Loading...
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. •