Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 12, 2005 Maintenance Center 17073 Adelmann Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 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. EP05-158 Pulte Homes has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat consisting of 118.2 acres to be subdivided into 117 lots for a residential development known as The Enclave at Cleary Lake. This property is located north of 180th Street, west of CSAH 87 (Revere Way), east of Jackson Circle and directly south of the Deerfield Development. B. 05-191 Dahle Brothers, Inc., is requesting a variance from the minimum front yard; shore land setback and impervious surface coverage for property owner David Huberty located at 3051 Spring Lake Road SE. C. EP05-183 Roy Erickson and Cal Chadwick are requesting a Variance to the minimum lot area in order to subdivide a parcel for conveyance to the adjacent parcel. This property is located north of CSAH 42, on the east side of Crest Avenue. 6. Old Business: A. EP05-184 Busse Student Transport is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage within the I-I zoning District legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, Deerfield Industrial Park 2nd Addition. 7. New Business: A. 05- 190 Giles Properties, Inc. has submitted a concept plan for the development of 79.34 acres to create 80 single family lots and 44 townhouse units on the property formerly known as the O'Brien property. This property is located south and east ofMN TH 13, west of Crystal Lake, and north of Rice Lake. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:IOs FILESIOs PLAN COMMISSION\Os AGENDASIAG09120s.DWWW.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the September 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Planner Jeff Matzke, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Absent Absent Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the August 22, 2005, 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. EP05-158 Pulte Homes has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat consisting of 118.2 acres to be subdivided into 117 lots for a residential development known as The Enclave at Cleary Lake. This property is located north of 180th Street, west of CSAH 87 (Revere Way), east of Jackson Circle and directly south of the Deerfield Development. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated September 12, 2005, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. Pulte Homes has applied for approval of a development to be known as The Enclave at Cleary Lake on property located north of 180th Street, west of Revere Way, east of Mushtown Road, and south of Deerfield Drive. The two phased proposal involves a single-family development consisting of 117 dwelling units on approximately 119 acres. All of the lots will meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements. The overall layout of the plat appears appropriate, given the constraints of the site. The applicant must address the conditions as outlined in the L:\05 FlLES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN09l205.doc 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 report. However, none of these conditions will impact the general design of the proposed plat. For that reason, if the Planning Commission finds it appropriate, the plat can proceed to the City Council, subject to conditions. The staff recommended the following conditions: 1. In accordance with the agreement between the developer and Spring Lake Township, the developer shall make improvements to 180th Street concurrently with the development of the project. 2. Provide a revised Tree Inventory/Tree Preservation Plan that demonstrates size and species specific to individual trees detailed on the plan. The plan must also distinguish which trees proposed to be removed will be impacted by future building pads, utility areas, roadways and driveways. 3. Phase II ofthe project will not be allowed to proceed prior to the necessary upgrades of the lift station as outlined in this report. 4. The Wetland Mitigation Plan dated May 18,2005, must be approved by the City. 5. All Engineering Department comments must be addressed. 6. A cash dedication in lieu of land must be paid for any remaining unmet parkland dedication requirements. There were no questions from the Commissioners. Comments from the Public: Tina Goodroad of Pulte Homes, thanked staff for all their help. Goodroad presented page 9 of the proposal and explained the trail; landscaping and monument signs. There have been no changes in the plan since the neighborhood meeting on May 10th. Ringstad questioned the home sale price. Goodroad responded around $500,000. Billington questioned if there were any concerns from the neighbors. Goodroad said a few township residents would like the area to remain rural. Byron Millenacker, 18000 Mushtown Road, stated his objection to the project as Spring Lake Township is mandating the residents to pay for the rest ofthe pavement on Mushtown Road. He felt the developer should pay their own way. It is not up to the residents to pay for Pulte Homes who is already making thousands of dollars on this project. IfMushtown Road is paved there will be more demand for development in the Spring Lake Township area. The annexation agreement was just signed two years ago however it was believed it would be twenty years before this area would develop. The agreement should be not sidestepped. The other concern is for traffic on Mushtown Road. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMlSSION\05 MINUTES\MN09l205.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 Millenacker recommended the Planning Commission should have existing long-time residents' interests in mind. Billington questioned if the paving and infrastructure costs were discussed at the neighborhood meeting. Millenacker said it was not and went on to say Pulte should pay for all the road improvements. Margaret Squires, 17320 Deerfield Drive, said she was confused with the wetlands. Kansier explained the wetland impacts. The large wetland will not be impacted in any way. The public hearing was closed at 6:52 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Questioned the pavement of 180th to Mushtown Road. Kansier responded Pulte would be paying for it. . Read the report - very few issues. . Support. . Does not know ifthe road upgrade the resident (Millenacker) was referring to was part ofthe Pulte development. Spring Lake Township makes that decision. Billington: . Based on the material presented and the testimony, I will support. Stamson: . Agreed with Commissioners - it is a straightforward development. . Typical single family development - fits the area. . As far as the Mushtown Road upgrade comment - agreed with Ringstad - the Township has decided to pave the road with all the traffic from the southern part of the township. It has nothing to do with Pulte's development. . Overall the development fits. . Support. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on October 3, 2005. B. 05-191 Dahle Brothers, Inc., is requesting a variance from the minimum front yard; shoreland setback and impervious surface coverage for property owner David Huberty located at 3051 Spring Lake Road SE. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMM1SSION\05 MINUTES\MN09l205.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated September 12,2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. David Huberty is requesting a variance to construct a single family dwelling on property located at 3051 Spring Lake Road. In order to construct the dwelling shown on the attached survey, the following variances are required: . A 6.6 foot variance from the 20 front yard setback required in the R-1 district (Section 1102.405 (4)). . An 11.9% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface coverage allowed in the R-1 district (Section 1104.306). . A 33 foot variance from the required 50 foot ordinary high water setback required in the R -1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) district (Section 1104.308 (2)). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing cabin, shed, and driveway to allow for the construction of a new single family dwelling. The proposed structure will be 1,262 square feet in area. The lot area to an elevation of912.8 feet (OHW) is 3,611 square feet. In the R-1 use district, the minimum front yard setback is 25 feet. However, there is a provision allowing the front yard setback to be the average setback of those structures within 150 feet of the subject site. However the setback can be no less than 20 feet. The average front yard setback in this neighborhood is 10.3 feet. In this instance, the applicant is proposing a 13.4 foot front yard setback. The Shore land Ordinance permits a maximum of 30% impervious surface coverage for residential property. The applicant is proposing decreasing to 41.9% coverage. The current impervious surface coverage is 46.4%. The DNR was noticed on the variance request. It is the Area Hydrologist's opinion the proposed home considers the lot constraints and is sized and located reasonably with respect to the shoreland requirements. The strict application of the front yard setback, OHW setback, and impervious surface coverage create hardships for the property owner. The proposed changes to the existing conditions ofthe lot actually improve the current setbacks and impervious coverage of the lot. Based upon the Findings, staff recommended approval of this requested variance. Comments from the Public: Applicant Chuck Ryan of Dahle Brothers, stated staff presented the report very well. It is an unusual lot and they feel their improvements reduce the impervious surface. Thanked staff for all their work. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:03 p.m. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN091205.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . The situation is improved. Support. Ringstad: . The improvements will have less impact on the lake - that's what we look for. . All 9 hardship criteria are met. Support. Stamson: . Agreed with Commissioners - it is probably one of the smallest lots I have seen. . Generally I am admittedly opposed to impervious surface overage however, this particular design is very sufficient. It is reducing the coverage. . The requests are reasonable and there are no other alternatives. Support. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 05-13PC APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. C. EPOS-183 Roy Erickson and Cal Chadwick are requesting a Variance to the minimum lot area in order to subdivide a parcel for conveyance to the adjacent parcel. This property is located north of CSAH 42, on the east side of Crest Avenue. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 12,2005, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. This item was originally scheduled for a public hearing on August 22, 2005. At the request of the applicants, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing until September 12,2005. Roy Erickson currently owns a 10 acre parcel, located at 13625 Crest Avenue NE. The parcel is the site of a single family dwelling. Cal Chadwick is the owner of approximately 19 acres ofland, located directly south ofthe Erickson property at 13755 Crest Avenue NE. Both properties are unplatted, and zoned A (Agricultural). Mr. Chadwick would like to purchase 6 acres of land from Mr. Erickson and combine it with his existing property. This would result in a 5.12 acre parcel with the existing Erickson house, and a 25 acre parcel with the existing Chadwick house. In order to subdivide the property, the following variance is required: A 4.88 acre variance from the 10 acre minimum lot area in the A District (Section 1102.205). L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MN09l205.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 The application of the minimum lot area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance does not create a hardship for the property owner. Allowing the subdivision to create a parcel less than the minimum lot area is contrary to the purpose ofthe Agricultural Use District and to the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance in general. Based upon the findings in this report, staff recommends denial. Comments from the Public: Applicant Roy Erickson, stated he would like to subdivide the property. The status "Agriculture" district has been changed by the County Assessor. He has enjoyed being a farmer for many years. Ifhe sold his property to Cal Chadwick, Chadwick would be able to use the land for agriculture purposes. Erickson said his home needs to be improved. He would like to reduce the responsibilities of the land and take care of his home. The public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . In reviewing the hardship criteria - all 9 hardships have to be met. Agree with staff - this comes up a bit short. . Unless I hear something different, I will have to deny the request. Billington: . Given the current zoning, granting this variance would have an adverse impact on the orderly development ofthe property. . Consequently, I cannot support it. Stamson: . Agreed with staff and fellow Commissioners - there are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions. It is a convenience for the applicant. . The intent of the ordinance prevents creating substandard lots. It just does not meet the hardships of a variance. . Deny the request. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 05-03PC DENYING A 4.88 ACRE VARIANCE FROM THE 10 ACRE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSlON\05 MINUTES\MN091205.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 6. Old Business: A. EP05-184 Busse Student Transport is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage within the 1-1 zoning District legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, Deerfield Industrial Park 2nd Addition. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated September 12, 2005, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On August 22, 2005 a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to discuss an application request by Busse Student Transportation for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage on a site located south of Adelmann Street and west of Revere Way, within the Deerfield Industrial Park. The site plan showed a 7,200 square foot structure and an outdoor storage area for the parking of buses. Individuals who spoke at the public hearing brought up the following site specific concerns: . Concerns related to the visual impacts of busses being parked within the proposed proximity to the existing residential dwellings. . Concerns related to inadequate screening provided by a six foot high fence and trees. . Concerns related to noise levels created by the proposed use. After the public hearing was closed, Planning Commissioners discussed the concerns raised during the public hearing and directed the applicant to review the site plan and consider possible revisions to provide additional visual and noise mitigation through the use ofberming or increased landscaping. The application was continued to the September 12,2005 Planning Commission meeting. On September 1, 2005 the applicant conducted a second neighborhood meeting, where the following changes were discussed: . The removal of bus parking spaces (3) that were originally proposed at the western most end of the parking lot. . The creation of a berm along a portion of the western end of the parking area. The berm is proposed to extend approximately 86 ft in length and 20 ft in width. The berm will be five feet (5') in height at its highest point. . A revised landscaping plan to provide six -15 ft to 18 ft in height Colorado blue spruce trees along the top of the proposed berm. Overall, staff believes the outdoor storage is consistent with the intent of the 1-1 use district provided the conditions of approval are met. The planning staff recommended the following additional conditions: 1. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than 60 days after City Council approval. L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISS10N\05 MINUTES\MN09l205.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2005 2. A plan must be provided that details the materials used for the construction of the gates to the fenced enclosure areas. 3. A zoning permit shall be issued prior to the installation of the fence. 4. All vehicles within the outdoor storage area must be operable, licensed, and registered. 5. A sign permit application must be submitted to the City prior to the installation of any signage on the site. 6. Revise the lighting plan to show light spill not exceeding 1.0 at the property line. 7. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting plan changes and conditions as indicated. 8. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1503(8) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met. 9. All conditions listed in the August 17,2005 Engineering Department memo. 10. The plans must be revised to show the access road as Granite Court. Moore went out on site to view two properties in the Deerfield development and felt the berm and trees would block much of the view, there would be some visibility from the second level. Moore said she was not sure the visibility of the main ground level. The applicant cannot go into the wetland buffer area. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . Given the zoning and conditions, the applicant's meritorious effort to mitigate the visibility, which is the big issue here, I am looking favorability at this request. . Requested applicant Jim Busse to explain to the neighbors how he is mitigating much of the view with the berm and landscaping and still protect the wetlands. Busse explained he has a landscape background and is aware of the problem. He will also be adding additional trees in the future to take care of the view. . The days of operation are Monday through Friday - starting at 6:20 am, some at 7:15 am and then 7:50 am. At no time will all the buses be running at the same time. The buses do not return until after the runs from 4:00 pm to 4:30 pm. All buses will be back by 5 :00 pm. There is a little bit of activity on weekends. Sometimes on Saturday mornings. They may take the band to the airport. Generally nothing happens on the weekends. Ringstad: . Asked Busse ifhe can stagger the tree planting. Busse explained that was the plan. . Is it possible ifthe drivers with the later morning shift leave from the far (western) end of the parking lot? Busse responded they would. He wants to be a good neighbor. . Right now he has 14 buses and 8 mini buses. Ten years from now there could be 50 buses based on the rapid development. . Busse went on to explain the landscaping and trees. L:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSION\OS MINUTES\MN09l20S.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 Commissioner Stamson recognized Jerry Hanson as representative for the Deerfield neighborhood to give a rebuttal on the comments. Jerry Hanson, 17436 Deerfield Drive, representing the neighbors, said he was not in agreement with the Commissioners how this area should have been zoned. Hanson stated he has been in the private sector for 25 years and the public sector for 15 years and recognizes that without a strategic plan it is difficult to develop the tactical and operational plan. Hanson felt the 2030 Vision endorsed by the community was not being met and refuted points of the plan. His second concern was for other owners storing their buses on this lot. In his conversations with Scott County, the traffic is not significant enough to mandate stop lights. Hanson felt the 2030 document gives the Commissioners the opportunity to prevent things from happening as described in the strategic plan. And, if the CUP was approved tonight, it would violate points he outlined. There would be big impacts on the neighborhood. At the time ofthe zoning only one neighbor spoke up. Hanson felt it was staffs, City Council and the Planning Commission's responsibility to protect the neighbors as well as the businesses. No question staff followed the letter of the law on sending out notices, however, it was not in the spirit of neighborhood communication - only three residents he surveyed were notified. Hanson stated communication should be more wide-spread. They also believe the CUP fails point 5 of the application. Hanson felt the future values of the properties will be affected by this development. No amount of landscaping will block the view of the buses. He also felt there would be problems with the sound and fumes from the buses. Hanson asked the Commissioners to deny the Conditional Use Permit and rezone the Industrial area. Keith Dalnert, 17440 Deerfield Drive, explained photos of the area. Ringstad: . After hearing all the testimony, I agree with Billington to support. It's not a perfect solution for the neighbors, however there is a buffer with a berm and many trees to provide additional screening both visually and for sound. . The applicant is removing the three spaces to the west and with the improvements we heard tonight - I will support. Stamson: . It is a balancing act. This is an important business in Prior Lake. I envisioned something of fairly modest proportions. Fifty buses are significant. It's difficult to rectify with the neighbors. You have to balance the needs of the business and the neighborhood that's there. . Don't see how adding additional trees will block the view. Trees closer to the neighbors may be better. Don't see how adding trees along the parking lot will buffer the view. Maybe I'm wrong and this will do it. It's a tough call. L:\OS F1LES\OS PLAN COMM1SSlON\OS MINUTES\MN09l20S.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 . We talked about this and the impacts when we switched this District to "I". I didn't think: it would be much different. Wouldn't have a problem ifit was a little further from the residential area. . Vote against it. I'll admit it's a tough call. Billington: . The reality is the zoning and that's what is in front ofus. . I can think: of worse occupancies in an I District. . The applicant has made every effort mitigate the exposure to the neighbors. What else could he do? Those are the facts. Stamson: . Agreed. The applicant did a tremendous job in attempting to screen. The applicant did a great job of trying to mitigate it. . It is zoned properly. . Just have a hard time with it. I just don't think: it can be done. . The reason we have a Conditional Use Permit is to recognize outdoor storage is a greater impact than we allow there. Ideally, you look at it and mitigate it. This is a rare instance. I have a hard time imposing this on anyone else if I can't live with it myself. Ringstad: . Stamson said a key word "mitigate". Its not eliminate. With the changes brought tonight rather than approve it three weeks ago we brought it back to further mitigate some of the circumstances. That has been accomplished. It's not perfect. Not sure anything is going to be acceptable over there. . The wetland look is going to change whether this is in or something else. . It is enough of a balance to vote for it. Stamson: . To play both sides, I am not expecting it to be eliminated. I wouldn't even expect to sit on the deck and not allow it if you see one bus. It's not that at all. . I'm just looking at it and explaining my position and I'm not comfortable. . I know the applicant has gone above and beyond mitigating it. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 05-11PC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE 1-1 ZONING DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington and Ringstad. Nay by Stamson. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. A recess was called at 7:55 pm. The meeting reconvened at 7:59 pm. L:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMM1SSION\OS MINUTES\MN09l20S.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 7. New Business: A. 05- 190 Giles Properties, Inc. has submitted a concept plan for the development of 79.34 acres to create 80 single family lots and 44 townhouse units on the property formerly known as the O'Brien property. This property is located south and east of MN TH 13, west of Crystal Lake, and north of Rice Lake. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 12, 2005 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Giles Properties, Inc., has submitted a concept plan for the O'Brien property, which consists of approximately 79 acres located south and east ofMN TH 13, west of Crystal Lake and north of Rice Lake. The site is directly west of Heritage Landing. This property is presently vacant land zoned R-1SD and designated as Low to Medium Density Residential on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The developers have submitted a concept plan showing the development of 124 units. The plan includes 80 single family homes and 44 townhome units. The proposed density on the site is 1.76 units per acre. The developer is proposing to utilize the Planned Unit Development process for this site in order to allow private streets within the townhouse portion of the site, and to allow for smaller lots for the single family dwellings. Lots within the Rice Lake and Crystal Lake Shoreland Districts are required to be 100' wide and at least 20,000 square feet in area. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer is proposing the following benefits: . A minimum 50' wide strip of land along the lake shores will be dedicated to the public as park land. The strip will be configured in order to preserve the bluffs and steep slopes along the lake. . The developer will construct the trails within the 50' wide strip. . The developer will construct a connection to Ida Circle. This will allow the Ida Circle access on TH 13 to be closed, since the residents on that cul-de-sac will have access to 170th Street. . The developer will provide the City with the funds to construct a fishing pier in Crystal Lake. The staff has not reviewed the plan to identify whether any specifics as far as density, open space and so on are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The DNR and the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District have also provided comments. Comments from the applicant: John Anderson of Giles Properties, added there will be additional trails. Anderson felt they would meet concerns and requirements from the DNR and Watershed District. There is no agreement between a property owner on Ida Circle for access at this time. L:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSION\OS MINUTES\MN09l20S.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 The lots proposed are a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The project would be completed in two phases. Townhome styles would be similar to those at Heritage Landing. Anderson commented on custom grading some of the wooded lots. He felt staff presented a good overview of the project. One final comment was pointing out the right- in, right-out access on County Road 12. Billington questioned if there would be a significant impact to the wetlands as suggested by the Watershed District. Anderson responded he felt the conditions would be met. Ringstad commented on the custom graded lots. Anderson explained their architectural requirements. Billington questioned the timeline. Anderson said the next step would be to prepare and submit a preliminary plat and start construction next spring with the townhouse project. Stamson questioned the PUD tradeoff. Anderson said he did not have the exact square footage numbers but felt the sizes were scattered from 14,000+ to 20,000 square feet. They would not clear-cut the area. The object is to keep as many trees as possible. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . Likes the significant trail system. The lot size is a good tradeoff. It's what we need along the lake shore and trails. Ringstad: . We do look for tradeoff and benefits on PUD's. Agreed with Stamson - this looks like it meets some of the requirements. . Questioned staff on the fishing pier. Is there any fish in Crystal Lake? Kansier said the DNR is working with the Park staff. Stamson: . Where is the parking? Kansier and Anderson said this would be a neighborhood pIer. Kansier said this presentation will go before the City Council on October 3rd. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Kansier introduced our new Planner Jeff Matzke. L:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSlON\OS MINUTES\MN09l20S.doc 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 SIGN UP ATTENDANCE SHEET Please clearly sign your name and address. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS 'f;JIYI.- u. - -- '')''&;2<;:/':) /*'2>-K.:5f I}; PC. ;07v ~ --KLLS/W J1h.JL ~/qo ~~~. g cy.~ /Jf L,/, ~II 0 C->aoO""",,,, a.~ -./ 4.1<./.,~ _-JJf~ .\:IL. F. P.J-_ '76m ~/7c/kr ~ ~- 3LfV9 Mlbv &~h' /r/ S u~ l' \ \) ~;~ 1 \ \(\. /..-'"" li/4"!3 f,o& -rtJ '7/ (2' - j:> L- <" r)l d) j ./ Z:5( I-U"7'L YP--. -' ) '7 <-/ ,..) rJ. 1\- ~ ~.d.#.i).{ _ A L. ~ f.!..a,~ / ~ 0 I 7 tj ~ '-I () /) /1. iJ oil U1..- ;; C ~ 12 tl'.a #~ f74~q.I)A ~"~.Jh... s.P ~ 'V\f\ f\. . ...~-_ L )7~ 1\' ~~A .1\'.-1 J'Lv S ..~ ~~ rJl1 (.,1 .--1'./ ~ -4'J1cJ ~F21 tlo"-K-. SF/.? ~ ~.-. p~ J /- t/'../ /1I./vL( ~~dA / ~ /; JD. pc;: 1tf\lui~ M~ r fMhA q;~{ tWlfli.K1Jfl1jJfiA',l ~ _ c (A+t. J~ A A, ..1 h./'\/) 't"Zz..~U e. Oa-kJ!.. WYL:I: ~"L ~ - , ' S:;)~I E._CwcJAr~ ~ "'-. ^,A} ,....(~ l.-l.,. J L" 'IH 17l.f",(P ~.oP ~'eld.. ~r-. sr ~ " L:\DEPTWORK\Public Hearing Sign Sheet.doc Q PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 SIGN UP ATTENDANCE SHEET Please clearly sign your name and address. Thank you. NAME -r:-} h1 tfIu.1A, 1 " ,ev; l/IJ tJ J 'A .A ;: ",~-.r- v .' '/J?".O' , A/2 ;'10- '?""...~ L.c- , ])/,-,^ 'vi A'p Tat.-<.-lc.-, J<...,~ 1=. ",7<<./"\0'1 ;, -1A- GilA /J /Iv ILl- r ADDRESS /2.;d~ " i?~r"J/-,~" I", C' L/r/ u;4 II I, 119--'l-Y -b~h:L1 d ~ I ~ 4- <L x -7\e- rf/( L.I Id ~1i 't ; 3b:J.S~,~~+ JL.r Ale R~~....; / 11:. rJ7 SY / ti~~.,. /1_ Ie. {Vi I1t I..t, L:\DEPTWORK\Public Hearing Sign Sheet.doc @ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 SIGN UP ATTENDANCE SHEET Please clearly sign your name and address. Thank you. L:\DEPTWORK\Public Hearing Sign Sheet.doc c] , '1.. 2- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 @ SIGN UP ATTENDANCE SHEET Please clearly sign your name and address. Thank you. L:\DEPTWORK\Public Hearing Sign Sheet.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSION\OS MINUTES\MN09l20S.doc 13