Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2013 Planning Commission Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE g— I (c3.- 1 71..) 0 COUNCIL El PLANNING COMMISSION 0 OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. . 1)EIVA I(AkIAS.(10,- I I Y) IV , PtirM,kt ft, if 1 3 — 34, 2() 2. C L4S4,(C; (A; CAL C---IZ I i At i‘i. c 3. Ci-A / R_S.J ,J ‘ 19 ui 7. LA 1 '3 3 .-.:, C tiel-' IN'IN12/X-cl ) 4. .. , 5. /- )t7 ii'- -=ce. - ( 7 2_ 6. f ,...Lk E'4"C hQ-' lc-- 7. R VA v) ii 4 ci(ki A 11,0) 1 1 t, I 8. 9. /// -...) / $775 / 11) (07j;/ 13 ,..376 3 I , ii-4 (-?;- c-<,' .._l 10. I h /L 1" / rit(-64j, p / ( 3 - 11. -K---eli ry..5 .to , ,..Cfic r.Ay / f,..it )A, ...? 1 - 3 C3) kt- - , 12. , Litri'N ; iwilitelt_jb R q A; ri‘ 4-, Or, 1 7- 3e c-/ 13. Viikt f, - 'C t- • CI , .1101. /2-1:1-1-c/t4 -11 ‘ 15. : I.\ c\ (.3i. Likk\\/\... 3i ( c i'lliC/Z t h e t; d 1"-Nc I I V MLEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE DOC PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE ..., 0 COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION 0 OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. Pleaseon•H''''irjleteiliOciii0":wingi'n'foim:Ockij larXiii—re/*6rds.' : ','''' to ' :--,,, PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER - ---\ /' h /-;-- , i• /a-hi 'L-- ' • . , /:1- ,;) ‘ . ' ( 2. ` -i\,x)Y ft .1(c-:-Nrw 3 3. k,„ ; 4.( 11.On ft r.,.._ ---t, i '27(- (>t, ,... ,., 4. L n 1,_,,,,,,,,s NL_,, 0 , tt- cs' `‘) \ctc,( r-L I, t.,:‘, ' ( t 5. i Ji t, c,t e'N 6. C I ii-y 7. L., , A, I c2., --leg c (.., ---, , —r-- ? 77 / 9 c ( ch , _LI 8. A7 _c --) / e 9 -r- 10. Co--)-t7 / 4 5'1 11. ( 12. 1 - -' '' ' --- f. --7. - _-cii_ \., 3 ( s-u i. ,`.--i /4 Ei2AL,1 LVF , 7 13. () ui E- dr/A c;KL-E1 3 7ct- ic(--) ( RI). 14. 15. V:\(LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notifications AGENDA City of Orono Planning Commission Meeting for September 16, 2013; 6:30 PM Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Council Representative: Kristi Anderson Audience Members: Please sign in for the public record if you wish to address the Planning Commission. The sign in sheet is in the lobby. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet – located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Items on the Consent Agenda, including (*) asterisk items, are reviewed in total by the Planning Commission and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Planning Commission. Any items may be removed by any Planning Commission Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Applicants will be asked to move to the podium to answer questions after staff presents the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. Consent Agenda * 1. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 19, 2013. Old Business 2. 13-3616 City of Orono, Amendment of Zoning Code Chapter 78 Add Section 78-1379, Alternative Energy Systems (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 3. 13-3618 Edward & Julie Lagerstrom, 2248 Shadywood Road, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) New Business 4. 13-3623 Clairson Dutra on behalf of Lin Yan, 1330 Cherry Place, Conditional Use Permit and Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 5. 13-3627 Richard Etrheim & Rebecca Shabaz, 2216 Shadywood Road, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 6. 13-3628 Thomas Potter on behalf of Rodney & Barbara Burwell, 1100 Millston Road, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 7. 13-3629 Ryan & Stacy Alness, 1169 North Arm Drive, Subdivision (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 8. 13-3630 Bill Coffman on behalf of Erwin Wachman, Bayside Meadows, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 9. 13-3631 Landsource, LLC represented by Todd Holmers, 3700 Northern Avenue, Subdivision (Staff: Mike Gaffron) Planning Commission Comments 10. Report from Planning Commission representatives on City Council meetings: August 26, 2013 and September 9, 2013. 11. Other issues for discussion. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 1 of 28    ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Chair Kevin Landgraver, Commissioners Bruce Lemke, Christopher McGrann, Loren Schoenzeit, Jon Schwingler, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Lizz Levang was present. Acting Chair Landgraver called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2013 Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of July 15, 2013, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #13-3616 CITY OF ORONO, AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 78, ADD SECTION 78-1379, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS Schwingler moved, McGrann seconded, to table Application #13-3616, City of Orono, Amendment of Zoning Code Chapter 78, Add Section 78-1379, Alternative Energy Systems. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 3. #13-3615 JAMES ANDERST, 3384 AND 3386 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW, 6:35 P.M. – 7:27 P.M. James Anderst, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a variety of approvals in order to establish and operate a new restaurant adjacent to the existing Narrows Saloon, apparently to be known as Narrows Steak House. The proposed use will be located in the westerly half of the building in which the Narrows Saloon occupies the easterly half. The entire building is owned by Narrows, LLC, whose principal manager is the applicant. The new use is proposed as being a separate restaurant use, not as an expansion of the Narrows Saloon. The new restaurant will have separate kitchen and dining facilities and will not have direct connections to the Saloon but will share restroom facilities with the saloon. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 1 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 2 of 28    The following approvals are required: 1. A conditional use permit for establishing and operating a Class II restaurant with liquor within a 40’ x 52’ portion of the existing building which has previously been occupied by other unrelated businesses. 2. An element of the Cup request is for permission to allow outdoor seating at the rear of the newer restaurant, adjacent to the City-owned parking lot but within the applicant’s property. The site plan and survey depictions do not provide dimensions for this patio area and dimensionally are inconsistent with each other. The patio appears to be around 350-400 square feet in area. The applicant has verbally indicated that the depictions are not accurate and the patio area is intended to be larger than that. The outdoor seating area is adjacent to a proposed 67 square foot vestibule addition to the building. 3. The application is subject to the Site Plan Review process established via Ordinance No. 68, Third Series, adopted in February, 2010. Gaffron noted this property was the subject of an intensive 10-month CUP review in 2005 and 2006 when the applicant was proposing to expand the Narrows Saloon into these spaces. That application was somewhat controversial and brought forth a variety of neighborhood concerns related to issues of building expansion, music/sound containment, parking and proposed outdoor smoking/seating areas in both the front and rear of the building. Ultimately, a pared-down approval was granted for the expansion per the findings and conditions of Resolution No. 5440 adopted in March, 2006. That plan was never followed through with by the applicant. Gaffron stated the outdoor dining area walls are ten feet from the west side lot line. The applicant’s plans do not depict the height of any proposed wall or fence. The patio walls and fencing, if less than six feet in height, will be considered as a non-encroachment on yard requirements. From Staff’s perspective, the fences and walls proposed are clearly a non-encroachment. The fire place may fall under the category of recreational equipment and the Planning Commission should consider whether the fireplace fits within the definition of non-encroachments. As was the case in 2005 and 2006, a primary concern for both the interior and exterior use and the potential activity associated with the businesses has to do with parking. It is difficult to park anything on the property. The question is whether there will be any parking available on the applicant’s site and whether there will be adequate parking in the City lot since the proposed use adds a requirement for 13 additional parking stalls based on the square footage. Gaffron indicated the applicant is also proposing seating in the basement consisting of 1,250 square feet, which would bring the total square footage of the restaurant to 2,750 square feet. Storage and non-public spaces will total approximately 1,250 square feet. The exterior public space in the patio area is likely around 750 to 1,000 square feet. The applicant’s architect has not provided information regarding seating capacity, occupant load, or parking demand. A parking analysis conducted in 2005 showed some parking stalls abutting the Narrows building. That area has not been striped in recent years and it is unclear whether that parking area will eventually be eliminated. At that time it was determined that 52 parking stalls would be required. Based on Staff’s calculations of public floor areas for the new restaurant and patio area, it is anticipated that 70 parking Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 2 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 3 of 28    stalls would be needed to serve both the existing Narrows Saloon and proposed steak house based on the City Code requirement of one stall per 80 square feet. It is Staff’s belief that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding commercial district. In addition, the site contains no unique natural features which would be impacted and no increase to the hardcover is being proposed. It is also Staff’s belief that the proposed aesthetic improvements would complement the area and improve the visual character of the immediate commercial neighborhood. Gaffron displayed a color sketch of the front and back areas of the Narrows Saloon and Narrows Steak House. The applicant is proposing the trash bin will be enclosed but the exact location of that enclosure has not been identified at this point. The majority of the trash containers in the area are not enclosed. Gaffron stated the impacts of the proposed use on vehicular and pedestrian circulation would be potentially magnified if parking demand exceeds supply due to success of the proposed use. It is Staff’s belief that the potential new demands on services and infrastructure might include added demands on sewer system, added demands on parking availability, but whether such demands may be excessive is worthy of additional analysis. Further, the proposed restaurant use is located in one of the few areas of Orono where a Class II restaurant would be allowed under the CMP. Gaffron noted the proposed use has a potential, if highly successful, to place some strains on parking convenience. It is Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission review the proposed exterior design and landscape plans for the patio area, including dumpster location. The Planning Commission should also give consideration as to how or whether the proposed use might impact adjoining commercial uses as well as nearby residential uses. Back in 2006, when the Narrows Saloon application was approved, a number of conditions were required. The proposed steak house use is not intended to have live entertainment, but may impact or be impacted by the saloon use. The proximity of the steak house to the saloon and the shared facilities and party wall may present some issues relative to noise levels or other impacts. Gaffron noted Staff’s report contains six conditional use permit conditions relative to the Narrows Saloon under its current conditional use permit. If the proposed steak house use is determined to be appropriate for the area, Staff would make the following recommendations with regards to the site plan and the site operation: 1. A more detailed plan for the proposed outdoor dining area should be presented. The applicant has advised Staff that the layout depicted on the survey and on the architect’s drawings are not complete as he intended and somewhat conceptual in nature. The Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed landscaping plan at the rear of the building is acceptable as a barrier or buffer to the parking lot and/or the residential neighborhood to the northwest, if such barrier or buffer is needed. 2. The Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed exterior seating at the rear of the building is appropriate for the B1 District and under what standards or limitations such use should be allowed. Potential limitations or conditions could address appropriate numbers and location or seating in relation to lot lines, easements, building walls, etc., and hours of allowed outdoor seating use, lighting of outdoor seating, fencing for outdoor seating, the use of umbrellas Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 3 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 4 of 28    or other amenities, and whether and where such outside seating may be appropriate for liquor service and how such service is controlled. 3. The Planning Commission should consider whether expansion of lot coverage by structures from approximately 38.6 percent to approximately 39.1 percent is justified by the commercial use and/or by the off-site parking. 4. The Planning Commission should consider whether parking for the proposed use is adequate; and if not, what plan revisions/reductions or use limitations might be needed to make parking work. 5. The Planning Commission should request that the applicant provide additional detail with regards to signage, lighting and trash handling/screening facilities. The applicant has indicated he likely would install downcast lighting on the patio area. 6. The Planning Commission should consider whether limits on hours of operation are appropriate or necessary. 7. The Planning Commission should review any written and oral public comments received to determine if there are other issues not identified that need to be addressed. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission discuss the issues outlined in Staff’s report and recommend approval with conditions, denial of the application, or table the application to allow the applicant to submit additional information. McGrann asked if there are currently limitations on noise or hours for the Narrows Saloon smoking area. Gaffron indicated the limitations outlined in Staff’s report are the only current limitations and to his recollection it contains no limitations on the smoking area. Gaffron stated the live entertainment is supposed to end at 12:00 and the saloon is supposed to close at 1:00 p.m. under the existing CUP. Lemke asked whether there have been any complaints with the saloon in the past couple of years. Gaffron indicated the neighborhood was quite vocal against the proposal in 2006 but that he has not spoken with the police department regarding the recent complaint history. In the past there have been complaints regarding motorcycle noise and noise from the music. Gaffron indicated Staff can check on that issue. McGrann asked if there are any issues associated with overflow parking. Gaffron indicated he will inquire about overflow parking as well but that it is his belief there have not been problems with that. Lemke asked if parking is a problem, whether overflow parking would occur across the street in the Lunds’ parking lot. Gaffron indicated there is no formal overflow parking agreement in place and since there is parking late at night, they likely utilize the Lunds’ parking lot, which requires people to cross County Road 15. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 4 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 5 of 28    Landgraver asked whether the available parking space was limited to the municipal lot on the previous application. Gaffron stated to his recollection it did not consider parking in front of the building or in the private commercial properties. Gaffron noted those commercial properties would not have an obligation to provide parking. Thiesse noted the five or six parking stalls in front of the building could also be included in the calculation. Landgraver commented the demand for parking also depends on the time of day. Thiesse asking if the City’s parking requirements are based on square footage and not hours of operation. Gaffron indicated the City’s Code does not define overlap parking and that it is likely there will be some parking stalls available in the evening on the private commercial properties. The City’s Code, however, does not provide for that to be considered in the analysis. Landgraver asked if the circled areas on the overhead are the available parking spaces. Gaffron indicated they are the striped stalls. Thiesse asked if there are adequate bathroom facilities available to accommodate both facilities. Gaffron stated the applicant has indicated that he did expand the bathroom facilities back in 2005 or 2006 to handle the expansion being proposed at that time and that Staff will have to confirm that. Thiesse asked if there are any accessibility issues associated with accessing the basement since an elevator is not available. Gaffron indicated there potentially could be some issues. James Anderst, Applicant, stated as far as the parking is concerned, there are a number of on street parking stalls available, which were not included, and the parking lot has never been full. Anderst stated in his view Navarre does not have a parking problem. Anderst stated the artist rendition of the back of the building depicts a patio and the plan is to only allow access to the patio through the building. The patio will not empty into the parking lot. The screening around the patio will consist of trees and shrubs and that he does not want to have a solid wall. Landgraver noted if the walls are under six feet, that would be acceptable under City Code. Anderst stated he is considering a wrought iron fence. Schoenzeit asked if the fence would be permanent. Anderst indicated the blacktop would be removed and all the wires would be buried. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 5 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 6 of 28    Schwingler asked how important the restaurant in the basement is to this proposal. Anderst stated that was somewhat of an afterthought and that they are considering renting the space out for special events. Anderst stated when he called the City about having two stairways into the basement, he was told he would be allowed up to 25 people in the basement. Lemke asked whether an elevator would be installed. Anderst indicated there would not be. Landgraver asked if he would continue forward with his proposal if the basement is not included. Anderst indicated he would. Anderst noted last time he was allowed a patio that the patrons could not eat or drink on and that it would be really nice if the community could have something like this. McGrann asked if there would be seating for the basement dining area during the week. Anderst indicated they would not and that it would only be for special events. Schoenzeit asked how high the ceilings are in the basement. Anderst indicated they are eight feet high. Schwingler asked if there are bathroom facilities in the basement currently. Anderst indicated there is one community bathroom. Gaffron asked if the restaurant would be open the same general hours as the saloon. Anderst stated the restaurant would probably not be opened until 3:00 p.m. except for Saturday and Sunday and that they would possibly open it at 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays. During the week the restaurant would be open until 10:00 p.m. and on the weekends it would be open until 1:00 p.m. Anderst indicated the hours are not definite at this time but that it will not be open all day long and will be open mainly for happy hour and dinner. Landgraver stated the tradeoff is that there will need to be some more concrete descriptions of how the business will operate. Anderst stated he then would propose the same hours as the Narrows Saloon and possibly not have it open as often if the demand is not there. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Schoenzeit stated there appears to be plenty of parking available, and if the off hours are taken into consideration, parking for the basement is basically a non-issue. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 6 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 7 of 28    Schoenzeit asked if the lack of handicap accessibility would adversely affect this application. Gaffron indicated Staff would need to speak with the building inspector to determine if it would be possible to have that area available for special events. Schoenzeit asked when that review would be done. Gaffron stated in his view it would need to occur prior to final action on the conditional use permit. Thiesse pointed out developing a commercial space without handicap accessibility will be rather difficult. McGrann stated anything done to the outside of the building will be an improvement, but if there is outside dining at 10:00, 11:00 at night, there may be issues with the neighbors regarding noise and lighting. Schoenzeit commented lighting at that time of the day would be a potential issue but noted the outdoor dining season is rather limited in Minnesota. Gaffron stated the only information he has concerning the lighting is that the applicant is proposing downcast lighting but there has been no discussion regarding the hours for the outdoor dining area. Gaffron stated the view of the neighbors of the eating area is probably not an issue and in his view the noise generated from the outdoor dining area will also not be an issue. Schoenzeit asked whether the neighbors on Lyric Avenue were notified of this application. Gaffron stated every property owner within 350 feet were given notice of the hearing and that potentially there are no houses located within that area. Gaffron noted according to Exhibit M, there were a handful of residences that were notified of the hearing. Landgraver asked whether Commissioner Schoenzeit is proposing that the notice area be widened. Schoenzeit stated if the use is being expanded, it would be nice to have additional public feedback. Landgraver noted the last application generated a considerable amount of interest from the surrounding neighbors and tonight there has been none. Landgraver asked whether the Planning Commission can request the notice area be widened. Gaffron noted it is not required and that he would like the City Attorney to weigh in on the issue. Landgraver commented it is a worthy point but that it may not be the role of the Planning Commission to require that. Landgraver stated according to his list, there needs to be a lighting plan, a signage plan, clarity on the hours of operation, and more detailed plans for the dining area. Schwingler stated as it relates to Point No. 3, the increase in structural coverage from 38.6 to 39.1 percent is a non-event given the improvements being made to the site. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 7 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 8 of 28    Landgraver stated it appears that parking is adequate. Thiesse stated parking appears to be adequate based on the usage but not on the code. Schoenzeit stated he is not saying the parking matches the code requirements but common sense says that it is sufficient. Thiesse asked whether the hours of operation would be required to be submitted. Landgraver stated that would be imperative in this situation and in his view the restaurant hours should be more restrictive than the saloon. Landgraver noted the other unknowns are complaints regarding the Narrows Saloon and ADA issues. Landgraver indicated the Planning Commission will be tabling the request to allow the applicant time to submit the following materials: a lighting plan in terms of the outdoor seating area, a specific proposal on the hours of operation for the steak house, a detailed plan for the outdoor dining area, landscaping plan, description of the proposed signage, a review by Staff of ADA requirements and previous complaints of noise, specifics on the dumpster location, and verification of adequate bathroom facilities. Landgraver stated once that information is obtained, the application could come back before the Planning Commission. Landgraver asked if there is any time limitation on that. Gaffron noted there is a 120-day total review period and that October 6 is the current deadline, which could be extended if necessary. Landgraver asked if the applicant understands what the next steps are. Anderst indicated he understands. Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to table Application #13-3615, James Anderst on behalf of Narrows, LLC, d/b/a Orono Liquors, 3384 and 3386 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit for Restaurant Use. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 4. #13-3617 WILLIAM AND CYNTHIA BOWMAN, 450 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, VARIANCE, 7:28 P.M. – 7:35 P.M. William Bowman, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance for a deck. The property consists of .58 acres and is located in the RR-1B District. It is bordered by larger lots and open space. In 2011, they received a variance to construct an addition to their home 25 feet from the south side lot line where a 30- foot setback is required. Additionally, they have purchased the west 15 feet of Outlot A on the east, which adds 15 feet to the rear of their property. In June the applicants received a permit to construct a 10’ x 12’ deck on the northeastern corner of the house. The 10’ x 12’ deck met the required setbacks. The applicants are now requesting approval for a 16’ x 18’ deck off the dining room on the rear of the home which requires a side setback variance to allow the new deck to be located 25 feet from the south Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 8 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 9 of 28    side lot line where 30 feet is required. It is Staff’s opinion the applicants’ request for a variance may be reasonable considering the size of the property and the location of their home. The applicants’ request results in minimal negative impact to the adjacent properties and granting the request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Further, the deck does not appear it will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the 25-foot setback variance. William Bowman, Applicant, noted there is a heavy tree line consisting of Scotch pines along the south side of the property and shields the area where they are proposing the deck. Bowman indicated there currently is not a structure on the property to the south. Bowman indicated they cannot move the deck over since the dining room door is within two feet of the south side of the house, and if the deck is moved over, it would be right in the middle of the sliding door. Bowman stated it is his fault for not showing the deck on his original application a few years ago. Landgraver asked how the adjacent lot is zoned. Curtis noted it is in the same zoning district. Curtis displayed a map of the area. Bowman indicated their property abuts up to Lot 2 in Willow Hill. Curtis indicated the same property owner also owns part of this area. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Schwingler commented the application is pretty straight forward. McGrann indicated he visited the site and that he has no issue with the proposal. Schwingler moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application #13-3617, William and Cynthia Bowman, 450 Willow Drive South, granting of a 25-foot side setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 5. #13-3618 EDWARD AND JULIE LAGERSTROM, 2248 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES, 7:35 P.M. – 7:52 P.M. Edward Lagerstrom, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicants’ property s situated at the intersection of Shadywood Road and the entrance to Crystal Bay Road. The angle of the intersection, the curve of Crystal Bay road, and the proximity of the garage to the rear property line create an awkward, if not dangerous, access situation. The existing garage is situated approximately one foot off of the rear property line and approximately five feet from the southeast property line. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 9 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 10 of 28    The applicants are requesting approval of structural coverage, hardcover and setback variances to construct a new detached garage to be set back 20 feet from the rear property line. The proposed garage will meet a 10-foot setback from both sides. The property is conforming with respect to hardcover currently. However, in order to move the garage further from the street, additional driveway is needed. The applicants are requesting 27.3 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed. In addition, the applicants are proposing to keep an adjacent off street parking area next to the detached garage and have proposed a reduced 11-foot wide parking space with the additional driveway. The existing stairs accessing the property from the street/garage area will be reconstructed in a similar location on the northwest side of the driveway but will be moved out of the right-of-way. The current structural coverage is 14.7 percent where 15 percent is allowed. The existing garage is a 20’ x 20’ two-car garage. The new garage will be a total of 23 feet wide and 24 feet deep on the garage level and 23 feet wide by 22 feet deep on the lower storage level, which adds 506 square feet. The additional two feet of depth on the garage level is proposed to be achieved with a cantilevered floor. According to the definition of “building footprint,” because it is greater than four feet above grade, the cantilevered area in this situation does not count toward the building footprint or hardcover. Even so, the 22’ x 23’ garage footprint will result in the property being over on structural coverage by about 100 square feet. Staff finds that the existing situation is less than ideal. The applicants’ need to rebuild a deteriorating garage provides them with an opportunity to create a better and safer situation. There are practical difficulties in the width and topography of the lot as well as the proximity of the existing garage to the rear property line. The size of the existing garage is not functional. The applicants are attempting to construct a garage which will accommodate reasonable storage space for two vehicles. The variances for 27.3 percent hardcover and the structural coverage to permit 100 plus square feet of structure over 15 percent may also be reasonable considering the existing constraints of the property and alternate available solutions such as extensive filling and grading, tree removal, etc., which could potentially alter the character of the immediate area. The applicants’ request is reasonable and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. It also results in minimal negative impact to the neighboring properties. Staff received comment from the neighboring property owners today and those have been distributed to the Planning Commissioners. Staff noted an inconsistency today between the survey and the plans for the garage and parking area. The applicants’ plan indicates there is to be additional hardcover on the south side of the garage that is not shown as proposed on the survey. Further, there are areas of hardcover that are not accurately reflected on the survey. The applicant should be directed to resolve the inconsistencies prior to moving forward. Planning Staff recommends tabling the application. Curtis displayed the survey on the overhead and pointed out the location of the proposed garage. Thiesse asked how many inconsistencies Staff found on the survey. Curtis indicated there were two or three. Thiesse asked if one of the inconsistencies is the set of stairs that is proposed to be removed. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 10 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 11 of 28    Curtis stated it is and that the stairs are not depicted on the survey. The other inconsistency relates to the proposed garage and the parking area. There is currently an L-shaped wall on the south side that appears to be some sort of structural element. The wall appears to be further away from the house than what is depicted. Phil Johnson indicated he has been working with Mr. Lagerstrom on his plans and that he was not aware of the inconsistencies. The L-shaped wall is a piece of retaining wall that will extend the existing retaining wall up to the new garage. The area between the wall and the house is proposed to be permeable except for the retaining wall. The retaining wall was at one time a dog run which had a chain link fence around, which has since been removed. Johnson noted there will be no increase of impervious surface due to the permeable area that is being created and that they attempted to hold the amount of impervious surface down as much as possible. Johnson indicated also included in the packet is a plan showing how cars will be able to back out of the garage and see to the right and left. Lemke asked whether moving the garage further back jeopardizes the tree. Johnson indicated the proposed garage is approximately 15 feet away from the tree and that there should not be any heavy equipment in that location. Landgraver asked if the intent is to keep the tree. Stated that is definitely their intent but that he cannot guarantee it will survive. Landgraver asked if Mr. Johnson is aware of the content of the e-mail that was submitted today. Curtis indicated the applicant was provided with it at the beginning of tonight’s meeting. Landgraver asked if the intent is to leave that vegetation on the right side. Johnson indicated it is and that they are not proposing to remove anything major along that line. Johnson pointed out the two trees that will be removed. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. There were no comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Thiesse stated the proposal provides a safer location for the garage but unfortunately there are some discrepancies on the survey. Schwingler asked if Staff’s recommendation is to table the application. Curtis stated it is. Thiesse asked if the application would be reopened for public comment at that time. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 11 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 12 of 28    Landgraver stated it would since it would come back before the Planning Commission. Schwingler stated perhaps the application could be approved subject to the discrepancies being addressed. Thiesse asked if the application could be approved with the caveat that the discrepancies are resolved. Curtis stated if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the applicant’s plan as proposed and the applicant provides the corrected numbers, she would be fine with moving it forward to the City Council. Landgraver stated he understands the desire to move this application forward but the cleaner process may be to table the application and finalize the numbers. Johnson stated to his understanding the area that is in dispute here is grass cover and not hardcover. Johnson indicated he is not sure what the issue is. Landgraver asked if the hardcover number would remain the same. Johnson stated to his knowledge it stays the same. Curtis indicated Staff also had a question regarding the existing hardcover. There is an area surrounding the porch entry that on the survey is represented as a brick landing to the stairs and on site there is clearly additional hardcover on the north side of the entryway which is not reflected on the survey. Johnson indicated he was not aware of that. Landgraver stated there appears to be enough of a gray area to warrant tabling the application so the applicant can respond to the concerns of Staff. Johnson asked how long the application would be tabled. Landgraver indicated approximately 30 days. Curtis stated based on the information that is provided, the application could be placed on the Consent Agenda. Lemke moved, Thiesse seconded, to table Application #13-3618, Edward and Julie Lagerstrom, 2248 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 6. #13-3619 PAUL AND JESSICA WARNER, 1380 BRIAR STREET, VARIANCES, 7:52 P.M. to 7:59 P.M. Paul Warner, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting side, front, and rear yard setback variances in order to construct additions to the existing home. The applicants’ current 800 square foot home was built in the 1920s. According to the City’s records, the detached garage was constructed in 1957 and an addition to the home was constructed in 1958. The property is 160 feet wide by only 87.5 feet deep and the required 50-foot front and rear setbacks overlap. The property does not conform to the two acre minimum lot size of the RR-1B District. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 12 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 13 of 28    The applicants’ existing home is set back 15.8 feet from the front property line. The applicants are proposing 2 one-story additions to the existing residence. The northern addition will consist of 442 square feet and the addition on the south will be 790 square feet including the new attached garage space. An 83 square foot portion of the existing home will be removed/incorporated into the garage addition. In total, the additions will nearly double the amount of structural coverage on the property but will conform to the 15 percent limitation. The applicants are also proposing to construct a low, uncovered porch 18 inches above grade along the front of the home. The uncovered porch is proposed to encroach within 9.5 feet of the front property line, which is acceptable if it conforms to the non-encroachments provision for uncovered porches in the Zoning Code. The applicants are also proposing to incorporate a decorative planter/bench element into the porch design. The planter and bench, which will not be an integral part of the porch, will sit on the floor of the porch and be movable. However, it could give the appearance of an additional two feet to the height of the front porch. Curtis noted the proposed northerly addition will not encroach closer to the rear property line than the existing home. The applicants are proposing an attached garage addition on the south side of the house which is proposed to be set back 19 feet from the rear where a 50-foot setback is required. The garage addition will encroach 19 feet closer to the rear lot line than the existing home. The existing one-stall detached garage is proposed to be removed. The separation from the adjacent property on the south will be improved with removal of the garage and construction of the addition. However, the addition will still encroach 15 plus feet into the required 30-foot setback. Staff finds the size and dimensions of the property serve as a practical difficulty with prevents development of this property. The applicants’ existing home is, to a degree, driving the additions. However, it is not possible to construct a home in a conforming location on the property. Curtis noted one neighbor comment was received today and has been distributed to the Planning Commissioners for inclusion in the record. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Landgraver asked if the letter received today was generally supportive of the application. Curtis indicated it was. Paul Warner, Applicant, indicated he does not have any additional comments to add to Staff’s report. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. There were no comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Schoenzeit commented this is a difficult lot. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 13 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 14 of 28    Landgraver noted the one comment received from a neighbor was supportive of the project. Gaffron indicated there was a comment by a neighbor approximately one year ago suggesting the entire neighborhood be rezoned given the substandard lots. Gaffron noted there was also a previous mayor that had suggested that as part of the next comprehensive plan review, rezoning of this area be discussed, which is still three or four years away. Landgraver noted the drawing depicts the proposed deck sitting on top of an existing well. Curtis indicated she has discussed that with the applicant and that the state requires three feet of horizontal distance, which can be accomplished with a removal portion of the deck. The applicant has indicated that is what is intended be done. Landgraver stated in terms of construction, given the school is across the street, there is a possibility that will pose some problems. Landgraver asked if any concern was raised by the school regarding access to their parking lot. Curtis indicated she did not receive any comments from the school but blocking access to the parking lot would not be allowed. Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application #13-3619, Paul and Jessica Warner, 1380 Briar Street, granting of side, front and rear yard setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 7. #13-3622 TODD HOLMERS (LANDSOURCE, LCC), 1645 SHADYWOOD ROAD, PRELIMNARY PLAT APPROVAL, 8:00 P.M. – 8:45 P.M. Todd Holmers, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for a 2-lot residential subdivision to create a 0.51 acre lot abutting Shadywood Road for the existing residence and a 1.86 acre back lot for construction of a new single-family residence on the remainder of the property. The back lot will access Shadywood via a 30-foot outlot driveway corridor. It should be noted that the applicant has discussed with Staff the potential of creating additional lots, which would require a 50-foot wide corridor and a full road. The applicant has chosen not to do that. Proposed Lot 1 is a back lot requiring 150 percent of the standard LR-1C area and setback standards per Orono Subdivision Code Section 82-256(c). Proposed Lot 1 meets the minimum width requirement of 100 feet and the minimum back lot area requirement of 0.75 acres. By definition, the east lot line of proposed Lot 1 is its front lot line. The required yards for this back lot are 45 feet front and rear and 15 feet sides, all of which are met, yielding a buildable area more than sufficient for construction of a new single-family residence. The existing nonconforming detached garage on proposed Lot 1 should be removed, as it will become more nonconforming when a new residence is constructed due to being nearer the front lot line than the new residence. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 14 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 15 of 28    Proposed Lot 2 contains the existing residence and will be 0.51 acres in area and 110 feet in width, meeting the LR-1C area/width minimum requirements. Required yards for this “front” lot adjacent to a shared outlot driveway are 30 feet front and rear, 10 feet side, and 15 feet on the side abutting the outlot. The preliminary plat drawing shows only a 10-foot yard adjacent to the outlot and can easily be revised to 15 feet without affecting the existing home. All required LR-1C setbacks will be met by the existing home. Hardcover after the subdivision and driveway realignment will be 22.77 percent, compliant with the Tier 2 limit of 30 percent. Gaffron noted the area is zoned LR-1C, one family lakeshore residential, and the other lots in this neighborhood range from 0.58 to as much as 3.8 acres. This subdivision is technically subject to the Conservation Design standards by virtue of the fact that it is guided for urban-density development even though it is less than five acres in area. The Planning Commission may wish to review the goals for conservation design as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and consider whether an abbreviated process may be appropriate. There are no wetlands on the property. There is an existing house on proposed Lot 2 with its existing driveway accessing Shadywood Road. The existing driveway will be abandoned and relocated to the outlot, which will be platted to provide for a shared driveway serving both lots. Proposed Lot 1 contains an existing detached garage which Staff is recommending be removed.. Currently the property is within Hardcover Tier 2, allowing 30 percent impervious surface. Both proposed Lots 1 and 2 will remain within Tier 2 by virtue of having their primary building area between 250 and 500 feet of a protected lakeshore. Proposed Lot 1 is only 350 feet from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka marshland to the immediate south of Fagerness Point Road. Staff recommends conditional preliminary plat approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a revised preliminary plat drawing showing the southerly setback for Lot 2 at 15 feet rather than 10 feet. 2. The existing nonconforming detached garage in proposed Lot 1 to be removed prior to Final Plat approval. 3. The applicant shall submit a Conservation Design report by a qualified professional prior to preliminary plat review by Council. 4. The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer and Fire Chief. Utility connections will be to Shadywood Road and not to North Shore Drive. 5. Dedication of a 10-foot trail easement along the easterly boundaries of Lot 2 and Outlot A. 6. Payment of park dedication fee, stormwater drainage and trunk fee, and municipal water connection charge as noted in Staff’s memo. 7. Both Lots 1 and 2 shall be assigned to Hardcover Tier 2. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 15 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 16 of 28    8. The applicant will need to submit approved Hennepin County access permit for a shared driveway. 9. The applicant will need to provide confirmation of MCWD required approvals. Gaffron noted one neighbor comment has been received and is included in the Planning Commission packet as Exhibit M. The subject property is located within the MUSA and sewer and water service is available to the property from Shadywood Road. The proposal will be submitted to the fire chief/fire marshal for review to determine whether the remoteness of the building site for Lot 1 will require installation of a new hydrant within the property. Payment of a park dedication fee is also required. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission discuss the issues outlined in Staff’s report. Thiesse indicated he would like to discuss the conservation design requirements. Thiesse asked if he has a conforming lot and could construct a house without very many approvals. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Thiesse commented he understands the concept of the Conservation Design but noted this is a single house and not much different from any other lot in the City. Thiesse stated he is wondering why a tree inventory would be required. Gaffron stated technically it is a subdivision and the code requires the application go through the Conservation Design process. The ordinance specifically says that an urban-density subdivision is subject to the Conservation Design process. Gaffron stated his current view is that this application will need to go through the Conservation Design process. Since the City has not done one on a scale like this before, the Planning Commission should decide whether it is necessary. McGrann asked what the requirement is regarding trees and how many trees can be removed. Gaffron indicated there is no protection for trees outside the 0-75 foot zone. Once a subdivision is proposed, the trees would be subject to some limitations, but if the current owner decides to tear down his existing house and not do a subdivision, the City has no guidelines on what trees could be cut down. Schoenzeit stated the Conservation Design process would provide an opportunity to place some restrictions on where the house and driveway are located. Schoenzeit noted the comment received from the neighbor encouraged screening and wildlife preservation. Todd Holmers, Applicant, stated they went this route for the exact reason that they want to conserve as many trees as possible. Holmers indicated they did look at removing the existing house and creating three lots but that they have decided to only create two lots to conserve as many trees as possible. Landgraver asked if Mr. Holmers is the owner of Landsource, LLC. Holmers indicated he is. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 16 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 17 of 28    Landgraver asked if there is anything else the Planning Commission should consider as part of this application. Holmers indicated that they are proposing to only remove what is needed for the building pad and the driveway. Schoenzeit asked if he is fine with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Holmers indicated he is. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Brian Zjawiony, 1675 Shadywood Road, stated he has a number of questions regarding this development. Zjawiony asked how close the driveway will be to his lot and how emergency vehicles will be able to access the back lot. Zjawiony stated in his view the home is being buried so far back from the street that emergency vehicles will have a difficult time accessing that area. Zjawiony stated he understands the land itself does have a number of large trees on it and that he would hate to see those removed. There is also a bunch of wildlife in the area that will likely leave if a new home is constructed. Zjawiony stated as compared to the rest of the neighborhood, the smaller lot is not in proportion and will likely jeopardize the value of the surrounding homes. Zjawiony indicated he has also concerns with washout on both sides of Lot No. 2 as well as his own residence. Other concerns include construction noise and disturbance to the neighborhood. Shadywood Road is a very busy road and no parking is allowed on the road. Zjawiony stated the neighbors are worried overall about the preservation of the trees and wildlife. Barbara Kreisler, 1650 Shadywood Road, indicated she has the same concerns as Mr. Zjawiony and that she would like to see as many of the trees preserved as possible. Kriesler indicated her property is located directly across from this lot. There is no parking on County Road 19 and that she has concerns about where vehicles will park during the construction. Kriesler indicated there is another development in the neighborhood that is still not done and there is still parking on the street that is occurring as well as debris in the streets. Kriesler stated she wants to make sure that whatever is built is in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. The owners of the last property developed were told they would have access to a public park, which they do not. Kriesler indicated she is planting 16 arborvitae across the front of her property which will probably eliminate their lake view and that this property will not have lake access on their side of the street. Kriesler stated the neighbors are concerned about this project getting started and then not being finished, which will create an eyesore for the rest of the neighbors. Kriesler indicated she was not aware of the walking path. Kriesler stated she is currently landscaping the entire front of her property and was not aware of the walking path. Landgraver asked for clarification about access to the trail. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 17 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 18 of 28    Gaffron indicated the Orono Comprehensive Plan that was adopted two or three years ago has a comprehensive trail plan included in it. The proposed trail system throughout Orono generally includes an 8-foot wide trail in different areas of the City. The City Council has envisioned that someday there will be trails along some of these major routes. Gaffron noted there is no schedule or funding for any of the trails at this point. In addition, no formal decision has been made regarding which side of the road the trail will be located. New developments afford the City the ability to obtain the land necessary to construct a trail at some point in the future. Gaffron reiterated the trail is something that is only a concept plan at the present time and is not listed on the City’s capital improvement plan. The total cost of the complete trail system is estimated to be three to four million dollars and is not something that will happen in the immediate future. Gaffron noted there were discussions in the past about extending the trail all the way down to Navarre but at this time there is no plan or schedule for that segment of trail. Kriesler indicated they are planting 16 seven-foot arborvitae along the front of their property. Gaffron stated those plantings should not be disturbed as long as they are located within their property boundaries and not in the right-of-way. Kriesler asked if there is a utility easement on the south side of the property. Gaffron stated there is a 30-foot wide corridor for the driveway and it is likely they will construct a 12- foot wide driveway. Gaffron stated whenever you have a driveway that is more than 600 feet long, it requires a loop at the end so emergency vehicles can turn around. The driveway has to be located at least five feet from the property line and it will likely be centered in the middle of that corridor, which will probably leave five to eight feet on either side of the driveway. Gaffron stated it is likely the utilities will go along the driveway. The entire driveway corridor will be subject to a drainage and utility easement but not a road easement since it would be considered a private driveway. Kriesler asked how close the driveway would be from the lot line where it starts. Gaffron pointed out the driveway appears to be centered in that corridor as proposed, which would make it between five and eight feet from the property line. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. Thiesse stated he is withdrawing his comment about not having the trees surveyed. McGrann asked what options the Planning Commission would be able to place on the property in regards to the Conservation Design. McGrann asked if the number of trees that might be removed could be limited. Gaffron stated the City would receive a recommendation from the person who performs the review and that there likely will be a recommendation for removal of buckthorn. Any unusual trees or wildlife areas would be recommended be preserved. Thiesse asked if any of those restrictions currently apply to the adjacent properties. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 18 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 19 of 28    Gaffron stated to his knowledge they do not and that the only recent subdivision was done a number of years ago and the ordinance was not in effect. Landgraver noted a higher standard would be applied to this property than the other properties in the area. Landgraver commented this is a public process and the neighbors have expressed some concerns, but that some of them are construction related and behavioral in terms of the current developments that are not completed which are unrelated to this application. Landgraver stated the concerns that are within the purview of the Planning Commission are the concerns regarding the location of the driveway, the length of the driveway, and the ability for emergency vehicles to access the property. Landgraver asked whether this driveway would require the loop at the end. Gaffron indicated the proposed driveway is approximately 500 feet long and does not meet the 600’ threshold. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission does acknowledge the concerns that were raised by the neighbors but that the Planning Commission is limited in what it can do as it relates to some of them. Landgraver asked if there are any concerns regarding the slope of the driveway and possible runoff. Gaffron indicated a grading plan has not been submitted and would not come into play until the time they construct the house. Gaffron stated in his view the area will be cut and filled to keep the slope of the driveway at less than 10 percent. The City Engineer was specifically asked whether there will be a requirement for stormwater ponding or a rain garden to deal with the runoff, and it was noted that the Watershed District likely will not require that. Gaffron noted the housing plans and grading plans have not been finalized at this point. Schoenzeit pointed out the Planning Commission will likely not see either one of these properties again since they are not requesting any variances. Schoenzeit commented now is the time for the Planning Commission to address any concerns they may have. Lemke stated the Planning Commission is basically deciding whether these two properties are dividable. Landgraver noted there are nine items that Staff would like submitted by the applicant. Gaffron indicated that is correct and that the Planning Commission may want to see the report generated from the Conservation Design analysis. Landgraver asked if this application is approved, in terms of how the items are being marketed or whether other projects are being completed timely, whether that is something that can be addressed at the City Council. Gaffron stated the City Council always has the ability to add conditions that the Planning Commission did not add and that the City Council will approve a preliminary plat resolution and then a final plat resolution. Thiesse noted the last project done by this developer was a multi property development and this is a single house. Thiesse commented it sometimes takes time to sell a property and that the developer is simply moving down the line on another property. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 19 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 20 of 28    Schwingler commented the developer has no control over the market. Landgraver stated at this point the Planning Commission should decide whether a Conservation Design Plan should be undertaken. Schoenzeit stated given the amount of public comment, the Planning Commission should request a Conservation Design Plan. Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application #13-3622, Todd Holmers, 1645 Shadywood Road, preliminary plat approval, subject to the completion of a Conservation Design Plan, subject to the applicant submitting the requested information outlined in Staff’s report, and subject to the conditions of the City Engineer and Staff. Thiesse stated he has a hard time requiring this applicant do something that the other neighbors are not required to perform. Schoenzeit amended his motion, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application #13- 3622, Todd Holmers, 1645 Shadywood Road, preliminary plat approval, subject to the completion of a Conservation Design Plan, subject to the applicant submitting the requested information outlined in Staff’s report, subject to the conditions of the City Engineer and Staff, and with the recommendation that removal of the buckthorn will not be required. Kriesler stated she has a real concern that only one house will be developed on this property rather than additional houses being constructed later. Gaffron noted the property on Maple Place existed as separate 50-foot lots, and due to action taken by the state legislature, the City did not have the ability to require those lots be combined. In this situation a subdivision is a more rigorous process and the developer only has approximately 1.88 acres. In order to create three lots, the developer would need to construct a City-standard road to serve those lots. Once three or more homes are being served by a shared access, it requires a 50-foot wide corridor, which would basically make it impossible to create three lots. VOTE ON THE ABOVE AMENDED MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 8 #13-3624 PETER JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF WAGENER PROPERTIES, LLC, 3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:45 P.M. – 8:52 P.M. Breanne Glesener, Attorney-at-Law, was present on behalf of Peter Johnson. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to conduct land alterations in excess of 500 cubic yards in order to restore the property and resulting in grades consistent with the lakeshore yard of the adjacent property at 1420 Bohns Point Road. The property contained a house until 2006 when it was demolished in preparation for new construction. A new home was never built and the current applicant purchased the vacant lot as it is adjacent to his home. In 2009, the City granted a conditional use permit for fill to restore the property and blend it into Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 20 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 21 of 28    the existing grades of the adjacent lot. The applicant chose not to proceed at that time and the approvals expired. The current proposal is only moderately different than what was approved in 2009. The applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval to import approximately 2,200 cubic yards in order to restore the grade. A portion of the material is already on or near the site. Administrative permits were issued to allow the applicant to bring in 500 cubic yards of fill to each of the properties in order to take advantage of the trail near the home that is currently under construction. A new home is not proposed at this time and the applicant is proposing to remove a portion of the existing blacktop driveway. Curtis stated Staff’s report outlines the CUP analysis and the Planning Commission can either walk through the CUP criteria or request that specific issues be addressed. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the continued oversight of the project by the City Engineer. McGrann asked if the property has looked pretty much the same since the home was demolished. Curtis indicated it has. Breanna Glesener stated she is here on behalf of Peter Johnson and that she has nothing to add to Staff’s report. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8: 9 p.m. There were no comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Schoenzeit commented the City Engineer’s report pretty completely covers the work that needs to be followed in order to bring in that much fill. Thiesse asked whether the garage was also removed. Curtis stated the survey shows the garage still exists. Thiesse stated when he visited the property, the foundation was still there but the actual garage structure has been removed. Thiesse asked if they are not going to construct a permanent residence on that property whether they can construct another garage since the foundation still remains. Gaffron stated it is something the City Attorney should look at. If the garage foundation shows up on the current survey, the City does not have the ability to require the removal of an existing structure on a lakeshore lot without potentially compensating the property owner for it. Landgraver asked if the intent is to remove the foundation of the garage. Glesener stated the garage foundation will be removed. Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application #13-3624, Peter Johnson on behalf of Wagener Properties, LLC, 3165 North Shore Drive, subject to Staff and City Engineer’s recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 21 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 22 of 28    9. #13-3625 PETER JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF WJM PROPERTIES, LLC, 2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, 8:52 P.M. – 8:55 P.M. Breanne Glesener, Attorney-at-Law, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting renewal and a minor revision of approvals granted in May of 2006 via Resolution No. 5470 which amended the existing industrial Site Plan approval as follows: 1. Allowed a 25,620 square foot one-story addition to the principal structure. 2. Allowed a 250 square foot addition to connect the existing accessory buildings; 3. Approved revisions to approved parking layout; and 4. Approved revised conditions placed on the outside storage and display of vehicles. Resolution No. 5470 also denied a conditional use permit for flagpoles exceeding 40 feet in height. Gaffron noted the applicant never went forward with the work at that time and requested a number of renewals over the years. Since the most recent approval has lapsed, this application is technically a new review process rather than a renewal. The only element of the approvals that has changed is a proposed increase in height of the proposed addition from 20 feet to 25 feet. The approvals in 2006 also allowed for an expansion of the parking area directly south of the proposed addition pursuant to stormwater system upgrades which have been completed. The parking area is currently graveled and finish grading and paving are the contemplated final improvements yet to be completed. Staff recommends approval of the commercial site plan and conditional use permit revisions as proposed, subject to the findings and conditions of prior approvals as well as approval of the increased height of the 26,000 square foot addition from 20 feet to 25 feet. Glesener indicated she does not have anything to add to Staff’s report. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. There were no comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. Schwingler moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application #13-3625, WJM Properties, LLC (Morries Automotive Group), 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard, subject to Staff’s recommendations based upon the prior conditions and approvals. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 10. #13-3621 THOMAS WASMOEN ON BEHALF OF JOHN BESSESEN, 2445, 2455, 2465 SHADYWOOD ROAD, 2560 KELLY AVENUE AND PID 20-117-23-11-0032, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, 8:55 P.M. – 9:50 P.M. Thomas Wasmoen and John Bessesen, Applicants, were present. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 22 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 23 of 28    Gaffron noted this is a sketch plan review and no vote of the Planning Commission needs to be taken. The applicant will present his concept plan in order to gain the comments of the Planning Commission. Landgraver asked if the public can comment on the application. Gaffron indicated this was not noticed as a public hearing and that it is premature at this point to obtain public comment. The applicant would like to get some feedback from the Planning Commission on his concept for a residential townhome development that would incorporate a number of properties but the number of properties is not known at this point. The area is located in the LR-1B, one family lakeshore residential district, and B-4, office and professional business district. Gaffron noted this application will be brought before the City Council for their input as well. Tom Wasmoen, applicant, stated one of the ideas they are exploring is how the lay of the land could be used to create a higher density enclave for people who would like to live in a smaller unit such as a twin home or townhome. The development would appeal to the empty nester. Wasmoen displayed a layout of the proposed development. Wasmoen indicated they are presently looking at mostly twin homes with a couple of single units and a few row houses. The row houses have been incorporated to help the development fit in better with the topography. Wasmoen displayed some massing models of the proposed development. Some trees have been added to the lot to help soften up the development. An attempt is being made to maintain all of the wetlands as a buffer along Kelly Avenue as well as preserve the majority of the existing tree coverage. The steep slope would remain pretty much intact as well as the green buffer area. Wasmoen indicated they would also be using the current access point for the existing home as a pedestrian trail and access for emergency vehicles. Wasmoen stated they are attempting to work with the slope and take advantage of it as much as possible to avoid re-grading the entire site. Landgraver asked what the total number of units is they are proposing. Wasmoen stated they are proposing approximately 44 units to a maximum of 62 units depending on the number of properties they are able to combine. Lemke asked whether age restrictions are being contemplated. Wasmoen stated the development is being geared towards people who are empty nesters. Lemke asked whether there are any price points that have been contemplated. Wasmoen indicated they would like a mix of units but that they would be luxury townhomes and likely in the neighborhood of $300 a square foot. Landgraver asked if the target customer is people without children. Wasmoen stated they are looking at a living room, dining room, garage, and master bedroom on one floor and perhaps a second story to provide guest bedrooms and an office space. Wasmoen stated they are also attempting to encourage neighborhood interaction by incorporating some green spaces and perhaps Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 23 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 24 of 28    garden/vegetable areas. In this particular case they would be looking at an association that would require the payment of monthly dues to conduct the mowing and snow plowing. Schoenzeit asked what the City’s infrastructure is like in this area to support this type of density. Gaffron indicated Staff has not gotten to the point to determine sewer and water capacity but that he would expect there would be capacity for 50 units. Masmoen stated they are looking for the reaction of the Planning Commission and whether the City would be receptive to rezoning this area. Lemke asked if he has gotten the reaction from the residents in the surrounding area. Wasmoen indicated they wanted to obtain the reaction of the City first and then further develop the plan before gaining public input. Landgraver stated the amount of traffic would obviously increase and asked whether the L-shaped entry onto Shadywood is for sure or whether access to the site has yet to be determined. Wasmoen stated if that access is not available, they would loop back on the other side. Landgraver asked where access to the church is located. Wasmoen pointed out the location of the church. Landgraver stated he is attempting to determine how the curb cuts would work and noted that there is an intersection in the vicinity. Wasmoen stated they would also look at whether access could be simplified given the two commercial properties and that they would like to have the access further away from the intersection than what currently exists. Schoenzeit asked what the square footage of the units would be. Wasmoen indicated they would likely range from 2,500 to 1,800 square feet. Wasmoen stated there would probably be four different unit types. Schoenzeit asked what type of materials would be utilized. Wasmoen indicated they would have wood and brick exteriors and on the interior they would likely have hardwood floors, custom millwork and kitchens as well as solid surface or granite countertops. Schoenzeit asked whether there would be any architectural covenants to allow some flexibility in construction. Wasmoen displayed a composite view of the types of architectural components they are considering. Each twin home would have its own personality. Wasmoen noted since they are dealing with a number of grade changes and existing trees, the footprint will rotate somewhat as you maneuver the site. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 24 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 25 of 28    Landgraver commented it is difficult to react to something until there is something more concrete. Wasmoen stated they are looking for whether the Planning Commission in general feels this is an appropriate use for the area. Schwingler stated the big questions are whether this use is appropriate for the area and can the roads handle the additional traffic. Gaffron noted this area has been zoned commercial/office use for the past 20 years and suggested the Planning Commission discuss whether, if it is rezoned residential, what the impact of that would be. The area further west towards Kelly Avenue has been zoned and guided for one-acre lots for the last 40 years. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission focus more on whether they would be comfortable with changing the area from a future commercial strip of some sort to residential. Gaffron stated the piece that he has a concern about is the substantial woods and whether a development can be created that will preserve that. Gaffron noted this property will be subject to Conservation Design, which may have a large impact on what will ultimately be allowed. Schwingler asked about the last proposed set of townhomes near the water tower and what impact that had versus what a commercial development would have. Schwingler noted the City had a discussion at the Freshwater Institute about the future planning of Navarre approximately four years ago and that he was wondering what the results of that was. Gaffron stated as a result of discussions this area was reguided for mixed use in the 2008-2030 Comp plan but the City has not created a mixed use development standard at this point. The Planning Commission should decide whether the area labeled B-4, commercial, should be changed to high-density residential and what impacts that will have on the immediate area. Landgraver asked if there has been a demand for commercial in this area. Gaffron indicated there has not been and that the last commercial development in this area eventually was converted into a church. Gaffron noted the property to the northwest contains a residence. The property to the southeast was proposed and approved to have senior housing. That developer cleared a number of trees, then found his approvals had expired and nothing further has been done. Thiesse commented a development like this could add some energy to the area. Landgraver commented the area has been designated as commercial for a number of years and there has not been much demand for it and that now maybe it is time to consider something else in the interests of the community. Lemke stated it seems to be an appropriate area for some type of higher density use. Wasmoen commented the development would promote more pedestrian traffic and that they would connect to the sidewalks to help facilitate pedestrian movement. Lemke stated given the nature of the development, it is likely a large number of trees will be lost. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 25 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 26 of 28    Gaffron stated the neighborhood reaction to the removal of a large number of trees in the past for the senior living housing was rather loud and the question becomes how well the development can be screened. Landgraver asked if it would be easier to screen an office building versus a number of residential units. Gaffron stated that would depend on the layout of the units. McGrann asked if there would be views of the lake on top of the hill. Wasmoen stated it is difficult to tell at this point given the large number of trees and that the existing residential properties already have a fairly good buffer. Wasmoen indicated going forward they would look at that but the initial feeling is that there will only be a walkway down the hill and to the beach and back. Wasmoen stated they will not be constructing a four-story building on top of the hill. McGrann stated in his view this is a good use of the property and that the concerns of the neighbors will definitely need to be kept in mind. Schwingler stated he agrees with Commissioner McGrann that this may be a better use for the property but that impacts on traffic will need to be taken into consideration as well as the number of units. Schoenzeit stated the City has a poor track record on commercial development and that it will likely not happen anytime in the near future. Schoenzeit stated the proposed residential townhome development appears to be a good use of the property but the number of units being proposed seems high. Schoenzeit commented this development may be difficult to sell to the neighborhood and that screening of the units as well as terracing will need to be given some serious consideration. Wasmoen commented this site has been underused for a number of years and that anything that is proposed for this site will likely run into those types of roadblocks with the neighbors. Wasmoen stated in his opinion this solution is a softer sell versus a commercial development and that there is an opportunity for it to be a win/win solution to the general area as well as bring more value to the property. Schoenzeit stated they may also have to look beyond the immediate area to help sell the project and that the positive impacts on the Navarre business district should be considered as well. Thiesse noted a considerable amount of thought has been given to the zoning districts included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and that it will likely not be changed quickly. Thiesse stated the input of the neighbors will weigh heavily into his decision. Lemke stated this is a good location for the development but that it will be difficult to sell to the neighbors. Landgraver stated a good communications plan with the nearby residents is essential. Landgraver stated given the fact that this area has been zoned commercial for the past 40 years and nothing has been built there, at times the market speaks to the City and says that perhaps something else should be considered. John Bessesen, 4500 North Shore Drive, stated he has lived in this area for 37 years and that he has looked at this site for a long time. Bessesen noted the property near the intersection would be a piece of Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 26 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 27 of 28    property that the City could hold back on developing in order to expand the corner. The other piece of property and the property next to it in this area is owned by the bank and the church. Bessesen stated the piece of property that was defoliated is likely not going to be developed in the near future and that he has taken an overall view of those pieces as it relates to this development. In addition, the Nelsons are selling their house, which is another acre. Bessesen noted the majority of the terrain slopes down into a wetland area and has a tendency to flood out Kelly Avenue, which creates some issues for this site. The setbacks from the intersection should be extended back further. Bessesen stated by moving everything back with this plan and working with the highway department and the neighbors and eliminating any access off Kelly Avenue should help with the residents’ complaints. Bessesen noted the church is also interested in constructing a mission house on the property next to them and that now is a good time to take an overall view of the area and how it should be developed into the future. Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission has adequately addressed the sketch plan at this point. Gaffron stated in his view they have and that he would like to bring this concept plan before the City Council. (Christopher McGrann leaves the meeting at 9:47 p.m.) Landgraver stated the City Council would be a good group to vet this concept and that they would be able to provide more actionable feedback on the project. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 11. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD JULY 22, 2013, AND AUGUST 12, 2013 Lemke reported the City Council at their July 22, 2013, discussed parking for the Dakota Trail and a decision was made to eliminate parking on Bayview Place. The Council also discussed the brush disposal site and the costs associated with keeping it open year-round as well as what action the City should take on the fire lanes. Landgraver asked if any decision was made on the fire lanes. Gaffron stated the first reaction of the City Council was whether the Planning Commission should review this. Gaffron noted a new Park Commission will start the first of the year and that could be reviewed by them. Schoenzeit reported the August 12 meeting was lengthy and covered a variety of items. Andrew McDermott, representative to the LMCD, reported there was less milfoil this year and that the harvesting is coming to an end for the season. Schoenzeit stated a report was provided on Big Island and that Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 27 of 28] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 28 of 28    vandals stole the aluminum off the docks at Big Island. A lengthy discussion was had regarding the Your Boat Club application and that a variety of issues ranging from ownership and fuel storage were raised. Schoenzeit stated one of his questions that remained unanswered was how often the fuel container is being refilled. Gaffron stated when they were utilizing the five-gallon cans, they were filled on a daily basis and that it is likely the container is filled a couple times a week. Schoenzeit stated he would give the applicant credit for submitting a number of the required documents and improving the parking situation. Schoenzeit noted a number of items were placed on Consent and the Fred Johnson application was denied. Schoenzeit stated it is clear the City is not going to allow that lot to be developed and that he is not sure whether the applicant will be pursuing it any further. Gaffron noted they did not meet the 10,000 square foot standard as well as the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron stated there will be a resolution of denial before the City Council on Monday. Schoenzeit reported the City Council also approved another stop sign near the school on Crystal Bay Road. 12. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None ADJOURNMENT Schoenzeit moved, Schwingler seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 10:00 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. _________________________________ Kevin Landgraver, Acting Chair Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 28 of 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3616 [Total Pages 28] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #03 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3618 [Total Pages 57] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3623 [Total Pages 34] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3627 [Total Pages 15] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3628 [Total Pages 28] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #07 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3629 [Total Pages 72] Item #08 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3630 [Total Pages 9] Item #08 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3630 [Total Pages 9] Item #08 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3630 [Total Pages 9] Item #08 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3630 [Total Pages 9] Item #08 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3630 [Total Pages 9] Item #08 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3630 [Total Pages 9] Item #08 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3630 [Total Pages 9] Item #08 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3630 [Total Pages 9] Item #08 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3630 [Total Pages 9] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72] Item #09 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 File #13-3631 [Total Pages 72]