Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-22 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission July 22, 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 22nd day of July, 2002, in the Council Chambers. Call to Order Chairperson Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Myron Bailey, Timothy Booth, Robert Hudnut, Herb Japs , David Lassen David Piggott, Bob Severson, Chris Willhite Members Absent: Eileen Weber (excused) Staff Present: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John M. Burbank, Associate Planner Approval of Agenda Booth moved to approve the agenda. Japs 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 V02-051 James and Christine Hanson have applied for a variance from Title 11-9E-5, Development Standards in R-4 Low Density Development District, to allow an addition to be built 28 feet from the rear property line when 35 feet is required at 7384 Jorgensen Avenue South. Plan�ing Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 2 of 12 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact in the staff report. James Hanson, 7384 Jorgensen Avenue South, stated that several houses on the lots in his neighborhood are set further back into the yards. He stated that his lot is not very deep and his house seems to be set back further from the street than some of his neighbors and there is only 44 feet from the back of the house to the rear property line. He explained that the house on the lot next door, which is only two feet deeper than his, is seven or eight feet closer to the front of the lot and would meet the ordinance criteria for the same size addition that he is proposing. He stated that reducing the addition to seven feet wide would not be functional or practical. He stated that he understands that the reason the city requires a 35- foot setback is to provide for open space but there will be 25 feet of open space from their house to the rear property line, which would still be a large open area. He stated that they have spoken with all their neighbors who would be able to view the addition, and no one has objected. Willhite asked what the required lot size is for that area. Burbank responded that the mini- mum lot size is 7,500 square feet and the applicants' lot is 10,000 square feet. Lindquist stated that some of the lots to the north are smaller than this lot and dimensionally the lots get longer and thinner. She pointed out that the house was built at the minimum front yard setback. Burbank explained that garage-forward designed houses typically push the houses back further on the lot, which can result in setback encroachments for additions. Willhite asked if the applicants had looked into making the addition seven feet shorter so they did not need a variance. Hanson responded that they had but decided that a porch that is only seven feet wide would not allow for furniture and would not be a practical living space. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion fo deny the application based on the findings of fact listed below. Japs seconded. 1. The establishment of findings demonstrating that there are practical difficulties or particular hardships for granting the variance was not clearly ascertainable during the application review. 2. The property owner has received reasonab/e use of the property without installa- tion of the proposed porch addition, and the placement of the principal sfrucfure on the property does not prohibit the applicant from enlarging the building within the constraints of the required setbacks. 3. It would not be reasonab/e to expect granting of variances contrary to ordinance criteria without fhe establishment of a c/ear and unique hardship. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 3 of 12 6.2 CASE PP02-059 Goldridge Group has applied for a preliminary plat to create two commercial lots at 8350 East Point Douglas Road South. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. David Sanders, Goldridge Group, stated that the plan conforms to their preliminary review and approval process. He stated that they are aware of the utility easements and cross parking access agreements, which are the same as they have with the District Program Center. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut moved to approve the application subject to the conditions list be/ow. Booth seconded. 1. The applicant submit for staff review and approval a cross access and cross park- ing agreement in favor of fhe hvo parce/s. 2. The applicant provide a private utility easemenf to benefit Lot 2 over Lot 1 for use of the sanitary sewer and water main /ocated on Lot 1. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASES CUP02-060 and SP02-061 Gourmet Systems of Minnesota has applied for a conditional use permit for a Class I res- taurant with liquor and a site plan review for an Applebee's Restaurant at 8350 East Point Douglas Road South. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Willhite asked if there would be another entrance onto the site. Lindquist responded that there is an entrance farther to the west along East Point Douglas Road, which will primarily be used by patrons of the hotel and the restaurant, and the school districYs main access is the eastern one. Hudnut asked about the size and location of the additional trees. Lindquist stated that the or- dinance requirement is 2-1/2 inches for deciduous and 1-1/2 inches for ornamental trees and they would be located just south of the side walk by the parking lot. She stated that they can't go in the middle because storm water could collect in the depression. Japs asked where the trash enclosure would be located. Lindquist responded that the deliv- ery entrance and trash enclosure are located on the eastern side of the building. Bailey asked if they face the District Program Center. Lindquist answered yes. Bailey then asked if Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 4 of 12 the main entrance would be located in the front of the building. Lindquist responded that was correct. Severson asked if the shared parking agreement was verbal or written. Lindquist responded that a written agreement between the school district and the Goldridge Group, the property owner, was part of the purchase agreement for the land. She explained that the approval of the preliminary plat includes language regarding shared parking access between the hotel and the restaurant. Shari Ahrens, Landform Engineering, representing Applebee's International, introduced Steve Canada from Applebee's International. She stated that they agree with most of the conditions of approval, except for the loading issue. She explained that Applebee's is in the process of applying for their liquor license. Willhite asked what the anticipated opening date was. Ahrens responded that they are look- ing at starting construction on September 1 and opening in December of this year. Japs asked what the hours of operation would be. Canada responded that typically Apple- bee's are open from 10:30 a.m, to 11:00 p.m. on week days and until midnight on weekends, but hours of operation are dependent on the amount of business. He then stated that he had some concerns about condition #9, regarding delivery hours. He expressed his concern about making an agreement with the city for something that Applebee's may not be able to keep. He explained that while Applebee's has their own delivery drivers who make deliveries in the middle of the night, there are third party delivery people who may not be able to ac- commodate the hours in listed in condition #9. He stated that Applebee's will use their best efforts to comply but it may not always be possible. He then stated that they will educate the delivery drivers on where to access the site so they would not need to back out of the load- ing area. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Japs made a motion to approve the applications subject to the conditions listed be- low. Hudnut seconded. Willhite stated that condition #9 should be looked at and asked if the idea Canada suggested would be something that staff could agree to. Lindquist responded that the issues are really with accommodating traffic for the school district, especially before and after work and during lunch hours, which are the times that the city would not want deliveries made. She sug- gested that window when deliveries are not allowed could be narrowed, but she noted that other communities do have limitations on delivery times. She stated that the condition could be refined, but she believes that Applebee's probably also has limits on when deliveries can be made. She stated her concern about just requiring "to the best of their ability," because if it becomes a problem, the city does not have any way to enforce the condition. Willhite stated that she was not looking at that particular wording, but what she wanted to see if there was another way to be more accommodating. Japs stated that his intent was not to put an undue burden on Applebee's, and suggested that maybe better wording could be arranged when the applications go to the Council. Planping Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 5 of 12 Booth stated that he likes the language as is but maybe it could be fine tuned to allow some latitude for Applebee's but gives the potential for the city to respond if a problem develops. Piggott asked if there was anything in the written agreement with the school district deline- ating any time periods prohibiting delivery trucks. Lindquist responded that there was nothing in the agreement on this issue. She stated that staff would look at the traffic study to ascer- tain when traffic would allow for deliveries. Motion passed unanimously. 6.4 Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning from R-2, Residential Estate, and UR, Urban Reserve, to B-2, Retail Business, a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use from residential to commercial; and a site plan review with variances for a new department store to be located on East Point Douglas Road and Harkness Avenue. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Severson asked how far Kohl's goes down towards 80th Street. Lindquist responded that the Kohl's project goes all the way to 80th Street. Japs asked what would be located on the other commercial lots of the proposed develop- ment. Lindquist responded that she does not yet know the exact land use for Lot 1 Block 1, which is the parcel that will deeded back to the three residential property owners as part of the purchase agreement. She stated that the site could accommodate approximately 7,000 square feet of commercial/office use. Japs asked what could be done with Outlots A and B. Lindquist responded that Outlots A and B would be retained by the city and explained that they are sloped areas that are not buildable. Japs then asked about the area just north of Outlot B. Lindquist responded that that is private property and the city has talked to Mr. Bruhn, the property owner, about acquisition of that parcel; however, pending further discus- sions with the City Council, it is a rural residential parcel. Japs asked about Lot 2, Block 3. Lindquist stated that there needs to be further discussion with the Council about Oakwood Park, which encompasses Block 3. She stated that Lot 1 would be the park, and that a good portion of Lot 2 may be graded for the Hardwood road, but it appears that some building pads could be accommodated from that parcel. She explained that the Parks Commission and City Council both need to discuss this further. Japs asked if Kohl's would have two en- trances into the parking lot, one off the redesigned East Point Douglas Road and the other off Hardwood Avenue. Lindquist responded that an access point could not be accommo- dated from East Point Douglas, because there is a 13 to 20 foot grade difference between the parking lot and the road. Japs asked what was to the west of Outlot A. Lindquist re- sponded that that is privately-owned that has been put into a Land Trust, so nothing could be developed on that site. Severson expressed his concerned about there only being one access into Kohl's parking lot. He stated that it seems as if traffic congestion issues are too often underestimated. Lindquist responded that the access has been moved further north on Hardwood Avenue. Plan�ing Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 6 of 12 She stated that the city has also talked to U.S. Bank about a shared entrance to their lower lot. She stated that there will be only one access to Kohl's. Severson asked about the feasi- bility of a right-turn only exit onto 80th Street. Lindquist responded that Kohl's would like to have a direct access to 80th Street, but staff does not believe there could be an exit onto 80th Street because the right turn lane from 80th to Highway 61 is very long. She drew the Commission's attention to Exhibit D from the next agenda item that shows some of the po- tential road improvements and the number of lanes added along Hardwood. Severson reiter- ated his concern about the single access, and he does not understand why Kohl's accepts having only one access to their property. Willhite asked if there was one lane for the entrance and one lane for the exit. Lindquist responded yes. Japs stated his concern about the single access from the property and wondered what would happen if there was an accident in the entrance aisle blocking traffic from entering or exiting the site. He stated that there should be a second exit out of the parking lot. Severson asked if there was any way to modify that portion of East Point Douglas Road to accommodate an- other access to the property. Lindquist responded that staff would have supported an access to East Point Douglas but it is not feasible topographically. She explained the grades are too steep for a road and the location of the road cannot be shifted to the west due to the conser- vation easement on the neighboring property. Severson asked if the building could be moved slightly to the east to allow additional lane space. Lindquist responded that the reason for not having an access on the west side was due to the vertical dimension, not the horizontal di- mension. Severson asked what the vertical dimensions are. Lindquist stated that it is 13 to 20 feet on the west side and a lot more on the east. Severson asked about the height of the Kohl's property. Lindquist responded that it is about 22 feet from the addition to the east corner. Willhite asked where the entrance to Tutor Time would be. Lindquist responded that the entrances would be lined up. Japs suggested building an access ramp rather than grading. He stated that he would rather have two entrances into an active parking lot for safety reasons. Lindquist responded that there were some early discussions about extending East Point Douglas Road through to the west, but Kohl's was opposed to that because they do not want vehicles using their parking lot as a short cut. She stated that she is not disagreeing with the idea for a second access, but the Kohl's people have not expressed any concern about having only one access. She stated that the city increased the stacking by shifting the access to the north to be more elongated. Bailey stated that he does not believe that an access on the opposite side of the parking lot would be utilized very often because it would be inconvenient. He suggested widening the access so there be more lanes onto Hardwood to allow for more vehicle stacking. He stated that he does not believe that an access could be added on the west side due to topography. Severson stated that while an access on that side of the property may not be used very often, it would offer an alternative exit from the site if there was not any other way to get out. He then expressed his concern about the ability to take a left turn out of the Kohl's property Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 7 of 12 to head north on Hardwood. He stated that the site plan should be looked at again in regard to access to the property. Willhite stated that she would like to see the access widened. Lindquist asked if Willhite meant having a dedicated turn lane. Willhite stated that she would like to see the access out of Kohl's onto Hardwood widened. Bailey agreed that the access could be widened to create more lanes. Piggott stated that the city has to work with the site constraints on this property. He stated parking ramps that accommodate hundreds of vehicles entering and exiting at the same time can accommodate traffic with only one access, and he does not believe that there would be that many vehicles trying to get into and out of Kohl's at the same time. He then stated that this is probably the only site in the city that is developable for a project like this at this time. Hudnut asked about the proposal to locate trees in the Gateway area. Lindquist responded that she cannot guarantee where trees would be located, but some areas discussed by staff include by the entrance monument at Walgreen's and the other Gateway sign, on the four corners of 80th and East Point Douglas, by Burnet, by the bank, along 80th Street on the north end by the retaining wall for the bank, and on the south side of 80th Street on the slope near Home Depot. She stated that the city would like to enhance the experience along 80th Street. Hudnut stated that those are great ideas. He then asked what the percentage of infrastructure costs that the city would be responsible for. Lindquist responded that she does not know the exact details about the financing, but most are trunk facilities that would be paid through area charges. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing. Piggott made a motion to approve the zoning amendment changing the zoning from R-2 and UR to B-2; approve the comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use from residential to commercial and to add 14.4 acres to the MUSA; approve the site plan review for a new Kohl's Department Store; and approve variances to Title 11- 3-9, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements, to reduce the minimum parking setback abutting a public roadway from 20 feet to 5 feet and Title 11-106-6, Develop- ment Standards, to reduce the 30-foot minimum side yard building setback abutting a street to 20 feet, subject to the conditions listed below. Willhite seconded. Variance 1. Kohl's shall pay to the City an equivalent amount of money for all trees that are re- quired to be replaced by Title 11-6-6E of the City Codes. This cash payment in lieu of tree replacemenf shall be deposifed info a city account designated speci�cally for new tree plantings. Payment must be made before any building permit is issued by the City. Zoninp Ordinance Amendment and Site Plan 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, etc.) shall be applied for and issued by the City prior to any work or construction taking place. Detailed consfruction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshall. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 8 of 12 2. C/ass I commercial vehicles (i.e, semi-trucks/trailers, fandem trucks, large delivery trucks, etc.) shall not park or be stored in the customer parking area. Long-term parking of trailers is prohibited in the loading dock area and along fhe designated truck entrance%xif drive. 3. Exterior lighting for security purposes and illuminating the parking lot shall deflecf light downward and away from adjoining residential properties and public streets and consistenf wifh ordinance foof-candle requirements. 4. The exterior walls of all trash enclosures shall 6e constructed with the same exte- rior materials and color as the principal strucfure and contain an opaque gate. 5. The landscape plan shall be revised to comply with ordinance requirements sub- ject to staff for review and approval. No building permif will be issued until the re- vised landscaping plan has been accepted. Additional plantings be installed in the open space west, north and east of the truck loading and unloading dock area. The landscape plan shall be revised showing plant species, size, and quantities of the additional required plantings. The revised landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to the Planning Commis- sion's recommendations being forwarded to the City Council for final resolution. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted along Easf Point Douglas Road and 80th Street in consideration of nof complying with the 20-foot minimum setback. The purpose of this landscaping is to mitigate visual impacts fhe vast hard sur- faced parking area has from public roadways and neighboring properties. 6. Installation of landscaping shall occur in a timely fashion and be consistent with an approved landscaping plan. A letter of credit in fhe amount of 150 percent of the landscape estimate shall be submitted to the City as required by City ordinance (Tifle 11-6-6(�). The financial guarantee shall be in effect for one year from the date of installation to ensure the installation, survival, and replacement of the land- scaping improvements. 7. Irrigation shall be provided for all sodded and landscaped areas, including the curbed landscaped island interior to the parking /ot. The irrigation system shall con- sist of an underground sprinkling system that is designed by a professional irriga- tion installer to meet the water requirements of the site's specific vegetation. The system shall be detailed on the landscape plan. 8. Roof-fop mechanical units shall screened as required in Title 11-6-4, of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 9. The applicant shall submit samples of exterior building materials to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. All retaining walls over four-feet in height shall be designed by and approved by an engineer and a fence not /ess than four-feet in height installed the top edge of fhe retaining wall fhat is greater than four-feet in height. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 9 of 12 11. A six-foot wide concrefe sidewalk shall be constructed befiveen the sidewalk along the front of the Kohl's building to the six-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Hardwood Avenue. 12. The applicant should replicate the street light �xtures on Hardwood Avenue within fhe site if possible. 13. The grading and drainage plan must 6e revised for purposes of sloping the parking lot from the northeast to the southwest corner of the parking lot. Gradient s/ope should be between 2-3 percent from for purposes of eliminating or at /easf reduc- ing the height of any retaining walls. A revised grading and drainage plan shall 6e submiffed before any building permit is issued by the City. 14.A11 abandoned wells shall be sealed and capped in accordance wifh state and county requirements. 15. Kohl's shall make payment to the City of Coftage Grove an amount equivalent to the design and construction of a retention/detention pond meeting the NURP stan- dards and criteria. The City is committed to using this money for surface water treafinent downstream. 16.A "STOP" sign shall be installed at each exit drive. Each sign shall be 10 feet from fhe roadway edge and 2 feet from the driveway edge. The bottom of the sign shall be six feef from the ground. The "STOP" sign shall be a 30-inch sized sign having a high intensity face. Said sign shall be mounted on a six-foot — No. 3 and eight- foot — No. 2 steel post The applicant may request the Cify's Public Works Depart- ment to install said "STOP" signs, but must reimburse for actual costs incurred by the City. 17. Concrete aprons for each of the iwo access drives shall be constructed per City requirements. 18. The applicant revise site access to ensure there are iwo lanes of tra�c exiting the site and one lane into fhe site. A left-turn lane should be provided for bank tra�c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1. Approval is contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment. Severson stated that he has concerns about the site plan, particularly having only one ac- cess, but he does not want to stop the project from going forward. He stated that his concern is from a safety perspective. He would like to hear from Kohl's on the entrance and exit situation. He suggested widening the lanes coming out of the site and maybe widening Hardwood going down toward 80th Street. He also stated that a stoplight could help alleviate some of the traffic problems. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 10 of 12 Japs agreed with Severson and asked for the Public Safety Commission to comment on a parking lot with a single access. He supports the proposal, but he is very concerned about not having a second access and he would like to put in a condition requiring a second access. Booth stated that he understands the limits on a second entrance, but believes that having only one land in and one lane out is short-sighted. He stated that he would like to see two lanes in and two lanes out. He also stated that if the area on the other side of Hardwood de- velops commercially, some type of traffic control would be necessary. He stated that he likes the layout and does not believe a second access could be accommodated. Willhite also stated that she would like to see the access widened to two lanes and two lanes out. Bailey stated that he likes the proposal and asked staff to look at adding additional lanes to the access, including possibly adding lanes on Hardwood Avenue. He also stated that there may be a future need for a stoplight at that corner. Booth asked if stormwater runoff would be going into the large pond across from Rainbow. Lindquist responded that it would go through the area to Hamlet but does not get diverted to the pond. Booth then asked what Kohl's plans are for signage. Lindquist responded that she has not seen their signage proposal. Burbank explained that one component of the Gateway redevelopment is trying to get brick-type signage in the area, and staff would be request that if they wanted a pylon sign. Motion passed unanimously. 6.5 CASE PP02-058 The City of Cottage Grove and Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. have applied for a prelimi- nary plat for Gateway North Redevelopment Area to create four commercial lots and two outlots on property located at East Point Douglas Road and Harkness Avenue South. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended tabling the application to the August 26, 2002, meeting. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Japs asked how far commercial development would be allowed to go up Hardwood Avenue. He stated that one of his concerns is that this area not be developed in a piecemeal fashion. He asked for a definitive plan on proposed commercial development in that area when this proposal comes back before the Commission. Piggott stated that the comprehensive plan outlines the long-term plans for that area. He stated that he does not believe that there would be much interest in commercial develop- ment further up Hardwood because those areas are not very visible from the highway and major intersections. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 11 of 12 Bailey stated that how far back development would be allowed would be part of the discus- sion with Council. Piggott made a motion to tab/e the preliminary plat application to the August 26, 2002, meeting. Severson seconded. Severson asked why, on Exhibit B, it shows four lanes coming out and one lane going in at the intersection of Hardwood and 80th. Lindquist responded that the proposal was based on traffic studies. She explained that the reason there are so many lanes coming to 80th Street is because Hardwood has always been designated as the main connection between 70th Street and 80th Street, and because traffic would come from 70th Street to the 80th Street business district, there would not be the same levels of traffic going north. Severson stated that means there is more in-bound traffic coming in to 80th than outbound traffic going up to 70th Street and he does not believe that makes sense. Motion to tab/e the application passed unanimously. Applications and Requests 7.1 Draft AUAR Lindquist stated that the city had conducted an AUAR for the entire West Draw area several years ago that included two development scenarios, a lesser residential and a greater resi- dential, but no commercial. She explained that the Environmental Quality Board requires an amended AUAR when there are significant departures from the AUAR. She stated that this amendment relates specifically to the Kohl's project. She stated that most of the modifica- tions relate to traffic, land use, and natural communities. She then explained that the draft AUAR is being provided to the Planning Commission for comments and that the City Coun- cil, at their July 17 meeting, approved the draft AUAR for distribution. She stated that there is a 30-day comment period and then it goes back to the Council for final adoption. Lindquist noted that the entire AUAR will be updated shortly, because it is good for about five years. Lassen asked if Oakwood Park was included in the AUAR, due to its proximity to site. Lindquist responded that Oakwood Park was not included the AUAR area that is being reviewed. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 24, 2002 Bailey noted that the date on the top of minutes was incorrect and stated that it should read June 24, 2002. Hudnut made a motion fo approve the minutes from the June 24, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Willhite seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2002 Page 12 of 12 Reports 9.1 Recap of July City Council Meetings Lindquist reported that at the July 17 City Council meeting, the Council approved an amendment to the interim conditional use permit that allowed Rumpca Excavating to conduct on-site crushing and recycling of construction materials at Up North Plastics. The amend- ment allows Rumpca Excavating to bring materials from the Grove Plaza demolition site to Up North Plastics for recycling. The Council approved the draft AUAR to allow for distribu- tion, and approved the preliminary and final plats for Timber Ridge 3rd Addition with a con- nection to the west that would be something other than a traditional city street thaYs primary function would be for emergency vehicle access. 9.2 Committee Reports Japs stated that in May he participated on a panel that interviewed five organizations re- garding conceptual plans for senior housing projects. He stated that some proposals were site-specific, such as at 70th Street and Hinton Avenue or on the west side of Highway 61. He explained that the proposals ranged from independent living to nursing homes and one proposal included both residential and commercial components. Japs reported that the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation held a heritage event at Cedarhurst on July 17 and they participated in the Great Grove Get Together. He stated that the August 20 meeting will be held in the old town hall in Langdon. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. Adjournment Severson made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Hudnuf seconded. Motion passed unanimously.