HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - Meeting Minutes draft PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY OCTOBER 21, 2013
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Phelan called the October 21, 2013 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Those
present were Commissioners Jeff Phelan, Adam Blahnik and Perri Hite, Community & Economic
Development Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra
Woods.
2. Approval of Agenda: 6
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE October 21, 2013 MEETING
AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite and Blahnik. The Motion carried.
3. Consider Approval of October 7, 2013 Me ng Minutes
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 7, 2013 MEETING
MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite and Blahnik. The M otion carried.
4. Public Hearings
A. DEV- 2013 - 0011- Waters E Marina iniitilfitcal Use Permit. Dan Schmid is requesting a
Conditional Use Pet—alto allow a. 286 ft. commercial dock expansion within Boudins Bay that
would increase the number of boat slips fromio 96. The property is located south of Boudin
Street, -wve t 4Tr-unk H4tl PID 2 $J91 -0M/ 25- 153- 003 -0.
Director Rogness provided a presentation reviewing the dock expansion and the site area in which this
CUP (Conditional Use Permit) is being requested. Director Rogness explained the Marina Ordinance and
then concluded by mentioning correspondences from the DNR and an email from Deputy Todd R. Beck
#166 with the Sherriff's department.
Commissioner Comments /Questions:
Hite asked how many parking spaces exist today versus how many would be required if the docks were
to be expanded per the applicant's request, and whether there is a proposal /contemplation on parking in
the adjacent parcel to satisfy parking requirements?
Director Rogness replied according to the survey it appears there are nearly 50 existing parking stalls;
however, these parking stalls have no defined drive isles and parking spaces, and the parking lot would
need to be redesigned due to the 904' Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Director Rogness showed
the property line with 30 feet of parking easement that Mr. Schmid has across the adjacent property.
1
Blahnik asked for clarification of the factors, including verification if the eight factors under the general
CUP analysis, the four factors under the CUP for the Shoreland District, the twelve factors for the Flood
Plain District, and the seven factors for the marina conditions, totaling 31 factors?
Director Rogness confirmed that all 31 factors are being addressed in three categories, and the
conclusion/recommendation of the staff is to table this item, allowing time to review the large amount of
criteria as well the public testimonies tonight.
Blahnik questioned if the 30 foot easement on the adjacent property could be used to satisfy a parking
requirement, and if so, would the neighboring property owner have to authorize the use of that easement?
Blahnik also questioned whether fill could be brought in if the area below the OHWM was used for parking
and if that would require Army Core, DNR or other approval? What are the alternative to satisfy the
parking?
Director Rogness replied that the DNR would not allow any fill below the 904' elevation. Director
Rogness mentioned the parking easement is a private easement. Director Rogness explained that Staff has
not done a parking analysis of the office building to the north; however, parking requirements should have
been met when it was approved. Director Rogness stated that staff would be willing to do more research
of that parking issue, if requested.
Applicant:
Dan Schmid — 527 Vista Lane, Shakopee, MN
Mr. Schmid presented the business as being family owned. Mr. Schmid provided information regarding
the business, stating the business was purchased by him three years ago. Since that time, he has made a
number of improvements, including updating the dock, landscaping and clearing out trees per the DNR
request. In addition to these items, he also worked with the Sherrif to insert buoys in the bay for navigation
due to shallow spots. Mr. Schmid also hired a surveyor and worked with a dock specialist to look at
designing a dock that would both meet the accommodations of extending docks without impeding upon
the neighboring docks. He explained that this land is unique because the land under the bay is owned by
the business. Mr. Schmid mentioned in January he started working with the city and the DNR in terms of
dredging; the DNR indicated some willingness to look at limited dredging in terms of the main channel
going into the lake and around the peninsula where it gets shallow in the bay. Mr. Schmid stated he would
be willing to reconfigure the parking with striped parking stalls, if requested.
Commissions Questions:
Hite asked if dredging discussed with the DNR only related to future dock expansion, or whether dredging
must be done to meet his business needs?
Dan Schmid replied that dredging in the bay is not required today to meet his business needs nor to
operate the dock expansion. The dredging would only be an accommodation to improve traffic flow when
the water level is low. Mr. Schmid explained years ago the waterway was enclosed by a road that went
through and across the channel, and the DNR required the road to be removed to open the channel. This
dredging is based on a old permit that dates back to that era.
Hite asked whether it is his intention to work with the adjacent land owner to mark and create spaces for
the parking lot in the event that the dock expansion is improved? And, would the easement prohibit in any
2
way that building owner from modifying their building and their use in the future because they are
accommodating his parking needs?
Dan Schmid responded yes; he mentioned that it would be hard to specifically answer the second
question, but his recollection is fairly broad in terms of just granting a 30 foot parking easement for the
operation of the marina.
Hite asked if it is typical for the city to allow a business to satisfy their parking needs via an easement
onto another land owner's parcel.
Director Rogness provided an example recently with Honest 1 Auto Care and Prior Lake State Bank.
Blahnik asked whether there are 20 parking spots below the 904' elevation, and if he is not bringing in
fill, would the original parking remain gravel below the high water mark?
Dan Schmid explained that in working with the DNR in the past, parking was permitted in the current
location as it has been for many years. In terms of being able to fill or black top that under the 904, the
DNR would not approve that.
Phelan reviewed the comment Mr. Schmid made in regards to the gravel parking and the lack of efficiency
it has. He explained the purpose of evaluating the CUP, the Commissioners can't consider the information
or the area below the OHWM. If the gravel is a commonly used parking spot and it is disorganized, would
it continue to be disorganized, is it a public safety concern and are there soil erosion concerns with that?
Dan Schmid replied that over time, there may be some soil erosion, but in the many years with the gravel
parking lot, there hasn't been any significant changes. Mr. Schmid mentioned that there is some things
that could be done to organize the parking; he would be willing to rope off the parking lot to organize it
and feels there is no safety issues or complaints.
Phelan asked about the length of dock expansion and whether that distance from the end of the dock
would impede navigation? And, reading the sheriff's commentary about ingress /egress and the turning of
some of the large boats in the bay, are there concerns about being able to turn off the end of the extended
dock? Are there concerns of navigation from the neighboring association dock owners?
Dan Schmid responded that he can only speak based on the survey in terms of the water depths that it
would not impede navigation. Both the neighbors' docks to the north of his property actually extend onto
his property; however, by designing it in this linear fashion, it doesn't impede their docks. In terms of
navigation in and out of the bay, it was designed so that people could have access to the deep water and
move out of the bay into the lake. From the end of the dock, it must be about 100 —150 feet for navigation.
Phelan asked whether he would consider less boat slips in order to stay in compliance and have something
that would be a better fit. Why 46 additional slips?
Dan Schmid replied that the 46 slips is the maximum number of slips that would serve the bay per the
survey and the dock designer; there is a demand for the slips allowing the business to expand.
Hite asked when looking at the elevation, it appears that there are docks to the north that cross his property
line into the water; did he grant them easements?
3
Dan Schmid replied no; however, based on the dock design, there is no impediment and no issue.
p n g� p
Phelan asked when he bought the business?
Dan Schmid responded in the fall of 2010.
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:44
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite and Blahnik. The motioned carried.
Woody Spitzmueller, 4279 Grainwood Circle - Vice - President for Prior Lake Association, mentioned
the Watershed District made no recommendation or opinion regarding this proposal. Mr. Spitzmueller
stated the protection of navigation would not be protected with docks going into the deepest portion of the
bay. Mr. Spitzmueller commented on boat traffic stirring up sediment and mentioned the core sampling
in other areas of the watershed. He explained the district has contracted to apply alum sulfate starting
tomorrow and will take about ten days. They are putting about 290,000 gallons of alum sulfate in spring
and applying in various dosages in different zones with the intent of significantly improving the water
clarity.
Jim Wininger, 2591 Spring Lake Road - Professional Facility Engineer responsible for Industrial Sites.
Mr. Wininger serves on the Watershed Advisory Commission. Mr. Wininger expressed concern of why
the local Watershed Association had not been brought into the reviews due to water quality and water use
issues? He expressed concern of increased boat traffic, safe use of the lake, parking ratios, green space
ratios and run -off plans. Concern also was expressed about if work was done at the marina could result
in run off into the lakes. Mr. Wininger also mentioned PCA regulations regulations requiring storm water
management of a site this size. Mr. Wininger questioned having enough parking to adequately support the
boats that are at this dock.
Allison Gontarek - Attorney attained by the Boudins Association. Ms. Gontarek stated concerns of this
being a commercial dock and its need to still comply with the DNR dock rules She also questioned
whether the expansion under the original amendment was permitted legally, the neighboring property
values, parking ordinances, parking population of renters, health safety and welfare, as well as an
evaluation including a complete review by the DNR commissioners. Ms. Gontarek stated folks are
preparing a petition for an EAW. She supported staff's recommendation to table action and that the public
hearing be held open so additional information may be obtained.
Zac Reimers, 14852 Maple Trail SE - President of open beach association. Mr. Reimers explained he
has lived in the neighborhood since 2003 and stated the city's most unique assets is the lake. Mr. Reimers
mentioned this proposal to extend a boat dock in Boudins bay would be the length of about 600 feet
extending the length of two football fields. The dock would bridge about 75 percent of the distance
between the east and west shores. Mr. Reimers expressed concerns of the use of the bay being dominated
and the impact to homeowners and their property values. Mr. Reimers also expressed concerns regarding
lack of any new jobs or tax dollars as a result of extending the dock.
James Ciabattoni, 6625 Rustic Road SE - Mr. Ciabattoni stated he lives across the street from the bay
and has lived here for about 20 years, raising children that grew up swimming in the lake daily without
ever being sick from the lake. Mr. Ciabattoni mentioned concerns of Boudins Bay and pollution, as in
4
2008 Prior Lake was put on the impaired lakes list for aquatic consumption. Mr. Ciabattoni provided a
statement from a letter he received from Louise Hotka with the MPCA. He expressed concerns with the
debris in the lake sinking to the bottom, with 50 percent of our water pollutants coming from the bottom
of the lake, and the extra boats stirring all this up. Mr. Ciabattoni summarized the drastic increase of
pollutants from the lake bed and lower property values as reasons to say no to this proposal.
Phelan asked Mr. Ciabattoni if he could clarify his reference of 50 percent of the pollution coming from
the bottom of the lake.
James Ciabattoni explained there was a meeting between the Watershed District, Prior Lake /Savage and
the Prior Lake City Council where that this information was received.
Ron Howard, 6750 Rustic Road SE. Mr. Howard provided information regarding a proposal that was
introduced about two years ago allowing the current dock as it is today. This dock was rejected by the
whole Boudins Bay but allowed by City Hall and asked Commissioners to reject this proposal.
Sharon Howard, 6750 Rustic Road SE - Southside of Boudins Bay. Ms. Howard mentioned that she will
offer a copy of a petition that was filed in May 2011 to the City Council objecting to the first 50 boat slips.
Ms. Howard expressed concerns of how the 600 foot dock across the bay with 150 -200 existing boats in
the bay could possibly improve their lake experience. She asked the Commissioners to not ignore the
feelings and input in the neighborhood.
Lowell Rieck, 3526 Willow Beach Street SW. Mr. Rieck explained that he used to live on Boudins Bay.
Mr. Rieck mentioned that there was a road across the bay and in 1962, and the channel was then opened
up. He stated Mr. Boudin wanted to dredge that part of the bay, and the DNR said no. Mr. Rieck asked
if there was a code on how many boats one can have? Mr. Rieck asked about the piece of property that
he owns, if there a building on it, and how many feet of lakeshore does he own? Mr. Rieck expressed
concern with how busy the lake is and the lack of respect on the lake.
Phelan askedIVIr. Rieck with h is hi bey and knoVe lge =of what transpired with dredging the bay, how
did Mr. Bdin reconcile that rF bay *as later dredged?
Lowell Rieck responded that he was not sure; however, he thought someone brought in a bunch of fill
and filled in the whole area to the 904' elevation. When the DNR found out, they had them dredge the
whole area out.
Denny Maas, 14545 Glendale Avenue NE. Mr. Mass mentioned that he attended a neighborhood meeting
on Saturday regarding this proposal. He asked to not table, but simply reject this proposal regarding these
five reasons: (1) how will other developers be turned down, if this one is approved; (2) 46 more boats on
the highly congested lake is too much; (3) the people that live on the lake are not even able to use the lake
on the weekends; (4) erosion; and (5) no financial benefit to city or residents.
Tom Stephenson, 3547 Willow Beach Street NW — Member of the Willow Beach Association and was
the dock chairman for about 15 years. Mr. Stephenson mentioned concerns for the water quality issues
and questioned how much navigable space is beyond the end of dock. Mr. Stephenson's biggest concern
is what kind of a precedent is being set here.
5
John Farmer, 6807 Boudin Street NE. Mr. Farmer explained that he lives on the water, right next to
marina. He expressed the issue of the parking lot as always being full on the weekends and traffic spilling
out into the streets. Mr. Farmer stated that putting the dock where it is proposed will impede the people
south of the dock as well as himself, as they need the deep water to get out of the bay. Mr. Farmer asked
if the city could look into the entry channel of the bay as there may be a potential pipe line that is very
close to the top of the soil.
Jason Bruestle, 14376 Lois Avenue - President of the Boudins Association. Mr. Bruestle lives across
from the marina and is shocked that this has gotten to this point; the association would like it rejected. He
presented complaints where the police should have been called, but had not on the grounds of being a
good neighbor. The concerns included misuse of port-a- potties, dogs leaving waste in yards, parking
extended on neighbors streets, profanity from clients, no -wake zone not being honored, etiquette of
boating also not being honored, and loud clients of the marina morning and night. He also mentioned that
there would not be navigable water around the new proposed dock. He said the association has a private
launch with another 150 boats using that facility.
Director Rogness answered Mr. Bruestle stating the existing dock slip total in the bay is about 150; if the
expansion were to be approved, it would be close to 200 dock slips.
Robert Felt, 14888 Maple Trail SE. — Dock President of Oakland Beach, an association just outside of
the bay on the south side. Mr. Felt mentioned he has lived on the lake 15 years. He has concerns of how
this bay used to be quiet with a great view, but it is not anymore.
Phelan asked staff, due to the continuous comments on 1 slip per 10 feet of lakeshore, to confirm the
difference between a residential standard and commercial standards. Also, does the definition of a marina
factor in whether it is a commercially or a residentially governed rule?
Director Rogness responded there are three types of dock standards, including: (1) a single family home
can have up to 6 boat slips, which is a policy of the city rather than an ordinance; (2) all associations that
have dock areas in Prior Lake or Spring Lake are governed by a formula in an ordinance; and (3)
commercial marinas have been governed by the DNR applying their standard to how many dock slips are
permitted. For this expansion proposal, because of the state definition, the DNR is no longer a permitting
authority for Waters Edge.
Jennie Stanke — DNR Area Hydrologist. Ms. Stanke mentioned the State Statue has changed over time
or modified slightly. She looked at Dan Schmid's permit request; since the last permit was issued, state
rules say that ancillary services must be included for a mooring facility to be considered a marina. The
Schmid's do not have any ancillary services, which would be anything other than renting the slips, such
as selling of gas or food.
Doug Johnson, 5854 Shorelawn Trails — President of the first Island View Association. Mr. Johnson
asked to please treat this type of Marina as an association. Mr. Johnson expressed concerns for the lack
of limits to the number of dock slips, no benefit to the community, no supplies, limited knowledge of lake
and /or rules by boat renters, and no respect for lake waters. He also expressed pollution issues of 50 more
boats.
6
Dave Taylor, 6648 Rustic Road NE. Mr. Taylor lived on the lake for 19 years and enjoys the lake;
however, he doesn't even venture out on weekends because traffic is unbelievable. Because of his
young family of three children, water safety is a very important issue for him.
Mike Calhoun, 6665 Rustic Road. Mr. Calhoun asked that this be rejected on all of the points being made
today; however, aesthetics of this dock is the major issue. Mr. Calhoun stated the nice view of the bay is
going to become a parking lot.
Gail Cousins, 14720 Cove Avenue SE — President of the Kneafseys Cove Association. Ms. Cousins
mentioned she has lived there for 22 years. Ms. Cousins agreed with shoreline erosion and water quality;
however, her emphasis is on boating safety or lack thereof. She does not use the lake on weekends because
of the volume of boat drivers ignoring rules according to the Minnesota boating guide.
Tom Klima, 4653 Lords. Mr. Klima would like to ask the Commission to re- address the DNR's role in
this position. Mr. Klima mentioned that gas is being sold to their members at the boat club.
Charlene Jasan, 15320 Edgewater Circle — Lakes Advisory Committee member for the last 8 years. Ms.
Jasan has been a resident of Prior Lake for 28 years. Ms. Jasan explained there is a lot of input about the
adverse effects of the marina on the lake. She encourages the Commission to keep this open, to look at 31
points with adverse effects. LAC would like to be more involved in matters that involve the lake.
Mark Buenz, 14513 Glendale Avenue. Mr. Buenz mentioned that he owns part of the triangle plot on
the map. He would like to know property rights, because he is concerned about taxes and property rights.
Erosion is a major concern to him because he has had a lot of erosion on his property, especially this year.
Dave Dennig, 6806 Boudin NE. Mr. Dennig lives across the street from the lake in the condos.
Boudin Street is a family neighborhood, and his biggest concern is parking and safety of children in the
neighborhood. Cars lining streets with children running around should not be allowed.
Tim Klasell, 14484 Watersedge trail. He has lived there 14 years; his concern is distracting from property
values, and safety is an issue. The marina's property taxes are lower than everyone else on the lake.
Dennis English, 6773 Boudin Street NE. He said that on the marina, 35 percent of slips occupied by a
nonresidential boat club; Boudin Bay is a parking lot and providing a lot of traffic in the bay.
Tyanne Riegle, 14200 Rutger Street — Board of the Boudin's Association. She reviewed the amount of
boat traffic that already goes out of the bay. Two of their docks were angled due contact by boat traffic,
resulting in tipped docks; boats were just barely hanging on.
Lee Smith, 14358 Lois Avenue NE. He moved into neighborhood in 1977; when the Boudin's Manor
Association was just developing, it got a permit to put in the original docks and to dredge channels that
are there now. The gas main does have a concrete encasement; dredging can occur one inch above that.
If the water level gets below 902.5 feet, boat motors must get far out of water as possible.
Bob Miller, 14359 Watersedge Trail NE. He would like to clarify the regulation of the marinas and their
definition. Mr Miller would like to know how Captain Jacks is regulated.
7
Director Rogness stated that Captain Jacks has a DNR permit, and they also have and a CUP permit.
DNR permit was primary, but he would need to double -check that, if necessary.
Lowell Rieck, 3526 Willow Beach Street SW. He said that when the docks were first put out there, what
he is hearing here is the docks that are there are not part of that property; he only owns the water on his
lot. There is no building, so could a person just buy a lot and put docks on that?
Marine Hermann, 14151 Timothy Avenue. She asked that if homeowners all increased their boat slips
to six, would there be enough room for everyone's docks?
Phelan stated that this is a city policy, not an ordinance. If the neighboring single family residential
properties put out six slips, they wouldn't be required to get any permit.
Donna Mankowsky, 15721 Mitchell Circle SE — Lakes Advisory Committee member. For 23 years, she
has been active and protective of lake waters. She doesn't believe enough research was done. She is
concerned about how the six docks per family would work. There are regulations on those docks that
need to be ten feet off property lines. How are you going to put six docks on the property if there is this
regulations? Doesn't understand how anyone can look at this and think it is a good idea. LAC should
have had opportunities to provide some input.
Director Rogness states those are the elevations of the land underneath the water, which doesn't show
the current elevation of the water; however, if one assumes that the water is at 903 feet, then the deep end
of the bay would be five feet.
Lee Smith, 14358 Lois. Mr. Smith stated that when the lake is down to outlet level (902.5') and it's a dry
year, does the lake ever get higher than that. Do we know what the lake level is right now? He is
concerned about the lake levels continuing to go down and the bay getting too shallow.
Phelan confirmed that the current lake level 901.7 feet.
Mary Freyberg, 14525 Glendale. She has lived here for 28 years. Ms. Freyberg would like a clarification
what is a marina and more information on this property. She wondered if there other property on the lake
that has the same criteria?
Director Rogness agrees and mentions that the normal practice on any commercial marina is that the
DNR is the permitting authority. Dan Schmid went to the DNR, and they do not issue a permit for this.
Mary Freyberg mentioned that maybe the city needs to qualify this as a marina with the DNR. The city
may need to look at its ordinance and make sure there are no cracks in processing. She questioned whether
this marina had a conditional use permit in 2010 ?. Or, maybe those 50 docks should not be there based
on earlier permits.
Director Rogness said that there is no information for 2010 in front of staff, but staff can look further into
that.
Janine Alcorn, 14283 Shady Beach Trail NE. Ms. Alcorn is a lakeshore owner with concerns about boat
safety, especially those who rent boats in this marina. A minimum level of boat lessons must be given,
and courtesy and etiquette needs to be reiterated
8
Lee Smith said that the previous docks were put in by Jerry Young. After he had sailboats in the bay, he
put in a partial marina. Back then, a permit wasn't needed to sell gas; however, he didn't want to sell gas
anyway.
Dennis English - 6773 Boudin Street NE. Based on his memory is probably not the greatest, but if his
memory serves him correct there was about 25 slips out there and they expanded to their current
configuration, not sure of the process of what that went through, maybe they didn't have to have an
approval.
Phelan asked what might have been the permitting process back when Mr. Young expanded from 25 to
50 boat slips?
Director Rogness stated that he needs to do more research to complete a full timeline of permitting for
this marina.
Phelan mentioned that this is the largest turnout they have seen in his short term here; he recommends
that this item be tabled.
Hite recommended tabling this as well. In the packet, there is was a email from the Prior Lake Spring
Lake Watershed District, and it has been noted that staff were not authorized to distributed. The
Commission heard from many advisory board tonight, and would like to hear if staff has worked with
these advisory groups to get their input. When did that rule change and who has it? What is the definition
of a marina and is the city being consistent with other marinas? What is the size of the bay? There has
been much testimony on safety and quality of life impacts. The boat club does need to be addressed as
well with the safety issues.
Blahnik supports not closing this public meeting this evening, and he is leaning toward tabling for
research reasons. He has significant concerns about this expansion. Blahnik asked staff if it is the
Commissions role to recommend that the City Council require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet?
Based on feedback from the community, he thinks the threshold should be met.
Director Rogness responded yes, it should be made as a request to the City Council. He further stated
that the EAW would likely cover the full extent of environmenal issues related to the marina expansion,
including the parking area.
Phelan for staff to solicit more feedback from advisory committees and obtain an official position from
the Watershed District. An EAW needs to be issued due to safety concerns, pollution, and water quality.
Mapping should be improved with detail to fully evaluate the bay. Phelan would like to see some
information on a storm water management plan. He is concerned about too many boats in the marina and
safety. How much of the bay is truly navigable?
Director Rogness mentioned that Planner Matzke will be explaining the procedure to move on to the City
Council. He also stated that the Watershed District memo has come up a number of times. As a normal
rule of the staff review process, application are distributed to other agencies for comment, including the
Watershed District. The city received a memo from with their letterhead and accepted it as official
comment. Just today, staff found out from the director that this memo was did not represent their official
comments. The District will have this topic on their agenda next week.
9
Planner Matzke stated that Planning Committee has different options. They can table to a specified
future meeting, keep the public hearing open, and follow the same process as tonight. Another option is
to table to a unspecified future meeting, which would require that staff follow notification and publication
procedures once again.
Phelan would like to table to a future date and republish after all information is gathered.
Hite recommended that an EAW needs to be issued, and there needs to be an open date in the future to
reconvene when all items have been gathered. If an EAW is to be paid by the applicant and the EAW is
declined to be paid by the applicant, then what happens?
Director Rogness said that further advice would be needed from the city attorney on this aspect. He
recommend one or two motions, including tabling of this item and recommending an EAW to the City
Council.
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND LEAVE THE PUBLIC
HEARING MEETING DATE OPEN WITH THE RECOMMENTATION OF AN EAW ON THE
MATTER BASED ON PENDING CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.
VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite and Blahnik. The motioned carried.
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments T b City is request ng certain amendments to the following
sections of the Ordinance:
Section 1004.600 — Easement,.'
Section 1101,500 ,General Pr .v isions
Section 11 2.40 imensiona1 Standards in the R -1, Low Density Residential Use
Disrtict.
•
Section 1102:700 — Residential Perfqaance Standards
Section 1108.406 — Ianceof VariallOs
PS5 a te'
Planner Matzk and Director Rog reviewed five proposed ordinance amendments.
The Planning Commission brieflyidiscussed these ordinance amendments and agreed to their need.
MI la
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING AT 9:08 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Phelan; Bite and B,i,'nik. The Motion carried.
{
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:09
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite and Blahnik. The Motion carried
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL THE ORDINANCE AMMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED IN THE PACKET.
VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite and Blahnik. The Motion carried.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
10
A. Consider Report on Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Property in the Maple Glen Residential
Development.
Director Rogness reviewed the status of a small wetland outlot area with no easement in the Maple Glen
2" Addition, which has become tax forfeited property. The county asks cities first to consider acquiring
tax forfeited property if there is a local public benefit. Staff does agree it is a benefit for storm water area
detention, and it is supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
THIS OUTLOT BE ACQUIRED BASED ON A PUBLIC BENEFIT AND CONFORMANCE TO THE
2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite and Blahnik. The Motion carried
7. Announcements and Correspondence: - - ,
A. Recent City Council discussions/decisions. °3
s .
N kW
Director Rogness reviewed the following: '''' N
• The County Highway 42 corridor studywas tabled,y the City Counoil in order for staff to
further evaluate whether,there was a way to siri ptify the five mixed uses into one
• The South Downtown area - public informationleeting will be held by the City Council
next Monday night. ' ..
• Some feasibility studies are u d rway, ¶n luding t e roperty west of the Bolger property
in the Rolling Okneighborhdgti. SC il
_
8. Adjournment: . ga
s g as
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO ADJORN THE MEETING.
VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite and Blahnik. The Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant
ta
r a W. R
W 6 W O
11