Loading...
1990-05-22 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 22, 1990 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chairperson Morson called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Morson, Koll, Dwyer, Morson, Krebsbach, Duggan and Tilsen. Commission Dreelan was excused from the meeting. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant Tim Malloy, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Duggan pointed out that the findings of fact submitted by Mr. Duffy should have been included in the April 24, 1990 Minutes. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated out that staff never received a copy of the findings of facts. Ms. Kathy Connolly, attorney for the Hampshire neighborhood residents pointed out that a copy was submitted to Commission Dwyer. Commissioner Dwyer stated that he did receive a copy and that he did not pass it on because he did not realize that he had received it under his official capacity as a Commissioner. Ms. Connolly stated that that information would be passed on to the City staff. Commissioner Tilsen moved approval of the April 24, 1990 minutes as amended. Commission Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: KREBSBACH CASE NO. 90-13 Mr. Richard Bjorklund, Sr. representing Mr. Robert MERSKY - Mersky, 1758 Sutton Lane, briefly explained the VARIANCE Mersky's request for a five foot (5') side yard setback variance in order to construct a garage addition to their existing home. Mr. Bjorklund submitted signatures of consent from the surrounding neighbors to the Commission. Chairperson Morson questioned if there will be a need for drainage between the two homes. Mr. Bjorklund answered that the drainage currently runs on the lot line between the two homes and that it May 22, 1990 Page 2 will be five feet (5') from the garage. He explained that they would have to take care of any additional water that may runoff from the garage roof with landscaping. Chairperson Morson pointed out that the owners at 1750 Sutton Lane, the Lalles' will be most affected by this addition. He further expressed his concerns regarding the driveway opening size with respect to the possibility of losing two Ash Trees. Mr. Bjorklund stated that the owners intend to maintain the existing driveway opening. Commissioner Krebsbach stated that she is concerned that the addition will be only eighteen feet (18') from the Lalles' resident. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the northerly neighbors could put an addition on their home which would force a separation of only fifteen feet (15') between the two homes. Commissioner Krebsbach questioned whether the garage addition will block the Lalles' view. Mr. Bjorklund stated that it would not. Commissioner Tilsen expressed his concerns for the closeness of the homes with the possible construction of the garage and a possibility of the northerly neighbors adding on to their homes. Commissioner Tilsen further asked if the Merskys would be willing to buy three feet (3') of the neighbor's property to ensure future separation between the homes. Mr. Bjorklund explained that he had originally proposed the idea but that there would be problems with platting the lot after the subdivision. He explained that this request is an unusual request. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he is concerned with the character of the neighborhood. He stated that this request may set a precedent. Commissioner Dwyer questioned whether Bjorklund construction is going to build the garage and Mr. Bjorklund answered that he was unsure at this time. Commissioner Krebsbach questioned if it is possible to make the garage a larger two car garage in terms of extending out the walls. Mr. Bjorklund stated that they have discussed changing the garage door to make the garage larger but that the owners recently put a cedar shake roof on and they do not May 22, 1990 Page 3 want to change the design of the roof. Commissioner Duggan questioned if windows would be constructed on the north side of the garage to keep within the character of the home. Mr. Bjorklund stated that windows would not be constructed due to security reasons. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend to the City Council that they approve a five foot (5') side yard setback variance. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1, TILSEN CASE NO. 90-14 Mr. Robert McKenzie, 1480 Cherry Hill Road was MCKENZIE present to discuss his request for a minor conditional use permit to construct a five foot (5') fence around his swimming pool. Mr. McKenzie submitted to the Commission signatures of consent from his neighbors to the west and north. Mr. McKenzie stated that he will have a landscape architect design his landscaping around the fence and that he assured the Commission that it will be a nice addition to his home. He explained that there is an existing fence and that he is leaning towards adding some cedar and plantings on top of the existing fence. He explained that if decides to construct another fence it would be either a cedar or redwood fence. In response to a question from Commissioner Krebsbach, Mr. McKenzie stated that the existing fence is a four foot (4') chain link fence. He explained that the design of the new fence will show a horizontal cedar toppings to go across the top of the fence. He explained that the height of the fence is in question. He explained that he has to bring the height of the fence up to one foot (1') to comply with swimming pool requirements. He stated that the fence will be combination of the two materials or whatever the Commission would like to have. He stated that he does not want to have two fences. He explained that he does have a fence that runs from east to west. He explained that the previous homeowner had installed a four foot (4') fence and he apparently installed the fence without a building permit. He explained that the existing fence should have been three feet (3') and not four feet (4') because of the unimproved roadway there. May 22, 1991 Page 4 Chairperson Morson questioned that on the drawings the home is twenty-four feet (24') from what might be City right-of-way. Chairperson Morson stated that the home is an existing non-conforming structure. Public Works Director Danielson confirmed Chairperson Morson's observation and that Mr. McKenzie would need a variance. Mr. McKenzie stated that he drew the drawing and that the lines are accurate on the plans. Chairperson Morson explained that the home should be thirty feet (30') from the right-of-way. Public Works Director Danielson explained that Mr. McKenzie would need a seventeen foot (17') variance to make his home a conforming structure. Mr. McKenzie stated that he would be more than happy to include a condition, should the street ever go through, to relocate the fence to prevent a site line obstruction. In response to a question from Commissioner Dwyer, Mr. McKenzie stated that the fence in the back was just installed and that it is a six foot (6') vertical cedar fence. Mr. McKenzie stated that he would swing that fence around but that he thought it might be objectionable to enclose that whole area. He stated that he would be happy to extend the fence. Commissioner Krebsbach stated that she would like to see Mr. McKenzie go one way or another and not have the combination of redwood and chain link. Mr. McKenzie stated that he would rather have a cedar fence. Commissioner Tilsen questioned if the twenty-four feet (24') is from the edge of the road. Mr. McKenzie explained how he measured the distance. Chairperson Morson noted that the Planning Commission is concerned with the twenty-four foot (24') dimension. Commissioner Duggan moved to waive the public hearing and to recommend to the City Council that they approve the requested minor conditional use permit to allow the construction of a five foot (5') cedar fence and to recommend approval of a nineteen foot (19') side yard setback variance to the existing house and there will be no additional costs to the applicant for the variance. Commissioner Dwyer offered a friendly amendments AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. NEUHARTH May 22, 1998 Page 5 stating that the approval is conditioned upon in the event that Upper Colonial is extended that Mr. McKenzie move the fence. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. 90-15 Mr. James Neuharth, 2458 Pond Circle East, was present to discuss his desire to construct a 10' x 14' four season porch and 12' x 26' deck. Mr. Neuharth explained that his home is at the one hundred foot (100') setback line from a City designated Wetlands. He explained that additions would extend within the Wetlands area by twelve feet (12'). He explained that the construction would be consistent with the construction of the home. He explained that deck would be cedar and that the construction will look as natural as possible. He further explained that he did get a signature of consent from his neighbor to the west and that the home to the east is not occupied. Mr. Neuharth briefly discussed the neighbors who are across the pond from his home who are about 250 to 300 yards away. He explained that it is very difficult to see his property except during the winter time. Chairperson Morson acknowledged that it, is a wooded area and that there would be no problem with the view. Mr. Neuharth further commented that there will be some landscaping installed so that the addition will be further concealed. Commissioner Koll stated that the addition will be a handsome addition to the home and that she noticed that Mr. Neuharth's two neighbors extend out farther back than Mr. Neuharth. She stated that it sounds like that what he is trying to do is to be pretty much in line with his neighbors. Commissioner Dwyer questioned if the home was built contemplating the additions. Mr. Neuharth stated that yes it was and that service doors and patio doors exist that exit out onto the future porch. Commissioner Dwyer stated that he is uncomfortable with the plan. He stated that he does not like the idea that Centex built this house right up to the one hundred feet (100') of the Wetlands area. He stated that Centex built the home knowing full well the homeowner is going to want to put up a deck and AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 May 22, 1996 Page 6 porch. Commissioner Dwyer stated that the Commission is certainly in the position where it does not make sense not to approve the Wetlands Permit. He stated that this certainly offends the Wetlands Ordinance. Commissioner Dwyer stated that he is a little peeved that they find themselves in the situation to approve this Wetlands Permit. He explained that his aggression is not towards Mr. Neuharth but towards Centex. Mr. Neuharth commented that that issue has to be addressed at the time the home is built. He explained that he is of the contention that the homes on either side of him are in the same situation or worse. Chairperson Morson questioned if there were Wetlands Permit granted on the subdivision. Public Works Director Danielson stated there were a number of them granted and that they were all included in the Developer's Agreement. Public Works Danielson stated that this lot was not one of them. He explained that this house was able to be constructed without encroaching the one hundred feet (100') and that is why Centex did not request a Wetlands Permit. Chairperson Morson stated that they left the homeowner with the problem of obtaining the permit. Public Works Director Danielson stated that with any of the homes along the pond, if they want to construct something such as an accessory structure, fence, pool, deck, etc. they too need a Wetlands Permit. Commissioner Duggan stated that there is some what of an extenuating circumstance. He explained that it is a cul-de-sac or circle and that they are trying to align homes on the circle which is a little more difficult to get everything aligned. Commissioner Duggan moved to waive the public hearing and to recommend to the City Council that they grant the Wetlands Permit as requested by Mr. Neuharth. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. In response to a question from Chairperson Morson, Public Works Director Danielson explained the process of reviewing building plans and how the Wetlands are identified by the Code Enforcement personnel. May 22, 1990 Page 7 CASE NO. 90-16 Ms. Mary Bakewell, representing the Senior Class BAKEWELL Party Parent Committee of 1989, was present to discuss their request for a sign variance. She explained that the Parent Committee is donating a nameplate to Henry Sibley Senior High School with funds raise by the committee. She explained that because of numerous surveys that have been done, people do not know what that building is on Highway 110. She explained that the sign on Highway 110 is covered half of the time with snow. She explained that they want the sign to be seen from the road and from the new sport complex. She stated that they are proposing to install the sign on the north side of the building above the teacher's lounge windows at the main entrance. Commissioner Tilsen questioned Ms. Bakewell if the Parents Committee has approach the School District with their donation. Ms. Bakewell responded that the School District likes the idea and that the School District may be planning to install a sign on the southern portion of the building. Commissioner Koll questioned who decided to put the sign on the northern portion of the building and Ms. Bakewell stated that the Parents Committee decided to. The Planning Commission discussed briefly the location of the sign. A picture of the School was originally submitted with the sign permit application. That picture was formally submitted to the Planning Commission to help them identify where exactly the sign was going to be placed. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend to the City Council that they approve a variance of 88.5 square feet for the sign as referred to in the photograph submitted to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 90-17 Mr. Flavio Mangini owner of 1867 Warrior Drive was MANGINI present to discuss his request for a Wetlands Permit. He explained that the proposed home is ninety-two feet (92') from the Wetlands. He explained that the building envelope has been constrained by a utility easement running through the front of his lot. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 May 22, 1990 Page 8 In response to a question from Chairperson Morson, Public Works Director Danielson explained that at the time the subdivision was being considered the developer showed lot pads in this position and that it was the decision of the Planning Commission not to grant a blanket variance and to consider each one individually as they came forward. Chairperson Morson pointed out that a Wetlands Permit was granted to the property to the north. Commissioner Koll questioned what the blue stakes are on the property and Mr. Mangini answered that they are survey stakes. Commissioner Duggan moved to waive the public hearing and to recommend to the City Council that they grant the Wetlands Permit. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Chairman Morson called a recess at 9:00 o'clock P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 9:07 o'clock P.M. CASE NO. 90-03 Chairman Morson stated that the City Council CENTEX HOMES has referred Centex Homes request back to the Planning Commission level to review items of specific planning issues. Chairperson Morson explained that the items to be discussed will follow the format of the memo submitted by Administrative Assistant Batchelder dated May 18, 1990. Buffering Issue Mr. Dick Putnam introduced Mr. Dan Blake, engineer on the Kensington project from Sathre-Berquist. Mr. Putnam briefly reviewed previously submitted landscape plans. Mr. Putnam explained the changes in buffering. He explained the changes in height with respect to the earth berms and plantings along 1-494 and Mendota Heights Road. Commissioner May 22, 1999 Page 9 Tilsen questioned how the earth berms would be maintained. Mr. Putnam responded that the intent is to not have maintainable slopes. He further explained that the berms would be irrigated. Commissioner Tilsen questioned if the berms designed along 1-494 would protect homes from the sound from the Highway. Mr. Blake responded that the Pollution Control Department has guidelines. He further explained that there is an elevation separation between the Highway and the buildings. He explained that the buildings are approximately ten feet (10') higher than the road. He also stated that the berms and the garage units are between the highway and the units and provide buffering. Mr. Blake stated that there has been no formal analysis to whether it meets the Pollution Control guidelines. Mr. Putnam stated that they are trying to stay within their property lines. He stated that it would be advantageous to build a berm within the right-of-way. Chairperson Morson questioned if the setback is great enough to allow 3:1 slopes for all berms. Mr. Putnam explained that the streetscape should vary and that there not be just one height all across the road. Mr. Putnam stated that they could take a further look at reducing the slopes. Commissioner Tilsen questioned if an attempt could be made to meet the Pollution Control guidelines. Commissioner Krebsbach stated that she would like to see a new plan which might allow more space among the buildings. She further stated that she would like to see an upgrade in the quality of the buildings that would allow more of a buffer along Mendota Heights Road. She stated that she would like to see a more relaxed plan. Commissioner Krebsbach further stated that she would like to see more green space with respect to the ponding area. Chairperson Morson questioned if Centex would be willing to install fences as suggested by Attorney Gerald Duffy along Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Tom Boyce responded that they would like to stick to landscaping the area. Traffic Impact May 22, 1990 Page 10 Mr. Putnam explained the traffic impact on Mendota Heights Road and in Hampshire Estates. He explained that they used a factor, as discussed with Klayton Eckles from the engineering department, for the manor home units they used 6.5 trips for coach homes; 6 trips for townhouses; and single family used 10 trips. He explained that there is about 1112 trips heading west on Lockwood Drive at Mendota Heights Road and 1095 trips heading east on Lockwood Drive at Mendota Heights Road. He explained that these trips do not include the traffic that the park would generate. He further explained the traffic impact with respect to the single family lots. He stated that there would be a total of about 2,700 trips per day on Mendota Heights Road from the entire development. He stated that they could get together with the City staff and their traffic consultant and formalize the numbers. Mr. Putnam stated that Park Lane would not be used as a shortcut. He explained that the impact of the traffic at Park Lane is an intersection question as far as turning movements at peak hours. The Planning Commission briefly discussed whether a subcommittee should be formed to discuss the issues in concern more thoroughly. Commissioner Tilsen questioned if the back up of traffic at peak times at Dodd Road will cause people to use Huber Drive as a shortcut. He further stated that a way to minimize the traffic congestion would be to install a signal at Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road. He stated that he understands that the State has stated that there is nothing to warrant signal lights at that intersection. He questioned if the City and the developer split the costs in installing the lights at that particular intersection maybe the State would allow signal lights. Mr. Putnam responded that it would not be just the Kensington development that would be using that intersection but that other developments use the intersection. Commissioner Duggan questioned the amount of driveways that are less than fifty feet (50') from street intersections. Mr. Putnam responded that everybody in the projects that he has developed in the City sets their garages back at thirty feet May 22, 1990 Page 11 (30'). He explained that he had some trouble determining what Mr. Duffy meant in his letter. Ms. Connelly, attorney representing the residents of Hampshire Estates, responded that they were counting driveways as any entrance to the parking areas. Wetlands In response to a question from Chairperson Morson, Mr. Putnam explained that on the Wetlands map there are two areas as described as Wetlands in the southern portion of the City. He stated that those two Wetlands were removed for construction of I- 494. He explained that those Wetlands are no longer in existence. Planner Malloy stated that Mr. Putnam's analysis of the Wetlands is consistent with the research he has completed. Planner Malloy presented transpariencies of the current Wetlands map. Commissioner Dwyer questioned Mr. Putnam if he has figures showing encroachment of Wetlands. Mr. Putnam stated that the encroachment of Wetlands would depend on the type of the single family home. Mr. Putnam stated that the figures are "pad numbers ". He stated that the figures stated for the townhomes are true figures. Commission Tilsen questioned if there will be protection of the Wetlands written in the Association By Laws. Mr. Putnam pointed out the majority of Wetlands that would be controlled by the park and the public. He stated that by the single family lots he will have a scenic easement around the pond. Commissioner Dwyer questioned how many of the existing trees will be removed. Mr. Putnam stated that their intentions are to maintain the trees. He pointed out the tree line around Owens Pond. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the landscape plan does not state clearly that the trees will be maintained. He stated that he would like more clarification of how many trees will be maintained. Ms. Connolly referred to the Zoning Ordinance and asked the City staff to review the requirements regarding maintenance of the trees. Commissioner Duggan referred to Mr. Duffy's letter concerning tree preservation. Commissioner Duggan explained that Mr. Duffy requested a count of all of the May 22, 19%0 Page 12 major trees in the area. Mr. Putnam responded that they would identify what trees will be removed and what would be replaced. Redistribution of Homes within the Development Mr. Putnam explained that they feel that the townhomes are a reasonable transition. He stated that switching the townhomes with single family homes is not a good idea. Mr. Putnam explained that construction of townhomes and condominiums in place of where the single family homes are proposed would cause the trees to be removed. He explained that single family homes is the best way to preserve more of the trees. Mr. Putnam briefly explained that putting single family homes along Mendota Heights Road is not a good idea. He stated that the way the road was constructed is not condusive to putting in single family lots. He further explained that the park traffic would work fine with the multi family units who have their own courts. He explained that putting single family units in the area where multi family is proposed would conflict with park traffic. Mr. Putnam further explained that moving single family units next to the freeway did not seem to be a prudent choice either. Commissioner Krebsbach stated that the present accommodations Mr. Putnam has presented does not please the community and that she recommended that he take a look at relaxing the plan. Commissioner Tilsen suggested that the plan could be relaxed by removing two or three single family homes and to push the townhouses over. Detached Garages Chairperson Morson stated that there are not many detached garages in Mendota Heights. Mr. Putnam pointed out that Devonwood in Bloomington has detached garages and that he has slides available to review. Commissioner Tilsen stated that detached garages can present a security problem and that ownership is more defined if the garages are attached. Chairperson Morson stated that the developer has submitted plans on the garages. Chairperson Morson questioned if there is storage space available within the garages. Mr. Boyce responsed that in the past they have not but that ) if the Planning Commission and the City Council May 22, 1990 Page 13 require them to provide storage within the garages they would do so. Commissioner Krebsbach questioned if underground parking could be considered. Mr. Putnam explained that underground parking does not work with small buildings. Commissioner Krebsbach reiterated that she is speaking to the quality of buildings that already exist in the City with respect to multi family homes. Parking Mr. Putnam, referring to the landscape plan, explained parking. Mr. Putnam stated that there is 2.5 spaces per unit in the coach homes area. He explained that 2.5 spaces is adequate. He explained that there have been a lot changes. He stated that in order to meet the 2.5 spaces for the coach homes they will need an additional 19 exterior parking spaces and that they will do that. Mr. Putnam explained that the townhouses will have a two car garage with a driveway that varies in length plus the guest spaces which will average 4.0 to 4.5 spaces per unit. Commissioner Dwyer questioned if the parking spaces are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Putnam stated that what Mr. Duffy refers to in his letter regarding Zoning Ordinance compliance is for an R-3 District which is really geared towards a parking lot in an apartment building and that that does not apply in this case. He explained that in this case it would not work because the parking is behind garages just like in a single family home. He explained that that Zoning requirement is not geared towards residential kinds of structures. Mr. Putnam stated that the Planned Unit Development specifically provides that where standards do not work with site planning you vary from those standards. Mr. Putnam explained that the fifty foot (50') spacing in between the buildings and the forty foot (40') parking from the street is not appropriate in this case because the Zoning Ordinance is referring to the R-3 Zoning District for commercial lots and apartment lots. In response to a question from Ms. Connolly, Mr. Putnam stated again that the Planned Unit Development allows flexibilty and variances. May 22, 1990 Page 14 Commissioner Duggan moved to adjourn the meeting to another date and to begin the meeting in discussing the quality of construction within the development. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. AYES: 2 NAYS: 3, KOLL, MORSON, KREBSBACH ABSTAIN: TILSEN Motion fails. Commissioner Krebsbach moved to adjourn to a special meeting on June 6, 1990. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 3 NAYS: 3, TILSEN, MORSON, KOLL Motion fails. Commissioner Duggan excused himself at 11:10 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Tilsen moved to adjourn the meeting at ) 11:30 o'clock P.M. Motion fails due to the lack of a second. Ouality of Construction Commissioner Krebsbach stated that the detached garages and the square footage of the homes are a concern with her. She further commented that she would like to see a more sophisticated architecture and better quality of materials used. She stated that she would like to see the value of the units increased. In response to a question from Commissioner Dwyer, Mr. Boyce stated that the material used in the multi family units will be brick and aluminum. Chairperson Morson suggested that individual Planning Commission members take a look at the Devonwood development in Bloomington to get an idea of the type of materials proposed. Sidewalk and Trail Construction Mr. Putnam stated that they would submit the plans and work with the engineering staff regarding the construction of sidewalks and trails. ) May 22, 1996 Page 15 Adequacy of Street Right-of-Way and Cul-De-Sac Sizes Mr. Putnam stated that on the private streets within the development there are no right-of-ways. He explained that the cul-de-sac size is thirty six foot (36') radius as opposed to forty nine foot (49') which is entirely in keeping with what was built in the first Phase of Kensington. He explained from the fire and public safety standpoint, it is adequate. Public Works Director Danielson confirmed that what they are proposing is exactly what was approved in Phase I. Garbage Storage Mr. Putnam explained that the garages that are proposed are two car garages or 22 x 22. He explained that the garbage is kept in the garage because the access is much easier and that people like it better. He explained that all of the garbage is picked up in one day and that that is handled through the Association. Commissioner Tilsen questioned if the Association would participate in recycling program. Administrative Assistant Batchelder briefly explained the recycling program in the City. Mr. Boyce stated that he would like to see the Association participate in the recycling program. Driveway Easement Mr. Putnam briefly explained his conversations with the Beales and the Kennedys. He explained that there are two plans, one showing a public street right-of-way and the other a private driveway easement. Mr. Putnam stated that the Beale's will have to make a judgement as to what they want to do. He explained that the Mr. Beale is leaning towards having a private drive easement of twenty five feet (25') to thirty feet (30'). Long Term Rentals Mr. Boyce explained that their intention is to not rent the units. He explained that the financing discourages renters. Mr. Boyce stated that he is unsure of how to prohibit rentals. Mr. Boyce stated that Centex is not an apartment builder. Garage Setbacks from the Right-of-Way AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 May 22, 19%6 Page 16 Mr. Putnam stated that they will accommodate the setback requirements just as they did in Phase I of Kensington. Frontage Roads Commissioner Krebsbach questioned if the development would be better off with a frontage road either off of Delaware Avenue or Mendota Heights Road to the park. Mr. Boyce stated that Mendota Heights Road was designed for a certain amount of traffic. He explained that there really is no problem since this road was designed to handle the traffic that the surrounding developments may impose. Ms. Connolly stated that they are just voicing their concerns regarding the amount of traffic. She stated that they are willing to work with the developer regarding this issue. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Commissioner Dwyer and either Chairperson Morson or Commissioner Tilsen will meet with Planner Malloy, City staff, the developers, the legal counsel representing the neighbors and any residents of the neighborhoods at the regularly scheduled Planner's meeting on Monday, June 4th to discuss further the issues and concerns regarding Phase II of Kensington. Commissioner Dwyer moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:03 o'clock A.M. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, JrnthiL Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary