Loading...
040108 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 1 APRIL 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Gniffke called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Acting Chair Gniffke; Commissioners Hutchins, Ruoff, and Vilett; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne and Geng APPROVAL OF MINUTES ? 18 March 2008 Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 18 March 2008 as presented. Motion passed 4/0. Acting Chair Gniffke welcomed Missy Villet to the Planning Commission. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING –. C.U.P. AMENDMENT Applicant: Minnetonka School District 276 Location: Minnewashta Elementary – 26350 Smithtown Road Acting Chair Gniffke opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on an April 14, 2008, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated INSPEC, a consulting engineering firm representing the Minnetonka School District, had submitted plans for a two-phase expansion of the Minnewashta Elementary School, located at 26350 Smithtown Road. The school property is located in the R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning district and contains approximately 21.37 acres of land. Because schools are conditional uses in residential districts, the District has requested a revised conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for its project. Nielsen explained the first phase of the project would add approximately 3000 square feet of space to the existing building for two new classrooms on the southwest corner of the building and some of the existing entry courtyard area would be enclosed to accommodate various administrative functions. The second phase of the project would add 19,500 square feet space for six new classrooms on the west side of the building and a new gymnasium on the north side of the building. The current building contains 74,700 square feet of area. Nielsen reviewed a 1999 site plan which was submitted with this application; the site plan had been prepared when the last addition was put on the building. The school property is presently occupied by the school building itself, parking areas on the south and west sides of the building, playground facilities, a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 2 of 10 gazebo and ball fields to the north of the building, the City’s water tower on the west side of the site, and a NURP (National Urban Runoff Program) pond on the far northwest. Nielsen stated the applicant proposed enlarging the NURP pond to accommodate the impervious surface that would be added for both phases of the project. Also, the storm water runoff from the parking area on the south would be routed to the NURP pond for treatment as opposed to flowing on to Smithtown Road. The storm water treated in the NURP pond was ultimately released into the wetland system located north of the pond. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained two key issues were identified when staff first met with District representatives – parking and drainage. These are addressed in the conditions set forth for public school facilities in residential zoning districts in Section 1201.10 Subd. 4.b. of the City’s Zoning Code. He reviewed how the District’s plans would comply with the Code: 1. Parking – When the School District added on to the building in 1999 parking was noted as an area of concern. In order to comply with zoning requirements, the District proposed to use the playground area on the north side of the building as overflow parking for special events. School personnel or volunteers were to make sure that the gate, which was no longer there, was open to this area and were to direct traffic to the overflow area. Staff was not sure that was happening. Residents advised Staff that cars frequently parked on Smithtown Road and Strawberry Lane; neither of the roadways had the width to accommodate on street parking. Even on a normal school day, Staff noted cars parked in aisles and lining the driveway on the west side of the building; lining the aisles can be a safety hazard because it could prohibit emergency vehicle access. The applicant had submitted a revised parking plan which was received after the meeting packet was prepared. Staff had not had time to adequately review the plan as of yet. INSPEC representatives had indicated to Staff that the angle of the parking spaces had been changed to 50º from 60º; 50º angled spaces had different aisle widths and stall depths than 60º angled spaces. There were currently 26 parking spaces at the front of the property. By replacing a small tot-lot play with parking area and changing the angle of the parking spaces, the number of parking spaces at the front of the property would be increased to 48. The entry and exit drives for the front parking area were proposed to be reduced to 15 feet in width, raising concerns for emergency vehicle access. The existing lanes were more than 20 feet wide. The Fire Code requires the width of a fire access lane to be no less than 20 feet. The Fire Marshal would be asked to comment on the proposed circulation for the site. The side yard setback requirement for a C.U.P. for school in a residential district was double the requirement for a residential. In the R1-A District the setback was 10 feet for residential properties; therefore it would be 20 feet for a school. That same side yard setback applied to parking areas. The proposed parking area would not comply with that requirement; therefore the applicant would have to adjust the parking area slightly to comply. That adjustment could result in the loss of one or two parking spaces. Complying with the side yard setback requirement would allow more room for the perimeter sidewalk around the parking area and for additional trees. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 3 of 10 The applicant had also submitted a plan for the overflow parking area which included using the school bus parking area for special events. 2. Grading, Drainage and Utilities – The City Engineer had indicated (under separate cover from the Staff report) that the hardcover calculations submitted as part of the stormwater calculations handled the additional impervious surface of the new parking lot and the building addition spaces; it was unclear to the Engineer if it was designed to handle the relocation of the driveway. 3. Building Setbacks – Both phases of the building construction would comply with the setback requirements for the R-1A zoning district. 4. Screening and Landscaping – No new landscaping had been included in the plans submitted to date. Because additional parking was proposed on the southeast corner of the property (replacing a tot-lot area), additional landscaping, including some evergreen material, should be required along the east side of the new lot. This could necessitate shifting a proposed new sidewalk that circles the east side of the parking area. Since the existing landscape islands in the front parking lot would be demolished and replaced, the landscape plan should show how the new islands would be landscaped. 5. Off-Street Loading – The redesign of the front parking lot would eliminate the parent drop-off area shown on the 1999 approved site plan. The applicant proposed that area would become a dual purpose area that would be used for parent-drop off before 9:00 A.M. and after that it could be used for parking. 6. General C.U.P. Requirements – The general requirements for conditional uses were provided in Section 1201.04 Subd. 1.(d)(1) of the Zoning Code. Staff recommended the Planning Commission and Council take these provisions under consideration in evaluating the C.U.P. application. Nielsen stated based on the analysis of the case, Staff had originally recommended this request be continued to the 6 May 2008 Planning Commission meeting agenda to provide the applicant time to revise the plans. Because the applicant had already provided revised plans for the front parking area, Staff suggested the request be continued to the 15 April 2008 Planning Commission meeting agenda, pending the following: A. A revised parking lot layout designed to Shorewood Zoning Code standards must be submitted. Plans should be subject to review and comment by the Fire Marshal. B. A landscape plan must be submitted showing landscaping on the east side of the parking lot and in the landscape islands within the parking lot. C. The applicant should submit an overall master plan for the site, similar to the one submitted in 1999. The plan should be accompanied by an up-to-date survey of the property, including the legal description of the property. D. The grading and drainage plans must be reviewed to ensure the hardcover calculations would handle the additional impervious surface of the new parking lot and the addition spaces and the relocation of the driveway. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 4 of 10 Director Nielsen stated Cliff Buhman, of INSPEC, was present this evening to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Mr. Buhman thanked Director Nielsen and Engineer Landini for their assistance. He clarified with regard to the storm water calculations and the enlargement of the existing NURP pond, the design calculus included the new areas for Phase 1 and Phase 2 as well as the relocation of the driveway. The calculations also included a contingency amount. That information had been communicated to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and at this point it was satisfied with the information that was provided. The MCWD had granted the applicant permission to move forward with the demolition and grading aspects of the project. Buhman stated he would discuss that with Nielsen and Landini. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gniffke opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Mr. Buhman explained that the NURP pond would be increased by approximately 500 cubic yards which would result in a minimal increase in size. In response to another question, Director Nielsen stated the driveway would have to be moved slightly because of the addition; that slight shift would encroach on a wetland area near the water tower and therefore require the applicant to go through a wetland mitigation process. Director Nielsen noted that after both phases of the project were completed, the hardcover would be well within the allowable hardcover for the R1-A District. Mr. Buhman stated the overall increase in impervious surface would be approximately three-tenths of an acre. In response to a question from Council Liaison Turgeon, Director Nielsen stated the School District was responsible for maintenance of the NURP pond and there was already a maintenance agreement in place for that. Mr. Buhman stated that when the new storm water management plan was submitted a new maintenance agreement with the MCWD was put in place; the area would be restored with wetland seed after it was increased. In response to a question from Council Liaison Turgeon, Director Nielsen stated people parked underneath the no parking signs on Smithtown Road. Turgeon stated if the City wanted consistent traffic enforcement that could be at an added cost because the SLMPD’s patrol officer staffing level does not allow for that type of activity on a consistent basis. She then stated she did not think it should be the City’s responsibility to pay for that. Acting Chair Gniffke stated he was somewhat appalled that people parked in the fire lanes of the parking lot; that could cause a disastrous situation if there was an emergency. He questioned who enforced no parking in fire lanes. Director Nielsen clarified that for fire access lanes it was the Fire Marshall’s responsibility. Council Liaison Turgeon stated there were a large number of parents who dropped off their children at the school; she was concerned about having the proposed drop-off area being at the front of the building because it could cause a backup in traffic trying to enter the property to park in the lot. Mr. Buhman stated the revised parking lot plan indicated the parking spaces at the front of the building would be posted no parking before 9:00 A.M. so that entire area could be used for student drop-off; enforcement of that is a separate issue. Director Nielsen clarified that buses have different entry and exit drives and drop-off areas. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Hutchins expressed concern about the proposed drive through lanes next to the parking spaces being 15 feet wide. Mr. Buhman stated the entry and exit drives were shown as 15 feet wide because that width was typical for one-way traffic; the intent was to make them look like one-way lanes. He clarified the applicant would work with the Fire Marshall and the City to ensure fire access lanes were sufficiently wide. In response to a question from Hutchins, Director Nielsen explained the proposed landscape islands in the front parking lot could not be any closer than proposed. Mr. Buhman said the median areas that exist today would not be disturbed; existing curb and gutter would be removed. With regard to traffic enforcement, Commissioner Ruoff stated even though the crossing guards did a good job of instructing drivers where to go during the morning and afternoon on school days there still were problems with traffic congestion. If delivery vehicles or refuse vehicles came on site during those times the traffic congestion problem was exacerbated. He commented traffic congestion in the drop-off area was relatively normal at any school during the peak drop-off period. He expressed concern about traffic congestion at the overflow parking area on the backside of the building during events (e.g. parent- teacher conferences, holiday parties, sporting events, etc.); traffic problems spread onto Smithtown Road, Grant Lorenz and Strawberry Lane. Director Nielsen stated the playground area used for overflow parking had no stripping which resulted in inconsistencies in how people parked their vehicles. In response to a question from Acting Chair Gniffke, Director Nielsen stated there was room for more parking in the back of the building but some athletic facilities would have to be sacrificed. Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, continuing the Public Hearing to a 15 April 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 4/0. Acting Chair Gniffke closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING –.SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Joel Blatz Location: 5520 Sylvan Lane Acting Chair Gniffke opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. Director Nielsen stated Joel Blatz, 5220 Sylvan Lane, had requested a setback variance to construct an enclosed entry to his house. The property was zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contained 47,047 square feet of area. Nielsen explained the proposed entry would measure 5 feet by 6 feet; it would be constructed at the front of the house, over part of an area currently covered by concrete slab and under an existing roof overhang, both of which extended across the entire front of the house. Because the house was located only 17 feet from the street right-of-way, a 33-foot variance would be necessary to accommodate the project. The entry from the garage into the home was currently located at the back of the garage, necessitating maneuvering around the front of the car in order to get into the house. The proposed entryway would place the door in the front of the garage in a far more convenient location. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated the subject property and the location of the existing house had an interesting and even somewhat mysterious history. Birch Bluff Woods, the plat in which the home was located was platted in 1960, according to Hennepin County records. The house was built in 1967, before the road serving the plat was constructed. There was nothing in the City records that indicated why the house was allowed to be built 17 feet from the right-of-way. Staff could only speculate that the location of the house was the result of one or more of the following factors: 1) the City did not CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 6 of 10 require surveys in the 1960s; 2) the absence of the paved street provided no spacial reference for the inspector; and 3) the topography of the site dictated the location of the building pad. The City allowed the house to be built where it is, in spite of its own zoning requirements and effectively granting a de facto variance. Nielsen stated it was clear that this situation was not brought on by the applicant, which was one of the things considered when evaluating variance requests. Also, the request was not considered to be economic in nature. The small addition would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood (the house was built before the other houses on the cul-de-sac). Nielsen explained Section 1201.03 Subd. 1.k.(5) of the City’s Zoning Code stated that where a structure was nonconforming because it was too close to one lot line, the City could require that the discrepancy be made up on the opposite side of the property. He stated Staff recommended that as a condition of approval the rear yard setback should be increased to 83 feet from its current setback of 50 feet; there was sufficient room to put an addition on the existing house even if the setback was increased. That would mitigate the variance and ensure that the applicant’s property would maintain the same amount of open space as similarly zoned, conforming properties. Director Nielsen stated that Tom Kasprzak, with Durabilt, the company doing the remodeling on Mr. Blatz’s home, was present this evening to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Mr. Kasprzak stated Mr. Blatz was out of town this evening. He commented Mr. Blatz was doing major remodeling to his home. He stated he had spoken with Mr. Blatz earlier today and he related that Mr. Blatz did not think he should have to increase his rear yard setback as a condition of granting the variance because the road which caused his house to be nonconforming was installed too close to his house long after his house was built; Mr. Blatz felt he was being punished for something he had nothing to do with. Mr. Kasprzak commented Mr. Blatz understood he had the opportunity to address his concern at the 14 April City Council meeting; and Mr. Blatz did not think the rear yard setback condition would be a showstopper. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Mr. Kasprzak stated the proposed entry had been included as part of the original permit. When Mr. Blatz had a survey done of his property (which he was required to) he discovered his house was nonconforming with regard to the setback requirement. The City permitted the interior construction to continue while the applicant applied for a variance for the entry way. He explained the existing concrete slab on the area for the proposed entry would be replaced with a wood floor. He also explained the large tree in the front of the house would not be impacted. In response to another question, Director Nielsen explained the existing house would be approximately 30 feet from the recommended rear yard setback. Commissioner Ruoff questioned if any of the other Commissioners had seen the subject property. Hearing no response he stated he went to look at the property and the proposed area for the new entry. He stated the proposed entry was very small; it would be located under the existing roofline; and, over an area where concrete existed. The house was already nonconforming and the proposed entry would not make it any more noncompliant. If the applicant would ever want to build a shed on the rear of his lot he would be limited. He stated he was not in support of Staff’s recommendation to increase the rear yard setback as a condition of the variance. The road was installed well after the house was built and that caused the house to become nonconforming. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 7 of 10 In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the northwest corner of the lot would still be buildable even if the rear yard setback was increased. Commissioner Ruoff stated the topography of the rear yard could limit the buildable area. Director Nielsen clarified the recommended rear yard setback increase was not an attempt to punish Mr. Blatz; it was to ensure that the applicant’s property would maintain the same amount of open space as similarly zoned, conforming properties. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Mr. Kasprzak stated an existing concrete area would be taken out and replaced with a smaller wood floor for the proposed entry. Director Nielsen clarified that the 33-foot increase in the rear yard setback was determined by subtracting the existing 17 foot front setback from the 50 foot setback that is required. Commissioner Hutchins questioned if the variance could be approved without the additional rear yard setback requirement. Director Nielsen stated it was the Planning Commission’s prerogative if it wanted to recommend the condition; the City allowed for that. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gniffke opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M. Ruoff moved, recommending approval of a setback variance for Joel Blatz, 5520 Sylvan Lane. Motion failed for lack of a second. Hutchins moved, Villet seconded, recommending approval of a setback variance for Joel Blatz, 5520 Sylvan Lane, subject to the rear yard setback being increased to 83 feet from 50 feet. Motion passed 3/1 with Ruoff dissenting. Acting Chair Gniffke closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. 3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF-SALE LIQUOR STORE HOURS OF OPERATION Acting Chair Gniffke opened the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M. Director Nielsen stated the City had received a request from the owners of Shorewood Liquor, 23670 Highway 7, to change the City’s Monday – Thursday hours of operation for off-sale liquor. He explained the hours of operation were regulated by the City Code Section 401 relating to liquor. The Code prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquor by an off-sale licensee before 8:00 A.M. or after 8:00 P.M. Monday through Thursday; the Code was based on State Statute regulations which were in effect when the Code was adopted. Approximately two years ago State Statute was changed to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor by an off-sale licensee before 8:00 A.M. or after 10:00 P.M. Monday through Thursday. He commented Excelsior, Minnetonka, and Tonka Bay, all conform to the new State Statute. Nielsen stated Council discussed this request at its March 10, 2008, meeting; Council suggested the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to take public comment on the change. He stated he thought that request reflected highly on the Planning Commission. He explained an amendment to the Code would be required to change the hours of operation for off-sale liquor sales. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 8 of 10 In response to a series of questions Director Nielsen made the following clarifications. The City did not have to change its hours of operation to be consistent with State Statute. There were only two off-sale liquor establishments in the City. The probable reason for the request was increased business opportunity. The City had published this Public Hearing with sufficient notice. Acting Chair Gniffke stated the residents he heard from were in favor of the change. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gniffke opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M. Hutchins moved, Villet seconded, recommending approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 401 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Liquor to reference the hours of the State Statute. Motion passed 4/0. Acting Chair Gniffke closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 P.M. 4. DISCUSS PLANNING DISTRICT 6 For the benefit of Commissioner Villet, Director Nielsen highlighted the more recent history of and discussions of Planning District 6 and the C-2 District. Nielsen stated discussion of redevelopment possibilities for the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) property began in 2005 when the SYC was put up for sale. All developers interested in the SYC property were also interested in the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company property, which was not for sale. Redevelopment discussions basically ceased once the SYC had been purchased by the current owners. Nielsen explained the current use of the SYC property was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the L-R (Lakeshore Recreational) zoning of the property. In 2007 the new owners of the SYC property submitted a request to allow the SYC to use a portion of its boat slips for powerboat use; that requested required an amendment to the City Code and the issuance of an interim conditional use permit (C.U.P.). The request was approved after numerous discussions and after a public hearing was held. Nielsen went on to explain the SYC’s 2007 request was the impetus for the Planning Commission to resume discussions regarding the commercial redevelopment potential of Planning District 6 in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as well as the commercial properties located on the south side of County Road 19 across from Planning District 6. That combined area included the following commercial sites: 1) the Shorewood Yacht Club; 2) the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company; 3) the South Lake Office Building; 4) the Garden Patch Nursery; and 5) the property between the South Lake Office Building and the Garden Patch Nursery (the old Crepeau Dock location which was owned by the same individual who owned the Garden Patch Nursery). The South Lake Office Building property was zoned R-C, Residential Commercial; the R-C District was intended to transition from lower intensity uses to higher intensity uses. The Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company (MPDCo), the Garden Patch Nursery, and the old Crepeau Dock property were all in the C-2, Commercial Service zoning district (which had previously been named the C-4 District); the C-2 District was also a specialized district that was established to address existing industrial uses in that area. Nielsen stated the Garden Patch Nursery and the old Crepeau Dock properties could possible be rezoned to R-C, Residential Commercial, and that would make their zoning the same as the South Lake Office Building property. To rezone those two properties for higher intensity uses would depend on County CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 9 of 10 Road 19 access and the site soil correction; he did not think it would be inappropriate to rezone the properties for higher intensity uses. Nielsen explained the SYC and the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company both had access issues. Currently both properties butted against West Lake Street right-of-way. West Lake Street served a residential neighborhood in Excelsior, but the portion of West Lake Street that could provide access into Shorewood was blocked off (but not vacated). Both of the companies currently use a driveway off of County Road 19; the driveway crosses over the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) LRT Trail, and it is there by license from HCRRA. The HCRRA could revoke the license at its discretion. Access to the properties would then have to come from West Lake Street, which would require the City to prepare a compelling case to reopen the street. He commented those two properties could be suitable for a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). Nielsen clarified the purpose of discussions in 2007 was to define the City’s vision with regard to future development of the area, and to incorporate those changes into the City’s Comprehensive Plan when it was revised in 2008. Nielsen stated the draft amendment to the Planning District 6 section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan reflected the outcome of the Planning Commission’s discussions regarding its vision for that area. He suggested action on the draft amendment be continued to the 15 April 2008 Planning Commission meeting when there would be more Commissioners in attendance. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council was scheduled for 6:00 P.M. on 14 April 2008 to discuss the issues identified in the chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen then stated there was a conditional use permit for the City Hall renovation project and continued discussion of the conditional use permit amendment for the Minnetonka School District 276 slated for the 15 April 2008 Planning Commission meeting. The Study Session portion of that meeting would be devoted to continued discussion of Planning District 6 and updates to the Natural Resources and Land Use Chapters of Comprehensive Plan. 7. REPORTS Commissioner Hutchins reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 24, 2008, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Hutchins asked Council Liaison Turgeon to comment on the situation regarding the settlement matter with Ascending Praise Church (APC). Turgeon stated it was embarrassing to discuss the topic but she would. She stated the City had spent $8,600 on legal fees to recover $1,000 of the settlement owed. Pastor Linus Nyambu was scheduled to pay the remainder of the $4,000 settlement regarding APC on March 19, 2008; that did not happen. She cited the statement “no good deed goes unpunished”; the City was continuing to be punished for its good deed. The City was continuing to make an effort to recover the remainder of the settlement owed from Pastor Nyambu. She stated she was going to request this item be placed on the next City Council meeting agenda and it was her hope that Council would agree CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 10 of 10 to have the current confession of judgment perfected; that would lessen the pain on the taxpayers slightly. Turgeon stated she recently learned that the Livingwaters Church had become inactive and APC had become active again in February 2008; APC had previously merged with Livingwaters Church. Council Liaison Turgeon suggested the Planning Commission consider if it had any questions it would like included in the City’s upcoming survey of its residents. Director Nielsen stated Staff was compiling surveys other cities had done and he would provide the Commission with information on planning related questions in those surveys. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Council Liaison Turgeon stated the 12 April 2008 open house regarding the City Hall renovation project was publicized in the City’s newsletter and the Sun Sailor. • SLUC Nielsen suggested that Planning Commissioners should let him know by 15 April 2008 if they wanted to attend the Sensible Land Use Coalition session on “Great Neighborhoods – Great Places: Reality or Wishful Thinking?” scheduled for 30 April 2008. Commissioner Villet stated she would like to attend. • Other None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 1 April 2008 at 8:24 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder