Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-05-2005MINUTES • REGLILAR MEETING - MONTICC:LLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tt1I+~SDAY, APRIL 51h, 2005 6:OU P.M Commissioners in Attendance Council Liaison Present Staff in Attendance: 1. Call to order. Dick Frie, Rod I)ragsten, Lloyd Hilgari, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Glen Posusta Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittnlan/NAC The meeting was called to order by Chairman Frie at 6:0,5 p.m. 2. A royal of the minutes of the re rular Plannin 7 Corllrnr ssron mcetul T held Tuesda March 1 si ?00.5. MOTION WAS MAI)h: I3Y COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO A.PPROVF~,'LIIH: MINU~1'I/S OF THE REGt1LAR PLANNING COMMISSION MF;I-:`l'[N(7 HELD Tt1ESDAY, MARCH IST, ?005, St1I3.Il-;C`f `I'O MO[)ll~'ICA7'IONS TO I'AGE12, ITEM 10 PI~NDINCT Ii'IJIZ'hIII-~It DISCLJSSION. MOTION SECONDED L3Y APPRUVh;[) I3Y COMMISSIONER HILGART. MU~L'IUN AI'1'ROVED LINANINIOUSLY. ~. C:onsideration of adding items to the a erg lda. No items were considered for addition to the agenda; however Chairman Frie noted that items 5, 6, 7 and 11 were removed frorll the Agenda, and clarification of item 10, page 12 front the Tuesday, March 1st, 2005 meeting oI`the Commission would be discussed as item 1 ~B of the Agenda. The Cormission asked if additional public notice would be given regarding the itcnls to be removed from the Agenda. Planner Steve CTrittrllan explained that an aclditiorlal public notice would he provided. 4. Citizen cor~lmcnts. Chairman Frie called for citizen's comments. Jeneen Curvcrs residing at 611.5 Wildwood Way was requesting a sign to be located in the public right-of--way providing additional protection to an autistic child residing in the ncighborllood. "I~he cornrnission referred the sign request to the City Council through Council member Posusta. No other citizen's corllments were heard. C] Planning Commission Agenda 04/OS/OS S. Consideration of a rec uest for a Conditional Use Permit fiar a Conce t Sta. =e Planned Unit Devclo ment for .Icfferson Commons an 890 acre mixed-use develo mcnt. A lica.nt: I-Icrita e Development., MOTION I3Y COMMISSIONER SPARrC'"/. "I'U CONTINUE "1'I ITS Pt1BLIC HEARING TO A Ft1"PURE MEE't'LNG OF THF, PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MO"I'lUN APPROVED t-TNANIMOiTSI,Y. 6. Consideration of a re uest for a Sim le Subdivision to create two conformin r un Tatted lots rn a PZM Pcrforrmance Zoned-Mixed %onin7 District. A licant: Mtoinettc Breiwick. . MOrI'ION BY COMMISSIONER 1 [1[,GART TO CON"I'INUE THIS Pi7I3LIC' I-TEARING "I'O A. F'l-1'I'URE ME1:'I'ING OF "l'I II~: k'LANNING COMMISSION. MO:hION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MO'T'ION APPROVED UNANIMUt1SLY. 7. Consideration of an Ameiadment to a Conditional Ilse Permit for the intensification of use of a drive-tlarotr h at a convenience fast food establishment. A licant: Mcl)onald's Cor oration. • MO"PION BY COMMISSIONER IIII-,GARY TO CONTINt1E THIS P1.1I3[,IC HEARING "I'O A F'U'hURE MF,Iis"L'ING OF'I'I IH; PLANNIN(-; C'UMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMULISLY. 8. Public I Icarin 7 --- Consideration of a re uest I'or Variance from the 5 foot arkin 7 setback as re aired b the Monticello Zonis. Ordinance to create adrive-throu h aisle for a convcnicnce fast-food establishment. f1 licant: Frauenshuh Conn . anies Fred Patch presented a brief staff report and explaiiacd that the variance was consistent with prior approvals allowed for the Planned ilnit Development, and was needed to allow for a tight turning radius at the drive through proximate to the intcrseciion of Chelsea Road and State Flwy 2.5. Patch further explained that this is a unique circumstance due to the tight conditions of` the D(~ Grill and Chill site and should be considered a housekeeping matter to be consistent with prior approvals. Chairman Frie opened ar~d closed the puhlic hearing as no public comments were offered. MO"PION BY SI'AR`I'Z TO RF,C'OMMEND APNRUVAL OF THE VAKIANCE ALLOWING TI~1~; WLST 55 FF;h"1' OF THF, DRIVE THROUGH LANE TO BF, L,OCA~I'ED WITHIN "hHE 5 FOO"-L. Sk•:"I'BACK ARIA ALONC7 C;I-IELSEA ROAD. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOC]SL,Y. -l- Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 MOTION S1~:CONDED BY C'OMMISSIONI~~R DRAGS'1'EN. MOTION CARRIIi;U. 9. Public Hearin -Consideration of a rc uest for a Conditional tlse Permit for a Develo nacnt Sia e Planned Unit Develo latent Pi1D and Prelimiliar Plat for Po _ tar Hill a residential subdivision consistill of 228 single Tamil units 180 townholne units and 300 a artment units' and a recttest for Rezone frolaa A-O A riculture-O en S ace to R-lA R-1 and R-2A 'Sin =1e- famil Residential. R-3 Medium Dcnsit Residential B-3 Lli hwa Business and PZR. Perlorlllancc Gone-Residential . A licant: Iasi rnia Develo meat. City Planner Steve Cirittmall presented a staff report to the ('ommisison describing the request by Illsigllia [)cvelopment to allow a Development Stage Pl1D and preliminary plat for amixed- use development to be known as Poplar 1lill. The subject site is 230 acres in arcs and is located SOLltl1 of ~)Ut~' Street Northeast and west of the Ciroveland Developlllent. The project includes a 1"CgUCSt for reGOlalllg frorla 1tS Cllrrellt A-O, Agricultural-Open Space designation, to a mix of R- 1, R-lA, R-2A, R-~, dnd PAR 7.OIIlIIg. Grittnaarl's report included planning Staff's analysts, TCV1eW, alld rCCOI11tI1eIldatlonS regardlllg the revised plans dated March 14, 2005. Crrittlaaan noted that proposed zoning and development appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Ilse Plan, and that the proposed coning designations arc consistent with adjoining land uses to the south. Gl•ittlaaan noted that a separate review will be required for development in that portion of land located in the northern p~Irt of tlae plat proposed for future development. Grittnaan referred to all conditions described by the staff repol't which should be referred to for a complete description of Cirittman's presentation. A presentation was made by David Atkins, representing Insignia Development. He also introduced .Icff'1'roy and another representative of Insignia. Within the presentation, Atkins stated that. Insignia lags reduced the number of apartlrrents to a total of 200 units, in four buildings with 25 units each, representing that the apartments would have underground parking, a pool, clubhouse, and common green space. Chairman 1•'ric opened the public hearing. Dennis .lordan, residing at 3214 -- 90t~' Street NE was recognized and spoke to his concerns relating to: 1. high density commercial development along 90c~' Street NE rather than low density resideltial that would be compatible to neighboring residential development; 2. traffic increases on 90`x' Street NE that would be caused by this developnacnt; 3. possible widening of 90'" Street NE, expressing that no right of way should be taken form the north side of 90`x' St. NE; 4. inappropriate and unlawful commercial uses on the Schluender land inclttding auto storage, a storage building absence oI'regttired screening, VlI1eS, trees, etc. Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 5. proposed commercial coning that is incompatible with existing land uses given that there is no need to provide commercial or industrial uses in this area. Dan Lemrn, residing at 113 Cameron Avenue NE was recognized and expressed that he was concerned with what the goals of the City may bc. He stated that the City should be against further development of townhomes, noting that the proposed development is 20%~ single family and 80`% apartments and townhomes. He stated that the City's vision of prohibiting further development of townhomes should becornc a reality and that this and other .new developments arc only providing economic advantage for developers. In response to Lind's concerns, Chairman Fric questioned the 80:20 ratio of multi-family to single family residential. Grittman stated that the ratio prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan of the City is 25% m~rltifamily/townhome to 75% single family residential. I [e stated that there is an overall density os 2.6 units per acre density. Dennis .lordan asked where the Long Range Land l lse Plan had been adopted into the City Cornprellensivc Plan. Grittman stated 1998 or 1999. .lordan asked if the Township had been consulted with regard to the project. .Icremy Russert, residing at 8975 Prescott Drive was recognized and spoke to the buffering needed between proposed commercial uses and t11c Groveland residential development. Insignia representatives indicated that they would likely grade to the property line grid that the berrtl that presently abuts the Cirovelarld dcveloprnent is entirely on the property to be clcvcloped by Insignia. The berm was to be partially rera~oved for drainage purposes. Russert regLrestcd that the Commission require the developer to maintain a strong landscaping buffer and maintain the berm. Kim Garber, residing at 2566 90`x' Street NIJ was recognized and questioned as to why their residence was not provided with public notice of this development. O'Neill explained that even though the City must notice within 300 feet of the property subject to development, the City chose to extend notice to much farther into the surrounding area. Garber expressed that notice should extend I~~rther out into the 'Township and that the industrial and excavating uses that presently are upon the property are dangerous and the traffic Iron the proposed dcveloprnent may make the area even more dangerous. Garber also expressed concern with regard to debris that may be buried orl the development property, then inquired as to how th.e City is supporting the commercial development of downtown and stated that she concurs with .lordan. Sharon Mayer residing at 3191 90`-' Street NF, was recognized and expressed concern for school bus safety on 90t-' St. NE in the event the dcveloprnent is approved. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Councilor Posusta stated that the curve nn 90r'' St. NF: would become an intersection upon construction of Chelsea Road into the new industrial park. Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 [ lilgart stated that he would approve the development as long as the density did not exceed 3 lots per acre and if the apartments were excluded from the first phase of the development. He took no issue with the K-1 A coning. Uragsten asked if the roads would be private or public. Insignia reported that roads would he public and private. Dragsten asked about landscaping that may be along School Boulevard. Grittman stated that landscaping of School Boulevard would be planned to include diversity in plantings. Uragsten asked if there would he a homeowners association, said that he was concerned with traffic and asked il`the trail plan had been completed for the devcloprnent. Insignia and CTrittrnan responded to the affirmative to all questions. Uragsten asked if the 20 acres of Schlrieruler's commercial/industrial use would be in the 1 s` phase of the development. O'Neill stated that it would be included in the ls` phase according to the presented Insignia plan. l~ragsten stated. chat the covenants do not appear to match the coning ordinance standards. Insignia stated that he covenants were only in draft form and would be made to match or exceed ordinances. Dragster said that lie would like to sec the nur~~ber of multilamily and townhouses lowered. Insignia confirmed that there would be no more than 200 apartment units, all of which would have underground parking to meet the PLR minimum lot area requirenacnts. Frio suggested that a stipulation to approval of the apartments may be widening and reconstruction of 90`x' Street. Spartz asked ifi the swimming pool in the association area would be private or pcrblic. lnsignia reported that the pool would be private. Spartz also asked iI` all It-2A dwellings • would be constructed with double garages. Insigia confirmed that all would have two car garages. Suchy was concerned that the K-1 A and commercial areas including the apartments were too close together. Insignia said that they would be providing extensive landscaping and buffer yards. Suchy also asked who is responsible arld what is the timeline for Schluender to cease their industrial and excavating business. Insignia said that there is no timeline; however, they would likely remain until Phase 4 of the development. O'Neill stated that the unlawful nonconformities must be "peeled away" from SchlLrendcr's business as part ol'thc development agreement and prior to issuance ol~ any gradirag permit to begin development. Suchy also asked who would he responsible for roadway median landscaping and rl~aintenance. lnsignia said that those portions that hecorne part of the public right-of--way, would be maintained by the City. The balance would be maintained by the Homc Owner's Association. Erie examined each of the conditions of approval considered by Lxhibit "l:". He expressed concern with regard to the depth anal fencing of swimming pools. Frie asked if the Parks Commission had. considered the parks. O'Neill said that the Parks Commission wants substantial investment in the parks up front, with the baseball and other athletic fields constructed Iirst. In response to Frie, O'Neill explained that covenants would be incorporated into the Development . • - ;i - Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 Hrie asked Grittmar~ if the project could be made ready for Development Stage PUD review with the incorporation of items 24 and 25 into Exhibit Z . Condition 24 would be that 9Ut~' Street musts be redesigned and built to a urban roadway section when the Insignia development is 30% developed; and, Condition 2S would be the current rion-conforming conditions of the Schluender businesses and uses must he addressed and corrected with this Planned tlnit Devclopmer~rt and plat. Grittman agreed. Fire also asked if the covenants and declaration would be incorporated into the conditions of the PUD according to Exhibit/,, item. 22. Grittman said yes. Posusta reassured that as the value of the land goes up, Schluender would sell and cease their excavating business. I-le asked if the proposed open and outdoor storage ordinance changes would aiTect Schluender's business. He also expressed that lie believes that the 50 acre park in the Insignia development area offsets the apartment development within the project. Patch stated that lie is concerned that if the development pattern of Monticello continues to be by Manned l.Jnit Development with special conditions for each PUD, then enforcement of those I'tJD requirements will become a heavy burden on the City and city staff. Suchy said that she would prefer to see parking ~:rs demonstrated rather than built and not used. She questioned the number proposed and felt that 100 stalls must be enough. Posusta. agreed. Chairman Fric callecl for a motion. MOTION BY C:'OMMISSIONER I IILGAR'1' TO RECOMMEND Al'PRUVAL UF' "fHE REZONIN<i F"ROM A-O TO A MIX 01= R-1 A, R-1, R-2A, R- ~, AND PZR, AS PROPOSED IN ~CI Ih; PRELIMINARY NLAT DATED MARCI 114, 2005, AS AMENDED LiY INSIGNIA UEVT:LC)1'MEN"I"f0 PROVIDE NO MO[tE TIIAN TWO HLJNUIZED APAR"I'MEN"I' l1NITS AND AS OTHERWISI~. AMENDED TO DATE BY INSIGNIA DEVEI~OPMEN"I', BASED ON A F'1NDING THA"I' THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD RI?FL,ECT TI IE 1NTT~.N"f OF TI IE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION APPROVED tJNANIMUl1SLY. MOTION F3Y COMMISSIONER DRAGSTIJN TO RECOMMEND AI'PRUVAL OF C'HE DEVF.I,OPMI?Nl' STACIE I'tJD BASED ()N A FINDING "1"HAT "I'HE PROPOSED PUD IS CONSISTEN'T' WITH 'I'I-IE DUALS Uli' THE COMPRL~.I4ENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT "I'O THE APNI,ICABLI_, CONDI'I'TONS OF EXl IIBIT Z AND ADDING CONUCTIONS: 24 90`x' Street must be redesigned and built to an urban roadway section when the lnsignia development is ~0% developed; and, • 25. The current raon-conforming conditions of the Schluender businesses and uses must be addressed and corrected with this Planned l-lnit Developnacnt and -t;- Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 plat. MOTION SECONDED BY CUMMISSIUNLR HILC7AK'I'. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOIJSLY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT I3ASFD ON A FINDING "I'1 !A'1"l'HE PLAT" MEETS THE REQLIIREMF,N 1'S O1~' 'I'1 IE '/.ONING ORDINANCE, Si7B.TECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH THE TWO ADDITIONS (Sh,I? AI3OVL;]. MO"PION SEC'ONI)F~.I) f3Y CUMMISSIUNI-;R I IILC7AR'h. MOTION APPROVED t1NANIMOi1SLY. 1.0. Public Hearini; -Consideration of a reUUest for an amendment to Conditional IJsc Permit for a Develgplnent Stake Planned Unit Uevelopment (P[JD)_I~r the R-lA zoned potion of the plat of Spirit } tills. Applicant: Maplewood Development City .Planner Steve Grittrnan presented a staff report in summary. Map-ewood Development is seeking an amendment to their PUD that would permit revisions in the R-lA lot rcquirelnents for the single family portion of their project. Steve noted that the City has revised, by I'L1D, its R-1 A standards for both of the previous two R-lA projects -Hillside I~'arms and ('artiste Village. The primary issue raised by the developers i5 that the 1,400 square feet foundation Iequirement for two-story houses is too large 1'or builders in the current market. Steve noted that the R-lA zoning w~IS not designed with the "current market" in mind and reiterated the Spirit I tills requests to: 1. Reduce the I`ront setbacks to ~0 feet, from a 35 foot average. 2. Reduce the total side setback area. to 15 feel hom the current 21 feet. 3. Reduce 2 story foundation size from 1,400 square feet to 1,200 square feet. 4. Reduce garage size lrom 700 square feet to 660 square feet. S. Change landscaping requirement to two deciduous and one conifer, plus sod (from two trees in the boulevard per street frontage). Wlth regard to item 1., the ordinance currently allows some 30 foot setbacks. The averaging was inserted to grant flexibility and encourage a variation in setback, rather than a regimented 30 feet as in typical single I~Ilnily subdivisions. With regard to item 2., the purpose of the increased side setbacks is to require some spaciousness between homes, rather than allow a more cramped building separation. `I'hc applicants have the option of increasing lot width if they are coa~ccrncd that their houses will not flt on a 90 foot wide lot. -~- Planning Commission Agenda 04/OS/OS With regard to itcnr i., this reduction. has been allowed by PUD in the other two R-1~1 subdivisions previously. The City has the discretion in a PUD to follow these previous decisions, or find that illis particular project should be held to a different standard. With regard to item 4., 660 square feet would accommodate a minin~run~ 3 car garage dimension. Staff believes that the 12-1 A was not designed to accommodate minimum dimensions. With regard to item S., staff believes that the current landscaping standards have been reasonable, and ihat creating different standards for each project leads to confusion and difficulty with enforcerrrent anti monitoring. The applicant is encouraged to apply the proposed standards to their project. Chairman Erie asked if split entry homes were prohibited within the R-1~1 District. Gr'ittman inclieatccl that split entries were limited i.n Carlisle Village only under thew terms of the 1'lJl). Chairman Frie opened the public hearing, recognising Renee McCullough.. She spoke in opposition to any reductions in the lt- I A standards as related to size of homes. She also expressed concerns relating to traffic safety on Penning Avenue, with specific concern fir pedestrians. She felt that a traffic study is needed on Fenning. McCullough expressed that there were too t~lany townhomes. ()'Neill reviewed roadway upgrades being planned for H'cnning. Dean Parker, residing at 6102 Wildwood Way spoke against changes to the K-1 A standards, wants "step-up" large home lots. Deane Carvers residing at Gl 15 Wildwood Way expressed conccrrzs regarding tree preservation along the south property line. Mario C'occiar•ella of Maplewood Development explained that some tree loss was required in order io accomplish walk-out lots on the soutl~ edge oI`ihe development si.ie. Michelle Parker, residing at 0102 Wildwood Way spoke against changing the R-lA standards and the City acquiescing io developers. Michael Gross, residing on Wildwood Way encouraged the Commission to consider site access carefully, expressing traffic concerns on Ferining. Chairman Fire closed the public hearing. Suchy was concerned with changes proposed to R-1 A standards and stated that changes are unwarranted and asked the developer what has changed from the original approval. C~ -~- Planning Commission Agenda 04/05/05 C'occiarella responded with an explanation relating to reductions in front yard setbacks to allow for rear yard pools and ball courts. I Ic also said that a gas line casement interferes with the buildable area of some lots. Spartz asked the developer as to why these changes were not brought to the Commission earlier. The ceveloper said that they were focusing on townhome development earlier and did not have the need io address the R-lA area at that time. Drageten was not in favor of typical split entry homes in the R-lA district but said that setback adjustments ntay he allowable if the homes built are extraordinarily attractive. Hilgart said that the final development standards determined for Carlisle Village should be applied to Maplewood. Posusta spoke in favor of reducing tl~IC ground t7oor area to 1,200 square feet only i`or iwo- story horncs. Chairman Frie st.innnari~ed the discussions of the Commission, and recognized [)ale Gobermiller, residilig at 6100 Wildwood Way. Mr. Gobcrrniller said that Monticello has a "ton of starter homes" and that the City should maintain existing home size standards. • Mario Cocciarella requested that the preliminary plat be extended and referred to the City COl1I1C11. Chairman Erie closed the public hearing. MO"I'IUN WAS MADI~: BY SUCHY'1"O DENY THh: CI4ANCrL:S, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THIS. K-1A REGULA"PIONS WERL; k?S fABLISHh.U TO PRESI~;RVE HIGI I AMI~.NI'I'Y LANDS i~UR I-IOUSINC~ S'I~YLES THA"[' PROVID[? SIGNIFICAN"I' MOVE- i1P OPPORTt1Nl'1'IES TO THIN. MONTICELLO I COi1SING MARKET, WITH THE tJNDF?RS'I'ANDING TI IA l' THERE MAY BE A LIMITED MARI<l~;'I` FOR SUC:1-i HOUSING AT "I'1 IE CIIRREN'i' "TIME. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION BY ('OMMISSIONF;R Sl-'ARTZ TO RECOMMLND APPROVAL OF C1-IANC7ES NiJMBERI'.U: 1. Reduce the front setbacks to 30 feet, from a 35 loot average. 2. Reduce the total side setback area to 15 feet frota~ the current 21 Ieet. Reduce ?story foundation size from 1,400 square feet to 1,200 square feet, also to provide the same development standards as in Carlisle Village to nol allow split entry house styles, based on a finding that the current standards are generally appropriate, however, some modification are necessary to ensure that the purpose of the Spirit hills Pi1D is realized. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER I IILGART. MOTION APPROVED 4 "l'O 1, WI"I'1I COMMISSIONh.R SiJCHY OPPOSED. _~~_ P1allning C'olnmission Agenda 04/O5/US 1 1. Public I Iearin, - Colsideration of a re nest to amend the Cit ol`Monticcllo Zonin , (7rdinance rclatin r to tl~c re 7ulation of O en and Outdoor Story ~c. Continued to the Planning Commission meeting in May. 12. Public Hearin -Consideration of an amendment to the Zonin r Ordinance re ~ulatin relocation of lawfill non-conformin billboard si ns. A _ rc.ant:_ C1 _pp 'ty of Monticello Chairman Prie opened and closed the public hearing after hearing an explanation of the major points fI'om the staff report. Dragstcn asked who will move the signs. Sta.fi~ said that the City has a responsibi I ity to provide for the relocation of uses displaced by the new public use and that it is likely that the owner Lamar Advertising would move the signs. MU(1~lUN I3Y COMMiSSIUNER DR.ACTS'fEN TO RECOMMIrNI) Al'1'RUVAL.. Ol~' "I'I II: PROI'(:)SED ORDINANCE AMENDMEN"1', BASED UN A I'INDING'1'I IAT THE ORI)INANCI-: PRUVIDh;S [~UR A RF;ASUNABLF. ALTERNATiVI•; "I'U THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF' IMMEDIA 1'I? REMOVAL IN CASES OI,' PI.IBLIC ACQi JiSI"I'IUN. MO"I ION SECONDI/D BY SPARTZ. MO"I'IUN AI'PR(7Vi;D LINANIMUUSLY. 1 J. PIallIllll T Conlmis5ion TOlll' There was a brief discussion relating to the Planning Commission and Council taking a tour oI`nei~,hboring communities to review development. 1 iB. Motion Clarification, March Minutes A brief discussion clarified the opinion of the Planning Commission that in the R-1 A district, a "split Entry" home is a home with a small split foyer from which one tliusi either walk up a stairway or walk down a stairway to living areas of the honk. 14. Adjourn. MO"1'lUN BY CUMMiSS10NER DRACTSTEN TO AD.IOiJRN. MOTION SRCONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MO"I'lUN APPROVED. Recorder