Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 16 2016 PC Meeting Minutes 1 PPRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, February 16, 2016 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Tuesday, February 16, 2016 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson, Mark Petersen and Dave Tieman, Commissioner Kallberg was absent. Also present were Director Dan Rogness and City Planner Jeff Matzke. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, February 1, 2016 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV16-001001 – 6430 Conroy Street SE – Variance – Copper Creek Real Estate Group, Inc. on behalf of the property owner is requesting variances from the front, side yard and lake setbacks and maximum impervious surface to construct a new home located in the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland Zoning District. PID: 25-114-012-0. Planner Matzke introducing the request for approval of a variance from the minimum lakeshore structure setback, minimum front yard, minimum sum of the side yard setbacks, minimum building separation, maximum impervious surface, and minimum lot area for a property in the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland District that was continued on from the last meeting. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented a resolution, location map, survey dated December 10, 2015, conceptual building plans stamp dated November 17, 2015 and an impervious surface for adjacent properties map. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson asked questions about the boathouse being a pad or building and seeing it has an open permit can that permit be utilized at a particular time. Planner Matzke replied the boathouse is in limbo due to an open building permit and yes the permit can be utilized. Tieman asked what the current cabin impervious percentage is at and if it is over the required amount. 2 Planner Matzke explained the current cabin impervious percentage including the boat house; 30.3%. And stated this is just slightly over the required impervious percentage; 30%. Applicant Greg Schweich, (14332 Watersedge Trail) He stated he is the principal of Copper Creek and mentioned the presented information by Staff is factual. He commented on impervious surface requirements in the neighborhood and stated he doesn’t feel this application is asking for anything more than what is already existing. He explained he has worked with Staff and asked Commissioner’s to approve this application. Fleming asked Applicant Schweich how he responded to the three comments that are in Staff’s report and if he understands that the Commissoner’s could make a condition on these comments. Schweich replied two of the comments would be part of the building permit application requests and explained the requirements and inspections for run offs and erosion control. He spoke of the boat house staying due to the current building permit and adjacent properties being over thirty percent impervious. He said he does understand the conditions to the comments. MOTION BY LARON, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:18 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Bill Cutter, (6436 Conroy Street) Bill said he lives to the east of the building site and does understands something needs to be built on this Lot. He commented on the seven variances and said most of them make sense but would like to point out a couple points and ask a few questions. He asked about calculation of impervious surface; specifically, Lot 51, which is his Lot. Planner Matzke replied impervious surface calculations specifically for Lot 51; showing documentation retained from the City’s Building Department. Mr. Cutter commented on working with Scott County’s records and plat drawings. He explained his calculations, lot width and square footage, stating the screen porch is not part of his livable area of his house. He shared how the proposed home design is different due to being a rambler and how he will be affected by the jet out. He also exceptions to the placement on the lot. He explained impervious surface issues from years ago being different than now and explained why he bought his property. He shared the livability factor of impervious surface calculations versus quality of life and stated the average square footage on a lot in this neighborhood. He questioned maximum allowances from the lake, the need for seven variances and limitations. He commented on buyer beware situations and investments. He shared additional concerns on affecting neighbors and setbacks from the lake. He asked to be heard on his prior comments and that the builder moves the jet out. He suggested other areas this additional living could be positioned. He stated he would prefer that his view not be hampered and that his privacy not be limited Planner Matzke presented a photo of the last time a permit was pulled from the Building Department for Lot 51, (Mr. Cutter’s Property). And state this permit illustrates the impervious surface calculation. 3 Fleming explained the Commissioners position to balance very carefully the rights of private owners against the wishes and desires of adjacent home owners. He said he appreciates the Cutters due-diligence and thoughtfulness, but as a body that is empowered and required to make findings of fact with Statue; we have to balance everything that is said and everything that you have thought about, the perceived harm and hindrance with the unalienable property rights of the owner of this lot. Petersen questioned the variance for the high water level, and asked about the comment on half the distance between the two adjacent properties. Planner Matzke explained the measurement to the closest point and said anything under fifty feet setback would need a variance procedure. He explained how the setbacks are measured, stating they use the closest point of a structure and doesn’t need to be a livable area. He explained what is used from Lot 51 as well as what is used for the neighbor on the other side of the proposed house and stated this is where the average comes in; 38 feet. Petersen questioned the property on Lot 51’s square footage, the proposed building and the footprint appearing larger. He asked why it appears bigger, but the square footage is less. Planner Matzke stated it is probably the same comparison on all the structures and explained that the information highlighted by Mr. Cutter is from Scott County, that could be finished floor area and may not include the garage. He explained the difference in square footage; if the garage is included and/or finished floor elevation. Amy Cutter, (6436 Conroy Street) She explained she lives on Lot 51 and would like to talk about the property rights of the person that owns the Lot as she is looking for a good compromise due to the proposed house hurting her livability. She mentioned comments from the builder at the last meeting suggesting purchasing the Lot. She said she is confused on legal rights and the rights of the Planning Commission to allow this variance. She shared concerns of her thoughts on smaller lots, the size of the proposed house and how far it sticks out in the back yard. She commented on flipping the proposed house, the deck being two feet from her house and lack of privacy. She explained the use and design of her porch stating it is not a livable part of the house and should not be added into their floor space. Fleming answered the two questions that Mrs. Cutter asked; one being about property rights. He explained an owner needs to conform with our guidelines and zoning. He explained the applicant was thorough and they made adjustments to the plan that was initially opposed in the fall of 2015. He said the issue of fairness is a hard one to balance. He explained fairness is not always perceived what one person or situation may evaluate it at; this Lot is not one hundred percent in comparison with the adjacent lots, sometimes consideration is reasonable or relevant to what the zoning ordinance or guidelines have said. He stated the situation in this instance a reasonable use of the property. He answered the second question explaining how to strike compromise; he said the property owners have rights to say they have done all they can do then only thoughtfulness and respect and conforming to what the Statue is and what the Commissioners are legally bound to do is where the decision lays so the City will not be sued. Mrs. Cutter asked about the Statue. She questioned how one person has rights to get what was asked for when others have not. She said she doesn’t understand how a case for a law suit would happen and she knows that each Lot is considered individually. 4 Fleming explained what the process is if litigation were brought against the City and how it could be actionable. Planner Matzke concurred with Commissioner Fleming and explained the 5 criteria that is in our ordinance is also the 5 criteria that is laid out in the Minnesota Statue Law. He said it is what the Planning Commission have to use when they are evaluating any variance request and explained the process for denying or altering the variance request and the needs to comply with one of the criteria. He explained the process of the request not being evaluated correctly or factually with the variance criteria. Mrs. Cutter questioned the fairness where other people have asked for something and have not got it; and now this house comes along and will get approved. Fleming stated this was denied last fall to several elements to the initial plan. Mrs. Cutter agreed but stated the back of this house is further back now than it was before. She mentioned a request on her house prior to her owning it and it was denied. She asked how a house coming out further than the prior request on her house could sue. Fleming replied he doesn’t think we have the facts that were pertinence to that previous request on her house. Mrs. Cutter said in the neighborhood there were a lot of requests not allowed to extend closer to the lake either. She commented on the proposed house being approved and is curious how this proposed house gets to be closer to the lake. She doesn’t understand how this would be passed. Larson replied he got background on this area and commented if the house was flip flopped there would be issues with the driveway being so short that possibly one car would not fit into the driveway; he commented on the safety and un-functionality that would be. He said the proposed positioning and setbacks are safer this way. He commented on the house already being confined and livable space. He said there is no way six feet could be taken off of this home. He explained the privacy, difficulty of the property and stated he understands the Cutters have an enjoyable space to look at the lake, sunset or nature rather than a house. He gave dimensions and said this is very difficult decision but we are looking at typical use of a home and property right of the owner that owns the lot to be able to enjoy their property as well. This is typical space, typical lots and homes that are the same percentage wise for impervious surfaces. He was hopeful that this would help Mrs. Cutter understand that the builder and architects are looking at the whole situation. He cannot speak on their behalf but does have a little bit of this kind of background in this area. Mrs. Cutter explained her reasoning regarding her presentation at the last meeting to redesign the home and positioning on the lot. She spoke of the house being a speck home and would like it to not come out as far as it is proposed in the back. Larson commented on the Disabilities Acts; and explained the proposed home allows for a wheelchair to get around; however, if it any footage gets shaved any closer, a walker or wheelchair would not make it in and around the home. He was hopeful that this would help Mrs. Cutter understand how this cannot be shaved any closer. Mrs. Cutter said 7 feet is a lot of extra area. 5 Mr. Cutter explained his calculations of first plan versus the second plan, the seven percent reduction on the first floor and the upper floor and said staff published 10-15 percent. Schweich commented on focusing on the facts that we have in front of us. He stated the facts of impervious surface on the surrounding lots of the proposed lot and said this leaves the proposed home with less impervious surface than the two adjacent lots. He commented on the size of the house, the reduced proposal, working with staff, the rotation of the home, his reasons for this design, the last Planning Commission Meeting and the reasoning why this was denied in the first meeting. He also commented on how setbacks are estimated, encroachments, finished lower level and staff compliance. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:59pm. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen stated this is a tough situation for property rights of both Lots. He gave examples of Lot 51 having too close of a setback to the property line and that the houses are close together. He said there is not a perfect answer, but does think it is reasonable and fits in the neighborhood; it is a small lot and there is not a lot that you can do on it. He commented on setbacks, stating the closest one is from the corners of the jet out. He said he is in favor of the plan the way it is but not in favor of the boathouse; if it was existing and completed he might have a different opinion. He explained the boathouse exceeds the impervious surface requirements. He shared concerns of all neighbors wanting a boathouse if this one was to be built. He is in favor of this plan, minus the boathouse. Fleming asked Staff if this boathouse is existing as on the plat it states existing. Planner Matzke replied it is under construction limbo and is not fully constructed. He explained why this was under construction and allowances for replacement. Larson stated due to the boathouse having an existing permit on it, he is in favor of keeping the boathouse as it would be a disservice to take away an existing permit. Tieman agreed this is a difficult, due to the nature of the neighborhood. He stated he drove by and feels it is a challenging lot to build on, but what is being proposed overall does make sense as they are making due with the setbacks as well as they can with a nice modern house on this lot. He stated the existing cabin and boathouse impervious surface calculations versus the amount if the boat house was eliminated. He feels the boathouse should not be a part of the addition. He agrees with the alternatives listed in the proposal. He said he has trouble approving the boathouse. Fleming echoes the difficulty of this agenda item; the findings of fact do suggest that the proposal is reasonable. It does meet our five-point threshold for granting variances and as a matter of course, we may need a little more clarity on the boathouse. He commented on the impervious surface is relatively reasonable. He said he didn’t hear any comments regarding the two other conditions/comments that Staff has proposed; The plan showing the pre and post construction site drainage and the erosion and sediment control plan. He wants to make sure we have good consensus on those two items. 6 Petersen stated he thought these two items are mandatory regardless of what structure. Fleming stated this permit for the boathouse seems almost unreasonable to ask the applicant to undo this is if is already in process. Planner Matzke replied because of the variance request and this is a proposed of new construction of the property; you have the ability to say it can stay or be removed, this is within the Planning Commissioner’s abilities to do so. He explained the boathouse progress and the applicant’s outlook on it. He explained the Planning Commission’s authority to decide the balance of impervious surface. Fleming asked for additional clarification on the boathouse. He asked Planner Matzke the impervious surface percentage calculations on leaving the boathouse versus removing the boathouse. Planning Matzke explains the differences and explained why the impervious changes so drastically. Fleming asked what implications if any, would there be on the other two comments and conditions: removing the boathouse and reducing impervious surface. Is there any positives on the other two conditions; runoff and erosion. Planner Matzke said impervious surface always does cause runoff and explained what we are always advised by our Environmental Agencies, particularly the DNR, stating this is one of the reasons why new construction of boathouses are no longer permitted, unless they fall in the guidelines of setbacks and impervious surface along with other factors he stated. Fleming stated he will concur with Commissioners Petersen and Commissioner Tieman that we will request that the boathouse be removed. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN APPROVING THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED INCLUSIVE OF THE RUNOFF VOLUME AND RATES, PRE AND POST CONSTRUCTION SITE DRAINAGE PLAN; THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN AND THE REMOVAL OF THE BOATHOUSE AND THE NEARBY CONCRETE AREA TO ACHIEVE AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PERCENTAGE AT 38.9 PERCENT AS A MAXIMUM AT 7:10P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen and Tieman; Nay by Larson; Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. B. DEV16-001002 R-2 Ordinance Amendment – Wilkler Land Company and the City of Prior Lake are requesting consideration of amendments to Subsection 1101.503 (Yard Encroachments), Subsection 1102.506 (R-2 Dimensional Standards) and Subsection 1102.700 (Residential Performance Standards) to the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Director Rogness introducing the consideration of request to recommend amendments to Subsection 1101.503, Subsection 1102.506, and subsection 1102.700. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented proposed amendments to Subsection 1102.505, 1101.503 and 1102.700 of the City Code, examples of existing platted lots in Prior Lake and typical Lennar home plan, picture examples of yard encroachments and an article in the Star Tribune on smaller residential lots. 7 Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen asked do you know what the intent was on the bump out/break in the wall and would a fireplace chase be significant enough to break up a wall if it was ground to roof. Director Rogness replied the intent was they don’t have an alley look, like a flat wall and are less than 60 feet. He showed examples of wall lengths. He commented on the chimney stating only if it was a fire chimney from bottom to top then it would, yes. If it was just a cantilever and bump out, then no. Larson stated a feasible option with the A/C unit typical to the market for the builders and commented on the flat and window well needing additional research. Tieman asked if any emergency personnel were addressed about the air conditioning units along the side causing issues. Director Rogness explained the preferred option for emergency personnel as well as the building official. He commented on adequate drainage and said seven and a half feet does make sense for smaller lots and a number of Cities allow this. He explained the side yards’ drainage and utility easements and the encroachments up to that five-foot magic line. Petersen asked if the invisible easement walls purpose is mainly to get rescue vehicles between the two houses. Director Rogness replied it is for access in general and explained others reasons for access into the side and back yards. He stated the more this area gets narrowed the more problematic it is. He mentioned life is full of lines and the importance to having lines. Petersen said the drainage makes sense and the A/C unit certainly wouldn’t effect drainage, but would encroach on access if the buildings didn’t have setbacks from the garage. He asked if eaves are able to encroach and fences going up the property line. Director Rogness commented on the A/C unit stating it could but is unlikely you might have two units directly across from each other as this would narrow that access, to the point of too narrow; and said sometimes there is an importance of a line and not to cross this line. He stated that Lennar and Winkler are bringing up a reality check to what is currently in the field on these homes being built. He explained the limitation of the eaves encroaching and said fences can still go up to the property line. Applicant John Anderson, (14832 Estate Avenue SE) Representative from Winkler Development. He stated a representative from Lennar is also here tonight. He explained how this Text Amendment became before the Planning Commission tonight. He commented on drainage and utility easements, access, fences, front lot lines and side lot line. He explained the proposal being presented includes a mixture of R-1 and R-2 lots. He commented on setback changes, garage stalls and the market. He gave examples of other cities that already have these types of lots, the sizes of these lots and the setbacks. He commented on buffers between busy roads or higher density uses, encroachment issues, A/C units and egress windows. He clarified a comment in the staff report. 8 Petersen asked would the drainage be injured if two houses abutting each other, each had an egress window in the same location both encroaching into the easement. Anderson replied this would be a rare situation and explained the setback calculations for this, if it was to happen. Petersen stated it would be rare if the same builder was in every single development and that is not always the case. He explained that it certainly could happen. He questioned the two egress windows leaving seven foot clearance. Director Rogness stated that Mr. Anderson does have the correct measurements. He said that drainage is the most key factor of that five-foot area. He said if we had to pick and choose; staff would not be supportive of the window well going into the minimum setback as this would potentially impact the drainage. The platform for A/C is not impacting drainage. The A/C platforms are more acceptable than the window well. Paul with Lennar Corporation, 16305 36th Avenue North, Plymouth, MN suite 600. He stated he appreciates the opportunity to add his input on this and explained the ease of working with City Staff. He commented on egress windows and A/C units and the decision of choosing between the two, explained the size on A/C cantilevers and gave a brief background of the setback variations. He explained working with the City to amend the code and talked of the changing market, improving their homes and thinking of longer term changes in building. Petersen asked about the seven-and-a-half-foot setback and if this would affect every house in Prior Lake. Director Rogness explained the R-1, R-2 and R-3 densities and said this is only for the single family in the R-2 and is side yards only. The applicant is asking for this change and it makes sense for this particular example. R-2 single family lots allowing 7.5 feet setbacks. Petersen asked most of our single family homes is Prior Lake are R-1 correct; or how many single family homes do we have in our R-2 areas. Director Rogness explained the best example is Meadowview which is north of Mystic Lake. He stated most of that area is single family, but includes attached townhomes. He explained there are quite a few single family lots at the R-2, with 10 foot setbacks and gave examples of the R-2 that allow seven-and-a- half-foot with fifty-foot-wide lots. He explained how PUD is different from these R-2 areas and said the best route to get this figured out is to change the side yard setback to 7.5. Petersen explained his reasoning for bringing this up is to avoid confusion of buying a lot and then the neighbor decides to put on an addition and the new homeowner is concerned of the setbacks; would this be a concern. Director Rogness replied he could see how this could happen in the Meadowview Subdivision and commented on other types of PUD type developments. He stated this could make for an issue, but felt it would not be a concern. Fleming asked Director Rogness or either of the applicants how many units are envisioned or hoped to be built in Prior Lake. 9 Anderson replied they are at the concept stage right now with 143 lots that are split between R-1 and R- 2 zoning and explained the next steps. He couldn’t reacall the exact breakdown, but felt it would be around 118 R-2 lots approximately. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:04 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LARSON, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:05 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming stated one cosmetic detail on page 3 in the alternative number 1, line 2; subsection 1102.506 should read 1102.505. He stated he feels all of this makes sense; the presentation was very good and glad that both representatives are here. The only item that is a concern to him is what was discussed by Commissioner Petersen and after discussion doesn’t sound like it would be a significant issue for us to tackle in the future. He is in support. Petersen asked to clarify when we are making a recommendation; are we recommending the whole pack on all of these. And also should we clarify this is minus the egress windows. Director Rogness replied the proposed motion and second includes all three subsections together, but they could be broken down into three different motions. As presented this evening it is all as one. He commented on the egress windows stating there is not a consensus from staff on either of those two; it does make sense to support the A/C above ground, but would not get staff support for the egress windows that extend into the five-foot area. He confirmed that this ordinance amendment is beyond Lennar and Winkler, it is also for builders to follow as well. If you are comfortable with the A/C units on this platform, we could move that forward to the council after City Staff comment. Petersen said based on Director Rogness comment he would agree with the use of the platforms for the A/C units but not the egress. Larson said that he would be okay with a bump out, 6 inches from the wall for windows but doesn’t have the curvature like an egress window and would like staffs comments on this. Director Rogness replied if there is some design that allows a narrower window that doesn’t extend into the five feet and meets code or if the setback is further, certainly we would not object to that. Fleming said in this scenario if the site setback had to be 8 feet that would reconfigure the footprint by a total of 5 feet. 10 Director Rogness said the minimum setback that we are suggesting tonight is seven-and-a-half feet. He mentioned how the footprint could change, and they could go out further, but still believe the seven-and- a-half-foot setback could work. Tieman stated overall these recommendations look good and bringing us up to modern times and makes sense. Egress windows are definitely an issue and is far most aspects of the problem, but looks good. Fleming concurs with his fellow Commissioners and said the egress window could be discussed a little bit more; It would be helpful to know to have a comparison sample from maybe two or three other builders around town to understand what is the desired dimension for egress windows. He is comfortable and appreciative of all the recommendations. He wanted to know the number of units because this is a significant move forward for us in terms of inviting people to come live in Prior Lake with good quality homes. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1101.503, YARD ENCROACHMENTS; SUBSECTION 1102.505, R-2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS; SUBSECTION 1102.700, RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF IN CONCERT WITH LYNAR AND WINKLER AND TWO OR THREE OTHER COMPARABLE BUILDERS TO DO MORE DUE- DILIGENCE ON THE EGRESS PREFERRED AND ACCEPTABLE DESIGN STANDARDS. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. Comprehensive Plan Discussion – Director Rogness introduced this agenda item explaining the history and current circumstances. He stated this is a discussion only item. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming stated he is looking at the numbers and asked the distance between population. Director Rogness explained it is an annual average change during the 10-year period. Fleming stated he would like to have Met Council be pressed on the methodology of how they came to this number. Petersen asked what significance or consequences of these numbers; what difference does it make to us. He questioned if we are going faster or slower is there consequences, as we cannot make people move to Prior Lake. Director Rogness explained the numbers are thirty years out and typically Met Council will question the City why the forecast is not being met. He said we cannot make people move to Prior Lake and explained how the number is disperse throughout the Twin Cities. He said everyone has a duty to fill a certain number and commented on a Lake Elmo situation. 6. New Business: A. Bluff Authorization Amendment – Authorization for City Staff to consider possible amendments to Section 1104 related to Bluff Area impacts. 11 Planner Matzke introducing the consideration of request to recommend amendments to Subsection 1101.503, Subsection 1102.506, and subsection 1102.700. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented proposed amendments to Subsection 1102.505, 1101.503 and 1102.700 of the City Code, examples of existing platted lots in Prior Lake and typical Lennar home plan, picture examples of yard encroachments and an article in the Star Tribune on smaller residential lots. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming stated he believes it makes sense to be on the proactive side of this and be looking forward into reviewing policy and a whole holistic look at implications and trying to achieve some efficiencies in future deliberations. Petersen said this makes sense to review these amendments. He commented on an observations from the last bluff variance request stating the DNR on building stairways into the side, they prefer decks, if there is any way that we can come up with a system that it is okay for people to adjust this. He stated this is a great idea to review these amendments Tieman stated it makes sense, let’s review as there are somethings are in need of updating. Larson said he agrees with fellow Commissioners in the staircase elements being able to look at a couple of inches. Using our test case, extending certain areas for flatter areas and slopping down at different increments would be a great beautification as well as helping to slow the process of erosion. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, FOR CITY STAFF TO INITATE THE REVIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE WHICH MAY NECCESARY TO ADDRESS BLUFF AREAS IN SECTION 1104 SHORELAND REGULATIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. B. Brew Pub Authorization Amendment – Authorization for City Staff to consider possible amendments to the City Code related to Brew Pubs, Small Breweries and Micro-Distilleries. Director Rogness introduced a consideration of a request to initiate the review of amendments to the Prior Lake City Code related to Brew Pubs, small breweries and micro-distilleries. He explained the current circumstances, issues and an alternative. He presented an article about Savage ordinances. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming stated this make sense in a proactive way to be getting ahead of this opportunity. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LARSON, FOR CITY STAFF TO INITATE THE REVIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE WHICH MAY NECCESARY TO ALLOW BREW PUBS, SMALL BREWERIES AND MICRO -DISTRILLERIES AND SIMILAR USES OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: 12 A. February 8, 2016 Council Meeting a. Approved an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development contract related to Dominium Senior Housing project. i. 168 senior units (4 story building) in the Gateway area. 1. Closing on purchase of the property. 2. Demo permit applied on Friday – picked up earlier today. 3. Moving quickly but will take about 15 months for construction. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO ADJORN THE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:45p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant