Loading...
1980 09 10 APPROVED ON 9-02-1-}'tJ - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1980, AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Horn, W. Thompson, W. Johnson, A. Partridge, and M. Thompson (left 9 : 45 p.m.). Members Absent: J. Thompson and T. Hamilton. Staff Present: B. Waibel, Land Use Coordinator, C. Mertz, Assistant City Attorney, and N. Rust, Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: e Mr. Waibel explained that minute corrections would be con~ tained under the "Approval of Minutes" section of the next subsequent meeting rather than on the original minutes themselves to which the change has been made. Chairman Horn indicated the City Council requested the Planning Commission be more specific in their motions as to the actions they are taking for clarity purposes. Chairman Horn felt that, contrary to the August 13, 1980, Planning Commission minutes, the Nicholay and Dypwick proposals were treated similarly with both requiring public hearings. Mr. Waibel responded that both applicants were to supply Abstractor's Certificates for mailing and notification purposes to staff to obtain a public hearing and neither party had done so at that time. Therefore, neither public hearing had been scheduled. Mr. W. Thompson did not recall that the proposals were treated similar~'Y and felt the Dypwick was accepted for a public hearing provided the necessary variances were received. Mr. Waibel explained that con~ fusion regarding the similarities or differences between the two proposals may be due to the fact one proposal may go directly to the City Council for the public hearing rather than to the Planning Commission, as is normally done. This was due to a time concern. - Mr. Partridge stated that they probably did state what the minutes contained but that their intent was for two public hearings. He then requested the August 13, 1980, Planning Commission Minutes be amended to reflect that the Planning Commission directed that public hearings be held for the Nicholay and Dypwick properties. Mr. W. Thompson moved the August 13, 1980, Planning Com- mission Minutes be approved as amended. Mr. M. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. M. Thompson moved to note the August 4, 1980, City Council minutes. Mr. Partridge seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -2- it Mr. Partridge moved to note the August 12, 1980, City Council Minutes. Mr. M. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. W. Thompson moved to note the August 25, 1980, City Council Minutes. Mr. Partridge seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. PROPOSED REZONING, SINNENPROPERTY,PUBLTG HEARING: Mr. Waibel explained that upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council has authorized the Planning Commission to hold that public hearing under the provisions of Section 14.07, subsection 2, of Ordinance No. 47, which permits the City to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district on parcels that have had no development occur within a reasonable period of time after urbanized zoning was granted. Mr. Waibel further explained that there was a proposal by McKeon Construction to develop the subject property with ap- proximately 502 dwelling units of various types in 1973. He stated this property was located directly west of Chanhassen Estates down to the northwest shores of Rice Marsh Lake. - Mr. Waibel compared this request to that regarding the Oak- mont Property, which was discussed approximately one month ago, and recommended that, because of the inactivity on the property and in light of the evolution of the planning practic~s since 1973, approval should be recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council to rezone the subject property from Planned Develop- ment District to R-1A, Agricultural Residential District. In response to Ms. Marie Weber, 8034 Erie Avenue, Mr. Partridge said the zoning would remain until the property owners requested a change of zoning if it was rezoned back to R~lA. . Mr. Jerome Raidt, attorney for Martin Ward the abutting property owner, asked if the previous planned development proposal was dead at this time. Mr. Waibel said the first proposal was in 1973 and the last proposal was 1 1/2 years ago and that due to its dormancy, it would be best to rezone it back to basically a reserve status of R-1A. He further said the plan of 1973 was probably not within the thinking of Chanhassen's current planning standards and desires for that area. He responded to Mr. Raidt's question of property use by saying the comprehensive plan the City is currently working on shows the property to be of low-density single family with a portion to contain a multiple residential area. Chairman Horn indicated the past proposal for the subject property was for approximately 6 units per acre and the last projects of other sites reviewed by the Planning Commission have not exceeded approximately 2.9 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the last proposal for this site is twice as dense as any of the recent developments allowed by the city. e -e - 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -3- Chairman Horn explained that the purpose of reviewing this is basically to start the process over again if someone comes in with another planned unit development; otherwise, the last proposal is already approved and could be easily carried out. Mr. W. Johnson stated it was within the R-l zoning ordinance that the property should be reviewed on a periodic basis. In response to Mr. W. Thompson, Mr. Waibel said Rumar, Inc., had brought in the last proposal 1 1/2 years ago for the subject property. They had come close to obtaining preliminary plat review of the property. . In re~ponse to Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. Waibel indicated August Sinnen was the recorded owner of the property but it was apparently an estate situation. The property owners according to the County's tax records were the individuals who received notice of this hearing. He said the Rumar, Inc., individuals were not notified of the hearing because they were not recorded as any party to this land. In response to Mr. W. Thompson, Mr. Mertz said it was within the Planning Commtssion's jurisdiction to rezone the subject property back to R-1A if there was no pending application for the property. Mr. M. Thompson expressed concern over the interest of Rumar, three (3) parties who had purchased the property through a Contract- for-Deed. Discussion followed pertaining to the question of whether or not the Planning Commission should table the request until notice had been given to those parties having a Contract-for- Deed on the property. Chairman Horn asked if all that was needed to develop the property was to bring in a final proposal. Mr. Mertz responded that that was true and, therefore, was a disadvantage from a planner's standpoint. Chairman Horn felt there was a reasonable period of time for the development process to retain any sense of continuity. Mr. B. Johnson moved to close the public hearing. Mr. M. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. W. Thompson felt the matter should be tabled to allow staff the opportunity to notify the other parties with an interest in the property. Mr. Mertz felt the party that made the last application and the three (3) other parties with an interest in the property should be notified. Following further discussion of whether the item .should be tabled, Mr. Partridge moved to recommend approval of the rezoning e e - 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -4- request from Planned Development District to R-1A, Agricultural Residential District, to the City Council because there has been no activity for 1 1/2 years; furthermore, he moved that when the City Council takes the matter under consideration, they should be advised that there are other parties that were not notified that may have an interest in the subject property due to a possible Contract-for-Deed situation. Mr. W. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye with the exception of Mr. M. Thompson, who abstained. Motion carried. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 45 AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE 33, PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Mertz explained that this was a public hearing to consider an amendment to Ordinance No. 33 and Ordinance No. 45. He indi- cated there was some question as to the wording of the public hearing notice which stated that the purpose of the hearing was to consider a prohibition on the issuance of building permits and subdivision of land in the unsewered area of the city. He said it was their philosophy the notices should be broad in scope so that they would encompass any possible outcome that the staff anti- cipates would result from the Planning Commission meeting rather than be faced with the possibility that the Commission had gone one step beyond what was described in the public hearing notice and being forced, therefore, to re-publish the item and re-hear it. Mr. Mertz said the two ordinances in question do, in fact, prohibit the subdivision of unsewered lands within the city of Chan- hassen. The specific changes that were being requested were basically of a housekeeping nature. He said the first item relates to the wording of Ordinance 33B and proceeded to read what was in- cluded within the ordinance. He said the exceptions relating to filing and recording of deeds is merely a paraphrase of a portion of the State Planning Act as it exist~d before the 1980 Session of the State Legislature. Since the 1980 Legislative Session, however, the fourth exception was changed in the State Planning Act, due to lobbying of municipalities, to read" . . . was a separate parcel of not less than five acres in area and 300 feet in width on July 1, 1980 . . ." Thus, staff's first housekeeping request is that Ordinance No. 33B be amended in subdivision 4, which relates to 300 foot wide 5 acre parcels, to include the July 1, 1980, expiration date. He said staff was also requesting exceptions 5 and 6 from the State Planning Act of sUbdivision 4b be added to Chanhassen's Ordinance No. 33B. This was also a house- keeping request as the State has mandated the above requests be accepted by the municipalities. Mr. Mertz stated what was included in Section 2 of Ordinance No. 45. He said it was interpretted to mean that if your parcel - 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -5- e was created by a division of land and that division of land was not approved by the City Council by way of Ordinance No. 33, there was no legal entitlement to a building permit. He said since the 1980 Legislative session, there are now two new provi- sions that authorize municipalities to deny building permits to those parcels that were created in violation of Ordinance No. 33B. He then :read Subdivision 9 of Chapter 560 of the State Planning Act as included in the 19S0 Session actions. He said staff is requesting that Ordinance No. 45 be re-worded to specifi- cally say no building permits are allowed without subdivision approval. Mr. Mertz continued the final request by staff is to re-state Ordinance No. 45 to state basically two things due to complaints about the ordinance's readability: (1) subdivision of unsewered lands is not permitted and (2) unapproved subdivisions are not eligible for building permits. Chairman Horn was concerned with the disallowance of subdi- visions in unsewered areas which consequently disallows building permits for sites. Mr. Mertz proceeded to discuss no-growth policies in municipalities and related the concept of no growth to Chanhassen's Ordinance No. 45. Discussion followed pertaining to development of the unsewered areas. e Mr. Partridge felt disallowing development of the unsewered areas was a negative approach to the question of growth. Mr. Waibel said one of the main reasons for these two sections of Ordinance No. 45 is to allow the City to plan for capital improvements and have more control on the configuration of space and roads. Mr. Partridge moved to close the public hearing on amendments to Ordinance Nos. 33 and 45. Mr. M. Thompson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Partridge moved that Ordinance 33B be amended so as to conform with Section 462.358, subdivision 4b, of Minnesota Statutes 1980. Mr. W. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Partridge then moved that Ordinance 33 and 45 be amended so as to provide that no building permit would be issued for any parcel created in the absence of subdivision review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. M. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Partridge thirdly moved to defer any further action on Ordinance No. 45. Mr. W. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. DISCUSSION, BUESGENS REPLAT, LOT 7 AND 8, BLOCK 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES 1ST ADDITION: e Mr. Waibel said there were numerous questions at the Plan- ning Commission's last review of this item; therefore, he felt they should review the item once more before the public hearing to be held September 24, 1980, by the Planning Commission) to help clear up questions. He explained the request is due to an encroach- 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -6- - ment of a house constructed on the property to the south of the subject site. For building and title purposes, the Applicant is requesting a replat of the southeastern portion of Lot 7. He felt that, from a design standpoint, the proposed replat would be desirable because it does follow existing border landscaping on the property to the south and thus preserves the visual integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Waibel further noted that although the proposed replat would reduce the size of the lot from 13,570 square feet to 11,920 square feet, many lots in Chanhassen Estates are approximately 11,200 square feet. He felt that due to the practical difficulties of the situation, a replat along the southeastern property tree line is preferrable and that there would be no gain to replatting the front property lines. Mr. Waibel indicated that while a possible action by the Planning Commission could be to deny building privileges on the subject property, this would be divergent from the residential structural symmetry. He said, however, that the Planning Commission should withhold any formal recommendation until after the public hearing. Staff recommended approval of the proposal with the conditions an escrow be provided and that the replat should be configured to locate the landscaping. e Discussion followed on the options available on the subject property to the applicant. Mr. Waibel recalled that Mr. Robert Mason, owner of Lot 7, was in agreement wi th the proposal. Mr. Vernon Husemoen, 8015 Cheyenne Trail (Lot 8), stated his agreement to the proposed providing that section of Lot 7 to be added to Lot 8 be deeded to him. Discussion followed ona possible variance to allow development on Lot 7, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates 1st Addition. Discussion closed with no motion necessary. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR KENNETH WALDRIP SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL: - Mr. Waibel requested a change re made in the agenda to allow Mr. Kenneth Waldrip to be heard next. He explained the plans had been mailed form Seattle, Washington, and only arrived that day; Mr. Waldrip had flown in that evening from Washington especially for that particular meeting. The item was not published, but this was not viewed as a problem in that a decision was not made during a sketch plan review. Mr. W. Thompson thus moved to amend the agenda to include the sketch plan review of Kenneth Waldrip's subdivision proposal as item no. 7 Mr. Partridge seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Waibel said this was quite similar to the last proposal reviewed in March of this year. He said that at that time the 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes - 7- - Planning Commission had concerns because the zoning was relative to a plan approved in 1970 and they wanted an attorney's opinion as far as the Commission's latitude with land-use questions. Mr. Mertz had stated the Planning Commission did have latitude as to the zoning and land use on the property. Mr. Waibel explained the site lay-out which contained 45 units saying the units would not be oriented toward the interior street system. There would be multiple accesses unto Galpin Boulevard. Mr. Waldrip said this sketch plan includes one more access unto Galpin than the previous proposal had. General discussion followed regarding the street proposals in the subject plan. Chairman Horn expressed concern about the street parking on the southeast corner of the site and the increased number of accesses along Galpin Boulevard. Mr. Waibel indicated that this proposal had a reduction of units from the one which was reviewed in 1970 which contained 87 units. Discussion followed. Mr. Partridge moved to schedule a public hearing for October 22, 1980, providing the Abstractor's Certificate was prepared by the applicant. Mr. W. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Waldrip had no objection to the date of the hearing. -- DISCUSSION, PEDESTRIAN WAY PLAN, LOTUS TRAIL: Mr. Waibel explained that the City Council had received a petition from homeowners living along Lotus Trail in the Carver Beach neighborhood requesting that the section of Lotus. Trail between West 68th Street and Napa Road be paved. He said there was a concern in that the terrain in that area is rather steep and it is questionnable as to whether or not there would be a sufficient shelf upon which a separated pedestrian way could be constructed. Upon examination of the situation, however, Mr. Waibel felt there would be no problem constructing separate facilities (road and pedestrian way). In response to Mr. Partridge, Mr. Mertz said that Lotus Trail was not to be used for travel at this time according to the plan but only as a trail. Following brief discussion, the Planning Commission generally agreed that they preferred the pedestrian way and Lotus Trail as a road to be separated. DISCUSSION, DOWNTOWN OVERLAY LAND USE CONCEPT: - Mr. Waibel: In discussions this morning with Arijs Palkalns at BRW~ We both agreet it would be most appropriate to get into gene) al discussions . . . We should probably be spending two or three sessions with this getting everybody's general comments on what they perceive should be incorporated in- to the overlay district criteria so that we all will be satisfied with kind of land uses and the overall 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -8- - integrity of the downtown redevelopment area, which is about 170+ acres. When this originally came up back in 1978, there was discussion about using the absolute land use category. One concept plan showed nine (9) general categories and there was a booklet that came along with ~everal hundred specific land use categories. All the thinking on that has changed now where it includes three possibly four general categories and using very elaborate design criteria i.e., design standards like landscaping, signage, architectural reviews,rati6sof structures to land mass, and then also some land use. That would be the most appropriate way to get where the Planning Commission and City Council feels would be the most attractive redevelopment area. So, what 1 propose to do is enter into these discussions here starting out with trying to solicit the comments of the Planning Commission along the general theme in the memorandum dated OctoBer 22, 19~9. It is very general in nature and I think you can build upon a lot of that and the Planning Commission may have a lot of their own com- ments in that type of a theme. We would then, after those sessions, take transcripts of this so that we have a good record of ideas down on paper and investi- gate those ideas, looking at their advantages and disadvantages and feasibility. We will get into such questions as intensive land use categories where there is a lot of parking . . . questions of indigenous and exogenous transition areas, architectural treatment, the massing of signage and materials of signage, colora- tions, etc. You can get into that kind of level of detail. Those are the kinds of things we want to sort out. Do we want to establish a design committee or do we want to have some of the cases shipped out to a con- sultant for design or do we want to build that capacity through ordinance so that staff can do it? e Chairman Horn: I think we want a design committee. - Mr. Waibel: Those are some of the things we would probably be getting at at the second stage but the first stage is to get the Planning Commission's feeling on questions of transition zones, where you might feel the visually sensitive areas of the city are that you might want to consider land use or design criteria with regard to what the passersby would be getting as an image of Chanhassen. You might want to set up districts relative to transportation. You may want to restrict fast food operations. I noticed that there is a real concern in that some of the citizens of Chanhassen do want to have the ability to have 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -9- e those conveniences here, too. I think that maybe through design control we could probably make it pleasing as well as something everyone would like to have. I guess with that, I would personally entertain your comments about this proposed plan or schedule to develop this plan and maybe get into some general comments that you have if there are some special areas of research that you want us to perform. Chairman Horn: I think you hit on most of the key issues. Bob and I talked about this a little bit this week and one of the comments that he had mentioned was he thought that the clearly striking issue as far as visual impact is the view of Chanhassen from the bridge over here on Highway 5, which I think has got quite a striking visual impact. (the one coming east) Mr. Partridge: What I see we are gOIng to end up with is complex dinner theaters and bowling alleys surrounded by office warehouses. - Mr. Johnson: That's going to be a good workable retail center. Mr. W. Thompson: What's the status as of now? There's still a period of time until we get to the final committment, isntt there? Or, has that been made? e Mr. Waibel: There's actually to be some contractual agreements probably sometime in October or November, I believe. Those things that have actually happened as far as the proposed bowling alley have pretty much been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Not site plans or detailed review, but the idea that it's going to be retail, some office, that there is a proposed hotel by Bloomberg, that there is going to be a supermarket on the side of the Instant Web building. Those proposals were gone over by the Plan- ning Commission last March or April. Now, those things are kind of firm, but as far as the land uses in the periphery areas; those are a major concern. Plus, you might want to discuss some of the things that are happening on the inside of the area as long as we take into account that some of it has been pretty much in the thinking and have gone to the point where there actually are some committments being made based upon decisions and recommendations made last spring. Now we will have to use som~ judgment and discretion when we do discuss anything in that area. But, we might be able to encourage putting the furniture as a transition, etc. 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -10- e Chairman Horn: I think, too, one of the problems I'm having trouble visualizing is the proposal of Home Building Center. It seems to me, especially with the issue of the city looking at the back of a lumber yard. It's just not going to have the right impact. I don't see that as a separate use. It's too much of a heavy use for that area; I think you should start out lighter and work your way up to those heavier types of industry from the ring. Chairman Horn: The first step in this thing by Bloomberg is that building center. Mr. Waibel: That will have to be taken up by the Planning Commission. Chairman Horn: r think that that's one of the first issues we should ~ face. Chairman Horn: They're out of the main stream of extent. I'm more concerned about directly abutting the ring road. office warehouse concept like in things to some things that are I wouldn't want a area 6. Mr. Waibel: So, in a way, I think it makes this area more accept- able. However, I don't want to put too many of my thoughts forward right now. Chairman Horn: I don't think we want to get heavy industrial kinds of things next to the ring road. Mr. Waibel: I think anything industrial should be down across Highway 5. e Chairman Horn: I mean even like your office warehouse kinds of things. There's going to be big trucks coming in. I guess I don't like the idea of this road crossing through here because I think that putting it at the end of the cul-de-sac is going to keep some of that away from the traffic flow where the cars are. e e e 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -11- Mr. Waibel: I was thinking that if you put the appropriate land uses down there it should not be . . . Chairman Horn: But it has already started; we already have in- appropriate land uses there. Mr. Waibel: Well, they came in before any plan like this was started. The fortunate thing about it is that we haven't had any development except for one or two buildings like that. Chairman Horn: The point is that if you leave the streets like they are shown there, it isn't such a problem. But this new way of putting the streets here is going to pull this warehouse traffic right into the ring road. Mr. Partridge: Unless you develop that as an office park rather than an office warehouse park. Mr. Waibel: I have a feeling that that building that is down there and existing can be rehabilitated and put to some different use. Their parking is established at one space for every 300 square feet. That might be plenty more than they would ever need with the exception that they could not put in high intensive commercial retail uses like McDonald's, which would probably need twice the amount of parking because it has a greater customer turnover. But take other retail uses that people use once a week, the goods and services types of places rather than the intensive retail places. Maybe we can get tenants like that in that building and then parking would be no problem. I could see where a tire dealership could go in here because that is something which people use maybe once a year. We would have adequate parking for that type of use. And, the important thing about the Hanson and Klingelhutz building is what th~ tenants are, and, right now, we have such a transltlonal tenant with Prontier Meats. Chairman Horn: From my perspective, you are hitting on all the right issues. It's just a matter of getting what the transitions are~ My issues are visual types of things, traffic flow, mixing the different of types of traffic uses and basically the transitional. Mr. Waibel: You are concerned with transportation? What would be one way of putting the transitional uses with this? Chairman Horn: Separate the entertainment from the retail. 9~10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -12- e Mr. Johnson: You can address those types of things in a number of ways, too, one of them being the Sign Ordinance. I have seen in other cities where such franchise food establishments as McDonaldshave been built to blend in with the environment. If they build in this area, you can constrain how they build. Chairman Horn: You can't do that. Even with the Holiday Station, it didn't work because the Sign Committee's rec- ommendation was that they have wooden posted signs. Mr. Waibel: That's the key now. If we develop those design criteria and design standards it should work. . . Maybe we could meld the land use with the design control. We could develop satisfactory setbacks, landscaping, signage so that maybe those things will not be obstrusive in any particular zone. - Chairman Horn: The biggest hurdle is to overcome the emotional impact of saying "I think we can put a McDonald's down there in the ring road." No one will ever hear what you say beyond that point. Mr. Waibel: The idea behind this design criteria is to tell the guy who is putting a structure in that they have to satisfy this criteria. It becomes a positive thing because one guy who builds can be assured that the next builder will build in the same way with the same criteria. Mr. Johnson: The whole thing boils down to what Art said, that we don't have the proper legal tools right now. So we should start with that. Chairman Horn: That is what this overlay is going to for us. Mr. Johnson: Use that, and maybe tie in a Sign Ordinance. Mr. Partridge: Would someone just translate the whole overlay idea for me? You are talking about generally blanking out areas for uses? e Chairman Horn: It is like zoning, only instead of in the zoning map calling each of these individual sections as a different use, they put it all into one. We will call it one zone but overlay what will be allowed in each district. Mr. Johnson: It is like sub-zoning. e e - 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -13- Mr. Partridge: ... Is it really our function to design what goes in the downtown area? . . . What I am saying is that what we have in this town is the result of perceived needs of the community as perceived by the local businessmen. In order to build any buildings, you are going to have to have people who will want to operate a business in them. It is like planning a new town without any real clients in mind, just types. Mr. Johnson: We will have some criteria and whoever comes in here will have some guidelines saying whether or not they want to be there. Mr. Partridge: Aren't you limiting the market when you do that? thairman Horn: No, you are allowing a type in. You are just saying where each type of thing can go. .Mr. Waibel: r can see your point where you kind of want to be able to include all the uses possible rather than going through a really strenuous review process. Maybe through the design parameters you won't have to worry about that. Mr. Partridge: Where does the H.R.A. fit into all of this? Mr. Waibel: The H.R.A. has given the latitude to the Planning Com- mission to develop this overlay district, to work up the design criteria, and answer any land use questions. Mr. W. Thompson: Sometime back, not too far back, either the Council or someone said this should have the atmosphere of the frontier. It should look like the old west. Is there a theme for this new concept? Mr. Waibel: That is something you must discuss. Chairman Horn: The thing we have to do is be consistent. Mr. Waibel: The motif thing; that is something you want to discuss. . . Chairman Horn: Regarding the question you asked earlier, I think we do want a design committee. I would favor some- thing like that. Whether it is a theme or not, r think we need some kind of a guide. e e - 9-10-80 Planning Commission Minutes -14- Mr. Waibel: Is it fair to say that the Planning Commission would be in agreement with pursuing this design objective rather than the strict land use category. Chairman Horn: As long as we get them into some general-type category somehow that defines what it is. Mr. Waibel: Maybe next week when we discuss this, we should be working toward categories that would be high traffic generators, goods and services, frequent and not fre- quent. OPEN DISCUSSION: Discussion occurred regarding the Lake Study Committee's recommendations. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Partridge moved to adjourn the 9-10-80 Planning Com- mission meeting at 11:45 p.m. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. - . -