Loading...
PC 2001 10 02CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Bruce F¢ik, Uli Sacchct, Deb Kind, LuAnn Sidney, and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING THE PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISIONS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Feik: I have one quick one. In the second page, item (c) which says that the, third line down, there's 30 days for the applicant or the city attorney to file documents. And the final line states that the applicant to file would be cause for revoking. In my mind those seem to conflict a little bit. Am I missing something there? If the applicant or the city attorney shall file the docs, why would the applicant be penalized if the city attorney didn't get it done in time? Aanenson: Well I guess. Feik: I mean it seems a little. Aanenson: If you want to put down failure on the city's part to record it. Feik: Well if the city fails then you shouldn't penalize the applicant or the petitioner. Aanenson: That's fine. What language were you thinking? Feik: Well just anything that would clarify that. You know failure of the applicant to, if applicable. Something to clean that up to so there's not a misunderstanding down the road. That's all. Aanenson: Okay, that would work. Blackowiak: Or even Kate maybe failure to comply. Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Aanenson: Right, and just take out applicant. Blackowiak: Out of the applicant. I don't know if that's exactly what you said. Feik: It would work. It just solves the problem. That was it. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, questions? Kind: Yes. The language that we're striking out it says if the new and residual parcels meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance for a buildable lot and are on a public street or private street serving up to 4 lots, that language you're proposing to strike out, are we required to strike that out or is it just a good idea to strike it out? Aanenson: The city attorney's opinion was that, if we were challenged, that that would probably be not defensible. Again the state law allows you to subdivide a portion of your lot. Or not subdivide but take a portion of your lot and add it to another. So if by doing that and we apprise you of the fact that you're making a non-conforming lot, the state law allows that. It's a loophole in the state law. Unfortunately that's the way it works but we always apprise people, you may be creating a non-conforming situation. That's why we want to stamp those before it happens to apprise people of the situation of what the actions that they're taking. But because that's in place and you're not creating subdivision, there is no criteria because you're not doing a subdivision. There is no criteria to say you have to have certain qualifiers because basically if they want to sell a portion off by not creating a new lot they can do that. But we always feel that we should apprise them of that. Kind: If we left the language in it would be discouraging, the creation of non-conforming lots. Would that be a good reason to leave it in? Aanenson: Sure. I guess if you feel strongly about leaving it in, it'd be my recommendation that you forward that to the City Council saying we would like some, to leave it in, if it does, in your opinion, may discourage somebody. And then we can let the city attorney address that to the council if you feel strongly about that. Feik: But it was recommended by the city attorney to take that language out? Aanenson: Correct. Feik: Thank you. Kind: I see no reason why you would change his opinion. Aanenson: Well he can maybe address it to the City Council too. Kind: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions? Kind: No. Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Blackowiak: Any questions down here? Uli? Sacchet: Yeah I do have a quick question. In the text you add it over the previous time we looked at it Kate it says, because exemption is not a subdivision you address that and it speaks regarding access. Would likely not be legally defensible. The word access confused me a little bit. I mean are we saying that any restriction in the context as Deb just brought it up? Aanenson: For example, if you were to take a portion of your lot, add it to another and you've made your lot now, you have to have 90 feet of frontage and you've made it less than that. Or take someone else's driveway. I mean there is no qualifiers. You're not subdividing. The only way you can place the rules on it, it says the legislative action of subdividing a piece of property so you can't say, when someone comes in for us to review those, we cannot say you have to have access onto a public street. If you look down further in the subdivision regulations where you're doing a metes and bounds split and you are actually doing a subdivision, it says you have to have access on a public street, which is our criteria. If someone comes in to subdivide then you go through those steps to say you need so much square footage. You need an access onto a public street. Then we go through that criteria but on this circumstance there is no criteria. Sacchet: What's confusing me a little bit is that, where do we draw the line between this administrative chop full of a couple square feet versus a subdivision because I think that's the problem we're struggling with. If somebody gives the neighbor a couple of feet because it makes a line straight or they want them to have other planting or what have you, then it's not a big deal but if they give something that it impacts the size of what's left or any of that. Aanenson: I would agree with you and the city attorney's position on that is relocation of a property line is not a subdivision. What you're struggling is with how much and what's the impact, which we all struggle with but that's the state law. Relocation of a property line is not a subdivision and that's really what this is talking about. You're moving a property line in a different location. Sacchet: So the definition would be if it doesn't create a new lot it's not a subdivision. Aanenson: Right, that's correct. Sacchet: No matter how teeny the remnant piece or whatever? Aanenson: That's correct. And what we do, and that's again why we've asked the county that they come through this process. We apprised them of the implications of doing that sort of thing. If they ever want to add on, refinancing they'll ask us if it's a conforming lot. Sacchet: Now what we currently have is we basically have no controls. Aanenson: That's what's in place, the same thing. Sacchet: We don't even have controls that it gets recorded properly. Aanenson: Yes we do. The only thing we're saying right now is that when it gets recorded, the thing that we're trying to change is we want it recorded within 30 days. That's the whole crux of this change. We've Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 gone backwards and discussed, we've kind of brought it to full circle but the crux of this amendment is to say we want it recorded, right. Sacchet: Now, and you are advising us against putting some caveat on it, that's basically the things you crossed out. A caveat that would maintain some sanity in the remnant lots. Aanenson: Right. There was some in there and it got added to with the private driveway. Sharmin just did a blanket, put that in where that place was in and the city attorney says because you're doing a relocation of a lot line, you're not doing a subdivision, legally you cannot attach those. If you want to put those in because you feel it may discourage somebody, you want to advise the council that you think it might be a deterrent, then I think you can recommend that. Sacchet: So technically if somebody cuts their lot in half and gives the half to the neighboring lot, that's a relocation of lot line. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. That's my question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. This item is not open for a public hearing, although we do have some visitors here tonight that I know would probably like to say something. So if you could make your comments brief, we would certainly appreciate that. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive and I did forward some information to you. I hope that you received. It seems like the timing issue is a completely separate issue from the other issue you're thinking about. Changing a lot line and creating, potentially creating a non-conformable lot. One of the main issues here that we were contending. And the fact that, not being an attorney, we didn't see anything in the state statute that was cited that would force this issue as the city attorney is contending. And the fact that a couple other cities that we surveyed have the similar language and this city.., about changing this themselves, Chaska and Eden Prairie and Shakopee and also Plymouth who we just today... The minor subdivision is, I'm not sure if that's a different issue than the administrative subdivision. Aanenson: Yes it is. Our code addresses that too. It's different. It's creating a lot. Jerry Paulsen: But I guess our main problem is the potential of creating a non-conforming lot, whether it's 8,000 square foot or 14,000 square foot or whatever so. As I say, I think it's two separate issues. The section (c) is, seems to be fairly reasonable with the caveat that Commissioner Feik raised. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Kate, can you just, I see someone else is going to come up but let's say that for some unknown reason I want to give my neighbor 5,000 square feet of lot. You know whatever happens, so then my lot becomes non-conforming. I can do that. Okay. Maybe the question is, do we need to change something in our city code to prevent that? Aanenson: It's not addressed in the city code. That's state law, so it's. Blackowiak: So we can't. Aanenson: No. Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Blackowiak: Exceed the standard set by the state. Aanenson: Correct. It's in the state law. Correct. You're exempt from subdividing. You're relocating a property line. I don't think we've ever, in my 10 years, had that happen. We've had people trade property lines on a fairly frequent basis. If someone's trying to add on. Doesn't have enough square footage. It's pretty rare that we would have someone, I can't think of a situation. Blackowiak: So you can't think of a case in which it had happened? Aanenson: ...to that gross of a degree. Blackowiak: Okay. That was my question. Okay, thank you. Come on up. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I talked to the City of Plymouth today. They don't allow splitting, taking a few feet off a lot and giving it to an abutting neighbor. You have to apply for lot division. Roger Knutson is the attorney for the City of Plymouth and they don't allow it. Administrative subdivision they don't allow at all. It has to be decided and go through the planning process like anything else. I'm really disappointed with the planning department. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. My question is, I guess who in the city asked for the change? Number one, to this code. Aanenson: The 30 day rule? That's what we're changing. I'm not changing anything regarding the state law of subdivisions. That is not being changed. What we're asking, the change that's here before you tonight is to have it recorded within 30 days. Blackowiak: And that's just in an attempt to make it consistent with state law. Aanenson: No. The 30 day is to make sure that we have lot dimensions accurate so they don't get, the lines don't get re-adjusted, relocated, and then 3 years down the road we find out they haven't been recorded. Blackowiak: Okay, does state law, is that said at all or not? Aanenson: Pardon me? Blackowiak: Does state law address that at all or not? Aanenson: The recording of it? No. No. No, that's our ordinance to be more... Blackowiak: So that we have current, up to date. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Debbie Lloyd: I just find it very suspect that we're making all these changes to code without good reason. Having researched code for the one issue you're aware of, code changes or changes to the original code and any code changes took past Planning Commission's and council's a long time to administer. They weren't done quickly. And I know this one has been tabled a few times but I'm just suspect of all this stuff. And I have to frankly say I'm suspect of our city attorney. If he says one thing or one city he represents it's okay for them to have that wording in there, to protect lots from being, I mean basically you're moving lot lines, fine. But when you're creating non-conforming lots, I mean what's to say you couldn't have a 5,000 square lot in what's to be a 15,000 square foot RSF. I think there's a lot more that has to be asked here. And I'm concerned. I really respect all of you, but I think you know an old member like Ladd Conrad who was here for 20 years might have had some history on this and frankly I didn't have an opportunity to contact him to see but I guess it's just a concern. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, seeing no one else before us, I will close the public hearing. So commissioners if you'd like to make any comments about this, now's your chance. Rich? Slagle: Can I go last? Blackowiak: Certainly you may go last. We'll start with Deb then. Kind: Okay. I guess I would like to see the language kept in there. The parts being proposed to be stricken. I don't even know how to say the word. Striked out. Blackowiak: Deleted. Kind: Deleted, thank you. Just as a way to discourage the creation of these non-conforming lots. And I guess I'd like to see that kept in. And then item (c) to me is a no brainer with changing the last sentence, deleting the words of the applicant to. Or of the applicant. I would be in agreement with that recommendation for the City Council. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Bruce. Feik: After reviewing this a couple of times I really don't have any concerns other than the one I expressed regarding item (c). I guess my personal opinion is, we've got professional staff members and city council all giving their very, various experiences and qualified opinions and I guess I'm not in a position that I would necessarily not go with the recommendation of the attorney. The staff attorney's made recommendation to strike the language. It'd be my opinion to keep it, to follow the attorney recommendation. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: Well, I was ready to pass this last time and the previous time this was in front of us because it seems simple thing to me that we want to make sure these lot changes get registered within a given time period and it's hard to argue with that. The other aspect that comes into the picture, the concern that is the result of lots could end up non-conforming I think it's a valid concern as it was pointed out. It's a separate concern. Based on the research that has been done by Mr. Paulsen that apparently some other cities have similar language in their code, I would like to recommend we leave it in or we at least advise staff to present it to the council as an element that we would like to maintain in that context. That's basically my position. Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: Okay. I appreciate staff's analysis. It took me a couple of readings to get an understanding of what we were driving at and truly all it is is the 30 day notification and recording that we're after. And if that is what we're looking to add into the code, then I would think if this would help to help clarify that situation, we should leave the original language in and make the fewest changes that we can. If we're only adding (c), I don't have any problem with passing this onto City Council. And I do understand that we're not creating subdivisions in this case and that's the whole point of the section. The other section dealing with subdivisions and we don't have anything to do with that. I have no problem with that he advised that we want to leave that original language in there. Just add section (c). Slagle: I guess my question would pertain to what's just come up through the public discussion in that if there are cities close to us who have what I'll call verbiage that addresses this, or some parts address it, is staff saying that that verbiage is really to discourage non-conforming lots or do those cities, and now including Plymouth which our own attorney it sounds like represents. I can't confirm that. Is that to discourage non-conforming lots or do they believe legally that they can enforce people not to do that? Do we know? Aanenson: Well we've mixing a few things. Slagle: Well I understand. Aanenson: Yeah, I mean let me just clarify first though. Subdivisions creating a new lot. What I'm looking at for Plymouth is a subdivision regulations. Subdivisions creating a new lot. That's a separate track that we're talking about. We're talking about relocation of a property line and I think that's been some of the confusion. We're not creating a new lot. I'd be happy when it goes to City Council, if you want Roger to cite the Plymouth rule, compare the two, I'd be happy to do that as part of the staff report when it goes to council. Slagle: Actually I'd like that. Just when it comes up to council if there can be some short discussion on what the neighboring cities are doing and maybe his observation as to why they're doing it. That's all I would ask. Otherwise I think it's fine and I agree that it sort of goes back and forth between the number of days and from the code but it just raises questions I mean I think to the average person gosh, you know. That's all. Blackowiak: Okay. And I pretty much agree with my fellow commissioners. I think I would like to see that deleted section remain in, or at least a note or an aside to council saying that Planning Commission for the most part felt that it should be left in so they would understand that. Whether it's defensible or not I don't think is our issue right now. I think our, or at least as I see it, our goal should be to try to get the strongest ordinance possible and if leaving some language in might discourage people from, you know they might not even go there. Then maybe we should consider that. And again as I see this, it's a housekeeping issue. Just making sure things are recorded properly. I can't see that too many people would try to make a non-conforming lot but I would certainly like to discourage that and maybe that's something we need to look at Kate. I don't know if we can or can't do that but. Aanenson: I asked that question and again that's state law but I'll be happy to have Roger comment on that. The rationale for that. Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Blackowiak: We have to go lobby huh. Okay. Alrighty. Well with that I would like a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I'd like to make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Section 18-37, Exemptions as presented with the change to not delete the strikeout portion in Section (a). And the change in wording that, if you can refresh my memory of what you said, that it makes sense. Kind: The last sentence of paragraph (c) should read, failure to comply shall be cause for revoking the city's approval. Sacchet: Come again? Aanenson: Just take out the word applicant. Sacchet: Oh, okay. Okay, yeah. Including that. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Kind: I'll second it. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Section 18-37 Exemptions to read as follows: Section 18-37. Exemptions. (a) The zoning administrator shall certify that the following conveyances, known as administrative subdivisions, are exempt from platting if the new and residual parcels meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance for a buildable lot and are on a public street or private street serving up to 4 lots. The applicant shall furnish the city a survey prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor for review: 1) Dividing a platted lot to add a portion of the lot to an abutting lot; 2) Dividing a metes and bounds parcel to add a portion of the parcel to an abutting parcel; 3) In areas outside the urban service area, the separation of a parcel into two (2) or three (3) parcels if all resulting parcels are capable of being further subdivided into buildable lots under the zoning ordinance. And (c) Upon approval of an administrative or metes and bounds subdivision, the city shall notify the applicant of the approval and within thirty (30) days thereafter, the applicant or the city attorney shall file the documents with the county recorder and furnish the city evidence of such recordings. Failure to comply shall be cause for revoking the city's approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 20~772 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND DELL ROAD~ ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ DELL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING~ MOUNT PROPERTIES. Public Present: Name Address Hoa & Hung Trinh 18274 Coneflower Lane, Eden Prairie Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions of staff? Rich, can I start down with you? Slagle: A couple questions. This right-in/right-out. I'm assuming you're going noah down to the mm, or how? Go ahead. Sweidan: Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. Actually they cannot go from there to the noah because there's an island in the road. Slagle: ... I'm saying if heading westbound on 5 and you take a right, go noah on Dell. Sweidan: So you can come from there noah towards south and in right to the entrance. Feik: You're coming off the 77th Street. If you're going noah on Dell. A1-Jaff: You mm on 77th. Aanenson: Your question is whether or not they would do a U-turn here? Slagle: Correct. Aanenson: As opposed to coming down and coming up this way. Slagle: Correct. Saam: What would happen, and with the amount of traffic on Dell Road, you hope somebody wouldn't try that but it could happen. Aanenson: Could it be posted, No U Tums? Saam: Yeah. That's a shared road. Chanhassen owns half. Eden Prairie owns half so we'd have to coordinate with them to put up a sign. Slagle: Because basically what we're assuming to get into the building, that they're actually going to head south on Dell. Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: Okay, and that will be, if you remember there's that neighborhood. You go underneath the railroad tracks and so I'm saying, my guess is that there's going to be a lot of people that are going to work here, are going to come from eastbound, or westbound 5. They're traveling westbound. They take a right on Dell to go up but they can't take a left because of the island. Somehow they've got to get back around. Blackowiak: Yeah, they'll just turn left onto 77th. Go on 77th for a little bit west and then take another left. Aanenson: 77th Street and come back into here. Slagle: Okay, so there's an entry on the north side. Sweidan: Yes. The road is there, 77th. Slagle: Yeah, I know the road's there but your entry is then on West 77th. Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, questions. Sidney: Just questions for the applicant. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions of staff Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a bunch of questions. Not too many. In the report it says the plan fails to show trash enclosure location, but it seems that I have seen something for trash on the blueprint so I wonder, do they need more or what's the scoop about that? Aanenson: Maybe the applicant can answer that. Sacchet: I'll ask them when the applicant. Blackowiak: We'll have the applicant, okay. Sacchet: Okay, that goes to the applicant. And then, hopefully this is the entrance. Physical entrance. Make sure I state this correctly. Where the city starts. I don't know where it's being designated anything like a gateway or anything like that but it's physical right at the city start. Has there been any consideration to that fact in this context? Aanenson: Not any more than we did on the other side, the north side. No. Sacchet: Okay, so it's balanced. Aanenson: It's being treated equally, yes. Sacchet: And with the setbacks, if they're doing the screening and the berming they're fine with what they're proposing? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Aanenson: Right. There was recommendations for additional landscaping and modifications to that, which they're in concurrence on. Sacchet: And it accommodates the Minnegasco with all the things on the south? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Now one thing I'm still a little bit unclear about is the city has a landscape easement over the south. East and southeast comer of the site. Can you help me out a little bit understanding what actually entails. A1-Jaff: When the subdivision in '94 took place we requested the easement. Part of it has to do with a monument sign basically saying Welcome to Chanhassen. The landscape easement language does not allow the construction of any signage within that area. Sacchet: So with giving up that easement be giving away to possibly have an entry sign, Welcome to Chanhassen? Aanenson: Maybe I can give you a little bit more context to that. At the time that this was extracted, when the subdivision came in, there was, the city was undertaking a discussion of putting monuments at each comer and it became very detailed and very obstructive and we went through a lot of different iterations of what it should look like and then we went, kind of came back full circle and said isn't really what we want to say is that we're about kind of natural elements. More trees. More landscaping and the city moved away from actually doing that. Again on the north side we didn't put anything in except for the landscaping. We went through that same discussion with Arboretum Village. Kind of less is better sort of thing. And so when it was extracted, that's when we were going through the exercise. The City Manager's taken the position that that's not something we're going to pursue. An entrance monument at this location. Again they're desirous to put landscaping in that really more represents the city of Chanhassen and that's some of the recommendations that we've added too. With the vacation of that which the City Council would respond to. Added the landscaping in instead. Sacchet: So at this point we are proposing to vacate. I know that's an item that's not before the Planning Commission. Blackowiak: Right, we don't have to worry. Sacchet: So we don't get involved with that? Aanenson: No. Sacchet: Alright. Yeah, that's my questions for now, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, questions for staff? Kind: Yes. Maybe you brought this up in your presentation while I was fumbling around here so I apologize if you already talked about it. The design standards that the City Council recently approved, I'm assuming do not apply to this project. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Aanenson: The design standards? Kind: Yes. Aanenson: Correct. They haven't been published yet. It takes a few days after, actually a few weeks after it's been signed by the Mayor that they actually get published. So while they've, we gave them a new design standards, and they've worked very closely with those, they're not in enforce yet. Kind: The reason I bring it up is the EFIS material in our design standards is considered an accent material, and I'm, there's heavy use of it on this project. I just want to point that out. I also had a couple engineering questions. The drive aisles need to be widened to 26 feet. That's one of the conditions of approval. And it's really just one drive aisle that's affected. The rest of them are 26 feet. If the applicant were to simply designate one of the drive aisles as narrower, 22 foot wide as a one way, would that solve their problem? Sweidan: As to the specifications, even if it's one way it has to be 26. Saam: Actually no. We didn't talk about that before the meeting. No, if it's one way, Sharmin and I discussed it actually before the meeting, it could go down to I believe, is it 20? A1-Jaff: 20. Saam: If it's 90 degree angle parking. It depends on the angle of the parking. I think we may have offered some other suggestions. If they go down to a 45 degree angle, then a one way drive aisle width could be 13 ½ feet I believe in width. Kind: So perhaps the condition should be restated that it needs to comply with city ordinance and work with staff. Saam: Sure. It doesn't have to be 26. The way they show it with 90 degree parking, it does have to be 26 but sure, it just has to comply with code. Kind: And my other concern was, if they did just simply widen that, it seems reasonable to me that they would probably lose some parking spots, and then they would be below what's required so it's good I think to give them some alternatives. Okay, and then signage. No U Turn I think is a good idea. Another one that I think, that will be needed is one way sign posted at the exit on Dell Road. Saam: Good point, yep. We'll do that. Kind: Put that on your little list, to do list. I'm assuming that's the City's responsibility? Saam: Yes. We usually do that. Our street maintenance crews do that. Kind: And then Sharmin, the discussion about the natural gas lines, you did not have a condition for that? Do you think that that would be wise to include that as a condition? A1-Jaff: Correct. We do intend to work with both the applicant and Minnegasco. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Kind: That's it. Blackowiak: Bruce, questions? Feik: I had two. That are left I should say. On page 9, at the bottom of the page, item (e) where we talk about that, you will need a 100% screening provided 5 feet above the adjacent parking lot. I'm assuming that was addressed in item 3 of the recommendations? Where we talk about the 3. A1-Jaff: Yes, correct. Feik: So we're not requiring 5 foot berm, we're only requiring 3 to 4 feet? How do we reconcile those two? A1-Jaff: If you combine the landscaping with the berm you should be able to achieve, I think that's what our intent is. Feik: So when we say 100% screening, if they use shrubs. A1-Jaff: Trees. Feik: That the leaves go off in the winter time and it's still, it doesn't provide screening in the winter time, that's still 100%? I'm trying to figure out how you reconcile the term 100%. That's pretty emphatic. A1-Jaff: If you look at the landscape plan.., is true along Highway 5. Feik: And you're comfortable with it's size initially of these trees will satisfy your requirements that it's not in 20 years we'll get that 100% screening. It's today. A1-Jaff: The shrubs in addition to the berm will give you the required height. Feik: Okay. The only other quick question I had was, we were very specific regarding the SAC and WAC charges in here but we're not specific at all regarding the park or the trail dedication fees I think it is. Have you gone over the fees with the applicant and is he comfortable with that amount? It's not specific in here but yet everything else is. A1-Jaff: I haven't gone. Aanenson: Typically park and trail fees are paid with subdivision. So they may have been all paid. We'll check on that. Generally they're partially pay with the subdivision, the remaining with the buildings on that SO. Feik: So they may not even be applicable? Aanenson: Correct. We'll have to verify that. Feik: Alright. I was just curious because you break. Aanenson: We can check to make sure when it goes to City Council that if there's fees. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Feik: It's just that we were very specific on the other charges. I wanted the applicant to be fully aware that there were fees, how much they were and that they were comfortable prior to going to City Council. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. I just have one question, and it's sort of a general question. When it talks about, as a condition for approval for this application the applicant must officially withdraw the previously approved site plan. Why doesn't this happen automatically? In other words, you know a year after 1994, 1995. Aanenson: The conditional use does. If there's no action within one year the conditional use does expire. The site plan didn't so just to clarify, in case there's anything out there. Blackowiak: Okay, so it is then, they don't withdraw the site plan, hey just withdraw the conditional use permit? Aanenson: Other way around. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm sorry. Help me. Aanenson: The conditional use automatically expires if there's no substantial action. The site plan runs forever. It was not recorded but just for clarity, just to make sure we wanted to put that in there as a motion. Blackowiak: Okay. So I understand. I just wanted to make sure with that. Okay, so that was it for me. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come up. State your name and address for the record. Steve Michals: Planning Commissioners, members of staff. My name is Steve Michals of Mount Properties and my partner, Bob Solfelt is here. Blackowiak: Excuse me, could I just speak to you, the mic's right over there. So we can hear you and get it on the official record. Steve Michals: My name's Steve Michals of Mount Properties. I have my partner here, Bob Solfelt here to certainly answer any questions. I think the presentation has been very clear and concise. The only comment I'd have is sheet AS-1 talks about trash and we propose to have the trash inside the building. There's a garage service door there so outside screening should not be an issue. Other than that we're available for any questions. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners. Questions of the applicant. Feik: Just one quick one. I'm sure Uli was going to ask it but I'll get it first. The landscaping plan with the additional trees, you're pretty comfortable with the trees and shrubs that's being requested of you? Steve Michals: Yes. Feik: Okay, thank you. That's it. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Blackowiak: Good. Deb. Kind: My EFtS question. Do you agree that stucco is a more durable material compared to EFTS? Steve Michals: Our company has used both of those products extensively. We enjoy our buildings. We feel they've got a lot of style and character to them. We've done a number of configurations with these similar colors in Eden Prairie. We've done both stucco and EFTS. We think both are good products. They're put on by reputable contractors. Brick can fail as quickly as any of the products you've mentioned. We like the color variation. Architectural fenestrations you can put on with both stucco and EFtS and we're very comfortable with that product. Our experience has been that it's a great product. Provides a lot of different character, shading and can do far more with that component than you can with brick or we still use brick accenting at columns. We're using some natural stone around our entries so we like the variation of actually probably 4 products on this particular building. Kind: I think it's a very attractive building. That's all. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, do you have any questions of the applicant? Sacchet: No, thank you. Blackowiak: LuAnn? Sidney: My goodness. Blackowiak: You noticed I moved on quickly. Sidney: A couple questions, t guess the first thing I have on my list here is signs. Do you have any special plans for that comer on 5 and Dell? Steve Michals: We'd like to certainly stay within city code. Typically we have a monument sign. Generally 8 by 10 meeting the square footage of the code requirements. And then also individual signage on the building for the corporation that would be at that property. We'd like the buildings to be successful, as I'm sure you do too and signage is very important for identification for those companies. So we will have both locations and certainly be within the city requirements. Sidney: And if we have flowers on one side, maybe we should have flowers on the other side too. Anyway, just to jazz up the comer. Steve Michals: We do provide a lot of annual flowers at our properties. Sidney: Okay. And then lighting. I guess we're still waiting for a detailed sign plan. One concern I do have with that, if you have lighting fixtures on the building, that they not be visible or interfere or shine directly across the street into the properties in Eden Prairie. So t presume there would be downcast lights and not these.., fixtures or whatever they are. t believe that's city code now? Aanenson: Yes. They did submit a photometrics plan so. Sidney: Okay. Okay, that's all I had for now. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Blackowiak: Rich, any questions? Slagle: Just one question. So the staff has not approached you yet on this 20 by 20 Welcome to Chanhassen on that comer? Steve Michals: That was a surprise when we purchased the site, yes. Slagle: No questions. Blackowiak: Okay. And I don't have any questions of the applicant either. Would Mr. Solfelt like to make any comments tonight? No? Okay. Alrighty. Well this item is open for a public hearing so anybody who would like to comment on this item please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Hung Trinh: My name is Hung Trinh. I live at 18274 Coneflower Lane, which is on the Eden Prairie side. Kind of worried about this. My concern is that the building there and access through Dell Road and stuff, it's going to create a lot of traffic at that intersection where you guys are talking about the U turn and stuff because a lot of people in that association leave at that point or they go south of that point and then head up north to go back out to Highway 5. So that's going to cause a lot of. Aanenson: Can I ask you a question? Are they taking a U turn coming out? Hung Trinh: Yes. And if there's a company there and there's traffic coming in from Highway 5, you take that left turn into the company and there's going to be a lot of traffic lined up there and it's hard to get out of that association and that's the only way out so. Blackowiak: Thank you. Hoa Trinh: I'm Hoa Trinh and I live at the same address. Again traffic is a big concern just because we do have that many.., and we do get somebody coming in and out at that 77th Street from Dell Road plus we have our association in the adjoining townhome association members also coming out on that road making U tums or left tums onto Dell going south and then going east and west on 5. Plus we have people coming to the other industrial sites there, the companies there so I'm just thinking even with the U turn, No U Turn sign there that that might be also a problem. I can see in the morning, it's bad there just because you have so many cars going so many different directions. Semi-trucks and things like that and that's a big concern of mine having two entrances coming in and out of the building, both on Dell Road and on 77th. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I have a question for you. Has your association or have you talked about traffic at all and they offered any suggestions or? I'm just curious as, you know from the Eden Prairie perspective, has that ever been talked about before in terms of making the U turn. You know going north on Dell to actually get south on Dell. Hoa Trinh: No I haven't...the association so we haven't heard anything from any members of that association and I'm not aware about the condo association... Blackowiak: Alright, thanks. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Slagle: Yeah Alison. I apologize for not remembering but will the frontage road that goes in front of Banta, will that connect to your place or could it connect or does it run smack into where you want your building? Aanenson: We made a condition that it not connect for that specific reason. We didn't want people cutting through from Banta. They continue to go back down to West 78th for that specific reason. The intent of the access for this property and the property, when these two lots that were subdivided, they're the only two getting access off of Dell. We want those to go back to West 78th Street. Otherwise you'd really have a congestion problem there. Slagle: But wouldn't the Banta folks, if they want to go east on 5, I don't think they drive all the way west on West 78th. I think they'd go up to get to West 77th, take a right. Take a right on South Dell and then take a left on 5. So what I guess I'm just wondering is if you've got folks coming to your building, or any of the buildings really around that area that are coming from the west, say Victoria, Chanhassen, whatever, they might have the opportunity to exit and come down the frontage road versus taking a left to go north on Dell and then not being able to take the U mm going further going to the railroad tracks but maybe even... Blackowiak: No, 77th is before the railroad. Slagle: Okay, I'm sorry 77th. 77th. Bob Solfelt: They can come off of 101 at the same point that they come off for that frontage road. And they travel west on 77 all the way to the entrance. So they would come the exact same way. They do not have to get on 5 and travel west to Dell Road. Slagle: But they have to exit onto 101. Bob Solfelt: Yeah, same as they do to the frontage road. Slagle: Okay, understand. Aanenson: I think what I hear Rich saying is... go back all the way down and take... Saam: Kate, was that looked at in that previous submittal? I thought that's why we wanted to present that here because you had seen that as a problem potentially. Aanenson: Right, and we can pull that back out but that was the discussion that came up with the Kinder Care proposal of the cut through traffic with the restricted mm movement. That was a decision that was made at that time. But that's something certainly we can revisit and point out to the City Council those issues and I think even as it's pointed out, Eden Prairie, one of their access points or another alternatives which give them some other relief from that point because it sounds like the congestion's at West 77th. At the terminus of that median. So we can look at that. See what other relief or they would have.., sign for the residential. Slagle: It's just a thought, I mean. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Aanenson: It is. And the other way to look at it is, is look at some of the traffic management techniques at what times people are starting and peak hours and that sort of thing. If they're off. I'm not sure what type of business use this would be. If it's 8:00. Slagle: No drive thru's though, right? Aanenson: No drive thru's. Blackowiak: Okay. Public hearing's still open. If there's anybody else who'd like to comment on this item, please come forward. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, it's time for comments. Rich, why don't you. Slagle: I think it's great. I think it's a beautiful building. In some respects I hope we don't screen it too much. So other than the traffic concern, that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Sidney: Very attractive building and I guess major topic has been traffic which is a pretty big concern I hope it's looked at. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: I don't have any big issue with this. I'm a little bit at a loss what could be done to improve the traffic situation. I think it's a valid concern and personally I also think it would be nice to have something like Welcome to Chanhassen. It doesn't have to be a huge thing but that is where Chanhassen starts, but that's not our discussion topic. Slagle: Maybe in lieu of the park and rec fees, if there are any. Blackowiak: Deb, any comments? Kind: I think I kind of commented when I was questioning but, I think it's a nice addition to Chanhassen. I don't have really any issues. A couple little nits to add to the conditions but I think you'll be satisfied with them. Blackowiak: Thanks. Bruce. Feik: I have no concerns other than those already expressed. Blackowiak: Okay, yeah and I agree. I think it's a very nice project. I think it will be a nice addition to that comer. It's kind of needed something I think for a few years. My big concern again is the traffic and the U mm possibilities or actualities on that Dell Road. And I don't know what we can do or what the City of Eden Prairie can do but maybe before this goes to City Council you can contact somebody at the City of Eden Prairie and just maybe brainstorm and try to get some ideas about what we can do to look at mitigating some of the traffic problems and the U mm issue specifically and maybe the possibility of signalizing West 77th. I mean I hate to say that but it might be there. Sweidan: Could I add a suggestion to that, maybe that you know an idea? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Blackowiak: Sure. Sweidan: Instead of having it like right-in/right-out, you could have it just right-out. Saam: Just limit it to a right-out. Sweidan: So that we can prevent from the people who are coming... Blackowiak: Ahhh. That's why we pay you the big money. Good, I like that. That's good. Okay. Saam: Something to consider. Blackowiak: Yeah, definitely. Well that and Eden Prairie, whatever we have to do to work it out but try to prevent or at least discourage the U tums or the additional U turns coming off of Dell. Slagle: What would be, and if I can ask the applicant, what would the entry aesthetics look like if most of your traffic would come from the north? On that side? Bob Solfelt: Here's a color site plan. Our preference would be to have a right-in/right-out on the property. We'll have a Dell Road address. There are two lots at this intersection and there will be another building to the north of this I presume. It may end up being 100% parking for Banta but I think it would be reasonable to have a right-in/right-out at the property because there will be people coming from the north. Blackowiak: Well those are just some thoughts and I think that between now and the City Council meeting the staff can at least explore some of the options that we have and so that when it goes to City Council they can have a discussion of what's going to be best for everybody concerned. Bob Solfelt: Okay, but I would not be comfortable with a restriction on that in your conditions. Blackowiak: I think our direction will be that staff explore traffic calming or traffic control options and just report back to City Council. I don't foresee a condition Deb. Kind: No. Don't worry. Blackowiak: Alright, with that I'd like a motion please. Kind: I move, what do I move? I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #01-12 as shown on the site plan dated August 31, 2001 subject to the following conditions 1 through 21 with the following changes. Number 12 should be reworded to say, applicant shall work with staff to revise the parking and drive aisle widths to comply with city ordinance. Add a number 22 that says, applicant shall work with staff and gas company to ensure berming and landscaping do not interfere with gas operations, yet still provide adequate screening. And then number 23. Before going to council staff shall work with the applicant to review traffic strategies. Sacchet: I second that. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. A few editorial aspects in these conditions. Condition 17, those should say revise the plans to comply. Not revised. Condition 19(d). Detailed occupancy retailed requirements. There's something garbled in there. Blackowiak: Omit retailed I believe. Sacchet: Omit retailed. Detailed occupancy requirements. Omit retailed. And then we have two conditions 20. I assume that will be re-numbered. That's just a few picky things. Kind: I accept those friendly amendments. Blackowiak: Deb I just have one too. When you talk about before council that the staff shall meet with the applicant. I also talked to the City of Eden Prairie. I really feel that that's an important part of it so that both cities can kind of work together to figure out what's going to happen since it affects both cities. Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #01-12 as shown on the site plan dated August 31, 2001 subject to the following conditions: The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening and the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosure. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. The applicant shall increase the quantity of plantings for parking lot and buffer yard landscaping to meet minimum ordinance requirements. A revised landscape plan including the sizes and quantities of plant materials shall be submitted to the city prior to City Council approval. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the east, southeast, and south portion of the site, between the parking area, Dell Road, and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. 5. Fire Marshal conditions: A fire hydrant needs to be added off the northeast comer of the building on the island at the main entrance. 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 903.4.2. A post indicator valve needs to be located on the waterline coming into the building serving the fire sprinkler system. The post indicator valve must have tamer protection. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #40-1995. 1999 NFPA 13 Section 3- 8.1.1. The property owner shall agree to release the existing site plan and conditional use permit agreements associated with the Kinder Care building. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 5203, 5207, 5215, 5300, 5301 and 5302. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. The site will be subject to a sanitary sewer connection charge for the installation of a sanitary service to the site. The 2001 connection charge for sanitary sewer is $4,144. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges. The 2001 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,322 for unit for sanitary sewer and $1,723 per unit for water. The 2001 SAC charge is $1,225 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the building permit issuance. The applicant shall work with staff to revise the parking and drive aisle widths to comply with city ordinance. Revise the rock construction entrance to be 75 feet in length as per City of Chanhassen Detail Plate No. 5301. Any offsite grading will require temporary easements. A cross-access easement agreement is required over the shared portion of the driveway access. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the access of off 77th Street West is required. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit for the site. The minimum curb radius allowed for a commercial driveway access is 20 feet. Revise the plans to comply. Revise the plans to show the following: Show all existing and proposed easements. Length of storm sewer and watermain pipe lines. Add a storm sewer schedule. Add note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drilled". Building Official conditions: The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 The west wall of the building must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction as it is located less than 20 feet from the adjacent property line. Detailed occupancy requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. The Inspections Division will review the utility plan when plans are submitted for permit. The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 20. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 21. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. Signs must meet ordinance requirements. 22. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. 23. The applicant shall work with staff and gas company to ensure berming and landscaping do not interfere with gas operations, yet still provide adequate screening. 24. Before going to council staff shall work with the applicant to review traffic strategies. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 18, 2001 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: Thank you. Our next meeting will be the work session. I was hoping we could start at 5:00 because I do have a field trip planned and it gets dark early so we will end up at the Lake Susan Apartments, which we'll be actually touring the inside of those buildings. It did receive an award. I don't think we've gone into too many projects, but I do have a field trip that will probably take about an hour so if you can make it for that part of it, that'd be great. I know some of you it's harder to break away. But then we'll meet back here, have dinner and do the rest of our work session. We've talked about the Bluff Creek Overlay District internally with staff. We've kind of reconciled how we're going to work through that and we want to explain that to you before we start that process. We'll talk about what's going on with the environmental. Some of those things that they're working on, Lori and Jill. And then also we'll put together what we think the 2000 Work Program, what we're going to be working on. Get some feedback from the Planning Commission on what you'd like to see so I'm hoping to be done at the latest 8:00. You know so it's 3 hours right there. So we start early and try to get done sooner. So if you. Blackowiak: Given that, commissioners sounds like a very important one. Do we have yea's, nay's, where are we? Slagle: Is this for the 16th? Blackowiak: The 16th. Aanenson: Correct. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Slagle: National Boss Day. Blackowiak: So you're going to be a boss that day? Okay, LuAnn I'm hearing? Sidney: Well I'm wondering whether I'll be able to attend. Aanenson: If you could just let me know because we'll probably have two vans because we can't all fit in one and we're going to try to stop and get out. Look at a couple projects too. Blackowiak: Dress for the weather, right. Aanenson: Dress comfortably, correct. Blackowiak: Uli? Sacchet: This is perfect for me because it's a meeting I don't have to prepare much. Aanenson: No packet to read right. Blackowiak: Deb are you? Kind: I'm on vacation. Blackowiak: You are on vacation for certain. Bruce are you going to be? Feik: Dinner's at Axel's? Aanenson: Maybe, we'll see. Feik: I can make it. Blackowiak: Okay, and I can make it as well. Aanenson: And I will e-mail Craig too. Kind: Madam Chair, I have a quick question about the Planning Commission update sheet. The design standards I see are completed and were approved at the City Council, but they have not been published yet or whatever. I'm assuming we'll get a copy of that? Aanenson: Yes. Periodically I do give you, after they've been codified. If you'd like to get one. The ordinance. I know that's caused some ambiguity on the first ordinance that we've approved. That once the language is changed you don't always get. We get a copy internally in staff once it's been signed by the mayor and then approved with the publication. If you would like copies of that, then it'd be your responsibility to put it in your code book. But once it gets codified what they do is you'll get a supplement, it tells you what pages to pull out and what pages to put in. Kind: We haven't gotten one in a while. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Aanenson: Let me follow up on that and make sure, and if your code book's really outdated I can give you a new one or if you'd like the staff to actually go through and make sure your code book's current, that's fine too. But I would like everybody to have a current one that they're comfortable with so I will make sure what the last supplement you received is. Slagle: Did we determine if we're going to get minutes of the council meetings? I thought the mayor... Aanenson: If there's something, if there's a planning issue that you would like to see, that's fine. Was there specific? Slagle: Well actually I'd like to request that I always get a copy of the council meeting minutes just so I know how they talk about things... Aanenson: Actually those are also on the city's web page too. Slagle: I can do that. Aanenson: If you'd like that, that's another way to get it. You can just download what they want. Sacchet: The whole library of them? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: How soon will it be posted? Aanenson: Let's ask the person who does the minutes. How quickly do they mm around minutes and put on the web page. Opheim: Well I think as soon as they're done. Aanenson: Yeah but I mean that's like a week after the meeting. Because it has to go out the next cycle so it's usually about a week. Is that soon enough for you? Okay. Feik: I have another question too. Do the development agreements also expire, back to that Kinder Care issue regarding. Aanenson: That wasn't recorded but the conditional use gets recorded. Runs forever with the property. Feik: How about the development agreement itself. Aanenson: That wouldn't, if there's no public investment in that, there's no public sewer and water, then there wouldn't be a developer's agreement. There would be a site plan agreement that says you will put the following landscaping. There'd be a letter of escrow just for landscaping. So that was never put in place. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other ongoing? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2001 Kind: Yes, I have one other question. As lakeshore landscaping. It says on the to do list. The more I think about it the more I think it should be taken off the list. And I'm interested in my fellow commissioners about it. The rationale being that I think 90% of our lakeshore's already developed and anything that we come up with would have little to no impact as far as improving water quality, which would be the rationale for doing it. Aanenson: I think what we'll be talking about, and that's why the environmental, on the work session. Blackowiak: I was going to say on the 16th, that might be a good topic. Aanenson: Yeah, a good topic. What I was going to say, it's kind of segwayed into, how could I say this politely, stinky ponds. That's kind of been an issue and that's kind of where we've been focusing a lot of energy. People that have, we just did a mailing to the Longacres neighborhood where people may be over fertilizing. We're trying to do some other educational programs where we're reducing the phosphorous and trying to reduce the smell. As the summer wears on, they tend to be disturbing to some people so we're trying to work on that. So that's kind of maybe superceded that and that'd be again, like Alison said, maybe something we could talk about on the 16th. Kind: The feeling I have with lakeshore is that, and maybe you could come up with a number but I feel like 90% is already developed and then if we make little pockets do these lakeshore plantings along the way, that's it not really treating everybody fairly. Slagle: Maybe we should call it pond shore. Kind: Pond shore plantings. Slagle: I mean really like I live... Kind: You live by a stinky pond? Slagle: Well yeah, pretty close. And it's probably everybody that's using fertilizer that makes it green. Probably by mid-June it's green. Kind: I have one in my property. Stinky pond. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other ongoing? No. We'll adjourn the meeting. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 25