Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/23/1987 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 23, 1987 7: 30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebl ing 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 A. Election of Officers. III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS *(7:35) A. BLOSSOM RIDGE ADDITION, by G.W. Pearson. Request for Zoning District Change from R -22 to R1-13.5 on 1 .7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into four single family lots and one outlot. Location: South of Blossom Road, east of Bennett Place. A public hearing. *(7:50) B. ANDERSON' S GARDEN CENTER, by Don C. and Rita L. Anderson and H.J. Nyhammer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial on 2.2 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to C-Commercial on 1.6 acres and from R1- 22 to R1-13.5 on 1.86 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into six lots and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast corner of County Road #4 and Valley View Road, west of Westgate Lane. *(8:35) C. CARDINAL CREEK RIDGE, by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 23.1 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 23.1 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 with variances on 23.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 23.1 acres into 40 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: East of Baker Road and Edenvale Boulevard intersection, west of Interstate I-494. V. OLD BUSINESS VI . NEW BUSINESS VII . PLANNER'S REPORT VIII . ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, R LATER, THAN LISTED. i MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 23, 1987 School Board Offices, Room 205 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Douglas Fell , Robert Hallett, Chuck Ruebling STAFF PRESENT: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Bye, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--7-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS A. Election of Officers. This item was continued from the previous meeting, pending availability of all commissioners. The offices of Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary need to be filled for 1987. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Bye, to open nominations for the position of Chairman. Commissioner Schuck was nominated. There were no other nominations for Chairman. A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Schuck as Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1987. MOTION 2: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to open nominations for the position of Vice Chairman. Commissioner Hallett was nominated. There were no other nominations for Vice Chairman. A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Hallett as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1987. MOTION 3: Motion as made by Hallett, seconded by Dodge, to open nominations for the position of Secretary. Commissioner Bye was nominated. There were no other nominations for Secretary. Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 23, 1987 A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Bye as Secretary of the Planning Commission for 1987. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the February 23, 1987, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--6-0-1 (Hallett abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BLOSSOM RIDGE ADDITION, by G. W. Pearson. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 1.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into four single family lots and one outlot. Location: South of Blossom Road, east of Bennett Place. A public hearing. Mr. G. W. Pearson, proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. He stated that it was basically a request for a small subdivision. • Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of March 20,1987, regarding the development. He noted that the Staff had designed the overall road system for this area at the time of review of the J & L Subdivision, recently approved by the City. Planner Uram stated that the proposed plan was in general conformance with the Staff design. Other than standard recommendations regarding streets, sewer, water, and park dedication fees, Planner Uram noted that the Staff Report also contained recommendations regarding extension of the street, tree replacement, storm water drainage, and the minimum lot frontage for Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1• Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of G. W. Pearson for Zoning District Change from R1- 22 to R1-13.5, for 1.7 acres for the Blossom Ridge Addition, based on plans dated February 20, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 20, 1987. Motion carried--7-0-0 • Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 23, 1987 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of G. W. Pearson for Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into four single fmaily lots and one outlot for the Blossom Ridge Addition, based on plans dated February 20, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 20, 1987. Motion carried--7-0-0 B. ANDERSON'S GARDEN CENTER, by Don C. and Rita L. Anderson and H.J. Nyhammer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial on 2.2 acres, Zoning District Change from-R1-22 to C-Commercial on 1.6 acres and from R1- 22 to R1-13.5 on 1.86 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into six lots and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast corner of County Road #4 and Valley View Road, west of Westgate Lane. Mr. Don Anderson, proponent, stated that the Garden Center currently existed as part of the hardware store within the Prairie Village Mall, but that it had become necessary that the use be relocated. He stated that this was a family owned business and that he and his family would prefer to remain in Eden Prairie. Mr. Anderson stated that he had purchased the subject property fully knowledgeable of the fact that it was a "problem" site, given its location, size, and the existing surrounding uses. He stated that this was a quiet business, with low traffic volume, operated generally during the daylight hours. He said there would be no night lighting to contend with for the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson said that they also operated as landscapers, stating that the business would be designed as a "mini-arboretum" of sorts in order to provide for examples of different plantings to customers. He stated that he felt this would be a good transition between the existing homes and the existing commercial development in this neighborhood. Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing proponents, reviewed the requests before the Commission, noting that the request also included amendment of the zoning for the Little Red Grocery Store, which would provide for zoning of all the property upon which the store was located to be Community Commercial . He stated that the chicken coop and barn would be removed from the property for the proposed development, noting that the milk house structure on the property, which was built of masonry, was intended to be saved in order to provide screening from the residence to the south. With respect to the trees on the property, Mr. Hoisington stated that the were a number of large existing trees; however, the quality of the trees was questionable and several were elms. He pointed out that the Andersons were in the business of trees and would do whatever possible to save any trees worth saving in the process of developing the property. Mr. Hoisington stated that the eastern portion of the site was proposed to be platted for single family residences. An easement would be provided through this residential area for purposes of allowing for an alternative • Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 23, 1987 access to Westgate Lane for the Nyhammer house, located at the southeast corner of the Little Red Grocery Store. Currently, access for this house was through the store parking lot. Regarding traffic generation, Mr. Hoisington stated that the use would generate approximately 30-40 trips per day for the majority of the year. He indicated that the exception to this would be the month of May, the busiest time of the year for the business. He said that during this time of the year there were approximately 120-150 trips per day generated by the use, while during the slow times of the year, there were as few as ten trips per day. Mr. Hoisington said that the only use that would generate less traffic would be two single family residences. Materials proposed to be used on the exterior of the main structure included rock face block and cedar. Parking spaces required for the use totalled 24, with 19 spaces provided in the front of structure and 15 more provided at the back of the structure for future use. Mr. Hoisington stated that it was the intention of the Andersons to screen the use to the east, west, and south from those adjacent uses. He added that it was possible that the use could be virtually unseen from the south with the proper screening. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of March 20, 1987, regarding the proposed development. He stated that the major question for the Commission to answer was whether this was an appropriate land use for this property, given the existing surrounding uses. Planner Franzen pointed out that the main considerations of the Staff Report included traffic patterns and volume and transition from the proposed use to the existing properties, particularly to the south. Regarding transition to the existing single family neighborhood in the area, Planner Franzen noted that the subdivision of the property was ,so old that there was no file at the City available. He stated that the existing lots were zoned R1-22, with minimum lot sizes of 22,000 sq. ft. He pointed out that this would make the proposed lots approximately 8,000 sq. ft. smaller than those existing in the neighborhood. Traffic volume was less of a concern than the traffic patterns in the vicinity as County Road #4 was designed to handle up to 1.1,000 trips per day. Planner Franzen stated that, because there was no median cut in County Road #4 at the driveway for the Little Red Grocery Store, it was not uncommon for southbound vehicles to miss the access on Valley View Road on the north side of the property and to proceed to Westgate Drive, turn right, then turn around in the driveway of one of the residences on Westgate Drive. Most often it appeared that this happened to the Grover residence, directly adjacent to the proposed development. There was concern that this would continue to happen and that the U-turn movements may increase in frequency due to the addition of another business in this location. Planner Franzen stated that it appeared that the concerns regarding exterior materials and screening may be mitigated with amendments to the plans. However, this would not answer the question of the appropriateness of the use, nor would it solve the traffic concerns. He stated that one alternative would be to develop the property as guided, Low Density Residential . • Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 23, 1987 Mr. Haakon Nyhammer, owner of the Little Red Grocery Store and the house which currently used the parking lot of the store for public street access, stated that his portion of the request involved the correction of the zoning legal description for his property to make it conform to the lot upon which the store was located. With respect to the garden store proposal, Mr. Nyhammer stated that he felt the addition of the garden store would be a good idea for this parcel . He stated that he believed it would be a low-key operation, and that it was better than having duplexes, or apartments, constructed on the land. Mr. Nyhammer added that the proponents seemed willing to work with the neighborhood. He stated that he was willing to work with the proponents, as well , to set up and maintain a joint driveway for his store and the proposed business. Hallett asked how many cars were attributable to the grocery store use. Mr. Nyhammer stated that his best estimate was for approximately 2,000 trips per day. He added that he had 32 parking spaces on his property. Mr. Eugene Grover, 16390 Westgate Drive, stated that his home was the closest one to the proposed development, directly adjacent to the south. He pointed out that his property was lower in elevation than the land to the north where the garden store use was proposed, therefore they would be at eye-level with the parking lot from their windows. Mr. Grover stated that, since the expansion of the Little Red Grocery Store, at least one car per day made a U-turn on Westgate Drive and used their driveway for a turn- around. He noted that if the drivers saw them in their front yard, they would use the driveways of other residences along Westgate Drive, instead. Mr. Grover stated that their major concern was that the driveway was being damaged by the turn around movements. Mr. Grover stated that he was also concerned about the pedestrians and bicycle riders accessing the commercial uses. He stated that currently, pedestrians and bicycle riders would cross County Road #4 at any point, generally not at the lighted intersection. Mr. Grover said that his biggest concern was the loss of privacy which had already taken place because of the Little Red Grocery Store and the potential for even greater loss of privacy with the addition of the garden store to the lot directly adjacent to them. He said that the lights blinking from the intersection semi-four were visible from their windows, too. He stated that he and his wife did not feel that they wanted to live next door to a business and that they would request the City to maintain the long range plans for Low Density Residential development for this property. Mr. Tom Reigert, 16391 Westgate Drive, indicated that he was located directly across the street from the Grovers and reiterated concerns about the U-turns made by vehicles on their properties. He stated that the sign indicating that U-turns were not allowed did not stop people from using their driveways to turn around and head north, again. Mr. Reigert stated that the traffic from Huron to Westgate Drive had steadily increased over recent months, as well . Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 23, 1987 Mr. Roger Skogman, 16251 Westgate Trail, stated that he felt the proposed development would be a good use for the property and that he was not concerned about the proposed single family lots being smaller than the existing lots in the area. Mr. Bill Smetana, 16171 Westgate Lane, stated that he would prefer to see one less lot developed in the proposed single family residential area in order to keep the lots the same size as those existing in the area at this time. He added that he was not against the proposed garden store being located along County Road #4. Ms. Joy Johnson, 16370 Westgate Drive, pointed out that she lived on the lot east of the Grovers. She stated that, currently, their view of this area was of junk piles in the yard and that she did not feel it would be any worse than it was now, if the garden store were developed on the property. She suggested that the speed limit be reduced from 40 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour to control traffic better for the neighborhood. Mr. Grover stated that the existing house on the lot was an eyesore and asked if the neighborhood could have the City force the owner to clean up the lot. He added that children played in this area, also, and that it did not appear safe for them to do so. Mr. Hoisington stated that the traffic generation from this use would be the lowest possible from any use. He stated that approximately 80% of the trips would come from the south, with approximately 20% of the trips from the north. He said that the total amount of traffic would be minimal as it would represent about 1-2% of the total amount of traffic generated by the Little Red Grocery Store given their 2,000 trips per day and the 30-40 trips per day projected for the garden use. With respect to transition, Mr. Hoisington stated that there would be approximately 60-70 feet between the rear of the Grover house to the south and the parking lot proposed for the proeerty. He stated that the Andersons planned to landscape that area heavily. Whatever the Grovers wanted, the proponents would be willing to work on with them. He added that the lighting was probably visible from the Grovers' home because of the lack of vegetation between them and the lighting and that it would be possible to install coniferous trees that would attenuate this situation for the Grovers. Mr. Hoisington stated that he did not believe that three lots would be economically feasible for the single family portion of the development. He reviewed the expenses involved and stated that the proponents would not be able to make a profit with only three lots. With respect to the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment, Mr. Hoisington stated that he knew of several situations where the land use • designated in the Comprehensive Plan was not, finally, the most appropriate use of the property. He listed examples within the City. He stated that he did not believe that the proposed use would change the land use balance within the City and that alot could be done with landscaping and screening to accomplish the transitions necessary to the existing residential areas. • Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 23, 1987 Planner Franzen stated that there were other areas within the community that were available for this use and which would not require an amendment of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He added that the single family use may be more economically feasible if the entire property were developed as single family, instead of it being part commercial and part single family. Planner Franzen stated that if there was an alternative available for the traffic matters, Staff would be willing to review it; however, at this time, the traffic patterns and the impact of those traffic patterns on the adjacent existing residential neighborhood, were of major concern. Hallett stated that he felt it was necessary for the City to have better information on the traffic issues. He asked the Grovers if there was anything that they would consider adequate in terms of screening of the use from their home. Mrs. Grover stated that it was not only their home, but their yard, also. She said that they had swings and a picnic table in the yard and would like to continue to use their yard without a compromise of their privacy. Mr. Grover stated that he was concerned about working with the proponents. He said that the proponent had told them that they could have an 8-10 ft. high fence when they initially spoke to them about the proposed development, but that in the next conversation, he was telling them that a four foot high fence would be adequate. Mr. Grover said that the proponents also offered to build up berming on their property in order to screen the use. Mr. Grover stated that he and his wife did not feel this was acceptable and that they would not allow this. Hallett stated that he felt it was clear that concerns_- of the Grovers needed to be dealt with by the proponent. Bye stated that she felt strongly that the use should be adequately screened from the Grovers' home. Hallett asked if the garden store would be able to use the Valley View Road access through the Little Red Grocery Store parking lot, too. Mr. Nyhammer stated that this would be the case. Hallett stated that he felt a bike easement might be explored, too, in order to provide a safe alternative for bikers to the commercial uses. Dodge asked if the access on County Road #4 proposed to be used by both the grocery store and the garden store would remove any of the parking within the grocery store parking lot. Mr. Nyhammer stated that it would not. Dodge expressed concern about safety for pedestrians and bicycle riders at this intersection, in particular given the desire of children to cross over to the park and school facilities on the west side of County Road #4. Dodge added that she felt the U-turn situation explained by the Grovers was hazardous and should be corrected, if possible, stating that the traffic on • County Road #4 was only going to increase as development continued in the area. Bye stated that she agreed that the existing use of the property provided for an attractive nuisance for children and that the junk on the property was an eyesore. She stated that she felt traffic was still the main . Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 23, 1987 concern. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt it was necessary that there be answers to the questions regarding traffic and screening before the Commission could act on the proposal . He added that he would like to see more information about the possibility of a bike path, as well. Bye said she would like to see sight line studies for screening of the property to the south. She said she believed that noise was a legitimate concern, as well. Bye added that she would be interested in how weekend business may differ from weekday business, and in better details about the busy season. Anderson stated that he shared the Staff's concerns about traffic, adding that he felt the City needed to be concerned about the safety of its residents, too. He stated that he felt the City had other locations for a use like this in areas already properly designated on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Fell asked if there was any way to quantify the traffic information. Planner Franzen stated that there were several ways to do this including checking with the City's traffic consultants, surveying other communities, surveying other garden stores, checking with County and State traffic departments, or even the Public Safety Department. Fell stated that he believed it would be important to determine how this proposal would impact the traffic problems in this area, as well as to determine what the existing problem was, since there was obviously an existing traffic problem without this use being added to the neighborhood. Fell questioned what future uses of the property might be if the garden store were discontinued and the property was already zoned commercial . Planner Franzen stated that this was a legitimate concern. He explained that once the property was zoned, the City had less control over the exact design of any use that would be allowed on the property. Ruebling stated that he was concerned about the future land use, as well, and that he felt the City should only allow a use that would satisfactorily protect the interests of all parties involved. He expressed concern about the transition to the property to the south,- suggesting that proponents try to mitigate this matter with the Grovers. Ruebling also stated concern regarding traffic for the area and concurred with other commissioners that additional information was needed with respect to traffic. He stated that he would also like to see transition to the existing adjacent uses addressed. Ruebling added that he would prefer to see the lot sizes stay the same as the rest of the neighborhood for the purpose of consistency. Hallett stated that he felt any screening, or buffering, of the use from adjacent residences should be completed prior to occupancy of the use by the business. Mr. Hoisington stated that he understood the concerns of the Commission and Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 23, 1987 Staff regarding traffic. He added that the Andersons were anxious to start business at this location. Mr. Anderson stated that he would make every effort to mitigate the issues discussed at this meeting and return to the Commission with answers to their questions as soon as possible. Dodge questioned whether the new location would be adequate to allow enough visibility for the business. Mrs. Anderson stated that the patterns of the buyers in the store were such that they purchased large dollar amounts, even though there were few customers in number, therefore they felt the location would provide for adequate visibility. MOTION: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell, to continue the public hearing on this item to the April 13, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt of additional information as discussed at this meeting. Motion carried--7-0-0 (Bye left the meeting at 9:15 p.m.) C. CARDINAL CREEK RIDGE, by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 23.1 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 23.1 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 with variances on 23.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 23.1 acres into 40 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: East of Baker Road and Edenvale Boulevard intersection, west of Interstate I-494. Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, explained the features of the development to the Commission. He explained the special provisions that would be required of individual lot builders in order to preserve trees and to protect the slopes of the property. Mr. Krueger stated that the latest information regarding the upgrading of Baker Road was that the bids would be opened in mid-April and that the construction would begin in May, with a scheduled completion some time in July, 1987. He said that Hennepin County had requested that there be no occupancy permits issued for the property until the road was open, and that the proponents had no difficulty in complying with this request. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of March 20, 1987, with the Commission. Other than standard recommendations regarding utilities, streets, storm water drainage, erosion control, park dedication fees, and tree replacement, he noted special concerns for individual lot grading and covenants to implement the special conditions of that individualized grading plan. He noted, also, that there was a difference between the amount of tree replacement as calculated by the Staff and as calculated by the proponent. Planner Franzen stated that he believed these matters could be worked out with the proponent prior to City Council review of the proposed development. After review of the development with the City Forester, it was determined that it may be possible to save more trees on the property, even during the • Planning Commission Minutes 10 March 23, 1987 construction of housing on the individual lots. The Forester pointed out that if the root system of any tree was destroyed by 50%, or more, the tree would die. Therefore, Staff would try to work with the developer to provide "credit" toward the tree replacement on the property for any trees not destroyed by housing construction. Mr. Oscar Miller, 6521 Baker Road, stated that he did not object to the development as proposed. He stated that he had been working with the proponents toward an equitable agreement for all parties. Mr. Miller stated that his only concern was that legal descriptions for zoning of the property be accurate, as the first draft he had seen was not correct. He asked that special attention be paid to this so that the majority of his property not be rezoned, and that only that portion he was trading with the proponents become zoned. Planner Franzen assured him that this would be checked by Staff several times prior to publication of any zoning ordinance by the City. Mr. Art Roberts, 13543 Woodmere Circle, stated that he was a representative of the Cardinal Creek Homeowners' Association and that their only request was that the name be changed to elminate the word "Creek" from the title so as to avoid confusion with their existing development. Ruebling asked the proponents if they were willing to comply with all the recommendations of the Staff Report, in particular the portion dealing with the covenants and restrictions for the grading on the individual lots. Mr. Arvid Schwartz, Countryside Investments, stated that they were willing to do SO. Fell asked about the need for a transition between the proposed single family use on this property and the area designated for Community Commercial use to the north. Planner Franzen stated that the future residents of this area would know that this area was being developed as Community Commercial as it was under construction at this time. He added that there was another parcel between this property and that portion guided for Community Commercial use where additional transition could take place. Mr. Krueger stated that the current owner of the property being proposed for development by Countryside Investments had tried to purchase the parcel between this use and the Community Commercial property to the north. At this point in time, the property was not available, but the owners were aware of his interest at such time as they would be ready to sell . Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City Council • Planning Commission Minutes 11 March 23, 1987 approval of the request of Countryside Investments, Inc. , for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 23.1 acres for Cardinal Creek Ridge, based on plans dated March 6, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of March 20, 1987. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Countryside Investments, Inc., for Planned Unit Development Concept, for Cardinal Creek Ridge, based on plans dated March 6, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 20, 1987. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Countryside Investments, Inc., for Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances for front yard setback, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 23.1 acres for Cardinal Creek Ridge, based on plans dated March 6, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 20, 1987. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 5: Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Countryside Investments, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 23.1 acres into 37 single family lots for Cardinal Creek Ridge, based on plans dated March 6, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 20, 1987. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Ruebling, seconded by Hallett. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 10:05 P.M.