Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-20 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission May 20, 2002 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held at City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 20th day of May, 2002, in the Council Chambers. Call to Order Chairperson Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Myron Bailey, Timothy Booth, Robert Hudnut, Herb Japs, David Lassen David Piggott, Bob Severson, Eileen Weber, Chris Willhite Staff Present: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Bailey noted that the Thompson Land Development (Cases ZA01-058, PP01-059, and SP01-060) and the Pulte Homes (Case PP02-041) public hearings have been continued to the June 24, 2002, meeting. Boofh moved to approve the agenda. Hudnut seconded. Motion carried unanimously, Open Forum Chairperson Bailey asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non-agenda item. No one spoke. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Chairperson Bailey explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and the City Council makes all final decisions. In addi- tion, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should come to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings 6.1 CASE V02-036 Keith and Michelle Lidberg have applied for a variance to Title 11-3-4D, Visibility, of the City Code to allow an addition on a detached garage to be constructed 13 feet from the side property line when a 20-foot setback is required, at 8813 Hadley Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 2 of 12 Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Japs asked how many detached accessory structures are allowed on properties in the R-3 zoning district. Lindquist responded that two accessory structures are allowed, but one can- not exceed 160 square feet in size. Severson asked if the second recommendation was also a condition of approval. Lindquist responded that it was. Bailey asked if that was a normal condition of approval or if there was an issue on the site. Lindquist responded that when she drove by there recently, there was no problem, but when Burbank, who wrote the report, went by a week ago, he noted that there was an issue with vehicle parking. Booth stated that the report noted that the existing and proposed garages are 20.5 feet from the curb at their closest point, but the plat shows 12.8 feet and 16 feet, and he asked for clarification. Lindquist responded that the plat shows the distance to the property line and not the curb. She explained that there is a boulevard between the front property line and the curb, so the 20.5 feet is from the curb of the road to the garage. Keith Lidberg, 8813 Hadley Avenue South, stated that the smaller accessory structure was there before he bought the property and has a wood foundation. He explained that when the existing neighbor put it in, there was no ordinance for a non-permit structure, which is why it is located where it is. He stated that his boat will be stored in the new garage and the RV will be stored in Harris, Minnesota, but he is currently working on it. He stated that he wants a larger garage to store his boat, which has already been broken into. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed be- low. Hudnuf seconded. 1. Relocate the 160 square foot detached accessory structure to be compliant with applicable setback requirements established in the zoning ordinance. 2. Vehicle storage and parking on the property must be in compliance with the cur- rent ordinance criteria. Mofion passed unanimously. 6.2 CASE ICUP02-037 Rumpca Excavating has applied for an interim conditional use permit to allow on-site crushing and recycling of construction materials at Up North Plastics, 9480 Jamaica Avenue South. Lindquist summarized the staff report. She stated that she talked with Mr. Rumpca regarding condition #2, which states that no off-site material could be hauled to the site for crushing or recycling. She stated that the intent of that condition is to ensure that Rumpca does not bring Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 3 of 12 materials from otherjob sites for crushing and recycling, which could turn the site into a long- term crushing facility. Rumpca's explained to her that there would be material hauled in from other sites to mix into the recycled material to make class 5 aggregate that is acceptable for construction. She stated that if a motion to approve is made, the verbiage should be modified to recognize this. Lindquist recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report, with a modification to condition #2. Joe Rumpca, Rumpca Excavating, stated that they would be doing the crushing at Up North Plastics. Severson asked for clarification on the crushing and recycling process and bringing in addi- tional product. Rumpca responded that the material that would be brought in would be for binder to be mixed with the crushed material. He explained that it would not be asphalt or concrete, but something like the lime rock present on the site right across the street from Up North. Lassen asked if the hours of operation included weekends. Rumpca responded that they would only be operating on weekdays. Lassen then asked about the noise factor from the crushing process. Rumpca answered that when they did the crushing for the city on the Ja- maica project, there were no complaints. He stated that the process does not generate much noise. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to approve the application with a modification to condition #2 to read, "No off-site material may hauled to the property for crushing or recycling with the exception of off-site material for the purpose of making c/ass 5 aggregate." Booth seconded. Bailey asked if the applicant agreed with the modification. Rumpca responded that he did. 1. The permit will expire six months from City Council approval. Within that time pe- riod, all stockpiled material relating to the crushing operation must be removed from fhe sife. 2. No off-site material may hauled to fhe property for crushing or recycling with the excepfion of off-site maferial for the purpose of making class 5 aggregate. 3. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m, to 4:30 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASES SP02-042 and CUP02-043 CrossRoads Church has applied for a site plan review and conditional use permit to al- low expansion of their parking lot at 7955 Ivystone Avenue South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 4 of 12 Hudnut asked if there would be any type of safety equipment around the ponding area, such as a fence. McCool responded that none was proposed at this time. He stated that there would be a very graduated slope to the ponding area and the pond would not be that deep. Ron Kruzeski, 8775 — 76th Street Court South, stated that he was representing the church. He explained that the purpose for expanding the parking lot was to eliminate on-street park- ing during their Sunday services. He stated that currently 35 to 40 vehicles are parked on the street per service and they are adding 62 parking spaces, which should alleviate the parking problems for the neighborhood. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed be- low. Severson seconded. 1. The applicant submit final landscaping and grading and drainage plans for staff re- view and approval prior fo issuance of a grading permif. 2. Installation of landscaping shall occur in a timely fashion and be consistent with an approved landscaping plan. A letfer of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the landscape estimate shall be submitted to the City as required by City ordinance (Title 11-6-6(fl) before a building permit will be issued. The letter of credit shall be in effect for one year from the date of installation to ensure the installation, sur- vival, and replacement of the landscaping improvements. 3. The applicant obtain a building permit for installation of fhe parking lot. 4. The applicant review the operation of the AC leaching pit with the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit. Motion passed unanimously. 6.4 CASE ICUP02-044 Knutson Construction has applied for an interim conditional use permit to allow a com- munity college in Cottage Square Mall, 8200 Hadley Avenue South. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Severson asked why expansion beyond 40 percent was chosen. Lindquist responded if it expanded over 50 percent, it would seem that it was getting too large. Severson stated that if they grow to that capacity, they should look for other options. Lindquist agreed and stated that the restriction does not preclude them from coming back before the Commission and Council to ask to amend the conditional use; it just does not allow staff to administratively approve it. Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 5 of 12 Booth asked how this would affect the short-term redevelopment plans for the area. Lindquist responded that they would be treated just like any other tenant in Cottage Square if there was a redevelopment proposal. She stated that how the property owner deals with the leaseholders depends on what the lease parameters are. Booth asked if the applicant was aware that the area may be redeveloped and the lease for their space may not be able to be renewed. Lindquist responded that at this point there are no firm redevelopment plans for Cottage Square, so the property owner is trying to lease up as much space as possible, and this use is no different than any other use, even though the city has been involved. Lassen stated that this has been described as a pilot program and asked what a successful program would be. He also asked if the program was successful, could there be a prelimi- nary report after a year rather than two years, so the city could look out for their interests in terms of where they could locate in the future. Lindquist responded that the pilot is set up for two years. Piggott responded to Booth's question that anyone who signs a lease knows that at the ter- mination of that lease, they can be evicted. He then responded to Lassen's question by stating that there are still two buildable pads by Menard's, which might be a possible location if the program was successful. Lassen stated that it would be good to know a year from now if they are successful. Michelle Wolfe, Assistant City Administrator for Cottage Grove, stated that she was a mem- ber of the steering committee working on this effort, which has been funded through corpo- rate donations from companies such as 3M, Knutson, Marathon Ashland and Xcel Energy. She explained that a space was needed by August, and the options at this time were limited. They also looked at the vacant Allina Clinic building next to Kinder Care, but there were con- cerns about adequate parking for the site. She stated that the committee understands that the Cottage Square Mall is part of the redevelopment area, though there are no firm propos- als at this time. Wolfe then stated that the committee has not developed any criteria yet to evaluate the success of the program, but in general they would look at increased enrollment, the ability to generate enough revenue to continue the program and be self-sustaining, and ultimately to expand with additional classes and additional space. She stated that the com- mittee would be happy to report back to the Planning Commission at the one-year point. Japs asked what classes they anticipate offering this fall. Wolfe responded that they antici- pate offering morning courses for high school students who take college classes through Inver Hills, from mid-morning through mid-afternoon the committee anticipates mostly corpo- rate training for corporate residents from the area, and in the evening, they would offer col- lege courses in a satellite campus atmosphere. She then stated that more students from the Cottage Grove zip code attend Inver Hills than from other zip codes. She explained that from that information, they can analyze the types of classes that have been the most popular among those from this area, which will help decide which courses to offer. Japs then asked what would define success at the one-year point. Wolfe responded that the committee has not yet defined specific goals other than becoming self-sustaining from a revenue standpoint. She explained that there will be one classroom for general lecture courses, a computer classroom, and a small computer lab area for independent study and on-line courses. She stated that ultimately they would like to expand, but that probably would not happen at Cot- tage Square due to space constraints. She stated that the goals could include keeping the classes full and breaking even on revenue. Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 6 of 12 Hudnut asked if Inver Hills was pursuing this endeavor throughout the metro area or if Cot- tage Grove was the prototype. Wolfe responded that this effort was spearheaded by the Cottage Grove Area Chamber of Commerce, who approached Inver Hills to see if they were interested. Hudnut stated that this could become a very exciting model. Wolfe agreed, and she stated that it is her understanding that there aren't any satellite campuses in Washington County at this time. Bailey stated that this would also help when the bridge is constructed and getting to Inver Hills from Cottage Grove will be difficult. Bailey opened fhe public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing. Weber made a motion to approve the applicafion subject to the conditions listed be- low. Japs seconded. Lassen asked that an amendment be made to have a report or review of the program after one year. Weber and Japs agreed. Piggott asked why a one-year evaluation should be made to the Planning Commission. Lassen replied that if they were successful after two years, they would probably want to move or extend their permit, and if the city knew that in advance, it would give more time find to explore the options. Weber asked if the one-year evaluation would be just a report. Lassen responded that it would be. 1. The application must be reviewed within two years to defermine if an extension musf be granted or an amendment to the ordinance be processed to permit the continuance of the use at the proposed location. 2. The use cannot expand more than 40 percent of the currently proposed capacity. Mofion passed on an 8-to-1 vote (Piggott). 6.5 CASE RS02-045 PaciFca NNN One, LLC, has applied for a simple lot division of a 3.85-acre parcel into a 3.396-acre parcel and a 0.4543-acre parcel at 9010 Jamaica Avenue South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Severson asked about the restrictive covenant that does not allow using Parcel B for a gas station use. McCool responded that when Texaco had purchased their land 1988, it was one taxing parcel that included land on both sides of Jamaica Avenue. He explained that the buyer required the seller to have a restrictive covenant that the balance of that property (west side of Jamaica Avenue) could not be used for motor fuel retail or car wash. He stated that Amoco already existed at the site so it only applied to the property to the north and west of the Amoco property itself. Severson asked if that restrictive covenant would go with that property forever. McCool responded that it would. Severson asked if it could be removed. McCool replied that the seller at that time would have to allow for the covenant to be termi- nated or removed from the property. He stated that the city has requested that of the original Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 7 of 12 seller, but they are reluctant to do so at this time. Severson asked if the city's legal representative had any concerns about this agreement and what the legal ramifications are to the city. McCool responded that there are none and stated that it is a private matter between the seller and buyer. John Kosmas, KK Design, stated that he is available to answer questions for the property owner, Pacifica. Bailey opened fhe public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed be- low. Severson seconded. 1. The property owner grants to the City a public walkway and utility easemenf ten (10) feet in width along the south boundary line of Parcel B. A six-foot wide con- crete sidewalk will be consfructed within the 10-foot wide public walkway and util- ity easement. 2. Access fo Parcel B shall be limited only to the existing shared access drive located at the southwest corner of Parcel B and the common access drive extending west of BP/Amoco's site. 3. The property must be combined with the adjoining Amoco parcel either through combining it at the County or some other legal means. A restrictive covenant must be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to re/ease of the final plat for recording. Motion passed unanimously. 6.6 CASES SP02-038, CUP02-039, and V02-040 KK Design, Alliance Representative for BP/Amoco, has applied for a site plan review and conditional use permit for a proposed new convenience store with six MPD's, a solar canopy, and a new carwash; a variance to Title 11-10B-6C, Development Standards in the B-2 Zoning District, to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 30 feet to 10 feet and to reduce the front yard setback from the required 60 feet to 54 feet. The proposed gas station/convenience store would be located at 8490 East Point Douglas Road South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. John Kosmas, KK Design, stated that they had to re-work the site plan after they found the restrictive covenant. He stated that they had change the location of the car wash onto the parcel that Amoco currently owns and use the adjacent parcel for the holding pond. He stated that the proposal is basically the same as approved last year; they just rotated the lo- cation of the structures. Severson asked from what direction would vehicles enter the car wash. Kosmas responded that vehicles would come from the north to enter the car wash and then exit onto the cross Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 8 of 12 drive on the south. Severson asked what is currently on the site. Kosmas replied that the pump islands, the c-store, the car wash, and trash enclosure will remain. He stated that they have to self-contain all their functions on their original property due to the covenants on the parcel they are purchasing, which will be use for transportation, a stacking lane, and water control. Kosmas stated that they negotiated unsuccessfully to remove the restrictive cove- nants, so to proceed with the project, they had to redesign the proposal. Lassen asked if they would be able to remain open in their current location. Kosmas re- sponded that they would not. Bailey asked when they expect to start construction. Kosmas responded that he does not know. Booth asked if the site meets the landscaping requirements. McCool responded that it does. Kosmas stated that the landscaping and pond will be slightly increased due the reduction in the size of the car wash. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing. Willhite made a mofion to approve the applications subject to the conditions listed below. Hudnut seconded. 1. The City grants a simple lot division approval to split approximately 0.4543 of an acre of land from adjoining property currently owned by Office Max. A simple lot division applicafion, boundary survey, and legal descriptions must be submitted to the Planning Division Office whereby a public hearing to be held by the Planning Commission will be scheduled. The lot must 6e combined with the parent Amoco parcel eifher through the County or by some other means. 2. The applicant obtains a demolition permit prior to razing any structure. 3. The landowner grants fo the City without any cost to the City all utility and drain- age easements, and/or public walkway easements as deemed necessary by the City. 4. Installation of landscaping shall occur in a timely fashion and be consistent with an approved landscaping plan. A letter of credit in fhe amounf of 150 percent of the landscape estimate shall be submifted to the City as required by City ordinance (Title 11-6-6(�) before a building permit will be issued. The /etter of credit shall be in effect for one year from the date of installation to ensure the installation, sur- vival, and replacement of the landscaping improvements. 5. Irrigafion shall be provided for all sodded and landscaped areas, including the curbed landscaped island interior to the parking lot and the grass area befiveen the sidewalk and street curb. The irrigation system shall consist of an underground sprinkling sysfem that is designed by a professional irrigation installer to meet the water requirements of the site's specific vegetation. The system shall be detailed on the landscape plan. Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 9 of 12 6. Exterior storage, outdoor display, or outdoor sa/es of inerchandise is prohibited, except for temporary sa/es by permit. 7. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, etc.) shall be applied for and issued by the City prior to any work or construction taking place. Detailed construcfion plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshall. 8. Light fixtures mounted on the canopy musf be recessed, flush-mounted lighting. 9. Additional stormwater sewer systems internal to the site and catch basins on each side of the access drives are required to be constructed. Surface water drainage directly info the public roadway is prohibited. A revised drainage plan must be submitted to the City prior to final resolution by the City Council. 10.A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along East Point Douglas Road. 11. Trash enclosures shall be required for the future gas sfation c-store. These struc- tures shall be modified to meet ordinance criteria and reflect the same design and construction materials as the principal building. A solid wood or equivalent vinyl board door shall be utilized on the structure. 12. The exterior walls of all trash enclosures shall be constructed with the same exte- rior materials and color as the principal strucfure and contain an opaque gate. 13. Roof-top mechanical units shall be screened as required in Title 11-6-4, of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 14. The applicant shall submit samp/es of exterior building materials and co/ors to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 15.A concrete apron for the new access drive on East Point Douglas Road shall be constructed per City standards. 16.A "STOP" sign shall be installed at each exit drive. Each sign shall be 10 feet from the roadway edge and 2 feet from the driveway edge. The bottom of the sign shall be six feet from the ground. The "STOP" sign shall have a 30-inch, high-intensity face. Said sign shall be mounted on a six-foot No. 3 and eight-foot No. 2 stee/ posts. The applicant may request the City's Public Works Department to install said "STOP" signs, buf musf reimburse the City for actual costs incurred. 17.If a propane exchange rack or ice storage freezer is provided outside, then they shall be placed on the north or west sides of the building and painted a color that matches the exterior wall. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 10 of 12 Applications and Requests None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 2002 Severson made a motion to approve fhe minutes from the April 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Piggott seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Reports 9.1 Recap of May City Council Meetings Lindquist reported that at the May 1, 2002, meeting, the City Council approved the final plat for Pine Summit 4th Addition; approved the plans and specifications for the Acorn Ridge and Rose of Sharon utility work; approved the conditional use permit for It Figures; approved the final plat for Carly's 2nd Addition; approved the agreement between Washington County and the City regarding the Community Development Block Grant funds, which are being set aside to facilitate future senior housing development; approved the TCF Bank project, and approved the final plat for Grove Plaza 2nd Addition. Lindquist reported that at the May 15 City Council meeting, Council ratified Myron Bailey as Chair of the Planning Commission; approved the final plats for Highland Hills and Summit at Highland Hills; approved the text amendment regarding off-street parking and loading; held a public hearing and approved the designation of the Healy House as a historic site on the City's Register of Historic Sites and Landmarks; and approved the preliminary plat for Hales' River Bluff Acres. She stated that the Hale River Bluff Acres plat was amended to create two lots instead of three lots reviewed by the Planning Commission. She noted that no variances were needed to create these two lots. Lindquist then stated that there was a workshop to discuss park maintenance funding. She explained that the Parks Commission and Parks staff will inventory all park facilities and improvements and prepare a maintenance schedule and financing package. Lindquist stated that the City had sent out an RFP several months ago regarding senior housing and received several responses. She explained that Council proposed utilizing a task force approach to analyze the RFPs. She stated that all the respondents would be inter- viewed on May 29 from 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. by two representatives from EDA, Council, Human Services Commission, and Planning Commission. Japs and Booth volunteered with Willhite as an alternate. Weber asked if a citizen leader could be part of the task force. Lindquist responded that the Human Services Commission members are involved with housing coalition groups. 9.2 Committee Reports None. Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 11 of 12 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Willhite stated that the Planning Commission should be able to request an update of any project approved by the City without having to make it a condition of approval. Willhite ex- pressed her opinion that it is not appropriate for Commission members to request friendly amendments to motions requiring staff to report back to the Commission after a specified period of time. Japs asked if continuing the public hearing on the Thompson Land Development proposal until June 24 would allow the city to meet the deadline for action on this item, which is set for the end of June. Lindquist responded that Thompson Land Development gave the city an- other extension to the review process until July 30, 2002. Japs expressed concerns about the size of the stormwater holding pond near the new Rain- bow Fuel Center and asked why so much of the commercial area is being converted to stormwater ponding. Piggott stated that the pond at Grove Plaza is that big because there is so much impervious surface area that it needs to be properly sized to accommodate heavy rainfalls. Severson asked if the city's storm sewer system is undersized. Lindquist explained that stormwater ponds are for water rate control and water quality. She stated that Home Depot has more stringent standards for ponds, which is one reason why the pond is bigger than initially proposed. She explained that stormwater runoff should be treated on-site before flowing downstream. Japs stated that he does not want to compromise water quality, but be- lieves ponds of this size are generally not found in commercial areas of other communities. Bailey stated that there are a couple of large holding ponds at Tamarack Village in Wood- bury. Lindquist explained that the way the site was laid out dictated the location of the pond and if the Grove Plaza building was not there, the pond would have been located at the back of the property as a buffer to the residential neighborhood. Japs asked if there was some way to make the pond more attractive. Mayor Shiely responded that Planning staff had de- signed some site improvements including benches, landscaping, and a sidewalk. She stated that the Council hopes to make the area a kind of a meeting place/town center. Booth stated that at the workshop, Councilmember Wolcott asked the Commission's input on potential locations for an apartment uses. Booth asked if this is something that would be dis- cussed at a workshop or during a regular meeting. Lindquist responded that it could be put on the agenda at anytime. She said staff would be starting the process for amending the City's Comprehensive Plan for the East Ravine area, which may be a good opportunity to discuss apartment uses. She stated that the process had not yet been defined, but staff would like to have the Livable Communities Grant funds reallocated for this project. She asked for the Commission's feedback on when the discussion should be held. Weber asked if a workshop could be held regarding the Metropolitan Council's Blueprint 2030 or if the Metropolitan Council could make a presentation on the Blueprint at a Planning Commission meeting. Bailey asked Booth if he agreed to hold the apartment discussion as part of the comprehen- sive plan update process. Booth asked what the Planning Commission's role would be in that process. Lindquist stated that the Economic Development Authority would like to be in- volved in planning for commercial areas and that the Planning Commission would hold public Planning Commission Minutes N1ay 20, 2002 Page 12 of 12 hearings and make recommendations to the City Council on any comprehensive plan amendments. Commissioner Piggott departed at 8:53 p.m. Severson asked what the timing would be. Lindquist responded that staff would like to com- plete the process by the end of the year, which is when the moratorium on development of commercial property outside the MUSA would expire. Severson requested that a joint infor- mation meeting be held between the Planning Commission and EDA to discuss their respec- tive roles in the city. Weber agreed with Severson and requested that it be a public forum that would be televised. Severson stated that he does have some concerns about how the commercial elements are being planned in the city. Japs asked if there was a conceptual design for how the intersection of Harkness Avenue and 70th Street would be laid out. Bailey stated that staff would have this information avail- able with the staff report for the project. Lindquist stated that a concept plan has not yet been prepared for the road, but will be sent to the Planning Commission once it is available. Commissioner Weber departed at 8:58 p.m. Booth asked if Thompson Land Development had made any major changes to their proposal addressing density and other concerns previously expressed by the Commission. Lindquist responded that they have made a few changes. Severson asked if Planning Commission members could email their comments to staff con- cerning the draft neighborhood commercial ordinance. Lindquist responded yes. She stated that there has been interest in having public discussion on the proposed ordinance, but would like the Commission to discuss the draft ordinance prior to holding public hearings. It was the consensus of the Commission that a workshop be held on the neighborhood com- mercial ordinance in late summer or early fall. Booth asked if the process would include workshops and public hearings. Lindquist responded that was correct. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Hudnut stated that he requested information regarding a neighborhood meeting policy ordi- nance. Lindquist responded that this topic would be on the next agenda. Hudnut stated that Woodbury has this type of ordinance. Willhite requested a copy of Woodbury's ordinance. Adjournment Japs moved to adjourn the meeting. Lassen seconded. Motion passed unanimously (Weber and Piggott absent) and adjourned at 9:26 P.M.