Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 04 2014 PC meeting minutesPRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, August 4, 2014 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Phelan called the Monday, August 4, 2014 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Jeff Phelan, Perri Hite, Adam Blahnik, Eric Spieler and Wade Larson, Community and Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke, City Engineer Larry Poppler, Finance Director Jerilyn Erickson, Public Works Director/Natural Resources Director Katy Gehler and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Revised Monday, June 16, 2014 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PHELAN TO APPROVE THE REVISED MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson. The Motion carried. Approval of Revised Monday, July 7, 2014 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY HITE SECONDED BY PHELAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JULY 7, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV -2014-0015 — 17098 Adelmann Street SE — Dan Stanley and Larry Raasch are requesting a variance on a setback to reduce front yard setback from 30 to 15 feet. The property is located at 17098 Adelmann Street SE. PID 25-444-001-0. Planner Matzke introduced the request for a 15 foot variance from the minimum 30 front yard setback for a property in the I-1 (General Industrial) Zoning District. He explained the current circumstances, issues, conclusion and alternatives; he stated staff recommends a motion to approve a resolution approving the requested variance or any variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate in these circumstances. He provided a resolution, location map, site Plan dated July 1, 2014 and an applicant narrative dated July 17, 2014. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite acknowledged the lot being triangular and asked if the building size could be reduced? She questioned if we are setting a precedent by granting this variance? Planner Matzke said all variances are viewed on an individual basis. He stated the size and ratio of this building and the differences in the parcels along the corridor in the Deerfield Business Park. He said this building is already smaller in size; exact dimensions of the height of the building would come with the site plan. Blahnik asked with regard to the front yard setback for an office warehouse building such as this, is the primary purpose of related to aesthetics or safety; why specifically 30 feet? Planner Matzke explained the importance of both. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:14 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Joe Riordan of 17482 Deerfield Drive, thanked the Commissioners for opening the public hearing for the neighborhood and stated his background. He shared his experience, ideas and suggestions of similar cases to this variance and asked questions regarding different setbacks compared to other buildings that are on that side of the street. He talked about the tendency to discourage further development along that street, if this is suitable for outside storage, reducing the angle of the triangle by landscaping and consideration to the long term applications of a variance. Bob Ciarletta of 17496 Deerfield Drive SE, asked what kind of manufacturing will be done at this location? He asked if the applicant could specify what he plans to do with this space as well as what kind of vehicles are going to be stored and hours of operation. He mentioned that there is a water flow problem on heavy rains in this area. Applicant Dan Stanley explained the use of the property as a contracting office and yard, including warehouse space for material, which is consistent with the zoning. He said that trailers and other equipment will primarily be stored in the yard. He said there are no manufacturing plans, and his hours of operation would potentially be from six in the morning until five at night. Hite asked since the construction and the use relates specifically to contracting business, will he also lease space for boat storage and things like that? Applicant Stanley replied no. Phelan stated that specifically tonight, the Commission is reviewing the front yard variance. Spieler asked the applicant whether he looked at other properties in that area. Applicant Stanley stated yes, but this is the one they decided to work with and it was consistent with the size of the building. They reviewed with staff different site plan versions and ultimately at the concept now being reviewed. Spieler asked if there were plans to expand the building in the future. 2 Applicant Stanley replied the building is sited in such a way that they could put a small expansion on the southeast side, maybe up to 2,000 square feet. Larson asked about the southern side of this facility and the typical height of the fencing? Applicant Stanley responded probably 6 foot. Larson asked potentially about how many vehicles would be stored? Applicant Stanley replied at this time less than 10 trailers, which may expand in the future. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:26 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Phelan asked more about setbacks for this building. Planner Matzke used an example to show the 15 versus 30 feet setback. He mentioned that if the applicant intended to add another addition in the future and have a 15 foot setback for that building expansion, they would need to apply for another variance at that time. Phelan asked about the front setback for another business about 200 feet down the street. Planner Matzke replied about 30 feet Spieler asked Planner Matzke, in his perspective, if this was the best fit versus other parcels in the area? Planner Matzke replied that although there are other properties that offer larger areas for the applicant to choose from, this is a platted piece of property. Probably over half of all lots are Outlots; therefore, they haven't paid development fees and the prices and negotiation options may be different then the applicant's needs. The applicant looks at their needs for sizing of outdoor storage area, parking area, and building size. He could not really say if this is the best fit or not. Spieler believed that this is an industrial company, and that this lot is a good fit in regard to the size and shape they are looking for. Planner Matzke replied yes; the streets and utilities are installed. Larson asked how many parking spaces do they have now compared to what they would have with a thirty foot setback in the front of the building? He questioned the location of storage and what they would have if they could not get the setback? Planner Matzke explained the property line and how far it extends with the various setbacks. Larson asked pertaining to the property line, is there a certain amount of feet that the fencing needs to be back from the property line for the storage area? Planner Matzke explained the fenced in area as shown and stated that it does not have to meet that same building or parking setback. He said this is not the ultimate grading plan for the site; that would come back for site plan review. Blahnik asked if there are any issues with runoff or impervious surface; there are no variances being requested for that? Planner Matzke stated there are no variances requested for that; the applicant would need to meet ordinance standards and explained the amount of allowable hard coverage for commercial and industrial sites. They need to follow the storm water rules to be reviewed during site plan review. Blahnik stated he will be supporting this variance due to practical difficulties given the nature of the triangular lot, and that the applicant pushed the building closer to the street rather than toward the residents. He felt, per the staff's research, the building will not crowd the street or corridor nor create any site issues. Adelmann has a wide 80 -foot right-of-way, including a sidewalk on the south side with trees planted in the boulevard. Phelan asked about impervious surface and drainage; are these considerations being taken into consideration as part of the site review? Planner Matzke replied all of the site analysis would be reviewed with the building design to meet codes. The building and site plan review process is done administratively. The storm water system was designed for all of the business park, thereby allowing projects to not have individual systems on their own sites. Parking or roof drainage from the site would actually drain towards the street and not toward the wetland. Phelan feels the questions have been addressed and if there are additional questions about drainage, certainly that would be addressed during site plan and before building permits are issued. Hours of operation are regulated by the zoning ordinance. Therefore, he is in an agreement with Commissioner Blahnik that there are practical difficulties, and he concurs with his comments on the right-of-way, sidewalk and boulevard. He understands concerns regarding aesthetics; however, he doesn't know that it affects the future development of other lots. Therefore. he will be supporting this variance request as listed. Hite stated that the lot being of triangular shape does create some difficulties; however, she feels the size of the building could be reduced and the request really does serve as a convenience to the applicant. She feels it is precedent setting, and that the lot to the southeast could be disadvantaged. Therefore, she is not supporting this application. Spieler stated he has mixed thoughts on this as well; he appreciates that they went and looked at other properties and finding one that is already platted. However, he agrees with Commissioner Hite that ordinances are there for a reason. He is uncertain of his vote on this as of right now. Larson stated that he referenced the applicant's letter to the City and it states design standards stipulated for a 100 -foot operating radius from the dock or unloading area for trucks and trailers. He N feels that keeping a 60 -foot buffer zone between the residential and the industrial site is important, as well as future fencing as screening. He will be in support of this variance. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUESTED 15 -FOOT FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Blanhik and Larson; Nays by Hite and Spieler. The Motion carried. B. DEV -2014-0016 - Crystal Bay PUD Amendment — Crest Exteriors is requesting a PUD Amendment to replat 4 attached townhome units into 3 detached units. The property is located on Drake Circle, south of Hwy 82, west of Hwy 21. PID 25-417-009-0 through 25- 417-012-0. Planner Matzke introduced the considered approval of a major Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Crystal Bay Townhomes. He explained the history, issues, conclusion and alternatives; he stated staff recommends a motion to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment subject to any listed conditions as identified by the Planning Commission. He provided a location map, final Plat, PUD Site Plans and Conceptual Building Elevation. Commission Comments/Questions: Phelan asked have lots three and four been developed yet? Planner Matzke replied that lots three and four have been developed recently. Phelan stated he has some thoughts on changing the essential character of this development, but will wait to hear from some of his fellow commissioners. He feels that it is noteworthy that the townhome association is in support of this and the letter calls out the size of the proposed homes including the price range. Aesthetic character is one thing, but undue financial impact is already being addressed. Blahnik asked the lot and the northwest corner is this vacant? Planner Matzke replied the only vacant lot besides what is being proposed in front of you tonight for the switch from four to three units are lots one and two that are off the lake and he showed the slide of the original twenty four plotted lots. Blahnik asked are those still being platted as twin homes? Planner Matzke replied, yes they will be platted as twin homes in the future. He said any changes would need to be a Planned Unit Development Amendment similar to this current process. Larson stated the angles of the new versus the original plat. He said he likes this single family style rather than the twin home because if it was a twin home you would have two home that would be facing at a forty-five degree angle looking right into the home of building thirteen. He feels this new single family home gives better and more space between building thirteen and Block One; feeling there is more privacy for the homeowners and better aesthetic view. Spieler asked with the two other homes on the west side (nineteen thru twenty-two) are they separate townhomes? And if so why don't all of them go for townhomes? Instead of just these four houses? 5 Planner Matzke explained that this is not shown on the paper work however, nineteen through twenty-two have been constructed. Spieler stated he understands and asked on the other two corners would there be twin homes there? Planner Matzke replied it may be something that they might propose at that time. He explained the look of the single family homes to be placed and how the market may differ for these lots. He said the builders of the homeowners association may think in the future to do this differently, but for now they would remain as twin homes. Spieler asked will all the single family homes belong to the association and would they share the lake access? Planner Matzke replied yes all of these lots are tied into the association and have shared access, dock access and everything of the common area. Spieler asked so this would be very similar to what was done last year with the Hickory Shores? Planner Matzke replied yes and they did a detached unit and switched from an attached unit; yes very similar actually. Spieler asked and this worked out okay as far as you can tell? Planner Matzke replied they are constructed and haven't heard anything come back to the City. Hite asked regarding the letter from Mr. Kamrath, do we have a signed copy on file so there is an accurate representation? Planner Matzke replied yes we do have a signed copy on file. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:54 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blanhik, Spieler, and Larson. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Gary Kamrath resides at 3651 Crystal Bay Lane NW and is the Treasure of the Crystal Bay Association. He said they support this change; he stated there have been several developers on this site over the years and many things weren't done, which has created hardship on the Association. He mentioned there are trees, paths, electrical lines to the dock which are underneath the corner of one of the proposed lots, which would need to be moved as another expense to the Association. Hite asked Mr. Kamrath if the entire association reviewed this and if they were all in favor; were any opposed to this? Gary Kamrath explained this was addressed in front of the Board of Directors; however, it was not addressed to the entire Association. At this point, five on the Board of Directors out of sixteen represented a good cross of locations of the homes in this group. D Phelan asked within the Board, was it a unanimous support? Gary Kamrath replied yes. Danny Bowling explained how the houses were staked and that the other side fit well, but did need to do some rearranging of the end lot on Fremont. He mentioned when they staked this Spring, they didn't realize the problems with the twin homes being too close to the road as well as to close to each other. He said the look of the single home will be far better than the look of the twin home. Hite asked if they considered resizing the units? Danny Bowling replied yes; however, even resizing them with the setbacks would be so narrow that they would be unlivable. Hite asked about the size of the unit today? Danny Bowling stated that even trying to get four twin homes there is not going to work. Alan Lenzen resides at 15586 Drake Circle NW, Unit 8; the unit closest to the proposed building of the other homes. He said it looks like part of that home is too close and would like that staked to see exactly how it lays before he decides if he approves or disapproves. If it is platted for twin homes, how can you put single homes on this lot? He asked what will the value of these single homes be? Danny Bowling said that they would sell for $700,000 - $800,000; he felt putting in only three homes would help with the price of the homes, assist in the other home values. Danny Bowling said they would make more money by building four units, but he felt building three detached units was the best overall plan based on market demand. Phelan asked if there would be the same guidelines for siding and roofing material so they will not look different. Danny Bowling answered yes. Blahnik asked regarding the third house that is adjacent to lot eight; is that closer than it was under the original plat and did they explore shifting them all over so that the three singles would fit within the footprint of the two twins? Scott Hurm replied the problem was with lot twelve; that house's patio door looks directly into building thirteen's living room window. Phelan asked Planner Matzke if there are still setbacks issues? Planner Matzke replied with a PUD, setbacks can actually established to whatever the plan may propose and approved. Hite said we here to consider switching twin homes to single family homes and repositioning the single family homes to avoid relocating a path and underground utilities, not to improve the private 7 view of Mr. Kamrath and his family. However, indirectly the city could be impairing the property line of lot owner eight, and so, there needs to be some give and take. She doesn't want to be in the position of improving someone's view line and then causing problems down the road. Scott Hurm stated that the property values of the end twin homes would be $100,000 less than those in the middle. He said the three would be consistent with what is there now. Spieler asked are these all three car garages and consistent with everything else in the neighborhood? Scott Hurm and Danny Bowling replied yes. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:13 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blanhik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Spieler supports this and thinks it is great they have been working with the homeowner's association to get their agreement and to get the houses looking alike, even though they will be single family homes. Hite supports this, but subject to the conditions that the developer work closely with staff in the positioning of the home that would be adjacent to lot eight. Blahnik supports this and echoes the comments for Commissioner Hite. He would like to see the three single units stay within the footprint of the original platted twin homes. He would like to keep within the original footprint of the twin homes as long as these three single family homes contain the same design, color palette, materials and scale as the existing twin homes. Larson commended the builder for working with the neighborhood and working with the homes to keep the values stabilized. Therefore, he will be in favor of this. Phelan mentioned he was on the fence with this at the beginning. Dropping three singles into a development of what are exclusively twin homes was a red flag for him. However, based as discussion, it is clear that two wrongs don't make a right. He is concerned about Mr. Lenzen's proximity to the change and will echo the sentiment of Commissioner Hite. He has mixed feelings, but will be supporting this as a better use than what was originally planned. Planner Matzke noted that the Planned Unit Development Amendment will need to go to the City Council for final approval. Final Plats don't require public hearings. Planner Matzke said that the proposed approval of the drainage and utility easement vacation item in 6B could be combined with this item in terms of its approval. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO CRYSTAL BAY, INCLUDING CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF, AND APPROVAL OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION IN CRYSTAL BAY. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blanhik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. C. DEV-2014-OOO1C - Godsons Way Land Use/Zoning — The newly annexed 10.5 acres into Prior Lake needs to have a designated Land Use (Urban Low Density, R -LD) and Zoning (Low Density Residential, R-1). This property is located southwest of County Highway 21 and County Road 87, and north of The Enclave at Cleary Lake on Natures Way. Director Rogness introduced the consideration in recommending approvals related to Godsons Way including amending 10.5 acres to Urban Low Density (R -LD) on the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, and amending the official zoning map to Low Density Residential (R-1). He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and conclusion; he stated staff recommends a motion to recommend amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map to identify the Godsons Way Plat area as Urban Low Density (R -LD) and to identify the same property on the Official Zoning Map as Low Density Residential (R-1). He provided an Amended Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Official Zoning Map. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson mentioned that they have seen this one recently and asked is this just a formality? Director Rogness replied yes. Spieler asked in regards to this process, is this usually done before they start breaking ground? Director Rogness stated yes; staff should have done this before, but there are some advantages to waiting until it is platted so that it is included in ordinance with specific platted parcel information. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:23 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blanhik, Spieler, and Larson. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:24 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blanhik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Phelan will be supporting this application as it is practical and necessary. Blahnik will be supporting this application as this has been discussed before. Larson will be supporting this going forward. Hite is in support; there are no issues, and it is proposed to be in conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the city's Zoning Map as low density residential. Spieler is in support. 9 MOTION BY BLANHIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO IDENTIFY THE GODSON WAY PLAT AREA AS URBAN LOW DENSITY (LD -R) AND TO IDENTIFY THE SAME PROPERTY ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1). VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blanhik, Spieler and Larson. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: None. 6. New Business: A. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - The Planning Commission will review whether the proposed CIP 2015-2019 is in compliance with the Prior Lake 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Finance Director Erickson introduced the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and explained the Project Detail handout not included in the agenda packet which provides more detail about the various CIP items. She stated that Katy Gehler, the Public Works Director/Natural Resources Director, is present for any questions. Engineer Poppler explained the proposed program, including the Transportation Plan and the estimated costs for the projects in the 5 -year CIP. He highlighted the significant projects for the 2015 that are included in the CIP. He stated the action required would be an approval of the resolution finding that the capital improvements identified in the 2015-2019 CIP are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He provided a resolution for consideration. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite asked whether there are any items that have been deferred from previous years? Engineer Poppler replied yes; Mushtown, Maple -Panama Project and Rolling Oaks Project were deferred from when they were supposed to be under construction in 2014. Hite asked why they have been deferred? Engineer Poppler replied that many questions came up during the process; staff couldn't get those questions answered, and grants take time in developing. Hite referred to a section of the Neighborhood Park Development in 2015 where a $50,000 budget is increasing to $225,000 in 2019; somewhere, is there a plan that goes along with neighborhood park development that will show why we have some of these significant increases? Director Gehler responded to the Commissioner's question. She stated that a new neighborhood park is planned every other year; the Enclave at Cleary Park was two separate phases, so the $50,000 is actually the first phase of that park development, and then $225,000 is the next neighborhood park second phase. Hite said for the Water System, it was budgeted $100,000 per year, but in 2019 it jumps up to $15, 000,000? 10 Director Gehler replied yes, the $100,000 a year relates to the placement of equipment particularly at the water treatment facility as it ages; however, in 2019 the city installed a second water facility treatment facility that is projected at that time that can be adjusted dependent on development. Hite asked whether this is based on projected development, not based on end of life of an existing system. Director Gehler said that is correct. Phelan asked whether the city needs to go to the referendum for this $15,000,000 or is that currently contained within the projected fund reserves. Director Erickson replied it was her understanding that it would not go for a referendum; it is based on operational and growth as Commission Hite mentioned. It is built into the operating plan, which is adjusted with the rates accordingly. Phelan asked on CIP 8 (Community Park Development Renovation), it says Capital Park Fund Referendum; is there nothing in the next four years for that referendum? Director Erickson said the referendum would address some major improvements to community parks; city staff has provided a placeholder for the Council Members to have discussion about any improvements. Phelan asked what are the next two parks after the Enclave is finished? Director Gehler replied that staff has not scheduled these parks specifically. As developments take place, she noted that a preliminary CIP is triggered prior to the parks actually being built. At this point, staff is putting the parks in the CIP every other year. Phelan asked whether these are in areas within a development that are dedicated park lands when it is developed and when the City triggers the actual development of said park. Is it at seventy percent occupancy, or is there a current threshold that says now is time to develop; is it just a placeholder? Director Gehler said at this point these are placeholders; knowing that as development occurs, staff will have to be plugging in the neighborhood park resources. Hite asked whether this in addition to any developer provided park dedication fees; is this a projected budget plus park fees the developer would be providing? Director Gehler replied that essentially, the developer provides either land or fees, or a combination thereof, most fees that they pay go into the fund that then pays for these improvements. Spieler asked in regard to other street improvements, like Stemmer Ridge Road, how much confidence does the city have that this will move forward in during the designated year? Engineer Poppler replied that staff has significant work on each project; there is the completion of EAW, ROW acquisitions, etc. However, the city intends to move forward in 2015 with a lot of work for this plan to go forward. 11 Hite asked whether on projects the City works with Scott County and MnDOT, how does the cost sharing and negotiation of a cooperative agreement look like? Who leads this, and who participates from the City? Engineer Poppler replied it varies by each project. In the case of 150th, the city is evenly splitting the cost by one-third with a project sharing formula by Savage, Prior Lake and MnDOT. He said since it has taken a long time to develop and to get the funding a feasibility study reviewed the crashes, cost -benefit, etc. Larson asked if this winter the city had public utility problems? Director Gehler replied this year, due to the very cold temperatures, the frost was driven into the ground deeper than what it typical; therefore, the city ended up experiencing quite a few more water main breaks and also a number of frozen water services. Larson asked whether they revised anything into the budget for repairs now that we have had these harsher winters; maybe we have to move up some of these repairs? Director Gehler responded that one of the things done is to select street projects, not only look based on condition, but based on the underlying condition of utilities. Phelan stated he felt the CIP is in compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan based on staff s information and Commission discussion. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO SUPPORT THE 2015-2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson. The Motion carried. B. DEV -2014-0016 - Crystal Bay Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easement Planner Matzke introduced the request to vacate a drainage and utility easement located within the proposed Crystal Bay Plat, as provided in 4B, in combination with the PUD amendment. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues and alternatives; he stated staff recommends a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed vacation, subject to City Council's approval of the final plat modification to Crystal Bay, as presented or with changes recommended by the Commission. He provided a general location map and an illustrative sketch of easement area. 7. Announcements: A. Recent City Council Discussions/Decisions. • Comments received at the Public Form. o Deerfield Industrial Park Area (EDA) ■ Existing Business Owners are not happy with Allied Excavating. • Constructed as a pole barn, but met all exterior building. • Worried of Value of other buildings in the area • EDA asked staff for more research. Stemmer Ridge Road Resident Input 12 o Minor Collector intended to connect to Highways 12 and 82. o Staff is preparing a feasibility report. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO ADJORN THE AUGUST 4, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Larson. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 13