Loading...
Planning Commission - 02/09/1987 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 9, 1987 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. 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 continued public hearing. *(7:45) B . SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 1 .09 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18. A continued public hearing. *(8: 15) C. CARDINAL CREEK 6TH, by New American Homes Corporation. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendement from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 31.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 31.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 39.5 acres into 59 single family lots, three outlots, and road right-of- way. Location: North of Cardinal Creek Road, west of I-494. A continued public hearing. *(8:45) D. DEER CREEK 2ND ADDITION, by Thomas M. Carmody. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 80 acres with variances and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 10.5 acres, Preliminary Platting of 13.3 acres into 31 single family lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way. A public hearing. Agenda February 9, 1987 Page Two V. OLD BUSINESS 1. Code Changes 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, February 9, 1987 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck; Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Chuck Reubling (7:35 p.m.) STAFF PRESENT: Michael D. 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 Bye, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--6-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the January 12, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, as printed. Motion carried--5-0-1 (Anderson abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. 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 continued public hearing. Proponents submitted a letter to the City requesting withdrawal of this item at this time. Planner Franzen stated that, due to the neighborhood concerns and the issues raised by the Planning Commission at previous meetings, the developer was rethinking the project at this time. • Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 9, 1987 Mr. John Ginn, 8961 Knollwood Drive, stated that he was relieved to see the plan withdrawn, adding that he felt his neighborhood would remain interested and concerned that any future plan for the property be more in keeping with the character of the existing surrounding neighborhood. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing and return the item to the proponent, without prejudice. Motion carried--7-0-0 B. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres with variances to be reviewed by'the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18. A continued public hearing. Planner Franzen stated that some of the concerns mentioned in the previous Staff Report and during the previous Planning Commission review of this item had been addressed, but, not all of them. The Staff Report outlined three alternatives of action for the Commission's consideration: Denial, if the changes were not adequate; approval, contingent upon the remaining changes being made; or referral back to the developer for revision. Mr. Ron Erickson, architect for developer, reviewed the changes that had been made to the plans since the Planning Commission review in November, 1986. He stated that the building had been scaled back to be 39 linear feet, reduced to 10,000 sq. ft. , the exterior elevation changed to give residential character to the structure, the rear elevation was changed to include a pitched roof, revised traffic circulation patterns, and proponents had altered the location of the intersection with County Road 18 so that the "offset" situation had been eliminated. Mr. Erickson stated that the addition of the bank building to the area would not increase the traffic at the intersection of County Road 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. Regarding trash removal, it was planned that the trash removal would be accomplished through the use of the drive-through lane. With respect to landscaping, Mr. Erickson stated that the developer would work with Staff to make certain that all requirements were satisfied. Regarding the land use to the south, Mr. Erickson stated that he had spoken to the property owners of the parcels to the south of the proposed development. He stated that he found that the property owners in the surrounding area preferred Low Density Office use to any type of Multiple Residential land use. Planner Franzen stated that the Planning Staff had not been aware of some of the changes proposed at the meeting this evening and that more time may be necessary to evaluate the additional changes. He stated that the structural changes to building size and length were positive. Also, the improved • Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 9, 1987 traffic circulation and access alignment to County Road 18 were positive amendments to the plans. The redirection of traffic within the existing shopping center in order that a perimeter road would be used may be a positive amendment to the plan. Planner Franzen stated that the Hennepin County Transportation Department had indicated the possibility of a diamond- shaped interchange at the intersection of County Road 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. In that event, it may be necessary to extract additional right-of- way from the existing shopping center parking lot, which would impact the feasibility of being able to place a perimeter road within the shopping center parking lot. It may also impact the available number of parking spaces in the lot at this time, depending upon the amount of right-of-way needed for a diamond-shaped interchange, which would place the shopping center in the position of not having enough spaces for their own use. Another item of concern to Staff was that the proponents were still requesting a variance to allow for a portion of the parking spaces needed for this development to be provided within the shopping center parking lot, adjacent to the north. Planner Franzen noted that, if the proponents eliminated the drive-through lane for the bank portion of the structure, the site plan could be altered to provide adequate parking on the property itself. Planner Franzen stated that one other major item of concern of Staff was the lack of transition to the property to the south He stated that the parcels to the south would be under pressure to change their land uses from Low Density Residential to Office in the future and that it was Staffs opinion that a transition was necessary, regardless of nature of any future use on these properties. With respect to the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Planner Franzen noted that, although the size of the site would not have an adverse impact on the land use balance within the community, itself, it could have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that this could be in the form of increased traffic, noise, etc. Anderson asked about signage for the property. Mr. Erickson stated that there would be signage, eventually, and that it would be constructed to comply with City Code requirements. Anderson asked if the entrance to the site from County Road 18 would be too close to the access of the next use to the south for safety purposes. Mr. Erickson responded that the next access was 300-400 feet south of the proposed access to County Road 18 from the bank. Planner Franzen stated that it was possible that each site could be allowed to have its. own individual access to County Road 18; however, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation preferred that there be shared access to County Road 18, if possible. Anderson asked about the internal traffic patterns. Mr. Erickson explained the internal circulation. He noted that tapers would be constructed at the point of access to southbound County Road #18. He stated that the length of the taper, and therefore, curve of the taper at this point, would discourage people from turning northbound onto County Road 18. • Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 9, 1987 Bye asked how much stacking distance was available. Mr. Jeff Bedner, Strgar-Roscoe, traffic consultants for the proponent, stated that there would be approximately 980 south-bound trips during the P.M. Peak Hour traffic period and 350 north-bound trips during the P.M. Peak Hour. He explained that the road system should be adequate to provide for the free flow of traffic through this access point with County Road #18. Reubling asked if left-turn movements could be eliminated from the site onto County Road #18. Mr. Erickson stated that the proposal originally indicated a right-in, right-out only situation. He stated that the shape of the concrete tapers directing the traffic at the access point with County Road #18 would service to discourage left-turns for north-bound traffic onto County Road #18. Bye stated that she felt the addition of the concrete tapers for south-bound traffic was a positive design change. She expressed concern . about the potential for left-turn movements for north-bound traffic, however. Gartner asked about the use of stop signs on the property, indicating that it appeared that several would be necessary within the parking lot for the property. Mr. Erickson noted the location of stop signs as currently proposed for the site development. Anderson asked if the City had adequate information regarding the future of County Road 18 in this area, specifically with respect to the impact the expansion of the road would have on this property and the property to the north. Planner Franzen responded that it had been determined that County Road 18, as it currently exists, would become the frontage road for future, upgraded County Road 18. He added that there had been discussions with the County with respect to the possibilities of improvements to the turning movements onto the road in the future. Hallett asked about the magnitude of the requested variance for the number of parking spaces for the proposed use. Planner Franzen stated that some of the parking proposed was off-site, located in the shopping center parking lot, adjacent to the north of the property. He stated that Staff recommended approximately 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area of the use. Hallett asked about lighting for the property. Mr. Erickson expalined that the lighting would be constructed to meet Staff recommendations. Planner Franzen stated that the Staff had recommended that the lighting not impact the residential neighborhood to the west. He noted that there would be some screening of lights on poles due to the height of the structure and the berming. Mr. Erickson stated that the proponents had committed to the neighborhod that there would not be any visible lighting from the proposed development. Dodge stated that she was concerned about the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment. She stated that she felt it was important for the City to consider whether the request would change property, itself, or whether it would ultimately dictate a different land use for the properties to the south. She added that she was not in favor of any action on this property having such an impact on the property to the south. Planner Franzen stated Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 9, 1987 that the amount of property lying south of the proposed development was approximately five acres in size, total . He stated that it would be setting a precedent to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan on this property, thereby impacting the land use(s) that would be allowed on the five acres south of the property. Planner Franzen stated that transition to this property, or to properties south and west of the proposed development would be difficult, due to the small amount of space available to accomplish a transition to adjacent, differing uses. He stated that the Staff had not seen any landscaping plan that worked to provide adequate transition as yet. Mr. Erickson stated that the proponent would do whatever was recommended by Staff to make the situation work. Bye asked about deliveries and how they would be handled for this structure. Mr. Erickson stated that all deliveries would be accomplished through the front door of the structure. Mr. David Oliver, 9661 Clark Circle, stated that his main concern was what would happen on the property to the south of the proposed development. He stated that he found it interesting that owners of the property to the south also were employing the same consultant as the proponent and that the uses proposed on the property to the south appeared to act as inducement for amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the property being discussed at the meeting. Mr. Oliver stated that the remaining five acres south of the proposed development were surrounded on three sides by existing Low Density Residential development. He questioned whether County Road #18 upgrading was not the cause of such proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments and stated that he felt the City should not feel compelled to amend the Guide Plan just because County Road #18 was involved. Mr. Oliver suggested that it may be possible that these properties may be acquired by Hennepin County for right-of-way purposes at the time of upgrading of the road. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt there had been some improvement to the plans as proposed, but that he was not certain that it would be appropriate to await decisions on County Road #18 before making a recommendation on this request. He added that he was not prepared to approve any uses other than Low Density Residential south of the existing proposal at this time. Mr. Norm Ziesman, 9425 Garrison Way, stated that he concurred with Mr. Oliver's comments. He stated that he felt it was improper that the properties to the south be offerred as an enticement to the City to approve the proposed use at this time. He added that his other main concern was that of diminishing privacy in the neighborhood. Mr. Ray Torgerson, 9320 County Road #18, stated that he had lived in his • home for thirty years and had watched the traffic steadily increase. He stated that the commercial uses across County Road #18 in Bloomington had caused disruption of the neighborhood; for example, compactors could be heard grinding at 3:00 A.M. when garbage was being picked up across the road. He noted, too, that it was necessary to operate with the flow of • Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 9, 1987 traffic during peak hours of travel , stating that it was impossible to turn north-bound during the A.M. Peak Hour and impossible to turn south-bound during the P.M. Peak Hour. Mr. Floyd Siefferman, Jr., 6997 Edgebrook Place, stated that, as a lawyer, he was appalled by the number of requests for variances in Eden Prairie. He stated that he understood that variances were to be granted when conditions were beyond the control of the owner, not because the design of the owner causes a problem before a site is built. Mr. Jim Laskowski, 9445 Garrison Way, stated that he concurred with the concerns of his neighbors. He added that he was concerned about traffic at Anderson Lakes Parkway and the shopping center currently. He noted that Garrison Way was located one street west of the shopping center and that people currently used it as a secondary access to the center. Mr. Ziesman stated that he was concerned about the amount of traffic that would be generated by the development, the circulation of the traffic, and concerned about whether there would be an adequate amount of parking spaces for the use as proposed. Hallett stated that he felt the majority of the changes made by the proponents had been positive, adding that he felt some issues still needed to be worked out with Staff, including transition to the property to the south. Hallett stated that, because of what Mr. ". Torgerson had said regarding the access to County Road #18 during peak hour traffic, that he was hesitant to located any additional residential uses in this area. Reubling stated that he felt there was still too much intensity of land use proposed for the property than was appropriate. He stated that he felt residential use of the property may not be appropriate, either. Gartner stated that she felt the amendments to the plan were positive, with the exception of the drive-through. She stated that she felt it caused the traffic circulation problems for the property. Anderson stated that he agreed with Hallett regarding the positive changes in the plan. He asked about the number of parking spaces with respect to proposed expansion of County Road #18. Planner Franzen stated that it would depend upon whether the County planned on using a diamond interchange at the intersection with Anderson Lakes Parkway. If a diamond interchange was used, additional property would be needed from the shopping center, thereby eliminating parking spaces for the shopping center, and possibly eliminating the excess parking spaces in this parking lot that were proposed for use by the developer. Bye stated that she was reluctant to have two access points to County Road #18 located so close together. She questioned the safety of the situation. Mr. Bedner stated that the rate of traffic through the intersection was . predicted to be approximately one car every 25 seconds. He added that, typically, a car would be able to clear this intersection in seven to eight seconds. Mr. Oliver expressed concern regarding traffic circulation to the major Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 9, 1987 roads, stating that trying to exit from the shopping center parking lot was already difficult at this time. Planner Franzen stated that it would be possible for the City to retain its own traffic consultant if the Commission felt that the information provided needed to be re-evaluated. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the traffic patterns and access situations had been improved by the proponent from the last review of the proposal , but that more information appeared necessary before the Commission could make a decision. Anderson stated that he concurred with Chairman Schuck. He also expressed concern for problems which may arise in the future if it was determined by the County that additional taking of property would be necessary for upgrading of County Road #18 from the shopping center parking lot, thereby eliminating parking spaces for both uses. Anderson stated that he felt it was necessary that pedestrian access to the site be reviewed, also, prior to additional Commission review. Gartner stated that she felt the revised building design was better suited to the site. She noted that it would be necessary for people parking in front of the building to walk across the bank drive-through lane in order to enter the building. Mr. Erickson stated that this area would be designated for employeed parking. Bye stated that she felt a better transition to the south was necessary, especially considering the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment for the property. She added that she did not believe it was appropriate to predetermine the land uses for the five acres south of this property with action on this property, alone.. Dodge stated that she concurred with the statement of Reubling stating that she believed there was too much intensity of development proposed for this property. She stated that she felt that if County Road #18 upgrading was causing confusion as to appropriate land use for property in this area, then perhaps it would be in order for the City to review the entire neighborhood in terms of land use, instead of looking at each individual parcel , one at a time. Gartner asked how long it would take to have a traffic study prepared by the City. Planner Franzen stated that similarly sized projects had taken anywhere from two to three weeks, depending upon the availability of the consultants. Gartner asked if the traffic counts for this area were available for County Road #18 since the race track had been opened, south of this area in Shakopee. Planner Franzen responded that these figures were available, and that the figures indicated that County Road #18 would be in a "stop and go" status by 1990, based on that information. MOTION: • Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to continue this item to the March 9, 1987, Planning Commission pending receipt of additional information from the proponents. Motion carried--5-2-0 (Dodge and Reubling against) Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 9, 1987 C. CARDINAL CREEK 6TH, by New American Homes Corporation. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendement from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 31.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 31.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 39.5 acres into 59 single family lots, three outlots, and road right-of- way. Location: North of Cardinal Creek Road, west of I-494. A continued public hearing. The Commission had continued this item from the January 26, 1987, meeting in order for the proponents to work out the road access to Baker Road for this property and the two intervening and adjacent parcels to the west, which had direct access to Baker Road. Staff met with Countryside Investments, Inc., the proponent of the Griffith property, through which it was necessary to obtain access to Baker Road. Representatives from Countryside Investments met with Mr. Oscar Miller and have negotiated a tentative agreement for development of his property that will allow the access to Baker Road to be shifted further south, where it fit the site topography best, in Staff's opinion. The trees on the wooded point that would have been removed under the original Cardinal Creek 6th Addition proposal could now all be saved since the road would be realigned further to the south. Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed alignment with respect to the existing topography, impact on adjacent properties in terms of design of the sites, and impact on the existing trees. He noted that the proposed alignment would save approximately 640 caliper inches of oak trees. Mr. Oscar Miller, 6521 Baker Road, stated that he had been contacted by the developers of the Griffith property, north of his property and west of the proposed development. He expressed concern that all final lot lines be accurately drawn, as this had not occurred in several versions of the proposed development, which showed a portion of his property owned by the proponent. He added that, while his negotiations were not yet completed, he was confident that a mutually beneficial arrangement could be reached by all parties involved. Mr. Floyd Siefferman, Jr., 6997 Edgebrook Place, reminded the Commission of the concerns of the homeowners' association for the existing Cardinal Creek area. He stated that they requested that the name be changed for the development and for the main road through the property, that a construction road be established to avoid use of the existing residential streets, and that the property be limited to single family development. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of New American Homes Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 9, 1987 Density Residential on 31.2 acres for Cardinal Hills, based on plans and written materials dated January 5, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 23, 1987, and including the following additional conditions: 1) Realignment of the access road to Baker Road;. 2) Establishment of a construction road other than through the existing residential area; 3) Revision of the name of the proposed plat to be Cardinal Hills; and, 4) Revision of the name of the main road through the property. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3• Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of New American Homes Corporation for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 31.2 acres for Cardinal Hills, based on plans and written materials dated January 5, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 23, 1987, and including the following additional conditions: 1) Realignment of the access road to Baker Road; 2) Establishment of a construction road other than through the existing residential area; 3) Revision of the name of the proposed plat to be Cardinal Hills; and 4) Revision of the name of the main road through the property. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of New American Homes Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 39.5 acres into 58 single family lots and three outlots for Cardinal Hills, based on plans and written materials dated January 5, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 23, 1987, and including the following additional conditions: 1) Realignment of the access road to Baker Road; 2) Establishment of a construction road other than through the existing residential area; 3) Revision of the name of the proposed plat to be Cardinal Hills; and 4) Revision of the name of the main road through the property. Motion carried--7-0-0 D. DEER CREEK 2ND ADDITION, by Thomas Carmody. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 80 acres with variances and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 10.5 acres, Preliminary Platting of 13.3 acres into 31 single family lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way. A public hearing. Mr. Mike Carmody, representing developer, stated that they were planning to . build homes in the $90-120,000 range within this area. He briefly reviewed the site characteristics and design features of the proposed development with the Commission. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 9, 1987 i of February 6, 1987, with the Commission. Other than standard development concerns involving sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, water, erosion control, park dedication, and grading, Planner Uram indicated the following matters of concern: 1) need for a five-foot wide, five-inch thick concrete sidewalk along the north side of Carmody Lane, connecting to Anderson Lakes Parkway; and 2) Need for architectural variety in the housing unit types such that no two units would be alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally across from each other in order to provide variety in the housing unit type. It was pointed out that the original Planned Unit Development for this property had shown 39 single family homes, whereas the developer was currently proposing only 31 lots. Planner Uram stated that the lots within this proposed subdivision were comparable, if not larger than, those lots within Deer Creek 1st Addition. Gartner asked if the variances requested could be eliminated by reducing the total number of lots by one unit. Planner Uram stated that this was possible; however, the proposed development was compared to adjacent subdivisions and found to be comparable in terms of street frontages, setbacks, etc. In addition, the proposed development was considered in compliance with the approved Planned Unit Development for this property. Pat and Dave Montgomery, 8574 Morgan Lane, stated that they were concerned about the potential tree loss from the development of this property which . would eliminate much of the screening of the apartment buildings in the area. Planner Uram explained the tree replacement policy, adding that the developers were planning to save the trees in this location as part of their site design. Mrs. Montgomery stated that there had been a pond in the area previously; however, since construction of the apartments, the pond had been completely dry. She asked if it would be filled again. Mr. Carmody responded that the level of the pond had fluctuated substantially over the years. Planner Uram stated that the Engineering Department and Watershed District would review this matter prior to City Council review. Bye stated that she shared the concerns of the neighbors with respect to minimizing tree loss for this property. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Thomas M. Carmody for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres for Deer Creek 2nd Addition, based on plans dated January 28, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 6, 1987, and with the added condition that the access to Anderson Lakes Parkway be located 100 ft. further to the south. Planning Commission Minutes 11 February 9, 1987 Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Thomas M. Carmody for Planned Unit Development District Review on 80 acres, with variances, and Zoning District Change, from Rural to R1-9.5 on 10.5 acres for Deer Creek 2nd Addition, based on plans dated January 28, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 6, 1987, and with the added condition that the access to Anderson Lakes Parkway be located 100 ft. further to the south. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION A: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Thomas M. Carmody for Preliminary Plat of 13.3 acres into 31 single family lots and one outlot for Deer Creek 2nd Addition, based on plans dated January 28, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 6, 1987, and with the added condition that the access to Anderson Lakes Parkway be located 100 ft. further to the south. • Motion carried--7-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS A. Code Changes Jean Johnson and Steve Durham from the Zoning Administration portion of the Planning Department reviewed the final changes to the Zoning Ordinance changes proposed for. Chapter 11 of the City Code. Planner Durham noted that the two major changes from the last review were that the City had been advised to "readopt" Chapter 11 in its entirety and that the official zoning map would become,a specific set of half-section maps to be kept in the Planning Department, while the wall maps would be representations, only, referring people to the half-sections for greater detail . MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance changes to the City Code Chapter 11 as presented at the February 9, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried--7-0-0 VI. NEW BUSINESS • None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. Planning Commission Minutes 12 February 9, 1987 i VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.