Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-01-2002 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MF-KrlNG - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - October 1, 2002 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Absent: Staff: Dick Frie, Robhie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and I Joyd Hilgart Council Liaison Clint Herbst Jeff O'Neill, John Glomski and Steve Grittman I . Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meetinl2: held Scptember 3, 2002. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGlJT .AR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I TELD SEPTEMBER 3, 2002. RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chair Fric asked staff if they were aware of the RV that has becn parked in the parking lot of Mississippi Shores for the past few months. Somcone from the audiencc stated that this RV has heen parked in the lot fi.w approximately 5 months now. Staff was unaware of this and Frie asked John Glomski or other city staff to follow-up on this matter. 4. Citizens comments. None. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reCluest for preliminary plat approval. Applicant: Glen Posusta. Steve Grittman provided the staff report advising that the applicant was requesting to expand the Amax Mini Storage. The lots meet the zoning standards, although a proposed driveway extension from Cedar Street into the expansion area was not part of the original review and would require separate pun approval. He stated that the subdivision appears to be appropriate for approval, with conditions. Grittman noted several issues with the application such as the need for casements and grading, drainage and utility plans, although he did note that the applicant had dropped of preliminary grading plans earlier in the day that need to be reviewed by the City Engineer. Grittman stated sidewalks/pathways were not shown on the plans, phasing was unclear, conveyance of land from the City to the applicant would need to be finalized, and there are non~conf(mning signs and advertising elements within the houndaries of the project which ~ 1 ~ . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/01/02 staff would expect to be elilninated. Grittlnan clarified the portion of the ROW that the City would be vacating as part of the Highway 25 project. . Chair Frie opened the puhlic hearing. Glen Posusta, applicant, commented that sidewalks are shown on both sides of Cedar Street and he does not see the need for both in that area at this juncture. Grittman stated it was common to have a significant amount of pedestrian access in cOlnmercial areas for pcdestrian circulation. O'Neill stated that was added to the Cedar Street project by the City Council, which includes development from Dundas Road and south to Kjellberg's, due to the magnitude of traHic in that area. He added that the City is trying to develop, over time, a policy requiring sidewalks on both sides of roads, rather than forcing pedestrians to eross to get to sidewalks. O'Neill advised they would be connected. Posusta added that there is an existing pathway on one side of Hwy. 25 and he felt this would be redundant and that this was an added cost, not only to himself. O'Neill stated there is room in the boulevard and would not be taking any additional land, and that the City Council could re-Iook at this when going over plans and specifications, as it would be up to them to take out the sidewalks if they wish. Dragsten asked if there was a sidewalk north of Chelsea Road on Cedar, and it was stated only on the one side. He stated he does not feel there would be a lot ofpcdestriau traffic either. O'Neill added that there is another development of approximately 17() homes in that area that will need to use the future sidewalks, and that they are following patterns of other cities. Chair Frie then closed the puhlic hearing. Smith asked Posusta if he was aware of the conditions listed in Exhibit Z and did he have any concerns with them. Posusta stated he understood the City's issues with his signage and he said his plan is to eventually put a sign on the corner, hut he has to acquire the property first. He added that it is his goal to put up a conforming sign and remove any and all other signage, and anticipatcs having this done by next spring. O'Neill added that he would need to get another approval for the sign as this would he an off site area for signage. Smith stated he wanted Posusta to understand that the signage issue neecls to be taken care of regardless ofthe outcomc of this item. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMrr11 TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE AMAX ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT TO CONDrrIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: . I. City agrees to convey required land to the applicant to complete the plat. 2. The plat is redrawn to include the required easements, per City Engineer recommendation. 3. The applicant submits grading and drainage plans to the City Engineer for approval. This to allow coordination of site development with Cedar Street project. 4. The applicant coordinates site development with utility planning done by the City via the Cedar Street improvement project. 5. The applicant submits street and sidewalk plans to the City Engineer for approval, or the applicant petitions f'()r Cedar Street and utility improvements, and enters into an assessment agreement relating to funding of Cedar Street project. 6. The applicant brings signage and truck parking into compliance with the City's zoning ordinance. -2- . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/01/02 RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. There was further discussion by Dragsten that he did not feel that there should be sidewalks on both sides of the road. O'Neill advised that the Parks Commission would need to be involved in that decision and that may not be particular to this site. O'Neill suggested that this request be brought back at a future meeting, apart from this item. There was no further discussion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. There was a recommendation from the Planning Commission to direct the Parks Commission to review the issue on sidcwalks within this area, and the results to he brought back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. 6. Puhlic Hearing - Consideration ofa reLluest for re-zoning from R-] to R-2A. Applicant: Tom I-Iolthaus. West Side Market. Steve Grittman advised that the applicant was requesting to rezone, stating that as a result of improvements to Co. Rd. 75 and other associated improvements to the intersection of Otter Creek Road, as well as not being able to expand, the applicant's site has been aiTeeted and therefore is proposing to change the use to a residential development. . Grittman summarized the criteria for consideration fix re-zoning and advised of the comprchensive plan calling f.Jr Broadway as a grand entrance street. He added that the current improvements to Hroadway arc helping to facilitate that concept with reconstruction, new lighting and landscaping. Revitalization of the housing stock is an important component of that goal also. Grittman stated that one way to make the zoning change to R- 2A compatible would be a housing plan that would include two stories with traditional detailing and front porches; front setbacks closer to the street, preserving usable rear-yard open space; adequate setback from Otter Creek Road; and compliance with other R-2A design elcments, including substantial landscaping and architectural detai Is. Grittman advised that 2 story's would not change the density. Another issue is the eventual redesign of Otter Creek Road. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Ed Solberg, 1204 Sandy Lane, stated that he feels the current plan is a glorified mobile home park. He felt to change the re-zoning due to the applicant's cconomies is not a reason for re-zoning. He also felt this was spot zoning. . Candy Johnson, ] 233 Sandy Lane, stated she was speaking against the re-zoing in that she feels this does not best support the land use on this site. Johnson stated that she and others she has contaetcd had no objection to changing this land from the grandfathered use of a gas station to a more compatible use of housing. Their concern is of density. She states the lots are much larger on Broadway and they feel there is a variety of homes giving a good mix or home styles, but these would be 8 identical homes, which they felt are not compatible with the other homes in that area. Johnson added they do not feel there is a demonstrated need for this type of housing in this area as there arc other developments occurring in other parts of the City for this type of housing. She added that the she didn't feci the square footage -'l -.)- . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/01/02 confonns to the R-2A standards. Also. the setbacks of other houses would not be compatible. She questioned whether this type of housing really brings people into the neighborhood that would be the type that would stay there and have families that would go into the schools. Doesn't feel that the smaller starter homes would bring in more students. Diane Peters, I] 20 Sandy Lane, stated she concurs with the other residents. not objecting to housing development just density. She noted some of the homes already in that area are on too small oflots. Arnold StehleI', east of the Westside Market, stated that he preferred they stay as a market He did question how far the homes arc required to be from the street and would they be in line with the other homes. Grittman stated current R-1 zoning states 30 ft. from the strcet and these appear to be 45 feet, and that the homcs would have double garages. Strehler felt this would be too many residences, too much noise pollution already. Michele Berthiaume, 1112 Sandy Lane, stated her concern is that with the construction on Broadway changing the sidewalks, etc., and that her children have to walk down Sandy Lane to Otter Creek Road and then to Broadway, that this would add more children walking and crossing in this area. She is also uncomfortable with this number of units in this area. . Chair Frie asked the applicant to respond to the concerns of the residents. Tom Ilolthaus, applicant, stated that it is not economically feasible for him to build only 2 to 3 units. The market will close in 60 to 90 days and the consequences are that they cannot afford to tear down the building and build on only 3 lots. stating the lots would be well over $100,000 each. I Ie added that across the road from the Johnson's is a townhouse development and this proposal would be no diffcrent Holthaus stated they could build 2 story homes and place them back from the road. He added that the ramblers initially proposed would have sold for over $150,000, and 2 story's would sell for even higher. He questioned if there was a specific area that the city was looking for R-2A zoning that he was not aware of. I-Ie stated that the road in the back of the homes would change to a common area and therefore there would be an association. Holthaus advised that the square footage of these homes would be approximately 1,456 sq. ft. for a traditional 2 story with a porch on the front, and he stated that these will fit on the same lots with thc same setbacks. Grittman advised this was well in excess of the standards for R-2A. . Chair Fric closed the public hcaring. Carlson asked staff about bike paths and sidewalks on the north side of Broadway. O'Neill statcd that was a disappointing occurrence as there had been a problem with existing trees and drainage issues, and Council had to make a decision between trees and sidewalks. Ilolthaus advised of access problems from Broadway, stating the County would no longer allow that. lie also stated individual access from thc road to the fronts would not be allowed, but no problerns with access off Otter Creek Road. Dragstcn stated that in reply to -4- . Planning Commission Minutes - 1 % 1/02 comments fi'OIl1 a residcnt that the city bends over backward to help dcvelopers, he noted that I lolthaus had comc before the Planning COInmission a number of times with requests which have not bcen approved. Hc added in regard to the statemcnt that there would be an increascd number of cars at these residences, there are hundreds right now with the convenience store and this would be cut down to approximately 16 cars at 2 trips a day, cutting down traffic significantly, and as far as noise pollution, this would only be helping the situation versus the current market Dragsten did add that he agrees that the applicant needs to mcet lot sizes, as well as all other zoning requirements. Hilgart agreed with Dragsten that thcre would be less traffic with the proposed housing and thc values of the existing propcrties should not decrease as the properties would bc ofthe samc value. Fric stated hc was surprised that he did not hcar from anyone regarding concerns with lighting as there had been previous concerns by the residents with lighting 24 hours a day, and he addcd that issue would be eliminatcd with this housing proposal. Frie askcd how receptive the residcnts would be to allowing Holthaus to expand and double thc size of his convenicnce store rather than allowing the style of housing being proposed. . I lolthaus advised Carlson that thc homes would bc 2 story with crawl spaces and that he was not surc how Ottcr Creck Road would align with Broadway, so the end unit would not be built until that was finished approximatcly in 2004. They discussed varying thc setbacks, cxterior facades, roof lincs and elcvations, to make the houses look more individual. They also mcntioned the Prairie Creek development across Broadway and that they vary in color and design. Robbie Smith questioned if Holthaus needcd to build 8 units to make thc project work and he stated that was correct Ed Solberg asked if those last few lots could be built on and Holthaus stated yes. Dragstcn added that if everything falls into place they would bc 2 bui Idable lots, right now there would be 6 lots. Thc City docs own some of that property where the end 2 lots arc. Grittman stated that if the City finds that they do not need thc additional land for street purposcs, they would most likcly sell those picces off. . Candi Johnson apologizcd if she did not make hcrself clear on her prcvious comment on thc hOlnes and the number of students they would gcneratc. She noted thc staff rcport stated that this would support more families with students. She rciterated that some typcs of homes sccm to generate more l~lIl1i1ics than others. Carlson askcd how Johnson related that to the valuc of the home, but she could not say what the values were. She addcd that this site was zoncd R-I when the convenience store was built. Chair Frie reminded Johnson that thc public hcaring had been closed and addcd that the number of new students stated previously did not relatc to the values of these homes. Therc was no furthcr discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE REZONING TO R-2A, BASED ON ^ FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING MEETS THE CONDITIONS OF THE ZONING ORDIN^NCE FOR REZONING -5- . . . Planning Conllnissioll Minutes - 10/01/02 APPROVAL, INCLUDING CONSISTENCY WITII THE COMPRFI IENSIvE PLAN AND COMPAfIBILlTY WITH TilE NEIGI IBORIIOOD. LLOYD IIILGART SFCONDED TIlE MOTION. There was further discussion by Carlson asking f<Jr clarification that they are directing the developer to procced with 2 story homes. Dragsten stated that was in his motion but that he did not object to one level. There was no furthcr discussion. MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH ROBBIE SMITH VOTING IN OPPOSITION. ROBBIE SMITH LATER QUESTIONED THE VOTE COUNT OF 4 TO 1 ST ^ TING HE IIAO VOTED IN FAVOR OF TIlE MOTION. CIIAIR FRIE DIRECTED TO CORRECT TIlE MOTION DUE TO THE MISUNDERSTANDING. THEREFORE, MOTION TO APPROVF REQUEST FOR REZONING TO R-2A CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Public I Icarinl-': - Consideration of a request Il)f an amendment to the sign regulations governing quantity and size of sil!nage flJr large site, multi-tenant commercial developments. Applicant: Jacob Holdinl-':s of Monticello, LLC (Denny Ilecker). Steve (Trittman advised that the applicant was looking to add a dealership to their facility and hoping to develop a separate pylon sign fllr identification. Traditionally the city based the number on the size of thc parcel. Staff was concerned with using the number of busi nesses as criteria. Grittman advised that there arc cities that adopt ordinances that allow more pylons based on size of the property, although those tend to be larger sitcs such as 10 to 20 acres. If they wcre to pursue this they would look at lot sizes of at Icast 5 acres. StafT is concerned about proliferation of requests fl.H" signs, therefore their recommcndation would be allowing more wall signage on larger buildings versus free-standing. They discussed what other communities use fl.)r determinating number of signs and Orittman stated he has seen multiple signs on pylon structures, which seems to be a morc common approach. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Bill Rambow, Jacob Holdings of Monticello, LLC, representing Denny Hecker, stated that Grittman was correct in that KIA would piggy back on another dealership sign but that in this case it was Chrysler who would not allow that. Rambow stated the problem is that KIA doesn't havc any signage at all at this time, and they are requesting a freeway side pylon and a wall sign on the Chelsea side for KIA. Frie asked Rambow if additional free standing signage was approved, would he be receptive to a monument sign and Rambow statcd that a monument sign would not be visible from the freeway, although he did state that a monument sign on Chelsea Road with wall signage on the freeway side would work. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Dragsten commented that Denny IJccker is a nice addition to Monticello and does feel that KIA nceds signage, but also that having 50 to 100 cars parked on the front side also gives good exposure. Dragstcn liked the idea of monument signs. Carlson stated his preference about a year ago was to have monuments on Chelsea Road and suggested taking the sign off -6- . . . Planning C:ol1ll1lission Minutes - 10/01/02 Chelsea Road and putting it on the freeway side, but Rambow stated that would not be doable as they need signage on Chelsea as well. Rambow stated that monument signs work fine up to 40 mph, but after that they have no affect and if a pylon can't be added on the fi'eeway sidc, he would necd wall signage on the freeway side as wcll as signage on Chelsea. Th.:y discussed limitations on Chelsea Road and Grittman thought it was limited to number of pylons/free standing based on number of road exposures, so aecording to currcnt ordinanee it would have to be amended, as with pursuing a monument on Chelsea and a wall sign on the freeway side. Grittman stated that the current ordinance may accommodate fl.)!' this type of wall signage and this may not even be a eoneern. Rambow asked if they could put wall signs on both Chelsea Road and the freeway side and Grittman stated they probably could, noting that the new Towne Center has exposure on two sides as well. A MOTION WAS MADE I3Y ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF A SIGN REGULATION AMENDMENT, RASED ON THE FINDING THAT TI IE EXISTING ORDINANCE PF.:RMITS ADEQUATE BUSINESS IDENTIFICAfION. DICK rRJE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK rRIE DIRECTING STAFF TO MEET WITJI MR. RAMBOW TO DISCUSS WALL SIGNAGE ON CHELSEA ROAD AND TilE FREEW A Y. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSI.Y. Robbie Smith added that he appreciates that Mr. Rambow is always willing to work with City staff. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request fl.)r a conditional use permit and variance allowing accessory structure in excess of 1500 Sq. ft. Applicant: Randy RulT John Glomski provided the statT report stating the site plan that was provided was not typically what staff would accept, but that they felt they could work with it. He added that this afternoon he was out at the property and found that the lot is actually 100 feet wide, not the 70 feet the applicant had stated on his drawing. Glomski stated this does not change stafT s recommendati on. Glomiski stated that the applicant was proposing to section down the pole barn to 930 sq. ft. which would give him a total of 1602 sq. ft, exceeding the 1200 sq. ft. allowable, as well as exceeding the maximum of 1500 sq. ft. allowed by CUP and therefore the request for a variance as well. He summarized the zoning ordinance and the 4 conditions that the applicant would have to meet. He also stated that the applicant does not meet requirement for a variance as no hardship can be determined. Therefl.)re statTrecommends denial of both the CUP and the variance. -7- . Planning COl1llnission Minutes - 10/01/02 Chair frie opened the public hearing. Randy Ruff, 611 Elm Street, stated that hc was trying to move thc building without destroying it and having to rebuild. I Ie also questioncd if he could keep the existing tin roof but would side with vinyl siding to match his existing house. He clarified that this would be for personal storage only_ not an expansion of RufT Auto. He also stated that there would be a development across the street in the future and he would like to make his side of the strect more presentable. He added that he is willing to make the building smaller, but would like the maximum allowable. . Chair Fric closed the public hearing. It was clarificd that the maximum hcight allowed is 15 feet. The applicant stated he would like to take portions in 7 foot increments which could get him down to 1,512 sq. ft. which hc would prefer. RulT added that there would be increased labor costs if he were to have to take the building down any more than that. There was discussion as to the area around Mr. Ruff s property and it's future use and Ruff stated that he does not plan to develop on the west side at this time. The other area is destined for residential. They again asked if Ruff could possibly meet the 1500 sq. 1'1.. maximum requirement. Frie added that the Planning Commission's attitude is that they prefer to have the accessory structures for storage, but if at all possihle they would prefer that it nts in with the residential area and meet the size requirement without requiring a variance or CUP. O'Neill stated he empathizes with Rutrs request but he feels this will set precedence in other areas of town. O'Ncill felt they may be crcating a problem by allowing this. Rutl statcd again that he necds this fl.)r personal storage. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITI I TO DENY 1'1 IE CUP BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING A CUP. DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. There was further discussion by Dragsten advising the applicant that he could request a CUP for the 1,500 sq. n. accessory structure. Hilgart concurred and also added that the structure should have vinyl siding to match the existing structure. There was no further discussion. MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2, WITH DRAGSTEN AND HILGART VOTING IN OPPOSITION. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CUP ALLOWING A 1500 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH VINYL SIDING. LLOYD HILGART Sl':CONDED THE MOTION. There was further discussion that the tin roof was allowable as long as the color was similar to the existing home. After no further discussion, MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH ROBBIE SMITH VOTING IN OPPOSITION. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST RASED ON THE FINDING II-I A T THE REQUIREMENT FOR HARDSI liP IS NOT MET. LLOYD IIILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -8- . Planning COllll11ission Minutes - 10/01/02 Richard Carlson added that he had a concern with the zoning of the former Ruff Auto site with the statement by Randy Ruff that a portion of that property eould possibly be commcrcial. O'Neill stated there is flexibility with the PZM zoning and staff is not under any obligation to allow commercial in a PZM zoned district. 9. Discussion regarding temporary sign regulations as they pertain to multi-tenant commercial developments. . . 0' Neill stated that stafT did not proceed with a publ ic hearing due to the length of the agenda as well as the laek of direction from the Planning Commission. Frie stated he preferred to have the Planning Commission give direction to staff after holding a public hearing and responding to comments from the public. They discussed holding a workshop inviting multi-tenant businesses and researching other cities to compare with and use as a guideline. It was suggested to focus on multi-tenant businesses, put together a table of options, and schedule a workshop prior to a Planning Commission mecting. It was the consensus of the members to hold separate meetings, one being an open house with a limited time /i'om 7 pm to 9 pm, headed by Steve Grittman and staff. This wi II be open to the general public and staff will advise the Chamber of Commerce also. 10. Review buildin!2: plans for consistency with Autumn Rid!2:e PUD reuuirements. JeffCrNeill provided the staflreport adding that this came about when the building permit application was submitted. There was a discrepancy with the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting f<Jr what the applieant had proposed and with what was actually submitted. O'Neill advised that the minutes stated the homes would be 1700 sq. ft. finished but the developer advised that he had stated the homes would be 1700 sq. n.finishable. Thcrefore, the Planning Commission is asked to review this for clarification as to what their understanding was. O'Neill advised that the developer is in compliance with all other requirernents. Frie asked Shawn Weinand, developer, ifhe was still looking at selling prices between $130,000 and $150,000 and he e1arified they would actually be between $135,000 to $170,000. He also stated this is a PZM district with squarc footage requirements of 750 sq. ft. finished, but that he had stated previously they would be building with standards that exceeded this. He also advised that he sees no problem in building to 1700 sq. ft. finishable, but that he did not want to be bound to that either. frie asked Weinand to clarify finished and finishable. Frie advised that he was under the impression that these would be 1700 sq. ft. finished, not 900 sq. ft. Weinand stated he felt he was clear that these would be a rangc of walkouts and split entrics, and he apologized if he was misunderstood. lIe did add that they also have rnany amenities and that at the previous meeting Mr. Dragsten had specifically asked him about the square footages, therefore he thought they were clear. -9- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/01/02 Weinand advised that the homes would be a mix of 912 sq. ft. and 888 sq. ft.. averaging to 900 sq. n.Robbie Smith added that he understood also that these would be 1700 sq. ft. finished and he would like to review the tape from that rneeting. Frie then asked John Glomski. who had reviewed the tape, what his opinion was. Glomski stated that he could understand the confusion and that from the dialogue he would think that Weinand had meant 1700 sq. n. finishable. O'Neill added that perhaps the misunderstanding came from dialogue regarding meeting/exceeding the minimum standards. Carlson added that he felt Weinand's presentation was fiJr main level square foot finished and expandable. Weinand also referred to another Planning Commission meeting when he initially brought up the concept plan and he was sure that square f()otage was discussed at that time as well. Dragsten added that he remembered asking staff if this proposal met the mininllul1 standards and also that he knew that these would not be 1700 sq. n. finished at the price Weinand had stated. Hilgart concurred that he understood these to be finishable square footage. Thcre was no further discussion and Chair frie directed staff to issue building permits to Mr. Weinand as submitted. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE DIRECTING STAff TO ACCEPT HlJILDING PI.ANS AS CONSISTENT WITH 'THE APPROVED pun. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOUSL Y. It was stated for the record that the homes would be 888 sq. ft. to 912 sq. ft.. averaging 900 sq. ft. finished. Rod Dragsten asked that staff work with Steve Grittman to discuss the Planning Commission start looking at square f()ot averages in thc future, and to place that discussion on the November agenda. 11. Sunny rresh roods has applied fix a special meeting on Monday, October 14,2002, prior to thc Citv Council meeting to discuss amendments to their CUP to allow truck parking, bulk LP storage. service bay additions and paving for bulk waste transport, sidewalks and landscapi ng. Please let staff know if yOU will not be able to attend so that we can detenn i ne that therc will be a quorum. Chair Frie asked the other members if they were able to attend the special meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITI I CALLING FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF T1IE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 14,2002 AT 6 PM TO DISCUSS A REQUEST fROM SUNNY FRESH FOODS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO TIIEIR PUD ALLOWING EXPANSION OF TRUCK PARKING, BULK LP STORAGE, SERVICE BAY ADDITIONS AND PAVING FOR BULK WASTE T'RANSPORT, SIDEW ALKS AND LANDSCAPING. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -10- . . . 13. Planning Commission Minutes - 10101/02 12. November Planning Commission meeting date conflict with City Council. JetTO'Neill advised the Planning Commission that the regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 5 is election day and therefore would need to be rescheduled. I-Ic also advised that it could not be moved to the following Tuesday due to the City Councij rescheduling their regular meeting to that day. There was also a conflict with Wednesday, November 6 and therefore staff is asking that the meeting be scheduled for Thursday, November 7, 2002. Chair Frie advised that he would be unable to attend but the other members had not conflicts. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBlE SMITH '1'0 RESCHEDULE TIlE NOVEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO TJ-IURSDA Y, NOVEMBER 7, 2002 AT 7 P.M. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED TI IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. ^diourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:50 P.M. ROBHIE SMITI I SECONDED TI-IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSI, Y. -11-