Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022304 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR :PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY~ FEBRUARY 23, 2004 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. Case #04-26 An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow free-standing parking lots as accessory uses to existing nonresidential uses in Residential Districts, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. B. Case #04-21 An amendment to Section 1107.2200 of the Zoning Ordinance to add materials to architectural materials standards. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. Discussion on temporary boat and storage covers. B. Variance Summary C. Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District update. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. AdjouroDtent: L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pcAgcnda\AG022304.DOC www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2004 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the February 23,2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the February 9, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Case #04-26 An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow free-standing parking lots as accessory uses to existing nonresidential uses in Residential Districts, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 23, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On December 15, 2003, the Planning Commission and City Council conducted a workshop to discuss several potential amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. At that time, the Council and the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing free-standing parking lots in Residential Use Districts. During this discussion, the Council and Planning Commission also directed staff to include the following provisions: . Prohibit storage . Protect the neighborhood . Require a Conditional Use Permit . Specify the distance from the use the parking lot is intended to serve L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 23.2004 . Prohibit structures There are two current situations driving this amendment. The first is Captain Jack's restaurant. There is a vacant parcel of land across the street from the restaurant owned by one of the partners. They may wish to utilize this lot for overflow parking for the restaurant and the marina. The second area is the DNR lake access on DeWitt Avenue. The DNR owns a second parcel and would like to expand the parking available for the access. The purpose of this amendment is to allow free-standing parking lots within Residential Districts under specific circumstances. The specific conditions applied to these parking lots are intended to limit the application of the provision and protect the surrounding residential area. By requiring a conditional use permit, the amendment also allows public input on a specific proposal. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Based upon the findings the staff recommended approval. Stamson questioned if a Conditional Use Permit can be revoked. Kansier said "Yes, there are standards set out in the ordinance as to what would qualify for revoking a permit." One is not meeting the conditions of the permit. If one does not utilize the permit within a certain amount of time it will automatically expire. There are criteria and a process laid out. Ringstad requested abstaining from the conversation and voting. Comments from the Public: Bill Criego, 16350 Park Avenue, agreed with the DNR access parking use, which is a valid public use. However, he felt Captain Jack's is a private profit oriented business that is a non-conforming use and grandfathered in about 30 years ago. By allowing this ordinance to go through, the City is allowing anybody who is non-residential to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Criego stated Captain Jack's was a grandfathered-in-type facility. By allowing this ordinance to go through, the City will be allowing a grandfathered facility to expand. The criteria for the CUP is basically not for a residence. If the applicant meets the criteria will it automatically be granted? Or does the Commission have the ability to allow or disallow at your will? Captain Jack's has a parking problem. Do you want to expand it? Not an easy decision. Most of the approved uses are during the day or early evening. By allowing this, parking will be allowed until! :00 am. Criego's other concern is the allowable impervious surface on a parking lot in the Rl district. Would that be allowed to take place in an R1 District? The ordinance should not be used for non-conforming uses; grandfather approaches or to expand a nonconforming use and consider the hours of operation. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 23. 2004 The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Valid concern on imperious surface issue. Kansier responded the maximum is 30%. In commercial, industrial districts and park and recreational uses the impervious surface can go up to 75% with required storm water treatment. Ifit's in a residential district alone it is 30%. . Isn't that something that needs to be addressed? Kansier responded the DNR would fall into the park and recreational use requirement. The other use would have to apply for a variance. . Because this is not specific to Captain Jack's were any of the neighbor's notified? Kansier responded "No, because it is a general text amendment and not specific to Captain Jack's". . Always hesitant to vote in favor of amendments specifically driven. However, there is a public need for parking in both of these instances. . A Conditional Use Permit would give the perimeters implied by staff. . It would be interesting to hear the neighbors. Don't know if anything is valid but it is significant. Stamson: . Unless there was a specific application the neighbors would not be notified. Atwood: . There is a public need - support the amendment. Lemke: . Atwood addressed many of my thoughts. There are problems in neighborhoods on many days especially with the DNR parking lot. It is useful and necessary. There is a public need. . Criego brought up the impervious surface which is a very important point. However, under the CUP process it would be better to look at for each individual case. . As far as an expansion of a nonconforming use - not totally convinced it is an issue. The building is not expanding. The additional parking would address that problem. . Would like to listen to the Commissioners. Perez: . Echo Lemke's thoughts on the expansion. It will allow more parking and find a place to park that is not on the street. There is a safety issue and the biggest concern. . It's not an expansion - its additional parking. . The impervious surface is a valid point. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting February 23.2004 . Like the fact it is driven by a CUP. The neighbors would have a say if application driven. . No reason to hold up the ordinance - there is a public need. . The DNR access parking is important and needed. Based on that and the fact there is a CUP attached to this I am in favor of the amendment. Stamson: . Are the Wagon Bridge Marina and Grainwood Park in the Rl District? Kansier said "yes". . Both have parking problems. . Agreed with Commissioners. There is definitely a public need especially the DNR. . There has been some discussion of expanding Captain Jacks - the building will not be added on to. The parking lot being added is to address the current use and problem as opposed to expanding. The additional parking will help the situation. . This will solve the problem not create a new one. . Criego' s concern for the late night parking impact is not any different than what we allow most things - churches, schools that are open during the day is a valid one. . Growing up on Lake Minnetonka knowing the lake, this is a common situation. We often discuss the lake is unique; you have to live with people's storage in the back yard - boats, boat structures, etc. . Living on the lake has different neighborhood situations. . Would like to see additional conditions - specifically no storage of any kind on the property. An example would be that Captain Jack's rents slips and no storing boats there over the winter because they are not using the parking space. I hate to say "no parking over night" because someone drinking may leave their car. Nothing more than 48 hours. . No structures of any kind on the additional parking lot. . The primary use must be the same for residential district uses. It has to be specified that the use is in the same residential district. That's what creates the hardship for that particular property. . Add the three conditions and will support. . This will not create any new problems. The public need is addressed. General Discussion: . The points brought up are valid - storage, keep the distance within 500 feet. . Downtown might be justified but not through this process. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: . NO STORAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE PROPERTY. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 . NO STRUCTURES OF ANY KIND ON THE PROPERTY. . THE SPECIFIED USE MUST BE WITHIN THE DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all with Commissioner Ringstad abstaining. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on March 15,2003. B. Case #04-21 An amendment to Section 1107.2200 of the Zoning Ordinance to add materials to architectural materials standards. City Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated February 23,2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On December 15, 2003, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to discuss potential zoning ordinance amendments, including an amendment allowing additional materials to be considered Class I materials. The Planning Commission discussed potential changes at their regular meeting on February 9,2004. The Commission supported amending the ordinance to add fiber cement siding as a Class Ia material, allow synthetic stucco as a Class I material, require a higher grade of vinyl siding, and increase the number of attached residential units that must comply with the more strict material standards. The proposed amendment allows fiber cement siding as a Class Ia material, considers synthetic stucco a Class I material, specifies vinyl siding grade, and increases the number of units in one residential building that must adhere to the stricter material standards. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended approval. Comments from the Public: Kelly Murray, of Wensmann Homes, said they asked staff to look at this issue. She asked how the 60% calculated. Murray presented a building plan indicating the calculation area and is trying to figure the calculation area. Kansier said staff calculates the surface of the front of the building. Staff does not go three dimensional nor are the roof areas included as the front. Murray disagreed on the calculations and said there is a big difference for them. Kansier explained the calculation includes the face of the building and garage doors, although they are not Class I. The windows are included as Class I but shutters are considered decorative. Under the proposed ordinance staff would not include the shakes and garage doors. Murray felt the details actually helps the building but hurts the calculation. Murray said she was struggling that only 30% of the 60% requirement can be Hardy Board in the residential district. Her concern was with their 10-unit buildings. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 Kansier said the number of units is a policy issue the Planning Commission can determine. Stamson clarified the Commissioners decided for 8 units and below, Hardy Board is considered Class I. Nine units and above would be subject to the class Ia material standard. Kirchoff clarified the ordinance should read 60% of the wall should be Class I and then another additional 30% could be Class 1 a. Kirchoff went on to explain the percentages. Stamson clarified as well and pointed out the proposed ordinance would be less strict than it is now. There was a brief discussion between the Commissioners and Murray on material calculations, design and cost. Kansier said staff recognizes there needs to be garage doors and limited materials. Staff has not applied the 10% on residential buildings because they are need. Metal garage doors are counted in the total face of the building but not counted against the 10% maximum for Class III materials, and always have been. Ringstad pointed out this is nothing new. Stamson suggested eliminating the garage doors on residential areas from the 10% Class III standard. Kansier said staff could do that on residential buildings. Industrial buildings with large loading docks should not be included. Murray questioned the back to back building requirements. Kansier said this has been consistently applied. Murray felt the alternatives to meet the criteria take away the design element of the building. They do not want to trade off cost trying to go to more of a Class I material instead of the la and take away some of the design elements. Stamson pointed out they could go to an 8-unit building and this would not be an issue. Murray said they could go to an 8-unit building but in some areas the density is 30 units per acre in the R4 which allows a 10-unit building. Murray demonstrated the balance portions on a 10-unit building. Sometimes being too strict on the percentages will cause the design elements to be lost. Murray questioned if it was just the EIFS product that had to be 8 feet in height or all stucco. Kansier confirmed it was just the EIFS. Murray presented a new product made of cement fiber siding with a stucco-like covering. The cost is the same as stucco. Murray suggested adding more design elements and back off on the percentage. Wensmann would rather see the flexibility design element. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 Kansier said all of these discussions are policy issues - staff can take it back to the drawing board and discuss it again. Staff can decide what is durable and aesthetically pleasing. The public hearing was closed at 7 :30 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . Overall this amendment does address discussions from two weeks ago. There are quite a number of changes with more flexibility, especially with residential. . We are a little bit more restrictive with Commercial; however, the Commissioners felt that was important. . It allows 8 units and a broader base of materials, especially for residential. . It's a big step forward to what the Commission was looking at. . The public comment brought up some specific cases they were looking at, but I am not uncomfortable holding a lO-unit building to a higher standard of design than an 8-unit. We jumped from 8 which was a big step. If you get bigger it is more important to hold to higher quality materials. . Exclude garage doors from the 10% requirement. It simply can't be met. . Addressing the gables - hate to eliminate design that improves the building simply to meet a number. . Add a sentence "City Staff at their discretion may exclude architectural details from calculations or classified materials not specifically addressed by the ordinance that they feel meets the spirit of the ordinance." . Staffhas an understanding of what the Commissioners are looking at the in the ordinance. They can look at new material and decide if it meets the criteria. . Trust the staff to make the decisions. Let them make the call. If someone doesn't like it let them appeal. . Support the amendment. Perez: . Agreed with most of Stamson's suggestions - with the 8 to 10 unit - seems arbitrary to include 8 and not lO. There has to be a stopping point. And this was discussed at the last meeting. . Agreed with the need for additionall a class material. . The garage door should be out of the calculation. . With those changes agreed to support. Lemke: . Agreed the garage door can exceed the 10% requirement. . Like the idea of giving the staff some flexibility. Weare trying to come up with a durable aesthetic look and should be held to a higher design standard. At this time we are saying 8-units. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 . We might create a less aesthetically pleasing building to meet percentages. . Very comfortable with staff saying this is an architecturally pleasing building. . There should be credit given for gables fot Class I materials or discretion or something along those lines. . Would like to see that flexibility given. Stamson: . It is important to discuss aesthetics and staff can decide on the percentages. Ringstad: . The aesthetics is a double-edge sword - we want to see aesthetically pleasing buildings. . I do question if constructing a building without architectural details is in the developers best interest because it won't sell ifit's not aesthetically pleasing. It is kind of a give and take. . As far as staff deciding what is appropriate and durable, the checks and balance seem to be in control. Staff should have the control. If an applicant doesn't like what the staff says they can come to the Planning Commission. . The appeal process should remain in affect. . Question - Should the higher degree of grade siding be defined? Or actually specifying a grade that would be acceptable. Kirchoff said staff could do that. . Everything presented tonight is what was discussed two weeks ago. . With the added sentence regarding staff discretion, will support the amendment. Atwood: . Agreed with Ringstad, this is double sided issue. . Agree with staffs discretion, but haven't heard from staff. Does staff see any problems? Kansier said staffwas not uncomfortable with it; however, she would like to come back to the Commissioners with the language and look at it before it goes to the Council. . Support that piece of it. . Support specifying the higher grade of siding. . Agree the garage door should not have to meet the 10% as Stamson suggested. But also feel in the calculation class of materials it should be excluded. . Kansier responded the garage door is included as part of the face of the building. . Atwood - Does not feel it should be included. . Kansier said staff can do that but gave an example of a situation with an apartment building. . There is some design policy issues and Kelly Murray had so~e valid concerns. . Not willing to vote for something that is site specific driven. . Not willing to go over 8 units. That is the line to be drawn. . In favor of the amendment to define higher grade impact of siding and removal of the garage door as part of the calculation. . Would like to have staff come back with revised language. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO SEND BACK TO STAFF FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. Kansier said staff has the changes and will bring it back to the next meeting. Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will come back on March 8th. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. Discussion on temporary boat and storage covers. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the discussion Memorandum dated February 23,2004 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On December 15,2003, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to discuss potential zoning ordinance amendments, including an amendment regarding treatment of temporary structures. The City staffhas received a number of complaints about the use of temporary structures for the storage of recreational vehicles. These structures generally include a fabric or metal roof or cover supported by poles anchored to the ground. Given the escalating price of off-premise boat storage, we expect to see more structures of this nature. The primary complaint about the temporary boat covers is aesthetic. In addition, these "temporary" structures may eventually become permanent. On the other hand, recreational equipment is a fact of life in a lake community such as Prior Lake. The temporary storage structures provide an economical means to store this equipment. The City Council and Planning Commission directed staff to bring this issue to the Planning Commission for further discussion. While attempting to write an ordinance addressing boat covers, several other issues were raised. The largest issue is how to address Building Code concerns. The staff is asking for further direction from the Planning Commission before bringing any amendment to a public hearing. Some of the options to be discussed could include: . Limit the size of such boat covers. . Allow the boat covers, but require a building permit. . Allow the boat covers without any building permits. · Limit the length of time in a year these boat covers could be utilized. · Do not allow boat covers at all. . Other options proposed by the Planning. Commission. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 This is not a public hearing. Questions from the Commissioners: · Atwood questioned if language could be pulled out of the building code and specifically define "recreational". · Building Official Bob Hutchins presented pictures of covered storage facilities. Hutchins pointed out the building code requirements and how they pertain to the picture presentation. · Perez questioned greenhouses. Hutchins responded with the regulations. . The building codes are State Statutes. · For boatlifts or Jet Ski? Hutchins said they have not been looking at those. 99% of the residents take the tops off in the winter. The building department has not been regulating anything below the 904 (ordinary high water mark regulated by the DNR). · Stamson said it is not an issue with the tarp off. Hutchins confirmed it was not. · Ringstad asked how the enforcement has been going. Hutchins said they have not been enforcing and needed direction tonight. . Hutchins pointed out several problems with the permanent covers and the building codes. One problem is the canopy covers become kites in windstorms. · Ringstad asked if there were manufactures that could have models the City could approve. Is that a factor that can be approved? Hutchins responded it would be if it met the building codes. · Stamson said this does not just included riparian lots. Many of the structures presented were not on the lake. People who own boats are parking them next to the garage. . Hutchins said some of these are carports next to garages on non-riparian lots. · Stamson - These tend to blow away in high winds. It is not just affecting the homeowner but the neighbor as well. · Atwood confirmed State Statute cannot be amended by the City. . A boat lift is not considered a structure. Just the covered ones. . Hutchins pointed out there were many non-riparian structures. People store boats off the lake. Structures in the water are heavier and do not tend to blow away. · Kansier said what staff is seeing now are problems on association properties where there are not enough slips for everyone. Rail systems are constructed and then operate like a boat lift so instead of staying in the water it is pulled up on shore and have the tarp canopy. . Hutchins pointed out most people take the tarp off in the winter so snow does not collapse them. So far staffhas not seen any tarp or metal covers meeting the building codes. . Ringstad said this is new ground; it has been going on but not enforced. Hutchins pointed out more and more free-standing metal frames are popping up. We did see this in the past. Comments from the Commissioners: L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 Stamson: · People are creating additional storage; even a carport next to their garage and its permanent. That should not be allowed. · Have no problem with canopies over a boatlift in the water for the summer. In this type of situation people are essentially building a carport next to the garage for additional storage. · That is not what the manufacture designed it for. It is for temporary storage. . We don't want to create all these little tent cities around the town. . Not in favor of allowing it. · Kansier said the complaints are coming in from lakeshore properties where they are probably obstructing someone's view. There are no easy answers. Lemke: · Further complicating this is the track system being different than a boat lift. · Kansier said the City does not regulate anything below the 904. It has been outside our scope of authority. It's like a utility structure located in the public right-of-way. The problem comes in when someone puts a structure like this on the shoreline. Stamson: · That's the reason the City regulates sheds and other structures along the shoreline. I don't see the fact that it is made of canvas is not any different than those made out of wood. Probably less acceptable. There is kind of an equity issue - if you have a boatlift over the water you can have a canopy but not ifit's above the shoreline. . It is not acceptable to have these boat structures next to a garage. That's a reason they are not included in the building code. If it was a good idea it would have been included. Lemke: · There are other issues - tents. What about exceeding 120 feet for a wedding awning? Kansier said if its there for less than 180 days it is considered temporary. · Is there a definition between tent and canopy? Kansier said there was and it could happen. Atwood: . Suggested this could be a workshop. Mirsch representing the Lake Advisory reviewed their discussions as noted in the report. Hutchins explained the track system problems with the snow loads and structures. Most people take the covers off in the winter. The building code states anything with a roof is a structure. The boat covers probably do not meet the criteria. They are temporary and the manufactures do not want the covers blowing offin 60 to 70 mile an hour wind. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 Stamson: . Part of the solution could be that we don't allow temporary ones if it is a part of a boatlift structure - its legal if it meets the building code then it has to meet wind load structures. . It's a more expensive structure but if they are putting a lift to pull a boat out of the water it's not cheap either. . It will eliminate these temporary structures that do create problems. Both issues are addressed. Kansier said staff could take the new language out which are boat covers and structures used to cover boats. Staff can add tract systems and leave it at that. If there were a tarp over the tract system we could tell them they have to apply for a building permit. Stamson questioned the cost of a building permit. Hutchins said it was $39.00. Stamson felt that was reasonable. Atwood: . Pointed out the enforcement problems. Ringstad: . Suggested the ordinance be broken down to structures on the lake and structures on the garage side. Stamson: . Clarify only structures that are part of a lift system. Eliminate all structures except for the lift. . The neighbor is not going to be happy when a structure blows into their property. Atwood: . Break it out by riparian and non-riparian lots and be specific. The general population, boats or not, a canvas cover is a canvas cover. There was a brief discussions on temporary boat structures and lake expectations by the Commissioners. Hutchins said this is becoming an issue because the City is seeing more of these temporary structures. There have not been that many complaints but staff has not taken an active role driving around looking for violations. If staff saw something new going up not meeting the codes they would react. Staff is trying to be proactive. Kansier said staff can use the "Wavelength" to get the information out - if they are going to have something like this to check with the City. Its one of many provisions of the ordinance. Staff enforces by complaints. When there are several complaints then staff tries to address it further where we are at right now. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 Hutchins gave an overview of structure complaints. Lemke questioned the "but not limited to" Kansier explained. The commissioners decided to bring back this item in two weeks. B. Variance Summary Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the 2003 Summary Report. In 2003, the Planning Department received 12 requests for 16 variances. Ten were approved; five denied and one incomplete. Six Planning Commission decisions were appealed to City Council with two overturned. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY PEREZ, DIRECTING STAFF TO FORWARD THE REPORT ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. A recess was called at 8:31 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:40 p.m. C. Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District update. Shannon Lotthammer, the District Director for the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District spoke on the following: . The Watershed District's purpose and background. . Outlet Channel and Lake Volume Management Study. . Study components and future conditions models. . Analysis of Management Options and Management Plan. . Development scenarios and options for addressing future development impacts. . Benefits and partnership opportunities. The Commissioners asked a few questions and commented it was a very good presentation. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: None 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:03 pm. Recording Secretary Connie Carlson L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 13 /" ~ PUBLIC HEARING conducted. by the Planni:g CrmiSSiOn ~rl.LtUu,~ to The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible except under rare occasions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDANCE-PLEASE PRINT ~) L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc