Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-03 Planning Commission Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26,2003,7:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair, Helen McClelland, John Lonsbury, Ann Swenson, Geof Workinger and Steve Brown MEMBERS ABSENT: David Byron, Bill Skallerud, David Runyan and Gordon Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the February 26, 2003, meeting were filed as submitted. II. OLD BUSINESS: Z-03-7 Preliminary Rezoning MadisonMarquette 3100 West 66th Street Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission the proposed rezoning was heard at their February 26, 2003, meeting. The proponents have now returned with a revised plan that addresses some of the issues raised by the Commission. Mr. Larsen said the revised plan reduced the size of the Gross Floor Area from 21,570 square feet to 17,900. Mr. Larsen also informed the Commission no parking variance is requested. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends Preliminary Rezoning subject to: final rezoning, street vacation, Richfield approvals, Watershed District approvals, and Hennepin County curb cut permits. Mr. Lee Hoffman and Mr. Brian Neuman were present representing the proponents MadisonMarquette. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen if Richfield reviewed the old or revised plan. Mr. Larsen responded the City of Richfield reviewed both plans and will act on the plan approved by the City of Edina. Commissioner Lonsbury asked Mr. Larsen if he believes this is the best "use" of this site and if other "uses" were entertained. Mr. Larsen noted the site is zoned office but if one considers the size and location of this site it seems to make the most sense to integrate this island into the larger retail center and to rezone it as commercial. Mr. Larsen added he also believes to keep the site viable common ownership is important and common ownership is accomplished with this proposal Commissioner Lonsbury pointed out the City of Edina is committed to providing opportunities for low income housing and asked Mr. Larsen if he would consider this site a good location for low income housing. Mr. Larsen said in his opinion this site would not be a good location for low income housing. Commissioner Swenson said in light of her not being present when the Commission heard this issue last month she questioned what the Commission is actually voting on. Mr. Larsen said the proponent is requesting that the Commission vote on preliminary rezoning of the site from office district to commercial. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said at final rezoning all "loose ends" need to be tied up. "Loose ends" can include curb cuts and exterior building materials. Building size and location (if applicable) is usually set at preliminary rezoning. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Larsen what city code requires for parking spaces in a commercially zoned district. Mr. Larsen said code requires 5 spaces per 1000 square feet. Commissioner Brown asked if the 5 required spaces are based on retail use. Mr. Larsen responded that is correct. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Houle if he reviewed the proposed plan as it relates to traffic and traffic circulation. Mr. Houle responded he reviewed both the original proposal and the revised proposal. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Houle his thoughts on this proposal. Mr. Houle said the proponents addressed all questions he had and in his opinion this proposal is an improvement over what exists today and what the Commission reviewed last month. Commissioner Lonsbury told the Commission he is uncomfortable with the internal layout of the parking lot and traffic flow. He added he uses this mall often and from personal experience he has observed that no one obeys the traffic directional signs and the parking lot and internal flow are confusing at best. Mr. Hoffman told the Commission the revised plan submitted addressed concerns expressed at the previous Commission hearing. Continuing, with regard to traffic flow what is depicted is conceptual and can change according to 2 Commission suggestions and further discussion with the city's engineering department. Mr. Hoffman said Hennepin County has approved this plan. He added he is willing to "tweak" the parking layout reiterating they are not locked into this layout and will entertain suggestions from the Commission. Commissioner Brown commented when he reviewed the parking area plans he observed that a long strip of vegetation is proposed to be planted in the northwesterly portion of the lot (Richfield). He added this strip of vegetation in his opinion could create "clear view" issues and encumber circulation. Mr. Hoffman responded their intent was to soften the look of the parking area by reducing concrete. Commissioner Brown said he also has a concern with the configuration of the northwesterly entrance off York Avenue. He added in his opinion that configuration may be difficult to navigate. Mr. Hoffman responded he would review that intersection explaining to the Commission traffic circulation is still in the conceptual stages Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Hoffman if the proposed building schematic depicted on the plans is pretty firm with regard to exterior materials, building size and fagade variation, etc. Mr. Hoffman responded building size and location is pretty firm. He said all exterior materials would flow throughout the entire mail and it is believed they will be similar to what is depicted on the schematic. Commissioner McClelland told Mr. Hoffman she likes the color contrast depicted and hopes the final outcome resembles what she is viewing this evening. Commissioner Workinger told the development team he appreciates all the work they did in revising the plans to address the concerns the Commission expressed at their last meeting. Commissioner Lonsbury referred to the Traffic Impact Study submitted and told the proponents he finds issues with the study with regard to projections. Continuing, Commissioner Lonsbury said in reviewing the revised plan he still has concerns with interior traffic circulation. Commissioner Lonsbury asked Mr. Houle how wide the drive aisles are behind the Tires Plus facility. Mr. Houle said he believes the width is between 22 and 24 feet. Mr. Houle reiterated in his opinion the interior traffic circulation plan presented this evening is better than their present plan and what exists today. Continuing, Mr. Houle said he was concerned about the north entrance but he believes the north entrance now is an improvement. Commissioner Lonsbury stated in his opinion the drive aisles need to be widened to make it safer and reconfigured. Commissioner Swenson asked where the location is for the loading dock and trash containers for the proposed building. Mr. Neuman said there isn't a traditional loading dock but there is a loading bay at the east end of the building. Trash will be stored internally. Mr. Hoffman said the majority of the stores are 3 front loading and the possibility of semi trucks backing up into the loading area during store hours is remote. Commissioner McClelland commented in reference to Commissioner Brown's comments with regard to the proposed row of landscaping near the northwest entrance of the site that the Commission usually likes to see greenery planted to break up the mass of concrete. Continuing, she said she understands Commissioner Brown's point and understands the interior traffic flow is conceptual and asked the proponents if they decide to "tweak" the traffic circulation to keep in mind that some landscaping would be welcome to soften the site. Commissioner Brown questioned if the parking area will be re -stripped. Mr. Hoffman said he believes that will happen, adding what we are trying to accomplish at this preliminary stage is to get the rezoning, building size and location approved. Continuing, Mr. Hoffman said the City of Edina, Richfield and the development team have met a number of times to discuss this proposal and the goal of all is to upgrade the entire property including parking and traffic circulation. Commissioner Brown said that while he supports the concept of upgrading the site and incorporating the Edina site with the Richfield site, he believes the site needs to flow better. He added he is uncomfortable supporting the proposal as submitted without a firmer traffic circulation and parking plan. Commissioner Brown reiterated he is concerned with the configuration of the north entrance and the row of vegetation near the northwest end of the site. Mr. Hoffman responded as he views this mall he believes it would not be high retail but more of a village concept with destination shops. Commissioner McClelland said when finalizing the parking plans she wants the proponents to pay attention to the width of the drive aisle lanes. She added she visited the site but does not shop there regularly but wants to make sure since they have this opportunity that the drive aisles are of adequate width. Commissioner Lonsbury told the Commission he is prepared to vote on this issue and asked Mr. Larsen what the Commission is voting on. Mr. Larsen responded the Commission is voting on preliminary rezoning from Planned Office District to Planned Commercial District. The vote approves the preliminary concept (building location, size) to include that many parking spaces. Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained last month the proponents requested a parking variance but have revised their plans so that no variance is required. The way the plan is now configured the Edina property could stand-alone as a retail store with parking that meets Edina city code. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said the City of Richfield has a different formula with regard to parking spaces, adding he believes it is around 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of retail space. 4 Commissioner Brown said he is still concerned with traffic and traffic circulation. Commissioner Lonsbury commented if the proponents "tweak" the parking in any way or widen the drive aisles parking spaces will be lost. He said he is still concerned with the amount of parking spaces. He added he views this in its entirety and not only that the Edina property can "stand alone". He asked the proponents if they know exactly the amount of parking spaces in the plan. Mr. Hoffman said the exact number of spaces throughout the Edina and Richfield sites is not known at this time due to changes and can occur between preliminary and final rezoning. Commissioner Brown said in his opinion the City is being asked to make a long-term decision that will have an effect on both Edina and Richfield and he is uncomfortable with the site within Richfield. Mr. Hoffman responded it is difficult for Edina to impose its parking requirements on Richfield property. Mr. Hoffman added every effort will be made to ensure that the property in Edina is incorporated into the Richfield site creating a good development project for both cities and addressing the traffic needs and circulation requirements of both cites and County. Commissioner McClelland said as she views this project she has no problems with the preliminary rezoning or the street vacation, noting between now and final rezoning some minor changes may occur with regard to parking, traffic circulation, etc. Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend preliminary rezoning approval subject to staff conditions noting the building size at 17,900 and parking spaces at 91 on the Edina property is firm. Commissioner Lonsbury stated he still has a problem with the Richfield site and inner circulation and traffic flow. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. Ayes, Swenson, Workinger, McClelland. Nays, Brown, Lonsbury. Motion to recommend preliminary rezoning approval passed 3-2. III. NEW BUSINESS: S-03-2 Preliminary Plat 2 Lot Subdivision Salvador Mendoza 5117 Ridge Road 5 Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property is 340 feet wide and 334 feet deep with a total lot area of 2.61 acres. The property also contains wetland areas. Mr. Larsen added the proponent is hoping to subdivide the lot creating two lots with lot areas of 45,420 and 68,495 respectively. Mr. Larsen concluded both lots exceed ordinance standards for dimensions and lot size. The new lot can be developed without impacting the wetland areas, and with minor disturbance to the site. Staff recommends Preliminary Plat approval conditioned on Subdivision Dedication. Mr. Knoll grandfather of Mrs. Mendoza was present representing Mr. and Mrs. Mendoza. Commissioner McClelland inquired if the wetland areas on the site usually retain standing water. Mr. Larsen explained the wetlands are low land areas that can flood during heavy rains and during some major wet periods standing water can be found in those wetland areas. Mr. Larsen pointed out much of Ridge Road was developed with large lots but with the houses constructed close to the street to accommodate the wetlands that run behind most of the homes along Ridge. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if building construction setbacks are set from the high water mark of the wetland areas. Mr. Larsen responded in this instance that requirement does not apply. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if he believes new homes could be constructed on these lots without variances. Mr. Larsen responded if he understands correctly the existing house will remain but will undergo a major renovation. Both lots are larger than the neighborhood average and he believes variances should not be an issue. Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend preliminary plat approval subject to the staff condition of subdivision dedication. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 1.1 Rr N 51 "wal .. •.(- - - DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25,2003,7:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, John Lonsbury, Ann Swenson, David Byron, Geof Workinger, and William Skallerud MEMBERS ABSENT: Gordon Johnson and Stephen Brown STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen and Jackie Hoogenakker I. OLD BUSINESS: Z-03-7 Final Rezoning POD -1 to PCD -2 Madison Marquette Realty Services 3100 West 66t Street Mr. Larsen informed the Commission on April 15, 2003, the City Council granted preliminary rezoning approval subject to final rezoning, street vacation, Richfield approvals, Watershed District permit and Hennepin County curb cut permits. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends final rezoning approval. The plans presented are consistent with the approved preliminary plans. All preconditions to final approval have been satisfied. The revised parking and circulation plan is an improvement over the preliminary plan. Mr. Lee Hoffman, and Mr. Thorpe were present representing the proponent, MadisonMarquette. Mr. Hoffman addressed the Commission and told them he believes the plan before them this evening addressed their previous concerns and is more "user friendly" with regard to traffic circulation. Continuing, Mr. Hoffman told the Commission he believes a national jewelry chain and a national bridal shop will lease the new retail building. He asked the Commission to remember from previous discussions that the fagade of the "old" shopping mall will be renovated to blend with the new construction. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Hoffman if the proposed retail store has a rear service corridor. Mr. Hoffman responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Workinger complimented Mr. Hoffman on responding to concerns expressed by the Commission at their last meeting, adding in his opinion this is a better plan. Continuing, Commissioner Workinger questioned the plans depiction of a narrow lane along the east side of the proposed new building and the west side of the Tire's Plus building south onto West 66th Street. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged that lane is narrow but it is a one-way out -only lane. Commissioner Workinger commented that makes sense and provides a safe exit. Commissioner Workinger asked how the rear elevation of the new building was addressed. Mr. Thorpe responded the rear elevation has a brick base with the remainder of the building wall finished with stucco. Mr. Thorpe added the rear elevation of the building will be "broken up" by decorative downspouts and lights. Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Larsen who controls York Avenue. Mr. Larsen responded that both York Avenue and West 66th Street are County roads. After further discussion the Commission expressed their support for the revised plan adding their earlier concerns have been addressed. Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend Final Rezoning approval to include a 12.8 -foot easterly setback variance and a 10 stall parking variance. Approval is also conditioned on street vacation, Richfield final approvals, Watershed District Permit and Hennepin County curb cuts. Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: P-03-2 Final Development Plan Four Crown Inc., (Vulcan Properties/Wendy's) Generally location in the northeast corner of Yorktown Shopping Mall Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proponents are proposing a Final Development Plan for a freestanding Wendy's Restaurant near the northeast corner of the Yorktown Mall site. Circulation for the proposed new 2 building and drive through will be an improvement from the existing drive through at the farthest east end of the mall. Mr. Larsen explained the proposed new building complies with the parking, lot coverage, building height and landscaping restrictions of the City Code. The proposal conforms to ordinance requirements without the need for variances. Mr. Larsen concluded staff supports the Final Development Plan subject to review by the Watershed District. Ms. Kathy Anderson, Mike Givens, and Jill Hagen, were present representing the applicants. Commissioner Lonsbury told the Commission he reviewed the plans and as they relate to parking he believes a parking shortage exists. He commented this mall will contain a number of food establishments and he is not sure the City's parking requirements for a retail center is adequate when so much of this site will be leased by food establishments. Mr. Larsen responded this center is viewed as mixed-use shopping center, with the largest tenant a retail fabric store. Mr. Larsen explained with regard to retail parking it is one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area plus one additional space for each ten seats in a restaurant, theater or other place of assembly. Mr. Larsen noted atrium and mall areas not used for retail purposes are excluded from gross floor area calculations. Mr. Larsen acknowledged the Wendy's site is on a separate lot but in reality it functions as part of the mall. Mr. Larsen concluded that to date the City has never noticed nor has anyone, tenant or otherwise, reported parking problems at this location. Commissioner Workinger questioned signage for Wendy's. Mr. Larsen said city staff will review signage and if a variance situation arises with regard to signage the zoning board of appeals would hear any request. Any action this evening does not include signage. Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen if there are similar platting situations like this in the City. Mr. Larsen responded both Southdale and the Galleria were platted with similar aspects. Mr. Larsen pointed out the Southdale Center site already contains some freestanding structures. Gabberts razed the Southdale Bowling alley building and incorporated that site to join the mall. Concluding Mr. Larsen said another site worth mentioning is at Gus Young Lane, the strip mall and freestanding Davanni's. 3 Ms. Anderson addressed the Commission and informed them it is their intent to tie the proposed Wendy's Restaurant in with the great new look of the mall. She added renovations to the existing mall are occurring at this time and this addition will compliment the major renovation process.. Commissioner Runyan said he is interested in the reasoning behind the parking stall variations. He pointed out the site plan indicates a combination of 90 degree and angled parking stalls. Ms. Anderson said that observation is correct. She explained the variation in parking stalls avoids the need for a variance and encourages and controls traffic flow. Ms. Anderson said one goal is to encourage access off Hazelton Road. Commissioner Swenson questioned how one accesses the building. She stated is appears to her one would have to walk over the drive through aisle to gain access to the building. Ms. Anderson responded that is correct. Commissioner Swenson asked Ms. Anderson if she is comfortable with that scenario. Ms. Anderson said in a short answer "yes", explaining 95% of the Wendy's food establishments have this type of "set-up". Commissioner Swenson commented traffic occurs on all sides of this building. Ms. Anderson said that is also correct. Chair McClelland noted vehicles would be fully stopped to order and pick up food. Commissioner Workinger noted on the plans there appears to be a railing that would help queue people allowing them time to survey the drive aisle and safely proceed. Commissioner Byron moved to recommend Final Development Plan approval subject to Watershed District permits. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. Commissioner Skallerud said in viewing this proposal some of the justification for its support is that it corrects some existing problems with the mall itself and the "old Wendy's" location. Commissioner Skallerud asked if Commission Members have the authority to recommend that whatever food establishment moves into the old Wendy's site, a drive through is prohibited. Mr. Larsen said that is a reasonable recommendation and one he agrees with. Commissioner Byron said he would accept that recommendation as an amendment to his motion for approval. Commissioner Workinger agreed. Commissioner Lonsbury asked Mr. Larsen if the City Engineer has reviewed this proposal. Mr. Larsen responded Mr. Houle, City Engineer has reviewed and approved this plan. 4 Commissioner Lonsbury said Commissioner Swenson brought up a good point with regard to building access and questioned if there is a need for a marked or stripped cross walk area on that side of the building. Commissioner Byron commented in the absence of something unique to this site he believes this layout is similar to many strip mall layouts. He pointed out at this hearing the Southdale Square Center was addressed and when one views their parking the majority of visitors to the mall have to cross a "drive aisle" situation to gain access to the Red Pepper, Subway, etc. Commissioner Byron said pedestrians will be aware of the situation. Chair McClelland said the applicants may choose to add caution signs or consider re -stripping a walkway access but that would be at their discretion. Chair McClelland called for the vote. Ayes, Lonsbury, Byron, Runyan, Workinger, Skallerud, McClelland. Nay, Swenson. Motion to recommend Final Development Plan approval carried 6-1. S-03-3 Preliminary Plat Approval James and Mary Gearen 6608 Dakota Trail Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Gearen are requesting a two -lot subdivision. The subject property is 2.9 acres in size with frontage on both Dakota and Mohawk Trails. Mr. Larsen commented if this looks familiar a nearly identical subdivision of this property was approved by the City Council 1995, however, the approved plat was never recorded. City rules state that if a plat is not recorded within on year the approval becomes void. Mr. Larsen concluded that staff recommends preliminary approval of the proposed subdivision. The proposal is nearly identical to the subdivision approved in 1995 and no variances are required. Approval is conditioned on final plat approval, subdivision dedication and a 40 -foot conservation easement along Mohawk Trail. Ms. Linda Fisher of Larkin Hoffman was present representing the proponents, along with Mr. Barnes, engineer. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if as a result of this subdivision the existing house requires variances. Mr. Larsen responded no variances are required for the existing house. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said there is an encroachment of playground equipment that has been addressed. Commissioner Runyan referred to the site plan presented to the Commission and inquired if the proposed footprint for the new house is "real" or just a "possibility". Ms. Fisher responded the footprint of the proposed new house is per ordinance requirements, and is a possibility. The location of the proposed house on the lot fronting Mohawk Trail was picked because it minimizes disruption to the topography. Mr. Barnes injected that this site affords the best access with the least impact. He added of course a potential homeowner may have another preference, but in his opinion this site makes the most sense. Commissioner Workinger commented that in viewing the preliminary plat development of the site would rely upon the construction of retaining walls. Mr. Larsen responded that is correct and pointed out to the Commission retaining wall are not uncommon in Indian Hills. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to remember the depicted placement for the new house is preliminary and a new house may not even be placed in this location. Chair McClelland asked if there is anyway the Commission can limit where a building pad is located. Chair McClelland commented she doesn't want a new house perched on the ridge. Mr. Larsen pointed out in Indian Hills natural conditions usually drive the placement of a house, and the City has been hesitant in restricting the rights of property owners in home placement as long as they maintain setbacks. Continuing, Mr. Larsen noted as long as the future property owner maintains the 40 -foot conservation easement along Mohawk Trail and abides by our codes house placement will be up to the owner of the site. Commissioner Byron questioned if the Commission can be assured no variances will be required on this site to construct a house. Mr. Larsen responded to the best of his knowledge no variances should be required. He cautioned that this lot meets all subdivision standards and no variances from lot depth, width or area are required. If any setback variances are required to site a house on this lot the Zoning Board would hear that issue. The standards for this lot apply throughout the community. Mr. Larsen reiterated as he views this lot it appears from its size no further variances are required. Commissioner Byron said he is satisfied with that response. Commissioner Skallerud commented that if the new lot would require a variance the hardship test stipulated by ordinance would be hard to make because they are creating a hardship as a result of subdivision. Ms. Fisher told the Commission it is the intent of the proponent to comply with all ordinance requirements. Commissioner Swenson asked Ms. Fisher if anyone knows the height of the retaining walls depicted on the preliminary plat. Mr. Barnes responded he believes the height is around 8 feet. 9 Chair McClelland opened up the discussion to the audience. Mr. Don Halla, 6601 Mohawk Trail told the Commission there is undue pressure in this area to subdivide properties and that while he also subdivided his property a few years ago and is in a similar situation as this owner he would like to see conservation restrictions placed not only along the front property line but the side property lines as well. Continuing, Mr. Halla said if the proposed home were placed where depicted many trees along our common property line would be destroyed and the future homes would be rather exposed and close together. Chair McClelland asked Mr. Larsen if the Commission has any authority with regard to tree loss, etc. Mr. Larsen said subdivision standards require that trees over a certain width be identified. Mr. Larsen said the reason the City is requesting a 40 foot conservation easement along Mohawk Trail is to preserve the street scape. He added it is very important in this City to maintain and preserve original streetscapes. In this instance, Indian Hills is a heavily wooded area and from the street we want to preserve that element. Commissioner Swenson commented that any time a property is subdivided neighbors are impacted along with the vegetation and topography. Mr. Larsen responded that is correct. He reiterated the goal of the City is to minimize any impact to the streetscape. He acknowledged tree loss will occur for house placement and road/driveway construction but the 40 -foot conservation restriction along Mohawk Trail is extremely important to maintain. Reiterating, the City is traditionally protective of our front streetscapes. Ms. Cindy Wallen, 6612 Mohawk Trail, told the Commission she is worried about the potential to subdivide this lot again (Mohawk Trail lot). Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission in 1995 the first proposal submitted by the Tambornino's (property owners at that time) was a three -lot subdivision, one lot fronting Dakota Trail and two fronting Mohawk Trail. That proposal failed. Mr. Larsen said in his opinion this lot is best suited for one lot fronting Mohawk Trail and one lot fronting Dakota Trail. Mr. Larsen acknowledged that in the future if an owner requests to subdivide this site (Mohawk Trail) we can't prevent that application but history indicates support for one lot fronting Mohawk Trail and one lot fronting Dakota Trail so any future "re -subdivision" would be difficult. Mr. C. Caler 6609 Mohawk Trail, asked the Commission to pay close attention to where the current house was built on this lot. He said the house was constructed in his opinion to take advantage of the views provided by the ridge of both Dakota and Mohawk Trails. Mr. Caler said he and many of the residents in this area purchased their homes with the belief that what they "saw" when they purchased their properties would be protected. Mr. Caler said this subdivision will open the door for other subdivisions and the values of the properties within this immediate area will go down. Concluding, Mr. Caler said the proposed house placement for the house fronting Mohawk Trail is positioned such that it 7 appears possible to re -subdivide this lot in the future, and that is another issue and concern. Mr. Halla agreed with the previous comment and told the Commission in his opinion the placement of the house on the Mohawk Trail site would create a large amount of tree loss. He added it would also be difficult to get up the hill because of the steep grade. Commissioner Runyan responded whomever purchases this property will hire an architect that would study the topography and place the new house in the best possible location, with minimal disruption to the site. Continuing, Commissioner Runyan pointed out retaining as many trees as possible and creating a driveway with a navigateable slope would be important to any future homeowner. Mr. Pope, 6621 Mohawk Trail told the Commission they can deny this proposal if it requires variances. Chair McClelland responded that is correct and reminded the audience no variances are required for this subdivision. It meets all ordinance standards. Chair McClelland pointed out at this time there is no final plan for house placement so they cannot comment on if a variance would be required for house construction. Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission and neighbors what the Commission is acting on this evening is a subdivision request to create one new lot. We are not considering future house placement. Commissioner Skallerud commented he also serves on the variance board and when the variance board reviews variance requests each property is looked at individually and on its own merits. Members of the Commission cannot give an opinion on if a variance is required when there is no application for variance. Commissioner Byron told the neighbors the City couldn't prevent a future property owner from applying for a variance to site a house or add an addition onto an existing house sometime in the future. Property owners have the right to be heard by the variance board and board members will listen to the facts presented at that time and act on the request on its individual merits. Commissioner Byron added the proposed house placement on the Mohawk Trail lot is located close to a side property line and not in the middle of the lot, but that in itself is not a reason to deny this request. Chair McClelland told neighbors the minutes will reflect concern was expressed over the proposed placement of a future house. Chair McClelland also noted the Commission understands concerns with respect to the impact this proposal will have on the environment and is confident that any future property owner would do their best to site the new house with respect to the environment. Mr. Barnes told the Commission the proposed placement of the house on the Mohawk Trail site was positioned in an area with the best grade. The access driveway elevation at this point is four percent. Mr. Barnes explained what the proponents are requesting this evening is subdivision approval not site plan review. Ms. Fisher interjected and told the Commission the proposal complies with all ordinance standards, no variances are required. She pointed out the two lots exceed the "500 -foot" neighborhood standards. She concluded the proponents will take into consideration all comments made this evening by both the Commission and neighbors. Commissioner Lonsbury moved to recommend preliminary plat approval subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commissioner Byron commented a precedent was set with regard to this lot by approving a similar subdivision in 1995. Commissioner Byron said he understands the frustration expressed by some neighbors that the Commission can't firmly "pin down" house placement on the lot fronting Mohawk Trail or assure them no further subdivisions can occur, but the Commission has listened and so have the proponents to neighbor comments and every indication given is that the new house will be placed in the proper location with as little disruption to the site as possible. As for the potential for "future re -subdivisions" of this property the comments presented this evening will remain on record with the property file. LD -03-2 Robert Lomicka and Susan Giese 5600 Highland Road 5604 Highland Road Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the applicant is requesting a simple lot division transferring land from 5600 to 5604 Highland Road. This transfer of land would allow expansion of the garage at 5604 without the need for a variance. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval. Commissioner Lonsbury moved to recommend lot division approval. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 9 LD -03-3 Steve Stroncek and Steven Hong 5129 Windsor Avenue 5117 Richmond Drive Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the applicant is requesting a simple lot division to allow the transfer of the north 20 feet of 5120 Windsor to the lot at 5117 Richmond Drive. The proposed transfer will allow a garage addition to the home at 5117 Richmond Drive without the need of a variance. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval. Commissioner Lonsbury moved to recommend lot division approval. Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM 10 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003, 7:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, John Lonsbury, Ann Swenson, David Byron, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, Geof Workinger, William Skallerud, Stephen Brown STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the July 30, 2003, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: S-03-4 Preliminary Plat for James W. Jones 5205 Duncraig Road, Edina, MN Two -Lot Subdivision Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property is a residential lot with a single dwelling located on the southerly portion of the lot. Mr. Larsen explained the proposed subdivision requires no variances; all lots meet or exceed neighborhood standards. Mr. Larsen noted the site contains steep slopes that will make building a home a challenge, however it should not have a large impact on the site. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends preliminary plat approval subject to Final Plat Approval and Subdivision Dedication. The proponent, Mr. James W. Jones was present to respond to questions. Commissioner McClelland told the Commission she understands the lots meet and exceed neighborhood standards but she has a problem with the irregular split. She pointed out the lots appear very unbalanced with the common lot line drawn as depicted. Mr. Larsen said the reason the lines may have been drawn as presented is to accommodate our requirements. Mr. Larsen observed that while on paper the proposal may look unbalanced, in reality when one views these properties from the street the arrangement of the common line will not be noticed. Commissioner Brown told the Commission he is uncomfortable with this rearrangement and prefers the more traditional lot line arrangements. Commissioner Brown said when you view this plat on paper it looks as if the lines were manipulated to meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Larsen said one of the goals of the ordinance is to ensure there is enough space at the "building line". Continuing, Mr. Larsen said in this instance depth is not an issue but he is unsure if the line is rearranged if it will continue to meet code for width. Commissioner McClelland said as she observes the proposal it occurs to her that the line could be rearranged at the 50 -foot setback mark, meeting lot width requirements of 121 feet. It can be "straightened out" at that point creating more even lot configurations. She pointed out at present the lots are also unbalanced with regard to lot area. Lot 1 has a lot area of over 31 thousand square feet while Lot 2 has a lot area of 18 thousand square feet. She noted the smaller lot could in the future face problems if a homeowner desired to add on to the home. Commissioner Skallerud commented that while it may make sense to rearrange the common lot line the plan presented this evening meets and exceeds ordinance standards. Continuing, Commissioner Skallerud questioned if the commission can "change" the configuration of a lot if the lot meets requirements. Commissioner McClelland interjected that in her opinion the proposed change creates better building pads. She added she has no problem with the proposed two -lot subdivision but has a problem with the way the lots lines are depicted. Commissioner Skallerud asked if the suggested "rearrangement" can be handled at the commission level or will the applicant have to return to the Commission with a redrawn plat. Commissioner Skallerud also questioned if the proponent is amenable to this change. Mr. Larsen responded during a meeting the commission could recommend a revision to a proposal that does not change the proposal from what is presented (2 -lot subdivision). Clarifying Mr. Larsen said the request is for a two - lot subdivision and even if the common lot line is "rearranged" at this time the proposal is still for two lots. 2 With the aid of graphics the recommended lot line rearrangement was shown to the proponent and commission. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Jones if he is amenable to the proposed change to the lot line. Mr. Jones said he has no problem with the proposed change as long as the change creates conforming lots. Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend preliminary plat approval subject to final plat approval and subdivision dedication and recommending that the proposed property line from the southern corner to be parallel with the southern property line of 5205 Duncraig Road while keeping the Lot Width of 121 feet at the point of 50 feet from the front lot line of the proposed new lot. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. A discussion ensued with regard to the motion and if additional amendments would be required. The proponent interjected and told commission members he has no problem with the motion and believes he understands what was requested. All voted aye; motion carried. Chairman Johnson suggested that the proponent work with staff on the lot line rearrangement and submit a letter agreeing to the motion as stated. S-03-5 Preliminary Plat for Bruce and Sandy Nelson 5905 Lee Valley Road Two -Lot Subdivision Mr. Larsen reminded the commission the subject property was part of a proposed subdivision considered by the City in 2002. This property and the adjacent lot with frontage on Shannon Drive were considered in a proposed 5 -lot subdivision. That proposal was eventually withdrawn and replaced with a lot division that reconfigured the two lots. At this time the new owners are proposing to subdivide their property to create another lot. Mr. Larsen explained the proposed subdivision creates the classic neck lot condition with Lot 2 gaining street access by a narrow 210 -foot long strip of land. The zoning ordinance requires lot width to be measured at a point of 50 feet back from the front property line. This was done to discourage the creation of neck lots. Concluding, Mr. Larsen said staff couldn't support the proposed subdivision as submitted. The proponents, Bruce and Sandy Nelson were present. 3 Mr. Nelson addressed the commission and informed them he has been an Edina resident for over 20 years and with this proposal is providing an opportunity for someone to buy a large wooded lot in Edina. Mr. Nelson said in his opinion this is a "win-win" situation for everyone. Someone will be able to construct a new house of his or her choice in Edina while adding to Edina's tax base. Mr. Nelson acknowledged the "neck lot" situation but pointed out in the area (Claredon Drive and the adjoining lot) there are other neck lots' noting a precedent has already been set. Concluding, Mr. Nelson told the commission he hopes they can support his proposal Commissioner Skallerud asked Mr. Larsen who created this situation. Mr. Larsen responded the previous property owner requested a lot division creating the present configuration. That lot division was approved in 2002. Continuing, Mr. Larsen pointed out that while the configuration of this lot is unique it served a purpose enabling the adjoining lot access from Lee Valley Road. Commissioner Skallerud asked the proponents their intention when they purchased the property. Mr. Nelson said when they purchased the property their intention was to construct one new home but after "getting a feel" for the land it appeared to them that another house on this lot made sense. After a brief discussion Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend denial of the S-03-5. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. Commissioner Byron said if his memory serves him correctly at the time the lot division was approved that created this lot and the adjoining lot configuration the Commission acknowledged a neck lot situation would be created but understood the challenges of the topography of these lots. Permitting a "neck lot" situation enabled the adjoining property access from Lee Valley Road where the terrain was less steep. Commission Byron pointed out that while the adjoining lot may appear on paper to have the configuration of a "neck lot" in reality it isn't a neck lot because the lot in question also has ample frontage on Shannon Drive. Continuing, Commissioner Byron pointed out the subdivision request this evening is for two lots being served from Lee Valley Road and if the commission were to approve this we would be creating the traditional "neck lot". That wasn't our intent when the lot division reconfigured the subject lot and adjoining lot and it isn't our intention now. Commission Byron said he couldn't support the subdivision request. Chairman Johnson called the vote. All members voted in favor of denying S-03-5. Motion to deny carried 8-0. 4 C-03-1 Conditional Use Permit Chapel Hills United Church of Christ 6512 Vernon Avenue Parking Lot Expansion/Re-Striping Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the church is proposing to add 16 new parking spaces off a drive aisle in front of the church. Mr. Larsen explained any addition to the building or parking lot requires a review by the City via the Conditional Use process. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to add the proposed parking. Staff also recommends that when the new parking is added that the entire lot be striped. Commissioner Byron moved to recommend Conditional Use Permit approval subject to the re -striping of the parking lot. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. C-03-2 Conditional Use Permit Fellowship of Kings Church 7300 Bush Lake Road Amend Zoning Ordinance to Allow Religious Institutions in the PID Zoning District as a Conditional Use Mr. Larsen informed the commission the church is requesting rezoning or other ordinance amendments that would allow them to use this site as a church. Staff feels the best approach to this would be to amend the zoning ordinance to allow religious institutions in the Planned Industrial District as a conditional use. This approach retains the PID zoning. Mr. Larsen asked the commission to note this is the approach the city takes with regard to churches and public buildings in the R-1 zoning district. Continuing, Mr. Larsen pointed out churches have traditionally been treated as a neighborhood based use, however more recently some churches have developed a more regional character and these churches can be quite large with activities running throughout the week. Parking and traffic impacts the adjacent neighborhood causing friction. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends amending the zoning ordinance by adding a conditional use to the PID zoning district. The language would read "religious institutions, including churches, synagogues, chapels temples and mosques. 6 Mr. Dennis Batty, representing the church, Mr. Tim Peterson, Pastor, along with church members were present. Mr. Batty addressed the commission and with the aid of graphics pointed out the subject site and adjoining properties. Mr. Batty explained the church would work within the envelope of the existing building; no additions to the building are planned. The entrance will be renovated to create a more visible traditional entrance and the exterior of the building will also be refurbished creating a more uniform building look. The outdoor tennis courts will be removed and replaced with parking stalls. Continuing, Mr. Batty pointed out referring to the site plan that the church is negotiating with the railroad to obtain a piece of their property that directly adjoins the church site. This piece of property, if acquired would be developed for additional parking stalls. Mr. Batty also informed the Commission the church has approached and is working with adjoining companies (Gassen Co., US Post Office) to lease additional parking space if the need arises. Mr. Batty noted the Post Office is also looking at a shared parking situation between us due to the closing of a Post Office site in St. Louis Park that now will be combined with the Edina site. Concluding, Mr. Batty said he believes this use is an excellent fit for the site. Church services will not coincide with normal business hours so traffic should not be a problem. Mr. Batty added he believes services will be held on Friday evenings along with Sunday services. Chairman Johnson commented with regard to parking that the city may prefer to enter into a proof of parking agreement with the church. He pointed out traditionally the city wants to retain as much green space on a site as possible. Mr. Larsen responded that is correct, and if the commission were to approve this any agreements with adjoining property owners or railroad would run with the use of this site as a church. Commissioner Brown asked if the commission were to recommend amending the ordinance could we say no to another church requesting to relocate to one of our industrial zoned sites. Mr. Larsen said by amending this ordinance to allow churches as a conditional use the city can reject a request. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said if churches were added as a principal use in the industrial zoning districts or the site were rezoned we could not prohibit or regulate that, reiterating as a conditional use the city is afforded greater protection. Commissioner Runyan asked where the proposed church is currently located. Mr. Batty responded the church is currently located in Owatonna, Minnesota. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Batty how the congregation feels about the proposed "relocation". Mr. Batty said he believes church members are looking forward to this expansion. He explained at present there are currently 350 members. Mr. Batty told the commission with regard to a proof of parking agreement he is very sure the church would be very open into entering into that 0 type of agreement. Concluding, Mr. Batty said at this time it is felt by church members that there is more than adequate parking on site but they understand the concerns of city staff and have proceeded to enter into lease agreements with neighboring properties for parking. Commissioner Workinger asked with regard to the mention of Friday services if Mr. Batty knows what time Friday services would be held. Mr. Batty said he believes the church is planning on an 8 pm service. Commissioner Lonsbury asked if the Commission can limit the use of this church to just church use absent day -schools and day-care. He pointed out many of our larger churches operate schools and day care facilities seven days a week. Mr. Larsen said he believes the commission can limit approval to strictly church services and what they entail. Commissioner McClelland said she agrees with staff that this should be handled as a conditional use permit and not a rezoning. She added she is against spot rezoning. She questioned if the commission were to recommend approving this proposal and if in the future the church vacated the site would the site revert back to the principle zoning. Mr. Larsen responded this site, if handled, as an amendment to the zoning ordinance would retain the PID zoning. The only thing we are creating if approved is churches as a conditional use in the planned industrial district. Zoning of this site is and would continue to be planned industrial. Mr. Batty introduced the pastor of the church Mr. Tim Peterson. Mr. Peterson said the church likes to present itself as a market place church that reaches out spiritually to the business community. Locating in a business area creates an opportunity to continue this mission. Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Peterson how the church would use the site Monday through Friday. Continuing, Commissioner Byron asked if the church is planning to have some of the traditional church outreach services like AA or bible study, etc. Mr. Peterson said at this time they are not planning any outreach services but there could be some in the future. At present Mr. Peterson said the Owatonna church operates on Wednesday evenings and Sunday morning. He reiterated our focus is on the market place. Of course during church services day care and Sunday school is occurring. Monday through Friday it is believed there would be minimal events. Chairman Johnson said that while it appears the church membership is not that large he believes staff still wants additional parking either via land sale between the church and railroad and/or leasing. Mr. Batty said at present the church is pursuing obtaining letter of intent with regard to parking. Mr. Peterson interjected and informed the commission the church has a letter of intent from 7 Gassen Inc. and is negotiating with others. Mr. Larsen added Chairman Johnson is correct in assuming the city wants to see as much parking as possible available. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said the City views this as a church with 990 seats in the sanctuary and that is how parking spaces are calculated. Mr. Batty pointed out if the railroad agrees to sell their land to the church at least 65 additional spaces would be added to the site. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if this proposal requires two votes. Mr. Larsen said that is correct. One vote amends the ordinance and the other vote would allow this church as a conditional use in the PID zoning district. Commissioner Byron pointed out to the proponents the street is posted no parking, which is one reason the commission is being so careful this evening with regard to parking. Commissioner Byron said he wants to ensure adequate parking for church members with minimal impact to the neighboring properties. Commissioner Lonsbury moved to recommend amending the zoning ordinance to allow churches as a conditional use in the Planned Industrial Zoning district absent day -school and day care facilities that aren't run concurrently with church services. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote: Ayes, Lonsbury, Byron, McClelland, Runyan, Workinger, Skallerud, Johnson. Nays, Swenson, Brown. Motion to amend zoning ordinance approved 6-2. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen what the advantage is in allowing churches in the industrial zoning district. Mr. Larsen said the city has historically considered churches assets to our community. However, the makeup of churches has changed. Churches now offer many outreach services and the traditional Sunday services have expanded to "events" all days of the week. Mr. Larsen pointed out a number of churches in Edina have grown from a "neighborhood" church to a church with a more regional profile and that has created some issues for the residential neighborhoods they are permitted in. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said if one views this from a land use standpoint it makes sense. Traffic and parking situations will not be aggravated as a result of this amendment because church services are usually not offered during peak business hours. The majority of church business occurs on weekends when most businesses are not operating. This avoids conflict and congestion. Commissioner Workinger said he agrees that churches are a valuable asset to the community and in his opinion if a specific site meets city requirements within any zoning district and a church desires to locate there it would be fine with him. Commissioner Brown said in his opinion this isn't a good idea. He said he believes the mixing of a church with industrial zoning isn't good planning. He added permitting a church to locate in an industrial zoning district changes the Et7 entire complexion of the industrial district. Commissioner Brown said the city should consider the future -20 years out - and what the city would look like if this type of "spot" zoning were allowed. Chairman Johnson pointed out at present a number of the City's churches lease off site parking spaces and run outreach facilities in different zoning districts. Commissioner McClelland also noted with the addition of the railroad land and lease agreements from neighboring properties parking is met. Commissioner Brown said in his opinion the commission can just say no. Commissioner Byron moved to recommend conditional use approval subject to staff conditions 1) executed leases for a minimum of 150 off-site parking spaces and 2) conditional use permit shall expire when the lease terminates, with the additional caveat that when the railroad piece is acquired it is added as part of the parcel. Approval is also subject to the plans presented. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. Chairman Johnson told the proponents he would like a copy of the leases and agreement with the railroad filed with the city. Upon roll call vote; ayes, Lonsbury, McClelland, Runyan, Workinger, Skallerud, Johnson. Nays, Swenson, Brown. Motion carried 6-2. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm 'i ���,vj1 .:. - 7H MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2003,7:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, David Byron, Ann Swenson, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, Stephen Brown, William Skallerud MEMBERS ABSENT: John Lonsbury and Geof Workinger STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the August 27, 2003, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: S-03-7 Preliminary Plat Approval Eric Lind/ TC Builders, Inc. North of Belmore Lane, West Griffit Street, and East Arthur St extended Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property comprises 4+ plated lots, and a portion of platted right of way (unimproved) for Spruce Road. Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission the City Council granted preliminary approval for this subdivision on January 15, 2002. The proponents did not present a final plat within the required one-year period, thus the proposed plat needs to be reheard by the Commission and Council. The proposed plat is unchanged from the plat approved in January 2002. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the proposed plat as presented. As noted the plat is the same plat approved by the City Council in 2002. Preliminary plat approval is conditioned on: 1. final plat approval 2. subdivision dedication for one lot 3. developer's agreement 4. watershed district permits The proponent, Mr. Eric Lind and interested neighbors were present. Commissioner McClelland commented on the City's requirement for posting signs indicating a lot is proposed for subdivision and questioned proper sign location. An unidentified neighbor interjected and informed the Commission a sign is posted on Arthur Street (difficult to see), and the sign on Griffit Street is toppled over. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen the requirements for sign posting. Mr. Larsen explained code requires that sign(s) be posted on each street frontage nine (9) days before the meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Larsen said he was unaware the sign on Griffit Street was down. Commissioner McClelland agreed with the comment that the sign on Arthur Street is difficult to see. Mr. Larsen told the Commission all signs are required to be located on the subject property, not city property, not others property, so the location of the sign on Arthur Street is correct. Mr. Wheeler, attorney representing a neighbor, Mrs. Lundholm who resides at 309 Arthur Street, told the Commission according to city requirements proper notification of this meeting did not occur. Continuing, he referred to an undated notification letter from the proponent with the postmark on the envelope September 22, 2003. Mr. Wheeler said code requires ten (10) days notification. Mr. Wheeler also pointed out the signs had not been erected according to code. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Wheeler if he is suggesting that this meeting be held -over for one month. Mr. Wheeler said he believes that would be the correct thing to do. Mr. Lind, proponent told the Commission a number of residents contacted him by phone as a result of the mailed notification, adding he feels adequate notification was given. Mr. Wheeler said there are two residents who did not receive written notice of the meeting and he has affidavits from them stating that. Commissioner Skallerud asked the proponent if a delay of one month is acceptable to him. Mr. Lind responded his hope is that a vote would occur this evening. Continuing, Mr. Lind told the Commission he has attempted to finalize this project for some time with neighboring property owners aware of his intent. 2 Mr. Lind said bids have gone out for new road. Mr. Andy Berneberg told the Commission the builder is not present this evening so any ramifications from this being held over are not entirely known. Mr. Wheeler told the Commission the owner of the property at 309 Arthur Street is 97 years old and is greatly concerned over this proposal. He reiterated adequate notification was not given and the legal description noted on the written notification is misleading. He concluded this item should not be on the agenda this evening. Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Wheeler if he would provide the names of the neighbors who indicated they did not receive notice of this meeting. Mr. Wheeler said he would submit the affidavits stating that. Commissioner Byron responded just the names would satisfy him. Mr. Wheeler said the names of the two neighbors that did not receive written notice are Marlys Rechkemmer and Marlys Fiterman, 308 Arthur Street. Mr. Berenberg told the Commission they received the names of property owners within 500 feet from City records. Commissioner Byron commented while nothing may change during the next month he would move to recommend continuing this item to the October 29, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Skallerud seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commissioner Byron questioned if mailed re -notification needs to occur. Mr. Larsen said in his opinion it is in the best interest of the proponent to re -notify the neighbors of the October 29, 2003, meeting, adding the subdivision ordinance requires written notification. Mr. Larsen added it could probably be argued that at this meeting this item was continued to a date specific and interested neighbors were present so written re -notification does not need to occur, but he reiterated it is in the best interest of the proponent to re -notify. Mr. Larsen said he would also check to make sure the sign is reposted on Griffit Street. LD -03-4 Lot Division Douglas Condon 582878 th Street West Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proposed lot division would move the westerly lot line of Lot 3 twenty-five feet to the east. The result would be to remove the notch from Lot 3 and give more depth to Lot 2. Both lots would continue to comply with all Ordinance standards. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the lot division. 3 The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Condon were present to respond to questions. Commissioner McClelland questioned who has ownership of the outlot located behind Parcel B. Mr. Condon responded that strip of land would stay with Parcel B. Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend lot division approval. Commissioner Byron seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. OTHER BUSINESS: Select Graphics of 2000 US Census Data Re: Edina Seniors Mr. Larsen told the Commission the Human Relations Committee asked planning staff to send you copies of the census data with regard to Edina seniors. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen what is expected of the Commission with regard to this information. Mr. Larsen said the Human Relations Committee wants the Commission to acknowledge receipt of the information and to keep this information in the back of their minds when viewing new proposals. Commissioner Swenson commented this information helps when one considers transitional housing. Including the option of allowing people to remain in their homes as long as possible. Mr. Larsen agreed adding the goal of every municipality is to provide housing alternatives for everyone as their needs change. Commissioner McClelland said it is also important for seniors to know there are organizations out there that will provide them with help enabling them to remain in their homes as long as possible and guide them in their search for alternative housing when the need arises. Commissioner Brown said what is important to him as a planning commissioner is long range planning and this information plays into that. Continuing, Commissioner Brown noted Edina is a mature community where redevelopment will be the norm. Commissioner Brown asked if the City Council has a vision for Edina. Mr. Larsen told the Commission the City Council developed a guide called Vision 20/20 that includes addressing our senior population and redevelopment possibilities in Edina. Commissioner Brown said in his opinion it would be worthwhile for the Commission and Council to meet to share this vision. Mr. 4 Larsen said in the past Council Members have met with members of the commission to discuss topics of interest to both bodies. A discussion ensued with Commission Members expressing the desire to meet with members of the City Council to discuss issues to include redevelopment and aging facing the residents of Edina IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 3, 2003 V. ADJOURNMENT: Jackie Hoogenakker 5 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2003, 7:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Johnson, John Lonsbury, Helen McClelland, David Runyan and William Skallerud MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Swenson, David Byron, Geof Workinger and Stephen Brown STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the August 27, 2003, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: S-03-7 Preliminary Plat Approval Eric Lind/TC Builders, Inc. Griffit Street/Arthur Street Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission the proponents were before them earlier this month seeking preliminary approval of a previously approved plat. At that time neighbors indicated they did not feel they received adequate notice of the planning commission meeting. Commissioner's felt to avoid conflict they tabled the meeting for one month requesting that the proponents re -notify neighbors of the planning commission meeting and to re -erect a subdivision sign (on Griffit Street) that had toppled over. Concluding, Mr. Larsen explained the plat presented this evening is the same plat that received commission and council approval in 2002. Staff supports the subdivision request subject: to parkland dedication and watershed district permits if needed. The proponent Mr. Eric Lind along with interested neighbors was present. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen if he would point out to her the path proposed to "hook up" with the regional pathway system. With graphics Mr. Larsen indicated the proposed 10 -foot path running parallel to Arthur Street connecting to the regional pathway system. Mr. Eric Lind, proponent addressed the Commission and apologized to them for having to hear this subdivision request once again. Mr. Lind explained working with the neighbors and other events caused him to exceed the one-year time requirement for final plat. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Lind if there is anything different in this plat from the plat that received preliminary approval. Mr. Lind responded this plat is exactly the same plat that received preliminary approval from both the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Lind when grading of the site would begin. Mr. Lind said the majority of grading is proposed to be done in the Spring. Continuing, Mr. Lind explained it is his belief the site will be developed in two phases with the grading and utility prep being done on the Griffit Street lots first. Commissioner Runyan asked if the proposed houses are going to be spec or custom. Mr. Lind said at this time he has a list of potential property owners who are excited about this location because their children attend or will attend the Blake School. Continuing, Mr. Lind added his intent is to construct one "spec model " home for the Parade of Homes with the other four sites custom homes. Commissioner Runyan commented it appears some areas of the site will require fill. Mr. Lind responded that is correct and it is hoped there is enough material on this site to accomplish any fill needs. Commissioner McClelland questioned if a site has been chosen for the "model home". Mr. Lind said he believes at this time the model home will be constructed on the north most Griffit Street lot. Continuing, Mr. Lind pointed out this lot is the most challenging of the five and he wants to ensure that development and construction of the home on this lot is done to the highest standards. Commissioner McClelland asked if the regional path will be screened. Mr. Lind said his intent is to retain as much vegetation as possible along that pathway system. Commissioner McClelland referred to a letter from a Mr. Gene Villeneuve, 313 Griffit Street that indicated concern with drainage. She asked Mr. Larsen if drainage was looked at. Mr. Larsen responded the city engineering department reviews all plats for drainage and this plat is no exception to that rule. OIA Commissioner Skallerud asked Mr. Lind if he believes houses can be constructed on these lots without variances. Mr. Lind said he believes the lots are of adequate size'eliminating the need for variances. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if the vacation of Spruce needs to be readdressed. Mr. Larsen explained the City Council hears requests for vacations and the vacation of Spruce was heard and approved over a year ago. At this time the vacation has not been filed. Filing a vacation is not done until after the plat is finalized. Ms. Karen Lundholm, 309 Arthur Street said in her opinion since Mr. Lind did not file a final plat in one year's time this should be heard as a fresh request, starting from the beginning. Ms. Lundholm stated she takes this redevelopment proposal very seriously. With graphics Ms. Lundholm pointed out vegetation on the subject site that has been enjoyed by everyone in the area for many years. Ms. Lundholm said she believes this is one of the few "pristine" pieces of land left in Edina. Ms. Lundholm pointed out with graphics the large Oak and Maple trees found on this site. Ms. Lundholm told the Commission her family has lived in the area since the 1940's and have not considered redeveloping their property for monetary gain. She said she understands redevelopment will occur but wants assurances that the redevelopment of this land is accomplished with good planning. Ms. Lundholm told the Commission she has some points she wants to make with regard to this proposal. They are as follows: She would like an easement allowing her property to connect to a sewer on Griffit Street. She explained her property currently has a septic system and is not connected to the city sanitary sewer system. She said because of topography it is possible her property will require a lift station, which is expensive, reiterating she wants the connection to the sewer accomplished off Griffit Street. Ms. Lundhom said another point is on what the Lundholms will do with their property in the future, they also own a number of lots (off Arthur) so do they sell their lots for redevelopment, sell their lots to Blake School or gift their lots to the City for open park space. Ms. Lundholm said she is also worried about grading and fill on the subject site and that her home will become isolated because their access is from the alley and they need a large turn around area for trucks that service their needs. She stated she would also like to see the proposed bike path moved from Arthur Street to Griffit Street. Ms. Lundholm referred to code language with regard to redevelopment and stated in her opinion the proposal is too dense and does not meet the "undue hardship" language contained in the code with regard to the requested lot width variances. She pointed out the lots on Griffit needed the vacation of Spruce Street to apply to width, which in a sense was a "gift". Concluding, Ms. Lundholm recapped things important to her, easement allowing sewer hookup, and adequate alley space, address drainage, no ditch, revise 3 draining plan and construct retaining wall, move bike path from Arthur Street to Griffit Street, and identify all trees that will be removed. Commissioner McClelland said that while she understands concerns just expressed she said she thinks the word "gift" does not apply to the vacation of Spruce Road. She added as she understands it that strip of land running along the Blake School property line has always belonged to the property owners abutting it with the city retaining an "easement" over it to develop a road if the need were to arise. So in reality that strip of land does belong to the property owners that abut it, it is not city property, and the City has indicated they do not intend to use it. Ms. Lundholm acknowledged that is correct. Commissioner Lonsbury asked Mr. Larsen if the engineering department reviewed this proposal for drainage. Mr. Larsen reiterated the engineering and building departments review all plats for grading, fill and drainage. He stated the engineering department and building department have reviewed the proposed grading plans. Mr. Larsen reiterated the same plat received preliminary approval with grading and drainage questions usually occurring at the final plat stage. In this instance this plat at its preliminary stages meets final plat requirements. Commissioner Lonsbury commented on concerns raised by Ms. Lundholm with regard to sewer hookup and asked if this is an issue the commission needs to address. Mr. Larsen explained the easement requested by Ms. Lundholm is a private easement arrangement between her and the proponent. The city is not involved; those choices are private choices, not public. Commissioner McClelland questioned if Mr. Larsen is saying an easement for hookup to the city sewer is between Ms. Lundholm and Mr. Lind. Mr. Larsen responded that is correct. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if preliminary plat approval would include variances. Mr. Larsen responded preliminary plat approval includes the lot width variances. Mr. Lind told the board the need for lot width variances was a result of equally dividing the lots on Griffit Street to 98 feet instead of the original lot sizes. Originally the Griffit lots contained two larger lots and one lot with a lot width of 55 feet. This reconfiguration resulted in a more uniform plat. Commissioner Runyan commented that while the Commission hopes a proponent retains as many trees as possible the neighbors should be aware tree loss will occur. Commissioner Runyan said it is our hope the developer will minimize tree loss. Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend accepting the plat (preliminary plat approval) to include lot width variances for three (3) lots with a lot width of 98 feet. This reconfiguration creates a better division and two feet is 4 not perceptible from the street and as noted in the Council Minutes smaller uniform lots do create a more uniform plat with houses more in scale with the neighborhood. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. Chairman Johnson said he wants the motion to reflect the commission didn't avoid the variance issue. Commissioner Skallerud thanked Ms. Lundholm for her insight adding he is persuaded by past action and his colleagues and can support the motion as recommended. All voted aye; motion carried. Commissioner McClelland questioned if the city has a tree ordinance. Mr, Larsen said the city does not have a specific "tree ordinance". He noted at one time a tree ordinance was considered but it was found it would not be in the best interest of the city to adopt one. He pointed out the subdivision ordinance establishes certain criteria with regard to tree removal. Mr. Andrew Berenberg, working with the proponent, Mr. Lind told the Commission he has worked closely with city staff to ensure proper development of this site with minimal disruption. With graphics Mr. Berenberg pointed out the grading and drainage issues present on this site. Continuing, Mr. Berenberg told the Commission the development team also worked side by side with the city with regard to the regional path hook up from Arthur Street, noting it is very important to the city that this pathway is constructed as depicted. Mr. Berenberg assured the Commission and neighbors tree loss will be kept to the minimum. The lots will be marketed, as "treed" so retaining trees is a very important feature. Concluding, Mr. Berenberg said the goal is to provide excellent building sites for custom homes. Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend preliminary plat approval incorporating the variances subject to final plat approval, subdivision dedication for one new lot; developers agreement and watershed district permits. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Z-03-8 & S-03-8 Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Wallingford Partnership 5101 West 70th Street Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the property is currently developed with a 60 unit, three-story apartment building. On October 31, 2002, the southerly portion of the building was destroyed by fire and the owners have elected to raze the entire building and rebuild a four-story, 119 unit building. Mr. Larsen explained the current zoning is PRD -3, Planned Residence District and the proponents are requesting a change in zoning from PRD -3 to PRD -4, 5 Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends preliminary rezoning and preliminary plat approval. The proposed zoning is appropriate for this site. The site is bounded on three sides by non-residential uses, and is close to a freeway interchange. Reusing the existing parking garage somewhat limits the number of stalls that can be added. Total parking on-site should adequately serve the building. The owners feel, based on their experience with the current building, that that number of spaces provided would meet the demand. The proponents, Vasco and Tony Bernardi were present to respond to questions. Commissioner McClelland questioned the parking shortages if the building is constructed as depicted. Mr. Larsen responded City Ordinance requires two parking spaces per unit, of which 1.25 must be enclosed or under building. In this instance the proponents are short of under building parking spaces but over on surface parking resulting in the need for a total parking space variance. Mr. Larsen said staff is relying on input from the property owners with regard to parking needs, and the proponents have indicated the amount of parking (under building and surface) they will have on this site after redevelopment will be sufficient. Mr. Vasco Bernardi, 5346 Poplar Circle (residence), 7301 Ohms Lane (office), told the Commission in his experience the proposed parking will be adequate and the renovation of the site a plus for the City. Commissioner Lonsbury asked for clarification from Mr. Larsen on the number of spaces the site would be short after redevelopment. Mr. Larsen said the site would be short a total of two (2) parking spaces. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen if the City has experienced any parking problems with our multi -residential sites such as Edinborough. Mr. Larsen said in his experience parking has not been a problem at our multi - residential sites including Edinborough. Commissioner McClelland said she has a concern with the underground parking ratio not being met. Commissioner Lonsbury said in this instance he is not overly concerned about the underground parking shortage and questioned why two more parking stalls couldn't be found somewhere on this site. He pointed out if two parking stalls were added no variance would be required. Mr. Larsen said to a degree that is correct but adding those two stalls would eliminate surface green space and wouldn't change the under building ratio where the shortage exists. Mr. Larsen explained the real problem is with the under building parking stalls and that fact can't really be eliminated since they are incorporating the existing under building parking garage with new construction. Chairman Johnson said he would like to retain as much green space on a site as possible adding in this instance a Proof of Parking agreement may be warranted. Commissioner McClelland agreed with Chairman Johnson's comment. Mr. Larsen responded since this request is in the preliminary stages the City can look into a Proof of Parking option and return to you with the outcome at final rezoning and final plat. Chairman Johnson noted the plat line depicted on the preliminary plat and asked Mr. Larsen if that line creates a situation where each building can "stand alone". Mr. Larsen responded that is correct it has been designed to "stand alone". Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend preliminary rezoning and preliminary plat approval subject to accepting the shortage of 2 parking spaces (parking variance) and to recommend that staff work with the proponents to create more greenspace on site through the development of a Proof of Parking Agreement. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM 4 RMAIMIN _ S ETI i�%'%i_ . MEI �i + 7 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2003, 7:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair G. Johnson, Ann Swenson, David Byron, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, Geof Workinger, Stephen Brown, William Skallerud and John Lonsbury STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the October 29, 2003, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: S-03-9 Preliminary Plat Approval Curt Fretham Brad Pederson 6800 Indian Hills Road Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proponent is requesting to subdivide the property to create one new lot. The existing home would be razed to make way for two new homes. Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained the subject lot is part of the first subdivision of the McCauley farm, platted in 1954, and as with many older, lakefront plats, the lots were platted into the lakebed. Since the lake is public water, the portion of the lot below the ordinary high waterline is public property. Mr. Larsen said the proposed subdivision complies with all size requirements except for lot width on Lot 1. Mr. Larsen pointed out many of the lots within the first McCauley Heights plat that front on the lake are unusually shaped. It appears this was done to maximize the number of lakeshore lots. This resulted in an unconventional arrangement of homes. Mr. Larsen concluded if the Commission recommends preliminary plat approval, it should be conditioned on Final Plat approval and Subdivision Dedication. The proponent, Mr. Curt Fretham, property owner Mr. Brad Pederson and interested neighbors were present. Commissioner Byron questioned the lot width measurements and where they are measured. Mr. Larsen explained the subject site has 90 feet of frontage on an improved street (Indian Hills Road) with lot width measured 50 feet back from the property line. Mr. Larsen acknowledged the platting of this lot and surrounding lots are very irregular and difficult. He noted this lot angles away from the road (after 90 feet of roadway width) allowing for roadway access from Indian Hills Road to adjoining lots. Commissioner Skallerud asked Mr. Larsen if he believes houses can be constructed on the proposed lots without the need for variances. Mr. Larsen responded in his opinion there is ample room on the proposed lots to support two new homes without the need for variances. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Fretham if he is purchasing this lot to redevelop for himself. Mr. Fretham said at this time he is unsure if he will construct a new house for himself on the site. Continuing, Mr. Fretham stated after review of the existing house it was found the house is a very difficult house to renovate and subdivision of the property seemed the most logical pursuit. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Fretham if he has a "price" for the proposed houses. Mr. Fretham said he believes each home will sell for around 2 million dollars. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Fretham if he would be the developer and builder. Mr. Fretham responded each house would be constructed to the future owner's specifications. If the commission were to approve this subdivision and there is an interested buyer out there with another builder in mind that scenario is welcome. Ms. Sharon Prevot, 6728 Indian Hills Road, asked Mr. Fretham if he knows where the proposed new homes would be on each lot. Mr. Fretham with graphics pointed out the location he believes each new house will take and explained each home would have to be constructed at least 100 feet from the lake and also comply with regular zoning code setbacks for house placement. Ms. Prevot told the Commission she spent many hours reviewing this proposal adding she has difficulty with the proposed subdivision or any subdivision of this property. Ms. Prevot pointed out the topography of the lot is extreme and tree loss would be extensive. She added the present owner has already cleared a number of trees from this property. Ms. Prevot commented and pointed out her lot was platted in such a way that a number of adjacent lots have an easement over her property to gain access to their property. She said another driveway would create an even more stressful situation in this small area. Ms. Pervot said 2 another concern she has is that views would be blocked as people exit their lots via the easement over her property. Ms. Janice Joslyn, 6718 Indian Hills Road, told the Commission she takes issue with the depicted size of the proposed lot(s). She pointed out much of the lot is water and in her opinion the site is too small to accommodate two new houses. Ms. Joslyn said it would be like putting two large houses on postage stamp lots. She also stated she feels more trees will be loss as a result of this proposal then indicated by the proponent. Ms. Joslyn stressed the subdivision ordinance indicates a neighborhood of 500 feet and in her opinion in this area the lots along the lake on their side of the street should be the only lots included when calculating size. Concluding, Ms. Joslyn said if approved the character of the area would be forever changed. Mr. Wothe, 6804 Indian Hills Road, told the Commission he has only lived in the neighborhood for one year and during that year many improvements have been made to his home. Mr. Wothe said his concern is with tree loss and the possibility that lakes views could be compromised if this proposal proceeds. Mr. Joslyn, 6718 Indian Hills Road, told the Commission as he reviewed the proposal and the lots included in the 500 -foot neighborhood he found a few R-2 lots were included in the calculation and if he understands the code correctly only R-1 lots are included in calculating lot size. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if doubles are permitted when calculating the 500 -foot neighborhood. Mr. Larsen said if doubles were used they should not have been. Only R-1 single dwelling unit district lots should be used when calculating the 500 -foot neighborhood. Mr. Dick Wald, 6440 Margaret's Lane, told the Commission he lives in a double dwelling and questioned why doubles are excluded. He pointed out his property has plenty of square footage, more then many single-family home sites in Edina and immediate area. Mr. Wald also said in his opinion the subject site is large enough to develop with two home sites. Mr. Larsen responded it is not the intent of the ordinance to demean any properties but a mistake was made and for the purpose of this hearing the lot size calculations need to be redone eliminating the R-2 lots. A discussion ensued with regard to the legality of the hearing due to the mistake made in calculating lot size. The commission indicated a new hearing would need to be conducted with the correct calculations Ms. Emilie Buchwald, 6808 Margaret's Lane told the Commission she has resided in her home for 38 years and her house was one of the first homes in the area. Ms. Buchwald told the Commission she has enjoyed the variety in homes 3 of the area (including doubles) and explained in her opinion two driveways from this one lot would be very disruptive to the topography and trees and the character of the area would be impacted. Continuing, Ms. Buchwald said change is welcome but she is not sure the proposed change is beneficial. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Larsen if this site could be developed with a single driveway entrance. Mr. Larsen responded in the affirmative. He said the commission if they desired could impose a single driveway as a condition of approval. Mr. Brad Pedersen, 6800 Indian Hills Road, told the Commission he purchased this property two years ago, adding the home is a 1950's rambler that needed renovation. He told the Commission his life has changed since he purchased the home and now he needs to sell it. He added his property has been on the market for over one year and until now no serious bids for the property have been submitted. With respect to the land Mr. Pedersen said he has cleared the land over the last two years and a large majority of the clearing was buckthorn and small scrap trees. Mr. Pedersen said some large healthy oak tress exist on the site but there are some diseased elms on the site that also need to be removed. Concluding, Mr. Pedersen said in his opinion the site can be developed with two houses without being detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Louise Segreto, 6720 Indian Hills Road, told the Commission she resides in a property that shares driveway access to Indian Hills Road with three other homes, adding that shared driveway is steep. She explained her concern is focused on safely while exiting their property. She stated no matter what precautions they take, during certain periods of the year there are times when their vehicles slide down the driveway creating an increased risk for an accident. Continuing, Ms. Segreto said she believes it would be a mistake to approve this subdivision especially if it is platted with two driveways off Indian Hills Road. She said splitting this lot would be detrimental to the area if the lot were split in such a way that each lot requires its own driveway. Concluding, Ms. Segreto stated as presented she does not support the proposed subdivision. Ms. Prevot interjected and told the Commission buckthorn was not the only vegetation removed, Mr. Pedersen also removed some other fine trees. Ms. Prevot read a letter from the previous property owner of 6800 Indian Hills Road and the previous owner indicated they wanted to see the vegetation retained and left as is. Concluding, Mrs. Prevot said with what is known about development in Edina the largest house possible will be constructed on these lots resulting in extreme loss of vegetation. Mr. Henry Prevot, 6728 Indian Hills Road, with graphics pointed out his property and the subject property and stated he believes the subject lot is one of the finest large lots left in Indian Hills. He pointed out the topography toward the lake is very steep and redevelopment of this lot would require retaining walls. He 4 stated he believes the existing house was placed where it is to take advantage of the views and steep topography. Adding an additional house would compromise the site. Mr. Fretham, told the Commission he would develop these lots carefully and is very willing to meet with the neighboring property owners with regard to the proposed subdivision. He said he is very open to developing the site with one driveway to serve both properties. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Fretham if he would like this item continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Fretham said he has no objection to that. Commissioner McClelland moved to continued S-03-9 to the Planning Commission meeting of January 7, 2004, noting the proposal before the Commission this evening contained incorrect data and the developer agrees with the continuation. Commissioner Skallerud seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Fretham if members of the Commission could "walk" the site. Mr. Fretham said that would not be a problem and he welcomed all commission members to visit the site. Commissioner Byron encouraged Mr. Fretham to work with neighbors and to also recalculate the neighborhood lot sizes without the double dwelling lots. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM ��, UVI'm� 2�,1111.���_II►! 5