HomeMy WebLinkAbout0724002.
3.
4.
A.
5.
A.
7.
8.
9.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 24, 2000
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Presentation:
Downtown Redevelopment Guide Draft discussion.
Public Hearings:
Case #00-002 & #00-003 (continued) David Bell & Freedom Development & Consulting are
requesting an amendment to the approved plan for the Priorwood Planned Unit Development
(PUD 82-12) and for a preliminary plat to be known as Creekside Estates for the property located
at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street.
Case #00-052 Joseph and Molly Cade are requesting a variance form the minimum setback to the
top of bluff and bluff impact zone for the property located at 6444 150th Street.
Case #00-043, #00-044 and #00-045 Wensmann Realty is requesting a Rezoning from the R-1
district to the R-2 district, a Preliminary PUD Plan and a Preliminary Plat, consisting of 60.93
acres to be subdivided into 54 single family lots and 122 townhome lots and 2 common area lots.
Case #00-038 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance creating an overlay district for
the development of senior care facilities.
Old Business:
Case File #00-046 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.501 of the Zoning Ordinance
relating to the combination of nonconforming lots divided by a private street but under single
ownership.
Comprehensive Plan discussion.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCAGEN\AG072400.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 24, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The July 24, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Vonhof at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Criego Present
Atwood Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the July 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
The Commissioners opened and closed Item 5.A. (Case 00-002 and 00-003) Creekside
Estates and moved forward with the presentation.
4. Presentation:
A. Downtown Redevelopment Guide Draft Discussion.
Prior Lake Economic Development Authority President Bob Barsness gave a brief
background on the downtown project and introduced Mark Koegler of Hoisington,
Koegler Group Inc., who presented the Prior Lake Downtown Redevelopment guide.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· A member of the Economic Development Authority, supported the project. A lot of
work needs to be done, this is a starting point.
· The intent is that this document has enough substance to work and develop over a 20-
year plan.
Is this a good framework to start with? If it is, let's go at it in conjunction with the
City and private sector.
Stamson:
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMI~N072400.DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
The groundwork reflects the public meetings and the City as a whole.
· They did a good job putting the project together. It is organized and workable.
· Overall, it is a very positive ground work.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Commissioners.
· Appreciate the effort and hours of the involvement.
· The involvement of the citizens has been great and this document reflects that.
Vonhof:
· The past redevelopment committees never got off the ground. One of the problems
that existed was no wide-based support from the community.
· This process that has been started to develop this document reflects support.
· Likes the strategy laid out. It makes sense.
· Traffic loads have changed dramatically on County Road 21. How is this impact
going to affect the town in 5 years? Koegler explained the County's traffic study
reflects the traffic can be managed. It appears the traffic lights will control the traffic
for several years and can then adjust 20 years down the line.
· Commented on the public and private sectors working together.
· Build on successes. It is realistic? Koegler responded it is. Present building owners
have approached him to see how they can change.
· Agreed visual aspects are important early on.
· Lakefront Park is a unique opportunity to do something.
The City Council will take its first preliminary look at it on August 7. There will be a
public hearing for input.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE DOCUMENT
AND FEEL IT IS AN APPROPRIATE VISION FOR THE CITY AND SUPPORT THE
GROUNDWORK AND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. IT IS AN
IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD FOR THE OVERALL VISION OF THE CITY AS
WE MOVE FORWARD INTO THE NEW CENTURY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Public Hearings:
A. Case #00-002 & #00-003 (continued) David Bell & Freedom Development &
Consulting are requesting an amendment to the approved plan for the Priorwood
Planned Unit Development (PUD 82-12) and for a preliminary plat to be known as
Creekside Estates for the property located at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue
and Priorwood Street.
l:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mnO72400.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 24, 2000 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this item on July 10, 2000.
The Commission continued the hearing to July 24, 2000, to allow the developer to
ad&ess several issues raised in the staff report.
After discussing these issues with the staff, the developer is not able to submit the
necessary information for this meeting. He has therefore requested this item be continued
to the August 14, 2000, Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING
TO AUGUST 14, 2000.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #00-052 Joseph and Molly Cade are requesting a variance from the
minimum setback to the top of bluff and bluff impact zone for the property located
at 6444 150th Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 24, 2000 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of a porch
and deck addition to an existing single family dwelling on the property located at 6444
150th Street. The lot is a legal nonconforming lot of record because there is an existing
structure on the lot which was originally built in a bluff setback zone before setbacks
were established. The applicants are requesting a 25 foot variance to the bluff setback to
permit a porch and deck addition to be setback at the top of bluff rather than at the
minimum 25 foot setback.
On April 4, 2000, the Engineering Department issued an excavating/filling permit for
landscape improvements to the bluff area that included removing old steps and landscape
timbers and replacing them with stone steps and boulder retaining walls.
The applicants have provided an engineer's report on the proposed addition's location in
relation to the bluff impact zone.
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request. In essence,
the Department of Natural Resources is not opposed to the replacement of existing
conditions utilizing the existing footings, but opposes the proposed addition.
Staff felt the hardship criteria with respect to the replacement of the existing porch and
deck into the bluff setback have been met. The requested bluff setback variance can be
reduced to minimize the affect of the addition by replacement of the existing footprint.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn072400.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variance as proposed on Exhibit
A but recommends approval of a bluff setback variance permitting replacement of the
existing deck and porch additions.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Joe Cade, said they were not going to extend the patio to add a hot tub. They
will be removing about 900 square feet of concrete. The proposal is to tear up all of the
concrete and build a 3-season porch, not a 4-season porch. They were having a problem
with ants eating the deck and porch which precipitated some of the decision to replace the
deck. Architects, a surveyor and engineer have been working on this since last fall. They
are trying to improve the bluff and drainage. Cade presented pictures of his home and
explained he cannot change any of the structure without a variance. There were problems
with erosion and runoff. The City approved a grading permit and the applicant
redesigned and improved the landscape on the hillside. The porch is two feet wider
because of the steps. Cade felt rebuilding the existing deck will create the same problem.
The new design will be an improvement. They have done everything staff requested. An
engineer submitted a report in support. The neighbors support their plan.
Criego:
· Questioned if the applicant knew the difference between the existing deck square
footage and the proposed deck. Cade said he did not calculate it out but probably the
same.
· Did the applicant get DNR approval? Cade responded the City approved. The DNR
was not involved.
Atwood:
· Questioned if the hot tub concrete area is there right now? Cade said there is nothing
there but mud and weeds. He explained they did not know they needed a variance
until the contractor applied for a building permit.
· How will the new proposal improve the impact on the bluf~ Cade responded the
entire project improves the bluff by removing the concrete and adding areas for
plants. The footings will not cause any movement to the bluff.
Stamson:
· Are the current footings 12 feet from the house? Cade said there were.
Gary Grote, lives adjacent to Cade's house, said the bluffhas not changed in 20 years and
there has never been a problem. Supported the plan.
Larry Benjamin, also lives adjacent to the applicant, said the bluff law has good intent but
the work being done is to reinforce the bluff. The bluff law was not in place when the
home was built. With proper footings and reinforcement of the bluff, this project will
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\nm072400.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
give a very beautiful appearance. He felt the variance will only enhance what work has
been done so far.
Larry Christenson, lives two doors down, said the neighbors supported the plan.
John (inaudible) 6386 150th Street, appreciated the improvements and supported the
request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Explained the bluff ordinance is a model statute to all cities in the State and the DNR
enforces it fairly strictly.
The house was built before the ordinance.
The State lays out criteria for the variance.
Concurred with staff and DNR that the hardship is met with the replacement but not
the encroachment.
The DNR proposes replacing the deck on the current footings.
Would be willing to allow applicant to replace the footings in the current place and
allow to cantilever the deck 2 feet. This would give the applicant a somewhat larger
deck and fairly close to what he is proposing. It gives the applicant 2 extra feet
without any impact to the bluff.
Atwood:
· Agreed with cantilevering the deck, it allows almost what they are proposing.
· Cades are obviously sensitive to the environment and bluff.
· Because of the footing issue, it could be revised and yet still viable for the applicant
and stay within the boundaries of the bluff setback.
Criego:
· Requested the applicant explain Exhibit C. Cade responded.
· Questioned what was going to be under the deck area. Cade said it would be rock and
pavers and explained the existing runoff problems.
· Questioned staff on the improvements. McDermott responded the applicant applied
for a grading permit with the City because all the work is done above the 904
elevation. The DNR is not involved unless it is below the 904 elevation.
· Kansier explained the grading permits do not require public review. It is done
administratively. The City is required to forward on to the DNR for their comments
on a variance request in the Shoreland District.
· The bluff has been changed and is probably more stable.
· What is being asked for is more in the 90's than the 70's. If the square footage of the
deck is approximately the same it should not impact the bluff.
· Supported the design as long as it stays within the footage.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn072400.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
Vonhof:
· House built 24 years ago into the bluff.
· The actual bluffhas been modified by construction of the house.
· Modifications have been made to the bluff wall for stability.
· The proposed deck will extend 26 feet at the spear. The rest of the deck is
approximately 14 feet wide.
· Explained the bluff ordinance and what can be done with structures.
· Overall, the improvements to the bluff and increased encroachment of a deck is an
improvement.
· By engineering standards one can show the applicant is not causing any damage.
· The Commission has to consider the hardship criteria.
· Would support the reduction of the impervious surface and maintaining the square
footage.
Stamson:
· Looking at the landscape helped out. More inclined to agree that the increase is not
as significant.
· Keep the impervious surface by the placement of the boards.
McDermott said the proposed deck is 175 feet less than the existing deck.
Cade explained the unfinished work.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST,
WITH THE CONDITION THE EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO BE REMOVED.
Vote taken indicated ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:18 p.m.
C. Case #00-043, #00-044 and #00-045 Wensmann Realty is requesting a
Rezoning from the R-1 district to the R-2 district, a Preliminary PUD Plan and a
Preliminary Plat, consisting of 60.93 acres to be subdivided into 54 single family lots
and 122 townhome lots and 2 common area lots.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 24, 2000 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Wensmann Realty, Inc., has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Wensmann 1 st Addition on the property located north of CSAH 82, approximately 1/4
mile west of CSAH 21 and east of Wilds Parkway. The application includes the
following requests:
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn072400.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
· An amendment to The Wilds PUD Plan to relocate a park from the northeast comer of
the intersection of CSAH 82 and Wilds Parkway to the south side of Wilds Parkway,
west of the booster station;
· Rezone approximately 7 acres from The Wilds PUD to the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) districts;
· Rezone approximately 28 acres from the R-1 district to the R-2 district;
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a mixed use development consisting of a total of 178 dwelling
units on 52.43 net acres, for a total density of 3.4 units per acre. The proposed
development includes 56 single family dwellings, 116 dwelling units in 29 four-unit
buildings, and 6 dwelling units in 3 three-unit buildings. The development also includes
private open space.
Wensmann Realty, Inc. is the developer of this project. The application has also been
signed by the current property owners, including Martha Hoover, Thomas and Patricia
McLean, Shamrock Development, Michael and Sue Brattland, Thomas and Karen Hoff
and Timothy and Mary Bothof.
There are several outstanding issues which must be addressed. The staff has discussed
these issues with the developer, and the developer is preparing plans which address the
major items. None of the issues are so major that the project cannot go forward. The
staff therefore recommends approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer must provide specific legal descriptions for the areas to be rezoned
from PUD to R-1, from PUD to R-2 and from R-1 to R-2.
2. Dedicate Outlot A as right-of-way and extend sewer and water service to the north
property boundary in this right-of-way. Profile sheets for the street and utilities must
be provided.
3. Dedicate Lots 12, 70, 71, 72 and 73, Block 5, as parkland. Provide a calculation to
determine the acreage of this area that qualifies for parkland dedication.
4. Revise the lots to meet minimum lot area and width requirements. In addition, net lot
area for those lots with wetlands and NURP ponds must be provided. Net lot area
must meet minimum area requirements.
5. The tree inventory and preservation plan must be revised to include the significant
trees that were not included in the original inventory. It must be revised to identify
the caliper inches to be removed, and the tree replacement required.
6. Revise the landscaping plan to meet the requirements of Section 1107.1900. The
landscaping plan must also identify the necessary replacement trees.
7. Provide an irrigation plan.
8. Provide sidewalk on one side of Street "C" and Street "G".
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\nm072400.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 200O
9. Provide street names for both the public and private streets.
10. Update the Traffic Impact Report to include all of the proposed units.
11. Provide sign elevations and greater detail on the location of the proposed monument
signs.
12. Identify the private streets as outlots on the preliminary and final plat.
13. Provide calculations about the useable open space for the townhouse development.
14. Verify the 100 year flood elevations for the wetlands and NURP ponds and provide a
30' setback from this elevation for all structures.
Stamson and Criego questioned the park area dedications, bluff area and removal of the
wetlands. Kansier explained.
Atwood questioned the location of the trail and existing homes. Kansier responded.
Comment from the public:
Terry Wensmann, Wensmann Homes, said they had no problem meeting all the
conditions in the staff report and have already addressed some of the issues. The sewer
and water service will be met at Outlot A. The park dedication have two alternatives, 1)
remove 3 lots on the steep slopes and 2) eliminate 6 single family lots and move some of
the townhouses. Their engineer has been working on the lot size requirements. The
landscape and tree preservation issues are being addressed. There will be an irrigation
system. They are adding sidewalks. The streets have been named. The townhomes on
the steep slopes will be stabilized. The style oftownhomes will be similar to Glynwater.
They also plan on showing decorative brick to enhance the rear homes that face County
Road 82.
Micki Dalsin, 3620 154th Street NW, said the existing traffic on County Road 82 is a
problem and felt the traffic count report was not correct. She did not object to single
family homes but objected to townhomes stating there is enough traffic and multi-family
homes in the area. Her other concern is the water flow and drainage. The wetlands flow
through her property. At the developer's neighborhood meeting the developer said there
were no accidents on County Road 82. Dalsin spoke of 4 accidents. The traffic problems
have to be addressed. She was also concerned for the marsh and wildlife. She would not
like to see it rezoned to R-2.
John Lundy, 15556 Drake Avenue, lives directly east of Mrs. Dalsin, said his main
concern is the traffic. Not only is there a traffic problem, but the noise generated from the
traffic. It is extremely dangerous to access their street on County Road 82. His other
concem was the wetlands. Lundy felt there would be a number of large trees removed.
Runoff will significantly affect neighboring property. He questioned if anyone has ever
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcminXmn072400.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
addressed the noise level from the traffic. Lundy would like to see the access somewhere
other than County Road 82.
Micki Dalsin, 3620 154th Street, said there doesn't seem to be any control in slowing
down traffic. There will be more accidents.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Concerned for the traffic. Something has to be done.
· A more detailed traffic report could be done.
· Kansier explained 82 is a county road and they control the access points. Some of the
issues like speed are out of the City's control.
· McDermott said the City has had several meetings with the County to discuss access.
The County is concerned. They will allow this development access at Foxtail Trail
and will require the developer to put in bypass lanes (as required on the Glynwater
development). There will be one more access with the Wilds South development.
County Road 82 is not in the County's 5 year Capital Improvement Program.
Stamson:
· 82 is a county road not a residential road. The idea behind a county road is to move
traffic along. If it is restricted to such a level that it is inconvenient to get onto a
county road, that traffic will be shoved on to a residential street. Its not just this road,
its other areas as well.
· On the larger issue, comfortable with the split of the residential densities. Support the
request to amend the zoning and PUD development.
· No specific concerns with the overall concept.
· Support staff's recommendations with conditions.
Criego:
· Questioned the developer on the issues of damage or removal of the wetlands, causing
additional flooding and taking out growth. Nick Polta, Pioneer Engineering,
responded and explained the overall drainage.
· Polta also addressed heavy rain runoff stating it would not affect the drainage. He
also explained the N.U.R.P. ponds and the tree removal by the wetlands.
· Questioned staff on the procedure for ensuring the water flow to the wetlands are not
disturbed. McDermott explained the engineer provides detailed calculations. The
wetland mitigation plan is reviewed by a technical evaluation panel consisting of City
staff as well as other agencies who are experts in the field.
Vonhof:
· The increasing traffic on County Road 82 is a concem.
· The improvement of County Road 21 has made a big impact on traffic. The traffic
on County Road 82 will increase.
1 :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn072400.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
· Agreed with amendment to move the park.
· The rezoning of The Wilds PUD is acceptable.
· The overall plan as amended with the improvements and conditions is a good plan for
the area.
Kansier clarified the park area eliminated 6 single family lots and added two 4-unit
buildings, a net gain of 2 units.
Criego:
· Liked the developer's sensitivity of the wetlands.
· Liked the combination of single family and townhomes.
· Enjoys working with a developer who will work the community and City.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND AMENDING
THE WILDS PUD PLAN TO RELOCATE A PARK FROM THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CSAH 82 AND WILDS PARKWAY TO THE
SOUTH SIDE OF WILDS PARKWAY, WEST OF THE BOOSTER STATION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND REZONING
APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES FROM THE WILDS PUD TO THE R-1 AND R-2
DISTRICTS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND REZONING 28
ACRES FROM THE R-1 DISTRICT TO THE R-2 DISTRICT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN
AS WENSMANN 1 ST ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE CONDITIONS
INCLUDING REMOVING THE SIX SINGLE FAMILY UNITS FOR PARKLAND.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS WENSMANN'S 1ST ADDITION,
SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn072400.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
This item will go before the City Council August 7, 2000.
D. Case #00-038 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance creating an
overlay district for the development of senior care facilities.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 24, 2000 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
On two previous occasions, the City Council has discussed the idea of senior care
facilities and their treatment in the zoning ordinance. Because of the special needs of
persons living in such facilities, the Council asked staff to research the issue and report on
the results. Following extensive review of the planning literature, staff concluded that an
overlay district approach in several zoning districts made the most sense as a way of
dealing with the issue. Council concurred and referred the matter to the Planning
Commission for it's review and input.
Comments from the public:
City Councilmember Mike Gundlach, said this was proposal he put forward. It primarily
came from three proposals on the table. They were trying to resolve the density of the
neighborhood i.e. Creekside Estates. The second one was the north end of downtown for
senior housing. The third area is behind the Park-Nicollet Clinic. The Council was
looking for some kind of input from the Commissioners.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Did not have any disagreement with what the City is trying to accomplish.
· Would like more time to look it over.
· Questioned if it would be the discretion of the City staffor Planning Commission?
Kansier explained the process.
Stamson:
· No problem taking a longer look at it.
· Understands the concern. This allows more flexibility with the land use than the
current ordinance allows. It is a good approach.
· One concern under incentives - building heights - allowing a building higher than fire
equipment. The other concern is the wording under 166a "Modifications" The
language is too strong. Suggest dropping the word "only".
· No other real concerns. Interested to see how it works out.
Atwood:
· Passed.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn072400.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
Jury 24, 20o0
Vonhof:
· Agreed to continue.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO AUGUST 14, 2000.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Old Business:
A. Case File/t00-046 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.501 of the
Zoning Ordinance relating to the combination of nonconforming lots divided by a
private street but under single ownership.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 24, 2000 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
This issue was discussed at the July 7, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. There was
testimony in support of the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission had some
reservations about allowing garages and detached accessory structures located across the
private street from the principal use without some oversight. Consequently, the
Commission directed staff to develop additional language which would provide for
Commission review and approval of such requests.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· No concerns with the wording.
Criego:
· Questioned lot combinations.
· Accepted the wording.
Kansier explained the process.
Atwood:
· Agreed.
Vonhof:
· The language is fine.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE DRAFT
ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn072400.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2000
This will go before the City Council on August 7, 2000.
B. Comprehensive Plan discussion.
The Commission decided to continue the discussion.
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn072400.doc 13