HomeMy WebLinkAbout030998REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1998
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #98-021 David and Kinga Brown requesting a 50 foot variance to permit
structure setback from the Ordinary-High-Water mark of Prior Lake for the
construction of a proposed seasonal cabin on Lots 24 and 25, Twin Island.
B. Case File #98-026 Charles Olson and Joan Holsten requesting a 28.13 foot front yard
variance; 2.4% irfipervious surface variance and a 1.5 foot driveway setback for the
construction of a single family home for the property known as 3204 Butternut Circle.
C. Case File #98-024 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the
required notice for a Comprehensive Rezoning.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #98-016 to 98-018 (Continued) consider an Amendment to the Planned
Unit Development to be known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition.
B. Case File #98-132 (Continued) Approved Resolution denying setback variance for
Burdick property.
6. New Business:
A. Case File #98-031 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Program review.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
~-L A9ltFIL~X9$PI~COMM~PCAG~NDA~,G0309~ .DOC
16200 r~agJe ~reeK ~ve. ~.r~., ~nor LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The March 9, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson
and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner
Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Cramer Absent
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the February 23, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved
with the following changes:
Page 8, spelling of"Criego," and end sentence at "beach front."
Page 15, bottom of page, under Stamson, change "if' to "that".
Page 7, Vonhof, third point, change "outlet" to "outlot".
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #98-021 David and Kinga Brown requesting a 50 foot variance to
permit structure setback from the Ordinary-High-Water mark of Prior Lake for the
construction of a proposed seasonal cabin on Lots 24 and 25, Twin Island.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated March 9, 1998 on file in the office of
the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from David and Kinga Brown
who are proposing to construct a seasonal cabin on Twin Isles. The lots are currently
being combined through the administrative subdivision procedure. As of yet, the
planning department has not received any inquiry or objection relating to the lot
combination from notified property owners.
The applicant is proposing to construct the cabin 50 feet from the OHW. The Shoreland
Ordinance requires a minimum structure setback of 100 feet from the OHW for island
development. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a 50 foot variance to the 100 foot
setback requirements.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnn030998.doc I
Lots 24 and 25, Twin Isles were platted in 1925. The property is riparian located within
the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. There is a bluff
on the western portion of Lot 24. The proposed structure meets bluff setbacks and is
above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The applicant does not own either of the
adjacent parcels.
Section 9.3E regulates development on islands without municipal services.
The proposed development meets all of these requirements except for the structure
setback, for which a variance is being requested. The applicant's lease agreement for the
off street parking spaces is for one year beginning April 15, 1998. The resolution
contains a condition of continual proof of a lease for parking spaces after the first year.
The legal building envelope for the structure is approximately 225 square feet (45' by
12.5'). The legal building envelope for the gray water septic system is approximately
3,375 square feet (75' by 45'). The septic system must be setback 20 feet from the
structure and there must be an alternative septic location per City Ordinance. The DNR
has not commented on this request.
Staff concluded the variance request for the setbacks of the cabin is substantiated with
hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over.
Comments by the public:
Applicant Dave Brown, 1227 Pioneer Lane, Shakopee, stated out of the 20 requirements
they have it down to one, the setback issue. Concurs with staff's recommendation.
Dave Olson, 6776 161st Street West, Rosemount, owns adjoining lots 22, 23 and 34. Mr.
Olson said he had to use lot 34 as his drain field. His front yard setback to deck is 59 feet
exactly in line with his neighbor. He would like to keep everything in line. Questioned
the drain field size. Tovar pointed out the applicant does not have a basement. Olson's
other concem was with foliage on the island.
Dave Brown responded to Olson's comments. He is following the tree removal
ordinance to the letter. There are 20 large trees on the lot. Brown had permission to
remove four but removed only three. Pointed out Mr. Olson applied for four variances in
1991 and was granted all four. Brown is applying for one. Olson's cabin is 1,720 square
feet where Brown's is 950 square feet. Brown spoke to Gary Staber who did the septic
system evaluation assured him this is a State approved septic system. Also, Mr. Olson
was granted a 41 foot setback rather than a 31 foot setback because he is 59 feet away
from the lake rather than 69 feet.
The public heating was closed at 6:50 p.m.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrm030998.doc 2
Comments by the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Questioned staff on the administrative subdivision. Tovar explained the neighbors
were notified and no one commented on the request. The request was then
administratively granted.
· Questioned the septic system. Tovar explained the incinerator toilet facility.
· Off street parking does not have to be in the proximity of the island.
· The four variance hardship criteria had been met.
Kuykendall:
· Concurs with Vonhof.
· Clarification on parking. Brown responded he had two parking spots on the James
Allen property and he will also be renting a slip at Green Heights. In reality he will
be parking at Green Heights.
Planning Commission and staff should review parking - it is too vague.
Supports variance.
Criego:
· Question to Brown regarding building the house back 9 feet. Brown said he was
encouraged by residents on the Island to build a nice house and that is what he chose
to do.
· Question to staff regarding side yard setbacks. Tovar said setbacks are 10 feet. After
combining the lot it will not be substandard.
Stamson:
· Given there is nearly no legal building envelope, supports the variance.
· Applicant has taken as much care as he can to take care of the issues.
· Agreed with Kuykendall and Vonhof's concern.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
98-06PC GRANTING A 50 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ORDINARY HIGH
WATER MARK SETBACK OF 50 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 100
FOOT SETBACK ON TWIN ISLES.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #98-026 Charles Olson and Joan Holsten requesting a 28.13 foot
front yard variance; 2.4% impervious surface variance and a 1.5 foot driveway
setback for the construction of a single family home for the property known as 3204
Butternut Circle.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated March 9, 1998 on file in the office of
the City Planner.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~mn030998.doc 3
The Planning Department received a variance application from Charles Olson and Joan
Holsten who are proposing to construct a new single family residence on the vacant lot.
Section 5-8-12 of the City Code requires substandard lots have a minimum lot width of
50 feet to be buildable. Thus, the existing lot width at the front yard setback is less than
50 feet requiring a variance. All structure setbacks will be met.
The applicant is also applying for a variance to allow the proposed driveway to be 3.5
feet from the property line rather than the required 5 foot setback and a variance to allow
impervious surface coverage of 32.4% instead of the maximum allowed impervious
surface coverage of 30%. The impervious surface worksheet submitted did not take into
account a 1 foot proposed roof overhang. Overhangs are considered to be impervious
surface. Therefore, the revised impervious surface request is 34.8%.
Lot 28, Northwood was platted in 1911. The property is riparian located within the R-1
(Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. There is no bluff on this
lot and the proposed house location is above the regulatory flood protection elevation.
The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels.
The legal building envelope is pie shaped, 6.87 feet wide at the 25' front setback and
approximately 159 feet deep, resulting in an area footprint of approximately 3328 square
feet. The applicant has sketched the house design, but has yet to complete full building
plans. The footprint consists ora three stall tandem style garage (660 sq. feet) and 1,108
sq. feet of living area. The proposed house will comply with all building setbacks. The
proposed impervious surface is 34.8%, due primarily to the long driveway required to
reach a point on the lot where a reasonable building will fit. The proposed driveway is
setback 3.5 feet on the south lot line. The lot is 17.45 feet wide at the front property line.
With a 5 foot setback for driveways, the driveway could only be 7.45 feet wide. The
applicant is seeking a variance to allow for a 9 foot wide driveway.
The DNR is not opposed to the variances but stresses a future deck must meet setbacks or
a variance must be obtained. The applicant has stated there will be no deck or concrete
patio as the setback and impervious surface requirements are not conducive for one with
the proposed house design.
Planning Commission minutes from 1978 discussed variances that were approved for this
lot. The variances were to allow a 5 foot side yard setback for the proposed garage, a 1
foot variance for the side yard setback for the house, and a 9 foot variance to the OHW.
The required side yard setback in 1978 was 10 feet for all side yards on all lots and the
OHW setback on Prior Lake was 75 feet. There was no requirement for impervious
surface or driveway setback in 1978. The variances were approved based on
compatibility with the neighborhood and no detriment to the general health and welfare
of the community. No structures were built on this lot, and the variances expired on
November 20, 1996 as per Section 5-6-8 (A).
Staff has concluded the variance request for lot width and driveway setback are
substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~n030998.doc 4
However, the variance to impervious surface can be eliminated upon redesign of the
structure or driveway.
Vonhof questioned the 5 foot driveway setback between another driveway. Kansier said
there were no restrictions.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Charles Olson, 8400 Normandale Blvd. Bloomington, said Tovar covered all
the points. Mr. Olson talked to Valley Survey who said if they made the home smaller
the driveway becomes longer and will not change the impervious surface. He asked the
Commissioner if there was any other kind of driveway surface to meet the impervious
surface issue. He stated he was open to suggestions.
The hearing was closed at 7:13 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· Feels very strong about impervious surface requirements.
It is very important but
presented with this situation could be rationalized that runoff would be absorbed
before going into the lake.
· Splitting the driveway may not help with the impervious surface.
· Criego pointed out it is a three car garage which could be reduced.
· Olson said the three car garage is tandem (10x40 feet); reducing it would give him
200 sq. feet.
· Did not realize it was a three car garage. Applicant should reduce. There are other
altematives. It is workable.
· Holds to staff's recommendation.
Criego:
· Agreed with Kuykendall and staff.
· Reduce to 200 sq. feet or more. It is very important to keep impervious surface under
30%. DNR requires 25%
Vonhof:
· Agreed with Commissioners.
· Impervious surface request - there are redesign options. Does not support.
· Supports the other two requests - lot width and driveway - hardships are met.
Stamson:
· Concurs with Commissioners.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 98-
04PC GRANTING A 28.13 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 21.87 LOT WIDTH AT
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BUILD
1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcminh-nn030998 .doc 5
ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT; AND A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 3.5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-
07PC DENYING A 4.8 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE TO
PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 34.8% RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 30%.
Discussion:
Kuykendall commented "Half of the requirement is because of the measurement from the
roof line rather than the face of the structure, the one foot overhang and where the water
really goes."
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kuykendall requested staff to raise as a point of discussion overhangs versus sun roofs.
C. Case File #98-024 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to the required notice for a Comprehensive Rezoning.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated March 9, 1998 on file
in the office of the City Planner.
The hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the
publication dates for a comprehensive rezoning. The proposed amendment will bring the
required publication dates into conformance with the newspaper publication schedule and
the meeting schedules.
Section 7.9 F of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the procedures for a Comprehensive
Rezoning. Subsection 3 of this section states the following:
Notice. The Zoning Officer shall publish notice in at least three (3) weekly issues of
the official newspaper on the proposed rezoning amendment. The public hearing
shall be held not less than ten (10) or more than fifteen (15) days after the last
publication.
The problem with this requirement is that it does not coincide with the publishing
schedules of the newspaper and the meeting date.
Since staff cannot meet the timelines prescribed by the ordinance, it is necessary to
change the ordinance. The proposed change is relatively simple, and does not change the
intent of the ordinance. Notice will still be published in three weekly issues of the paper.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXnm030998.doc 6
The public hearing date will be held not less than nine (9) or more than sixteen (16) days
after the last publication.
Staff recommended the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes
specified by the Planning Commission.
There were no comments from the public.
The hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
Agreed with staff.
Vonhof, Kuykendall and Stamson.
· Concurred with Criego.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #98-016 to 98-018 (Continued) consider an Amendment to the
Planned Unit Development to be known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier reviewed the staff report dated March 9, 1998 on file
with the City Planner.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 23, 1998, to consider this
request. The Planning Commission continued action on this item until March 9, 1998.
Two of the Commissioners suggested the applicant work with the homeowner's
association on this request.
The developer notified the Planning staff he cannot schedule a homeowner's association
meeting until March 17, 1998. He is therefore requesting this item be continued until the
April 13, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. Staff agreed.
Comments by the Commissioners:
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO
APRIL 13, 1998.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~mn030998.doc 7
B. Case File #98-132 (Continued) Approved Resolution denying setback
variance for Burdick property.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated March 9, 1998 on file with the City
Planner.
On February 23, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the
respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances related to two existing
commercial properties located on Commerce Avenue. Resolutions 98-01PC and 98-
02PC were adopted approving the setback variances for the principal structures and the
variance to fence height. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution
with findings denying the 43.7 foot variance request to allow the existing trash enclosure
to be setback 16.3 feet for adjacent residential property.
Resolution 98-05PC denies the requested variance and lists specific findings as discussed
at previous hearings by the Planning Commission.
Comments by the Commissioners:
Criego, Vonhof, Stamson and Kuykendall agreed without further comments.
Attorney Mark Kelly representing the applicant asked to speak and stated he felt there
appears to be an interest by the City and for the benefit of the neighborhood that the
screening is better than what the ordinance would otherwise require. The ordinance only
requires a fence on the boundary line, not on top of a berm. Presently the board is
assuming his client will voluntarily spend thousands of dollars extra to provide to the
neighborhood a better quality screening than they proposed while at the same time being
called upon to remove trash enclosures. Burdick is not required to do that. Kelly stated
his client, faced with the need to remove the trash enclosure, might just as easily choose
not to install the improved landscaping plan. If it is the desire of this Board to be better
assured that the landscape plan will be installed for the benefit of the neighbors, the
Commissioners should give further consideration to applicant's request.
Criego stated the last two variances were granted with the condition the shrubbery and a
fence would be put up as indicated at the previous meetings. If in fact, applicant does not
put up the fence and shrubbery as proposed, then those variances that were authorized
will become null and void. The applicant will have to decide if those approved variances
are sufficient to require putting up the fence and shrubs. The alternative is to move the
building.
Kelly said moving the building is not an alternative. The building at 14180 Commerce
Avenue has been there since 1994, and has technically been a non-conforming structure.
The applicant could modify the building and modify the landscaping staying within the
ordinance requirements and saving thousands of dollars over what the ordinance
otherwise requires. They have talked about keeping everyone happy and there is a lot of
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn030998.doc 8
emotion tied up. Kelly asked Commissions to reconsider, and as a practical matter, what
they would want to insure is that the neighborhood is properly screened from the adjacent
commercial property. The City is asking the applicant to spend an awful lot of money
and on top of that saying take the trash enclosure off indicating you don't care where we
put it. It's your problem. Kelly is saying there is still a big problem. There is no
guarantee that anybody gets what they want in this kind of situation.
Vonhof:
No further comments.
Commissioners reviewed hardships and went well and above beyond what is usually
done at public heatings getting information from applicant and neighborhood.
· Based on all the information received at the public hearings believes the resolution is
sound.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with Vonhof.
· Felt the Commissioners were following the process with a good faith effort to try to
reach a solution to an awkward situation to all parties. Led to believe the complete
package of variances and changes were all tied together.
· Stand by what is proposed by staff.
· If applicant decides not to comply with intent of what was decided, those actions can
be faced by appropriate bodies.
Criego:
· Difficult situation at best.
Believes applicant has done an inordinate amount of time
to work on the issues and working with the neighbors with the fence and berm.
Still has the issue with the trash.
The applicant made every effort.
Say nay to the resolution.
Stamson:
· Agreed with decisions made two weeks ago.
· This is the best plan.
· Support up to this point. All parties worked very hard.
consideration taken.
· Supports resolution.
There was great deal of
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 98-05 PC DENYING A 43.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR
YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 16.3
FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR THE EXISTING TRASH
ENCLOSURE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall and Stamson, nay by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn030998 .doc 9
Stamson explained the appeal process.
6. New Business:
A. Case File #98-031 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Program review.
Planning Director Don Rye reviewed the staff report.
At the joint meeting with the City Council 2 years ago, Commission members expressed
a desire to become involved with the Capital Improvement Program development
process. The Council agreed was an appropriate role for the Commission.
Projects which are not constructed in the current year are carried over to a subsequent
year. In some cases, projects are dropped from the CIP if it becomes apparent that there is
no need for the project or that another project may achieve the same goals.
The summary described the CIP process and the financing sources available to the City in
completing the projects. As always, the primary constraint on developing capital facilities
is the availability of money. At present, the largest issue facing the City in terms of
capital projects is the financial commitment required to planned and programmed County
road improvements. During 1996 and 1997, the City's share of County road projects is
expected to be $1,125,000. This is approximately 1/3 of the total City capital
expenditures during this 2 year period. Any recommendations for changes to the CIP
should indicate what particular goal or policy in the Comprehensive Plan is being
advanced by the recommended project.
Comments by Commissioners:
· Vonhof pointed out the sidewalk section in the Subdivision Ordinance referring to
sidewalks on Duluth and Pleasant Streets.
· Questioned some of the sewer and water figures.
· Does not include the park referendum.
· Development of County Road 42 with Rutgers Street and Timothy Avenue
connection should be somewhere in the plan. The lights are going in. Poor access.
· Scott County Commissioner Marschall made a presentation to the City Council
indicating they would like to see an agreement by all parties (County, Savage and
Prior Lake) concerning the Timothy Avenue access.
· Discussed the complicated road structure on County Road 42
· What is easier getting a light from the County or the State? And what is going to
happen on the other quadrant? All parties have staked out their position.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
SHOULD TAKE THE LEADERSHIP ROLE THAT THE FOUR AGENCIES (STATE,
COUNTY AND CITIES OF SAVAGE AND PRIOR LAKE) GET TOGETHER AND
COME LIP WITH ALTERNATIVES SHOWING THE BENEFITS OF EACH
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminh-nn030998.doc 10
APPROACH TO TAKE FORTH BY OUR TWO CITY COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVES.
Discussion:
· Kuykendall would like to volunteer as part of the Council representatives.
· Criego said Prior Lake should work with Savage with the surrounding quadrants.
Safety is also an issue.
· Address the traffic issue now instead of 5 years down the road.
Votes signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Further discussions:
· The library and park referendum material will show up in the next CIP.
· Questioned if a new well would be in the CIP. Discussed sprinkling ordinance. Merit
to inform the public. Consider landscaping projects. Restricting development.
Encourage residents who live on the lake to water with lake water.
· County Road 42 will be 4 lanes.
· Access off Highway 13 to Franklin Trail and Anna Trail.
· Signal on Highway 13 and Five Hawks. Cost will be well over a million dollars.
· Access issues.
· Truck routes.
· Changing Highway 13 into a parkway.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY ROADS 42 AND 17 THE
POSSIBILITY OF RECOMMENDATION TRANSFERRING THE TRUCK ROUTE
DESIGNATION FROM HIGHWAY 13 TO COUNTY ROADS 42 AND 17 THROUGH
THE YEAR'S PLANNING AND PLAN HIGHWAY 13 FOR A PARKWAY FOR
IMPROVED TRAFFIC, COMMUNITY CONTINUITY, TRAFFIC SAFETY AND
INCORPORATING THE NEW TRAFFIC CALMING.
KUYKENDALL OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INSERT THE WORDS
THIS IS A "TRUCK ROUTE BYPASS" ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO HIGHWAY
13. VONHOF AND CRIEGO AGREED.
Discussion:
· Improvements to County Roads 27 and 21.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion:
· Gateway signage in the CIP.
· Commissioners would like to continue thc CIP issue for the next meeting.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nnO30998.doc 11
~ 7. Announcements and Correspondence:
RE: The Zoning Ordinance - a cover memo will be drawn up and presented to the
City Council. Discussions will follow at two City Council workshops.
· Stamson and Vonhofwould be willing to participate at the workshops.
· Kuykendall will not be attending the April meetings.
· The Scott County Planning workshop will be March 31 at the Prior Lake Fire Hall.
· Enforcement Officer position. Hoping to hire by mid-April.
· Last article on the crime prevention on environmental design.
Jim Albers questioned the bluff interpretation on the Dave Brown variance request held
earlier.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn030998.doc 12