PL 01/06/1999- 00002351CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 6, 1999
• • •G� G
Chairperson Savage called the January 6, 1999, Planning Commission meeting to order at
7:33 p.m.
:• _
Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba,
Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle
I►�iCai'i1.•-Ta'�i�_1• -'�i�i�►C•TiL�
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant
Missy Daniels, Planning Assistant
Julie Tostenson, Community Development Secretary
Woody Nelson, Onan
Tom Becker, Opus
Mark Kusnierek, CSM Properties
e��:• _ • � ►�: : ••; - _►► ► •►�►� •► ►� ►
MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the December 2, 1998,
Planning Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
► :•� •► • '
Mr. Hickok introduced Ms. Tostenson, Community Development Secretary, and Ms.
Daniels, Planning Assistant, who works with code enforcement.
PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF REPLAT, P S#98-04, BY nNAN
C;nRPnRATInN, M C� NELSnN:
To replat property to accommodate the development of a warehousing facility on
Tracts A-D, RLS114, generally located at 1400 73rd Avenue N.E.
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing
notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:38 P.M.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • �
Mr. Bolin stated the replat request is by Onan Corporation to accommodate the
development of a warehousing facility on the site. The number of parcels will remain the
same; however, the boundaries of the parcels will be redefined as a result of this action.
Mr. Bolin stated the property is located east of old Central between 69th and 73rd. The
property is currently zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. To the north is R-1, Single Family, and
R-3, Multiple Family, zoning; to the east is the City of Mounds View; to the south is R-3,
Multiple Family, and M-2, Heavy Industrial; and to the southwest is M-2, Heavy Industrial,
specifically Medtronics.
Mr. Bolin stated the site was platted into its current configuration in 1988. This was done to
create some separately defined parcels because there was some contamination on part of
the property. In order to clear the title for construction of the building, they split the land in
this manner. The preliminary plat is intended to accommodate a new 406,000 square foot
warehouse facility. The current Tract A is the parcel that had the original contamination.
Tract B was created to accommodate a planned building that never materialized and also
contains a"french drain" system from past clean-up efforts. Tract C contains the existing
buildings. Tract D was created to provide public right-of-way into Tract B if that was ever
developed.
Mr. Bolin stated the proposed plat now consists of Lot 1 which is basically the same as the
present Tract C. The proposed plat also has a Lot 2 which is the present Tract A. The
proposed Lot 3 is similar to Tract B but has been expanded further east. This is where
Onan intends to build the new warehouse facility. They also have a new public right-of-way
which will be extended on the east side of the new Lot 3. Outlot A will take the place of the
present Tract D. This will serve to give a public right-of-way and be used as a storm water
retention pond area.
Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of Replat request, P.S. #98-04. The new lots,
except Outlot A, will meet the code definitions. Staff recommends the following stipulations:
A 20-foot utility easement should be provided along the easterly property line of the
Onan property.
2. A road with 60-foot right-of-way, 30 mile per hour curves, and necessary cul-de-sacs
or bubble should be identified to provide access to the proposed lot splits.
3. The proposed access road will continue along the eastern edge of Lot 3 for a
minimum of 150 feet in order to meet the lot width requirements.
4. The sewer services should be designed to service the proposed and future lots on
the plat.
5. Sewer connection to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • �
interceptor will require MCES approval.
6. The water system should be designed to provide service to the existing and
proposed lots.
7. Fire hydrants associated with the development will be flushed by City crews.
Operation, maintenance and repair will remain with the property owners.
8. Storm water pond calculations need to be approved by the Engineering Department.
9. A storm water pond agreement needs to be executed to include the outfall system
for the pond.
10. A user fee will be required from the property owner for the storm system placed
within the City right-of-way.
11. The storm water outlet pipe will require the repair of Stinson Avenue and the
installation of B618 concrete curb and gutter.
12. The storm sewer pond design must be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed
District.
13. Petitioner shall combine Outlot A with Lot 1 for tax purposes before the final plat is
approved.
Mr. Kondrick asked how long it would take for the storm water pond design to be approved
by the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Mr. Hickok stated this approval is being reviewed at the time this request is being approved.
Mr. Sielaff asked the purpose of the french drain and clean-up of the site.
Mr. Bolin stated the french drain is a hole punched in the ground usually through clay. The
hole is then filled with a more porous material, such as gravel, that allows run-off to drain
into the ground at a quicker rate. He does not know why it was put in Tract B. Tract A is
where the contamination was. He would guess that the french drain was put in B to keep
the water in that area from running into A.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the site is being monitored at this time.
Mr. Bolin stated he is not sure of the status of the current monitoring. The petitioner may be
able to answer that question.
Ms. Savage asked if staff has received any comments from the public concerning this
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • � •
request.
Mr. Bolin stated staff has received no comments.
Mr. Hickok stated that regarding the environmental issues, an environmental consultant
brought on by the petitioner is working to make certain that future development will be
sensitive to the work already done to clean up the contamination on the site and to make
sure that, as development occurs, whatever needs to be contained is contained and any
necessary clean up happens also.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner submits something to the City to keep the City informed.
Mr. Hickok stated Onan has made application to DTED and the Metropolitan Council for
funds. They will be going back through the funding cycle in May. Though no funds were
available through DTED on the first round, the Metropolitan Council offered funds. It does
look good for the next round of funding to get additional dollars to make this project work.
There are extensive environmental issues still being dealt with. The cost is to be shared
and helped finance through DTED and the Metropolitan Council.
Mr. Sielaff asked if there is additional clean up and/or monitoring continuing on this site. Is
the work going to be overseen by the Metropolitan Council?
Mr. Hickok stated, yes, there is continued monitoring. The environmental folks report to
both DTED and the Metropolitan Council while working through the environmental issues.
Mr. Nelson stated he is the director of corporate facilities. He is excited about the project.
This does a lot for Onan and the community to put land back into productive use.
Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations.
Mr. Nelson stated they had some questions. Stipulation #7 refers to fire hydrants. He was
not sure what they have in mind. They have maintained fire hydrants in the past but it is not
a big deal. Staff talked about the outlot and they need to understand what that really
means for them as well. Mr. Becker has been involved with Onan and Murphy on the
design work for the site.
Mr. Becker stated the only other issues are details about how the sewer line will be
designed to service both lots to satisfy the requirements of the City Public Works
Department. He did not see a problem with that though.
Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner believed they could work out the details with the staff.
Mr. Nelson stated, yes.
Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to follow up on the environmental issues on the site.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • �
Mr. Nelson stated they are seeking funding for some of the environmental issues. The
clean-up that was done on the site in the mid-1980's was hard core, and it was funded by
Boise Cascade, Onan, and the railroad. It was done in accordance with a court order.
Monitoring is in place and is ongoing as a part of that declaratory judgment. What they
expect to encounter and because of the french drain, they want to make sure that is
preserved so it can still function. The french drain has not functioned as it was installed to
do for some period of time. The MPCA said to turn it off. It is there but not functioning as it
was designed to do. It is in place, and they will leave it in place as the site is developed.
Mr. Sielaff asked Mr. Nelson to explain what a french drain is.
Mr. Nelson stated the section where the contamination is centered is a central treating
operation. The implementation mechanism is a slurry wall dug into the glacial till that is
about 40 feet deep and filled with clay. A cap was placed with clean fill over the top of that
so there is no recharge from the rain or snow melt. The french drain was dug into the
surface aquifer about 26 feet below the surface. Then they put in pea gravel and sand with
a textile cover to keep it from silting up. That is about 4 to 5 feet below the surface of the
ground water which, on this site, is about 8 to 12 feet. The thought was that this went into
the Metropolitan Council sewer with a valve so that you could turn on the french drain and
lower the level within Tract B. When you shut it off, the water level would come up to flush
it. They did not see a difference however, so they shut it off.
Mr. Sielaff asked if there are some additional things that need to be done at the site.
Mr. Nelson stated there are considerations that have to be made in the construction
process to preserve the capability to continue to work.
Mr. Sielaff asked what the connection was with the Metropolitan Council.
Mr. Nelson stated there is funding for returning contaminated sites to usable purposes.
That is really what they are talking about. He did not have all of the details. They also
have a contingency plan approved by the MPCA where, during the construction process,
they have a mechanism to monitor the excavation so that if something is encountered, they
have a plan to take care of it. That will be put in process also.
Mr. Sielaff asked, if something was to occur on that site, is there a way to let the City know
what is going on? Perhaps there should be a stipulation that the City be notified of any
contamination. His reason for bringing this issue up is because wellhead protection is
something the City is looking at and this is a potential source of contamination.
Mr. Nelson stated he did not see a problem with that.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE MOTION
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • � .
CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:58 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the Commission should add a stipulation that the City be notified if
contamination is found.
Mr. Saba stated that Onan has been a good corporate citizen and probably would not have
a problem with notifying the City. He did not believe a stipulation was necessary.
Mr. Sielaff stated he suggested the stipulation so that the City would be aware if anything
happened.
MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of Replat
request, P.S. #98-04, by M. G. Nelson, Onan Corporation, to replat property to
accommodate the development of a warehousing facility on Tracts A-D, RLS114, generally
located at 1400 73rd Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
A 20-foot utility easement should be provided along the easterly property line of the
Onan property.
2. A road with 60-foot right-of-way, 30 mile per hour curves, and necessary cul-de-sacs
or bubble should be identified to provide access to the proposed lot splits.
3. The proposed access road will continue along the eastern edge of Lot 3 for a
minimum of 150 feet in order to meet the lot width requirements.
4. The sewer services should be designed to service the proposed and future lots on
the plat.
5. Sewer connection to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
interceptor will require MCES approval.
6. The water system should be designed to provide service to the existing and
proposed lots.
7. Fire hydrants associated with the development will be flushed by City crews.
Operation, maintenance and repair will remain with the property owners.
8. Storm water pond calculations need to be approved by the Engineering Department.
9. A storm water pond agreement needs to be executed to include the outfall system
for the pond.
10. A user fee will be required from the property owner for the storm system placed
within the City right-of-way.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • �
11. The storm water outlet pipe will require the repair of Stinson Avenue and the
installation of B618 concrete curb and gutter.
12. The storm sewer pond design must be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed
District.
13. Petitioner shall combine Outlot A with Lot 1 for tax purposes before the final plat is
approved.
14. Petitioner shall notify the City of any contaminants that surface, for wellhead
protection.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bolin stated the City Council would consider the request on January 25.
2. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF REPLAT, P S#98-05, BY C;SM
PRnPERTIES, DAVE C;ARLAND:
To replat property on Lot 1, Block 1, Northco Business Park 5th Addition, Anoka
County, Minnesota, for the development of vacant land, generally located on
Northco Drive.
MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing
notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:02 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is requesting a replat of a portion of the Northco Business
Park 5th Addition to accommodate the development of a piece of vacant land. The replat
will create one additional parcel.
Mr. Bolin stated the subject parcel is located just north of Columbia Arena between 71 st
Avenue and Northco Drive. The lot is wooded at the northerly portion. The rest of the lot is
fairly level with grasses and smaller trees. The property is currently zoned M-2, Heavy
Industrial. The properties to the north, east, south and west are all zoned M-2, Heavy
Industrial. The lot to the west is vacant.
Mr. Bolin stated the Northco Business Park was platted in 1989. The 2nd and 3rd Additions
were platted in 1990 and redefined the original lot configuration to accommodate specific
building needs. The 4t" Addition further defined the parcels along the east side of the
Northco property in 1993. In 1994, the Northco Business Park ,5th Addition was approved
to create its current configuration. This is common with new business parks and
commercial and industrial areas to go through a series of replats to accommodate new
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • � :
development as it happens.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is requesting to split the current Lot 1 into two lots. Both
properties would have sufficient lot area and frontage. The petitioner is requesting the
vacant parcel be replatted.
Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of Replat request, P.S. #98-05, with the
following stipulations:
The required 131 parking spaces shall be on-site and usable.
2. A guardrail shall be provided between the roadway and retaining wall on the storm
water pond.
3. A park dedication fee of $4,605.40 shall be paid before the building permit is issued.
4. Petitioner shall record a shared driveway Access and Maintenance Agreement.
5. Future 71 st Street upgrade Assessment Agreement must be signed and filed with
the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for the newly created lot.
Mr. Kondrick asked if stipulation #5 is included to assure that they pay their share if the
street is put in.
Mr. Bolin stated this is correct. He showed the site plan which shows a building just over
65,000 square feet. The front of the building would curve and follow the contour of the
street. He also reviewed the proposed building elevations. The proposed building would
be constructed of block with windows on the front side.
Mr. Oquist asked what does the parking requirement have to do with a replat request
(stipulation #1). The parking requirement should be part of the building construction.
Mr. Bolin stated staff received design plans with the application and noticed that the
proposed parking was not adequate.
Mr. Oquist stated the request is only to address a replat. Why would a stipulation regarding
parking be there?
Mr. Bolin stated the development review committee believed it was important to do this to
get the required parking. This is one way to make sure of that. One area the proposed
parking lot is not curbed. If cars are parked by the loading docks, semi's would not be able
to back up. Before they go on and draw up further plans for this site, they need to get
parking in other areas.
Mr. Oquist asked if this request would come back before the Planning Commission when
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • � •
the petitioner gets ready to construct the building. Should they not be addressing the
parking at that time rather than now with a replat request?
Ms. Savage stated that as long as the petitioner has no objections, she believed it would be
more expeditious to take care of it now.
Mr. Hickok stated it is very important as you look at the layout of the building. Where the
line is in a subdivision is an important piece. Parking is related to the subdivision in that, if
the line is drawn in the wrong place, they cannot get enough parking on the site. At this
time, if that stipulation becomes an issue with the petitioner, it may mean that they need to
move the line over. For that reason, this was added as a stipulation.
Mr. Oquist stated stipulation #4 refers to a shared driveway access and maintenance
agreement. With whom will they share a driveway?
Mr. Bolin stated they will share a driveway with the property from which they are splitting.
The entrance into the property will remain the same. Part of it will be on the new property
and part on the other property.
Ms. Modig asked if this property is going to be sold and have two different owners.
Mr. Bolin stated he thought that CSM planned to keep both properties. They have a
building on one piece. This would be additional warehouse storage and office space for
CSM to lease.
Ms. Modig asked that if this going to be within the same company, why do they need a
shared driveway agreement?
Mr. Bolin stated the City requires this when there are two parcels. At this time, CSM plans
to keep both parcels. Since these lots meet the definition of a lot, it is possible in the future
they could sell off one of the parcels so they need to record an agreement. If they sell one
parcel, the other party could not be denied access to the site.
Mr. Kusnierek stated he is the senior architect for the project. CSM is a development and
management company. They buy, build, and manage all their buildings. They have rarely
sold a building. In 26 years, they have sold two buildings. They plan to keep this all
together. They also own two buildings to the north and the vacant parcel to the west. They
plan to fill up the building, get it going and move on to more.
Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations.
Mr. Kusnierek stated he had no problem with the stipulations. For the parking, they will
work with staff in order to meet the requirements.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • � 1
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:15 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Oquist that a parking requirement should not be
part of a replat.
Ms. Savage disagreed. It is an added protection. As long as the petitioner has no problem
with it and staff feels it is important, she sees nothing wrong with it.
Mr. Kondrick stated he is not sure this is a good idea. It is important to discuss it with the
petitioner and make sure they are made aware of the requirements. However, in terms of a
replat, he was not sure it was appropriate to require parking stalls.
Mr. Kuechle stated he thought it should be included. It is part of the package. It is part of
the building they are proposing to put on the lot and part of the justification of the replat.
This is saying that this is required so that the building that is proposed does not need all
kinds of variances tomorrow. This will ensure that does not happen.
Mr. Oquist stated he can agree with what they are saying. However, on the other hand,
they should then put the same stipulation on the Onan request and for everyone that comes
in. He could approve the request either way, but he thought they must be careful. When
the request is a replat, then they should deal with a replat. The 131 parking spaces are a
part of the code. They have to have that. When the building is constructed, they will have
to deal with it. He thought they must be careful before throwing other things in.
Mr. Saba stated that in the case of a replat, the size of the building could change which
would make the parking a different issue. In this case, he agrees with advising the builder
that the parking spaces will be required.
Ms. Modig stated she can see both sides. A replat is a replat, and does not have anything
to do with the building or with the number of parking spaces it has. The petitioner has
agreed it is okay, but this is setting a precedent. If the petitioner is asked for 131 spaces
and they put in a building half the size, they would still be required to have 131 parking
spaces because it is a requirement of the replat. She does not think it is appropriate at this
time.
Ms. Savage stated they certainly have the opportunity to discuss the stipulations. As a
lawyer, she does not see that the stipulations have to be that narrow. They are, in fact, the
judges here and have the discretion to have that. It might be a different matter if there was
an objection by the petitioner. She did not think it was a question of precedent setting.
Mr. Oquist stated he thought it unusual to put parking requirements in for a replat. Ms.
Modig made a good point. If the petitioner puts in a smaller building, would they still be
required to provide 131 parking stalls?
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • �
Mr. Kuechle stated the number is determined by the size of the building. If fewer spaces
are required, they could get by with fewer.
Mr. Oquist stated the stipulation as it is written does not say that.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Replat
request, #98-05, by CSM Properties, Inc., to replat property on Lot 1, Block 1, Northco
Business Park 5th Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, for the development of vacant land,
generally located on Northco Drive, with the following stipulations:
A guardrail shall be provided between the roadway and retaining wall on the storm
water pond.
2. A park dedication fee of $4,605.40 shall be paid before the building permit is issued.
3. Petitioner shall record a shared driveway Access and Maintenance Agreement.
4. Future 71 st Street upgrade Assessment Agreement must be signed and filed with
the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for the newly created lot.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH KONDRICK, MODIG, SIELAFF, SABA, AND OQUIST
VOTING AYE, AND SAVAGE AND KUECHLE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE.
Mr. Kuechle stated he is in favor of the project and of the stipulation regarding parking, but
had to vote against the entire project based on one stipulation.
Mr. Bolin stated the City Council would consider this request on January 25.
: . ►� ► • . • •: : ••; -_:. :- : : _ •►
• ►� ►� • ► ►� ►
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the October 5,
1998, Parks & Recreation Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� � ■ 11 \ � ■ � 11C C •�i ■ 11�\ � � C
� 11 11 � \ 11 \
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the December
3, 1998, Human Resources Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • �
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
: . ►� ► • . ►• ►�: : ••: ► :•►►� ► _
� � � :. ► : • ►� ►� • ► ►� ►
MnTInN by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the November 17,
1998, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. REC;EIVE THE MINl1TES nF THE DEC;EMBER 9, 199g, APPEALS C;nMMISSInN
MEETING:
MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the December
9, 1998, Appeals Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� ■ 11 \ � ■ � 11 C � •�i ■ � \ �.
: � �'11 \ � ■�: r 11 \
MnTInN by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the December 3,
1998, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
: : . � ►�: : ••; . ►�_► : • : •►�►� •►
►� ►
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the December 17, 1998,
Human Resources Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• . :: ►
Mr. Oquist stated he noted that Onan was required to pay a park fee and CSM was not. He
felt the requirements should be consistent on all requests.
Mr. Hickok stated both petitioners will pay a park fee. This is a requirement and is
discussed with the developers.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► ! ► ! : . • • • • �
Ms. Daniels reviewed with the Commission the systematic code enforcement process,
where they are now in the process and the plan for continuing the systematic code
enforcement.
Mr. Sielaff suggested putting information indicating the code enforcement requirements in
the City newsletter.
Mr. Saba suggested also putting this information on the City web page as it is developed.
e� • :►►� ►
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE JANUARY 6, 1999, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 8:53 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary