Loading...
060209 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 2 JUNE 2009 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Gagne, and Hutchins; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Zerby Absent: Commissioners Ruoff and Vilett APPROVAL OF MINUTES  5 May 2009 Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 5 May 2009 as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Mark Themig and Bradley Heppner Location: 21780 Lilac Lane Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a 22 June 2009 Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated that Mark Themig and Brad Heppner own the property located at 21780 Lilac Lane. They propose a substantial addition and remodeling of the existing home that require setback variances and a variance to expand the nonconformity of a nonconforming structure (the owners’ house). The property is located in the R-1A, Single Family Residential zoning district and contains 56,180 square feet of area, noting lots are required to be a minimum of 40,000 square feet of area in the R-1A District. The subject property is occupied by the owners’ home and attached garage. The house is currently situated back from the Lilac Lane right-of-way approximately 34.4 feet, encroaching 16 feet into the required front setback area. Nielsen explained the applicants propose to demolish the garage on the east end of the house and replace it with a larger garage with a second story addition above it. The first floor will be extended to the west by 20 feet with a second story being added to the entire structure. A small dormer addition currently exists above the main part of the house. A porch, five to eight feet in depth, would wrap the entire first level. An existing deck at the rear of the house will be removed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 June 2009 Page 2 of 10 Nielsen stated the property has some dramatic topography. The property is substantially wooded. There is a steep ravine that extends north and south on the west side. It slopes from south to north into a wetland area on the north side. The existing home sits on the high portion of the lot. Nielsen explained the existing home contains 1071 square feet on the main level, plus approximately 240 in the dormer for a total of 1311 square feet. The existing garage contains 280 square feet. The expansion would result in the first floor being 1312 square feet, not including the porch. With the porch, the first floor will contain 2520 square feet. The upper level will have another 1912 square feet, for a total of 4432 square feet of floor area, not including the lower level. He noted the applicants submitted drawings which were included as part of the Staff report, one of which shows the relationship of the existing home to the proposed structure. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the City’s Zoning Code allows for expansion of nonconforming, single-family structures as long as the nonconformity is not increased, noting this includes adding additional mass upward on a structure that is already too close to the property line. Whereas the existing home is primarily a single story, the entire proposed second story will be only 34.4 feet from the front property line. This results in a dramatic change in building mass very close to the street. Although the applicants’ letter states they will not extend the home further forward than the current building, the plans indicate the porch extends into the setback an additional eight feet, requiring a setback variance of 24 feet. With regard to variance requests, Nielsen explained the first thing Staff and the Planning Commission consider is whether or not the property can be put to reasonable use without the variance. In this particular case Staff suggests the structure can be expanded in a way that does not require a variance and would not increase the nonconformance of the existing property. Staff believes there is ample room to the northwest of the existing house to accommodate an expansion without having to drastically alter the site; that portion of the property is relatively flat. The structure is already very close to the street, and the issue is compounded by the fact that Lilac Lane is a substandard right-of-way. Lilac Lane has only 33 feet of right-of-way (it’s supposed to have 50 feet) and the paved surface of the street is very close to the edge of the right-of-way. Nielsen stated based on the analysis of the case Staff believes the request does not satisfy the criteria for granting a variance. Staff recommends the applicants’ redirect their efforts to expanding the structure to the northwest of the existing house. Nielsen stated the applicants were present this evening, and Mark Themig (one of the applicants) has prepared a PowerPoint presentation for the Planning Commission (a copy of which is on file). Mr. Themig stated their property, 21780 Lilac Lane, borders both the City of Shorewood and the City of Chanhassen. It is the last property on a dead-end street. There are seven houses that front Lilac Lane with four of the seven being located on their block. Their house was built in 1934 and it was 24 feet wide by 24 feet long. A pine room and one-car garage were later added to the east, and a garage/storage area were added to the west of the structure. The core of the original house is still the same. Mr. Themig explained the house is located on the top portion of the lot. He commented that years ago Lilac Lane was basically a dirt trail. He explained there are steep slopes on the property from the south to the north. There is a ravine on the west side of the property and there is a large wetland to the north. The majority of the property is undisturbed. There are plants on the property that were planted many many years ago. The area that is disturbed is near the house. As part of the Apple Ridge development the City required the developer to put a conservation easement on the property directly west of their property. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 June 2009 Page 3 of 10 noted the area they are trying to protect in their variance application has topography very similar to that of conservation easement. He displayed an aerial photograph showing the houses in the surrounding area. He explained the trees on their property were small in the 1930s. Although they are not century trees (they are not hundreds of years old), they are significant and they add a lot of character to the neighborhood. He displayed a photograph of a portion of their property in the summer time; it showed a number of healthy red oak trees. There are native plants and flowers all over their property. Mr. Themig then explained they proposed incorporating the existing 24-foot by 24-foot structure into a 24-foot by 52-foot structure. The garage and pine room to the east would be replaced with a breezeway connection and a 24-foot by 22-foot garage/multi-purpose room. The existing one and one-half story structure would be made into a two-story structure. Their plan is to use recycled materials where possible as part of the proposed project. They are also trying to protect the natural resources on property. That is the reason they believe they have a hardship. Mr. Themig stated with their variance request their proposed primary structure will honor the existing nonconforming setback of 34.4 feet. The structure will expand to the east and west as well as vertically within that setback. They are proposing to go slightly closer to the road with the porch. The proposed 6- foot porch on the front utilizes the footprint of the existing front-door stoop and walkways already in place. They are trying to utilize areas on the property that have already been disturbed. He showed a variety of photographs of the existing structure and indicated where the new structure would be located. The area on the back side of the house is already disturbed with a shed, walkways, an old gravel road, garages, etc. Mr. Themig reviewed the City’s conditions governing consideration of variance requests and how their request complied. Their proposed project will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. It will not unreasonably increase congestion in the public street because their property is located at the end of a dead-end street. It will not increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety. The majority of the wiring in the house is the original wiring and it will be replaced as part of the project thereby improving the conditions. They do not believe the larger structure will diminish or impair the established property values in the neighborhood. Their neighbors do no think so either. The project would not violate the intent and purpose of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Themig stated they believe they have an interesting opportunity to preserve rather than encroach on the existing native area. The property is approximately 1.2 acres in size, and there is only 8.4 percent of hard cover. He explained the current home was built prior to the current zoning regulations. He reviewed what they thought were three special conditions and circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved. First, if they are required to expand into the northwest area as suggested by Staff they will have to substantially change the topography of the area. The slopes behind the house are significant and will require significant excavation, cut and fill to make it buildable. Second, their proposal respects the undisturbed area; they do not intend to impact undisturbed areas. And last, their proposal affects three oak trees and one maple tree. If the project were to utilize the area to the north an additional 3 – 4 trees would be impacted. Mr. Themig reviewed some of the conditions that must be demonstrated before a variance can be granted. First, “Literal interpretation of the provision of this Ordinance deprive us of rights commonly enjoyed by properties in the same district” – a number of homes do not meet the setback requirements of the district since many homes in the district were constructed prior to setback requirements (50 percent of the homes on their block do not meet the requirements. Second, “The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant” – the house was constructed on the lot in the 1930s long before setback requirements were established. And last, “Granting the variance requested will not confer on the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 June 2009 Page 4 of 10 applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district” – they do not believe that they will be afforded special privileges with approving their variance request; their request is supported by the site conditions discussed in their request. Mr. Themig addressed a couple of items identified by Staff in it’s analysis of the request. The Staff report indicates the proposed porch will extend an additional 8 feet which would result in a setback variance of 24 feet rather than 34.4 feet. He explained the porch will only be 6 feet wide, and it would generally be located in an already disturbed walkway area. There would not be any columns on the porch; it will essentially be a deck with an overhang above it. Its visual impact will be minimal. The report states the second story will only be 34.4 feet from the front property line, and it results in a dramatic change in building mass very close to the street. He explained the 34.4-foot setback is the established setback for the existing house, and the proposed second floor will honor that setback. Lilac Lane is a dead-end street, and people reaching the end of the street are either coming to visit them or they are lost. They do not think the massing of the home is as dramatic as Staff has indicated. They do not think massing is addressed in the Zoning Code, especially in the relevant R-!A District. The proposed addition will not exceed height restrictions specified in the Code. The existing house is a one and one-half story structure; the expanded structure will be 2 stories. The massing of other homes on Lilac Lane and in the neighborhood is substantially greater than what they propose with their addition. He showed photos of other houses in the area that have a mass greater than what they propose. Mr. Themig went on to explain the Staff reports states there is substantial room for expansion to the rear especially the northwest; there is no demonstrated hardship. He explained the Minnesota Supreme Court recently pointed out that the question is not just one of hardship, but also of “practical difficulties”. Expansion to the north or northwest poses real practical difficulties: there would be substantially more tree removal than there would be with the proposed expansion; the grades to the north and northwest would result in substantial alternation of the landforms themselves; and, it would result in a home which has a larger footprint on the lot. The Staff report states the variance should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; the homes along Lilac Lane are situated quite consistently with the R-1A requirements and the mass of the proposed structure would not be consistent with the neighborhood. He explained two of the four houses (one being their house) on their block do not comply with the setback variance and two do, noting the two in compliance are newer houses. South of Lilac Lane there are large homes on small lots with no trees to soften the massing. The neighborhood is quite diverse. Relocating their home to the north and west will result in the additional loss of trees and that will alter the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Themig stated they have contacted all of their neighbors whose properties either front or back Lilac Lane, and mailed other properties that are located within 500 feet of their properties. The property owners whose properties front Lilac Lane are supportive of the proposal, as is their nearest and furthest Chanhassen neighbor on Lilac Lane. In summary, Mr. Themig stated he and Mr. Heppner want to reuse the existing structure and the existing disturbed areas of land, they want to respect the current natural resources and incorporate them into the design, they want to eliminate the need for additional excavation and fill by keeping the location of the expanded structure as they proposed, they will not further encroach into the existing 34.4-foot setback area with the primary structure, and they will be green conscious in part by expanding upward and using existing disturbed areas of land. He noted all of his immediate neighbors are in support of the proposed project. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 June 2009 Page 5 of 10 Tom Wilder, 21740 Lilac Lane, stated his property is located directly east of the applicants’ property. He thought their proposal was great and he was in support of it. The proposal appears to be well thought out. Donna Pickard, 1215 Lilac Lane, Chanhassen, stated when she was a new mom and a city girl moving to the country, noting Chanhassen was the country 22 years ago, she did not have a clue as to what was growing under her feet until she met Mr. Hartman He immediately took her to the north side of his property and proceeded to show her his garden. Mr. Hartman, a nature lover, protected his plants with coffee cans every spring so they would grow to beautify his yard. She learned about native Minnesota plants from him. He encouraged her to buy a copy of the Peterson field guide so she could learn how to identify plants in her yard and his yard. Whenever she and her children visited Mr. Hartman he walked with them around his property and showed them the changing landscape. With each season came new discoveries. Her children looked forward to hiking the Hartman property. It has been years since she has walked the property in question. She knows what exists there and she thought it was a special place. There are few natural areas left in neighborhoods; people should work to preserve the few that are left. She recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front-yard setback variance request to protect the native species that grow on the north side of the applicants’ house. Robert Fuhr, 5925 Mill Street, stated he has been working with the applicants on the design of the proposed expanded house. The proposed project has been well thought out. The applicants have painstakingly gone over their entire property and taken a very thoughtful approach to the variance request. He expressed his support for going upward rather than back to expand was a great choice for this property. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M. Commissioner Hutchins stated Mr. Themig indicated there would be an overhang over the porch, but it is not indicated on any of the drawings the applicants provided. Mr. Themig stated that was still being finalized, but the concept is to have a 6-foot deck suspended from the house and to have an overhang attached to the house, noting there would not be any pillars. Mr. Themig explained part of their challenge was deciding how much to spend on design services before they knew if they could get a variance. Commissioner Arnst asked if the applicants planned on using all or part of the existing foundation. Mr. Themig explained they did plan on using the existing foundation which is why they are proposing reconstructing the house in the current location and eliminating the need to excavate additional area. The area where the house will be expanded on the east is already disturbed. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Mr. Themig explained the gravel road across the street from his property is an emergency road to a storm water retention pond. Commissioner Arnst stated it appeared that the applicants can only partially see one other house on Lilac Lane from their property when the foliage is out. Mr. Themig stated the second house to the east was the only house visible. Arnst then stated the massing issue is not significant because it won’t have much a visual impact on the applicants’ neighbors. Mr. Themig stated they had spoken with the neighbor across the street from them and the neighbor stated his windows that face their direction are windows in places such as bathrooms and he looks out his windows facing west. The neighbor also stated his house would still be higher than the applicants proposed 2-story house. Commissioner Arnst stated the applicants’ property is very unique. It is located at the dead-end of a very small road. There are beautiful trees and plantings growing over the majority of the property; the property is stunning and special. She thanked the applicants for their desire to protect the natural resources on their CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 June 2009 Page 6 of 10 property and for the unique design of their proposed house. She stated the topography of conservation easement to the west of their property somewhat extends into the west side of their yard. She expressed concern that in the future someone would want to put an addition in the back of the property and destroy that beauty. Mr. Themig stated they did not have plans to build any further onto the property once/if this proposed project was completed. He then stated they would be willing to consider a conservation easement on that portion of their property if that would ease people’s concerns; the easement would protect the property for ever. Commissioner Gagne stated he shared Commissioner Arnst’s thoughts. He then stated after having been to the applicants property he can agree with Mr. Themig’s earlier comment that anyone traveling on Lilac Lane near their house was either coming to visit the applicants or they were lost. Gagne stated expressed his support of the applicants’ request. He appreciated it could set a precedent, but things change all the time. Gagne moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the requests for a setback variance and the variance to expand a expand a nonconforming structure for Mark Themig and Brad Heppner, 21780 Lilac Lane. Director Nielsen stated Commissioner Arnst raised a good point this evening, even though he does not agree that the variance is justified. Although the applicants’ plan to protect the trees and topography, there is noting in their request that would prevent them or anyone else from wanting to build on the buildable portion of the property in the future. If the variance were to be considered favorably, he strongly suggested a conservation easement be placed over that portion of the lot. It should be established as a permanent protection measure and a justification measure for the variance. Without objection from the maker or the seconder, the motion was amended to include a condition that a conservation easement being placed over some part of the northwest buildable potion of the property. Commissioner Hutchins asked Director Nielsen to comment on the Lilac Lane right-of-way and any potential need to expand the roadway for emergency vehicles. Director Nielsen stated the right-of-way is 33 feet wide rather than 50 feet, there is no turnaround on the roadway, and part of the right-of-way is located in Chanhassen. The City does not have plans to extend Lilac Lane or to construct a cul-de-sac, although from a safety perspective some type of turnaround would be advisable. Commissioner Gagne noted he used the gravel road to the storm water retention pond as a turnaround. Mr. Themig clarified the City of Chanhassen owns the gravel road. Hutchins stated when he went to look at the applicants’ property there were cars parked on Lilac Lane and he had to drive off the roadway onto the gravel to turn around. Hutchins questioned what might be needed to create a turnaround for public safety reasons. Gagne stated there is nothing on Lilac Lane after the applicants’ property. Commissioner Hutchins expressed concern about recommending approval of a variance without having the final exterior design plans for the structure available for review. Director Nielsen stated that typically when a variance is granted it would be for a specific plan, and this plan is not complete because it does not include the porch other than in the plan views. Commissioner Arnst stated the applicant is working within the existing footprint. She commented that if the City decided to construct a turnaround on Lilac Lane there would still be a house with a 34.4-foot setback from the street; it would be either a one and one-half story house or a two story house. Director CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 June 2009 Page 7 of 10 Nielsen stated the structure would be 6 – 8 feet closer to the street because of the porch. Arnst commented that any house build prior to 1970 is likely to be nonconforming. Chair Geng stated the problem with this variance request is there are other alternatives of where to build than what the applicant proposed. He commented he is not trying to be insensitive to the applicants. He expressed he is very impressed with the sentiments of the applicants and their desire to preserve the natural resources on their property. He then expressed his uneasiness with approving a variance request that would increase the nonconformity from a policy perspective, in particular going forward. He thought the Planning Commission is constrained by the existing policy. If Council wants to consider an amendment to the Zoning Code, it has the power to do so. In response to a comment from Commissioner Arnst, Director Nielsen explained if the motion did not pass because of a tie the applicant can still bring the variance request before the Council for consideration. Motion failed 2/2, with Geng and Hutchins dissenting. Chair Geng stated the application will be placed on the City Council’s June 22, 2009, meeting agenda for consideration. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 P.M. 2. REVIEW STORMWATER MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS FOR WILDWOOD PLAT Applicant: Brent Hislop Location: 6045 Strawberry Lane Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 8:05 P.M. Director Nielsen stated that when the Planning Commission recommended approval during its 6 January 2009 of the Wildwood plat on Strawberry Lane for Brent Hislop it requested to see the provisions of the protective covenants relative to how the drainage features would be permanently maintained and protected. The drainage proposal was to conduct the drainage to a system of a rain garden, ditch and holding pond at the perimeter of the property, with the water ultimately draining through Freeman Park and on to the north. Staff had expressed concern about the maintenance of the drainage system in its Staff report. Staff recommended long-term provisions in a declaration of covenants be prepared to make sure the property owners in that plat knew they were to maintain the drainage system through annual monitoring of it and correcting any deficiencies. The developer has submitted an excerpt from the proposed declaration that addresses the issue. Staff recommends the following changes to the declaration. 1. The conservation easement referenced in paragraph 1 should indicate that the conservation easement will be in favor of the homeowner’s association and the City of Shorewood. 2. The reference to “approved plans” in paragraph 2 should be specific; for example, it could include “plans prepared by ________, dated ______2009” or it could include a copy of the plans. 3. The City must be a signatory to the declaration, requiring City approval to modify it. 4. The Home Owners Association (HOA) documents must include things such as mandatory membership, the election of officers, the frequency of meetings (at least annually), and a mechanism for assessment of maintenance costs. 5. The declaration should also clearly state that failure of the HOA to enforce drainage provisions could result in City action and assessment CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 June 2009 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Hislop stated he had no issue with recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 5. He explained that although a major reason for having the HOA is to address the issue of the maintenance of the drainage system, it is not the only reason. The City’s involvement with the declaration relates specifically to Article 17. He requested the City only be authorized to approve amendments to Article 17, which is specific to the drainage system, and not the entire declaration. Director Nielsen had no problem with restricting the City’s approval to Article 17. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Mr. Hislop explained the Article 17 gives the City the authority to assess for maintenance improvements to the drainage system if the HOA does not address them. Director Nielsen stated it also allows the HOA to assess the property owners or individual violator for maintenance costs. Nielsen then stated when the final plat is submitted for approval the declaration of covenants should also be submitted. Director Nielsen stated Staff recommends the declaration of covenants be approved. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:16 P.M. Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the declaration of covenants subject to Staff’s recommendations and to limiting the City’s approval authority for amendments to the declaration of covenants to Article 17 only. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:17 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS (continued from 5 May 2009) Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 8:17 P.M. Director Nielsen stated that during the 21 April 2009 Planning Commission meeting the Commission discussed parking requirements, and it suggested the definition for shopping center be expanded. The new definition is “SHOPPING CENTER. A group of three or more commercial establishments planned, constructed and managed as a total entity, with customer and employee parking provided on-site, provision for goods delivery separated from customer access, aesthetic considerations and protection from the elements.” Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:18 P.M. Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of a Shorewood Zoning Code text amendment regarding parking requirements. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 P.M. 4. DISCUSS PLANNING DISTRICT AREA PLANS Director Nielsen stated the plan had been to discuss Area Plans for Planning Districts 8 & 9 during the 19 May 2009 Planning Commission meeting, but that meeting was cancelled when a quorum of Commissioners did not show up. He distributed a copy of a revised Area Plan for Planning District 8, CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 June 2009 Page 9 of 10 noting he did not expect the Commission to take action on it this evening. He reviewed Staff’s recommended changes, which were insignificant, to the District 8 Area Plan. It will be changed to state the District has experienced some redevelopment, rather than saying it will likely do that. It notes that subdivision of larger parcels along Murray Street will be dependent upon cooperation of landowners. The year of 2001 was added to clarify when the intersection of State Highways 7 and 41 was reconstructed. It reflects the abandonment of Woodhaven Well. Nielsen then reviewed changes that Staff thought should be made to the District 9 Area Plan. The reference to updating the R-C property zoning at Christmas Lake Road and Highway 7 can be eliminated; it’s been done. It will reflect the master plan for St. John’s Cemetery has been approved, that studies of Radisson Road have been completed which resulted in striping and signage improvements, and that the Southeast Area water system has been connected to the Amesbury water system in Planning District 12. th He will make those changes to the Area Plan prior to the Planning Commission’s June 16 meeting. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission can soon begin discussions about conducting neighborhood meetings to give the residents an opportunity to review Area Plans and the entire Comprehensive Plan. In response to a comment from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen stated the City did not have any plans to further improve Radisson Road. Hutchins stated some of the turns in Radisson Road can be dangerous when there are walkers and bikers on the Road. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the 16 June 2009 Planning Commission meeting is a study session and it will be devoted to continued discussion of Planning District Area Plans. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at the 26 May 2009 Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Council Liaison Zerby elaborated on the action Council took on the South Tonka Little League’s request to allow commercial signage on ball-field fences on the two fields STL uses in Freeman Park. • SLUC No report was given. Commissioner Arnst stated there are organizations in addition to the Sensible Land Use Coalition that offer good programs on planning topics. She thought it may be worthwhile to consider them. • Other None. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 June 2009 Page 10 of 10 8. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 2 June 2009 at 8:27 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder