Planning Commission - 02/24/1986 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 24, 1986
030 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner,
Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:35) A. BLUFFS EAST 4TH, by Hustad Development. Request for a Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on approximately 196 acres and Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on
approximately 33 acres and Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-9.5, with variances, on 18.91 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 43.53 acres into 51 single family lots and 2 outlots.
Location: West of County Road #18, north and west of Bluff Road, and west of
Franlo Road. A continued public hearing.
8:15) B. DONNAY'S ROUND LAKE ESTATES, by LAD Properties, Inc. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
on 14.71 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit
Development District Review on 34.92 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to
R1-13.5 on 9.58 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5, with variances, on 14.71 acres
and Preliminary Plat of 34.92 acres into 69 lots and one outlot. Location:
North of Highway #5, south of Lorence Way and west of Atherton Way. A continued
public hearing.
(9:00) C. TOUCH OF CLASS INTERIORS, by Kate and Craig Halverson. Request for Guide Plan
Amendment, and Zoning District Change from Rural to Office for an interior
design studio. Location: Southwest quadrant of County Roads #1 and #18. A
continued public hearing.
(9:15) D. OLYMPIC HILLS 7TH ADDITION, by Olympic Hills Land Corporation. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.05 acres for construction of
three single family homes. Location: 10602, 10632, 10662 Mount Curve Road. A
public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
0II. PLANNER'S REPORT
,II. ADJOURNMENT
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER,
OR LATER, THAN LISTED.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 24, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia
Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes
MEMBER ABSENT: Dennis Marhula
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas,
Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to approve the minutes of
the January 27, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Bye abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BLUFFS EAST 4TH9 by Hustad Development. Request for a Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on approximately 196 acres and
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on approximately 33 acres and Planned
Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-9.5, with variances, on 18.91 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 43.53 acres into 51 single family lots and 2 outlots.
Location: West of County Road #18, north and west of Bluff Road,
and west of Franlo Road. A continued public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 24, 1986
Staff reported that the had met several times with the
p y proponent to discuss
the unresolved items identified in the initial Staff Report and at the
Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1986. It was noted that the
proponent was reluctant to accommodate changes that would introduce a minor
collector road into the project. Staff had received a number of calls from
the existing Bluff Road single family lot area, expressing concern about a
potential high-volume collector road that they understood the City was
proposing immediately adjacent to their subdivision.
Mr. Wally Hustad, proponent, reviewed two alternative plans with the
Commission. He stated that the "preferred plan" would be the one which
showed cul-de-sacs off the minor collector road, thereby eliminating
driveways to the minor collector road. Mr. Hustad noted that other changes
in the plans included the widening of lots along Bluff Road to 100 ft., a
smaller area was planned for R1-9.5 zoning, which created an increase in the
amount of area proposed for R1-13.5 zoning.
Mr. Hustad stated that the Hennepin County Transportation Department had not
yet completed there study of traffic in the vicinity of County Roads #1 and
#18. He noted that proponents were not concerned about the interchange, but
that they were concerned about the final location of the west frontage road
for County Road #18. Mr. Hustad stated that he did not feel it would be a
problem to have the west frontage road become the minor collector through
the property, meandering through the land to the west.
• Mr. Hustad stated that he would like the City to consider action on the
single family portion of the property at this time. He noted that the
project would be phased over a ten-year period for development. He stated
that this would mean there would be a minimum impact on traffic in this area
during that time, which would allow the County to finalize its decisions
regarding the alignment of the County Road #1 and #18 interchange and the
attendant frontage roads for County Road #18.
Regarding the storm water drainage situation for the area, Mr. Hustad stated
that he was under the impression that as long as there was progress taking
place in the direction of a solution for storm water drainage for this area,
that the July 31, 1986, deadline imposed by the Watershed District for
solution to the area situation would not be a problem.
Mr. Hustad stated that, with respect to a trail to be located along the
Purgatory Creek river bed, it was proponent's position that this not be
installed in this location for purposes of maintaining the pristene natural
areas along the creek. He noted that the slopes were also difficult in this
area.
Planner Franzen reviewed the "preferred plan" against the concerns of the
previous Staff Report of January 24, 1986, and the concerns raised at the
Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1986. He stated that Staff was
concerned that the R1-9.5 District proposed be reduced in size, noting that
the original intent of the District was for provision of low and moderate
income housing opportunities in the community. He stated that proponents
had made their intentions clear regarding the values of the homes to be
included in this development, and that they did not intend to include low,
or moderate, cost housing.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 24, 1986
Planner Franzen noted that Staff was still concerned about traffic matters,
as well . He stated that while Staff understood that proponents did not need
to have the County's decision regarding the road system in order to begin
work on the single family portion of the development, Staff was still of the
opinion that an issue of the magnitude should not be left unresolved,
especially considering the size of the proposed development. Planner
Franzen stated that Staff would require additional traffic information and
redrafted plans in order to make a firm recommendation regarding the
development.
Gartner asked when the traffic information would be available from Hennepin
County. Planner Franzen stated that a traffic count would likely be
available within one week; however, long-range plans would likely not be
available that soon. Gartner asked if County Road #18 would be upgraded
without an interchange at County Road #1. Planner Franzen stated that this
was not known at this time.
Planner Enger stated that it would be irregular for the County to approve of
an intersection for a frontage road to be located approximately 300 ft. from
the interchange, itself, when standard spacing was 1,200 ft. from the
interchange. He noted that, on occasion, 600 ft. had been acceptable when
only using right-in and right-out turns. There would not be enough space
for stacking of vehicles within 300 ft.
Planner Enger stated that the traffic counts would help with this type of
decision as they would indicate how quickly the turn lanes would clear and,
therefore, how much stacking distance would be necessary.
Bye stated that she found the "preferred plan" acceptable, with the cul-de-
sacs in a revised location to provide less driveways onto the minor
collector road.
Johannes stated asked about the phasing of the development. Mr. Hustad
responded that phasing would be determined after the road information had
been completed by the County. He added that, based on the "preferred plan,"
proponents would likely begin with the R1-13.5 area along the west side of
the proposed development.
Hallett asked which plan was preferrable to the Staff. Planner Enger stated
that either plan would require modification, but that the northerly route of
the minor collector route would be preferrable to Staff.
Gartner stated that she liked the idea of the cul-de-sacs in the southeast
portion of the proposed development for purposes of keeping traffic out of
this area and not having the streets become a quick throughway for vehicles.
She asked if the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission had
reviewed the plan with respect to the proposal for a trail along the
Purgatory Creek river bed. Planner Enger responded that the City's position
on the trail had been that a trail was not desirable in this area because of
the wildlife in the valley. He stated that this had not been reviewed for
several years, but that it would be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Resources Commission at the time of their review of this development
proposal .
Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 24, 1986
Mr. Joseph Christensen, attorney, representing Mr. Martin Diestler, 9905
Bluff Road, reviewed Mr. Diestler's concerns regarding the access to his
property at the bend in Bluff Road as proposed by the development. It was
noted that the two parties were currently working on an agreement to resolve
this matter. Mr. Christensen stated that he felt it was important that the
City be aware of the situation. Mr. Christensen stated that Mr. Diestler
was in favor of a northerly alignment for a minor collector through the
property. Regarding assessments for utilities, Mr. Christensen stated that
Mr. Diestler preferred that the assessments be based on a linear foot
calculation, instead of an acreage calculation.
Mr. Martin Diestler, 9905 Bluff Road, stated that he did not believe that
only 12.5% of the traffic would use Bluff Road and that he was concerned
that it not become a through-way for the development. Mr. Diestler stated
that he would also prefer to see all of the proposed R1-9.5 lots eliminated
from the development plan.
Mr. Earl Houghton, 9795 Bluff Road, asked how deep the lots would be. Staff
responded that they were approximately 135 ft. deep.
Mr. Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, stated that he felt there should be
better transition to the existing homes along Bluff Road. He noted that the
existing homes were on lots of five acres in size, or greater. Mr. Gensmer
also expressed concern about safety in terms of accessing County Road #18
northbound from this area. He suggested that a deceleration lane be
considered to alleviate this. Mr. Gensmer suggested that, if assessments
against the existing lots became a reality, that the assessments be deferred
for those lots, in particular, until such time as they would. develop. Mr.
Gensmer stated that his other concern was that the density for the
development was too high.
Mr. Brian Gensmer, 9785 Brookview Circle, concurred that there was not
adequate transition being provided to the existing homes along Bluff Road.
He also expressed concern about density being too high for the area and that
additional traffic information be provided prior to decisions being made on
the proposal . Mr. Gensmer stated that he felt Mr. Hustad should be paying
for all the assessed utility costs which would be incurred with this
development, since the improvements were not wanted by anyone else. Mr.
Gensmer asked that the sanitary sewer and water be designed so that those
with larger lots could develop in the future, if it was to be designed at
all .
Mr. Barry Bain, 9845 Bluff Road, expressed concern about the traffic through
this area. He stated that he would prefer lots on the north side of Bluff
Road to be designated for R1-13.5 zoning, instead of R1-9.5. Mr. Hustad
responded that this area had been designated for Medium Density Residential
land use originally and was now proposed for the less dense R1-9.5 zoning.
Ms. Doris Brooker, 10164 Trotter's Path, asked if any trails would be
considered for this area. Planner Enger responded that the Parks,
Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission would be reviewing the need for
trails in this development at their meeting, when scheduled.
Mr. Diestler stated that he understood that there were plans for a park in
Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 24, 1986
this area at one time. Planner Enger responded that the City had considered
purchasing land along the creek at one time; however, the City had
determined that it would be better to designate this area along the creek
for preservation, instead. The City had been implementing the preservation
plan ever since.
Mr. Christensen asked if Outlots A and B of Creek Knolls would be required
to be within the Conservancy Area of Purgatory Creek. Mr. Hustad responded
that this had been done as part of the Creek Knolls development several
years ago.
Gartner explained to those who had raised questions about assessments that
the Planning Commission was not the group which would take action, or make
recommendation, about assessments, but that the City Council should be
contacted about such matters.
Gartner asked for a list of items which Staff felt to be necessary prior to
making a recommendation on this item. Planner Franzen stated that the list
would include, but not be limited to, revised platting, revised lot sizes,
revised phasing plan, and new traffic information. Gartner asked proponents
if these items could be completed within two weeks. Mr. Hustad stated that
he felt it was possible.
• Planner Enger reiterated the importance of the traffic study for review by
the Staff. He questioned whether the study could be prepared and given to
Staff in time for review by the next Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue this item to
the March 10, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt of the
additional information requested by Staff and the Commission and adequate
time for Staff review and recommendation on the revised plans and data.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. DONNAY'S ROUND LAKE ESTATES, by LAD Properties, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 14.71 acres, Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on
34.92 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.58
acres and from Rural to -RM-6.5, with variances, on 14.71 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 34.92 acres into 69 lots and one outlot.
Location: North of Highway #5, south of Lorence Way and west of
Atherton Way. A continued public hearing.
Mr. Mike Gair, Gair and Associates, representing proponent, presented slides
of the property proposed for development, as well as slides of other
projects completed by the developer, which would be similar in architectural
style to that proposed for this site.
Mr. Gair noted that more of the vegetation would be preserved with the
revised plans. He added that the net density of the development would be
less than that of the cluster homes development to the north of the site.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 24, 1986
Planner Uram revised the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
evaluating the revised plan, dated February 21, 1986. He noted that the
amount of tree preservation was now much closer to that previously approved
by the Crescent Ridge proposal on this site. Planner Uram stated that the
overall density was less than 2.5 units per acre for the development.
Gartner asked about the designated land use for property west of this site.
Planner Uram stated that the land was guided for Low Density Residential and
Open Space.
Chairman Schuck asked what types of trees were being preserved by the
developer. Mr. Gair responded that there would be some oaks, elms, and
ironwood trees.
Hallett stated that he was concerned about the proposed density transfer for
this proposal . He stated that the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change
seemed to invite the use of multiple family residential land use to the
west, even though the land was guided for Low Density Residential use. He
added that he preferred the revised plan for its preservation of trees.
Planner Enger explained the manner in which the concept of density transfer
had been used in the City of Eden Prairie. He noted that the Crescent Ridge
development, previously approved for this property, covered four times as
much area as this proposal did in terms of building square footage. He
stated that the question would be whether the development of the property
was better as proposed, due to the ability of the developer to preserve more
natural features using density transfer than it would be if the density were
spread across the entire site.
Mr. Lynn Seppman, 17433 Evener Way, expressed concern about traffic impact
on Evener Way because of this proposed development. He noted that children
walk in the streets at this time to go to their bus stops. He stated that
he felt most cars would likely take the easier route of Evener Way, rather
than Lorence Way, to exist this neighborhood. Planner Enger noted that the
construction of Dell Road was required when development would take place
after this phase of the property for the Crescent Ridge development. He
pointed out that the construction of Dell Road through this area would do
alot to alleviate traffic through the neighborhoods. Mr. Gair stated that
there would be a difference of 64 trips per day between this development and
the previously approved Crescent Ridge development for this property.
Mr. Len Olson, engineer for proponent, explained the storm water drainage
plans for the development. He noted the location of various outlets and
ponds for the development, as well .
Mr. Chris Geason, 7470 Atherton Way, expressed concern about traffic in this
area, stating that he felt it was already a difficult situation -in this
neighborhood.
Bye asked about sidewalks in the development. Mr. Gair pointed out the
locations of the sidewalks and the connections to various sidewalk and trail
systems in the area.
Hallett asked about erosion control fencing around the trees proposed for
Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 24, 1986
i -
preservation. Planner Enger responded that this would be handled in the
developer's agreement for the property.
Gartner stated that she did not feel that it was appropriate to transfer
density from the "swampy" area in the center-south portion of the property.
Gartner added that she felt stop signs may be necessary at Atherton Way and
at other intersections within the development to control traffic and safety.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of LAD Properties, Inc., for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 14.71 acres, based on revised plans dated February 18, and
February 19, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated
January 24, and February 21, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of LAD Properties, Inc., for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment for 34.92 acres, based on revised plans dated
February 18, and February 19, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Reports dated January 24, and February 21, 1986.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Dodge and Hallett against)
Dodge and Hallett stated they were against in that they supported the
concept of a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment, but not a density transfer
for the property.
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of LAD Properties, Inc. for Planned Unit
Development District Review on 34.92 acres, and Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.58 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5, with variances, on
14.71 acres, based on revised plans dated February 18, and February 19,
1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated January 24,
and February 21, 1986.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Dodge and Hallett against)
MOTION 5:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 24, 1986
Council approval of the request of LAD Properties, Inc., for Preliminary
Plat of 43.53 acres into 51 single family lots and two outlots, based on
revised plans dated February 18, and February 19, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated January 24, and February 21,
1985.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Dodge and Hallett against)
C. TOUCH OF CLASS INTERIORS, by.Kate and Craig Halverson. Request for
Guide Plan Amendment, and Zoning District Change from Rural to
Office for an interior design studio. Location: Southwest quadrant
of County Roads #1 and #18. A continued public hearing.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing proponents, stated that he did not feel
that the density proposed for the overall area, including the properties
adjacent to the Halverson house, was too high, but that proponents were
willing to work those issues out at another time. He stated that the matter
of greatest concern was the use of the home for the interior design studio.
Mr. Hoisington stated that he felt this location was legitimate for the use
of office in that it was similar to other intersections of this size in Eden
Prairie, which supported the same uses. He stated that there would not be a
negative impact upon traffic, utility systems, the environment, or the
existing neighborhood. Mr. Hoisington stated that the use would provide for
transition between the County Road #18 highway and the residential uses
planned to the west.
Mr. Hoisington discussed the impact of parking requirements on the property,
stating that he concurred with Staff that it would be difficult to determine
whether all the parking should be required at this time due to the potential
for right-of-way taking by the County for upgrading of the road. Mr.
Hoisington added that proponents were also requesting that the Staff
recommendation regarding relocation of the garage be eliminated since it was
a 30-year-old structure. Proponents were also requesting that the structure
be allowed to maintain its wood exterior, instead of upgrading to the
materials required by the Office District in City Code.
Planner Franzen pointed out that there would be no commercial uses on the
east side of County Road #18 in the City of Bloomington. He expressed
Staff's concern that this may become a community commercial area that was
not planned for the community, pointing out that there were already areas
designated for such uses in the southeast portion of Eden Prairie.
Planner Enger stated that, currently, the Touch of Class business was
considered an illegal land use based on the facts that storage was taking
place in the garage, outside of the main structure, and that there were more
employees that allowed from outside of the immediate family. Planner Enger
expressed concern that proponents did not want to comply with the minimum
requirements of the Office Zoning District, even though they were requesting
to operate as an office use. He explained the changes to the City Code that
would be necessary in order to allow the use under the Conditional Use
Permit (Interim Use) section of the City Code.
Johannes stated that he felt uncomfortable reviewing the land uses for this
Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 24, 1986
property without knowing the impact of County Road #18 upgrading on the
property. He added that he would prefer an Interim Use on this property,
given the uncertainty about County Road #18.
Hallett stated that he did not feel the City should be left in a position of
vulnerability wherein they would be required to have office use at this
location in the future, especially given the uncertainty about County Road
#18. He added that he did not feel the site would be single family, either,
and that consideration for multiple family residential development may be
appropriate. Hallett also expressed concern regarding the closure of the
north driveway entrance and opening of the south driveway entrance.
Dodge stated that she was uncomfortable about being asked to guess what the
appropriate land use would be for this site without knowing the impact of
County Road #18 on the property. She stated that, based on this, an Interim
Use may be most appropriate.
Planner Enger reviewed the changes necessary to the City Code in order to
accommodate this proposal within the provisions of an Interim Use. He noted
that this would constitute major change to the Code.
Planner Enger stated that there would be very little change necessary to
continue the use as a legal home occupation. He stated that the location of
. storage in the garage would need to change and that the number of employees
outside of the family would need to change. Planner Enger suggested that
another alternative would be to have the proponents apply to the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments for variance to these two requirements of the home
occupation portion of the Code in order to continue their operation as is.
Dodge stated that, based on the information regarding the Code changes
necessary to accommodate the use under the Interim Use section of the Code
that it may be most appropriate to have the use continue legally as a home
occupation, or to suggest that another location would be more appropriate.
Bye stated that she did not feel it would be appropriate to approve an
office land use for the site without knowing the impact on the surrounding
properties from the upgrading of County Road #18. Bye expressed concern
that it appeared to be a spot zoning situation.
. Mrs. Evie Munson, 10240 County Road #18, pointed out that other developers
in the area were also proposing office uses within this vicinity along the
future highway frontage.
Johannes stated that he was uncomfortable with the idea of an Interim Use on
this site. He stated that this could be seen as opening up opportunities
for anyone who wished to operate an office from their home, allowing for
spot zoning throughout the City within the residential neighborhoods.
Bye stated that she was uncomfortable with the a situation that would
require changing the rules for one particular parcel , without determining
the potential impact upon the entire community.
Mr. Hoisington suggested that an Interim Use be used in order to provide for
the tightest restrictions on the property, not allowing for any other use of
Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 24, 1986
the property without City review and approval .
Dodge stated that she felt the City should be very concerned about the
potential for setting a precedent in this situation.
Hallett stated that he, too, was concerned about changing the rules for one
particular situation. He stated that it may be necessary to relocate the
use, as well .
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Kate and Craig Halverson, owners of the
Touch of Class interior design business, for an Interim Use Permit for Touch
of Class as an Office use of this site, with an ultimate land use of Medium
Density Residential . Further, that the Commission recommends that adequate
• parking, or proof of parking, be provided on the property for the use by
Touch of Class, and that the north driveway entrance be a right-turn only
onto County Road #18.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Dodge and Johannes against)
Johannes expressed concern about the changes necessary to the City Code to
accommodate the use as an Interim Use, and the impact of those changes on
the community as a whole.
Dodge stated that she felt a decision regarding land use on this property
was premature at this time, without information regarding the impact of
upgraded County Road #18 on the property.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council denial of the request of Kate and Craig Halverson, owners of Touch
of Class, for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Office. This recommendation is forwarded to the Council for
purposes of allowing the proponents Council input on the issue, and is
transmitted by the Planning Commission purposely without exercising their
right to recommendation on the matter.
Motion carried--6-0-0
D. OLYMPIC HILLS 7TH ADDITION, by Olympic Hills Land Corporation.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.05
acres for construction of three single family homes. Location:
10602, 10632, 10662 Mount Curve Road. A public meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 February 24, 1986
Planner Enger explained to the Commission that this matter was more one of a
housekeeping nature. He stated that the final platting of the property in
this area had caused an inconsistency in the exact property zoned for use as
R1-13.5, and that this area had been intended to be included in the legal
description which was rezoned to R1-13.5 originally.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions. from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Olympic Hills Land Corporation for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 1.05 acres for construction of
three single family homes.
Motion carried--6-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
Density Transfer
Planner Enger reviewed the policy statement of density transfer with the
Commission. The Commission discussed this issue with Staff as it related to
various proposals throughout the community.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Bye, seconded by Johannes. Chairman Schuck
adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m.