Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 May 2 2016 Meeting Minutes draft 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, May 2, 2016 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, May 2, 2016 Prio r Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson, Bill Kallberg, Mark Petersen and Dave Tieman. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Sarah Schwarzhoff, City Engineer Larry Poppler, Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke, Development Specialist Casey McCabe, and Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGEN DA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, April 18, 2016 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. Amendments to Planned Use District of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan – William Feldman (Summit Preserve LLC) is proposing to amend the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to change Sub-Area D, Summit Preserve, within the Planned Use District, from 75% R-Medium Density Residential and 25% Commercial to 100% R-Medium Density Residential. Director Rogness introduced the proposed amendment application from Summit Preserve LLC to amend the 2030 comprehensive Plan designation of a Planned Use District (Sub-Area D) from 25% Commercial/ 75% Medium Density Residential with 100% Medium Density Residential. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented a location map, 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Map, 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Preliminary Plat for Summit Preserve, Market information fro m site broker, CBRE and Market information from Maxfield Research. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen questioned the 2011 Study and asked if this study was based on the existing numbers or to the 2030 P lan. Director Rogness explained this study was looking out to 2020 at least; he presented a chart of the Com/Ind Demand Analysis and explained the potential demand versus what we have available in the Comm/Ind Vacant Land Supply. He said the discussion has been local to the higher concentration of commercial activity. 2 Petersen questioned the Met Council desire for percentages of density; and stated this will add a good amount of medium density, do we need more medium density; how are we doing overall. Director Rogness explained our numbers on different density’s; stating we are behind on medium density residential. He commented on some developments with medium density and said we are pleased to see someone proposing townhomes and single family. Applicant Bill Feldman, (20265 Vernon Avenue) He said this particular development is a great transition from townhomes to single family to later on in life, a villa, association maintained; excellent mix of residential use with this project. Larson asked if there has been any interest since 2011 for retail/commercial. Feldman explained the few interested parties during this time and explained Maxfield Study’s that shown commercial wasn’t adventitious to be in this area at this time. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:17P .M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Buffy Mobroten, (13829 Kensington Avenue NE) She asked who is building the homes and what is the price point of the homes that are single family. She questioned if the builder was a national builder and asked if the area of land to the north of Kensington/Woodhill in Savage would be incorporated with the same builder. She commented on knowing the price point, but questioned the quality of the builder as this has not been established. Feldman said they are not sure who will be building them, but are looking at builders. He explained the price points of each of the different sections of housing. He said they have no desire to incorporate at this time. He explained they are working on finding a builder right now. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY LARSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:20 pm. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg commented on comments summited last fall to the Council; he is still in agreement with the prior decision. Larson stated he aggress with Commissioner Kallberg and said seeing we can absorb the retail in other areas of Prior Lake it is best utilized as Medium Density to get more housing units into Prior Lake. Tieman stated he continues to support the change to the Medium Density Residential for this as it does make sense. 3 Petersen said he will stand on the other side on this one. He explained a letter/report from Cardinal Development stating Industry Trends. He read a portion of the report and stated he is convinced that retail would work there better. He commented on Scott County’s growth, spaces for houses, limitations for retail, different percentages of commercial and the corner intersection. He stated he will not be supporting this recommendation. Fleming will be supporting the recommendation. He said there is a legitimate concern from feedback that was gathered and received from the Met Council that does guide our planning; we have very little room or few numbers of plats now that are designated for townhome usage , so he will be supporting the recommendation. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY KALLBERG RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE SUB AREA D, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS SUMMIT PRESERVE AND THE PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT FROM 25% COMMERCIAL AND 75% MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO 100% MEDIUM DENSI TY RESDIENTIAL AT 6:25P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. Opposed by Petersen. The Motion carried. B. Amendments to the Prior Lake City Code relating to Brew Pubs, Small Brewers and Micro Distilleries – The City of Prior Lake is proposing the consideration recommending amendments to sections 1101, General Provisions, 1102 Use District Regulations and 301, Liquor Control of the Prior Lake City Code relating to Brew Pubs, Small Brewers and Micro Distilleries. Development Specialist McCabe introduced the consideration recommending certain amendments to Sections1101 General Provisions, 1102 Use District Regulations and 301 Liquor Control of the Prior Lake City Code which would allow brew pubs, small brewers, taprooms, micro distilleries and cocktail rooms and allow these uses to be granted on-sale and off-sale of malt liquor and distilled spirits, as permitted by recently adopted State law. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented proposed redline amendments to Sections 301, 1101 and 1102. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming asked if the fee structure, at this point and time, is adequate. He stated t he City still has the right in the future to address this at a later date, correct. Specialist McCabe replied that is correct. Kallberg asked for clarification on licenses and dual licenses of on-sale and off-sale availability. Schwarzhoff explained the options and requirements of food and liquor for the three different entities. Kallberg asked does this redefine the exclusive liquor store; does it permit the sale of food of any form. Schwarzhoff replied it would be your standard liquor store and explained the difference in restaurant or retail use and the only reasoning behind the definition was to clarify. 4 Larson asked if there is a particular area, for groups to make their own beer and questioned what particular area would that be covered under. Schwarzhoff explained the amendments, licensing but the ordinance is set up so the applicant can make the applications and get started. Larson asked then this would be covered under this new ordinance then. Schwarzhoff explained referring to the different pieces of the ordinance; the liquor piece in the 301 amendment and zoning piece which is covered in the 1101 and 1102. Larson questioned packaging and growlers, being packaged by the particular business. Schwarzhoff explained the tap room and brew pub restrictions. She stated all we are referring to is it has to be their beer they are selling, as long as it is that way, they only need to meet the State Packaging Requirements. Tieman asked if the distillery or brewer has to be the one making it; they cannot package it, correct. Schwarzhoff replied correct and explained the only exception, stating there are limits and State Statues on how much they can make and how much they can sell. Petersen questioned how the off sale brew pub license is written and asked what can and cannot be sold/made on Sundays. Schwarzhoff said you cannot sell anything on Sunday except for growlers and stated the wording is awkward, but was taken straight from State Statues. She explained what can be sold/not sold on Sundays. Petersen asked the number of licenses we have available or we are willing to issue and what percentage of dollar amount in food versus beer for the brew pub. Schwarzhoff said there is no number limit on licenses; Statue doesn’t establish one and we are not proposing one. She stated the City of Prior Lake doesn’t have a problem with this and most Cities are what the market will handle. She explained licensing, business percentages and food types. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:38 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Emmet Swartout, (2840 Spring Lake Road SW) He said it has been his dream to get a brewery or tap room going for the last few years. He clarified some questions on producing a customer growler/beer, licenses, permits allowed, advertising, hometown pride and commented on a letter from Sandy Fleck with the Prior Lake Area Chamber of Commerce, supporting this growing small business. Larson what kind of business plan are you looking at; where would the location be. 5 Swartout explained a few properties, stating one is in the C-2; but is grandfathered in as an Industrial Property. He said they were looking at downtown too, but would like something casual with a back patio. Larson asked detail of kinds and types of beer, volume of beer, sales and etc. Swartout explained the volume dependent on equipment and approval of the Federal level and licensing through the TTB. He commented on different types of beer, rotating beer voted by the community, following in the march style of the bracket, voting and submitting receipts, the kind of environment he would like to foster, involvement with the community, community names of beers, working with other businesses selling local beer, closing earlier, following an example of Montgomery Brewing Company and supporting the local community. Petersen asked Specialist McCabe if someone wanted to start a brew pub now we would have to say no. Specialist McCabe explained it is addressed in our current section 301, (liquor control section). He explained the zoning use district closest use would be a restaurant use and said other communities are amending their ordinance to say a brew pub is a restaurant; which allows a brew pub to be where ever a restaurant is allowed to sell liquor. He said this would be taken to the Planning Commission for clarification, before we did any approvals. Petersen said so it wouldn’t be a no, rather just complicated. Specialist McCabe replied correct. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:4 8 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen stated he doesn’t see any reason why we wouldn’t go ahead with this. He commented on this being an encouragement for potential businesses. He is in favor of these additions to the amendment. Tieman stated hearing the mentality of brew pubs and breweries has added to a lot to local communities, he believes that we could support their efforts and make this a streamline effort; he stated it is the right thing to do and does support this. Larson said he echoes his fellow Commissioner comments and commends staff and the applicant working together. He said he is hopeful that many more business come into prior lake. Kallberg stated we do want to encourage new business in Prior Lake; and looking at the amendments as it addresses the relationship to the following policies, there is a public need for the amendments, so he is in support of this. Fleming defined the amendment stating the amendment does accomplish one or more of the purposes of the ordinance, the comprehensive plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City and it is consistent with State and Federal requirements. 6 MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECCOMMNED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 301, 1101 AND 1102 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AS PROPOSED AT 6:52P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. C. Amendments related to July Hours of Operations for Charlie’s on Prior – Consider a proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 1102 of the Prior Lake City Code as Subsection 1102.1600, related to the regulation of an expansion of a nonconforming restaurant at 3950 Green Heights Trail SW. PID: 25-102-022-0 Director Rogness introduced the consideration to a proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance related to the regulation of an expansion of a nonconforming restaurant at 3950 Green Heights Trail SW. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented the Ordinance 115-26 and proposed ordinance amending (3)h of Subsection 1102.1600. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen asked why July 3 rd and would this be July 3rd of every year. He questioned if they would need to apply next year. He stated this upcoming July 3 rd is a Sunday. Director Rogness explained as it is written they would not apply yearly and confirmed this upcoming July 3rd is on a Sunday. He explained the business reasoning for being open on July 3rd, commented on extending from year to year and talked of Council’s changes. He said City Council would like the owners of Charlie’s to return in the fall with a review of hours. Petersen asked what the Sunday hours are right now, if we are extending until midnight and have there been complaints about hours of operation. Director Rogness explained the Sunday hours to be 10am-11pm and said yes it would be extending until midnight. He said he is not aware of any complaints on hours of operation. Tieman asked if it could be an option to make it to be optional to use the 3rd or the 4th. Director Rogness replied he thinks they could. Fleming stated one or the other, not both. Larson stated it is difficult with being a Sunday this year and is concerned of neighbors that may have to work on the 4th. He said he was torn. Kallberg said this is tricky and gave an example of the 3rd of July falling on Friday; which prevails the 3rd of July or a Friday and does Sunday prevail over the 3rd of July. He asked about the 3rd of July falling on a different night of the weekday. Director Rogness said it would be Friday then, as it would be the more expansive. He gave examples of how the time frame would change. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:58P .M. 7 VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:59 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen said he understands the logic to this; but does like the suggestion of his fellow Commissioner to change it to either the 3rd or 4th, because it covers the whole week and covers all options. Tieman stated he thinks it makes sense to have the 3rd or 4 th option to give more flexibility, avoids revisiting and they still have the later hours on the weekend. Larson stated he sees two different hours listed; on (h) under 1102.1600 and then on last sentence. He commented on we would have to do the same thing for outdoor serving holiday hours. Kallberg stated he would like to defer to the Council’s directive; to have staff monitor the operation, dates and etc. for a period of one year to get four full seasons of operation before considering any further changes. Fleming asked for clarification from Commission Kallberg on deferring the actual prescribing of the hours of operation to the City Council and leave this up to them, but signal our support that we recommend that they amend 1102.1600, correct? Kallberg clarified he is not supporting this agenda item and is in favor of us ing the Council direction coming back in a year to demonstrate whether they have a need for different hours of operation than what was approved. He is not supportive of this recommendation. Fleming asked Director Rogness for clarification; we are to recommend the ordinance, not approve? He stated he does support this body recommending that the Council amend 1102.1600. He commented on the dates objecting positions with other elements of the ordinance. He stated generally we would like to see Charlie’s have some flexibility in expanding it hours. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND THE ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1102 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND SUBSECTION 1102.1600, EXPANSION OF THE NON-CONFORMING RESTAURANT USE RELATED TO HOLIDAY HOURS OF OPERATION AND SP ECIFICALLY THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED AS I T IS WRITTEN AT 7:08 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Opposed by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. Amendments to Section 1104 (Shoreland) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance – City Staff is recommending the consideration of a request to recommend amendments to Section 1104 8 (Shoreland Regulations) of the City of Prior Lake Code regarding bluff and steep slope areas. (continued from April 18, 2016). Planner Matzke explained the purpose of this agenda item is to consider a request by City Staff to amend Section 1104 (Shoreland Regulations) of the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to bluff and steep slope areas. The primary purpose of these ordinance amendments is to consider objective criteria that would be allowed for construction within a bluff impact zone. He explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented photo examples of bluff failures, proposed amendments to Section 1104 (Shoreland Regulations) of the City Code and bluff cross-section exhibit. Engineer Poppler explained the ordinance on bluffs is separate from the retaining walls; and bluffs is what is being reviewed tonight, along with global stability calculations. He explained the retaining wall permit is separate and in 2008-2009 the process was changed to include a second three-point inspection from a Structural Engineer on how we deal with retaining walls; he ga ve examples of failed retaining walls and presented some photos. He explained the process of issuing permits and inspections for retaining walls and shared the hardships of failed retaining walls. He stated it is harder to resolve after construction than to have it right the first time. Planner Matzke said these walls encompass not just areas of bluff, they are in areas of bluff or any retaining wall that is in 4 feet in height and have a series of curing. He said this could be a separate matter as part of a recommendation to City Council. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming applauded the staff for a fine job of research and commented on excessive engineering. Planner Matzke explained for the research we were looking for similar topography and slopes with the same property values. He questioned the risks that the contractors would take on and what is the risk that the Cities are willing to show with the permitting procedure. He commented on the stringent procedures the City has in result to some risks that we have had prior. He commented on a different body of Councilor’s back in 2008. Fleming asked the commissioners if Subsection 1104.305 and recommending the 1104.308 Subsection 5, and Subsection 1104.402 should stay as a package or divided. Larson questioned the retaining walls being lengthy and asked for recommendations from staff if this could be divided into different areas to get more of a benefit and to not have a major analysis for every single wall system. Engineer Poppler explained most walls under four feet we don’t require that type of permit and explained the process for wall over four feet in height; height standpoint and what it is holding up versus the length; anytime that we are over that four feet in height or multiple tiers then the permit is required. Larson commented on a photo of a lengthy wall and said he was unsure of the height. He shared concerns of the length and conditions being more prevalent to deteriorate rather than a shorter section. He said he understands that this is not how it is calculated, but maybe this would help. 9 Kallberg explained there are different parts to this agenda item and commented on issues of original engineering analysis reviewed, the examples shown, ten-foot high walls, slopes failing behind the walls, two different sets of permits, engineering analysis for four foot or less walls, extra costs, engineering replacement, design and height, stairways, lifts and landings, stairways built into slopes, maintenance and improving drainage patterns and stability. He asked for clarification on the wording on grading, filling and excavations within the bluff impact zone and how to differentia and define materials. Planner Matzke said we will look into the clarification on language and the intention of this is importing and exporting material within a bluff would not be permitted without a variance request. He explained the allowance for some minor modifications within the bluff area and stated it is a little confusing but will see what can be done for clarification. He explained the wording was verbatim from the State, but does see how it is complicated. He is hopeful to get a handout that will help clarify. Tieman asked if the engineering report was a Certified E ngineer or what is the requirements. He asked if the other cities that were reference used a second Engineer and could this all be done through the City. Engineer Poppler replied a Licensed Professional Engineer. Planner Matzke stated no one from other cities indicated this need for a private project. He explained a private property project versus the City’s larger scaled with escrow projects. Petersen asked for clarification of a failed wall; where is the liability that the City has, why does the city care? Engineer Poppler said that because most of the retaining walls projects are on the lake. He explained different situations and said if a complaint from a neighbor came in where it is a safety issue, the code enforcement might review it and decide if it is a public nuisance, if so that is where the City gets involved. Petersen asked about the City Staff time and the main concern of erosion getting into the lake from these failed retaining walls. Engineer Poppler explained the locations of where the failures were and said they were at locations such as a special wetland (fen), new development (with homes slatted for construction), roads (against retaining wall) and future building near these walls. Petersen clarified when the city infrastructure is at risk and said this could cost a lot of money if a road disappears. Engineer Poppler explained in some cases, other cases were some were private homes. Petersen said it sounds like inspections are what works and questioned is the consulting/engineering firm doing these reviews when they are needed and asked if it is common to come up with massive errors in the applicant’s engineering reports; do we monitor this. Engineer Poppler said he doesn’t have that information. He explained what they are looking for and commented on the soil reports. 10 Petersen asked if the homeowner is liable for is their own soil boring; does our consulting engineer also do their own soil borings. Engineer Poppler said no. He explained what the Engineer look for; borings and the soil type calculations matches the calculations for the retaining wall. Petersen asked what kind of enforcement do we have and what time limit to get fixed or fined. Engineer Poppler explained a situation with the economic recession and the developers had walked away; so that added to the complexity of these problems. Petersen asked what if the developer was still there ; is there an enforcement system. Engineer Poppler said up until a point; we have a one year walk through and we look for things. He explained after that one-year period we no longer have the security in place to deal with an issue. He commented on some of the issues weren’t the next year, rather the foundations were starting to rotate one or two years after. He clarified the difference between bluff and the retaining walls. When you are in a bluff you are dealing with global stability. Commissioner Comments Kallberg said he would like clarification of language and asked if this is a whole package and if we are recommending to the Council. Fleming explained what the recommendations could be and yes the recommendations are to the Council. Petersen said he is okay with all changes, but still is not on board with doubling on engineer’s analysis. He said doubling up on engineer report does no good if there are no inspections taking place. He likes the inspections and suggested these should be done; inspections would go a lot further than doubling up on engineering and maybe there needs to be some kind of enforcement. Fleming clarified by reading the Subsection. Petersen said thanks for the clarification and stated he would support this. Fleming said we need a philosophical alignment about the scope of project and where the threshold is where expertise needs to be brought in. Tieman he recommends all the changes to the ordinances to the Council. He said all these changes are good changes and is hopeful to address something around how the inspections and enforcement are done. Larson said it is a catch twenty-two if you change the doubling engineering and a retaining wall that explodes; who wants to take responsibility. He said it is a touchy situation and where do we put the line of where the extensive wall system or non-extensive wall system; where is that line. Kallberg stated working with Shoreland bluff situations as to what we have seen here and limitations of four-foot height walls. He said an existing wall of four feet however, can never be increased. He said the 11 examples don’t apply to the four-foot wall. He commented on the wavering of the engineering and said he supports all three parts of this. Fleming said he wanted to read this section to be clear, but also have on the record the general concerns. He is supporting all three of the subsections recommended for Kallberg asked about the language clarification and typo on the word structures. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1104 REGARDING BL UFFS AND STEEP SLOPE AREAS WITH LANGUAGE CLARFICATION AND TYPO ON THE WORD STRUCTURES A T 7:51 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. B. Comprehensive Plan Discussion TABLED TO NEXT MEETING, MONDAY, MAY 16, 2016. 6. New Business: A. Extension of a Previous Conditional Use Permit Approval for the Pike Lake Development Multiple Family Dwelling Land Use – Ron Clark is proposing a consideration to approve an extension of the previously approved Conditional Use Permit for the Pike Lake Development. The site is located at the northwest corner of the like Lake Trail and County Highway 42 intersection. Planner Matzke introduced the consideration by Ron Clark Construction to extend an approval of the previously approved Conditional Use permit for the Pike Lake Development. The site is located at the northwest corner of the Pike Lake Trail and County Highway 42 intersection. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He provided a resolution and a developer letter requesting an extension. Applicant Mike Waldo, (with Ron Clark Construction). Fleming questioned the letter dated March 28th, on the projected schedule and asked the applicant how confident they are to work against the timeline. Waldo explained they are confident to the extent that the application process with the nine percent tax credit with Minnesota Housing is very competitive. He explained their situation, the scoring number of the project and cost structure. He stated concerns of bonding year and preservation on tax credit dollars. Fleming asked staff how many successive extensions can be requested and/or considered and/or granted and/or denied. Planner Matzke said there is no set number and explained it is the Planning Commission final decision. Kallberg commented on a suggestion he made of evidence of documentation of what their point totals are and needed something in writing that progress is being made. So there is hope that it will still happen. 12 Waldo explained his progress and said they have provided to staff progress. Planner Matzke confirmed and stated they own the land as well. They are working through this and that is staff’s recommendation. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming said this makes sense and likes that we have a real life example of changing the ninety-day rule to the annual request guideline. He said the request is reasonable and as a result the pending 2016 federal housing credit application process suggests that an extension is warranted. He stated we want to do everything that we can do to keep this project moving forward with our support. He is supporting. Petersen stated he finds no reason to object and will be is supporting. Tieman said he absolutely supports this; there is a need in the community, hopefully this goes through. Larson stated he is in support. Kallberg said he is sure this is just fine. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUEST TO EXTEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) APPROVAL UNTIL MAY 4, 2017 AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: • April 25, 2016 o Three actions involving pc  Vacating access in the Deerfield Industrial Park (Parking Lot Area) • APPROVED  Ordinance Amending the Subsection related to Yard Encroachments and the Setbacks for Accessory Structure in Residential Districts. • APPROVED  Amendment to Allow Extension up to a Year for a Conditional Use Permit • APPROVED 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, MAY 5, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. Fleming absent. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant