Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/23/1983 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, May 23, 1983 7:30 p.m., City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER, by Ryan Construction. Planned Unit Development District Review, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Zoning from Rural to I-2, and Preliminary Plat of 14.05 acres into two lots for office/service/storage uses. Location: Northeast of Shady Oak Road, west of I-494. A continued public hearing. B. TERRY DOUGLAS. Request for Steep Slope Grading Review, Pursuant to Section 11 .60 of the City Code. Location: North of U. S. #169, west of Eden Prairie Road in Minnesota River Bluffs area. C. GUSTAFSON & ASSOCIATES, Request for Rezoning from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 for two single family detached homes on two lots. Location: Adjacent to Cardinal Creek Road & west of Stonewood Court. A public meeting. D. LEN SWEDLUND & REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY. Request for Pre- liminary Plat of 14 acres into three (3) lots of approximately 4.6 acres for single family detached homes. Location: South of Riley Lake Road and east of the Carver/Hennepin County boundary. A public hearing. E. WELSH CONSTRUCTION, INC. Request for Rezoning of 1.5 acres from Rural and R1-22 to Office, and Preliminary Plat of 1.5 acres for office land use. Location: North of W. 78th Street and east of Schooner Boulevard. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT • MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 23, 1983 City Hall , 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett (9:00 p.m.), Stan Johannes (8:40 p.m.), Dennis Marhula, Hakon Torjesen STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen to amend the agenda order to be 4B, 4C, 4D, 4A, 4E. Motion carried--4-0-0 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to approve the minutes of the May 9, 1983 Planning Commission meeting with the following additions: Page 8, paragraph 5, sentence 3, amended to read (additions underlined), "Marhula asked if this well system would enter and affect the aquifer." Page 10, paragraph 1, amended by adding the following sentence: Torjesen stated that he felt the proposal should be compared for conformity with the legislative intent of the Planned Unit Development as approved. Motion carried--3-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained) III. MEMBERS REPORTS - None. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS B. TERRY DOUGLAS. Request for Steep Slope Grading Review, Pursuant to Section 11.60 of the City Code. Location: • North of U. S. #169, west of Eden Prairie Road on Minnesota River Bluffs. Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 23, 1983 Zoning Administrator, Jean Johnson, reviewed the request of Mr. Douglas for grading of a slope along the Minnesota River Bluffs for purposes of an access drive from Highway #169 for his home. She presented slides of various areas of the City from 1981, when the City had begun its investigations of slope preservation and erosion control . Slides of the Douglas site, presenting greater detail of the work completed, proposed, and the nature of slopes on the site, were shown. Zoning Administrator Johnson pointed out that the driveway, as proposed, would not infringe upon any Indian burial mounds. Planning Staff recommended approval of the request, subject to the recommendations- of the Staff Report of May 20, 1983. Chairman Bearman asked how citizens were informed of the requirement for a grading permit on slopes. Staff explained that the City had published the ordinance in the official newspaper and had also received the cooperation of the local newspapers for stories regarding the matter. Torjesen questioned whether a building permit was required for a driveway. Staff responded that none was required under normal circumstances, but would be required in the case of a slope over 12%, such as this. Staff added that the Watershed District also required a permit when more than 100 cubic yards of top soil would be excavated for any project. • Marhula questioned whether Beverly Drive would ever be extended. Planner Enger stated that it was not possible to predict whether it would, or not. He added that it had been platted to the property line, however. Marhula asked if any discussions had been held with the Watershed District regarding the need for a permit. Proponent, Terry Douglas, stated that there had not. Torjesen questioned whether the developer's agreement for this area had dealt with the question of access. Planner Enger stated that the developer's agreement did require access to the north to Beverly Drive. Current access existed via a private easement across private property to the west. Planner Enger pointed out that there were two Staff considerations: 1) Can the slope be reasonably stablized upon completion of the project. Staff's opinion was that it could; 2) Can the driveway be invisible from the bluff area. Staff's opinion was that it could. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend approval of the request of Terry Douglas for grading of the steep • slope for purposes of a driveway for his property located at 10011 Dell Road, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 20, 1983. Motion carried--4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 23, 1983 C. GUSTAFSON & ASSOCIATES, Request for Rezoning from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 for two single family detached homes on two lots. Location: Adjacent to Cardinal Creek Road & west of Stonewood Court. A public meeting. Mr. Greg Gustafson, Gustafson & Associates, was present to explain the request for rezoning. He stated that the lots were originally platted for duplex usage. After the platting process was nearly completed, it was discovered that the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance included a 150 ft. structure setback from the creek. This made it quite difficult to use these two lots for purposes of duplex construction, therefore. Based on these requirements, proponent was requesting zoning from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 for two lots. Staff reviewed the findings of the Staff Report of May 20, 1983, recommending approval subject to the conditions listed in the report. Gartner stated that she was concerned by the letter received from Mr. Kevin Kuester regarding the oak tree on the site, which was to be preserved. Mr. Kuester stated in his letter that the tree had been removed and questioned why it had been done when the public had been told it would be saved. Mr. Gustafson responded that, while • attempts had been made to salvage the tree, they were unsuccessful. He reminded the Commission that the tree was located within a platted right-of-way for a public street. The road was to split and go around the tree at that point. Mr. Gustafson also stated that they, proponents, had agreed to do everything possible to save the tree, but had not guaranteed that it would be saved. Prior to the removal of the tree, Mr. Gustafson had hired a tree surgeon to examine the tree. It was the tree surgeon's conclusion that the tree would be dead shortly, anyway, as the center of it was hollow. Therefore, the tree was removed. There was also a complaint in Mr. Kuester's letter regarding the vehicle crossings of the creek bed. Staff responded that this would be checked. There was one area where vehicles had always been allowed to cross the creek, where a culvert had been installed to handle the water. Other than the one location, there should be no crossings of the creek by vehicles. Chairman Bearman asked for comments from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend approval of the request of Gustafson & Associates for rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 17, Block 2, Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 20, 1983. Motion carried--4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 23, 1983 D. LEN SWEDLUND & REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY. Request for Pre- liminary Plat of 14 acres into three (3) lots of approximately 4.6 acres for single family detached homes. Location: South of Riley Lake Road and east of the Carver/Hennepin County boundary. A public hearing. Mr. Greg Frank, proponent's engineer, reviewed the request for preliminary platting of three lots. He explained the history behind the request, noting that it had been before the Commission in 1980 in exactly the same configuration. At that time, approvals had been received for the preliminary plat from the Planning Commission, and proponent was to proceed to the Board of Appeals with variance requests for the lot size, which, at that time, was a five-acre minimum in the Rural District. Due to personal circumstances involving financial difficulties affecting the property, the final platting process was never completed. Only at this point in time have these circumstances been cleared; therefore, proponent is back before the City. Mr. Frank stated that it was proponent's position that the circumstances surrounding this project were unusual and to grant such a request at this time, even though not in conformance with the existing Code, would not be precedent setting because of the unusual circumstances. Mr. Frank stated that the addition of these lots would not create a need for the extension of utilities to the site. Staff reviewed the findings of the Staff Report of May 20, 1983, recommending denial based on those findings. It was suggested in the Staff Report that proponent return with a proposal revised to include two, instead of three, lots. Planner Enger pointed out that the major consideration was that of compliance with City Code requirements, combined with the fact that the project was initiated in 1980, three years ago, and was never pursued further than preliminary platting in those three years. Torjesen stated that he found the arguments of the proponent pursuasive, especially regarding the inability'of filing of a final plat due to the personal financial circumstances of the proponent. He added that he felt it would be important to know the final disposition of the final plat in terms of the City in order to make a decision on this proposal. Torjesen questioned the normal chain of events for approval of a final plat. Staff responded that the final plat was normally filed within six months of the approval of the preliminary plat. This was required by the Subdivision Regulations of the City Code. It was pointed out that this requirement was not strictly enforced; however, if and when proponent's required additional time, they generally would contact Staff for time extension on this requirement. Torjesen questioned what made this project different. Planner Enger Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 23, 1983 • stated that the requirements of the Code had changed. In addition, the developer had not been in contact with the City regarding an extension. Len Swedlund, one of the proponent's, stated that he was unaware of the change in the Code until he had recently reapplied for approval of the project. MOTION• Motion as made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen to continue the public hearing to the June 6, 1983 meeting pending resolution of the status of the final plat at the City based on the 1980 application for this preliminary plat. Motion carried--4-0-0 (Johannes arrived at 8:40 p.m., Hallett arrived at 9:00 p.m.) A. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER, by Ryan Construction. Planned Unit Development Amendment, Zoning from Rural to I-2, and Preliminary Plat of 14.05 acres into two lots for office/service/storage uses. Location: Northeast of Shady Oak Road, west of I-494. A continued public hearing. The Commission had continued this item from the meeting of May 9, 1983 in order to have additional research prepared regarding the legislative history of the project, the intent of the developer's agreement for the property, and the exact approvals granted to the project previously. In addition, Staff had been asked to prepare a proposed list of allowable uses for this area of the City West Planned Unit Development for this project. Planner Enger reviewed the history of the project in detail, based on Council and Planning Commission actions and recommendations. He stated that, in discussions with the City Attorney, it was suggested that covenants be placed on the land which would run between the land owner and the City. Gartner stated that she felt it was important that when a developer's agreement is entered into that significantly changes a project, the minutes of that meeting should note the change(s) in order to avoid misunderstandings about exactly what has been approved. Torjesen stated that he felt the proponent had been acting in good faith in proceeding with the project. He said he felt the developer's agreement was not followed, however, by the proponents. Gartner stated that she felt the the intent of the "no fewer than eight (8) buildings" clause of the developer's agreement was to provide for a less dense appearance for the area. Steve Swanson, Ryan Construction, gave a brief review of the proposal and uses suggested for the site. He pointed out where and how the proposal would fit into the approved plan for the City West Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 23, 1983 PUD per Exhibit B of the developer's agreement for the site. Hallett questioned in which areas the project did not comply with the approved developer's agreement. Staff responded that there were two areas: 1) It was not a 100% office use; and, 2) It was not 148,000 sq. ft., but more. Staff pointed out that the eight (8) or more buildings were to be included within sites A-C as depicted on Exhibit B of the developer's agreement. Four buildings were being proposed for lots B and C at this time. Site A was still available for location of additional buildings. Hallett stated that he felt it was necessary for the Commission to consider only the approved PUD as acted upon by the City Council. He added that he considered it a substantial change from the version recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The Commission discussed the developer's agreement in greater detail with the Planning Staff. Marhula pointed out that the request before the Planning Commission was for amendment to the previously approved PUD. He stated that he felt the Commission should be dealing with the He proposed. Johannes stated that he felt the Commission should judge this plan on its own merits with the base of the developer's agreement which was approved. Gartner asked if the buildings would be owner-occupied or leased. Al Schackman, Ryan Construction, responded that they would be leased. Mr. Schackman asked if the percentages of uses proposed by Staff for warehousing, assembling, and office, were to be based on a per unit basis or on a project basis. Staff responded that it would be based on an overall project basis. Johannes stated that he felt administration and enforcement of such percentages would be quite difficult. He suggested that the developer be allowed to monitor this privately as, if it did become a problem, the developer would be the one facing the dissatisfied tenants. It would, therefore, be in the developer's best interest to make sure the percentages worked now. Johannes stated that he felt it was more important to deal with how the project looked externally and how fit into the existing surroundings. Chairman Bearman stated that he felt problems might develop with the covenants proposed by the City Attorney in that he was not certain that the covenants would provide sufficient control over uses allowed within the district by right according the the City Code. Planner Enger stated that this was a proposed PUD District and zoning request. It would be taking the I-2 zone and supplement it with the PUD District to accommodate the proposed uses. Enforcement would be based on the overlying and underlying zones. Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 23, 1983 Torjesen stated that he felt the proposal was an attractive one in terms of design and concept. However, the problem was trying to make this proposal fit on this site, given the decisions that had been reached with respect to this site previously. He stated that, based on this, he did not feel this project, as good as it was, would be appropriate for this site. Johannes stated that, whether the property was zoned I-2 or Office would not have a bearing on what the surrounding residents would view in terms of roofing on the structures. A pitch and gravel roof for either type of construction would look the same. Johannes added that many of the homes indicating concern for this project were higher in elevation and would be looking down on roofs regardless of the type of zoning requested by proponent. Chairman Bearman asked if sight lines had been prepared from the existing structures to the proposed structures. Mr. Swanson presented several sight lines which had been prepared, indicating the view from each to the proposed structures. Basically, the top six feet of the structures proposed would be visible from the existing residential structures. Chairman Bearman stated that he would prefer to vary the Office izoning district to allow for the industrial types of uses, rather than varying the Industrial zoning district to allow the office types of uses, since the majority use of the structures would be for office purposes. He added that he felt it would be more appropriate to use the strictest district possible for enforcement purposes. Marhula stated that he agreed. Mr. Schackman stated that, at the time of application, it was determined to apply for variance to the I-2 District, rather than the Office District, because the I-2 District allowed for office, assembly, and warehouse uses--the Office District did not allow for assembly or warehouse uses. He added that the type of clientele he would attract to these structures would not be looking for any other mix of uses. They would not be interested in the high percentage of warehouse space or assembly space allowed under I-2 zoning. Mr. Schackman stated that the list of non-permitted uses suggested by the Staff Report represented uses which would not be interested in the ratios of office/assembly/warehouse space which would be constructed in this building. A building which is office-looking in appearance attracts the clientele for this project, whereas it would not attract those non-permitted uses. Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of the audience. • Warren Gerreke, 6622 Golden Ridge, stated that the owners were planning only multiple residential use for the land. He stated that the property had changed from low density residential to industrial park type of development as proposed. He suggested that if this project were allowed to be industrial, it would encourage the Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 23, 1983 remainder of the City West project to be developed as industrial. Mr. Gerreke stated that he did not feel it would be possible to screen this site from the residents on Golden Ridge in any way. Jerry Steelman, 6601 Golden Ridge Road, stated that he, too, was concerned that the type of use had increased in intensity from low density residential to industrial. Scott Anderson, owner of the City West property, reviewed the other uses in process for various parcels within the City West PUD, including a hotel, banking, office facility, and two remaining vacant parcels still being marketed. He pointed out that the improvements for the entire project were underway at this time. Dick Feerick, 6518 4eesborough, stated that he felt the people located on Golden Ridge Drive had been living there many years and invested in their property based on what they knew to be the development plan for the area. He stated that he felt this PUD would have a signficant impact on their neighborhood, which should be taken into consideration by the City in their decision-making about any development in the area. Mr. Schackman stated that Ryan Construction had every intention of • producing a quality project, not only for themselves, but for the community. He stated that they were willing to work with the City and the neighborhood in any manner possible to mitigate the problems people felt existed regarding their proposal. Mr. Schackman stated that he felt there was no conflict between the list of non-permitted uses suggested by Staff and the types of tenants they had proposed for their structures. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend denial of the Planned Unit Development District Review and Planned Unit Development Amendment, based on plans dated March 25, 1983, and written materials dated March 30, 1983, for office/service/storage uses for City West Business Center by Ryan Construction, due to land use considerations involving the proposed uses by proponent versus those which were approved by previous action. of the City. During discussion of the motion, Torjesen stated that he felt, • although the project was clearly a quality, well designed project, the uses proposed were not appropriate in this location, particularly based on the fact that the approved Planned Unit Development for the City West project was to be office, not Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 23, 1983 • industrial . Gartner stated that she had three major objections to the proposal : 1) The proposal had greater square footage than was approved under the City West PUD, which approved 148,000 sq. ft., whereas the proposal was for 174,000 sq. ft. ; 2) The proposed development did not follow the intent of the of the approved developer's agreement, especially with respect to visual impact; and 3) The proposal would be more appropriate as an Office use with variances for warehousing and assembly, rather than Industrial use with variances for the amount of office. Motion failed--3-3-0 (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, and Torjesen in favor; Hallett, Johannes, and Marhula against) Marhula stated that he felt it was important to make it clear to the developer what the objections of the Commission were. He stated that he felt the site plan had validity and was well designed. Marhula expressed concern for the use of the I-2 zone, as opposed to the Office zone for this project. He stated that he felt it would not be possible to keep the uses from turning into completely I-2 uses in the future as the I-2 uses were allowed by right in the zone. Marhula suggested that the City may wish to consider an additional zoning district for such hybrid uses for the future. Torjesen stated that he was concerned that the legislative intent of the original Planned Unit Development for City West had not been followed. He stated that he felt the developer's agreement did not, as written, allow for such uses as proposed by Ryan Construction; however, he agreed that the plan was well designed and attractive. Torjesen questioned whether the communication process between the City and the citizens was adequate in that he agreed with Gartner that there should be some manner of notifying the residents when changes were made to a development after the public hearing process. Torjesen added that, regarding land use for this area, he was concerned that the property had been changed from low density residential, to high density residential to office, and, if approved, to industrial over a period of several years. He stated that he felt the impact on the neighborhood of such changes had been tremendous. Johannes noted that he voted against the denial of the project as he felt the positive features of the design and the uses proposed outweighed the negatives. He stated that he felt the City needed to remain flexible enough to allow for the dynamics of the business world and its changing needs, and felt the use was an appropriate choice for this project. . Johannes reiterated concern for setting definite percentages of office/assembly/warehouse uses for the use. He stated that he felt this should be left to the control of the developer. He added that he felt the concerns for visual impact and image within the existing Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 23, 1983 • neighborhood, as well as use impact upon the existing neighborhood, were more important. Johannes stated that, as far as these concerns, he felt the Ryan Construction project was a good use for the area. Hallett stated that he felt the buildings did appear to be "office- like" in appearance, and that, from that point of view, he felt the project fit the location. He added that he felt the lesser traffic, the maximum 30 ft. height, and the berming and landscaping of the site were all positive features of the development as proposed. Hallett also stated that the buildings were well designed with consideration given to minimizing visual impact upon the adjacent neighborhood by locating the truck areas at the interior, out of sight. Hallett questioned the advisability of exceeding the 148,000 maximum square footage requirement of the approved developer's agreement for the site. He agreed with Marhula that the City needed to remain flexible to allow for the changes taking place in businesses and asked if guidelines could be developed for both the developers and the Commission to deal with "high tech" uses. Gartner said that she was aware that the citizens in the surrounding neighborhood had participated in the two Comprehensive Guide Plan . hearings dealing with this area, and that she was convinced that they were trying to take an active part in the processes of the City. At these times, the City had told the neighborhood what the uses would be. She stated that she felt the City had a responsibility to follow through on what had been approved and that she did not feel this project fit the approval of record. Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the request should be for variance to the Office District, not the I-2 Park District. He stated that he agreed with other Commissioners that the project was well designed. He restated concern that covenants would not be sufficient to deter eventual I-2 uses within the structures, as opposed to the special mix with office as proposed by Ryan Construction, if the buildings were sold in the future. MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend denial of zoning from Rural to I-2 based on plans dated March 25, 1983 and written materials dated March 30, 1983 for office/service/storage uses for City West Business Center by Ryan Construction, based on a finding of non-compliance with the original intent of the approved developer's agreement in terms of land use for the City West Planned Unit Development. Motion carried--4-2-0 (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, Marhula, and Torjesen in favor; Hallett and Johannes against) Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 23, 1983 0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend denial of the preliminary plat of 14.05 acres into two lots based on plans dated March 25, 1983 and written materials dated March 30, 1983 for office/service/storage uses for City West Business Center by Ryan Construction, based on the land use, only. Torjesen stated that he wanted it to be clear that the motion was proposed for denial based on the fact that if the land use and zoning for the proposal are not approved, then it is moot to recommend approval of a proposed preliminary plat based on proposed land use and zoning for the project. The preliminary plat was not being voted upon, nor reviewed against the Code and compliance with City requirements. Motion failed--3-3-0 (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, and Torjesen in favor; Hallett, Johannes, and Marhula, against) E. WELSH CONSTRUCTION, INC. Request for Rezoning of 1 .5 acres from Rural and RI-22 to Office, and Preliminary Plat of 1.5 acres for office land use. Location: North of W. 78th . Street and east of Schooner Boulevard. A public hearing. Dennis Doyle, Welsh Construction, introduced the request and reviewed the features of the site as proposed for development. He stated that Welsh Construction would be moving their corporate headquarters into this building, occupying half of the structure, and would lease out the remaining space until such time as growth of their firm allowed them to occupy the entire building. Darryl Anderson, architect for the proponent, reviewed the structure features with the Commission. Planner Enger pointed out the Staff concerns regarding this project, including storm drainage, access to W. 78th' Street, and slopes. Chairman Bearman asked why the proponent had not presented signage or landscaping plans for the project. Mr. Doyle stated that they were not completed, but that their intentions were to comply with City Code requirements regarding these two matters. Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public • hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 23, 1983 MOTION 2• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by .Marhula, to recommend approval of the request for zoning from R1-22 and Rural to Office for Welsh Construction, Inc. for office use, per plans dated April 22, 1983 and written materials dated April 27, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 20, 1983, with the addition of condition #9 to read: "Developer shall conform to City Code requirements and submit to City Staff and receive Staff approval of landscaping and signage plans for the site." Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of 1.5 acres for a 21,000 sq. ft. office building for Welsh Construction, Inc., per plans dated April 22, 1983 and written materials dated April 27, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 20, 1983, with condition #9 to read: "Developer shall conform to City Code requirements and submit to City Staff and receive Staff approval of landscaping and signage plans for the site," and condition #10 to read: "Proponent shall provide satisfactory easement arrangements • be established with the adjoining property." Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate Karnas Planning Secretary