Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-04 PACKET 04.A.II.REQUESI' OF CfTY COUNCIL ACTIOPd COUNCEL AGENDA MEETIM1IG ITE� Q o 1 9 DATE 19/4/98 , PREPAF2ED BY: Community Developmen4 Kim Lindquist dRIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR :�ti�a�..a.«�>«�a«�d.�tr..trm.��4�.trsg.�.��ffi..�..�. COUNCIL FtCTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting of September28, 5998. � • • : � � •° • ADVISORY COMiVilSSION ACTION iZ1 ' _ : � . ; �. �... . �. . , � ■ • ' ■ •. � � .' ••, ■ �� � REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ACTUALAMOU DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ,� ' ■' • • ■ •'�'; ■ ' ' � �. #' ■ � ' • •• • ►� + - • . . .: -. _ �. : . ,.: ►,�.7�•�1��r6�r:��sa:��iii7�r���r��i�i .�3I ..s"c3 ` �ity Administrafor Da4e �.>ffi.a.���>.��$�����.�s��.�«����4���a<*a�� « ���� cau�c`�,��Tic�� �ra���: ❑ a,���ov�� ❑ �E�i�� [� or��� P'+A&t➢UE'3lPLAATN�'.G\I998\CfIYCOUtivRept pC Minute�dce ,:� City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission September 28, 1998 Pursuant to due call and nofice thereof, a regular meeting of the Pianning Commission was duly heid at City Hail, 7516 - 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 28th day of September, 1998, in the Council Chamber. Call to Order Chairperson Auge called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Cail Members Present: Jon Auge, Ken Boyden, Glen Brown, Phil Foster, Herb Japs, Gien Kleven, Jeff Podoll, Pat Rice, Richard Sawyer Staff Present: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner John Burbank, Associate Planner Approval of Agenda Rice moved fo approve the agenda. Podo// seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Open Forum Chairperson Auge asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non-agenda item. No one spoke. Chair's Expianation of the Public Hearing Process Chairperson Auge explained the purpose of the Pianning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, 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 CUP98-37 Stanley Waidelich, Jr. has applied for a conditional use permit to construct an aversized garage at 7630 —113th Street South. Burbank summarized the staff report and exp�ained that the applicant had applied for a variance in 1997 to construct an oversized detached accessory structure, which was tabled pending review of the ordinance criteria. Staff has received a written withdrawal of the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting Monday, September 28, 1998 Page 2 of 11 V97-41 application, so no formal action is needed. The appiication before the Commission tonight is based on the guide�ines of the new ordinance. Burbank stated that staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions listed in the report. Sawyer asked about the intended use of proposed structure. Stan Waidelich, Jr., 7630 —113th Street, answered that it would be used for storage of a boat, a motor home, ATV's, and other items. He stated that he was in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. Waidelich requested that his application be placed on the October 7 City Council agenda rather than on October 21. Lindquist stated that it could be on the agenda for October 7. Auge opened the public hearing. No one spoke. The public hearing was ciosed. Rice moved to approve the application subject to the seven conditions lisfed in the staff report. Boyden seconded. 1. The conditiona! use permif sha!l expire and become void if !he approved structure is not built within one year of the date of approval. 2. A �evised bui/ding permit app/ication shall be submitted and app�oved by the City. 3. The samples of the exterioi co/ors and photographs or drawings of the architectural design of the accessory structure shall be submifted with fhe bui/ding permit application and also be approved by the City. 4. The frees and other vegetation on fhe sife fhaf screen fhe proposed structure from adjacent public roadways or adjacenf properfies shal! be generally maintained in good health or be replaced with similar types and quantify of species. 5. Vehicular access to the proposed accessory structure sha!! be from and limifed to the existing driveway /ocation. 6. The use of the accessory strucfure for fhe operation of any home occupafions not in conformance with section 28-82 through section 28-90 of the City code is prohibited. 7. If future zoning or other site deve%pment rende�s the accessory st�ucfure non- conforming, the sPructure shail be bvought into comp/iance with the applicable ordinance criferia or removed. Mofion passed unanimously. 6.2 CASE V98-38 Mark Lamberty has applied for a variance to Section 28-21 of the City's zoning ordinance to construct a detached accessory structure five feet from the property line. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting Monday, September 28, 1998 Page 3 of 11 Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended granting a variance for a seven- foot side yard setback subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Podoll asked if the city usually gets involved on an individual lot basis regarding erosion control and if this issue would be something the city would have known about without the variance appiication. Lindquist responded that the city was aware of the property due to the building permit and the building inspector does watch out for these types of problems. Japs asked if the standard setback in the area was 20 feet. Lindquist answered that it was. Brown asked if these lots were serviced by septic systems. Lindquist stated that they were. Boyden asked if the garage was moved forward, would it be possible to move it further west on the lot. Lindquist stated that it would be closer to the trees and would limit the drainage area. Auge opened the public hearing. Cristeen Lamberty, 7468 Granada Circle South, responded to the memo from Troy and Geralyn Sparks, which was included with the staff report. She stated that due to the terrain and the septic system, the proposed site is the most logical location to build the garage. She also stated that the secondary septic system could not be moved; when it was installed, the company determined that tne site it is located on is the only logical place for it due to the terrain and the placement of the initial site. Mrs. lamberty said that the garage could not be relocated due to the drainage and the trees. She stated that the neighbors would be able to see the garage no matter where it was sited on the lot but it have the same siding and roof pitch as their home. She reiterated that the garage would match the existing building already on the site and did not believe it would negatively impact neighboring properties. Japs asked if they selected the house location on the lot. Mrs. Lamberty stated that they had some input. Japs then asked if they couid have moved the house further to the north. Mrs. Lamberty responded that there is another ravine on the other side of the house. Japs asked the Lamberty's how they would feel if a neighbor requested a five-foot offset to build a garage next to their house. Mrs. Lamberty responded that due to the codes and covenants that need to be followed, outbuildings have to be aesthetically pleasing and meet the specifications of the buiider. She doesn't believe it would be a problem if someone requested a five-foot variance. Boyden asked if the Lamberty's agreed with the conditions in the staff report. Mrs. Lamberty stated that they do. Boyden inquired how long they had lived at their residence. She responded for a year and two months. Boyden then asked if they had planned to build the garage when they initially moved in. Mrs. Lamberty stated that they had talked with the buiider about an additional outbuiiding and at that time learned about the possibility of filing for a variance due to the lot restrictions. Podoll asked if a secondary septic system was common in that area and why. Lindquist answered that the state requires a secondary septic site in case the first one fails. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting Monday, September 28, 1998 Page 4 of 11 Japs asked if the garage could be moved forward and slid over toward the retaining wall, even though it may adversely affect some trees. Mark Lamberty, 7468 Granada Circie, explained that it is a pie-shaped lot and if the garage was moved forward, it would be Goser to the property line. By shifting the garage over, it would impact trees that are not shown on the site plan. He further explained that there is a severe drop in elevation to the right. He stated that while it is a large lot, there is not much buildable area due to an easement in the rear, a septic area, and ravines. He stated that about a third of the garage would be in the ground due to the ravine. Troy Sparks, 8431 Hilo �ane, stated that he is concerned because he is trying to sell tne property and construction of a garage so ciose to the property line may impaet the sale. Japs asked Sparks if setbacks were a factor in their decision to potentiaily build a home there. Sparks responded that when they initialiy purchased the land, none of the other lots had a garage like this and they never thought that anyone who would build a home in an exclusive area would build a large garage. Auge asked if anyone e/se in fhe audience wanted to speak in favor or against. Being none, he c%sed the public hearing. Podoll stated that setback requirements for this lot are a concem because, according to the homeowner, there is only about a third to a half an acre of buildabie site on a lot that is an acre and a half in size. He thinks that when the Planning Commission went through ttie R- 2.5 rezoning, they looked at 10-foot side year setbacks. Podoll also referenced that when the Planning Commission approved Hidden Vailey 7th Addition, tree preservation was one of the main issues. He stated that he likes the block foundation for the garage. Podoll moved to approve the variance application reducing the side yard sefback requirement fiom 20 feet to 7 feet subject to the 90 conditions stipulated in fhe staff report. Foster seconded. 1. The variance shall only be applicable Po fhe garage detai/ed in the staff reporf for Case V98-38. The garage cannot increase in size from the proposed 30 feet by 32 feet. 2. A building permit is required for fhe proposed accessory strucfure. 3. 7he variance application shall expire within one (1) year if the strucfure is not erected. 4. The block foundation shown to be above ground leve! in fhe design fn Exhibits F, G, N, and / sha!/ be similar in co%r (tan) fo fhe principal st�ucture and rear retaining wali. 5. As required in Section 28-21(a)(2) "Accessory Structures", ea ferior finishes shal! be durable and be architectura/!y compatible wlth and simi/ar in design, co/o% and materfal to the principal structure. 6. The proposed retainfng wall, as shown <n F�rhibit C, sha// consist of the same or similar block as the existing retaining wall behind the principal sfructure. Minutes of Pianning Commission Meeting Monday, September 28, 1998 Page 5 of 11 7. A gravel energy dissipater shall be installed at the discharge point of the garage gutters to prevent erosion. 8. Erosion control measures such as silt fencing or straw bale sediment trap shall be established during construction to limit erosion and sedimenfafion. 9. Permanent erosion and sedimenfafion cont�ol measures sha// be established. This may include measures such as riprap to dissipafe water flow, a berm fo direct water at the top of the slope, a retaining wall as depicted in Exhibit C or the addition of vegetation along drainage rouEes to slow water flow. lf !he erosion and sedimentation is no! controlled, the City may require fhe property owner to take necessary action to correcf the problem, The erosion confro/s shal! be consistent with the preservafion of the large basswood trees in the drainage route. 10. The large basswood and red oak trees depicted on the Site Plan shall be clearly rnarked and cordoned with a suitable barrier such as snow fencing during construction. The barrier shall be located to coincide to the extent pracfical with the drip line of trees to be preserved. Construction vehic%s shall avoid driving on the area between fhe trees to be preserved and the accessory structure. Japs is concemed about the precedent that wouid be set, especiaily in an area with a 20- foot setback as a standard and reducing it more than 50 percent. He stated that he would prefer to find another location for the garage where it would have at least a 10-foot setback. Podoll stated that he would tend to agree but feels that moving the garage closer to the principal structure would impact the neighboring property more and increasing the setback to seven feet from five feet would set a precedent that the City wants as much setback as possible while maintaining tree preservation. Motion passed on a vote of 6 to 2, with Japs and Sawyer voting against. 6.3 CASE RS98-35 Hugh Gibson has filed a rurai subdivision application for a proposed rural subdivision of a 12.42-acre tax parceL Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approved subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Japs asked if additional charges would be assessed to property owners in the event that the city divided their property with a road. Burbank responded that if a roadway divides a property, the property is appraised for before and after market value, and the property owners are compensated for any loss of use of the property and for the amount of land at the going market rate. Japs then asked if this would automatically trigger subdivision of the property even though the owners had not initiated the process. Lindquist stated that Mr. Gibson's property was taken by the state some time ago, and the City is not requiring that he legaily subdivide it. Gibson is laying the foundation in the event he decides to sell one of the parcels, which would need to be done prior to any sale. The parcel is not legaily disjointed even though the roadway runs through it. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting Monday, September 28, 1998 Page 6 of 11 Hugh Gibson, 136 Sixth Street NE, Washington, OC, stated that the property has been in his family since 1918. He is interested in preserving and protecting the hilly wooded area with a conservation status and that his preserved property wiii be a valued amenity as the West Draw develops. He noted that there is a double house on the 1.6 acre wooded lot. Gibson stated that in the future he will be applying to rezone the property from retaii business (B-2) to single-family residential (R-3), which would give the property the best possible chance of retaining its current beauty and character over the long term. He noted that the installation of the 80th Street overpass has limited direct access to the property from 80th Street and that the property abuts the 80th Street ramp to Highway 61. For these reasons, Gibson feels that the property is most appropriately viewed as primarily a residential property, although certain types of commercial uses could be compatibie with its character, such as professionai offices or antique shops. Boyden asked if Gibson had any objections to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Gibson responded that he doesn't, but he is concerned about area charges. He stated that staff has proposed deferring the area charges on the house portion of the property until something happens in the future. The staff report currently reads that the trigger would be redevelopment or reuse of the property, such as conversion to a commercial property or creation of a condo. He stated that staff has also considered the possibility that rezoning would be the most appropriate trigger for area charges. Gibson stated that another concern is a triangular parcel, which is a separate lot of record. Staff has argued that it wouid be logical in the future for the property to be combined. Gibson stated that if he sold the house, he would probabiy seli the smail triangular parcel with the larger one. Ne stated that he would not do the merger if it would increase the acreage base on which area charges would be applied in the future. He stated that because the property is zoned commercial, even the addition of .266 acres to the acreage base would make a substantial difference to the total bill. He asked if he would be able to merge the two properties in the future if the Planning Commission approves his appiication tonight. Lindquist stated that the legal description wouid have to be redone if he makes the decision before the City Council takes final action. Auge closed the public hearing. Boyden moved to approve the application subject to the conditions /isted below. Japs seconded. 1. No parkland dedicafion is requi�ed at fhis time. The subdivision agreement would ouiline ti►at a park dedication fee would be required if the commercia/ portion of the site were converted to a non-residential use. 2. The applicant shali enfer info a subdivision agreement with the City. The subdivision agreement shal! contain /anguage thaf waives the three commercial area charges at this time pending the redeve%pment or reuse of the commescial property. The rates charged will be equivalent to the currenf rate at the time of fhe additional deve%pment activify. 3. The adjusted storm sewer land use assessment charge amounf of $5,681.62 shall paid in full prior to fhe deed being re/eased for recording with Washington Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting Monday, September 28, 1998 Page 7 of 11 County. The area charge may be assessed to the property if fhe applican! signs a petition waiver and the payment information is included in fhe subdivision agreemenf. 4. Any unpaid assessmenfs on the property sha!l be pafd in futl prfor to recording of the new parcels. The mofion passed unanimously. 6.4 CASE MP98-36 CAMAS Minnesota, Inc. (formerly known as J.L. Shiely Company) has applied for their annual mining permit. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approvai subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Auge opened the public hearing. Bob Bieraugel, Environmental Affairs Manager for CAMAS, stated that he takes exception to the condition of helping to pay for the roads. He stated that the staff report is very thorough, but it reports that the mine operates 24 hours a day, 5 days a week. He clarified that they operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, which goes back to the 1996 mining permit. The permit said 24 hours a day operation provided that the operator consult with the neighbors and if there is a probiem with any part of the operation, it would be worked out or shut down. They have been operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the past two years. He stated that their request is to change condition #6 to read 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if conditions and demand permit. Bieraugel stated that they are willing to work with the City on planting the right type of trees in the right piaces. In 1997, they planted most of their trees on the westerly end of the westerly lake. Most of the trees were of a native species variety and the survivai rate is significant. He stated that they are open to any suggestions the Commission may have about how they could better carry out the reclamation and tree planting. Bieraugel expressed their opposition to condition #8, which recommends that they pay maintenance costs for roads and bridges that customer vehicles travei on. The staff report states that in 1996, the City received $11,240 from the County, which was the City's share of the aggregate tax that the company paid to Washington County. In 1997, the company paid a total of $250,000 in aggregate taxes to Washington County for the Nelson, Larson, and the Lakeland mines, and of that amount, $89,000 was directly from the Nelson operation. Out of that $89,000, the City got approximately $12,000. The aggregate tax is placed on everything they produce and seli from the mi�ing operation. Bieraugel added that if the formula doesn't allow enough funds to maintain the roads, then the formula should be recalculated. Ne �eported that less than 5 percent of the totai volume of material that comes out of the Larson and Neison plants is transported out on the road systems in the local communities. In 1997, CAMAS paid $140,000 in taxes from the Nelson mine alone to the County, the City, and the Schoo� District for municipal services of which they use very littie. He stated that to his knowledge no other communities impose such a tax as Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting Monday, September 28, 1998 Page 8 of 11 required in condition #8 and would impose an unfair competitive disadvantage on their company. Sawyer asked if they thought about starting a nursery where they concentrate it with muich and water to get the trees developed and then move them after land uses for the area are determined. Bieraugel stated that they would give this some thought. He further stated that uniess an irrigation system is put in, nothing should be pianted on the south slope. Ray Haik, Piper Jaffray Tower in Minneapolis, stated that he is representing the Schiliings. Haik stated that they will defer and deal with the CAMAS organization on what was the understanding of the testimony and requirements that were imposed upon the Schillings when they came into the community, which was to lay out a comprehensive development plan and set forth a schedule for reclamation, so that the land use, whether it ended up as a park or a combination of park and residential development, would be in a land form suitable for development. Those requirements were imposed by the city planner at that time, when it was contemplated that this area would be a residential development at this time, and the deed that conveyed the property to the Shiely's, now CAMAS, clearly contemplated the relocation of that mine plant as the opportunity for development arose. He recognizes that the City does not want to get involved with a controversy but developers are interested in the properties. At this point, what is being discussed wouid be a residential piat, which could go in with or without required utilities. Haik stated that they wouid like to change Phase III to Phase I. They think that the area in that corner should be mined and reclaimed as quickiy as possible. He stated that as he reads the map, the mining in 1997 and 1998 is adjacent to Phase III but then they show it going off the other way. As long as they are in there, they ought to complete Phase III and get it done so that the road could be straightened out in a way that would be amenable for the best development layout. CAMAS clearly acknowledged the obiigation to move the piant and the only thing is the Schillings have to provide an alternative site. He stated that they signed off on the agreement, they have received the letter from the city, they are not interested in fighting but they want the City to know what is going on because they are going to continue to work with the developers who have expressed an interest in coming down to the Isiand. Auge clarified that the Schillings had signed off on the permit, that they have a preference to see the phases compieted in a different order, and that the Schillings have no objections to the issuance of the mining permit. Haik responded that they want the mining operation to proceed and at the same time allow phased development to occur in the event that nothing goes further with acquisition as a park. Auge closed the public hearing. Auge recommended changing condition #6 to read that the mining operation would operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day rather than 5 days a week, if there are no objections. McCool stated that it has been the practice in the past few years. Japs asked if CAMAS was paying its appropriate share in relation to condition #8 and if there was something specific in mind when the recommendation was made. Lindquist responded that CAMAS uses a fair number of roads as a part of their mining operation and many will need repairs, but she doesn't know what the cost of the road reconstruction will be. She stated that this request was similar to the negotiations that staff is having with the Minutes of Pianning Commission Meeting Monday, September 28, 1998 Page 9 of 11 Metropolitan Council regarding truck traffic for the wastewater treatment plant. Lindquist stated that the condition is listed to notify CAMAS that the City will be looking for their contribution to these fairly significant road reconstruction projects. She further stated that the City wouid need to show benefit and that the number and weight of the trucks are contributing to the degradation of the road system in that area. Japs asked if it would be possible to have more specific numbers figured out before this application goes to the City Council. Lindquist stated that the road projects aren't programmed in the City's CIP yet. Auge clarified that condition #8 is just a notice of intent that when improvements are planned, CAMAS will be assessed. Japs then inquired if staff anticipates that the 1999 mining permit, which is coming forward in February, would precede any type of biliing. Lindquist responded that she's assuming not but that there will be discussions occurring regarding some of the road projects in that area and that those negotiations will be going on prior to the 1999 permit. Japs stated that his concern is that the company knows what could be expected of them. He stated that he recognizes that trucks do cause heavy wear and tear on roads. Boyden asked if Washington County was using the tax revenue from CAMAS for road repair or are the funds being diverted elsewhere in the County. Lindquist stated that the funds are regulated by a state formula. Brown asked where the Citys portion of the tax revenue goes. Lindquist stated that it goes to defray the cost associated with the mine services. Brown stated that years ago Shiely blacktopped tne road from the railroad bridge to Hadley Avenue at their own expense. Sawyer asked if the issue brought up in condition #8 was required on past permits. Lindquist answered it was not. He inquired how the City wouid figure out the share that CAMAS would pay and asked about the trucks from Bailey Nurseries and other businesses in the area. Lindquist stated that as part of the assessment process, the City wouid have tc show benefit. She gave as an example what happened with the improvements to East Point Douglas Road. Auge asked if there would be a pubiic hearing by the City Council to institute the assessment if condition #8 was put into effect. Lindquist stated that there has to be a public hearing when there are assessments. Sawyer stated that there should be a formula for this type of assessment. Lindquist stated that the City is hiring an appraiser to determine assessments for commerciai businesses on East Point Douglas Road and 80th Street. Kleven stated that condition #8 is just notification and that when the roads need to be repaired, those along the road will be assessed and that taking the condition out wouid not relieve the obligation in the future. Podoil stated that if the Council does not agree with it, they will strike out condition #8. He agrees that it is just notification to the mining company that this could occur. Japs moved to approve the app/icafion subject to the conditions listed below and changing condition #6 to read "7 days a week." PodoiB seconded. Minutes of Pianning Commission Meeting Monday, September 28, 1998 Page 10 of 11 1. Th� provisions as stiputated in Chapter 20, Sand and Grave! Ordinance, except as modi�ed� be%w shall be complied with. 2. The applicant is responsible for removing any spilled maferia/s fhat may have spilled onto any public roadway. This maferial shall be c%aned up immediately. 3. The outer edge of mining limits abutting public right-of-way or private properfy shal! nof be c%ser than 100 feet fo any right-of-way or properfy line. 4. Approval of the 1998 Mining Permit does not imply approval to mine oufside of the required 200-foot sefback fiom the Mississippi River or wifhin the river itself. 5. No bituminous/asphalt material shall be buried on the premises. Bifuminous/asphalt, concrete, and street sweepings originafing wifhin fhe geographical boundaries of Cottage Grove may be temporarily stockpiled on the sife for processing (e.g. crushing, screening, etc.J and/or reuse. 6. The applicant may operate fhe mining operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Upon notification by neighboring residents that the night-time operations (i.e. between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.) are disturbing, the applicanf agrees to vofuntarily cease operation during night-fime hours until such fime the noise source is identified and appropriate corrections are made. 7. A!I trees along the easf boundary line (Phase 3 as shown on the Ne/son Mine - 1998 Mine Plan) of the mine site shall remain undisturbed. 8. CAMAS wili pay its proportionate share in the cost of maintenance, construcfion, and reconstruction of roads, highways, sireet, or bridges a/ong at/ designafed haul routes. Boyden asked if condition #8 was included in the motion. Japs stated that it was. Sawyer asked Haik if housing development would be on the east or west side of the Island. Haik answered that the properties included Paul Schiiling's, his mother's, and the park lease land where the boat launch is located. The site is in the east. Sawyer asked if the land they are talking about was the property that was discussed at the workshop in August. It was clarified that the land that was discussed that evening was in the northwestern portion by the mine plant and conveyor area. The motion passed unanimous/y. Appiications and Requests. None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 1998 PodolAmoved to approve fhe minutes. Rice seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting Monday, September 28, 1998 Page 11 of 11 -•• 9.1 Recap of September City Council Meetings Lindquist updated the Pianning on the actions taken at the September 2, 1998, and September 16, 1998, City Council meetings. Lindquist also reported that at the workshop meeting on October 12 the Metropolitan Council will give a siide presentation about growth strategies and the comprehensive plan, which shows real life applications of density issues. 9.2 Committee Reports Japs gave an update on the fall meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Voluntary preservation guidelines for projects were addressed. The heritage education partnership, which the city is invoived in, was also addressed. The Commission also met to discuss the comprehensive plan update. Three houses were nominated for the City Registry of Historic Sites — the Hugh Gibson house, Roberts house on Keats, and the Woodword house on 90th Street. The City Preservation Program Handbook was also a topic of interest. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Boyden asked why the conditional use permit application from Roger's Auto Parts and Cecil Martin was continued. Lindquist responded that the first time the application was not complete and the second time was because the appiicanYs attorney wanted to meet with staff due to staff's position not to support the application. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. Adjournment Rice moved fo adjourn the meeting. Brown seconded. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjoumed.