Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-05 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE 3/5/14 PREPARED BY: Community Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM # ' • . ' r Jennifer Levitt STAFF AUTHOR ******�*****************��**************�******* COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on January 27, 2014. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on January 27, 2014. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION: � PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: DATE 2/24/14 $N/A N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MEMO/LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on January 27, 2014 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ .�,� � � - °� ��/ City ministrator ate � ************************************* �* ****** COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission January 27, 2014 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Nall, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, January 27, 2014, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Jody Imdieke, Wayne Johnson, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Maureen Ventura Members Absent: Elijah Harter, Lise' Rediske, Randall Wehrle Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Reese made a motion to approve the agenda, lmdieke seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (5-to-0 vote). Open Forum Rostad asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non-agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Rostad explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capac- ity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he ex- plained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. (Brittain arrived at 7:04 p.m.) Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 Aggregate Industries 2014 Mining Permit — Case MP2014-001 Aggregate Industries — MWD, LLC has applied for their 2014 mining permit to continue mining operations on Lower Grey Cloud Island. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 2 of 11 ' McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Bob Bieraugel, Aggregate Industries, 2915 Waters Road, Eagan, stated that he would answer any questions from the Commission. Johnson asked if notification of this hearing on the mining permit was sent to neighboring property owners so they could attend to express any concerns. McCool responded that no- tices were mailed. He noted that staff has not heard any complaints or concerns from area residents since 1996 when the dredge was first operational. Johnson asked if this was a quiet operation because it will be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Bieraugel stated that based on only one complaint in almost 20 years seems to indicate that generally the neighbors are not bothered by their operations. Rostad opened the public hearing, No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve Aggregate lndustries 2014 mining permit, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Ventura seconded. Findinps of Fact: A. The city has allowed the dredge to operate 24 hours per day seven days per week since �995 when the dredge was first installed, B. Since the dredge has been operation, only one noise complaint was received by the city. That complaint was received in 1996. The applicant was contacted and the problem was reso/ved in a timely manner. C. Residents are encouraged to immediately contact Aggregate Indusfries of any noise issues so that the problem can promptly be identified and mitigated in a timely manner. D. The variance relating to the hours of operation will be evaluated annually, Conditions of Approval: 1, The provisions as stipulated in Title 3, Chapter 10 of the City's Codes (Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operation) shall be complied with, except as modified below. 2. The applicant is responsible for removing any materials that may have spilled onto any public roadway. This material shall be cleaned up immediately. 3. The outer edge of mining limits must be a minimum of 100 feet from abutting public right of-way, private property, or any archeological sensitive area. 4. The "future mining" designation on the 2014 Operations Plan is only an illustration of the applicant's future desire to mine in those areas. City approval of the 2014 Operations Plan does not guarantee mining permit approval for areas shown as "future mining." Approval of the 2014 Mining Permit does not approve their ability to mine within the required 200-foot setback from the Mississippi River, within the Mississippi River itself, or in the vicinity of archeological sensitive areas. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 3 of 11 5. Bituminous/asphalt materials are prohibited from being buried on the premises. Bituminous/ asphalt, concrete, and street sweepings originating within the geo- graphical boundaries of Cottage Grove may be temporarily stockpiled on the site for processing (e.g. crushing, screening, etc.) and/or reuse. 6. The applicant may operate the mining operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Upon notification by neighboring residents that the night-time operations (i.e, be- tween the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.) are disturbing, the applicant agrees to voluntarily cease operation during night-time hours until such time the noise source is identified and appropriate corrections are made, 7, Aqgregate Industries must install erosion control devices at the base of any slope where erosion is evident. A drainage swale must be constructed at the base of any eroding s/ope to control run-off and divert it to a sedimentation basin before entering any natural drainage system. Erosion control measures must be imple- mented within a reasonab/e amount of time. 8, Archeological and landmark sites as identified in the burial mound group known as 21 WA9 and the recorded Grey Cloud Townsite 21 WA48 on Lower Grey Cloud lsland must be protected and undisturbed, 9. No vehicular traffic or equipment in the vicinity of all archeo%gical and landmark sites must remain on existing private access routes so not to disturb or destroy existing burial mounds or any other archeological sites. 10. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all state and federal permits relating to fheir mining operations on Lower Grey Cloud Island. 11, The applicant's current reclamation plan is titled "Harbor lsland Concept Plan." The City has not provided any formal review or approval of the "Harbor Island Concept Plan," This concept plan is only an illustration of a development concept that the applicant and landowner have considered. The City's approval of the 2014 Operations Plan does not guarantee approval or imply future approval of the Harbor Island Concept Plan. 12. The Oak Savanna Reclamation Plan, Revised 9-3-10 is still valid, If a prescribed burn is scheduled, the applicant must notify the City and property owners on Lower Grey Cloud Island a minimum of five business days before burning. A burning permit from the MN/DNR is required. All oak plantings within the desig- nated oak savanna groves must be replaced with new oak trees and watered during dry conditions to promote their survival. 13. As the Oak Savanna Reclamation Plan is implemented, the applicant must con- tinue to update the City on the effectiveness of the reclamation and restoration ac- tivities, particularly how many acorns are planted and how many oak seedlings are growing. If the number of trees is low, then another tree planting alternative will need to be discussed, Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 4 of 11 Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.2 Aggregate Industries Concrete Plant — Case ICUP2014-002 Aggregate Industries — MWR, Inc. has applied for an interim conditional use permit for the placement of a temporary concrete mix plant and a temporary concrete casting plant at the Nelson Sand & Gravel facility, 11250 Grey Cloud Trail South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Bieraugel stated that the staff report and presentation was accurate. He noted that he has concerns about several recommendations. Condition #1 requires that site restoration be completed before December 31, 2016, and requested that the date for the reclamation com- ponent be changed to early summer of 2017. In condition #10 staff is recommending that a tree inventory be conducted on the 20 to 25 acres and based on that tree inventory provide a letter of credit that is 150 percent of the estimated cost of replacing those trees. He re- quested that they be allowed to do the oak savannah restoration plan as they are doing for their mining permit, rather than plant tree species that are not native to the Island. He noted that the photo from 1964 showed the area was largely pasture and grassland. In the staff re- port for the mining permit staff commented that they had taken down black locust in a five to six acre area that were invasive trees not native to the area. Condition #12 requires a letter of credit in the amount of $250,000 for removing the buildings. He requested that instead of a letter of credit, that the City accepts a performance bond as a guarantee that they remove those buildings. A letter of credit ties up cash and limits cash flow, whereas the bond would not. Condition #18 is the requirement to do an erosion and sedimentation control plan for the ready mix plant. That plant will be in the same area as the casting building and yard, and there is a drainage plan for that area. He asked that condition #19 be deleted. They are pro- posing a settling basin in that area and since this area has very sandy soil, the amount of water that runs in there will dissipate very quickly. It is the practice at all their sites to do maintenance on an annual basis as needed. Bieraugel stated that the condition they are most concerned about is condition #3, which is the imposition of a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT). He noted that they will work with staff and City Council in the next several days, but he wanted to make his argument against this proposal on the record. In 2013, they paid real estate taxes for this property and the aggre- gate tax of $375,000 to Washington County.;Approximately $85,000 comes back to Cottage Grove for local tax support. In addition to that, from the $117,000 in aggregate tax they paid last year, approximately $23,000 came back to the City. So in 2013 they paid taxes of $373,000 and they put a little over 1,000 tons of aggregate on city streets. He explained that their demand for city services is very low and their use of the local streets on annual basis is also low. He stated that the PILOT amount could be approximately $100,000 over a couple years, and was not budgeted; that fee could be a budget buster. They did not anticipate this fee. He asked that the Commission recommend to the City Council that Condition #3 be dropped. Ventura asked where the requirements for conditions #10 and #12 came from and if the City would accept a bond instead of a letter of credit. McCool responded from the requirement for the 150 percent on landscaping is in the City Code; the letter of credit for the building re- Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 5 of 11 moval is a staff recommendation. Staff would entertain the idea of a bond instead of a letter of credit with the approval of the city attorney. Rostad stated that he understands the applicant's request regarding the tree inventory and asked if it would be possible to do a tree inventory first and if they are taking out invasive species, to not require their replacement. If it is discovered that tree replacement is needed, then there could be discussion about a letter of credit or bond. McCool responded that was the intent of condition #10; staff would like to see the tree inventory to be able to identify what must be mitigated. The amount that needs to be posted for any mitigation would be based on city ordinance requirements. He believes that Bieraugel was alluding that the trees appear to be mostly Chinese elms, which are an invasive species, so they don't need to do an inventory or mitigation for that type of tree. Rostad stated that if the inventory shows that the trees are almost all an invasive species he would be comfortable eliminating the need for the letter of credit and remediation of those trees. Brittain asked about the oak savannah restoration. McCool stated that staff would evaluate the best location for if another oasis of reclamation is needed on the Island. He noted that last year's inspection of the trees planted within the oak savannah showed the survival of the trees is very low, so the number of trees that should be part of the reclamation for the mining permit and this proposed ICUP would need to be evaluated. Brittain asked if it is the City's intent to have some level of forestation over this particular area. McCool stated that we are not looking to reforest an area that has never been forested. Brittain asked with respect to the erosion and sediment control, if the City could review Aggregate Industries' current plans or is it expected to be significantly different. Levitt stated that the intention for condition #18 is to ensure that when they pull the NPDES permit re- quired by MNPCA they have adequately addressed those issues in the permitting document. The condition is not requiring that additional measures need to be incorporated but to ensure that they are compliant with the NPDES permit. She then addressed condition #19 regarding pre-treatment of runoff such as a sedimentation basin or vegetation buffer. She explained that this is a standard of the South Washington Watershed District and part of the City's surface water management plan. If this type of project were to occur elsewhere in the com- munity, this requirement would be in place and she does not believe this site should deviate from the standards in the surface water management plan or the South Washington Watershed District. It is also indicates that the infiltration area needs to be clearly marked so there is no additional compaction. Staff would not be supportive of changing conditions #18 or #19. Levitt suggested changing the date that site restoration should be completed in condition #1 to August 2017 as requested by the applicant. Levitt explained the reasons for the payment in lieu of taxes requirement in condition #3. One of the criteria for a conditional use permit is that the use shall not create excessive ad- ditional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and shall not be detri- mental to the economic welfare of the city. The City provided the applicant with our rationale for imposing this fee. This project could have a negative impact on the City's infrastructure. This project is a design-bid-build project with Mn/DOT and there were some confidential elements through the bidding process so not all the details of the project could be released to staff in earlier discussions. Staff apologizes that those things were not able to be dis- cussed earlier but we are trying to accommodate an aggressive schedule to meet the requirements of the bridge project. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 6 of 11 Rostad asked what type of truck traffic is currently using local roadways for the mine opera- tions. Bieraugel responded in 2013 there was approximately 1,015 tons that left the property on local streets, which would be about 60 trucks. The year before it was about 1,500 tons, and the year before that was approximately 3,000 tons. Rostad asked if the weight of the trucks using the local roads would be monitored. Rostad asked what vehicles would the materials would be coming in on. Bieraugel believes the re-bar, building materials, and steel sheeting would come in on a flat bed truck, and the base material from the limestone quarry would come in dump trucks. Rostad asked if the ten trucks a day referenced in the staff re- port means every day for the duration of the project or is that an average. Bieraugel responded that they anticipate that the construction of the site would bring the heaviest truck traffic, which would occur within a 30-day period in the winter months. Once the site is pre- pared and the building is up, there could be one or two trucks a day carrying cement grade dust that goes into making the concrete and maybe a couple trucks a week carrying the steel. The estimate of 10 trucks a day is the worst case. Johnson asked if most of the road damage is done in the winter due to freezing and thawing. Bieraugel responded that the biggest damage occurs when the frost is coming out. Rostad noted that in the spring, roads are posted with road restrictions. Levitt explained that based upon their axle weight, they could have additional axles or bring in smaller loads but the ap- plicant is proposing to haul the material between now and early March when road restrictions are in place. Typically road restrictions come on in early March and come ofF eight weeks later in early May, which is the reason the applicant is proposing to haul materials to the site during that one-month period before the frost comes out of the ground. Brittain asked approximately how many trucks would access the area during the entire process. Bieraugel responded that they estimated 20,000 tons and the number of trucks is dependent on the axles and the weight each truck could carry. Brittain stated they would go from 60 trucks a year to possibly over 1,000 trucks in a year, so he believes it is appropriate to have some type of inechanism to ensure that any road damage from the extra truck traffic is taken care of. The amount of the PILOT should be determined by the City Council and staff, and the Planning Commission should not recommend what that should be. Bieraugel stated that over the years they have been making a contribution in aggregate tax of ap- proximately $23,000 to $25,000 a year and he would like to get some credit for that. Brittain understands his perspective but they are removing a nataral resource from the area so there has to be some sort of accommodation for the regional area from that removed resource, so he believes the aggregate tax is appropriate. Reese asked if any other businesses are being taxed similarly to what is being proposed. Levitt responded that she does not recall any other interim conditional use permit with this intensity. She explained that the City Attorney has dealt with a number of cases in South St. Paul with a similar intensive hauling operation in which a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) has been utilized. Reese noted that street reconstruction projects are financed by splitting the costs between the property owners and the City. He asked how much the City is respon- sible for in reconstruction projects and would Aggregate Industries be assessed when those roads need to be repaved or reconstructed. Levitt stated that per the City's IMTF policy, 45 percent is borne by the adjacent land owners and 55 percent by the general levy. Aggregate Industries properties do not front on most of those streets. Only for projects on larger collec- tor streets, such as the Jamaica roundabout, that serve a greater area is a tiered system Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 7 of 11 used because everybody utilizes and gains a benefit from those projects. Our policy does not necessarily give the City latitude to assess Aggregate Industries for reconstructing those roads. The amount that the City is seeking in the PILOT is marginal compared to the overall total reconstruction costs of the road network they are planning to utilize. Reese asked what the amount is. Levitt responded approximately $146,000. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad c%sed the public hearing. Brittain stated that with regard to condition #1, he is in favor of moving the deadline to August 2017. Condition #3 the Commission should leave as proposed for the City Council and applicant to negotiate, however, he does believe the significantly increased impact to the roadways should be compensated in some way and this project is different than others in the past. Conditions #10, #12, #18, and #19 appear to be standard policy for what the City re- quires for these types of conditional use permits. Some of the work may already be done, and the plans just need to be presented. Rostad asked in condition #1, while the deadline for site restoration would be changed to August 2017, is the building still required to be removed by December 31, 2016. Brittain asked if there would be flexibility if the bridge project was delayed. Levitt responded that was correct. Ventura stated that flexibility would be good as other bridge projects in the area have had delays. Ventura agrees with Brittain's comments regarding conditions #10, #12, #18, and #19 and in condition #12 it should be up to the City Council if it should be a letter of credit or a bond. Rostad also agreed. He would like to come sort of agreement on condition #3 as he thinks this project is worthwhile. He does feel there will be additional stresses on the road. Reese asked the applicant if condition #3 would be a budget buster and why. Bieraugel stated that it could be approximately $150,000, which was not in any of their estimations or bid for this project. Reese asked if that means the project goes away if the PILOT is approved. Bieraugel said no. Imdieke asked if the roads are city or county roads. Levitt responded mostly city roads ex- cept the roads in Grey Cloud Township, which are a combination of a county road system. Imdieke asked what the estimate is for repairing all of the roads. Levitt responded it was estimated to be $2.5 million for a full reconstruction of those streets. Brittain made a motion to approve the conditional use permit allowing Aggregate Industries to place temporary concrete mix and concrete casting plants at the Nelson Sand & Gravel facility, subject to the conditions listed in below, with a modification to condition #1 changing the restoration end date to August 2017. Imdieke seconded. 1. The interim conditional use permit as described in proposed operation plan date January 2014 shall terminate on December 31, 2016. Prior to December 31, 2016, all temporary structures, bulk storage facilities, mobile trailer, concrete ready mix plant, and concrete pumps used for the temporary concrete ready mix and con- crete casting production plant shall be removed from the property. Site restoration for the 20 to 25 acre bridge section storage area used for the temporary concrete ready mix and concrete casting production plant shall be re-graded to its original Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 8 of 11 grade elevations, the topsoil spread back over the area which was stripped, and the entire 20 to 25 acre site seeded with appropriate native seed mix. Site restora- tion must be completed before August 2017. 2. The barge slip is allowed to remain, subject to the approvals by Mn/DOT, MPCA, Mn/DNR and the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers. 3, The applicant must enter into a Payment ln Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement with the City of Cottage Grove. Approva/ of this agreement must granted by the City Council before any site preparation work for this temporary concrete ready mix, concrete casting plant and all ancillary improvements for the temporary concrete plant begins on the Nelson Mine site. 4, The applicant is responsible for removing any materials that may have spilled onto any public roadway, This material shall be c/eaned up immediately. 5, Bituminous/asphalt, concrete, and street sweeping materials are prohibited from being buried on the premises or delivered to and stockpiled on the temporary concrete ready mix plant site. 6. All dust control and collection devices must be installed to control dust and cement emissions where cement is transferred to the si/os and at the truck loading areas, The application of water and chloride to the internal access roads must be applied when necessary. 7. The applicant may operate the temporary concrete ready mix and concrete bridge casting production plant the same operation hours as approved for the Nelson Mine. Presently, City approval of the Nelson Mine permits operations 24-hour a day and seven days a week. If any operation within the Nelson Mine causes noises that disturb any neighboring property owners, the applicant agrees to voluntarily cease operation during night-time hours until such time the noise source is identified and appropriafe corrections are made. 8, Aggregate Industries must install erosion control devices at the base of any slope where erosion is evident. A drainage swale must be constructed at the base of any eroding s/ope to control run-off and divert it to a sedimentation basin before entering any natural drainage system. Erosion control measures must be imple- mented within a reasonable amount of time. 9. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all state and federal permits relating to the concrete ready mix, concrete bridge casting production plant, barge slip, and channel dredging/maintenance operations for the interim concrete ready mix and concrete bridge casting production plant on the Nelson Mine site. 10. A tree inventory for the 20 to 25 acre site must be completed and submitted to the City before tree removal begins. The applicant must comply with the City's tree preservation requirements. lf tree mitigation is required, the applicant must submit a tree preservation plan and successfully plant the required number of trees before the October 15, 2016. A letter of credit that is 150 percent of the estimated cost for Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 9 of 11 planting trees that complies with the City's tree preservation regulations must be submitted to the City before April 1, 2014. 11.A11 applicable permits (i.e.; building, electrical and mechanical) must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construc- tion activities. Detailed construction plans for the proposed concrete bridge cast- ing production plant and mobile trailer must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 12.A performance bond in the minimum amount of $250,000 for the removal of the temporary metal building, site restoration (grading and seeding), ready mix plant, concrete pumps, cement si/os, mobile trailer and all other ancillary structures and equipment associated with the temporary concrete ready mix and concrete bridge casting production plant must be submit#ed to the City before any work begins or permits issued for the proposed interim use, �3. The applicant obtains the necessary permits from the Minnesota Department of Health Well Management Section Central Office and any other state agency that re- quires a permit for the installation of a new well for this temporary use. The well must be abandoned and sealed in accordance to the MDH's well management reg- ulations before December 31, 2016. Sealing the well must be done by a licensed well contractor, A copy of the well sealing certification must be submitted to the City once the work is completed. 14, The concrete ready mix plant must only be used for the mixing of cement for the temporary concrete bridge casting production plant. Delivery of cement or sa/e of cement material for off-site use not associated with the temporary concrete bridge casting production plant is prohibited. �5. Appropriately designed and number of portable sanitary units must be p�ovided on-site. 16. Truck deliveries of cement, steel, equipment, etc, must not exceed the weight restrictions designated for al/ public roads and streets. 17. Before the topsoil is spread over the storage area and production plant, the com- pacted limestone material must be removed prior to site restoration. 18,An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted to the City before a build- ing permit will be issued for the concrete production plant. 19. Pre-treatment of runoff (e.g. sediment basin or vegetative buffer) must be estab- lished prior to discharging into the proposed infiltration area in the northeast corner of the storage area, The proposed infiltration area should be clearly marked to prevent the storage of materials in the basin and shall be sized to accommodate one-inch of runoff from the tributary area. 20. The City will monitor compliance of the NPDES permit for erosion control meas- ures and the applicant is required to reimburse the City for inspection services, Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 10 of 11 Reese asked if Brittain wanted to add to his motion that the conditions relating to financing should be left up to the City Council. Brittain stated that his intention would be to leave those as requirements. He believes the conditions are appropriate and any changes should be left up to staff and the Council. Rostad asked about condition #12, changing the letter of credit to a bond. Brittain amended his motion to include the possibility of alternate financing instead of the line of credit in condition #12. Imdieke seconded the amendment. Reese stated that even if South St. Paul used PILOT, he recalls that this was proposed in the past for this applicant and was turned it down. This is a one-time big budget item and he would prefer to work with them on a way that they could be held accountable but to spread it out and it gets directly applied to repairing the streets that are being used. Motion passed on a 5-to-1 vote (Reese), Reese explained that he is opposed to condition #3 because there is no background for this within the City of Cottage Grove, even with the Jamaica roundabout project. He would like to have seen other ways to make this work instead of a big payment. Johnson noted that there was not a lot of time to figure out other ways due to the urgency of moving this forward. Brittain noted that the condition does not state that it has to be paid in one lump sum and other ways that would be amicable to both parties can be looked at between now and the City Council meeting, which is why he did not want to micromanage condition regarding the payment in lieu of taxes. He agrees that this should be looked into; however, there should be some sort of compensation. Discussion Items None Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 16, 2013 Ventura made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 16, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Johnson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of December and January City Council Meetings Levitt reported that on December 18, 2013, the City Council approved the Capital Improve- ment Program 2014-2018; the final plat and development agreement for Cayden Glen, formerly Ravine Meadows; an additional lot in the Eastridge Woods subdivision; the noise ordinance amendment; and the ordinance amendment relating to exterior materials. On Jan- uary 15, 2014, the Council approved the conditional use permit for an on-sale liquor license for the north and south tenant spaces of the existing building at 7180 East Point Douglas Road (formerly Hollywood Video). Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 11 of 11 Olsen provided an update on the City Council's goal setting and visioning session that was held on Saturday, January 25. Council, staff, and interested public members get together to discuss where the City has been and where we want to go and how that lines up with the City's vision statement. Some of the topics covered included development in the City, noting that 2013 was one of the top five busiest years since the mid 1980s and it is anticipated that 2014 will be busier; if there is enough staff in place handle the increased workload; residen- tial and commercial development; what the Council wants to see in respect to planning; maintenance and code enforcement of our commercial and residential properties; the transi- tion from our police paramedic first-out model to our fire paramedic first-out model; and the former Home Depot building. Olsen asked that any Commissioner who is interested in chairing the Planning Commission to contact either him or Levitt. He would like to nominate a chair at the February 19 City Council meeting. The Vice Chair and Secretary are nominated and elected by the Planning Commission. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries For Sale/Lease Siqnage Levitt stated that a memo from the City's Code Enforcement Officer was included with the packet regarding for sale and lease signs. She reported that the signs on the 80th Street fence have been removed. Council, at their workshop, provided direction to staff and the Planning Commission to review the sign ordinance and propose amendments to tighten up the City's sign regulations. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Reese made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ventura seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p,m.