Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 6,2005,7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 16, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 2006 - 2010 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 7:15 Easement Vacation (Heritage Square Fourth Addition) 7:30 Richie/Anondson four-plexes - (1349 and 1359 County Road C) Land Use Plan change - (R-2 (double dwelling) to R-3(H) (high density multiple family residential)) Zoning Map change - (R-2 (double dwelling) to R-3 (multiple family residential)) 7:45 Pondview Townhomes (Krongard Construction) (Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street) Preliminary Plat 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations May 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Roberts (was to be Ms. Dierich) June 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness June 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover 10. Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour Update b. Reschedule July 4 meeting - Tuesday, July 5 or Wednesday, July 6? 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Cornrnissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Desai moved to approve the agenda. Corn missioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning cornmission minutes for May 16, 2005. Commissioner Trippler asked staff for clarification regarding the amount of parking spaces for Home Depot whether it was 122 or 172 parking spaces. Mr. Roberts said after checking further the correct amount of parking spaces for Home Depot should be 122 not 172. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 16, 2005. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -2- Cornrnissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Fischer, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Dierich, Grover V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 2006 - 2010 Maplewood Capitallrnprovernent Plan (CIP) (7:01- 8:00 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said the city updates the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) each year. The Capital Irnprovement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Richard Fursman, Maplewood City Manager, addressed the planning commission. The planning commission viewed a video presentation for the 2006-2010 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan from 7:02-7:26 p.m. From 7:26 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. there was a question and answer session. Commissioner Trippler lives in the Sherwood Glen neighborhood and he asked why the street improvements for the County Road C area shown on page 3-34 of the CI P are assigned to the Sherwood Glen area when they are actually in the Hazelwood area? Mr. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, addressed the commission. Mr. Ahl said Commissioner Trippler is correct. There was apparently an error in the mapping and that should be rnoved frorn page 3-34 to 3-20 of the CIP. Commissioner Trippler said comparing the Capital Improvement Plan for 2005 and 2006 in about 80% of the cases it appears projects that were proposed have now moved back two or three years. This results in a 20% or more cost increase to do the project. He understands Maplewood has a difficult economic situation but it seems things are not getting better. If we delay doing projects but it increases the cost by 20 or 30%, he isn't sure the city is doing themselves any favors. Mr. Fursman said the city can't argue with that comment. Projects that are put off seem to end up costing more. It seems to cost less to borrow money at 3 to 4% then to have 10% to 20% inflation costing the city more money for projects. It makes sense to borrow money but the city is at debt capacity and there is only so much the city can do to take on debt before they reach a threshold. When the city works through the budget and the money isn't there, then the projects need to be delayed. Commissioner Trippler assumed there were no projects pushed back that would be detrimental. He remembered hearing an engineer say you can only push road reconstruction back so far and then it gets to be more costly because the road deteriorates. He asked if the city checked into its projects that have been moved back to make sure the city is not getting past that costly threshold. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -3- Mr. Ahl believed only 20% ofthe projects were being delayed having been the one who prepared the rnajority of the projects for this report. There is a cost relationship and construction costs and in sorne cases certain materials are going up 10% to 12% per year and other materials are going down. But in general, construction costs are increasing more than the rate of inflation. Mr. Ahl said if the city had no debt capacity they could catch up and do all of the street projects. The city is trying to first take care of the poorest streets in the city. The city is using a lot less rnaterials to repair the streets then they did 5 years ago. The city is making progress, unfortunately the city started its street reconstruction plan about 8 years ago when it should have started 28 years ago and now the city is trying to catch up. There is a slight reduction in the arnount of rnaintenance the city has to do because they are taking care of some of the worst streets now. One example of one of the worst streets was English Street and look at how nice the street is now. There are streets in the city that are in very bad condition but they are on the list to be fixed in the next five years. Given the debt capacity limit the city is doing a very good job with it. Commissioner Trippler heard in the past the number of children who play baseball and softball have been going down and the number of children who play soccer has increased significantly. In the capital irnprovement plan there are two parks listed to have the ball parks upgraded. He wondered why there were no additional soccer fields being constructed despite the survey numbers that show soccer is increasing. Mr. Bruce Anderson, Maplewood Park and Recreation Director, addressed the commission. He said Maplewood has excellent soccer fields. Because of the European influence at 3M in 1975, Hazelwood Park was scheduled to be an 8 ball field complex and it turned out to be a 9 soccer field complex. There are 2,400 kids playing soccer in Maplewood and 600 kids playing baseball. The fastest growing sport is LaCrosse and they use soccer fields for that sport. The two parks scheduled for renewal is Harvest Park and Lions Park. Harvest Park is scheduled for irrigation to be installed to preserve the heaviest used fields. At this point the city is not sure if Lions Park will be redone or not. There are drainage issues in that area and part of it may just turn into a holding pond. The best example of ball fields compared soccer fields is the Afton Heights Park which used to have five ball fields and now has three ball fields and two soccer fields. Youth athletics are changing and in the very near future and Lacrosse will be rnore popular than baseball and soccer. Commissioner Grover asked given the dilapidated condition of Lions Park, is there was a way to move that project up sooner? He doesn't live in the neighborhood but has had to keep his kids off the playground equipment because of the condition the equipment is in. Mr. Anderson said Lions Park is scheduled to be redone during that particular timeframe because that is when the streets will be redone. There is a "slight" chance Lions Park may be turned into a subdivision, but the ball park will probably not be reconstructed. Commissioner Dierich noticed Applewood Park wasn't listed in the 2006-2010 CIP and she asked if that was scheduled to be done yet in 2005 or if it was eliminated all together from the 2006- 2010 plan? Mr. Anderson said Applewood Park is scheduled for 2005 and the city hopes to be out for bid by August 1 and have a large portion of the park done some time in September. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -4- Cornrnissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ahl if the Century redeveloprnent frorn Highway 94 to Lower Afton Road would stay single lane and if that area is considered Woodbury or Maplewood. Mr. Ahl said the Century Avenue project has now been extended all the way down to Lake Road assuming there is a gas tax increase, but that rnay not happen now. A lot of projects are going to get delayed in this area if the state doesn't get the gas tax increase. It's the only source of funding at the county and state level and that is where those projects are funded. The most congested intersection is at Lower Afton Road and Century Avenue in south Maplewood. Those road congestion problerns lead to safety problems. There has to be funding available by the counties since these are county roads. Commissioner Ahlness said regarding money for open space, a few years ago when the commission talked about redevelopment by the golf course on Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue, he understood the city was either out of rnoney or that there was little rnoney left in the account. Yet he noticed the city is using open space money to fund projects. On page 3-62 in the CIP it shows an expansion for the Maplewood Nature Center site. He asked what the status was for open space money. Mr. Dan Faust, Maplewood Finance Director, addressed the commission. He said the current status of the open space fund is about $200,000. The city started out with a $5 million dollar bond issued and there was interest earned on investments and the city earned about $300,000. Mr. Anderson said there is a property at 2668 Brand Avenue in Maplewood that has become available and the city is looking at that parcel. The acre of land will cost somewhere between $45,000 and $60,000. At one time the city thought they would acquire the property and subdivide it and resell the home and the city is now working with the homeowner to complete the subdivision ahead of time. Commissioner Ahlness said he thought he saw on the Maplewood CIP video a project was being funded by open space money. The project shown on page 3-61 of the booklet shows the project is funded by the park development fund. He may be mistaken, but encouraged staff to check into that further. He lives close to the roundabout at English Street and Frost Avenue where it was first universally hated by almost everyone, but now that people are used to it almost everyone likes the roundabout. He asked if roundabouts were ever considered in areas where traffic lights were proposed such as at Lakewood Avenue and Maryland Avenue, South lawn Drive and County Road D and Kennard Street and County Road D. Mr. Ahl said the city does not have plans to install any more roundabouts at this point other than the roundabouts at Frost Avenue and English Street, Kennard Street at Legacy Parkway and one at Legacy Parkway. There was a fourth roundabout proposed at Hazelwood Avenue and County Road C which wasn't approved. Commissioner Ahlness said a few years ago the city had discussed bridging Hazelwood Avenue over Highway 36 and he asked if that was still in the future and is it something that is still needed in the future? Mr. Ahl said Hazelwood Avenue used to cross over Highway 36 in the 1970's. MnDot closed that intersection and rnade it a right turn in and right turn out frorn Hazelwood Avenue onto Highway 36. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -5- Mr. Ahl said there is now a pedestrian crosswalk across Highway 36 which is clearly marked, however, people don't observe the crosswalk and rarely stop when sorneone is waiting to cross Highway 36 to Hazelwood Avenue. The city asked for federal funds through MnDot and the Metropolitan Council to upgrade the pedestrian crossing, but the city request was denied. Mr. Ahl said again without the gas tax increase, projects that need to get done are not getting done without the funding that the gas tax increase would help pay for. The city just received a resolution that Highway 36 is going to become a six-lane roadway from Highway 35W to Highway 35E. The city of North St. Paul is going to have a freeway at Highway 36 and McKnight Road and at Margaret Street. Highway 36 will be a freeway beginning at Highway 35 to Highway 120 except for one signal at English Street and a right turn in and right turn out at Hazelwood Avenue. Because MnDot is so short of funds, one solution is to remove the stop lights at English Street and make it a right turn in and right turn out. One of the plans is to figure out how to handle the pedestrian crossing. The best plan would be to eliminate the pedestrian crossing at Hazelwood Avenue so it's safer for pedestrians. Because of funding, nothing will happen with the pedestrian crossing in the next five years and it takes 6 to 10 years to develop those types of projects. Commissioner Desai said on page 3-36 in the CIP booklet it shows the Maplewood Community Center fitness expansion proposed for a cost of $250,000, he asked if the MCC was supposed to be self sufficient why would the Maplewood Community Center need to get funding from the City of Maplewood? Mr. Anderson said 2004 was the first year MCC showed a positive cash flow within the facility for revenue and daily operational expenditures. The precedence has been that the MCC was never anticipated to be run through revenues from the MCC but the expectation was that the operating costs would be covered by revenue from fees which was accomplished in 2004. Each year they try to increase that so that greater expenditures can happen. There are over 350,000 users of the MCC and they look at that the MCC as being the number one park in the city. According to the way the budget looks it will be a huge challenge to pay for improvements. Commissioner Ahlness asked if the City of Maplewood is trying to model Maplewood after another city in the Twin Cities as far as property redevelopment. Ms. Melinda Coleman, Maplewood Assistant City Manager, addressed the commission. She believes Maplewood is behind the curve for redevelopment. Many of the first-ring suburbs have been doing redevelopment for quite some time. The City of Maplewood started redevelopment funds about five years ago for redevelopment in the city. In the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) the city was looking for funding in 2006 but is now highly unlikely because of the budget situation but will again look for redevelopment funding again in 2007. The city continues to look for opportunities to purchase housing in poor condition and use those redevelopment funds to better the neighborhoods and the city. The properties on Larpenteur Avenue have been the most recent redevelopment. The city has also used that money to fund the Gladstone study and the city council will also be looking at participating in a revolving loan fund. The city is doing the best they can with the limited resources. Maplewood is behind in redevelopment compared to other communities. Ms. Coleman said some cities have had money in funds for years to redevelop, some cities have modeled their budgets differently, they've used TIF funds, used an HRA levy and other tools for redevelopment in their city. Some cities Maplewood would model redevelopment include Richfield, St. Louis Park, Crystal, and Robbinsdale. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -6- Chairperson Fischer said it was rnentioned that Holloway Avenue was turned back to the City of Maplewood by Rarnsey County in 2004. She asked if this was an isolated case or was Rarnsey County in the process of turning county roads back to the municipalities? Mr. Ahl said in 1994 Rarnsey County adopted a plan and a majority of the county roads that Ramsey County identified to be turned back to the city's have been turned back. Holloway Avenue just happen to be a street that because of its joint nature of being a border street it was on Maplewood's funding systern and it had no Rarnsey County funding. Eventually Rarnsey County reached an agreement on funding and Holloway Avenue was turned back to City of Maplewood. He said over the next two to three years the city will see another round of turn backs. Chairperson Fischer asked when Beebe Road is reconstructed would there be sidewalks on the side of the road that does not currently have a sidewalk? Mr. Ahl said they have sidewalks proposed on both sides of the street. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Commissioner Trippler seconded Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This itern goes to the city council on June 13, 2005. b. Easement Vacation (Heritage Square Fourth Addition) (8:00 - 8:01 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kevin Clarke, representing the developer and the property owners, is asking the city to vacate part of an existing drainage and utility easement on the site of the future Heritage Square Fourth Addition townhouses. However, plans have changed so staff recommends tabling this and will soon bring this back before the planning commission. Commissioner Trippler moved to table this item. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to table passed. c. Richie/Anondson four-plexes - (1349 & 1359 County Road C) (8:02 - 9:18 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Fred Richie and Craig Anondson are requesting a comprehensive land use plan change and rezoning for the two properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. The properties are currently guided in the city's comprehensive plan and zoned as Double Dwelling Residential R-2. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -7- Ms. Finwall said the city approved the construction of two duplexes on these properties in 1968. Sorne tirne after the city's initial approval of the duplexes (approxirnately 1970), previous owners converted the duplexes to a three-plex (1349 County Road C) and a four-plex (1359 County Road C) without the required city approvals. The additional units exceed the approved land use density and zoning requirernents. The new property owners are now atternpting to resolve the density and zoning issue by requesting the comprehensive land use change and rezoning from Double Dwelling Residential R-2 to High Multiple Dwelling Residential R-3(H). No additional units or exterior rnodifications are proposed. Commissioner Dierich asked after 30 years was there a need to rezone this or was it just to make the plan look good. She asked if the city could rnake an exception in this case, it seerns like a lot of work for city staff for not a lot of gain. Ms. Finwall said this was an illegal nonconforming structure constructed after the zoning was in place. The city deals with legal nonconforming structures all the time. An example would be this duplex being constructed prior to a double dwelling zoning district. That structure could maintain itself until the end of time or until it was destroyed to rnore than 50% of its value. This being an illegal nonconforming structure the city is required to either make the owners convert it back to a double dwelling or gain the comprehensive land use plan change and rezoning. She did not believe there was a statue of limitations on this type of land use issue. Comrnissioner Trippler asked why the city didn't rnake the original owner convert it back to a duplex when they found out it was a tri-plex and a four-plex? Ms. Finwall said the city found out these buildings at 1349 and 1359 County Road C was converted to a tri-plex and a four-plex last fall with the current owners in place. The structures have been this way over 30 years without the city's knowledge. Commissioner Trippler asked whose idea it was to request R-3(H) zoning? Ms. Finwall said that zoning was recommended by city staff so that it would comply with the land use designation requirements. The city could not change the comprehensive plan to R-3(M), which is medium multiple family residential zoning because ofthe density requirements, which are six units per acre. Seven units would be over the allowed density for R-3(M). Commissioner Trippler said in his opinion city staff should require the current owners to convert the buildings back to duplexes which is what they were approved for rather than figure out some way to work around the ordinance. When he visited the site at 1349 County Road C East it appeared the exterior of the building looked pretty rough. He asked if the statement made by city staff that the structure could maintain itself until the end oftime or if it was destroyed to more than 50% of its value, means the city can require the owner to convert the buildings back. Ms. Finwall showed a photo of 1349 and 1359 County Road C East to the planning commission. It appears that 1359 County Road C is in better repair. She was referring to a legal non conforming structure where state statue would allow that structure to remain until it was destroyed to more than 50% of its value. With this type of illegal structure the city could currently require the owners to convert it back to the duplex. Commissioner Trippler asked why city staff did not consider that option? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -8- Ms. Finwall said city staff is recornrnending approval of the rezoning and cornprehensive land use plan change in order to allow these property owners to maintain these structures. These owners have made several improvements to the property which has been attested to by the neighbors. She said this property would be considered affordable housing in Maplewood as well. Ms. Finwall said according to police records, the property has improved considerably as far as police calls. With Craig Anondson and Fred Richie's son living on site will improve the maintenance and management of those buildings. It is a difficult legal prospect for the city to require someone to convert a tri-plex and four-plex back to a duplex after over 30 years. Commissioner Trippler said the combined area of the two properties at both 1349 and 1359 County Road C East is less than one acre in size. Ms. Finwall said correct. Commissioner Trippler asked how far back the lot went? Ms. Finwall said each lot is about 65-feet wide and 285-feet deep. Commissioner Yarwood said he has concerns about rezoning these properties and setting a precedent of rezoning properties to make an illegal structure legal. At the same time the current owners have made some improvements to the property. Is there a way that the resolution can be worded to make this a conditional zoning change such that any new development that were to take place on the property, or ifthe existing structures were torn down or rebuilt, that the property needs to be consistent with the other surrounding properties? Ms. Finwall said according to the city's legal counsel that would be considered contract zoning and is illegal. Commissioner Yarwood said being one of the newer commissioners he had to ask that question but now he knows that is illegal. Commissioner Trippler said he likes to read the citizen comments to see what the neighbors have to say. The staff report on page 3 says most neighbors were positive in their comments and supported the change to the comprehensive land use plan change. He wondered how staff figured most neighbors were "in favor" of this proposal because there were only six comments. He counted two neighbors were opposed, two neighbors that didn't respond, two neighbors that were in favor. Ms. Finwall said some of the responses specified concerns but were overall supportive. Some of the neighbors are in the audience tonight and will have an opportunity to speak and can share their comments with the planning commission. Commissioner Grover asked if changing the zoning from R-2 to R-3(H) changes the setbacks? Ms. Finwall said with a multi-family dwelling which is allowed with R-3(H) zoning they would be required to have a 50-foot setback from the surrounding residential properties. Ms. Finwall said the structures themselves were approved with a building permit so they would be grandfathered in. The structures sit approximately five to ten feet from the property lines. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -9- Cornrnissioner Dierich asked if there was anything other than rnulti-farnily dwellings that could be built on this parcel if the city approved the R-3(H) zoning? Ms. Finwall said they could only have rnulti-family dwellings including double dwellings on this parcel. Chairperson Fischer asked if there could be a PUD on this property so it would Iirnit it to the existing structures? Ms. Finwall said you could have a (PUD) Planned Unit Development for the zoning with the land use plan for the R-3(H) zoning. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the comrnission. Mr. Craig Anondson, 1349 County Road C East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He bought the property in November 1998 with the understanding that this building was suitable for a four-plex and was happy leaving it the way it was set up. He has slowly been improving the site and trying to keep the riff-raff out which can be a battle at times. He was new at being a landlord and has finally gotten a grip on that. He has been improving the site and it looks a lot better than it did when he bought it. Since 1998 he has called the police twice at this address. Once was because one of his tenants was trying to commit suicide and another time was because a car was parked in his front yard. He is arnazed how all of this has come up. He found out the situation regarding this mess last year from the other owner, Fred Richie at 1359 County Road C East, and here he is today. Commissioner Ahlness commended the applicant, Mr. Anondson for making the improvements to the property. Mr. Anondson said the realtor told hirn the property was approved for three and four units. Commissioner Ahlness asked what real estate company it was? Mr. Anondson said it was Edina Realty. He said Fred Richie is in the hospital having surgery so he could not be present at this evening's meeting. He can only speaking for himself on this matter. Commissioner Dierich said in the staff report Lt. Kevin Rabbett stated there have been at least one hundred calls for service since 1994 at this location and within the last year there has been a significant reduction in calls. She asked what happened in the past year to cause the reduction in phone calls. Mr. Anondson said having Fred Richie as owner of the neighboring property has decreased the telephone calls to the police. This also made better tenants move into the home. The following people spoke during this public hearing: Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -10- Ms. Beverlv Willina. 1366 Kohlman Avenue. Maplewood. Ms. Willing said her property is behind these two properties. She said they have lived in their home since 1968. An old neighbor, Roger Fontaine, built these duplexes in a neighborhood that mostly consists of single family homes. So many things have happened at this location over the years. She wasn't sure why they never called the city to cornplain about things that have occurred on the property. There has been smoke and fire coming from these homes but they could never figure out what the neighbors were burning at the property. There have been golf balls hit with baseball bats at her home and onto their deck while they were having company over or while enjoying the outdoors. She thinks there are more than enough families living in those homes. There were supposed to be two families living in each building and now there are three farnilies in one and four in the other horne. She thinks the hornes should be converted back to duplexes as they were built and approved. Just because the owners are living there now and they have been attempting to clean the property up doesn't mean they aren't going to move out and problerns will increase again. The horne was zoned for duplexes and sorneone illegally added living quarters for more occupants. Why aren't they required by the cilyto return the home back the way it was originally built? Arlene Brzinski. 1358 Kohlman Avenue. Maplewood. She has lived at this residence for 37 years and has a lot 310 feet deep. She wonders how this property has been occupied as a three and four-plex unit for 30 years illegally zoned? Next to this property, east of these homes, is a vacant lot. She is concerned that someone could buy that lot, which is a dry pond, and build on it. Someone could come to the city and request the vacant lot be rezoned to a multiple dwelling to fit in with the duplexes on the property next door. Ms. Finwall said that vacant lot could only be rezoned if the city council approved of that. However, at this time there have been no requests of any kind. If there would be a request it would have to go through the neighborhood notification process. Ron Brzinski. 1358 Kohlman Avenue. Maplewood. He said the neighbors have been through this before back in the day when Mr. King owned the property. Mr. Roger Fontaine asked the neighbors if he could build duplexes on this property and rezone the property R-2 in an R-1 neighborhood. The neighborhood agreed but not without some concerns. They were told the owners were going to live in the duplexes and that did not stay that way for long. Now the second set of owners lives on the property but the neighbors have no idea how long that will be the situation. Trying to be good neighbors, if they saw something wrong occurring on the premises the neighbors would walk over to talk to the renters about the problems rather than calling the police. One day he was sitting on his deck and he heard a loud thump and thought someone had shot at him. He got up and looked around and found a golf ball that hit the soffit of his house and then the golf ball bounced off his deck. He went next door to talk to the renter when the man ran and hid in his home. The kids that lived there said the man was afraid of Mr. Brzinski and the man wouldn't come outside. He feels the duplexes have been operating illegally for 30 years and should be required to return as duplexes, which is the way the homes were approved to begin with. He wonders how many tax dollars Ramsey County has missed out for the past 30 years since the county thought these were duplexes. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -11- Mr. Brzinski said these property owners are not going to live there forever. These duplexes should be zoned R-2 as they were originally zoned. These were side by side duplexes with walkout basements for two families living in each building, not three families in one building and four in the other building. Mr. Brzinski said people have rented garages in the rear of the property other than the occupants of the duplexes. Those people were fixing and tuning race cars at all hours of the night and day. If you come or call the city every time you see something strange happening at an address then you're known as a trouble maker. Last year he heard a bobcat on the rear of the property and it turned out someone was filling up the drain from the pond to the east and it had to drain out to the west. He called the city and the city came out and investigated and found out the person was going to level out the area and turn it into a park like area without perrnission or permits. When he bought his house he hired a lawyer to check the abstract and the property to make sure everything was legitimate. He has no sympathy for the current owners regarding the situation they are in now. Mr. Brzinski said they should have checked into things further but all they did was rely on what a realtor told them. He wouldn't have purchased a property if it wasn't zoned properly. He doesn't have any sympathy for buyers who bought something that was illegal to begin with and then come to the city to have their problem fixed. He believes the original zoning change happened some time after 1971 when Roger Fontaine came around and asked the neighbors how they felt about these duplexes being built in their neighborhood. To him illegal is illegal and in his book the homes should be brought up to code and into compliance. To him zoning is like the law and the law is the law. Mr. Anondson and Mr. Richie have a legal problem and should talk to a lawyer and the realtor to figure out what they need to do to correct this problem, not come to the city and ask thern to change the zoning to rnake things legal again because of their neglect to check into things before purchasing these homes. Will Rossbach. City Councilmember and Maplewood Resident. 1386 County Road C, Maplewood. Mr. Rossbach said the staff has done a good job with a difficult situation. Surrounding residents were trying to remember when the transition from duplexes to tri and four- plex occurred. He spoke with the neighbors and found out most neighbors have lived in that neighborhood for a long tirne which is the case with rnany neighborhoods in Maplewood. He lives close to these homes and has noticed some exterior improvement over the past few years. He hasn't noticed much police activity at this location over the years. He has noticed construction going on there over the past two to four years with sidewalks, driveways etc. and was happy to see someone was rnaking improvements to the site. Nobody knew there were three and four units in these homes all these years and the neighbors were probably not aware that there are other rental units in this area, mostly on the perimeter of the neighborhood. With R-3(H) zoning the setbacks are different, building design factors are different, trash containers need to be built with a rnaterial similar to the construction of the buildings. There are other things that he would like to know about the R-3(H) zoning. There are frontage requirements for double dwellings. He walked around the buildings and noticed some construction improvements that were made recently such as new doors on the back of the buildings. 1359 County Road C did some structural changes in order to put in a new door, window, new driveway and sidewalk that required some grading. So forthis reason he would be interested to see permits for building, grading, driveway, and anything else that requires permits to see the difference between the old and new ownership. This is a bad situation, there was a lack of knowledge, and the people that bought the buildings did not do any due diligence work. Forthat reason the city is being asked to resolve the problem for the new owners. He's not sure it should be the City of Maplewood's role to solve this problem. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -12- Chairperson Fischer said the other problem is the city doesn't have the staff to go out and monitor things happening in the city. Generally the city is a cornplaint driven cornpliance organization and if the neighbors aren't calling to alert the city the city isn't aware of things like this taking place. Mr. Rossbach said the original design of the duplexes were to appear like single family homes from the front. There's a single door on the front of the buildings and you step inside the buildings and there is a hallway and doors that split off into the units. The original concept was good, in fact rnaybe too good because the city was not aware 30 years ago when these buildings were changed from two units in each building to the three and four units that exist today. The majority of what has taken place has occurred on the back side of the buildings. The neighbors that live behind these buildings have deep lots and that's another reason nobody knew how rnany families were living in these buildings. Chairperson Fischer said another thing is when the buildings were sold to these owners she wondered if Truth-in-Housing inspections were done, and if so, what was indicated on those Truth-in-Housing forms. Did it say these were duplexes for two families each or what was stated on the form? She asked if sorneone didn't tell the truth is there any recourse? City councilmember Rossbach said that's an excellent question. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the city would be setting a precedent here by rezoning this to make an illegal structure legal and has that happened in the city before? City councilmember Rossbach said that type of thing has happened before but he isn't sure this exact situation has occurred in this context. Chairperson Fischer said the occasional duplex has popped up in a single-family neighborhood that has been there for a long time with the R-2 zoning over the years but that is rare. Mr. Roberts said each rezoning and land use plan change has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. This is clearly a unique situation and in all the years he has worked here he can't remember anything like this. He doesn't think this sets a precedent because he doesn't think you would find anything like this in Maplewood. Chairperson Fischer asked city council member Rossbach what he thought about placing R-3(H) zoning on this along with a PUD to lirnit what exists now and if sorneone wanted to do anything else on the property they would have to come to the city and get it changed in the PUD. City councilrnember Rossbach said that is an interesting situation. It's a difficult question and there is really too much to consider for this situation. What if there was a fire on this site and it had R-3(H) zoning put on it, then the owners want to build an eight plex on the property, what happens then. For that reason he would want many limitations placed on the property. He said he is usually against putting something in the middle of R-1 zoned neighborhoods so ifthere is another option regarding this situation he would like to hear about it. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -13- Commissioner Desai said he heard staff comrnent earlier that there may be sorne legal issues if the planning cornrnission decides to not approve this as R-3(H) zoning. He asked what the legal issues are for this situation. The new owners did not do any research into the property to verify what the correct zoning was for this property. Apparently the realtor told them it was a legal building, what legal action do the owners have against the realtor? City councilmember Rossbach said that would be a question for the city attorney. Chairperson Fischer asked if this were not a three and four-plex situation, which is what the square footage of the site would allow, would he feel differently about R-2 zoning if it were a six- plex? City councilmember Rossbach said this structure is compatible with the neighborhood as far as the style, the depth of the lot and the front appearance of the building. Commissioner Dierich asked if you calculate the size of the lots separate, because their under separate ownership, what density are we talking about and does that change what the commission is looking? Cornrnissioner Trippler said it ends up corning to a little rnore than 18,000 square feet per lot. Ms. Finwall said the smaller lot at 1359 County Road C would allow for three units and the larger lot at 1349 County Road C would allow for four units. Mr. Roberts said that really depends on if you are referring to rnedium density or high density. Medium Density at 1349 County Road C could have 2.9 units and 1359 could have 2.4 units. Ms. Finwall said for high density 1349 County Road C could have 4.37 units and 1359 could have 3.7 units. Commissioner Dierich said as a city we don't need to be concerned about anything because most homeowners have title insurance and if there's an issue, it's Ramsey County's fault for not completing the title search correctly and the title insurance would cover that forthem. She is also concerned about the vacant lot and there is nothing from stopping the future owner from buying the lot and coming back to the city and saying they want it to be consistent with the high density and put more units in there. High density requires code compliance and if these units were split in the 1960's or 1970's they don't meet high density development as it is, so she is concerned about that as well. She is also concerned about setting a precedent here to correct what really is a homeowner issue not a city issue. Ms. FinwaU said staff is proposing to grandfather in the structures. City council member Rossbach was referring to the requirements for additional screening and landscaping for multiple-family dwelling to residential or additional design standards etc. However, it was staff's opinion that these structures themselves were grandfathered in and it was the zoning that was illegal and nonconforming. Chairperson Fischer asked if a duplex or four plex were being built today are there building code requirements the city would enforce that are not in place today in the structures? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -14- Commissioner Dierich said there are clearly nonconforming uses in this home especially in the basernent such as bedroorns without egress windows, additional kitchens with sinks etc. so you need to consider these things as well. Ms. Finwall said Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, toured 1359 County Road C East for life safety issues and stated that since these buildings were built and approved in 1968, during the time when there was no building code in place. It would be difficult to require the property owners to cornply with today's codes. What exists now is basically grandfathered in under that code, however, the intent would be for the Fire Marshal and Building Official to tour both structures to ensure both buildings and their units are up to the life safety code and the city would require any improvements such as fire alarms, widening of egress windows, etc. and require those things to be done. Commissioner Trippler said when the property owner came to the city and asked for R-2 zoning to build a duplex and then when the building inspector went to look at the buildings, was the inspector looking at a duplex or a four plex? Ms. Finwall said when the building was complete the inspector approved the final building final as a duplex. Commissioner Trippler asked if there was a certificate of occupancy done for this address? Ms. Finwall said there was no evidence of a certificate of occupancy in the building file but a building final was done. Of course things were done differently in 1960's and 1970's compared to the way things are done now. Chairperson Fischer said basically the building was approved and inspected as a duplex but we don't know if it would have met the specifications for a tri or four-plex today. Commissioner Trippler said obviously someone did something they weren't supposed to do when they changed the occupancy from duplex to four-plex. He thinks the city is setting a bad precedence and trying to make something legal that they made illegal. He praised the applicant for cleaning the place up but in his opinion these buildings should go back to being duplexes and should have to be brought up to those standards for which the building permit and building final were approved for, not looking for a way to get around the zoning to make this legal. Mr. Brzinski said he thinks it was later than 1968 that they applied for a building permit. He believes the buildings were built closer to 1972. He thinks there is only one entrance on the rear of each of the duplexes from what he can see from his property. He hopes the commission considers keeping the zoning R-2 and considers requiring the owners to convert the units back to duplexes from the illegal tri and four-plex units. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Trippler wanted clarification in the staff report on the bottom of page 1 in the last paragraph; it says 1949 and 1959 County Road C and believes it should be 1349 and 1359 County Road C. Ms. Finwall said that was a typing error and she would get that corrected. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -15- Comrnissioner Pearson said he would not be supporting this proposal. If this proposal carne to the city as a new proposal with R-3(H) zoning, it would never get city approval. He is surprised city staff has brought this before the commission without the building official and fire marshal going through the homes and checking for code violations and fire safety issues. Commissioner Pearson said he has no sympathy for the naivety of somebody who buys multi-tenant property and doesn't know what they are doing. They relied on the statement of a realtor which is ludicrous. He believes if the city gives this property R-3(H) zoning there is a good chance that the value of the property overall to a new developer is going to increase considerably over what it is in its current zoning. How long have these properties had a tax benefit paying taxes based on these being duplexes rather than a tri-plex and four-plex? While serving on the HRA they discussed Truth-in-Housing and what amount of control the city should have over those housing inspections. Personally he wanted strict control at the point-of-sale. The City of Maplewood requires a Truth- in-Housing be complete but it is used only as a disclosure report. Other cornrnunities that have Truth-in-Housing require the homes be brought up to code at point-of-sale. Many times he has gone to open houses with reputable realtors and not found a Truth-in-Housing report on site nor was a Truth-in-Housing report done. The realtors don't get punished for not having a Truth-in- Housing report done, even though it is a city ordinance. Homes for sale by owner rarely ever have a Truth-in-Housing report done. Realtors working in this city should know it's a city ordinance to have a Truth-in-Housing inspection and if they don't know, they should be calling the city to ask when listing the home before it is shown. The report provides some cover for the realtors but if we aren't going to punish people for not getting the report done what is the point of having a city ordinance to have a Truth-in-Housing inspection done. Passing this proposal only rewards people who take chances to develop properties without getting permits and it would infuriate people that do things to code and get building permits and have city inspections. Chairperson Fischer asked what the Truth-in-Housing reports for 1349 and 1359 County Road C say? Ms. Finwall said according to city records there was a Truth-in-Housing report done for 1349 County Road C which was for the last sale and it was reported as a duplex. There was no Truth- in-Housing report on file for 1359 County Road C. Chairperson Fischer asked if a realtor was involved? Ms. Finwall said she did not have that information. Commissioner Ahlness said he had a question for Fred Richie who is not present but perhaps staff can help with this question. The staff report said Mr. Richie obtained the property by default in the Fall of 2004 when his financial partner was no longer able to hold onto the property. He asked if staff could give further information regarding that situation. Ms. Finwall said Mr. Richie has a serious illness and was unable to be here for this meeting but had full intention to be here. She understands Mr. Richie loaned a friend or an acquaintance rnoney to purchase the duplex and this person was unable to pay the loan. It was never Mr. Richie's intent to own a duplex but he became the new owner. When he did become the owner he contacted the city and found out the property was not zoned correctly and he immediately began improvements and requested the rezoning. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -16- Commissioner Ahlness said redevelopment in the city is very important but at the same time we need to maintain the value of our neighborhoods. He cornrnends the current owners in doing the best they can to help improve these properties. However on site rnanagers who are also the owners is not a sure thing down the road. Just because they are living here now doesn't mean they are going to live there forever. It's not the city's responsibility to fix sornething that was done illegally just because the owners bought it without researching things before purchasing the property. Commissioner Ahlness said for these reasons he would not be supporting this proposal either. Commissioner Dierich said the city is setting a very bad precedence if we approve this. There are people all over the city that would like to use their basement as an apartment and could fall into a similar situation. Commissioner Trippler said in reading the conditions listed by staff he doesn't see how this fits in with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code and it doesn't fit into this neighborhood for these reasons, in addition to the other reasons he listed before, he won't be voting for this. Commissioner Pearson said besides the fact that he would not be approving this proposal he believes the city should require the duplexes be brought up to code and return back to duplexes and not the illegal tri and four plex buildings that they have been for 30 years. Commissioner Pearson moved to deny appro'lo the comprehensive land use change resolution. This resolution changes the land use j3laR frem Double Dwelling Residential (R 2) to High Ml,lltij3le D'Nelling Rosidontial (R JH) for the prej3erties located at 1 ~49 and 1 Jag County Road C East. The city bases these changes OR tRO following findings that the site is proper for and consistent witR tRO eity's f30lieies for high donsity residential uso. TRis includos: Commissioner Pearson moved to deny the zoning map change resolution. aj3j3FO'lO tho zoning map change resolution. This resoll,ltion eRanges the zoning maj3 f.rom Double Dwellin!j ResiseFltial (R 2) to Multiple Dwelling ResiseFltial (R ~) for the pFoporties loeated at 1~49 and 1 Jag CouFlty Road C East. Tho city is mal~iFl!j tRis change bocause: Commissioner Ahlness seconded Ayes- Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nay - Fischer The motion to deny the comprehensive land use change resolution and rezoning map changed resolution passed. The reasons for denial are as stated by the planning commissioners during the meeting. Chairperson Fischer voted nay because she believes the city has a very unique situation here. She lives in a neighborhood where there are very deep lots. Deep lots against other deep lots may be why the neighbors haven't reported things that have happened in the past. The city is on enforcement by complaint type of system. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -17- Chairperson Fischer said she can see if there was a Truth-in-Housing inspection done on this that the owners felt they had sorne type of coverage that they didn't really have. She rnay not have necessarily voted for this as it was recommended by staff, but if it had been a PUD which would have let the duplex remain as it is currently she would have been comfortable with this because it does fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson recommended that the city take action with the property owners of 1349 and 1359 County Road C in Maplewood to bring the property into alignment with the current R-2 zoning as duplexes for those properties. Cornrnissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The rnotion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 27,2005. d. Pondview Townhomes (Krongard Construction) Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street) (9:18 - 9:43 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said in 2002, the city acquired five single-family houses located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with the city's Housing Replacement Program funds. The city originally purchased three of these houses after they were flooded during a rainstorm in April 2001. Ms. Finwall said the two adjacent older homes, which were not flooded, were purchased by the city in order to combine thern with the three previously purchased lots to create a larger building site to allow the development of up to eleven town house units on the site. Jack Krongard of Krongard Builders, Inc., has purchased the properties from the city and is now proposing to develop the 1.92-acre site with eleven town house units. The town houses will be constructed within two separate buildings - one with five-units and the other with six units and these units would sell for between $190,000 and $220,000. Cornrnissioner Desai asked if the city permits moving the additional parking spaces between the units where the utility easement would be located? Mr. Ahl said that's okay to do. Utility easements are for storm sewers and construction over the top with parking is acceptable. There are parking lots over utility easements in several areas of the city. Commissioner Trippler said in a few places in the staff report it discusses additional landscape screening to buffer the two properties on the west but in looking at the diagrarns that were provided in the staff report all he could see on the west side of the five unit building was a rather extensive retaining wall. He asked if there would be additional trees planted or is the proposed buffering the 11-feet of elevation difference? Ms. Finwall said staff will require additional landscaping for the CDRB to review, currently the applicant doesn't propose much landscaping in that area other than a four-foot high retaining wall. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -18- Cornrnissioner Trippler asked if the applicant is okay with the additional screening? Ms. Finwall said the applicant is not yet aware of the request for additional screening. Commissioner Trippler asked about the wetland setback, are the buildings clearly outside of the 25-foot setback that the city is proposing? Ms. Finwall said according to the previous site plans it reflected a 43-foot setback, however, the new plat map showing the structures is not to scale so it is hard to say for sure, but it appears to be 20 feet frorn the current ponding easernent which is the ordinary high water mark of the wetland. Cornrnissioner Trippler asked ifthe applicant rnoved the buildings further north so the parking would not be an issue off of Larpenteur Avenue? Ms. Finwall said staff does not think the building setback will be an issue where the applicant would have to move the structures themselves. Commissioner Dierich said staff said the city council approved the 16-foot setback variance on the one side. She asked if the variance was a given or was this just a formality and the commission has to vote yes for the variance because the city council already approved a piece of this. Ms. Finwall said when the city council approved the rezoning; staff put together a concept of what could be built on this site. The city council approved the concept plan perhaps without the knowledge that the plan had a variance attached to it. Commissioner Kaczrowski asked if there would be any traffic implications by having the one outlet on Adolphus Street and does there need to be another outlet onto Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Ahl said there were four homes with driveway access onto Larpenteur Avenue. With this new developrnent the city has set the driveway entrances and exits on Adolphus Avenue because of traffic concerns. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jack Krongard of Krongard Builders, Inc., 14791 - 60th Street North, Suite 2, Stillwater, addressed the commission. Mr. Krongard said he wasn't aware there was a variance attached to this because his company took the footprint of the reconstructed building pads frorn the City of Maplewood and created the buildings to fit the reconstructed pads. The parking was designed based on what was given to hirn by the City of Maplewood. As far as the landscaping he will work with staff to make it work on the site. He has money budgeted and monies can be shifted around to take care of redesigning the landscape plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -19- Mr. Ahl said regarding the variance situation and the limitations on the site, Adolphus Street requires a 15-foot dedication of right-of-way, if you take away the 15-foot dedicated right-of- way, the 16-foot variance becomes a one-foot variance. Adolphus Street is offset and that site could be moved further to the west but there was a drainage overflow problem with water up to the rafters in the basement of the houses in this area before the city purchased them. The city put a 20-foot drainage easement for an overflow of the pond into the center and then put the restriction on the far western side of a small retaining wall and tried to put landscaping there and started reducing the width of the site with restrictions. Mr. Ahl said there was existing traffic problerns on Larpenteur Avenue so they designed the plan to have the driveway location enter and exit onto Adolphus Street. Then the city discovered the soils were bad and to increase the value of the site, the city removed the foundations, improved the soils and had to figure out how to get 11 units on this site to save funds which is how it ended up being laid out. So the planning commission is not locked into this variance but the soils are corrected to that variance and site plan because of the other issues that exist there. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city corrected the soils between the buildings so the buildings can be moved closer than what is shown on the plan? Mr. Ahl said the city doesn't want to have a drainage problem again as they did in April of 2001, so the 20-foot drainage easement is required there. Mr. Krongard said keep in mind these are front to back units so the activity is in front and back and the side of the unit will pretty much be a screen by itself. Commissioner Pearson said about the same time the flooding problem occurred in these homes there was also a problem with the Ramsey County sewer line and he asked if that problem had been corrected yet? Mr. Ahl said the sewer problem Commissioner Pearson is referring to was with the MnDot system off Highway 35E. MnDot is proposing to upgrade Highway 35E in the next ten to fifteen years to a wider freeway, which will increase the runoff. However, that system is not up to capacity and will not be able to handle additional runoff. He has seen enough heavy rainfalls in his career and the city knows to correct and provide proper drainage for those overflow events. Cornrnissioner Trippler moved to approve the Pondview Town House preliminary plat date- starnped May 9, 2005. Prior to final approval of the common interest community plat by the city, the owner or developer must complete the following: a. Revise the location of the wetland/ponding easement to ensure a 20-foot buffer from the delineated wetland. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. b. Prepare and submit easement documents for the required utility easements to city staff for approval. c. Revise the grading/drainage/utility plans as specified by the city's engineering department in their June 2, 2005, engineering plan review. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -20- d. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the owner or developer must complete the following: 1) Record the utility and wetland/ponding easements. 2)Since the plat is a common interest community plat and not officially recorded until after the structures are built, are five individual lots must be combined into one property for tax and identification purposes, and a revised lot line subdividing the two buildings must be administratively approved by city staff in order to allow the construction of the two buildings on two separate lots. e. Prior to certificate of occupancy for the buildings, the owner or developer must record the final plat. Approve the variance resolution (Attachment 9) as shown in the staff report. This resolution approves a 16-foot setback variance to the adjacent residential property for the proposed Pondview Townhornes located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. Approval of the variance is based on the following findings: . Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The location of the existing wetland and storm sewer limit the location for the proposed town houses. . The reduction in the town houses setback to the adjacent residential property line will be mitigated by the following factors: the town house will be located approximately eleven feet lower than the adjacent residential lot line; the town house proposed is only a two-story structure, and not a large multi-dwelling building; and additional landscape screening will be added to buffer the two properties. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the CDRB on June 14,2005, and then to city council on June 27,2005. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-06-05 -21- IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. No representation was needed for the May 23, 2005, city council meeting. Cornrnissioner Dierich said the EAW environmental study on Carver Avenue for the Schlornka property was discussed. Mr. Roberts said the city council gave perrnission for the EAW environrnental study to be done along Sterling Street south of Carver Avenue as well as some other properties. The city is contributing $10,000 to the environmental study and the developer is contributing $25,000. b. Mr. Ahlness will be the planning commission representative at the June 13, 2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Roadway Easement Vacation on (Marylake Road west of Century Avenue), the CUP revision for Liberty Classical Academy (1717 English Street), Trout Land Auto Dealership (Highway 61 and new County Road D) CUP, and the 2006 - 2010 Maplewood CIP. c. Mr. Grover will be the planning cornrnission representative at the June 27, 2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Richie/Anondson four-plexes at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East for the Land Use Plan Change, Zoning Map Change, and the Pondview Town House Project at Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Avenue. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Update Mr. Roberts determined the best day for the city council is Thursday, July 28, 2005. b. Rescheduling of July 4,2005, Planning Commission Meeting to either Tuesday, July 5, 2005, or Wednesday, July 6, 2005. After checking with planning commissioners the Monday, July 4,2005, planning commission meeting is being rescheduled to Tuesday, July 5,2005. Planning Commissioners Desai and Trippler are unable to attend the planning commission meeting for both July 5 and July 6. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.