Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 05-05-1998 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 5, 1998 . 7 pm. Members Present: Members Absent: Council Liaison Absent: Staff Present: Also Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Robbie Smith Dick Martie Clint Herbst Fred Patch, Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman Mayor Bill Fair 1. Call to order. Chairman Dick Frie called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.. 2. Approval ofminJ,ltes of the regular meeting held April 7. 1998. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 7, 1998. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. One item was added to the agenda: Chairman Frie asked Mr. Fred Patch to provide an interpretation of City Code section [8-3] relating to required screening required between multiple family dwellings and single family dwellings. The item was added as an update under item 16 below. 4. Citizen comments. Hearing none, Chairman Frie continued with the agenda. 5. Continuation of Public Hearing - Consideration ofa con<Jitional use permit allowini open sales as an accessory use in the B-4. Regional Business District. Location: 101 West Broadway, Lot 9 & 10. Block 52. Original Plat. Applicant, Scott Rolfe. Skippers Pools and Spas. This item was presented to the Commission by Fred Patch. Me Patch explained that this item was previously before the Planning Commission on April 7, 1998. At that time the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit to allow open sales of swimming pools at 101 West Broadway. On April 13, 1998, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and moved that the application should be returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration: It was explained by Mr. Patch that the Council determined that there appeared to be additional information in the application relating to on-site parking and drive aisles that C:\OFFICE\!PATCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN Page 1 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 required further consideration by the Commission. In addition to the drive aisle concerns, the City Council mentioned the impact the outdoor display may have on the intentions of the Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan as adopted into the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. It was further explained by Mr. Patch that since the time this item was brought before the Council, Mr. Rolfe had proposed an entirely new plan for outside display and sale of his swimming pool products on adjoining property currently owned by the City of Monticello HRA. In cooperation with the Monticello Community Partners [MCP], Mr. Rolfe and MCP would develop a public gathering space on the front lf2 of the BRA property and a fenced swimming pool display area on the back 1;2 of the property. Mr. Rolfe addressed the commission and stated that the fence would fully enclose the pool display area and that the pools would not contain water. Ms. Barb Esse spoke on behalf of the MCP and expressed that as designed, this proposal represents a superb win-win solution for the City, MCP, and Skipper's Pools. MOTION BY DICK FRlE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE APPROVED, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND SALES USE AS PROPOSED BY THE PLAN RECOMMENDED BY THE MCP AND PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION ON MAY 5, 1998 IS: ,.. connected with the principal use and limited to no more than 30% ofthe gross floor area ofthe principal use, .. compatible in its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, .. compatible in its relationship to the geographical area and the character of the surrounding area, .. justified by a demonstration of the need for such use, and .. does not substantially depreciate the area in which it is proposed; and, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. A satisfactory lease or arrangement with the City of Monticello B.R-A.; B. Lighting must be directed away from the public right of way; C. Parking stalls must be clearly striped and marked; D. No permanent or temporary signs shall be erected on the outdoor display; E. Any swimming pool or spa displayed outdoors must be provided with a continuous surrounding barrier to prevent entry; F. Outdoor swimming pool or spa displays must not contain any water; and, G. This conditional use permit shall be issued for the term of one (I) year from the date of approval by the City Council, and shall be subject to renewal by the same procedural requirements as the initial conditional use permit. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN Page 2 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning amendment from A,gricuhural to R-PUD (Residential Planned Unit Development) and a request for concept stage approval for a Preliminaty Plat application. Location: NW 1/4 ofNW 1/4 of Section 19. Applicant, Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation/Wildwood Ridge. Staff report was presented by Steve Grittman. Mr. Grittman explained that Darrel Farr Development Corporation has applied for approval to develop single family plat of a 79 lot single family development to be known as "Wildwood Ridge". This property has been known as the "Anderson" property, and is currently unincorporated but within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. The property consists of approximately 39 acres straddling County Road 118. The development portion of the plat would occur on the southwest side of 118, with about three and one half acres northeast of 118 taken up by wetlands and storm ponding. Mr. Grittman explained the desire of both the City and the Developer to preserve the natural resources of the "Monte Club Hill". Me. Grittman suggested the creation ofa special set of considerations for development of the Monte Club Hill area. Mr. Carlson questioned the increased density of residential development in the lower areas of the proposed plat, asking if the increased density will provide a more tree preserving development up the hill. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing, recognizing Ms. Cathy O'Connel of McCombs Frank Roos, Associates. Ms. O'Connel stated that their design development goals were to preserve trees and to maintain a reasonable return on the development for the developer. She presented a lengthy review of the development process and indicated that the process led the development to a PUD to in response to preservation of the slopes and trees. The development is to establish 1.5 acres of park and trails within the plat. It is intended by the developer that those parks and trails will be dedicated to the City. She noted that the house pad widths will be maintained at a 50' minimum width with a minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet, creating a total of78 lots. Chairman Frie recognized Mr. Brent Nolbe, a resident of the Meadow Oaks Subdivision. Mr. Nolbe expressed concerns relating to drainage from the proposed development. He was concerned that the drainage would have adverse effects on the drainage way through Meadow Oaks. Mr. Jeff O'Neill addressed his concerns, assuring him that the storm water drainage system has been and will continue to be properly engineered to receive and outflow drainage of the new development. Mr. Nolbe also was concerned about the proposed widening of Co. Rd. 118 and stated that he is aware that the ROW will be widened by 8'. Mr. Nolbe also was concerned that he understood that only one of his neighbors had received notice of the public hearing for this development. Chairman Frie recognized Mr. Ralph Mack. Mr. Mack was concerned with storm water C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\OS-OS-98.M1N Page 3 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 from the proposed development. Chairman Frie next recognized Mr. Scott Sontek. Mr. Sontek was also concerned with storm water from the proposed development. Hearing no other comments, Chaitman Frie closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carlson expressed concerns relating to the size of lower lots in the subdivision. He counted 30 lots that would be under 80' in width. He also questioned how the trail ways would be tied in to the development. Commissioner Dragsten also questioned access to park and trail systems and ifthe streets internal to the PUD would be public or private streets. He had concerns about the hammerhead/dead end street and maintenance. Mr. Dragsten agreed with the need to reduce the width of streets to preserve trees and generally spoke to the positive aspects of the development. Jeff O'Neill stated that the engineering design details would be more worked out prior to the next meeting. Mr. Dragsten questioned whether or not the City should consider modification of the Zoning Code to reflect the same development standards that are intended for this PUD. Chairman Frie questioned the value of the homes to be built in the development. Ms. Lucinda Carter ofFarr Development stated that the value of he homes built in the development would likely be between $140,000 to $250,000. Chairman Frie also asked Mr. Grittman about the annexation procedure. Grittman stated that this annexation is well defined by the procedures of the OAA agreement. Chairman Frie asked about the park dedication requirements for this development. Farr Development has committed to the dedication of park lands and trails to the City, not in lieu of park dedication fees that are to be assessed against the development. Ms. Lucinda Carter expressed the desire to preserve the natural resources of the area to be developed. She said that the building pads for each lot would be pre-built and subject to developer control in order to preserve the trees and slopes on the lots. Chairman Frie asked if we can do more with this application than concept plan approval. Mr. Grittman stated that the application was incomplete at the time of the last application deadline and would be on the next agenda for preliminary plat, concept stage PUD, and rezoning consideration. Commissioner Smith expressed appreciation for the efforts of Farr Development to preserve the natural resources of the development site. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO TABLE ACTION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONCEPT STAGE PUD, AND REZONING, PENDING CONSIDERATION OF C:\OFFICE\!PATCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN Page 4 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 ADDITIONAL CONCEPTS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Public Hearing - Simple subdivision. Location: Lot 14, Block 1. Hillcrest 2nd Addition. Applicant, Daryl Tindle. Staff report was presented by Mr. Steve Grittman. Mr. Grittman explained that Mr. Daryl Tindle is requesting approval of a simple subdivision of property located at 1 707 West Broadway. This parcel is adjacent to Hillcrest Park, and has a single family home facing West Broadway, a county highway. Lot requirements include a minimum of 12,000 square feet and 80 feet of width, with setbacks of30 feet front yard, 30 feet rear yard, and 10 feet side yard. The parcel is encumbered by a power line easement which restricts the ability to create buildable area. With an existing home and detached garage on the parcel, any new side lot line is required to be located no closer than 10 feet to the current structures. The applicant estimated the locations of the existing structures on the Site Plan. Based on this drawing there should be adequate room to construct a new home on the newly subdivided parcel without requiring setback variances. However, this will need to be verified by certified land survey prior to recording of the subdivision or approval of any building permit. With regard to lot sizes, both lots will be significantly oversized compared to the R-l requirements. Mr. Tindle illustrated a number of alternative land trades which involve remnants of parcels under the power line easement. He also indicated that the County has given verbal approval of driveway access offofCSAH 75. Mr. Grittman suggested that the City Engineer should comment on the need for additional utility and drainage easements in this area. Since the lots were previously platted in an alternative layout, easements were provided which would no longer conform to the lot lines. Any additional drainage or utility issues should be reviewed to ensure that the revised subdivision plan will not affect, or be adversely affected by, the existing patterns in the neighborhood. After much discussion regarding possible options, Fred Patch suggested to Mr. Tindle that he might consider dedicating the triangle ofland immediately adjacent to the city park land to the City of Monticello. Mr. Tindle could take advantage of tax consequence and be credited for the value of the land to offset assessment costs that would otherwise be attributable to the newly created lot. Mr. Tindle agreed that option would be an acceptable solution in order to meet his needs and those of the City. MOTION BY CARLSON TO APPROVE THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION CREATING C:\OFFICE\'P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN Page 5 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 THREE PARCELS TO INCLUDE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE LOT TO BE DEDICATED AND GIFTED TO THE CITY TO BECOME PARKLAND, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHffiIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. Written approval of access pennit is received by the City from Wright County. 2. A certified land survey is completed which verifies lot dimensions and illustrates the ability to provide adequate setbacks and buildable areas per Zoning Ordinance requirements, without variance. 3. City Engineer approval of drainage and utility patterns and easements in the area. 4. Area 3, as noted on the concept subdivision plan, would be dedicated to the City of Monticello for park use. MOTION SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a zonini map amendment from Airicultural to PS (Public/Semi Public Use) and consideration ofa conditional use pennit witl)in the PS Zoning District to allow a church facility. LocaJion: The SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 Section 13, Applicant, United Methodist Church. Staff report was presented by Steve Grittman. Mr. Grittman explained that United Methodist Church is requesting a rezoning of their parcel south of County Road 118 and north of the City water tower site from A-O, Agriculture to P-S, Public and Semi-Public District. The subject site is currently outside the City limits within the Orderly Annexation Area (OAA). As such, all action taken by the City with regards to this application is conditioned upon annexation ofthe parcel into the City, which may be processed at an administrative level. Unfortunately at the time of the Planning Commission meeting, a site plan was unavailable. Mr. Grittman explained the site development as best possible. Issues discussed were as follows: A. Annexation -- The subject site is within the established OAA. As a result, annexation of the parcel into the City should be a matter of administrative processing. All actions by the City with regard to the rezoning and CUP applications will be conditioned upon approval of the annexation. B. Rezoning -- The purpose of the P-S District is to provide for the unique location and development characteristics of public or semi-public uses, including churches. The District recognizes that the these uses may occupy only single parcels surrounded by different uses and establishes performance standards intended to address compatibility and impact issues of the institutional use. Therefore, the issue of spot zoning should not be considered an issue. The 6.35 acre size of the subject site is sufficient to provide adequate site design that minimizes off-site impacts of the proposed use. C:\OFFICE\!P ATCH.97\PLANCOMMl05-05-98.MIN Page 6 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 C. Conditional Use Permit -- Religious institutions, including churches are allowed as a conditional use within the P-S District, subject to the following: 1. Religious institutions on parcels exceeding 20,000 square feet in area shall be located with direct frontage on, and access to, a collector or arterial street. 2. The buildings are setback from adjoining residential districts a distance no less than double the adjoining residential setback. 3. Parking areas are developed to accommodate the most intense concurrent uses of the facility so as to minimize overflow parking onto the public street. 4. Compliance with requirements of Section 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. D. Site Plan Review -- Building Elevations. Structures within the P-S District are limited to a maximum building height of 50 feet however, church spires or belfries are exempt. The applicant will be required to provide building elevations, which are subject to review and approval of the City Council. Landscaping. The applicant has not provided a landscaping plan for the subject site as required by Section 3-2[G] of the Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping is an important consideration for this project to prevent erosion of the significant slopes of the subject site. In developing a landscape plan, the applicant should consider the opportunity for a unique landscape treatment to the slopes adjacent to the parking areas including retaining walls/terraced gardens. Staff has also discussed the potential joint use of the sloped area between the Church and City park system as a sledding hill. This concept should be considered by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The landscape plan will be subject to review and approval of the City Council. Parking. As noted above, the number of required parking stalls has been exceeded for the proposed use. Section 3-5[D]9 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines parking area design requirements. Parking stalls must be 9 feet wide and 20 feet deep. The proposed parking stalls conform to this requirement. Drive aisles must be 24 feet wide. The drive aisles on the site plan are approximately 22 feet wide. The applicant should verify that the drive aisles are 24 feet wide or revise the site plan accordingly. Based upon the number of proposed parking stalls, five stalls must be designated for disability accessible use, including at least one van accessible stall. Disabled accessible stalls must be 9 feet wide with and adjacent 4 foot access strip and van accessible stalls must be 8 feet wide with an adjacent 5 foot access aisle strip. The disability stalls may be so located to share an access strip. The site plan should be revised to indicate the location of required disability accessible stalls. C:\0l<FICE\!PATCH.97\PLANCOMMlOS-OS-98.MIN Page 7 . . . Section 3-5[D]9.k of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all parking areas be surfaced bituminous or other material to control dust. Also, Section 3-5[D]9.0 requires concrete curb around the perimeter of all parking areas and islands. These improvements will be required to be installed. Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans. The applicant has submitted a site grading plan. However, the plans do not include proposed erosion control measures. Given the significant slopes of the subject site, an erosion control plan is critical. All grading, drainage and utility plans must be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Chairman Frie commented that this is not a "spot zoning issue" as the parcel is adjacent to the PS - Public/Semi-Public District across Co. Rd. 118 to the south. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing and recognized Mr. John Bogaart. Mr. Bogart stated that he was representing the church and made no further comment. Commissioner Dragsten asked why the property was not zoned R-l. Mr. Grittman explained that the PS district is consistent with the use intended and that the parcel just to the north is similarly zoned. MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE REZONING BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR UNITED METHODIST CHURCH BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL MEET, WITH APPROPRIATE CHANGES, THE CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND AS DEFINED BELOW, INCLUDING ADEQUATE TRAFFIC ACCESS, ADEQUATE SETBACKS TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES, ADEQUATE PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE AREA AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVES: 1. The applicant and the City, as the property owner, determine the improvements to be constructed and responsibility for the costs associated with the installation of a shared driveway, which satisfies the minimum design standards of the Zoning Ordinance, to be located on the City property along the length of the east property line of the subject site. 2. The applicant provide building elevation plans subject to review and approval ofthe City Council. 3. The applicant provide a landscape plan that demonstrates unique treatments to the sloped areas adjacent to the parking areas, including retaining walls/terraced gardens, as a means of controlling stonn water runoff and erosion. 4. All drive aisles be designed to a minimum width of 24 feet. C:\OFFICEI'PATCH.97\PLANCOMMl05-05-98.MIN Page 8 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 5. The site plan be revised to designate five (5) disability aecessible stalls, one of which must be van accessible. 6. All grading, drainage and utility plans be subject to review and approval oftbe City Engineer. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Public liearing - Consideration for a conditional use permit allowing a concept plan for a Pun in a PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) Zone. Location: North of proposed 7th Street alignment between Minnesota, Elm. Applicant. Star City Builders, Inc. Staff report was presented by Steve Grittman. Star City Builders, Inc., submitted a plan requesting Concept Stage PUD approval for a 60 unit townhouse project between Elm and Minnesota Streets, along the 7th Street alignment. The property is zoned PZM, which allows residential PUDs by Conditional Use Permit. This developer had submitted a first draft plan which the Planning Commission reviewed as a sketch plan at its April meeting. The developers have addressed the general layout issues suggested by the staff report on the sketch plan. As a concept plan, the project stiUlacks detail required for more complex review. There are, however, a few outstanding issues which should be highlighted prior to Development Stage PUD review. The project will have to provide a buffer yard along the north boundary adjacent to the Ruff Auto property. From the aerial photo, it appears that just under half of the common boundary is utilized by Ruff Auto for its salvage operation. The remainder is vacant land. According to the Zoning Ordinance, where a developing parcel abuts another parcel which is less than 50% developed, based on linear footage of common boundary, the new development is required to provide half ofthe buffer yard on its side ofthe boundary. The other half will be required of the other property owner at the time of expansion or significant alteration. For Residential to Industrial buffer yards, the requirements are as follows: Building Setback: 50 feet Landscaped Yard: 40 feet Plant unitsll 00 ft.: 160 These latter two standards would be halved for this project, subject to a survey which establishes the length ofthe common boundary, and the limits of use on the Ruff Auto side of the property line. A five foot high berm or opaque fence may be credited toward half of C:\OFFICE\!P ATCH. 97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN Page 9 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 the number of plants required of this project. Given the severe aesthetic issues which may impact the residential neighborhood, Mr. Grittman recommended a requirement for a full berm with plantings to help screen the view ofthe industrial use. The second issue raised by this project is the proposal for a private road, rather than a public street, serving the 60 units. The developer has altered the design from the sketch plan to provide a more grid-like street pattern. The City should identify issues surrounding the consideration of a private street serving this number of units. Long term maintenance may be one concern, due to the cost of reconstruction of such an extensive private street plan. One method of addressing this issue would be to require the homeowner's association to capitalize a reconstruction fund to be available at the time that the useful life of the street would be expended. Separate from the design issues of the plat as proposed will be the consideration for Park Dedication requirements for this area. The Park Commission has been working on a Comprehensive Park Plan which identifies this general area west of the downtown as a neighborhood park search area. For some time, the City has been envisioning that such a neighborhood park might be made a part of the city-owned property at Outlot A of Country Club Manor. This area is directly west of this site along 7th Street. In addition, the Civic Center project will be located a few blocks east of this site, although those recreational uses would be different in nature from traditional park and open space areas. The Park Commission should make a specific recommendation as to the appropriateness of a land or cash dedication requirement from this parcel. Land could serve the area, however, the dedication requirement for this parcel would be just over one acre, whereas two acres is generally the lower threshold size. Cash donation from this development could be applied to the City's reservation ofland at the Country Club Manor site to either increase its proposed size, or fund some near-term improvements. Finally, a pathway connection should be planned through this property. Options include a pathway along the boundary line with Ruff Auto, a sidewalk through the internal street system, or a sidewalk/pathway along 7th Street. For purposes oflinkage, the 7th Street option may be the most appropriate. Again, the Park Commission should review this issue at its upcoming meeting. There remain a few design issues which should be addressed at the Development Stage submission request. These involve the amount of pavement shown for driveway access, particularly on the west side of the project. At point A on the site plan, the street is widened to provide additional frontage for two four -unit townhouse clusters. This results in a width of over 120 feet of uninterrupted pavement at one point, and creates a very short turning movement for the units which are not perpendicular to the street. It may be C:\OFFICE\! P A TCH.97\PT .ANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN - . 1. 2. 3. . 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 possible to narrow the street width in the project from the 40+ feet shown to 30 feet, or possibly even less. In addition, a landscaped island in the triangular pavement area would break up the expanse. In the circular area, point B on the site plan, the street is so wide as to allow unchannelled traffic around the circle. Again, narrowing the pavement area would better channel traffic, and provide needed turning radius at the intersection. Chairman Fire opened the public hearing. Receiving no public comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Jeff O'Neill clarified issues relating to on-site ponding, park dedication and engineering revIew. Commissioner Carlson asked about timing in the development of the 7th Street project. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN DICK FRIE TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:. Provision of a bufferyard along the north boundary per Zoning Ordinance requirements. Submission of a survey documenting the length of the common boundary with Ruff Auto and the limits of development on the Ruff Auto side of the line. Submission of proposed homeowner's association language which would ensure the proper maintenance and future reconstruction of the private street. Compliance with the recommendation of the Parks Commission regarding Park dedication land or cash. Alteration ofthe design to resolve driveway and paving expanse issues raised in the staff report. Alteration ofthe design to resolve street width and turning radius concerns as noted in the staff report. Other conditions recommended by City Staff. MOTION SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH. Motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing - Consideration for a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for a R- PUD in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. Location: Lot 7,8,9, and lOr Block 8. Original Plat. Applicant: Michael Cyr d.b.a. Front Porch Association. Staff report was presented by Steve Grittman. Mr. Michael Cyr of Front Porch Associates has requested PUD and Preliminary Plat approval for a seven unit townhouse project to be known as "Elm Street Crossing". The project is located at the intersection of Elm and 5th Streets in a PZM Zoning District. This district allows residential projects, including PUDs, by Conditional Use Permit. This project was originally designed as now proposed, but was brought to the Planning Commission as a larger project at the encouragement of City staff. That larger project included some required land acquisition and City financial C:\OFFICE\! PATCH 97\PI ANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 . participation. Just prior to the Planning Commission's review in April, the HRA decided not to provide the financial assistance. As a result, the developer is requesting both Concept Stage and Development Stage PUD approvals concurrently. However, it has now been discovered that a portion of the land which the developer intended to purchase was previously sold to an adjacent owner to supply needed minimum land area for other housing. That portion consists of a small rectangle of property behind unit 3 (see site plan). Therefore, the development will not be able to provide access to most ofthe units, since the exception area is needed as a driveway. We have provided a revision to the plan which would accommodate the seven units on the smaller amount of land. This plan squeezes the buildings together to create an additional driveway, both driveways to 5th Street being shown at 12 feet in width as opposed to 20 feet. Units 4 and 5 would be 9 feet apart (6 feet at the eave line), instead of the proposed 11 feet, and Unit 7 would be placed at the 10 foot setback instead of 11.3 feet as proposed. Finally, Units 1,2,3 and 7 would all be "side entry" garages, while units 4, 5 and 6 would be back entry garages. The arrows on the revised plan indicate garage door locations. . One other option has been discussed. That would be to acquire a driveway easement across the lot adjacent to Vine Street (Lot 6 of the original plat). The owner ofthis lot is the seller of the land to the developer and could possibly provide the easement as a part of the sale. One concern related to the easement, however, would be that it would effectively limit the lot size applicable to the existing single family home. Moreover, it would have to be included in the PUD. This would require renotification, since that parcel was not originally contemplated with this project. With regard to density in the plat, the loss ofthe exception area puts the project right at eight units per acre. This is the maximum density for mid-density development. While there is no stated density maximum for the PZM District (this district would accommodate R-3 type development), the density does indicate an intense use ofland in relation to the unit type. Of note in this project would be that there is very little green space to the rear of the units, relying instead on the "front porch" and front yard spaces for open space. Many developments of this density compensate for the lack of private green or open space by attaching more units together. By eliminating side yards, more open space can be combined in usable sizes. Due to the unit style and the need to provide side windows, this is not possible for this project. To accommodate this unit design on the land as proposed, we would encourage an intensively landscaped project, particularly in the rear yards which will be used primarily for automobile access and parking. No landscape plan has been provided with this proposal, as commonly required for Development Stage PUDs. . A final issue involves park dedication requirements. The City should decide on a park C:\OFFICE\! P A TCH.97\PLANCOMMl05-05-98.MIN . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 dedication policy for development such as this which replat existing land to accommodate more dwelling units than originally planned. In this case, three additional units are shown beyond the original four lot plat area. On the assumption that park planning was based on the four lot development, the three new units would increase park demand, justifYing an additional dedication requirement. It is likely that a fee in lieu ofland would be appropriate. The Park Commission should review this issue. Chairman Fire opened the public hearing and recognized Mr. Mike Cyr of MLC Builders who discussed the development of his project. Chairman Frie asked staff about park dedications related to the project and if there was a landscape plan. Commissioner Smith asked ifthere would be a cash payment in lieu of park dedication. Jeff O'Neill stated that the project would be before the Parks Commission on May 21, 1998 and that the final plat would be before the City Council on May 26, 1998. Chairman Frie asked ifthere was a restriction on the use of grills on the porches, and wondered where such outdoor activities could occur on the site. Fred Patch stated that there is no restriction to single family use of grills on decks, but that restriction pertains to apartment buildings. Mike Cyr clarified issues relating to the loss of project area in a land ownership dispute with Mr. Ruff and the previous owners. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ELM STREET CROSSING. MOTION SECONDED BY ROD DRAGS TEN. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR ELM STREET CROSSING, CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Y: 1. Revised Site Plan illustrating proper access to all garages. 2. Submission of Landscape Plan illustrating intensified landscape treatments a.. detailed in the staff report to Planning Commission. 3. FinalllpprovaJ of the Preliminary and Final Plats. MOTION SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELM STREET CROSSING, CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z: C:\OlIFICE\IP A TCH.97\PI"ANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. Submission of Final Utility Plan for review and approval by City Staff. Submission of Final Grading Plan for review and approval by City Staff. Submission of revised Preliminary Plat illustrating lot dimensions and common space. Submission oflot covenants and homeowners' association bylaws demonstrating adequate provisions for common area maintenance. Final approval of the Planned Unit Development. 5. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Public Hearing: Consideration of a zoning text amendment in the 1-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district to allow a go-cart track as a conditional use. Location: Lot 1. Block I, Oakwood Industrial Park. Applicant: Russ and Paula Adamski d.b.a Monticello Roller Rink. Staff report was presented by Steve Grittman. Russ and Paula Adamski have requested a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to allow outdoor go-cart tracks as a conditional use within the 1-1, Light Industrial District. This use is currently only allowed by CUP in the B-3, Highway Business District. The purpose of the request is to accommodate an expansion of the applicant's existing roller rink amusement area, located at the southeast comer of County Road 117 and Thomas Park Drive (zoned I .1 District), to include an outdoor go-cart track. As such, the applicants are also requesting approval of a CUP for an outdoor go-cart track. However, any action on this request is contingent upon the City taking one of three alternative actions to allow this use on the subject property. 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment -- The applicants are requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance so that an outdoor go-cart track can be developed on their property, which is currently zoned 1-1 District. The applicants have requested that outdoor go-cart tracks be made a conditional use in the I-I District, subject to the same conditions as provided for this use in the B-3 District. Amending the Ordinance to allow outdoor go-carts in the 1-1 District increases the opportunity to establish uses within the I-I District that are more commercial in nature than industrial. Therefore, the proposed amendment may be considered inconsistent with the purpose of the 1-1 District and Comprehensive Plan. A second option to accommodate the applicant's request is to amend Section 158- 4[D] of the Zoning Ordinance "Amusement places (such as roller rinks and dance halls) and bowling alleys" as a conditional use within the I-I District to include outdoor go-cart tracks. This option however is problematic in that "amusement places" as currently defined relates to indoor type uses. Outdoor uses, including go-cart tracks, raise different compatibility issues such as screening, noise, lighting, etc. Combining indoor and outdoor recreational uses under the same conditional use may result in problems ensuring that compatibility issues of potential uses is adequately addressed. C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMMl05-05-98.MIN . Finally, a third option to consider is a rezoning of the applicant's property to B-3, Highway Business District. The lands to the west of County Road 117 are zoned B-3, therefore spot zoning would not be an issue with this action. While the B-3 District allows outdoor go-cart tracks as a conditional use, the applicant's existing roller rink is not a conditional or permitted use in the B-3 District. As such, an amendment to allow amusement areas as a separate conditional use in the B-3 District would be required. From a technical standpoint this option is more appropriate given the commercial character of the indoor/outdoor recreational uses. This option does, however, result in a loss of industrial zoned land. 2. Conditional Use Permit - Outdoor Go-Cart Track. If the Planning Commission recommends and the City Council acts favorably on the rezoning issue, consideration of the proposed development of a go-cart track on the applicant's property may occur. Assuming that the Zoning Ordinance is amended to allow outdoor go-cart tracks as a conditional use in the I-I District or the subject site is rezoned to B-3 District, approval of a CUP for an outdoor go cart track is subject to the following conditions, as outlined in Section 13-4[N] of the Zoning Ordinance. . c. The proposed use must meet all conditions of Chapter 3, Section 4[A]. The Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed yearly to determine whether or not it is compatible with neighboring properties and in conformance with conditions of the conditional use. A solid six-foot high fence must be part ofthe screening required when the adjacent properties are residential. A. B. The subject site is surrounded only by commercial and industrial zoned properties. However, to minimize the impacts of noise from the go-cart track to any adjacent properties, and to screen the use from the public right of way a wood fence and landscaping should be provided. The types and quantities of planting materials should be such that a dense planting wall ultimately develops to further buffer the noise impacts of the go-cart track. D. For dust and noise (70dB at residential property line) must be controlled at all times to the satisfaction of the City. E. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. . Parking. The existing parking lot is bituminous surfaced and striped. However, submitted plans do not indicate the number of stalls within the parking lot. Staff has estimated the capacity of the parking lot to be at least 70 stalls, based upon the minimum design standards within the Zoning Ordinance. With the number of stalls to be provided, at least two must be designated disability accessible with a 7 foot access strip in between C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PI ,ANCOMMl05-05-98.MIN . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 for van accessability. The Zoning Ordinance requires one space per 40 square feet of building area for roller rink uses. Based upon this requirements and a building size of 11,700 square feet, a total of 294 parking stalls would be required for the roller rink use alone. However, ITE data suggests that the actual parking demand for the roller rink, based upon building size is actually 46 stalls. As such, 24 stalls would remain for the go-cart track use. At least on an initial basis, this number appears appropriate. There is additional site area indicated on the site plan as a proposed mini-golf area that could be developed as parking, if demand is found to exceed supply. A condition of approval will be that the applicant must improve the existing parking lot to provide at least 70 parking stalls, two of which must be disability accessible. Mini-Golf Area. As noted above, the submitted site plan indicates a proposed miniature golf area. Development of this use on the subject site would require the applicant to request an CUP amendment. Whether the miniature golf use would be allowed would be dependent upon conformance with Zoning Ordinance provisions, particularly parking. Lighting. The submitted site plan does not indicate if any exterior lighting is proposed to be utilized to illuminate the go-cart track. The applicant should revise the site plan to specify the location of any and all exterior site lighting. Additionally, the applicant must provide details regarding any proposed light fixtures, including photometric plans. All site lighting must be subject to review and approval of the City Council. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing and recognized Mr. Mark Petty of Benchmark Properties. Mr. Petty expressed concerns regarding possible noise levels from the go cart activities proposed. He felt that the go cart activities would interfere with the industrial activities local to the go cart track. Mr. Steve Conroy, attorney for the property owners indicated that the owners are concerned with cost control and did not want to install curb and gutter around the parking lot. He stated that striping of the parking cold certainly be accommodated. Vince, the partner of Mr. Petty, benchmark properties reiterated the noise concerns. Chairman Fire asked about hours of operation and about the seasonal nature of go cart operations. Mr. Conroy affirmed the seasonal aspect of the go cart business. He also stated that the fence intended to surround the go cart track would be a 4' high chain link. Chairman Frie indicated that a solid fence could be included as a condition of use. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dragsten mentioned his concerns regarding loudspeakers, safety and compatibility with neighboring businesses. C:\OFFlCE\!P ATCH. 97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 Commissioner Dragsten felt that a 6 foot high privacy fence would be mandatory and felt that the I districts may not be best suited to go cart tracks. Chairman Frie expressed his concern for the nuisance aspects of a go cart track and felt that the issue of compatibility must be further researched. Fred Patch mentioned the unclear language relating to amusement uses in the Industrial District. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BASED UPON A FINDING THAT NONE OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE I-I DISTRICT AND IT APPEARS THAT THE USE IS INCOJ\1PATIDLE WITH ADJACENT USES. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A OUTDOOR GO-CART TRACK ON THE SUBJECT SITE BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE CAN NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR OBJECTIVES OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the City Zonini Code providing for seasonal open sales in the PZ (Performance Zone) and in the B 1,82, B3, 84 (Business District Zone). Applicant, City of Monticello. Staffreport was presented by Fred Patch. Mr. Patch provided an overview ofthe intents of the Ordinance and requested that the public hearing be continued until the June meeting of the Planning Commission as it is necessary to compare the proposed ordinance with the itinerant sales ordinances of the City. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN DICK FRIE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY ZONING CODE PROVIDING FOR SEASONAL OPEN SALES IN THE PZ (PERFORMANCE ZONE) AND IN THE Bl, B2, B3, B4 (BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONE) UNTIL THE JUNE 1998 MEETING. C:\OFFICE\IP A TCH.97\PLANCOMMl05-05-98.MIN - ..--..... PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat for River Mill 4th Addition. Location: Outlot B, River Mill 4th Addition. Applicant: Residential Development, Inc. Staff report was presented by Steve Grittman. River Mill 4th Addition is proposed for Preliminary Plat approval. This plat was tabled by the Planning Commission at the April meeting due to concern over the neighboring landowner's objection to the plat of a street along the common boundary. The City's attorney has reviewed the request and determined that the City can approve the plat as presented, with a caution to the developer of River Mill that there is no guarantee that the remainder of the street would be available in the future, or that the interior lots requiring access from that street could be platted and constructed. Mr Grittman referred the Planning Commission to our report for the April 7 Planning Commission agenda, with the following change to condition 2: 2. Proposed Preliminary Plat Lots 13-17, Block 2 shall be designated as Outlot B, River Mill 4th Addition, subject to final platting only at such time as the adjacent property to the east is platted to provide the remainder of any street right-of-way. The City does not guarantee any such platting, nor does the City guarantee the development of any of Outlot B. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing and recognized Bob Murphy, representing the developer. Mr. Murphy discussed concerns of the neighboring property owner regarding this subdivision as setting the course for future roads that may be developed onto his property. Mr. Murphy felt that the same concern could be expressed by either property owner depending upon who is first to develop. Mr. Murphy stated that he would prefer to not have conditions placed upon the development that could preclude any possible development of Outlot "B". Mr. Murphy asked the Commission to remove the word "only" from the above stated paragraph number 2, to have that paragraph read as follows: 2. Proposed Preliminary Plat Lots 13-17, Block 2 shall be designated as Outlot B, River Mill 4th Addition, subject to final platting at such time as the adjacent property to the east is platted to provide the remainder of any street right-of-way. The City does not guarantee any such platting, nor does the City guarantee the development of any of Outlot B. MOTION BY ROD DRAGS TEN, TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RlVERMILL 4TH ADDITION, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS C:\OFFlCE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMMl05-0S-98.MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT G: 1. The design of Mill Trail Lane/Mill Trail Drive as platted by River Mal 3rd Addition be maintained. The extension of Mill Trail Lane as platted by River Mill 4th Addition shall intersect the existing street design at a 90 degree angle, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. Proposed Preliminary Plat Lots 13 -17, Block 2 shall be designated as Outlot B, River Mill 4th Addition, subject to final platting at such time as the adjacent property to the east is platted to provide the remainder of any street right -of -way. The City does not guarantee any such platting, nor does the City guarantee the development of any of Outlot B. 3. The City Council accept Outlot A, River Mill 4th Addition as adding to previous park dedication. 4. The preliminary grading, drainage, erosion and utility plans are subject to review and approval of the city Engineer. 5. The City engineer recommend and approve the need and location of easements to be included on the final plat. 6. The applicant enter into a development contract with the City. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Continuation of 04/07/98 meeting - Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the south and west growth areas adjacent to the City of Monticello. Applicant- City of Monticello. Staff report was presented by Steve Grittman. The City's Comprehensive Plan includes land use planning for areas south and west of the current City boundaries. As you may recall, a significant concept of the Comprehensive Plan is to direct future growth to the south and west of the City by investing in infrastructure improvements which would serve growth in that direction rather than to the east. Over the past several months, staff has conducted a more detailed study of the issues which would affect land use patterns in that area, including transportation, utility corridors, physical lay of the land, existing land uses, and goals and policies from the current plan. A concept land use plan was developed with these issues in mind and has been discussed at staff level, with other City organizations, and at a public open house. The purpose of the plan amendment is to allow the City to plan for both long- and short- term infrastructure improvements which would be needed to serve the area. Although the plan would have no legal effect as things now stand, a component of the proposed Orderly Annexation Area agreement with Monticello Township would include the adoption of the C: \OFFICE \! PATCH.97\PLANCOMM\05- 05- 98.MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 City's land use plan in the revised OAA. As a result, the City's Comprehensive Plan and its component "South/West Area Plan" would form the basis for any land use decision in the OAA, preserving the various properties for the City's long -term intended use. This OAA agreement has been approved by both parties and adopted by the Municipal Board. The Land Use Plan for the area is important for the City. It could serve as the basis for the City's request of the OAA Board for an amendment to its land use plan. Even as information for that Board, and the Board's administrator (County Planner Tom Salkowski), the Land Use Plan will provide important guidance for land use decisions in the extra- territorial areas adjacent to the City. Finally, it can provide direction for future development of land in those areas when land owners are seeking annexation. This proposed amendment has been modified slightly from its original draft to reflect two changes. First, following input from a new landowner near the intersection of County Road 39 and the proposed extension of Chelsea Road, and area of "future study" is shown which contemplates the expansion of the proposed industrial area to the south of the utility easement. The text has also been modified to emphasize that this is a guide plan, not a zoning ordinance. As such, it is intended to illustrate a pattern of land use and the necessary transportation routes, not specific district lines. It is expected that, as specific conditions are encountered by particular developers, the exact location of the lines will need to be flexible to accommodate conditions at the time. Chairman Frie questioned if the proposed industrial use areas are mostly wetlands. Mr. Grittman stated that there are wetlands in the area, however the industrial areas are at this point only identified in a broad brush manner. Mayor Bill Fair expressed a desire to maintain the language of the south and west area plan to be very general, not to be a "Zoning Code" for the area but rather expressing the city's preconceptions of uses in the area. Discussions ensued regarding the coordination of the South and West Development Area plan with the Orderly Annexation Agreement [OAA]. Commissioner wanted to insure that the verbiage of the plan was less specific. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing recognizing Mr. Richard Long and Mr. Jim Bowers who were seeking for additional area to be designated as open to possible industrial development south of the area currently so designated. Mr. long provided a handout to the Commission and thoroughly described his ideas for additional industrial land designation. Mr. Dan Gohman supported the proposals of Mr. Long. C: \OFFICE \! PATCH.9'7\PLANCOMM\05 -0 5 -98. MIN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 Mr. John Chadwick also supported the proposals of Mr. Long. Mr. Jim Bauer owner of areas marked in the handout with a cross hatched pattern felt that the plan as presented would pre -empt industrial use with residential use and supported the expansion of additional industrial use to the south and slightly east of the currently designated industrial area. Much additional discussion ensued. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PROPOSED IN THE "SOUTH/WEST AREA PLAN", WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FURTHER STUDY NECESSARY FOR POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATED AREAS ON THE GOHMAN PARCEL. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed with Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Robbie Smith voting in favor of the motion and Dick Frie voting against. 15. Consideration to adopt a resolution finding that the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIF Plan for TIP District No. 1 -23 conform with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. The Planning Commission was requested to adopt the enclosed resolution. The resolution states the Commission finds the proposed two plans are consistent with the general plans for development and redevelopment of the city as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 Each time, the city establishes a new TIF District, Project No. 1 must be modified to include the changes. TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1 -23 TIF District No. 1 -23 is an economic district created for the purpose of increasing the local and state tax base and creating jobs at the wage level objective. An economic district is intended for manufacturing use and for office, warehousing, and distribution as it relates to the production. The legal description of the proposed district is Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center Third Addition. The property is zoned I -1 Light Industrial. It's location is the southeast corner of Fallon Avenue and Dundas Road. C: \OFFICE \! PATCH.97\PLANCONM05- 05- 98.MIN PLANNING CONMUSSION MINUTES- 05/05/98 Allied Companies, LLC plans to construct a 60,000 sq ft prestress concrete manufacturing facility for lease to Midwest Graphics. Midwest Graphics designs, pre - presses, prints, and finishes graphics. The project is projected to increase the tax base annually by approximately $70,000 and create 37 new jobs at a wage level between $8.24 to $12.00 per hour. Grady Kinghorn of Christian & Kinghorn, Inc. is the general contractor. Construction to commence July 1, 1998 and completion December 31, 1998. Building and site plans are scheduled to be submitted to the Building Department this week. The City Council will hold a public hearing and approve the plan for establishment of the TIF District on May 26, 1998, MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFICATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1 -23 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Updates: A. Commissioner Rod Dragsten provided an update on MCP activities and made specific mention to liquor license referendum concerns. B. Chairman Frie asked staff for an interpretation of ordinances concerning required screening of single family residential property from multiple family. Specific concerns were relating to the 8 -plex apartment buildings on 3rd Street near the High School. Fred Patch stated that the buildings are existing non - conforming uses in the single family district and as such are not subject to the same screening laws pertaining to new multiple family residential development. 17. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:30 P.M. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. Fred Patch oning Administrator C: \OFFICE \! PATCH.97\PLANCOMM\05- 05 -98. MIN