HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-13 Planning Commission Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MARCH 13, 2013
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Kilberg, Cherkassy, Carr, Carpenter, Forrest, Grabiel and Staunton
Absent from the Roll: Platteter
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Carpenter moved approval of the agenda. Commissioner Scherer seconded
the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Forest moved approval of the February 27, 2013 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
COMMUNITY COMMENT
During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns
that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future
consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of
speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this
morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or
Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to
staff for consideration at a future meeting.
No public comment.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat. Anderson-KM
Builders, 7171 France Avenue South, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague reminded the Commission they continued this item at their last meeting. Teague
reported that he and Chair Staunton met to clarify for the applicant the major concerns expressed by
Page 1 of 13
the Commission at that meeting. Those concerns were shared with both the applicant and
Commissioners via e-mail. Suggestions from the Commission were to widen and expand the
connections to the promenade, enhance the pedestrian crossings within the site, add windows to west
and north elevation, address screening for the loading dock and work on enhancing the water feature.
Sustainability was also an issue with the Commission expressing that they were looking for ways to
ensure that sustainable standards implemented are measureable.
Appearing for the Applicant:
Jim Vos, Cresa, Greg Anderson, Anderson Builders, Maureen Michaliski, Schaefer Richardson
Applicant Presentations
Mr. Vos addressed the Commission and reported the development would incorporate sustainable
standards that would be measurable. Vos said Lund Holdings is committed to construct buildings that
use materials that reduce energy consumption. These include low flow toilets, lighting, mechanicals,
motion sensors and other measures. Vos said their goal is to achieve a measurable standard 5% better
than existing energy codes.
With graphics Vos pointed out the changes to the pedestrian flow to and from the promenade and
internally (covered walkways, heated sidewalks). Vos noted the connection to the promenade has been
widened and ties in directly to the Byerly's store. The internal crossings are stamped concrete clearly
defining the crossings. Vos further added the water feature has been enhanced and includes an area
for seating. Concluding, Vos said they also envision creating a "meeting area" with an art element. This
area would be used by the apartment residents, Byerly's patrons and those walking along the
promenade.
Discussion
Commissioner Grabiel noted the mention of LEED standards; and questioned who actually signs off on
them. Grabiel stated he understands they intend to follow LEED standards; however, someone must
review the measures and sign off on them. Vos responded there is a judiciary review body that signs off.
Commissioner Potts acknowledged sustainability can be challenging to address, adding he wants to
know how much "better the buildings will be" than just meeting the standard building codes. Potts
noted the applicant indicated their goal is to be 5 percent better than state code; adding that's a start,
but more could be accomplished. Continuing, Potts asked if both the retail and housing component are
working with EDA. Vos responded in the affirmative. With regard to storm water Potts questioned if
the applicant heard anything from the Watershed District. Vos responded they are working with the
District; however, the details haven't been hammered out. Vos said there is the assumption that water
runoff would be handled through underground storage, adding water quality should rise.
A discussion ensued on parking acknowledging that some Commissioners felt that parking could be
reduced allowing for more green space. Mr. Vos said it was very important to the property owner that
Page 2 of 13
the store has adequate parking. Vos said measures could be implemented internally such as adding
more cashiers and carry-outs that would move patrons through the store more efficiently. This would
also free up parking at a faster rate of turnover. Vos concluded that it has been difficult addressing
sustainability without formal criteria from the City.
Chair Staunton acknowledged the lack of City standards on sustainability and pointed out one of the
obstacles the City faces is the building code. All building code standards must be met. Staunton said the
Commission felt that adopting the PUD ordinance would be a way for the City to negotiate above those
standards.
Commissioner Grabiel stated one issue of concern raised at the last meeting was the driveway
encroachment between the Byerly's site and the Wolfson site to the east at 3655 Hazelton Road.
Grabiel asked if that issue was resolved. Vos responded in the affirmative, adding the Byerly's driveway
no longer encroaches. Chair Grabiel commented that at the last meeting the applicant indicated the
difficulty in redeveloping the site while the present store was open. Grabiel asked if that's still the case.
Vos responded in the affirmative. He stated that was mandated from the start.
Commissioner Forrest said in reviewing the site plan that she believes bike racks should be located
closer to the patio area. Vos agreed, adding that can be reviewed. Forrest also encouraged more
landscaping especially along the east elevation, adding that wall still appears a bit tall and blank.
Chair Staunton said he was curious if the applicant views the PUD process as a benefit to them. Vos
responded that the PUD process is a benefit and provides the development team with the chance to do
something different from what could be done through straight rezoning. Mr. Vos said the added density
and setback variances allow this area to be created as part of the community at large. It can address the
promenade and invite "people in" and become a destination.
Commissioner Schroeder said he appreciates the sustainability goal of 5% above code; however, he
believes that doesn't go far enough. Continuing, Schroeder said he also appreciates the statement that
water would be handled through underground storage systems; however, storing the water that way
probably is the result of the site itself. Concluding, Schroeder said he doesn't see any extra effort made
to go above and beyond what would normally be done.
Commissioner Carr stated that overall she believes the project was well done, adding she has a few
questions. One is the seating capacity of the patio area(s). Mr. Vos responded that the at grade patio
seats between 20 & 30 visitors and the mezzanine level seats roughly 15. Carr asked if trees are
proposed for the parking lot, adding she thinks that would be a nice touch. Vos responded that can be
reconsidered, however, if trees are added islands need to be created and islands are difficult for
maintenance (plowing, etc.). Carr also asked Vos to explain the exterior building materials for the store
and apartment buildings and their compatibility. Vos indicated the materials that would be used and
concluded that their intent was to coordinate the finishes and color type. He also added Byerly's and
the residential component won't match, however would be completely compatible. Commissioner Carr
Page 3 of 13
concluded that she does have a concern with the north elevation of the building, adding she would like
to see windows placed along that building wall or some other form of architectural feature.
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing.
The following gave testimony:
Robert Rofidal, 7125 Bristol Boulevard, Edina, MN
R. Wolfson, 3655 Hazelton Road, Edina, MN
Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none; Commissioner
Carpenter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye;
public hearing closed.
Discussion
Chair Staunton asked Mr. Houle to speak to traffic. Mr. Houle gave a brief report on the traffic analysis.
Chair Staunton noted the traffic measures referred to; signalization or roundabout, and asked Mr. Houle
his preference. Houle responded because of the disruption a traffic signal creates; not only to the site
but City streets he believes a roundabout is the way to go. Houle reported there is a roundabout design
that can accommodate semi delivery trucks. Houle also noted that signalization at this point doesn't
meet the State and County requirements, adding it is possible those requirements will be met sometime
in the future, but for now the State and County won't sign off on signalization at this location. Houle
concluded pointing out this situation isn't too much different from the Westin and Target issue; adding a
roundabout was placed in that area over signalization.
Commissioner Carpenter said he continues to have problems with this project and would vote against it,
adding in his opinion it's an uninspired development and the lack of pedestrian integration between the
promenade, residential element of the site and the retail component is troubling. With regard to
parking Carpenter said he would rather see more parking than less, adding he doesn't want to see cars
waiting for parking spaces, concluding he would rather error on the side of sufficient parking.
Commissioner Forrest stressed that at final she would like to see the materials board, adding she wants
assurance that the exterior buildings materials are compatible.
Commissioner Grabiel commented that in his opinion he believes City ordinance tends to over park.
Grabiel said what he is having difficulty with this evening is "negotiating" with the applicant over specific
issues. Grabiel said he doesn't feel the City has a good enough tool to negotiate during the PUD process.
He pointed out according to State Statute the City needs to act on a submittal within a specific
timeframe, reiterating in his opinion it's difficult to negotiate at a public forum. He pointed out the last
time the Commission met specific items were listed; the applicant came back with some of those issues
addressed ; and if the Commission continues to have further issues this could go on and on. Grabiel
Page 4 of 13
acknowledged the mention of forming a subcommittee that would negotiate with the developer during
the PUD process, which could work; however, again the City has time limit.
Commissioner Scherer stated she is likely to vote in favor of this project. She said she continues to have
issues; especially the long north facing brick wall, adding to her it looks like a prison with two guard
towers at the end. She said she was also concerned with the height of the retaining wall for the
community element, adding she would like it softened because she doesn't want the appearance of a
tunnel from the promenade. Scherer stated she understands this is a balancing act, adding she will be
very interested in viewing the covered walkway because to her it could look "cheesy". Concluding,
Scherer said this has been a strange process and she appreciates everyone's input.
Commissioner Potts stated that this request is asking for a significant increase in density, adding he was
expecting more "coming out of the gate". Concluding, Potts said he doesn't see a community benefit in
granting the PUD.
Commissioner Forrest stated she agrees with Commissioner Scherer's and Carr's comments on the north
building wall. With regard to the PUD process Forrest acknowledged it's a balancing act that may need
to be revisited further down the line.
Further discussion continued on the PUD process itself and the project's pluses and minuses. Chair
Staunton asked for a motion.
Motion
Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend preliminary rezoning approval to PUD and preliminary
development plan approval based on staff findings found on pages 14 & 15 of the staff report and
subject to staff conditions found on pages 15 & 16 of the staff report. Preliminary plat approval is also
recommended based on staff conditions on page 16 of the staff report; noting the payment of a
Parkland Dedication fee of $1,230,000 is to be paid prior to release of the final plat. Commissioner
Forrest seconded the motion.
Commissioner Carr asked to amend the motion to include the addition of architectural features along
the north building wall. Commissioners Grabiel and Forrest accepted that amendment. Ayes;
Scherer, Carr, Forrest, Grabiel. Nays; Schroeder, Potts, Carpenter and Staunton. Motion failed.
B. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Edina Fifty-
Five LLC. 5125 49th Street West and 5118-5109 49th Street West
Page 5 of 13
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission Hunt Associates is requesting redevelopment of three lots,
5109-5125 West 49th Street. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and
single family home on the site (10 units' total) and build a new 17-unit attached housing development.
The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be
12 units per acre.
The existing property is zoned PRD-2, Planned Residential District-2, which allows residential building
containing six or fewer dwelling units. The existing apartments contain four and five units each. The
applicant is seeking a rezoning of the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The site is guided
LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4-8 units per acre), therefore, a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to MDR, Medium Density Residential would be required to allow a density of 5-12 units per
acre. The applicant narrative indicates why they believe that a PUD rezoning is justified for this proposed
development.
Planner Teague stated that staff recommends that the City Council approve the request for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential to MDR,
Medium Density Residential (5-12 units per acre) for the subject property based on the
following findings:
1. The subject property is a transition area, and serves as a buffer from single-family homes to the
north to Vernon Avenue and the GrandView Commercial area to the south.
2. The proposal would be an improvement over the current two existing apartment buildings and
single-family home (10 units) on the site. Seven townhomes would face 49th Street and eight
townhomes would face Vernon Avenue with the garages and drive aisle internal to the site.
3. The proposed two/three story buildings are generally consistent with existing height in the area.
4. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic
impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing
roads.
5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and
with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on
the car.
b. Locate and orient buildings to fit with their existing and/or planned context by framing and
complementing adjacent streets, parks and open spaces.
Page 6 of 13
c. Locate and orient vehicle parking, vehicular access, service areas and utilities to minimize their
visual impact on the property and on adjacent/surrounding properties, without compromising
the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces.
d. Regulate scale, massing, and height to provide complementary transitions to adjacent sites
and nearby neighborhoods and areas.
e. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that
complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character.
Teague added that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning
from PRD-2, Planned Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and
Preliminary Development Plan to build 17 new townhomes on the subject 1.43 acre parcel
based on the following findings:
1. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site
does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today it is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature
trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two-story
townhomes.
2. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street or Vernon
Avenue.
3. The project would enhance pedestrian connections. The plan provides for a public sidewalk
through the site from 49th to Vernon, that would connect, not only this development, but the
entire area to the north to the GrandView District.
4. Landscaping would be enhanced. Extensive Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of
the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over
double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon Avenue would be
preserved.
Approval is also subject to the following Conditions:
1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development
Plans dated February 13, 2013 and the final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping
requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated March 7, 2013.
3. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned
Unit Development for this site.
Concluding, Teague recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat to create
Page 7 of 13
a new 17-lot townhome plat for the subject property based on the following findings:
1. The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements.
And subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the Final Rezoning of the subject property to Planned Unit Development, PUD.
2. The Final Plat must be considered within one-year after approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the
Preliminary Plat shall be deemed null and void.
3. A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plat.
4. The Park Dedication fee of $35,000 shall be paid prior to release of the mylars approving the
Final Plat.
Appearing for the Applicant
David Motzenbecker, Chris Palkowitsch, BKV Group, Ed Terhaar, Wenck
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Motzenbecker delivered a power point presentation. He further informed the Commission BKV
adjusted the development to better fit the site and meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Motzenbecker further explained the topography of the property played a large role in building design.
Motzenbecker explained that they are putting in a plinth to minimize stairs, adding the plinth moves
along the property line and raises it about two feet. Continuing, along the front the development team
wanted to open the units up to the street. Small patios will be added on the top of the plinth. With
graphics Motzenbecker explained the internal circulation, parking and guest parking. He pointed out
there will be bike and pedestrian access and the site would be open creating a more welcoming space;
this also creates a space that is public; not private.
Motzenbecker introduced Chris Palkowitsch, project architect.
Chris Palkowitsch told Commissioners that each unit would have their own entry and the exterior
building materials have been chosen and will be cast stone, fiber-cement panels, and stained wood to
warm the exterior palate. Palkowitsch said the project would promote energy efficiency and the
conservation of natural resources. Continuing, Palkowitsch said general sustainability principles for the
buildings and the site will be applied as follows:
• It is possible the existing buildings will be relocated.
• If the buildings are demolished many of the materials will be recycled.
• Use of low VOC paints.
• Energy Star appliance.
• High —efficiency HVAC will be standard.
Page 8 of 13
• Stone and cement board with recycled contents will be incorporated
• Skylights will add additional daylight to each unit reducing energy consumption; and
• Storm water infiltration and a variety of native plants.
Motzenbecker also asked the Commission to note that along Vernon Avenue the units are two-story
with a gathering space in the front. Motzenbecker also pointed out that the front doors are "sunken",
providing each unit with privacy from Vernon Avenue and passersby.
Discussion
Commissioner Forrest questioned accessibility and asked if any units are without stairs. Forrest also
stated parking concerns her; especially guest parking or lack thereof. Mr. Palkowitsch responded any
unit could be retro-fitted for an elevator.
Commissioner Carr commented that she observed that some garages have windows and questioned this
reasoning. Mr. Palkowitsch explained that the windows proposed for the garages are frosted; letting
light in while providing a degree of privacy.
Commissioner Forrest asked how building height is measured. Planner Teague explained that building
height is measured from the existing grade.
Chair Staunton stated the roofs of the proposed townhouses are flat and pointed out Edina's
Comprehensive Plan suggests pitched roofs; not flat as proposed. Mr. Motzenbecker explained that the
reason they went with the flat roof was to ensure that the buildings "tie" into the neighborhood. He
noted that the majority of the roofs (single family homes) in the neighborhood are hip; adding the
proposed flat roof "ties" in better while minimizing the impact of building height.
Ed Terhaar addressed the Commission and gave a brief overview of traffic highlighting the following:
• Proposed development is expected to generate 1 net trip during the weekday peak period, 2 net
trips during the weekday pm and 29 weekday daily trips.
• Intersections have adequate capacity; no improvements would be required.
• It should be noted that the entire neighborhood area has only one access point and if a train
was stopped on the tracks for an extended period of time, additional steps would be needed to
access this neighborhood; however, this exists with or without the proposed townhomes.
Terhaar told the Commission townhouses tend to generate fewer trips than single family homes. He
also acknowledged that the intersection of Vernon/Brookview and Interlachen Boulevard can pose
problems. Commissioners agreed with that statement. A discussion ensured on the ramifications of this
development on neighborhood traffic, acknowledging the unique one way in and out and railroad
tracks.
Chair Staunton acknowledged that this proposal is located in a unique setting with a one way in and out,
agreeing if you go up the hill and try to turn left onto Interlachen Boulevard one can "sit" there for
Page 9 of 13
some time before there is an opening to turn. Mr. Terhaar agreed, adding he believes that movement
is at service level D which isn't good; however, is acceptable in an urban setting.
Commissioner Forrest questioned how often the figures used for the traffic analysis report are updated.
Mr. Terhaar responded they are updated on a regular basis, adding it was recently updated and the
most current information was used in this analysis.
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing.
The following spoke to the proposal:
Michelle Anderson, 5112 49th Street West
Steve Russ, 5040 Hankerson Avenue
Tony Wagner, 5120 West 49th Street
Leslie Losey, 5105 West 49th Street
Gail Helbereot, 5116 West 49th Street
Mrs. Wagner, 5120 West 49th Street
Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to this issue; being none Commissioner Potts
moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye;
motion carried.
Chair Staunton questioned how storm water and snow removal would be handled. Mr. Motzenbecker
said they have a civil engineer on board that between now and final will work out the storm water
management issues, adding he believes at this time runoff storage will be contained underground.
Continuing, Motzenbecker said with regard to snow removal the excess snow will be moved off site.
Chair Staunton said he observed on the schematics there are units with roof top decks and asked if that
is an option. He pointed out neighbors privacy would be compromised. Mr. Motzenbecker said there is
an interest in roof top decks, adding they would be an amenity on some of the units.
Commissioner Carr discussed density and setbacks and asked the developers if they ever considered
removing the last townhouse unit on the east. She pointed out this unit directly abuts a residential
home and if that unit were removed that area could be used for guest parking. Mr. Motzenbecker
responded they hadn't considered that option.
Chair Staunton directed the discussion back to the Comprehensive Plan and the requested amendment
to increase density and have flat roofs.
Commissioner Carpenter said he doesn't have a problem with increasing the density in this location.
Page 10 of 13
Commissioner Forrest said she struggles with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan noting the
Comprehensive Plan is the City's development guide.
Commissioner Schroeder commented that his struggle would be leaving the site low density, adding the
step from low density to medium density may actually encourage redevelopment, and in this instance
seems reasonable. Schroeder said this project could be considered one of the first steps in the
GrandView Plan, noting the increase in density isn't at the upper end of what's permitted in medium
density. Chair Staunton stated he agrees with Commissioner Schroeder. Continuing, Schroeder said in
his opinion( from a site plan perspective) that he doesn't mind the intensity, and in fact, would slide the
entire development over; closer to Vernon Avenue, narrow the driveway and squeeze the site together
from all sides. Schroeder said if this is done the impact of the building height from 49th street would be
minimized.
Commissioner Forrest said she wasn't adverse to the project; however does have concerns. She said she
doesn't want this site to appear claustrophobic and negatively impact the neighbors. The neighbors do
have legitimate concerns.
Chair Staunton said he agrees the neighbors have legitimate issues; however change in this location
makes sense. Continuing, Staunton said he really likes the look of the project from Vernon Avenue,
adding he also believes the use of PUD in this instance is correct. Staunton said he also likes that the site
provides a pathway to Vernon Avenue for not only residents of the townhouses but area residents as
well. He also stated he thinks the bike curb is another plus. Continuing, Staunton said the trick of this
project is to make the transition from residential to the commercial area off Vernon Avenue friendly.
Concluding, Staunton said he does have a concern with the overall building height and the flat roof
(especially from West 49th Street). Commissioner Forrest questioned who would maintain the Vernon
Avenue access. Mr. Motzenbecker responded that the association for the townhomes would maintain
the access.
Commissioner Carr stated the use appears reasonable, adding that she somewhat likes the
contemporary nature of the architecture; however in her opinion the site is too dense, adding removal
of that end unit may be important to her support.
Commissioner Carpenter asked the development team their feelings about Commissioner Schroeder's
suggestion of pulling the buildings back from the property lines. Mr. Motzenbecker responded that can
be looked at, adding they did not consider it. Commissioner Schroeder pointed out they could slide the
townhouses 6-feet closer to Vernon Avenue and narrow the driveway squeezing the entire project.
Commissioner Scherer said she doesn't know if she would be a fan of living that close to Vernon Avenue,
pointing out this stretch of Vernon is very busy, noting the exit ramp for Hwy 100.
Page 11 of 13
Commissioner Forrest reiterated that her concern is parking; adding she doesn't think it's adequate. She
concluded that this project may just be too much for this site and neighborhood.
Commissioner Carpenter commented this site will be redeveloped at some point in the future and at
this time the Commission needs to determine if they can support this project as presented.
Commissioner Forrest reiterated in her opinion the density is too much and parking could become an
issue.
Motion
Commissioner Carpenter moved approval of the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Rezoning
approval, and Development Plan approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions with
the additional condition that the housing units be modified as expressed by Commissioner Schroeder.
Commissioner Schroeder seconded the motion. Schroeder clarified that the interior drive is to be
narrowed by at least 6-feet, the front yard setback on West 49th Street increased by 6-feet, and the
entire project would technically be shifted south by 6-feet creating a 37-foot setback from West 49 th
Street, a 10-setback from Vernon Avenue and a 21-foot setback on the east side
Chair Staunton asked if Commissioners Carpenter and Schroeder would accept an amendment to their
motion that would prohibit roof top decks. Commissioners Schroeder and Carpenter agreed with that
amendment.
Commissioner Scherer stated this project in her opinion is too tall and too dense. Commissioner Potts
said before the City Council hears this issue that the developer needs to provide a better representation
of building height and elevation from West 49th Street.
Chair Staunton called for the vote: Ayes; Schroeder, Potts, Carpenter, Grabiel and Staunton. Nays;
Scherer, Carr, Forrest. Motion carried 5-3
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials.
VII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Chair Staunton gave a brief follow up of the work session between the council and commission.
Staunton said there were two topics of discussion; the Ordinance and Construction Management Plan.
Staunton said staff is considering a work session on April 10th to further discuss these issues. Staunton
asked the Commission how they would like the work session handled; formal or informal.
Commissioners stated they would support a more informal process; possibly meeting in the Community
Page 12 of 13
Room. Commissioner Carr commented that she has a special interest in lighting, adding she would be
interested in studying that topic further.
Chair Staunton officially welcomed Claudia Carr to the Planning Commission.
VIII. ADJOURMENT
Commissioner Carr moved adjournment at 10:40 PM. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All
voted aye; motion carried.
P,eke geo9amidwft
Respectfully submitted
Page 13 of 13