Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 03212000 Meeting Sheet IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII (III IIII 100709 Box: 19 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2000 Document: PL MINUTES 03212000 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 21, 2000 4 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 5 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair 6 Bergstrom. 7 II. ROLL CALL. 8 Present: Chair Bergstrom; Vice Chair Melsha; Commissioners Tillmann, 9 Hanson, Thomas, Hatch, and Stille. to Commissioners absent: None. 11 Also present: Michael J. Morrison, City Manager. 12 -III. APPROVAL OF MARCH 21,2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. 13 Motion by Melsha, second by Stille, to approve the March 21, 2000 Planning Commission Meet- 14 ing Agenda with-the following deletions: 15 VII. CONCEPT REVIEWS. 16 A. AT&T Wireless Site Specialists (withdrew concept). 17 C. Pratt& Whitney (decided to comply with the sign ordinance) 18 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS. D. Review of Nonconforming Structures and Existing Ordinance (recommendation 46 from Staff to defer this issue until after the scheduled bus tour). 21 22 Motion carried unanimously. 23 IV. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 15, 2000 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 24 MINUTES. 25 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Hanson,to approve the February 15,2000 Planning Commission 26 Meeting Minutes with the following modification: 27 Page 8,Line 16,delete "a public hearing"and add"that the Commission consider ways to publicize 28 public hearings on the matter." 29 Motion carried unanimously. 30 V. DESIGNATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE APRIL 11, 31 2000 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 32 Commissioner Thomas volunteered to represent the Planning Commission at the City Council 33 meeting on April 11,2000. In the event Commissioner Thomas is unavailable,Commissioner Stille 34 agreed to attend the Council meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 36 A. Nativity Lutheran Church for 3312 Silver Lake Road, Setback Variance. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 2 1 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. 2 City Manager Michael Morrison provided a background of this issue for the Commission by stat- 3 ing that on September 9, 1999, a representative from Nativity Lutheran Church and the sign con- 4 tractor filed a sign permit with City Staff in order to "change the sign out front." The representa- 5 tive had indicated that the sign was being modified in order to update the appearance and make it 6 easier to maintain. The dimensions, location, footings, electrical wiring and base of the sign 7 would remain the same. 8 Upon review of the City's sign ordinance, Section 1400.08, Subd. 15, allows for the replacement 9 of existing business identification signs. It states that "a business identification sign designed to 10 replace an existing business identification sign which lawfully exists under this Code [is I l permitted] so long as the new sign has the same dimensions and is in the same location as the 12 existing sign, and is not a prohibited sign under Section 1400.007." A review of Section 13 1400.007, Subd. 4, determined that a business is prohibited from having signs within the Public 14 Right of Way or Public Easement. At the time that the sign permit was approved, Staff 15 mistakenly thought the right-of-way was 15 feet, thus making the sign conforming. 16 Public Works Director, Jay Hartman, determined that the right-of-way on Silver Lake Road is 33 feet, which represents half of the road width. Thus,the existing sign for Nativity Lutheran Church is 4 feet in the right-of-way. 19 Furthermore, the Church was constructed in 1958 and the sign was installed at approximately the 20 same time. Since the City's ordinance was codified in 1976, both the Church and identifying 21 signs are "grandfathered in" with regard to the setback requirements of the ordinance. 22 In addition, a resident had contacted Staff and questioned the Church's sign and its possible 23 placement in the right-of-way. The resident also questioned the landscaping surrounding the 24 sign, as well as the design and location of the sign. 25 Morrison directed the Commission's attention to a letter dated March 1, 2000 from City Attorney 26 William Soth which reviewed his interpretation of the variance issue. In part, Mr. Soth's letter 27 stated that: 28 ". . . [the City Staff) and the Planning Commission have raised the question of whether the City 29 should consider a variance for the alterations to the sign. If the sign is considered to be a non- 30 conforming structure, it may be continued only so long as it remains otherwise lawful and com- 31 plies with the provisions of Section 1660.02. Under this section, it may not be `enlarged, ex- 32 tended, reconstructed, replaced or moved, except to change it to a conforming use."' 33 Mr. Soth continued to state his understanding that the sign is being altered, but it is not being en- larged, extended, replaced or moved. Additionally, he stated in his letter that it was not clear 0 whether the sign was being "reconstructed." 36 Consequently, if the City concluded that the sign was not being "reconstructed," it could be Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 3 • 1 deemed to be permitted under Section 1660.02, Subd. 1. If this is not clear, Mr. Soth stated, the 2 City could always consider a variance. If this is done, then the issue would be whether it would 3 constitute a hardship to relocate the sign to move it off the right-of-way. 4 In his letter, Mr. Soth recommended that an agreement be entered into with the Church whether 5 the City determines that a variance is needed or not. The agreement would provide the Church 6 with a license to continue the sign in the City right-of-way under certain conditions. 7 Furthermore, the agreement would provide that the Church would indemnify the City for any 8 claims related to the presence of the sign in the right-of-way. 9 Morrison stated that, in response to the public hearing notice for this issue, the City Staff 10 received a telephone call from the resident who had initially complained about the sign. 11 Chair Bergstrom introduced Mr. Dave Wischnewski, a representative of Nativity Lutheran 12 Church. Mr. Wischnewski stated that the Church was prompted to modify the sign for the pur- 13 pose of a more updated look and easier maintenance. Additionally, the Church's address was in- 14 cluded on the sign for emergency response reasons. The footings were improved, but not 15 changed, he stated. 16 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Wischnewski for his input and attendance at the meeting. 0 17 Chair Bergstrom called for any other input from the audience and hearing none, closed the public 18 hearing at 7:13 p.m. 19 Bergstrom offered that the issue at hand is whether the sign requires a variance or not. It was his 20 suggestion that the Commission continue with the process now for resolution instead of deferring 21 the issue until later. 22 Thomas stated it would be helpful to see photographs of the sign as it existed before 23 modification. Mr. Wischnewski stated that he had not brought any pictures with him to the 24 meeting. 25 Tillmann offered that the new sign was very similar to the older one. 26 Stille offered that the dictionary's definition of"reconstruct" is to `re-establish, reassemble or re- 27 construct again.' 28 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Melsha,that the setback variance request for the Nativity 29 LutheranChurch sign is recommended to the City Council for approval due to the following rea- 30 sons: 1. An undue hardship would be caused if the sign was moved and subsequently caused a change to the configuration of the Church and the configuration of the traffic pattern; 33 2. The variance would be utilized to correct an extraordinary circumstance with respect to 34 the traffic pattern and the setting of the lot; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 4 • 1 3. The undue hardship has been caused by the City ordinance and the sign was in existence 2 prior to the codification of the ordinance; 3 4. The agreement mentioned and recommended in City Attorney's letter dated March 1, 4 2000 would be entered into and become part of the setback variance; 5 5. There were not any significant changes to the sign in the modification and updating proc- 6 ess. 7 Motion carried unanimously. 8 Chair Bergstrom noted that the variance issue for Nativity Lutheran Church would be on the 9 agenda for the City Council meeting on April 11, 2000. He recommended that a representative 10 for the Church be present at the meeting to answer any questions. 11 VII. CONCEPT REVIEWS. 12 A. Nextel/Aerial - Antenna. 13 City Manager Michael Morrison said that Nextel Communications had applied for a concept re- 14 view for the installation of three sets of antennas to be placed on the roof of the Apache Medical 15 Building. Morrison noted for the Commission that any telecommunications antenna is a condi- 16 tional use permit issue. In addition, Morrison stated that the City has been receiving a large number of requests for tele- 18 communications antennas and recently received a request to lease the water tower for the 19 installation of additional antennas. In that respect, Morrison mentioned the issue to the City 20 Council at its last meeting. 21 Chair Bergstrom introduced Jim Nelson,Nextel Communications, and invited him to address the 22 Commission. Mr. Nelson stated that the request by Nextel involves installing a rooftop antenna 23 and the equipment necessary to operate the antenna. The antennas and the electronics necessary 24 would be contained in an 11 x 20 foot building that would be placed on the roof. Nextel has 25 completed a structural analysis and that analysis determined that such a structure would be sup- 26 ported by the rooftop. Additionally, Mr. Nelson stated that the structure aesthetically would be 27 in the same appearance as the Apache Medical Building. 28 Bergstrom inquired about the benefit for the City allowing the installation of additional antennas. 29 Mr. Nelson stated that the antennas would allow for improved coverage in the area and would al- 30 leviate blank spots that have been experienced in wireless connections. Additionally, Mr.Nelson 31 stated that the antennas would support coverage for wireless telephones, two-way radios, and 32 pager systems. 33 Thomas inquired if additional telecommunications companies wished to lease space on the 34 Apache Medical Building, what would Nextel's position be on that issue. Mr. Nelson responded that Nextel has simply negotiated a fair price for the leasing of space on the rooftop of the 1*6 Apache Medical Building and other companies were free to negotiate space as well. He stated 37 that there was sufficient space on the roof to accommodate other users. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 5 • 1 Tillmann inquired,if there were other places in St. Anthony that Nextel had considered for the in- t stallation of antennas. Mr..Nelson responded that the Apache Medical Building is one of the 3 highest buildings in the area and was best suited to alleviate blank spots that have been located 4 within the service area. 5 Bergstrom asked about the time frame that Nextel anticipated for the installation. Mr. Nelson re- 6 sponded that once the permit is obtained, that Nextel would be ready to order materials and an- 7 ticipated completion by June 2000. 8 Mornson offered that there would be a public hearing held on this issue on April 18, 2000. 9 Thomas suggested that if the Apache Medical Building is a choice location, he wondered if sev- 10 eral of the wireless companies could work together to have one structure supporting several an- 11 tennas. 12 Mr. Nelson cautioned against the concept because problems can arise when many antennas are in 13 close proximity. 14 Thomas suggested that, at the public hearing, Mr. Nelson could provide photographs of the types 15 of installations that Nextel would not recommend and also photographs of recommended installations. 17 Bergstrom agreed that would be an excellent idea for a comparison. 18 Mornson offered that there would likely be a concern from the surrounding neighborhood if too 19 many antennas were installed, as well as concerns about the capability of the roof to hold more 20 than a certain amount. 21 In regard to leasing the water tower, Morrison said a request had previously been received and 22 was turned down by the City because the offered lease rate was deemed too low. However, the 23 new City Council has determined that leasing the water tower for telecommunications antennas 24 could be a viable option and a source of revenue. 25 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Nelson for his presentation and invited him to return on April 18, 26 2000 for the public hearing. 27 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS. 28 A. Apache Plaza Update, Scott Tankenoff, Hillcrest Development, Will Introduce Proposed 29 Zoningfor or Apache and Other Updates. 30 Mornson updated the Commission that Hillcrest Development has proposed a zoning change for 31 the property known as Apache Plaza to a C-2 district. In addition, the City Council has author- ized the retention of a planning firm, Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban("DSU")to assist the Planning Commission with zoning issues, facade, and planning. Chair Bergstrom and City Manager will 34 be meeting with the firm later this week. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 6 • 1 Chair Bergstrom welcomed Scott Tankenoff, Managing Partner of Hillcrest Development, and 2 invited him to address the Commission. 3 Mr. Tankenoff presented several panoramic pictures of the Apache Plaza site as it currently 4 exists. He offered that Hillcrest continues to be excited about the project and have been diligent 5 in updating the City Council and Planning Commission about the progress of the project. 6 Additionally, Mr. Tankenoff would like to set a scheduled time to bring the members of the Plan- 7 ning Commission and any interested Councilmembers on a bus tour of some of the projects that 8 Hillcrest Development is currently involved. Furthermore, he stated the tour would involve 9 mostly projects in Northeast Minneapolis and would include an interior tour as well as exterior, 10 as well as discussions with current tenants. 11 Mr. Tankenoff expressed his support for this retention of the planning firm (DSU) and stated that 12 the firm has excellent experience at urban rejuvenation. 13 Mr. Tankenoff presented a basic rendering of the minimum standard for the exterior of the reno- 14 vated Apache Plaza building. He stated that reviewing zoning standards and timelines become _. 15 critical in determining the success of the project. In addition, Mr. Tankenoff presented a pro- posed landscaping plan that showed the minimum standard that Hillcrest intended to implement. He offered that Hillcrest envisions significant landscaping, complete with grass around the pe- 18 rimeter of the building. 19 Mr. Tankenoff wished to express his support of a community space that is currently being 20 considered. Hillcrest and Staff are currently working on creating a space that would involve 21 some recreational components, such as meeting space,walking track space, and an area where 22 people could gather. 23 Morrison asked Mr. Tankenoff to inform the Commission of the unique arrangement between the 24 current Cub Foods Store (owned by "Supervalu") and US Bank. Mr. Tankenoff explained that 25 apparently US Bank previously provided Supervalu with a reciprocal agreement that gave 26 Supervalu a significant amount of control over what type of project or tenant could be 27 incorporated into Apache Plaza. Although Mr. Tankenoff believes that Supervalu will cooperate 28 and support the renovation for Apache Plaza, he indicated that the reciprocal agreement could be 29 a critical issue. 30 Thomas inquired if City Attorney Soth or Hillcrest Development's attorney had reviewed the 31 agreement. Morrison stated that the agreement was between Supervalu and US Bank and it was a 32 private transaction. 33 Mr. Tankenoff offered that he has reviewed this issue in great detail and understands that every project has twists and turns. 35 Chair Bergstrom introduced the attorney for Hillcrest Development, Tony Gleekel, a shareholder 36 of the firm Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster. Mr. Gleekel directed the Commission's Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 7 • 1 attention to his letter of March 10, 2000 in which he explained the reason for the initial proposal 2 of Hillcrest Development for a C-2 Commercial zoning. 3 In short, Mr. Gleekel's letter stated that in order for Hillcrest's redevelopment of the Apache 4 Plaza property to be successful, Hillcrest requires flexibility. The proposed C-2 district is a 5 highbred of the City's C General Commercial District and its LI Light Industrial District. While 6 the C-2 district broadly defines general office uses and includes different language with respect 7 to some of the business and industrial uses, there are no new use categories included in the C-2 8 district. 9 Mr. Gleekel directed the Commission's attention to the definitions and inclusions in the proposed 10 C-2 Commercial District that had been prepared by his office. I 1 Bergstrom acknowledged that this is an important project for the City and commended Mr. 12 Tankenoff on his excellent manner in updating the Council, Planning Commission, and 13 community on the status of the project. With respect to creating a new zoning district, this is 14 something new to the City and was one of the reasons behind the need for hiring a planner. 15 Bergstrom stated that the City would like to move forward and not be viewed as a stumbling 16 block for the project. The City realizes that time is of the essence and it is doing its best to 46 accommodate the schedule that Hillcrest is under. 18 Additionally, Bergstrom supported Mr. Tankenoff s idea of a bus tour and believed that this was 19 an essential part of understanding the process. Bergstrom offered to confer with the other Com- 20 missioners and would inform Mr. Tankenoff of proposed dates for the tour. 21 Tillmann requested a brief summary about the need for a change in zoning district. Mr. Gleekel 22 responded that a C-1 district allows for most retail uses, and an LI Light Industrial is another dis- 23 trict that allows for certain office uses. For the purpose of Hillcrest Development, Mr. Gleekel 24 had combined both uses to allow for the flexibility in zoning that Hillcrest will need for a suc- 25 cessful project. 26 In response to a comment that some conditions from the LI District were not included in the C-2 27 rezoning, Mr. Tankenoff responded that certain items were deleted because Hillcrest Develop- 28 ment was against certain types of businesses occupying'portions of Apache Plaza that would cre- 29 ate outside storage issues or manufacturing of products that would create strong odors. 30 Hatch suggested that a document be drafted that would specify the reasons why certain particu- 31 lars were deleted from the C-2 district. Mr. Gleekel responded that it was an excellent idea to 32 create a record of the reasoning behind the specifics of the C-2 District. 33 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Tankenoff and Mr. Gleekel for their attendance and presentation. 0 B. Lot Coverage Report; Commissioner Tillmann and Todd Hubmer, WSB, Inc. 35 Tillmann referred the Commission's attention to her memorandum discussing the proposed 36 changes to the lot coverage ordinances. The memo was briefly reviewed and Tillmann offered Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 8 • 1 her opinion that the Commission should consider ways to make consistency the norm. 2 Chair Bergstrom welcomed Todd Hubmer, WSB, Inc., and invited him to address the Commis- 3 sion. 4 Mr. Hubmer explained that he had been asked to review the impact on the City's stormwater 5 issue by altering the lot coverage ordinance. In this respect, Mr. Hubmer distributed to the 6 Commission a handout that depicted a rough plat map of the City using available GIS 7 information. The map indicated the specific lots within the City that are less than 9,000 square 8 feet in area, which total approximately 480 lots. 9 In short, Mr. Hubmer stated that if the Commission were to decide to increase the lot coverage 10 from 35%to 40% for the lots less than 9,000 square feet, there would be no appreciable increase 11 in stormwater runoff. 12 Another point he had been asked to address was whether a deck should be considered an 13 impervious or pervious surface. It was Mr. Hubmer's opinion that a deck was a pervious surface 14 unless it was constructed over an impervious surface, such as concrete or possibly plastic 15 covering. 16 In essence, Mr. Hubmer stated that the Commission had essentially three options to consider in modifying the current lot coverage ordinance: 18 1. Increasing allowable lot coverage from 35% -40%for lots less than 9,000 square feet; 19 2. Removing decks as part of the definition of impervious surfaces; and 20 3. Increasing the lot coverage maximum to 40%city wide. 21 In response to increasing the lot coverage city-wide by 40%, Bergstrom expressed his belief that 22 the Planning Commission and the City Council are sensitive to allowing new paved surfaces. 23 Mr. Hubmer responded that it would be an incremental impact and one that would most likely 24 require additional research to determine the long-term effect. However, he stated that many 25 residents currently exceed the 35% lot coverage maximum. 26 Mr. Hubmer also explained that there are simple things that homeowners can do to alleviate 27 stormwater running into the street. For example, ensuring the guttering is pointed the correct di- 28 rection and planting additional vegetation. He stated that one of the components for the City's 29 stormwater plan is education to assist residents in understanding water management. 30 Bergstrom wished to confirm that if the Commission increased the current lot coverage 31 maximum from 35%to 40% for lots under 9,000 square feet, it would not have a significant 32 impact on the City's water issue. Todd confirmed that was a correct statement. Additionally, Mr. Hubmer was asked if the Commission continued with the current lot coverage �l4 of 35%, and exempted decks from the impervious surface definition, would that have a 35 significant impact on the stormwater? Mr. Hubmer responded that as long as there was dirt or a 36 breathable fabric underneath the deck, it should not be a burden on the stormwater issue. Planning Commission.Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 9 0 1 Stille offered that increasing the lot coverage maximum from 35%to 40%on 9,000 square foot 2 lots does not appear to be a burden on the City and could eliminate the need for some types of 3 variances. Furthermore, he would view a deck as a pervious surface if certain conditions were 4 met, such as dirt underneath the deck or a breathable fabric used. Stille felt that if the ordinance 5 were modified correctly, it would be easier for the Commission to follow and enforce the ordi- 6 nance to the letter. 7 Melsha expressed his belief that decks are a pervious surface and felt that either of the first two 8 options mentioned above would be a simple alteration to the ordinance and should not show any 9 appreciable effects on the runoff. 10 Thomas agreed with both Stille and Melsha, and explained that his concern would be with garage 11 additions, undersized lots, and drainage issues. He suggested that a homeowner be able to show 12 how stormwater runoff would be dealt with, and that could possibly be a condition of a person 13 having a two-car garage. 14 Hanson stated that he sees advantages to both options. 15 Tillmann agreed with a comment made earlier by Stille in that the Commission should set the or- 6 dinance in a way that it would be uncomplicated to enforce. 17 Hatch stated that he is leaning away from the first option presented and had a question about op- 18 tion 2. He inquired if the building inspector, upon issuance of a building permit, could visit the 19 property and confirm that the ground underneath the deck would percolate runoff water. 20 Bergstrom stated that a key point of information was Mr. Hubmer's statement that the lot cover- 21 age maximum could be increased to 40% on undersized lots and that increase would not make a 22 significant difference to the community with respect to runoff. He felt that statement would help 23 alleviate fears and reservations that the Council and community might have. He felt that increas- 24 ing the lot coverage on smaller lots would encourage homeowners to make investments in their 25 homes. 26 Morrison suggested that the Planning Commission formulate a plan and recommendation for 27 Thomas to present to the City Council at the April 11, 2000 meeting. He reminded the Commis- 28 sion' that a public hearing would need to be held, as well as three readings. 29 Bergstrom asked Tillmann if she would draft a proposed recommendation for the lot coverage 30 change and provide a copy to Thomas for presentation to the City Council. Tillmann agreed and 31 stated that she would provide a copy to all Commissioners by e-mail. 32 Thomas wished to confirm that the Commission had decided to eliminate decks as impervious surfaces for everyone in the City, and to raise the lot coverage maximum from 35%to 40% for 04 lots under 9,000 square feet. Additionally, a water management brochure would be attached to 35 the building permit application for educational purposes for homeowners. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 10 • 1 Mornson stated that he would like for City Attorney Soth to review the matter for any legal 2 issues that need to be addressed. Additionally, Mornson stated that he would request that Mr. 3 Hubmer attach a written report with his opinion to Tillmann's report. 4 Bergstrom thanked Tillmann for her input and dedication to the lot coverage issue. Additionally, 5 Bergstrom thanked Mr. Hubmer for his presentation and for his professional opinion. 6 C. Report on Green Space for St. Anthony ShoppingC_ enter. 7 Mornson wished to provide an update for the Commission. Currently, the City has ordered a sur- 8 vey of the property that was purchased, which was approximately 800 square feet from the 9 Shopping Center owners and 26,000 square feet from The Hitching Post. Additionally,the City 10 retained BRW to assist in designing the green space 11 As an aside, Morrison wished to point out that The Hitching Post has done an excellent job in re- 12 modeling the building and have opened their doors for business. He has received many positive 13 comments from the community about the renovation. 14 Bergstrom confirmed that the Parks Commission would be assisting in the planning of the green 15 space. D. Year 2000 Planning Commission Report and Goals. 17 Bergstrom stated that he had put together a list of the Commission's structure, duties, 1999 ac- 18 tions, and upcoming year 2000 actions in anticipation of the retreat in February with the City 19 Council, and he directed the Commission's attention to that report. 20 Bergstrom continued by stating that a main focus of the document was to encourage the City to 21 retain a planner for the Apache Plaza project, and to allow the Planning Commission to take the 22 : lead on the project. 23 Additionally, Bergstrom felt that, for the immediate future, a worksession should be scheduled in 24 order to address some pending issues. After some discussion, it was determined that Tuesday, 25 April 4, would be scheduled as a Planning Commission worksession. The bus tour with 26 Hillcrest Development would take place that day (April 4) beginning at 5:00 p.m., and then the 27 Commission would meet at City Hall with the planner. Additionally, an invitation to the City 28 Council would be extended to join the Commission on the bus tour with Hillcrest Development. 29 Bergstrom informed the Commission that the next meeting on April 18, 2000 would begin with a 30 joint meeting with the City Council, and follow with the Planning Commission's regular 31 meeting. 32 IX. COMMENTS. A. Staff. 04 1. Salvation Army Camp Property. 35 Morrison stated that the property is back on the market, and that the City Attorney would 36 be reviewing the moratorium issue with the City Council at the April 25, 2000 meeting. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 11 I The Salvation Army would like to see the moratorium lifted. 2 2. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting - April 18. 3 Momson stated that the joint meeting will be scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. and sand- 4 wiches would be provided. The regular Commission meeting would follow at 7:00 p.m. 5 Morrison additionally stated that sandwiches would be ordered for the Commissioners 6 during the bus tour with Hillcrest Development and prior to the worksession meeting. 7 3. Bus Tour- April 15, 2000. 8 Momson stated that Public Works Director Jay Hartman would be driving a 12-passenger 9 bus that was offered by the City of New Brighton for the Commission's bus tour on April 10 15, 2000. 11 Momson wished to take this opportunity to introduce and welcome Mr. Spencer Isom,the City's 12 new Assistant City Manager. Mr. Isom comes to the City from Bullhead City, Arizona and pos- 13 sesses a Master's degree in public administration from the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, and a 14 Bachelor's degree in community health and human services from Ohio University. 15 Additionally, Mr. Isom has 11 years of public service, and will be starting his employment with 4 the City on Monday, March 27, 2000. Mr. Isom will be attending the Planning Commission meetings as the Assistant City Manager beginning at the worksession scheduled for April 4, 18 2000. 19 B. Commissioners. 20 Tillmann did not have any comments. 21 Hanson stated he is encouraged by the structural changes appearing to the Dairy Queen and is 22 pleased that the tobacco shop has left the Shopping Center. 23 Thomas did not have any comments. 24 Melsha did not have any comments. 25 Hatch commented that he would like to continue pursuing obtaining GIS files from either BRW 26 or WSB. Bergstrom remarked that BRW's computer system would not be compatible to the 27 City's; however, WSB & Associates has offered to provide the City with a copy of the GIS sys- 28 tem. 29 Morrison agreed to follow up on obtaining a copy of the GIS files. Q30 Stille did not have any comments. X. ADJOURNMENT. 32 Motion by Stille, second by Bergstrom, to adjourn the meeting at 9:57 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 12 1 Motion carried unanimously. 2 Respectfully submitted, 3 Sue Selseth 4 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.