Planning Commission - 12/08/1986 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, December 8, 1986
7:30 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. BRYANT LAKE VILLAGE, by Crow/Chasewood Minnesota, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to
Office on 6.8 acres, and from Public Open Space to Medium Density
Residential on 25.9 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review
on 60 acres for 120,000 square feet of office, 260 multi-family and
8 single family residential units and Public Open Space land uses,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 25.9 acres with
Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 4.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 60 acres into 12
lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way, and Environmental Assessment
Worksheet Review on 60 acres. Location: East of I-494, south of
Highway 62, west of Nine Mile Creek, and north of Bryant Lake. A
public hearing.
(8:35) B. RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT SIXTH ADDITION, by Centex Homes Corp. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 101
acres with variances, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to RM-2.5
on 8.1 acres and Preliminary Plat of 8.1 acres into 11 lots and 4
outlots for construction of 76 condominium units. Location: North
and east of Wellington Drive, north and west of Cumberland Road. A
public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VI I. 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, December 8, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye (8:00 P.M.),
Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Chuck
Reubling
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Donald Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas,
Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Dodge, to approve the minutes of the
November 10, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BRYANT LAKE VILLAGE, by Crow/Chasewood Minnesota, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to
Office on 6.8 acres, and from Public Open Space to Medium Density
Residential on 25.9 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review
on 60 acres for 120,000 square feet of office, 260 multi-family and
8 single family residential units and Public Open Space land uses;
Planned Unit Development District Review on 25.9 acres with Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-2.5, with Shoreland variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 4.4 acres; Preliminary Plat of 60 acres into 12
Planning Commission Minutes 2 December 8, 1986
lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way; and Environmental Assessment
Worksheet Review on 60 acres. Location: East of I-494, south of
Highway 62, west of Nine Mile Creek, and north of Bryant Lake. A
public hearing.
Mr. Jim Ostenson, representing Crow/Chasewood, reviewed the proposed
development with the Commission. He presented slides of the area proposed
for development and the surrounding adjacent uses. Mr. Ron Erickson,
architect for proponent, reviewed the site characteristics, which included
Nine Mile Creek on the east side of the property, Bryant Lake on the south
side of the property, 80-foot high slopes, a variety of tree stands, etc.
Mr. Erickson then reviewed various sight sections from locations around the
property. The proponents had held meetings with the neighborhood prior to
this public hearing. Mr. Erickson noted that the concern of the neighbors
at these meetings appeared to be access to the lake.
Mr. Erickson explained that the development proposal included small
residential buildings, with a strong entrance statement of landscaping,
which would service both the proposed residential and office use within the
development. He stated that the neighbors wanted the trees on the south end
of the proposed development, at the north end of Bryant Lake, . to remain in
tact, as these trees presented an effective buffer. Mr. Erickson then
presented the elevations for the proposed structures within the development.
Mr. Rick Sathre, engineer for proponent, reviewed the grading plan for the
proposed development. He pointed out the areas where trees were proposed to
be saved and indicated the location of the buffer that existed between the
proposed development and the existing properties on Beach Road.
Mr. Sathre then explained the storm water drainage for the property. He
stated that County Road #62 (Crosstown Highway) would be discharging storm
water run-off through this property at a fast rate. He explained that there
was a series of ponds proposed to handle this drainage. Mr. Sathre stated
that one of the concerns was the potential for "phosphorous loading" of the
lake. He stated that this was reviewed through the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet process and that it was found that the increase in phosphorous in
the lake from the proposed development would be approximately 2.6 pounds per
year. He noted that this was especially low when compared with the
discharge from the Bryant Lake horse stables.
With respect to sanitary sewer and water, Mr. Sathre noted that a 60-inch
wide sanitary sewer interceptor was running through the site, but that
watermain would need to be extended to this area, as there was no water
system currently in place in this quadrant of the community.
Mr. Mitch Wonson, Benshoof and Associates, traffic consultant for proponent,
explained the impact of the proposed development on the traffic for the
area. Proponents had asked that he review the Year 2000 projections for the
intersection of Beach Road and the Crosstown Highway, based on full
• development of this property as proposed. Mr. Wonson explained that,
currently, Beach Road existed as a two-lane road with no turn lanes at its
intersection with the Crosstown Highway. He noted that plans for the
upgrading of the highway by the County indicated that the proposed highway
would provide for good access from Minnetonka to the north; however, the
Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 8, 1986
access from Eden Prairie, south of the proposed highway, was not as well
developed.
Mr. Wonson stated that, as traffic consultants for the proponent, his firm
was proposing construction of a right-turn lane from Beach Road onto the
Crosstown Highway, along with other minor improvements to Beach Road. He
noted that, with these proposed changes, the intersection could operate more
effectively.
Additionally, Mr. Wonson stated that his firm had been asked to review the
traffic impact 'upon Rowland Road from this development. He stated that,
based on the analysis done, all indications were that would be no need for
connection of the proposed development to Rowland Road, and, therefore, no
negative impact on the existing single family development in that area.
The final charge received from the proponent was to review the impact of the
development on the existing residents of Beach Road. Mr. Wonson stated
that, based .on the analysis completed, Beach Road residents would continue
to experience Level of Service A, the best of all possible conditions for
traffic, even after completion of the proposed development at some point in
the future.
Mr. Ostenson presented details regarding the multiple family units. He
• stated that the exterior materials would be brick, glass, and wood, with
each unit having its own appliances and heating and air conditioning units.
He added that management of the complex would be by Trammell Crow Company,
and that Trammell Crow would continue to own the buildings and employ- an on-
site manager at all times. No storage of boats, motor homes, etc., would be
allowed on the property. Rental fees for the units would be between $575 -
$875, depending upon the number of bedrooms in the units.
Mr. Ostenson stated that he felt the proposed amendment of the Comprehensive
Guide Plan was justified based on the project, itself, and the fact that
traffic would not interfere with the existing neighborhood.
Planner Franzen reviewed the Staff Report of December 5, 1986, with the
Commission. . He stated that the site had originally been guided as Low
Density Residential, and that the decision to change the Comprehensive Guide
Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Public,
Open Space, Park had been made based on a proposal approved by the City in
1981 wherein 40 acres of the property was to be dedicated for public use.
There had been a transfer of the density from the 40 acres of open space to
the remaining 28 acres, creating the area of Medium Density Residential .
This plan was never accomplised by the developer.
Planner Franzen noted that the proposed plan showed 40 units more than the
number in the approved plan. In addition, the developer was also proposing
a large amount of office square footage for the property, which had not ever
been anticipated for this location. Planner Franzen stated that one of the
questions requiring response when requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan
amendment was how the proposed amendment impacted any City-wide issues. He
stated that the question should be raised as to whether it would be
counterproductive for the City to approve an office use in this location,
when it had already set aside the Major Center Area (MCA) for such uses, and
Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 8, 1986
that area had not yet depleted its inventory of available land for office
use. Planner Franzen pointed out that in some industrial areas, "high-tech"
space had been built, which was more office use oriented, than industrial
use oriented.
Another general area of Staff concern was with respect to site impacts.
Planner Franzen stated that it was Staff's opinion that the proposed
development would impact the natural character of the site significantly.
The developers were proposing the removal of a significant number of large
oak trees. He pointed out that there were areas of the property where
multiple family residential was proposed ,where the grades did not work with
the site. For example, on the west side of the property, the clustering of
multiple family units would cause the removal of a large number of oak
trees, or, approximately 1,000 caliper inches of significant trees. He
noted that the single family residential units proposed would also require
the removal of a large number of trees, as well .
Planner Franzen stated that Staff was also concerned about the lack of open
space proposed with this plan. Previously, the development of this property
had shown the dedication of approximately 40 acres for public open space
use. This proposal showed a significant reduction in the amount of open
space, dropping the total amount of open space to 24 acres. More of the
site was being utilized for development, instead, including more structures
• and more disturbing of the site features.
Regarding traffic, Planner Franzen stated that Staff was concerned about the
limited capacity of the Beach Road intersection with the future Crosstown
Highway. He pointed out that the amount of traffic would be approximately
two times the amount that would have resulted from the previously approved
development plan for the property.
In summary, Planner Franzen stated that the major consideration for the
Commission was the proposed Guide Plan change, and whether the proponent had
justified the change in terms of impacts on the existing surrounding
neighborhoods, the impact on the overall Comprehensive Guide Plan land use
balance for the City, and the impact on City systems such as traffic and
public utilities. He stated that, upon resolution of the Guide Plan issue,
there were several items of detailed site plan design which would require
modification.
Anderson asked where the proponents were proposing dedication of property.
Planner Franzen responded that it was along the edge of the lake, generally.
Hallett asked for specific information about the area proposed for
dedication as open space. He asked if the Hennepin County Park Reserve
District (HCPRD) had reviewed these plans. Mr. Ostenson stated that they
had spoken to the representatives from HCPRD and that their request was for
a total of approximately 30 acres, not the 24 proposed by the proponents.
Mr. Ostenson stated that the proponents were trying to mitigate this issue
• with the HCPRD in order to meet their needs. He noted that the HCPRD
currently owned 170 acres in Bryant Lake Park, but that they wanted to
consolidate a minimum of 200 acres in order to qualify as a regional park.
Also, HCPRD was interested in the 30 acres in order to provide for more
acreage for the Bryant Lake Stables operation within the park. Mr. Ostenson
Planning Commission Minutes 5 December 8, 1986
stated that the HCPRD was very interested in preservation of the lake shore.
He added that the proponents were asking the HCPRD, in return, for an
emergency access to Rowland Road for their proposed development.
Mr. Ostenson stated that, with respect to the Staff's concerns about the
project, he felt that the dedication of open space could be rectified in the
near future, and added that the proponents were willing to work with Staff
and the HCPRD to meet any requirements.
Regarding site impacts, Mr. Ostenson stated that he felt the basic land
features were being retained by the proposed development. He stated that
the road grades would likely be the same for any development proposal on
this property since the maximum allowable grade by the City was 7%. Mr.
Ostenson stated that the amount of impact on the site due to grading of the
road system would likely be the same regardless of the type of development.
He added that the development was designed in an effort to respect and
maintain the water quality within Bryant Lake and that there were more trees
preserved under this development-style than others proposed previously.
Mr. Ostenson noted that any further clustering of units on the property
would mean that the structures would increase in height, which was not
desirable from the various sight distances to existing single family
residential areas.
. Regarding traffic, Mr. Ostenson stated that he felt the proponents had
demonstrated that the traffic patterns would work at full development in
this area. He stated that the traffic study pointed out that the Beach Road
intersection with the Crosstown Highway would remain at Level of Service E,
substantially slowed traffic, without the development an the improvements
planned to the road for that purpose.
With respect to the use of office on this property, Mr. Ostenson stated that
he questioned whether this development would represent competition for the
MCA. He stated that he respected the City's commitment to the MCA, but did
not feel that the other parts of the community should be ignored in terms of
office use. Mr. Ostenson stated that the City may miss good opportunities
for fine development, if they did not consider other parts of the community
for different uses.
Mr. Ostenson stated that the economy was in a slow growth mode at this time.
He stated that the City should consider taking advantage of this major
intersection of the suburban area and consider development of a type similar
to that of Minnetonka on the north side of future Crosstown Highway.
Gartner asked if the proponents had a specific tenant in mind for the
structure. Mr. Ostenson stated that there was not a specific tenant at this
time.
Anderson stated that he felt the City may have more difficulty in following
• its plan and commitment to the MCA if it did not encourage development of
this type in the MCA during the periods of slow economic growth. He stated
that he did not feel the City should abandon its goal during swings in the
economy.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 December 8, 1986
Hallett stated that he did not have as great a concern about the growth
within the MCA. He asked Staff if the City was experiencing any
difficulties in the MCA due to slow growth. Planner Enger stated that he
did ,not feel that the area was in any trouble due to slow growth. He added
that Staff's position was not one of being protective of the MCA, but,
rather, requiring the justification of the change in ,the Comprehensive Guide
Plan by the proponent, as was required of any developer requesting a land
use change.
Planner Enger stated that the MCA may actually be considered ahead of
schedule in its development, based on the amount and type of development
which had recently been approved and constructed in that vicinity. He
stated that the Commission may wish to consider whether the City has
provided for an adequate amount of land area in each land use category,
specifically the Office category for this proposal, when reviewing this
request for Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment.
Gartner stated that she felt there must be good reason for changing the
Comprehensive Guide Plan and that it was incumbent upon the City to protect
the integrity of land use designations within the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Dodge stated that she agreed with Gartner. She added that she did not feel
the proponents had justified the change proposed.
• Reubling stated that this would be a single office building, by itself,
within the City of Eden Prairie. Even though office uses were located
across the future highway in Minnetonka, the office use would exist as an
island within the City of Eden Prairie. Reubling added that he felt the
grading plan seemed to show severe changes to the site. He stated that he
was concerned about the overall impact of the proposed development on the
natural features of the property.
Bye stated that she did not feel it was necessary for all freeway frontage
in Eden Prairie to be developed as commercial, or office, or industrial
uses. She stated that there were many examples of single family residential
uses along freeways within the Metropolitan Area.
Mr. Don Poupard, 6251 Beach Road, stated that he felt the area should be
developed as single family residential, in accordance with the original
Comprehensive Guide Plan designation. He also expressed concern with
respect to the doubling of traffic generation by this proposed development.
Ms. Elizabeth Carroll , 11815 Dunhill Road, expressed concern for the impact
of traffic upon her neighborhood. She stated that she did not feel it would
be appropriate to provide for connection of this development to Rowland
Road, which would directly impact traffic from her neighborhood. She also
exprssed concern about the impact of multiple family homes on the value of
her single family home.
Mr. Ed Sieber, 11792 Dunhill Road, stated that he felt the developers were
capable of a quality development for the area, but that he was most
concerned about the environmental impacts upon Bryant Lake and the impact of
additional development upon the HCPRD park. He presented a letter to the
Commission for the file, which detailed several problems in the park at this
Planning Commission Minutes 7 December 8, 1986
time. Mr. Sieber stated that the quality of the water in the lake was at
stake.
Additionally, Mr. Sieber expressed concern about the speed limit on Rowland
Road. He stated that," even though the traffic was supposed to travel at 30
miles per hour, often cars travelled this road at 50 miles per hour. With
the addition of this development and the possible connection of this
development to Rowland Road, Mr. Sieber stated that he felt the safety of
the residents in this area would be compromised.
Dodge asked what the status of the property would be, if this project was
not approved, or not built. Planner Enger explained that the City had
granted an approval on this property for the Metram Properties development,
which included multiple family residential and open space uses. That
approval would stand as the approved development for the property. The City
had a letter on file from the proponent at that time asking for extension of
the second reading, or finalization of the zoning from Rural to RM-2.5, to a
point in time when the Crosstown Highway alignment would be approved, due to
the significant impact of that alignment upon the property.
Gartner stated that she did not feel the property hhould be more dense, nor
more intensely developed, than was allowed by the previously approved
proposal for multiple family and open space uses, based on the density
transfer and park dedication proposed at that time. Hallett concurred.
• Chairman Schuck stated that he was not certain that the office use was
appropriate with the multiple family use in this location. He added that he
felt the proposed development was too intense as proposed and that perhaps a
development of all single family lots should be considered. Chairman Schuck
added that he concurred with the complaints about the stables as being
unsightly.
Mr. Erickson, architect for proponents, stated that the neighbors present at
the neighborhood meeting indicated that they would not be in favor of single
family use over the entire property as it would increase the use of the
lake, and increase the access to the lake from many individuals. He pointed
out that this development proposed no additional access to the lake.
Planner Enger stated that the City had seen several suggested development
proposals on this site, many of which had not made it to the Planning
Commission for review. He stated that, prior to Crow Chasewood being
involved in the property, the owners had approached the City to see if a
totally office land use would be appropriate on the property. Since that
time, Crow Chasewood had approached the City and informed the Staff that
they would need to have the office use on the property in order to make
their economics for the project work out for them. Planner Enger stated
that, in discussions with Crow Chasewood regarding the addition of office to
the proposal , Staff had indicated that there would need to be less office
use than was proposed by Crow Chasewood, based on what was known about the
City's plans, utilities, etc.
Chairman Schuck asked the proponents if they would like to have the plans
returned to them for redesign, or if they woul dprefer to receive a
recommendation on the plan, as presented at this meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 December 8, 1986
Mr. Ostenson stated that he understood that the City was not responsible for
the economics of the developers, that they had other issues of concern when
reviewing any development proposal . He stated that they would prefer to
receive a Planning Commission recommendation at this meeting, based on the
development as proposed.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Reubling, to close the public
hearing and recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Crow
Chasewood for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density
Residential to Office and from Public Open Space to Medium Density
Residential, for Planned Unit Development Concept Reivew, Planned Unit
Development District Review, with variances, and Preliminary Plat, with
variances from the Shoreland Management regulations to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, based on plans reviewed by the Commission at the December
8, 1986, meeting, based on the following findings:
The proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendments have not been substantiated
in terms of impact on the site, itself, and impact on the surrounding land
uses.
Motion carried--5-0-2 (Chairman Schuck and Bye abstained)
B. RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT SIXTH ADDITION, by Centex Homes Corp. Request
• for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 101
acres, with variances; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to RM-2.5
on 8.1 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 8.1 acres into 11 lots and 4
outlots for construction of 76 condominium units. Location: North
and east of Wellington Drive, north and west of Cumberland Road. A
public hearing.
Mr. Tom Boyce, Centex Homes, reviewed the history of the Ridgewood West
Planned Unit Development and the specifics of the proposed development
proposal for the subject property. He explained that they had held a
neighborhood meeting with the existing residents of the area, at which time
concerns were raised that had not been dealt with in the plan as designed.
Mr. Boyce stated that the proponents were requesting continuance to redesign
the plans to mitigate some of the concerns raised by the neighborhood and by
the Staff in the Staff Report of December 5, 1986.
Planner Uram reviewed a summary of Staff concerns as noted in the Staff
Report on the development. He noted that there were concerns about the
"curb appeal," the number of garage fronts, density compared to the
surrounding area, and transition to the existing adjacent land uses.
Mr. Robert Adomaitis, 8771 Knollwood Drive, stated that he was against the
idea of multiple family use on this site. He stated that he would prefer to
see a single family use on the property, as the site was currently zoned R1-
13.5. He stated that this portion of the community was already densely
. developed, considering the number of apartment units constructed along
Anderson Lakes Parkway recently. He stated that he was particularly
concerned about the impact on his neighborhood of traffic from the proposed
development.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 December 8, 1986
• Mr. Stephen Doms, 13949 Wellington Drive, stated that he felt the single
family development of the area should be continued and that multiple family
residential uses should not be introduced.
Ms. Cynthia Doms, 13949 Wellington Drive, stated that she paid a premium for
her lot to be adjacent to the park. She stated that she was disappointed to
hear that there would be additional traffic in the neighborhood. Ms. Doms
stated that she was concerned that the multiple family use would decrease
the value of her home.
Mr. Kevin Fitzgerald, 13957 Wellington Drive, stated that his primary
concern was the alignment of the road. As designed, the development
proposed would use Wellington Drive as a thoroughfare. He stated that there
were no homes fronting Cumberland Drive, but that there were many fronting
Wellington Drive. Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that the road within the
development be realigned to avoid Wellington Drive as an access.
Mr. James Stenger, 13959 Wellington Drive, stated that he, too, had paid a
premium to be located adjacent to the park in this development. He
expressed concern about the increased population of a multiple family
development having a negative impact on the park.
Mr. Ned Devine, 8811 hawthorne Drive, stated that he agreed with the
previous speakers' concerns about the problems which may be introduced by
multiple residential development on this property.
• Mr. Evan Pomerantz, 8969 Knollwood Drive, stated that he agreed with his
neighbors with respect to their concerns about traffic.
Mr. John Ginn, 8961 Knollwood Drive. Stated that he was against the
development of this property as multiple residential and that he agreed with
the concerns of his neighbors. He added that he felt the property should be
developed as single family since it was surrounded by single family lots.
Mr. Mark Scott, 13972 Wellington Drive, stated that he understood that the
property was zoned for single family residential use at the time he
purchased his property. He stated that his decision would have been not to
purchase had he known this property could be developed as multiple family
residential .
Ms. Mari Bray, 8911 Knollwood Drive, stated that she felt the site was
proposed to be too densely developed. She stated that she was particularly
concerned about the potential for traffic increase because of the more
intense development.
Hallett asked about the change made to the Comprehensive Guide Plan in 1982.
Planner Enger explained the history of the development of the property. He
stated that in 1978, Centex received approval for a single family
development plan for the entire property. In 1982, Centex had the property
reguided to Medium Density Residential from Low Density Residential.
However, at that time, the zoning of the property was not changed from Rl-
13.5 back to Rural to a multiple residential zoning category. Therefore,
there was confusion as to what an approved plan for the site would be and
what the zoning for the site would be. The approved plan showed the site to
Planning Commission Minutes 10 December 8, 1986
• be developed as multiple residential at medium density.
Mr. Boyce stated that he had spoken to his sales personnel at that time to
make certain that they informed prospective buyers of the potential for
multiple family residential development on the property. Centex had buyers
sign forms that they were aware of the potential of multiple family
residential on the site. He added that he did not feel that either the
City, or the representatives of Centex tried to hide this information from
the residents of the existing developments.
Hallett asked about the guiding of the property to the north of this site.
Planner Uram stated that the property to the north was guided for Low
Density Residential up to Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Mr. Adomaitis stated that he agreed that there was no attempt to hide the
fact that this property could possibly be developed as multiple. He asked
for an explanation of the .Guide Plan process. Planner Enger explained the
questions asked by the City in the event a Guide Plan change was requested
by a developer. He also explained the hearing process necessary for the
approval of such a request. Mr. Adomaitis stated that some people did not
buy directly from Centex, but were actually the second owners of the homes
in this neighborhood. Therefore, it was not clear whether the information
about potential multiple family was passed on to the second buyers of the
homes.
• Gartner asked why the proposal did not show access to Cumberland Road. Mr.
Boyce explained that the grades in this area were severe and that there was
an approximate twelve-foot slope in this location. He added that, prior to
additional review of the plans, they would be willing to rework the design
of the project to mitigate these concerns, if possible. He reiterated that
proponents were asking for continuance at this time based on concerns of the
neighbors and based upon concerns raised in the Staff Report.
Hallett stated that he concurred with the concerns listed in the Staff
Report and felt that, with the spirit of cooperation offered by the
developer, the matters of concern could be worked out.
Gartner stated that- perhaps an argument could be made for this site to be
developed as Low Density Residential, or single family. Dodge concurred.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to continue this item to
the January 12, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, pending revisions to the
plan.
Motion carried--7-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
• None.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 December 8, 1986
• VI. NEW BUSINESS -
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Bye.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
•