Loading...
1978 09 13 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 1978 e Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Jerry Neher and Dick Matthews. Hud Hollenback, Mal MacAlpine and Walter Thompson were absent. Craig Mertz was present. NEW MEMBER: Tim Stone was sworn in as a member of the Planning Commission to replace Les Bridger. MINUTES: Jerry Neher moved to approve the July 26, 1978, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews., The following voted in favor: Roman ROOS, Jerry Neher, and Dick Matthews. Tim Stone abstained. Motion carried. Jerry Neher moved that the petitions that have been received by the City regarding the Bloomberg/Davis Subdivisions be entered into the minutes of the public hearing of August 23, 1978. Motion seconded by Roman Roos. The following voted in favor: Jerry Neher and Roman Roos. Dick Matthews and Tim Stone abstained. Motion failed. Jerry Neher moved to approve the August minutes as amended. Motion seconded by in favor: Jerry Neher and Roman Roos. abstained. Motion failed. 23, 1978, Planning Commission Roman Roos. The following voted Dick Matthews and Tim stone Dick Matthews moved to note the August 21, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.,' Tim Stone moved to note the August 28, 1978, Council minutes. Motion e seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING WALTER CLEVELAND SUBDIVISION Roman Roos called the hearing to order. Mr. and Mrs. Walter Cleveland were present. Mr. Cleveland is requesting approval to subdivide portions of Lots 23 and 24, Murray Hill into.two single family lots. He is further requesting a variance to Ordinance 33 so he can convey the land by metes and bounds description. Dick Matthews moved to close the pUblic hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. WALTER CLEVELAND SUBDIVISION: Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council approve the subdivision of Lots 23 and 24 into two parcels. One consisting of the northerly 120 feet of Lot 24 and the second parcel consisting of all of Lots 23 and 24 except the northerly 120 feet of Lot 24. The Planning Commission further recommends a variance to Ordinance 33 to convey the land by metes and bounds description. The City Engineer'will approve the legal descriptions. Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved. e PUBLIC HEARING HESSE FARM PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASES II AND III Roman Roos called the hearing to order. The Assistant City Planner gave his report dated September 8, 1978. Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -2- Frank Burg - If I might respond to the Planner's concerns about a grading plan, I think if the City will check its files we have already submitted the grading plan for the entire area. e The topography on this map is from Mark Hurd aerials and due to the relative elevation differential from point to point Mark Hurd will not make a two foot contour interval map of this steep of an area. What they produce is a 4 foot, 5 foot or a ten foot increment. We chose to take a four foot because that was the closest contour interval we could get. We submitted four sheets of the same size, two of them were existing conditions and two of them were the grading plans and proposed developments and then the street plans went along with them. If staff would like we could go ahead and put additional contours on. We would like to have this public hearing continued to some other time for the consideration of a minor revision of the road system. Mr. Hesse has indicated that the people that own this particular piece of property are rather concerned w~th the entrance road right adjacent to their particular property. He has asked that we look at the feasibility of another point of entrance rather than in this particular area. We haven't had enough time to evaluate what type of grades we are going to have coming through. Before we come back to the Planning Commission we would like to have an opportunity to meet with staff and to discuss the new proposal. We have the 28 lots within the development which 18 of them are really in the north half which we call phase II and the balance of them were in the south half which is what Mr. and Mrs. Hesse have planned as what they would like to do for the first phase. Regarding Lot 20 which was the one that had the significant amount of soil within the Glencoe horizon, that lot while it is a lot it is a part of the Hesse homestead. This is the area that the Hesse's would like to retain as their own personal holdings within the development. e We have no immediate plans for building anything this year due to the rains. We are looking at early spring construction on this. We would like to work with the City. Tim Stone moved to continue the public hearing to October 11, 1978, at 7:45 p.m. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. HAPPY CHEF/ERICKSON PETROLEUM SITE PLAN: The petition before the Planning Commission is to consider a variance request to Building Moratorium Ordinance 47K and if a positive reaction to variance is forthcoming, then consideration of the site plan review should be carried out. The HRA gave conditional approval to a joint proposal of Happy Chef and Erickson Petroleum. The HRA had mentioned several ways in which landscsping could be met to reflect their intention e of having a green open space as indicated in the downtown redevelopment concept plan. If this landscape plan is deemed to be adequate by the HRA then the Planning Commission should make its recommendation on variance to the building moratorium. e e e . Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 ,..3- Mike Niemeyer, HRA, was present. Our recommendation was that if the minimum approach and depth of landscaping was taken that there is a compensation intensity of landscaping in order to get that feeling of green space at that intersection. We were talking of some hedging materials and berms and things of that nature. The city Planner recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the Council approve the variance to the Moratorium Ordinance for Holiday/ Happy Chef with reservation to the parking issues. This recommendation of approval is conditioned upon grading plan approval by the City Engineer, sign approval by the Sign Committee, and that the applicant place an escrow deposit with the City in the amount of $2,000 to defray staff costs in processing this application. Dick Rice, representing Happy Chef - !n going through the plan with the HRA, trying to work within their concept of developing a green landscaped area it became apparent that we could move this back and'enlarge this space here which is down by your public sign and by doing so get more landscape area and place to berm. The HRA also was looking at two plans. They were looking at our plan and they were looking at Holiday's plan and they wanted them consolidated into one and so we got their plan from them and developed it into this one. The setback requirements on parking are 25 feet minimum here in front.. There is only one place here where we actually would be 25 feet to the property line here. The other thing that was expressed by the HRA was that rather than just have a piece of grass here that it would be much more in keeping with their idea of a park like entrance to have a landscaped area rather than bare grass that somebody had to mow and they talked in terms of landscaping, perms, shrubbery, trees and so we developed this plan more closely to try to conform with their thoughts. Putting in clumps of evergreens and small trees along these bermS, berming the almost the entire Holiday property and two large berms in our front area and side area. The other thing that was also discussed was in this idea of a green area this whole thing is going to read as parking lot and street nobody is going to see the property This is all contributing to the greenery, the openness of this corner whether it be public land it's all going to be mowed, green, landscaped and is going to read as your park entrance. We also developed quite a bit of interior landscaping and screening of our utility areas as has Holiday. We think we have a very well landscaped very sympathetic approach to the green park concept that you are hoping to get. We originally had three parking stalls for trucks thinking both Holiday and ourselves are going to be drawing trucks to a certain extent by the very nature of our business. We did create two truck parking stalls here. This is entirely arbi tra7:'Y as far as we are concerned. We thought we would be doing a service to the adjoining property owners and everybody else if we did bring them in, park them on our lot and they do conform to the spot in the zoning restriction that we don't drive trucks through pedestrian car parking areas. Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -4- ' Mike Niemeyer - What we had were two documents, one from Holiday and one from Happy Chef and we have had two fairly lengthy meetings with these gentlemen. We discussed our _ intent of what we were after and then we asked that ,., they put together a joint situation attempting to illustrate what a general understanding of our intents were and in order to save time since there was a great concern about a ping pong game between all the agencies in Chanhassen, that we decided to have them make a presentation back to you and members of the HRA would comment if you asked us to. Brad Steinman, Holiday Station Stores - As far as the number of parking spaces is concerned, we feel this is even more than adequate because most of our customers are in and out. We do not cater to trucks. It is not our intent to invite trucks excepting our own trucks which come in and unload merchandise for the store and also unload gasoline for the tanks. A remark had been made about out sign being on HRA property and actually this sign is not on HRA property but it is on Happy Chef's land. Roman Roos - In reference to the overall project, given the condition they can meet or present, such as they have, the greenway entry and what you see now, is the HRA still consistent with what they stated in their letter? Mike Niemeyer - Yes. I would have to say that what they have demonstrated here this evening is in our opinion it's a good step above where we were and in the right ~ direction. With out intent of that being a soft ,., space entering Chanhassen, we have no difficulty with those two uses happening on this piece of land if they can develop an intense soft area or landscaped area. We don't like the term park because that has connotations, of children;.,playing and things of that nature, this is a visual amenity more than anything else. Roman Roos - So then the HRA is solely in favor of the granting of a variance to the building moratorium. Mike Niemeyer - Yes. As our minutes indicate if they have provided tonight as they have done we see no reason why we would desire to keep the moratorium in effect reference this piece of property. Roman Roos - I would like to address the commission, each of the members, in terms of feeling out what they think in terms of the greenway as presented, if it is within what they feel it should be in respect to the HRA plan. Do you feel that parking spot should remain there? Should it be wider? I would like to have this from the Planning Commission members so that the Holiday/Erickson people can get a feel as to what we think so they know where they are at. Dick Matthews - My feeling is that for that parcel, those two proposed~ buildings on there, it's to highly intensified for ,., the proposed soft entrance into Chanhassen. I don't feel that tak~ng four parking places out there will make any difference whatsoever. There is not enough open green space on that piece of property e Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -5- and I would not recommend a variance to the building moratorium. Tim Stone - T concur with Dick. I am not sure that I think that the parcel is to intensely developed but I don't think it's developed in a manner which 'would allow the amount of green space that could possibly be generated,so while I have no objection to the two facilities, the two land use types on the plan,I do have some objections to the way they have been arranged. Jerry Neher - My feeling is that'it's too,much for too little. Roman Roos - Chanhassen is a community that's trying to grow and we need businesses, businesses like the Happy Chef and Holiday. It's an awful small parcel of land. This is where my concern is. Granted the amount of parking that Holiday needs is not great also with respect to our ordinance we should require ample parking there. I guess I would be much much more in favor of the overall combined project if we could somehow see some more land. I realize that might be a problem in terms of the development project there. At first I was going to say, no I don't want a gas station there because it_really detracts from what we are trying to portray for an entry into Chanhassen. I don't believe that but I do believe we have to have some more land there. What are your feelings to these people as to what they could possibly do to make it more favorable to the l?lanning Commission and to the overall project? Dick Matthews - First of all I am not in favor of subdividing that piece of land. It's to small for subdivision which means that one or the other or only one goes on that parcel. I don't know how you could put those two pieces on there and not have it congested. It's not enough area for the type of businesses that are going in there and what we envis,ion that corner. Roman Roos - What you are saying is the only reconnnendation you could make to them is to increase the land size. Dick Matthews - Yes. Roman Roos - Then would you have any questions with a gas station and/ or Happy Chef restaurant in that location? Dick Matthews - No. I would definitely not be in favor of subdividing that land. Tim Stone - My concern really has to do with the way the land is proposed to be subdivided and the way the buildings and the parking are arranged on each of the two parcels. I sense that there are ways of subdividing this parcel to get both facilities, to resolve some of the parking difficulties that are alluded to in here, perhaps generate a bit more green space or at least a more intensified green space to satisfy theHRA but it would require some joint planning. Jerry Neher - My only suggestion would be that they need more property. 4It Brad Steinman - I might add one thing. There was more land to start with and there is more land and there is a lot more private land there but because of the requirements of the entry way into Chanhassen a lot of that private land had to be used for the green strip that you are asking for. When you look at it now it looks small e Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -6- but in reality in the first plan that we had where we didn't have all the berms there is a lot more land involved here. Dick Rice - My only comment in regard to the joint entry is that I thi~ you lose green area by doing it. It might work to your advantage somewhat in traffic :flow but I think that would be pretty insignificant. There was an awful lot of discussion at these last meetings with the HRA as to moving the whole parcel westward and creating a piece of housing authority land as a park and then the cost became an issue. There was an awful lot of discussion at that point, is it better for a private development to come in and intensely landscape the area and berm it and maintain it or have the city buy an extremely expensive piece of property and have them have to maintain it and not probably have the money to landscape it but just have it bare grass. There was an awful lot of back and forth there as to which would look better, a bare piece of grass or an intensively landscaped piece that somebody else would be responsible for. That's the choice that has to be made I think. Some where along the line if you people insist on the space, the price has already been established because we already have made offers to the developer for this piece of property. The landowner is not extremely interested in donating something to Chanhassen to put it bluntly. I don't even know the gentleman. Roman Roos - I think where it sits right now, the developer will have to go back and try to work out some of the problem areas ~ that we have reiterated, whether they can be resolved on ~ that parcel of land with that amount of land with those two buildings, I don't think so. I think it is going to require more land. Speaking for myself, I don't feel that we need for greenway here than we have right now. Dick Matthews - Let me make myself clear with regard to the acquisition of that land, who pays for it. I agree with you and the Happy Chef people that it is not your responsibility to buy that land and donate it or the landowner donate it. If the city is serious about having that a green way a nice looking entrance then it is up to them to acquire the land. If they are not and they don't want to spend the money, then it becomes a whole different matter. That's my point. I am at a point where somebody has got to make a decision, are you willing to pay for that to keep it the way you want it or are you just throwing out a bunch of ideas? I am not asking anybody to give up or spend extra money for something that they are not going to be able to use. Mike Niemeyer - We raised the same question about whether they could acquire land to the west and I believe that one of of the gentlemen at our land meeting was the current owner of that land and he was strongly urging that we find some way that these two developers could work on this parcel because he felt that in moving ~ their total situation west that his remaining parcel that was left would become more difficult to market. Roman Roos - I would like to see that drawing go back to HRA for all members to see. e e e Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -7- Dick Matthews - I also would like to have their comments on whether they feel that they are willing to acquire. Mike Niemeyer - We have discussed whether we should acquire that. Would that be the best expenditures of whatever tax increment moni~s we may have available to us or would itrbe reasonable to.attempt to find a developer or that parcel that wouldb~able to maintain the green soft image. 'Ehe readrbuyer, willing seller concept of Happy Chef and Holiday Service Station is currently available, something. that we have got to consider today so we then said alright, are these two uses in their nature automobile related functions that we said we could accept and we said yes, then the question was .can they jointly work on that piece of land and we said. possibly, if they can get an impact of green and we then began to recognize we didn't have to have the 300 feet necessarily but that the intensity of development of that landscaping would have to really be hipped up. It bridges on some of the oriental concepts of being able to take a very small piece and doing a fantastic landscaping job with it. Tim Stone - If it's going to go back to the HRA for all the members to look at, I would ask the HRA to re""address the intensity issue not so much with an eye tow&rds increasing the size of the land but whether or not it's possible to rearrange within the existing parcel, t:o accomplish what these gentlemen want to accomplish. . Dick Matthews moved to holda.public hearing on October 11, 1978, to consider the resubdivision of this parcel of land to encompass the Happy Chef and Holiday Service Station and also a public hearing to consider a condi.tionaluse permit for the. outside display of items for retail sales. The develop.erswill .meet with the HRA prior to the public hearing. :Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Tim Stone moved to table the request. for a variance to Ordinance 47K. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and-unanimously'approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DAVID ADAMS:' Mr. : Adams is proposing to establish a plating facility ina portion of the Hanus Building on West 78th Street. This activity will not increase any parking or traffic over the previous use. The Planner recommend the Planning Commission recommend the Council approve the request conditioned upon the applicant's ability to furnish proof of compliance to any State or Federal EPA or peA regulations regarding the control of these types of operations. Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council grant a conditional use permit subject to an approval letter from the State PCA. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. DAVIS/BLOOMBERG PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS: The city has received a petition dated August 25;.' 1978, declaration of opposition to entrances connecting to West 77th Street and Erie Avenue - petition cover letter, date August 31, 1978, from Clark Horn and Curtis Robinson - letter dated August 29, 1978, to Planning Commission and City Council from Curtis Robinsonoan undated petition from 'several residents on the east side of Lotus Lake and a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Wes Arseth. Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -8- The City Planner, . in his report of September .8, 1978, attempted to answer some of the questions raised in:the letters and petitions. The Planner reco~ended that theP1anningdCommission recommend approva~ of the rezoning, and. subdivision, .p1anned residential development, planned community development, 'pre1iminary development plan, amendment to Ordinance 47 to allow hotels in a P-3 district, and amend the comprehensive plan to allow for a P~3zone and zero lot line townhouses on the property, based. on the following conditions and anticipations: 1. That the EQCmay respond to the environmental assessment worksheet in the time allotted by law. 2. That the representatives of the DNR and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District'wi1l have review comments to'be entered into the record after this Planning Commission review. . 3. That the proposed street plans and egress' onto Highway 101 await MnDOT response. 4. That the proposed grading, utility, and drainage plans receive positive comments from the City Engineer and watershed district. Jerry Neher moved to close the record.for-written comment. Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved. Bob Davis - We received the petition from the:residents on the west side of the property in regard to their concern over continuing Erie Avenue and West 77th Street. The comments range from the connection through to 101 and the increased traffic into the existing residential area and it's acceptable to us in the proposal to not ~ake the connection at either street in which case the only ~ entrance to' the proj ect would he from 101. This would . have to be an enlarged, perhaps divided entrance to align it up with the access across here for traffic control. This would,then be an enclosed loop for the project. This is the only major change. The consideration is to provide pedestrian linkage across here. There would be a walking or bicycle easement both at this point (West 77th Street) and this point (Erie Avenue). There was some comment whether there needs to be emergency vehicle access across this point,and it's acceptable to give the' city an e?sement to do that if they so desire hut there would not he an automobile passage there. Bill McCrostie, Bloomberg Companies- I would just like to point out that Bloomberg Companies is a property owner on the lake' right now. I don '.t think there is anybody in the room that has a greater stake in the best possible use of that shoreline and the lake than Bloomberg Companies. We have a very substantial block of property that we are trying to develop and if it's not done well an.d done properly and done right and done in a way that is acceptable to not only the people that we are going to be selling to but members of the community, above everything else we want to come up with a good job ~ of developing that produces the most acceptable . possible result we can. If we do that then we have done.what we set out to do. I think we have a very big stake in doing it proper1y~ We want to make that point very clear. Planning Commission Meeting September 13, ,1978 -9- e Dick Matthews - My feeling with regard to Outlot C, I don!t have any problem with the outlot as long as we don't provide launching facilities for large boats or docking facilities. Roman Roos - Herb has already stated that it has never been the intent of that outlot. Herb Bloomberg - We are going to have to sell the lots all the way around here. They are closer than the:otherresidents are. We have no assurance what they are going to do on their lots right today, tomorrow. They can put in any size boat they want to that's within the state rules. All I can say is,you simply have to live together. We want a community access. In all probability because of this precipitous hill along this lake that these residents are more apt to gravitate toward this place but our immediate adjoining lots are not going to be very happy if that gets to be a beehive for a lot of activity. Our anticipation is that that will be very orderly access. I don't see where the fear is really. I can't see it whatsosever I am a sailboat enthusiast. A'canoe enthusiast. I have got both on the lake. I don't have a motor. We may put ina little dock for somebody to swim. Roman Roos - They had made a comment in the public'hearing that there was an invasion of their. privacy because of that outlot. Herb Bloomberg - I agree with that~ They have had.20 acres of farm land here. We now have an urban development and we are trying to do a good job at that. We have a pump station that the city put in there. We. have' to accommodate the servicing of this station. As long as they come down to servicecthat station why not use that for a place to launch your canoe. I can't imagine anything more sensible in the world. e - Bill McCrostie - We have talked to the DNR and got some thoughts from them. We have talked to the City Planner for about four'months and there are a number of items that pointed to this as the appropriate place to have an outlotdfor good' planning. One is that the city is down here with a truck every day. We have got to provide that access. There is" about 50 feet of drop from the street to' there. It would be very cumbersome to suggest anybody.would take a sailboat or canoe down 50 feet when you have got a road that has to be here. We don't anticipate a parking lot. Jerry Neher moved that Ordinance 47=notbe'amended to allow hotels in the P-3 District. Motion seconded by:: Tim Stone. The following voted in favor: Jerry Neher and Tim Stone. Roman Roos and Dick Matthews voted no. Motion.failed. e Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council rezone the property to P-3, subdivision, planned residential development, planned community development, preliminary development plan, amendment to Ordinance 47 to allow hotels in a P~3 District and zero lot line townhouses based on the following conditions and anticipations: 1. That the EQC may respond to the environmental assessment worksheet in the time allotted by law. Planning Commission Meeting September 13, '1978 ,:,,10'- . 2. That the representatives of the. DNR and., Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District will 'have review comments .to be entered into the record. 3. That the proposed street plans and egress' onto Highway 101 await 4It MnDOT response. " , 4. That the proposed grading, utility; and drainage plans receive positive comments from the City Engineer and watershed district. 5. The developer will prepare elevation drawings concerning the hotel itself. The commission'reserves judgment on the hotel idea as a part of the, development until such time as the details are worked out. Motion died for lack of a second. After discussion Dick Matthews moved to recommend that P-3 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be: amended to allow hotels. Motion seconded by Tim Stone. The following voted in favor: Roman Roos, Tim Stone, and Dick Matthews. Jerry Neher voted no. Motion carried. Dick Matthews moved to rezone the subject property designated as the hotel site on Exhibit A to P-3. Motion seconded by Tim Stone. The following voted in favor: Dick Matthews and Roman Roos. Jerry Neher voted no. Tim Stone abstained. ,Motion failed. Dick Matthews moved to recommend approval of the subdivision as presented by the applicants on Exhibit A dated September 13, 1978. Motion seconded by Tim Stone. The following voted in'favor: Roman Roos and Dick Matthews. Jerry Neher voted no:_ Tim Stone abstained. Motion failed. Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council amend the Comprehensive 4It Plan to allow for P-3 zoning and zero lotline townhouses within the proposed subdivision based on the following conditions and anticipations: 1. That the EQC may respond to the environmental assessment worksheet in the time allotted by law. 2. That the representatives of the DNR and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District will have review comments to be entered: into the record. 3. That the proposed street plans and egress' onto Highway 101 await MnDOT response. ' 4. That the proposed grading, utility, and drainage plans receive positive comments from the'City Engineer and watershed district. 5. The developer will prepare elevation drawings concerning the hotel itself. . Motion seconded by Tim Stone. The following voted in favor: Dick Matthews and Roman Roos. Jerry Neher voted no. Tim Stone abstained. Motion failed. Dick Matthews moved to direct the developer to provide further information on what restrictions and organization they plan to have on the community access lot and-details on the country inn. Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved. Dick Matthews moved to recommend the Council rezone the remainder of the property including the Robert Davis property as shown on Exhibit BA but excluding the hotel area, to P-l. Motion sec'onded by Tim Stone'. .- The following voted in 'favor: Dick Matthews, Roman Roos, and Jerry Neher. Tim Stone abstained. Motion carried. . - e Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -11- JAMES MEYER LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE: Dr. Meyer is requesting to subdivide, through a lot split into two residential sites, and is requesting a variance to record this lot split in a metes and bounds description and subdivide without access onto a public street. The property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Ridge Road and Pleasant View Road. Sanitary sewer and water are available to the property. The property is served by Ridge Road which is a private street. Dick Matthews moved to hold a public hearing on October 11, 1978, to consider a lot split for Dr. James Meyer. Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved. BRUCE CAMERON, REZONING RE~UEST: Mr. Cameron is requesting rezoning to R-2 on his property at 291 Blue Jay Circle. The house is currently a duplex. The Cameron's are selling the home and tb'obtain financing for prospective buyers it is necessary to rezone. Jerry Neher moved to hold a public hearing on October 11, 1978, to consider rezoning the subject duplex from R-l to R-2. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. SUBDIVISION RE~UEST - ROBERT SOMMER: Mr. Sommer is proposing to subdivide Lot 9, Murray Hill Addition and part of Lot D, Bardwell Acres into four lots. Prior to a public hearing Mr. Sommer must submit a plan demonstrating how the western portion of Lot 29 will comply with the frontage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Assistant City Planner recommended that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the proposal contingent upon the following: 1. That the applicant submit a sketch plan for Lots A, B, C, and D to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their September 27 meeting. Such plan to show the relationship of these lots to the western portion of Lot 29, Murray Hill. 2. That an escrow deposit be posted with the City Treasurer on or before September 20, 1978, to defray staff costs in processing this application. Jerry Neher moved to hold a public hearing on October 11, 1978, to consider the Robert Sommer subdivision request. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Jerry Neher moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Don Ashworth City Manager