Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 26, 1991 /~ \..J .,- '\ ",--J /\ -'.._/ o (j ~';'I CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NoW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 26, 1991 MINUTES The Regular BI-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to o.de. by Chai.person Ron Ferris on February 26, 1991, 8:01 p,m" at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Becky Pease, Bonnie Dehn, Bev Jovanovich, Randa I I Peek Steve Jonak, Marc McMullen City Planner, David Carlberg; City Zoning Administrator, d'Arcy Bosell; and others Commissione.s absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Feb.ua.y 12, 1991: Page 2, Item 6, change to clarify, "",pe. o.dinance definition, a variance would not be needed because the setback would be within the .equirements of the "side Yard", and it would also meet .ear ya.d setback .equi.ements," Page 3, VOTE ON MOTION: "Commissione. Jovanovich st.ict inte.pretation of Clarify Commissioner Jovanovich's statement, voted no because she didn't feel it met the the ordi nance, " MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Dehn, to app.ove the Feb.ua.y 12, 1991, Minutes with those changes, Motion carried on a 4-Yes (Pease, Dehn, Jovanovich, Peek), i-Abstain (Ferris), 2-Absent (Jonak, McMullen) vote, PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - GUN SHOP, 1714 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW, ROBERT BENDTSEN Chai.pe.son Ferris called the public hea.ing to o.de. at 8:03 p,m, M., Ca.lbe.g .eviewed the Special Use Pe.mit by Robert Bendtsen to operate a gun shop on Lot 3, Block 1, Pankonin AddItion, noting the applicable o.dinances and c.iterIa to be examIned by the Commission in making its dete.mination, It is an existing, vacated building, The plans are to make no alte.ations, to use the building as is. The use actually imp.oves the use of the building, The p.oposal comes unde. .etaII t.ade and services, which is allowed by special use in this dist.ict, The Staff recommends approval of the pe.mit, Robert Bendtsen, 1716 Bunke. Lake Bouleva.d, paved parkIng lot in front of the buIlding, junkya.d by John Eme.y prio. to this. explained there is a The parcel was used as a / J Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 26, 1991 Page 2 (Special Use Permit, Gun Shop, 1714 Bunker Lake Boulevard, Continued) The Commission questioned whether other ordinances limit the sale of guns or ammunition, Mr, Carlberg stated this is retail sales, There is a federal permit process required. The permit remains with the use of the property and is reviewed annually, The hearing was then opened to public testimony, Robert Bendtsen, 1716 Bunker Lake Boulevard, Andover - owns the property and pointed out how much better the property looks than it did before and the improvements he has made to it, There will be no discharge of firearms on the property, There being no further public testimony, Chairperson Ferris asked for a motion to close the public hearing, MOTION by Pease, Seconded by Jovanovich, to so move, Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Jonak, McMullen) vote. MOTION by Pease, Seconded by Jovanovich, to recommend the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit by Robert Bendtsen for a gun shop located at 1714 Bunker Lake Boulevard, The proposed use wil I not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare to the community, It won't cause any serious traffic congestion or hazards, It won't depreciate the surrounding property, It is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing was held and there was no opposition received. Add a sunset clause subject to an annual review by Staff, Subject to any of the normal conditions of business in that district, Subject to any building inspections as determined by Staff, Subejct to any safety inspections by appropriate Staff as Staff determines necessary. FURTHER DISCUSSION: The Commission asked that the Building Department make any necessary inspections of the building prior to the issuance of the permit, Since it involves the storage of ammunition, the Commission also asked that the Fire Department be informed and that the Fire Marshal make any inspections deemed necessary and make their recommendations to the Council, / VOTE ON MOTION: Yes-Ferris, Pease, Dehn, Jovanovich, Peek: ABSENT- Jonak, McMullen. Motion carried, The item is to go to the City Council on March 19, 1991, Hearing closed at 8:21 p.m, __ ,-J Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 26, 1991 / Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT. IN-HOME BEAUTY SALON, 2646 NW 133RD LANE, PATRICIA HAGEN Chairperson Ferris called the public hearing to order at 8:21 p,m, Ms, Bose]] reviewed the request of Patricia Hagen for a Special Use Permit to operate an in-home beauty salon at 2646 NW 133rd Lane, Since the public hearing notices were sent out, Staff has receIved two phone cal]s regarding the parking, The concern was the number of cars already on the lot being used by adult children. The DeputIes have received no complaints regardIng parking on the property, The parking available meets the requirements of the ordinance, Ms, Bose]] also revIewed the applicable ordInances, criteria to be considered, and options. The Staff is recommendIng approval of the permit. Upon the sale of the property, the Special Use Permit would terminate, She is also allowed to put up a six-square-foot sign without a permit which primarily advertIses the property, and the business name as secondary information on the sign, The building modifications wiI] be approved by the Bui]ding Department, plus there are certain requirements that must be met by the State prior to their issuing a license, Patricia Hagen, 2646 133rd Lane NW, explained the garage wI]] be modified into the beauty salon. ChaIrperson Ferris raised the questIon of the sIze of the shop relative to the 20 percent requIrement In the ordinance, which means the shop should not exceed approximately 193 square feet, The proposal shown exceeds that amount, Greg Oison, 2646 133rd Lane, stated the size of the shop could be reduced, He said they wI]] stay wIthIn the 193-square-foot requirement, Chairperson Ferris also stated in vIewIng the property, there Is a large parking area to the rear, which he felt is more than sufficient. The only problem may be at the narrow portion by the garage, If customers park In the rear and the narrow portIon is not blocked, he didn't think there would be a problem, There Is also enough turnaround space so cars can drive forward Into the street; however, because it Is at a cui de sac, he dIdn't thInk traffIc would be a problem, Mr. Olson stated there is parking space for seven cars. Ms, Hagen stated two of her children have moved out, and another one is leaving the first of the month, So the only Inldlvldua]s wIth cars wi]] be Mr. Olson and herself, / The hearing was opened to public testImony, There being no public testImony, ChaIrperson FerrIs asked for a motIon to close the public hearing, / ~) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 26, 1991 Page 4 (Public Hearing: SpecIal Use PermIt, In-Home Beauty Salon, 2646 NW 133rd Lane, Continued) MOTION by Pease, Seconded by JovanovIch, to so move, Motion carried on a 5-Yes. 2-Absent (Jonak, McMullen) vote, MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Peek, recommend that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit request of Patricia A, Hagen to operate an in-home beauty salon at 2646 NW 133rd Lane, with the following conditions: 1, The operation be limIted to a one-chair salon/shop. 2. The salon/shop shall be owner occupied, 3, The parking requirements shall be as set out In Ordinance No, 8, Section 8.08; shall be a bitumInous surface and shall not exceed an area to accommodate three vehicles assocIated wIth this requested use, 4, The operation must comply with the State Cosmetology Board and/or the State Barber Board requirements, and a copy of that lIcense shal I be provided to the City prIor to commencement of said operation, 5, The hours of operatIon requested: Tuesday 9 a.m, to 5 p,m, Wednesday 9 a.m, to 9 p.m. Thursday 9 a.m, to 9 p,m, Friday 9 a,m, to 5 p,m, Saturday 8 a,m. to 2 p,m, The hours are subject to CIty CouncIl approval, 6, As set out in Ordinance 8, Section 5,03, upon sale of the premises, the Special Use Permit shal I terminate, 7, The Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual review, 8, The request shall be subject to the Sunset Clause as set out in Ordinance No.8, SectIon 5.03 (D), The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or genera] welfare to the communIty, It wll I not cause serious traffIc congestions or hazards, It will not seriously depreciate surrounding property values, It Is in harmony wIth the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, A public hearing was held and there was no opposItIon, Reference Ordinance No.8, SectIon 7,03 that it is permitted in all residential districts upon issuance of a Special Use Permit; Ordinance No, 8, Section 5,03 (B) (1), that all the criteria are achieved; and Ordinance 8, Section 4,30, that the salon/shop not exceed 20 percent of the liveable floor area of the structure, VOTE ON MOTION: Jonak, McMullen. March 19, 1991, YES-FerrIs, Pease, Dehn, JovanovIch, Peek; ABSENT- Motion carrIed. Item wIll to go the Council on Hearing closed at 8:43 p,m, ".' ,c. / , ~) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 26, 1991 / Page 5 VARIANCE: HORSES ON UNDERSIZED LOT, 840 146TH LANE NW. KAROLYN RUCKS Mr, Carlberg explained the reason for the variance is not because of an undersized lot but because of a shelter for keeping equines being closer to the wel I than is allowed by City Ordinance, He reviewed the background of the applicant at first being in violation of keeping equines in the front yard on a parcel of three acres or less. She has since met that requirement, The violation at this time concerns the required 100-foot distance between a shelter for equines from a well. The wel I is located 24 feet from the shelter, encroaching into the required setback by 76 feet. The house was built in 1979, In 1984, the 28x38' accessory structure was built without the lean-to, At a future time a lean-to was added to the structure without a buiiding permit. The Building Department will determine whether a permit was needed. The procedure for after-the-fact permits is to pay twice the cost of the building permit, Dave Almgren, City Building Official, did not have a problem with the location of the lean-to to the well, / Mr, Carlberg felt the biggest concern is the potential for well contamination, The City Attorney has advised there is no liability on the part of the City for granting the variance should the wel I become contamined in the future as a result of that existing shelter if at the time of the variance the wei i water is not contaminated, Ms. Rucks had her well tested about 1 1/2 years ago, and it was not contaminated, The Staff is recommending approval based on the fact that it is existing and there has not been a problem with it, There are only two horses, and the ordinance only ailows a maximum of three; so there should not be a large manure-management problem, A stipulation couid be added tO'require the water to be tested annually, John Bills, Chairperson of the Equestrian Council, recalled the October 2, 1990, discussion with the City Councii and Mr. Almgren resulted in the code stating manure pits and feed lots were considered hazardous when in close proximity to the wells, Regarding accessory buildings or horse pastures, there would be no problem. That was the final word when the ordinance was passed, and the Equestrian Council had no problem with the request. Also, it would be a great hardship to move the building because the ground severely slopes from it, All runoff is away from the well to the back of the lot, Karolyn Rucks, 2646 133rd Lane NW, stated the well is 138 feet deep and is located between the barn and the attached garage, It is a buried pump. No water lines run to the barn, nor is there an outdoor faucet from the well. The area around the well is not pasture. She said the well was tested 11/2 years ago by Culligan, and everything was fine, Ms, Bosell noted the jurisdiction of wel I testing has been taken over by the State, / ~.) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 26, 1991 Page 6 (Variance: Horses/Separation from Well, 840 146th Lane, Karolyn Rucks, Continued) Chairperson Ferris was bothered that an ordinance was passed separating the equine shelter from a well by a minimum of 100 feet for the public welfare and safety to be sure there won't be ground water contamination, and this request varies 75 percent of that, He couldn't justify that variance, plus It's not known whether or not that well is contaminated right now. He didn't understand why public safety would be put aside because the building exists. Mr. Carlberg stated the operation Is existing and has been operational for quite a period of time in this manner, and it hasn't been a problem, The number of horses Is minimal and will not create a manure-management problem or seepage Into the wel I and aquifer. Commissioner Pease suggested the well water be tested prior to issuance of the variance, with an annual review; and if It becomes contaminated, the operation would cease. Mr, Bills said when the ordinance was done, the separation was based on all applications, not on the density of equines. Again, when the Council approved the ordinance revision, the Intent was that existing horse operations would be grandfathered in, He Interpreted the 100- foot separation requirement as applicable to new buildings, Ms, Basel I disagreed, stating Ordinance 8, Section 8,19 has always had that separation requirement in It. She thought the Issue was the conversion of a lawfully existing bUilding to an unlawful existing use, Mr, Bills again noted the discussion was on how to deal with the numerous violations, The Intent was not to ask everyone to come In with a variance request but to grandfather them in, He also asked the Commission to look at what Is a manure problem. There is a difference between what they are seeing as a problem and the definition of the State Health Code versus the way It was discussed with the Council, Chairperson Ferris argued Ordinance 28 complies with Ordinance 8; and it had been a requirement long before this property was developed, He felt the variance was required at the time the barn was placed In that location, He again said the Issue Is that of public safety, asking if a mistake was made In the ordinance which should have instead required greater setbacks from wells based on equine density, He didn't know if by testing and finding contamination that the City Is upholding public safety, To him a 75 percent variance Is critical, There was also some discussion on other locations on the lot in which the lean-to could be placed, Ms, Rucks stated it was built four years ago on the south side of the barn because It offers the greatest protection, She has had horses for eight years, Prior to the lean-to she would put them in the barn only during inclement weather, In looking at the pOSSible places to put the lean-to, no specific location was agreed upon, though some Commissioners Indicated a smaller variance In setback would be looked upon more favorably. .---; c ..., / ) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 26, 1991 Page 7 (Variance: Horses/Separation from Well, 840 146th Lane, Karolyn Rucks, Continued) MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Pease, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council disapproval of the variance requested by Karolyn Rucks to allow the placement of a shelter/barn for the keeping of equines encroaching 76 feet Into the required minimum 100-foot separation from the well on the property located at 840 146th Lane NW, Lot 5, Block 1, Barnes Rolling Oaks Second Addition, The Commission finds that the proposal does not meet the strict requirements set forth in Ordinance 8, Section 5.04, The Commission finds that no hardship due to the unique shape or topography of the parcel exists and that the landowner would not be precluded reasonable use of the property, Because it is encroaching 76 feet within a 100-foot separation per Ordinance 23, Section IV, which is designed to protect the public safety, That the existing structure which Is there was placed in under a building permit for reasons other than sheltering animals, That the lean-to that is now attached to the building was added after that without a building permit, and thus there has been no City authorization for that structure to shelter animals, FURTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Pease was not sure that the intent of the revised Equine Ordinance was to review existing situations and completely disallow them or "non-grandfather" them, It was known that there were violations and that some of the variances would need to be accepted, She would be more Inclined to recommended the variance be granted with the condition of testing the water now and an annual review for contamination, She questioned what the City intends to do with al I the other horse owners who are out of compliance with the new ordinance, Commissioner Peek stated those out of compliance need to be looked at in terms of public health, The potential contamination of the well directly affects the environment and public health, Chairperson Ferris thought if an expert opinion is sought regarding the likelihood of contamination based on equine density, the Commission should ask the Council to look at the reasonableness of this separation requirement in Ordinance 23. He also didn't know if the City can legally grant a variance if the 100-foot separation is a State requirement. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ferris, Dehn, Jovanovich, Peek; NO-Pease; ABSENT-Jonak, McMullen, Motion carried, Commissioner Pease didn't believe the intent was to cause people hardship when the ordinance was revised, Item will to go the Council on March 19, 1991, o <:; ~ .... .~ '- ) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 26, 1991 Page 8 VARIANCE: ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. 13476 HANSON BOULEVARD NW, MARGARET RUNKE Ms, Bosell reviewed the variance request of James and Margaret Runke to allow them to retain and not move or remove structures at 13476 Hanson Boulevard NW (Andover Wheel and Frame), which were constructed on the property without building permits and in violation of the structure setbacks and siding requirements per Ordinance No, 8, Sections 4.05 and 6.02, She reviewed the background information, applicable ordinances, and options, Staff is recommending denial of the request because it does not meet the spirit and intent of the ordinances, Chairperson Ferris asked about the City/s liability if a variance is approved and then the Commercial Boulevard alignment went through that area, Ms. Bosell noted the alignment of Commercial Boulevard is to the south, Mr. Carlberg stated if the property owners are not willing to sell, the City would begin the eminent domain procedure to acquire the needed right of way. Margaret Runke, 13476 Hanson Boulevard, explained they came in and talked with Dave Almgren, the City/s Building Official, regarding their alternatives. There was an agreement that the siding and setbacks would be changed, Based on that, she got proposals for new siding; then Mr, Almgren told her she had to have doors, She said there has always been something else whenever they tried to get the situation resolved. Now they cannot get an Occupancy Permit for the bays they constructed until this is resolved, which she felt has nothing to do with this issue, Nothing was said about the structures until after the footings were laid and the buildings were purchased for the new bays. Ms, Runke also stated the type of construction on the two structures matches the existing buildings and the fence, If she was to upgrade those structures to match the new building, it would not look good. Cosmetically, it looks better to leave it as it is than to match the new building, James Runke, 13476 Hanson Boulevard, explained the two structures were constructed five years ago in accordance to the existing code, though they did not get building permits on them, They did agree to the options outlined by Mr, Almgren; however, when they came back to him with the prices on the siding, they were told that doors were needed, They were not told about the doors prior to this; they have no need for doors; and he expressed frustration at what he felt is a never-ending list of demands even after they had agreed to the changes and to move the buildings, Chairperson Ferris noted if building permits had been applied for when the structures were constructed, they would have known about the setback requirements and the proper materials to use for siding, Then the proper site planning would have been done, -( ~, c. i ~~: t.. (' L -.' I ) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Feb.ua.y 26, 1991 Page 9 (Va.iance: 11 legal Non-Confo.ming Accesso.y St.uctu.es, 13476 Hanson Bouleva.d, Continued) M.s, Runke stated NSP has the easement th.ough the.e, and they have no p.oblem with the location of the st.uctu.es. Because no one is back the.e, she asked why the CIty ca.es about the st.uctu.es being on the p.ope.ty line, She also asked If It Is possIble to put In a stipulation that if a .oad goes th.ough the.e o. If someone buIlds, they would then .emove the st.uctu.es, RIght now it Is just a sand pit back the.e, Chai.pe.son Fe..is explaIned the CIty .equi.es an access to the p.ope.ty line and establishes setbacks to allow the access, It is incidental whethe. NSP o. the neIghbo. ca.es, because a non-confo.mIng st.uctu.e on the p.ope.ty line dest.oys the abIlIty to get access within the setback a.ea, The CIty also needs to enfo.ce its setback .equi.ements to p.event buIldIng .Ight on p.ope.ty lines and fo. public safety, He didn't know of any othe. way of allowIng that st.uctu.e othe. than to acqui.e anothe. 10 feet fo. easement, whIch he felt would be mo.e diffIcult than .emovIng the st.uctu.es, MOTION by Pease, Seconded by Dehn, .ecommend that the Andove. Planning and Zoning CommIssIon .ecommend denIal of the va.iance .equest of James and Ma.ga.et Runke to va.y f.om the exte.io. standa.ds fo. buIlding const.uction and to va.y f.om the sIde ya.d setback fo. existing th.ee-sided st.uctu.e. The .easons being if they had had a building pe.mit that they had applied fo., it would not have lIkely been g.anted to do that, It does not meet the c.ite.ia of O.dinance 8, Section 5.04 of the va.iance with the ha.dship dealing with the cha.acte.istics of the land, It doesn't meet the spI.it and intent of the o.dinance as fa. as setbacks and that type thing, VOTE ON MOTION: Jonak, McMullen. Ma.ch 19, 1991, YES-Fe..is, Pease, Dehn, Jovanovich, Peek; ABSENT- Motion ca..ied. The item wil I go to the Council on The CommIssIon .ecessed at 10:10; .econvened at 10:24 p.m, SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL/SET AGENDA The Commission discussed seve.al items they wIshed to discuss with the CouncIl at the Ma.ch 7 joInt meeting. The following items we.e ag.eed to: 1, Va.iances a, Attitudes Towa.d Va.iances b, Unifo.m Standa.ds fo. G.antIng Va.iances, - -.-..... '.J J -: 'j - -1. C ':1 I ~ L .1 c ) ) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 26, 1991 Page 10 (Special Joint Meeting with City Council/Set Agenda, Continued) 2. 1/10, 4/40 Rural Development Proposal 3, City Center Concept Proposal in Comprehensive Plan 4, Direction from Council when Sending Items to the P & Z 5, P & Z Level of Commercial Site Plan Review The Commission also briefly discussed the problem of procedure when there is a lack of attendance and participation by a Commissioner, It was agreed to table this item until the Commission itself had a chance to discuss it more thoroughly, DISCUSSION - ORDINANCE NO, B. SECTION B.OB (E) (9), CURBING REQUIREMENTS The Commission discussed the request of the City Council to review the curbing requirements of concrete curb and gutter in various aplications. Ms. Bosel I explained that concrete curb and gutter was added as a requirement to prevent erosion, to direct the water, and to protect the quality of the parking service. The City Council is apparently saying there may be more than one standard, in that if it is quasi-public or a park or in a natural application, then maybe the concrete curbing may not be needed. The problem came in with the Mosquito Control District asking to be exempted from curbing around their storage area, arguing it is an expense that is not necessary, Some Commissioners questioned a dual standard of treating developers differently from others, felt that the use of a parking lot is not a function of the occupancy, and thought that a parking lot in a park can get just as much use as a commercial parking lot. Mr, Carlberg thought the ordinance should remain as is, agreeing with the way it is written, The Commission generally agreed. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Dehn, that if the City grant an economic courtsey to another governmental use the variance process, not amend the ordinance, a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Jonak, McMullen) vote, Council wants to agency, they should Motion carried on DISCUSSION - PAINT BALL/WAR GAMES OPERATIONS Mr, Carlberg explained that the City Council has asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to examine the operating of Paint Ball/War Games within the City of Andover -- whether or not they should be allowed; and if allowed, how should they be regulated and where should they be allowed. He noted the City has received two requests for these operations, plus one has been operating within the City with no City / regulation in the vicinity of Ward Lake Drive. -; ) '. ::..- ,- - c ~ , - '. ,,I \ ~ / Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 26, 1991 Page 11 (Discussion - Paint Ball/War Games Operations, Continued) The Commission discussed reasons for not allowing them and how that could be accomplished, Several Commissioners expressed a dislike for that type of activity, They also talked about how such operations should be regulated if they are allowed, raising the question of whether the Party Ordinance is applicable, Another alternative may be to allow them only in the General Recreational district, though there is no GR zoning in the City at this time, The Commission asked Staff to look at the Party Ordinance and to research what is done in other communities both where these operations are and are not allowed, MOTION by Pease, Seconded by Dehn, to table this to the next meeting, Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Jonak, McMullen) vote, DISCUSSION - PERMITTING DOMESTICATED FERRETS Mr, Carlberg explained the City is receiving inquiries regarding the keeping of domesticated ferrets. Other communities do al low them. They are sold in pet stores, eat cat food, and cannot survive in the wild, Another anImal that is becoming a popular pet is the pIg, The Commission generally felt the City should not be involved with domesticated ferrets or pIgs or any other type of animal, They did I not wish to write an ordinance stipulating specific animals that are al lowed, because it would then have to be amended every time a new "pet" became popular. It was agreed that no change to the ordinance is necessary and that Mr. Carlberg's interpretation of the ordinance is correct, that such domesticated animals are allowed, Ms, Bosell also suggested it would be appropriate to create a file; and if it becomes a problem, deal with it then, The Commission agreed, OTHER BUSINESS Mr, Carlberg noted the updated list of Commissioners and support Staff, He also presented the Parks Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which the Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing, and reviewed the Agenda for Thursday's Comp Plan Task Force meeting. Ms. Bosell also appreciated phone calls to meetings so Staff can more adequately meetings, Mr, Carlberg stated they will to view sites that are being discussed. possibility of video taping the sites, from the Commissioners prior respond to questions at the be making more of an attempt He will also look into the The next meeting, Tuesday, March 12, 1991, will begin at 8:01 p.m, because of the special election being held on that day, There being no further business, Chairperson Ferris adjourned the meeting at 11:41 p,m. ~\e\sp~ctf~IJY..S}l~m.. it~.".p L i \ \ <... \.. "'- UI.....l..e{ l.A ,\ <C L l.L--- Marcella A, Peach, Recording Secretary ..- ~