Laufenburger, 11800 Riverview Road, asked if this project would
be able to provide a totlot. Staff stated that the project was too small
for that type of requirement. Mr. Laufenburger also asked about the
proposed land use for the property to the east. Planner Enger responded
that the property had been guided for Low Density Residential development,
as was the case in this vicinity overall.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Preliminary Plat
of Bluffs West 4th Addition for 2.0 acres into single family lots, based on
plans and written materials dated June 25, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of July 6, 1984, with the following
changes: Eliminate Item #la from the Staff Report; add: Staff shall
investigate the possibility of an easement across the north portion of the
property, across from Devonshire Place for future access to the property.
Motion carried--5-0-0
E. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots.
Location: South of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 9, 1984
Mr. Peter Knaeble, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed development
with the Planning Commission. He stated that the storm sewer drainage for
this project would require further study.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report with the Planning Commission. He pointed out that adjacent lots, on
the average, were 1.7 acres in size whereas the lots within Bluffs West 5th
Addition were proposed to be approximately 14,000 square feet at the
largest. Planner Franzen added that the temporary ponding area proposed by
proponent could be a problem in the future to the homeowners in this area.
Marhula stated that he was concerned about the temporary storm water
detention pond. Mr. Wally Hustad Jr., Bluffs Company, stated that they had
been in contact with the property owners to the west regarding the location
of the pond on that property.
Mr. Walter Diers, 11650 Riverview Road, asked if the utilities necessary for
this project would effect property owners to the north. Planner Enger
stated that it was possible, but that it would not necessarily be so. Mr.
Diers pointed out that the only access away from this development in any
direction would be through Concord Lane and from there to Homeward Hills
Road. He stated that this would be a great increase in traffic for the
property owners on Concord. Planner Franzen stated that this development
would represent approximately 320 trips per day, and that peak period
traffic would increase approximately ten percent based on this project.
Ms. Lori Christianson, 11740 Riverview Road, stated that traffic along
Riverview Road was already a difficult situation. She stated that she was
opposed to the increased housing and that she felt the zoning should be an
R1-22, or greater, lot size.
Ms. Linda Soderlund, 11830 Riverview Road, stated that she, too, was
concerned regarding traffic.
Mr. Dennis Soderlund, 11830 Riverview Road, stated that he was opposed to
the change in zoning to this area, and that he, too, felt that an R1-22, or
greater, lot size should be used in this vicinity.
Ms. Judy Finnicum, 11710 Riverview Road, stated that since the property was
currently zoned R1-22 she felt that it should remain R1-22.
Mr. Dennis Laufenburger, 11800 Riverview Road, asked if any agency had done
a traffic study of this vicinity recently. He questioned how much traffic
was currently routed along Riverview Road and how much was planned for the
future, considering that this was the only east/west road within this area
for a large group of homeowners. Mr. Wally Hustad Jr., Bluffs Company,
stated that in his discussions with the people in this area regarding this
project they had pointed out to him that traffic was indeed a problem along
Riverview Road. Mr. Laufenburger stated that he had additional concerns
regarding the wildlife which existed in this area. He stated that he would
• not want to see all of the wildlife in this area, particularly since it was
highly populated due to the creek with wildlife, displaced by this project.
Mr. James Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, presented the 1954 plat for
Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 9, 1984
this area, which he stated he had receive from his real estate agent at the
time he purchased his lot. This project showed a total of 20 lots, as
opposed to the 32 shown by the proponent. He stated he was also concerned
that the lots directly across the street from him would be much smaller and
suggested that they be increased in size to match the property sizes to the
south. Of greatest concern to Mr. Diehl was the fact that the north/south
road coming through the center of the property would align directly across
from his driveway. He stated that this was of major concern to him due to
the fact that he had two small children, which he felt would be in an unsafe
situation should this road be allowed to be aligned in this manner. In
addition, Mr. Diehl stated that he felt the vacated right-of-way that
proponent would be receiving from the City should be split between the
proponent and the adjacent property owners on the periphery of the site.
Mrs. Diehl , 10530 West Riverview Drive, stated that she, too, was against
the north/south road for the same reasons as her husband. She added' that
based on the 1954 plat presented by a real estate agent, they had paid a
premium for their lot.
Mr. Charles Koshenina, 10541 East Riverview Drive, stated that he too was
concerned about the wildlife in this vicinity. He pointed out that there
were three major deer runs through this property and winding around the
adjacent properties. Mr. Koshenina also expressed concern for the amount of
traffic that would result from this development.
Chairman Bearman asked if Staff was aware of any traffic studies or plans
for this area. Planner Enger responded that Riverview Road and its future
upgrading had not been included in the City's Capital Improvement Program,
which covered a five-year period.
Ms. Ellen Koshenina, 10541 East Riverview Drive, stated that she felt a
traffic study for this vicinity would be very important. She added that,
due to the limited alternatives for exiting this neighborhood, such a
traffic study would be important to this neighborhood. She added that she
was against. a higher density proposed for this site.
Mr. Stan Moeschl, 11620 Riverview Road, stated that he was against the high
density proposed by the site. He also expressed concern regarding the
safety of children with the roads aligned as they were through this
property.
Ms. Marilyn Stofferahn, 11968 Pendleton Court, expressed concern for traffic
and for preservation of the wildlife in this area.
Mr. Regis Betsch, 11941 Pendleton Court, stated that he felt the run-off
from storm water in this area would be a major issue. He stated that with
the development of this property, fertilizers, etc., would pollute the water
in this vicinity and potentially harm wildlife in the area.
Ms. Lorna Harju, 11770 Riverview Road, stated that she felt the north/south
i road through the property should be changed to an east/west road as shown on
the 1954 plat. She stated that she would be in favor of sidewalks along
Riverview Road and other streets in this area for safety of the children,
and that, overall, she had a concern regarding traffic. She also suggested
Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 9, 1984
• that the density be lowered for this property.
The Commission discussed the road and traffic situations in this vicinity in
greater detail with the Staff.
Torjeson stated that he did not see a compelling reason for changing the
pattern of development in this area south of Riverview Road to a density
which was greater than, or a lot size which was smaller than, those existing
in this vicinity.
Marhula asked if the property was required to have public improvements for
sewer and water due to the fact that it was R1-22 at this time. Staff
stated that the R1-22 zone had originally been established for areas which
would not require sewer and water. However, in this vicinity, the bluffs
were a very sensitive geographic feature which would require sewer and water
for lot sizes this small.
Schuck stated that he felt the members of the audience should recognize that
property owners had a right to develop their property. However, the
Planning Commission did have concerns that the property not adversely affect
them. He stated that he was concerned that the driveway which opened onto
the proposed public street running north/south through the property would
have such an adverse impact on the existing property owner. He suggested
that this should be changed in order to improve the development.
• MOTION 1•
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to continue the public
hearing to the meeting of July 23, 1984, to allow proponent to revise the
site plan per the concerns of the Commission and the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated July 20, 1984 and to deal, specifically, with the
following issues: 1) Status of the excess right-of-way shown in the
preliminary plat; 2) Configuration of the roads within the development, in
particular, orientation of the roads within the plat and those intersections
as they relate to the existing single family homes; 3) Revision of the road
frontages of the lots within the proposed subdivision as they relate to the
existing lots to assure greater compatibility; 4) Status of the future
collector plans for Riverview Road; and 5) Review of the storm water
drainage situation for the project.
Motion carried--4-1-0 (Chairman Bearman against)
Chairman Bearman stated he was against saying that he felt legally, the City
would be hard-pressed not to approve the plat as presented.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. NEW •BUSINESS
None.
• VI. OLD BUSINESS
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 July 9, 1984
•
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Schuck, seconded by Marhula.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 1:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�� e64,ot�
Kate Karnas 5
Recording Secretary