Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 11-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, Samuel Hughes, Clifford Johnson, Richard Kremer, Mary McDonald, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, Gordon Johnson Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning, Harold Sand, Assistant Planner, Karen Sorensen, Secretary I. Approval of September 28, 1977 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Samuel Hughes moved for approval of the September 28, 1977 Planning Commission Minutes with the addition of his name to those present at that meeting. Mr. Clifford Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. II. OLD BUSINESS Subdivision Subdivision of Lot 29, Rolling Green.. Generally located Z-77-19 southwest of Annaway Drive and southeast of Bywood West. (Continued from 9-7-77) Mr. Gordon Hughes reported that this subdivision was continued on September 28, 1977 until the November 2nd meeting to allow the proponent an opportunity to refine his subdivision plans. On September 28, 1977, the Planning Commission requested the proponent to increase the size of the newly created lot and to provide a more defined rear lot line. The revised preliminary plat proposed a new lot measuring 34,200 square feet, which is 5000 square feet larger than previously proposed. The remaining lot is 66,250 square feet. A defined rear lot line has been. provided. The staff recommended approval for the following reasons: (1) the size of the new lot has been increased to more closely conform with surrounding properties; (2) adequate access is available to the new lot and approval is recommended with the parkland dedication prior to final approval. Mr. Roscoe Ferber, 4805 Rolling Green Parkway, stated that he represents a group of neighbors in the area and he wanted to voice their objections to the change in planning for a number of reasons which are set forth in a petition which was submitted to the Commission. Mr. Ferber also noted that Mr. Connor F. Schmid had presented a letter to the Commission on behalf of his clients, residents of Rolling Green, objecting to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Ferber reported that the two groups were separate. Mr. Joe Lathaur, proponent told the Commission that this parcel is a unique piece of land and it is one of the largest lots in Edina. In his opinion, it is poor example of land use as it is impractical to maintain. The lot has a large landscaping investment and it has become a private park. The buyer of the proposed lot intends to construct a $175,000 to $200,,000 home on the property. He further noted that it will not cause more traffic in the area and the lot division will not be a financial loss to the neighborhood. Edina Planning Commission Page 2 November 2, 1977 Mr. Runyan stated that if the lot had been divided in the middle, then there would have been two lots of roughly 50,000 square feet with an aggregate frontage of about 250-260 feet. The land area from 3/4 of the way back is lost because it is all back yard. He felt that it will look strange if you look at the property with the house on it because of the shape of the lot and the shape of the house. Mr. Sam Hughes stated that he felt the division would be out of character with the area because of its shape. He stated that the Commission should continue a precedent of not dividing lots for the reasons noted for this division. Mr. George O'Brien, Annaway Drive, stated that the single most important thing that sold him on the Rolling Green area was the privacy and spaciousness of the area. Mr. Kremer stated that he was opposed to any subdivision in that it would substantially change the character of the neighborhood. He moved to deny the requested lot division. Mr. Sam Hughes seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. III. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 1. A zoning ordinance amendment to allow laundries as a principal use in the C-1 Commercial District. Mr. Gordon Hughes reported that the Edina Cleaners and Launderers requested, some time ago, to expand its present dry cleaning and laundry into the rear portion of the Westgate Theater building. At that time, staff advised the proponent that (1) the existing laundry site and.theater are presently zoned C-1, (2) laundries are not an allowable use in the C-1 districts and thus the present laundry is a non -conforming use; (3) laundries are allowed in C-2 districts pro- vided that the rooms containing the laundering process do not exceed 2500 square feet. It was determined that the existing laundry and dry cleaning establishment contains approximately 7,000 square feet although the exact area devoted to laundering processes was not determined. The proposed expansion of the facility would add approximately 3000 square feet. Staff advised the proponent that to accomplish the expansion, the City would have to either rezone the property to C-2 or amend the zoning ordinance to allow laundries as a principle use in C-1 Districts. Staff has reservations regarding the adoption of a proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. G. Hughes stated his opinion with respect to laundries that it was and is the intent of the zoning ordinance that relatively small laundry "drop-off" stations should be located in C-1 areas, but that the processing of such laundry is more appropriately located in other areas of the City. In the C-2 districts, laundries should be limited in size (2500 sq. ft.) to avoid large industrial scale facilities. Staff also felt that it may be difficult to deny future requests to allow C-2 uses in C-1 districts if the proposed amendment is adopted. Mr. Mike Gair, Howard Dahlgren Associates, Inc. presented renderings of how the proposed expansion of the laundry/dry cleaning facility would look. He also reported that on September 22, a letter was circulated to the surrounding businesses and homes in the area and those contacted supported the expansion of the cleaners. He also reported that there are 26 fuul time employees on an average five day week, and three trucks are used each day, however, the laundry does have five trucks that can be used. Edina Planning Commission Page 3 November 2, 1977 Mr. Kremer stated that he would support the concept of some sort of amendment to the ordinance if some additional improvements to the laundry could be accomplished. Mr. Runyan stated that he would support Mr. Kremer's suggestion to get something done on that corner rather than to have nothing done. He recommended that we hold it over and take another look at it. Mr. Kremer stated that we would have to agree on the concept before they come back with any detailed plans. The area needs -to be cleaned up and this might be the spark to get one larger redevelopment started. Mrs. McDonald stated that she was opposed to expanding the laundry. It would be better elsewhere. Mrs. McClelland stated that she would be willing to look at it again, but it might be better to rezone to C-3 rather than C-1. After considerable discussion, Mr. Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission hold the proposal over until the next meeting. Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. Mr. Sam Hughes stated that he would like to caution the proponents about any guarantees about the recommendation of passing this proposed amendment. We should give the staff, the proponents and the Planning Commission an opportunity to look at its again. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. 2. A zoning ordinance amendment to allow Special Use Permits in the Planned Industrial District Mr. G. Hughes reported to the Commission that the City Council requested the Commission to review the advisability of establishing a conditional use permit amendment to the zoning ordinance in connection with the rezoning request of Rauenhorst Corp. for a parcel at 76th and France Avenue. Mr. G. Hughes advised that the conditional or special use permit is a device utilized to add flexibility to the zoning ordinance by allowing principle uses not permitted under the current ordinance, but that might be compatible with the permitted use. The granting of special use permits is governed by two factors: (1) only those uses identified in the zoning ordinance as susceptible to special permit treatment may be considered; and (2) the ordinance should include criteria which are intended to be used by administrators in deciding whether to grant the permit or license. He reported that ten surrounding communities were surveyed and all but one use the conditional use permit to some degree as a part of their zoning ordinance. Besides administrative and staff costs involved in the processing and policing of conditional use permits, some communities have been involved in litigation as a result of special permits. Most law suits involved an appeal of the denial of a conditional use permit application by the respective City Council. Mr. Hughes stated that the conditioanl use provision can add a great deal of flexibility to a zoning ordinance by allowing a limited number of possibly compatible, non -permitted, land uses within a specific zoning classification. Edina Planning Commission Page 4 November 2, 1977 The conditional use technique can be a valuable zoning concept if great care is taken to protect the various parties affected by the conditional use system and very specific standards and criteria are adopted for the administration of the ordinance. Mr. Peter Jarvis of BP.W stated that he felt the City Council had referred the request back to the Planning Commission for concept of mixed use allowances in the PID as opposed to the way the ordinance is presently written and give them some indication of the desire or lack of desire on the part of the Planning Commission and then decide what is appropriate to do. There are two issues here: (1) whether the present limited allowed uses in the PID are good and should stay that way and (2) is it appropriate to expand those uses and in what sense. Mrs. McDonald stated that the Council was not pleased with the idea of granting C-1 zoning for the Rauenhorst proposal and what came from that was a discussion of accessory uses and what could be allowed in PID zones. Mr. G. Hughes read the portion of the September 12 Council Minutes dealing with this subject. Mr. Runyan asked if it is honest to say that a facility that enhances the industrial park cuts down trips because people will walk from the industrial park. He stated that the restaurant will draw people other than those in the industrial area because it faces on France Avenue which is a high traffic street. He noted that if the restaurant were to be constructed in the interior of the park, it would better serve the purpose. Mr. Jarvis replied that the restaurant will attract people other thari those in the industrial park and will render a good service to the public. After considerable discussion, Mr. S. Hughes moved that the Commission recommend to the Council that they not provide special use permits in the PID for the reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. Clifford Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. After further discussion, Mr. Kremer amended the original motion that the Commission recommends that at this time the Commission does not advise adding principal uses to the PID zone. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. 3. Senior Citizen Residence District Mr. G. Hughes reported that some time ago, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a rezoning from R-1 to SR -4 for a parcel of property on France Avenue and 51st Street. The Council requested that the Senior Citizen Residence ordinance be amended so that future rezoning requests to this district would be considered in the same manner as a planned residential district rezoning, i.e., site and building design plans would have to be submitted at the time of rezoning. Edina Planning Commission Page 5 November 2, 1977 Mr. S. Hughes moved for approval of the proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. Clifford Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. IV. NEW BUSINESS Subdivision Brookview Heights 5th Addition. C. Jacobson. Generally S-77-21 located east of Cahill Rd. and Nine Mile Creek, west of the M. N. & S. Railroad tracks and north of W. 70th St. Mr. G. Hughes reported that the property is a 13 acre tract located between the M N & S Railroad tracks and Nine Mile Creek immediately south of W. 66th Street. An 18 lot.single family subdivision is proposed which would be served by the southerly extension of Limerick Lane. Nearly one-half of the property lies within the flood plain of Nine Mile Creek. A grading plan has been submitted by the proponent and had been reviewed by staff and the Watershed District. The Watershed District has indicated that the proposed grading plan complies with its rules and regulations in that a flood plain encroachment of less than 20% is proposed. An outlot which measures nearly 4 acres will be dedicated to the City. The staff recommended approval of the subdivision for the following reasons: (1) The proposed land use is in conformance with the Western Edina Plan. (2) Lot sizes are generally consistent and somewhat larger than surrounding subdivisions. (3) Proposed flood plain encroachment is within standards of the City and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. with the following conditions and modifications: (1) A deed to the City of Edina for Outlot A. (2) Adequate erosion control measures to prevent sediments resulting from site grading from entering the flood plain lands and Nine Mile Creek. (3) Those items contained in the attached preliminary engineering report. Mr. Robert Sandilla, 6717 Cahill Road stated that there was concern about the flood plain in the area and especially with regard to the Olson home located at 6725 Cahill Road, as it seems that the water from the 200 year flood was dangerously close to that particular home. Mr. G. Hughes replied that the lot had been measured and was at an 844 elevation which is below the projected flood plain for the area. He also noted that the Watershed District determined that the proposed subdivision will increase the flood heights by approximately one inch. Mr. Sandilla had presented earlier in the week petitions expressing concern about the development of the area. Mr. Jacobson, the proponent, stated that Lots 10 and 11 have about 5 to 6 feet of peat and he plans to take it out and put good soil in and compact it. He also noted Lots 1 and 18 also have about 4 to 5 feet of peat and that will be removed and filled with sand. Edina Planning Commission Page 6 November 2, 1977 Mr. G. Hughes noted the City will need some easements on Lots 18 and 1 for the storm sewer, but this is not difficult to accomplish. There was considerable discussion about several of the lots and how they should be dealt with. Lot 18 is a high lot and it was suggested that the slope of that lot be reduced and the banks on 18, 9, 10, 11 and 12 be changed around for drainage. There was considerable discussion about traffic safety during construction and noise control as well as additional discussion on the flood plain and how it affects the surrounding areas. Mr. Keith Thompson, 6701 Cahill Road, requested that the Commission not approve the proposed subdivision because we should try to preserve our country's resources. The 200 year rain caused many problems in the area, the area was not given enough time to consider the proposal and the Olson property will be greatly affected by the development. Chairman Lewis thanked all of those who had participated in the discussion and asked the Commission for their views on the matter. Mr. Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission carry this proposal over to the next meeting. Mr. Cliff Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. S. Hughes noted that we need to have some answers to some of the questions that have been raised tonight and perhaps there should be some redesign of the proposal before we see it again. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Zoning Ryan Construction Co. Generally located E. of York Ave., Z-77-17 W. of Xerxes Ave., N. of W. 76th St and S. of W. 74th St. extended. R-1 Single Family District to Planned Residential District PRD -3. Mr. Gordon Hughes reported that Ryan Construction Company is requesting preliminary rezoning approval from R-1 to PRD -3, Planned Residential District. The proposed development calls for 80 townhouse units for low -moderate income families. .Structures and parking areas comprise 33.3% of the site with the remainder devoted to open space areas. Access to the southern portion of the development is provided from 76th Street and access to the north portion from York Avenue. Staff recommended preliminary approval of the rezoning for the reasons stated in the staff report with the conditions and modifications in conjunction with final plan approval.. He also noted that City ordinances required that individual sewer and water connections must be provided for townhouse developments. Staff is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by requiring individual sewer and water services at this time. Staff recommends that this provision be waived with the condition that such individual services must be installed in the event that any of the units of the proposed development are offered for individual ownership. Mr. Hughes reported that the Veit property is presently excluded in the Southeast Edina Plan, but is included for acquisition and there have been some negotiations with the owner and Ryan Construction Co. An additional 9 to 10 units could be added if the property were to be included in the project. Edina Planning Commission Page 7 November 2, 1977 Mr. Runyan asked why the garages were so far away from the buildings. Mr. Alan Shackman of Ryan Construction Co., replied that he wanted to keep the green areas in the middle, which is more pleasing and it is anticipated that there will be children living in these units, and it seemed safer to have the garages further away. Mr. S. Hughes noted that there were to be 8 one bedroom units, 48 two bedroom units, 20 three bedroom units and 4 four bedroom units, and aksed if there shouldn't be more three bedroom units and no four bedroom units. Mr. Schackman replied that H.U.D. makes the requirements for a certain number large family units and the Metro Council had indicated that some four bedroom units be provided. After some additional discussion, Mrs. McDonald moved to approve the preliminary zoning per the staff report. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Subdivision Taft Addition. Generally located west of Blake Road S-77-23 and Scriver Road extended. Mr. G. Hughes reported this is a 4.5 acre tract of land located west of Scriver Road and south of Blake Road. An existing house is on the northerly portion of the property. Four new lots would be created which would range in size from 19,000 square feet to 52,000 square feet. Access would be provided by the westerly extension of Scriver Road. There will be a 100 foot drainage easement and a provision for open space on the south of the property. The Blake -Schaefer plan proposed the westerly extension of Scriver Road to serve the subject property as well as properties further west. The westerly extension of Scriver Road to serve additional properties should be anticipated. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision for the reasons stated in the staff report as well as parkland dedication: 1) the single family residential development proposed is compatible with surrounding development. 2) proposed lot sizes are generally similar to lot sizes on Scriver Rd. 3) the subdivisicn and road alignment are in conformance with the unofficial Blake -Schaefer plans. 4) provision of an open space and drainage easement should protect the natural character of the pond on the site. Approval is recommended with the following conditions and modifications: 1) submission of an executed drainage and open space easement. 2) an executed developer's agreement. Edina Planning Commission Page 8 November 2, 1977 Dr. Ralph Boos, who owns the property adjacent to and west of Taft Addition stated that he was not yet ready to plat his property. He noted that it was important to extend Scriver Road so that he would have access through his property. Mr. Kremer moved that the Commission approve the preliminary subdivision subject to staff recommendation. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Subdivision The Tim'.-ers. Folke Victorson. Generally located at the S-77-24 S.E. corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Mr. G. Hughes reported that three years ago various development proposals for the subject property were studied by the Planning Commission and the Council: (a) a single family development, (b) a development which included a 74 unit apartment building together with 21 single family lots, and (c) a 140 unit apartment building. Following considerable study, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a PRD -5 zoning for a 140 unit apartment at the base of the hill based upon severe damage to the slopes and vegetation, the unacceptable street grades and public safety problems resulting from the proposed single family development of the site. The City Council studied the matter at great length and agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation and granted the rezoning. The proponent is now requesting a single family subdivision of the subject property. Twenty-five single family lots are now proposed for the site. Mr. Hughes reported that the proposal is similar to that reviewed by the Planning Commission three years ago. Mr. Hughes noted that this property is one of the most thoroughly studied parcels in the City. Three years ago the Planning CommissionandCity Council concluded that a single family development in this location was undesirable due to environmental and public safety concerns. Staff feels that the facts and circumstances have not changed and recommends denial of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Victorson, the proponent, stated that he could not get financing for the 140 unit building.. He explained that he was coming back to the Planning Commission because he does not want to carry the property any longer. He noted that this proposal is essentially the same as the concept approval from the Planning Commission and City Council three years ago. There is heavy timber on the northerly end of the property. The street grades on the streets are 7, 9 and 12% He also pointed out that Rayburn Circle has a 13.5% grade; Warren Avenue, 12%, and Shawnee Circle, 14%. He explained that the street has a 24 foot hard surface with a 36 foot right-of-way. Mr. Harry Murphy, Jr., stated that he did not agree with the submitted plan. Dr. Glenn Lewis, Jr., 6328 Gleason Road stated that all the units should be put in one spot. The hill should not be disturbed. After some additional discussion, Mrs. McClelland moved to deny the proposed subdivision subject to the staff report. Mr. S. Hughes seconded the motion. Mr. Kremer stated that there are street grades compararable to these in the City. This subdivision could work and he would support the concept. Edina Planning Commission Page 9 November 2, 1977 Upon voting, all voted Aye with the exception of Mr. Kremer, who voted Nay. Motion Carried. Subdivision Braemar Bills 9th Addition. Generally located east S-77-25 of Gleason Road extended and north of West 78th Street. Zoning Z-77-18 PRD -2 to R-1 and R-2 Districts. Mr. G. Hughes reported that four years ago the subject property was rezoned to PRD -2, Planned Residential District to allow the construction of 132 units in the form of 33 quadraminiuni buildings. To day, four quadraminiums and a recreation building have been constructed in conformance with the approved plan. The proponents are presently requesting a rezoning from PRD -2 to R-1 and R-2. A 45 lot subdivision is also requested. As proposed, 29 lots in Blocks 1, 2 and 3 and 4 would be zoned R-1 and the 16 lots located in Block 5 and 6 would be zoned R-2. Outlot A would be dedicated to the. City. Protection of the heavily wooded steep slopes on the property was of concern when reviewing the previous plan. The present subdivision proposes to limit construction on such slopes and proposes to dedicate most of these areas to the City. Mr. G. Hughes noted that the present subdivision proposes to use essentially the same building sites for R-1 and R-2 dwellings which would have been used for quadraminiums. Excluding existing and planned quadraminiums in Braemar Hills 8th Addition, the present plan proposes a reduction in the total number of dwelling units from 112 to 61. Mr. Hughes noted that the property to the east, known as Indian Meadows, has recently been sold and the present owner does not intend to proceed with the Indian Meadows concept. Staff was concerned bout providing adequate right-of-way along Stonewood Court to the easterly property. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision and rezoning for reasons noted in the staff report which are as follows:. 1) the proposal conforms with the Southwest Edina Plan. 2) the heavily wooded steep slopes on the site are adequately protected. 3) the realignment of Tanglewood Court is desirable. 4) adequate setbacks from existing and planned quadraminiums are maintained. Approval is recommended with the following conditions and modifications: 1) lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 4 must be identified as an outlot to facilitate the easterly extension of Stonewood Court if warranted. 2) a storm water storage easement must be dedicated on portions of Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, Block 4. 3) an executed deed to the City of Edina for Outlot A. 4) an executed developer's agreement. 5) relocation, removals and re -sealing of existing storm sewers, water services, and sewer services per the attached preliminary engineering report. 6) dedication of a 15 foot wide strip of land on the north edge of Lot 14, Block 4. 7) submission of a suitable landscape plan for Braemar Hills 8th Addition. Edina Planning Commission Page 10 November 2, 1977 8) all activities relating to the landscaping and snow removal business located on Blocks 5 and 6 must be terminated and all equipment, materials and supplies removed prior to final plat approval for any portion of the subject property. 9) within 180 days following final plat approval for Blocks 5 and 6, all dwellings and structures located on Blocks 5 and 6 must be satisfactorily removed. A performance bond in the amount of $5,000 will be required at the time of final plat approval to assure removal of such structures. 10) submission of an erosion control plan. Mr. Greg Gustafson, attorney, representing the owners of the property noted that there is a landscaping and snow removal operation in existence on the property. He asked that the. Commission set a time limit for the removal of the operation. He stated that the owner was agreeable to a December 1, 1977 deadline for the landscaping operation and April 1, 1978 for the snow removal operation. The Commission agreed that these dates were acceptable to them. There was some discussion regarding which lots should be held aside for road purposes for access to the Indian Meadows area and it was decided that Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 4 should be considered for that purpose. Mr. Peter Jarvis, representing the owners of the Indian Meadows property, stated that his clients were not sure that the road would be necessary, but it would be a good idea to have some flexibility. He would feel more comfortable with three lots as it would give his client more flexibility and suggested that Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 4 could be set aside. Mr. G. Hughes stated that those lots would be acceptable as the most critical lot is Lot 9. There was discussion about Outlot B as it is a small parcel of land. Mr. G. Hughes noted that it is not needed for park purposes and suggested that the outlot be eliminated. Mrs. McClelland raised the question of the traffic flow and inquired about the curb cuts which will be increased along Gleason Road with the R-2 development on the curvy road. Mr. G. Hughes replied that there were several plans for the R-2 development at the southerly end of the project. After reviewing them all, the staff decided that the present plan seemed to be the best. After some additional discussion, Mr. S. Hughes moved that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed subdivision and rezoning subject to the staff report recommendations and modifications and the inclusion of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 4 for road purposes and Outlot B is to be eliminated and staff is to resolve the road problem before final approval. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Zoning Dwight Williams Park (Edina Mills) W. 50th St. at Z-77-19 Browndale Ave. R-1 District to R-1 and HPD Heritage Preservation District. Mr. Harold Sand, Assistant Planner, reported that the Edina Heritage Preservation Board has recommended that the Dwight Williams Park, the location Edina Planning Commission Page 11 November 2, 1977 of the Edina Mills Grist Mill foundation, be rezoned to Heritage Preservation District. The history and significance of the site was prepared for the Nomination of the site to the National Register of Historic Places. The State Review Board has approved the nomination and forwarded it to Washington. The mill foundation was located this summer and financed with community development funds. The Heritage Preservation Board anticipates a continuation of the project next summer. The next phase includes the delineation of the foundation on the surface of the ground and the erection of an interpretive kiosk that will display photographs, text, and mill artifacts. Mr. Kremer moved to approve the rezoning. Mr. Clifford Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. V. OTHER BUSINESS A group of gentlemen interested in a 3.25 acre parcel south of Perkins Pancake House asked to be heard briefly before the Commission. Their proposal was to construct a subsidized apartment building for the elderly on the site. It was suggested that 127 units would be constructed on the site in order to maximize units. Mr. Miller, architect for the proponents, stated that it is possible to locate the building and to minimize freeway noise. A view of the golf course can be given. A seven story building is proposed which seems to be an economical height. He also stated that he was aware of the soil situation on the site and knew of no variances that might be required. After some discussion about the site, transportation difficulties and the proximity to City Hall, Library and Perkins, Mr. Kremer stated that the site is not ideal, but we do have a responsibility to find sites for elderly housing and he would be willing to look at building plans. Chairman Lewis noted that multiple dwellings had been requested on that site years ago and there was strong opposition to it. Mr.. Runyan stated that there are some problems with the site, but it should be considered. Mr. S. Hughes stated that the Commission would take a look at renderings and give a recommendation. VI. Mr. Clifford Johnson moved for adjournment at 11:30 P.M. Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Respectfully submitted, Karen Sorensen, Secretary