Loading...
07-12-04 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, July 12, 2004. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, Hackett, Keysser, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were, Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, Planning Intern, Adam Fulton and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Rasmussen was absent. I. Approval of Minutes June 28, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting e MOVED by Eck, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes from the June 28 meeting as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment - CU-104 Applicant: Hope Discount Warehouse Address: 1200 Mendelssohn Avenue Purpose: To allow the applicant to expand their sales hours to include Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 10 am to 6 pm and to allow an additional 500 square feet of floor space for the store area. - Grimes referred to a site map and stated that the Hope Discount Warehouse is located at 10th Avenue and Highway 169. He stated that Hope for the City has about 12,000 square feet of space at this multi-tenant office warehouse building. Grimes explained that Hope for the City came before the City late last year with two requests. The first request was to change the text of the Zoning Code to allow incidental retail sales to go along with their warehouse activities in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts. The second request was for a conditional use permit for 3,000 square feet of retail space at their warehouse location. Grimes explained that the applicant's original request was for a 3,000 square foot store to operate 3 days per week to allow sales of some of their excess products to raise money for their operation. He said it came to his attention that the Hope Discount Warehouse was operating more than 3 days per week as allowed and that they are operating in about 3,500 square feet rather than the approved 3,000 square feet so they are now requesting the store be 3,500 square feet and open an additional 3 days, with the same hours and no added employees. Grimes said that he has not heard any issues regarding Hope for the City from any other tenants in the building, there is plenty of parking on site and that there is a proof of parking condition in their Conditional Use Permit. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 2 Grimes stated that Hope for the City has some Fire Code violations and suggested that before this proposal is approved that Hope for the City is made to come in to conformance with Fire Code standards. Eck asked if Hope for the City would still be below the 10% footprint of the whole building allowed for retail sales in the Industrial zoning district. Grimes explained that the whole building is 40,000 square feet and that the 10% allowed would be 4,000 square feet so the 3,500 square feet of space they are proposing for their retail space would comply. Waldhauser asked why the City cares if Hope for the City takes 3,000,3,500 or 4,000 square feet for their retail sales space. Grimes explained that the concern with retail operations in the Industrial zoning district is the parking and that the City has a much higher parking requirement for retail space than it does for Industrial uses. He added that it is common in many cites for businesses located in industrial areas to have incidental sales areas. Pentel stated she visited the site and questioned if Blue Sky Galleries, located in the same building is a retail establishment. She said she knows the City was told that they are a manufacturer's representative but she questions if this is another retail use within this building. She stated that there is messiness when functions are combined within the zoning districts. Grimes stated that this building has a mix of uses and that he has never seen more than a few cars parked at this site so he thinks it fits in the Industrial zoning district. He said it is his understanding that Blue Sky Galleries is a furniture showroom and that they only sell furniture from catalogs or by display. He added that the City has generally permitted furniture showrooms in Industrial zoning districts because they have large items and don't have a large parking demand. Pentel asked Grimes about the City's rationale regarding the number of days per week incidental sales could occur. Grimes said that the Code was amended to specifically say that sales are to be "incidental to the primary operation". He explained that Hope for City's primary business is 12,000 square feet and that only 3,500 square feet is used for the store, so two-thirds of the space is being used for their primary operation. Pentel asked if there would be any issues if other retail functions such as Room & Board wanted to be open five days per week. Grimes stated that the way people do business has changed and that is something the Planning Commission and City Council would have to decide. He explained that Room & Board's Conditional Use Permit was amended in hopes of alleviating the traffic and parking issues that occurred on that site when they only had Saturday sales. Pentel asked if adult oriented businesses would be allowed to have incidental retail space. Grimes stated that the City is required to allow adult oriented businesses somewhere within the City. In this case an adult use would not be allowed because this building is located too close to a Residential district. Schmidgall stated that he is concerned about the fact that there was an agreement and it seems as if the applicant started having their sales three days per week and it snuck up to five days per week. He questioned if the organization is acting in good faith. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 3 Grimes explained that when the issue came up, the applicant immediately stopped having sales five days per week and that he feels that the applicant has acted in good faith. Trent Rolfzen, Director of Retail Sales, Hope for the City, explained that Hope for City receives a lot of corporate surplus from corporations. They take the items in, sort them and distribute them to other non-profit organizations locally and internationally. He explained that they purchase everything they sell in their store so that people donating realize that what they are donating goes directly to people for purchasing. He said the profits from the store go right back into Hope for the City and that it covers administrative costs, shipping costs and employees wages. He said he was not aware of the condition regarding being open only three days a week and that this is the only location they have that has that condition. He said that they want to be compliant and they are working on correcting the fire code violations. e Schmidgall asked how many stores Hope for the City operates. Rolfzen stated that they have an on-line store, they are in the process of opening a store in West St. Paul and that there are two others they are looking at opening in the Twin Cities. Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the public hearing. Pentel said she has reservations about changing the hours for this particular conditional use permit and encouraged staff to check into the Blue Sky Galleries operation to see if more retail sales operations are occurring in the same building. Eck stated that this proposal raises the questions of the definition of a retail sale. e Hackett referred to Sir Speedy which is located in the same building as Hope for the city and stated that in his opinion that is also a retail establishment. Eck stated that "retail" to him is something that is purchased by the end user rather than for wholesale use. Waldhauser stated that Golden Valley has allowed furniture sales in Industrial zoning districts for years and the ones that she is familiar with are wholesale showrooms. Keysser asked the applicant if Hope for the City views the store as a core function of their business. Rolfzen said the retail sales are a side function and that their prime mission is to meet the needs of the people and that the store is used to create revenue to support Hope for the City and their main mission. Hackett referred to the square footage of Blue Sky Galleries and Sir Speedy and asked if they would need to apply for a conditional use permit. Pentel said only if the City decides that the uses at Sir Speedy and Blue Sky Gallery have incidental retail sales. Pentel said she won't be supporting this request for the expansion of hours for Hope for the City especially now that she realizes they purchase their overstock items and sell them. She said the store is a separate business providing an income stream for the non- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 4 profit. She added that the City can not advantage a non-profit over any other type of Industrial retail sales. Keysser said he is concerned about expanding the hours of operation from a perspective that this is not incidental to their primary use. He added that he is not concerned about the applicant using 3,500 square feet instead of their original proposal of 3,000 square feet because it is still under the 10% of the building footprint they are allowed to use. He asked if the request could be split into two motions, one for expanding the hours of operation and the other for allowing the applicant to operate the retail sales portion of their business in 3,500 square feet. Pentel said the request could be split into two separate motions. e Schmidgall said he is inclined to support this request in this location and in this specific situation because there does not seem to be any traffic issues. He said his concern is that they may be creating a precedent for other locations in the City that may be less conducive to this kind of activity. Grimes explained that that is one of the reasons this is a conditional use permit so the City would have some control. He said they still have to meet the retail requirements for parking. He added that if there was a strictly Industrial building that just meets the Industrial parking requirements and they wanted to put in 2,000 square feet of retail sales space they couldn't because they wouldn't meet the parking requirements and that this type of use can only occur if there excess parking. Waldhauser asked where the building's property owner comes into play in enforcing the 10% space that the building is allowed to use for retail sales. Grimes explained that there was discussion about whether incidental retail sales could be allowed in 10% of the building footprint or 10% of each space. He said it was the advice of the City Attorney to allow retail sales in only 10% of the entire building. He added that Golden Valley's requirements are much more restrictive than other cities. e Hackett said he doesn't understand the other commissioners concerns because it appears that the applicant does comply with the 10% rule and they are willing to create more parking. Pentel said she is concerned with people not complying with their original approval and with applicants trying to push the envelope beyond what their conditional use permit allows. She said she is not as concerned about the size of the retail store but thinks extending the hours of operation for Hope for the City sets a precedent and to her it is not incidental sales and it is not meeting the intent of the Code when they are out procuring items to re-sell to provide an income stream. Eck said the ordinance is quite specific about the amount of retail space allowed in a Light Industrial or Industrial zoning district but that it doesn't define what "incidental" is and that it is a subjective term. He asked Pentel what she thinks "incidental" means. Pentel said she thinks allowing retail sales three days a week is what "incidental" means to her. She said she doesn't see what Hope for City is doing in their store as incidental to their primary use. She said if the City allows it at this location she doesn't see how it can not allow it in other Industrial areas where there area retail sales. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 5 Grimes noted that Home Run Hitters and 3rd Lair Skatepark, which are both located in Industrial Zoning Districts, have retail sales spaces that are open seven days a week and that they are allowed to because the sales are incidental to their primary business and the people demand it. Pentel said those uses are recreational. Keysser said he is not troubled by the distinction of what Hope for the City is selling and what they are donating; he is troubled by the number of days they want to be open. Eck said that if the City is going to make the number of days a retail stores can be open a part of the definition of incidental retail sales they better put that in the ordinance or they're going to have this discussion every time this comes up. Grimes suggested that maybe incidental sales be based on total hours per week instead of number of days. e Hackett stated that by limiting the size of retail sales areas to 10% of the building footprint limits the nature of the business naturally. Pentel referred to Honeywell and stated that 10% of their footprint could be the size of a target store. She suggested that if the owner of a building wants to have retail uses maybe they should require a rezoning. MOVED by Keysser and seconded by Eck to recommend approval of the request to allow Hope for the City an additional 500 square feet (3,500 square feet total) of floor space for their store area. Hackett stated that the retail nature of the rest of the building is uncertain and they don't know if they've exceeded the 4,000 square feet they are allowed or not and asked how the Planning Commission can vote if they are not sure what is going on in regards existing retail uses in the building. e Grimes said his concern is the incidental retail uses going on in the building and that if furniture is being sold it would not be considered incidental sales. Pentel stated that the Planning Commission could table Hope for the City's request in order to ascertain the other uses in the building. Schmidgall stated that the building has demonstrated itself as a working facility and has a successful mix of organizations and he will support the request because it's been proven that it doesn't create difficulties. Pentel said they've proven it illegally outside their Conditional Use Permit which is grounds for pulling their Conditional Use Permit. Schmidgall said he is convinced that having the store open five days a week was not done with ill intent. Pentel noted that a motion had been made and seconded to approve the request to allow Hope for the City an additional 500 square feet of floor space for their store area and asked the Commissioners to vote. The vote was 4 to 2 and the Commissioners voted as follows: Eck, Keysser, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted yes. Hackett and Pentel voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 6 MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Eck and motion tied to recommend approval to allow Hope for the City to expand their sales hours to include Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 10 am to 6 pm. The vote was a 3 to 3 tie and the Commissioners voted as follows: Waldhauser, Pentel and Keysser voted no. Eck, Schmidgall and Hackett voted yes. III. Informal Public Hearing - Z011-1 0 - Rezone a portion of the Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Medicine Lake Road from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-2 (Two Family Residential) Applicant: Amain Homes, Inc. Address: Property located at the Southeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Medicine Lake Road. (South 120 feet of the North 261 feet of the NW % of the NW ~ of Section 28, TWP. 118, RGE. 21) e Purpose: To allow the applicant to rezone a portion of the property from R-1 (Single Family Residential to R-2 (Two Family Residential) Grimes referred to a location map and showed the Commissioners the property location at the southeast corner of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. Grimes explained that the applicant has entered into a purchase agreement with the property owner to purchase the south portion of the property and then rezone it to R-2, currently it is zoned R-1. He added that the house just to the south of this lot is a two- family home on an R-1 zoned piece of property. e Grimes stated that the applicant's request is to create three lots on this 40,000 square foot property, one for a zero lot line twin home and one for the existing single family home. He said that this property is designated low density (0-5 units per acre) on the Comprehensive Plan. Grimes stated that the existing home on the lot meets all of the Zoning Code requirements and that the lots are large enough, each lot would be over 10,000 square feet. He said he does have concerns about sheds currently located on the property which the homeowner has agreed to move. He said that basically what it comes down to is if the proposed two-family home is consistent with the homes in the area. Grimes explained that this rezoning request has to be recommended for approval in order for the Planning Commission to make a positive recommendation on the subdivision proposal that is next on this meeting's agenda. Schmidgall asked if the applicant could build a single family home on each lot. Grimes said no, there would not be enough street frontage. Eck referred to the staff report and asked who allowed fill to be placed on the property. Grimes stated that it is his understanding that the property owner allowed someone to dump fill on the property but that the applicant has since received a grading permit from the Engineering Department. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 7 Keysser asked if the rezoning request were denied if the applicant would build a single- family home on the south lot. Grimes said they could build one single family home on the south lot and that they could get three single-family lots out of the property if the existing home was removed. Keysser asked about access to the proposed new homes. Grimes said the access is proposed to be off of Douglas Drive. Keysser asked if the other duplexes in the area are also on R-1 zoned property. Grimes said yes and that when they were built they were probably considered a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. e Schmidgall referred to similar request the Planning Commission saw a short time ago and asked what the difference is with this request. Grimes stated the previous request could have four units if it were rezoned and that here they can only have one additional townhome. Hackett asked if the Code distinguishes between the term duplex and townhouse. Grimes stated that the code doesn't really distinguish between the two and they are used interchangeably, but that the City does allow for zero lot line subdivisions as long as both lots are the same size and covenants are provided with the City's name as a signatory so they can be enforced. Greg Comer, Amain Homes, 2306 Ferry Street, Anoka, MN stated that he has known the homeowner, Mr. Rudser, for 25 years and he felt that this was the best proposal to maximize the value of the property and it still fits with the homes in that neighborhood. e Walt Donnay, Amain Homes, 17092 Barium Street, Andover, MN stated that they are proposing a side-by-side twin home on this property because the lots are so deep and are located on a busy street. He said that building a twin home works best on a high traffic street. Hackett asked the applicants if they have designed the twin home yet and how they see it fitting into the neighborhood. Comer, stated that they've designed it to fit into the look of the neighborhood and that the watershed is to the front of the property. Donnay said that each twin home would be approximately 2,200 square feet and they would be a split-entry style with a 2-car garage for each unit pulled toward the front so they can share one access. Keysser asked about the price of the twin home units. Comer said they would be priced between $225,000 and $250,000. Waldhauser said that seems high priced for that size of home. Pentel stated that the price and design are inconsequential to the Planning Commission in this proposal and that they are there to talk about the rezoning and subdivision of the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 8 Pentel opened the public hearing. Jim Bell, 2520-22 Douglas Drive, asked where the new driveways were going to be placed. Grimes referred to a site map and stated that due to drainage issues the driveways are being proposed to be on Douglas Drive. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Pentel closed the public hearing. e Eck stated that this proposal is not an exact parallel to the proposal on Lilac that the Planning Commission recently heard, but overall it is similar. He said that the City is being asked to do a spot rezoning of an R-2 in an R-1 District which the Commission has previously said they would not support. He said the proposed homes are not out of keeping with the character of the homes in the neighborhood, but neither was the other one on Lilac Drive. He said if the Commission is considering rezoning this property than maybe all of the other lots on Douglas with duplexes on them should be rezoned. He said there is not enough difference in the two situations and he can't not support the recent proposal on Lilac and support this proposal. Keysser stated that this proposal feels different than the recent similar proposal they heard. Pentel stated they really need to have a more comprehensive approach regarding rezoning and that by rezoning one property they are benefiting one individual. e Grimes said that the term "spot zoning" bothers him and that this proposal is for single family homes that share a property line. He said it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan designation of low density and he thinks townhouses and duplexes are a low density use. He said he doesn't think in this case it would be spot zoning and asked where in the City they could consider creating an R-2 Zoning District. He stated that the prior situation on Lilac Drive centered around the uncertainty with how many homes could one day be placed upon that particular lot and that the units were going to be rental units. Waldhauser stated that there are quite a few differences between this proposal and the situation on Lilac Drive. She said she thinks the City is going to be seeing a lot of these types of developments and that it isn't practical to say the Planning Commission is going to set all of these types of proposals aside until we can do a comprehensive review on R-1 versus R-2 zoning. She added that she thinks this proposal will fit in with the neighboring properties and won't change character of the neighborhood Pentel said she thinks the new construction will be much closer to the street than the existing homes to the south and to the north and that the style of the twin home is going to look different than the 1950's style ramblers in the area. Hackett stated that he agrees that the Planning Commission needs to look at areas that are appropriate for duplex or townhouse construction. He said he agrees with Commissioner Eck's comments and that he can't vote for approval on this proposal. He said he knows aesthetics are not the Planning Commission's concern at this point, but he personally thinks "garage forward" homes are the worst of home design that's happened Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 9 in the last 20 years. He said it is very unfriendly and it says "welcome to my garage". He disagreed that it will fit in with the neighborhood and said that this type of design is turning your back on the neighborhood and is not appropriate. He added that he can't support any proposal with this type of design. Pentel stated that in terms of what the Planning Commission is to consider, the design of the homes would not stand up as a valid reason to deny a rezoning request. Keysser asked the applicant if they had considered having the existing driveway on Medicine Lake Road become a shared driveway for all three homes. Comer stated that the issue of drainage would prohibit the driveways being located on Medicine Lake Road and there would then have to be driveway agreements. Grimes added that they are trying to minimize the drainage effects to the other homes to the east and that the City Engineer wants to keep the drainage much as it is today. e Pentel said she realizes the property owners want to maximize their return but she is not certain she would support a rezoning of this property. She stated that in the previous proposal on Lilac Drive, similar to this one there was a huge out pouring from the neighborhood about rezoning that property and having additional homes and additional density in that area and that has not been the case with this proposal. She said that she thinks it is incumbent on the Planning Commission to look at allowing R-2 and higher density on busier streets. Grimes suggested looking at the idea of creating one zoning district that would allow a mixture of both R-1 and R-2 types of housing. Keysser said he thinks this is the ideal place for this type of development and that he is e inclined to support this proposal. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend approval to allow the applicant to rezone a portion of the property located at 2548 Douglas Drive from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-2 (Two Family Residential) Commissioners Eck and Hackett voted against the proposal. Commissioners Waldhauser, Schmidgall, Keysser and Pentel voted in favor of the proposal. IV. Informal Public Hearing - SU 11-06 - Subdivision of the Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Medicine Lake Road. Applicant: Amain Homes, Inc. Address: Property located at the Southeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Medicine Lake Road. (South 120 feet of the North 261 feet of the NW % of the NW % of Section 28, TWP. 118, RGE. 21) Purpose: To allow a lot for the existing Single Family Home and 2 lots for future construction of a two family home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 10 Grimes said he had nothing further to add to this proposal than what was already discussed regarding the rezoning of this property other than they've provided all of the information required by the Planning Department and Engineering Department and overall staff is happy with the proposal. He added that the one thing the City doesn't have control over is the design of R-1 and R-2 homes. Pentel said one of her concerns is how far forward the proposed homes sit to Douglas Drive and how much of the front yard would be impervious especially if they are going to have a turnaround on the property. Grimes explained that placing the homes closer to Douglas Drive reduces the amount of fill required and give the homeowners some back yard space. He added that Hennepin County may require an easement on the lot for a bike trail. e Waldhauser referred to a buffer of trees on the property and asked if the applicant is planning to maintain that buffer. Grimes said the applicants are planning on maintaining as many trees as they can but that the City is requiring a tree preservation plan. Pentel opened the public hearing. Karen Mcinnis, 2429 Douglas Drive North, stated that when properties are on a busy road like Douglas not many people want to buy a house so what you're left with is duplexes. She said she doesn't see any problems with this proposal at all. Kathy Bell, 2520-22 Douglas Drive North, stated that she does not have an objection to having a multi-family home next door to her that is owner occupied and she thinks it will add value to the neighborhood. e Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Pentel closed the public hearing. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Keysser and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend approval of the subdivision request for the property located at 2548 Douglas Drive North with the following conditions. Commissioners Eck and Hackett voted against the proposal. Commissioners Waldhauser, Schmidgall, Keysser and Pentel voted in favor of the proposal. 1. The final plat will be consistent with the preliminary plat of Amain Addition prepared by RLK and dated 6/25/04. 2. The comments in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated July 8, 2004, shall become a part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat by the City council. The amount of the park dedication fee shall be determined prior to final plat approval by the City Council upon recommendation by staff. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 11 4. The final form of the "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions" shall be developed and approved by the City Attorney prior to approval of the final plat. The cost of review of the "Declaration" shall be paid by Amain Homes. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. IV. Other Business e Hackett said he would like to talk about aesthetic requirements in the R-1 Zoning District. Grimes agreed and said they would be discussing design standards at a future Planning Commission meeting. Fulton added that it is almost unheard of for a city to have blanket types of design guidelines. Hackett said that is not a reason for Golden Valley to not lead the way and he would like design standards discussed soon. Grimes suggested putting the issue on the next Planning Commission agenda. A. Discuss proposed revisions to the Multiple Dwelling Zoning District section of the Zoning Code. Fulton explained that the revisions being proposed to the Multiple Dwelling Zoning District were a result of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan designations not being in line. He suggested using R-3, R-4 and R-5 as an alternative to how the text reads now because it would fit in better with the Comprehensive Plan Map. e Pentel asked for the definition of a one-family attached dwelling and a group foster home. Fulton explained that a one-family attached home would be the same as a twin home and that the group foster home definition would stay the same as it is currently defined in the Zoning Code. Grimes added that cities are required to make group foster homes specifically a permitted use. Waldhauser asked what "essential services" means. Fulton stated essential services are telephone poles, utility poles, etc. Pentel referred to the proposed text for the R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District and said it is unclear why 33% of a lot has to be dedicated as a public park. Fulton stated that the words "open space" could be used instead. Pentel asked if 180 square feet is a standard size parking space. Grimes said yes and explained that it gives more flexibility as to the size of a parking space. Pentel referred to Section 11.24, and stated that subdivision 6c is redundant to subdivision 4A. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 12 Pentel referred to Section 11.24, subdivision C and asked about the date of January 1, 2006. Fulton said that it was an arbitrary date that could be changed. Eck referred to Section 11.24, subdivision C and asked why the parking requirements are different if the enclosed parking spaces are underground. Grimes said the City has always encouraged enclosed parking and that underground parking is a more efficient use of the land. Pentel referred to Section 11.24 and asked why there was nothing written about sidewalk requirements. Fulton said he left sidewalk requirements out of the high density section and added them in the Senior and Physical Disability section. Pentel suggested adding a pedestrian plan as a requirement. e Pentel referred to Section 11.24, subdivision 4E and asked why business establishments could occupy no more than 5% of the total floor space in a structure. Fulton explained that business establishments are not allowed in the High Density section of the current Zoning Code so he thought 5% was a good first step. Pentel asked why there needs to be a Senior and Physical Disability Residential District. Grimes said it was mainly because the parking requirements are different. Pentel said she's not comfortable saying where these types of housing can be located and suggested senior and disability housing be allowed in all of the Residential zoning districts. Hackett added that the senior and disability housing sections tend to get separated from the other districts just by how it is written. e Eck asked how these proposed changes to the Multiple Family Zoning Districts tie into the Comprehensive Plan. Fulton explained that the Comprehensive Plan Map designations are currently low density, medium density and high density and with the proposed changes to the Multiple Family section of the Zoning Code that would make R- 1 and R-2 low density, R-3 medium density and R-4 and R-5 high density. Grimes told the Commissioners he'd like them to read over these proposed changes, make corrections, additions or changes and then he will bring in back to the Commission in August or September. v. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9: 15 pm.