Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080904 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 2004 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the August 9, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke and Stamson, City Engineer Steve Albrecht and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Absent Absent Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the July 26, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None S. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Cases #04-77 & 04-78 Arcon Development has submitted an application for preliminary plat and conditional use permit consisting of 82.47 acres to be subdivided into 89 lots for residential development to be known as Stemmer Ridge. The project includes 69 single family lots and 20 townhome lots. This property is located on the north side of CSAH 12, directly west of Spring Lake Regional Park in Section 4, Spring Lake Township. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated August 9, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Arcon Development, Inc. is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to allow the subdivision of 82.89 acres for 69 single family lots and a conditional use permit for 20 cluster town homes. The site is located on the north side of Spring Lake Road. immediately west of Spring Lake Regional Park. The net area of this site, less the 31.49 acres of County Road 12 right of way and wetlands, is 51.4 acres. The site currently has a single family dwelling and detached accessory structures. Out10ts A, E, and G contain wetlands. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc MinutesIMN080904.doc Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 2004 The proposal involves the designation of an outlot to provide a future boat slip area and access to Spring Lake for the residents of Stemmer Ridge. The developer purposes to have a dock and 30 boat slips along Spring Lake. City Engineer Steve Albrecht gave a brief overview of the engineering issues including Scott County's realignment project for County Road 12. Arcon is paying for all the utility extensions to the development. The benefit to the City is that the developer is extending the utilities at no cost to the City through the development. The City may oversize the utilities and have costs associated with that, however the base utilities will be paid by the developer. Arcon will actually be doing the rough grading and possibly constructing the portion of County Road 12 through their project. Albrecht spoke on traffic access and possible access off nearby developments. Overall, the preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications will comply with relevant ordinance provisions and City standards, provided all the conditions of approval are met. Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit subject to the 20 conditions listed in the planning report. Comments from the Public: Dustin Kern, Arcon Development, explained why they wanted to take on developing part of County Road 12. Kern spoke on the changes from the concept plan presented a year ago. The main problem was too many driveway accesses off the main collector street. The concept plan contained all single family homes but now is asking for a Conditional Use Permit for 20 cluster homes. The twin homes will contain a substantial amount of trees for a buffer. Windwood Homes will be constructing homes starting in the low $400,000 for the twin homes. The single family homes will start at the low to mid $400,000 to $500,000. Arcon has done several developments in the surrounding communities. Lemke asked Kern how he felt about staff recommending removing 41ots. Kern said there is no issue and it was probably an oversight and will comply. They will also loose lot 29 because of the bluff issue. Stamson questioned Kern on how that would be accommodated. Kern responded they would combine the lot with the adjoining lots and make them wider. Randy Langhorst, 1985 165th Street East, in the Autumn Acres development, said his first concern is the cluster homes right next to his property. Eight and one half of the townhomes will be abutting his easterly property. The report states "the recognition of existing developments" - the surrounding area is single family. The original concept contained single family homes. The plan is creating an island with the townhomes. Langhorst suggested moving the townhomes next to the park so it would not have any adverse impact. Another point is the elevations for sewer and water. There are severe L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMlS\04 pc MinutesIMN080904.doc 2 Planning Commission Muting Allgllst 9, 2004 terrains on the west side of the project. Langhorst said he put a lot of time and money into their home and property. He has no objections to the project however he objects to the townhomes next to his property. Jim Weninger, 2592 Spring Lake Road, said he has history with the area. He asked if the cluster homes meet the criteria. Moore explained they meet all the requirements. The project easily meets the density. Weninger felt a variance was required. Moore and Stamson explained the densities for R1. The overall density is 1.73 units per acre, well under the 3.6 unit requirement therefore a variance would not be required. Weninger felt the development should be totally single family. Weninger asked if the annexation areas have been totally annexed in. He also felt the City is setting a precedent with cluster homes. He pointed out the Commissioners have the authority not to approve this development. Weninger also questioned the trail systems linking through the Spring Lake Park. Atwood pointed out the trail and sidewalk system. Albrecht also addressed the trails. Weninger felt the proposed 30 boat slips were acceptable. He also pointed out the allowed 33 boat slips in the Township Resolution should be recognized. The sidewalks in his opinion should go to the development park. He felt the sidewalks and crosswalks were not brought up to date. Weninger stated the developers are out to make money. The proposed development plus a rerouting and development of County Road 12 will make life will be very difficult for the residents during the construction period. Weninger said the cluster homes were a swprise to him. Prior Lake already has many nice townhomes. Ifhigher density is allowed, a trend will be started. More single family homes are needed. The only homes affordable in Prior Lake around $200,000 are either townhomes or older 50's homes. Dustin Kern, Arcon, responded Weninger's crosswalk issue is being looked at. The underpass will not work. They are concerned as much as anyone. The construction traffic will be through the Tollefson project to the north. The City and County are aware of the alternative accesses. The last issue on the townhome concern is the green space. He is aware ofthe negative perception on townhomes but as a developer these homes will be substantially higher priced. They are also topography driven, not just a single family development, it will give more opportunities to all. Lemke questioned the screening to the west of the project. Kern presented the preliminary tree plan with the additional screening and buffering noting it will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Paul Hofslien, 1896 165th St., asked for clarification on the outlots. Moore and Kern responded with the pwposes and proposals. Kern said there would be an overall homeowners association for the entire Stemmer Ridge development. The townhome area will also have a separate association to meet their needs but still part of the overall association. L:\04 FlLES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes'MN080904.doc 3 P"'nning Commission Muting August 9. 2004 Stamson questioned how the boat slips will be assigned. Kern said they are looking into it and are open to suggestions. They are limited but would like to get a layout that would not encompass more of the lake. Kern noted the annexation resolution allowed 33 slips, however Kern said the developer felt 30 was a better number at this time. They were thinking of two sets of 15 slips from a layout perspective. Hofslien asked the Commission if they knew the townhome ratio to single family was being met for Prior Lake. Why not have the townhomes in the development away from the rest of the single family homes? The connection between 165'h Street and this development is a concern. There are conflicting reports. The bigger concern is construction traffic going down 165th. If the road goes through the Tollefson property there should be signage indicating the residential area. Albrecht said the City has no plans at this time to access through that area and went on to explain the County's concern and plan. Steve Pierson, Spring Lake Township Board, 20740 Addison Drive, said the street connection matter is on the Township meeting agenda to vacate. The cluster homes is a new concept to him and was assuming it was going to be single family. Although it is accepted in the City Ordinances, it would be a smoother transition from the 2 Y. acre lots to single family rather than the cluster homes. There as an agreement with the Township on the boat slips although the DNR would allow more. Would like to take a closer look at the higher density housing. Jodi Langhorst, 1985 165th Street, wanted to object to the location of the townhomes. There would be 20 homes in a small area right next to their home. It would be a better placement near the park. They bought the second lot in the Autumn Acres development to be in the country. They lived in the city and chose to relocate to a larger space. If the sewer connection does not work, it will create significant problems for their property. Page 8, Section 7, suggests and requires the Planning Commission take into consideration of the neighborhood character. The entire subdivision of Autumn Acres is single family. Langhorst also noted their subdivision does not have sidewalks. There will be significant traffic going to the park. Safety should be considered. Langhorst said there is an existing natural tree line between the subdivisions. It sounds like the developer is going to take out the existing trees and then replant new trees. Hopefully they can be preserved. This is a money-making project so please reconsider the townhome location. Jason Cordes, 1970 165th Street, echoed his concern with the natural tree line between the properties. Arcon's open house representative told the residents those trees would not be removed. Cordes' concern was for the tree preservation and additional landscaping. Cordes also commented on the County's ordinances and annexation. He did not want high density in this project as it does not fit into the neighborhood. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc Minu'esIMN080904.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 2004 Kern addressed the tree concerns. They try to save as many trees as possible. He said they would meet with the neighbors As far as the townhomes, they did not want to cause undue hardship. They didn't have any changes on the east side of the collector street. They looked to the market and adjusted the homes as presented. The Comp Plan also dictates a variety of homes. They are down 25 to 30 homes as allowed. Arcon is not trying to build lower quality homes. Albrecht pointed out the grading and tree removal stating the City is sensitive to removing trees. He also explained 165th Street is a township street and Prior Lake has no authority to connect. There is no need to connect. Randy Langhorst questioned the sewer and water connection. Albrecht responded. Atwood questioned the age of Autumn Acre development. The residents responded it was 3 to 6 years. Atwood asked the developer to address the townhouse location. Kem said he would like to reconsider the townhouse area and keep the residents happy. Moore said this could be continued to the next meeting. Kern would like to meet with the residents and come back with a new proposal. Atwood said she would table the matter. Stamson said the public hearing will be closed at the next meeting. Steve Pierson, Spring Lake Township supervisor, said if a new proposal is presented how can there be a closed meeting. He felt it was inappropriate. Moore said the very earliest would be the second meeting in September. Kern said he knows they can work something out and stay on the schedule. Moore said the City Council can open to a public meeting. Stamson explained the normal preliminary plat process and time line. The Commissioners have an understanding of the neighbors concerns. The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Hats off to Arcon Development. This is a huge gift from the developer. . Aware of the financial constraints with the crosswalk. Safety is important. Try to be creative with the crosswalk. . Another gift is the tree line between Autumn Acres and Stemmer Ridge. Encourage the idea even if the townhomes are not going to be there. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc MinutesIMN080904.doc 5 PlIInning CDmmission Meeting August 9, 2004 . There will be short term headaches and inconveniences with the development construction traffic. . Agree with the trail system to the park. Lemke: . Agree with Atwood on many issues. . The density in the twin home area is not high density. The location may not be desirable so to say that is "high density" is not convincing. . Commend developer to work with the neighborhood. . The developer already made significant changes from the City and residents. . Looking forward to seeing what they come back with. Stamson: . The developer has done a fantastic job meeting all concerns. . Did not have concerns with the twin homes. Sometimes you get better developments with a mix of structures. There is really only 5 structures if you break that down to single family, it could be 8 structures. The overriding concern from the earlier proposal was the number of driveways. The twin homes was part of the solution with the smaller footprint. Would not want to go back to all the driveways with the grade and busy road. . If the developer can solve it with single family homes and everyone is happier, that's great. . Overall, it is a very good development. . The annexation area will automatically become RI. If someone wants something different they would have to apply for a rezone and prove that it fits the area. . Stamson explained the density. . Support the plan - agree to table for two weeks. . The trail system is set up. This item was discussed previously and the Park people wanted to control their trails. . The Conditional Use Permit could be dropped. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO TABLE TO THE AUGUST 23, 2004 MEETING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:11 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:19 p.m. B. Case #04-98 Timothy and Vicky K1asell are requesting variances for a vehicular access elevation and for the setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation of Prior Lake to construct a single family dwelling at 14484 Watersedge Trail. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated August 9, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:104 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 po MinutesIMN080904.doc 6 Planning CDmmlsslon Muting August 9, 2004 Vickie and Tim K1asell are requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on property located at 14484 Watersedge Trail. In order to construct the dwelling shown on the attached survey, the following variances are required: 1. A 3.5 foot elevation variance from the required minimum of not more than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation for a vehicular access within the flood plain (Section 1105.402 (4)). 2. A 25 foot variance from the required 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark in the R-ISD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) district (Section 1104.302 (4)). The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shore1and Overlay District), and is guided R-UMD (Urban Low/Medium Density Residential) in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the lot is located in the flood plain. The applicant is proposing to build a single family home on the vacant parcel ofland located at 14484 Watersedge Trail. The proposed structure is 3,254 square feet in area. The strict application of the required ordinary high water setback would still allow for a reasonable use of the site. A single family dwelling with a different design could comply with these requirements. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended denial ofthe requested variance. Approval ofa 3.5 foot variance from the strict application of the vehicular access elevation requirement would allow for the alleviation of hardship for the property owner. Based upon the findings in this report, staff recommended approval of this requested variance. Lemke questioned what the emergency evacuation plan. Moore explained the requirement. Lemke questioned the street elevation. Moore said it was 905. Comments from the Public: Applicant Vicky K1asell, 14484 Watersedge, asked if the Commissioners had a chance to look at her property. They responded they did. Klasell presented a picture of the previous house and its location from the water. K1asell explained they were building the home 50 feet further away. She went on to explain they were aware of the building problems and met with staff. After platting out the house they realized the driveway was in the flood plain. It is not that the lot is too small, but the street level is to low for the Federal Government's regulation. The public hearing was closed. L:104 F1LESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN080904.doc 7 Planning CDmmisslon Meeting August 9, 2004 Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: · Is the driveway a 15% grade? Moore explained the applicant is in a flood plain area and elevation requirements. · Klasell said they talked about applying for a variance for the slope of the driveway, however, they would have to move the house over and they did not want a steep driveway in the winter. Many ice fishermen park across the street and it is too dangerous with the steep driveway. · Considering the averaging - Moore explained the side yard setbacks. · Support the driveway variance. There is no other way to access the house. It's a given. · Regarding the 50 foot setback on the other side - I do find because of the exceptional topographical and water conditions that it is technicality. The strict application is not fair in this case. If you went across the channel, you would be able to average. · It's not a lot size or impervious surface issue. Stamson: · Agree with Lemke - in order to be buildable the elevation variance is necessary. The street is not coming up higher for a number of years. · Looked at the 25 foot variance - see the problems. Neither meets the ordinance. There is more than sufficient area for impervious surface. All other standards are met. . Most lots do not have these particular set of circumstances. · This is also a very narrow channel. There is no harm in going 50 feet. · The strict application of the ordinance is causing the problem. This is the best solution of the problem. . Support both variances. Atwood: · Agreed - read staff's report. Lemke: · The shed looks like it is over the property line. As a condition it should be relocated. · Questioned the applicant's plans for the shed. Klasell said the shed was there when they bought it. They will remove it. Stamson: · The shed should comply with our ordinances. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCES INCLUDING A CONDITION THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHOULD MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. L:\04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 po MinutesIMN080904.doc 8 Planning Commissum Meeting August 9, 2004 Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Old Business: A. Case #04-66 Michael McGuire is requesting 8 variances to construct a new single family dwelling on property located at 5070 Condons Street SE. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated August 9, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Michael McGuire is requesting variances to construct a new single family dwelling on property located at 5070 Condons Street SE (Lot 8, Condons Wooda1e). On June 14,2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the applicant's request for the following variances are required: 1. A 2,517 square foot variance from the minimum 7,500 square foot lot area permitted for nonconforming riparian lots (Section 1104.902(I)a.). 2. A 6.14 foot variance from the required 21.14 foot front yard setback (Section 1102.405(4). 3. A 28 foot variance from the required 50 foot shoreland setback (Section 1104.308(2). 4. A 1.5 foot variance from the required 5 foot west and east side yard setbacks permitted on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)). 5. A 5 foot variance from the required 10 foot east sum of side yard setback permitted on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)). 6. A 3 foot variance from the required 15 foot west side yard separation setback permitted on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)). 7. A 9 foot variance from the required 15 foot east side yard separation setback permitted on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)). 8. A 9.6 percent variance from the 30 percent maximum impervious surface coverage (Section 1104.306). The Planning Commission continued this item to August 9, 2004, and directed the applicant to revise his plans according to their discussion. Only some of the variances have been complied with on the revised plans. Applicant Mike McGuire said he hired a house designer who developed a plan taking into consideration the Commissioners two main concerns of impervious surface and lake setback. McGuire pointed out the changes. Another issue is the deck - it is similar to the adjacent homes. The most difficult issue is getting back down to the 35% impervious surface. Still at 36%. The other concern is the east side setback. He narrowed down the garage and side yard. To go less would really make the use of the garage and house L:104 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN080904.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 2004 impractical. McGuire presented a handout with his calculations. McGuire felt his proposal will enhance the neighborhood and give him reasonable use of the property. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: · The impervious surface is a big deal. The applicant stated he would move the house 2 feet to the street. Would be in favor of that. . Found staffs report to be thorough and support their fmdings. Stamson: . The Resolution does not match the proposal. The applicant's current numbers do not match. Lemke: . Ai; I recall, we came to the 35% impervious surface because of the DNR's memo. There is a memo from DNR stating they are comfortable with the revision of 36%. . We like to stick to the 30% very closely. There has to be some relief with a 7,000 square foot lot. If the DNR is comfortable - I am too. . Curious with the side yard setbacks. Moore explained the measurement is from the shed and should be taken from the house. . There were 3 variances the Planning Commission were at odds with. What happened to the east side yard setback if its 11 feet not 6 feet? Moore responded it would be a change in the variance. . It would meet the ordinance - however, it has to be checked out. . The last one is the side yard setback. There is side yard and a separation. Would like to hear from the Chair. Stamson: . McGuire said the side yard setbacks are confusing. The separation, I believe would be 11 feet instead of 6 feet. But side yard and east side would actually be 5 feet with the overhang 3.55 feet. The west side was approved at the last meeting or it sounded like it would be okay. Its 12 feet compared to 11 feet separation. The whole thing was the interpretation of the shed. . It's a difficult lot and variances are required. The applicant is faced with the neighboring houses fairly close to the property line. . If the separation is 11 feet from the house rather than the shed it would be acceptable due to the narrowness of the lot. Would not agree to 6 feet from another house. . The west side meets at 5 feet and the east side is at 3.5 feet opposed to 10 feet. It's a little close in my mind. But probably reasonable given the lot. . The front yard - it's better to push a house toward the street than the lake. So if we can minimize the lake it would be better. Would like to see it a little be further back. L:104 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc MinutesIMNOS0904.do<: 10 Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 2004 · Opposed to the impervious surface over 30%. There are several homes in the neighborhood that met the 30%. As the neighbors have shown here - it's doable. We made the neighbor redesign several times to get the 30%. We have always held to that. Lemke: . Didn't we indicate 35% impervious surface was acceptable? Stamson and Atwood: . Do not agree to 35%. Stamson: . Still opposed to 35%. . This proposal seems drastically off from what we indicated. . Ifwe go back to the 30% then the side yard setbacks would be met. The neighbors obviously met the requirements. . How big a house is a hardship? It's a lot of variances. This is not the smallest lot we ever looked at. . We generally hold tight to the requirements. Lemke: . Even if it's an 11 foot separation it still needs a 4 foot variance. Atwood: . At the last meeting Stamson brought up allowing a 36.5 foot setback and require that the last 6.5 feet have to be built to the impervious surface requirements. Stamson replied that was regarding the deck on the back. We're allowing the setback at 44 feet and the deck at 36 feet. It's a lot of variances for a smal110t. . If the house is moved back and brought in on the east and west sides, the impervious surface would be met. Stamson: . What strikes home to me is the neighbor who built next door on a smaller lot and testified that he did. He met the 30% and only required 2 or 3 variances. . Sometimes we come into these things and look what has been presented and then try to fit the house on the lot - then things look reasonable. If something requires 8 variances then maybe isn't the ordinance it's just putting too much house on the lot. It needs to be more reasonable. McGuire stated he cut the garage down and the house itself is only 18 feet wide. It is probably the smallest new house on Prior Lake. This is his third revision. If! was adding on to my current house I could get by without any additional variances because it is already located. The adjacent property owner had an existing home and built a single car garage. He would be willing to push it closer to the road. But that would probably be a mistake. Its possible but when it's all done and landscaped the setbacks will blend in better than the garage sitting back 10 feet than the 15 requested. L:104 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN080904.doc 11 Pltlnnlng CDmmissum Muting August 9, 200-1 Lemke: · The garage could be moved back 2 feet. · McGuire said it's a small house, it's his retirement house and would like to have a bigger garage. To make the house smaller... it's not buildable. The house has to be practical and somewhat useable. ' · Is it possible to build without the overhangs? McGuire said the designer cut back on the overhang. You still need 16 inches. There will be gutters and a rain garden as well. This new design is a better plan, it is smaller. It will give me more front yard on the lake side. He will gladly go back and redesign but doesn't think there is anything he can do. Stamson: · This is a better proposal than the one a few weeks ago. · Some of the variances are required. · The sticking point is the 30%. It is very unusual the DNR hydrologist found 35% impervious surface reasonable. · There are some hardships. Atwood: · It brings up the "reasonableness". An 1,100 square foot house with a 22 foot garage is not unreasonable. Stamson: · It's not a ramble, it's a two-story. He his doing a fairly reasonable use of the property. Lemke: · Initially had problems with the side yard setbacks. Not sure what else he can do. · Fine with the DNR's 36%. · It doesn't make sense to shift it 2 feet. Personally, I feel he put it in a spot that is reasonable. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THE CORRECT SIDE YARD SETBECK NUMBERS; VERIFICATION OF SETBACK FROM HOUSE VERSUS SHED; AND STIPULATE THE LAKE SETBACK OF 44 FEET TO THE HOUSE AND UP TO 36 FEET FOR THE DECK. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. New Business: A. Case #04-91 Bud and Sue Cooke are requesting to vacate a drainage and utility easement on the property located at 16407 Northwood Road. L:104 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIMN080904.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting August 9, 2004 Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated August 9, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. In 1976, the City purchased an easement on the property at 16407 Northwood Road for the pmpose of constructing and maintaining a sanitary sewer and water main. In 1996, the City did a reconstruction project on Northwood Road and replaced the sanitary sewer line. It was discovered at that time that the sewer line was not located in the original easement. Mr. Cooke granted a new easement to the City for the placement and maintenance of this utility. As a result, the original easement is no longer needed. The City Council initiated the vacation of the existing easement on July 19, 2004. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other than as a function of ensuring access to public utilities. The vacation of this easement is not inconsistent with any specific goal or objective of the Comprehensive Plan. A new easement has been obtained for this area. The staff recommended approval of the vacation. Applicant Bud Cooke felt the report was accurate. He is planning on adding a 14 foot garage addition. Comments from the Commissioners: StatDSonnLenUkelAtwood: . The easement was replaced and this is a better use of the property. . Support. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION AS REQUESTED. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on August 16,2004. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: None. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:104 FlLESI04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc MinutesIMN080904.doc 13