HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 May 16 2016 PC Meeting Minutes draft
1
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, May 16, 2016
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, May 16, 2016 Prior 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 Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke and
Service Assistant Sandra Woods.
2. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MAY 16,
2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried.
3. Approval of Monday, May 2, 2016 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried.
4. Public Hearings:
A. DEV16-001012 – Martin-Scholl Twin Island – Variance – The property owner is request
variances from the minimum lake setback and side setback to construct a seasonal swelling in the
Low Density Residential Shoreland (R1-SD) Zoning District located on Twin Island. PID: 25-
100-040-1.
Planner Matzke introduced variances from the minimum lakeshore structure setback and minimum side
yard setback on property located on Twin Island. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues,
alternatives and recommended motion. He presented a resolution, location map, survey dated April 1,
2016, building plans, site photo and applicant narrative stamp dated March 1, 2016.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Fleming asked how many building permits were applied for in the past five to seven years for this parcel
and if any of the other adjacent plats have similar sized setbacks including Lots 48-53.
Planner Matzke replied for this parcel we haven’t received any permit activity; only some inquires. He
said we have had very little information about the property. He explained the survey limitations and said
there have been no formal applications. He presented an aerial photo and explained the setbacks of other
parcels.
Fleming asked if there are any that are between the twenty-four to thirty-five.
2
Planner Matzke stated the approved variances on the east side of the island in the last couple years were
approximately fifty to fifty-five feet, but were also larger Lots.
Kallberg stated he would like staff comments on communications from Helen Miller and Peg Roush and
asked if the designation of unbuildable has changed and under what authority. He stated concerns of
placement of the holding tank and asked if this is a holding tank system or mount system.
Planner Matzke explained staff’s comments on the DNR rules and regulations, stating our ordinances
already fit into the DNR general state rules and read the DNR comments on this agenda item. He answered
the construction hours and noise ordinances questions from the Roush email and explained fire protection.
He commented on the buildable aspect per City Attorney’s comments and stated it is a Lot of record,
therefore a buildable Lot. He explained the property was never deemed unbuildable, rather a designation
that had limited information; no survey, challenging venture, may require variances and unsure of the
potential. He commented on the holding tank system and stated he is not sure if there would be the area
for a drain field type system on this property.
Kallberg questioned the minimum setbacks for holding tanks, how far out the holding tank is in
comparison to others holding tanks and the setback measurements, due to reference points are so far apart
that they are almost unable to be compared? He questioned the shoreline being at different angles than
the building alignment and how we are measuring the shoreline curves as they are totally different from
the orientation of the structures. He gave an example of looking to the north on the deck of Lot 50 and
the view being an issue.
Planner Matzke explained where the setbacks are measured and proposed from and explained the
difference from the other parcels.
Fleming clarified that the City has incorporated the DNR Statues and Ordinances, so any questions about
conformity does properly reside with the City of Prior Lake.
Petersen questioned the setback on the tanks from the house being at ten feet and asked if it can be closer.
He said it looks like the grade does go up in elevation towards the back of the Lot towards the lake, and
asked if there would be pumps involved to the septic, regardless of if they went up the elevation, could
they still be pumped into. He asked if there are other tanks on the island, questioned the setback averages
and asked why this doesn’t apply here.
Planner Matzke said he believes the tanks need to be ten feet, but we could ask the County. He explained
where the tanks could be located, that they would be gravity fed and the only way the holding tank septic
would be removed, would be by pumping. He talked about a pumping truck and said it is allowed through
the County permitting. He said he believes there are other tanks on the island. He explained the setback
averages doesn’t apply because it is less than fifty feet.
Applicant
Troy Martin, (17500 263rd, Street) He thanked the Planning Commission and Staff for taking the time to
review his application. He stated how they adjusted the angle and explained the reasoning of moving the
house due to the need for service to the tank, the land and setbacks and different locations for the septic.
3
He commented on trying to be flexible and making changes to appease everyone, challenges of building
on a small Lot, the unique piece of property, septic with a ten-foot setbacks, adjustments and concerns
from the County and the well which is used by the island needing approval.
Petersen asked about the pier footings and if they were hiring professional of if he was doing the work.
He questioned the schedule of what days’ work would be done on.
Martin explained the equipment they have at the site and complications of a continuous pour. He would
prefer to do footing, but was recommended by the Building Inspector that there may be problems doing
regular footing. He explained he is hiring a few, but does some of the work himself. He stated the septic
system needs to be done by a certified licensed contractor and anything that is done with electrical he has
a master in that field; he will be involved in the project but there will also be contractors there as well.
He explained he has not set up his schedule, however he can be there during the week and there would
always be help on the weekends, but construction would be during the week. He stated the timeframe for
completion would need to move fast.
Tieman questioned the five foot being off of the lot line going to the north, and asked if there was any
way they could move slightly to the south.
Martin said there is no issue doing this if it would make it better as they are flexible. He explained there
are fourteen feet, so it could be moved back further; they have moved the cabin back and forth however,
to get access for material and equipment, the fourteen feet is more reasonable.
Kallberg asked if they have considered every possible orientation of the structure to minimize the
variances from side yard and lake, including rotation of the building in the counter clock wise direction as
well as the tanks, so it would be parallel with the south property line rather than the north parallel property
line and then could be brought further from the lake. He commented on the shed, stating the shed is going
to be removed so that is not an issue.
Martin said they are flexible and open to ideas; but did try different options. He said the shed will be
removed.
Petersen asked if right now it is a gravity feed into the septic tanks.
Martin explained how the septic tanks will work stating this is a seasonal cabin and commented on the
cabin on twenty-four foot posts off of the ground with the structure of the tank to be lower.
Petersen asked if it was moved back away from the lake and it raised up, would you still have room for
gravity feed.
Martin explained the situation of getting into the hill top and drainage issues.
Petersen questioned if he was on a fairly flat area with a couple feet grade and right at the edge where it
starts to up.
Martin said yes.
4
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
6:37P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
Justin Revak, (3240 Twin Island Circle NW, Lot 50 and half of Lot 49) He commented on why there are
not more variances requests for this property. He explained there are at least three other requirements in
1104.309, Island Development Regulations and he read off the other three regulations asking why these
variances are not required for these non-conformities.
Planner Matzke stated there are a lot of legal non-conforming Lots within the City of Prior Lake. He
explained why minimum lot width/size for legal Lots of record and variances are not being required
however, suggested the Planning Commission could consider them for variances for a clarity perspective
and stated why these variances are typically used. He gave examples of newly platted property and
explained the grey water system requirements. He said the location of the tanks were still being debated
when this application was proposed to the City and the tanks could also be considered for a variance.
Petersen questioned if that would be at the County level.
Planner Matzke said yes, but the City does have the lake setback at seventy-five feet; structure is one-
hundred, water system is seventy-five.
Revak questioned why the minimum Lot size is not followed. He commented on these rules and said
more people will be building on Twin Island with the minimum rules. He said there are significant number
of Lots that are close to this size and not built on for that reason.
Petersen clarified that when these lots were created they deemed buildable Lots by whatever ordinances
were at the time; since then the ordinance have changed so if you were to create a new Lot they would
have to be those sizes, but since these were deemed buildable, they are non-conforming, therefore,
considered buildable and don’t require a variance.
Planner Matzke replied that would be correct.
Fleming said the distinction for the record is Lots of record versus newly created Lots.
Revak asked if Planner Matzke is referring to Statue.
Planner Matzke said yes, correct and stated there is Minnesota Statues; there are actually two sections
that our City Attorney has referenced, one in Minnesota Statues and other Minnesota Rules regarding to
what Lots of Record are in the City.
Revak said when he looks at this Statue; it says a non-conforming single Lot of Record located within a
shoreland area maybe allowed as a building sight without variances from Lot size provided that; and there
are three requirements (1) All structures and septic system setbacks distance requirement can be met. And
right there that is not the case with this proposal.
Petersen said that is why the variance is requested.
5
Revak said but we are not asking for a variance from minimum lot size. He commented on taking this
proposal into consideration due to Twin Island not being a neighborhood, not the main land and believes
those regulations are in place for a reason. He commented on Twin Island being a seasonal place to get
away.
Petersen stated but according to the rules the cabin that is on Lot 50 wouldn’t been able to be built then.
Revak replied in 1969 when it was built; were the rules of such.
Fleming asked what suggestions do you have for this proposed property; specific suggestions on building
or making the cabin a viable structure.
Revak replied beyond the minimum Lot size requirements; he said he doesn’t think a cabin should be able
to be built on this property and certainly not a cabin of this size. He said he doesn’t have any suggestion
on the building and stated that is the really hard part about this Lot is anyway that you move it; it impedes
to the neighbors. If there is a structure, it has to be smaller and further back. He said the applicants first
suggested is the variances are rejected and a building not be put on this lot
Fleming clarified stating your suggestion is that it should be significantly smaller and moved somewhere
else on the Lot.
Revak replied that would be my second suggestion, my first suggestion would be that the variance is
rejected and a cabin is not built on this Lot.
Kallberg clarified for the Mr. Revak, stating that he is trying to establish that the structure on Lot 50 also
owns half of Lot 49.
Revak replied correct.
Kallberg said one of the letters we received owns the south half of Lot 49 and all of 48; so what they have
done is taken three Lots and made two bigger Lots so that the structures that are to be built would have a
better fit in the available space. He asked is there a structure at all on Lot 52 and is there any way that
more land can be inquired so that it does come more viable.
Revak replied there is not a structure on Lot 52. He said he understands the Commissioners granting
variance or not however reminded them of the essential character and harmony with general purposes.
He reiterated that there are not a lot of cabins on the island because there are a lot of small Lots. He
commented on the number of cabins on the island today and the decision tonight will set a precedence for
building up to twenty more cabins on Twin Island. He commented on empty Lots becoming more valuable
if this gets granted, but still don’t want that as it does change the character and harmony of the island.
Fleming said if he owned one of the Lots on Twin Island and wanted to sell it to someone, you would
discourage me from selling my property.
Revak replied no, you have every right to sell your property. He said whoever bought your property
should do their due-diligence to see how viable a cabin is to be built on that property if they are going to
buy it from you.
6
Fleming asked for clarification as he thought what was said by Mr. Revak was he wants to reduce the
number or prevent people building more structures on Twin Island.
Revak clarified his statement and explained Lots sizes for both of these variances. He commented about
the other granted variances saying they were large enough, so he has no problem with that as they are not
impeding their neighbors. He feels we are putting a square peg into a round hole. He said everyone has
the right to sell their property and do what they want with it, however it is putting too many large houses
on a small Lots that is the concern of most of the people in the audience, including people like myself.
Fleming asked Mr. Revak if there is anything else he would like the Commissioners to consider.
Revak replied yes, and said to Planner Matzke that it is deceiving to say that they are the same distance
from the high water mark. He explained his reasoning for saying it is deceiving and stated comments
about the existing cabins versus the proposed one. He commented on safety and public welfare as a
concern with cabins too close, no fire hydrants, and delayed timing for fire fighters to get to the island, as
well as the applicant’s eagerness to start the project. He explained what the applicant has already done on
the property.
Gary Revak, (Lot 50 and half of 49 on Twin Island, 3240 Twin Island Circle) He stated he has been out
to the Island since 1989 and for many periods he would spend six months of the year there and felt he
knew the island well. He explained the one, two and three Lot sales, stating very few people bought a
single Lot because they knew that to build a reasonable cabin you needed two Lots. He stated his concerns
of putting a house this size on a small Lot, lack of hardship, size of lot, sale of lot, and no surprised to the
applicant that it is not a buildable Lot.
Fleming asked Planner Matzke about the number of applicants who applied for permits to build on this
Lot and to our knowledge….
Revak said no one has ever applied for one because you cannot get…
Planner Matzke replied there was not any permit that was applied for.
Fleming stated so no one ever applied for and the City didn’t turn down an application.
Revak said the applicants came in and asked about it and the City told them you have to have fifteen
thousand square feet or two Lots, so you don’t make a permit.
Fleming asked Planner Matzke, do we have any record of that.
Revak said he could name the people…
Fleming said I am talking to my Staff.
Revak said I am sorry.
Fleming reiterated, do we have any record of that?
7
Planner Matzke replied I don’t have any record of conversations or email or correspondence at my
disposal.
Revak stated his feeling about building meeting all the criterial and setbacks and related it to breaking the
rules. He said he was concerned about continuously getting closer variances and setbacks.
Dave Olson, (3420 Twin Island Circle) He stated he has been at one of these meetings before where a
young gentleman applied for a permit on Lot 18 or 19, just to the east of us and they turned them down
due to size; this meeting was in the late 1990’s. It was sold with the guys next door as an unbuildable lot.
Paul Miller, son of Hellen Miller who owns Lot 52 and Lot 51 and his address is 628 Heritage Trail,
Jordan) He would like to have one question answered and that is how the applicants propose to access the
island. He stated the limited availability for access and he would also like to comment about no one
applying for a variance; they didn’t apply because they were told that it was unbuildable Lot.
Fleming asked has anybody inquired about building on Twin Island.
Miller said absolutely people have inquired about building and explained how the inquiries were told the
Lot is not buildable. He explained two Lots that remain in our package do meet that requirement. He
asked another question for the legal Staff of the City regarding grandfathering or rolling back those
requirements for every other single Lot on the island. If you choose to do that then you are choosing de-
facto to do same thing. The cabins that have been built on the east end are in a very different situation as
the layout and topography of those Lots is significantly different than the topography on the west end of
the island.
Fleming would like the City Attorney to be with us tonight. He explained that each case is individual and
each application would be reviewed as it come forward to us.
Miller said that he would just propose that the Commission consider what he has said and he would also
indicate again with the setback of five feet on one side. He commented on access to the tanks, trespassing
and failure to comply with the standards. He said several people have acquired about buying this Lot and
his suggestion was to talk with the City and said every one of them has passed on purchasing this Lot due
to being told it was not buildable.
Fleming reviewed Mr. Miller’s view of the process of the purchasing the island and asked after this
process the person wanting to purchase this land would come back to you and report what the City said to
them.
Miller said because we were the neighboring land owners, they would inquire about the status of the Lot
and whether they could build a cabin; we would say go talk to the City before you buy the Lot.
Fleming asked then how would you then find out about the conversation with the City.
Miller replied because they would come back and mention it to us. He asked the Commission whether a
decision has already been made and reached particularly as the leader of the Planning Commission has
made several statements that lead me to believe that unless a particular legal challenge were mounted, the
decision has already been made to grant the variance rather than inquire about whether the variances are
appropriate or not and he is not convinced that is adequate business process for the City to follow.
8
Fleming said he would gladly answer Mr. Miller’s question; the answer is no, none of us have made up
our minds.
Miller said that there have been several points made tonight and among them that construction activities
have already begun, without any variances and permits and he feels these actions are in violation of the
City Codes already and to bring a request for variance following those types of actions rather than being
proactive and coming to the City beforehand and asking what they think of the plans, which is what we
did when we considered building a cabin, don’t constitute the appropriate way to do business.
Fleming asked the applicant to return to answer the access question and ask Planner Matzke to comment
on whether or not we are aware of any premature construction happening on the proposed site.
Martin commented on the septic system, access to it and why it is located where it is; stating one side
would be five feet from the property line and the other side there would be fourteen feet.
Ms. Martin stated this would be parallel with the five-foot side so that we can even push further away
from the existing cabin, created more space and with the neighboring five feet and our fourteen, it is quite
a bit of space compared to if we push off more than five feet on the other side.
Fleming asked if there was more for Mr. Martin to add about the access question.
Martin asked for any suggestions or what they would like to see differently, he is open to comment. He
said he was sadden and surprised by the opposition. He commented on open to anyone wanting to buy
the Lot, it was always for sale and no one wanted it. He moved forward and he tried to get this variance
and it has been a lot of work and he adjusted to make people happy, he has reduced the size of the structure;
He tried everything is in his power to make it work and am trying to be flexible.
Planner Matzke answered the comment about construction activity; stating that we could ask the
applicant as well, however, he knew of a bobcat that has been moved out on sight, believes they have put
up a temporary structure, and they have been working with our code enforcement officer on a complaint
that was received on for that process and the code enforcement officer has been working on this with him,
however that issue is a separate issue, but obviously if a structure was placed on the site, he believes things
would change in regards to what they have been working through with our code enforcement officer.
Possibly they could shed more light on that than I could, because he is not involved with the Code
Enforcers procedures.
Fleming asked Mr. Martin to speak on behalf of the comment made about construction has already begun
on your sight.
Miller said the ground was not broke for any type of building. He did, with a barge, bring a bobcat over
to my property and pulled an electrical inspection from Minnesota Valley. Minnesota Valley looked at
the project and they had no equipment, so they asked me to do the trench work, which is up on top and
not on my property to the first power pole and they came back out and pulled in the power, therefore the
breaking ground was Minnesota Valley.
John Meyer, (3313 Twin Island Circle) He stated he would not be interested in purchasing the proposed
lot as far as he is concerned it is not a buildable lot. He commented on when he first purchased a property
9
on Twin Island and what he was told at the City of Prior Lake about not building on his Lot due to either
needing two lots or minimum of fifteen thousand square feet. He mentioned the difference in the variance
presented tonight, minimum Lot requirements and how he feels the Lot is less than half of what is desired
to build. He commented on purchasing additional Lots so he could build and that is his suggestion tonight.
He also commented on the septic system and asked for the size of the tanks, and when they will be pumped
out. He had concerns of water source, drain field location, electrical box already on the property, trench
and someone getting hurt. He stated it is a great idea to build a cabin but not of this size. He said it was
sold as non-buildable and the City should tell you what they told me a long time ago, it is non-buildable.
He suggested to resolve the issue would be to buy another lot side by side, so that this cabin will fit on it.
He commented on the 64 Lots on the island and the individual Lots that may want to sell and stating they
can get the same variance and wanted the Commissioners to know that it is an important decision that you
are making tonight, there are a lot of people that are not here and a lot of people that are here that are
concerned about what will happen out on Twin Island; Prior Lake is a great place and Twin Island is a
great place, he hopes the right thing. The cabin, the septic system, the well, the drain field will all fit within
this small Lot and you must decide if this is in harmony with the general purposes and the intent of the
City subdivision and zoning ordinances and the comprehensive plan.
Jeff Dousette, (3369 Twin Island Circle) He urges the Planning Commission going forward, this won’t
be the first one and as you go forward. He gave an example if there was to be a fence on each Lot line,
there would be no way to get a bobcat in there and where are we getting the dirt for the tanks. As time
goes by there will be other people that will look back at this meeting and say, hey this was passed on May
16th, so why can’t I have one on a slightly larger Lot and now there is 45-50 cabins out there. He said if
you want to do that, we might as well pump sewer out there and build a bridge and make it what you want
to make it. The whole thing about the island is you guys don’t have a clue to see what it is like; it is like
heaven and you will enjoy it if you ever get there. If this moves forward, there will be cabins on top of
each other. His grandfather bought a cabin out there that is still there, and he was a year old, he has been
there longer than most and has seen it all, but what you guys are going to do is set a precedence moving
forward, how are you going to stop it, you can’t, because someone will get a lawyer and they will win it.
Helen Miller, (adjacent Lot to the one being considered, 13105 High Point, Burnsville) She commented
on the question to people not having applied for variances in the past to build on this island property, the
past people of the City of Prior Lake have told her that her taxes are higher on the two Lots that she owns
due to it being buildable. This Lot taxes are lower, so people have been told repeatedly over the years that
this is not a buildable Lot. The other question we are concerned about is the tanks built into the hill, where
does the back dirt go, and how is that going to work and will it be above the cabin for the sanitary system.
She said they have been told that you cannot put the system like that on the island by the City of Prior
Lake.
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:24
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Petersen said these are always tough ones, because one of the problems is a lot of people want a stricter
enforcement, so most of the cabins that are there would need some form of variance today and they would
be non-complying. He said we have built a lot of houses on pretty small Lots on the lake in general, but
10
this island scenario feels a little bit different to him. He said he does have some questions for the City
Attorney, so he is in favor or tabling this agenda item.
Tieman stated he has concerns; variance on minimum Lot size and also the question of has there really
historical applications through building permits through the City Staff and City Attorney. He is in favor
of delaying action on this item.
Kallberg stated he has a number of issues that have been raised; we have a comment on access. He said
he doesn’t know how access is available to this property, whether it is by boats across the lake. He asked
how are the other habitual structures serviced as far as sanitary, sewer, holding tanks or septic, drain
systems. They apparently need some okay from the County to put tanks in; how is the access for pumping
those tanks often enough to not have them overflow. He commented on the precedence going forward,
the lot seems to become an orphan due to double owned Lots on either side of it and got left as an orphan
in the middle as a single Lot. He echoes the comments of the Commissioners that we need more
information in turns that we go on interpretations and he echoes their same comments and is in favor of
tabling.
Larson stated he sees this different from the other Commissioners, as he sees this as a seasonal dwelling,
and a lot of the building codes that may have been referenced to things of that nature are more for a
permanent year around structure. He said the answer has been given for official requests; there is no
documentation of any official requests other than inquires. He commented on seeing where part of his
fellow Commissioners are coming from to see on this island regarding septic systems or holding tanks,
but we are looking at the variance for this particular property. He stated seeing as much for a seasonal
dwelling, it is not a permanent structure, which differs from buildable Lots and square footage. He said
he does see this as a structure for seasonal use. He stated he does see one thing that he would like to see
changed; instead of having fourteen feet on the south Lot line, have maybe ten feet and move the structure
from the five-foot setback to the north setback which would make it nine feet from the north Lot line. He
does see that twenty inch down and is unsure of the root system and how that would affect the root system
of that tree. He said as far as the residents’ concerns, he understands, however some of the other structures
on the island are more year round structures and this appears to be a seasonal structure. He asked about
the proposed home being on pillars for the whole structure or just the deck. He would like clarification
from the homeowner on that.
Fleming said we need more information, he shares some of his Commissioners concerns, not all of them.
He feels there are a lot of additional due-diligence that he thinks we have inplisavely set forth as an
expectation for City Staff, so he is inclined to revisit this matter two Planning Commission Meetings from
now, at the Monday, June 20, 2016 with the request that the City Attorney be present at the meeting and
any documents that are profited by the applicant and/or any of the surrounding neighbors be submitted to
the City at a date at least seven days before hand to June 20, 2016. He would like the City Staff to have
at least seven days to review and compile these documents. If a formal notice is needed, he would like
them to go out per our guidelines.
FORWARD EMAIL TO COMMISSIONERS FROM PEG ROUSH
MOTION BY PETERESEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO TABLE THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL
THE MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE CONDITIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN SET FORTH IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY AND OUR CITY
ATTORNEY AT 7:32 P.M.
11
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tieman. Opposed by Petersen. The Motion carried.
5. Old Business:
A. Comprehensive Plan Discussion
The Commissioners convened into a Workshop to discuss the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. They
reviewed information related to residential development since the plan was last done in 2005. Director
Rogness showed the actual permitted housing units by five-year periods (2005-2009, 2010-2014 and
2015-2019) compared to the projections shown in the plan. Staff’s conclusions were that the largest
shortfall included housing in the medium Density category.
6. New Business:
A. None.
7. Announcements / City Council Updates:
• May 9, 2016
o Forcast Ajustments
Resolutions – related to SMSC properties.
Will be reviewing at workshop tonight.
o Charlies Ordinance for non-conforming restaurant use
Approved with Planning Commissioners Recommendations.
o Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Summit Preserve – Sub Area D
Approved
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN/KALLBERG, TO ADJORN THE MONDAY,
MAY 16, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
VOTE: Ayes by Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. Fleming absent. The Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant