HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-08-2005PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — FEBRUARY 8, 2005
PRESENT: TOM CROSBY, TOM SUPEL, DICK PICARD, RON JOHNSON, MARY
VERBICK AND LENNY LEVER. ALSO PRESENT:CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CHAD ADAMS, CITY PLANNER ROSE LORSUNG, PLANNING
CONSULTANT SARAH SCHIELD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JIM
DILLMAN, CITY ENGINEER TOM KELLOGG AND PLANNING AND
ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON
ABSENT: MARILYN FORTIN
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Dick Picard called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
There were no comments from the public
3. PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND ORDINANCE 825.33 CONCERNING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION — PUBLIC HEARING
Sandie Larson explained that this is a public hearing to amend the city ordinance concerning the
Planning Commission. This will add to the ordinance that terms will begin in January. Formerly
terms would begin in March, although it was not part of the ordinance. Sandie also noted that
the current ordinance that was given to the planning commission did not include the new
provision that changed the membership to 7.
Lenny Leuer and Ron Johnson both asked why this was being changed.
Chad Adams said since some planning commissioners go on to become city council members,
this would be a better flow for appointing new planning commissioners.
MOVED BY RON JOHNSON AND SECONDED BY LENNY LEUER TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF AMENDING ORDINANCE 825.33 TO INCLUDE JANUARY AS THE
TIME PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS BEGIN.
MOTION PASSED.
4. RYAN COMPANIES — PUD GENERAL PLAN, RE -ZONING TO PUD AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
INCLUDING A TARGET STORE — PUBLIC HEARING
Sarah Schield said the flow of events should be the staff report, the developer's presentation, the
public hearing and then planning commission comments. Sarah said that staff has decided not to
Planning Commission Minutes 1
February 8, 2005
go thru the entire staff report but will point out the larger issues and show slides of the layout,
etc.
S. Schield said this site consists of 42.58 acres and the reason the city required that they include
the ballroom and motel parcels in the plat is because of the design and route for Clydesdale
which will cut thru the properties. So though those properties are part of the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat, they are not part of the PUD General plan. She said
there has been a redesign of the stand alone buildings, plus the west end of the main building, as
well as Clydesdale Trail. Staff has asked Ryan to work with Ace Properties on a shared access
to help with congestion on Clydesdale.
S. Schield said all three parts of the application are contingent; PUD General Plan, re -zoning and
preliminary plat. For some background, it was noted that a public hearing was held at the
November 9, 2004 planning commission meeting and the hearing was tabled to the December
14, 2004 meeting so the developer could revise the plans. At this meeting the public hearing was
tabled indefinitely to allow the developer additional time to respond to comments from the
Planning Commission, public and staff. Plans have since been revised and re -submitted.
S. Schield went over the application as to consistency with ordinance standards. One of the
requests is for rezoning from Urban Commercial (UC) to PUD to allow for the development of a
retail complex. Staff has reviewed the request for compliance with the PUD standards and finds
that it mostly complies. There are 10 points where the plan does not meet the zoning ordinance
for the underlying UC zoning.
S. Schield said staff has reviewed the architectural and site guidelines and notes that they must
include all buildings proposed with the development and the developer has agreed to this outside
of the ballroom and motel properties. This is acceptable to the City. Staff has reviewed the
lighting and the applicant has responded to the Planning Commission request for style of lighting
and has clearly identified which fixtures will be used and in what locations. The proposed lights
are dark sky friendly. The lighting along Clydesdale Trail should be discussed to see if that
lighting should be more than one foot candle. The pole height meets the 30`requirement, but the
base should be limited to 30". This is included as a condition of approval.
S. Schield talked of the landscaping and what needs to be addressed, also tree preservation.
There are also some concerns on the drainage plans. It is also noted that the applicant must
receive approval of the Elm Creek Watershed and the Technical Evaluation Panel must approve
a wetland replacement plan. Sarah said there are also some street issues; the south frontage road,
MnDOT and Hennepin County requirements and accesses. Signage will have to be reviewed
and confirmed whether the intent of the developer is one sided or two sided signs. There are
some additional items that the Planning Commission should address as identified in the staff
report.
S. Schield said staff recommends approval of the rezoning from UC to PUD, the PUD General
Plan and preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
Landscaping:
1. Efforts to reduce the impervious area to 60% should be made.
Planning Commission Minutes 2
February 8, 2005
2. Retaining walls that exceed 4 feet in height require additional design to be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer.
3. A11 retaining walls must be constructed of a more decorative material than modular brick.
4. No retaining wall may be located within the MnDOT right-of-way. The plans must be
revised to correct this overlap and to allow for access and maintenance.
5. The landscape plan must be revised to show at least 10 feet of landscaping around all
buildings.
6. The four stand-alone buildings will be required to provide additional landscaping details
prior to final plat approval.
7. The landscape plan must be revised to reflect the shared access with the property to the
east.
8. The plans shall be revised to show 5% of the surface parking area be landscaped with a
landscape break every 20 parking spaces.
9. The applicant must work with staff to determine the appropriate location for the 307
caliper inches of tree replacement which has not yet been provided.
Drainage/Grading:
10. The plans must be revised to include storm sewer pipe material, size and construction
method as proposed through the retaining wall north of Outlot B.
11. The final plans must include a detailed stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).
12. The applicant must comply with all comments provided by Lance Hoff, which is
incorporated into the City Engineer's memo dated January 18, 2005.
Wetland Impacts:
13. The applicant must receive approval from the TEP for the wetland replacement plan.
14. The applicant must receive approval from the Elm Creek Watershed District.
Streets:
15. The applicant should provide pavement details for the four way stop.
16. The turn -back permit request for constructing a portion of Clydesdale Trail within
MnDOT right-of-way must be approved by MnDOT.
17. The plans must be revised to comply will all MnDOT requirements, including the closure
of the eastern Ballroom access opening and the restriction of the western access opening
to right-in/right-out .
18. MnDOT must approve the signal agreement for the new signal at the proposed
intersection of Clydesdale Trail and State Highway 55.
19. Hennepin County requirements for access at County Road 116 and County Road 101
must be met.
20. The eastern leg of Clydesdale Trail, as it leaves the Target site, must be 14 feet in width,
for both directions, measured face to face.
21. The applicant must provide detail plans for the south frontage road.
22. The south frontage road must be constructed with the development.
Access:
23. Lot 1, Block 3, should be revised to block the entrance from the drive aisle to the
"employee" parking lot.
24. The OEA shall include shared parking and shared access agreements and will be required
for review prior to final plat approval.
25. The applicant must work with the developers of the property to the east to provide joint
access to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on Clydesdale Trail.
Planning Commission Minutes 3
February 8, 2005
Signage
26. All signage must comply with city requirements. Revised signage plan must be reviewed
and approved by staff prior to final plat approval.
27. Signage for the four stand-alone buildings will be required for review prior to final plat
approval.
Elevations:
28. The same materials as the remainder of the principal building should be used for the drive
through.
29. Building elevations for the four stand-alone buildings will be required for review prior to
final plat approval.
30. Building height may not exceed 35 feet if sprinkled or 30 feet if not sprinkled.
31. Rooftop equipment must be screened. Screening is limited to a maximum of 8 feet in
height.
Other:
32. The base of the street light poles may not exceed 30 inches.
33. Bike racks are required at the ratio of 1 for every 50 off-street parking space.
34. Trash enclosures shall be located inside the buildings and identified on the plans.
35. The architectural and site guidelines must be revised to include all buildings proposed
within the development.
36. The site plan must be revised to show the building setbacks.
37. The site plan must be revised to show sign setbacks.
38. Wing wall details must be provided.
39. The plans shall be revised to provide sidewalks on the north and south side of Clydesdale
Trail to the eastern border of the project site and also along the south side of Clydesdale
Trail from the project site to County Road 101.
40. The parking tabulation on the site must be revised.
41. The applicant must work with the Public Works Director to reach an agreement on the
well house design due to impacts of the proposed Clydesdale Trail extension.
42. The applicant shall provide the City with a digital copy of the legal description.
43. The plans must be revised per the comments in the City Engineer's Memo dated January
18, 2005.
Dick Picard reminded everyone that the Planning Commission was an advisory board and the
final decisions are made by the City Council. He congratulated the developer on their efforts and
work, but asked them to please be brief.
Tom Crosby excused himself from the discussion.
Richard Koppy, Ryan Companies, introduced those with him this evening: Director of Site
Development for Ryan Dick Brooks; Leasing Manager for Real Estate Molly Carson; Landscape
Architect Peter McEnery; RSP Architects Bob Lucius; Project designer for Target Paul Rode and
Traffic Engineer, RLK Associates, Vern Swing.
R. Koppy went thru a slide presentation. He stated that the road and the architecture have
changed. He pointed out the islands in the parking area stating that each is 5'x5' with a tree. He
also stated there was a 24' drop from the store to the highway. He stated that the high level light
fixtures were 36' and the low level fixtures by the buildings were the same style as in the Wild
Meadows subdivision.
Planning Commission Minutes 4
February 8, 2005
Vern Swing, RLK Associates traffic engineer for Ryan, said there are three items to clarify: 1 —
If a residential or piece meal strip development was planned — would a signal still be required
and he said yes. He also stated that MnDOT said they have plans for an overlay of 55 in 2007
and also they would then extend the median to County Road 116; 2 — Frontage road to the south.
For Ryan to bear the full brunt of this would be very difficult. The developers will work with the
City on this; 3 — Clydesdale and 116 access — Vern stated that Mr. Byers from Hennepin County
said the City should work with the county as this would be a public project if anything would be
done. He said Ryan would consider a signing plan to restrict traffic at certain peak times.
D. Picard asked Mr. Swing to go over the frontage road again.
V. Swing said that if the frontage road is a requirement of approval, Ryan is concerned that it
would be their responsibility and Ryan feels they are not the only ones causing the need for a
frontage road.
R. Koppy said a concrete sidewalk is planned from 116 all the way thru on 1 side of the
Clydesdale. He said he does not see why a sidewalk or trail would be necessary on both sides,
especially going out to 101. He said it would be safer if there was only one crossing on 101.
Bob Lucius, RSP Architects for Target, said their goal was to create a `walkable' sense with a
village atmosphere. He said by simplifying Clydesdale there is more of a sense of arrival and
with the street, landscaping, parking, buildings, etc. it all adds to that atmosphere. He said
changes allowed them to pull the buildings forward focusing on traffic and streets in a `quiet'
manner
Paul Rode, Project Designer for Target, said they worked on a distinctive look. He said he deals
with all Targets in the area and this is a unique look for the Metro area. He said the Target store
will look different than the smaller shops giving each a distinctive look and feel. He said there is
a palette of warm colors, a `porch' area, a trellis area people will walk under and an inviting front
door. Rode said the building will have pre -cast panels with a brick base. He also said the roof
line is very important as you will see that from the highway.
B. Lucius said the smaller shops would be integrating flagstone. There will be contrast and
similarity. The parapets will be different heights and there will be texture and color variety.
R. Koppy said the flagstone and design can be brought into the retaining walls. He said Ryan is
very enthusiastic and thinks we can do a good job on this. He said it is a $30 million dollar
project and will raise Medina's tax base considerably. Koppy also said the products used in the
construction will be of the highest quality and all codes and regulations will be met. His
comments on staffs 43 conditions: #7 & 25 — the property to the east — we will work with the
property owners and try to do something and make it work; #8 — our plans are double your
ordinance requirements. There are a dozen diamonds in the parking lot. He said you have to
leave as much open as possible for maintenance (snow, etc.); #9 — Think we have met the
requirements; # 17 & 18 — We have to meet all MnDOT requirements. He said the ballroom
people would like to keep both of their accesses open. He said we will have to meet with the
ballroom people and MnDOT; #21 & 22 — the south frontage road is an issue of funding. He
said we will move into that discussion; #26 — he said he thinks they are very close on signage.
He said they will discuss with staff; #34 — Koppy showed a slide of how they have done trash
enclosures elsewhere. He said they would like to have it outside but enclosed with a product that
would be the same as the building; #39 — Koppy said he mentioned the sidewalks earlier.
Planning Commission Minutes 5
February 8, 2005
R. Koppy said he appreciates the staff and Planning Commission efforts.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Reg Pederson, 225 Highway 55, 55 Rentals, said his business was on the south side of Highway
55. He said when Mr. Koppy came in with a plan; it showed keeping our access open along with
the frontage road. Now MnDOT is talking closing all access to 55. If Target wasn't going in I
don't think changing access is necessary. Pederson said about 100 trucks and trailers, with
inexperienced drivers, come and go on any given Saturday and it concerns me about the safety.
He said in his 28 years at this location he has never seen an accident in front of us except 1.
Pederson said he does not think there needs to be a frontage road if Target does not go in and he
said he needs his access to stay open for him to stay in business.
Todd Hildebrandt, 222 Cherry Hill Trail, talked about the access by Holiday and Gramercy. He
said with the traffic in and out, he did not think that Clydesdale could handle it and it would be
very unsafe.
V. Swing said the total new traffic would be about 8,000 cars per day. He said they forecast the
traffic using Clydesdale would be those destined for 101 or those that don't want to wait at a
light, but most of the traffic will use 55.
T. Hildebrandt said the traffic will increase especially on Sunday.
D. Picard asked Swing about the MnDOT study that mentions 6 lanes.
V. Swing said the MnDOT study was from 494 going west. The study will show that 6 lanes are
not necessary now, but most likely sometime in the next 20 years. He said because of the growth
in Maple Grove and Plymouth, it will most likely mean 6 lanes in this area. Swing said that in
2007 MnDOT has an overlay project planned and at that time will try and restrict access.
Randy Mayer, 762 Highway 55, said he would like more detail on the 116 and Clydesdale
intersection.
V. Swing said there are no County or City plans to restrict any traffic there, but he anticipates it
being a problem in the future. He suggests that during the biggest traffic times there be a right
in- right out access at that intersection. He said this might be an opportunity to do some
improvements.
R. Koppy said that in their report they identified that intersection and said they are willing to
place signage for no left turns (to 116) at peak hours.
Lisa Bittman, 972 Medina Road, questioned the need for a Target in Medina when there are lots
of Target stores around.
Tom Supel said the traffic flows and congestion are very fuzzy and ill defined. He said there
was not enough information to make a decision. He said he would like to hear from staff about
traffic. Supel said there was talk of a traffic study for the Hamel area at the last city council
meeting and what data do we have? He said the developments to the north on 116 and 101 all
come south.
Tom Kellogg, said the Uptown Hamel traffic study does not go north of 55. He said the signal
must be approved by MnDOT and said the signal justification report is a draft.
Planning Commission Minutes 6
February 8, 2005
V. Swing said there is 10,000 cars per day on 116 and 101 and 20 years out that figure will
double. There are 30,000 cars per day on 55 in this area and 20 years out that figure will more
than double. It will be congested and signals going west will filter traffic through the area.
T. Supel said people will have trouble making turns in any direction, like they do for Holiday.
V. Swing said the highest queue is expected at 150'.
T. Hildebrandt said there are long lines now in the morning; going south it can be backed up to
Evergreen. He said he is really concerned about the traffic.
T. Supel asked Schield about Ace Properties on 101. Will the County close their 101 access?
Schield said yes and they will come off Clydesdale. Supel wondered why they (Ace) have to
negotiate with Ryan.
S. Schield said a condition of approval of the current Ace building was if they expanded, the 101
access would be closed.
Rose Lorsung showed on a slide the proposed expansion of the Ace building, parking, etc. She
said the applicants should work together on the access issue.
R. Koppy said the two (Target and Ace) would have different peak hours. He said residential
development would be a worse traffic situation at peak hours in the morning.
Ron Johnson asked about the south frontage road. He said it looks like it is in the 100 year flood
plain.
Tom Kellogg said they would try to avoid that. He said the road shown is simply a draft drawing
and there are significant issues to work out before a final plan.
R. Johnson asked about Outlot C.
T. Kellogg said the drainage to Outlot C would be from the ballroom and motel property. He
said there are no improvements planned and no storm water provisions. He said the water would
drain to the MnDOT ditch.
R. Koppy said our drainage will go into the storm water pond in Outlots A & B. He said when
the ballroom redevelops Outlot C will be their ponding area.
R. Johnson asked if there was any talk of upgrading the ballroom parking lot.
S. Schield said we have talked about it, but staff does not feel we have the right to require it now,
but when there are any improvements done to the site there will be requirements concerning
parking, landscaping, etc.
R. Johnson asked about the ROW issue.
T. Kellogg said MnDOT has said they are willing to turn over the portion of ROW that they do
not use. He said the process will start to do so when Clydesdale is built and then it will be city
ROW. He said MnDOT considers it excess ROW for them.
R. Johnson said the key is traffic. He said this plan covers many of the other issues.
Mary Verbick said it is important for Medina residents to know this is not a done deal, and not to
fear a bunch of `Jiffy Lubes'. She wondered how much land alteration is expected.
Planning Commission Minutes 7
February 8, 2005
R. Koppy said the base of the retail will be cut down 4'-5' from where it is now (1000'
elevation). He said there would be a 2-3% grade to the highway. Koppy said there will be some
earth work by the pond. He said they are trying to balance the site so we do not take a lot of dirt
off the site. He said overall it will look natural when we are done.
M. Verbick asked about the buffer.
S. Schield said the applicant is working with the Elm Creek Watershed.
M. Verbick talked about the signage. She said in keeping with our `rural' look, character is what
we look for, not grandeur. Verbick said she does not know why we would want to compromise
on the outdoor trash issue. On parking in front of the store, she said when shopping with small
children she likes to be able to park in front. She said we should never consider pedestrians
equal to cars.
M. Verbick said she appreciates all the work that has gone into this application. She said she
likes that Clydesdale does not go in front of the stores and that is an enormous improvement.
She said the arch is much better on the front but she is still not convinced that Medina needs a
large retail development like this. Congestion, safety, air quality, traffic, etc. are all concerns.
Lenny Leuer asked if there would be earth balance.
R. Koppy said yes, we are very close to a net balance. He said we will have to import some dirt
for the building pad and parking lot.
L. Leuer asked about the retaining walls.
R. Koppy said we removed the one on Highway 55. We will grade and tier to the parking area.
L. Leuer asked how many retaining walls there would be and how tall they would be.
Peter McEnery, Landscape Architect, said there is one on the east end of the site by Valvoline
that is 4' in height, one in the SW corner and is 10' and tapers to grade to the east and 10' along
the pond to the north and to the bridge. He said there is 3' tall wall by the NE parking area
between retail and bank and also a wing wall in the back of the building.
L. Leuer asked if all 4 of the walls would be of the same product.
R. Koppy said they would talk with staff about it.
L. Leuer said the city engineer will want to see some detail on the walls.
T. Kellogg if the walls are over 4' on height they need to see an engineer's design. He also said
a railing may be needed at the top.
R. Koppy said they have done retaining walls in many projects and they would not build one
without a wrought iron fence/railing He showed a slide with a view from highway 55 and
mentioned the terracing as you go up from the highway.
L. Leuer said this is a `walkable' community and wondered about the curb and gutter.
R. Koppy said it would be B6 curb, that is typically what we use. He said B6 would be used all
over except the sidewalk which would be a drop curb so the access at the front will be relatively
flat.
L. Leuer asked about the diamonds in the parking lot and Koppy said they would also be B6.
Leuer asked Koppy about the city engineer's comments on the pond in Outlot B.
Planning Commission Minutes 8
February 8, 2005
R. Koppy said they are going to have to get approval from the TEP panel and the Elm Creek
Watershed. He said whatever we have to do we will do.
L. Leuer wanted to know where the overflow will go.
R. Koppy said thru the site south of Highway 55 to Elm Creek.
D. Picard asked if there was anything to do to reduce the impervious area.
P. Rode said they could look at increasing the depth of plantings and look at it further. He said
we are trying to be aggressive with plantings in front.
R. Koppy said we have recalculated and believe we are under the 60% requirement. He said he
will show staff their calculations.
D. Picard asked their time schedule.
R. Koppy said they would like to start mid summer or as early as they can to get as much done as
possible.
D. Picard said he does not see an immediate need for a Target in Medina. He asked staff how we
would verify that conditions are being met once construction has started.
S. Schield said it takes staff time to keep up on it.
R. Lorsung also said that the City requires a Letter of Credit to ensure that things are done.
M. Verbick said she would like to recommend, before we move ahead with this project, that we
put out a RFP to see what other developers could contribute to the area.
Jeff Pederson, 265 Highway 55, Highway 55 and Party Rentals, said he is concerned with the
safety of our customers on the south side of 55. He said without Target he does not believe we
would need the frontage road. He said the road is a concept at this time, but wondered who pays,
etc.
Carolyn Smith, 545 Medina Road, said the #1 complaint in the city is traffic and she is
concerned with the traffic for this proposed development. She also mentioned the lights to the
rear of the building. She said the lights are on at Ace when no one is there and there is no reason
to have lights on all night. I would not like to live by where there are lights on all the time.
Smith said she would like the Planning Commission to consider not allowing lights on all night
to the rear of the building that faces the residential area.
Bruce Workman, 2212 Chippewa Road, said there will be additional stress on city services,
public works, police, etc. and the additional tax base does not necessarily pay of what is needed.
The public hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m.
M. Verbick asked if we were voting on the PUD and plat.
T. Supel said we should vote on the PUD general plan first.
S. Schield said the motions can be separate as all are contingent on each other.
T. Supel asked that the PUD General Plan was dealt with first.
MOVED BY TOM SUPEL AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND
DENIAL OF THE PUD GENERAL PLAN FOR RYAN COMPANIES.
Planning Commission Minutes 9
February 8, 2005
Tom Supel said a lot of people have done a lot of work but he said he is compelled to speak. He
said there is a high level of discretion on dealing with the PUD General plan. Staff has pointed
out many positives and negatives. He said he asked himself about the benefits and the primary
one is connectivity of design which is a real virtue and he cannot argue with it. He said another
issue is the increased tax base. We (the City) have a solid one now and the developers talk of an
increase tax base but residents might feel their taxes would go down but what gets lost is the Tax
Increment Financing (TIF). How much of this development's cost will be financed by TIF
which means residents will be subsidizing the development? Supel said this is a big issue and it
is misleading to say there is an increased tax base as long as that is there (TIF). He said his main
basis for not being able to support this is: 1 — traffic; 2 — unresolved property south of 55, and 3 —
demands on city services and imposing a subsidy cost on residents.
Chad Adams said he advises that TIF not be included in the findings as the City Council has not
decided on it yet and it is not the Planning Commission's responsibility to make decision's that
involve financing tools.
Both Supel and Picard disagreed with Adams. They said they cannot bring forth a
recommendation without that consideration.
C. Adams said again that staff advises that TIF not be a reason for denial.
VOTE — 3 AYES AND 2 NAYS — MOTION FOR DENIAL PASSED. DENIAL AND
FINDINGS BASED ON THE REASONS TOM SUPEL STATED.
MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO RECOMMEND
DENIAL OF THE REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON DENIAL OF THE
1ST MOTION.
VOTE — 3 AYES AND 2 NAYS — MOTION FOR DENIAL PASSED.
Comments on this proposal from Commissioner Marilyn Fortin who is absent: "Architecture of
side shops is wonderful. Would like to have Target look the same. Would recommend approval
of the rezoning, preliminary plat and PUD General Plan."
C. Adams reminded everyone that this still will go to the City Council for a final decision.
5. DAVE MOORE — 500 HAMEL ROAD — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT, RE -ZONING TO PUD, PUD GENERALPLAN AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT —
PUBLIC HEARING
Sarah Schield suggested the flow of events be; staff report, developer, public hearing and
planning commission comments.
S. Schield went over her report to the Planning Commission. For background she said the
Planning Commission and City Council had reviewed the concept plan for this project. The
applicant is requesting approval of 4 items: 1 - Comprehensive plan amendment from UC to
MR; 2 — Rezoning from UC to PUD; 3 — PUD general plan and 4 — preliminary plat to allow 23
townhome units on the 8.64 acres. Schield said the properties to the east and west are guided UC
and also zoned UC. The properties across Hamel Road to the south are guided and zoned UR
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
10
with the RR and Highway 55 bordering the site to the north. She said the City has a high level of
discretion in approving or denying a land use guide plan amendment and also in a rezoning or a
PUD.
S. Schield went over the application:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: In the comprehensive plan this property is guided to
commercial. The applicant states that the soils on this site are not suitable for a commercial
development and the proposed townhomes would blend in better with the single family
residential across Hamel Road. She said that the re -guiding of this property to residential has
significant impacts on the surrounding properties especially the `exception' parcel noted on the
plans.
Re -Zoning: The applicant is requesting rezoning from UC to PUD. The applicant is requesting
the PUD in order to obtain flexibility in design.
PUD: The PUD offers enhanced flexibility to develop the site through the relaxation of most
typical zoning district standards and it allows for a greater variety of land uses. The applicant
has stated that the project will provide handicap accessible housing that is not provided
elsewhere in the City.
PUD General Plan: The proposal includes 23 townhomes — 20 attached and 3 detached. This is
23 townhome lots and one common lot. The common lot consists of the private road and open
area and the applicant has proposed that this lot be covered entirely by a drainage and utility
easement. Staff recommends that this lot be platted as on outlot, but either way, the private roads
and open area will be maintained by the homeowners association.
Lot Size: The MR zoning district is the most closely related district to the proposed development
and this district typically requires 6000 square foot lots with a minimum 100 foot width. The
applicant is proposing 5500 square foot lots with a 96 foot width. The PUD zoning allows
flexibility from the standards. The depth of the lots should also be discussed.
Setbacks: The applicant has requested some flexibility on setbacks.
Parking: Staff recommends that no parking be permitted on Hamel Road and also recommends
that parking be restricted to one side of the private street. It is also recommended that the HOA
documents be revised to include parking regulations including prohibition of outside parking of
boats, RV's etc.
Landscaping: this should be discussed as the plans are short of what ordinance requires.
Signage: None is proposed at this time, but if there is to be neighborhood identification signs it
must comply with code requirements.
Utilities: the City engineer's report talks of what would be required for sewer and water
connections.
Wetlands: the applicant must revise their plans to address the Elm Creek Watershed's concerns.
Staff recommends that the City impose a condition that the applicant must receive watershed
approval prior to final plat approval.
Shoreland: the Shoreland District for this plan is all land within 300 feet of the OHWL of Elm
Creek and this area has been identified on the plan. It does appear that measurements were taken
from the center of the creek rather than the OHWL and this should be revised. The lot width also
appears to need revision as does the setbacks which also appear to be measured from the center
of the creek. The PUD does allow for flexibility, but there does not appear to be any benefit to
the City to allow the flexibility.
Floodplain: The applicant must identify the Floodplain boundaries on the plans.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
11
Drainage/Ponding: there are two ponds identified on the site and this ponding must provide
treatment and rate control. The plans submitted do not meet these and other requirements of the
City's ordinance. City staff and the watershed district will continue to work with the applicant to
resolve these issues.
Streets: Private streets are proposed and as mentioned earlier staff recommends that the streets
be platted as on Outlot rather than Lot #7.
Architecture/Building Materials: the Zoning Ordinance does not require specific materials,
however, since the project is a PUD, the Planning Commission may wish to discuss the proposed
architecture of the buildings. The applicant has said that this site is better suited for the slab -on -
grade design. Staff is waiting for the geo-technical report on the soils.
Lighting: More detail needs to be submitted for staff to review.
Parks, Trails, Open Space: The Park Commission has reviewed this plan and has noted the need
for a 15-foot trail easement adjacent to Hamel Road. It is also noted that if the trail is relocated
in the SE portion, it will have better access to the City owned property.
S. Schield said in summary staff finds that the PUD does not meet the intent of the ordinance in
that it does not provide a higher level of design or a more sensitive development than might
normally be the case. Staff recommends that the applicant provide additional landscaping, etc.
Schield said that the comprehensive plan amendment is detrimental to the surrounding properties
and without a more comprehensive review this can be considered `spot zoning'. She said the
City may find that the reguiding does serve a public purpose by allowing additional housing
opportunities and if the amendment is approved, staff finds that the rezoning request meets the
intent of the ordinance. Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the PUD standards or the
intent of the zoning ordinance an also the preliminary plat does not meet all of the six factors
required by the Subdivision ordinance.
S. Schield said staff recommends denial of the request but should the Commission wish to
recommend approval, staff recommends the following conditions:
Shoreland:
1. The site plan must be revised to show the correct shoreland boundary line.
2. The site plan must be revised to identify the correct shoreland structure setback.
3. The plans must be revised to eliminate either lot 16, 17 or 18, so that the remaining two lots
are able to meet lot width requirements of the shoreland ordinance.
4. The site plan must be revised to provided impervious surface area calculations for the lots
within the shoreland area.
Landscaping:
5. Either the existing conditions plan or the landscaping plan should be revised to identify the
existing trees as well as which ones will be removed and which ones will be saved.
6. The applicant must provide impervious surface area calculations for the lots or the project
as a whole. The impervious area must not exceed 60%.
7. The applicant must provide a revised landscaping plan that complies with the ordinance's
planting requirements. This should include additional landscaping along the north side of
units 6 through 17, as well as a variety of plantings along Hamel Road.
8. The planting schedule must be revised to meet the height requirement for coniferous trees.
It should also be revised to identify the shrubbery by container size, not height.
9. The landscape plan must be revised to include planting details.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
12
10. The landscape plan must be revised to comply with tree preservation requirements as
identified by the UC zoning district.
Parks and Trails:
11. Prior to release of the final plat for filing with the County, the applicant must dedicate the
trail easement to the City.
12. The plans must be revised so that all sections of the trail easement are 15 feet wide.
13. The applicant must continue to work with staff to determine the appropriate location for the
termination of the trail easement along side the creek.
14. Park dedication fees must be paid prior to filing of the final plat.
HOA Document:
15. The HOA document must state that maintenance of the ponds and the vegetation around
the ponds will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association.
16. The HOA document must include parking regulations including prohibition of outside
parking of boats, RV's, etc.
17. The HOA document must be revised to prohibit parking on Hamel Road.
18. The applicant shall provide revised copies of the HOA document/covenants for City
review.
Other:
19. The site plan must be revised to show the lot lines on the site plan.
20. The applicant must resubmit a legible copy of the lighting detail and the streetlights must
comply with the requirements of Section 829 of the Zoning Ordinance.
21. Both the water and sewer should be stubbed to the "exception" lot on both its east and west
sides to provide for looping. The watermain stubs should have a T-valve and a length of
pipe that will allow for a connection thru the property when it develops.
22. The applicant should provide a 20-foot minimum drainage easement along the west
property line to provide for restoration and protect of the current drainage way.
23. The applicant must meet all drainage, stormwater and ponding conditions prior to final plat
approval.
24. The floodplain boundary must be shown on the plan.
25. The applicant must comply with all comments in the City Engineer's memo dated January
18, 2005 and the comments in the attached drainage review memo also dated January 18,
2005.
26. Lot #7 must be platted as an outlot. The residential lots must be renumbered accordingly.
Ron Brekke, Oliver and Associates, went thru the conditions: #1 — have been shown; 3 — would
prefer to go ahead with the 3 and discuss with staff; 4 — 27% is the calculations; 5 — not a big
issue, can work with staff.
Dave Moore, President of Lynmoore, LLC, said 8 years ago he started developing handicapped
accessible townhomes and did the slab -on -grade for accessibility. He said his first experience
was in Mound and since has developed in Carver and Minnetonka. He said this would be a
benefit to the City for the long time residents who need this type of environment. He explained
further the design of the buildings and the construction. In our concept review the City Council
recommended we go with a PUD because of the variance issues and because of some of your
outdated ordinances.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
13
R. Brekke, said they can move the pond to the east. He said he believes that all the issues can be
worked out.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Fidel Theis, Jr, 3465 Elm Creek Drive, said his concern is traffic and does not feel this is
necessarily a bad project. He said Hamel Road is not a good road now.
Tom Supel said 23 units will contribute to traffic.
F. Theis, Jr. said that could be 50 additional cars per day and yes that is a concern. There are no
walkways on the road and it is not safe to walk on Hamel Road and residents from the proposal
might want to do some walking.
Tom Kellogg said the traffic study that the City Council authorized for Uptown Hamel does
include this area. He said the property to the east is City property and a new storm water pond
has been constructed there.
Jim Dillman said there may be a foot bridge across Elm Creek and a trail to Uptown Hamel.
F. Theis, Jr. said their property is to the south by the creek and kids play by the creek. He said he
did not know what kind of park the city had planned or if the kids would use it.
Tom Crosby said he will defer his comments.
Tom Supel asked about the park fee and Sarah explained it to him and said the park fee
ordinance had recently been revised. The park fee for this application would be $3,500 per unit
or $80,500.
Chad Adams said there is a formula. The City can take 10% of land or 8% of the market value
pre development with a minimum of $3500 per unit but no more than $8000 per unit.
T. Supel asked if this parcel was buildable because of the flood plain.
R. Brekke said when fill was brought into this site it raised it above the flood plain, but the maps
were never changed This will be done before final approval.
T. Supel said he is nervous when the plat is approved it is out of our hands and we should resolve
this before hand.
R. Brekke said again that the flood plain map does not reflect that this site was filled.
T. Supel asked if staff felt it is a practical matter to develop this property as UC.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
14
S. Schield said staff has not seen a good geotechnical report to comment on the validity
regarding the soils comment. She said it brings us back to who is responsible to check if site is
buildable — the City or the developer.
Ryan Cottington, Oliver and Associates, said the elevation of the creek is 976.5. He said we
need a map revision with FEMA. He said he has talked with Ali from the watershed district and
he said he could not do much until the letter for the map revision is done. He said the
information has been submitted to FEMA. He said Ali has agreed to the 976.5 elevation.
Ron Johnson said the idea for handicapped housing is an excellent idea, but he is not sure if this
is the right site for it. He said he goes along with staff s recommendations.
Mary Verbick said this is a big plus for the community with this type of housing. This site is
very close to Uptown Hamel that allows mixed use, so she did not think this was a bad site for
the project. She said there seems to be some details that need to be worked out and someone
needs to address the buildability of the site. She thought there were too many issues to jump into
this now.
Lenny Leuer asked if the owners of the `exception' parcel had been talked to about rezoning.
S. Schield said it had been discussed at the staff level but staff feels it is the applicants
responsibility to bring this up.
Ron Theis, 3482 Elm Creek Drive, said his parents live in the `exception' parcel and he knows
they would rather have residential around them than commercial and they would be more than
happy to have the `exception' rezoned.
L. Leuer asked if it would be hard to include that parcel.
S. Schield said no, it appears to be a good fit for the site.
L. Leuer said leaving the `exception' zoned commercial doesn't make much sense.
R. Theis asked how it ever got zoned commercial in the first place.
There was discussion about spot zoning for the Moore and Theis parcel.
R. Brekke said the `exception' has always been land locked and nobody understands how this
property got zoned commercial. He said we feel the parcel is buildable.
T. Kellogg said 1 - what he has from Karl Anderson from 12-21-04 is not clear to him the
amount of material that was excavated for soil correction; 2 — Flood plain map — if site is
overlayed on the map a substantial portion of the site falls in the flood plain; 3 — Storm water —
some changes in ponding per the City for rate control. If ponds need to be bigger to meet NURP
regulations, it might impact the number of sites. He said as far as the suggestion to move the
pond to the east, he is not sure if it will work.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
15
R. Brekke said soil borings were done 9/11/02.
T. Kellogg said the summary report should show detailed report on the soil corrections that are
needed.
Tom Crosby said the greatest problem is the departure from the comprehensive plan and land
use. From the city owned property to 116 all parcels are zoned commercial. He said he thinks
the use is an admirable one, but the city has the guide plan and doesn't like to see the loss of
commercial property.
M. Verbick said it is true we will run out of commercial property, but this property is adjacent to
residential.
R. Theis said the commercial property that is to the west has a lot of empty spaces.
M. Verbick said this site does not seem to be suited to commercial. If the kinks can be worked
out it is a good use for the property.
D. Picard said he is confused with the talk of the flood plain and the buildings. He said staff said
a PUD does not require a high level of design.
S. Schield said it is not staffs position. She said Ryan came in with a `blah' design and we
looked at various designs. They are looking for a PUD so staff feels they should go beyond what
they normally do.
D. Picard said he visited Dave Moore's development in Minnetonka and they were very nice. He
said it keeps coming up about the soils, flood plain, etc. Is this buildable?
D. Moore said yes it is. He said he turned in soil borings with his other submissions. He does
not know what happened to it. He said he went with a higher bid rather than a lower for the
streets.
D. Picard said the soil appears to be a big hang-up. The residential seems to fit in very well.
D. Moore said that Lynmoore is up for the community awareness award and design award. He
said the goal for Lynmoore is for the handicapped. He said he is not fearful of slab -on -grade
construction. He said the street will be a huge expense, but he wants to do it.
T. Crosby said if the Planning Commission determines the land use is o.k., then our engineers
and theirs will have to work on the soil issue. He said the flood plain map needs to be changed
and convince our engineer that it will work.
The public hearing was closed.
R. Brekke said the flood plain map should have been changed in 2000.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
16
L. Leuer said the property to the east is zoned Uptown Hamel and if the subject property went in
that zoning (UH), they wouldn't need a PUD.
S. Schield said all 4 items are contingent on each other. She said to start with the comp plan
amendment.
T. Crosby said this is clearly a difficult site. He said he sees this as a land issue and if the
Planning Commission felt residential makes more sense, he would be comfortable with it and he
would include the Theis property and include all in the UH zoning district. He said he would
rather vote on the comprehensive plan amendment to extend UH to the western edge of this lot
and it seems like to simply do this one lot, we run into spot zoning.
T. Crosby said he would move to propose the reguiding and rezoning of the property west of
Uptown Hamel to the western edge of the subject property to residential and ask the city council
to consider the Uptown Hamel zoning.
S. Schield said in the UH zoning, any MF development requires underground parking.
Bruce Workman said the planning commission should stay focused on the request before them.
If someone wants to come back with something different they can.
MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY
DESIGNATED AS 500 HAMEL ROAD FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL
ZONING OF MR.
4 AYES AND 2 NAYS.
Tom Crosby said he is opposed because of the spot zoning.
Ron Johnson said he is also opposed.
MOTION PASSED.
MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY LENNY LEUER TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM UC TO PUD.
4 AYES AND 2 NAYS with Crosby and Johnson opposed.
MOTION PASSED.
MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY LENNY LEUER TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE PUD GENERAL PLAN PER STAFF CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED IN
STAFF MEMO FOR SHORELAND, LANDSCAPING AND PARKS AND TRAILS.
5 AYES AND 1 NAY with Johnson opposed because this is against staff recommendation.
T. Crosby said his concerns are with the zoning and not the PUD.
MOTION PASSED.
T. Kellogg said to be cautious on the preliminary plat and the number of lots because of the
ponding, etc. issues.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
17
R. Brekke said they did not believe they had an issue.
MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY LENNY LEUER TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKVIEW TOWNHOMES WITH THE
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF LOTS AT 24.
5 AYES AND 1 NAY with Johnson opposed because this is against staff recommendation.
MOTION PASSED.
6. DARREL A. FARR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY —185 HAMEL ROAD —
VARIANCE FOR 3rd FLOOR SET BACK
Sarah Schield went over her planning report to the planning commission. She said if we had
staff administrative variances, this would have been one of them. Sarah said this is a variance
request for the third floor setback requirement. On January l lth the Planning Commission
reviewed this site plan and voted 5-1 to recommend approval with the condition that the
applicant work with staff to resolve the third floor setback issue. The applicant has since applied
for a variance from the requirements.
S. Schield said the site is zoned UH and is also guided UH. Hamel Road borders the property to
the north and the east -west leg of Mill Drive borders the property to the south. Hamel Road is a
2-lane paved road and Mi11 Drive is a gravel road which goes to the SE corner of the subject
property. A traffic study for the Uptown Hamel area is underway and it does not appear that the
construction of the east -west leg of Mi11 Drive will be recommended. The UH ordinance states
that along street frontages, building heights exceeding two stories shall have the third story
setback at least 6 feet from the front line of the building. The front of the proposed building
meets the requirement and the applicant is requesting a variance from the third floor setback to
allow the third floor to be flush with the first and second floors in the rear of the building.
S. Schield went thru the standards for variances in Section 825.44 of the zoning ordinance and
staff recommends approval of the third floor setback variance based on the following findings:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property which does not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. The small size of the lot coupled
with the double street frontage limit the design options.
2. The high density of the multi -family development and the underground parking, which
increase the building height, help achieve the goals of the UH district.
3. The conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. It is the specific combination
of City regulations that has created the conditions.
4. The granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the
same district.
5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
6. The variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance
or to property in the same zone.
And subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the variance is contingent upon approval of the site plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
18
2. The applicant must meet all conditions of the site plan approval.
3. The applicant must meet all conditions listed in the City Engineer's memo dated January 3,
2005.
Ben Schmidt said that at the last meeting he said he thought he could make it work, but finds that
he cannot move the building farther than the 2' from Mill Drive. He said he thought the building
was 12'and it is not.
Lenny Leuer asked about the roof on the south side.
B. Schmidt said it is right on the property line.
Mary Verbick said she agrees with staff.
Ron Johnson said if the City is considering Mill Drive a street, then this is in violation of our
ordinance
Tom Supel said he is in sympathy of Ron's views, but he also agrees with staff that it is very
unlikely that Mill Drive will be built and given that he supports staff recommendation.
L. Leuer said he understands that Mill Drive would be the access point if the property to the
south develops.
There was further discussion of Mill Drive and the property to the west and to the south.
R. Johnson said if it was not really a street, then the variance would not be necessary.
MOVED BY TOM CROSBY AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCLE FOR 185 HAMEL ROAD FOR THE REAR THIRD
FLOOR SETBACK SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Approval of the variance is contingent upon approval of the site plan.
2. The applicant must meet all the conditions of the site plan approval.
3. The applicant must meet all conditions listed in the City engineer's memo dated January
3, 2005.
MOTION PASSED WITH 4 AYES AND 2 NAYS.
Lenny Leuer voted no because of the indecision of whether Mill Drive is a road or not.
Ron Johnson voted no because if this was not a street, it would not need a variance.
7. CITY OF MEDINA — 780 TOWER DRIVE — SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR WATER
TREATMENT PLANT
Rose Lorsung went over her report to the Planning Commission. She said this is a site plan
review. Rose noted that the property was in the Urban Commercial zoning district and that a
public building is a permitted use within this district.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
19
R. Lorsung gave some information on the building; the interior square footage including the
attached clear well totals 10,130 square feet. The detached backwash tank, which is a permitted
accessory structure, is 1,990 square feet. This totals 12,120 square feet. All required setbacks
are met including the RR tracks to the north. The maximum height of the building is 34 feet
above grade and the detached backwash tank and clear well are above grade as much as 6 feet.
This will be a multi level masonry building with the north elevation including the clear well and
backwash tanks having a decorative painted finish.
R. Lorsung said the proposed landscape plan shows 121 feet of perimeter plantings consisting of
trees, shrubs and perennial plantings that far exceed the code requirements. She also said there
will be two rainwater gardens that will provide additional on -site treatment of water by absorbing
chemicals from runoff. The impervious coverage is approximately 45% and the code says it
shall not exceed 60%. Additional landscaping may be required or decorative fencing for the
backwash tank and clear well.
R. Lorsung said the site is in the E4 lighting zone. The Water Treatment plant is a high-level
security site and therefore has several internal and external motion detector lights. The lighting
plan also shows one parking lot light that conforms to both height and light shielding
requirements. Buffers will be used to screen views, reduce noise, reduce dust, reduce impact
from lights, help separate uses and enhance the appearance of the property. The plant will
produce less than 50 decibels at the property line which meets the MPCA requirements. Parking
meets City and ADA requirements. The only proposed sign is an address fascia wall -mounted
sign. Rose also said there will not be any roof top equipment and the building will be fully
sprinkled.
Tom Crosby asked if the property was owned by the City.
R. Lorsung said the City acquired the property under eminent domain. She said this was directed
by the City Council in October of 2004.
Chris Larson, Bonestroo, City Engineers, passed out some color plans of the proposed building.
Lenny Leuer wanted to know if this was 1 parcel or 2 parcels.
Sandie Larson said that the former owners of the property had combined the two lots into 1 lot.
L. Leuer asked about a portion of the building that looked like an overhead door.
C. Larson said it is louvers for the circulation of air for the stand-by generator inside the
building. He said there is one on each end of the building; one for intake and one for exhaust.
There was further discussion on decorative elements on the building and on some further
landscaping.
Dick Picard wanted to know why this design was picked.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
20
C. Larson said the design is driven by what is inside the building. He said this building is not
abnormally large, it is just the size to meet capacity of what is needed.
D. Picard wanted to know what others look like.
C. Larson said they are all different. He said there is one in Hinckley that has a pitched roof with
steel siding.
D. Picard wanted to know what is done with the contaminants.
C. Larson said they are flushed down the sewer. He said there is nothing toxic of anything on
site.
Ron Johnson asked if there where any chemicals used.
C. Larson said just routine chemicals are delivered like at the City's well houses.
MOVED BY RON JOHNSON AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR THE
CITY WITH ONE CONDITION:
1. Further landscaping/screening on the north side of the site.
MOTION PASSED.
7. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2004 (REMAINDER)
MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
MOTION PASSED WITH TOM CROSBY ABSTAINING (not at meeting)
MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2005
Page 8, 2nd to last paragraph: how do we - - - and add ? mark at end of sentence.
MOVED BY TOM CROSBY AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION PASSED.
8. PLANNER'S REPORT
Rose Lorsung said that the Bradley application has been tabled at the city council meeting until
some wetland issues could be worked out. She also said that the Cudd application has been
approved.
Rose said at the February 22nd meeting the planning commission would be hearing the Truax
(variance and subdivision) and Ace (commercial building addition) applications.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
21
Sarah Schield said there is a city council work session on February 17th and following that from
7-9 p.m. there will be an open house on the Uptown traffic study. This meeting will be held at
the community center.
R. Lorsung said there are no items scheduled for the March planning commission, so staff may
look at some ordinance revisions that will be necessary to clean up some of our ordinances.
MOVED BY TOM SUPEL AND SECONDED BY RON JOHNSON TO ADJOURN.
MOTION PASSED
Meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
Planning and Zoning Assistant Date
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2005
22