Loading...
1978 07 26 e e . REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 26, 1978 Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Dick Matthews, Jerry Neher, and Walter Thompson. Mal MacAlpine and Hud Hollenback were absent. Prior to the meeting members interviewed candidates for the Planning Commission. A letter of appreciation will be sent to Les Bridger. MINUTES: Walter Thompson moved to approve the July 12, 1978, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Dick Matthews moved to note the July 10, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION REQUEST - GORDON JULIUS Roman Roos called the public hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Julius were present. The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. At a previous meeting the Planning Commission had called attention to the fact that Parcel A did not have sufficient frontage on a public street. Since that time the Julius.s have negotiated the purchase of sufficient property from the property owner east of Parcel A. The additional issue of creation of lots greater than twice the average size of lots in the proposed plat was raised, and the applicant was requested to provide information as to the conditions necessitating Parcel C to exceed this dimension. In addition to the reasons given by the applicant for the creation of a lot of this size, it is quite apparent that the southeasterly 110 feet of the proposed subdivision can none other than go with the existing residence due to the intrinsic geometry of ownership in the vicinity. The applicant has indicated that it is their preference to include the westerly most 100 feet of the property with Parcel C because of the potentially marginal building qualities of the soil and the relatively suitable soil conditions for the present gardening and pasture use. The City Planner recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to Section 8.06 - a(l), Ordinance 33 and also recommend approval of the subdivision. Walter Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 7:50 p.m. GORDON JULIUS SUBDIVISION: Jerry Neher moved to recommend the Council grant a variance to Ordinance 33, Section 8.06 - a(l) and approve the subdivision conditioned upon proof of purchase of the triangular piece of property to give adequate frontage for Parcel A. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. The variance is required because the additional square footage in Parcel C is presently unusable for building purposes. NEW MEMBER: Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council appoint, (1) Tim Stone, (2) Art Partridge, or (3) James Bohn to replace Les Bridger. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING REZONING, SUBDIVISION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ROOS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING Walter Thompson called the hearing to order at 8:15 p.m. Peggy Roos was present. The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. Roman Roos abstained from voting on this issue. Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1978 -2- The 1.2 acres are located approximately 230 feet west of the intersection of Laredo Drive and West 78th Street on the south side of West 78th Street and is currently zoned R-1A. It is recommended that the property be rezoned CBD. The Assistant City Planner gave his report dated July 24, 1978. e The Assistant City Planner recommended that the Planning Commission find this proposal to be positively consistent with the HRA proposed concept plan for the redevelopment district and that the Planning Commission recommend the Council grant a variance to Ordinance 47K. A new plan dated July 26, 1978, was presented. Roman Roos - We wanted to try to get a finalized sketch plan and landscape plan that would be ameanable to what the city's recommendations would be. We feel we have done this in several aspects. If you notice on this latest drawing I am using a zero lot line setback. The justification that I am asking for this variance is that small triangular piece of land that is just north of my property, about 14 foot on the west side going out to about 20 feet on the eastern side, is county land. It is my intent to try to get the county to vacate that parcel of land since it serves no useful purpose. In the worst case, if the county will not vacate or will not sell, that will mean that that piece of land will be there forever without a real use therefore it will be the front portion of my property. With the piece of property, in order to get as many parking spaces as I could and still not get the cluttered approach, I elected to set the building on that lot line giving me 55 parking spaces with the idea in mind that there is enough land between the corner of that building and the highway. It is very difficult to tell you or agree to the staff recommendation of 73 parking spots based _ on not knowing what type of tennants will be in there. I am asking that ~ the parking spaces be put on a phased situation. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. The following voted in-favor: Walter Thompson, ~ick Matthews, and Jerry Neher. Roman Roos abstained. Motion carried. Hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING GEORGE WAY SUBDIVISION Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8:55 p.m. with the following interested persons present: James Larkin, Attorney for Mr. Way Wesley Searles, 3841 Red Cedar Point Drive Glen Carlson, 7141 Minnewashta Parkway Ann and Robert Osborne, 3815 Red Cedar Point Drive Ken Smith, 3837 Red Cedar Point Drive Ed Allerman, 3821 Red Cedar Point Drive Art Allerman, 3821 Red Cedar Point Drive Dolores Roman, Daughter of Genenieve Draus, 4343 Benjamin NE, Minneapolis Louis Zakariasen, 3861 Red Cedar Point Drive George Way, 3831 Red Cedar Point Drive Al Klingelhutz, 8601 Great Plains Blvd. Dick Pearson, 7307 Frontier Trail Mr. Way is seeking approval to subdivide his property at 3831 Red Cedar Point into . two lots and to record it by metes and bounds description. The property would be divided along an existing sewer easement. e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1978 -3... The Planning Commission requested staff prepare a report that speaks to the five points cited in the Assistant City Attorney's letter of February 3, 1978. 1. The Planning Commission must find that the Planning Commission Development Guide for the Red Cedar Point area requires that a public right-of-way be established through the applicants property. The Development Guide on pages 2 and 3 provides that potential new street alignments indicated therein are flexible and will become fixed only after individual development requests are presented. After extensive 'study of the traffic circulation in this area of Red Cedar Point staff has determined that the city does have an ob 1 i gation to' cons i dering the health, safety, and general wel fare of adjoining property owners. Specifically, this involves the determining of a minimum standard with which all the adjoining properties can be accessed by emergency vehicles which has been partially attempted by the Red Cedar Point Plan. The purpose of the Guide Plan was to establish general guidelines and diminish any oversights as planning occurred for individual development. The Plan was attempting to express the need for the properties to the south of the Way property to receive access of sufficient standards so as to satisfy any issues of public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The location of the proposed public right-of-way continues to be consistent with the City's plan for Red Cedar_Point. The City Engineer's opinion is essentially an extension of the generalized purpose of the Red Cedar Point Plan and thus is consistent with the city's plan for the Red Cedar Point area. 3. There is a public need for the proposed public right-of-way as a continuation of existing streets and future streets in the adjoining areas. The extent to which there is a public need for the proposed public right-of-way is somewhat nebulous at this time for the property to the southwest of the Way property but when the criteria of public need is posed in reference to the properties south of the Way property it becomes a question of whether or not the city has fulfilled its obligation of providing for the health, safety, and welfare of the southern properties. The proposal at hand is of such a nature that it could well forclose the city's ability to thoroughly plan for adjoining properties in respect to circulation and access. 4. A public right-of-way feet in width is a reasonable portion of the George Way subdivision in view of the public access need occasioned by Mr. Way's subdivision activities. In light of the fact that the right-of-ways in the plat of the Red Cedar Point are considerably less than the required 50 feet. It would be recommended at this time a no build line be established on the parcel to be subdivided so as to allow for appropriate setbacks and for the potential provision of a 40 foot easement or right-of-way along the alignment of the existing sewer easement. It is apparent that the parcel to be subdivided is not benefitting from the proposed access at issue. However, the abstract history of Mr. Way's past subdivisions involved portions of those properties to the south having questionable access. 5. The public need for said right-of-way is specifically and uniquely attributable to Mr. Way's subdivision activities. As in four above it is not clear if past subdivision activities of Mr. Way can be held as argumentative for the access deficiencies to the properties to the south. From a strict physical standpoint the conveyance of that portion of Mr. Way's property to Berton Pierce did contribute to the landlocking of these properties. The Assistant City Planner recommended approval of the subdivision with the condition that a no build line be established so that no building is to encroach within 50 feet of the eastern border of the existing sewer easement. The Planning Commission look with favor upon Mr. Way's request to record the subdivision by metes and bounds provided that it be in the form of a surveyor's certificate for Council consideration. James Larkin - It seems to me that the problem we are dealing with here is that you are taking an ordinance that was designed to regulate developers and applying it to an individual case where the result is very unfair and I would suggest to you also illegal. I don't wish to quarrel with the planning concepts that may be presented here. It may indeed be good for Chanhassen to have the Red Cedar Point Comprehensive Plan and it may be good at sometime if they want to put a road in there but I Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1978 .:.4- want to suggest to you that it's not fair to impose that burden on Mr. Way. Mr. Way is 85 years old and his need to sell part of his property arose because the City of Chanhassen has imposed upon him assessments for sewer and water. That house is served by Red e Cedar Point Drive. It doesn't need the new road. He has a contract to sell the lot for $10,000. This lot doesn't need this road. What you are saying is that because of the planning concept for future needs they may want the road. If that's so, the city has the right to condemn it but to say we are going to impose a 40 foot setback line in order that we can come along at our leisure and sometime in the future and condemn it, I suggest it simply won't meet the test of legality. I appreciate staff's willingness to recommend that the platting requirement be waived. I think from a legal standpoint it's unconstitutional and unfair to impose on one person, especially in this situation, a burden that is really the community's burden. 3837 Red Cedar Point Drive - I have an easement over the road in question and I go down to the lake. I am confused what the health, safety, and welfare meant in the planner's report but I interpret that as the city being able to provide services. He is saying, let's put a 40 foot road to here so that you can go on up the hill on that 12 foot road. It's not to here (bottom of the hill) that the problem exists. It's from here. You don't have a problem on this nice straight flat part, you have a problem from the end of that in terms of getting equipment up. Here is where the problem was where they couldn't get the fire engine had trouble getting up this hill. It was way up here on his driveway. The 40 foot road here does not solve this problem and that's what I hear you are trying to solve. This road only serves four people. _ - It's an engineering question what would be a standard that would at any ~ season would support a fire truck going up that road. - The engineering problem to be solved is how do I get a fire engine up this guys driveway not how do I get to it. I can get to it on the existing road. To force a 40 foot road for access for four families, that's pushing a standard down the throat of an old man who is trying to sell his property. - The 40 foot also included, the Red Cedar Point Plan does show that circulation be carried through the property southwest of Mr. Way out to Minnewashta Parkway. Bob Osborne, 3815 Red Cedar Point Drive - My only comment is that I am opposed that any street or driveway of a 40 foot width coming down in that area. If you are going to provide some true protection you have got to come up the hill and if anybody here has seen that hill there is no way short of condemning the Cobb property that you are going to be able to level it and get a 40 foot width out of it. I really prefer the seclusion that that road provides. Ken Smi th , Bob Waibel Ken Smith Bob Waibel Wesley Searles, 3841 Red Cedar Point Drive - I do not want to see any 40 foot through there. I do not want to see a proposed road going to south of me across my property out onto Minnewashta Parkway. things to stay status quo. Ed Allerman, 3821 Red Cedar Point Drive - I would just as soon keep it the way it is right now. road go the I want Dick Matthews - I would like to ask each one of the landowners here and I would like them to state their name, I would like them to simply say yes or no to this question; do you feel as a landowner adjoining or connecting e e e - Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1978 -5- this piece of property, that this 40 foot proposed road would serve your health, safety or welfare? Bob Osborne - No. Ken Smith - No, I don't believe the 40 foot easement will benefit my health, safety or wel fare. Wesley Searles ... No. Glen Carlson - No. Louis Zakariasen - No. Do 1 ores Roman - No. Ed Allerman - No. George Way - I am opposed to a 40 foot road. Louis Zakariasen, 3861 Red Cedar Point Drive - It seems to me that the Planning Commission, sometime along the line has really blown it and that there should be some compensation and some giving on the Planning Commission's part of this thing. If this thing was that necessary it should have been taken care of a long time before this, activation of Kirkham Road or whatever. Jerry Neher - Who maintains that road now? Bill Brezinsky - It is privately maintained. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 9:35 p.m. Ann Osborne - Mr. and Mrs. Way have been under a great deal of pressure. Mrs. Way did not come tonight because she has high blood pressure. I would appreciate it if you would make an effort to get it settled tonight because they have been under pressure for over a year. ' HRA: Bill Gullickson, Herb Bloomberg, John Przymus, Mike Niemeyer of ~HRA, Don Ashworth, Councilman Pearson, and Al Klingelhutz were present. Planning Commission members requested this meeting to discuss where the Planning Commission fits into the HRA Plan for downtown Chanhassen. The Planning Commission and HRA will make recommendations to the Council on variance requests to the downtown moratorium. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS, DAVIS AND BLOOMBERG: Changes have been proposed since sketch plan review by the Planning Commission. The David property changes include the assignment of 100' x 290' parcel in Lot 4 with the Bloomberg property, and the inclusion of a 33' utility easement/pedestrian way which will serve the lift station located on Lot 1 of the Davis Subdivision and the designated common area located on Lot 8, Block 1 of the Bloomberg proposal. The Bloomberg plan shows a continuation of the road pattern through what was previously called Outlot A. Along these added streets are lots planned for a combination of single family residential, zero lot line townhouses, apartments, and a 60 unit hotel. Walter Thompson moved to hold a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance so as to include hotels, townhouses, and apartments be a permitted use in either ~th.eP"l ,~'P.,.,2,6r P-3 district and that the Assistant Planner be directed to establish the exact times on August 23, 1978. In addition a public hearing be ordered to consider the rezoning of all or any part of the Bloomberg/Davis property to either P-l, P-2 or P-3. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1978 -6- GEORGE WAY SUBDIVISION: Roman Roos - I would like a concensus from each of you in terms of how you feel about this in view of what we heard at the public hearing. Dick Matthews - My assessment of this is that this road is such an "iffy" thing. Nobody seems to take a stand as to even its probability of ever going in. I have difficulty with a 40 foot road going across that mans property and then stopping somewhere down here. If we extended it out to Minnewashta Parkway we are in fact going to cause another problem with another landowner and I think that proposed connection would start to cause problems with the landowners in between. If the city wants that road bad enough then they ought to buy it. Bill Brezinsky - We are talking about 40 foot wide right-of-way. One way to compromise is to say we will squeeze it down to a 30 foot right-of-way with a 20 foot road. You can't meet a car on that road now. If a car breaks down there or if anything, you can't get by them. A 20 foot road is what we have in Carver Beach with no parking. Dick Matthews - I think we are getting into an exercise in futility. We have to decide first of all, do we need the road. Craig Mertz - From a legal standpoint you have got to distinguish between public safety considerations that give rise to a need for a road. If you find that that has occurred then that's a justification for condemning property If the activities of Mr. Way caused the need for a road then you can rightfully ask him for the right-of-way. If you feel there is a danger there and it's not attributable to Mr. Way then I guess your action would be to recommend to the Council that they order a feasibility study acquiring that roadway. Dick Matthews - If we leave it as a private driveway and we go on record stating that the City will not maintain or make any improvements on that property from this day forward. ~; Crai g Mertz - There was a driveway there and all we purchased from these people was a sewer easement. We do not buy right-of-ways. Dick Matthews - Let's say we let it go as it is and three years from now they come in and say, we want a roadway in there and we say to bad because there is no way to get the property. Craig Mertz - You still have got to face the questions, do you need the roadway because of something Mr. Way has done. If you answer no to that and the other four points then you can't justifiably ask Mr. Way to give up his property. Bob Waibel - If that's the case then l1ave:we shirked our duty? That's my main concern if it comes back to the city a few years down the line when an incident does occur. Craig Mertz - There is an argument either way about whether Mr. Way has himself generated the need for this roadway. He created two of the parcels that are 1 andl ocked. Roman Roos - Do you think he created this problem? Jerry Neher - Yes. The problem is there whether those people want to recognize the , . fact or not. Walter Thompson - I don't think he created the problem. Roman Roos - I do. Dick Matthews - I have difficulty finding out what problem he created. Obviously there isn't a problem because all these people were here telling us there weren't. Roman Roos - Let's look at it from a planning point of view. Let's look at and see what it's doing to the overall plan. Dick Matthews - I don't see where you have got landlocked land. Craig Mertz - There is a private driveway that goes up that hill and there's four houses that use that driveway. ~ Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1978 -7- Dick Matthews - Being landlocked means you can\t get in and out and they are getting in and out, I don't see how it's landlocked. If it's landlocked. because of a definition or an ordinance, that's one thing but if it is landlocked so that you can't get in or out of it, that's another thing~ Jerry Neher - The thing about it is, all these people sitting back there saying they have no problems. They sell that property and that new buyer may think he has a hell of a problem. Roman RODS - Craig's number three point is very important. There is a public need for a proposed public right-of-way as a continuation of existing streets and future streets. That's what the planning obligation is all about. That's what the Red Cedar Point Plan is. Walter Thompson - I think the City had better buy that property then. Dick Matthews - If we go with this thing. He takes us to court. Are you going to win or lose? Craig Mertz - Probably lose. Jerry Neher - I think we could buy it. Dick Matthews - If we believe in that and that1s what we want, then he is due just compensation. Bill Brezinsky - You are going to improve the access to the base of the hill. Bob Waibel - To prevent any problems from that point between Red Cedar Point Drive and the bottom of the hill. After that point maybe all liability should be waived. Bill Brezinsky - Without taking the hill completely down almost, you are not going to improve those driveways. You are going to have to sweep around somehow. Roman Roos - If we put in a 20 foot road it's going to be just a detrimental to him as a 40 foot. He is going to lose the sale of his land or whatever. I don't think we can even consider Mr. Way we have to consider the road and the overall Red Cedar Point Plan. _ The Red Cedar Point Plan never ever consi:dered going to the top of that ~ hill. We, as planning commissioners, if we go along with that, if we acquire that property, run it to the base of that hill at this point in time we have the capability of extending that road all the way over to Minnewashta Parkway then we have met our obligation as far planners. We have met our obligation as far as what we feel the injustice has been done to George Way. If we could maintain a standard road system. Give just compensation to Mr. Way then I feel we have met our obligation. Dick Matthews - That road, if they got a 20 foot or 40 foot easement through there, that doesn't mean they are going to put that road in. There is no since in putting that road in under tmdays conditions. All you are doing is providing easement for future road system. Craig Mertz - It would merely be preserving the corridor. Walter Thompson - I am of the opinion that we leave the easement as is. Roman RODS - I would like to poll the commission. The first question being that the Planning Commission Development Guide for Red Cedar Point area requires that a public right-of-way be established through the applicants property. Jerry, how do you feel about number one, yes or no. Jerry Neher - Yes. Dick Matthews - I disagree. Roman Roos - I agree. Walter Thompson - I disagree. Roman Roos - Item number 2, that the location of the proposed public right-of-way continues to be consistent with the City's plan for the Red Cedar Point area. Dick - Yes. Roman - Yes. e Jerry - Yes. Walter - Yes. Roman Roos - Item number 3, that there is a public need for a proposed public right- e e e . . Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1978 -8- of-way as a continuation of existing streets and future streets in adjoining areas. Dick - Yes. Roman - Yes. Walter - No. Jerry - Yes. Roman Roos - Item number 4, that the public right-of-way 20 or 40 foot is a reasonable portion of the George Way subdivision in view of the public access need occasioned by Mr. Way's subdivision activities. Dick - No. Roman - Yes Walter - No Jerry - Yes. Roman Roos - Number 5, that the public need for said right-of-way as specifically and uniquely attributable to Mr. Way's subdivision activities. Dick - No. Roman - Yes. Jerry - Yes. Walter - No. Roman Roos - I would like to go back to number one and see if I can get another vote. That the Planning Commission's Development Guide for the Red Cedar Point area requires a public right-of-way be established through somebodies property. Craig Mertz - That is true because the map that you had before you was a photo copy of the development guide and it shows a line as a proposed roadway and it does go through the applicants property. By this first finding all you are doing is recognizing that that is a genuine copy of a page from that booklet. Roman Roos - That's why I voted yes. Dick Matthews - I can't dispute that. Walter Thompson - I didn't understand. Roman Roos - Number four and number five are really tied together. Let's consider them together. Do you agree there is a public need for said right..;of- way specifically and uniquely attributable to his subdivision activities. Craig Mertz - Mr. Way owned originally the blue, the green, and the purple and he has divided that into three pieces. Now he is requesting another division so this is his forth shot at it. The other divisions took place in the township days before he was answerable to any city council. That's how he got by with creating this monster. Of the tWQ landlocked and when I say landlocked I simply mean no access to a public street, of those two parcels there is only one with a house on it. Roman Roos - He divided the property and he created this problem. We didn't create it. I don't know how anybody can answer negative on items fou rand fi ve. Walter Thompson - He is not the one that put the road through. Roman Roos - He also created a piece of land that has no access to it. Walter Thompson -That's his problem now. Roman Roos - What about the land around it going south? Walter Thompson - We can't do anything about it because of the topography. There isn't anything we can do for him. Roman Roos - We have an obligation to the overall public. Dick Matthews - If I was doing something for the public then I wouldn't have any trouble with it but I don't know what I am doing by voting the road through there. Roman Roos - It's something that we as planners feel that that area needs. Dick Matthews - I guess that's where your quarrel is. Two of us don't feel that way. Craig Mertz - You can talk it out until you come to a concensus on it or if you don't think you are going to arrive at a concensus I woul d suggest that one side or the other either offer a motion to deny the subdivision on the . ' Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1978 -9- grounds that the applicant indicated an unwil~ingness to donate the right-of-way or the opposing team offer a motlon to approve the subdivision as presented by the applicant with no requirement that the _ riQht-of-way be dedicated. ~ Asrde from the issue of the road right-of-way is there anyone that disputes that the property is properly a candidate for division? Roman Roos - I have no problems with that. Craig Mertz - If you want to duck the issue you can make a motion to deny subdivision approval on the grounds that the resultant parcels violate the provision of the ordinance requiring not greater than two to one ratio. Jerry Neher moved to recommend denial of the subdivision on is refusing to convey the recommended right-of-way. Motion The following voted in favor: Jerry Neher and Roman Roos. Thompson voted no. Motion failed. Walter Thompson moved to recommend the Council approve the subdivision request of Mr. Way as presented. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews. The following voted in favor: Walter Thompson and Dick Matthews. Roman Roos and Jerry Neher voted no. Motion failed. grounds that the developer seconded by Roman Roos. Dick Matthews and Walter REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT... ROOS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING: Walter Thompson chaired this portion of the meeting. Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council grant a variance to Ordinance 47-K. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. The following voted in favor: Dick Matthews, Jerry Neher, and Walter Thompson. Roman Roos abstained. Motion carried. Jerry Neher moved to recommend to the Council that the property be rezoned from e R-1A to the CBD. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews. The following voted in favor: Jerry Neher, Dick Matthews, and Walter Thompson. Roman Roos abstained. Motion carried. Dick Matthews moved to recommend that a conditional use permit be issued to permit the construction of two professional buildings on the site. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. The following voted in favor: Walter Thompson, Dick Matthews, and Jerry Neher. Roman Roos abstained. Motion carried. Dick Matthews moved that the conditional use permit provide for a zero setback line from the northerly property line with a minimum roadway setback of 85 feet from the centerline of West 78th Street subject to approval of the HRA. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. The following voted in favor: Jerry Neher, Dick Matthews, and Walter Thompson. Roman Roos abstained. Motion carried. Dick Matthews moved that the conditional use permit include provision for a minimum of 55 parking spaces. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. The following voted in favor: Walter Thompson, Dick Matthews, and Jerry Neher. Roman Roos abstained. Motion carried. Dick Matthews moved that the applicant place in escrow with the City Treasurer's Office an amount of $500.00 to defer staff costs in processing this application. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. The following voted in favor: Walter Thompson, Jerry Neher, and Dick Matthews. Roman Roos abstained. Motion carried. Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council approve the subdivision of the Bloomberg e property into two parcels one of which is the development site for the applicant. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher. The following voted in favor: Jerry Neher, Dick Matthews, and Walter Thomp~on. Roman Roos abstained. Motion carried. e e e , . Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1978 -10- Jerry Neher moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 12:35 a,m. Don Ashworth City Manager