Loading...
01/19/2000 - 00004312CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 19, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the January 19, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:38 p. m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Larry Kuechle, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Connie Modig, Leroy Oquist Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 15, 1999, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the December 15, 1999, Planning Commission minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a special use permit SP #99-13, by Vern Haldorson, for a proposed storage building, generally located at 514 Dover Street. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:34 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated that this special use permit is to allow the construction of a 529 square foot accessory building at 514 Dover Street. The building will be used strictly for storage and not for vehicle parking on a regular basis. Second accessory buildings over 240 square feet are permitted with a special use permit in an R-1 zoning district provided that the total cumulative square feet of all accessory buildings does not exceed 1,400 square feet. Mr. Hickok stated the property is zoned R-1 single family residential. The property was platted in 1922. The home was built pre-1949. A home addition was added to the structure in 1960, and the existing garage was built in 1994. The existing garage and the proposed accessory building total 1,393 square feet, just underneath the 1,400 square foot requirement. The existing garage is on the opposite side of where the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 19, 2000 PAGE 2 proposed structure is going to be placed. The new structure will not have a driveway to service it. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. At staff's discretion, inspections will be conducted of the yard area between the street and the garage. If found to be regularly used as a driveway, a hard surface driveway shall be constructed by the petitioner within three months of receiving notice by the City. 2. All accessory permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface drive as approved by the City. 5. The siding and roof materials shall continue to match the exterior of the existing home. Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioner is not present at the meeting. Ms. Savage asked if there were any calls regarding this request. Mr. Hickok stated that staff did receive a call that day with a concern about notification. A property owner adjacent to this structure bought the property in October. The GIS data records for notification still show the former property owner. The new property owner was concerned about not being notified and not knowing the facts. Mr. Kondrick asked if it meets all of the side yard setback requirements. Mr. Hickok stated that it does. Mr. Kondrick asked if it would be possible for the petitioner to park a vehicle on a pad outside of this structure but not have it connected to the street by driveway. Mr. Hickok stated that it is possible, but the primary use is for storage and he believes it is the petitioner's intent not to have a driveway back there. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problem with the stipulations. Mr. Hickok stated that they had received the report and they did not hear anything any concerns. Ms. Savage asked if there would be a problem with the Planning Commission making a recommendation in the absence of the petitioner. Mr. Hickok stated that the Commission would be well within its right to make a recommendation because the petitioner knew about the meeting. Ms. Savage asked if anyone in the audience wished to address this special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19. 2000 PAGE 3 Ms. Mary Shogren, 524 Dover Street, stated that she and her husband live right next door. They bought the house in October. In November, the petitioner poured the slab. Throughout their moving in, the petitioner has had a truck sitting on the yard where the building is going to be built right now. They are wondering if there is a drainage plan, because the trusses are fairly large and they are concerned about water running into their basement. There is also no footing for the building and they are wondering if that is required. Mr. Hickok stated that the building will have to meet all building code requirements for the State of Minnesota. The Building Inspection staff is aware that this slab had been poured and are very cognizant of the requirements to support the weight of the structure. All the necessary modifications will be made to do whatever is necessary. As far as the water concern, the code states that in no case can construction or grading on a property detrimentally affect adjacent property. Ms. Shogren stated that the trusses are really large and they will go over the property line because of where the slab sits. She is concerned that her property value will go down because this structure is going to be built right outside her kitchen door. Mr. Kuechle stated that the proposed building is 23 feet by 23 feet. Ms. Shogren asked if they know how far away from the property line is right now. Mr. Hickok stated that it is illustrated at five feet from the property line and code requires that an overhang on a structure not exceed 24 inches. There needs to be three feet of separation between the edge of the overhang and the property line. Ms. Shogren asked if the building will have street appeal and not just some building thrown up there. Ms. Savage stated that is part of the stipulations. Mr. Hickok stated that they require that the structure will be compatible with the elements of the principal structure. Ms. Shogren asked how wide the door on the building will be. She heard that if a door is wider than eight feet, the accessory building could serve as a second garage, which the City of Fridley does not allow. Mr. Hickok stated that is not correct. There was a special use request where a gentleman was making a request to reuse an older garage and demolish everything else on the entire site and it was their claim that they would not need the accessory building that would remain for vehicles. In that case, the City asked them to remove the overhead door and use a standard door. The Commission recommended that it have a standard overhead door. Beyond that discussion, there is nothing in the code that would prohibit them from doing a standard garage door on this garage. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19. 2000 PAGE 4 Mr. Kondrick stated that the fifth stipulation cites that the siding and the roof materials shall match the exterior of the existing home. Ms. Savage stated that the petitioner will be going to the City Council on February 7 so if Ms. Shogren has any additional concerns, she can attend the Council meeting. Ms. Shogren thanked the Commission. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:45. Mr. Kondrick stated that he did not have a problem with the special use permit or the stipulations. Ms. Savage stated she concurred and feels that it falls within the requirements. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the Special Use Permit, SP #99-13, by Vern Haldorson with the following stipulations: 1. At staff's discretion, inspections will be conducted of the yard area between the street and the garage. If found to be regularly used as a driveway, a hard surface driveway shall be constructed by the petitioner within three months of receiving notice by the City. 2. All accessory permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface drive as approved by the City. 5. The siding and roof materials shall continue to match the exterior of the existing home. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #99-03, by Telemetry & Process Controls, Inc., to add wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment for Minneapolis Waterworks own use generally located at 4500 Marshall Street N. E. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:45 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated that Telemetry & Process Controls, Inc., and the City of Minneapolis are requesting to add the Minneapolis Waterworks site at 4500 Marshall Street and the Minneapolis Waterworks Pump Station #3 at the northwest corner of East River Road PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19. 2000 PAGE 5 and 37t" Avenue in the southern part of the City adjacent to Minneapolis as approved locations for telecommunications towers facilities and equipment. These sites are necessary to allow Minneapolis Waterworks to monitor and to change settings on pump stations from a central location. They do need to be located adjacent to the pump stations. Fridley towers are just a portion of the large remote monitoring system that the Minneapolis system needs. The poles will utilize a stealth design as required by the telecommunications ordinance. The stealth design will insure that the poles disappear into the site as much as possible. Mr. Hickok stated there are a number of locations. The Minneapolis Waterworks facility is along the river between East River Road and the river along the edge of the City of Fridley and Minneapolis where they meet. A location for equipment is on the building itself. Pump Station #3 is along 37t" Avenue along the right-of-way by Sharx' Night Club along the roadway. Pump Station #1 along the river is a location for a stealth pole to blend with the backdrop and not be right on the face of the river. Pump Station #2 is a location and the equipment should disappear into the background from all directions. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval with the following stipulations. 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits/permission from Anoka County necessary to locate the tower in the right-of-way near Pump Station #3. 2. All poles shall be of a stealth design. The pole near Pump Station #3 shall resemble a street light structure and shall have a light fixture approved by City staff. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is in agreement with these stipulations. Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Hickok if the poles should be protected by crash barriers. Mr. Hickok stated they have concrete filled pipe bollards surrounding the outsides. It is their intent to have protection with the box that they created inside the concrete post bollard. Mr. Kondrick stated that possibly part of the deal should be that they ask that they be protected. Mr. Hickok stated that it would be a good recommendation. Mr. Stuart Kirschbaum, Minneapolis Waterworks Engineer, stated that this project is a small part of a$10,000,000 project to use radio telemetry equipment to get data back and forth, control pumps, and gather data. The rates for the telephone lines keep going up. The consultant of EMA who is doing a lot of the design has recommended that they upgrade the system. This enables them to maintain the FCC radio license to have these three stations up and running. Mr. Kondrick asked what they would do if the pumps would fail. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19. 2000 PAGE 6 Mr. Kirschbaum stated that the consultant from Telemetry & Process Controls, Inc., could better answer that question. Ms. Savage asked if he had any problem with the stipulations. Mr. Kirschbaum stated that he did not. It probably is a good idea to have more protection for them because it is a very important part of the whole system. Mr. Sielaff asked if they were reviewing this only for the use for Minneapolis Waterworks or are there other uses? Mr. Hickok stated that the acceptance of this as a site does amend this facility and make it an approved location for telecommunications. This site could be utilized for additional telecommunications equipment. Mr. Sielaff asked if they were the owners of the pole and could they end up leasing space on this? Mr. Kirschbaum stated that he does not think that the poles are high enough for cellular phone use. Mr. Jim Edison, consultant for Telemetry & Process Controls, Inc., stated they are utilized for single frequency and only for a single operation. The City of Minneapolis will own this pole and nobody else can utilize these poles. Mr. Kondrick asked if another telecommunications company could ask the City of Minneapolis to use the pole. Mr. Edison stated that he thinks that anyone would have to go through the FCC. This location was optimum for the City of Minneapolis for this particular use. He cannot address the issue of making a taller pole for cellular phones. If the system fails and shuts down, the station is manned 24 hours and, if not, they will be on computer for monitoring. Mr. Sielaff stated they are approving the location of a pole that has stealth design. There could be other uses for this pole in the future without any Council action at all. Mr. Hickok stated the equipment is a single purpose equipment. It is a relatively short monopole and has its purpose for the Waterworks functions. If Sprint or AT&T came in and said it is a good site for a telecom tower, this site had been approved for telecom communications and would be a permitted site provided they go through the standard things the ordinance requires. Somebody interested would first negotiate with the City of Minneapolis about a land deal and then come to Fridley. There are an abundance of telecommunication tower locations along East River Road. The Well House #13 site is a bit north of the Waterworks facility, the FMC or the Navy site has a water tower and has also been approved as a location. Across the rail, the AIITemp storage facility is also a possible site. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19. 2000 PAGE 7 Mr. Sielaff stated that he wants to make sure they know what they are passing. There is the potential for this to be used for other telecommunications other than Minneapolis. The only thing that is preventing it from doing that possibly is the stealth design. Mr. Hickok stated that the next telecom user would need to follow up all of the other elements of a very complex telecom ordinance the City has passed. It is a series of agencies they would pass through before they got their equipment on this site. The City would know exactly what they are approving at that point. Staff would analyze it and match it against the ordinance requirements and then approve or deny it. Mr. Kondrick asked if it would be appropriate to have the stipulation that the poles be protected by some kind of concrete pylons. Mr. Hickok stated that would be appropriate. Mr. Edison stated that it was a good idea. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:05P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated that he feels that it is up to the petitioner to protect their poles. He is not keen on proposing a requirement for the petitioner that is not something that has to do with the City. He would be more inclined to think that the poles should have some give in case they get hit. Mr. Kondrick asked what impact the poles being sheared would have on the City of Fridley. Mr. Hickok stated that they contacted the County to talk about standards of design for placement in a public right-of-way. They need to make certain their construction design meets City and County standards for elements in the right-of-way. The State takes great care in designing things to break away or slow vehicles down and do minimum damage to the passenger. It is staff's expectation that those same types of thoughts are going into these components. Ms. Savage asked if that is covered in the first stipulation. Mr. Hickok stated that is correct. Ms. Savage asked if they needed anything additional. Mr. Hickok stated that they felt that was adequate. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #99-03, by Telemetry & Process Controls, Inc., to add wireless telecommunication PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19. 2000 PAGE 8 facilities and equipment for Minneapolis Waterworks own use with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits/permission from Anoka County necessary to locate the tower in the right-of-way near Pump Station #3. 2. All poles shall be of a stealth design. The pole near Pump Station #3 shall resemble a street light structure and shall have a light fixture approved by City staff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - REVIEW OF THE WATER AND SEWER CHAPTERS: Ms. Dacy stated that the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on December 15 went very well. There was some question from the public after that hearing about the timing of the submission of the draft. She called Sandra Pinel, the sector representative from Metropolitan Council for the City of Fridley. Ms. Pinel encouraged that the draft be submitted even though there are still some parts missing. Ms. Pinel said the Metropolitan staff would compile some meaningful comments for the City to consider as they complete the process. Ms. Pinel stated that they keep track of cities that do not submit the plans and it is better to submit something than not to. In no way does the draft have any type of legal impact at all. Ms. Dacy is hoping to submit the remaining parts of the plan in March. Ms. Dacy stated that the Commission wanted some language in the plan about the Nature Center planning process and the entrance to the park. That will be included with amendments to the Land Use and Open Space chapters. Ms. Dacy stated traffic counts were also discussed at the December 15 meeting. The City did a little research on that and the plan was submitted just the way the Commission saw it on December 15. The discrepancy was that Metropolitan Council and Anoka County were projecting a larger amount of traffic than what the consultant was projecting. University Avenue would have less amount of traffic in the Metropolitan Council allocation, and Anoka County had a larger allocation on East River Road. The Metropolitan Council uses a regional approach to computer modeling so if they know that one road is over capacity, they will assign it to a road that is under capacity without paying attention to the local details. They are dealing with the "macro" view, and the City's consultant is dealing with the "micro" view. The best way to do it is to show all three projections for the reviewing agency. The plan does identify a document that the City's consultant has identified a historical trend analysis, and these are the volumes that the City feels are going to happen. Ms. Dacy stated there was a comment that the plan does not map out how they are going to accomplish the vision. They are going to try to identify a section to pull all the pieces together and provide a connecting theme and map out what the various parts of the plan means. They would review that with City Council and then bring that back to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19. 2000 PAGE 9 the Commission probably within the next month. The City will go through the minutes of the public hearing and try to identify individual issues and make sure they have addressed it. Ms. Dacy stated that what is left is the Surface Water Management Plan. There has been a little bit of work with the Human Resources Commission. They met with them at the beginning of January. The Implementation chapter will be worked on next. Those three chapters should be done within the next two to three months. Ms. Dacy stated that the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission reviewed the chapters at their January 18th meeting and provided very good comments on the water supply section. The sewer chapter is telling a good story in terms of having adequate amount of sewer capacity. The Public Works Department has done a very good job in trying to eliminate infiltration and inflow and trying to isolate any problems in the system. It also paints a very good picture in terms of the future as they redevelop. The population and employment projections probably will not cause any necessity to say they need more capacity. The draft that the Commission has today is based on a 1995 plan update. Ms. Dacy stated there is also very good news in the water supply chapter. The Public Works Department has done a lot of good work in the water supply capital improvements to make sure that pressures are upgraded in certain areas of the City. They are also working on the water quality issue. Mr. Sielaff stated that one of the main issues from the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting was the issue of water quality. That needs to be addressed. They need a connection between water qualities and water supply. There should be something on quality on page 9-26 in the objectives for standards that the City should commit to. The City should provide and maintain a high Fridley water quality for its citizens. There is some water quality data provided, but it was the only water quality data available for certain waters in the City. The only data available should be put into table form and be compared with something. Ms. Dacy stated that is the only data the City has. There is no data on Rice Creek; but as part of the Medtronic AUAR, the water quality issue came up for Moore Lake. She has contracted with Anoka Conservation District who took a water sample back in April, and she should be receiving their reports on an annual basis. She agrees there should be an explanation on water quality. Mr. Sielaff stated that maybe they should identify water quality gaps and make some suggestions on what they should do as far as closing those gaps. The other issue concerns are on page 9-14. He is wondering if the water from New Brighton is sampled individually, and that information should be provided. He is not clear how long the water supply with New Brighton was going to be coming. Ms. Dacy stated that it is a long-term agreement for 20 years and the intent is long-term. Mr. Sielaff stated that maybe that should be defined. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19. 2000 PAGE 10 Mr. Kondrick asked how often the water quality is tested from other suppliers. Ms. Dacy stated that she does not have that information, but they test their own wells and systems on a quarterly basis and then they do a monthly set of tests for Wells #6, 7, and 8. Mr. Saba asked if they look at the entire chemical content? Ms. Dacy stated that she thinks they are looking at certain thresholds on certain contaminants but she could find that out. Mr. Saba stated that on "60 Minutes", the additive was discussed and he is wondering if they are in that category of contaminated wells. Mr. Sielaff stated that there is no water quality data from the public supply wells and he wants to know exactly what parameters are they actually analyzing for and what are those values. There is some indication that they have exceeded some values and he wants to know the extent. He knows it is a lot of data, but maybe there is some way to summarize it. Ms. Dacy stated that she would be happy to check that out. Mr. Sielaff stated that on page 9-24, the issue of the contaminants needs more data about how much is it being exceeded by and how frequently. He did not get an understanding of the water well contamination's present status. Ms. Dacy stated that Wells #6, 7, and 8 are in use, and the monthly testing determines where they are at on certain thresholds and they have a system of blending the other wells in order to meet the standards. Mr. Sielaff stated that the PCA and EPA are looking at what is really the status of that. He does not know where that evaluation is. He also had trouble of keeping track of what was filtered on page 9-17. He thought that was filtered for iron and manganese. There is another reference on page 9-24. That should indicate exactly what they are filtering for. On page 9-28, he is not sure about how the City would evaluate implementing increasing block method of water charges. Ms. Dacy stated that the change made in 1997 is an increasing block system, but it may be not as aggressive as maybe the Metropolitan Council would want. There are a lot of financial issues the Council is concerned about and making sure that the water system can pay for itself, so to speak. Mr. Sielaff stated that his comment is what are they going to do to evaluate that. He knows cost is an issue. On page 9-29, they should separate the paragraph on retrofitting programs. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19. 2000 PAGE 11 Ms. Dacy stated that paragraph is a holdover from the 1995 plan and that needs to be changed. Mr. Sielaff stated that he is not sure if the paragraph addresses water supply or water quality. Ms. Dacy stated that it is probably a little bit of both. That ordinance mirrors the State regulations and throws in more control for the City in terms of replacement plans. Mr. Sielaff stated that maybe they should take into account some of the things to learn about Springbrook regarding wetland protection to improve runoff for better water quality in streams and lakes. He does not know what the applicability is. His point is that there are some water quality benefits for wetlands. On page 9-27 for the water audit program, he feels they need to summarize the results and how much water use is decreasing and how much is the program benefiting the City. Are they able to improve water conservation? In the sewer chapter with the infiltration/inflow analysis issue, maybe there should be some cost benefit on that. Ms. Dacy stated that they found that the Metropolitan Council meters on the interceptors were incorrect. By doing the infiltration/inflow analysis on the sump pump disconnection, the City was able to convince Metropolitan Council that the City of Fridley was not using all of that water. They have eliminated as many sump pumps as they could and televised as many lines. Metropolitan Council did reimburse the City $500,000, and Metropolitan Council is thinking of reducing the sewer rates as a result of that. She thinks it is under control and they can account for about as much as they can. Mr. Sielaff stated that he thinks that should be put in that chapter to give them some credit. Mr. Kuechle asked if the City has given any thought to the requirements for all new developments for irrigation systems. Ms. Dacy stated that they have not talked about that since 1995, and the City keeps requiring it. Mr. Hickok stated that they require it for front and side yards and commercial/industrial properties. Ms. Dacy stated that it is a policy issue for what to prioritize. Do they want to prioritize water supply or the maintenance of landscaping and exteriors? The supply is not threatened, but she can easily understand the argument. Mr. Sielaff stated that on page 9-32 there is a reference to alternative sources of water. It refers to NICROP remediation facility, and he feels there should be water sampling and evaluation of that data and should be noted before being listed as an alternative source of water. Ms. Savage asked if there were any more comments. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 19. 2000 PAGE 12 The Commission members did not have any more comments regarding the water and sewer chapters. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 16, 1999, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the November 16, 1999, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 8, 1999, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the December 8, 1999 Appeals Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 6, 1999, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the December 6, 1999, Parks and Recreation meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 22, 1999, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the December 22, 1999, Appeals Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 3, 2000, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the minutes of the January 3, 2000, Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 19, 2000 PAGE 13 9. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 21, 1999, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the December 21, 1999, Environmental quality & Energy Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Hickok gave an update on past Planning Commission actions. Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any Y2k glitches. Mr. Hickok stated that he had not heard of any for the City. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION 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 19, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8:46 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Recording Secretary