HomeMy WebLinkAbout0909022.
3.
4.
Aa
Bo
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case File #02-07 - 212 Development is requesting consideration of a Preliminary
Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan to be known as Crystal Bay Townhomes
consisting of 10.62 acres to be subdivided into lots for 26 townhomes. This
property is located on the south side of CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and V~_
mile west of CSAH 21.
Case File #02-88 Richard Gau is requesting a 13.3 variance from the required
minimum 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of entry addition to an
existing single family dwelling and a three foot variance from the maximum 24
feet of driveway width on property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW.
Old Business:
New Business:
Case File #02-94 Wensmann Homes is requesting a Preliminary PUD Plan and
Preliminary Plat (Jeffers South) for a mixed development consisting of 22 single
family homes, 31 attached townhouse units and 28 attached condominium uses on
34.05 acres of land zoned R-1.
Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\02pcagendaWIN090902.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the September 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane
Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording
Secretary Kelly Meyer.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the August 26, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent: NONE.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case File #02-07 - 212 Development is requesting consideration of a
Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan to be known as Crystal Bay
Townhomes consisting of 10.62 acres to be subdivided into lots for 26 townhomes.
This property is located on the south side of CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and
~ mile west of CSAH 21.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 9,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
212 Development, LLC, has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Crystal Bay on the property located south of CSAH 82, directly east of Fremont Avenue
and approximately ½ mile west of CSAH 21. The application includes the following
requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN090902.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of 26 dwelling units on 10.62
acres. The development also proposes private open space and 26 boat slips for the use of
the residents.
This item was originally scheduled for a public hearing on August 12, 2002. However,
the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to September 9, 2002, to allow
the developer to address the issues raised by staff in the original staff report. The
developer also conducted another neighborhood meeting on August 28, 2002.
Following the August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, the developer was asked
to submit any revised plans to the staff by Monday, August 26, 2002. The purpose of the
deadline was to allow staff the time to review any new information.
On Friday, August 30, 2002, after business hours, the staff received the attached fax from
the developer outlining changes in the proposed plan. The listed changes include the
following:
· A reduction in the number of units from 26 to 24.
The elimination of the through street and creation of two cul-de-sacs.
· A change in the alignment of the easterly cul-de-sac.
· The removal of the boat launch/road to the lake.
· The reduction in the number of boat slips from 26 to 21.
· An increase in the setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation.
· The addition of a privacy fence along the east property line.
These changes appear to address several of the issues raised by the staff. However, as of
the date of the report (September 4, 2002) staff had only received a fax reduction of the
proposed plan, so they were unable to verify the changes and the affect on the plan as it
relates to the ordinance requirements.
If the Commission feels the proposal should proceed to the Council, the staff would
recommend the following conditions be attached:
1. The density in tier 1 of the development must be reduced so it is consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance requirements.
2. The number of slips must be reduced to 20, the maximum density allowed in tier 1.
3. The developer must provide calculations to determine whether the proposal is
consistent with the 25% impervious surface requirement in each tier.
4. The intersection of Crystal Bay Drive and CSAH 82 must be revised so it is aligned
with Fox Tail Trail and is perpendicular to the County fight-of-way.
5. The extension of Crystal Bay Drive from CSAH 82 to Fremont should be eliminated.
Access should be provided from Fremont Avenue and CSAH 21 with 2 cul-de-sacs.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXlVlN090902.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
6. The tree inventory must be revised to include only those trees considered significant
in the Zoning Ordinance.
7. The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements.
8. The private streets must be platted as outlots. An 11' wide drainage and utility
easements must be provided on either side of the outlot.
9. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond.
10. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from Larry Poppler, Assistant
City Engineer, dated July 17, 2002, and from Andi Moffet and John Mackiewicz of
WSB, dated July 19, 2002.
Comments from the public:
JeffBroberg, Vice President ofMcGhie Betts, Inc., representing 212 Development, LLC,
discussed the original project design and the latest revised plan, indicating the changes in
the storm water plan, roadway configuration, number of boat slips and calculation of the
size of the site. He believed the issues raised during the neighborhood have been 95%
addressed. Broberg further discussed the tree inventory and the effort to preserve many of
the existing trees on the site, removal of the originally proposed boat ramp, and
maintaining the character of the site. He also discussed the issues that can not be solved,
including the traffic issues raised by the neighbors. He noted that reconfiguring the
original street plan into cul-de-sacs was a better design and could best address the traffic
concerns. The plan requests 24 foot wide streets with no parking on either side which is a
modification from the standards. The decrease in street width allows a reduction in
impervious surface and prohibits parking on the street. Broberg pointed out the need for
modifications from the front and side street setbacks in order to preserve the 112.5 foot
setback from the lake, and the impervious surface difficulty within Tier 2. Broberg asked
for approval of the PUD understanding the conditions imposed by staff.
Ringstad questioned the price of the townhomes, the height of the privacy fence along the
easterly portion of the property, and the size and number of the evergreen trees proposed
along County Road 82.
Broberg responded the price point for the townhomes is in excess of $700,000 and is
targeted for empty-nesters or previous Prior Lake homeowners with ties to the
community. He noted that all along the project has been designed to maintain the natural
features of the site. Also, the privacy fence will be a standard 8-10 foot fence, and with
the elevation along the easterly side it should provide an adequate barrier.
Kansier explained the provisions of the landscape ordinance. New evergreen trees must
be a minimum of 6' in height, and at least 20% of the evergreens must be oversized, or 8'
in height.
Criego questioned the trail plan.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN090902.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
Broberg explained the pathways are intended for foot traffic and access to the boat dock
and common areas for the homeowners only. The trails consist of grass and bark trails.
Criego questioned the ability to gain access across the cul-de-sacs. Broberg responded
County Road 82 provides a secondary access within immediate reach.
Criego asked how the size and configuration of the boat dock was arrived at. Broberg
explained they had reviewed lake depths and the shoreline configuration.
Comments from the public:
Tim Finn, 15672 Fremont Avenue NW, was concerned the unit along Fremont Avenue is
too close to the roadway for the City to ever install sidewalks. Another concern was the
traffic turning on to Fremont Avenue and then trying to make a turn into the
development. Believed there is just not room for stacking off of County Road 82. Finn
felt cars would make u-turns in the Island View Association parking lot. Suggested
Fremont Avenue and County Road 82 both need to be widened. Asked if the impervious
surface standard is 25% or 30%.
Kansier explained the PUD is in a Shoreland district, therefore, the development is
required to meet the higher standard not to exceed 25% per tier. The overall impervious
surface requirement is 30%.
Finn further discussed the number of boat slips and the relation to other docks in the area.
He was concerned there may not be adequate parking and the overflow would go onto
Fremont Avenue. Did not believe the project really gives anything back to the
community.
Kyle Schroeder, 15557 Highland Avenue NW, stated there is significant concern among
the neighbors. Applauded the developer on holding the second neighborhood meeting and
addressing the issues raised during those meetings. Echoed the concerns of Tim Finn that
the project does not give anything back to the neighborhood. Believed there are
significant traffic issues that need to be addressed along County Road 82. Repeated the
concerns for the access onto Fremont Avenue. Also expressed concerns with the
abatement of the noise from the highways. Schroeder suggested possibly adding a fence
for the area and reducing the hours of operation during the construction. He repeated the
need for large-scale trees in the replacement plan. Schroeder asked if the covenants
indicate the homeowners association can remove trees.
Kansier said it is in the best interest of the association, just as in a single-family home
development, to maintain the integrity of the property. She had not reviewed the
covenants in detail enough to comment on the specifics.
Schroeder stated that there should be no runoff into the lake.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN090902.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
Tom Sheely, 15601 Highland Ave. NW, believed the intent of the PUD is not to increase
the revenue of the developer or to increase the tax base of the City. Further noted that
with respect to docks, the number of slips should correspond to the phased construction.
Suggested the Planning Commission recommend to the DNR that signage be installed
within the bay in order to prevent water hazards. Added the final covenants should be
part of the final plan approval and preserve the trees in the area. Sheely wanted to
preserve trees rather than install an obtrusive fence. He also stated his concern with the
hours of construction.
Mark Nelson, 14567 Fremont Avenue NW, complimented the developer on the quality of
previous projects and for addressing many of the issues on the neighborhood. Believes
the essential issue is putting too much into too little space. Nelson repeated traffic in the
area is a major concern on an already congested road system. He also noted the
configuration of the boat slips makes the lake even more dangerous. Nelson pointed out
there is nothing that prevents the association from adding a boat ramp later.
Broberg discussed the plan for noise abatement with trees as well as the configuration of
the units. Noted the height of the units would also provide additional abatement of noise.
Advised the intent of the covenants is to limit changes to the approved PUD, but the issue
later on would be enforcement. The trade off in the smaller street width is less impervious
surface. Broberg felt even though the impervious surface calculation is over the 25% in
Tier 2, consideration should be given because the drainage is away from the lake.
Rye asked for an estimate of the distance between the proposed dock and the Island View
Association dock. Broberg responded it would be approximately 275 feet.
Atwood questioned the project timeline. Broberg responded the construction would not
begin until 2004 and Phase I would be completed that year.
Lemke questioned the impervious surface calculations with respect to the road right of
way. Broberg said the net land area, loss areas to be dedicated for CSAH 82, was used to
calculate the impervious surface area.
Jim Schilling, 15629 Highland Ave, commented that lakeshore quality is the biggest issue
and the Planning Commission should consider the ratio of number of boats compared to
area of lakeshore.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Asked for an explanation for the number of slips and the comparison.
· Kansier responded the number of slips is based on state law and the number of
units in Tier 1. In this case the maximum number of units is 21 in Tier 1, and thus
the number of slips is 21. It depends upon the type of development and how the
land is being developed. The City ordinance mirrors exactly the adopted State
rules.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN090902.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
· Commented he is concerned with the safety issues within a confined bay of this
type. Believed the dock configuration is an important component and that some
recommendation by the City should be forwarded to the DNR. Asked the
developer where common ownership is versus ownership by private homes.
Broberg explained the units will have very small yards with private ownership.
The primary area, including the pathways, will be in common ownership. Broberg
also explained the process for snow removal, advising the only common area is to
the cul-de-sac.
· Expressed concern thero is no emergency vehicle access to units 9 and 10 if the
Fremont access is closed.
· Suggested the pathway be increased to be a secondary emergency access.
· Broberg noted the challenge then becomes the impervious surface calculation.
· Questioned if the City was aware of the plans for County Road 82. Kansier
responded the roadway had not yet been designed.
· Questioned if the right-of-way donation is primarily on County Road 82 and what
the normal process for acquiring roadway would be. Kansier said the City and/or
County would have to purchase the road right-of-way from the property owner.
· Believed this PUD had substantial merit with respect to shoreline because of its
112.5 foot setback, as well as preservation of the bluff area, and the right-of-way
donation along County Road 82.
· If the project was not a PUD, and single-family homes were the method of
development, approximately 35 homes could be constructed. This type of
development really saves land.
· Asked if the length of the cul-de-sacs are within standards.
· Kansier advised the standard is 500 feet and these appear to be within that
standard. The width of the street is 24 feet and the subdivision ordinance allows
approval of a lesser width in environmentally sensitive areas.
· Questioned if parking could be utilized along the private drive. Concerned with
the impervious surface coverage, but the dedication of the right-of-way be
considered.
· Rye indicated the amount of parking is similar to many single-family
neighborhoods. Also noted the DNR may have an issue with making an allowance
for the right-of-way.
Lemke:
· Asked about the allowance for sidewalks along Fremont Avenue.
· Kansier responded there is approximately 19 feet and would be adequate for
sidewalks along one side of the street.
· Agreed with many of the comments of Commissioner Criego in that there is a lot
of benefit in the developer's effort to preserve the natural lakeshore and
preservation of trees.
· Believed the configuration of the boat slips are the primary issue with the
development.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN090902.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
Atwood:
Believed the plan was very thoughtful and complimented the developer. Asked
the distance from County Road 82 and the proposed access from Fremont.
Rye responded it was approximately 275 feet.
· Criego noted that with the Glynwater development, there was much discussion
about access to Fremont Avenue and the distance of the access from the
intersection with CSAH 82. Ultimately the right-of-way from Glynwater was
platted but the street was not built from Fremont.
· Believed the neighborhood has valid concerns about the outlot being used as a
construction vehicle tm-around.
· Supported the project and the recommendation by staff.
Ringstad: · Believed this development is a strong example of compromise on behalf of the
developer and the neighborhood.
· Further commented that if the issue of hours of construction is to be addressed, it
should be addressed City-wide and not special for this development.
· Also supported using the additional 25 feet of right-of-way in the impervious
surface calculation.
· Supported the staff's recommendation.
Stamson:
· Generally supports the project and the benefits it gives in terms of lakeshore
preservation.
· Believe the developer should be given a credit for the additional fight-of-way
dedication but other than that needed to meet the impervious surface standard, and
the construction hours not be addressed as a special allowance.
· Suggested the covenants be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Criego:
· Suggested direction be given to staff that a plan be brought back to the Planning
Commission at the next meeting.
Lemke: · Did not see that extending the public hearing is necessary.
· Concerned the timeline then dictates very little time for the City Council to act.
Atwood:
· Did not see a need to extend the public hearing and many of the issues are
covered under the staff conditions.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL
THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 MEETING TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO SUBMIT
REVISED PLANS CLARIFYING THE FACTUAL POINTS DISCUSSED.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN090902.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
VOTE: Ayes by Stamson, Lemke, Criego, Ringstad and Atwood, the motion carried.
B. Case File #02-88 Richard Gau is requesting a 13.3 variance from the
required minimum 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of entry addition
to an existing single family dwelling and a three foot variance from the maximum 24
feet of driveway width on property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated September 9, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Richard Gau to permit a 6
foot eave/overhang and 8 foot stoop to encroach into a required front yard setback on the
property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW. The existing single family dwelling
maintains a 19.9 foot front yard setback. The steps of the stoop are proposed to be 11.7
feet from the front property line and the eave/overhang over the garage is proposed to be
14.1 feet from the property line abutting Monroe Avenue. In conjunction with the stoop
and eave addition, the applicant is also increasing the width of the driveway to 27 feet.
The project was started without a building permit. The applicant is requesting the
following variances:
1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the
construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang (Zoning Ordinance
Section 1102.402: Dimensional Standards).
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways).
Staff believed all nine-hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the requested
variances to permit the 8 foot stoop, 6 foot eave/overhang, and 27 foot wide driveway.
The applicant created the hardship by the design of the addition and the driveway. Staff
could support a smaller front yard setback variance to improve the safety of the dwelling
entrance, but not the proposal. The staff therefore recommended denial of the requested
variances as proposed by the applicant.
Lemke asked for clarification as to the side yard, front yard and rear yard. Kirchoff
explained.
Criego questioned how the City became aware of the violation. Kansier responded this
was unknown to her, but upon investigation by City staff, a stop work order was issued.
Comments from the public:
Rick Gau, 16994 Monroe Avenue, indicated he had obtained a building permit and his
intention was not to deceive anyone. Advised the awning, stoop and high-brow garage
door was to mitigate the impact of snow melt in front of his garage and front door. Gau
felt he was misled by the building staff and believed the 27-foot drive is necessary to
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesLMN090902.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
adequately provide parking on his lot. There is no parking along the street. Noted that at
this point he has spent a lot of extra money and time waiting for the process.
Jim Petersen, 3338 Todd Road, advised that Rick had misinterpreted the extent of the
building permit. Believed the additional driveway width was reasonable.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Asked if discussion had taken place with the applicant as to a smaller setback, and
if the photos brought in by Mr. Gau had some other type of circumstances other
than the homeowners not getting caught.
· Kansier advised no discussion had taken place with applicant regarding a lesser
setback. There are quite possibly extenuating circumstances surrounding other
properties, including being done prior to the ordinance, or that some lots may be
nonconforming.
Ringstad:
Did not believe the setback met the current hardship criteria. Would like to see
additional conversations take place with staff.
Atwood:
· Sympathized with the neighborhood with respect to the parking issue, but could
not support the request.
Lemke: · Believed the request was reasonable.
· Supported both requested variances.
Criego: · Noted the 24-foot driveway width is calculated at the lot line and the driveway
could be flared further into the lot, thus eliminating the variance for 27-foot of
driveway width. Questioned the applicant if there was a railing and where the
steps would be.
· Asked for staff to clarify the difference between an awning and the proposed
structure.
· Gau explained the proposed improvement.
· Kansier clarified that a stoop can be extended.
· Believed the problem was difficult and the property was unique as a comer lot,
but the hardship criteria need to be adhered to.
· The project improved the aesthetics of the home, but there is no hardship.
· In favor of the covering over the stoop, but the overhang of the garage does not
meet the hardship.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~MN090902.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
Stamson:
* Agreed with Commissioner Criego that the parking issue can be addressed
without a variance, and there is a safety issue for the front stoop.
· Would support a covering not to exceed 4 feet over the stoop, and re-design the
overhang of the garage.
Ringstad:
· Suggest tabling the issue to the next meeting.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY R1NGSTAD TO TABLE THE ITEM TO THE
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 MEETING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK OUT A SOLUTION WITH STAFF.
VOTE: Ayes by Stamson, Lemke, Criego, Ringstad and Atwood, the motion carried.
6. Old Business: NONE.
7. New Business:
A. Case File//02-94 Wensmann Homes is requesting a Preliminary PUD Plan
and Preliminary Plat (Jeffers South) for a mixed development consisting of 22 single
family homes, 31 attached townhouse units and 28 attached condominium uses on
34.05 acres of land zoned R-1.
Kansier reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
Wensmann Realty, Inc., has applied for approval of a development to be known as Jeffers
South on the property located west of CSAH 21, approximately ½ mile north of CSAH
82 and directly north ofWensmann 1st Addition and Regal Crest. The proposal calls for
a mixed use development consisting of a total of 81 dwelling units on 23.69 net acres, for
a total density of 3.42 units per acre. The proposed development includes 22 single
family dwellings and 59 townhouse units in 45, three and four-unit buildings. The
development also includes parkland and private open space.
The Final PUD Plan is generally consistent with the approved preliminary plan. There
are, however, some changes are required to the plan before final approval. These
changes are required in order to be consistent with the approved preliminary plan, and to
meet the conditions included as part of the preliminary plan approval. These include the
following:
1. The developer must provide an access to the park on the west side of the site from
Jeffers Pass.
2. The name of the cul-de-sac must be changed to a name more consistent with the street
naming policy.
3. The developer must provide sign elevations for the monument signs.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VlN090902.doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
4. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated
May 23, 2002.
Most of the changes require minor revisions to the plans. However, these changes must
be made before the plan proceeds to the City Council for final approval.
The Planning Commission must review the Final PUD and make a recommendation to
the City Council. The staff suggests the following findings:
1. With the listed revisions, the Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved
preliminary plan.
2. The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the criteria for a PUD listed in Section
1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan is also consistent with
the City Council findings listed in City Council Resolution #02-44.
The staff also recommended approval of the Final PUD Plan be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following revisions must be made before the plan proceeds to the City Council:
a. The developer must provide an access to the park on the west side of the site from
Jeffers Pass.
b. The name of the cul-de-sac must be changed to a name more consistent with the
street naming policy.
c. The developer must provide sign elevations for the monument signs.
d. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from the City Engineer
dated May 23, 2002.
2. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
3. A signed PUD agreement must be approved by the City Council.
4. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final
plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final
approval information. Once set will be filed at the Planning Department and
maintained as the official PUD record. The second set will be returned to the
developer for their files.
Kelly Murray of Wensmann Realty noted there is an issue with the trail access at Outlot
A which they would suggest moving 200 feet to the north, while granting the City access
across Outlot A.
Commissioner Comments:
Atwood:
· Believed ifstaffis comfortable with the alternate trail connection, she is
comfortable, and supports the staff recommendation.
Ringstad:
· Agreed.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN090902.doc 11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
Lemke:
Agreed.
Criego:
· Asked how the City assures the trail access is addressed during the development
of the property.
· Kansier said the staffwould require an easement be recorded with the Final Plat.
Upon development of the adjacent property, a new access would be designated
and the easement could be released.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD TO APPROVE THE JEFFERS
SOUTH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
VOTE: Ayes by Stamson, Lernke, Criego, Ringstad and Atwood, the motion carded.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier noted the City Council would like to present the 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan
to the October 14, 2002 meeting.
Criego asked if the joint meeting with the City Council to discuss variances would come
up at a later date. Rye said they would and advised the demolition and grading work was
scheduled to begin this week for Lakefront Plaza.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:50 p.m.
Don Rye
Community Development
Director
Kelly Meyer
Recording Secretary
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN090902.doc 12