Loading...
PC 2014 05 06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 6, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuh, and Steve Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Stephanie Bartels, Project Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: BLACK WALNUT ACRES SECOND ADDITION: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT WITH VARIANCES TO SUBDIVIDE 2.4 ACRES INTO ONE LOT ON PORPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 6260 CHASKA ROAD (OUTLOT A, BLACK WALNUT ACRES). APPLICANT/OWNER: FAZEL AND SARIKA HARIS, PLANNING CASE 2014-12. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Good evening. The request before you is for the replat of an outlot into a lot to be used for a single family home. The site is located northwest of Chaska Road, east of Highway 41 and south of Highway 7. Access to the site is gained off of Chaska Road. The site has some rolling topography and contains two wetlands. There are trees scattered throughout the site. Just a brief background on this parcel. Back in June of 1996 the City Council approved a subdivision for a lot and an outlot. Lot 1, Block 1 contained a single family home and was sold separately and then Outlot A was intended to be under the ownership of the same entity as Lot 1, Block 1 until such time when they were ready to develop it and that’s why this is before you today. One of the things that occurred when that subdivision did take place, the parcel is immediately south of the city of Shorewood city line. We sent a referral to the City of Shorewood and if you look at the part that is, the perimeter of the parcel is in blue. That parcel is owned by the same owner as the proposed outlot before you today. When we sent this to the City of Shorewood for feedback, they requested that access to the parcel in blue be gained off of Chaska Road. For understandable reasons the other alternative would be off of Highway 7. The property owner has no intention of developing the portion that is in Shorewood. We had some very lengthy discussions with staff at the City of Shorewood and they agreed to accept a conservation easement over that portion that is in Shorewood which will basically render that portion unbuildable, therefore you no longer have access or need access to that portion of the property. With that said now we will get into the proposal before you today. The site is guided in the 2030 Land Use Plan as low density residential. It is zoned low density, residential single family. Basically it will allow 2.4 to 4 units per acre. The applicant’s request for a single family home for this site is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan as well as the zoning ordinance. The subdivision request is very forward, simple request. As mentioned earlier there are two wetlands on the site. Both of them are Manage 2. The applicant intends to do minimal grading on the site. The one thing that we need to point out, the plans here show a U shaped driveway. That is prohibited by ordinance. You’re allowed one access point but that is something that we will work with the applicant on. Staff is recommending approval of this request. There is one condition that needs to be removed from the staff report which is the park and trail condition. This is a replat of an outlot and not a subdivision. As such we cannot extract park and trail fees. I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Anybody have any questions? It looks like it’s going to be relatively undisturbed. It’s more paperwork than anything else. Al-Jaff: Exactly. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 6, 2014 Hokkanen: Has the applicant talked about the driveway? Have you discussed that issue? Al-Jaff: We discussed it briefly and we explained that if they want a turn around on their property, staff has no problems with that as long as the access points is limited to one. And then of course maintain setbacks and hard surface coverage requirements which I don’t believe they will any issues with. Aller: There’s a lot of space there so there should be no problem with setbacks. Any other questions? Weick: No sir. Aller: Alright. Would the applicant like to step forward? If they want to make a presentation. You don’t have to but they can. Hi, there you go. State your name and address for the record. Fazel Haris: I’m Fazel Haris. Sarika Haris: And I’m Sarika Haris. Fazel Haris: And our two children, Samek and Sarona. Aller: Welcome. Why don’t you tell us about what you’re going to be doing with the property. Fazel Haris: Yeah so we just moved to this area because the kids are now going to the Minnetonka schools and this lot happens to be right in the middle of the elementary school they’re going to and the middle school they will be going to. It turned out to be a really great location for us and we’ve been working with the City for the permits. The driveway one obviously is explained to us. We have a letter to what was there and one other update I have is I checked with our closer. They did already pay for the assessment due also so that’s… Aller: Great. And you’ve had a chance to read and go over the report. Fazel Haris: We did. We did. Aller: Do you have any problems with any of the other conditions that might be coming your way? Fazel Haris: No. Sarika is following up on a few of the sewer related conditions and we will follow the grading requirements because we haven’t fully done up the plan yet so we’ll incorporate whatever it is the City’s requirement is. Aller: Great because there might be some, as they go through the plans there might be some other little things that have to be tweaked so. Fazel Haris: Yes. Aller: It looks like you have a good working relationship with the City at this point. Fazel Haris: We have been, yes. Aller: We look forward to you continuing to do so. Fazel Haris: Yeah we’re looking forward to that too. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 6, 2014 Aller: Great. Thank you. Any other questions from anyone? Sarika Haris: Thank you. Fazel Haris: Thank you. Aller: Okay, I’m going to open the public hearing portion of the session and this is an opportunity for individuals if they want to, to come forward and speak either for or against the proposal before us. And you can come forward and state your name and address for the record sir. Joe Pfankuch: Hi. I’m Joe Pfankuch. I live in the other lot, 6250. When they were originally a part of one lot. I just bought this in January and I’m neither for nor against this or I guess I’m for it so I welcome the new neighbors. I just want to know the impact on hardwoods. I know what to know you know because when I bought the house obviously I spaced it off. There’s 3 acres next to you. They’re only going to put one house on it. Who would have thought it was going to go right next to where my house is but it is and that’s fine. I don’t really have a contention with it other than what’s the impact, because there’s some really nice trees and I’m wondering what’s taken out, do you know? Aanenson: Sure Sharmeen can explain too but I just want to point out that their only place they can go is because of the wetlands. It has to go further to your property line because there’s a wetland. Joe Pfankuch: Well they could go all the way back and have a driveway right? Aanenson: Then they cut all the trees down. Joe Pfankuch: What do you mean? Aanenson: There would be a significant amount of tree loss to go further back. Joe Pfankuch: Oh, okay. I’m just curious because I didn’t see a before or after like what the. Aanenson: Yeah if we can maybe… Joe Pfankuch: Holy smokes. Al-Jaff: The grading is actually taking place right at the southeast corner and it’s minimal grading on the site. Joe Pfankuch: Well from a grading standpoint I’m probably higher so I’m not real worried about that. Al-Jaff: Okay, well it’s 30 feet from the front property line. Your home is further in the back so the portion that is immediately west of your home, that’s remaining undisturbed. Joe Pfankuch: Okay so the. Aanenson: So if we can go back to where the red line is. That’s the grading. Al-Jaff: So this is where the home will be located. This portion will remain undisturbed. It will remain in it’s natural place. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 6, 2014 Joe Pfankuch: So it’s just the trees up. I can’t really point but. Aanenson: The grading plan. Here is the only area that’d be disturbed. Joe Pfankuch: Right and, I can’t see that far but. Al-Jaff: So your house is up there. Joe Pfankuch: Correct. Yeah, again my question is there are some very big black walnuts and I don’t know them by heart because I’ve only lived there for a few months but I’m just kind of curious where the, where those big hardwoods are. I know there are some back by what is essentially my pool behind my house but is there anything up front? You’d think I’d know that but I really don’t. Al-Jaff: There is one immediately in this area. Bartels: I’m not sure if you can see it. Is it clouded out? Joe Pfankuch: There’s a what? Aanenson: A cloud. Bartels: It’s pretty light because it’s the existing tree. Joe Pfankuch: That’s fine. I was just curious…but I just wanted to know so I could see that. Aller: Great and my understanding is the City is consistently taken a position that we try to maintain our trees wherever we can and preserve. We have basically a preservation history so I would expect that that would continue with this property as well. Al-Jaff: Correct and in all honesty minimal grading on this site. Minimal tree removal. Everything is going to remain in it’s natural condition. Aanenson: I think that was maybe Stephanie, the project engineer wanted to comment on this but that was one of the issues that we looked at regarding stormwater management because they were leaving it in it’s natural state. The wetlands and the trees for the extraction as we’ve talked about. That helps maintain the water rate in that area. And if you had anything else to add on that but. Bartels: Just that when we take a look at stormwater quality we know that leaving those trees in the forested areas in place like this plan does, that that will keep the water that’s flowing off this site, it will make it able to be treated. It will decrease the time of concentration for structures and for the wetland. Aller: Especially a large, it sounds like a super huge overstory like the black oak so. Bartels: Yep with the big crown, yep. Aller: Alright. Anyone else wishing to come forward and have a dialogue with us regarding the property or? Okay we’ll close the public hearing. Open it up for comment. Discussion. Weick: None from me. Hokkanen: No. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 6, 2014 Aller: I think it’s pretty straight forward and then I would just urge the City to continue in that vein for watching out for buffers and overstory trees and making sure that we preserve what’s naturally been given to us already so with that I’ll entertain a motion. Hokkanen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a preliminary plat for Black Walnut Acres Second Addition to replat 2.4 acres into one lot on property zoned single family residential and located at 6260 Chaska Road, Outlot A, Black Walnut Acres subject to the conditions of the staff report minus the listed park and trail conditions and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion before us. Do I have a second? Tennyson: I’ll second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Preliminary Plat for Black Walnut Acres Second Addition to replat 2.4 acres into one lot on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 6260 Chaska Road (Outlot A, Black Walnut Acres) as shown in plans dated received April 4, 2014 and subject to the following conditions; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Engineering Conditions 1.Before the final plat is recorded the Surface Water Management fees, Park Dedication fees, and GIS fees must be paid as well as any recording fees not collected with the final plat application. Environmental Resource Conditions 1.The applicant shall plant one 2½” diameter overstory tree in the front yard. Building Official Conditions 1. Appropriate permit(s) required for the demolition or moving of any existing structures. 2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits can be issued. 3. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 4. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions 1.Prior to any earth-disturbing activities, the applicant shall provide a completed wetland delineation report and a Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Application for Approval of 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 6, 2014 Wetland Type and Boundary. Upon concurrence with the delineated boundary, construction activities may proceed. 2.Wetland buffer monuments will need to be placed along the wetland buffer consistent with section 20-411 of Chanhassen City Code. 3.A detailed erosion control plan consistent with Chapter 19 of Chanhassen City Code will be required with the site plan/building permit application. Engineering Conditions 1.The developer must submit a soils report to the City indicating the soil conditions, permeability and slope. 2.The grading plan must show drainage arrows for proposed and existing water flow. 3.The developer’s survey shall show the benchmark location and elevation on the plan. 4.In order to understand the proposed grading, more spot elevations must be added. The plan needs to show a spot elevation at the center of the driveway at the curb line as well as the proposed elevation at the corners of the proposed building. 5.The plan shall be revised to show locations of any proposed stockpile areas. 6.The grades must be revised so that no slope is steeper 3:1. 7.The driveway must be revised to have one access from Chaska Road instead of the horse- shoe driveway shown. 8.The driveway must be outside of the 10-foot sideyard setback from the property line. 9.The services for the proposed house must be directionally bored to the water main and sewer main located on the south side of Chaska Road. 10.Partial water and sewer hook-up fees are due at the time of final plat. 11.The developer shall make revisions as necessary to address comments from MnDOT and other stakeholder agencies. Planning Conditions 1.Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the applicant dedicating a conservation easement and restriction over the vacant parcel located in the City of Shorewood to remain as open space. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 6, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING: TH 3010 WEST 78 STREET REZONING: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL (OI) OF 1.25 ACRES OF PROPERTY THTH LOCATED AT 3010 WEST 78 STREET (NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78 STREET AND HIGHWAY 41). APPLICANT/OWNER: WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH, PLANNING CASE 2014-14. Aanenson: Thank you Chair Aller and Planning Commissioners. This is a request from Rural Residential th to Office/Institutional zoning for Westwood Church. The subject site is located on 3010 West 78 Street. It’s the area shown in red here and this is the Westwood Church property itself. It’s located just north of th Highway 5 on Highway 41 and West 78 Street intersection. It’s about 1.25 acres. So the existing land use for the church is office/institutional. As you’re aware we just recently approved a subdivision, a 4 lot subdivision on the edge of the property here on Dogwood and that, we did do a land use change and kind of the church intended to include this with it. This subject property and it was not included but it is owned by the church. It’s all part of the same PID number and I’ll go through the history of that in a minute so we are recommending that we rezone it. City ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan does require that it be consistent with the land use. In this circumstance it’s not but it does allow, the City is saying it’s our intention, and it is because it’s owned by the church. It’s under the same PID. It can’t be separated unless it was to go through a subdivision so the next time we process one through the Met Council then we will move that action forward so on the zoning map there too it is the, excuse me on the land use it’s public and on the zoning map it’s office institutional. So the history of the property itself, if you can see back here. This is back, the church actually acquired. We wanted, when the subdivision th went in the, I’m looking for the name of the subdivision. That went in on West 78 Street. We needed to have this subdivision come down to service the property on Dogwood so the church actually acquired. th There were two homes here actually on West 78 Street when the church went in so the church acquired. The decision was whether or not that would be a private drive going back there for just the purposes of the church or whether it actually become a public street and it was determined that it makes the most sense to actually make that a public street going back and tying back into Dogwood in the terminus there. So that was completed and you can see now this is how it looks today so that property was assembled. A portion of that lot was assembled with this and that’s existing home that the church owns. So then this really is, it’s being used by the church as part of their, it serves their purposes so it’s been readdressed. It was addressed off of West, excuse me. State Highway 41, Hazeltine Boulevard so now that had been changed so it’s again part of the church property. So the staff is recommending approval for the land use change. Again it’s how it’s being used today so it’s consistent with that so the motion would then be to support the zoning change for the 1.25 acres and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Aller: I guess my only question would be, is there anything, I can’t think of anything but is there any foreseeable knowing that there’s always something out there, reason why the rezoning would not take place later on? Aanenson: The land use amendment? Aller: Yeah. Aanenson: No. No. Again for the 1.2 it really, because the church owns it not to be subdividable. I’m not sure that there’s actually sewer extended to that at this point so. If it’s been connected. It may be th sewer going down that street, West 78. Aller: And our infrastructure supports any traffic that would be coming down there so. Any other questions? Great. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 6, 2014 Aanenson: I’m just going to say it was the Arbors so I talked about the church expansion for their parking lot to the back but it also accommodated the access to the Arbors which is the back and then also now we just did the Arbors Cove behind that so. Aller: Would the applicant like to come forward and make a presentation at all? Scott Sturm: Scott Sturm, 1051 Anthony Lane in Victoria. An interloper from the west. I serve on the Leadership Board. I’m not a church employee. As stated in the summary statement, this is an administrative clean-up. Don’t know why this wasn’t caught back in ’04 in that original purchase. We just saw with the other activity on the campus we saw this as an opportunity to just get everything congruous and just get it all cleaned up. So as stated, another simple one for you. Aller: It’s always nice when they’re simple. Scott Sturm: Right. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Okay we’ll open the public hearing portion. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against this particular item can do so at this time? Seeing no one come forward, I’m going to close the public hearing portion of the matter and open it up for discussion. Yusuf: Looks pretty straight forward. Aller: As stated. Okay, I’ll entertain a motion. Tennyson: I’ll move. Aller: Okay. Tennyson: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the th rezoning of 1.25 acres of property located in the northwest corner of Highway 41 and West 78 Street, th 3010 West 78 Street from Rural Residential to Office Institutional and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: I have a motion by Commissioner Tennyson, seconded by Commissioner Yusuf. Any discussion? Tennyson moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of 1.25 acres of property located in the northwest corner of thth Highway 41 and West 78 Street, 3010 West 78 Street from Rural Residential (RR) to Office Institutional (OI) and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 6, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVOCATIONS: CONSIDER REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 2003-08 (8170 MALLORY COURT); 1997-05 (1905 STOUGHTON AVENUE); AND 1984-20 (7300 GALPIN BOULEVARD). APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2014-13. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This staff report was actually written by our graduate student intern. So the conditional uses, what we do is we inspect conditional uses that have certain standards that need an annual review and so these three conditional uses are no longer active. So because the conditional use runs with the property often times when someone does a title check these will come up and they’ll ask us, the City to go through and do a revocation so on the circumstance they are no longer being used so we are recommending that they be revoked and the process then would be a public hearing and that would go to the Planning Commission and City Council so. So the three conditional uses kind I’ve talked about. They’re discontinued for 6 months. That’d be one thing you could do. You could also declare it null and void and so all three property owners have been mailed a letter informing that their conditional use has been voided or that due to their continued use, although procedurally we need to take formal action. So the first one is on Mallory Court and that one is actually, was for a bakery use and that one is no longer being used so, the bakery was located in an industrial building. Upon inspection it hasn’t been there for at least 6 months so it’s currently occupied by a different user, Direct Source. Again this sometimes comes up when, if that building was to get refinanced or something then the bank would want to know if those sort of things are in there. So the second one is on Stoughton and this is actually a cell tower so, for a ham radio and prior to inspection, again the property owner has informed that there’s not been a ham radio on that site for over 6 months and that was verified again on inspection so that’s the second one. And then finally the third one is a contractors yard for excavating and this is also located off of Galpin Boulevard at the address 7300 Galpin Boulevard. So again it was for contractor’s activities. Again those run with the property and since it hadn’t been used we would recommend again that that also be terminated. So with those three we are recommending the termination and we have a motion here but I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have on any of those. Aller: I have no questions? Any of the other commissioners have questions? Hokkanen: No. Weick: No. Aller: Okay. What we’re going to do then is we’re going to open up the public hearing portion for these separately so the first item before us would be the Conditional Use Permit 2003-08 at 8107 Mallory Court. Anyone wishing to come forward and speaking either for or against the motion can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I’m going to close the public hearing. I’m going to move on and have the second public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 1997-05 and that was for 1905 Stoughton Avenue. Anyone wishing to come forward can do so at this time to speak on that matter. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing on that matter. And then the last Conditional Use Permit is 1984- 20 at 7300 Galpin Boulevard. I’m opening the public hearing portion for that matter before us. Anyone wishing to speak on that matter. Seeing no one moving forward, I will close the public hearing. And then we’ll discuss them all together. Any reason why these should not be granted? And I’d like to thank the intern. I think they did a good job in preparation and clarity and it’s nice to see them separate so that we could deal with each one separately so well done. I’ll entertain a motion. Yusuf: I’ll make a motion. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 6, 2014 Aller: Thank you. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council revoke Conditional Use Permits 2003-08, 1997-05 and 1984-20. Aller: Any seconds? Weick: Second. Aller: I have a motion by Commissioner Yusuf, a second by Commissioner Weick. Any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council revoke Conditional Use Permits 2003-08, 1997-05 and 1984-20. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 15, 2014. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: th Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. At the last City Council meeting on April 28 they did approve the Dakota Retail project which you had seen and also Arbor Cove. I know Arbor Cove is going forward th with a grading permit on their next City Council meeting. Just grading permit only for their, on May 12 and Dakota Retail has some work to do regarding getting clean-up grants. That was one of the things that you didn’t see but they did ask the City Council for a letter of support on that. There’s some contamination that they’ll be working to get that cleaned up so, those projects will be progressing forward. Aller: Great. th Aanenson: Future Planning Commission items. We do have items for the May 20 meeting. Then that Park Court Daycare expansion for site plan review and then an interim use permit for a grading permit. rd And just a note of record, we do not, did not have any items come in for June 3 so we will not have a rd meeting on June 3 so. But as long as we’re talking about meetings, just a reminder that we do have a work session with the City Council next Monday. I know Commissioner Hokkanen cannot make it. Has a conflict and that happens when it’s an off night for you but I did include in your packet, and I did put something up at the table. Kind of some talking points and if you want to just take a look at that quickly. If there’s anything else you wanted to add. I kind of just highlighted some of the things that we talked about in our work plan in April and so the big thing will be the corridor study. At that work session with the City Council we’ll have our, or your joint meeting first and then we’ll talk about the corridor study update and we’ll also be talking about Comprehensive Plan. Kind of what we’ve got for available land and how we’re sitting right now as we move forward in the Comprehensive Plan update so, is there anything else you felt like you’d like me to add on there? Aller: No. Not on first glance. Aanenson: Okay, and I’m sure if something else comes up at the council can certainly talk about that. So we are, we have at the top of the items for work sessions coming in, there are some projects that are 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 6, 2014 floating out there. They’re in different stages of kind of coming to fruition but we do anticipate probably th something coming in in June. Again typically we do not have a meeting on 4 of July. It is kind of hard to get a quorum so we do have some other dates that we’re kind of juggling in there so we might have a little bit longer meetings on either side of that so we’ll see what we can do to make that work. nd Aller: And then the open house is going to move forward on the 22? nd Aanenson: Yes. Yep I did include that too for the open house on May 22 at the library and we actually will have MnDOT. We’ll have Carver County, Hennepin County, city staff and some of the consultants there to talk about not only the new river crossing but the flood mitigation on County Road 61 as well as planning along that corridor. So we’ll talk about that too at our meeting next Monday so you’ll get a little taste of kind of what the, we’ve just had a meeting with the consultants. Some of the data that we’ve gotten back already so we have two open houses. This is the first one so we’ll gather that data. Kind of refine that and then we’ll have a second open house sometime in July so. Aller: Great. Aanenson: So that’s all I had Chairman, commissioners. Aller: Wonderful. So just before we finish up, those who are watching, again you can obtain any of these materials that we’re reviewing and that have been presented to us on the website. Also if you want to follow the items before us to their final conclusion, the items before us tonight are set for May 27, 2014 before the City Council and a couple of big dates coming up are the open house for the 101/61 project ndthth which will be May 22 from 4:00 to 6:00 and also the July 4 functions here in Chan and the August 5 National Night Out so people should plan to get together as communities. With that I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Aanenson: Before you adjourn Chair I’d just like to remind you that you will be going into open discussion and we may move into a different room. More comfortable to do a Planning Commission interview just so we have that on the record. Aller: Great, thank you. Entertain a motion. Weick moved, Hokkanen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 11