Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-25 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 25, 2014 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call: Scherer, Schroeder, Lee, Kilberg, Olsen, Carr, Platteter, Forrest, Staunton Members absent from roll: Halva III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Schroeder moved approval of the June 25, 2014 meeting agenda. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Staunton informed the Commission Agenda items IV. A. 6500 France Avenue and C. 3932/34 West 49th Street have been continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 2014. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission June 11, 2014 Commissioner Lee moved approval of the June 11, 2014, meeting minutes. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT Jim and Lori Grotz, 5913 Park Place, addressed the Commission. VI. PUBLIC HEARING B. Preliminary Rezoning and Variances. Mathias Mortenson. 3923 West 491h Street, Edina, MN Staff Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission Mathias Mortenson is proposing to tear down a single - family home and construct a new double dwelling unit at 3923 49th Street. The property is located adjacent to the 50th and France retail area; just north of the former Edina Realty building site, now owned by the Page 1 of 13 City of Edina, and east of a four story apartment building. To accommodate the request the applicant is requesting the following: ➢ A Preliminary Rezoning from R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to R -2, Double Dwelling Unit District; ➢ Lot Area Variance from 15,000 s.f. to 8,816 s.f.; ➢ Lot Width Variance from 90 feet to 65 feet; ➢ Building Coverage from 25% to 32 %; and ➢ Side yard setback Variance from 15 feet to 5 feet 10 inches on the east side. Teague pointed out the applicant went through a Sketch Plan review with the Planning Commission and City Council and in an effort to address some of the concerns raised; the applicant has eliminated one of the drive entrances to the site, and the handicap accessible walkway to sidewalk to the front of the house. This reduced the impervious surface on the lot. The applicant has also slightly reduced the footprint of the structure, eliminated the front yard and side yard setback variances, and the retaining wall setback variance. The mass and scale of the structure architecture of the structure remain generally the same. Teague explained that the applicant narrative indicates a building coverage variance from 25% to 28 %; however, the patios were not taken into account. City Code requires patios to be included in the building coverage calculation, with a 200 square foot credit. The patios total 648 square feet, therefore, 448 square feet must be added to the building coverage. The building coverage with the 448 square feet added is 32 %. The applicant is proposing to use pervious pavers as part of the patio. While the pervious pavers would assist in site runoff, the city does not have an Ordinance provision to reduce impervious surface requirement with the use of pervious pavers. Variances would still be required for lot coverage even if full credit were given to the pervious pavers. Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council deny the proposed Rezoning and Variances at 3923 49`h Street. Denial is based on the following findings: 1. The variance criteria are not met. 2. There are no practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. The property owner does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner prohibited by the zoning ordinance. It is not reasonable to deviate from the ordinance requirements when there is nothing unique about the property that justifies the variances. The need for variances is caused by the applicants desire to build such a large two - family dwelling on the site. 3. Reasonable use of the property exists with the two -story single family currently located on the property. 4. The size of the proposed structure creates the need for the lot coverage variance, and the side yard setback variance. 5. The City has traditionally not granted variances for building lot coverage when tearing down a home (single - family home or duplex) and building a new one. 6. Proposed building coverage would be nearly triple the building coverage that exists today with the single family home. Page 2 of 13 Appearing for the Applicant Mathias Mortenson Discussion Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to clarify the process. Planner Teague responded that the rezoning request is a two -step process; variance is one, unless appealed. Applicant Presentation Mr. Mortenson addressed the Commission and explained since the meetings before both the Commission and Council he revised the plans to the greatest extent possible. Mortenson explained the subject site is unique; pointing out it is located next to a 4 -story apartment complex with parking lot, abuts commercial properties to the south and the block the subject site is located on contains mostly R -2 zoned properties (15); not R -1(4) as the subject site is currently zoned. Continuing, Mortenson also noted the subject site is narrow, and is "cradled by a Height Overlay District ", reiterating the subject lot is one of the few in the City with such unusual conditions. Mr. Mortenson further reported that he has two goals which in his opinion align well with the City's housing goals as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Goal #I is accessibility and Goal #2 is sustainability. Mortenson expanded on those goals. In conclusion Mortensen thanked the Commission for their time reiterating in his opinion this project is a plus for the City. Discussion Commissioner Carr indicated that she has concerns about safety as it relates to the retaining wall. She stated that wall is very high and would be dangerous; especially for children if not adequately secured. Mr. Mortenson responded that his intent would be to screen the wall with a strip of landscaping. Carr stated she believes a fence is also warranted. Mortenson responded he would be receptive to installing a fence as well as landscaping. Commissioner Scherer stated she agrees with Commissioner Carr's comments on the retaining wall and suggested adding a wrought iron fence for safety, adding she believes it would blend well with the landscaping elements. Continuing, Scherer said she wasn't concerned with the lot coverage issue. She stated in her opinion this is a transitional neighborhood and the use of the lot provides buffer to the R- I zoned properties. Scherer asked for clarification on the lower level of the proposed double. Mr. Mortenson explained that the lower level space accommodates the needs of an aging population. He explained that the potential owner is not only interested in living in one of the units because the design lends itself well to "one level" living with multiple levels; it also meets a need not easily found in Edina. Continuing, Mortenson said all necessities (kitchen, bath, laundry, etc.) would be provided on the ground level and an elevator would connect the below grade parking to the upper two floors. All features on the "main" level would meet ADA requirements with the basement level serving as quarters for in -home care. Commissioners expressed some concern over the internal makeup of the units because there is the potential for "multiple dwellings" because of the interior configuration. Mortenson said his intent and Page 3 of 13 the intent of the owner is to rezone the property to R -2, double dwelling unit district. The intent is not to exceed that; it's not a request for a PRD. Mortenson further stressed the intent is two dwelling units period. Mortenson said the configuration relates well to one level living with the property owner able to have guests and a live -in care giver. Concluding, Mortenson said a neighbor in the area has expressed interest in one of the units. Public Hearing Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Mary Quinlivan, 3922 West 49th Street addressed the Commission and explained that she really likes the aesthetics of the building; especially the front. Quinlivan said in her opinion the two recently constructed doubles are way out of scale for the neighborhood. She acknowledged they are beautiful buildings; however, they are too large with overly exposed garage doors. Concluding, Quinlivan reiterated her support. She likes the look of the building and is impressed with the property owners' sustainability goals. Chair Staunton acknowledged a -mails received on the project. Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the subject; being none, Commissioner Scherer moved to closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schroeder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close public hearing carried. Discussion Commissioner Platteter stated he wasn't opposed to rezoning this site from R- I to R -2, adding to him it makes sense. Platteter said what he struggles with is the lot coverage. Platteter said he just thinks the building as proposed is too large. Commissioner Olsen agreed with the comment from Commissioner Platteter on lot coverage. She further added that she believes the project is honorable, the sustainability element of the project is good; however, she believes the building itself is too large. Commissioner Carr commented she isn't troubled by the lot coverage adding this lot is difficult to work with and she supports the rezoning; it makes sense. Commissioner Scherer reiterated she too is less concerned with lot coverage and is swayed by the unique location of this lot (parking lots on two sides of the lot). Continuing, Scherer said she likes the "look" of the home(s) from the front street; it blends well, especially without the introduction of large garage doors. Commissioner Lee stated she agrees the applicant has great design and sustainability ideas; however, is concerned with the mass of the proposed structure on a lot this size. Lee said she is concerned with drainage; suggesting that the applicant retain a civil engineer to review the drainage. She also said in her opinion the roof pitch is too high, adding there may be other solutions to pursue. Continuing, Lee said she appreciates the unique use of the home(s) and that it responds to "life cycle living" as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Concluding, Lee stated she continues to believe if constructed as proposed there is too much "building" on this R- I lot. Page 4 of 13 In response to Commission comments Mr. Mortenson said he would retain both a civil engineer and landscaping architect if the rezoning was approved. He said he worked very hard to keep the lot coverage at a minimum. With respect to building height a certain height is needed to provide the optimum angle for the solar panels. Commissioner Forrest said she has a concern that the height of the building to the east and the potential for height to the south of the subject site may compromise the solar panels. Forrest also stated in her opinion that the size of the proposed building is too much for this R- I lot. Concluding, Forrest stated rezoning the lot to R -2 isn't a problem; the size of the structure is. Chair Staunton asked Mortenson to clarify his reasoning for a two -story structure with basement. Mr. Mortenson explained the proposed layout of the doubles is to provide one level living space with flexibility; achieving life cycle housing. The "main" level provides complete one level living and the flexibility to have guests visit and /or stay and to provide an area for a live -in care provider. Mortenson also reported that square footage is important in providing this flexibility. Commissioner Carr stated this request in any other location would give her pause; however, this lot is unique, reiterating rezoning the lot to R -2 makes sense. Commissioner Scherer agreed with Carr, adding square footage is important in providing the right balance in living space, adding potential owners do desire space. Commissioner Schroeder questioned why 25% is the magic number. He pointed out no one can really perceive the difference between 25 % -27 %. Schroeder said what concerns him is the potential for water runoff issues; however, if a civil engineer "signs off' on the project as presented he would have no issue with lot coverage. Commissioner Lee reiterated it's the size of the structure on the lot that's an issue for her. Her concern regards drainage and changing an R- I Lot to an R -2 Lot would impact drainage patterns. Commissioner Staunton reiterated in his opinion the R -2 rezoning is appropriate. He said it appears Mr. Mortenson has responded to the Commission and Council suggestions, adding if drainage issues are satisfied by a Civil Engineer he could support the request as submitted. Motion Commissioner Carr moved variance approval subject to submittal of a fence and landscaping plan that provides safety and minimizes the impact of the retaining wall. Approval is also subject to a civil engineer reviewing and approving a storm water and erosion control management plan and subject to permitting from the Watershed District. Carr further suggested that Mr. Mortenson ensure (in writing) that the lower level space of each unit is considered part of the structure and not an approved separate unit. Carr further moved that variance approval is contingent on final rezoning. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion: Planner Teague clarified that this request is a two -step process that would be heard again by both the Commission and Council for final approvals. Page 5 of 13 Ayes Scherer, Schroeder, Carr and Staunton. Nay, Lee, Olson, Platteter and Forrest. Motion failed 4 -4. Commissioner Carr moved to recommend preliminary rezoning approval contingent on approval of the variances. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Ayes; Scherer, Schroeder, Olson, Carr, Platteter, Forrest, Staunton. Nay, Lee. Motion to rezone approved 7 -1. A discussion ensued on what would happen if the site was approval and the double wasn't built; would the single family home be nonconforming. Planner Teague explained it would be nonconforming; however, if rebuilt as a single family home it would have to be built exactly as is today. VII. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan — 7200 France Avenue Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission a request to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop the 3.51 acre parcel at 7200 France Avenue has been made. Teague said the applicant is requesting consideration of a proposal to tear down the existing office building on the site, and redevelop it with a six and four -story mixed use development project that would include the following: ➢ 170 unit apartment (6 stories) (20% affordable) ➢ 25 units of row housing. (4 stories) ➢ 45,500 square feet of retail space including two restaurants. ➢ A two -level underground parking ramp. Teague noted the retail space would be located on the France side of the project. Access to the residential portion of the development would be from 72 "d Street. Access to the retail portion would be off of France Avenue. The existing vegetation and trees on the west side of the site would remain to provide screening from the residential area to the west. To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would be required: ➢ Building Height — from 4 stories to 6 stories. ➢ Housing Density — from 30 units per acre to 50. ➢ Floor Area Ratio — from .5 to 1.88. A rezoning of all the property would then be required to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Page 6 of 13 Appearing for the Applicant Dean Dovolis DJR Architects and Laurie Boisclair, Boisclair Corporation. Discussion Commissioner Lee asked what the zoning of the subject site is and if the existing building was non - conforming. Planner Teague responded the subject site is zoned POD, Planned Office District and the building is non - conforming. Teague said the redevelopment is proposed to incorporate elements of the mixed use zoning district. Applicant Presentation Mr. Dovolis addressed the Commission and explained in his opinion the geometry of the site works well with the proposed redevelopment. Dovolis explained the goal is to create a gracious entry off of France Avenue that would be an improvement for the City and will enhance the character of the neighborhood. Dovolis pointed out the mixed use aspects of the proposed redevelopment would provide the following: • The proposed building will replace an existing building with paved surface parking lot. • 26,500 square feet of retail /office space. • 195 residential housing units to include an affordable housing element (20 %). • 570 parking spaces. • Majority of the parking spaces would be located within the building (underground) creating a better visual environment. • Maintain and enhance green space area to the west. • Development of roof deck(s), green space and rain gardens. • Commercial traffic off France Avenue. • Residential traffic off West 72nd Stree.t • Improvement of storm water rates. • Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Dovolis concluded in his opinion the proposed redevelopment would be a nice evolution along France Avenue providing both housing and retail. Dovolis introduced Laurie Boisclair to further speak to the affordable housing element of the project. Ms. Boisclair explained that there is an 80%/20% split of market rate to affordable housing. Boisclair said a survey found that the pay rate of those qualifying for "affordable" housing make between $18.00- $25.00 per hour. Discussion With respect to the affordable housing element Commissioner Scherer asked when the units "turn- over" will the affordability component also carry over. Ms. Boisclair responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Forrest asked if a square footage per unit was established. Ms. Boisclair responded that she believes a one bedroom unit would be roughly 800 square feet. Unit size would increase thereafter. Page 7 of 13 Chair Staunton asked if the proposed townhomes are vertical. Mr. Dovolis responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Kilberg commented that he appreciates the step down element of the building and that special attention was paid to retaining the landscaped buffer on the west. Kilberg said in his opinion the proposal as presented does a good job of balancing density and height. Kilberg acknowledged that the area was designated in the Comprehensive Plan as four stories; however, at first look the proposal appears promising to him. Concluding, Kilberg encouraged the development team to pay special attention to finding traffic solutions pointing out this area is heavily travelled. Commissioner Lee said she finds the proposal interesting and exciting; however does have concerns with traffic. She added it has been her experience that the speed of traffic along this stretch of France Avenue is high and suggested the addition of turn lanes and broadening the zone along France Avenue. Mr. Dovolis agreed traffic needs to be carefully considered adding the project introduces a "slip lane" that is needed to guide and calm traffic into the site. Continuing, Lee questioned why six stories are needed. Dovolis said height is needed to afford the underground parking. He said the proposed density allows amenities and improves the aesthetics of the site by locating the majority of parking underground. Dovolis acknowledged there is a balance of density to use. Commissioner Platteter said he also finds this an interesting project. He further suggested when formal application is made that the applicant provide materials indicating building heights in the surrounding area. Platteter added he is also concerned with the slip lane and ramp access /valet parking. Continuing, Platteter said he appreciates the podium height; however there may be too much height on France Avenue. Platteter stated he's not opposed to six stories; however much depends on where those six stores are located. Commissioner Carr said she too is interested in the proposal; however, finds the building mass along France Avenue too much. Carr suggested more articulation in building wall through colors or angles. Continuing, Carr asked where guest parking was located. Mr. Dovolis responded that guest parking would be in the underground garage, adding there are also a few "short term" parking spaces at grade. Commissioner Carr asked if bike racks are provided. Dovolis responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Olsen acknowledged the mix of uses; however, said she was struggling with the density, building mass and traffic. Olsen said in her opinion much hinges on the traffic study and what it reveals. She also said the development team needs to work carefully with a traffic engineer and with the County. Concluding, Olsen suggested a more straight connectivity and the addition of a traffic signal. Mr. Dovolis responded they are working with a traffic engineer and are looking at introducing a curb less design will bollards. Dovolis said they are trying to achieve a different effect with this redevelopment. Continuing, Dovolis said he would continue to focus on traffic and the pedestrian mix with the hopes of "enhancing this area ". Dovolis said he was also considering tying the project with the open space to the north by developing a playground /public area that would benefit not only the residents of the building but the City. Commissioner Forrest acknowledged sustainability aspects of the project; however asked the applicant to provide a more detailed and measurable plan prior to formal application. Page 8 of 13 Commissioner Schroeder said at this time he doesn't have an issue with the mix of uses or density; however, does have a concern that future residents of the building will cut through the neighborhood to go north /west. Schroeder pointed out a residential neighborhood and school are located to the north and west of the subject site and special attention needs to be paid to the potential for cut through traffic. Continuing, Schroeder said he also has a concern with traffic maneuvering and traffic movements from both France and West 72nd Street. Schroeder acknowledged while the project has much to like about it he believes traffic will be the major drawback. Schroeder said he was supportive of connecting the open space to the north with the project as a playground /public space; however, believes that area may be "open space" to filter storm water for the neighborhood. Concluding, Schroder said the architecture is good, but the access points are difficult. Chair Staunton stated he echo's comments from other Commissioners, adding he likes the mixed use aspect of the project but believes there are some challenges with circulation; acknowledging that the mixed use concept does spread out the traffic. Continuing, Staunton said he was not alarmed by the height; however, there was a reason the Comprehensive Plan deliberately guided this area for no more than four stories. Staunton acknowledged at the time the Comprehensive Plan was revised the City was operating on the premise that four stories west of France Avenue was best. Staunton said in this instance the Commission and Council need to figure out if this is still the case and what this area of Edina can handle. Concluding, Staunton said he's not opposed to the redevelopment plan; it has promise; however, the City needs to be sure this type of density can be handled in this area. Chair Staunton thanked Mr. Dovolis and Ms. Boisclair for their presentation, adding he looks forward to the formal application. B. Sketch Plan — 4121 West 50th Street Planner Presentation Planner Teague said the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a sketch plan request to allow a change in use of the existing two -story apartment building at 4121 West 50th Street. The proposal is to continue the multi - family use on the first floor and lower level, and remodel the second floor into office space. A PUD rezoning is therefore proposed to allow for the mixed use within the building. The existing building contains nine residential units. Most units have 2 bedrooms, with 1.5 bathrooms and are roughly 1,000 square feet in size. The building recently was significantly remodeled. There are no plans to expand or modify the exterior of the building. The proposal would simply be for a remodel of the 2nd floor interior and change of use. The proposed plan would maintain the two residential units in the basement or lower level; maintain the four units on the first floor; and remodel the three units on the third floor into office space The property is currently zoned Planned Residential District 4, PRD -4 and is guided, MXC, Mixed Use Center. The MXC allows multifamily residential and office space. Therefore, the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The following would therefore be required to accommodate the request: ➢ Rezoning from PRD -4, Planned Residential District -4 to PUD, Planned unit development Page 9 of 13 to write a specific zoning ordinance for the site to allow the proposed uses Planner Teague concluded that this property is located within an area of the City that is designated as a "Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that within the Potential Areas of Change, "A development proposal that involves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a rezoning will require a Small Area Plan study prior to planning application. Appearing for the Applicant Matt Duffy Discussion Commissioner Olsen asked Planner Teague if the "uses" are already present on the site. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative. He said the request would formalize the current use of the building. Commissioner Carr questioned if soundproofing would occur to mitigate noise from the office use. Planner Teague responded he is not certain how that would be handled; pointing out the use already exists. Applicant Presentation Mr. Duffy explained that Dromoland, LLC currently owns the land and building, adding the current zoning of the site is PRD -4, Planned Residence District -4. Duffy further explained the history of the site and that the owner would like to continue to use the second floor as his office space. He added all units are insulated for noise and the use of the 2nd floor as office space would only occur during the daytime hours. Duffy said there would be no retail customer traffic, reiterating the office use would operate during regular office hours, excluding typical bank and exchange holidays. Concluding, Duffy said in 2009 the building was remodeled to accommodate eight residential units with a lower level unit remodeled to accommodate handicap accessibility. Concluding, Duffy noted the property owner resides in the neighborhood and would enjoy having his family and friends stop by for a visit while he is at work in the building. Discussion Commissioner Scherer questioned the number of units. Mr. Duffy responded he believes there will be six units. Chair Staunton said he has a concern that the requested change in use introduces an element in the area that's not typical, adding parking could also present an issue. Staunton acknowledged that the requested change in use makes him a little nervous; pointing out it could be considered Page 10 of 13 "commercial creep ". Staunton suggested engaging the neighborhood to discuss the proposed use. Commissioner Schroeder pointed out that this location isn't commercial and the proposed change in use in his opinion isn't compatible with the nature of Indianola. Commissioner Forrest questioned the applicant on the timing of this request pointing out the renovations occurred a number of years ago. Mr. Duffy responded that the scale of the property owners business is changing and he would like to formally accommodate this change. Commissioner Forrest acknowledged she resides in the neighborhood and did inquire about the use of the residential building as office. Continuing, Forrest pointed out the permitted use of this site is only residential- permitting apartment units; not office, and asked Mr. Duffy how many residents now reside in the building. Mr. Duffy responded he is unaware of the current tenant count; but did acknowledge the nature of the residential tenants is mostly transient. Concluding, Forrest said she is concerned that presently there is a violation of use occurring on this site, adding her main concerns are that at present the building appears deserted and rezoning the site to PUD would be an extension of commercial creep. Forrest stated she would keep an open mind if the rezoning moves forward; however, reiterated she doesn't like the introduction of commercial into this area. Chair Staunton explained to the applicant in a request to rezone a site to PUD there needs to be a community benefit. Staunton said when a formal application is made the applicant needs to address what the benefit to the community would be if this property was rezoned from residential to PUD. Staunton thanked the team for their presentation. C. Lighting Ordinance Staff Comments Planner Teague submitted a draft copy of an ordinance amendment regarding lighting and asked the Commission for their comments. Teague further asked the Commission to note the attached candle requirements from other cities. Discussion /Comments A discussion ensued with Commissioners acknowledging that the City of Edina appears to allow much brighter lighting in comparison with other cities. All agreed that it was time to craft an ordinance that aligns more closely with standards found in neighboring cities. Concluding, the Commission stated more work needs to be done on the proposed ordinance that would include definitions, light pollution standards and a more comprehensive look at all lighting issues. The discussion continued with Commissioners acknowledging that while the proposed ordinance may not be as comprehensive as the City needs the current language is an excellent start providing the City with standards while a more comprehensive discussion ensues on lighting. It was further discussed that during this period that the presented Ordinance should Page 11 of 13 be adopted; and a public hearing set. Adoption would make the Ordinance more in line with other cities and provide the Commission more time to study the issue. Chair Staunton suggested setting a public hearing to adopt the proposed Code. D. Conflict of Interest/Bylaws Chair Staunton said the City of Edina has excellent volunteers with a wide range of talents and expertise, adding this can be perceived as a conflict of interest when considering quasi - judicial and legislative application requests (Commissioner works for a company that's an applicant or representing as applicant, etc.). Staunton said it is important with new Commission Members that the Commission is clear on what is and what is not a conflict of interest. Continuing, Staunton said he spoke with both Planner Teague and the City Attorney Roger Knutson and requested that language be drafted to more clearly define the role of the Commission when /if there is a conflict of interest. Staunton said he would like further discussion on this at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Scherer agreed there needs to be some clarification or guideline adding that she would like to also see addressed "what recusing oneself looks like ". Scherer said she has seen this handled in different ways; either - indicating a conflict but remain at the dais and engage in the discussion but not the vote, indicating a conflict remain at the dais; however, do not participate in either the discussion or vote, indicate a conflict and sit in the audience or indicate a conflict and completely leave the chambers. Scherer said it would be helpful if more guidance was given on this issue so a mixed message wasn't sent to the public. Chair Staunton stated he agrees; he said there are also times when a Commissioner has disclosed they know someone personally or professionally but feel they can be objective. Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to work with Roger Knutson, City Attorney and bring something back to the Commission on this topic for further discussion. VI11. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioners Carr and Platteter apprised the Commission on the progress of the Living Streets work group. It was mentioned that at this time the working group views the materials as a guide and not part of the City Code. Carr further suggested that Mark Nolan of the Engineering Department speak to the Commission on Living Streets. Page 12 of 13 Commissioner Forrest updated the Commission on the Valley View/Wooddale small area plan. Forrest indicated that public engagement would begin sometime in the fall of 2014. Commissioner Lee also noted the work team is in the process of naming residential and business members to the team and putting together the process and application for consultants when the time comes. Chair Staunton thanked Commissioners Forrest and Lee for their continuing work on the Valley View /Wooddale Small Area Plan process. He further informed the Commission as a member of the continuing Grandview process that at this time the work team is developing a "Request for Interest ". X. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague reported that the Metropolitan Council has "signed off' approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Lennar. X1. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Scherer moved meeting adjournment at 11:00 pm. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. I spectfully submitte Page 13 of 13