Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 17 2015 Meeting Minutes FINAL PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, February 17, 2015 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Larson called the Tuesday, February 17, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson and Mark Petersen; Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, February 2, 2015 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO TABLE THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV15-001004 – 16030 Eagle Creek Avenue SE – Katherine Yurko is requesting a variance from the minimum front, side and lake setback to construct a new single family home located at 16030 Eagle Creek Avenue SE. PID: 25-096-036-0. Planner Matzke introduced the requested variances from the minimum lake setback, side yard building separation setback, and minimum front yard setback in the Low Density Residential (R-1) zoning district. He explained the current circumstances, site details, issues, conclusions and alternatives. He provided a resolution, location map, survey and floor plan dated January 30, 2015. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik asked about the setback from the ordinary high water mark and about the second floor decking. Planner Matzke replied upper level decks have to be attached to the building per the building code and is then part of the structure, so the ten foot upper level deck would be forty-two feet from the lake; the actual house itself is fifty-two feet. Blahnik asked is the reasoning behind the fifty foot setback from the ordinary high water mark due to potential flooding. 1 Planner Matzke replied correct. He explained the fifty foot setback as aesthetic and allowance for green space between structures. He said the lake and this property is out of the flood plain elevation of Prior Lake. Fleming thanked Planner Matzke for the great report and asked how often the concept plan changes and if it was to the point where a new variance application would need to be applied for in the future. Planner Matzke reassured that there are not many applications that change. He explained the process the City Staff stresses to the applicant, stating changing of the interior of their home can change without the foot print and would have no bearing on their variance approval, which is why their plans are labeled conceptual. Larson asked the distance between the property line and the frontage road on the applicant’s property. Planner Matzke replied it is about 25-30 feet and the distance from the garage to the frontage road is a total of almost 48-50 feet when you are factoring in where the proposed garage would be at this point all the way to the frontage road; typical right-of-way areas on a local street would be 8, 10, no greater than 12 feet wide, therefore this is an exceptionally wide right-of-way. Blahnik asked about the size of the proposed building. Planner Matzke replied about 1,500 square feet as a footprint. Petersen questioned the setbacks to the lake being measured from the point closest to the house where the in cove is and asked what the in cove is measured at. Planner Matzke replied about 10 feet. Applicant No comment at this time. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 6:20P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Public Comment : Jon Frank, 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue SE; home to the north of proposed variance request. Mr. Frank stated concerns regarding the proposed house size, height and the lot width between the two properties. He mentioned the difficulties of the narrow lots and stated his lot is terraced and wanted to know how this new proposed neighboring house would tie in. He suggested flipping the house plan as there is a lot of room to the south and therefore this would leave no issues or encroachments on his lot. He mentioned he does not have a garage but has been working for 15 years to get a variance and stated this proposed plan may eliminate him from getting a garage on that side of his lot. He talked about back fill and rain water runoff and if the garage is where it is proposed it will compromise both lots and will cause headaches for them both. He would be against moving this plan any further to the north, as he can already see into the neighbor’s house now; moving closer would make it worse. He stated the neighbor to the north of him and himself have been trying to get garages and working the angle, therefore we would like the same 2 consideration as we have our extra items sitting out and have had some vandalism and would like to have some storage and worry that if the neighbor’s house would be so close to his that he would not be able to get something worked out on his end. Fleming asked Mr. Frank if he has applied for a variance. Mr. Frank stated his lot size is smaller than the neighbor’s lot, and his neighbor’s yard is not as limited. He said his own lot is already exceeding hard surface from the previous owner; therefore, the only place to add a garage is where the old county road was located. He believes that when the new county road was built, the county never vacated the old road back to the city. He was told to hire an attorney and to get a survey, but and he cannot afford this. He stated he was concerned about the terracing in his lots as there is not terracing on the south side. He would like to see the building pushed further south and believes that the applicant should have only one garage rather than two. Fleming thanked Mr. Frank and said he would like to share his thoughts, but is not speaking for his fellow commissioners. He stated the issue of the elevation three stories versus two and would be a possible impediment to navigating his property’s terraced landscaping and blocking of the sunlight. Fleming said he is reminded that Prior Lake welcomes multiplicity of perspectives and opinions and has really enjoyed this in his time here as a resident. However, as a statuary body, the Commission has to be mindful of property rights which are grounded in statute. Fleming understood his concerns, but this issue needs to be really careful about that balance between preserving property unalienable rights with the concerns that are shared with neighbors. He hoped that as the petitioner moves forward with the project, there would be opportunity for some dialog; however, he is a little uncomfortable with this tension shared here. Petersen asked Planner Matzke why the buildings cannot be moved further to the south; is there some elevation that is not shown. Planner Matzke explained due to preservation of the trees and the grade change (topography), it would make it more challenging to move to the south of the lot. He explained the driveway issues due to the grade change and stated drainage is reviewed by engineering and would give a better explanation of this, but this way is more efficient for drainage. Petersen asked in the opinion of the staff, is the better plan then reversing where the garage would be on the south side? Planner Matzke replied it is an easier plan to work with the topography, and the applicant would have to put in more tree replacement due to tree removal. Also, they would need to eliminate or work around the existing garage that is in the front of the lot basically to put the driveway on the other side. Mr. Frank stated there are trees on both sides and the trees to the south are straggly pine cone trees; in addition, he doesn’t see where the lot slope is an issue as there is not a dramatic change between his lot and the lot to the south. He stated on his north side there is a five foot retaining wall between his yard and the applicant’s lot, with two terraces holding the front of his yard together; he worried that a garage there would be crowding his property to mow his lawn. He mentioned sight lines impacted by the new development. If approved, what are his chances of getting some consideration for a detached garage? Petersen asked about the setback on the garage as the variance is on the house being too close to the adjacent property. 3 Planner Matzke replied that the proposed garage has a 5.2 feet setback according to the survey and it would have to meet the 5 foot minimum at that area; therefore, it does meet the setback minimum. Mr. Frank said the runoff will fall between his retaining wall and the garage, which would be dead space without any sunlight, leading to no growth or washing out everything in this area. He is not concerned about the east or west, or towards the lake or street. There is a lot of room to the other neighboring house with at least 10-15 feet off that property line and the existing house another 10-15 feet. Fleming thinks it is a little presumptuous and maybe a little disrespectful to presume what a property owner should do with his or her property. He is not intending to be disrespectful, but rather, stating facts about Mr. Frank’s comments on the nature of the trees being scrawny. Fleming stated there is a threshold of respect for property rights which are grounded in Statue, and he hopes that there could be some form of dialog between neighbors. He would like to underscore for Mr. Frank that the applicants are the property owners, and it really is on them to decide how, when, if, and at what cost they want to make modifications to their property. Mr. Frank replied that they made a proposal that is now in front of the Planning Commission; he is just giving an opinion. Larson asked Mr. Frank about the location of his retaining wall on the rear of the property, as it appears very close to the property line. Mr. Frank stated the retaining wall is right on the property line. Larson asked Planner Matzke to familiarize the Commissioners with the regulations for retaining walls. Planner Matzke explained that this situation is not uncommon, especially from the early 1900’s with narrow properties and topography challenges. He referred to Commissioner Fleming’s comments how property owners work together on retaining walls, reviewing topography if retaining walls need to be redone or replaced. Generally, property owners get together to figure out what they should do to better the grade or erosion control situations. The City does get involved with those grading/building permits; in this case if the retaining walls being reconstructed, most likely it would take a building permit to do so. They would be allowed to put back those walls into the same placement as they are existing nonconforming retaining walls. Applicant Applicant Katherina Yurko , acknowledged Mr. Frank’s comments, stating they do understand his concerns. They desire to preserve the existing garage rather than needing to apply for a shed permit in the future. She suggested that all property owners in this area move forward with some kind of a joint agreement with the City to entertain the idea of keeping or adding detached garages within the unused street right-of-way. With the current property line along Mr. Frank’s property, the drainage actually goes into the corner of his house on the property line. As a result, they planned the house further back and incorporated retaining walls in the site to allow for a swale and drainage on the property line. Also, the trees along the south that she is trying to preserve are twenty-plus evergreen trees that add character. They desire to preserve these trees and to not change the character of the property or neighborhood. 4 Applicant Robert Yurko added that they will work with Mr. Frank; it is important to work together. He feels that they will build a nice house, add character to the neighborhood, be friendly neighbors and have fun. They have put a lot of time and consideration into how this design works, and they made sure the drainage was proper. There is additional costs involved in the retaining walls that they accepted to install. His wife is an architect; therefore, a lot of work was put into this to make something beautiful. He asked Planner Matzke for verification on the effects of his plans related to the garage issue along the street. Planner Matzke stated Mr. Frank would most likely need a future variance request because of the small shape of his property. Garages have been routinely approved for variances when a property lacks a garage. The biggest challenge for placement of a garage for this neighborhood is the right-of-way situation. This would have to get addressed from a legal title standpoint, but this is a separate issue from this request. Applicant Robert Yurko stated his garage has the same issues that the other neighbors face; he will also have to seek an agreement to keep the garage, which is not a guaranteed. The focus today is the front and side variance. He doesn’t want to move to a neighborhood and not get along with neighbors. Blahnik asked if it was a two-story house with a walk-out basement Applicant Katherina Yurko replied yes, which is the same as the house to the south, although the neighboring house sits higher. They intentionally designed more of a craftsman style with lower ceiling heights to minimize the height of the home. They also intentionally pulled the house back and still are only requesting the variance for the deck on the rear side to make sure any views for neighboring homes are preserved. Blahnik asked about the retaining wall in the front yard of Mr. Frank’s property as it appears to only have only 2-3 feet between the retaining wall and the actual boundary line. Applicant Katherina Yurko replied she is not sure how he currently maintains this area. From the previous statement given by Mr. Frank, it is her understanding that he has to walk onto their property to maintain his two feet due to the way that house was built close to the property line. She stated any retaining walls on their property would be pulled back another five feet. Blahnik stated there was reference to the retaining wall being the boundary line, but that it looks like the retaining wall is 2-3 feet north of the line. Applicant Katherina Yurko said that is correct. The elevation of the garage will slope down considerably from the street level; therefore, it will create a swale to allow water to drain to the south on their property. She stated they will not be building up to match the retaining wall as theirs is going to continue with the natural slope of what is currently there with some minor infill to get the apron in front of the garage. She stated the retaining wall is to the north of the driveway. She said this will overlap about 5-6 feet where the neighbor ends and theirs begins. She stated they have had a civil engineer look at all of this including the grading and the retaining wall. There will be a slight slope down from the front street; all trees will be remain on the lot line with a little bit of trimming since they would like to leave as many trees as possible. Applicant Robert Yurko stated they want to preserve the lot as it stands and put a modest lake home on this lot. They looked through a lot of houses and chose one to take up less of the lot, lower the roof line, 5 and try to be good neighbors. This house was thoroughly designed for preserving nature, maintaining positive drainage, and being considerate neighbors. Larson stated that he liked the swales that are controlling the water that may or may not be an issue; the applicants are willing to work with the neighbors and want to be good neighbors. For the variance, they are abiding by the ordinance with 5.2 feet, and it is important to preserve the trees. He feels the biggest issue relates to the right-of-way; is it owned by the County? Planner Matzke replied that is one question staff will have to research; and whether there is an application or joint application by neighbors on the matter for the right-of-way area. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 6:59 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik stated he will be supporting the three specific variances. The actual structure of the house is fifty two feet with exception of the upper deck that creates the 8 foot extension into the 50 foot setback. This is consistent with the neighboring properties of the 46 foot setback and doesn’t see any problem. The 3.4 foot setback from the side yard is consistent with the ordinance, and the only reason why this is triggered is because the adjacent house is only two feet from the boundary line. The 6.8 foot variance from the front yard is reasonable given it is still 50 feet from the road itself. With issues of the realignment with the road, the normal distance is 20 feet which does not pose any problems. Therefore, for these reasons including practical difficulties that exist on this property, the proposed house is not huge, it is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and not detrimental to the health, safety of welfare of the community, Blahnik will be supporting this variance. Fleming is supporting this resolution; the report and finding are appropriate and comprehensive and thanked Jeff and staff for this research. He would like to add that the granting of the variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision Zoning Ordinances and will not result in allowing any uses of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district. Petersen is in support of all three variances; if it wasn’t for the small cove, the lake setback is not an issue. The reason the variance is needed for the side is because of the existing setback of the structure on the other adjacent lot. The front yard variance seems reasonable given the unusual right-of-way situation. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. B. DEV15-001003 – Dominium/Gateway Shopping Center Redevelopment – Dominium is requesting to amend the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan from Community Retail Shopping (C-CC) to Urban Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 5119 Gateway Street SE, referred to as the commercial Gateway Center of Prior Lake. PID: 25-174-002-0 and 25-174-001-0. Director Rogness introduced the consideration of a recommendation to: (1) Amend the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan from Community Retail Shopping (C-CC) to Residential Urban High 6 Density (R-HD); and (2) Amend the official zoning map to rezone from General Business (C-2) Planned Unit Development (PUD) by approving a preliminary PUD Plan. He explained the site characteristics, site plan, building characteristics, conclusion, issues and alternative motions. He provided a location map, an amended comprehensive land use plan map, official zoning map and preliminary PUD plans. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik stated he understands the proposal to convert this to a residential urban high density, but since the planned project would exceed the number of units per square foot area, would Rogness further explain the proposed motions. Director Rogness replied it is easy to think the comprehensive plan urban high density should be followed with a zoning of high density. However, the high density residential from the comprehensive plan states a net density between 7.1 and 20 units per acre may be allowed; developments with higher density and those with a mix of housing styles will primarily be realized in planned unit developments. The PUD does not have a maximum density, so that is part of the deliberation this evening. Does it fit with the neighborhood, changing from a commercial to a high density residential land use? Blahnik asked whether the first motion converting the comprehensive land use plan to a residential urban high density would be a prerequisite to considering whether to approve the PUD. Director Rogness replied yes. And, if the comprehensive plan change is approved by the city council, it will still need to go before the Met Council for review and approval. Larson asked about the underground parking with one entrance into the facility on the northeast side. Director Rogness stated they are showing a second optional entrance; however, this has not been in full discussion yet whether this one is warranted and accepted by the City, especially due to its close proximity to the intersection. Applicant Applicant Ron Mehl, Senior Developer with Dominium, explained the company’s history and stated they are experienced with this type of housing all over the United States. They have constructed many of these 4-story developments around the Twin Cities in the last two years. He stated they chose to have only one entrance/exit at this time for safety reasons. He mentioned the neighborhood meeting that was held last week with about five persons in attendance. Some of the ideas that were brought up included landscaping, th building height, school students cutting through property, lighting and traffic on 160 Street. He explained the building’s class A materials, as they like to own things for the long run designing buildings to last. There will be lots of common areas, party rooms, management offices for on-site staff, quality fitness, salon, card and craft room and lots of outdoor recreation space that would come off the common area/party room that is centrally located. He explained the senior demographics and how seniors would like to be near the younger generations and families. He expressed key location factors being traffic counts on Trunk Highway 13 and its visibility as a gateway to downtown. Fleming thanked the applicant for the thoughtful presentation and asked were they able to determine of this population how many truly desire to live in independent living. 7 Applicant Mehl replied by history of the last two new developments, about 50 percent are already leased out. He explained that typically applicants are coming from a single family home and have lots of decisions to make. This results in a longer move-in than general occupancy, but he is very confident that this will be no different than their other senior buildings. The overall demographics show that baby boomers are growing with independence, which is a strong untapped market in Prior Lake. Fleming asked about the estimated time of building completion. Applicant Mehl responded that this building could be 14-15 months given Minnesota’s climate. Fleming asked about how quickly lease rates will rise for residents. Applicant Mehl replied that this Section 42 Program for housing tax credits has the rent levels set by HUD. They adjust up or down depending on the annually adjusted medium incomes for the metropolitan area. For the last two year, rental rates have stayed flat due to the economy. Rates are set at 60 percent of the area median income, which are currently $900 to $1,200 for one and two-bedroom units. He expects them to go up about 1.5 percent next year. Mehl stated they are long term owners for at least 15 years; however in the event that they did sell within the 15-year period, the rent and income restrictions would stay with the property. Petersen asked about employment levels at the building. Applicant Mehl replied initially there are a lot of jobs created through construction of the development. Long term for a project this size, there would be a manager, two leasing agents, maintenance staff, and other part-time jobs for exercise classes, salon, etc. Petersen asked about security staff or security plans. Applicant Mehl replied they would not have a full time security person on staff; however, the building is designed with security in mind. The front doors and garage entrance are secured, and there is camera systems throughout the property. They do credit and criminal background checks on every resident. Dominium is really two companies as they are a development a management company that work together in the same office Recommendations can come from police staff throughout Minnesota on how well they Dominium properties. Blahnik noted in the staff report that Dominium is currently in a purchase agreement for this property, which is currently owned by Wells Fargo, assuming it went through foreclosure. Applicant Mehl responded yes, that is his understanding about Wells Fargo’s ownership. Larson asked about a woodworking shop and Wi-Fi in the library for internet. He stated concerns of room layout, patio doorways and garage spaces; he would like City Council to look into the second entrance/exit into the garage. Larson asked about storage of personal items such as bikes and if parking spaces were going to be occupied by support beams. He was curious on how many elevators would go from the garage to housing facility. Applicant Mehl replied the woodworking shop is under consideration, typically in an underground parking area. He stated Wi-Fi in some common areas are part of the development. He mentioned the 8 locations of secure storage units as well as bike parking racks. Mehl explained the labeling as parking spots and trash/recycling shoots and stated the support beams would be in some parking spaces. He showed where the two elevators would be located and explained there was a door to get to the common elevator for move in/outs. Fleming asked staff about how many businesses are already on the property currently and what is the best practice protocol for notice to those three businesses of when they want to relocate. Director Rogness replied there are currently three businesses, including the thrift store, pizza and the shoe repair shop. He stated the protocol for notices is completely up to Dominium; there are numerous approvals that need to occur before this project can get to a final stage, including public financing that they will be requesting from the City Council. He stated Dominium needs to get through all approvals and close no later than in June of this year. Applicant Mehl stated all the businesses were invited to the neighborhood meeting; one business that did attend is in support to the change of this development. He said they are meeting with Wells Fargo broker this week to start coming up with a formal plan. They didn’t want to get too far ahead of themselves; they wanted to get through a few city meetings to get a feel of how things are going. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 7:56P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Public Comment : thth Kevin Busse, 5101 160 Street SE. He is located on the south side of this project across 160 Street. His concerns related to sight lines, size and safety; he said that although the building is four stories, it is really taller due to angles and peaks of the roof. He explained the surrounding neighborhoods and how much this towering complex doesn’t fit into the older neighbor. He supports a three story building instead. He drove around and looked at multi-story buildings in Prior Lake as well as other communities and three stories are the more normal height. He stated that Keystone, Creekside Commons and Lakefront Plaza are all three story buildings and none of them are located by residential neighborhoods. McKenna Crossing is four stories, but it is not close to single family residential neighborhoods. He said that recent news stories about a multi-family project in Carver talked about property values that commonly go down when this size and type of a building is added to a neighborhood. He shared concerns of infrastructure going through older pipes, schools concerns and general safety. Busse said that he was receptive to this idea originally, but after reviewing it in more detail, he feels this is not right for a city that prides itself in having a small town feel; this project is not part of a small town. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 8:05 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik asked staff if there is a height limitation on these four stories. 9 Director Rogness replied yes; it is four stories or 45 feet in height, whichever is less, and it is measured at a certain level of pitched roof line. Dominium is proposing a height that is almost six feet beyond the R-3 limit. Blahnik asked if that type of roof pitch height is common in buildings of this type. Director Rogness replied yes; residential structures, especially lakefront homes, are the typical examples where they have steep pitched roofs and height measurements are at a half-way point on the roof; this standard of measurement is common for cities. Blahnik asked about the uncertainties for businesses currently located there based on the number of approvals that are needed for this redevelopment project. If this project doesn’t go through, can the comprehensive plan be amended back once again? Director Rogness replied that staff had talked about this possibility. For rezoning, the publication of the ordinance states that it must first receive approval from the Met Council, as it cannot be rezoned until that amendment process is fully approved. Since this will take some time, the Final PUD approval process may not move forward; staff would make sure it wouldn’t be prematurely rezoned. Blahnik will be supporting this request from the applicant. He stated it is a large building with four stories, which is consistent with city ordinance. The five-six foot height difference is allowed by PUD. There is a large underutilized parking lot on this site. The building is a beautiful structure and would be a nice addition to Prior Lake. He feels it would increase the economic vitality of the area and long term economic stability by strengthening the tax base and job markets. It would also provide opportunity for life-cycle housing for senior residents in the community. The project will add quality site characteristics in this area. This area has changed to such a degree that it would be in the public interest to rezone the property in order to encourage redevelopment that is compatible with adjacent properties. He does share concerns with neighbors due to this large structure; however, it is a visually attractive building that does not create blockage to the sun. Fleming stated he will be supporting this but not without reservations for those concerns from Mr. Busse. As a former educator and school administrator, he hopes Dominium can find a creatively way for intergenerational challenges that a lot of communities face with youth that don’t have good options. The application and the findings do give a sense that this will create a flexible approach to development and be in harmony with the comprehensive plan. He hopes that Dominium takes to heart the very articulated concerns shared by Mr. Busse this evening. Petersen stated he is in agreement with his fellow Commissioners. Although he feels it may not be a perfect fit, it is not necessarily a bad fit, and viewed as an improvement. Given the similar zoning in the area, he doesn’t feel this would be a stretch to change this property from commercial to residential. He stated he did a little research on the applicant, and he has confidence that they will be making this a decent project as an excellent addition to the community. He will be supporting the amendments. Larson stated he did see the Dominium project underway in Crystal that was converted from a school to a high density housing project. He mentioned the waiting list being lengthy and feels this is much needed for seniors. He understands neighbor concerns; however, the practicality of the roof should have less issues with snow. He feels that having full-time here should help address the student trespassing concerns. He would like the city council to address two entrances to underground parking, additional handicap 10 parking, and working out relocation of current businesses to stay in Prior Lake. He appreciated Dominium’s concern in having a neighbor meeting. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM COMMUNITY RETAIL SHOPPING (C-CC) TO RESIDENTIAL URBAN HIGH DENSITY. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN AND CORRESPONDING ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FROM GENERAL BUSINESS (C-2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business 6. New Business: No New Business 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: No updates were provided by staff. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO ADJORN THE FEBRUARY 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 11