Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/11/06 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting April 11, 2006 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Fitzloff, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: None Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) March 14,2006 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the March 14,2006 minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Fitzloff, Larson. Abstain: Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Swanson Acres Preliminary Plat Applicant: Double E Development The property is located at 20441 Akin Road. Akin Road is to the east and the Middle Creek Historic Cemetery and Middle Creek Estates is to the south. The trees in the area are fairly small and will be removed. The developer is proposing seven lots off of Akin Road. They meet the zoning requirements of 10,000 sq. ft. lots and an R-l zoning. The cul-de-sac will be 235 ft in length off of Akin Road. A storm water pond will be located on the property. They will be cutting into the hill. It is a 48 ft. fall from the top to Akin Road. Regarding the cemetery, which is a Heritage Landmark, the developer met with the Heritage Preservation Commission. The HPC has four requirements: 1. Mr. Robert Vogel, HPC Consultant, should be notified by the developer when grading near the cemetery starts so he can monitor the grading to ensure the cemetery is protected and no burial sites are on the Swanson property. 2. If work is not being done near the cemetery the area should be flagged in order to protect it. 3. A 4-ft, black, vinyl, chain-link fence should be installed on the Swanson property adjacent to the cemetery. There will also be a fence where there is more than a 4 ft. fall. The landscape plan meets the requirements except the evergreen trees should be replaced with deciduous trees around the pond. Retaining walls are proposed on the west and south sides. A retaining wall 4 ft. or taller should be structurally engineered. Staff recommended approval with the following contingencies: Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 2 1. The satisfaction of any engineering requirements including the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. The evergreen trees need to be changed to deciduous trees surrounding the pond. The satisfaction ofthe HPC requirements. A house currently exists on the site and a demolition permit is needed. . 2. 3. 4. Mr. Gene Rodbom, 20250 Eaves Court, had a question regarding their property line. He asked if someone could actually walk the line with them so they know where their property line is. When they bought the home they were told it goes into the woods and would like to know where it is. The developer noted the pins have been found and will install some stakes along the line. Mr. Rodbom noted they have pine stakes in their yard. He would like to have a painted line in his yard. Ms. Patricia Haley, 20521 Akin Road, asked about the value of the homes being constructed. The developer stated they will be $400,000 - $500,000. She then asked about the retaining wall on the south side. The developer replied it will be a boulder wall. She asked if the property facing them would be down and not looking directly into their windows. The developer stated they will be below their house. Ms. Holly Ingling, 20334 Eaves Way, had a copy of her property survey and they were trying to determine the property line. The developer noted there will be a . rod in the ground with a lathe stake. She stated she is the lowest lying home in the area and her house is a rambler with a full finished basement. She was concerned with the grading since the woods have been there for awhile. She understood one house will be a walkout basement as opposed to a look out basement. The developer noted where the old house is will be a walkout. Ms. Engling was concerned about the grading and getting water in her house. The developer replied engineering has reviewed the plans and everything in the backyards will drain to the front. Ms. Engling asked if the woods will remain. The developer stated most of the woods will come down. If a retaining wall is needed, the developer will install one. Commissioner Larson asked with a walkout lot, if they will be able to drain the water to the front. The developer and engineering have said it will work. Commissioner Larson noted most of the trees will come down, but they are not the most desirable trees. Instead of flagging around the cemetery, he suggested putting up a construction fence. Chair Rotty thanked the residents for their interest and concern. This plat meets all the ordinances. He realized it is a change for the area and will add to the traffic. If the residents question anything that is happening, they should contact the City while the construction is taking place. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by . Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 3 . Larson, second by Fitzloffto approve with the contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Non-Designated to Commercial and Rezoning from A-1 to B-1 Applicant: 6 properties; City of Farmington Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Non-Designated to Commercial and Rezoning from A-1 to B-3 Applicant: Tracy Bauer; City of Farmington These properties are located along 220th Street east ofhwy 3. The properties were annexed into the City on November 15, 2004 and all have been hooked up to sewer and water. The total area is 8.5 acres. This was part of the Joint Powers Orderly Annexation Agreement and the properties were annexed as part of the Ash Street project. b) . Parcel 6 is a single-family home. Staff is proposing to amend the comp plan from non-designated to commercial and rezone from A-I to B-1 highway business. The parcel is 3900 sq. ft. Parcel 7 is three commercial uses in one building. The lot area is 4400 sq. ft. The northern portion of the building is used by Townsedge Barbers and they are a permitted use in the B-1 zone. Also in the building is Northwest Auto Sales which is a conditional use in the B-1 zone. The southern portion is used by Parkway Collision. This is considered major auto repair and is not included in the B-1 zone. This portion of the property would be considered a legal non-conforming use. The business can be utilized as it is presently, but cannot be expanded. The City is very interested in the major entrances into the City and this is one of them. Parcel 8 contains two buildings. One is the former Cannon Log Home. A business is interested in moving into this building which makes monolithic panels. As this type of business is so similar to the Cannon Log Home business, they will be a legal non-conforming use, but will not be able to expand. The next building to the south is Star Automotive. This is considered major auto repair and is not allowed in the B-1 zone, but is a legal non- conforming use and cannot expand. Parcel 9 is a single-family home. Parcel 10 is a vacant building. The lot is 4600 sq. ft. Semi's are currently stored on the property. Parcel 11 is c.R. Fisher Company. There is an office building and a number of trucks screened by a 6 ft. wooden fence. An office is an allowable use in the B-1 zone. Because of the major entrance into the City, staffrecommends a comp plan amendment from non-designated to commercial and a rezone from A-I to B-1 highway business. . Mr. John Luckow, owner of parcel 7, stated Parkway Collision and Northwest Auto Sales are the same business. The shed in the back is cold storage. He stated he did not know about this meeting until Sunday night. Staff noted every property within 350 ft. was notified. He felt even 2 or 3 days is short notice. Chair Rotty noted the mailing list is complete. Mr. Luckow stated his concern is Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 4 he built that building himself in 1976. It was a conforming use in Castle Rock. . He was concerned with the zoning change to B-1 and said it would restrict the future use of his property. He did not envision the City opening their checkbook and buying him out if one of his renters should leave and another could not come in because of the zoning. Commissioner Larson asked if another body shop wanted to come in, would they be allowed to and be considered a legal non- conforming use. Community Development Director Carroll felt it would go to the ownership, not the tenant. If the current tenant leaves and another one comes in with a similar use, the property owner is still using the property for the same use. This would be a staff determination. City Planner Smick noted ifthe use has been discontinued for a year, it has to go to a B-1 zone. So someone would have to come in within a year. Mr. Luckow proposed it should be rezoned to B-3. If it is re-zoned to B-1 he would not be able to find a business to use a large open building and felt it would devalue his property. Chair Rotty clarified that Mr. Luckow would like a B-3 zoning so iftenants in the building have to change there would be more opportunity and flexibility for tenants. Mr. Richard Hanson, owner of parcel 8, was concerned with the B-1 zoning as there is no use for the buildings outside of their current use. He stated non- conforming use permits have a way of going away a few years down the line. If they wanted to sell the property, no one will want to buy it if the buildings are worthless. If a renter moved and he sold the property, the non-conforming permit would not be good. Community Development Director Carroll clarified there is not a permit. It is considered a legal non-conforming use which means the staff . and the Planning Commission have agreed that use will continue. If someone proposes the same use, it would be allowed to continue. An exception would be if the property remains vacant for a year. Staffwas trying to keep in mind the best long term use while at the same time accommodating uses that are already there. Mr. Luckow stated if someone wants to buy the property they could zone it anyway they wanted to. Until that happens he has to be able to rent it out to anything that applies under the B-3 zoning rather than B-1. His buildings are built for that type of business. You cannot modify that type of a building for B-1 uses. Mr. Hanson felt the property should be zoned B-3 rather than B-1. Mr. Curt Fisher, C.R. Fisher & Sons, owner of parcel 11 , stated when they bought the property 7 years ago that portion of Castle Rock was changed from ag to commercial in Castle Rock Township. Historically municipalities like to go from a less restrictive zoning to more restrictive. If it is B-3 they like to go to B-1 later on. Economics will drive what will happen with these properties. He wanted to protect his investment for his use. Ifhe went out of business, a similar business would make the best use ofthe way the shop is built. The B-1 would constrain that use. He noted it was said the property can continue in the same use, but is that ifhe owns the property or can he sell it to someone. Community Development Director Carroll stated comp plan issues and zoning issues start with the Planning Commission who makes a recommendation, but the Council makes the final decision. Staffs view is that if Mr. Fisher remains and he . Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 5 . changes tenants, that is acceptable. Staffwas not sure ifthat changes if the ownership changes. Mr. Fisher then mentioned the Ash Street project and the sewer and water running along the edge of his property. He asked staff at that time ifhe would be able to add another stall onto his shop and he was told yes. He wanted to clarify that tonight he was hearing he could not expand the business. Chair Rotty stated that is correct. He stated he received the answer from Engineering but understood it was discussed by others in the Building Department and relayed to him through Engineering. Mr. Fisher was disappointed with this. He noted the property adjacent to this is B-3 and felt it would make sense to zone his property B-3. In the long run, he felt this area will be redeveloped, but for the short term he wanted to maintain his ability to do what he wants to do with his property with the most liberal zoning available. Mr. Fisher noted the paperwork stated he has two box cars on the property. He does not have box cars in his yard. He does have one portable storage container. They are not a walk-in trade business. They are a contractor. The office is for the main staff, bookkeeping, etc. The building in the back is for equipment maintenance. The yard is for winter storage. . The owner of parcel 9, stated his home has been there for 30 years. He asked how much difference the rezoning will make on his taxes. Staff noted the property taxes are determined by the structure on the land and not the zoning. It was suggested he call the Dakota County Treasurer and speak to an assessor. He asked ifhe sells the property it would be zoned B-3. The Commission noted that has to be determined. Mark and Sue Thieron, owner of Interstate Battery, noted they would prefer their property be a B-3. . Commissioner Fitzlofffelt for what is in the area now B-3 is fine, but long term we do not know what the plan is. City Planner Smick stated staff sees a retail- type use rather than heavy business. Commissioner Fitzloff felt short-term it could be B-3, but long-term it should be B-1. Commissioner Barker had some concerns and would like some legal answers in terms of in the future whether it is a tenant or a property owner, before a determination is made. Commissioner Johnson agreed there are some legal questions that need to be answered. As some of the owners already understand, if someone buys the property it will not be for the actual building, it will be for the amount of property. With conditional uses, it opens up another opportunity for businesses to come in. He understood the concerns, but felt B-1 is appropriate. It adds a lot of opportunity for the owners in the future. Commissioner Larson felt they need to table this and take a hard look at it and determine legally what can and cannot be done. He wanted to find out as far as Mr. Fisher who, if, and when that statement was made to him. It had to be last summer he was told he could expand his business and now we are saying he cannot. That probably had something to do with him coming into the City, and paying the fee to hook up to sewer and water. He felt they needed to figure out what is going on before any decision is made. Chair Rotty thanked the property Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 6 owners for coming. Their comments enlightened the Commission. Chair Rotty was not sold yet on B-3, but felt they should look at the exposure of options if they were to go with B-3 instead of B-1. The downside of staying B-1 is there are four property owners that would be legal non-conforming, not that you cannot do anything with that, but it limits you. There are also four properties that are okay. . Mr. Luckow noted on the recently annexed Garvey property on the southeast comer, he asked what the zoning is. He was referring to the Farmington Business Park. City Planner Smick replied that was zoned B-3 PUD because it is a business park where the heavier businesses will go because they are set off of the major highway. The City allowed him to construct something like a convenience store, retail use in the location. Chair Rotty clarified the Commission would like to table this for a month and get more information and answers to legal questions. He was not sold on B-3, but understood the problems of the current property owners ifthey recommend B-1. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue the public hearing to May 9, 2006. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Larson wanted to make sure everyone is notified. Regarding the Tracy Bauer property located on Canton Court, they are proposing going from non-designated to commercial and A-I to B-3. This is located next to the Farmington Business Park. The Commission felt that would be consistent. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to amend the comp plan from non-designated to commercial and re-zone the Bauer property . from A-I to B-3. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Conditional Use Permit - Home Occupation - Salon Applicant: Chanry Kellogg, 18671 Dunbury Avenue Ms. Kellogg has applied for a conditional use permit. The property is zoned R-l and is surrounded by single-family residents. The applicant would like to operate a single chair salon within her home. She would be available only by appointment. The hours would be 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday thru Wednesday. No appointments will be taken on the weekends. The code provides that a home occupation is permitted as an accessory use if it complies with certain requirements. - The home occupation shall be conducted solely and entirely by persons who reside fulltime in the home. - The home occupation shall be conducted wholly within the principle or accessory structure. - No structure alterations or enlargements shall be made for the sole purpose of conducting the home occupation. The applicant is proposing to finish offthe basement as the salon will be located in one ofthe rooms to be finished. - Only one home occupation shall be permitted for each principle structure. - Exterior display or signs other than a two-sided, 2 sq. ft., non-illuminated sign and exterior storage of materials and exterior indication of the home occupation or . Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 7 . variation from the residential character of the principle structure shall not be permitted. - The activity does not involve the manufacture, assembly or distribution of goods. - The activity does not deal with the general retail public. Commissioner Johnson asked that the house of operation remain steady. Chair Rotty noted it is for the owner only, she cannot hire employees. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Fitzloffto approve the home occupation permit. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Text Amendment in the IP Zone - Fitness Club Applicant: AnyTime Fitness Staff received an application to allow a Fitness Club in the industrial park in the Vinge Tile building. A similar request was also reviewed in May 2005. The EDA also reviewed a request at that time. It was determined a fitness facility is not appropriate within an IP zoning district. . Mr. Conroy, owner of AnyTime Fitness in Lakeville, stated he signed an agreement with the franchise to be able to develop in Farmington last summer. The time limit is 6 months. He is a resident of Farmington and his intention was to have the business in Farmington. At that time he spoke with the developer of Vermillion River Crossing and was told it would be a year. That has been pushed back several times. Mr. Conroy stated they do not have to be with retail business. The discussion during the last meeting with the developer for Vermillion River Crossing was that something would be ready in the fall. Now he understands that will not happen. To wait until January means they will have to move to a different City. They looked at moving in next to Duebers, but that also fell through. They need a warehouse space. . Commissioner Larson asked if there was other space available other than Vinge Tile. Community Development Director Carroll replied there are spaces available, but that changes on a daily basis. Dueber's will be vacant in the near future. He asked if Mr. Conroy has contacted the developer ofthe Tamarack Retail Center on hwy 3. Mr. Conroy stated they have, but they are looking at 6,000-7,000 sq. ft. The retail center has a 5,000 sq. ft. space that is already taken. Staff thought there would be 10 bays left. Mr. Conroy stated some places want them to sign a lO-year lease. Community Development Director Carroll stated he did not want to leave the impression the City is not interested in having their business. The fundamental principle is if you start out with an industrial park and you tell other business owners that there will be certain types of businesses in the industrial park, they will rely on that. The daycare was a conditional use and was in the code as it was seen as a service to employees in the industrial park. This same argument could be made for any type of business. The fitness club is open 24 hours. Some business owners may not like the idea of all that traffic coming Planning Commission Minutes April 11 , 2006 Page 8 through the park at night. There are a host of issues raised when you look at . expanding beyond industrial uses when there are other areas in town zoned for . this type of use. Staffwill work with Mr. Conroy to find space for him, but the guidance received from the EDA and the Planning Commission in the past has been clear. They were not interested in amending the code. There are more opportunities that exist now than previously. Commissioner Larson stated we have a business owner wanting to come to Farmington and we should work as hard as we can to find a place for him before he goes somewhere else. He would not be interested in putting it in the industrial park, but if there is nothing else available, Mr. Conroy should come back in a month. Commissioner Barker felt staff needs to look hard at what is available to accommodate the business. Commissioner Johnson would not be in favor of changing the zoning in the industrial park, but felt we have to try to keep bringing business into town. Chair Rotty stated at this time there is not enough support to recommend a change in the text amendment for the zoning. He agreed the City wants to work hard to find a location that is suitable. He felt Vermillion River Crossing would be an excellent spot and suggested Mr. Conroy ask for an extension. Commissioner Larson recommended continuing this for one month and urged staff to work hard with Mr. Conroy to see what can be done and bring it back. City Planner Smick suggested hearing what the Council has to say. Community Development Director Carroll stated the final recommendation from the Planning Commission would be brought to the Council. The current location for Dueber's would be an excellent location when that becomes available. MOTION by . Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to deny the request. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. t) CUP Allowing the Construction of a Public Building in an R-D District Variance from the Required Off-Street Parking Standards Applicant: City of Farmington The City is requesting approval of a CUP and a variance for the off-street parking of a proposed public facility. The location is 710 1 st Street. The property is currently zoned R-D with a comp plan designation of public/ semi-public. There is an existing well house as well as an existing City storage facility. The Police Department is looking at implementing an impound lot in the location of the existing building. They would like to have access to the impound lot from the north and through the main entrance. The second entrance is for staging purposes. They want to keep the existing building for storage while this is being built. The storage building is 4,000 sq. ft. It will be used for storage of City vehicles, work space, and cold storage. The design of the building has not been finalized. There will be 12% lot coverage. There will be a 6 ft. tall chain link fence to secure the site. Staff recommends slats be included in the chain link fence. There will be five off-street parking spaces. The code would require 20 for a public facility, however, there will be no employees working directly from this facility. Staff does not see the need for the 20 parking spaces. So the . Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 9 . variance request is for 15 parking spaces. Staff recommends approval with the following contingencies: 1. The installation of slats within all fencing surrounding the property. 2. The impound lot must be paved per City Code. 3. The submission of a landscape plan acceptable to the Planning division. . Commissioner Fitzloff did not like the slats as they do not stay uniform. He would like to see a wood fence. Commissioner Barker did not have any concerns with the CUP or the variance and agreed with a wood fence. Commissioner Johnson agreed with the slats as the parking lot to the northwest is a vacant lot and the neighbors are used to City trucks coming in and out with the current building. Commissioner Larson was not concerned with the type of fencing as long as there was a fence. Chair Rotty stated if the neighbors that are already there are going to be introduced to something new like an impound lot, it should be screened better than what is proposed. They are just referring to the impound lot, not the entire area. Community Development Director Carroll asked if Commissioner Fitzloffwould agree with the slats if City staffwere responsible for maintaining them. Commissioner Fitzloff agreed with this, but liked a wood fence better. Commissioner Barker felt it would be easier to do the wood fence now. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Staffwill talk with the Police Department and Parks and Recreation regarding the fencing. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue the public hearing until May 9, 2006. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing for the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Text Amendment in IP and B-1 Zones Under Conditional Use - Auto Repair, Major Applicant: City of Farmington Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Industrial to Commercial and Rezoning from IP to B-1 for the Property Addressed as 5119 212th Street, Farmington, MN (former Duo Plastics Building) Applicant: City of Farmington Text Amendment in B-1 Zone Under Conditional Use - Trucking Terminal Applicant: City of Farmington MOTION by Barker, second by Fitzloffto continue these public hearings to the May 9, 2006 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. h) i) 4. Discussion a) J.I.T. Powder Coating Site Plan Staff presented some new plans for the expansion. J.I.T. is planning on expanding their building to the north. There are two lots, so the lot combination will have to be done by Dakota County before the building permit can be issued. Mr. Milner is proposing a 14,885 sq. ft. expansion. The storage area has been . Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 10 moved to the east and the remaining area will be asphalt. He meets the requirements for maximum building coverage, surface coverage, and all setback requirements. He also meets the requirements for 37 parking spaces. Currently there are trailers parked on 208th Street as there is not enough room on the lot. Staffwill allow him to start the work as soon as the grading plans are approved and it is approved by the Planning Commission so the trucks can be moved off of 208th Street. . The remaining contingencies include: - The lot combination is done prior to the building permit being issued. - The owner will need to immediately begin construction ofthe storage area upon approval of the Planning Commission for the site plan and Engineering for the grading plan. - The approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water, and utilities by the Engineering division. The Commission agreed on the plan. Mr. Milner noted when comments were received back from staff that added another $30,000 to the cost of the project. Until that time other comments from staff added $42,000 to the project. The project has been funded since December by the lender. He stated there will be a couple of minor changes to the plan from what is shown. The peninsula for the parking will shift two or three parking spaces down. The lot will not be perfectly square, based on the civil engineer's calculations of the turning radius for trucks. Excavation should start Tuesday or Wednesday. The whole site will be . excavated. Three weeks later they will be able to put down the materials needed to get the trailers off the street. They ran into some serious difficulties and expense trying to get the garage constructed so it would be useable and accessible from the main building. At the last minute they deleted that, so that caused some extra work for City staff. These plans were given to staff three weeks ago and Mr. Milner apologized for the change. They will be removing all the top soil and bringing in 90 truckloads of engineering fill to get everything up to the grade level. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson for a favorable recommendation with contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Findings of Fact - Regan Staff presented the Findings of Fact as prepared by the City Attorney regarding the approval ofthe conditional use permit for Mr. Regan for his property at 21054 Chippendale Court for the use of a supply yard. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to adopt the Findings of Fact. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Discussion of the Building Height Definition and Increase of Maximum Building Height in the R-3 Zoning District Staff would like to make the definition of building heights easier to understand and go from the ground to the highest point of the building. In the R-3 zoning staff is proposing to increase the maximum height from 35 ft. to 45 ft. Staffwill . . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 11 need to review garage height, as that has its own definition. The Commission agreed with this change. d) Tree Preservation Ordinance The Council requested staff review the tree preservation ordinance because it is too lenient. Staff presented a map showing where the best tree stands are. Currently there are three stands left. Trees will always be maintained in the wetlands and steep slopes. Commissioner Larson felt this should have been done 10 years ago. Chair Rotty agreed, stating as the community has developed tree stands have been taken down, and the City has relied on developers to save as many trees as possible. To develop a more stringent tree preservation ordinance now would be difficult. Balancing property owner rights to ordinances is difficult. The lots are more valuable if trees are saved. At this point he would not recommend a more stringent ordinance. The Commission agreed. e) Seed/Genstar Proposed Land Use Modification (2006 AUAR Update) Staff presented a map from the 2000 comp plan showing the proposed use for the property. The acreages for medium density fulfilled the livable communities act, so these acreages need to stay with Seed/Genstar. The developer needs to look at 195th Street and the impacts to the wetlands, so there needs to be a modification to the AUAR. Newland Communities is proposing to shift the commercial to 195th Street and the remaining acreage for medium density remains the same. Newland is trying to determine if they will split the commercial have it on the north and south side ofthe road or have it all on the north. The Commission agreed with the proposed use. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Fitzloffto adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /J' ~? - /-7--7. /..;?:'.? ,~~> vC.ft::...:;a_ c...c.k'k22 .:./ c:tynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved