HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MARCH 28, 2012
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Grabiel called the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission to order at
7:00 PM.
II. ROLL CALL
Answering the roll call were Commissioners Scherer, Forrest, Schroeder, Rock, Potts,
Platteter, Cherkassky, Fischer, Carpenter, Staunton, Grabiel
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Platteter moved approval of the meeting agenda. Commissioner
Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. ANNUAL MEETING - ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS
Chair Grabiel explained that the City has standardized Bylaws for all board and
commissions. Grabiel said the role of the Planning Commission is different from most
boards and commissions so Commissioner Carpenter would be reviewing the bylaws from
a Planning Commission perspective. After his review the Commission would adopt the
bylaws at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Grabiel reported it's time to elect new officers to the Commission
Commissioner Staunton nominated Commissioner Carpenter as Secretary. No other
nominations were offered.
Commissioner Scherer moved to close the nomination. Commissioner Potts seconded the
motion. All voted aye. Commissioner Carpenter appointed as Secretary to the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Fischer nominated Commissioner Staunton as Vice - Chair. No other
nominations were offered.
Commissioner Scherer moved to close the nominations. Commissioner Fischer seconded
the motion. All voted aye. Commissioner Staunton appointed as Vice -Chair to the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Staunton said the next position was to elect the Chair of the Commission.
Page 1 of 14
Commissioner Fischer nominated Chair Grabiel as Chair. No other nominations were
offered.
Commissioner Forrest moved to close the nominations. Commissioner Potts seconded the
motion. All voted aye. Chair Grabiel appointed as Chair to the Planning Commission.
It was pointed out that the Planning Commission Chair can serve two consecutive terms
and members of the Planning Commission rotate officers on an annual basis.
V. APPROVAL OF CONSENT ITEMS
Commissioner Staunton moved approval of the March 14, 2012 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried
Commissioner Staunton suggested that people review the video on the discussion on the
Sketch Plan Review for Byerly's. Staunton said the Commission and presenter of the sketch
plan had a full discussion on the topic.
VI. COMMUNITY COMMENT
None.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance - 4613 Browndale Avenue - Clifford and Jane Taney
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission the subject property is located east of
Browndale Ave. consisting of a two story home with an attached, side loading, garage
behind the home, The property owners Are hoping to add more living space above the
non conforming 2 -stall garage that has existing living space over Y2 the garage below.
The existing garage is nonconforming regarding rear yard setback. The minimum rear
yard setback for an attached garage is 25 feet. The existing garage is 16 feet from the
rear lot line so a 9 foot rear yard setback variance is needed to extend the upper floor
living space to match the garage area below. Setbacks of the garage will remain the
same with living space to match the setback of the east wall of the garage. The east
side wall is nonconforming regarding setback/ height and may be extended at the same
setback without the need for a variance. The ordinance allows for an equal
amount of encrooachment when maintaining a nonconforming setback.
Planner Teague explained that the property is located within the historic Country Club
District and is subject to a Heritage Preservation Overlay Zoning.The proposed project
will not be visible from the street so a Certificate of Appropriateness is not required from
the Heritage Preservation Board. The City Staff Liason to the Heritage Preservation
Board has reviewed the plans and determined that no Heritage Preservation Board
action is necessary.
Page 2 of 14
Planner Teague concluded staff recommends approval of the variance based on the
following findings:
1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required
standards and ordinances for the R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District and the Heritage
Preservation Over -Lay District.
2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because:
a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with
surrounding properties and matches the nonconforming setback that has
historically been provided by the existing garage.
b. The imposed setback limits design opportunity to the second floor above the
garage.
3) The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing between properties and
structures. Spacing on both sides of the home will not change. The unique
circumstance is the original nonconforming placement of the home.
Approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions:
1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions: Survey
date stamped February 15, 2012. Building plans and elevations date stamped
February 12, 2012.
Appearing for the Applicant
Clifford and Jane Taney
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Taney informed the Commission letters were sent to the immediate neighbors
informing them of their project, adding neighbors indicated they support the
improvements as submitted.
Mrs. Taney said she believes the proposed improvements create a more finished look
to the house.
Discussion /Motion
Commissioner Fischer said in his opinion this request is very straightforward and he had
no questions.
Commissioner Fischer moved variance approval based on staff findings and
subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All
Page 3 of 14
voted aye; motion carried. 9 -0
B. Preliminary Plat with Variances - 6120 Brookview Avenue for JMS Custom
Homes, LLC
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission JMS Custom Homes is proposing to subdivide
the property at 6120 Brookview Avenue into two lots. There is an existing air conditioner
located on the proposed lot line. Should this proposal be approved, the air conditioner
would have to be relocated to meet the required 5 -foot setback.
Teague noted that to accommodate the request the following is required:
1. A subdivision;
2. Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot; and
3. Lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square feet.
4. Lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2.
Teague explained that both would gain access off Brookview Avenue. Within this
neighborhood, the median lot area is 6,707 square feet, median lot depth is 133.8 feet, and
the median lot width is 50 feet. The new lots would meet the median width, but would
slightly shy of the the median lot size and depth.
Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council deny the proposed
two lot subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue and the lot width variances from 75 feet to
50 feet for each lot, lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square
feet, and a lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2.
Denial is based on the following findings:
1. The proposal does not meet the required standards and ordinances for a
subdivision, because the proposed lots do not meet the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
2. The two proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth
requirements.
3. The proposal does not meet the required standards for a variance, because:
a. The property exists as a conforming single- family residential lot with a single -
family home. Reasonable use of the property exists today.
b. The size of the Subject Property does not create practical difficulties. The
Subject Property is only 4,347 square feet larger than the minimum lot size.
This is not a practical difficulty. There are no circumstances unique to the
property that justifies multiple variances.
c. The practical difficulty is self - created by the applicant's proposal to subdivide
the property.
Page 4 of 14
d. The proposed lots do not meet the 6,707 square foot median lot area for lots in
this neighborhood.
e. The Subject Property is similar in size to several lots in the neighborhood
including five lots to the north and west on Oaklawn Avenue, and two lots to the
south and two lots to the east on Brookview Avenue.
Appearing for the Applicant
Jeff Schoenwetter and Steve Bona, JMS Custom Homes, LLC
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Bona addressed the Commission and acknowledged that the proposed
subdivision has a "past" and is very "charged ". Bona reported that JMS mailed out
letters to residents inviting them to attend a neighborhood meeting informing
them of their plan to subdivide the property at 6120 Brookview Avenue. Bona
said six residents came and viewed the subdivision and plans for the new house.
Bona delivered a power point presentation on the project. Bona explained that
the new house would be 2,600 square feet, 28 -feet wide with a building height of
26 Y2 -feet. Continuing, Bona said the plan for the house was generally well
received and if the Commission so chooses JMS would be agreeable to place
restrictions on the new house above what's required by ordinance.
Discussion
Commissioner Staunton asked when the existing house was built. Mr. Bona
responded the house was constructed two years ago. Staunton
questioned why JMS didn't seek a subdivision at that time. Bona responded that
in hindsight that would have been a good idea; however they didn't do it.
Public Comment
Chair Grabiel acknowledged that the Commission was aware of the history of this
site adding that at this time he would read two letters from residents; one in
support of the proposal and one in opposition. Grabiel said if anyone has
something new to share different from what's in the letters they are welcome to
do so.
Chair Grabiel read letters from Doug and Jenny Nelson and Dan Urhammer
(attached as Exhibit "A ").
Mr. Valentine, 5024 Hankerson Avenue addressed the Commission reporting
that a new house is being built near him and while he has some concerns on its
size, etc. he believes that the new house will benefit his property.
Page 5 of 14
Janey Westin, 6136 Brookview Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project.
Westin said two wrongs don't make a right and suggested that the City purchase
the property and move the house on the southernmost portion of the lot to the
middle of the lot and at the proper front yard setback.
Jenny Nelson, 6117 Oaklawn Avenue told the Commission she supports the
request. Nelson said her concern is viewing the vacant lot. She noted without a
house on a lot the vacant parcel becomes messy and unkempt because no one
is there on a day to day basis to care for the property.
Miroslava Turk, 6141 Brookview Avenue stated she opposes the request to
subdivide. She pointed out that the subject block was unique because there are
other lots on the block in excess of 50 -feet. Turk noted that this is an affordable
area, adding she would like to see it remain affordable.
Trudy Landgren, 6104 Brookview Avenue spoke in opposition to the project.
Landgren said she and the neighbors aren't fighting development; however, have
very real concerns with the size of the new houses being built in the area.
Landgren said in her opinion Edina needs moderate priced housing and if all lots
that are redeveloped build such large homes the neighborhood character would
be changed. Concluding, Landgren reiterated the importance of maintaining
moderate housing prices.
Carol Carmichiel, 6112 Brookview Avenue said that while the proposed house
could suit the site she is concerned with the history of the lot and that history
might repeat itself. Carmichiel said she doesn't want to see another overly large
house built on the lot at the wrong setbacks.
Chair Grabiel questioned if the applicant assures the neighborhood the house they
depicted would be built would they still object. It was acknowledged that neighbors
have trust issues with this developer.
Mr. Bona responded that he understands the trust issues neighbors have
expressed, adding if the neighbors concern is house size JMS will stand by
their offer to build a house with setbacks more stringent than allowed by
ordinance.
Chair Grabiel asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission; being
none Chair Grabiel called for a motion to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Carpenter moved to close the public hearing period.
Commissioner Staunton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
Page 6 of 14
Discussion
Commissioner Carpenter commented when one views the drawings this
neighborhood appears to be a neighborhood of 50 -foot wide lots. However,
after further review he decided if one only looks at this lot and block, it becomes
apparent this block is different because it contains a number of lots in excess of
50 -feet. Continuing, Carpenter said he agrees with staff that the need for variances
are self- created because of the applicants' intent to subdivide.
Commissioner Fischer said he struggles with this being self - created. He
questioned how this request was self - created when similar subdivisions in the area
weren't. Fischer asked if anyone could articulate how this request was different
from the recent subdivisions in the immediate area.
Planner Teague responded if one only views this lot on this block this block
contains a number of oversized lots. That couldn't be said with some of the other
subdivisions. Commissioner Fischer said he agrees with that; however how can
this be self- created. Commissioner Carpenter responded variances wouldn't be
necessary if the lot wasn't subdivided. Continuing, Carpenter said he believes
the applicant acquired the property knowing the ordinance requirements.
A discussion ensued on if the variances were "self- created ".
Commissioner Staunton said there are standards that can be used to
"test" if this proposal meets the intent of the ordinance -1) is the use reasonable
2) uniqueness of the circumstances, and 3) neighborhood consistency. Staunton
said he finds the use reasonable, it's a single family house; but if he applies the other
standards this subdivision is different and that makes a big difference in
establishing neighborhood character. Continuing, Staunton pointed out that he
voted to approve a subdivision at 6109 Oaklawn, pointing out on that block there
were no other lots with a lot width of 100 -feet. Continuing, Staunton said the same
could be said for the other subdivision request on Oaklawn. Staunton did
acknowledge that the subdivision that was approved on the 5800 block of
Brookview did contain lots larger than 50 -feet; however, some of those sizes were
the result of the roadway easements, etc.. Staunton concluded that he was
uncomfortable supporting this request, adding in his opinion this one block is
different.
Commissioner Schroeder said in his opinion it can be argued that the essential
character of this neighborhood is the variable lot sizes. The original plat was for SO-
foot lots; however, over the years the neighborhood evolved with people combining
those 50 -foot lots.
Chair Grabiel asked Commissioners how they would feel if this was reversed and
a buyer was purchasing two small lots; combines them and builds one large
house. Staunton acknowledged that that could happen; however he pointed out
Page 7 of 14
City Code allows that, it doesn't allow this.
Commissioner Platteter questioned if Commissioners were indicating that
neighborhood character can't change. He pointed out neighborhoods are
always evolving, ordinances don't' stand still. Schroeder agreed; however defining
neighborhood isn't that simple.
Commissioner Scherer told the Commission she can't support this request.
Scherer said in her opinion residents should be able to rely on the ordinance;
adding she reviews each request on its individual merits. Concluding, Scherer
said that the subject lot wasn't unique and the applicant fails to meet the "test ".
Commissioner Forrest commented that in reality the house proposed for this lot
is a nice house; however, the request doesn't meet the intent of the ordinance.
Forrest said if the Commission wants to preserve these small lot neighborhoods
and believes neighborhoods originally plated with lots under 75 feet in width
should be protected a better way to achieve maintaining neighborhood character
would be for the Planning Commission to change the zoning ordinance and
eliminate the minimum lot width, depth and lot area requirement. Forrest noted
that if constructed on a 50 -foot wide lot the house itself wouldn't require variances;
because of the subdivision the lot requires the variances. Concluding, Forrest said
she can't support the variances; therefore, can't support the subdivision.
Motion
Chair Staunton moved to deny the request by JMS to subdivide property
located at 6120 Brookview Avenue. Denial is based on 1) a 100 -foot wide lot
is not unique to this block; there are multiple lots in excess of 50 -feet 2) the
new house built to one side cannot be considered unique, an "orphan" lot was
created; however, this was self - inflicted and 3) although building one single
family house is reasonable subdividing this lot isn't because it doesn't
maintain the character of this block. Denial is also based on staff findings.
Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion.
Commissioner Fischer stated for him this was a tough decision, adding he struggled
with it being self- created. He acknowledged at first glance this was a 50 -lot
neighborhood but the comments from Commissioners Staunton and Schroeder
persuaded him otherwise.
Chair Grabiel said he can't support the motion, adding he doesn't agree with the
logic that this subdivision request is different from ones previously granted.
Ayes; Forrest, Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Platteter, Carpenter, Staunton,
Fischer. Nay; Grabiel. Motion for denial approved 8 -1.
Page 8 of 14
VIII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Sketch Plan Review for Senior Housing - 5109 -5125 West 49th Street for
Hunt Associates
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a
sketch plan proposal to redevelop three lots at 5109 -5125 49th Street West. The
applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartment buildings and single -
family home and build a new six story, sixty foot tall, 98 -unit senior housing
building.
Teague pointed out the existing properties are zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential
District which allow residential buildings containing six of fewer units. Teague said
should the City decide to rezone these sites to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of
the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the site.
Continuing, Teague said a traffic study would need to be completed to determine
impacts on adjacent roadways. Concern was expressed from residents in regard to
congestion that would be created at the intersection of Brookside Avenue and
Interlachen Boulevard.
Concluding, Teague stated which the proposal would be an improvement over the
existing buildings on the site, staff is not sure that the proposal would rise to the
level of meeting the purpose and intent of a PUD. The proposal far exceeds allowed
densities. Seven variances would also be required under traditional senior housing
zoning.
Appearing for the Applicant
Daniel Hunt, Hunt and Associates, David Motzenbecker, BKV Group
Chair Grabiel explained that before the Commission this evening is a sketch plan
review. Grabiel clarified that a sketch plan wasn't a public hearing. It's an
opportunity for the developer to obtain feedback from the Planning Commission
on their concept.
Discussion f Comments
Chair Grabiel told the Commission he seems to remember the Commission and
Council approving a development concept in this area for townhomes, adding
he doesn't remember the unit count. Planner Teague responded that Chair
Grabiel was correct. The Council approved a 6 -unit townhouse development;
however, the townhouse development only included the R -1 lot and right -of -way.
Page 9of14
Commissioner Forrest observed that ordinance stipulates a building height limit
of 2- stories in the PRD -2 zoning district. Planner Teague agreed adding PRD -2
also contains a density cap of 6- units.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Hunt addressed the Commission and said he believes the proposed use of
the site as senior housing is good. Continuing, Hunt explained in Edina there is
demand for senior housing. Edina residents want to be able to remain in their
community when it comes time for them to sell their home. This proposal gives
them that option. Hunt introduced David Motzenbecker to speak more on the
proposal.
Mr. Motzenbecker told the Commission that in his opinion this is a key piece and
an excellent location for a senior building. Continuing, Motzenbecker said
that the project will entail tearing down the existing two apartments and single -
family home to construct a new 98 -unit, 6 story structure and rezoning the site to
PUD incorporating the requirements of the City's PSR -4 zoning. The parcel is
located adjacent to the Vernon Avenue exit ramp and West 49th Street.
Motzenbecker said in his opinion the proposed building would bookend with
Grandview. With graphics Motzenbecker pointed out design elements and the
goal of incorporating this site into the greater Grandview area. Motzenbecker
also noted the goal of the ETC was to establish a comprehensive living streets
policy that integrated all modes of transportation. Motzenbecker said he believes
this project is a step in the right direction in implementing that goal. Concluding,
Motzenbecker said they looked to the Grandview small area development plan
and incorporated its key principles into their site. One principle was key; turning
perceivable barriers into opportunities. In this respect the natural topography
actually became an asset.
Discussion /Comments
Chair Grabiel said in his opinion this may be a very difficult area to "get out of
including getting onto Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. Motzenbecker acknowledged
that and informed the Commission a traffic study needs to be completed to
ensure traffic is handled appropriately. Continuing, Motzenbecker said they also
anticipate improving the sidewalks and boulevard along Vernon. Chair Grabiel
noted their reference to senior housing and asked exactly what type of senior
housing this would be. Motzenbecker said that the population served would be
able bodied seniors 62 +. Chair Grabiel asked if the units would be market rate or
something else. Motzenbecker responded that the units would be market rate
and be around $2,000 per month depending on unit size.
Commissioner Staunton said he has a concern with the request as it relates to
zoning /PUD /PSR -4. Staunton said to him it appears to be an excuse to get around
Page 10 of 14
code. Mr. Motzenbecker said their intent was to create the best development
possible and tie into the Grandview small area plan by bringing connection to the
Grandview area. Vernon Avenue would also be enhanced through landscaping and
walkways along with boulevard enhancement. Aligning the project with the PSR -4
zoning district provides the opportunity for the project to implement bonuses.
Commissioner Fischer said he has a difficult time justifying a building of this size
and density in a small residential neighborhood. Mr. Motzenbecker said their
intent was to set the building as far back from the street (49th Street) as possible and
add amenities to the front of the building. Motzenbecker said the building would be
200' from the nearest residents across 49th. Concluding, Motzenbecker said they
took advantage of the topography when designing the building pointing out that
the topography absorbs the building height.
Commissioner Carpenter said in his opinion the building is too large.
Carpenter asked the developers how parking was handled; not only parking for
residents of the building but for guests. Mr. Motzenbecker said the building was
designed with 132 enclosed parking spaces those spaces include spaces for
visitor parking. Carpenter questioned if that would really work.
Commissioner Staunton stated in his opinion this plan is very aggressive and causes
him concern. Staunton said he likes the attention paid to Vernon Avenue; however
the unit count is way too high; more attention needs to be paid to the north side
and traffic is a major concern. Staunton noted the one -way in and out scenario is
difficult at best.
Commissioner Platteter agreed and questioned site circulation, traffic circulation on
West 49th St, site drop -off, metro mobility, deliveries and visitor parking. Platteter
said that he doesn't think the drop -off area as sketched would work. There's just too
much going on with this building.
Commissioner Forrest added she was also concerned with the circulation on the
site and on 49th St. This proposal will certainly add additional traffic into the area
pointing out it's a one way in and out. Continuing, Forrest also said in her
opinion the building is too tall, the site is too tight (especially on the east), and it's
just too much. Concluding, Forrest said the Commission also has to keep in mind
housing trends change over time, adding it may be a senior building today
but maybe not in the future.
Commissioner Schroeder said the site intrigues him with the question of how you
transition from Vernon into the residential neighborhood while maintaining the
residential character. Schroeder said in his opinion this isn't a very friendly
project. He added the building needs to relate better to the R -1 neighborhood.
Concluding, Schroeder said the building at least at the residential level on 49th St.
needs to be scaled back.
Page 11 of 14
Commissioner Staunton agreed with Schroeder's comments pointing out the
proposal increases the density 10 -fold. It's just too much. Concluding, Staunton
said that he's also not sure if this is consistent with the GrandView Framework.
The building is way out of scale.
Mr. Motzenbecker asked the Commission if they could provide some guidance
on the number of units they would be comfortable with.
Commissioner Staunton said traffic is another large issue. He said the one way
in and out nature of this neighborhood along with the RR tracks is key in
redeveloping this site and achieving the correct unit count. Staunton concluded that
he doesn't know the "right" unit number.
Commissioner Potts suggested that the applicant take another look and respond
more to the topography and to the residential neighborhood. Potts asked if their
intent was to build the building and sell it or would they continue to manage the
property. Mr. Hunt responded they would build and manage the property.
Commissioner Fischer asked the applicants if they spoke with their neighbors.
Mr. Motzenbecker responded they had, adding around 15 -20 neighbors came to
a neighborhood meeting. Motzenbecker said they received both positive and
negative feedback.
Commissioner Forrest indicated the proposed use is fine with her, reiterating her
concern is massing and traffic. Forrest said in her opinion this project isn't the right
"transition" into the neighborhood. Concluding, Commissioner Forrest said that in
her opinion 20 units at 2 Y2 stories may be the right transition. As presented it's just
too large.
Chair Grabiel said he agrees with all comments thus far adding his concern is
that the building is just too large and the transition into the R -1 neighborhood just
isn't there. Grabiel said he doesn't want to give false encouragement, adding he
believes the use is right; however this is just way to large.
Mr. Motzenbecker said he understands the Commissions comments indicating they
want to see a smaller building. He asked the Commission if they could provide him
with a unit range.
Commissioner Schroeder commented that he understands the applicant is
looking for a number; however, that can't be provided. Schroeder said he
wants to see a creative solution that is sensitive to the neighborhood.
Concluding Schroeder said there are other options out there.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested considering other areas, adding this may not
be the right site.
Page 12 of 14
Chair Grabiel thanked the applicants for their presentation adding the
Commission would be receptive to them bringing forward another sketch plan for
review.
Public Comment
David Valentine, 5021 Hankerson, told the Commission he doesn't think a
building of this size belongs in a residential neighborhood. Valentine said he has no
objection that it's a senior building; however, the building is just too large with
too many units.
B. Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Southeast Edina
Redevelopment Project Area and the TIF Plan for the Establishment of the
Southdale 2 TIF District.
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission the City Council is considering the
establishment of a new TIF District that would include Southdale and surrounding
parcels.
Teague explained the purpose of creating the new TIF was to facilitate
improvements to Southdale including the following renovations to common areas;
new entrances, flooring, lighting, signage, restrooms, parking deck lighting,
exterior seating, columns and interior treatments. Teague said at this time there
are no proposed changes in use of the property with the proposed improvement
project.
Teague told the Commission that at this time they are being asked to determine
by resolution that the proposed improvement to the common areas are consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioners asked Planner Teague to clarify their action.
Planner Teague explained the Commission is being asked to determine by resolution
that the proposed use of TIF funds to improve common areas was consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion
Commissioner Fischer moved to adopt the resolution as outlined by City
staff on page Al. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted
aye; motion carried 9 -0.
Page 13 of 14
IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Grabiel acknowledged receipt of Council Connection and attendance.
Commissioner Fischer asked staff if they could add to the attendance sheets the
compliance percentage. Planner Teague responded that staff would be happy to add
that.
X. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
Commissioner Staunton told the Commission the GrandView District Development
Framework is moving along and would return to the Planning Commission on April
11th for their approval. The City Council will hear the presentation at their April 17th
meeting.
XI. STAFF COMMENTS
Planner Teague reported that the City Council approved the City's first PUD for 6996
France Avenue.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Potts moved meeting adjournment at 10:05 PM. Commissioner
Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Respectfully submitted
Page 14 of 14