Loading...
030408 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 4, 2008 City Hall, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Hemken called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt Absent: Steve Svendsen Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Eric Weiss, Community Development Intern, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC08-03 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for conditional use permit amendment, 5700 International Parkway, Verizon Item 4.1 Wireless/Matt Kundert, Buell Consulting, Inc. and city of New Hope, petitioners. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit amendment to change the site plan by installing an emergency backup generator for the cell tower on city-owned property in Victory Park. The site is in an industrial zoning district located at the north end of Victory Park. The initial lease agreement with the city and CUP have been in place since 1994. The site area that Verizon leases from the city contains 2,072 square feet (57’ by 37’) and the building area (concrete pad) would be 28 square feet. The leased area contains 85 percent green space and 15 percent surface coverage. Adjacent land uses are industrial to the north, west and south and high density residential to the east across the wetland. The goal of the project/CUP amendment is to keep the cell tower operational in an emergency situation. Mr. Jacobsen reported that the generator would be contained within the current lease area. The generator would be compliant with all Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements. The decibel rating for the generator at 100 feet is 55.4 decibels. Verizon Wireless indicated that the site would not require a retaining wall to support the pad in a level configuration. Verizon’s registered professional engineer provided a document stating that a floating slab was the best approach for the installation of the generator. Verizon would not be providing a curbed slab because of the generator’s redundancies for spill protection. The generator would have a maximum capacity for 110 gallons of diesel fuel and the overflow would have the ability to contain 125 percent of the fluids through secondary containment features. The fill neck within the cabinet also would have an overflow spill containment basin. All overflow/secondary containment and spill basins would be alarmed. Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and no comments were received. Jacobsen explained the purpose of a conditional use permit was to provide the city with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety of the community. The Commission should consider possible adverse effects of the proposed CUP amendment, that the use complies with the comprehensive plan, is compatible with adjacent uses, conforms with all applicable performance standards in the code, no depreciation in value, nuisance characteristics would not have an adverse effect, and the use would provide an economic return to the community. The development review team discussed the application and was supportive of the CUP amendment. Concerns included erosion control along the slope toward the wetland, trees to be removed and landscaping replacement, tank and containment area, monitoring/alarm system, tank enclosure, noise levels at the ballfield and property line, generator testing schedule, security lighting, concrete pad and curbing to contain leaks. The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed the aforementioned concerns and requested fuel containment and noise level information. Revised plans were submitted indicating the generator would be self- contained within a sound enclosure placed on a floating slab. The enclosure would contain all electrical equipment and the diesel fuel tank. The existing fence would be extended to enclose the generator structure. One existing clump of Amur maple would be replaced with an eight-foot Amur maple, along with one additional Amur maple to be placed along the southern portion of the site. The new generator would contain 110 gallons of diesel. The fuel tank would be double walled and designed to contain 125 percent of the fuel volume. The generator would be alarmed to notify the fire and police departments in addition to Verizon. The generator would be enclosed in a sound enclosure. The decibel level would be 55.4 at the edge of the road (100 feet), which complies with MPCA regulations for noise. The existing building is showing signs of deterioration and a condition of approval would include property maintenance of the existing structure and landscaping. Jacobsen reported that very little grading would be necessary on the site, but the applicant should provide specific information on grading and erosion control measures on the eastern downhill slope from the generator pad to prevent any runoff during a heavy rain event into the wetland. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff recommended approval with the following 2 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008 conditions: 1) The addition of one more Amur maple planted between the existing maple and the new one, which for spacing reasons should be moved westward a few feet. 2) Litter in the adjacent landscaping should be removed and mulch replenished. 3) The applicant should provide additional details on the construction of the fuel tank, design features to protect against spills, how spills are monitored, detected and communicated (alarm system). 4) Both the police and fire departments should be notified by the system alarm in case of a fuel spill. 5) Repair and maintenance of the existing structure should be completed to the satisfaction of the city building inspector. 6) The applicant should provide information on intended schedule for testing the generator - specifically, how often and for how long. Testing should be conducted weekdays during normal business hours. 7) Submission of a grading, drainage, and erosion control plan. Jacobsen stated that the building official would be certain that all conditions were met prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site. Commissioner Anderson questioned current security measures for the site. Mr. Jacobsen replied that an eight-foot chain link fence surrounded the tower and building and the building was also secured. The applicant would be adding to the fencing to enclose the proposed structure and generator. Mr. Matt Kundert, representing Verizon Wireless, 2625 Monroe Drive NW, Rochester, Minnesota, came forward. He confirmed that the site would have a locked security fence and the generator would be enclosed in a locked cabinet. The double walled fuel tank would be located in the 20-inch space below the generator; the unit is manufactured as one piece. The construction material of the fuel tank would be an all-weather, corrosion resistant material. Mr. Kundert added that the secondary containment of the tank was 125 percent of all the liquids on the generator, i.e., oil, coolant, fuel, et cetera. Chair Hemken raised the issue of curbing around the concrete pad. Mr. Brixius stated that if the building official was comfortable with the internal containment, curbing would not be required. Commissioner Nirgudé interjected that he felt curbing should be provided in case of a leak. Commissioner Oelkers added that he understood if all liquids from the generator leaked at one time, the overflow tank would contain all liquids. Mr. Kundert confirmed that any leak would flow back into the overflow tank and be contained in the unit with no leaks to the outside. A company representative visits the sites once a month to be certain that everything was functional. The generator also has a remote monitoring system. The unit would be exercised once a week for approximately a half hour. If the unit was not functioning, the monitoring would indicate a problem with the generator. The city would not receive any of these test results. Commissioner Oelkers stated that at the Design and Review Committee meeting natural gas had been discussed as a potential fuel for the generator. Mr. Kundert explained that the backup generators operate 3 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008 on a fuel source other than the utilities serving the general public. Kundert indicated that the fuel in the tank would operate the generator for several days, which would give Verizon enough time to refuel tanks if the power would be out for a protracted period of time. Commissioner Houle wondered if the remote monitoring could notify the New Hope police and fire departments as well as Verizon. Mr. Kundert stated that Verizon monitors the units from its operations center. He explained that if a few gallons of diesel spilled inside the generator, that would set off an alarm and Verizon would go to the site to determine the cause. He questioned whether the fire and police departments would need to be notified of a spill that was not a contamination issue for the property. A bigger concern would be if the unit were destroyed, in which case the MPCA would have specific requirements for site contamination. Commissioner Schmidt stated he thought the city should be aware of any leak or spill at the site. Commissioner Houle wondered if the monitors indicated where the leak was located and if the leak was being contained in the secondary unit. Mr. Kundert responded that there are two alarms in the generator. The first audible alarm is located on the top where the tank is filled with fuel. The second monitoring alarm would trigger at the operations center when fuel would spill over and begin to fill the overflow tank. Mr. Brixius interjected that rather than notifying the police and fire departments, a report could be sent to the city’s inspections division indicating the action taken to correct the problem. Mr. Kundert thought this could be accomplished, but he maintained there may still be some level of confusion on the part of the police and fire departments about what they should do when the alarm sounded. Commissioner Hunten wondered what the probability would be for a spill, and Mr. Kundert stated that the generator unit was a manufactured product that was meant to be utilized for a long time. The design of the unit should alleviate any concerns of the city, such as the secondary containment and alarm system. He maintained that Verizon would not use this product if there were constant problems. Commissioner Nirgudé suggested that a condition of approval be added that Verizon would be the responsible party for immediate cleanup and for any future cleanup due to a spill or leak. Mr. Kundert reminded the Commission that Verizon had a lease agreement with the city that addressed those issues. Mr. Sondrall, city attorney, added that MPCA rules and regulations would make Verizon responsible for any cleanup. The city would review the lease to be sure the provision for cleanup is included. A question was raised whether the decibel levels for the generator were accurate, and the applicant responded that the manufacturer had supplied those numbers. Mr. Kundert requested that a condition of approval include a specific time period to notify the city in the event of a leak. He also requested clarification on the scope of a leak/spill that would prompt notification to 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008 the city. He maintained that the drawings already show grading drainage and erosion control measures and wondered whether that still needed to be a condition of approval. He added that a silt fence would be provided. No grading work was planned. Mr. Brixius added that the elevation of the slab was 986 feet and the elevation where the timber edge is located is 985 feet, therefore, additional fill may be needed. He stressed that the city wanted to be certain that no erosion or sediment would enter the wetland area. No one was in the audience to address the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 08-03. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 08-03, request for conditional use permit amendment, 5700 International Parkway, Verizon Wireless/Matt Kundert, Buell Consulting, Inc. and city of New Hope, petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1.Add two Amur maple trees, spaced appropriately. 2.Litter in the adjacent landscaping should be removed and mulch replenished. 3.City building inspection department must be notified in case of a fuel spill over 10 gallons within three business days. 4.Both the police and fire departments should be notified by the system alarm in case of a fuel spill. 5.Repair and maintenance of the existing structure should be completed to the satisfaction of the city building inspector. 6.The applicant should provide information on intended schedule for testing the generator – how often and for how long. Testing should be conducted weekdays during normal business hours. 7.City attorney to review lease regarding contamination cleanup. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Oelkers, Nirgudé, , Schmidt Voting against: None Absent: Svendsen Motion carried. Chair Hemken stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council at its meeting on March 24, 2008, and asked that the petitioner attend that meeting. PC07-09 Chair Hemken introduced Item 4.2, ordinance amending New Hope code section 1-2 and 3-25(b)(1) regulating fences around private swimming Item 4.2 pools, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Eric Weiss stated that the Planning Commission should review and 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008 make a recommendation regarding an ordinance regulating swimming pools. In 2007 the city discussed and approved new regulations requiring lockable covers for whirlpool tubs. The Council requested that the Commission further review the ordinance regarding inflatable pools for safety purposes. On January 11, 2008, the Commission discussed this matter and determined that it would be best to first bring the city’s standards in line with state regulations. The Codes and Standards Committee discussed this matter in February. Appendix G of the International Residential Code, although not adopted by the state, was used as a standard for the swimming pool definition because of its standing as a commonly referenced document. A private swimming pool is defined as “any structure intended for swimming, wading or recreational bathing or immersion that contains water 24 inches deep.” The current language defines a pool as 18 inches in depth. All swimming pools, including inflatable pools, placed in use or constructed on any property shall be completely surrounded by a fence or wall not less than four feet in height. Whirlpool tubs not enclosed by a fence shall have a locking safety cover. The Codes and Standards Committee and staff recommend approval of the ordinance amendments. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether or not the fence would have a locked gate. He maintained that if the fence was for safety reasons, the gate should be locked rather than just self-latching. He stated he didn’t feel the city should inflict an unreasonable cost on the homeowner. If the intent of the fence was for safety, then the gate should be locked. He mentioned that ponds and lakes are not fenced and the residents must be responsible for their own actions. Mr. Brixius added that the current code required fencing for pools over 18 inches, therefore, the proposed change loosens up that requirement. The new code change basically includes inflatable pools to the definition and made the code less restrictive on the fencing requirements. Mr. Sondrall added that the gate must be self closing and self latching but did not need to be locked. The hot tub language was taken from the International Residential Code. Per the IRC, no cover would be needed for a hot tub if it was enclosed by a fence. A lockable cover on the hot tub would allow the homeowner to be exempt from fencing requirement. With safety for the citizens of the community being the goal, Chair Hemken stated it was a difficult decision to determine what depth to use for requiring a fence. Mr. Sondrall reported that the state of Minnesota does not define a pool, nor has any definition been incorporated into the state building code. Maple Grove uses the 18-inch depth for its pool standard, however, several other surrounding communities use the 24- inch definition for pools as found in Appendix G of the IRC. Mr. Sondrall confirmed that if the above ground pool had sides that were 48 inches high, and the ladder was removed when not in use, that would qualify as a fence. Mr. Sondrall reminded the Commission that the fencing requirement was not new; fencing has always been required. The requirement currently refers to pools that are 18 inches deep. The code had always been applied to inflatable pools. The amendment just clarifies 6 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008 that fact an inflatable pool is a swimming pool. The self-latching requirement around the pools, rather than locking, was requested by the inspections department because of the difficulty in enforcing the code. Appendix G requires self latching and self closing, not locked, gates. Minnesota communities are utilizing the international building code and international residential code verbiage when writing their ordinances and city regulations. If the City Council does not want fencing, that language could be removed from the code. Commissioner Hunten questioned who would be enforcing these requirements and the response was that city inspectors enforce the code. Commissioner Schmidt stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had a difficult time making a recommendation they were comfortable with. The main change was to add inflatable pools to the definition and raise the depth requirement to 24 inches for when a fence was required. Commissioner Houle stated he did not believe that a fence should be required around inflatable or semi-rigid pools that were of a temporary nature. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that some semi-rigid pools are left up year round. Commissioner Oelkers suggested voting on the ordinance and let the City Council make the final decision. Mr. Jacobsen suggested if the Planning Commission would recommend approval of the ordinance that it keep the 24 inch depth so that if Appendix G would be adopted by the state the city’s ordinance would be in compliance. Mr. Sondrall stated that since the state did not regulate pools, fencing was left up to the municipalities to regulate, and through his research, all municipalities were requiring fences in some fashion. He did not know if other municipalities were requiring self closing/latching or locking gates. Appendix G states a four-foot fence was required with a self latching/closing gate with slats four-inches on center. Most surrounding cities are adopting similar language. Motion Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 07-09, ordinance amending New Hope code sections 1-2 and 3-25 (b)(1) regulating fences around private swimming pools, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt Voting against: Anderson, Houle, Hunten Absent: Svendsen Motion carried. Chair Hemken stated that planning case would be considered by the City Council on March 24, 2008. PC07-10 Chair Hemken introduced Item 4.3, begin discussion on sign code 7 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008 Item 4.3 update, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Eric Weiss reported that the city last updated the sign code in 2006 to improve legibility and be more business friendly. Pursuant to that time, large billboard Light-Emitting Diode (LED) signs have become an issue around the metro area and many cities began banning this type of signage. Minnetonka attempted to ban LED billboard signs and subsequently was sued by the sign company on the merit of the First Amendment and the protection of free speech. New Hope imposed an LED sign moratorium in May 2007, effective until April 30, 2008, to allow staff ample time to study the topic. About the same time, several cities were legally challenged regarding the “content neutrality issue” and the League of Minnesota Cities advised cities to review their ordinances. The Codes and Standards Committee has discussed the sign code changes over the last several months. The proposed code was drafted by the planning consultant utilizing the new content neutral codes from Hopkins and Lakeville. Mr. Weiss recommended the Planning Commission begin its review of the sign code update at this meeting. Mr. Alan Brixius explained that area cities were updating their sign codes due to the content neutrality issue and lawsuits that some cities have faced. Also cities are facing issues with the new LED billboards. Clear Channel received permits for updating billboards in Minnetonka without the knowledge of the city and they were installing the LED signs. Minnetonka established a moratorium on those types of signs and turned off the power to the sites. Billboards were installed, but not utilized. A compromise was reached outside of court and Minnetonka redrafted its ordinance. New Hope’s draft ordinance is similar to what was adopted by Minnetonka, with regard to static message to static message, and the interval for holding a message on the billboard for traffic safety. Mr. Brixius stated that the proposed code is very different than the current code with regard to content and how it is presented. Items such as sign area, setbacks, location and number stay basically the same. The code begins with the preamble, findings, and code reference. The preamble and findings were included based on the League of Minnesota Cities and the city of Hopkins codes to clearly define why the city is adopting sign regulations. The regulations are to avoid nuisance complaints and sound construction of signs and to make sure that signage does not interfere with motorist’s use of the public rights-of-way. The purpose and intent regulates the number, size, location, type, illumination and other physical characteristics of the signs to promote the public heath, safety and welfare of the community, as well as improving the aesthetic environment of the city, improve the visual appearance of the city, and provide for fair and consistent enforcement of sign regulations. The code allows a wide variety of signage, including certain small, unobtrusive signs, and prohibits signs that would be detrimental to the environment and public health, safety and welfare of the community. The severability requirement stipulates that if any provision is found to be 8 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008 invalid it does not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the code. The previous code had descriptions of signs such as real estate signs, garage sale signs, and business identification signs. Anything with a content based description was removed. The signs are now described by construction, architectural feature or location. Several new sign definitions were added including changeable copy signs, which include the new LED technology. Manual changeable copy signs would be defined as signs whose messages are changed by hand, whereas electronic and graphic would be those signs changed by computer. The committee felt that New Hope should embrace the technology rather than prohibit these signs. The code would regulate the signage to avoid nuisance concerns. Non-commercial speech signs include all political signs and any statement that is not commercial based. Temporary signs include a finite period of time based on an event. These definitions are taken from the League of Minnesota Cities. Another new sign definition is projecting signs, which are a product of the design guidelines document. Discussion ensued on whether or not to include a specific amount of time. Mr. Brixius stated that the small residential signs not requiring a permit do not have a specific length of time attached to them. Temporary commercial signs requiring a special event permit are allowed a specific length of time. Mr. Sondrall initiated discussion on for rent signs that are posted at commercial properties that do not have any space for rent. The next section deals with required permits and stipulates what the permit application requires and information that must be provided with the permit. Most of the language was taken from the existing code. New items to be submitted with the permit include an inventory of existing on- site signage, stress sheet, consent of the property owner, and electrical permit. The building inspectors are in agreement with these requirements. Brixius explained that fee requirements and the notification and review process were laid out. Generally, the sign permits would be handled by staff. In some instances, the sign application may need to be reviewed by the Design and Review Committee and Planning Commission, therefore, the 60-day rule for making a decision was included. Previously, several specific signs were listed as not requiring a permit, such as real estate and garage sale signs. The proposed code states signs not requiring a permit would include those where the display surface on an existing painted or posted display sign is being changed, temporary signs six square feet or less in size, not to exceed three feet in height only in residential districts, non-commercial signs (such as political). A suggestion was made to add noncommercial “speech” signs to section (f)(3). The official signs would be government signs, flags or emblems. One on-premise temporary sign would be permitted per street frontage 9 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008 when a building is offered for sale or lease – this provision would include a real estate sign posted on the property. These signs can be 12 square feet in size and six feet in height for single, two-family and quadraminiums or 32 square feet and eight feet in height for multifamily or institutional uses. Prohibited signs include all signs over 300 square feet (billboards), off premise signs greater than six square feet, signs painted directly onto a building wall surface. A suggestion was made to add to (g)(11) signs painted “or projected” directly onto a building (murals). Other signs not allowed include changeable copy except as allowed by (k) district specific, obscene signs as defined by MN Statutes section 617.241, flashing or moving. Any person who violates or resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be a petty misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum fine of $300. Mr. Brixius continued by explaining the general provisions section including the traffic triangle, 10-foot setback from the curb and the sight triangle for temporary freestanding signs in a residential district not requiring a permit, building and electrical codes must also be met, illuminated signs must be shielded, and glare from illuminated signs shall not exceed one foot candle at the centerline of an adjoining public street or property line of an adjoining residential use, which is consistent with the zoning code for exterior lighting. Temporary signs within a specific zoning district require a permit and are valid for 10 consecutive days with not more than five temporary permits in a 12-month period. Commissioner Hunten pointed out that with the change to content neutrality she felt homeowners will not be able to determine what is right for a garage sale or any other kind of sign. Mr. Brixius stated that the city may have to provide help sheets for residents. Mr. Brixius pointed out that the design guidelines for commercial areas would allow projecting signs, which would extend perpendicular from the outside wall, over a sidewalk, and over an open space. Performance standards have been established. The projecting signs would be counted against the total sign area of the individual wall, must have an eight foot clearance under the sign, may not project more than five fee beyond the wall to which it is mounted, may not project over any vehicular access or public street right-of-way, and would be limited to not more than 50 percent of the maximum area allowed for an individual wall sign in the respective zoning district. Commissioner Nirgudé mentioned that he felt a distinction should be made in the code for businesses or residents and that language for residents should be made easier for them to understand. Brixius indicated that the ordinance does make a distinction on the amount or size allowed based on the zoning district. The city should make residents aware of what signs can be posted without a permit. Once a permit is needed, they 10 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008 need to be in touch with staff, due to the fact that the application will need more information submitted before it can be approved by staff. Commissioner Houle agreed that the city would need to utilize the content neutral format unless it was willing to spend a great deal of money in regulating signs. Brixius stated that other mechanisms to make the code more resident friendly include putting the information in the city’s newsletter and website, the SunPost and as an insert with the water bills. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that some of the provisions of the code could be labeled better to make it easier to find certain items. New Hope was trying to develop a code that would be defensible in a court of law based on experiences of other cities. Brixius mentioned that the signs indicating gasoline sales prices and address numbers are allowed per state statute and are mandatory for the city to accommodate in the code. When reading through the text, the reader may have to refer back to the definition section to determine what is meant. Due to the different format, staff will also need to become familiar with the code. Mr. Brixius suggested the Commission continue its review of the sign code at the next month’s meeting. Two Commission recommendations tonight include establishing a time period for temporary signs and including projection signs under the prohibited sign section. Design and Review Commissioner Oelkers reported that the Design and Review Committee met in February to review the Verizon plans. Mr. Jacobsen added that one Committee application had been submitted for a front yard variance to allow an Item 5.1 expansion of the Conductive Containers building on Quebec Avenue. The committee would be meeting to review the plans on March 13. Codes and Standards Chair Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had met in February to finish reviewing the sign code and the swimming pool Committee ordinance amendment. Item 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Chair Hemken reminded commissioners that open houses were scheduled for Thursday, March 6, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at city hall and Update Subcommittee Saturday, March 8, from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. at the golf course clubhouse Item 5.3 and commissioners were invited to attend. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Commissioners congratulated Mr. Jacobsen on his appointment to community development director. Commissioner Brinkman inquired as to whom he should contact regarding the timing of arterial lights, specifically at Boone and 42nd Avenue. Staff indicated it would look into the matter. Chair Hemken questioned what needed to be done with comments 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008 received from the Metropolitan Council regarding design guidelines. Mr. Brixius indicated he would review the comments before determining whether the city needed to act on the comments. Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Minutes Brinkman, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 6, 2008, as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary 12 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008