Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 9, 2006 Maintenance Center 17073 Adelmann Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2006 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. #EP05-213 & 213 Giles Properties, Inc., (continued) have submitted a preliminary plat and planned unit development application for a development to be known as Hickory Shores, consisting of 80 single family homes and 38 townhomes. B. #05-225 Mark Kreissler is requesting an amendment to Section 1102.1403 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow indoor sports facility in the C-5 (Business Office Park) district. C. #05-223 Durabuilt Associates are requesting a front yard setback for property owner Lee Ernst of 3203 Sycamore Trail SW. 6. Old Business: A. #05-219 Alexander Design Group representing Gerard Hughes is requesting a variance from the minimum bluff setback for the property located at 5724 Fairlawn Shores Trail. 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:\06 FILESI06 PLANNING COMMISSIONlAGENDASIAGOI09D<<lWW .cityofpriorlake .com Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2006 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the January 9,2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, 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 Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the December 12,2005, 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. #EP05-213 & 213 Giles Properties, Inc., (continued) have submitted a preliminary plat and planned unit development application for a development to be known as Hickory Shores, consisting of 80 single family homes and 38 townhomes. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 9,2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. This item was originally scheduled for the November 28, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing until December 12, 2005. At the hearing on December 12, 2005, the staff noted additional information was required in order to completely review this request. The developer submitted additional information on December 28,2005, and met with staff on December 29,2005, to discuss this proposal. The developer has since asked to L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNO I 0906.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 have this item continued to the January 23,2006, meeting. The applicant was to submit information by Friday, January 6,2006 for this to happen, however, the estate is re- opening the bids and the status of the development is on hold. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. #05-225 Mark Kreissler is requesting an amendment to Section 1102.1403 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow indoor sports facility in the C-5 (Business Office Park) district. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated January 9, 2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On December 5, 2005, Mark Kreissler addressed the City Council regarding his intent to establish an indoor sports facility (Triple Play) within the Deerfield Industrial Park. Mr. Kreissler indicated the lot being considered for purchase was within the C-5 (Business Park) Zoning District and it was his hope to amend the City Code to allow this use in the district. The City Council directed Mr. Kreissler to work with staff and consider options to bring this use to the City. Since the December meeting, the applicant has submitted details of the proposed Triple Play use, which will include the following: . Training area with a full-size basketball court (6,240 sq ft) . Batting cage area (3,000 sq. ft.) . 18 hole miniature golf area (9,000 sq. ft.) . Video arcade . Concession area . Meeting rooms The applicant has indicated the 29,600 square foot facility will provide opportunities for improving sporting skills, while also offering entertainment for youth, young adults, and families. The purpose ofthis hearing is to consider an amendment to Section 1102.1400 ofthe Zoning Ordinance to allow the above described use within the C-5 Zoning District. The proposed amendment allows the use subject to a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit process guarantees design review by the Planning Commission and allows for public review. This allows the City additional latitude in respect to the design of the use. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI0906.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 In order to minimize the impacts of these uses and to preserve the intent of the C-5 district, the staff is suggesting some specific conditions be imposed on the proposed use. These conditions are consistent with the conditions placed on the use in the C-4 Zoning District and on similar uses within the C-5 District. They are: 1. The structure in which the use is constructed shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from any "R-1", "R-2", or "R-3" Use District. 2. A bufferyard, as determined by subsection 1107.2003, shall be provided along all property located within an "R" Use District. 3. The use shall provide a designated drop-off/pick-up area that is physically separated from truck loading/unloading areas. 4. The number of necessary parking spaces will be based on the individual uses as designated in Section 1107.300 of the Zoning Code. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Staff recommended approval. Moore also noted when staff initially met with the applicant they discussed the ability to use this use in the C4 district and to possibly consider other properties as well as looking to rezone the subject lot to make it a C4 use. The applicant advised staff at that time, the architectural requirement of 60% Class I material would be cost prohibitive and the C5 zoning district would be more conducive to the design element. Nonetheless, staff felt this particular use parallels that of other uses currently in the C5 zoning district, provided a Conditional Use Permit is required. Stamson asked if this site is adjacent to a R1 (residential) area. Moore responded it is not, however this amendment affects all C5 districts and pointed out other C5 areas. Comments from the public: Applicant Mark Kreissler, added he felt their proposal would be similar to the existing gymnastic program in the C5 district. They will be offering clinics taught by professional ballplayers, coaches and trainers from the local schools. The facilities will be available to rent i.e. basketball and baseball teams, youth organizations and birthday parties. It is a privately owned business open to the public. Billington asked the hours of operation. Kreissler said they will vary - around 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. during the summer and weekends. School hours would be after school- 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Billington asked projected number of participants. Kreissler said the maximum amount of people would be 100 to 125 people, but the average realistically would be 25 to 50 at the most. Billington asked what type of transportation would be available. Kreissler said mostly vehicles but some field trips would be provided by buses, similar to Grand Slam in Eagan. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI 0906.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 Stamson questioned the applicant ifhe explored a district where the use was already allowed. Kreissler responded staff did discuss the C4 area where it is allowed, however the situation is two-fold. This type of business will generate only a certain amount of revenue. The building required in a C4 district is cost prohibitive from the standpoint they would not be generating enough revenue to pay for an almost all brick building. The other thing, children swinging baseball bats and hitting balls into the walls, etc. would be a concern. Masonry block inside the building is not going to stand up real well to something like this. The prefab walls would accommodate this need. Because of the cost and wear and tear issues they felt it would be similar to a gymnasium. Lemke questioned the arcade area. Kreissler responded the video arcade would work with the miniature golf course and party area for boys and girls who are probably ages 5 to 12. The younger kids would have a choice of playing miniature golf and then head into the birthday party rooms with arcade/video games. Commissioner Stamson closed the public hearing at 5:49 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Agreed with staffs assessment. There is a public need for this amendment. . I like the four conditions that would be part of the amendment. . Also agree with Mr. Kreissler that from a cost basis, something like this in the C5 district compared to the C4 district would detract from the C5 district. . Support the amendment. Billington: . It is a neat project. It generally fits the zoning parameters. . It also is a fit with the Comprehensive Plan. . With recommendations by staffwill support. Lemke: . Agree with staffs assessment, there is a public need. . Do not see this as being terribly different than the gymnastic school. I would have a hard time saying a gymnastic school is okay and this isn't. . Support the change. Perez: . Agree there is a public need. It is a good fit for the community. . I do see that it is similar to a gymnastic school. It meets all the criteria. . Good fit for the C5 district. . Support. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNO I 0906.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 Stamson: . Agree there is a public need for this facility. . Understand the concerns for the different types of building structures for the C4 versus C5 districts. . A little apprehensive at first having this in a C5 district, mostly because I worry about a retail business in the C5 with its different requirements and traffic. However, looking at this particular use it is similar to Bumsville's Soccer Blast which seems to be working well. . The conditions by staff will protect the surrounding uses. Support. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will go before the City Council on February 6, 2006. c. #05-223 Durabuilt Associates is requesting a front yard setback for property owner Lee Ernst of 3203 Sycamore Trail SW. Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated January 9, 2006 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On behalf of Lee and Jodi Ernst, Durabilt Associates Inc. is requesting an 8.3 foot variance from the required 25.0 foot front yard setback to construct a garage addition at 3203 Sycamore Trail SW. The lot of 13,000 square feet is on the northwest comer of Spring Lake Road (CSAH 12) and Sycamore Trail. A single family home with a one-car garage currently occupies the lot. The applicant proposes to remove the existing one-car attached garage, breezeway and rear concrete pad on the east side of the house and construct a two-car garage. The proposed 576 square foot garage addition will not increase the current front yard setback of the existing structure. The existing access for the lot is a gravel driveway that intersects the street near the comer of Sycamore Trail and County Highway 12. The applicant proposes to remove this gravel driveway and construct a hard surface driveway extending directly east to Sycamore Trail. In conformance with Section 1107.205 of the Zoning Ordinance, this driveway will be 24 feet in width at the right-of-way line and 30 feet from the comer of the intersection ofHwy 12 and Sycamore Trail right-of-way lines. The Scott County Highway Department was notified of this variance request. The highway department believes the proposed driveway will improve conditions since it will relocate the drive away from the intersection of Sycamore Trail and Hwy 12. The Highway Department also believes the driveway will have no impact to current or future drainage and utilities along County Highway 12. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNO I0906.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 Staff believes the strict application of the 25 front yard setback on the east side of the lot creates and undue hardship for the property owner. The applicant will not increase the existing nonconformity of the lot with the construction of the proposed two-car garage. The applicant will also improve the conditions of access to the lot by removing the gravel drive which accesses the street at the intersection of two streets and constructing a hard surface driveway along Sycamore Trail, north ofthe intersection ofthe streets. Based on this analysis and the findings above, staff recommended approval of the 8.3 foot front yard variance with the following conditions: 1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The proposed driveway shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete, or other hard surface material. 3. The proposed driveway will not exceed 24 feet in width at the front lot line. 4. The minimum comer clearance from the street right-of-way line will be at least 30 feet to the edge of the driveway. 5. Summer recreational equipment may only be parked on or adjacent to the driveway in the front yard from April 1 to November 1 each year. Winter recreational equipment may only be parked on or adjacent to the driveway in the front yard from November 1 to April 1 each year. Lemke questioned condition #5. Matzke explained the reason for the condition. It is a reminder to the homeowner that the use is for a driveway only - not for permanent storage of any recreational vehicles. Comments from the public: The applicant did not speak but was available for questions. Commissioners Stamson closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . The variance is reasonable and provides positive aspects. . Staff did a very thorough job in analyzing this and as a result I will be supporting this variance. Lemke: . Agreed - staff laid out why the 9 hardship criteria have been met. . There is an improvement. . As far as the location of the driveway, I believe staff said Scott County Highway Department thought it would improve the situation. . Based on that and staff s recommendation I will support the variance. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNO I 0906.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 Perez: . Agreed - this is straight forward. Approve. Ringstad: . Agreed - it is an improvement all around. Approve. Stamson: . Agreed - we have consistently found a two-car garage is a necessity in this community. . Staff did a good job analyzing the hardship. . Brought up #9 in the Findings- questioned the two-car garage size. Generally if you increase the space it will increase the non-conforming. Technically that Finding would not be correct. Matzke agreed. . Support with wording change. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 06-XXX APPROVING THE VARIANCE WITH THE AMENDED FINDING #9. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. 6. Old Business: A. #05-219 Alexander Design Group representing Gerard Hughes is requesting a variance from the minimum bluff setback for the property located at 5724 Fairlawn Shores Trail. Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated January 9,2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On behalf of Gerard and Susan Hughes, Alexander Design Group Inc. is requesting a variance to construct a single family dwelling located at 5724 Fairlawn Shores Trail. In order to do so, the following variances are required: 1. A variance from the 25 foot required bluff setback (Section 1104.303) 2. A variance to allow a structure to be built in the bluff impact zone (Section 1104.304). The public hearing for this variance was heard before the Planning Commission on December 12,2005. The discussion of this variance was tabled to the next Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission instructed the applicant to revise the proposed house plan to lessen the impact on the bluff area, perhaps utilize the front yard rather than the side yards for expansion of the house and prepare an engineer's report detailing the structure's impact on the bluff and stability of the slope. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI0906.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 The applicant is proposing to remove an existing dwelling and construct a single family dwelling. In order to do so, variances are required from the bluff setback and bluff impact zone. Staff believes the strict application ofthe 25 foot setback variance could appear to create an undue hardship. A buildable area of less than 200 square feet exists without the need of any variances, therefore a bluff setback and/or front yard variance could appear necessary. In discussions at the last meeting the Planning Commission stated they would like to see a structure design which decreases the impact on the bluff area. They also stated if the applicant chooses to propose a portion ofthe structure in the bluff on the east side of the lot a strong engineering report which favors the mitigation procedures taken to preserve the bluff area would be needed. Staff believes without strong structural and slope analysis for the preservation of the bluff area a variance to allow a structure in the bluff impact area cannot be allowed. The strict application requiring structures to be restricted from the bluff impact zone does not create an undue hardship for reasonable use of the property. A footprint that utilizes only the existing building pad and front yard on the lot would not impact the bluff area on the east side of the lot. Because the levels of stress upon which the sloping soils can support are undetermined, staff recommends the limit of soil stress be established before a variance is given to build a structure in the bluff impact area. Staff recommends the variance application be tabled to the next meeting to allow the applicant to prepare a greater detailed engineering report addressing the level of soil bearing stress that the slope can support. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the variances, the planning staff requests the following conditions be attached: 1. As part of the building permit application the applicant shall prepare a detailed engineering report with soil analysis addressing the degree of soil bearing stress the slope can support. 2. During construction grading of the bluff area around the proposed structure shall be as minimal as possible. 3. The west side of the lot shall be graded to ensure drainage will not flow into the neighboring lot. Perez asked if the applicant had guidelines for the engineering report. Matzke replied the applicant had the zoning ordinance with the engineering requirements. The submitted report was basic and did not detail the information required. It did not show the slope's ability to bear the load of the structure and that is why staff is still concerned about it. Lemke pointed out a statement from the engineering report stating "The new house will have a sound, stable structure and will not place undue loading on the slope." Matzke stated staff needed more detail. That is a general statement indicating the degree of L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI 0906.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 design. Without knowing the soils it is tough to determine this actual design will impact the slope. We need to know the stress of the slope. Poppler explained the report did not state the type of soils or why they think this is a strong stable slope. There has to be more background. Comments from the public: Applicant Gerry Hughes said he appreciates the updating on the planning report. His builder, architect and contractor are available to answer questions. They understand the need for a stable home and thought they provided the necessary information. It obviously did not meet the requirements of the City. Hughes also wanted it noted for the record: the letter from the City regarding recommendations says January 2005, instead of 2006. Hughes says he understands and would like the contractor to speak on the variance tonight. He then asked the Commission to approve the request tonight with conditions. He does not think he needs another 30 days and would like to move the process forward. Stamson asked if staff would be comfortable passing the variance without the engineering report, subject to the applicant's providing a report. Matzke explained the need for establishing the stability of the soils. The soil analysis needs to be done sooner or later for the building permit. The soil establishment could indicate a design change and the variance would not be needed at all. Sven Gustafson, of Stonewood Design, the contractor, 4420 Shore Line Drive in Spring Park, said he did not understand the level of detail of the engineering report. Once a final plan is in place an engineer can review and then make sure the plan is correct. He is not used to doing this (soil analysis) at this stage of the game. Usually it is a general footprint of the house. Gustafson asked to grant the request with the condition the issues would be addressed. Kathy Alexander, Alexander Design Group, 401 East Lake Street, Wayzata, said the surveyor talked to staff and felt the information was provided. The surveyor corrected the drainage and driveway problems and provided more elevations. The runoff concern on the neighbor's property has been addressed. Matzke said the surveyor faxed a poor copy of the survey after the reports were sent out. Matzke agreed some of the issues appeared to be addressed. The surveyor said he would send a clear survey. Alexander said the surveyor felt the information was sufficient. Matzke said it is to a degree however staff did not receive a true survey. Staff still has the concern of grading on the construction and the engineering report. Gustafson asked to clarify what condition was drastic. Matzke pointed out the drainage. The swale would improve the situation. Some of the other issues would be addressed at the building permit stage. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNO I 0906.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 Ringstad questioned the new design on the east side of the property - how many posts? How deep the posts and what are is width of the footings? Gustafson said he did not know the answers, it will depend on the engineering soil report indicating the support. The footings would be sized accordingly. Alexander said they cut out 10 feet on the structure. It will depend on the width. There are 7 posts, 18"x 18" square, 4 feet deep into the ground. The natural slope will be grass. Alexander felt the engineering ordinance did not specify they had to do soil borings. Billington asked if Alexander tried to contact staff for more details. Alexander said staff directed him back to the ordinance. Matzke said he did direct the applicant to the ordinance and read the requirements ... "the applicant needs to provide a report based on the impact in the excavation fill or placement will have and whether that excavation of fill or placement of structures will cause any slope to become unstable or impose loads that may affect the safety ofthe structures or the slopes." Their structural engineer was very general and did not state the safety of the slope. Matzke said he sent Kathy Alexander an example of an engineering report prior to the report. Alexander asked for direction or reassurance if more engineering details that the Commissioners would be okay with the size of the home. Billington stated it was an attractive design however, staffwas correct. The analysis from the engineering report is critical to evaluate for any type of construction. Billington suggested looking at this again at the January 23rd meeting. Alexander asked if the Commissioners would consider approving the request and condition the engineering report. Billington said he would not. Alexander said they would be doing this anyway but it is a costly process. It would be nice for the client to know they are not spending his money in vain. Billington responded that was not the case. Matzke noted the stability of the slope is still unknown. "There are concerns with this bluff area. It's hard to give a variance not knowing if the applicant can even build there or not. That is the point." Stamson stated that is the problem. If the report comes back that it is not stable a new design would have to be worked out and the whole process starts all over. The hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI 0906.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . On December 12, we talked about reducing the impact in the bluff zone and that has been done. I believe the applicant has made a good faith effort to provide the City with the engineering data they requested. . Looking at the original house, there is no garage. Generally a two car garage would be added so I am inclined to support the project. . My take on it is, if the applicant wants to take the chance and the engineering report doesn't comes back satisfactory, a redesign would have to take place, the process has to start over. That is a chance the applicant can take. Perez: . Does not agree 100% with Lemke on the ordinance requirements. There was enough in there to say we need a soil analysis. We may have to look at the ordinance in the future and get clear language. . As far as the redesign, I was looking for something moving the structure toward the street and getting it out of the bluff area. . Not sure if I would approve at this time. . There does need to be some variances here. It will depend on the final design. . As far as approving it tonight - We would be putting the cart before the horse without the detail of the engineering report. I want everyone to be comfortable with the report. Ringstad: . When we first saw this on December 12, we gave you direction and the applicant really gave an effort with the redesign. . The house was changed to have less impact in the bluff zone. . I do however, agree with staff on the slope analysis. . In the event it comes back acceptable to staff, I would be inclined to support the design. Billington: . It is an attractive design. . The soil bearing stress factor is needed. The engineering report is vague and not enough to recommend approval. . If we can get this back by the 23rd and there is a meeting of the minds on the soil stability, I am inclined to support the project. Stamson: . We recognize some kind of variance is required. The applicant met the intent when we gave our feedback at the last meeting. . I would support if we had a different spot on the lake, we might have a little more leeway. Fairlawn Shores is a bluff zone and have had problems with bluff L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN010906.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 stability in that area. It is a sticky area. We want to see numbers. We are extra careful and want to see more feedback before we approve something. . If the plan came back and the engineering report says it will hold the structure, I would support. Stamson asked Hughes if there was anything else he wanted to ask and ifhe was comfortable with the comments. Gerry Hughes says he is comfortable and wanted to know the exact date staff needed the report to come back to be on the January 23rd meeting. Kansier said the reports need to be sent January 18th and the report would have to be in the office by the January 13th. The next planning commission meeting is February 13th. Matzke explained this timeline is for review. As this was the case in the last event, it was rushed through. The report was received on the 29th and 30th and staffhad to have the reports written the next day. Hughes does not think he can meet the deadline and is concerned with the timeline. He felt the risk is on the homeowner and not the Planning Commissioners and should give him a condition to get this done. He said he is trying to be very patient. He understands the time slots but he needs to move this forward and the cost is starting to put an impact on the project. Hughes said any conditions to put on this request and give him a little more than what they are doing now to get this done would be appreciated. There was a brief discussion on getting the information before the 19th. Alexander asked if the Commissioners would approve the variance with the contingency on the engineering report. They felt waiting to February is delaying the process. Ringstad explained there is little difference in waiting a few business days. There was a brief discussion on the contingencies on Fairlawn Shores. Stamson explained this area has been problematic and should see the stability report. Poppler pointed out the problems with the 150th Street construction site last year and the sandy soils. The Commissioners discussed knowing what they were voting for. MOTION BY LEMKE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE STAFF'S REPORT. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNO I 0906.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting January 9, 2006 MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING TABLING THE MATTER TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JANUARY 23, 2006, ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO BRING SOIL INFORMATION. V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Kansier wanted to confirm the joint meeting with City Council will be February 6, at 5:30 p.m. and conducted as a workshop. Ifthere were any specific projects the Commissioners want to discuss to bring them to staff. New issues and concerns will be discussed. Kansier also explained the proposed Tree Preservation Task Force. Perez mentioned looking at more detail in the engineering reports. 9. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI 0906.doc 13