HomeMy WebLinkAbout1124972.
3.
4.
o
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, November 24, 1997
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
A. Continue public hearing to consider a proposed zoning ordinance and
zoning map for the City of Prior Lake.
Old Business:
New Business:
A. Case #97-109 Hillcrest Homes requesting a 42 foot variance from the
location of the top of bluff setback to allow a structure to be constructed within
the bluff and bluff impact zone for the property located at 16091 Northwood
Road.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\97F1LES~97PLCOM/V~CAGENDA~AG 112497.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 24, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The November 24, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jem Tovar and Recording Secretary Come Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
THE NOVEMBER 10, 1997 MINUTES WERE ACCEPTED AS PRINTED.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Continue public hearing to consider a proposed zoning ordinance and zoning
map for the City of Prior Lake.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier highlighted some of the issues.
· Numbering system - the entire city code and ordinances are being revised.
· The contents are essentially the same as the ordinance.
· Additional language to clarify the issues.
· Review of the previous meetings issues including lake and bluff setbacks; impervious
surface; flood plain requirements; and the city's authority regarding the Shoreland
District.
· This ordinance applies to all areas in the city, not just the shoreland area.
Planner Jenni Tovar addressed the proposed bluff language as outlined in her
Memorandum to the Planning Commission dated November 18, 1997. The definitions
included were "Toe of Bluff', "Top of Bluff" and "Bluff Setback". The DNR is not
opposed to the proposed zoning amendments per Area Hydrologist, Patrick Lynch's letter
dated November 24, 1997. Fourteen communities were surveyed on their bluff definition
finding 11 of the communities adopted the DNR bluff definition stating they had no
problems.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~N 112497.DOC 1
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented Bryce Huemoeller's letter dated November
19, 1997.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, the attorney representing Integrity Development
stated the marina is a permitted use in the Conservation District. Mr. Halek, the President
of Integrity Development feels this is a lake community and a marina should be a
permitted use on the lake or the City should establish an additional marina classification.
Watersedge Marina has a permit from the DNR. Marinas are important and a major issue
which should be addressed. The Haleks are also requesting Lot 2 be changed from C 1 to
C2. They have had numerous opportunities to fill the office space for show rooms. This
will never be a neighborhood business area, the main entrance and business will be off
Highway 13. Their focus would be show rooms. They feel this area has been mis-
classified.
Marv Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks, permanent home address is 2260 Sargent Avenue, St.
Paul, spoke on the shoreland bluff areas. He feels there is an easy way to change
flexibility in language stating the DNR allows flexibility.
Don Rye addressed some of Mr. Mirsch's comments. A Certificate of Occupancy is not
required for certain performance requirements. It is for land use. This is a procedure to
allow a person to protect himself. Second point regarding regulatory taking. Regulatory
takings are few and far between.
Mr. Mirsch gave an example of a proposed Minnesota Private Property Act for 1998 and
his interpretation of the Act.
Mirsch's interpretation of Non-Conforming Uses and Appeals were different from staff.
The issues were clarified by Rye and the Commissioners.
Cramer asked that the "land use" definition versus "use of land" be clarified. Kansier
explained it was in at least two places in the ordinance.
Larry Schulze was present on behalf of the Prior Lake Association Board. He said he
would like to see the lake setback at 75 feet. He realizes the DNR accepts a 50 foot
setback. There is going to be more and more mnoffwith the construction around the
lake. Mr. Schulze said the Board does not know why it was changed to begin with. He
understands the Lake Advisory Committee was against the change. He asked if the
Commission would revisit the issue and bring the setback to 75 feet.
Rye said 172 variances were granted from '74 to '96.
Dave Moran, 14408 Watersedge Trail supports Mr. Schulze's statement regarding the 75
foot setback. He feels it is a water quality issues. The Watershed has water quality
projects going and feels the setback is moving backwards. Mr. Moran feels there is no
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~N 112497.DOC 2
justification to change the ordinance and feels the change was for the administration not
the public.
Wes Mader, member of the City Council speaking as an individual, stated he agreed with
the two previous speakers on the 75 foot lake setback. Had this process been in place in
1996 only one variance would have been affected. The DNR minimum requirement for
impervious surface is 25% and he felt the ordinance was passed because the DNR did not
follow the time limit and the ordinance was approved. Mr. Mader said the flood plain
criteria was mentioned at the last Council meeting, and was disturbed with the exemption
of houses built prior to the flood plain ordinance. It was not reasonable or fair. This is an
opportunity to change. He questioned the 5 foot side yard setback for substandard lots.
His other concern are the lakeshore issue in Sec. 504.202 regarding substandard uses and
decks and the bluff shore issues. Mr. Mader asked if the City had any input from a
qualified engineer with retaining wall expertise.
Kansier addressed the 5 foot setback and how it came about as well as the deck issue.
Mader pointed out the flexibilities in past variance requests.
Joe Passofaro, 16077 Northwood Road, supports the 75 foot setback because of water
quality. We should improve the water quality for the community as a whole. Mr.
Passofaro said he is a realtor and citizens do not like the 10 foot space between homes.
He went on to question the bluff setback footage.
Tovar explained it was for erosion control, aesthetics and structural combinations and it
could also be a vegetative measure.
Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, Savage, a builder in Prior Lake stated he felt
the 50 foot setback should prevail over the 75 foot setback. He bought two lots on the
lake that would only fit homes with 50 foot setbacks. If there was no data to show a
difference in the water quality the ordinance should not be changed back to 75 feet. His
second concern is the bluff. The new ordinance language is more restrictive than the
previous language.
Jim Albers, 14992 Storm's Circle, questioned the non-conforming uses and Certificates
of Occupancy, and stated he was misinformed on the issues. He encouraged someone
from staff or the commission to clearly define the uses. Mr. Albers pointed out
clarifications on the following: 501 page 1, under the Bluff definition should be 50 feet
not 30 feet. Page 16, Lot, Substandard, questioned the blanks. Kansier explained once
the numbering system was nailed down the blanks will be filled in. 501, page 31, the
section with common ownership had been dropped. He asked to address common
ownership with City Attorney for loss of building and brought up inverse condemnation.
New ordinance states there has to be a 15 foot space between buildings, 501, page 32.
501, page 32 regarding eaves and gutters - questioned adding gutters in the setback. 502,
page 36 clarify a detached garage an accessory building.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~N112497.DOC 3
Marv Mirsch, wanted to clarify the 50 foot vs. 75 foot setback issue.
Loren Jones 5282 Candy Cove Trail, said his concem was for the bluff ordinance. His
home would never conform to the ordinance.
Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, pointed out the setback averaging that should
consider evaluation in the setbacks.
Jim Albers asked if anyone checked with an insurance company with the 60% damage
rule. Stamson explained the procedure.
Marv Mirsch, said the ordinance says "structure" market value. The wording in this
ordinance is not going to allow flexibility.
The public hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· The Planning Department has done a great job of updating the Ordinance addressing
issues pertaining to our community.
· Keep in mind these ordinances reflect values and what we hold important in the
community.
· Prior Lake is unique with unique circumstances.
· Supports the 75 foot setback. There are 18.6 miles of shoreline around the lake, not
including the islands. A number of developments have been enacted along the lake -
newer homes are set back 75 feet. The initial reasoning was granting variances near
the 50 foot setback. Realistically it is one of the stronger controls in the shoreland
district.
· The bluff language presented in Jenni Tovar's memo is agreeable. It is easily
understood and necessary. The natural features should be protected. The lake itself
should be protected.
· C1 Zoning on Boudin's and Highway 13 - The appropriate Zone should be C2.
Marinas should be a permitted use in the C2 Zone. It would be a good change. It is
the only commercially zoned area on Prior Lake.
· Page 501, page 9, under "Bufferyard" - change the land uses, the language is
incompatible. Two different land uses.
· 502, page 6, "Bed and Breakfast" - conditions should include off street parking
provisions.
· 502, page 6, "Animal Kennels" - noise condition should be addressed or reference
compliance.
· 502, page 9, "Dimensional Standards" - Discuss implications of 30% ground floor
ratio.
· Typographical errors need to be corrected.
· Lot coverage - impervious surface - The commission has stood firm on 30%.
Realistically the lots around the lake are 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots. It is
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~N 112497.DOC 4
important we have a standard that is reasonable. If we change to 25% people will not
have buildable lots. The intent of the ordinance is dealing with variances. Are we
generating more variances? It is not productive.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with Commissioner Vonhof's comments except the impervious surface.
· Comments from public were useful.
· Agreed with the C2 Zone change - also connect with the property to the north which
is currently zoned RI. Support the concept of the marina and lake traffic and future
uses.
· C2 add liquor license.
· We should know Savage's zoning and what is the impact.
· Change the use of Highway 13.
· Water quality of lake - voted for the 50 foot setback. There were no facts to support
75 foot setback. The State agrees with 50 feet. We should be consistent with the
State's standard including 25% impervious surface.
· There should be a city-wide impervious surface compliance.
· The majority of homes in the lakefront area are between 50 and 75 feet because of
setback averaging.
· The bluff issue- staff did a commendable job.
· Diagrams should be used throughout the Ordinance. People will understand. Need
good communication.
· Inverse condemnation was raised with the City Attorney. She agreed with the
language.
· Criego:
· Map - agree to change the Boudin area to C2. Does not agree with changing the
entire area up to County Road 42.
· Add marinas as a permitted use in C2.
· Bluff language is good.
· Feels the 75 foot lake setback is reasonable. If we do that he agrees to keep the 30%
impervious surface. It is more than quality of water, it is view of the lake. If as a
group we decided to go to 50 feet then should change impervious surface to 25%.
· Flood plain regulations - agreed with a member of the public, if the buildings with the
100 year flood plain ('78 through '90) they should apply within the ordinance.
· Okay with 5 and 10 foot side yard setback. Average between the two side yards.
· Adding the decks is a surprise to me. Delete that and keep within the 50 or 75 foot
setback.
· Garages - no reason to put a garage between the house and street.
· Common ownership should be in the ordinance. Explained the 75 foot lot width.
· Cramer:
· Thank staff and commissioners for their work.
· Zoning map - support the Boudin's parcel to C2. Worth looking into the Commerce
Avenue area with information from Savage's zoning.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~N 112497.DOC 5
· Business park at 42 and 21. Since this area is adjacent to an R-District, there should
be proper buffering. The C- 1 area should be located at the comer of Carriage Hills
Drive and County Road 21 .There should be proper buffing.
· Flood Plain Ordinance - concur with Mader's recommendation. Get the DNR to
certify homes prior to the 1978 ordinance.
· 5 vs. 10 foot setback - acceptable to average between the homes.
· Bluff setback - staff did a good job clarifying. The four reasons are necessary to have
the Bluff language in place.
· Agrees with 50 foot setback - there is no evidence to say 75 is better.
· Something should be put in place for garages on riparian lots.
· Agreed with Vonhof on the noise condition on kennel issues. Get it written down and
settled. Limit kennel to 3 animals. Commissioners should discuss.
· What provisions are in place for substandard lots if homes are destroyed? Kansier
explained the ordinance process and legal alternatives and variances.
· 30% impervious surface should be city-wide. Lots in the shoreland district should be
more strictly enforced.
· Stamson:
· Map - agreed Boudin's property should be zoned C2. Marinas should be included.
· Does not agree with the church property or the Commerce Avenue property zoned
C2.
· Does not support the 50 foot setback - should be 75 feet. Other boards (Lake
Advisory, Watershed and Prior Lake Association) agrees.
· Support leaving the 30% impervious surface.
· Support setback averaging for substandard lots.
· Support garages as permissible in riparian lots and require all setbacks be met.
· Agree with Criego structures built prior to 1978 should be exempt.
· Common ownership - agreed with Criego.
· Bluff setback - will support with the DNR for 25 foot setback.
· Contour lines setback - take measurements fi.om the contour lines.
Open Discussion:
Kuykendall:
· Diagrams should be part of the ordinance. It helps the user.
· Bluff issue - support staff- but a licensed civil engineer should be consulted. Adopt
DNR ordinance as is. When there are no facts one way or another keep the ordinance.
Criego:
· Explained both sides of the impervious surface and setback rationale. The ordinance
worked, why did it change?
Vonho~
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINhMN112497.DOC 6
· It is a local issue - does it work within our community? The vast majority of homes
on the lake now have been modified under the 75 foot ordinance. The 75 foot change
may have been tied in with the impervious surface.
Kuykendall:
· The lake tour brought up issues of lakeshore setbacks - addressed the setback change
with vegetation landscaping screening. The impervious surface should be city-wide.
· Compromise - keep the 50 feet and impose strict screening. Deal with the water
quality.
Vonhof:
· Make this a community standard - not a DNR. Make conditions. There has been no
reason to change. The City is bound by State standards.
Creigo:
· The landscaping will be hard to enforce.
Vonhof:
· Impose conditions. Use landscape runoffplans.
Kuykendall:
· We are not going to solve all these issues tonight.
Stamson:
· The DNR has other concerns besides erosion. It is an unique eco-system.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE THE BLUFF
LANGUAGE AS OUTLINED IN THE NOVEMBER 18, 1997, MEMORANDUM BY
JENNI TOVAR.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ALLOW A COMBINED
SETBACK ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF 15 FEET WITH NO SIDE YARD
SETBACK LESS THAN 5 FEET.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, KENNELS NOT BE AN
ACCEPTABLE USE IN ALL R DISTRICTS. DISTRICTS WHERE IT IS A
PERMISSIBLE USE MUST MEET ALL EXISTING ANIMAL CONTROL
ORDINANCES.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINXMN 112497.DOC 7
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND THE
BOUDIN'S STREET PROPERTY BE ZONED FROM C1 TO C2 AND INITIATE A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
Vote taken signified ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO INCLUDE MARINAS IN
THE C2 AND R2 DISTRICTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CHANGE THE SETBACK
FROM 50 FEET TO 75 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER ON
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT LAKES AND INCLUDE THE SETBACK
AVERAGING.
Discussion:
Kuykendall - should include impervious surface city-wide at 30%.
Criego - should stay at 30% with the 75 foot change.
· Stamson, Vonhof and Cramer agreed.
Vote taken signified ayes. Kuykendall nay. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, IMPLEMENT A CITY-
WIDE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 30% IN ALL ZONES WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF C3 ZONE.
Discussion:
· Cramer - Make decisions on fact. How does the impervious surface impact the rest of
the City? Move to ask staff to make a recommendation. We want to make sure this is
done right. The Shoreland Ordinance is treated different. Will not support.
· Stamson - Extending City-wide is a big problem for commercial and industrial
districts.
· Rye - It is a big involvement. We cannot do it in 2 weeks.
· Criego - We have imposed impervious surface with 30% ground floor ratio. Not in
favor of taking any action tonight.
Kuykendall withdrew motion.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND STAFF
INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE OF A CITY-WIDE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WITH
PERIODIC REVIEW.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\97 FILES\97PLCOMM~CMINWiN 112497. DOC 8
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ALLOW BUILDINGS
ELEVATED TO THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION AND BUILT
BEFORE 1978, IN ADDITION TO THOSE BUILT BETWEEN 1990 AND 1997, TO
BE CONSIDERED CONFORMING USES.
The rationale is if you have any structure built any time as long as it is built to the 100
year flood elevation that it can be a conforming structure.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, THAT SUBSTANDARD
RIPARIAN LOTS GARAGES ARE AN ACCEPTABLE ACCESSORY BUILDING
WHICH MEETS ALL SETBACKS OF.
Cramer withdrew the motion for further discussion.
Discussion:
· Creigo - discuss the deck issue and common ownership. Would like to see past
verbiage.
· Kuykendall - move on and discuss later.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE
DISCUSSION TO THE DECEMBER 8, 1997, MEETING TO DISCUSS COMMON
OWNERSHIP AND GARAGES ON RIPARIAN LOTS.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
Commissioner Vonhof left the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
A. Case #97-109 Hillcrest Homes requesting a 42 foot variance from the location
of the top of bluff setback to allow a structure to be constructed within the bluff and
bluff impact zone for the property located at 16091 Northwood Road.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes who is
proposing to construct a new single family residence with attached garage. An existing
house will be removed to accommodate the proposed structure. The lot is located in the
Northwood subdivision on Prior Lake.
The applicant is proposing to build a house in the bluff and bluff impact zone as defined
by the current zoning ordinance. Considering the proposed ordinance has yet to be
L:\97 FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIICMN 112497. DOC 9
adopted, this report and recommendation reflect the existing ordinance. The applicant is
requesting a 42 foot variance from the location of the top of bluff setback to allow a
structure to be constructed within the bluff and bluff impact zone rather than the required
30 foot setback from the top of bluff and out of the bluff impact area as per City Code
Section 5-8-3.
Generally, the ordinance prohibits the placement of fill and excavation materials in the
bluff impact areas. A variance to the bluff impact zone and top of bluff setback would
allow the applicant to excavate and fill within the bluff and impact area as indicated on
the survey. Ifa variance to the bluff impact zone or setback to the top of the bluffare
granted, then the resolution should specify that storm water be diverted from the roof
away from the bluff towards the front of the house. This could be achieved with gutters
and/or grading.
Furthermore, the excavating of the bluff does not meet the intent of the Shoreland District
in the preservation of the natural features of Prior Lake. Pat Lynch, of the DNR, has
verbally recommended that no variance to top of bluff or bluff impact zone be granted.
He is of the opinion that there exists a legal building envelope to accommodate the
proposed house and the ordinance as it exists today is what we must adhere to.
At the November 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, staff was directed to work
with Mr. Deanovic of Hillcrest Homes and Mr. Albers of Edina Realty to draft revised
bluff definitions and setbacks to be clarified and specific so as to be easily interpreted and
understood. This has been done and a copy of the proposed language is attached. The
revised language is to be considered as part of the Zoning Ordinance amendment and
public hearing the same day as this hearing. The applicant feels that the proposed
ordinance meets the goal as directed by the Planning Commission. Rather than wait for
the proposed amendment to be approved and adopted by the City Council, the applicant is
applying for this variance to expedite his project schedule.
Staff recommends denial of the variance to top of bluff and bluff impact zone.
Comments from the public:
Chris Deanovic, Hillcrest Homes, said he was waiting to see if the commission came up
with a new bluff criteria and that time was an issue. Deanovic distributed a document
showing where the project would sit between the neighboring homes. He is proposing to
remove the existing house.
Win Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road, attended the last meeting with Hillcrest Homes
and stated their proposal is blocking his view of the lake. The existing home is a small
home where they can see over it. The other neighboring homes are in line with each
other. He asked the Commissioners to grant the variance with limits. He built his house
in 1973 granted by the County Commissioners, who at the time restricted his home width
to 25 feet. It is a narrow home.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINhMN 112497.DOC 10
Jim Albers, pointed out the neighbor's house and their proposal. He feels they are
following the shoreline.
Win Simonson, questioned Albers distance and contour of the lake and corrected the
lakeshore. Simonson went on to explain the neighbor's home is flush with his. The cliff
varies in elevation. His neighbors cliffs have fallen into the lake creating different
elevations. He feels the proposal should be granted by keeping the structure flush with
his.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· The hardship criteria have not been met.
· There is some belief an ordinance may or may not be changed.
· Cannot support request.
Criego:
· If the issue was strictly one of when the new ordinance would be passed, but having a
hard time seeing this when the neighbors are being blocked off.
· This was obvious to the developers when they bought the property. (Albers stated a
permit issued on Red Oaks that does not meet the setback requirements.)
· If mistakes are made in the past the City should not continue to make them.
· Build and blend in with the neighborhood. Albers said his structure follows the
contour of the lakeshore. His interpretation was different from Planning. He accepts
there is a certain amount of blockage.
Win Simonson, showed an illustrated map of the location indicating the straight
shoreline, not slanted as Albers pointed out.
Cramer:
· This has not changed from the last time. Working with the current ordinance, the
applicant does not show any of the hardship criteria.
· Time is not a hardship criteria.
· Does not support.
Kuykendall:
· Deny request for the same reasons.
· Strongly supports changing the ordinance.
· The property was there for neighbors to buy.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-
20PC DENYING A 42 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE LOCATION OF THE TOP OF
BLUFF SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN
THE BLUFF AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
SETBACK OF 30 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF AND OUT OF THE BLUFF
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINhMN 112497.DOC 11
IMPACT ZONE PER CITY CODE SECTION 5-8-3 FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING.
Discussion:
· Kuykendall - I think there should be a friendly amendment to the effect the
Commissioners recognize there are changes being proposed. The Commissioners
fully support recommendations made tonight.
· Criego - Does not disagree with what was called out in the ordinance. Highly
recommend the developer who will not be living here but to work with the neighbors.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Chris Deanovic questioned the common ownership issue not being addressed in the new
zoning. Would like to see the verbiage before the hearing.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:24 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~MN 112497.DOC 12