Loading...
2000-09-26 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 26, 2000, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Duggan, and Commissioners Betlej, Friel (8:06 p.m.), Koll, Lorberbaum, McManus, and Vitelli. Also present were Public Works Director Danielson, Planner Stephen Grittman, Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister and Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to approve the minutes of August 22, 2000 meeting, revised to page 3, paragraph 4, second sentence to read, "He indicated this plat was frowned upon... ", page 7, within the motion adding a stipulation to include a bituminous (15 foot) driveway with the rest gravel, and page 8 paragraph 9, to read " with this proposal because the lack of a mud room..." Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. #00 -35: JACK L. HURLEY VARIANCE TO INSTALL A 5' FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK 2465 HAMPSHIRE COURT Chair Duggan explained this was a public hearing for the purpose of discussion on a Variance to install a five -foot fence in the front yard setback for Jack L. Hurley at 2465 Hampshire Court. Planner Grittman reviewed the Planning Case with the Commission and noted the applicants have applied for a variance from the setbacks for a privacy fence in their rear yard. He noted the lot in question is a "through lot" which has frontage on Hampshire Court while its rear yard abuts Huber Drive. Planner Grittman indicated the applicants are requesting a fence to construct a pool in their rear yard. He noted concerns arose for the applicants with regard to the fence height and Ordinance requirements. Planner Grittman noted staff does not recommend approval of the variance as 9/26/00 presented due to the language of hardship. He explained there were several options for the swimming pool location, which would allow the setback for higher fences. Planner Grittman stated the Commission may have to consider an amendment to the Ordinance rather than approving a variance with additional conditions. He indicated this may provide future relief of additional requests. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for the issues at hand with this request. Planner Grittman stated the applicants are asking for a privacy fence that is five to six feet in height and they need to be 30 feet from the property line. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the rear yard could have a five to six feet height and if there were staff approved options for pool placement on this lot. Planner Grittman indicated if the owners move the fence within the 30 feet setback it could be five to six feet in height. He stated the pool may be placed on this lot if the pool size was reduced to meet the City setbacks. Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. Jack and Kathleen Hurley, 2465 Hampshire Court, addressed the Commission. Ms. Hurley stated she has reviewed several pool placement options with the Planner. She indicated the decking off the back of the house poses problems with setbacks due to the fact it extends 21 feet from the house. Mr. Hurley noted the pool they are looking to install is 18' by 36', which is the standard sized pool. He indicated there are several large oak trees behind his home which he would like to save through this installation which limits the pool placement within the back yard. Chair Duggan asked if soil borings have been completed. Ms. Hurley indicated this has been on hold until approval was granted from the City. She stated the proposed pool location was on higher ground than the rear of the lot. Chair Duggan questioned the depth of the lot from the proposed pool location. Mr. Hurley stated this was 30 feet exactly. He indicated the fence at the rear property line would also offer his family some privacy from the walkers using the path behind his home. Ms. Hurley noted she and her husband would not be interested in placing a pool in the rear yard if the fence had to be 30 feet from the property line as it would break up their back yard. Commissioner McManus questioned if a more opaque fence could be used in the rear yard for this request. Planner Grittman stated the 30% opaqueness would have to be met with this request due to the fact it is treated as a front yard with this through lot. Commissioner McManus asked if there was shrubbery on Huber Drive and asked that the applicants review the layout of the fence on their property. Mr. Hurley reviewed the fence layout and stated the previous owner planted ten pine trees on a three -foot berm along Huber Drive. 2 9/26/00 Commissioner Vitelli asked for the location of the pool at this time. Ms. Hurley explained the pool location had been approved in the rear yard but that the fence location was more in question and requires the Commission to approve the fence before the pool could be constructed. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the Hurley's purchased or built the home as is. Ms. Hurley indicated they purchased the home as is with the deck. Commissioner Betlej indicated he would be in favor of the fence being located on the outside of the pine trees along Huber Drive. Mr. Hurley stated he felt he would enjoy the yard greater than the neighbors using the walking path. He indicated he would be in favor of landscaping the outside of the fence if this needed to be done, as there was six feet of space between the proposed fence and the walking path. Commissioner Koll indicated an enclosed fence was needed due to the fact children in the neighborhood would be drawn to the pool. She explained that with this case the applicants are requesting a variance from the opaqueness of the fence, the fence height and the rear yard setbacks. Commissioner Friel arrived at the meeting at 8:06 p.m. There being no further questions or comments, Commissioner Betlej moved that the hearing be closed. Chair Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel asked if hardship issues were discussed. Chair Duggan noted the applicants have a through lot, an existing deck and large oak trees in their rear yard, which diminishes the size of their buildable pool pad. Commissioner Lorberbaum felt it was not the right of the applicants to have a pool unless they can meet the City requirements. Chair Duggan concurred but felt the applicants did have exception because they have a through lot which allows them to only have a three foot high fence in their rear yard. Commissioner Koll noted she may have concern with the fence as there were no fences on this street and indicated it could be an eyesore. Commissioner Vitelli moved to approve Case No. #00 -35 a Variance to Install a 6 -foot closed fence as submitted in the Front Yard Setback for Jack and Kathleen Hurley at 2465 Hampshire Court to allow the construction of a pool. 3 9/26/00 Commissioner McManus seconded the motion. AYES: 3 NAYS: 4 (Lorberbaum, Betlej, Friel, Koll) Mr. Hurley asked if landscaping along Huber Drive would alter change the vote for the application as presented. Chair Duggan stated he thought the Commissioners were uncomfortable with the opaqueness and height of the proposed fence. Chair Duggan moved to approve Case No. #00 -35 a Variance to Install a 6 Foot 30% opaque fence to be just inside the pine trees along Huber Drive in the Front Yard Setback for Jack and Kathleen Hurley at 2465 Hampshire Court to allow the construction of a pool. Chair Duggan withdrew his motion for lack of a second. Chair Duggan moved to recommend approval Case No. #00 -35 a Variance to Install a 6 Foot 30% opaque alternating fence in the Front Yard Setback as submitted by the applicants Jack and Kathleen Hurley at 2465 Hampshire Court to allow the construction of a pool with landscaping similar to the pictures submitted by the applicants between the walking path and fence. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (Lorberbaum, Koll) CASE NO. #00 -36: BOYD RATCHYE WETLANDS PERMIT 970 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL Chair Duggan explained this was a public hearing for the purpose of discussion on a Wetlands Permit for Boyd Ratchye at 970 Wagon Wheel Trail. Planner Grittman reviewed the Planning Case with the Commission and noted the applicant was requesting a wetland permit to expand an existing kitchen deck and stairway at the rear of their home within 100 feet of the shoreline of Rogers Lake. He indicated the new deck would be located approximately 70 feet from the shoreline and would connect an existing deck adjacent to the kitchen to a three- season porch. Planner Grittman recommended approval of the wetland permit as the addition would blend well with the layout of the house. He noted existing vegetation would remain and would blend with the surrounding landscape to minimize the flow of storm water run -off to the lake. Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. 4 9/26/00 Commissioner Koll asked what vegetation would be moved. Mr. Ratchye stated he would need to move two peonies and two junipers. There being no further questions or comments, Commissioner Friel moved that the hearing be closed. Chair Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Vitelli moved to recommend approval the Wetlands Permit for a deck addition for Boyd Ratchye at 970 Wagon Wheel Trail with the applicant responsible for using a silt fence during construction. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. #00 -37: AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ADD 30 FEET TO THE EXISTING 95 -FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER 1168 NORTHLAND DRIVE Chair Duggan explained this was a public hearing for the purpose of discussion on a conditional use permit and variance to add 30 feet to the existing 95 -foot monopole tower located at 1168 Northland Drive by AT &T Wireless Services. Planner Grittman reviewed the Planning Case with the Commission and noted the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit and variance to add height to an existing 95 -foot tall cellular antenna tower at Northland Drive and Highway 55. He stated the applicant wishes to increase the tower by 30 feet bringing the total height to 125 feet to meet the needs of their current customers. Planner Grittman indicated the applicant notes that setbacks for the installation were currently in violation of the City's antenna Ordinance that was adopted after the original construction. He indicated the addition to this tower would allow for co- location. Planner Grittman recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variances with conditions to allow for co- location as long as the applicant can provide documentation to prove the need for the additional height at this particular location. He added that this recommendation was with the thought the Commission would be in favor of fewer higher towers versus more lower towers. 5 9/26/00 Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. Peter Beck, AT &T Wireless representative, stated the parcel this tower was located on was City of Mendota Heights right of way. He reviewed the history of this pole with the Commission. Mr. Beck stated the original tower height request was for 125 feet to meet the Interstate -494 traffic. Mr. Beck indicated he thought the Commission was in favor of this 125 feet request five years ago when it was brought to the City. Chair Duggan stated as he remembers this case he stated if the pole were to be a co- locator the Commission would be in favor of the 125 feet. Mr. Beck noted AT &T Wireless was serving their clients with the 95 foot pole but stated the 125 feet pole would allow for greater service and less dropped calls. He noted AT &T has marketed their pole as a co- location within the metro area and has found Nextel would be interested in locating on this pole at the 110 feet if approved by the City. Mr. Beck explained the PCS companies are able to operate at lower frequencies, which would allow them to be located on this site as well around 90 feet. Chair Duggan asked if the additional 30 feet would be a concern for the FAA. Mr. Beck stated this formal process would not been sought out until approval was granted from the City. He indicated the FAA approved the tower five years ago at the 95 feet height with no concerns. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted she was in favor of the additional 30 feet but stated she was disappointed the needs assessment was not shown at this time. Mr. Beck stated he could prove the need with a frequency drive test but that it could not be scheduled before this meeting. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if additional ground equipment would be added to this site if co- location were completed on this pole. Mr. Beck responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired if landscaping was completed on this site five years ago. She noted the site seems to be overgrown. Mr. Beck reviewed a letter with the Commission from the City that AT &T had met all landscaping requirements five years ago. Chair Duggan suggested the applicants have a landscaping plan before the Council to improve the approval factors. Commission Koll noted she felt one pole was better than three in this case. She did question the symptoms for the increase in the height. Mr. Beck stated there are dropped calls along the I -494 roadway. He stated the additional height would allow for increased frequency and reduce the number of dropped calls. Chair Duggan noted he would be in favor of this item being tabled to the October meeting until further information was brought to the Commission to review the number of dropped calls and lost area of frequency could be reviewed. He noted the Planner suggested the applicant have 6 9/26/00 appropriate documentation of need, including radio frequency engineer's report and a study of alternative locations which was not brought to the Commission. Commissioner Friel indicated he felt there was no hardship with this case as reasonable accommodations have been made by the City. He stated the AT &T pole functions at this time and meets the needs of their respective customers. Mr. Beck stated this was the case but that by increasing the height his company would better cover customers on I -494 as well as allow for co- location. Commissioner Friel asked if the cellular companies were being proactive for the safety of drivers roadways. Mr. Beck stated there is information provided monthly within the bills to clients. Commissioner Betlej inquired as to how many frequencies could be used at each cell site. Mr. Beck stated digital uses increased the number of potential users per pole. He noted roughly three to four users could be used at this site if the 30 -foot addition were approved. Commissioner Betlej asked if additional sites have been investigated along I -494. Mr. Beck stated there are no 100 foot buildings along I -494 that would work for AT &T. He stated a building mounted site would save capital but that the neighboring buildings would not serve the area. Commissioner Betlej asked if several building mounted towers could be placed on buildings along the I -494 corridor. Mr. Beck indicated this would not be cost effective for AT &T Wireless. Nathan Ward, Nextel Communications representative, noted he currently has a cell site on Sibley High School. He indicated Nextel was looking to expand their services and that the AT &T monopole site would be an ideal location for their cell site. Mr. Ward explained his company now has the budget to support this expansion to allow for co- location as it would be a win -win situation for all those involved and eliminating the need for an additional pole. Chair Duggan asked if the Commission was requesting additional documentation. Commissioner Friel moved to table the public hearing of the conditional use permit and variance to add 30 feet to the existing 95 -foot monopole tower at 1168 Northland Drive for AT &T Wireless Services to allow AT &T time to provide documentation of need, the radio frequency engineer's report and a study of alternative locations. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Vitelli) 7 9/26/00 Mr. Beck asked if Nextel needed to continue to be involved in this application. Administrative Assistant Hollister recommended that Nextel stay involved with this application due to the fact the Council would be in favor of there input on a guaranteed co- location before approval was granted. CASE NO. #00 -38: MICHAEL A. SINDT VARIANCE FOR A 21 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO INSTALL A 5'4" FENCE 2455 WHITFIELD DRIVE Chair Duggan explained this was a public hearing for the purpose of discussion on a variance for a 21 -foot front yard setback to install a 5'4" fence for Michael Sindt at 2455 Whitfield Drive. Commissioner Vitelli excused himself from this item as he is running for City Council and Ms. Sindt was as well. Chair Duggan asked if the Commission would like him to remove himself from discussion as well. Mr. Sindt stated he felt there was no conflict of interest. Planner Grittman reviewed the Planning Case with the Commission and noted the applicant was requesting a variance from the setback of height for a privacy fence in a side yard. He noted the property was a corner lot, which has frontage on Whitfield with the side yard abutting Mendota Heights Road. Planner Grittman indicated the Zoning Ordinance states fences in yards, which are adjacent to streets, can be no more than three feet in height and must be at least 30% open. Planner Grittman noted the applicant argues that the fence is necessary to protect the rear yard from visibility and lights of traffic along Mendota Heights Road, both vehicular and pedestrian. He stated staff does not recommend approval of the application due to the language of hardship and reasonable use required for variance consideration. Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. Michael Sindt, 2455 Whitfield Drive, stated he felt his lot did have a hardship that stems from the developer of the lot. He indicated the grade on the lot was a concern along with the narrow width, which allows little use of the rear yard. Mr. Sindt stated the side yard has become the most usable space for his family. Mr. Sindt reviewed the location of the proposed fencing on his property. He indicated he has a hot tub in his rear yard, which has proven to be an attractive nuisance for neighboring children. Mr. Sindt stated the hot tub did not require a fully enclosed fence but noted the proposed fence would reduce the liability he has for his lot. Mr. Sindt stated he felt the vehicular lights shining into his home could not be corrected through landscaping as a hedge was already on his property line. He noted the lighting again becomes a concern each fall and winter. Mr. Sindt indicated the traffic lighting would not be solved unless a fence was placed along the property line. He explained he did not meet the 30% openness as 8 9/26/00 suggested within the Ordinance but stated he could work with staff on this issue. Mr. Sindt noted he was granted a three -foot picket fence for the rear property line by the building inspector. Commissioner McManus indicated staff does not recommend approval of the submitted fence and asked if the applicant was aware that his current fence was in non - compliance. Mr. Sindt stated he has lived in the community for a year and a half and was unaware of the Zoning Ordinance when he erected the fence. Commissioner McManus asked if fences have had to be removed in the recent past. Public Works Director Danielson stated a shed was moved but that no fencing has been removed within the City in the recent past. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the chosen fence height. Mr. Sindt stated he was not aware of the limitations but that he is requesting a five -foot fence to eliminate the barking of his dogs at passing pedestrians. Commissioner Betlej noted he felt the applicant's lot was unique and noted he was in favor of the way the fenced tucked into the landscaping. Commissioner Friel indicated all neighbors signed off approval for the plans for this application but noted there was no hardship within this case. He suggested Council pass an Ordinance to allow residents to have their applications granted when all neighboring properties sign off on their request. Mr. Sindt asked for a definition of hardship as stated in the Ordinance and indicated he did not receive a copy of this from staff. Chair Duggan reviewed the hardship definition with Mr. Sindt. Commissioner Koll stated a variance was granted to the neighboring property on Mendota Heights Road. She indicated there is a large number of people using the trail taking away from the privacy of this lot. Chair Duggan concurred stating there was a large number of people going by this lot and stated he was in favor of the application as submitted. There being no further questions or comments, Commissioner Betlej moved that the hearing be closed. Chair Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Vitelli) Commissioner Betlej moved to approve the 21 -foot front yard setback variance for a 5'4" fence for Michael Sindt at 2455 Whitfield Drive with the hardship being the shape of the lot and street locations for this lot with the opaqueness of the existing fence. 9 9/26/00 Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 (Friel) ABSTAIN: 1 (Vitelli) Chair Duggan called for a short recess at 9:56 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:02 p.m. TRAFFIC CALMING Chair Duggan asked staff to review this item with the Commission. Public Works Director Danielson noted the traffic calming issue arose on Decorah Lane due to the installation of stop signs at Ocala Lane and Decorah Lane. He stated the police have observed this intersection over the past year and noted neighboring residents are petitioning removal of the stop signs on Ocala Lane. Public Works Director Danielson noted there were no accidents before, during or after the placement of these signs. He indicated many residents are using poor judgement at this intersection. Planner Grittman reviewed the basics of traffic calming as the need to either slow or divert traffic from certain areas. He indicated several techniques used to calm traffic are speed bumps, speed humps, and rumble strips. Planner Grittman stated speed bumps were not conducive to emergency vehicles. He explained rumble strips could be noisy for neighboring properties and could be dangerous for bikers in residential areas. Planner Grittman noted narrowing of streets slows traffics as they approach intersections and stated traffic circles or round abouts are effective for directing traffic. He indicated the round abouts are not as popular yet, due to the amount of right of way needed. Planner Grittman stated the most common form of traffic calming is the changing of the streetscape by adding boulevard landscaping, altering paving surfaces and sidewalk widths to narrow the field of view. Chair Duggan asked if this was the most cost - effective way to calm traffic. Planner Grittman indicated he was not aware of the costs involved with each calming technique. Chair Duggan noted Decorah, Wagon Wheel, Victoria, Copperfield, South Freeway Road, Lake Drive and Silvendale were the roadways in concern at this time for traffic calming. Commissioner Vitelli asked if the Police Chief supported the proposal submitted. The Police Chief recommended the proposal as did Public Works Director Danielson. Public Works Director Danielson noted a professional reviewed Decorah Lane and submitted traffic calming recommendations to the City. 10 9/26/00 Commissioner Vitelli suggested meeting with neighboring residents along Decorah before these recommendations were enforced to gain support. Public Works Director Danielson noted this would be done over the next couple of months. Commissioner Friel stated he remembers three permanent stop signs were added to the Decorah Lane and Ocala Lane intersection as well as a crosswalk. He noted a light was also proposed for this area but was denied after signatures were gained from well over 200 residents that drive in the area. Commissioner Friel stated felt the crosswalk at this intersection was not necessary as he has not seen a pedestrian in all his drives past this area. Commissioner Friel asked if the suggestions before the Commission were comments or recommendations. Public Works Director Danielson indicated the suggestions were recommendations for the Commission to review and revise. The Commission concurred with recommendations two through six. Chair Duggan suggested Council determine item number one at a future meeting. Commissioner Betlej moved to approve the recommendations of traffic calming along Decorah Lane as submitted and that they determine if item number one was necessary. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 ANTENNA ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Chair Duggan explained this was a public hearing for the purpose of discussion on the Antenna Ordinance Amendment addressing antennas on buildings. Public Works Director Danielson indicated this item arose from a request for a ham radio tower request in the past. He noted the Zoning Ordinance needs to address building mounted antennas which was not covered within the current language. Planner Grittman stated he did an initial draft of the Ordinance language, which was reviewed by staff and legal counsel. He indicated the review by legal counsel recommended satellite dishes be left out of this Ordinance. Planner Grittman noted satellite dishes under one meter are exempt from the limitations set within this Ordinance as set by the FCC. Planner Grittman noted the height above the roofline has been increased from ten feet to twelve feet or reasonable height, which leaves the burden on the applicant. He stated the new language allows for one antenna and one tower per lot. Planner Grittman indicated the location could not be unreasonable restricted by the City but that the City could restrict use in the public right of way. 11 9/26/00 Chair Duggan noted the proposed Pental tower had concern for safety from wind and weather. He asked if this item was ever resolved with the City. Public Works Director Danielson noted Pental never installed the proposed antenna. Commissioner Vitelli stated he felt the additional restrictions set within this Ordinance did not apply to ham radios and felt the changes were not meeting the original concerns. Planner Grittman stated there were numerous sizes of ham radio antennas and that a standard could not be set within the Ordinance. He added that the FCC has a large amount of restrictions on the City to not prohibit these antennas if they meet certain specifications. Planner Grittman indicated ham radio antennas do not fit totally within this Ordinance but noted they would fall under this Ordinance and be adequate for future considerations. Commissioner Betlej asked if a one -meter size standard could be set for antennas. Planner Grittman indicated he would have this conversation with Mr. Gallenbeck to see if this item could be regulated. Commissioner McManus asked if safety regulations could be improved within this Ordinance. Planner Grittman stated as long as regulations relate to the safety of the public, items could be added and indicated he would discuss this with legal counsel as well. Chair Duggan asked how a structure was determined "safe ". Public Works Director Danielson noted all plans were submitted to the City and that the City has consulted with outside engineers to prove the safety of each structure. The Commission concurred with this process. Commissioner Friel indicated the issue of enforcement of this Ordinance would be extremely difficult. Commissioner Betlej concurred stating the industrial /commercial areas of this City have numerous antennas on their buildings to allow for communication efforts. Commissioner Friel stated he felt television antennas should be exempt from the Ordinance as they are needed to gain reception of many stations. He thought the Ordinance revisions may cause concern for residents who would like to have short wave or ham radio antennas. Commissioner Betlej stated by cramming all specifications into one document all specifications are not being addressed. He recommended that each type of antenna be addressed individually within the Ordinance. Commissioner Betlej encouraged the protection of views be incorporated within this Ordinance. Commissioner Betlej explained the needs of commercial buildings are greater than those of residential homes. He suggested the Ordinance be split between the uses so as not to drive business from the City when trying to meet residential antenna Ordinance standards. 12 9/26/00 Commissioner Koll asked that this Ordinance be kept simple as the technology would be changing rapidly. Chair Duggan asked if commercial buildings would only be able to have one antenna with the proposed Ordinance. Planner Grittman stated this was the case with the language within the proposed Ordinance. Chair Duggan indicated he felt the Ordinance would need to be reviewed to allow for more than one antenna in commercial and industrial districts. Commercial Friel suggested the Commission deal with a residential antenna Ordinance at this time and move onto the commercial /industrial properties in the future. Commissioner Vitelli concurred. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted retractable antennas should be addressed within the residential antenna Ordinance. Planner Grittman stated he felt this item could be negotiated per each request rather than written into the Ordinance. Commissioner Vitelli excused himself from the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Commissioner Koll asked that this Ordinance address townhomes and/or condominiums as well. Commissioner Friel noted the moratorium ends in November of this year. He indicated the Commission needed to move forward quickly on this item. Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no further questions or comments, Commissioner Friel moved that the public hearing be tabled to the October meeting for future discussion after review and input by staff. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 VERBAL REVIEW Chair Duggan requested a verbal review of the matters, which were submitted to the City Council for their consideration. Public Works Director Danielson informed the Commission of Council action taken on planning cases, and updated the Commission that the lot split was approved. He indicated the utility building was recommended for approval with cedar siding, a professional landscape design, total paving of the driveway and parking lot, along with bolting down of the vending machine and bathroom unit. Public Works Director Danielson indicated the Kubat request was denied by the Council. 13 9/26/00 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission, Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to adjourn its meeting at 11:17 p.m. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 14 9/26/00