Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 23, 1995 o o ~ (p 1l3/q5 o 'OJ. '" 1'\,. CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N,W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 · (612) 755-5100 ':,. "' SPECIAL JOINT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MAY 23, 1995 MINUTES A Special Joint Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council was called to order by Acting Chairperson Randy Peek on May 23, 1995, 6:03 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners absent: Councilmembers present: Maynard Apel, Catherine Doucette, Bev Jovanovich, Jeffrey Luedtke, Jerry Putnam, Chairperson Jay Squires (arrived at 6:04 p.m. ) None Mayor Jack McKelvey Bonnie Dehn, Don Jacobson, Mike Knight, John Kunza City Planning Director, David Carlberg City Administrator, Dick Fursman Resident, Steve Jonak Commissioners present: Also present: o DISCUSSION - EXTERNALITIES Mr. Carlberg noted the definition of externalities in Webster's Dictionary. (Chairperson Squires arrived at this time, 6:04 p.m.) Councilmember consideration externalities externalities Jacobson thought the Planning Commission should be giving to planning for the City's growth, and he thought various should be looked at in that process. Examples of would be to: o * consider the increased expenditures placed upon the city and existing residents due to the growth; * study the increased traffic resulting in the loss of the quality of life and the rural atmosphere, the breakdown of the roads and potential of additional cost to existing residents to have them repaired, and the potential effect on the air and water quality; * discuss what happens after the City reaches its sewer capacity; * determine who pays for the operation and maintenance in the event a lift station is needed; * address the increased cost to those residents on septic systems because of the Metropolitan Council mandate to inspect them, which must be done before any expansion of the MUSA is granted; * address the preservation of natural areas and whether an Environmental Assessment Worksheet should be required on all plats; * address the need for additional police and fire protection due to increased development; * consider the impact on schools; u o Joint Meeting ot Andover Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council Minutes - May 23, 1995 ~.) Page 2 (Discussion - Externalities, Continued) * look at green spaces and whether density zoning should be allowed; * study the cost of government itself, including the need for additional buildings, Staff and equipment; * examine the need for and solution to public transportation, park improvements and development, and street maintenance including the ability of neighborhoods to be developed with private roads; * consider the hidden cost of development in the way of increased property values and increased taxes to large property owners and those who have lived in the City all of their lives; * determine whether impact fees should be assessed to new subdivisions to help pay some of the hidden costs of development; * determine the ultimate boundary between urban and rural development or whether urban development will eventually be allowed throughout the entire City; * discuss where nice apartment complexes should be built; and * consider the development of senior citizen centers with open spaces and small shopping areas with food, pharmacy, transportation. ',~ Councilmember Jacobson thought these items should be discussed, ordinances changes made as needed, invite input from the public to see what the residents want, and make recommendations to the Council. Councilmember Knight noted the City of Lakeville received free help with their planning from the Hubert Humphrey Institute. He thought some moratorium or partial moratorium may need to be put in place until these items are addressed. Mayor McKelvey noted the City's budget is based on 330 new houses per year. It would have to be determined what the City would do if there is a slower rate of growth. He also noted the frustration of not getting much cooperation from the county as to when some of the roads will be upgraded. Mr. Jonak thought it is a matter of first determining what everyone thinks the City should look like when it is ultimately developed. He felt the Council must first set the goals for what they think the City should look like, what direction the City should be taking. Then the Planning Commission or a committee of Planning Commission members, Councilmembers, Staff and residents can consider the externalities. He also noted the Land Stewardship Project can assist the City in setting goals. Councilmember Dehn wanted to know the impact of urban development adjacent to farm land. The discussion continued on various issues. Mr. Fursman suggested there are some excellent facilitator groups, and it may be worthwhile for the Planning Commission or Council to spend some time with a facilitator, talking about the vision for the community and develop a mission statement. Then the externalities will fall into place. Commissioner Putnam stated he prepares goals, objectives and mission statements in :_) his business for his clients all the time. There was also discussion on how this process should proceed and what role the Council and the Planning Commission should play. ,\ U o Joint Meeting of Andover Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council Minutes - May 23, 1995 Cj Page 3 (Discussion - Externalities, Continued) Mr. Fursman stated Staff will look at the budget ramifications of slowing the rate of growth before any decisions can be made; however, the economy is slower this year than in recent years. It was then agreed that Commissioner Putnam would prepare a draft of goals and mission statement for the City that both the Council and Planning Commission would use as a starting point for discussion at a future joint meeting. No future meeting date was set at this time. The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \~\("-~ cQ.(~_C~"~ \/f::~ \/" Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary \ ..J , " ) o 7:00 p.m. o o o CITY of ANDOVER ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 23, 1995 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - May 9, 1995 3. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Commercial Greenhouse - 16473 valley Drive - Michael & Sue Bleeker (Bleeker's Landscaping). 4. Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No. 87, An Ordinance Regulating Snowmobiles and ATVs. 5. PublicHearin~: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, Definit~ons - Definition clarifying Front Lot Line Regarding Corner Lots. Discussion - Amend Ordinance No.8, Sections 3.02, 4.30 & 7.03 - Therapeutic Massage and Cabinet Making as Horne occupations. Discussion - Ordinance No. 109, An Ordinance Regulating Therapeutic Massage. Discussion - Amend Ordinance No. 53, Regulating Dogs - Regarding Dog Enclosures. Discussion - Impound Lots. Other Business Adjournment o o ~ /p 11.3/C/S ";,,,'~'!:'::,::;;,;, o CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 "':.; PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MAY 23, 1995 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on May 23, 1995, 7:10 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners absent: Also present: Maynard Apel, Catherine Doucette, Bev Jovanovich, Jeffrey Luedtker Randy Peek, Jerry Putnam None Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioners present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 9, 1995: Page 4, First paragraph, change to: "Commissioner Jovanovich was concerned with placing the signage on Round Lake Boulevard far enough in advance..." o MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, approval of the Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. PRESENTATION: RESULTS FROM TASK FORCE ON AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE B Charlie Veiman, 13646 Crooked Lake Boulevard - reported the Task Force has had six meetings and has reviewed every word in Ordinance 8. Several changes have been recommended, including the areas of allowing people on private property without permission, who can bring a complaint against someone in the neighborhood, storage in the urban area, etc. He discussed many of the changes with residents in his neighborhoodr and they unanimously approved of the recommended changes. Chairperson Squires thanked Mr. Veiman for the efforts of the Committee. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - COMMERCIAL GREENHOUSE, 16473 VALLEY DRIVE - MICHAEL & SUE BLEEKER (BLEEKER'S LANDSCAPING) o 7: 15 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the Special Use Permit request of Michael and Sue Bleeker to operate a commercial greenhouse and noted the applicable ordinances and criteria to be used when examining Special Use Permits. The Bleeker's are able to sell products grown on their property without this Permit, which is considered an agricultural practice. The commercial greenhouse comes into play when they bring products from other locations to sellon site. The concern of the Staff is with whether to require a paved parking lot and with providing bathroom facilities. The other commercial greenhouse, Knolls, was not required to pave the parking lot because of the desire retain the residential character of the site. This site does not have a residential structure on it. There is a commercial green house on site, but no office space. u o Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 23, 1995 Page 2 (j (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Commercial Greenhouse, Bleeker, Continued) MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Leudtke, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 7:25 p.m. Sue Bleeker - stated they have operated a landscaping company for the last five years and have decided to have a place where the clients can look at the plants. They started growing shrubs three years ago and have had some sales. They intend to sell trees and shrubs and to operate a small greenhouse. About 20 percent of their products would be larger items brought to the site, mostly shrubs, lilacs, some potted trees. They are brought in once a year by semi truck from Bailey's Nursery. They do not have continuous deliveries. Hours of operation are Wednesday through Sunday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. On a busy day, they have maybe five or six vehicles; sometimes two at the same time. They would like that to increase up to 10 to 20 people in a day. There is a sign that says Bleeker Landscaping which has been there for five years. Sales are mostly in the spring. There is some landscaping equipment on the site, but it is not visible. The parking lot is recycled concrete which can park about eight cars at a time. There is a well on site. ~J Declan O'Brien, 3992 165th Avenue NW - has lived there since October 1, 1993. Valley Drive is basically a residential street. Any increase in traffic would have to come across the front of his property and down Valley Drive. He questioned what benefit is a commercial site to him and his neighbors. He didn't think the residents would be paying less taxes, and he saw no benefit to the community. He stated it would be a loss to him because he pays taxes that grants him peace and tranquility. Bud Holtz, 4176 164th Avenue NW - recalled a request for a Permit for a group home on Valley Drive recently, and the big concern was the traffic on that curvy section of Valley Drive. It is a real safety factor there with the curves and no shoulders. Several times in the last month since the business has opened they have observed cars parked on both sides of Valley Drive. In his opinion, that is a safety hazard. Also, the property is lower than the road at that point, so the driveway has a steep incline. When wet, the driveway is greasy and cars have to gun it to get onto Valley Drive. Visibility is poor there because of the curves on Valley Drive in both directions; and people travel at a high speed through there. Also, there is no permanent structure for retail trade; and the need for public restrooms needs to be addressed. Rob-Lvn Hiltz, 16541 Valley Drive NW - has been there all spring and on weekendsr and they do not hear anything from the greenhouse. She has never seen traffic parking on Valley Drive. The few people she's seen go to there drive to the parking lot. Tulip is a curvy road, but she felt that should be addressed as a separate issue. People drive faster " than they should and the Fire Department has emergency vehicles. She \~ didn't see a reason not to grant the permit. The business doesn't cause a problem, and she lives next door. She didn't think there would be a noticeable increase in noise. A neighbor had a garage sale last weekend -- it's not that big a deal. u o Regular Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 23, 1995 Page 3 (J (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Commercial Greenhouse, Bleeker, Continued) Dick Snyder, 16445 Valley Drive - lives just south of the greenhouse property. The garage sale brought in more traffic than the nursery. He didn't see a problem at all. He's lived there since 1988 and hasn't seen an increase in traffic other than occasional youth driving too fast. He saw no problem with this request. There is a fire station, then a dog kennel, then the nursery, then a small engine welding shop along that road. The nursery is not out of character with the neighborhood. Chairperson Squires read the letter of May 22, 1995, from Bob and Bonnie Dehn expressing concerns with the request. MOTION by Leudtke, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 7:40 p.m. /-, ~..J The Commission deliberated the request noting the other commercial type uses which are allowed in residential areas that are located on the neighboring parcels. Ms. Bleeker stated they were there before the other permits were granted. They also plan to construct a house on that parcel in the future. They are already allowed to sell what they grow on the land. She felt it would be better to be in compliance with the bathroom facilities and parking lot. Commissioner Leudtke stated he is familiar with the road and is concerned with the safety of pedestrians and bike traffic. There are curves on the road with no shoulders and no turn lanes. He was also concerned with the lack of restroom facilities. Commissioner Jovanovich noted there would be more advertising, creating an increase in everything by granting the Permit. Chairperson Squires felt this is more in tune with the surrounding neighborhood as opposed to a "commercial operation". Eighty percent of what takes place on that site is not affected by what happens tonight. The question is whether the other 20 percent of what takes place on the property creates enough of a problem that the Special Use Permit should be denied. Mr. Carlberg stated the Permit can be approved based on the facilities as shown. If they want to add to the parking or more bathroom facilities or expand in any way, they would have to come in for an amended Special Use Permit. ~J Commissioner Peek noted this is an agricultural based use, and it doesn't make sense to build bituminous parking lots in the middle of the field. Mr. Carlberg stated he does have some concerns with the parking facilities and the incline to the adjacent street. Engineering will have to look at it, and maybe they will have to upgrade the parking facilities. It should be measured to be sure ample parking is provided. Ms. Bleeker stated they could use more grade on the driveway. They need to add more recycled concrete to it. They will also add bathroom facilities. She stated the area on the south end of the lot has a lot of trees and is where they want to build a house. She wouldn't want to put the driveway and parking there. Mr. Carlberg stated the construction of a residence on the parcel will have no impact on the Permit. o o Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 23, 1995 Page 4 o (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Commercial Greenhouse, Bleeker, Continued) MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Peek, to recommend acceptance of the Special Use permit at 16473 Valley Drive to the City Council with the following conditions: 1) The Special Use Permit be subject to an annual review and site inspection by Staff. 2) The Special Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset clause as specified in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03(D) unless a renewal is granted by the City Council. 3) That two satellite lavatories be on site in sanitary condition and usable. 4) That the parking facilities not be expanded any larger than it already is. 5) That the grade for the parking and access of the road be improved and request Staff to work with the property owner to come up with an acceptable solution. 6) Limit hours of operation to wednesday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. A public hearing was held. There were concerns of neighboring residents of traffic patterns in the area. Motion carried on a 5-Yesr 2-No (Jovanovich, Leudtke) vote. 8:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND SNOWMOBILES AND ATVs ORDINANCE NO. 87, AN ORDINANCE REGULATING , " U 8:05 p.m. Mr. Haas reviewed the ordinance revisions proposed by the Snowmobile Task Force. The Task Force held four meetings and spent a great deal of time obtaining information from other cities. The major revisions include a requirement that youth between the ages of 14 and 17 obtain a Minnesota Snowmobile Safety Training certificate, that snowmobiles cannot speed in excess of 15 miles per hour on any public City street in the municipality, on any county road or on any county state highway in the urban district, and that snowmobiles are prohibited anywhere along Round Lake Boulevard between 133rd Avenue NW and South Coon Creek Drive. He has received no response on the proposed amendments from the City Attorney or the Anoka County Sheriff's Department. In responding to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Haas noted no change is proposed to the requirement that snowmobiles remain in the roadway on the far right-hand side of the road next to the curb or shoulder. They are not allowed in the right of way or any boulevard. The age requirement for the training certificate came from the State. If they do not have the certificate, they won't be allowed to ride on any streets within the City. The Andover Snowmobile Club is working with the Sheriff's Department to set up some patrol and to schedule seminars. Champlin has a similar program that is apparently successful. The snowmobile club is also working on establishing some funding for enforcement and training. The club will be actively working with people to inform them of the rules and with landowners to keep snowmobilers off the fields. He also noted that there has been no change to the use of ATVs in the City. They are allowed only on private property with permission, not on any county or City street. CJ MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Putnam, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 8:16 p.m. u /-"\ U Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 23, 1995 Page 5 :, ) (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 87, Snowmobiles, Continued) Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard NW was concerned with enforcing the ordinance. He had pictures showing the damage snowmobiles do to crops by driving over the fields in the winter. He understood the snowmobile club will be trying to enforce the provision that snowmobilers not travel on private property. It hasn't worked in the past, but he hopes it does this time. Commissioner Apel felt there will be more education and more cooperation in enforcing the ordinance. If the results aren't there, the City will have to do something different. Don Eveland, 14722 Crosstown Boulevard NW - suggested rather than just saying a violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor, specifically state what that means. Chairperson Squires pointed out the revised ordinance does specifically state a fine of not more than $700 or imprisonment of not more than 90 days, or both, plus costs of prosecution in either case. Councilmember Bonnie Dehn - agreed that enforcement will be the most difficult thing to obtain. She noted that there is a hot-line to call about snowmobiling and that should be widely advertised. This amendment is the last option. If the problems remain, she predicted the next step will be to eliminate snowmobiling in parts of or all of the City. /- '\ \.J Carolyn Fisher, Task Force Member - explained the proposed revisions are a compromise of the members of the Task Force. She felt the snowmobile club is very interested in trying to make this work, to make this a viable solution for all citizens so snowmobiling can stay in Andover. Without it, she thought the recommendation will be no more snowmobiling in Andover. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 8:25 p.m. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Putnam, to recommend that we send to the City Council a recommendation for approval of the ordinance regulating the operation of all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles within the City of Andover as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 8:26 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 3.02, DEFINITIONS - DEFINITION CLARIFYING FRONT LOT LINE REGARDING CORNER LOTS 8:26 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the proposed amendment to clarify the definition of front lot line regarding corner lots. By definition, the front lot line of a corner lot is the shortest dimension that abuts an existing or dedicated public street, and variances are needed if the narrow side is less than 300 feet. The City has allowed people to place -, their homes in either direction. The amendment allows the property ,_) owner or developer to designate the front lot line. The Commission discussed various scenarios regarding the direction a house would face, the back yard in relation to adjacent lots, and the u (J Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 23, 1995 Page 6 ':,) (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 8, Clairyfing Front Lot Line, Cont.) effect of setbacks on the placement of a house. Chairperson Squires thought there may be some confusion as to when side yard and rear yard setbacks would be used and what effect that would have on adjacent parcels. Mr. Carlberg thought that could be an issue and suggested possibly a better solution to the problem would be to amend the definition of the setback lines. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to table this until Chairperson Squire's comments are straightened out. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION - AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTIONS THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AND CABINET MAKING AS DISCUSSION - ORDINANCE NO. 109, AN ORDINANCE MASSAGE 3.02, 4.30 AND 7. 03 - HOME OCCUPATIONS and REGULATING THERAPEUTIC -', Mr. Carlberg explained the City Council referred this item back to the Commission for further review. He did not attend the meeting when the Council discussed the changes, but he thought there may have been a misunderstanding concerning the setback of an accessory building when used for cabinet making and wood working. The ordinance for home occupations requires the accessory building to be no less than 100 feet from the front, 30 feet from the side and 50 feet from the rear yard setback. He thought the real issue is with the amendment on therapeutic massage. The concern was allowing the use as a home occupation, though the ordinance on home occupations specifically limits the number of employees to one. The other concern is with allowing them to go from house to house to perform therapeutic massages. '- j The Commission discussion also raised the concern with the inclusion of "or as a private club" on the bottom of page one of Ordinance 8, as it may have the potential of opening the doors to other types of undesirable activities. There was general agreement to delete that phrase from the proposed ordinance. Discussion was also on whether or not a therapist should be allowed to provide the service at the home of other residents. The consensus was this allows a service to the residents which will become more and more important as the population ages, especially to those who are unable to leave their homes, even though it is difficult for the City to monitor. They felt that with the required licensing, the controls are in place to prevent unwanted activities. Staff was directed to make the change in the ordinance relating to private club and to look at other provisions based on the Council's comments, then place the item on a future Planning Commission agenda. \ DISCUSSION - AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 53, REGULATING DOGS - REGARDING DOG '-J ENCLOSURES Mr. Carlberg reviewed the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 53 regarding the placement or location of kennel enclosures and the setback C) /'""" ~ ) ........ Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 23, 1995 Page 7 \ I '. .J (Discussion: Amend Oridnance 53 - Dog Enclosures, Continued) of the enclosure from property lines. He noted the Council discussion on the item at its April 18, 1995, meeting. Commissioner Doucette stated she was at that meeting and commented that because the lots in Andover are often odd-shaped, the proposal may be too restrictive in the urban area. A suggestion was made to locate the enclosure 40 feet from the human dwelling adjacent to the owner's property. She liked that idea. That would basically eliminate the dog enclosure from the side yards in the R-4 district; and the R-l district would have sufficient space that it should not matter. Mr. Carlberg stated the issue is where should the dog enclosure be located so it is not offensive to adjacent property and still allow people to have dog enclosures. The 30-foot requirement was to eliminate the enclosures from the side yards. Commission discussion noted the suggestion of 40 feet from the dwelling structure on adjacent property is the same as 30 feet from the side yard plus the 10-foot setback on the neighboring parcel. That would not necessarily place the enclosure in the middle of the back yard. It would depend on the angle between the neighbor's house and the enclosure. There was also concern that the kennels not be located right on the property line. A suggestion was to require the dog enclosure to be 40 feet from the neighboring residential structure and not less than 10 feet from the property line. ;',J Marqaret Dupont, 3463 l33rd Lane NW - was in favor of putting the dog enclosures behind the house. Even though the 40 feet from a neighboring house keeps the enclosures out of the side yard, there is still the back yard and the concern with the enclosure being too close to a neighboring back yard with swings and other play equipment. She also corrected the City Council minutes of April 18, Page 6 in that she thought it would solve the problem by saying 30 feet from the dwelling. She would, however, support, 40 feet from the adjacent dwelling with a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. After some discussion, the Commission agreed the placement of a dog enclosure shall not be placed closer than 40 feet from an adjacent dwelling, including the garage, and in any event, at least 10 feet from the side and rear property lines. Mr. Carlberg was asked to make that change. DISCUSSION - IMPOUND LOTS Mr. Carlberg explained the City Council has requested the Commission reconsider allowing impound lots in the City. That request was forwarded on a 3-2 vote. He gave a brief history of the discussions on impound lots and the decision in 1993 that they would not be allowed. Councilmember Apel noted the Council has changed since then and there / \ seems to be a change in attitude toward the automotive related ',~ businesses. Three of the Councilmembers are indicating a willingness to consider them. If there are going to be towing laws in Andover, he felt the people should be given an opportunity to have them towed to within the City itself. He was in favor of the impound lot then and he still ~) ( . ~ J '-" Regular Minutes Page 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - May 23, 1995 \ , ~', I (Discussion - Impound Lots, Continued) is. until two or three years ago, no cars were towed in Andover. Now it happens frequently, and he would prefer they be towed to someone in the City. Secondly, for a health and safety issue, he felt the police force needs a quick access to this type of service, which is better served by someone in the City. While it may be legal for the Council to prohibit this activity, he doesn't think it is the moral and ethical thing to do. With these types of activities moving into buildings, all of the arguments of auto-related businesses will disappear. Commissioner Peek also felt the attitude toward auto recycling has changed in the last year. Commissioner Putnam thought the impound service is needed and that it should be provided within the City for the residents. Commissioner Jovanovich made some calls and found the closest impound lot other than Lund's is North Star, plus there are two others. She questioned who determines where a car is towed and was told that is up to the police. She was also told it would take North Star ten minutes to get to any place in Andover. Commissioner Apel suggested the others talk to the deputies about what towing service they prefer. He has talked to them and found they prefer Lund's on Bunker Lake Boulevard. He felt the amendment proposed in 1993 to allow the impound lots by Special Use Permit is still the best method to allow the use in the City because it gives the City the added control. , I ',J The Commissioner generally agreed to look at the item further and asked Staff to prepare the language for an ordinance amendment similar to what was proposed in 1993 for review at a future meeting. It was also suggested research be given to preparing a separate ordinance on impound lots similar to what was established for the recycling centers. MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Luedtke, to adjourn. unanimously. Motion carried The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully ~ubmitted, I"{\" . C' {'. \ ~' ( 1\ \ \ ,LV' ,~~<... G\...'""\,,, '(.L<' , \'" Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary " )