Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/24/2004 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, MAY 24, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Jon Stoltz, William Sutherland, Ray Stoelting STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting, Commissioners Brooks, Kacher, Nelson, Rocheford, Seymour, Stoltz, and Sutherland. Absent: Koenig II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks to approve the agenda. Motion carried 8-0. III. MINUTES A. Minutes of the May 10, 2004 Community Planning Board Meeting MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoelting to approve the minutes with an amendment of record to indicate that Jon Stoltz and William Sutherland were absent rather than present at the May 10, 2004 Community Planning Board Meeting. IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETING V. PUBLIC MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2004-06 Petition of Brian Cook for property at 6539 Countryside Lane. Front yard setback variance from 30 feet to 22 feet for a one-stall garage addition. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 2 Brian Cook, 6539 Countryside Drive, said he was asking the Board for their approval because of circumstances unique to the property. Cook indicated there were two reasons for the variance: (1) the shape of the lot which has partial frontage on a cul-de-sac, and (2) to construct the addition at the required setback would alter the architecture of the front of the home. Cook presented the Board a letter of support from one of his neighbors and indicated that the other neighbors were in support of the garage addition. Stoelting asked Cook to address the hardship relating to his request. Cook responded that because the way the street and curb are constructed, it does not allow them to build. Cook said that they considered a detached garage, but because of the steep hill on their lot, they would have to remove a large tree,bring in a lot of fill, and it would block light coming into the house. Franzen told the Board it was reasonable for a resident to ask for a garage addition as proposed. The 22-foot setback is from the closest point of the garage to the closest point of the street. The 22-foot setback is really only a corner of the garage. Franzen pointed out that the applicant has valid reasons because of the shape of the lot and where the garage is located. Also, the garage addition would fit in with the current architecture of the house. Franzen said that if you measure from the street to the proposed garage addition, it measures approximately 30 feet. Franzen thought that the reasons for the variance were valid. Nelson expressed her support for the variance citing that a detached garage would be a detriment whereas keeping the addition where it is would enhance the architecture of the neighborhood. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Stoelting to approve Variance#2004-06 for property located at 6539 Countryside Lane to include a front yard variance from 30 feet to 22 feet for a one-stall garage addition. Motion carried 8-0. B. VARIANCE#2004-07 Petition of the City of Eden Prairie for property at 16301 Valley View Road. A lot size variance from 22,000 square feet to 19,176 square feet, and a lot frontage from 90 feet to 44 feet. Franzen indicated that the road design was put together by the SRF Group relocating the driveway access to the east. To realize the roadway improvements it requires the reconfiguration of the existing lot to the east and creates the variance for lot size and street frontage. The existing house would be removed and replaced by new construction. The new house is proposed to be constructed will meet the required setbacks and is being built by students of the Hennepin Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 3 County Vocational College. The new home would share access with Little Red. The two variance requests would (1)reduce the lot size variance from 22,000 square feet to 19,176 square feet, and (2) a lot frontage variance from 90 feet to 44 feet. Matthew Bryant, 16213 Valley View Road, said that he is the property owner that would have his lot significantly reduced in size. Bryant said that because of the lot size reduction,he would not have enough parking for his vehicles. Bryant told the Board that he has contacted the Hennepin County representatives to express his concerns, but has not received answers to his concerns. Bryant said he would no longer have any front yard and they will be removing his conifer trees on the west side of his home, which offers a lot of privacy. Bryant said he was promised consideration of some of the land,but has not received any. Bryant also indicated that he is concerned about the type of people that are going to move into the new home, their income level and how many cars would be parking outside. Bryant said he had questions about the Land Trust and there seems to be a coordination issue between Hennepin County Land Trust and the City of Eden Prairie. Bryant indicated he has been dealing with this issue for three years and has not received any answers to his questions. Stoelting said that it seemed as though Bryant had the following concerns: (1) no frontage and how will the road impact his home, (2) what is the process of land condemnation and where is that process, (3) how many people would reside in the new home and review of the building design, and (4) the removal of the conifer trees. Bryant said that the County has given him compensation for the loss of the frontage,but has not given him compensation for the inability to use his garage. Rod Rue, Assistant City Engineer for Hennepin County and project manager for the construction of the intersection,replied that what Bryant is referring to is that this is a cooperative project with Hennepin County, West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, Common Ground, Hennepin Technical College and the City of Eden Prairie. Rue said that the County has offered to do the road design and the project went out to bid. The County is responsible for right-of-way acquisition and they solicit appraisals for that process. Rue said that the project being considered was purchased about one year ago. After appraisals are sent out, they try and negotiate a price for the right-of-way and after 90 days, they can start the condemnation process. Rue said that they are presently in the 90-day window. Stoelting asked Rue if Bryant received a letter. Rue said that the letter would have come from Hennepin County. The County is presently managing the right-of-way acquisition and the last resort would be condemnation. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 4 Stoelting asked what would happen if Bryant is not satisfied with the right-of-way offer and they couldn't come up with an agreeable price. Rue said if there is not an agreement, the condemnation hearing would be before a Hennepin County judge. The court would probably grant Hennepin County the right to go onto the property and construct what they want to construct. The judge would decide the value of the land being taken at that time. Stoelting asked staff if it is too early to review the project if the process isn't complete. Franzen responded that the Board could consider the variance request at this time since the demolition of the existing home and the road project will be started soon. Rue said that the road project has already been bid and awarded on May 4, 2004, and the project is scheduled to start after Memorial Day. When right-of-way becomes available on the east side of the road, then the crew will begin. Stoelting asked Rue to review the distance from Bryant's house to the road. Rue said that the need for the taking of the property right-of-way involves widening of the road. Rue explained that the northwest corner of the property is out into the roadway. There is about 12-15 feet taken from the northwest corner and it tapers down easterly in front of Bryant's house. The trees would be taken because they would end up in the middle of the new road. Stoelting asked Franzen what the distance would be from the house to the road. Franzen said that the setback from the new property line would be about 20 feet rather than the required 30 feet. Stoelting asked about the proposed new home: what type of building would it be, how many bedrooms, how many people would live in it, how many cars would be parked outside. Franzen responded that the new home would be about 50 feet long, 30 feet deep with a 24-foot wide garage. The main level would have a large master bedroom and there would be a total of three bedrooms. The lower level would include an unfinished basement with room for another bedroom and recreation area. This house is typical of the homes built in the 1990s. Houses built today are a little larger. The home is a single-family home. Stoelting asked Franzen to address the parking issue. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 5 Franzen said that he does not have a drawing showing the parking,but between the back of the house and rear of the property line there is 25 feet and approximately 30 feet between the back of the curb and the garage. Two cars can be comfortably parked. Actually, you need about a 20 foot space in front of the garage to park most vehicles. Stoltz indicated that Bryant would lose about 10 or more feet in front of his property. Bryant said that he has three full sized vehicles and after the taking of the right- of-way, there would be about 20 feet of parking space and he would not be able to park three vehicles. Bryant said he was given a price for the taking of his land on the west perimeter,but he was wondering where he would park. Bryant said he would like to know what they would do with his garage. He asked what single- family means and how many people would be occupying the new home. Franzen asked Bryant if it were possible to move his garage back on the lot, would he feel better about the taking of the property. Bryant said he sent a document to the County on May 2, 2004, so they could address safety,privacy and pollution issues. Bryant said that if they find a comparable property in Eden Prairie, he would make an even trade on his existing home. He indicated he proposed that they move his existing home and garage back on the property. Bryant said he has proposed many things to the County in the past two years. Franzen said that it seemed logical to move the property back on the lot. He also said that the County is required to replace trees that are taken on the property. Bryant told Franzen he has not heard back from the County and asked that Franzen contact the County to discuss these issues on his behalf. Stoelting asked what type of people might live in the new home and how many. Sandal Hart, Treasurer of the Board of West Hennepin County Affordable Housing Land Trust said the Land Trust does have income guidelines when placing people in these homes. The homeowners would have to have 60 to 80 percent income of the area median, which would mean that a family of four would have to have an income of$60,000 per year. The Land Trust has placed 14 families in homes, 10 in Minnetonka, 2 in Richfield, 1 in New Hope and 1 in Wayzata. The families placed consisted of one person to six people living in the homes. Hart said that the cities regulate the parking issues. Hart said that they have not experienced any significant problems with the families placed. Hart said that the Land Trust owns the land; the potential homeowner must qualify for a mortgage and their income and debt are appraised by the borrowing bank. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 6 Nelson said that the types of people who would own this type of home would be police officers, teachers, etc. who have a middle-income range. Hart said that is correct. The Land Trust does not target low-income families. Hart said that 35 to 40 percent of the households in communities have about 80 percent of the area's median income and could qualify. Stoelting said that the City does have some affordability goals in the City that are part of the Livable Communities Act. Stoltz said he was excited that the City of Eden Prairie is a part of this type of project. Stoltz said he was in support of the project and hoped that the City and Mr. Bryant could come to some type of agreement. Stoelting said he was concerned about removing the conifer trees. Fox said he looked at the site and the 10 conifer trees are under power lines and have been trimmed back severely. Fox said the conifer trees are more in danger of the power lines than any construction. Brooks said he supported the variance,but he suggested there be a City liaison to help property owners work with the County. Kacher said he would like to know if Bryant would have to go to the City to get another variance. Franzen said that the building does not meet the setbacks; therefore, if he sold the property he would be required to get a variance. Kacher said he was concerned that this project affects the current homeowner and would like to see his concerns addressed. Franzen said that if the Board approves the variance, they would make a safer intersection and improve access into Little Red. The lot size is not out of character for the neighborhood. Franzen said the variances are not creating the problem for Bryant's lot. Franzen said that there are options such as moving the garage back on the lot, an opportunity for fencing, and tree replacement. Seymour said that he drives this intersection and it will be nice to see that this intersection is going to be upgraded. Seymour also expressed his support for the new home being built. He said he is hopeful that if Franzen talks with the County that some of Bryant's issues would be resolved. Seymour expressed his support for the variance. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 7 Nelson said she supported the project also. She said she would like if the City is able to work with the County on moving Bryant's garage back on the lot and some tree replacement. Sutherland said he supported the variance request and indicated that the request for the variance would be the same even if the road would not be widened. Seymour asked Franzen if the garage being moved is up to the City or County. Franzen said that moving the garage would be up to the County and the property owner to work out. Char Bruening, 7361 Walnut Court, a couple of houses from the intersection that will be improved, said she did not know why they have to improve Valley View for more traffic when there is Hwy. 5 nearby. Bryant said he was still concerned about the people moving into the new home and wondered what would happen if their income increased or they won the lottery, would they still be allowed to live in the home. Bryant reiterated that he was still very concerned about the trees and loss of privacy. He said that they can move his garage back on the lot,but he is more concerned about his house in that he could no longer use the front yard and the road is right outside his front picture window. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour to approve Variance#2004-07, petitioned by the City of Eden Prairie for property at 116301 Valley View Road to allow a lot size variance from 22,000 square feet to 19,176 square feet and a lot frontage variance from 90 feet to 44 feet with the City of Eden Prairie working with Hennepin County on an issue of moving the existing garage back on the lot for property located at 16213 Valley View Road. Motion carried 7-1. C. FLYING CLOUD MALL by Kleve properties, location Pioneer Trail, east of Highway 212. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.96 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.96 acres, Rezoning from Commercial Highway to Neighborhood Commercial on .65 acres and rezoning from I-2 to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.31 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.96 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.96 acres into 1 lot. Dennis Kleve, 13075 Pioneer Trail, addressed the Board and said that they were at an information meeting in December and they would like to move ahead with Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 8 the project. Kleve said he was there with his brother, Dale Kleve, and his architect if the Board would have any questions. Stoelting asked if Kleve would review the format of the project and what they are proposing. Martin Woody, Architect for the project, said they are proposing combining existing lots that are zoned Industrial and they would like them zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Woody explained that the building would be a one- story building for retail businesses. The building would be a steel structure with a 75% glass and brick fagade. Woody said that they are proposing a building with a little over 25,000 square feet and approximately 151 parking spaces. The types of businesses are smaller retail users such as Dominoes, Radio Shack, coffee shops, etc. Franzen said that staff and the developer came before the Board in December and this proposal is a change in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board felt that this change in land use would be appropriate for the area. This proposed building is across the street from SA and McDonalds. Franzen felt that this change from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial would make sense at this site. Franzen indicated that the plans met all of the City requirements and is according to Code. Staff recommends approval. Stoltz indicated that he had no problem with changing the land use,but it seemed that there was not much thought put into what the building would look like. The plans seem one-dimensional and that is disappointing. Stoelting asked Franzen how the proposed building materials compare with the City's specifications. Franzen said that Code requires that 75% of the fagade consist of glass and natural materials like brick or stone,but the Code does not tell the builder how to design the building. Franzen said that if the Board is suggesting changes in architecture; the staff and developer would work on revising the plans. Franzen said that the Board could approve the Guide Plan change and the City could work with the developer on the architecture of the building. Martin Woody, Architect, said that these types of building are laid out based on economics. Woody said that in the center of the building they have a jog where the fagade is moved back about 12 feet and they could plant some garden space in the front. Stoltz asked Woody what the building would look like at night and inquired about the lighting on the building. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 9 Woody said that they will include wall mounted lighting fixtures by the entrances. He also said that there is lighting on the fagade, which will be about the same height as the awnings. Nelson asked if there was any discussion about pole lighting outside. Woody said that on the front of the building there will be wall mounted light fixtures,but they could look at the option of adding a dressier fixture. He said that the objective is to light the parking lot and transition to lighting on the front of the building. Kleve said they were looking at options on lighting,but indicated that they had a height restriction on the building. Sutherland asked about the difference between scheme A and scheme B. Woody said that the footprints between scheme A and scheme B are similar; however the two-story scheme is a smaller footprint and they would add a second story mezzanine. Woody said that one tenant requested a two-story space. Sutherland said that any approval from the Board would leave both options open. Seymour thought the project was a good fit for the area and changing the use of this property would be a catalyst for change in that area,but he said he would like to see a little more of an upgrade on the building. Seymour said the drawings were not acceptable because they do not show all the materials that meet code. Seymour said he would like to see some of the lighting on the building and more detail on the plans. Stoelting asked the Board if they were comfortable with the plans since some members have expressed concerns about the lighting and fagade on the building. Stoelting said the Board could go forward with the motion and give specific direction to staff or the Board could continue the project until the next meeting. Franzen said that it is a question of scale, the type of materials, and the detailing of the building. He mentioned that this is not a large building at 25,000 square feet. Stoelting said that the developer could work with Franzen on some of the detail issues. Seymour said that he would like to see more detail on the plans such as color of brick and lighting. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 10 Stoelting asked the Board members if they would be comfortable with Franzen working with the developer on the details of the plans. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to approve the request by Flying Cloud Mall by Kleve properties, location Pioneer Trail, east of Highway 212. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.96 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.96 acres, Rezoning from Commercial Highway to Neighborhood Commercial on .65 acres and rezoning from I-2 to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.31 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.96 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.96 acres into 1 lot based on plans dated May 21, 2004 and subject to the following conditions: (1) Prior to release of the final plat, the proponent shall submit detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District, (2) Prior to grading permit issuance the proponent shall notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading, (3) Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the proponent shall provide a plan for screening of mechanical equipment that includes the roofline of the building and the location and height of equipment and pay the Cash Park Fee, and (4) City staff will work with the project architect to upgrade the fagade of the building. Motion carried 8-0. Franzen told the Board members he would bring back the revised elevations and the plan details for the Board. D. GROOTWASSINK by Robert and Joan Gootwassink. The request is for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.88 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the Rural Zoning District on 7.88 acres, Preliminary Plat of 7.88 acres into 2 lots, Location: 9999 Dell Road. Paul Vogstrum, 3375 Crystal Bay Road, Orono, said he was there to represent the applicant. He indicated that they applicants are trying to split the lot in half and subdivide the property into two lots. The back of the lot on the site would be an outlot and it would be given to the City. Vogstrum said the applicants are proposing to add a home on the west property and there is an existing house on the east property. The requirement for this area is a 10-acre minimum,but they are trying to have 7.2 acres rather than the 10 acres. He said there is adequate room for a septic system. Franzen said that discussion about subdividing the lot has been going on for a couple of years. Franzen said that there is no sewer and water in this area,but the City has considered dividing the property if the City could protect the bluff. The Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 11 City made an offer to the applicants that if they dedicated 4 acres plus a 2-acre easement, the City would then support developing the property. This dedication of property to the City will preserve the bluff, slopes and trees in this area. Franzen said there is another alternative, the Board could decide not to develop it until there is sewer and water available, however without the land dedication to the City, there would be 6 to 8 houses in that area. The Board could recommend the waivers to the City Council and protect the natural features in that area. The applicants are giving up land for preservation to the City in exchange for subdividing their lot. Staff is recommending approval with the waivers. Nelson asked if this property is located in the Eden Prairie water table. Franzen said that the City has asked for a percolation and a soil test. Franzen said he did not think this area was in the wellhead protection area. Franzen said that the applicants do have to comply with State ordinances that address drainfields and separation distance of the well to the drainfield. Nelson said that she could not support the project if it is in a high permeability soil area. Kacher asked Franzen if this type of project had been done in the past. Franzen said that in the rural district there is no comparison but the City has done it throughout the City in other areas where there is City sewer and water. Kacher asked what happens when sewer and water is available to the area, could the applicants further subdivide. Franzen said that the City would have waivers on record to keep them from further developing. The outlot would be left exactly as it is. Franzen explained that they would record on the deed the developer's agreement and that restriction would be listed on the property deed and recorded as such. Gary Stevens, 17650 Flying Cloud Drive, expressed that he was concerned about building on the smaller lots rather than the 10-acre lots as required for the area. Stevens wanted to know if there are plans to upgrade Dell Road. Chuck Demers, 10001 Dell Road, indicated he had no problems with this project, but indicated he would like to subdivide his land. Demers wanted to know if the City is setting precedence for the area and would he be able to subdivide his land. Jeff Nyland, 9997 Dell Road, indicated that he also would like to subdivide his land, which is about 5 acres. Stoelting asked Franzen if these property owners could subdivide their land. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 12 Franzen said that the applicants are willing to dedicate 6 acres to preserve the land, and if other landowners can come up with the same type of agreement so that the City will be getting something in return, then they can apply for the same thing. The landowners would also have to meet the ordinances for a well, septic tank,parking, etc., without destroying the character of the property. Stoelting asked if the City had plans to upgrade Dell Road. Franzen said that it would be very expensive to upgrade Dell Road because of the drainage, grades and need for extensive retaining walls. Franzen said that the City is not proposing that Dell Road be upgraded until the Marshall property develops and it becomes a necessity. Kacher said that the precedence set could be an unfair one,because the landowner would have to give up three-quarters of their property. Kacher questioned if the precedence set could be applied fairly. Franzen said that if this proposal is approved, the City is going to use this as their guide and if the neighbors could come up with something similar then the City will consider it. Kacher questioned if the City wanted well and septic rather than City sewer and water. Franzen said that it is part of the trade off. Stoltz asked what stipulates when the City brings in sewer and water and how is that decision made. Franzen indicated that if there is an area where sewer and water can be brought in then the developer pays for it. When a neighborhood comes in and they want a development and there is support for that neighborhood, then that is when the City contemplates approval. Stoltz said that if there is a precedence set tonight, there may be a lot of landowners coming into the City for the same type of request. Franzen said that from comments received tonight, he would expect similar applications. Franzen said that the City wants to preserve the slopes and protect the bluff along Hwy. 212. Stoltz asked if the other lots would meet the objectives that the City is putting in place. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 13 Franzen said they could meet the objective of conservation easements,but they would have to have the physical room for the drainfield, backup drainfield, and well for the houses they plan on putting on the lots. They would have to put together a plan and the City would have to review it. Stoltz indicated that he did not want to see a lot of houses in that area. Stoelting asked Franzen if he saw this project as preservation of the bluff area, and also limiting the development of that area. Franzen said that yes, this area is very fragile and the City wants to protect that area. When the City has an opportunity to preserve an environmental feature, it's a good thing. Franzen said that if this were not a good way to protect an environmental feature,he would not support it. Nelson asked how old was the existing septic system. Franzen said that it was about 20-25 years old. Nelson asked if there was anyway the City could insist that they bring the old septic system up to date. Franzen said that the City could require that. Nelson said that if the soil does not have high permeability and the old septic system were to be updated, she could support preserving the bluff. Kacher said that there are about 10 to 20 homeowners in that area and asked whether the City would make an informal policy and set precedence. Kacher's concern was for fairness and setting precedence for that area. Stoelting asked to hear from the board members on the project. Rocheford said he would be comfortable with this approach and as new applicants come forward, the Board will be able to address the issues at that time and seek a solution for the property. Rocheford said he favors fewer homes in that area and in preserving the natural areas. Kacher said he was all right with taking an informal approach, but the Board should do it with their eyes wide open. Rocheford said that he believed there was a lot of value to preserving the land. As the Board is faced with variations of this type of request, the Board can look at the merits of each application. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 14 Nelson indicated she would like to see the soil and percolation reports and she would not want to go forward if the soil had a high permeability. Seymour said he was 90% comfortable with the project and expressed that he does like the fact that the City is getting something for this project,but does not want to set any precedence that might allow higher density in the area. Sutherland expressed that he would like to see the City rid of septic systems; however, he favore+d the environmental protection of that area. Sutherland indicated he was comfortable with the project. Stoltz said his concern is setting precedence for higher density in the area. Stoelting said that in the interest of the preservation of the bluff area,he approves of this project. Stoelting asked Franzen what he would be looking for from future property owners in that area and what concerns would need to be addressed. Franzen said that there are 3 or 4 items: (1) Half of the property would have to be dedicated. (2) Half of the remaining land would be a conservation easement to protect the slopes and trees. (3) Demonstrate the ability to put another house on the property without crowding the lot. (4) Demonstrate you can put a well, drainfield and back up drainfield, septic tank that meets the current State and City standards. Franzen said that the City has to be very clear about the reasons they have granted waivers, which is that it improves the property or protects a natural resource like the bluff. Each application would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If property owners bring in something that is very close to this type of request, and they meet the parameters, then the City would have to seriously look at the request. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Rocheford to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Kacher to approve the request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.88 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the Rural Zoning District on 7.88 acres, Preliminary Plat of 7.88 acres into 2 lots, Location: 9999 Dell Road, by Robert and Joan Gootwassink subject to the conditions as listed in the May 21, 2004 Staff Report plus two additional conditions to include: 1) the land is not located in high permeability soil, and 2) update of all current septic systems on the property. Motion carried 8-0. Community Planning Board May 24, 2004 Page 15 VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNER'S REPORT Franzen said that there are three variances for the June 14 meeting and another smaller item, which is a one-acre lot split. Franzen also encouraged the Board members to let him know if they are unable to attend the meetings. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour to adjourn the Planning Board meeting of May 24, 2004 at 9:32 p.m. Motion carried 8-0.