Planning Commission Minutes 06-03-2008n
u
MINUTES
Commissioners:
Council Liaison:
Staff:
Call to order.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008
6:00 PM
Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Barry Voight
Susie Wojchouski
Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a full quorum of the
Commission.
2. Consideration to approve the minutes of May 6a' 2008.
Commissioner Spartz noted that on page 7 of the minutes, the second bullet point
should have read 12'.
LJ
Wojchouski noted that item was corrected at Council meeting.
Voight noted that on Page 13, under item number 7 a piece was missing from the
item title.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
MAY 6a', 2008 AS AMENDED.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION
CARRIED, 5-0.
3. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda.
Commissioner Spartz requested an update on how temporary signs were
addressed per ordinance requirements after the recent storm.
4. Citizen Comments.
NONE.
•
5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Variance from Chapter 3 Section
9 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance re ug lating Si irg s Applicant• Scenic Sign
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
• Community Development Coordinator Schumann indicated the staff is still completing
research related to this request. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission open
and continue the hearing on this item.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR
SCENIC SIGN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance from Chanter 3 Section 5 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance re ug lating off-street parking requirements Applicant• Masters
5°i Avenue
Planner Grittman presented the staff report, stating the request is for variance
from parking requirements within the Central Community District. The code
allows for a reduction to 60% of regular parking requirement regulations in the
event that the applicant opens their parking for cross-parking to the public. As
individual property owners provide public parking in this manner, the theory is
that parking becomes available throughout the CCD, and the total amount of
parking need is then reduced.
Grittman explained that in this case, the applicant has a shopping center which
includes a mix of uses. This request is being made to accommodate the expansion
of an existing restaurant, which requires higher amount of parking. This potential
use increases seating requirements by 14 spaces over the amount currently
provided. Grittman reported that the result after the 60% allowance is a net
deficit of 8 spaces. Grittman noted that the CCD also offers a provision to allow
property owners to acquire rights to off-site parking through cross-easement or to
pay into a public parking fund for the purpose of constructing public lot. This
final option allowed property owners to over-develop but provide payment to
account for future construction of needed parking.
The applicant is seeking a variance from both the required amount of parking and
from the requirement that in lieu of parking, the payment to the public parking
fund. Grittman stated that in looking at variances, the City is required to find a
hardship in putting the property to use if regular standards applied. In this case,
Grittman indicated that staff believes there is no hardship. The applicant is able
to utilize the space as retail without the variance. If the space is converted to a
restaurant, the applicant has the opportunity to pay into the public parking fund.
Staff does not recommend approval of the variance.
Hilgart inquired whether the total facility is 1200 square feet, or the expansion
area is 1200 square feet. Grittman responded that he believed the expansion area
• is 1200 square feet, with about 485 of dining and 750 of restaurant.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
• Hilgart asked if the library parking could be used. Grittman responded that the
library is a public lot, has been provided at public expense. He noted that the
library parking lots if an example of the purpose of the public parking fund.
Hilgart asked if this location has an even greater deficit over what was originally
approved. Grittman stated that there was one restaurant space planned for this
site.
Dragsten inquired if when calculating for space, does it include the total site or
the expansion area only. Grittman stated that it was calculated using the
expansion space, which represents a net increase of 14 spaces in converting from
retail to restaurant. Then, that number is discounted by 60%.
Spartz asked if within the whole site, the shared parking is in deficit, or the
expansion. Grittman stated that if this space were leased for retail, the amount of
parking on site would be adequate. It is the change in the use that results in the
need for additional spaces.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Barry Fluth, applicant, thanked the Commission for their time. Fluth explained
that their existing business is seeking to expand. He stated that he appreciates
staff and the consultant, as they had been very helpful and that he respects their
• thoughts and recommendations. He stated that the planner did a good job of
interpreting guidelines to letter of the law. However, Fluth indicated that he
thinks this situation has things that may cause the Commission to look at the issue
differently.
Fluth explained that the shopping center has been there since 2000, and has been
fully occupied most years. When built, it was determined there was a parking
deficit and at that time, he was required to pay in for a certain number of parking
spaces. Fluth noted that that amount doesn't provide any more parking specific to
that site; it just goes into the fund. Fluth noted that a few years later, about 7-8
angled parking were added, which made the situation better than it was. Fluth
commented that even though there weren't any spaces created through the fund,
the businesses all did very well and there were no parking issues.
Fluth noted that the consultants and staff can give provide the letter of the law, but
he wanted to take the opportunity to explain why he believes there is not a
problem. While the site is 8 spaces short, there is a simple solution in that there
are plenty of parking spaces within 1 block of this facility. Fluth stated that there
is average of 10-12 employees at any one time within this building. If it was
required that employees park off-site, that would make up the different.
Fluth cited the example that on the biggest day in history of Rancho Grande,
• Cinco de Mayo, there was 30-45 minute wait to be seated. However, everyone
found a place to park. Also, Crostini Grille was required to provide additional
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
• parking when they expanded into the banquet facility. On Mother's Day Crostini
had their biggest Day in their 5 year history, with again an hour wait much of the
time. Fluth stated that he talked with staff and no one said that parking was
problem. Fluth indicated that when customers come to a downtown business,
they don't expect to park in front of the door. They understand that they are not at
a big box facility.
Fluth noted that parking downtown is perhaps even closer than if you are at Kmart
or Target.
Fluth commented that he hopes that Commission would agree that the Pizza Man
expansion will work. Their desire to expand in this economic time shows their
faith in Monticello and he stated that he hopes that the Commission rewards their
optimism.
Hilgart inquired if Fluth knows hours of the surrounding businesses. Fluth
responded that most are open until ? or 8. Hilgart confirmed that there are four
businesses in the facility.
Dragsten asked if Rancho Grande replaced the China Buffet. Fluth confirmed.
Fluth stated that China Buffet was doing well but wanted a bigger store. Dragsten
inquired if Rancho Grande took the same amount of space. Fluth confirmed.
Dragsten asked if Pizza Man is taking the Curves location. Fluth confirmed.
Spartz stated he would like to see the business move forward, but he is struggled
with the fact that by bringing more people, it will bring more cars. As far as
moving employee parking to the library, the concern is making sure it is lighted
and safe. Spartz noted that there was a mention of cross-parking up the hill, but
that option doesn't seem to make sense. Fluth agreed that the Cub lot is not
practical.
Fluth stated that perhaps by moving employees off-site, they effect is to create
more available parking. Dragsten asked where the employees would park. Fluth
stated that employees could park in Cub or Kmart lots, oroff-street, or in the
library lot. He explained that the previous payment into the parking fund
probably helped pay for that lot.
Gabler asked if Fluth is worried about liability for those parking off-site. Fluth
stated that they would be concerned. However, by, I having the employees park
off-site would allow patrons to park on-site. Gabler asked about additional angled
parking. Fluth noted that area is developed, and that he had previously tried to
purchase apartments. Grittman stated that current angled parking area is maxed
out.
• Wojchouski asked if there is any consideration of adding steps out of the Cub
parking lot. Fluth replied that he is not opposed to something like that.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
U
Voight asked Grittman to confirm that the decision is not determining whether
they can put expansion in, but whether they need to provide the required parking,
or pay into fund. Grittman confirmed that the only issue is how the parking gets
taken care of.
Voight stated that it sounds like the only consideration is that the applicant does
not want to pay into the parking fund, which is economic and can't be part of the
hardship.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Spartz noted that parking is always important. He commented that he recalled
occasions in the winter when after a good snow, parking on the site was a little
tight.
Dragsten. stated that if there was a problem, he could see allowing employees to
park off-site. However, the other issue is paying into the fund.
Hilgart stated that regardless of the Commission's decision, ultimately, it is going
to be the customers who will decide whether to do business there. If it is a pain to
park, they're not going to go again. Whether he pays or doesn't pay into the fund
won't create more parking for the site.
Hilgart asked Grittman if there are any other businesses that have paid in.
Grittman responded that it hasn't been an issue for some time. Hilgart stated that
if the City requires property owners to pay in, and there are no immediate plans to
purchase or construct a parking lot, then what is the point of paying in.
Grittman responded that from a staff standpoint, he would encourage the
Commission to apply the ordinance standards evenly whether parking plans are
imminent or not. Secondly, while there aren't any imminent plans, this is
reimbursing the creation of existing public parking areas in a way. Dragsten
noted that even though there isn't a problem at this time, the idea is to have funds
to acquire a site at a future date.
Hilgart asked if there will be parking available behind Crostini. Crrittman noted it
as a second phase of Landmark. That may have rectified some of the parking
issues with first phase.
Voight asked if the payment to fund is continual or a one-time payment. Grittman
stated that it is a one time payment set for those who want to build and do not
meet requirements. Voight asked what happens if Fluth goes back and provides
the spaces retroactively. Grittman sated that the city doesn't have any program
for reimbursing, but that Fluth wouldn't be charged for any future expansions
equal to that amount. Hilgart asked what would happen is Fluth pays and then
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
• Pizza Man goes out of business. Grittman stated that the City would note that the
store would be marked as available for restaurant use.
Hilgart asked if it is possible to put a timeframe on the variance allowance, such
as Pizza Man is trying to compete and if it is still in business, then something
would have to be paid.
Grittman stated that it is difficult to do with a variance. If approved, the issue is
done. There is no mechanism that necessarily provides a way to go back and
require payment. However, the Commission could recommend to Council that
they defer application of the fee for some time period, in essence denying the
variance but deferring payment for some time period as a separate action.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE
REQUESTED VARIANCE TO THE PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE CCD
ZONING DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING A RESTAURANT EXPANSION
WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PARKING CONSTRUCTION OR FEE-IN-LIEU.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION FAILS 2-
3 WITH COMMISSIONERS SPARTZ, GABLER, AND VOIGHT IN DISSENT.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO DENY THE REQUESTED
VARIANCE TO THE PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE CCD ZONING
DISTRICT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO CONDITION OF
THE PROPERTY THAT CREATES A HARDSHIP IN PUTTING THE
PROPERTY TO A REASONABLE COMMERCIAL USE ACCORDING TO
THE REGULATIONS.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER.
In discussion, Chairman Dragsten confirmed that by approving this motion, the
Commissioners believe the applicant should pay the fee.
MOTION CARRIED 3-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS DRAGSTEN AND
HILGART IN DISSENT.
Grittman clarified that the Planning Commission is the decision-making body for
variances. Mr. Fluth can appeal the denial to the City Council.
7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to
Planned Unit Development for a Comprehensive Sign Plan Applicant• Monticello-Big Lake
Community Hospital District
Grittman explained that the hospital is seeking a Planned Unit Development
• Amendment. When the PUD was processed originally for a clinic expansion, it
was approved pending a future sign package application. At that time, the district
anticipated that they would want to resign the entire complex.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
• Grittman noted that the property itself has number of different uses, hospital,
clinic, nursing home and a significant amount of parking. The campus gains
access primarily from Broadway, County 75 and from River Street
Grittman explained that when evaluating the proposed signage against the current
ordinance, staff is struck by the fact that the ordinance does not apply to this mix
of uses. In fact, the hospital is allowed 100 square feet of wall signage for the
entire complex. The applicants are proposing a significantly greater amount than
what has been allowed under ordinance. However, Grittman reported that staff
are recommending approval based on the size of the property and buildings, as the
signs are appropriate in relationship to buildings and uses.
Grittman indicated that the nature of the use is relatively unique, even within the
PZM district. The setback requirements and sign code allowance do not seem to
directly apply. As a result, the City is able to evaluate signage within the PUD.
For a PUD, the City needs to determine whether the design is superior from that
allowed under the base ordinance.
Grittman commented that the applicant has submitted a very thorough package.
In relationship to the hospital's proposal, the hospital's site plan sheet basically
identifies all the identification signs, wall signs and free-standing signs. The
largest free-standing sign is the monument sign located on Broadway. Other free
standing directory signs are used primarily to direct traffic and for traffic flow
purposes. A number of wall signs are proposed, some of which label facilities.
Staff believes the package proposed is appropriate for the use, size of buildings,
and the property, Grittman stated. He indicated that the proposal had met the test
for planned unit development, allowing flexibility from the ordinance sign
allowances. Grittman reported that staff believes that the sign system proposed
actually enhances the property. As a result, staff recommend approval based on a
few recommendations which are listed in Exhibit Z. Most of the conditions are
related to working with the City Engineer to determine the appropriate setback
and if necessary, work to secure a license for placement within drainage and
utility easements.
Spartz asked if there is any additional lighting. Grittman responded that as part of
this project, there is not. Parking and building lighting were approved with the
building expansion.
Gabler asked if the lettering proposed is appropriate given that the City does not
allow internally lit signage. Grittman noted that those restrictions apply in the
CCD. Most of the signs proposed for the hospital are internally lit,
Dragsten questioned the 100 square feet requirement and the proposal. Grittman
clarified that they listed max that they could ask for in each application. In some,
they were provided for information purposes only. Dragsten asked if they could
7
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
• make them bigger. Grittman confirmed that the PUD approval would be for the
signs they are asking for with this package.
Dragsten commented on the size of the building. Grittman noted that this is also a
multi-story building. Dragsten noted that if these were each separate building on
separate parcels, the number of signs allowed would be much greater.
Dragsten inquired about the drainage and utilities easement sign placements being
subject to recommendation of City Engineer. Grittman stated that is the only
remaining issue and that the hospital district is aware of this issue. The conditions
requires that the hospital go through the formal process on ensuring sign locations
are appropriate.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Lynn Olson spoke on behalf of the hospital and introduced Richard Lang with
Visual Communications. Olson clarified that the approval they are asking for
would allow them up to 100 square feet as opposed to 28 square feet. Olson
stated that request is because the hospital is looking at long-term master plan, they
are looking for maximum flexibility.
Spartz asked is the existing entrance sign is being moved. Olson responded that
the hospital is looking to do a totally new sign on the opposite side of Hart.
Spartz asked if the heli-pad would remain. Olson confirmed that it would, as
there was still plenty of room.
Dragsten commented that Exhibit Z requires the preparation of a license
agreement for signs within easements. Grittman stated that since City has control
for public purposes, the proper process would be to issue a license.
Dragsten inquired whether they were proposing any additional new signage on
Rive Street. Olson noted that the sign placements are relocations. Lang noted
that those new signs are low to the ground, and are non-illuminated reflective
signs. The nursing home signs include illuminated letters.
Hilgart asked if there are other structures in drainage and utility easements.
Grittman responded that Steiner's sign was located in a D & U easement, and the
City required a license.
Dragsten commented on the nature of the total request sign size. Grittman
explained that if what is brought in via permit exceeds what is shown on the
illustration, staff would ask that they come back to Commission for review, as
some of those sizes requested could be a pretty significant change. Dragsten
commented that is a good point, especially within the residential neighborhood.
8
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
• Voight asked if Grittman is recommending a percentage of leeway. Grittman
stated that if the Commission is willing to give staff some discretion, staff could
work with applicant.
Voight stated that rather than approving signage as requested, he would then add a
condition that if adjusted, staff would review the adjustment. If significantly
outside the bounds, staff would then bring it back.
Spartz asked if that would be an amendment to motion or to Exhibit Z. Grittman
responded that it would be added as a condition, and may not need a public
hearing, but that the City may need to notify neighbors if affected by the proposed
change.
Olson stated that they are comfortable with that condition and comfortable
working with City staff.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
INTENT OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE EXISTING PUD,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z BELOW.
• 1. Based upon recommendation by the City Engineer, City Officials determine
the acceptability of the proposed placement of permanent signs within
required drainage and utility easements. A license should be prepared
specifying the conditions for occupancy of the easements by the
hospital/clinic signage.
2. The setbacks of all directional/informational and freestanding tenant signs be
specified.
3. The heights of the proposed light standards (to which parking lot
identification signs are to be affixed) be specified.
4. Any signs which are to be illuminated from the exterior be arranged in a
manner such that the source of the illumination is shielded from view of
neighboring properties and rights-of--way.
5. The existing PUD agreement (for the hospital) be amended to incorporate the
approved sign plan. This issue should be subject to further comment by the
City Attorney.
6. In the event the applicants seek sign one or more sign permits that are
significantly larger than the sign listed as "SHOWN" on the approved plans,
approval of said permit shall require additional Planning Commission review
and City Council approval.
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
;7
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER.
MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance from Chapter 8 of the Monticello
Subdivision Ordinance regulating Simple Subdivision requirements for frontage on a public
street. Applicant: City of Monticello
Schumann presented the staff report, stating that the City is seeking a subdivision
and variance from the subdivision ordinance to allow for the subdivision of the
Fiber Head-End building parcel from the City's water tower property. Schuman
indicated that the Fiber building parcel would not have separate frontage on a
public street, and as such, requires a variance to allow the subdivision.
Schumann noted that the subdivision itself does not affect the arrangement of the
property, and is being done to allow a separation of financing for the Fiber project
from other Monticello public works facilities.
Schumann stated that when considering a variance, the City is required to find
that the variance is necessary to allow a reasonable use of property that would
otherwise not be allowed. Such situations focus on identification of a unique
hardship that prevents the reasonable use. Schumann commented that in this case,
the use would not be possible due to the configuration of the existing parcel if the
street frontage requirement were to be applied.
Commissioner Hilgart asked about the purpose of the subdivision. Schumann
clarified that the fiber building would be placed on a separate parcel. As Fibernet
Monticello is a separate entity.
Spartz asked if there were any other possible uses for the site. Schumann stated
that most likely not, due to the site's current use for public utilities. Dragsten
inquired whether the Council had looked at any other uses. Wojchouski clarified
that the Council did review this and sees this site as the best possible for this
building and is appropriate for the site.
Schumann noted that any building would also need to be placed a specific
distance from the water tower. The configuration of the simple subdivision
maximizes the use of the property. Schumann noted that the use if also permitted
by the ordinance.
Hilgart noted that the application is acceptable, but it does seem to be
economically related.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman
Dragsten closed the public hearing.
10
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
•
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED
VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE VARIANCE WILL
ALLOW AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC USE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT
THREATENING PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE, AND THAT A
HARDSHIP EXISTS IN PUTTING THE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE
WITHOUT THE VARIANCE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART MOTION CARRIED
5-0.
9. Consideration of a reauest for extension for Conditional Use Permit for Concept Staee and
Development Stase Planned Unit Development approval for amulti-tenant shopping center a
Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage a Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash a
Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store a Conditional Use Permit
for minor auto repair and Preliminary Plat approval Applicant• Mills Fleet Farm
Schuman reported that on June 12`x, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and
recommended approval of a concept and development stage planned unit development
and preliminary plat request for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm project, submitted by
Mills Properties, Inc. The City Council subsequently approved the requests on June 25~',
2007.
Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD and preliminary plat will expire on
June 25th, 2008. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits
expire due to non-use after one year. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that all
preliminary platted property be final platted within 1 year.
Schumann noted that the extension letter sent by the applicant does not reference a
specific timeline for the extension period. The extension letter states that no changes are
proposed to the approved plan. Schumann commented that staff recommend approval of
the extension request.
Spartz clarified that this extension request is for the conditional use permit only, it does not
impact the land use issue. Schumann stated that was correct. Spartz inquired about the
duration of the extension. Dragsten commented that the recommendation is for one year, but
the Commission could elect to do something else.
Spartz stated that his only concern is a specific date for the project. Chairman Dragsten noted
that it is most likely that the City would know by February or March of next year whether they
would build in 2009.
Hilgart asked what would happen if Planning Commission recommended denial. Schumann
noted that Council still has to act on the recommendation. If denied by Council, they would
need to reapply.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF
THE JUNE 25TH, 2007 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT AND
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED MILLS FLEET FARM TO JUNE 25~', 2008 WITH THE
11
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
• CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED
TO THE EXTENSION.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
10. Consideration of a request for extension for Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to
Schumann provided the staff report, indicating that on June 5~`, 2007, the
Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of an amendment to
Planned Unit Development request for the proposed Landmark Center project,
submitted by Mielke Bros., LLC. The City Council subsequently approved the
requests on June 11 a', 2007.
Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for amendment to PUD will expire on
June 11 ~h, 2008. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use
permits expire due to non-use after one year.
Staff recommends approval of the extension.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION
• OF THE JUNE 11TH, 2007, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A RETAIL
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT MONTICELLO TRAVEL CENTER 2ND
ADDITION FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WITH THE CONDITION THAT
ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE
EXTENSION.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
11. Temporar~Si is
Schumann indicated that the Building Department has been ramping up to address
the tremendous demand that will be created by the extent of storm damage.
As part of those efforts, the Department held a meeting with all contractors who
had posted signs as of the Monday after the storm. There were approximately 85
attendees. The Department will follow the code and remove any signs in the
right-of--way and allow one sign on private property with a building permit.
12. Adjourn
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION
. SECONDED BY COMMISSION VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
12
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08
/~ '
RecordezJ r
•
•
13