Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 03-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1977 EDINA CITY HALL Members Present: C. E. Johnson, Chairman Pro Tem, G. V. Johnson, D. T. Runyan, R. E. Kremer, and H. E. McClelland. Staff Present: G. Luce, City Planner; R. C. Dunn, City Engineer; L. Nye, Secretary; and H. Sand, Assistant Planner. I. Approval of the February 2, 1977, Planning Commission Minutes. A motion to approve the February 2, 1977, Planning Commission minutes as written and submitted was made by Mr. Kremer and seconded by Mr. G. Johnson. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. Old Business: 1. Rezoning Z-77-1 Prestige Investments, Inc. 6800, 6804, and 6808 Flood Plain Permit FP -4 Dovre Drive. Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Nine Mile & Lot Division LD -77-6 North 2nd Addition. R-1 Single Family Residence District to R-2 Multiple Residence District. Mr. Luce recalled the proponent's original request was to rezone the three lots on the north side of Dovre Drive from R-1 Single Family Residence District to R-2 Multiple Residential District for double bungalows. However, at its February 2, 1977, meeting, the Planning Commission generally agreed that if rezoned for double bungalows, the properties in question should be replatted into two lots so development of the site is in conformance with development along the south side of Dovre Drive. Consequently, the proponent is requesting the site be rezoned to R-2, that the center lot be divided approximately in half, that each half be combined with the adjacent lots, and that a flood plain permit be granted. Mr. Luce recommended approval of the flood plain permit because the amount of proposed grading and filling would conform with the City's flood plain ordinance and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District regulations. He noted, however, that approval should be contingent on the following: 1. All disturbed areas must be adequately revegetated within three months after commencement of construction; and 2. Haybale dikes or suitable temporary erosion control measures must be implemented along the west and north fill limits to prevent sediment from entering Nine. Mile Creek. Approval of the rezoning was recommended, contingent on the approval and filing of the lot division, because: 1. This area is identified as low density attached residential use on the Western Edina Land Use Plan; 2. The property is transitional between single family residential on the east and industrial to the west; and 3. The property is across the street from a similar use. Approval of the requested lot division was recommended because it would facilitate the R-2 proposal and the property is across the street from a similar condition. 3-2- Planning Commission Minutes, page 2 Mr. Kremer moved the rezonings, lot division, and flood plain permit be approved with the contingencies listed by the staff. Mrs. McClelland seconded the. motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 2. Subdivision Wallace Kenneth. Generally located east of Lincoln 5-77-2 & Drive and west of Malibu Drive extended. R-4 Multiple Rezoning Z-77-4 Residential DisLrict to R-4 and R-2 Multiple Residence Districts and R-1 Single Family Residence District. Mr. Luce recalled this matter was continued from the February 2, 1977, Plan- ning Commission meeting because requisite signs indicating the property is proposed to be subdivided and rezoned were not erected. Mr. Luce stated the proponent is requesting a subdivision and rezonings to allow development of 13 single family homes on a road which would originate from the Hanson property to the east and cul-de-sac on the northern portion of the subject site. In addition, 12 double bungalow lots are proposed to be platted along Lincoln Drive; which would be extended south and cul-de-sac near the center of this parcel. Nine single family and 6 double bungalow lots are also proposed along Malibu Drive, which would be extended north into the extreme southern part of the subject site. Two R-4 lots are planned south of the existing Interlachen Hills apartments, and two outlots would be created between the proposed low density residential development and County Road 1.8. Mr. Luce reviewed the existing R-1, R-2, and R-4 zoning accomplished in 1965, and identified those areas proposed to be .rezoned from R-1 and R-4 to R-2 and from R-2 to R-1 and R-4. Mr. Luce recalled the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has a policy which allows a maximum of 20 percent of the flood plain on any parcel of property to be filled. He noted a permit to allow filling will be required for the development of several double bungalow lots along the west side of Malibu Drive (extended) and for the construction of a portion of Lincoln Drive. Proposed Lot 42 could, however, be filled at a later date and the site would still not exceed the Watershed District's 20 percent fill policy. Mr. Luce summarized the requested rezonings and subdivision would result in 22 single family lots averaging 14,500 square feet, 18 double bungalow lots averaging over 17,000 square feet per lot, two R-4 lots, and two outlots. He stated the proposed land use is consistent with the Western Edina Plan and compatible with the surrounding area,and would result in a down -zoning of the property. Mr. Luce stated that most of Outlot B is presently zoned R-4 and the developer desires to retain ownership of that outlot: It is not a developable piece of property in that it could not be filled within the limitations of the Watershed District and the City's Flood Plain Ordinance. He recommended that any flood plain encroach- ment on the total site be limited to the 20 percent maximum permitted for the follow- ing reasons: 1. Numerous property owners as well as the City of Edina have constructed improvements in reliance on the 20 percent encroachment rule and the protection it provides by preventing the creation of public harm caused by extensive flood plain filling. 2. The City participates in the Federal Flood Insurance Program, and, in order to maintain its eligibility, the City must properly enforce its Flood Plain Ordinance so the extent of flooding and potential damage can be adequately pre- dicted and limited. 3-2-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3 3. To insure the maintenance and preservation of needed and desirable natural water storage areas and wader courses, and to minimize the possibility of run-off and flooding and the pollution and losses which may result. Mr. Luce indicated the planning and environmental staff have met extensively over the past few months with the proponent regarding the development of this land. He recommended approval of the flood plain permit, requested rezonings and the subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. That lots 1 through 13 be excepted from the final plat until access can be provided from the east. The City should, however, recognize that portion of the preliminary plat as the future platting proposal for that area. 2. That when the final platting of lots 1 through 13 is accomplished, a 20 -foot easement must be dedicated between lots 7 and 8 for utility purposes. 3. Lots 3 through 9 must have access to the future northeasterly road and cul- de-sac from the Hanson Property rasher than to Lincoln Drive. 4. That the developer be required to dedicate Outlots A and B for park, and open space purpcses pursuant to the Subdivision Dedication Report. This dedication is deemed to be a reasonable amount considering the flood plain elevation, the amount of fill needed, and the need to protect the flood plain areas to the maximum possible degree, as well as the other reasons stated in the addendum to the staff report. 5. That in exchange for the dedication of Outlot B, the owner be granted development rights of up to 350 units which could be transferred to other -multiple residential districts on this site. 6. That a.grading permit from. the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and a flood plain permit from the Cityof Edina must be obtained before any work is done in the flood plain. Mr. Rick Davies, representing the Malibu Heights/Parkwood Knolls Association and Vice President of the Edina Coalition, appeared "not necessarily in objection to the request" but to express the following concerns: 1. Although this proposal may represent the best possible use of this marginal land, the commission should be aware that a number of homes inthe Malibu arca have serious basement water problems. 2.'`The'traffic question has been another problem in this area, and the residents want to know what the Hansons' plans are, and if and how they intend to provide access to the Kenneth property. 3. Most importantly, because future residents will undoubtedly be very un- happy with noticeable noise problem from the County Road 18, homes should be kept as far away from the highway as possible. Mr. Luce recalled the City Council mandate that Malibu and Lincoln Drives not connect in the Kenneth property. Mr. Kremer stated that in his opinion Lincoln Drive and Malibu Drive should connect on this property, and the residents of the Malibu Heights/Parkwood Knolls area should reconsider their recommendation to the Council that the roads not connect. Mr. Davies agreed to contact. the affected residents to see if their attitudes have changed in light of Mr. Kenneth's proposal. 3-2-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4 Mr. Robert Hoffman, attorney representing the proponent, stated they are gen- erally in concurrence with the staff's recommendations and conditions with the ex- ception of #4 (requiring the dedication of Outlots A and B), #5 (transfer of development rights), and #1 (excepting lots 1 through 13 from the final plat). In reply to Mr. Huffman, Mr. Luce stated the principle reasons dor the fourth con- dition are stated in the'Addendum to Edina Planning Commission Staff Report of March 2, 1977." _Mr. Hoffman stated that "in advising the proponent as to the legal authority of the City to make the request for Outlot B as well as Outlot A, we cannot find any legal authority in the statutes or in the City ordinances which would allow the City to require 59 percent of the property to be requested under a park dedication theory." He indicated he had therefore advised the proponent of the following: 1. He questioned whether the City has the authority to request the dedication of Outlot B at this time because only plat approval is requested and the`plat in and of itself does not impact Nine Mile Creek. No building permits, use permits, or physical obstructions are presently being requested, and Edina ordinances and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Overall Plan refer to use, obstructions, etc., and not to a plat itself when it considers flood plain encroachments. 2. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Overall Plan indicates flood water storage can be provided naturally or storage areas can be constructed. When there are constructed facilities,they are typically paid for from general public funds. In this instance, one private owner is being requested to pay for the storm water storage. 3. "At one point in the discussion of this particular plat, there was at least a suggestion from staff that it was acceptable to have a plat with Outlot B in it without its dedication." That suggestion and that type of discussion led the de- veloper to proceed with the plat including Outlot B and not dedicating it at this time. 4. The plat completely complies with the City's subdivision regulations. 5. The City of Edina and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District have ample authority and opportunity over any actual development that would occur in the future on any of this property through flood plain permits, earth moving permits, building permits, etc. To impose conditions on a plat at this time seems to be premature be- cause there is no evidence to indicate that the plat in and of itself will have any adverse impact on the flood plain. 6. The property was zoned R-4 in 1965, which was three years after the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Cverall Plan was established. Since that date, the owner has either paid assessments and taxes or they have accrued against the property. "There is a thin line between a regulatory measure and a taking measure, but this particular request has some elements of a taking and some elements of a regulatory measure." 7. The proponent should consider that when he is requested to dedicate Outlot B, a dedication can take place in many forms (fee title, easement, etc.). 8. It is unrealistic that a transfer of density from Outiot B to lots 41 and 4 could occur, so the offer of a transfer of density is a mute issue and does not assist the developer in any way in the request for a dedication. 3-2-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 5 Mr. Hoffman summarized that it appears some of the staff's conditions, parti- cularly #4, may exceed the City's authority. He indicated the developer therefore requests that the Planning Commission accept the staff's recommendation without #4, and that some flexibility be allowed in meeting condition #1. He noted, however, that if those changes are not acceptable to the Commission, the developer would request that approval be granted as recommended by the staff to expedite the zoning and subdvision process. Mr. Luce responded that hearings were held in the early 1960's and zoning was given knowing that the Watershed District had regulations limiting the development of that property. He stated the staff is attempting not to mislead the owner into thinking that Outlot B could be developed because in the staff's opnion, there is no possibility that it could. In addition, state statutes and City regulations allow the City to request dedications only at the time of subdivision, not use. Regarding Mr. Hoffman's comment that the developer is being asked to pay for the storage of water in this area, Mr. Luce stated that this area stores water now, and it is reasonable to expect that this area should continue tostore water. The owner is not being asked to construct a storage facility; he is being asked to maintain 80 percent of the natural storage facility that exists. Further discussion followed regarding the proposed road patterns. Mr. Luce stated the Malibu Heights people could meet during the next month and, if their attitude has changed, that conclusion could be presented to the City Council. Mr. Hoffman indicated that a modification connecting Malibu Drive and Lincoln Drive "would net be out of line with 11r. Kenneth's thinking." After further discussion, Mr. G. Johnson asked Mr. Hoffman if his client had any objection to eliminating the staff's recommendation regarding transferring development rights. Mr. Hoffman indicated his client had no use for the development rights. Mr. C. Johnson then moved the requested rezoni.ngs and subdivision be approved with the following con- ditions: 1. Lots 1 through 13 should be excepted from the final plat until access can be provided from the east. 2. That when the final platting of lots 1 through 13 is accomplished, a 20 - foot easement must be dedicated between lots 7 and 8 for utility purposes. 3. That lots 3 through 9 must have access to the future northeasterly road and cul-de-sac from the Hanson property rather than to Lincoln Drive. 4. That the developer be regaircd to dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B pursuant to the Subdivision Dedication Report. 5. That a grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.:and a flood plain permit from the City of Edina be obtained before any work is done in the flood plain. 6. That the Lincoln Drive/Malibu Drive road plan be reviewed to determine whether that plan is the optimal road plan for the area or whether Lincoln Drive should be a continuous road. Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. At the staff's request, Mr. G. Johnson amended his motion to include approval of a flood plain permit for. Lincoln Drive and the R-2 area at the south end of the site.in addition to approval of the rezonings and subdivision. Mr. Kremer seconded the amended motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3-2-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 6 3. Declaration of Buildable Lot - Outlot 1, Iroquois Hills 4th Addition. Generally located south and west of Valley View Road. Mr. Luce recalled this request was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting pending action by the Watershed District on the flood plain and fill problems on this property. He recommended that action again be postponed because the Water- shed District also continued the matter until its next meeting (March 16, 1977). Mr. Frank Cardarelle, the proponent, indicated he will be out of town the end of March. He asked that this request be continued to the April Planning Com- mission meeting. Mr. Kremer moved the declaration of buildable lot for Outlot 1, Iroquois Hills 4th Addition be continued to the April 27, 1977, Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye except Mr. G. Johnson,,'who ab- stained. Motion carried. III. New Business: 1. Rezoning Z-77-5 John J. McCauley. Outlot A, McCauley Heights 4th Addi- & Declaration of tion and Lot, Block 1, McCauley Heights 4th Addition. Buildable Lot Generally located north of McCauley Lane, south of McCaule Circle, and east of McCauley Trail. Mr. Luce explained the proponent is requesting that an existing outlot be declared a buildable lot and that that property" and an existing single family lot be rezoned to R-2 for double bungalows. Approval of the rezoning was recommended for the following reasons: 1. The lots are adjacent to existing R-2 lots which also face onto McCauley Trail. 2. The lots face the freeway system, which has the undesirable impact of noise and other freeway -related impacts. 3. The City has had a policy of separating single family areas from more inten- sive land uses by a "buffer" or transitional use. R-2 zoning has frequently been used for that purpose. 4. The proposed zoning would be consistent with the Western Edina Land Use Plan. 1 Mr. Luce noted that Outlot A exceeds the minimum square footage required for a double bungalow lot. He therefore recommended that Outlot A, McCauley Heights 4th Addition, be declared a buildable lot contingent on the payment of a parkland dedication fee in the amount of $700. Mr. Paul Johnson of 4617 Cascade Lane, owner of an adjacent single family lot, objected to the request because he purchased his lot partly on the basis that this was an area of single family residences. He felt zoning changes should not be allowed in this area because "that leaves residents and current neighborhoods vul- nerable to changes in neighborhood character. Mrs. Holly Johnson felt there is no legitimate reason to rezone the lots in question to R-2 because there is no com- mercial development in the area and the property does not front directly on the freeway or an exit ramp. She added that if the rezoning were allowed, the view of 3-2-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 7 Arrowhead -Lake would be lost for two single family homes. Indicating she was also representing Mr. Stanley Rebers, "owner of the property at the end of the cul-de- sac of McCauley Terrace," Mrs. Johnson stated that Mr. Rebers was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting but asked her to request that this matter be held over one month to give him an opportunity to attend and voice his opinion. Mr. Tom McCauley, the proponent's nephew, said he does not think there has been any question about tha future use of the lots along McCauley Trail for many years. He felt single family homes in this location would not be marketable. Mr. John McCauley, the property owner, stated the land is obviously exposed to the freeway and subjected to a noise problem. Mr. Greg Gustafson, 6412 Aspen Road, agreed that the highest and best use of the property in question would be double bungalows. After lengthy discussion, Mr. Kremer moved that Outlot A, McCauley Heights 4th Addition be declared a buildable lot and that the requested rezonings from R-1 to R-2 be approved. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 2. Lot Division Jeffrey P. Gustafson. Lot, Block 1, Gleason 3rd Addition - LD -77-4 6412 Aspen Road. Mr. Luce explained the proponents are requesting to divide a 20' X 40' triangle from the lots in question and to combine that piece of land with the single family lot �.mmediately to the north. Mr. Greg Gustafson, representing the proponent, explained the house on the adjacent lot was constructed at an angle in order to encroach as little as; possible on the flood plain. An easement over the triangular piece of property in question. was executed so a driveway could be constructed to Aspen Road. That property was recently sold, however, and the new owner wants to convey permanent ownership of the land under the driveway instead of a temporary easement. If the requested division and combination are approved, the easement along the common lot line will be released. Mr. Luce recommended the requested division and combination be approved because an additional buildable lot will not be created and the request is a minor one; also that both resulting lots and homes would meet all ordinance requirements. Mr. G. Johnson so moved, and Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3. Rezoning Z-77-6 Village Development Company. Outlot A and Lots 3 and & Declaration of 4, Block 2, and Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Edina Green. Builable Lot Generally located at 5224, 5520, 5227 and 5525 Malibu Drive. R-2 Multiple Residential District to R-1 Single, Family Residence District. Mr. Luce explained the properties in question are presently zoned R-2 Multiple Residential District and the proponents are requesting to down -zone the property to R-1 Single Family Residential District. One of the sites is presently an outlot (Outlot A), and the proponents have requested that that parcel be declared a buildable single family lot. Mr. Luce recommended approval of the requested declara- tion and rezoning provided Outlot B is dedicated to the City for road purposes. Mr. Rick Davies of the Malibu Heights/Parkwood Knolls Neighborhood Association spoke in favor of the request in that it would reduce the density and potential traffic problems. 3-2-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 8 Mr. Runyan moved that Outlot A be declared a buildable lot and that the proponents request to rezone the lots in question from R-2 to R-1 be approved provided that Outlot B is dedicated to the City for road purposes. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 4. Subdivision McCauley Heights 7th Addition. Generally located east of 5-77-3 McCauley Trail, north of McCauley Lane, and south of McCaule Circle. Mr. Luce explained the proponent's request to divide their existing single family lot on Arrowhead Lake into two lots of over 17,000 square feet of useable land area. Mr. Luce stated that because there was apparently no overall development plan for this area, small subdivision and divisions have occurred over the.years, and road alignments and lot locations have been subject to numerous changes. As a result, if the requested division were approved the buildable area of one of the lots would be only 80 feet at its widest point and 250 feet deep. The other lot would be 120 feet wide, but without the proposed "panhandle" to the road, it would be only 80 feet wide. In addition, the lots would have only a 30 -foot frontage on the lake, an extremely meager amount compared to other lakeshore lots around Arrowhead Lake. He observed that lots in this area are typically in excess of 20,000 square feet, with the exception of the lot directly north, which was previously subdivided from the lot in question. Mr. Luce recommended the requested lot division be denied for the following reasons: 1. The lakeshore frontage is minimal and would cause overuse and possible pollution of the lake. 2. Faulty, piece -meal planning and arrangement has caused inadequate frontage on roads. 3. If approved, this subdivision would result in elongated lots not capable of supporting development consistent with other development on Arrowhead Lake. Approval of this request would therefore disturb the present symmetry of development around the lake. Mr. John McCauley, the owner, stated water and sewer is available, and the present -.lot is so. large that he cannot use large portions of it. He felt the amount of lakeshore frontage should not deprive him of the sale and use of the land. Mrs.McCauley added that a offer to purchase the land has been received. Mr. Paul Johnson of 4617 Cascade Lane, owner of an adjacent lot, supported the staff's recommendation because approval of the division would create a lot which would not be consistent with the neighborhood, which would contribute to an increased amount of traffic on the cul-de-sac, and which would detract from other homes around the lake. Mr. Runyan observed that if McCauley Lane is established as the street and front yard, then the proposed new lot would not meet the minimum 120 -foot lot depth requirement and would not be deep enough to allow construction of a home which would maintain the required front and rear yard setbacks. After additional discussion, Mr. G. Johnson moved that the requested lot divi- sion be denied for the reasons listed by the staff and because the proposed lot would not meet the minimum 120 -foot lot depth requirement. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3-2-77 Planning Commission Msnutes, page 9 5. Lot Division Dayton Hudson Properties. Tract A, Registered Land Survey LD -77-5 No. 1365. Generally located south of W. 69th Street and west of Valley View Road. Mr. Luce stated the property in question is presently a single registered land survey tract of just over two acres. The proponents are requesting to divide the property approximately in half. Junior Achievement plans to build an office building with eight classrooms on the western half. The building would front on Vally View Road, and access would be had from that road. Approval of the division was recommended in that the proposed lots would meet all of the conditions of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. In addition, Junior Achievement's purchase of one of the lots is subject to the condition that a retail commercial use will not be allowed on the remaining vacant lot. In reply to Mr. G. Johnson, Mr. Luce stated that Dayton Hudson is retaining an easement across the Junior Achievement lot for access to Valley View Road in case the future user of the vacant lot desires to egress to Valley View Road instead of W. 69th Street. Mr. G. Johnson moved the requested lot division be approved provided all curb cuts for the Junior Achievement building are along Valley View Road. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. Mr. Kremer observed that Valley View Road is fast becoming a "back yard and high speed alley" and that trash storage and parking areas visible from Valley View are unsightly and inadequate. Mr. Christopher Dietrich of Hamel, Green, and Abrahamson presented plans illustrating the proposed building and parking layout and trash storage areas. Mr. Emmett Albergetti of Dayton Hudson Properties indicated that screening and landscaping will be provided as required. All voted aye on the earlier motion to approve the requested lot division. 6.- Mr. Luce informed the Planning Commission that Councilman Fred Richards has proposed that several City boards and commissionsbe consolidated. Brief dis- cussion followed during which the Commission members generally agreed that some consolidation might make the Cityapproval process more efficient. However, the number of members on any particular board or commission should not be significantly increased, as a large commission would be unwieldy and would result in unduly long meetings. No action was taken. IV. Adjournment at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae Nye, Secretary AGENDA EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, March 30, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. Edina City Hall I. Approval of the March 2, 1977, Planning Commission Minutes. II. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Lot Division E. B. and J. C. Haedecke. Lot 18, Block 6, LaBuena Vista. LD -77-7 5524 West 70th Street. 2. Lot Division Roy W. Tompkins. Lots 7 and 8, Griffis Subdivision of LD -77-8 Block 18, Mendelssohn. Generally located at 527 and 529 Arthur Street. 3. Lot Division Gilbert H. Feig. Lot 1, Block 1, Killarney Shores and the LD -77-9 North 6 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Killarney Shores. Generally located at 5900-02 Killarney Lane. ' 4. Rezoning Paul G. Blumer. Lot 2, Block 5, McCauley Heights 3rd Addition. Z-77-7 Generally located at the southeast corner of McCauley Trail and Indian Hills Road. R-2 Multiple Residence District to R-1 Single Family Residence District. 5. Subdivision Muir Woods 2nd Addition. C. L. Fraser and M. Weegmann. S-77-4 Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Muir Woods. Generally located south of Paiute.Pass and east of Comanche Court. 6. Subdivision Muir Woods 3rd Addition. C. L. Fraser and M. Weegmann. S-77-5 Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Muir Woods. Generally located east of Comanche Court along Valley View Road. 7. Rezoning Roger Findell. Part of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21. Z-77-8 Generally located west of Cahill Road, north and south of Amundson Avenue (extended). R-1 Single Family Residence District and R-3 Multiple Residence District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. 8. Rezoning Z-77-9 Colonial Church of Edina. Generally located south of Subdivision Olinger Boulevard and west of Tracy Avenue. PRD -1 Planned S-77-6 & Flood Residential District to PRD -1 Planned Residential District Plain Permit (Plan Change). FP -6 9. Reorganization of Boards and Commissions. 10. Ordinance Amendment 801-A requires platting of outlots and buildable lot divisions. 11. Crdinance Amendment 811-A setting dates for Council hearings. 12. Ordinance Amendment 812-A2 re -adopting flood plain ordinance. 13. April Planning Commission Meeting Date. III. Adjournment.