2015-05-26 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA
May 26, 2015–7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Adopt Agenda
4.Approve April 28, 2015Planning Commission Minutes
5.Public Hearings(7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter):
a.Case No. 2015-14: City of MendotaHeights. Proposed City Code amendment
concerningtrade schools.
b.Case No. 2015-15:City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code amendments
concerning single-family residential construction.
6.Verbal Review
7.Staff Annoucements
8.Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours
in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights
will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short
notice. Please contact City Hallat 651.452.1850 with requests.
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1
1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5April 28, 2015
6
7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April
828, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
9
10The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard
11Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins.Those absent:
12Christine Costello.Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall andPublic Works Director/City
13Engineer John Mazzitello.
14
Approval of Agenda
15
16
17The agenda was approved as submitted.
18
Approval of March 24, Minutes
19
20
21COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONANTO
22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2015 AS PRESENTED.
23
24AYES: 6
25NAYS: 0
26ABSENT: 1
27
Hearings
28
29
30A) PLANNING CASE #2015-09
31Mark Swenson, 873 Highway 110
32Rear Yard Setback Variance Request
33
34Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the applicant was seeking a variance from the rear yard setback
35standard to construct an approximately 216 square foot addition to the existing dwelling at 873
36Highway 110. The subject parcel is 0.43 acres and even though it has a Highway 110 address it is
37a corner lot fronting Carmel Lane, and Crown Pointe Drive to the west. The property is zoned
38R-1 Single Family Residential and guided as low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan.
39
40Planner Wall shared an image of the proposed site plan as provided by the applicant. The proposed
41addition would connect the detached garage to the dwelling to add mudroom and bedroom/office
42spaces. The north side of the existing structure encroaches into the required rear yard setback;
43therefore a variance is required.
44
April 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 1
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2
45Planner Wall then shared the City’s rear yard setback requirements, the location of the current
46structure, and the location of the proposed addition. The proposed addition would be constructed
47flush with the existing dwelling and would not encroach further into the rear yard setback.
48
49The proposed addition would be finished with stucco and painted to match the existing structures
50and meets the R-1 district’s building height and other setback requirements.
51
52Planner Wall explained the standard threshold that would need to be applied to a variance request
53of this type and noted how this request meets those standard thresholds.
54
55Staff recommended approval of this request with conditions.
56
57Chair Field opened the public hearing.
58
59Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
60hearing.
61
62COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
63CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
64
65AYES: 6
66NAYS: 0
67ABSENT: 1
68
69COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
70RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-09, REAR YARD SETBACK
71VARIANCE REQUESTBASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
721.The proposed addition is a reasonable use of the property, meets the purpose and intent of
73the City Code, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
742.The platting of the Crown Point Addition and location of the pre-existing structures on the
75subject parcel created a unique circumstance upon the property not created by the applicant.
763.The proposed addition will not extend any further into the rear yard than the existing
77dwelling and represents a small increased encroachment while still maintaining a large
78front yard setback.
794.The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
80AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
811.A building permit be obtained prior to construction of the addition.
822.The applicant shall submit grading plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated
83easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of
84any building permit application.
853.Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
86Guidance document.
87
88AYES: 6
89NAYS: 0
90ABSENT: 1
April 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 2
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3
91Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 5, 2015 meeting.
92
93B) PLANNING CASE #2015-11
94City of Mendota Heights
95Proposed amendments to the Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures section of the
96City Code
97
98Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights was considering amendments to
99Title 12, Chapter 1, Article D, Section 14 of the City Code concerning Wireless Antennas, Towers,
100and Accessory Structures, which currently require Conditional Use Permit approval. Since 2013
101the City has process five Conditional Use Permit applications for minor improvements to existing
102wireless antenna facilities. The projects typically included equipment change-outs, antenna
103replacements, and interior modifications to existing accessory structures. In all cases those
104improvements did not increase the height of the wireless antenna structure itself or expand the
105footprint of those existing accessory structures.
106
107Similar to other application processes, these conditional use permits do require a public hearing
108and take a significant amount of staff time to process. In addition, staff has heard from applicants
109that the five-week minimum approval process can be burdensome. Based on feedback from the
110Commission and from City Council, staff proposed amendments that would allow certain projects
111to be approved administratively.
112
113Planner Wall shared Draft Ordinance 476, which adds a new section to the City Code to address
114this issue and proposes a few conditions, which would allow for administrative approval.He
115explained that the amendment would not change what an applicant would have to submit; it’s just
116changing how the City would review and approve such applications.
117
118Commissioners asked questions regarding approximately how many applications this would
119remove from requiring Commission/Council approval, suggested the removal of condition 5,
120modification of the language in conditions 3, 4, and 6 \[replace the word “No” with “No material .
121. . ”\], and add clarification language to condition 2.
122
123Chair Field opened the public hearing.
124
125Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
126hearing.
127
128COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
129CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
130
131AYES: 6
132NAYS: 0
133ABSENT: 1
134
135COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
136RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-11, DRAFT ORDINANCE 476 AN
April 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 3
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4
137ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-1D-14 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF
138MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING WIRELESS
139ANTENNAS, TOWERS, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURESWITH THE AMENDMENTS TO
140THE ORDINANCE AS DISCUSSED IN CONDITIONS TWO, THREE, FOUR, AND SIX AND
141THE DELETION OF CONDITION FIVE.
142
143AYES: 6
144NAYS: 0
145ABSENT: 1
146
147Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 5, 2015 meeting.
148
Verbal Review
149
150
151Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
152
153PLANNING CASE #2015-05
154Alltech Engineering/Mendota Management, LLC, 2515 Pilot Knob Road
155Variance Request
156•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
157
158PLANNING CASE #2015-07
159Nate Wissink, Elevation Homes, 747 Willow Lane
160Lot Split and Wetlands Permit
161•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
162
163PLANNING CASE #2015-08
164City of Mendota Heights
165Proposed amendments to the Business and License Requirements Title of the City Code (DRAFT
166Ordinance 475)
167•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
168
Staff Announcements
169
170
171Planner Nolan Wall:
172City Council is holding a workshop meeting on May 12, 2015 from 1:00PM – 4:00 PM.
173Planning-related items to be discussed include a vision for the development of the three
174City-owned properties at The Village; infill and teardown situations in the City; and rental
175licensing.
176The City received a redevelopment planning grant from the Dakota County CDA inthe
177amount of $10,000; the City will be matching an additional $10,000 from city funds to do
178a redevelopment plan for the entire industrial district. Staff is currently working with
179Stantec to develop the scope and will be bringing that for Council approval in the coming
180months. This process will include the Planning Commission as well.
181Another open house to be held for LeMay Shores Development on Wednesday, May 20 at
1826:00 PM. Notices were sent today to the surrounding property owners.
April 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 4
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5
183City Clean-Up Day is Saturday, May 2 at Mendakota Park from 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM.
184Shredding services are also being provided this year.
185
186City Engineer John Mazzitello:
187A pre-construction meeting for the utilities andinfrastructure phase of the LeMay Shores
188Development will beheld on Thursday, April 30 so the timing of the open house mentioned
189by Planner Wall will be very appropriate
190Victoria Road Reconstruction Phase 2 bid opening is scheduled for May 14, 2015,
191hopefully to be awarded by Council on May 19, 2015, the construction specifications state
192that they will not be able to start until after June 10, 2015 – which is the last day of school
193for Mendota Elementary –and they must be substantially complete by the Friday before
194Labor Day.
195
Adjournment
196
197
198COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
199ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:31 P.M.
200
201AYES: 6
202NAYS: 0
203ABSENT: 1
April 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 5
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6
DATE:
May 26, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-14
Proposed Code Amendments – Trade School Definition
APPLICANT:
City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
N/A
ZONING/GUIDED:
N/A
ACTION DEADLINE:
N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City is considering amendments to Title 12-1B-2 of the City Code concerning trade schools.
BACKGROUND
As a result of recent requests to establish different types of educational facilitieswithin the Industrial Zoning
District, a code amendment is being proposed to clarify the definition of “trade school.” The current
definition was amended by Ordinance 391 in 2004 (attached).
ANALYSIS
The Code allows “Trade schools and colleges or universities, without accessory housing \[12-1G-1\]” as a
permitted nonmanufacturing use and “Trade schools, colleges, and universities with accessory housing for
the students of the school only \[12-1G-2\]”as a conditional use in the Industrial District.
“Trade School” is currently defined as:
TRADE SCHOOL: An educational institution, either private or public, which offers classes and training to
full and/or part time students including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing
fields \[12-1B-2\].
DRAFT Ordinance 477 (attached) includes the following amended definition:
TRADE SCHOOL: A privately-owned, post-secondary, skill-based educational institutionwhichoffers
completion programs that issue certificates, diplomas, and degrees; and certified training to full and/or
part time students including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields.
Trade school uses that occupy the Industrial District are post-secondary institutions. The use category also
includes “colleges or universities,” both ofwhich are post-secondary in nature, and were specifically
discussed by the City Council and added by Ordinance 391.
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 477, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 477.
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment. If acceptable to the
Commission, action can be taken at this month’s meeting. Staff would proposeto bring back any substantial
revisions for reviewand further discussionat a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the
City Council.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Ordinance 391
2.DRAFT Ordinance 477
3.Planning Application, including supporting materials
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 477
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12-1B-2 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING
TRADE SCHOOLS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 12-1B-2 is hereby amended as follows:
TRADE SCHOOL: Anprivately-owned, post-secondary, skill-based educational institution, either private
or public, which offers classescompletion programs that issue certificates, diplomas, anddegrees;and
certifiedtraining to full and/or part time students including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical,
services and computing fields.
Section 2.
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ### day of Month, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
DRAFT – 05.26.15 Planning Commission Review page 1 of 1
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14
DATE:
May 26, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-15
Proposed Code Amendments – Single-family Residential Construction
APPLICANT:
City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
N/A
ZONING/GUIDED:
N/A
ACTION DEADLINE:
N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City is considering amendments to Title 12-1E of the City Code concerning minimum requirements
for single-family residential districts.
BACKGROUND
Mendota Heights is nearly fully-developed and remains an attractive place to live. As a result, lot splits
and teardowns will continue to be prevalent in areas containing large lots and aging housing stock. The
City Council has discussed several issues surrounding infill development and teardowns at past workshops
and directed staff to bring forward potential code amendments for review and discussion.
The R-1 One-Family Zoning District is predominate among residentialland uses in the City. Barring
unusual site conditions, a lot zoned R-1 over30,000 square feet and 200 feet of frontage on a developed
right-of-way can be split into two conforming lots. Surrounding property owners have voiced concerns
about how these subdivisions relate to consistency and character of the existingneighborhood. However,
it’s difficult to deny a subdivision request that complies with the applicable zoning regulations. In addition,
discussion on the design and location of a new dwelling is most often not relevant to the subdivision request.
This situation has left the City facing approval of subdivision requests that raise issues of neighborhood
compatibly and opposition. As a result, balancing concerns regarding change and reinvestment in the
housing stock is challenging.
ANALYSIS
DRAFT Ordinance 478 (attached) includes the following proposed code amendments:
Dwelling Dimensions
Title 12-1E-1(A)(2) currently reads:
Dimensions: The shortest dimension of any single-family dwelling shall be twenty two feet (22'), exclusive
of porches and other appurtenances. The longest dimension shall not exceed three (3) times the shortest
dimension.
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15
The intent is most likely to prevent long, narrow dwellings. However, the existing language is vague and
difficult to interpret based on new home designs that feature a variety of design features. The proposed
language in DRAFT Ordinance 478 has the same intent, but clarifies how the dimensions are determined:
Dimensions: Single-family dwellings shall be no less than twenty two feet (22') in width, exclusive of
porches and other projections. The maximum length dimension shall not exceed three (3) times the shortest
minimum width dimension.
First Floor Elevation
In order to ensure new homes are not intentionally constructed to tower over adjacent existing homes, the
height of the new first floor elevation can be limited. DRAFT Ordinance 478 includes the following:
First Floor Elevation:
a.Teardown and construction of new single-family dwellings and additions, modifications, and
alterations to existing dwellings shall not raise the first floor elevation more than one (1) foot
above the existing condition.
b.In the case of a split-level dwelling, the existing first floor elevation is the lowest elevation of an
entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrances to the garage and those that do not face the street.
c.By conditional use permit, the first floor elevation may be increased by more than one (1) foot
from the existing condition in order to meet one or more of the following conditions:
1.Elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two (2) feet above the 100-year
flood elevation, as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
2.Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing groundwater elevation shall
be determined by a professional registered engineer in the State of Minnesota or by a
certified hydrologist and provided for review and consideration.
3.Meet state building code, City Code or other statutory requirements.
The proposed amendment is based on the City of Edina’s existing regulations. As proposed, the first floor
elevation could be increased by more than one foot by conditional use permit in order to addressthe
proposed conditions.
Construction Standards
In most recent cases, lot splits have included demolition of the existing structures on the parent parcel and
the inevitable construction of two new single-family dwellings on the newly-created lots. Demolition is
often required in order to eliminate setback non-conformities with the existing structures as a result of the
proposed lot split. In addition, the age and condition of the existing structures and desires of new
homeowners also influence whether they are demolished or not. Most new homebuilders want 3-car
garages, mudrooms, open floor plans, and other updated design features. Unfortunately, most of the homes
recently demolished don’t meet those needs, or would require significant renovations if retained by a new
owner.
Many of the complaints staff receives regarding new homes are related to nuisances caused by construction
activity, including noise, traffic, debris, and parking. DRAFT Ordinance 478 includes the following:
Construction Standards: All construction activities, including additions to existing structures, are required
to comply with the requirements below. Failure to comply with any of the requirements may result in
issuance of stop-work orders, fines, revocation of contractorlicenses, and enforcement of the penalty
provisions in section 12-1L-11 of this chapter.
1.Hours of operation for exterior construction activities are limited to 7:00 AM –7:00 PM Monday
through Friday and 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM on Weekends.
2.An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be approved by the Engineering Department to be
implemented and properly maintained at all times, in accordance with section 11-6 of this code the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
3.Streets and surrounding properties shall be free of debris and mud at the end of each workday.
4.Dumpsters placed on-site for more than ten (10) consecutive days during construction activities
must be covered or have lids that close and secure to contain debris.
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16
5.Storage of construction and landscaping materials, dumpsters, portable restroom facilities, and
other equipment within the right-of-way is prohibited.
6.The permit holder must repair any damage to public or private property within three (3) working
days from a notice beingissued by the City.
7.When possible, contractor vehicle parking should be limited to one side of the street to allow
adequate space for two-way traffic, emergency service vehicles, and city maintenance vehicles.
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 478, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 478.
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment. If acceptable to the
Commission, action can be taken at this month’s meeting. Staff would proposeto bring back any substantial
revisions for reviewand further discussionat a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the
City Council.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.DRAFT Ordinance 478
2.Planning Application, including supporting materials
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 478
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE E OF THE CITY CODE
OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING
DEFINITIONS AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 12-1E-1(A)(2) is hereby amended as follows:
Dimensions: The shortest dimension of any sSingle-family dwellings shall be no less thantwenty two feet
(22') in width, exclusive of porches and other projectionsappurtenances. Themaximum length longest
dimension shall not exceed three (3) times the shortest width dimension.
Section 2.
Title 12-1E-1(A)(5) is hereby added as follows:
First Floor Elevation:
a.Teardown and construction of new single-family dwellings and additions, modifications, and
alterations to existing dwellings shall not raise the first floor elevation more than one (1) foot
above the existing condition.
b.In the case of a split-level dwelling, the existing first floor elevation is the lowest elevation of an
entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrances to the garage and those that do not face the street.
c.By conditional use permit, the first floor elevation may be increased by more than one (1) foot
from the existing condition in order to meet one or more of the following conditions:
1.Elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two (2) feet above the 100-year
flood elevation, as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
2.Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing groundwater elevation shall be
determined by a professional registered engineer in the State of Minnesota or by a
certified hydrologist and provided for review and consideration.
3.Meet state building code, City Code or other statutory requirements.
Section 3.
Title 12-1E-1(D) is hereby added as follows:
Construction Standards: All construction activities, including additions to existing structures, are
required to comply with the requirements below. Failure to comply with any of the requirements may
result in issuance of stop-work orders, fines, revocation of contractor licenses, and enforcement of the
penalty provisions insection 12-1L-11 of this chapter.
1.Hours of operation for exterior construction activities are limited to 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM
Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM on Weekends.
2.An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be approved by the Engineering Department to be
implemented and properly maintained at alltimes, in accordance with section 11-6 of this code
the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
3.Streets and surrounding properties shall be free of debris and mud at the end of each workday.
DRAFT – 05.26.15 Planning Commission Review page 1 of 2
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18
4.Dumpsters placed on-site for more than ten (10) consecutive daysduring construction activities
must be covered or have lidsthat close and secure to contain debris.
5.Storage of construction and landscaping materials, dumpsters, portable restroom facilities, and
other equipment within the right-of-way is prohibited.
6.The permit holder must repair any damage to public or private property within three (3)
working days from a notice being issued by the City.
7.When possible, contractor vehicle parking should be limited to one side of the street to allow
adequate spacefor two-way traffic, emergency service vehicles, and city maintenance vehicles.
Section 4.
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ### day of Month, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
DRAFT – 05.26.15 Planning Commission Review page 2 of 2
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20
5/26/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21