Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 24, 2006 Maintenance Center 17073 Adelmann Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JULY 24, 2006 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. EP 06-114 EPIC Development, LLC has submitted a preliminary plat (Maple Place) consisting of5.05 acres ofland located on the south side ofTH 13 and west of Maple Glen 1 st Addition to be subdivided into 11 lots and 3 outlots for single family homes. B. EP 06-146 thru 06-149 Village Commerce Building, LLC has submitted applications for approval of the Village Commerce Building, a 22,332 square foot officelbank building. The submittal includes a Combined Preliminary/Final Plat; Utility and drainage easement vacation; Variances to building and parking setbacks and to drive- thru stacking requirements; and Site plan approval C. EP 06-117 Bakken Development, Inc. has submitted a preliminary plat (Golden Pond) consisting of approximately 27 acres ofland to be subdivided into 35 lots and 3 outlots for single family homes located northeast of Wedgewood Lane (Spring Lake Township), east of Sunray Boulevard, south of the O'Brien PropertylMN TH 13, and west of Rice Lake. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. Report on Tree Preservation Task Force 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: Ll06 FILESI06 PLANNING COMMISSION\AGENDAS\AG07240~ .cityofpriorlake .com Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 24, 2006 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the July 24, 2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, 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 July 10, 2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson explained the Public Hearing requirements and opened the meeting. A. EP 06-114 EPIC Development, LLC has submitted a preliminary plat (Maple Place) consisting of 5.05 acres of land located on the south side of TH 13 and west of Maple Glen 1 st Addition to be subdivided into 11 lots and 3 outlots for single family homes. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated July 24,2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. EPIC Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as Maple Place on the property located south and east of Trunk Highway 13, west of Sunray Boulevard, and north of Thomton Drive. The proposal calls for a single-family development consisting of 12 dwelling units on 5.39 acres. Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler explained the developer has the following two key issues that could impact the configuration of the plat: L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 1. Minimum basement elevation for pads adj acent to ponds and wetlands shall be 2' above the 100-year HWL elevation. The lowest opening shall be 2' above the emergency overflow. Drain tile system is proposed for the interior and exterior of the units adjacent to the wetland. Provide detail regarding the design of the drain tile. How will drawdown of the wetland be prevented and where will connection to storm sewer system are made? 2. Volume control feature is designed as a surface infiltration feature in the rear yards of Lots 2-4, Block 2. This feature is seen as a nuisance due to the low permeability of soils, lack of maintenance access, and proximity and relative elevation to home basements. Stamson questioned the maintenance issue for the backyard infiltration. Poppler said the City didn't have the staff and the traffic control vehicles to safely stop to maintain those areas from Highway 13. The City would have to hire out for that project. The plans must be revised to address these conditions and comply with the Public Work Design Manual requirements. On July 20, 2006 the Engineering Department was copied on plans submitted to the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District. The plans showed modifications to the infiltration and easement area. The City has not had sufficient time to review the modifications and establish if the changes will meet the necessary requirements. For that reason, staff would recommend continuing the proj ect to the August 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. If the Commission feels the proposal should proceed to the Council, the staff would recommend the following conditions be attached: 1. The comments in the City Engineer's memorandum, dated June 26, 2006, must be addressed with the final plans. All utilities and roads must be constructed in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual. 2. The developer shall provide a revised Tree Inventory/Tree Preservation Plan that demonstrates how tree replacement requirements will be met. 3. The developer shall formally submit plan revisions to the City for distribution and reView. 4. All signage shall require a sign permit. 5. The developer must obtain the required permits from any other state or local agency prior to any work on the site. 6. The developer must submit a Letter of Credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of the required replacement trees. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 Comments from the Public: Perry Ryan, Ryan Engineering also representing EPIC Development, said the report correctly identifies all the issues and they are in agreement with staffs six conditions. However, the two items pointed out by the City Engineer are fairly easy to resolve. Ryan made reference to the June 26, 2006, engineering letter with staffs concerns. He was confident the Watershed requirements were going to be met. Ryan handed out a plan with the drain tile system and explained their plan. Ryan felt the conditions could be met and the meeting did not have to be continued as they will meet all government agencies regulations. Ringstad: . Questioned Ryan's comments on timing and continuing the hearing. The Watershed meeting is not until August 8, one day after the City Council meeting. This is really only being held up 6 days. Ryan felt the requirements will be met with conditions and did not want to wait for the second Council meeting August 21. . Poppler said the submitted drain tile plans were not what staffhad in mind. There could be issues if there is a clog in the line. Water can back up into the foundation of the units. Staff wanted more of a "curtain drain" system behind the units. . Ryan said Maple Glen did not have to meet those conditions. Poppler responded Maple Glen will meet those conditions during the building permit process. . Moore noted for clarification that Planning and Engineering go hand in hand in respect to the site layout. . Stamson asked what the problems would be with tabling the matter. . Moore responded staff is looking for responses from the Watershed and the State (MNDOT) saying their requirements will be met. . Ryan responded Poppler pointed out in his letter that the conditions had to be received and met prior to grading. They do not have to be received prior to going before the Planning Commission. Ryan said in all due respect, it was never communicated to them by staff. . Moore clarified the only reason staff knew the plans had been modified is because the City had been "cc' d" on what had been forwarded on to the Watershed District. The developer never submitted the revised plans to city staff. Staff found out about the changes from the Watershed District. There has been a consistent lag between letters stating requirements and when information is returned. There have been key issues that needed to be addressed. . Ryan felt the communication was not clear they needed new plans and didn't feel it would hold up the process. . Moore explained the City's letters and requirements and there were phone calls to the Ryan's office who indicated staff would be getting new plans. Stamson asked ifthere was a middle ground between tabling and approval tonight. Moore explained MNDOT and the Watershed have not responded on their final plans. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 Poppler explained the engineering concerns and the problems associated with any recommendations from the Watershed and MNDOT. Stamson clarified that staff wants to see the drain tile system redesigned versus what has been submitted. Poppler confirmed it is not that significant to redesign but want to make sure everything is in place. Ryan said it was "miniscule". Moore did not feel MNDOT would respond within the next two weeks. They look at many municipalities. Poppler said MNDOT will not be looking at the backyard system, it is not their concern. They will be looking at the infiltration system and more importantly what type of volume and rates are going into the MNDOT ditch. Ryan said he was fully aware of the conditions. Poppler explained the concerns waiting for approval from the Watershed District. Moore stated if the plans are revised substantially the applicant will have to come back before the Planning Commission and basically start over. Again, the Watershed meeting will not be held until after the August 7 City Council meeting. Billington felt the Council would not be able to act in lieu of the necessary information. Ryan said it can be conditioned by the City Council. Kansier said the question is - The Planning Commission can allow it to move forward subject to certain conditions, it would go to the City Council. What happens if the Watershed District does not approve the design? If the plat has to be redesigned it will end up being a longer delay if they have to come back and start all over with a new plat. If they are willing to take that risk. It is important to realize the delay will bring this to September and October. Ryan said they are going to take the risk and is very comfortable with it. They will do whatever the City requires. There were no other comments and the hearing was closed at 6:26 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Except for the two conditions we have been talking about the last few minutes there are not a lot of issues with respect to lot sizes or zoning. . City staff would approve with the conditions. If it gets to the point of a Motion I would ask for help with the specific conditions so we get the proper wording in. Namely Watershed and MNDOT approval as well as the drain tile system approved. . Inclined to go along with this with the conditions. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 Billington: . Like the project and if the applicant is willing to assume the risks outlined with the government agencies and abide by the caveats outlined, I would be willing to support. Lemke: . Agreed - the zoning and lot size is appropriate. . The engineering process will stop everything. Weare recommending approval to the Council. If anything comes back and staff does feel is a show stopper it can be stopped at that level. . For that I would be recommending approval. Perez: . Sounds like there were communication problems on both sides. We need to figure out a way on how to proceed. As long as we have the added conditions and the developer is fine with the risk. . We have time to review and make sure MNDOT and the Watershed is fine with this. Approve. Stamson: . Overall the development is appropriate. . Leery of forwarding something staff does not approve. In this case, the City Council will meet in two weeks and the developer is taking the risks it may backfire on him. . I think the minutes should show that as part of the Commission's recommendation that staff needs to be comfortable that things are moving in the right direction before City Council approves it. . When Council looks at this, they should not just take our approval on face value but take staff s input on what's happened in the next two weeks to get these two issues resolved. Support. Ringstad: . The two things hanging out will not be resolved by the August 7, City Council and Watershed meetings. It is highly unlikely MNDOT is going to get their report back by the ih. Stamson: . That's why it is important the Council knows what is happening. The Council should know staff is comfortable moving forward. Moore pointed out the key conditions must be met prior to the City Council meeting. Moore recommended three additional conditions be added: 7. All key engineering issues shall be addressed prior to the City Council consideration. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 8. All outstanding issues shall be addressed prior to submittal of the final plat application. 9. If the current design is not approved by MNDOT and the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District, the developer will be required to resubmit a new preliminary plat application. Lemke: . Knowing that the developer won't have Watershed approval is not part of the condition. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST BE APRPOVED WITH THE 9 CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go to the City Council on August 7. B. EP 06-146 thru 06-149 Village Commerce Building, LLC has submitted applications for approval of the Village Commerce Building, a 22,332 square foot office/bank building. The submittal includes a Combined Preliminary/Final Plat; Utility and drainage easement vacation; Variances to building and parking setbacks and to drive-thru stacking requirements and Site plan approval. Village Commerce Building, LLC, has submitted an application for the development of the property located on the south side of Park Nicollet Drive and on the west side of Franklin Trail, directly east of the Keystone building. The property is made up ofthe former TJ Towing site and Lot 1, Block 2, Park Nicollet Addition. The application includes the following requests: 1. Approval of a combined Preliminary and Final Plat; 2. Approval of the vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements on Lot 1, Block 2, Park Nicollet Addition; 3. Approval of the following variances for the building and parking: . A 45' variance to allow a the building to be setback 5' from the front property line rather than the required 50 feet; . A 2' variance to allow a 4' setback from the right-of-way rather than the required 6' setback for the parking lot; . AS' setback to allow a parking lot to be located 15' from a Residential Zoning District rather than the required 20 feet; . A variance to allow 6 stacking spaces for the drive-thru bank rather than the required 12 stacking spaces. The proposed development includes a 2-story, 22,332 square foot office building with a drive-thru bank and parking. The plat combines the existing parcels into a single lot, L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 consisting of 82,546 square feet (1.895 acres). There are no new streets or public improvements required as part of the development. The staff recommends approval of the requested actions subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer is currently showing a design that incorporates some City infrastructure, as the City is attempting to partner with them on their stormwater system. The developer needs to provide costs so staff can decide whether we are able to participate; however, if we are unable to participate, the previous design does meet our requirements. The developer must choose a final design prior to review of the final plat by the City Council. 2. Site Plan approval is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. A monument sign is located within a drainage and utility easement. The developer must enter into a "Private Use of Public Property Agreement" before this sign is placed in this location. 4. The resolution approving the vacation of these easements will not be released until the final plat is approved. Questions from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Questioned page 5, condition #3 should say "is" necessary. Kansier responded it is correct in Resolution. Commissioner Ringstad abstained from comments and voting as his bank may playa part in this proj ect. Comments from the Public: Kevin O'Brien, of Graystone Construction from Shakopee, was representing the owners. O'Brien said they have had a number of conversations with staff and feel they have accomplished their goal. O'Brien also spoke on the parking and ponding designs. They are intending to build a "Class A" office building and are in agreement with staffs conditions. They are also scheduled to be on the Watershed District's meeting August 8th. There were no other comments and the hearing closed at 6:49 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: . Good project for the site - see no major impediments. All requirements look like they were easily met. Support the applicant. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 Lemke: . Agree - it is great project for the location. Staffs analysis of the 9 hardships are accurate. . As to the vacation of easements - it meets the requirements of the Comp Plan and the public needs. Support. Perez: . Agree with the vacation of the drainage and utility easements. There is a public need and it is not inconsistent with the Comp PIan. . Zoning designation is consistent. . Good plan to move the structure towards the street away from the residential area. . Support with the conditions. Stamson: . This is a tricky spot - it should be commercial but being a long narrow lot it's hard to develop. It is a nicely designed building and spur further developments in that part of town. . The vacation of the public easements should be met. . As far as the variances - agree to set the building back from the neighbors is common sense and should work nice. . The parking setback variances work. . Noted the variance for stacked parking makes sense. This style of bank is pretty typical of what we are seeing developed. Comfortable with that variance. . Support. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE COMBINED PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT, THE VACATION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Ringstad abstained. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION AS REQUESTED TO THE CONDITION THAT THE RESOLUTION NOT BE RECORDED UNTIL AFTER THE FINAL PLAT APPROV AL. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Ringstad abstained. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 06- 10PC APPROVING THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES. . A 45' variance to allow as' front yard rather than the required 50 feet; . A 2' variance to allow a 4' setback from the right-of-way rather than the required 6' setback for the parking lot; L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 . AS' setback to allow a parking lot to be located 15' from a Residential Zoning District rather than the required 20 feet; . A variance to allow 6 stacking spaces for the drive-thru bank rather than the required 12 stacking spaces. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Ringstad abstained. The first two items will go before the City Council on August 7, 2006. C. EP 06-117 Bakken Development, Inc. has submitted a preliminary plat (Golden Pond) consisting of approximately 27 acres of land to be subdivided into 35 lots and 3 outlots for single family homes located northeast of Wedgewood Lane (Spring Lake Township), east of Sunray Boulevard, south of the O'Brien Property/MN TH 13, and west of Rice Lake. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 24,2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Bakken Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as Golden Pond on the property located northeast of Wedge wood Lane (Spring Lake Township), east of Sunray Boulevard, south ofMN TH 13, and west of Rice Lake. The application includes the following requests: . A Preliminary Plat consisting of 27.317 acres to be subdivided into 34 lots for single family development. . Variances to the minimum lot area and lot width requirements. The density and overall layout for this subdivision is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance criteria. However, as noted earlier, some of the lots do not meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements, so the developer is requesting variances to these prOViSions. The original preliminary plat for this development was revised at the suggestion of the staff. The City Council created a Tree Preservation Task Force to look at the provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Task Force has been working on a new Tree Preservation Ordinance. A component of the potential ordinance is a mechanism intended to provide flexibility in areas identified high and moderate quality natural environments, identified by the Natural Resources Inventory recently completed by the City. The intent of this section is to offer a process that will provide maximum design flexibility, without the need for a full-fledged Planned Unit Development. This process allows the developer to modify street right-of-way and surface widths, lot areas and lot widths, and structure setbacks. Its scope is more limited than a standard Planned Unit Development in that it does not allow increased density or unit types not otherwise permitted. The idea is to preserve the natural environmental features. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 This site is identified as a quality natural environment, specifically for the maplelbasswood forest located on the site. The staff used Golden Pond as an example to illustrate how the proposed ordinance could work, and what the benefits would be. In this case, the flexibility saves, at a minimum, 24 16" to 36" maple trees (480 total caliper inches). Once we had identified this benefit, the staff and the Task Force felt this opportunity should not be lost and we should try to carry this plan forward, even though the ordinance is not in place. Since the preliminary plat application was not yet complete, the developer was amenable to revising the plan as suggested. The proposal also provides the developer significant cost savings in terms of tree replacement and infrastructure. As mentioned, a new tree preservation ordinance has not been adopted, so the variances are necessary. The staff discussed this proposal with the DNR, and they have no objections to the variances. The DNR feels the environmental benefits provide a justification for the reduced lot areas and lot widths. The Engineering Department has listed several necessary revisions to the preliminary plat; however, none of these affects the overall design of the plat. Poppler explained some of the issues resolved such as the park, regional pond, eliminated some utilities that could have been in some of the back yards. The developer has recently submitted new plans correcting the low floor elevations and addressing the tree preservation. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 34 lots for single family dwellings. The generallayout of the plat appears appropriate, given the constraints of the site. Approval of the preliminary plat should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The tree protection plan must be revised to indicate which trees will be saved, which trees will be removed for road and utility purposes, and which trees will be removed for building pads and driveways. A tree replacement plan, consistent with the requirements of the current zoning ordinance must be submitted. 2. A landscaping plan for the required subdivision trees must be submitted. 3. Revised plans addressing the Grading Plan and Hydrology and Storm Sewer comments listed in the Engineering memorandum dated June 12,2006, must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. 4. A revised preliminary plat showing lot dimensions and areas must be submitted prior to submittal of a final plat application. 5. Revised plans addressing the Plat, General, Streets and Utilities issues listed in the Engineering memorandum dated June 12,2006, must be submitted and approved prior to submittal of a final plat application. Questions from the Commissioners: Billington questioned the sanitary sewer and lift station - What happens if there is a malfunction? Poppler explained the alarms and back up generators. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 Comments from the Public: Tim Arvidson with Stonebrook Engineering representing Bakken Construction said Kansier covered everything pretty well. The variance request was brought up by the City and they were in favor of the idea. It basically consisted of narrowing the lots and the roadway surface itself which is an infrastructure cost savings. Arvidson felt by redesigning the lots and saving more trees makes the lots more marketable. It is a win- win situation for all. Tim Kvidera, 17776 Wedgewood Lane, questioned if the reduction presented was going to be the preliminary plat. Kansier said the full size detailed plan was submitted. What was shown on the overhead was the south side of the development. K videra questioned what assurances are in place to make sure the new lot owners will respect the wetland area. Kansier explained the drainage and utility easements as part of the development. The developer will submit a Conservation Easement and delineate a means (fence) on site. There will also be signage on the wetland buffers. Billington asked if there will be a deed covenant. Kansier said it would be on the property owners' deeds. If the City is on the Conservation Easement we have more enforcement than just a private covenant the staff cannot enforce. Kvidera questioned if the utility easements will be stubbed to the cul-de-sac or property lines. Kansier said the property lines. K videra felt there were some grading changes. Poppler said staff needs to see the new grading plan now that the street is not going through, the area will have to be regraded. Arvidson responded the Watershed District was present at the City's meetings and agreed with the pIan. Kvidera felt it was a great idea with the tree salvaging in the Heritage Tree Preservation Plan. Kansier explained working with the developer on this tree project. K videra questioned who gets to decide who owns a 24" oak tree on the property line. Kansier said she didn't have an answer however a survey could determine where most of the tree leans. Staff could work with the developer to try and save it if possible. K videra said he appreciates the work Stonebrook has done with the development. The public hearing closed at 7:25 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . To adjust the lots slightly, not increase the density and save all the significant trees is the right way to go. . It is a good development. . The 9 hardship criteria have been met for the variance. Support. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 Perez: . Agree with Lemke and staffs comments. There is obviously some creativity in place. . The development is doing what we want it to do - save some of the significant trees. . Thanks to staff for taking the opportunity to suggest this. . Agree with the variance findings - it works for this site. Ringstad: . Agree with fellow Commissioners - at first I thought they would reduce and add more lots. Thank the applicant for stepping back and going along with staff. . Hopefully we can get more of these partnerships with developers where significant trees can be saved. This seems like real win-win all around. . The variances are needed to make it work and feel the hardships have been met. . Support. Billington: . Class project - agree with Commissioners, there was creative thinking outside the box. . It is a good project that is sensitive to its surroundings. Sensitive to the neighbors. Pleased with that. . It is a project that has had some significant engineering challenges. It's all been done very well. Support. Stamson: . Agreed - nice development. Works well for the site. . Commend those working on the tree preservation task force. Looking forward to later discussions. . This works with the variance process. . It was creative - normally when we see variances it is for the benefit of the property owners. This is great for the community at large. . Like to see it move forward. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 06-11PC APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES. V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS GOLDEN POND SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2006 Lemke asked Poppler about the lift station. Popper said this is going to be a pretty small lift station. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. Report on Tree Preservation Task Force Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 24,2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Kansier stated she received a call from one of the members of the task force asking to continue the discussions to the next meeting. They would like to meet one more time in the task force to make sure all the details are correct. This item can continue to August 14th. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan has been accepted as complete by the Metropolitan Council. Staff is hoping to come before the Met Council sometime in September. Lemke questioned the Conservation Easement document. He would like to see some mechanism to have it delivered to the homeowner or lot purchaser. Kansier said the easement shows up on the abstract. The City staff has no way of knowing changes of property owners and explained the sign age process. Lemke suggested putting an article in the Wave Length. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN072406.doc 13 PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by the P~anning Commission ),W(lif4"v .J~JL. 010 The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible except under rare occasions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDANCE-PLEASE PRINT NAME 1(ru, ~. - ~ ;?v; i'.'~ ~~ lr fi:I;;-~ I F~r\ ~~ ;.;bhl"l~ U-ol'r); C-1'1 t'v ----.- j3; (L Tu 1'';:) ." j' /rl /lrl/t /~J/1 1: 4'~/tJ'htfl,#( :..lev .fkhe'V6Iu' li It", //7" iJ ~ k: I<- -( ""' J \h~ \\t\Dct . ADDRESS ~oo ~. /I-f,4,.(. SCH4'-t.../<,1J Sd!1l<..o/~f3. ftty ~5 ~ p; /tly; c; ~~f-=> Y/I1rJ /177 ~ LU~r-Jc; e toCJt'")c;! .L ~ { 1777 Ie, t... ?a.d~, h ,..J Lq..,---,<- 3721:. fRo ~ . 47,4 ~ 'S.!~ &c..- k,A. ,~JZ.5 I 7/,p'f-A.. .\f., E. (J.1,0/ Le, k.p 3690 ,Q 0 ..r J? SV<"; 5k.,((-u)ht' c/ Ji.i"'1/upec;,,0/ / 7 FlL/ :J;;d4/./.~J Ll ,! ~~~ i? 1, . I.-{ ov( IA ~ I i-f() 7 () LC?1'V1 n-. /,/ r I" IJ II' <-. f L \)j{\1 ~~~ L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc