Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-02 P & Z CITY OF CENTERVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting on October 2, 2001, at 6:30 p. m. PRESENT: John McLean Ray DeVine Brian Hanson Barry Brainard Tom Wilharber ABSENT: David Kilian, Rob Sheppard. COUNCIL: Linda Broussard Vickers STAFF: Acting City Administrator/Public Works Director Palzer I. CALL TO ORDER 1.Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARING(S) None. III. APPEARANCES 1. Mr. Bart Rehbein, Preliminary Plat (The Shores) – 1475 Mound Trail Mr. Rehbein indicated that the Preliminary Plat had not changed other than to add the requested details discussed at the previous Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Hanson asked if Mr. Palzer felt there would be any problems with having the pond located close to the road. Mr. Palzer indicated it should not be a problem because there is already drainage in the ditch coming off of Mound Trail. Commissioner DeVine asked if the City Engineer had reviewed the preliminary plat. Mr. Palzer indicated that the City Engineer had reviewed the Preliminary Plat and will provide comments in the near future. Page 1 of 15 Commissioner DeVine asked if Mr. Rehbein intended to provide an entrance monument for the development. Mr. Rehbein indicated there would be a monument sign of some type. He then noted that Rice Creek Watershed District had required the pond. Linda Broussard Vickers of 6756 Centerville Road inquired as to whom would own the outlot. Mr. Rehbein indicated he would maintain ownership of the outlot and turn over maintenance of it to the homeowner’s association until he is able to work with Hal to create two lots in the future. Mr. Rehbein indicated the lots not on the lake would govern access to the lake through the homeowner’s association. Chairperson Hanson indicated that Mr. Rehbein should have the Park and Recreation Committee review the preliminary plat. Commissioner DeVine explained that the Ordinance does not require Mr. Rehbein to have the Park and Recreation Committee review the preliminary plat but said as a courtesy the City would like him to do so. Mr. Rehbein stated he understood there is a standard way of dealing with park dedication fees but said he knew the City showed leniency to Hal when he did the five lots. He then indicated he would like to discuss the park dedication fees with the City. Diane Letender of 1397 Mound Trail indicated that the power runs along the lake and the power company does not have an easement to get to its lines. She then asked if the lines would be moved. Mr. Rehbein indicated he would be granting them an easement and having them bury the lines all the way across his property. Grace Dell of 1321 Mound Trail indicated she has lived in Centerville for 47 years. She then indicated that the power company has no way to access its lines when there is a problem like last summer when they went through her mother’s yard and ripped it all up. The certified land surveyor, who attended the meeting with Mr. Rehbein, indicated he was waiting for verification from the City Engineer as to whether the utility companies maintained their rights when Mound Trail was vacated. He then indicated that there is access to the lines from Main Street by walking in. Commissioner DeVine indicated that for this plat the power company would have an easement. He then said it is unfortunate that the power company does not have an easement all the way down but said the problem was created a long time ago and there is no way for the City to fix it at this point. Ms. Letender indicated the power company might use the City’s easement to get to the power lines. Mr. Rehbein indicated there is a process through Xcel for residents to move power to the boulevard. Commissioner Wilharber asked when the road was moved. Page 2 of 15 Ms. Dell indicated the road was moved in 1978 or 1979 at the same time sewer was put in. Mr. Rehbein inquired as to whether the City had an Ordinance that required the City Engineer to do the construction drawings. Mr. Palzer indicated he thought the City does require that the City Engineer provide all utility drawings. Mr. Rehbein then asked the Commission to consider allowing him to use his staff to do the work as they can do it a lot less expensively. He further indicated the City Engineer could still review the drawings and do the inspections. Mr. Palzer indicated he would check into it. Motion by Commissioner Wilharber, seconded by Commissioner McLean to recommend that Council approve the Preliminary Plat for The Shores. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Wilharber recommended Mr. Rehbein check with Ms. Bender to make sure that the matter is posted in time for the public hearing at the Council level. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Jeremy Bates – 1977 South Robin Lane Mrs. Bates reviewed her situation for the Commission and indicated the variance request was denied by Council because Council would like to have the Commission change the Ordinance. She then indicated that the current maximum accessory structure is 200 square feet and they had requested a 400 square foot garage. Mrs. Bates indicated that of the 39 houses in Royal Meadows 20 houses have two car detached garages and only six (6) houses have no garage. Chairperson Hanson explained that the Ordinance would not be changed at this meeting but said a recommendation will be made and the matter will be published for a public hearing. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that at the Council meeting the City Attorney had indicated he would prefer that the City not govern by variance because the City would have to look at granting any variances of the same type. She then explained that this request was double the allowed size and, while Council was sympathetic to the Bates’ situation, it preferred to change the Ordinance rather than granting the variance. She also noted that Mayor Swedberg had asked that Planning and Zoning hurry the matter along even if that meant scheduling an extra work session meeting. Commissioner Wilharber stated that, if 20 of the 39 homes have two car garages, the City must have granted variances in the past. He then indicated that he feels that one more variance would not have been detrimental to the City. He further indicated that he did not feel that it made sense for Council to deny the variance in this instance. Page 3 of 15 3. Mr. and Mrs. Paul Dentz – 1667 ________ - Fence Issue Mr. Dense told the Committee he had a question concerning the fence Ordinance. He then noted that he understands the Ordinance to require that a fence be placed two feet off of the property line. He then asked why the Ordinance is not enforced. Chairperson Hanson explained that most of the City’s Ordinances are enforced by complaint because the City does not have staff to patrol the City to look for Ordinance violations. He further said that, if the matter is not brought to the attention of the City, the City might not be aware of it. Tracy Tratar of 1710 Peltier Lake Drive complained that the City is taking away more of the residents’ property by requiring that the fence be put two feet off of the property line. Commissioner DeVine indicated that he wished more residents had come to any of the 10 or 15 public hearings held concerning the changes to Ordinance #4 to provide input. He then explained that the two-foot determination was made to allow for maintenance of the fence without the need to trespass on your neighbor’s property to do so. Mr. Tratar noted that residents do not pay attention to the Ordinances until they have a problem. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that somebody had come to the meeting and asked that fences be placed six (6) to ten (10) feet off the property line. She then indicated that the Committee had attempted to weigh both sides of the issue and determined that two feet was adequate for maintenance. Commissioner McLean indicated that the ownership of the fence when it is placed on the property line comes into question when selling the property. Chairperson Hanson indicated that there is more involved than just painting issues. He said there is mowing and weed whipping that need to be done without interfering with your neighbor. Mr. Dense indicated that his neighbor had placed a fence directly on the property line and he does not feel he should have to go and tell him that. Commissioner DeVine recommended sending a letter to the City voicing his complaint so that it could be checked out. Chairperson Hanson indicated that the existing fence would not have to be removed but the newly extended part of the fence, if it is determined to be on the property line, would need to be removed. Page 4 of 15 Mrs. Dentz indicated that she was told by Ms. Bender that the matter was a civil matter that the City would not get involved with. Mr. Palzer indicated it sounds like the neighbor who has the fence thinks the fence is two feet off the property line. Mr. Dentz indicated that the resident had the property surveyed and it is marked. He then indicated that the fence runs right down the property line. Mr. Palzer indicated the Committee may wish to look at how far back from the lake a fence should be. Mr. Rehbein asked if the City should use the 75 feet from the lake for fences as is used for structures. Commissioner DeVine indicated that the problem is with enforcement. He then indicated there are all types of issues and said it is very costly to hire an enforcement officer. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that Mr. Palzer would check to see if the owner of the fence feels that it is two feet off the property line. She then indicated if the person agrees that it is on the property line then the City can proceed with enforcing the Ordinance. Mr. Jeremy Bates of 1977 South Robin Lane asked if a person needed a verbal agreement to be allowed to place the fencing on the property line. Chairperson Hanson suggested getting a written agreement for the fencing. Diane Letender of 1397 Mound Trail indicated she would like to request a variance for a lot split. Chairperson Hanson indicated that Ms. Letender would need to come to City Hall to fill out the paperwork and pay the fee required. He then indicated that a variance request requires a public hearing that would be noticed for next month. Commissioner McLean asked whether she wished to do a lot split or needed a variance. Ms. Letender indicated she has enough property to split the lot on the lake side but is a few feet short on the Mound Trail side so she thinks she needs a variance. Commissioner DeVine suggested Ms. Letender stop into City Hall to ask Ms. Bender to review the Ordinance to determine if it is a lot split matter or a lot split and a variance. Commissioner McLean suggested verifying with staff but said he thought the minimum lot width in R-2 was 80 feet. Mr. Palzer clarified that the minimum lot width in R-2 was 100 feet. IV. OLD BUSINESS 1. Preliminary Plat (The Shores) – 1475 Mound Trail This matter was acted upon earlier in the meeting. Page 5 of 15 2. Ordinance #4 & 39 Amendments Mr. Tratar told the Committee he felt the 35-foot side yard setback for corner lots was excessive. He then asked the Committee to consider reducing the side yard setback to 20 feet. Commissioner DeVine indicated that the reason for the 35-foot setback is to protect line of sight. Mr. Palzer indicated that the Committee also needed to consider uniformity to the block. He then indicated that Mr. Tratar’s house should have been set on the lot facing west to better utilize the shape of the lot. Mr. Tratar indicated that there are several homes in the area that do not meet the side yard setbacks. He then said if the City wanted him to he could go and measure them. Mr. Tratar indicated that the City has a requirement that an accessory structure requires a 10-foot setback but an attached structure requires a 35-foot setback. He then indicated he feels that is inconsistent. Commissioner DeVine indicated that if the City is truly concerned with line of sight it should consider moving the accessory structures to 35 feet off the property line as well. Mr. Tratar indicated that if the City is concerned for line of sight it would need to address trees as well because people plant trees beyond the setback. He then apologized for not knowing the rules and said he just wants to build his garage. Chairperson Hanson asked if Mr. Tratar would like to see a 20-foot setback rather than the 35 foot setback. Mr. Tratar indicated that he understands the City needs to do what is safe but said with the current setbacks the City has taken away 68% of his yard. Commissioner Brainard indicated he did not feel this Committee is the body that should determine the safety issues with line of sight. He then suggested having staff check with other cities to determine side yard setbacks. Chairperson Hanson suggested checking with the fire chief. Commissioner DeVine suggested that, if Commissioners think 35 feet is excessive, the Committee should consider making it 20 feet and moving on to facilitate the process. Commissioner Brainard indicated that generally the line of sight is for the corner and the sight triangle should allow vehicles to see other traffic coming. He then indicated that each city has recommended its own setbacks and agreed that 35 feet may be excessive. Commissioner DeVine asked Mr. Palzer for his opinion on the matter. Mr. Palzer indicated that the previous Ordinance had said 30 feet and then suggested considering 25 feet. Page 6 of 15 Mr. Tratar asked how the other residents got variances to build their structures. Mr. Palzer indicated he thought all of those in question were at the 30 foot mark, which was the requirement of the previous Ordinance. The Committee determined it would be prudent to set a workshop to discuss the details of the proposed changes to Ordinance #4. Commissioner Wilharber indicated that he felt going from a 35 foot setback to a 15 foot setback would be excessive but said he felt 20 feet would be fine. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested that the Committee accept Mr. Tratar’s offer to measure the setbacks and provide drawings to the Committee for review and discussion purposes. It was the consent of the Committee to schedule a work session for Tuesday, October 9, 2001 at 6:30 to discuss the proposed changes to Ordinance #4. Commissioner Wilharber indicated he would not be able to attend the work session. Mr. Tratar indicated he would be on vacation but said he would do the legwork and provide the information to the Committee. R-4 Accessory Structures Chairperson Hanson indicated that the 200 square foot maximum is too small for an appropriately sized garage for those homes that do not have one. He then indicated the Committee would be discussing the matter at this meeting but would not be deciding anything. Chairperson Hanson explained that the reason he had voted against the variance at the last meeting is that he feels the City needs to re-address the issue so that the next person does not have to go through the variance process. He then indicated that the 200 square foot maximum was set to allow for those people who already had garages to add a third stall if they wished to do so. He then indicated that the City had incorrectly assumed that all of the houses already had garages and that created this situation. Commissioner Wilharber questioned whether Royal Meadows was the only R-4 zoning in the City. Chairperson Hanson indicated the Committee should be able to make an exception for the R-4 zoning by adding a sentence setting the square footage to be allowed. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that a 22x20 structure totaling 440 square feet is the typical size of a two-car garage. Page 7 of 15 Boarding Kennel Chairperson Hanson indicated that the Committee would be discussing wording for the Ordinance at the work session. He then indicated that the applicant did not need to attend the meeting because it is a simple addition to the industrial section of the Ordinance to allow for boarding kennels. He then indicated that there would be a public hearing at the next meeting for any residents to express concerns. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the Ordinance would be changed and published for a public hearing and, if at that meeting it is determined that changes need to be made, it would again be published and would go to Council for a public hearing. Chairperson Hanson indicated that the matter would most likely be before Council on the second Wednesday in November. He did note, however, if Council determines it would like any changes to the Ordinance it would be sent back and have to be republished causing a delay in approval and the effective date. Commissioner DeVine asked if the Committee would carry over the O’Connor letter and the Carlson letter. Mr. Rehbein indicated he would like the Committee to discuss the O’Connor letter as he is the neighbor it refers to. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the letter had suggested that the Committee made a mistake with the changes to Ordinance #4 concerning parking allowances for motor homes and boats and asked the Committee to reconsider it. Chairperson Hanson indicated the Committee had not made a mistake and clarified that it was the intent of the Committee to allow two or less motor homes or boats to be parked in a resident’s driveway indefinitely provided the motor home is less than 35 feet long. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that, if it is the intent of the Committee to allow indeterminate parking, Mr. O’Connor would like the Committee to reconsider as he does not want the City to allow parking in the driveway. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers clarified that not more than two things are allowed to park in the driveway permanently. She further clarified there is nothing wrong with the wording but the resident disagrees with it. Mr. Rehbein clarified that the 48 hour time limit refers to vehicles parked by visitors. It was the consent of the Committee not to consider changing Ordinance #4 as requested by Mr. O’Connor. It was the consent of the Committee to hold the Carlson letter for discussion at the work session. Page 8 of 15 Zoning Map Changes The Committee discussed various changes to the zoning map. The Committee determined that the zoning map should reflect when a development is a PUD. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that the City, if it wanted to, could amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for all land to be placed into MUSA because the Metropolitan Council no longer wants to slow development. Palzer Changes Mr. Palzer reviewed a list of items he felt needed to be changed in Ordinance #4. Commissioner DeVine indicated he was not in favor of fees for permits. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if the Committee wanted to see a zoning permit rather than a building permit. Mr. Palzer indicated the City has no control over various issues such as driveways. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that if the City were to requiring zoning permits and someone was to put in a driveway that was too wide and did not get a permit the City would have the option to tear up the driveway. She indicated that if the City should do so there would be many calls about driveways that are too wide. She then asked what the City does for enforcement. She further asked if the City would levy a penalty or how it would handle that. Mr. Palzer indicated that a zoning violation is a daily violation and residents could be fined $1000 per day. Mr. Palzer indicated the City has a lot of trouble with these issues and said if the City required a permit the City could control things better. Commissioner Brainard indicated that the Uniform Building Code exempts from permit fees anything under 120 square feet and said instituting a zoning permit would help the City regulate the exempted items. Discussions ensued concerning whether various items should require a permit. Commissioner DeVine indicated he felt most of the items were too small to require a permit. Chairperson Hanson indicated that these types of items are only small when it does not affect you. Page 9 of 15 Commissioner Wilharber indicated that requiring permits would eliminate a lot of telephone calls to Council and the City with complaints. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned whether the Committee felt $25.00 was too much to charge. Commissioner DeVine indicated he did not feel the City had defined what items would require a permit. Commissioner DeVine commented that Ms. Bender had charged the Bates $175.00 dollars when she knew they would not be granted a variance. He further commented that staff routinely charges fees for those requesting variances when they know that the variances will not be granted. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers clarified that staff cannot tell someone not to file a variance and said it is not for staff to determine if residents meet the criteria. She further indicated that staff was directed a long time ago to give the list of criteria to the applicants when they apply for a variance and said if they are not doing it they should be directed to begin doing so. Chairperson Hanson indicated that people usually are able to interpret the criteria to match their needs. Mr. Drilling asked what the City is going to do with outside storage in the industrial and commercial area. Chairperson Hanson told Mr. Drilling that mini-storage was told no outside storage. Commissioner DeVine indicated the City would rather see someone bring in a warehouse building rather than store things on bare land for the tax benefit to the City. Mr. Drilling indicated he has a trucking company that wants to park empty rigs and needs two or three acres of land to do so. He indicated that this business would operate from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and asked the City if it would consider allowing such a thing. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that a trucking operation is an allowed usage in the industrial park provided that outside storage is totally screened. Chairperson Hanson asked Mr. Drilling if he intends to build an apartment complex by his house as he once mentioned. Mr. Drilling indicated that he had done a study and found that senior housing was not the way to go. He then indicated that the study determined that multifamily homes or a town home development would work. Page 10 of 15 Chairperson Hanson indicated that his neighbors would prefer that the residents own the property. Mr. Drilling indicated he is considering town homes for that location. Commissioner Wilharber asked if the trees were still in the City right of way on the corner of Brian Drive and Brian Court. Mr. Palzer indicated they were still there and said the City will be taking steps to remove them. Mr. Palzer indicated the Committee should consider setting a maximum size for attached garages. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers suggested setting a limit of no larger than the principal structure. Mr. Drilling asked if the Committee had heard that the County intended to widen Main Street. Commissioner Wilharber indicated that Mr. Rehbein had been told when he applied for access permits that the County was limiting access because it intended to widen the road in 2005. Mr. Drilling asked if the City would be receptive to accepting a donation toward the trails rather than requiring him to build the trail only to have it wiped out when the County widens the road. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that she feels the current passion of Council would be that they would say no because they want the trail in place because they intend to fight the widening of the road. She then suggested Mr. Drilling propose the idea to Park and Recreation and see how it is received. V. NEW BUSINESS 1. Ordinance #4 Letter – Mr. Patrick O’Connor This matter was handled under Ordinance #4 and 39 Modifications. 2.Ordinance #4 Letter – Mr. Rick Carlson (Hunter’s Crossing) This matter will be discussed at the work session. 3.Zoning Map Updates/Corrections Mr. Palzer outlined for the Committee various changes that needed to be made to the zoning map to make it current. Page 11 of 15 4.Comprehensive Sign Plan – Uptown Center Ms. Katie Newman told the Committee she was told by Mr. Drilling that she would need to seek approval for deviation from the sign plan approved by the City. She then explained the type of sign she wished to use. Commissioner DeVine indicated that Mr. Drilling is only allowed a certain number of square feet for signage and said the City has not seen a sign plan for the building. The Committee clarified that Ms. Newman would need to speak to Mr. Drilling concerning approval of her sign. The Committee also told Ms. Newman that Mr. Drilling needed to come to the City with a comprehensive sign plan for approval. 5.Vacating Mill Road Extension South of Main Street (Mr. and Mrs. Perron, 1798 Main Street and Mr. Clay Alcock, 1806 Main Street) Commissioner DeVine indicated he did not see a reason that Mill Road would go south. Commissioner Wilharber explained that the City planned for the roadway based on the County wanting roads to be across from each other. He then indicated that Eagle Pass is located where the tree farm used to be and it appears that Mill Road will not be going south. He further indicated that, if the City vacates the roadway, the property would be split evenly to each of the property owners’ as was platted at the time. Mr. Palzer indicated that state statute dictates how the property will be split up and that will be based on how it was platted at the time. He further indicated that both parties have expressed an interest in proceeding with the vacation of the roadway. Commissioner Wilharber noted the residents would be paying for the costs to vacate the roadway. Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Wilharber to recommend to Council that the City move forward with the vacation of the Mill Road Extension. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 6.Lot Split – Mr. and Mrs. David West from Mr. Alcock (180 Main Street) Mr. West explained there is a signed purchase agreement for the land but said the County is requiring City approval of the lot split before the documents can be recorded with the County. Motion by Commissioner Wilharber, seconded by Commissioner DeVine to recommend to Council approval of the lot split as requested in the letter from Mr. West dated September 25, 2001. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Page 12 of 15 7.Shea Architect’s Business Concept Plans Chairperson Hanson expressed concern that the one-way street off of Main Street would end up crossing the trail system. He stated there would be a lot of kids in the area as Dairy Queen is a big draw for kids and the City runs the risk of having a child hit by a vehicle. st Chairperson Hanson suggested removing the road and accessing the complex from 21 th and 20 when that goes through. Commissioner Wilharber indicated he was concerned with a road running between buildings as it is a major safety hazard with pedestrians traveling between buildings. He the indicated that he felt there should be berming so the residents in Willow Glen and Royal Meadows are not subject to the noise of the complex and to screen the parking area from the neighborhoods. Commissioner Wilharber also expressed concern that there is no front or back side as he feels truck deliveries will be an issue whether they are scheduled early or late or during the working day. Chairperson Hanson indicated the concern for delivery traffic was discussed at the meeting but said he did not think it was picked up on as they felt deliveries would be made and not be a problem. He then indicated there would need to be a designated area away from local pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Wilharber indicated that with all the paved surface and roof-lines there would be a drainage issue if no pond was placed on the property. Chairperson Hanson indicated a pond was discussed at the meeting to address drainage issues. McLean indicated he was struggling with having a large parking lot along Main Street in front of these buildings or parking behind. He then questioned how the City would keep the back of the building from looking like the back of a building. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the building would have two fronts. Commissioner Wilharber indicated that the side facing Main Street would have a patio for eating and watching traffic going by. Commissioner DeVine indicated it would not be cost effective for a retailer to make the building aesthetically pleasing in the front and back. Commissioner Wilharber indicated that it would also be a big cost to the developer for two parking lots if the building has a front and back for snow plowing and removal. Mr. Rehbein indicated that most retailers do not want two front entrances they usually want deliveries on one side and the public coming in and out on the other side of the building. Page 13 of 15 Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned why it was necessary to have an entrance off of Main Street. Chairperson Hanson indicated the reasoning is that seeing vehicles parked at the businesses will draw more people in. Commissioner DeVine questioned why the City feels it can tell a developer exactly how to build out its development. He then clarified that he thought the point of this was to determine a specific design, or symbol, or color for the buildings that would be one thing to tie all commercial businesses in Centerville together not to draft a specific plan for developers to follow. Mr. Rehbein indicated that the City of Lino Lakes just went through this process with the Town Center and ended up getting too specific with the details and took a lot of time and effort when they really have no idea what types of businesses will be going in the Center. He then suggested the City keep to a simple concept for tying the businesses together and not a specific building plan. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked the Commission if it approved of the sample architectural styles submitted. The Committee indicated the architectural styles were fine and said it liked the idea of following the basic architecture of County Bank. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers asked if the Committee wanted to define that area of commercial and put specific architectural requirements in the Ordinance. Commissioner DeVine said he feels that whomever is working on this project needs to pick out one or two of the features of County Bank, take pictures of it, describe it, and make it into a design criteria to suggest to developers to follow. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that without having language in the Ordinance there would be no way to force the developer to comply with the design criteria. Mr. Palzer indicated he thought the intent was to provide a suggestion for development not to change the Ordinance. He then indicated that he feels the information would be used as a guideline and would give the City some options for give and take during negotiations. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1.September 4, 2001 Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Brainard to approve the September 4, 2001 Meeting Minutes as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Page 14 of 15 Commissioner Brainard told Committee Members that, for the record, he did not write a letter to the City Council as was claimed in the letter written to the Quad. Council Liaison Broussard Vickers noted that the letter submitted to Council was received from Theresa Brenner. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner DeVine, seconded by Commissioner Brainard to adjourn the October 2, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting at 9:10 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Page 15 of 15