Loading...
1995-01-24 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • JANUARY 24, 1995 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 24, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Koll, Friel, Betlej, Dwyer, Lorberbaum, Duggan and Tilsen. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant John Uban, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tilsen moved approval of the December 29, 1994, Minutes with corrections. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1, DWYER CASE NO. 94-35: SIGNART (DR.LEE) - SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE Chair Dwyer explained that Mr. Bob Sherlock, of SignArt, appeared on behalf of Dr. Barbara Lee, 780 South Plaza Drive, at the November Planning Commission meeting to request a sign setback variance. He explained that the request was to allow a sign with two forty eight (48) square foot surfaces to be placed within the required front yard. Dwyer explained that the applicant did not propose a specific location for the sign and appeared before the Commission to negotiate a location, preferably close to South Plaza Drive. Chair Dwyer stated that Dr. Lee appeared before the City Council on December 6, 1994. He explained that at that meeting, Dr. Lee agreed that the sign be reduced in height to no more than five feet (5') with a proportionate reduction in width to six and one half feet or seven feet (6 1/2' or 7°), that the redevelopment or intensification of the use of the property will require all signage to meet City setbacks and that all existing signage be removed. He further explained that Dr. Lee did not agree that the illumination be turned off 1/2 hour after the close of business and that a minimal level of illumination intensity be used. Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 2 Dwyer stated that the City Council felt that this application was not properly addressed to the Planning Commission as there was no specific location proposed for the sign. He explained that the City Council referred this application back to the Planning Commission for further consideration, in particular, to address a proper level of illumination and a revised site plan showing a proposed setback. He further explained that Mayor Mertensotto desired that a quantifiable level of illumination be determined. Dr. Lee stated that she felt there was nothing agreed upon at the City Council meeting. She further inquired if signs are allowed within City right-of-way. Chair Dwyer responded that signs are not permitted in the right-of-way. Dr. Lee stated she would like the sign placed close to the property line. She stated that her site plan reflects the placement of the sign off the property and in the right-of-way with the size being six feet by eight feet (6' x 8'). She stated that if the sign is placed more than twelve feet (12') from the property line, it will not be visible. She stated that she is willing to compromise on the size and illumination of the sign but that the location of the sign is critical. She further stated that the proposed sign will look appropriate on South Plaza Drive and will be uniform with other signs on South Plaza Drive, Dr. Lee submitted pictures of existing signage along South Plaza Drive. She further stated that there is a row of Russian Olive trees which provides a buffer between her business and the day care center. She stated that these are beautiful trees and both her patients and the day care children enjoy them. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Planner Uban stated that the existing signs on South Plaza Drive have been permitted if they meet sign setback requirements and that variances have been obtained for signs closer to the property line. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated there are two bank signs located on the property line and both have received variances. He further explained that the Holly Homes sign located in the boulevard was approved prior to the City employing a full time code enforcement officer (1978). He stated there are no City records indicating if the sign was properly placed according to an approved sign plan. Planner Uban stated that his original report suggested that the sign be setback ten feet (10') from the right-of-way line. He stated that this would allow location of the sign in an area which would be more visible from Dodd Road, but would not be in a location that interferes with the visibility from cars Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 3 leaving the site. He further stated that when a sign is moved closer to the right-of-way to get better visibility, the size of the sign can be reduced. Commissioner Duggan explained that the City is reluctant to allow the construction of any building, sign or landscaping within City right-of-way because of possible City improvements such as road widening, which would then force the removal of structure or sign. Commissioner Duggan stated that his concern in November was regarding the hours of illumination. He stated that he felt that the sign should be turned off at the close of business. Dr. Lee responded that both the Holly Homes and Bright Start signs are lit well after close of their business. Commissioner Duggan inquired if Dr. Lee would agree to a 9:00 P.M. illumination deadline. He further stated that the City has no lighting standard and that he is looking for what is appropriate in the area. He further stated that he understands that Dr. Lee is trying to promote her business. He suggested that a timer be used. Dr. Lee stated that 9:00 P.M. deadline would be fine. Commissioner Betlej inquired about information regarding quantifiable illumination. Mr. Sherlock, of SignArt, stated that they would install the signage and lights. He stated that at that time, he would make adjustments. He further stated that just the letters will be illuminated. He stated it would be similar to the City Hall signage. Planner Uban stated that the measurement of light should consist of how much light is appropriate and how to control the light. He stated that there should be five watts per square foot. Mr. Sherlock stated that the signage meets all current criteria for illumination. Planner Uban stated there is no Ordinance requirement for foot candles. He stated the Ordinance includes glare reduction. Uban stated the closer a sign is to the property line, the less illuminated it needs to be. Dr. Lee stated she does not want the sign to appear burnt out. Chair Dwyer inquired if the City Hall light is lit the entire night. Dr. Lee responded that the Mayor informed her that it is because the City Hall is considered an emergency facility since the Police Department is located within the building. Mr. Sherlock informed that Commission that he would obtain information from Visual Communications regarding criteria for lighting. He stated that SignArt usually builds their signs according to Visual Communications' specifications. Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 4 Commissioner Friel stated that the Ordinance restricts square footage of signs within the B-1 District to fifty (50) square feet, all surfaces. He stated the proposed sign exceeds the Ordinance requirements. He further inquired about hardship. Dr. Lee responded that this is the first time she heard about square foot restrictions. She stated that the Dakota County State Bank signage exceeds the square foot requirements. Dr. Lee explained that her hardship is based on the fact that new clientele are unable to find her practice. She stated that most people pass the building up. She stated that her building is not noticeable and that the sign would help people to find her building. She stated that she is not seeking to advertise her practice. Commissioner Duggan informed the Commission that Dr. Lee expressed her hardship in November as helping people find her building. He further explained that only one side of the sign will be effective and to leave the other side blank seemed to be out of balance. He stated the November minutes reflect this conversation. Commissioner Koll cited information from Section 21.5(9)a regarding signs in right-of-way. She stated that any sign within a right-of-way is in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Friel defined hardship as per the City's Zoning Ordinance. Chair Dwyer stated the Planning Commission reviews requests on a case-by-case basis. He stated that an applicant applying for a variance is charged with presenting a hardship. He further stated that if there is no hardship, the Planning Commission cannot recommend approval of a variance. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council grant the variance request conditioned upon the following: 1. The lighting of the sign meet City standards as recommended by Visual Communications. 2. The signage size be 6' by 4 1/2'. 3. The sign be setback ten feet (10') from the property line, twenty-two feet (22') from the pavement. 4. The sign be illuminated on both sides. 5. The sign be turned off at 9:00 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 5 Dr. Lee stated she is not willing to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Duggan amended his motion to increase the signage to 7' by 5'. Dr. Lee responded that she wants the sign to be located at her property line. VOTE ON MOTION AYES: 4 NAYS: 3, KOLL, FRIEL, BETLEJ Commissioner Koll inquired if Dr. Lee is looking for a zero foot setback. Dr. Lee responded yes. Dr. Lee further stated it is not worth her time to go back to the City Council. CASE NO. 95-01: CURLEY FURNITURE COMPANY - SIGN VARIANCE Mr. Tim Curley, of Curley Furniture Company, located at 1044 Highway 110, was present to discuss his request for a sign variance. Mr. Curley explained that the building was constructed, by his parents, in 1968. He stated that the sign has been in existence for 26 years and has never deviated from its original approval. He stated that the setback and total surface area was in compliance with all existing ordinances in the late 60's. Mr. Curley stated he had met with Planner Uban and City staff to discuss the existing ordinance requirements. He stated that his parcel is the only parcel in this area zoned B-3. He stated the other parcels, located on both sides of his property, are zoned B-2. He stated that he is looking to be grandfathered as a legal, non-conforming use. Curley further stated that he does not believe there was a variance on the original sign. He stated that he does not intend on enlarging the sign and that he will be replacing the plastic sign panels used by Ethan Allen with Curley Furniture advertisement. He reminded the Commission that the Curley's own this building and that the use will remain as a furniture store. Commissioner Koll stated there has never been any complaints regarding the sign. She further stated that in all fairness, Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 6 why restrict Mr. Curley from placing his signage on an existing stand. She further cited information from Section 4.3(8) and (9) regarding existing, non-conforming uses. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that, based on the existing conditions found on the site, the City Council approve the sign as an existing non-conforming use. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Koll stated, as per staff's December 14, 1994 memorandum to Council, that the triple fee charge is inappropriate. CONTINUED HEARING: CASE NO. 94-36: SALMEN - SUBDIVISION/LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE TO LOT FRONTAGE Administrative Assistant Batchelder informed the Planning Commission that Mr. Salmen, of 1694 Dodd Road, informed him on Monday, that he is willing to dedicate a utility easement. He stated that Mr. Salmen indicated that he is unwilling to provide a turnaround and public street. Batchelder stated that Mr. Salmen verbally asked to continue the public hearing to February 28, 1995. Batchelder stated that Mr. Salmen is looking for direction from the Planning Commission. Batchelder informed the Commission that staff could summarize the Planning Commission minutes and send a letter to Mr. Salmen. Commissioner Friel stated that Mr. Salmen had requested a lot split and would not commit to an easement and he had no plans to do anything with the land. He stated without Mr. Salmen specifically giving information on his intentions of subdividing his lot, the Planning Commission is hard pressed to review the request particularly if other land owners could be impacted or would want to subdivide as well. Chair Dwyer stated that the Planning Commission has already given Mr. Salmen direction. Commissioner Duggan stated that he now has concerns with long term development in the area and Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 7 how Mr. Salmen's request may affect the development. He further noted concerns regarding impact of building pad on the site, street grade and appropriate turnaround. Chair Dwyer moved to continue the hearing, as per Mr. Saimen's request, to February 28, 1995 at 7:45 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 CONTINUED HEARING: CASE NO. 94-40: BJORKLUND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - SUBDIVISION Chair Dwyer explained that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their December meeting to consider an application from Bjorklund Development Company to develop the Swanson property into seven (7) large single family lots on 6 1/2 acres. He explained that the hearing was continued to allow the developer time to address eleven (11) concerns raised by the Planning Commission and neighborhood. Chair Dwyer stated that the Planning Commission wants to be sure and look at how this development fits into adjacent undeveloped parcels of land. He stated the Planning Commission is concerned about the future development of this area. Chair Dwyer stated the Planning Commission is faced with a dilemma in that the Bjorklund's have responded to the Planning Commission's request by revising and submitting site and grading plans. He stated that adjacent property owners are not yet ready to develop their land and the Commission does not want to adversely impact their properties. He stated the Commission does not want to landiock future developments. Mr. Paul McGinley, of McLagan and Sons Surveying, and Mr. Dick Bjorklund, Jr., were present to discuss this request. Commissioner Friel inquired if all of the proposals are consistent with the Lexington Avenue access to the Swanson development. Mr. McGinley responded yes. Commissioner Tilsen stated he disagrees. Chair Dwyer inquired if Sketch E is consistent with the agreement with the Rolf's. Mr. McGinley responded that the Rolf's and Illetscko's are strongly opposed to a street going through their property. He stated they are in favor of a cul-de-sac. He explained that the Olin's have presented a plan indicating a scheme that works with a cul-de- sac. He stated that the Olin cul-de-sac, as shown on Sketch E, is about 650 feet long. Mr. McGinley stated that all Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 8 landowners seem to be in favor of Sketch E as it benefits everybody. Mr. McGinley explained that Sketch D shows how Sketch E can be made a through street. Commissioner Friel inquired if there is anything about the Swanson cul-de-sac that makes other properties undevelopable. Mr. McGinley responded no. Friel stated that the Olin's and Illetscko's can still proceed with development in the future. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the only other option available is to continue along the Swanson/Rolf lot line to the Olin property. He stated that Plan D has a steep road section at the intersection. He stated that the grading plans need to be fine tuned to accommodate any intersections. He stated he would like to see a horizontal ("T") intersection rather than a curved intersection. With regards to sewer and water easements, Mr. McGinley stated that they have shown these easements on the plans and that they will rely on the City's engineering department for any other direction. Public Works Director Danielson stated that the easements have been properly addressed and that the Engineering Department will continue to modify the plans where appropriate. Commissioner Duggan noted his concern regarding the ponding of water across Orchard and wondered if there have been provisions designed for overflow. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the water will cross over Lexington Avenue to another pond where it will be piped off. He further stated that these easements have been shown on the map satisfactorily. Chair Dwyer stated that the City has concerns about protecting trees and that a conservation easement was requested. Mr. McGinley stated that the Planning Commission was concerned that no lots will be divided in the future. Chair Dwyer inquired what Bjorklund Development will do to protect the trees. Mr. McGinley stated that each site will be individually graded. He stated that grading restrictions will be detailed on each site plan. Chair Dwyer inquired if the Planning Commission is going to retain jurisdiction over approval of individual grading of lots. Mr. McGinley stated that the street construction will be limited to grading restrictions. Mr. Bjorklund stated the intent of the development is to save trees but individual tress will have to come out for homes. He stated that they need flexibility to position the houses. Mr. Bjorklund stated that all grading will be done according to the grading plans. Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 9 In response to Chair Dwyer's question regarding slope protection Easements, Mr. McGinley stated that the grading is intended to follow the street and utilities with individual house grading. He stated that mass grading will not occur outside the street area. Commissioner Betlej inquired if Lots 1, 2 and 3 have slopes greater than 18 percent and how these will be graded. Mr. McGinley stated that the City's Ordinance prevents this type of construction and no building permit will be issued. The Planning Commission felt that no easements are necessary for slope protection as the City's Ordinance restricts this type of development. Chair Dwyer confirmed that the right-of-ways have been redesigned to sixty feet (60'). Chair Dwyer acknowledged receipt of a January 19, 1995 letter from the Bjorklund's and the Rolf's regarding their good faith negotiations to resolve the thirty foot (30°) right-of-way on the Rolf property for the new road leading into the new "Swanson property subdivision". Chair Dwyer informed the Commission that the Bjorklund's and Rolf's intend to resolve this issue before the City Council meeting. Commissioner Duggan inquired about how many remaining trees will be protected during the development process. Mr. McGinley responded that a silt fence and yellow marking tape will be placed where appropriate. Mr. Bjorklund stated that a snow fence will be provided. With regards to a landscape easement on Lot 4 protecting the lilac hedge, Mr. McGinley stated that this easement will be shown on the plat. He further stated that setbacks for Lots 5 and 6 will be shown on the plans. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Stephan Rolf, of 1861 South Lexington Avenue, stated that they are in the process of working with the Bjorklund's in trying to resolve the right-of-way issue. Chair Dwyer inquired how the Bjorklund proposal will affect future development of the Rolf property. Mr. Rolf stated that they would like to see a cul-de-sac in this area. He stated that the Bjorklund's present an attractive plan and seem to indicate preservation of trees. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer regarding future development plans, Mr. Rolf stated that they were considering developing small lots but, now that they have seen the Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 10 Bjorklund plans, they may consider larger lots. He stated they are looking for advice on how to develop their land. In response to a question from Commissioner Lorberbaum, Mr. Rolf stated that he is uncomfortable with the "Staff Concept Plan" in that their road is too close to his existing property. He stated a lot of traffic could be generated and he does not want to see that happen. Mr. Rolf stated that with the construction of the Swanson cul-de-sac, he anticipates development of other parcels in the future. Mr. David Olin, 1136 Orchard Place, stated his family submitted the long cul-de-sac option to the Planning Commission as a concept plan. He further stated that the southside of their property is a hill and not a bluff. He further stated that his family submitted a plan showing access through the wetlands to Hunter Lane. He stated that he feels this concept could work. Commissioner Tilsen explained the State's Wetlands restrictions indicating it would be unlikely. Olin stated that access off of Lexington Avenue is the preferred concept idea and that a long cul-de-sac is also an option. Mr. Ralph Nordstrom, 1139 Orchard Place, inquired about the length of a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Friel stated that the City prefers to see cul-de-sac lengths no more than 500 feet. Mr. Nordstrom stated that he does not want to see a large amount of traffic on Orchard Place. He further stated that the longer a cul-de-sac, the more traffic will be generated down his street. Commissioner Koll inquired who will construct and maintain the monument sign. Mr. McGinley responded that Dave Bjorklund had proposed a landscape island to distinguish the development and not a monument sign. Commissioner Tilsen stated it would be difficult for the City to maintain. Mr. Bjorklund responded that they will rely on City recommendation. Mr. Bjorklund stated that he will discuss this issue with his brother. Chair Dwyer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Tilsen inquired about the appropriate grade percentage for the proposed intersection. Public Works Director Danielson stated intersections should have a flat landing so that vehicles do not skid out into the middle of the intersection. He stated that he does not feel strongly Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 11 about having a perpendicular intersection as long as sight distances are good. He stated that the proposed intersection allows for future development. Public Works Director Danielson stated that City requires 811 watermains. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat conditioned upon the following: 1. The plat showing additional right-of-way dedication on Lot 7. 2. That sewer/water easements be shown on plans. 3. That the retention pond easement be included on the plans. 4. That a Conservation Easement document be submitted to the City Council. 5, That Slope Protection Easements be shown on the plans. 6. That custom grading of each individual lot be shown on the plans. 7. That right-of-ways be sixty feet (60'). 8. Formal notification that the Rolf's and Bjorklund's agree to a thirty foot (30') right-of-way on the Rolf property for the new road leading into the new "Swanson property subdivision". 9. The plans reflect tree preservation measures. 10. Show landscape easement along Lot 4 protecting the lilac hedge. 11. That specific home setbacks for Lots 5 and 6 be identified on the plans. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired if the center island should be eliminated from the plans. Mr. McGinley stated that he would like to leave this idea until he is able to confer with Dave Bjorklund. Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 12 VOTE ON MOTION: AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel commended the developer's efforts in presenting a development that takes into consideration future development opportunities. Chair Dwyer called a recess at 9:30 o'clock P.M. Chair Dwyer reconvened the meeting at 9:36 o'clock P.M. CONTINUED HEARING: CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT - ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Chair Dwyer explained that this item had been before the Planning Commission in December. He explained that the Commission directed Planner Uban to submit language defining Substantial Alteration. A brief discussion ensued regarding the definition of substantial and whether it includes the removal of other amenities. Chair Dwyer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council approve the following amendments to the Critical Area. Ordinance: Section 2.3.0 - Modifications C. Modifications. In the case of a minor development and/or change involving a single family dwelling, and if the site plans conform to the standards of the Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance, the City Administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the City Council at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for Critical Area Ordinance consideration. The City Council shall review such request and may, if it so determines, exempt the applicant from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this Ordinance. Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 13 1. Exceptions: a. Movement of earth, by grading, which results in a cut or fill in excess of five feet (5°) at any point on the subject property. b. When development of the property will result in the substantial alteration of grade or removal of natural vegetation, trees, shrubs, rock outcroppings, water course, or scenic amenities. Section 1.4 Definitions g. Substantial Alteration - Earth work that involves 100 or more bank (in situ) cubic yards of fill materials for the excavation, filling, grading, shaping, moving, soil correction, or general soil disruptions for the purpose of making improvements to the property or facilitating development of the property is allowed, with review by the Planning Commission and City Council, found to be in keeping with the goals, policies, and general intent of the City, and found to be in compliance with all applicable City, County, State or Federal regulations. Earth work that involves less than 100 bank (in situ) cubic yards for excavation, filling, grading, shaping, moving, or general soil disruption is allowed by the City, with review by the City Council, only when all work is performed consistent with City goals and policies. Bank material are those soils found in their natural undisturbed condition. h. Vegetation - All plant growth including trees, shrubs, mosses, and grasses. Section 2.5 - Building Below the Bluff a. No development shall be permitted on slopes between 125k and 409r, or below the bluffline to the Mississippi River unless the applicant shall prove that the following conditions are met. Chair Dwyer stated that with this particular amendment to the Ordinance, the Planning Commission will review any building home with a basement. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 14 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 DISCUSSION ON ATHLETIC STADIUMS Chair Dwyer explained that the City Council directed the Commission to look at the issue of Athletic Stadiums in Residential areas. He explained that the Commission discussed this item in December and directed Planner Uban to return to their January meeting with a draft Ordinance. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Planner Uban stated that portable restroom facilities may be located within a permanent structure. He further stated that the building code provides for ratio of restroom facilities available on site. Commissioner Friel suggested that Section 21.6(6) Restrooms. should include "Permanent restroom facilities are required. In the alternative portable facilities may be used if located in a well designed permanent structure". Commissioner Duggan inquired if Sections 21.6(2)a and 21.6(2)c are repetitious, the Commission noted that Section 21.6(2)a regulates direct light beams and Section 21.6(2)c regulates reflected light beams. Commissioner Friel stated that if there is a nuisance or hazardous lighting, it will be required to be shielded. Commissioner Friel stated that the location of a stadium within 350 feet of a residential area is too close and suggested that 600 feet would be more appropriate. Commissioner Friel stated that not only is lighting a nuisance but noise is as well. Chair Dwyer directed Planner Uban to define an Athletic Stadium. Commissioner Duggan suggested that Planner Uban incorporate the requirement of fencing to be restricted to black vinyl clad. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if the Commission would have an opportunity to review and comment on specific building materials of a stadium. Commissioner Friel stated that the Commission should address stadia in every district by Conditional Use Permit. Planner Uban stated the Commission should consider keeping this ordinance general. Planning Commission January 24, 1995 Page 15 The Planning Commission tabled discussion on Athletic Stadiums to allow Planner Uban time to prepare information on the definition of Athletic Stadiums, determine decibel level of noise, including licensing and to revise the proposed ordinance with changes to Sections 21.6(6), and 21.6(7) and to add Section 21.6(9) to include black vinyl clad fencing. DISCUSS TREE PRESERVATION Planner Uban explained that he used the Bjorklund Subdivision as an example in applying the City of Burnsville and City of Eden Prairies's tree preservation ordinances. Chair Dwyer inquired about the cost to the developer. Planner Uban stated that under the Burnsville ordinance there would be no cost to the developer and that the plan does not trigger a permit because less than thirty percent (30%) of the crown cover is being lost. He stated that Eden Prairie's Ordinance would require the developer to plant 140 trees with a $25,000 to $30,000 expense. Planner Uban stated that, as currently proposed, Mendota Heights will also address existing homes and developments. He stated the ordinance will need to discuss exemptions and replacement of trees. Commissioner Duggan stated that the City should consider its two private golf courses and public course with respect to giving them the flexibility in reshaping their courses. Planner Uban stated he would prepare a draft ordinance and present it to the Commission at their February meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn their meeting at 10:30 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary