Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 12-06-2011MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 6th, 2011- 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Commissioners Absent: Charlotte Gabler Council Liaison: Lloyd MIgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Bruce Westby, Megan Barnett - Livgard, Ron Hackenrnueller, Steve Grittman-NAC 1. Call to order Commissioner Rod Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning, Commission minutes of November 1, 2011 a) Regular Meeting of November 1St, 2011 BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. (William Spartz abstained.) b) Planning Commission and City Council Special Meeting of November lst, 2011 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1 ST, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4- 0. 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 5. Public Hearing,- Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R- 1 (Single- Family) District lots. Applicant: McCann, Steve /Sunset Ponds, LLC Sunset Ponds, LLC is seeking to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved in 2003 under the previous version of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. The PUD allowed a mixing of zoning districts within the development. The requested PUD amendment would allow limited flexibility in building and performance standards for five single - family lots which are vacant residential properties in the R -1 zoning district. The addresses for these lots are: 9433, 9391, 9381, 9351 Gifford Court and 6766 94a` St. NE in Monticello. The applicant requested flexibility to reduce standards in three primary areas — an approximately 14% reduction in total finishable space, a larger garage footprint than principal structure footprint, and a smaller than required garage door. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 Representatives from Sunset Ponds, LLC, the Planning Commission, and City Council met prior to the application submittal to discuss the proposed amendments. There was general consensus that any reduction in square footage requirements or other code flexibility needed to be offset by other structure enhancements. Any such reductions should be essentially "invisible" in terms of negative impact in mass and sizing relative to the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has proposed to offset variations with upgraded exterior modifications, increased initial finished square footage, and a three - stall garage. Staff analyzed roof pitch, minimum finished floor area, finishable space, building materials, garage size, garage size relative to principal structure and garage door size for three home designs submitted for the five lots. The roof pitch proposed would change from 5/12 to a 6/12 pitch. The proposed amendment would provide 1,721 sq. ft. of finishable space. Base code required 2,000 sq. ft. of finishable space, exclusive of mechanical, garage or unfinished space, which must be above grade. The total finished square footage would be 1328 which is larger than the base code of 1050 sq. ft. The applicant is also seeking to increase the size of the garage from 450 sq. ft. to 660 sq. ft. The proposed garage would be approximately 10% larger than the footprint of the home. The garage door size proposed would be a 15' opening dual door rather than the existing code requirement of 16' opening. There was some discussion about the proposed size of the house and the distinction between finished space and finishable space. The house would be smaller in finishable space but likely not look smaller from the street. The basement would be smaller but there would be a bonus room above the garage. The garage would be larger. The public hearing was opened. Numerous Sunset Ponds residents expressed concerns about this proposal. Michael Ramen of 6780 94`h Street asked how it might affect the value of his house. Planning Commissioners pointed out that if the PUD were not amended it was likely that a smaller house could be built on the vacant lots based on current code requirements. Dan Moffitt of 9348 Giffort Court asked if the homes would be two -story as had been the practice of the previous home builder NW Johnson. Staff noted that current owners are not required to abide by the previous owner's design commitment and that the proposed home designs were to be split -entry and multi - level. Evelyn Moffitt of 9348 Giffort Court indicated that she was against the proposal because would affect three lots in her cul -de -sac. Nichole Lerberg of 9366 Giffort Court asked how the public input process worked. Rod Dragsten responded that the Planning Commission will take public comment and staff 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 research into consideration as they make a recommendation to City Council. Brad Lerber of 9366 Giffort Court stated that his neighbors were totally against the proposal. He said value would increase with above grade square footage. Ben Roberg of 9413 Giffort Court, indicated that he thought that this smaller housing type won't create a long -term family neighborhood. Other Sunset Ponds residents in attendance were: Aimee & Kip Sandberg of 9354 Giffort Court, Jamie Cline of 9403 Giffort Court and Staci & Troy Magsam of 9376 Giffort Court. There was no information provided about what the proposed home designs would be valued or what vacant lots had been sold for. There are base codes in place for landscaping. The public hearing was closed. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE #1 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR R- 1 (SINGLE- FAMILY) DISTRICT LOTS FOR SUNSET PONDS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. APPROVAL IS LIMITED TO THE FIVE LOTS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6, 10, 11 AND 14, BLOCK 2, AND LOT 4, BLOCK 3, SUNSET PONDS. B. APPROVAL IS LIMITED TO BUILDING AND PERFORMANCE STANDARD MODIFICATIONS AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE "HICKORY STANDARD ", "HICKORY DELUXE" AND "HICKORY PREMIUM" HOME PLANS AS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. C. NO HOMES ON ABUTTING PROPERTIES MAY BE CONSTRUCTED OF THE SAME HOME PLAN. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 3 -1 WITH WILLIAM SPARTZ VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R 1A (Single - Family) District lots. Applicant: Keyland Homes Key Land Homes asked to amend one Planned Unit Development standard applicable to garage design for R -IA properties within the Hillside Farm development. It is specific to the ratio of garage door to home as measured from side to side on the front fagade. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 The required 700 square foot garage, coupled with the R -1 lot sizing standard creates the potential for design constraints relative to the 40% requirement. The applicant has provided a house plan reflecting the proposed garage modification. All other code and PUD standards (including amended standards noted above) have been met for the home, including finished square footage, finishable square footage, exterior detailing, etc. The four lots proposed for this current PUD amendment are vacant residential properties located at 8605, 8585, and 8626 Elk Avenue and 5903 Badger Street in Monticello. These lots must also conform to the 2004 and 2008 amendments to the original PUD approval. The 2004 amendment requires that two -story and modified two -story residential dwellings must provide: a minimum finished first floor size of 1100 square feet; a minimum of 2200 square feet finished area above grade; and, full basements. The 2008 amendment requires that no split entry homes shall be allowed on the balance of the lots owned by the applicant; and the garage shall not extend more than 12' beyond the front building line of the home itself for the balance of the lots owned by the applicant. The public hearing was opened. Hillside Farm resident Jason Penaz of 5944 Badger Street confirmed that the square footage would be the same on all four lots. Resident Pat Caouetta of 5866 Badger asked why this amendment can't be valid for all developers in the neighborhood. Staff noted that legally an application for variance must come from the property owner. Key Land Homes Representative Terry Long answered questions. Work on these homes should be completed by the end of February. The public hearing was closed. WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR R- DA (SINGLE - FAMILY) DISTRICT LOTS FOR HILLSIDE FARMS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. APPROVAL IS LIMITED TO THE FOUR LOTS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5, 6, AND 10, BLOCK 2 AND LOT 5, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE FARM 2 N ADDITION. B. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MEET AND /OR EXCEED ALL OTHER CODE AND PUD DESIGN STANDARDS. C. APPROVAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT IS LIMITED TO: Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 • GARAGE FRONTAGE: FROM SIDE BUILDING LINE TO SIDE BUILDING LINE OF ANY SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE, NO MORE THAN 50% OF SUCH BUILDING WIDTH SHALL CONSIST OF GARAGE DOORS THAT FACE THE STREET. SIDE OR REAR LOADED GARAGE DOORS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS REGULATION. AN EXCEPTION SHALL BE MADE FOR GARAGE DOORS WHICH FACE THE STREET, BUT ARE SET BACK AT LEAST TEN FEET IN BACK OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE OF THE PRINCIPAL USE. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development. (Lot 2. Block I and Lot 2, Block 2. Carcone Addidon,1005 State Hwy 25) Applicant: Weinhold Investments, LLC Steve Grittman indicated that this is Monticello's first Planned Unit Development Concept Stage Approval application subject to the new zoning ordinance and submission process. The new rules require establishment of a customized PUD zoning district. Staff met with the applicant, planning commission representatives and city council representatives to collaborate on project aspects and assist with the design of a public values statement. The proposed PUD consists of a remodeling of the existing Ford dealership building for multiple tenant occupancy, including utilization of a portion of the building for automotive services (detailing and car wash), and other portions for commercial uses including retail, office, and commercial services. The property would be subdivided to establish two new parcels on what was the former sales /display lot, one of which would be used for restaurant, and the southern -most parcel to be used for professional office space or other commercial uses. The remnant parcel west of Sandberg Road would be used for overflow parking for the currently proposed project, and then subject to future development by PUD amendment. A PUD is being requested for this project to provide for more flexible land uses, including both B -3 and B -4 district uses (highway and regional business), as well as for shared parking, off -site parking, and shared access locations. Staff asked that the applicants incorporate the following items into a Preliminary Development PUD application: a. Develop a clear boundary between the proposed PUD and the property to the north (West Metro). Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 b. Address circulation on the west side of the existing building to channelize drive lanes and potentially, reduce paved surface cover. c. Remove parallel parking along the west side of the existing building, replacing it with better drive lane channeling. Angle parking may be appropriate if adequate space exists. d. Revise the parking layout between the existing building and the restaurant to permit more direct access from the restaurant to the Sandberg Road access point and minimize dead -end parking stall access. e. Consider landscape elements that enhance the site visually and minimize stormwater runoff where possible, with the understanding that tree planting can be designed to avoid interrupting views of the buildings in the PUD. f. Landscaping, Lighting, Signage, and Utility details would all be apart of the more extensive Preliminary Development PUD application. g. Building Design and Materials meet the expectations of the Public Values Statement and collaborative process. Additional detail, including details of trash handling and other incidental uses, and elevation illustrations for the exterior of the existing building, will be provided. The public hearing was opened. Developer Calvin Freudenrich of 4483 87" St NE apologized to the City for the recent article in Monticello Times. He assured the Planning Commission that he would be working closely with the city to fulfill his development obligations. The Commissioners asked a few questions about parking. The developer stated that adding parking stalls wouldn't be a problem and that he would work with West Metro to plan for vehicle drop off. He may add trees to the property along Sandberg Road. He stated that he had no concerns with the Preliminary Development PUD requirements. The public hearing was closed. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO PASS THE PROPOSED CONCEPT STAGE PUD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR COMMENT WITH THE ITEMS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 3 -1 WITH BRAD FYLE VOTING IN OPPOSITION DUE TO THE OFFSITE PARKING. 8. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Co- location of a Wireless Telecommunication Service Antenna. Applicant: RKZ ConsultinE Cj. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 The applicant indicated intent to move forward with the application review during January's regular meeting. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CO- LOCATION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE ANNTENA UNTIL THE JANUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 9. Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the adoption of the Embracing Downtown Plan The Embracing Downtown Plan updates the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan as part of the larger 2008 Comprehensive Plan in order to achieve the community's current objectives. Changing economic conditions and retail centers as well as increased growth have created an opportunity to move forward in creating a vibrant locality. The EDA, spurred on by a Business Retention & Expansion study which indicated a key interest in strengthening the downtown, acted as the primary redevelopment agency to embark on this new planning effort. The Embracing Downtown Steering Committee recommended the appointment of consulting firm the McComb Group to address challenges and opportunities in market analysis, transportation planning, land use planning and financial implementation. The consultants worked through a five phase planning process involving downtown property owners and business owners and numerous stakeholders throughout the community. The five -phase planning process included: • Research and analysis • Assessment of alternatives and preliminary feasibility • Stakeholder review of alternatives and identification of the preferred alternative • Feasibility and strategy development for the preferred alternative • Creation of a downtown revitalization strategy The draft plan presented for recommendation details the work accomplished in each of the five phases and the resulting outcomes. The four components of the plan included: • Market Analysis • Transportation Planning • Land Use Plan & Design • Financial Feasibility and Implementation Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 These components integrated into one preferred vision for the revitalization of the downtown. MarketAnalysis Economic Development Director Megan Barnett- Livgard pointed out that in developing the final project scope of work, the EDA felt strongly that the new plan should be driven by economic realities. Market Analysis determined that Monticello has capacity for more commercial and retail space in the community. The consulting team believed that Monticello should market itself as a sub - regional center between Maple Grove and St. Cloud. The City has a real, market -driven opportunity to successfully locate a department store, additional medical services, and another type of grocery store in the downtown area. Local traffic is conducive to having these amenities. Transportation Planning City Engineer Bruce Westby noted that providing a functional, multi -modal transportation system will play a critical role in ensuring the commercial viability of the downtown area. This will include adequate accommodations for vehicular operations, vehicle parking both on and off - street and pedestrians and bicyclists. Westwood Professional Services completed a comprehensive Transportation Study as part of the Embracing Downtown Monticello Report. He outlined key transportation improvements recommended by the Embracing Downtown Plan: • TH 25/Pine Street Development in this corridor will capitalize on the high volume of traffic. Off - street pedestrian and bicycle accommodations will be provided. On -street parking will continue to be prohibited along the TH 25 corridor. A signal system will be required at the intersection of 4a' Street/TH 25 to provide adequate access to the proposed retail facilities. The newly signalized intersection at TH 25 will benefit pedestrians by providing another controlled crossing for TH 25. Right - in/right -out access restrictions will be required at 3 d Street to accommodate the new 4a' Street signal system. • CSAH 75/Broadway Development along this corridor will capitalize on the high volume of traffic. Off - street pedestrian accommodations will be provided, through the design of these sidewalks will require special attention to accommodate desired streetscape enhancements and outdoor seating. Bicycle accommodations will not be provided. On- street parking will be provided as practicable. Off - street parking fields will be located behind stores. • Walnut Street Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 This corridor will serve as the major north -south pedestrian corridor between the Mississippi River and Interstate 94 in the downtown area. Walnut Street bisects "anchor block ", separating the anchor store from the parking field east of Walnut. On- street parking will be prohibited between 4s' Street and CSAH 75/Broadway. • 4`s Street Accommodations for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic will be provided along this corridor. On- street parking will be maintained where practicable. • Second River Crossing A second river crossing will be necessary to reduce congestion on TH 25 to acceptable levels through at least the year 2030. Traffic volumes are estimated to increase by 60% by 2030 without this project. • Multi -Modal Considerations Pedestrian Crossings: • CSAH 75/Broadway-Locust, Walnut, TH 25/Pine & Cedar • TH 25/Pine Street— CSAH 75/Broadway, 46& 7th Pathway Connections: • CSAH 75/Broadway-Both ends • 7a' Street East Sidewalk Connections: • 46' Street East • 66' Street East • CSAH 75/Broadway-Both ends • TH 25 — Both ends Traffic impacts associated with the Plan as developed are expected to be minor. Redevelopment of the downtown area is anticipated to result in a net increase of 9,000 ADT. Traffic operations at the intersection of TH 25 /CSAH 75 is most critical to traffic flow in and around the CCD. Brad Fyle asked about how Walnut Street will function as part of this plan. Staff indicated that Walnut would continue to accommodate both pedestrians and vehicles but that the local vehicular traffic would calm as a result of the proposed redevelopment plan. Walnut would serve the businesses along that corridor. Rod Dragsten asked how the proposed signalization of 4v' Street would affect traffic. Staff indicated that based on a recent study of operational impacts the addition of a Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 traffic signal would create a more organized and consistent progression of traffic through the intersection. Land Use Plan & Design The McCombs Group melded the outcomes of the Market Analysis and Transportation components with the stated strategies for the downtown identified within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan to develop: • A Downtown Vision Statement • Guiding Principles • Goals • Development Framework Plan • Development Plan Alternatives Four alternatives for redevelopment were prepared utilizing the results of the research and site analysis, market investigation, and goals developed for Land Use, Transportation, and Downtown design and Image. Compact Scheme A best represented the basis for redevelopment of the CCD consistent with goals and objectives for the downtown area and the Downtown Framework. Scheme A was refined to include suggestions for modifications and improvements extracted from other alternatives or new ideas. The Preferred Alternative Plan met considerations for market compatibility, transportation, pedestrian movements and land use and design and the ability to be phased in over time. Design Guidelines are intended to correspond to the limits of the CCD Zoning District and to establish development controls within the CCD. Financial Feasibility and Implementation Monticello has an opportunity to capitalize on the new Walgreens and related intersection improvements with a few catalyst projects: • Relocate Ace Hardware • Attract and "anchor" tenant • Attract a whole foods store or discount store • Attract additional medical services Several financial tools both within Monticello and through outside agencies were identified to help address how expensive redevelopment projects can become reality. Preliminary redevelopment costs for each downtown block were calculated using assessor's market values and estimated development costs. The results indicate that some blocks are more expensive to redevelop than others. The City has an opportunity to capitalize on additional surplus TIF funds to assist in redevelopment costs. The implementation strategy needs to be flexible and driven by market opportunities. It will be important to keep focus on the Value Creation Principle: increased customer traffic, increased economic activity and vitality downtown, growing number of 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 businesses and increased sales and profit, buildings that increase in value, increased tax revenues to the City, and increased tax increments. A strong marketing program will also be key to promoting local amenities, utilizing existing business opportunities and purchasing appropriate properties when opportunities arise. Keeping communication channels open and building strong and effective leadership in the downtown will ensure the successful implementation of the plan. Next Steps Planning Commission implementation of the Embracing Downtown Plan calls for the following specific steps: Adoption of needed Comprehensive Plan amendments consistent with Embracing Downtown policies and goals Rezoning of parcels included within the Downtown Framework Plan that lie outside the CCD Revision of the CCD ordinances to support Downtown Framework Plan, including Landmark, Flex and Transition Zones, and the Design Guidelines Brad Fyle shared general concern about financing the Embracing Downtown Plan. The public hearing was opened. Downtown business owner Steve Johnson noted his support for the plan and commended staff on its commitment to the downtown. The public hearing was closed. WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2011 -108, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 2011 EMBRACING DOWNTOWN PLAN, APPENDIX DOCUMENTS, AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3 OF THE 2008 MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. The Monticello Economic Development Authority will review the plan on December 14, 2011. It will be considered by the City Council in January. 10. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as related to Permitted and Conditional Uses in the B -3 (Highway Business) District The Planning Commission was asked to consider expanding the number of permitted and conditionally permitted (CUP) principal uses allowed in the B -3 (Highway Business) District. In the recent update of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, the City elected to keep two 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 higher- intensity commercial districts, the B -3 (Highway Business) and B -4 (Regional Business) Districts. As the Planning Commission considered the allowable uses in the two districts during the recent code update, the consensus was to continue to allow auto - oriented uses in very specifically zoned locations adjacent to arterial or collector roadways. The more "standard" commercial uses such as retail, restaurants and office were completely left out of the B -3 District in the new ordinance. This decision was likely based on the need to mitigate potentially negative impacts caused by the auto - related uses on other commercial uses and to create two more highly differentiated commercial districts. However, lack of inclusion of the more traditional commercial uses in the B -3 District has created two problematic conditions. • A number of use non - conformities have been created in the existing B -3 Districts. • The need for convenience retail and service- oriented commercial uses exists for the B -3 District; but these uses are no longer allowed (either as permitted or conditional) in the B -3 District. For these reasons, staff is requesting that Planning Commission consider amending the basic purpose statement of the B -3 District to include general commercial activities, as well as amendments to the Chapter 5 Use Table to allow the expansion of additional commercial uses into the B -3 District. The purpose of the B -3 (highway business) district is to provide for and Omit limited commercial and service activities and provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Staff is also proposing that the City consider allowing the following commercial/business activities within the B -3 District. Permitted. Consistent and compatible with B -3 business /commercial uses • Business Support Services • Personal Services • Restaurants • Retail Commercial • Specialty Eating Establishments Conditional. Requires additional review for compatibility Office Financial Institutions Entertainment/Recreation Outdoor Commercial Rod Dragsten noted his concern about truck traffic and allowing business support services as a permitted use. The public hearing was opened. Hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed. 12 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #539, AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED, WITH BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES BEING MOVED TO CONDITIONAL USE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PURPOSE STATEMENTS OF MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 11. Community Development Director's Report a. Transportation -City Engineer Bruce Westby will review the findings of the Transportation Advisory Committee with the Planning Commission in January or February. b. Post - Development Survey- Post - development survey results will be made available for Commission consideration. c. Planning Commission Survey- Staff asked the Planning Commission to participate in a review of Planning Department operations. d. Development Cost Study- Studies indicate that Monticello has lower fees and fewer requirements when compared to surrounding communities. e. Permit Cost Study -Staff made the Permit Cost Study available for Planning Commission review. Building Official Ron Hackenmueller will include the City of St. Michael's fee schedule with the Planning Commission agenda packet next month. f. Consultant Appointment -Staff requested rate information for 2012 from both NAC and MFRA in order to maintain the flexibility to utilize both consulting firms on an as- needed basis depending on workload and type of project required of the planning department. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE REAPPOINTMENT OF NAC AS CITY PLANNER. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 12. Adjourn BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Recorder: Kerry T. Burri Approved: anuary 3,�� Attest: �l�Alll / /61, Development Director 13