Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/23/1984 AGENDA Monday, July 23, 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. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ( 7:30) A. 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 continued public hearing. ( 7:40) B. 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. A continued public hearing. ( 7:45) C. LANDMARK WEST, by Landmark Northwest, Inc. Request for Compre- hensive 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. ( 8:15) D. SHADY OAK RIDGE, by Joseph Ruzic. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential ; Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5; and Preliminary Plat of 11.5 acres for 48 townhouse units. Location: North of Rowland Road, west of Old Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing. Agenda July 23, 1984 Page 2 ( 9:00) E. 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 continued public hearing. (10:00) F. REYNOLDS PRINTING, INC., by Sigmund J. Helle. Request for Site Plan and Zoning District Amendment for office/assembly/warehouse use on 4.9 acres of Norseman's 6th Addition. Location: Northeast quadrant of Valley View Road and W. 74th Street. A public hearing. IV. NEW BUSINESS - V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORT VII. 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 23, 1984 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen MEMBER ABSENT: Robert Hallett STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Schuck, to amend the agenda to the • following order under Development Proposals: A, B, F, C, D, E. Motion carried--6-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. 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 continued public hearing. Proponent had requested postponement of this item to the August 13, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time to revise the plans for the area. Staff notified the property owners immediately adjacent to the project by mail of the proponent's request. MOTION: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to continue the public hearing for Bluffs West 3rd Addition to the August 13, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 23, 1984 B. 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. A continued public hearing. Proponent had requested postponement of this item to the August 13, 1984, • Planning Commission meeting to allow more time to revise the plans. Staff had notified the property owners immediately adjacent to the project by mail of the proponent's request for postponement. MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to continue the public hearing on Bluffs West 5th Addition to the August 13, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried--6-0-0 F. REYNOLDS PRINTING, INC., by Sigmund J. Helle. Request for Site Plan and Zoning District Amendment for office/assembly/warehouse use on 4.9 acres of Norseman's 6th Addition. Location: Northeast quadrant of Valley View Road and W. 74th Street. A public hearing. In review of this project, Staff had determined that a revised platting would be necessary to allow this project on the lot size requested. This happened early in the review process and proponent was attempting to have the lot line relocated as part of the final plat review of Norseman Industrial Park 6th Addition by the Council at their meeting of July 17, 1984. The proponent was unable to accomplish this and, therefore, requested Staff to postpone further review of this item until the plat and site plan could be presented to the Commission as one item at a future date. MOTION: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public hearing for Reynolds Printing to the August 27, 1984, Planning Commission meeting per the request of proponent. Motion carried--6-0-0 C. LANDMARK WEST, by Landmark Northwest, Inc. Request for Compre- hensive 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. The hearing for this item was continued from the June 18, and July 9, 1984, Planning Commission meetings to this meeting. The continuations were to allow proponent time to prepare additional information required for evaluation of the project by the Commission and Staff, as well as to make Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 23, 1984 16 revisions in architecture, internal traffic circulation, landscaping, and general consistency and coordination with the other approved uses within the City West Planned Unit Development. Of key importance was substantiation of the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan change for the property. Planner Enger stated that upon initial review of the traffic information, there were inconsistencies found which needed to be rectified. He stated that Staff would require additional time to review these conclusions with the City's consulting traffic engineer before making recommendations on the land use change. Staff added that the following information had still not been prepared by the proponents and would be required for Staff to make a detailed review of the project: detailed architectural development of the building elevations, a landscape plan for the entire site with details for the plaza area as it related to the building and ponding areas, and lighting and signage plans which included complete overall signage and lighting details for the entire development. Mr. John Uban, Howard Dahlgren and Associates, representing proponents, reviewed their substantiation of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Office to Commercial to allow the proposed usage of the shopping area. He reviewed the goals of the City's Guide Plan which this project would serve in this location. • Mr. Paul Dahlberg, Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson, architects for proponents, reviewed the revised architectural and site plan features for the project. Torjesen asked what amount of reduction had been made in the project in terms of square footage. Mr. Uban responded that the project had been revised from 56,000 sq. ft. to 49,000 sq. ft., which was approximately 10%. Torjesen asked what the size of the office area would be which would be serviced by this commercial development. Mr. Uban responded that there would be approximately 1,500,000 sq. ft. of office use serviced by this project. Torjesen questioned whether it might be more appropriate for the uses proposed within this project to be located within the lower level of one of the office buildings, such as had been done in other large office developments in the vicinity. Torjesen asked if there would be another site in this area within which these uses could be located. Mr. Uban reviewed several other vacant sites in the area, stating the reasons why these sites had been eliminated from consideration. Torjesen asked Staff whether this use could have been located within the commercial area at the south end of the City West Planned Unit Development. Staff responded that this area had been guided for Regional Commercial usage and had projects approved for the area which fit the Regional Commercial designation, such as the hotel and an office building. The uses proposed by Landmark would be more of a service nature. Torjesen expressed concern for the amount of change taking place in the City West Planned Unit Development area. He stated that he felt the residents of the area had counted on the City maintaining a particular posture regarding Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 23, 1984 the uses approved at the initial public hearings on the City West development. However, many of the uses which had been approved originally were being changed based on a buyer's interest as opposed to sound planning reasons. He stated that he felt the residents looked upon the Guide Plan with a sense of security as to what would be developed in the area and that he could understand why some of the residents would feel that the City had let them down by allowing changes in the approved Guide Plan uses for the City West area. Chairman Bearman stated that his primary concern with the project was traffic as it related to circulation and volume based on the proposed usage of the property. Johannes stated that he felt there was a need for these uses in this vicinity. He added that he, too, was concerned about traffic, but that he had no objection to the overall concept proposed by proponents. Torjesen asked how and why the traffic study had changed from the previous review of the project. Mr. Uban responded that changes had been made to reflect the actual uses approved within the City West development and the actual users known for the Landmark site, as opposed to use of general categories. The information with respect to Shady Oak Road and the Crosstown Freeway had not changed. Chairman Bearman stated that he felt much traffic would be drawn to the • service station as there was not another service station within several miles of the site. Mr. Charles Mills, a future tenant of the Primetech area within City West to the south, stated that he felt the proposed uses were necessary for this area. He pointed out that he currently was a tenant of another development within Eden Prairie, but that services for his business were all outside of the City limits. For example, he stated that he must travel to Edina for office supplies, Hopkins or Bloomington for lunch with clients, etc. He stated that it would save him a great deal of time to have these services located so close to his future business location. Mr. Mills added that, in his opinion, more traffic would be created if these uses were not provided within City West as it would require businesses like his to travel outside of the City more to obtain necessary services. Mrs. Wayne Kinion, 6401 Shady Oak Road, had several questions about the Landmark development and the overall City West Planned Unit Development. These included: 1) why there had been a change from high density residential to commercial for this site; 2) how a buffer could be incorporated between her rural property and the commercial development of the proponents; 3) why additional restaurants would be needed when the hotel within City West would likely have more than one restaurant; 4) why the additional services proposed would be necessary when Eden Prairie Center, which, in her opinion, was underutilized, was only three miles away and had these uses. She also questioned what use would be allowed on her property in the future. Mr. Uban responded to the question regarding restaurants stating that typically restaurants in hotels had been found to service their patrons, Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 23, 1984 ionly, and some weekend customers, but generally not the surrounding office uses. He responded to the question regarding the fact that many of the proposed uses existed within the Eden Prairie Center by stating that the center was three miles away. Ten uses such as this were proposed within the City's Comprehensive Plan to be located in various places in the City. Chairman Bearman responded regarding the proposal change from High Density Residential to Commercial for the site. He stated that the Commission had not yet approved any change in the Comprehensive Plan, but that developers could propose anything to the City, with justification. The Commission, Council, and, of course, surrounding residents, would have an opportunity to review the project as proposed. Chairman Bearman explained to Mrs. Kinion that her property was guided as Medium Density Residential, which was the use shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan for her property. Mr. Uban added that there would be approximately 5,000 employees within the 1,500,000 sq. ft. of office space to be developed in this area, all of which would be needing restaurant facilities. He pointed out that the restaurants were different types including a sandwich shop, a fast-food restaurant, and a "white table cloth" restaurant. Torjesen stated that he felt the question of transition between the rural use of the Kinion home and the proposed commercial development was a valid one, which should be addressed. V Mr. Ken Beirsdorf, representing Len and Betty Uherka, 6301 Shady Oak Road, asked about the impact of this use on the Uherka property. He stated that he felt the use could possibly be located on the Uherka property, if it proved to be inappropriate for the City West area. Mr. Uban stated that it would be more of an inconvenience for the employees of the City West area to be crossing Shady Oak Road for the services to be provided in the project, and would likely be more of a traffic problem, as well , if located there. Marhula stated that he had no general problems with the development as proposed. He stated that he was concerned that this area was part of a Planned Unit Development which seemed to be changing with each final proposal . He pointed out that he was unsure whether any of the plans approved for the site had been based upon the original Planned Unit Development approved for the property. Gartner stated that she felt the services proposed were needed in this area. Johannes agreed. Chairman Bearman stated that he was still concerned with the traffic for this project. He asked that Staff review other sites within the area which might fit this use, and report back to the Commission as to any possibilities. MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to continue the public hearing on this item to the August 13, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 23, 1984 allow proponent adequate time to submit additional materials to Staff for detailed review of the development. Motion carried--6-0-0 D. SHADY OAK RIDGE, by Joseph Ruzic. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5; and Preliminary Plat of 11.5 acres for 48 townhouse units. Location: North of Rowland Road, west of Old Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing. Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the changes to the project from the Planning Commission meeting July 18, 1984. He pointed out that the number of units had been reduced from 48 to 36 and that the units had been spread out to save more trees where possible. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report for the revised plans. Chairman Bearman asked how long the proposed private cul-de-sac would be. Mr. Krueger responded that it would be approximately 900-1,000 feet in length. Torjesen stated that he felt that private streets should be judged the same • as public streets as to safety, etc. He stated that he felt the 500 ft. maximum length of cul-de-sac for public streets should apply to this private street, as well. Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the cul-de-sac length was justified in that many more trees would be saved and that, as designed, it would have less impact upon the steep slopes within the property. Torjesen stated that this area was designated for 2.5 units per acre according the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He asked what justification proponents had for a greater density. Mr. Krueger stated that the proposal was for 3.1 units per acre. He pointed out that the units would likely not be visible from Shady Oak Road due to the amount of trees on the site which would remain after development. He stated that 2.5 units per acre would allow approximately 28 units for the entire site. Torjesen expressed concern for the impact that this site would have on adjacent similar properties to if allowed to be developed at 3.1 units per acre. He stated that these areas, too, were guided for 2.5 units per acre, and questioned whether the City would be setting a precedent for the development of the area by allowing this site to be 3.1 units per acre. Torjesen stated that he felt there should be better justification provided for the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential . Johannes asked why the property had not been proposed as single family residential. Mr. Ruzic stated that this had been reviewed originally; Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 23, 1984 however, the result would be to lose many more trees and to require much more cutting of the slopes in the area. Preservation of the natural features with a single family detached development would be extremely difficult. Mrs. Wayne Kinion, 6401 Shady Oak Road, stated that her property was located to the east of this site. She stated that she had several concerns, including: 1) Two four-unit structures would be located directly across from her home and the developer had provided no buffering of the property; 2) The eight units across from her home would be accessing Shady Oak Road at the same point as her driveway, possibly causing traffic and access problems; 3) The cul-de-sac allowed only one access for emergency vehicles to the units within this project; and 4) How and when would sanitary sewer and water be impacting her property due to this project being built. Mr. Krueger stated that sewer and water were already available to the Ruzic site. He stated that they would be petitioning for the public improvements for that property, only. Mrs. Kinion questioned the drainage on the site, also. Staff stated that the storm water drainage had been reviewed by the Engineering Department Staff and would be reviewed again when the final utility plans were prepared for the property. Torjesen stated that he felt Mrs. Kinion had a valid point regarding screening of the multi-family use from her rural land to the east and suggested that proponents provide some method of screening in this area. Planner Enger stated that adjustment of the two northerly four-unit structures to be oriented in an east-west direction, instead of north-south direction, would provide less visual impact on the Kinion property. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Joe Ruzic for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for Shady Oak Ridge for 11.5 acres, based on revised plans dated July 19, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of June 8, and July 20, 1984, and with the following added conditions: 1) Developer shall amend the site plan to reflect an east-west orientation of the northerly two four-unit structures and provide screening of these two structures from the rural property to the east; 2) Developer shall provide covenants dealing with exterior maintenance of the structures and private road; and, 3) Developer shall provide detailed information regarding trees to be removed and, during construction, shall fence the construction limits and replace any significant trees lost within 25 ft. of the construction limits which are lost with construction. Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 23, 1984 0 Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen against) Torjesen stated that he was against the density change for the site. MOTION 3: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Joe Ruzic for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 for 11.5 acres for the Shady Oak Ridge townhouse project, based on revised plans dated July 19, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of June 8, and July 20, 1984, with the following added conditions: 1) Developer shall amend the site plan to reflect an east-west orientation of the northerly two four-unit structures and provide screening of these two structures from the rural property to the east; 2) Developer shall provide covenants dealing with exterior maintenance of the structure and private road; and 3) Developer shall provide detailed information regarding trees to be removed and, during construction, shall fence the construction limits and replace any significant trees lost within 25 ft. of the construction limits which are lost with construction. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Joe Ruzic for Preliminary Plat of 11.5 acres for townhouse units, to be known as Shady Oak Ridge, based on revised plans dated July 19, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of June 8, and July 20, 1984, with the following added condition: 1) Developer shall amend the site plan to reflect an east-west orientation of the northerly two four-unit structures and provide screening of these two structures from the rural property to the east; 2) Developer shall provide covenants dealing with exterior maintenance of the structures and private road; and, 3) Developer shall provide detailed information retarding trees to be removed and, during construction, shall fence the construction limits and replace any significant trees lost within 25 ft. of the construction limits which are lost with construction. Motion carried--6-0-0 E. 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 continued public hearing. Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, reviewed the changes made in the plan since the July 9, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the revised plans. Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 23, 1984 Chairman Bearman stated that, based on the changes to the plan, he still did not see any justification for a Planned Unit Development in terms of a trade-off to the City for providing greater flexibility to the developer for design or density. He stated that he also felt the developer had not provided any compelling reasons for a change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan for density beyond 2.5 units per acre. Torjesen stated that he agreed. Ms. Joan Meyers, 6930 Boyd Avenue, stated she was concerned about the staging of the development. She stated that she did not feel the higher density was appropriate for this site. Ms. Meyers also expressed concern regarding a homeowners' association and maintenance responsbilities for the property. Mr. Putnam stated that a homeowners' association would be established for the area and the Rutland's past experience with such associations had been good. The association, he stated, tended to be conscientious and responsible in terms of maintaining high property values for their projects. Mr. Jack McCreery, 7109 Parkview Lane, stated that he had not been as concerned with the development of Apple Groves to the south as a buffer had been provided between the multi-family area and the single family area. He stated that he did not feel the buffer provided within the Muirfield project was adequate. Mr. McCreery also questioned whether there would be a precedent set for the property to the east to have higher density development if this development were approved with higher density. Ms. Judy Peterson, 7157 Ticonderoga, expressed concern for the amount of traffic this would generate onto Valley View Road. She stated that she felt this road was already overburdened with traffic congestion. Gartner noted that South Shore Lane was "disjointed" in its alignment and suggested that City Staff try to avoid situation such as this in the future to aide in finding street addresses within the community. Johannes stated that he had no major objections to the project; however, he, too, felt that justification for the proposed Guide Plan change had not been provided. Mr. Rotter, representing Rutland Construction, builders for the higher density portion of the project, stated that he did not feel these units would work on larger lots. By having smaller lots, he stated that his company had found that they were able to put more quality into the structures. Ms. Maureen Brady, 18216 Valley View Road, stated that she did not agree with proponents regarding the type of people who would buy the units. For example, she stated that she felt that "empty-nesters" would not want to locate next to an active park area, which would be the case for this project. Mr. Darrell Westby, 7107 Parkview Lane, stated that higher density housing was available in other parts of the community, and in close proximity to this property. He stated that he did not feel it should be located on this property, too. Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 23, 1984 Gartner stated that she felt it had been the City's intent all along not to allow the Guide Plan to change to a higher density along the north side of Valley View Road. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 The Commission discussed various motions regarding the project. These included denial of the proposed Guide Plan change based upon the previous discussion of the meeting, approval of the Guide Plan change, subject to modifications as listed in the Staff Report, and continuation. Planner Enger stated that, according to the City Attorney, according to State Statute, a negative recommendation on the Comprehensive Guide Plan by the Planning Commission could preclude the City Council from reviewing the proposal . The Commissioners agreed that it was not their intention to preclude any Council review of this item. They concurred that the Council should review the project, along with Commission comments and that it was their intent to retain their position as a recommending body to the Council , with the Council acting as the final authority in such matters. Gartner stated that the project represented small lot, expensive housing, not available to low or moderate income families. She stated that, if this criteria had been met, perhaps a Guide Plan change could have been justified. Torjesen suggested that the Commission structure into their motion the opportunity for the proponents to appeal the action of the Planning Commission to the Council, wherein the Council could, if they disagreed with the Commission, return the item to the Commission with their comments for other action. MOTION 2: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council that the request of Tandem Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for 25 acres of the project known as Muirfield be denied, but, in order for this question to be reviewed by the City Council, and for that reason only, the action of the Commission be one of recommending approval at this time. Motion failed--2-4-0 (Torjesen and Marhula in favor) (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, Johannes, Schuck against) Mr. Putnam stated that proponents would prefer to be forwarded to the Council, instead of continued at the Planning Commission any longer. Planning Commission Minutes 11 July 23, 1984 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for 25 acres for the Muirfield Addition, based on revised written materials and plans dated July 17, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of July 6, and July 20, 1984. Motion failed--3-3-0 (Johannes, Schuck, and Marhula in favor) (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, and Torjesen against) IV. NEW BUSINESS None. V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. PLANNER'S REPORT Flying Cloud Airport Commission The signage ordinance proposed by the Flying Cloud Airport Commission for all airport property has been referred to the Planning Commission for review prior to Council action. The City Council has continued a public hearing on this matter to August 7, 1984, to allow for the Commission's review. As there will not be adequate time to complete this review by the Commission prior to August 7, 1984, the Commission may consider the following action appropriate: MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to request postponement of the Council hearing and review of the Flying Cloud Airport signage ordinance to the August 28, 1984, Council meeting to allow the Planning Commission adequate time for review and input on this matter. Motion carried--6-0-0 VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate Karnas Recording Secretary