Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/28/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 28, 1986 * p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling 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 AND 5TH ADDITIONS, by Hustad Development. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 184 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with variances, on 38.15 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of approximately 184 acres into 72 lots and 9 outlots. Location: West of County Road #18, west and south of Franlo Road, east of Homeward Hills Road. A continued public hearing. (8:05) B. FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB, by Flagship Athletic Club. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 20.15 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service on 2.45 acres and Preliminary Plat of approximately 31 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots and road right-of-way for parking lot expansion. Location: West of Prairie Center Drive at Singletree Lane. A public hearing. (8:20) C. WILLIAMS MINI-STORAGE, by Finn Daniels, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park of 4.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 45.28 acres into one lot and one outlot. Location: East of Highway #169, South of Darnell Road. A public hearing. (9:20) D. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER, by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots for construction of a commercial center Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing. (9:50) E. WESTOVER WOODS, by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 11.9 acres with variances and Shoreland Management variances to be reviewed by the Board of 01 Appeals, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 42 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway and New Cumberland Roads intersection. A public hearing. AGENDA Monday, April 28, 1986 We Two V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 28, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge (7:35 p.m.), Virginia Gartner, Charles Ruebling MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Hallett 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 Bye, seconded to Ruebling, to adopt the agenda as • printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of the April 21, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as written. Motion carried--3-0-2 (Bye and Gartner abstained) (Dodge arrived at 7:35 p.m.) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BLUFFS EAST 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS, by Hustad Development. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 184 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with variances, on 38.15 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of approximately 184 acres into 72 lots and 9 outlots. Location. West of County Road #18, west and south of Franlo Road, east of Homeward Hills Road. A continued public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 28, 1986 Mr. Bob Smith, representing proponents, reviewed the revised plans with the Commission. He reviewed issues of traffic, sensitivity to Purgatory Creek, the intersection of County Road #1 and County Road #18, blending of this development with the existing lots along Bluff Road in the Creek Knoll Addition, density of the development, and phasing. Ms. Nancy Heuer, BRW, traffic consultant for proponents, explained the results of the traffic study prepared for the development. She stated that one of the conclusions was that through the development of Phase III, traffic at the intersection of Franlo Road and County Road #1 would be at Level of Service A, the best possible situation, with free-flowing traffic. She stated that this would change to Level of Service C with the construction of the development through Phase V, and would include the need at that time for alternative access points and additional improvements to the intersection of County Road #18 and Bluff Road. Ms. Heuer stated that the Hennepin County Department of Transportation and the Minnesota Department of Transportation were still working on traffic projections for County Road #18. Mr. Wally Hustad, proponent, stated that there was still no decision as to the final form of the proposed multiple residential portion of the development. He stated that he would prefer to have the density set at six to ten units per acre as part of the Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, instead of five units per acre as recommended by Staff. • Regarding the Wilkie property, south of the proposed development, Mr. Hustad stated that he was aware of concerns regarding provision of access to the parcel and that he felt this could be worked out. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of April 25, 1986, with the Commission. He noted that the proponent had reduced the amount of area proposed for R1-9.5 lots and increased the amount of area proposed for R1-13.5 lots, thereby providing for better transition between the larger lots on the north side of Bluff Road and the proposed development. Planner Franzen stated that the Staff's concerns had not changed regarding the multiple portion of the proposed development since it had been first proposed. He stated that it was difficult to make further judgments about the proposed multiple portion of the development without greater detail to the plans for this area. He added that the developer could make a case for greater density in the future, based on the merits of the plan proposed at that time. Regarding traffic, Planner Franzen expressed concern with respect to the need for signalization at the time of development of the fourth and fifth phases, and for the potential need for another intersection at County Road #1. He noted that the proponents were in the process of a second phase of the traffic study at this time to answer more detailed questions regarding . the location of an intersection at County Road #1 with the proposed collector road through the development. This information was to be available in time for the Council review of the proposal . Ruebling asked about the proposed sidewalk and bituminous trail along Franlo Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 28, 1986 • Road. Planner Franzen explained that it was City policy to provide for both types of pedestrian access along roads of this size in the community, carrying large volumes of traffic. Mr. Martin Diestler, 9905 Bluff Road, expressed concern about potential traffic problems on Bluff Road as a result of this development. He also expressed concern about the safety of the access of Bluff Road with County Road #18. Ms. Anara Guard, 10300 Riverview Road, asked about the level of use which would be allowed in the area designated for park in the proposed development. She expressed concern about the potential impact of the development upon the wildlife in the area. Planner Enger stated that a study of the Purgatory Creek corridor had been done several years ago. At that time, the question was raised regarding whether the City should purchase the property along the creek valley, or not. It was determined at that time that the City would instead designate the valley areas as scenic easements, rather than purchase the land. Also, it was determined at that time that the City would not locate a trail within the valley. Planner Enger stated that he had been informed that the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission would be reviewing this policy and, in particular, the idea of a trail within the creek valley, at the meeting of May 5, 1986, at which time this project would be reviewed by them. • Mr. Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, stated that he was concerned about traffic along Bluff Road as a result of the development. He also expressed concern about accessing County Road #18, particularly north-bound, from Bluff Road in the future. He stated that it was difficult and dangerous now. Mr. Gensmer also expressed concern about the density of the development and its potential impact on traffic, as well . He also stated that he did not want to be forced to hook up to sanitary sewer and water and asked if there was a procedure by which he could avoid doing so until he was ready. Planner Enger explained that these issues would be decided at the time an assessment hearing for the area was held by the City Council. He noted that the City had offerred to defer assessments in some situation like this, but that this was a Council decision. Mr. Joel Pucket, representing the Wilkie family, owners of property south of the proposed development, requested that access be preserved to the Wilkie property for the future to avoid the property becoming land-locked. Planner Franzen stated that he had spoken with representatives of the Wilkie family and had discussed several alternatives for provision of access to the property and potential development possibilities for the land, as well . Bye expressed concern about the multiple portion of the development and asked about the concerns of the Staff in greater detail . Planner Enger explained that the portion of the property proposed for multiple residential development had steep topography, making it difficult to assume the exact location of structures. He added that there were not detailed plans available about the structures at this time, either. Planner Enger stated that the City had several examples of property such as this where development at five units per acre had worked. However, he stated that it was Staffs position that, even though the property made sense as a multiple use in this area, the developer would have to prove a case for more than Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 28, 1986 i five units per acre with more detailed plans than what was available at this time. Planner Enger stated that another possibility would be for the developer not to proceed with the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change at this time for this portion of the property, and to provide more detailed plans for Staff review prior to City action on this portion of the proposed development. Mr. Hustad stated that he would prefer to receive action on five units per acre, rather than postpone action on the Comprehensive Guide Plan at this time. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, 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 Hustad Development for R14nned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review of approximately 184 acres for the Bluffs 4th and 5th Additions, based on revised plans dated April 25, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11, 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 Hustad Development for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium - Density Residential on 28.7 acres for the Bluffs 4th and 5th Additions, based on revised plans dated April 25, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 13.5, with variances, for 38.15 acres, for Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions, based on revised plans dated April 25, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 5: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Preliminary Plat of approximately 184 acres into 72 lots and nine outlots for Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions, based on revised plans dated April 25, 1986, subject to Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 28, 1986 • the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11 1986. p p Motion carried--6-0-0 B. FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB, by Flagship Athletic Club. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 20.15 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service on 2.45 acres and Preliminary Plat of approximately 31 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots and road right-of-way for parking lot expansion. Location: West of Prairie Center Drive at Singletree Lane. A public hearing. Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponents, explained the reasons for the request and the need for additional parking area for the Flagship Athletic Club. He noted that the intention was to have a shared access to the median cut in Prairie Center Drive with the use to be located north of the proposed parking lot addition. He stated that cross-easements could be arranged at the time of review of the use to the north. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of April 25, 1986. He stated that Staff was concerned about the cross- easement arrangements proposed since the use to the north was not known at this time. Also, City Code required that all off-street parking facilities be on the same parcel of land as the structure they are intended to serve. Because of this, Staff was recommending elimination of the lot line between • Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed preliminary plat at this time. Otherwise, it would be necessary for proponent to obtain a variance to allow for the off- street parking off the site from the Board of Appeals. Gartner asked if there was any risk to the City in doing so. Planer Enger stated that the replatting of the property could take place in the future, too, but there was the possible problem of setting a precedence by allowing the off-street parking to be on another lot. Anderson asked if the reasons for the platting as proposed were mainly financial for purposes of transfer of title, etc. Mr. Brauer stated that this was the case. Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. 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 Flagship Athletic Club for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of 20.15 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service of 2.45 acres, based on plans dated April 24, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 25, 1986, eliminating item 1c of the recommendations. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 28, 1986 MOTION 3: Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Flagship Athletic Club for Preliminary Plat of approximately 31 acres into one lot, two outlots and road right-of-way for a parking lot expansion, based on plans dated April 24, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 25, 1986, eliminating item lc of the recommendations. Motion carried--6-0-0 C. WILLIAMS MINI-STORAGE, by Finn Daniels, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park of 4.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 45.28 acres into one lot and one outlot. Location: East of Highway #169, South of Darnell Road. A public hearing. Mr. Mark Finneman, Finn-Daniels, Inc. , representing proponent, reviewed the site plan with the Commission. He stated that the use proposed would not generate a great deal of traffic, or noise, which would be considered positive aspects of industrial developments. He added that there was very little, if any, electricity, or heat, needed to operate such a facility, either. Mr. Finneman stated that there would be a structural wall facing i the existing residential area, not loading doors. He added that the proponents were willing to work with the City with respect to the landscaping on the property in order to screen sight lines into the property from the existing residential area. Mr. Finneman stated that the proponents were also amenable to alteration of the roof line in order to provide more residential character to the structure. Mr. Finneman stated that proponents felt the use of a mini-storage provided for a good transition between the existing single family homes and Highway #169. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of April 25, 1986, with the Commission. He stated that one of Staff's concerns was the adequacy of the transition between the existing single family area and the proposed use and discussed possible methods by which the transition could be improved. Gartner asked about the need in the City for additional mini-storage uses. Planner Enger stated that there was apparently a high demand for such uses due to the strict controls of the community and the various homeowners' associations in the community regarding outside storage of various items, the mobility of people with respect to jobs and their needs for storing their possessions, and the lack of storage provided in multiple residential areas for such items as boats, or recreational vehicles. Gartner stated that she felt the use could be made more attractive. Anderson asked if the site could be used for commercial development in the future. Planner Enger stated that the City had not seen this happen in the past, but that it would require City review if such a change were made. Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 28, 1986 Rueblin asked about the 100-ft. wide buffer g planned by the mini-sector study done by the City several years ago at the north edge of this site. Planner Franzen explained about the buffer and stated that it could possibly be located completely on the property to the north of this site, as opposed to straddling both sites. Mr. Dan Stormquist, 8984 Darnel Road, presented the Commission with additional signatures to a petition which had been submitted to the City stating opposition to the proposed use of a mini-storage on this property. He stated that those signing the petition were concerned with the fact that the proposed buildings would be 50 ft. from a residential street. Mr. Stormquist stated that he did not see the use proposed as a buffer, but that he saw it as a continuance of the commercial and industrial uses further north along Highway #169. He also expressed concern about preservation of the oak trees on the property and the impact of this proposed industrial use on land uses to the south and east of the property. Mr. Mark Janda, 8981 Darnel Road, stated that he agreed with the concerns of Mr. Stormquist, and that in general he did not feel this use would enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Dan Bussey, 8944 Darnel Road, stated that he agreed with Mr. Stormquist's concerns and was further questioning whether the entire 45 acres may eventually become industrial if this project were approved. Mr. Douglas Waterman, 8506 Darnel Road, stated that he agreed with the concerns mentioned by Mr. Stormquist. He pointed out that his home would be approximately 35 ft. from the proposed structure, which would be clearly visible from his second-story deck. Mr. Waterman also expressed concern about the maintenance of the property and the fact that it appeared as more of a warehouse, rather than residential in character. Mr. Jim Grindeland, 8510 Darnel Road, stated that he concurred with the concerns of the previous speakers, and that his home, too, would be only 35 ft. away from the proposed use, which he did not feel was appropriate. Mr. Jim Simchuck, 9145 Flying Cloud Drive, stated that he felt too little consideration had been given to the plans for the remainder of the 45 acres with respect to land use, access, etc. He added that, in general, he concurred with the concerns listed in the Staff Report. Mr. Finneman stated that it was the intention of the developer to rezone and develop only that portion of the property proposed for the mini-storage use at this time, which amounted to approximately four acres. He stated that proponents were willing to work with the City to redesign the wall which would be facing the existing residential area in order to make it more acceptable as a transition. Dodge asked what types of uses were anticipated for this area. Planner Enger stated that this was a difficult area to deal with, due to the previously existing uses, the highway adjacent to the site, and the relatively new development which had taken place in the general vicinity. He added that Staff did not feel that single family use was appropriate adjacent to the highway. Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 28, 1986 Bye stated that she did not feel it would be appropriate for there to be additional industrial uses beyond that area shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Ruebling stated that he did not feel it was appropriate to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Low Density Residential to Industrial. Anderson concurred. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 Mr. Dan Dege, architect for proponents, asked how the neighborhood would feel about multiple residential development instead of the proposed industrial development. Mr. Stormquist responded that this had been discussed in meetings held by the neighborhood and that they did not feel that industrial, or multiple family residential , was appropriate for this area. MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Bob Williams for Williams Mini-Storage for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 4.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 45.28 acres, based on a finding that the land use is inappropriate for this location because of a lack of transition between existing and planned adjacent residential uses, and the proposed development does not adequately address the impacts of the site development on adjoining existing and future land uses, including the intersection of a public road with Highway #169 at its existing intersection with the entrance to the Hennepin County Vocational Technical School . Motion carried--6-0-0 D. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER, by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots for construction of a commercial center Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing. Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponents, reviewed the site characteristics and development proposal with the Commission. He also reviewed the recommended changes to the plans in the Staff Report of April 25, 1986. He noted that the plans had been amended to include redesign of the stacking aisle for the proposed fast food restaurant. Mr. Brauer stated that the shared access shown on the site was intended to aid in providing for better traffic circulation throughout the site. He added that the proponents would prefer to keep the right-in only access from south-bound Highway #169. Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 28, 1986 Regarding the recommendation for additional green space in the plan, Mr. Brauer stated that proponents had amended the plan to meet the City Code requirements as recommended in the Staff Report. Mr. Dan O'Brien, architect for proponent, reviewed the exterior materials and architecture of the structure. He also presented sight lines from the various public roads, in particular from Columbine Road. Planner Uram reviewed the Staff Report of April 25, 1986. He stated that it appeared that the majority of the issues raised in the report could be worked out with the proponents. Planner Uram stated that there were still concerns regarding the architecture, orientation of the fast food restaurant, and internal green space. Gartner asked about the proposed shared driveway. Planner Enger stated that while Staff did not disagree with the idea of shared access and parking for provision of better circulation, the Staff did not feel that shared access should be done to the exclusion of the internal green space on the property. He added that he felt this could be worked out with the proponents before the next Planning Commission meeting. Planner Enger stated that Staff was also concerned that this not serve as a precedence for elimination of all the side lot lines in the remaining 15 acres of this commercial area, nor for the elimination of internal green space in the remainder of this commercial area. Ruebling stated that he concurred with Staff's comments regarding the stacking patterns of the fast food restaurant portion of the plan. MOTION: Move to continue the to the May 12, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, pending revision of the plans per the recommendations of the Staff Report- of April 25, 1986, and as discussed at this meeting. Motion carried--6-0-0 E. WESTOVER WOODS, by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 11.9 acres with variances and Shoreland Management variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 42 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway and New Cumberland Road intersection. A public hearing. Mr. Richard Putnam, proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. He discussed the development in terms of its relationship to the surrounding existing land uses. Mr. Putnam stated that, with respect to the Staff concerns regarding the Shoreland Management regulations, the structures proposed in the development were similar to those already constructed in adjacent plats which were subject to Shoreland Management regulations. He added that the trees that were to be removed as part of the Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 28, 1986 construction process were not quality trees, but more "brush" type vegetation. Mr. Dennis Marhula, engineer for proponent, reviewed utility and street design details with the Commission. He noted that the street had been realigned in order to maintain as many of the mature trees as possible. Mr. Marhula reviewed the proposed grading plan and the location of the mature trees. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of April 25, 1986. He stated that one of Staff's major concerns was the impact of the proposed development upon Purgatory Creek. He added that Staff was also concerned about the preservation of the trees on the property, in particular those along the slopes. Planner Franzen then reviewed the proposed alternative plans for development of the site as suggested in the Staff Report. Gartner stated that she felt a compromise may be in order in terms of the density for the proposed development; however, she stated that she felt the proponents should meet the requirements of the Shoreland Management portion of the Code. Chairman Schuck stated that he concurred with Gartner regarding the Shoreland Management provisions. He added that he was concerned that the • entire ridge, which was the location of the secondary growth of trees and brush, not be completely taken out. Anderson and Bye concurred. Mr. Jim McGlennen, 8888 Knollwood Drive, expressed concern about the impact of the development upon Purgatory Creek. He also expressed concern about the impact upon the wild life in the area. He stated that he had no objection to the housing proposed, but that he was concerned about the removal of the vegetation in this area. Planner Enger stated that the alternative plans proposed by the Staff would eliminate approximately the same amount of vegetation as that proposed by the developer. However, trees would remain behind the homes along the slope and the Shoreland Management requirements would be met. Mr. Keith Orner, 8880 Knollwood Drive, stated that he would prefer to see the creek corridor remain in its natural state as much as possible. He stated that he also felt the density could be decreased to 30-35 lots in order to impact the land less. Mr. Marhula stated that the center portion of the development could be adjusted to accommodate R1-9.5 lots. He asked if the five lots located along the north were satisfactory to the Commission as shown. Planner Enger stated that he felt there may be validity to having the interior lots of the development be R1-9.5; however, he noted that the current proposal was for the development of the entire property as R1-9.5, but that the majority of the lots did not meet R1-9.5 minimum dimensional requirements. Mr. Putnam stated that he was uncertain that any further adjustment could be Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 28, 1986 i made to the plan, except to propose multiple family residential development on the property. Mr. McGlennen stated that the run-off due to tree loss on his property was a serious problem. He stated that he felt this would be a problem for the lots of this proposed development which backed up to the creek, too, since the topography was even steeper than for his lot. Gartner, Dodge, and Chairman Schuck stated that they felt the five lots along the north were satisfactory as shown. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to continue the public hearing to the May 12, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, pending revisions to be made by the developer prior to additional Planning Commission review. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Ruebling. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.