Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 23 2018 PC Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 23, 2018 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, April 23, 2018 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, William Kallberg, Dan Ringstad, Jason Tschetter and Liaison Zach Braid. Also present were Community Development Director Casey McCabe, Engineer Jason Wedel, Planner Jeff Matzke, Planner Amanda Schwabe, Project Engineer Nick Monserud and Community Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, March 23, 2018 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2018 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV18-000002 – 15420 Eagle Creek Avenue NE – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Hunter Homes, LLC is requesting a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development application for a residential development project at 15420 Eagle Creek Avenue NE to subdivide 6.83 acres into 20 single Family Lots. The property is located north of CH85 (154th Street NW) and west of CH21 (Eagle Creek Avenue NE) off Majestic Lane NW in the R1-SD, Low Density Residential Shoreland District. PID: 259340020. Planner Matzke: Introduced the request regarding the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to recommend to the City Council to be known as Majestic and be developed as a 20 – lot residential subdivision. The subject site is located north of County Highway 82, west of County Highway 21, and east of Majestic Lane. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, development plans dated March 21, 2018, applicant narrative dated March 21, 2018, Engineering/Public Works Department Memorandum dated April 6, 2018, Community & Economic Development Department Memorandum dated April 16, 2018 and County Highway Department Memorandum dated April 13, 2018. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained the history of this area, listing the past interested Developers and their layouts for Regal Crest, Executive Ponds and the current Majestic Plat. He explained the reasons Majestic Lane had not been connected with the Regal Crest or Executive Ponds subdivisions, some of the benefits of connecting Majestic Lane between the two temporary cul-de-sacs, the development plan and concerns raised by neighborhood residents to City Staff. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Asked the grade of the connecting streets between the two cul-de-sacs. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied it is proposed at 9.5 percent. Kallberg: Asked is that a typical city street grade. Project Engineer Monserud: Responded there are many instances that are at that grade or steeper; it is not and unusual grade in Prior Lake. Kallberg: Questioned the installation of traffic calming devices to assist with speeding up the hill. 2 Project Engineer Monserud: Replied it is an option, but maybe premature. He said the curve already serves as a traffic calming option. Kallberg: Commented on the current tree trimming and asked if it is in anticipation of this development. Planner Matzke: Replied it is something else going on; it is not anticipated with this development now. Tschetter: Asked what is the expected speed limit on this street. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied it will be 30 mph street. Tschetter: Asked if it is right-in/right-out on Majestic from County Road 82. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied yes, that is correct. Tschetter: Asked what street runs east and west and if that street is a right in, right out onto County Road 21. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied that street is Jeffers Path and yes, it is a right in, right out onto County Road 21. Tschetter: Asked if there is any way to project traffic volumes based on that type of a street configuration. Project Engineer Monserud: Responded no traffic study has been performed by him. He commented on the proposed street configurations being a benefit to the neighborhood and the fastest way to County Road 82 would always be County Road 21. Tschetter: Asked if the cul-de-sac is conforming to the 47-foot radius. Project Engineer Monserud: Responded yes. Ringstad: Asked questions regarding the cost estimate, escrow, and responsibility of payment. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained the cost is covered by the developer and the escrow would be contributed toward the cost. Ringstad: Asked what the benefits are for additional tree amounts; would it be in inches or physical trees. Planner Matzke: Replied it would be 100 caliper inches of additional trees. Ringstad: Estimated to be about 40-50 trees. Planner Matzke: Responded yes correct, 40 to 50 trees. Fleming: Mentioned the 63 comments and questioned if the developer would have any issues with being able to satisfy these comments. Planner Matzke: Explained the comments are typical between preliminary and final plat process. He reassured they are not critical comments that would alter the design of the plat very much. Applicant Kurt Manley: Resides at 755 Diffley Road in Eagan. Said staff was very thorough in their report. He addressed the costs, introduced his partners and offered to be available to answer questions. Fleming: Commented on the concerns from residents and asked how the applicant has reacted to the resident concerns. Applicant Manley: Explained how concerns were addressed, mentioned the neighborhood meeting they held and that they encouraged the neighbors to attend the Planning Commission meeting and commented on the traffic report/conclusion they performed. Tschetter: Asked what the residents anticipation of preliminary disruption during the construction and connection of the two roads. Applicant Manley: Explained the process to minimize disruption, operate within the constraints per City Code, complete construction quickly and professionally and mentioned weekly meetings with residents. Tschetter: Asked if any adjustments or considerations to the plan were considered after the feedback from the community meeting. Applicant Manley: Explained how they are restrained to keep the latest plan and said adjustments had been already made. He commented on the grade change from 13.5 to 9.5 percent grade on Majestic Lane. Tschetter: Asked if the concerns they are reacting to are based around the development overall or primarily to the connection of streets. Applicant Manley: Replied the street connection were the bulk of the comments at the neighborhood meeting. He said there were some additional questions regarding product and builders. Ringstad: Asked what is the type of product, the builder, footprint and price points. 3 Applicant Manley: Explained the potential builders, type of homes, how many lots and said there will be no age restrictions. Ringstad: Questioned the price points; cost of lots and total package for the end users. Applicant Manley: Replied under $500,000. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AT 6:33 P.M ON ITEM 4A. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Larry Arends: Resides at 3790 Majestic Lane. Questioned how many substandard turnarounds were approved in the new developments and is the 47 feet for turnarounds standard. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied no substandard turnarounds were approved and said are all turnarounds 47 feet. Arends: Commented on the lower cul-de-sac, upper cul-de-sac, thru street signs, and the slope on the hill. He asked where else does Prior Lake have a 9.5 percent slope over the same length. Fleming: Reiterated what has been said on how many 9.5 percent slopes are in Prior Lake, that a 9.5 percent grade is not atypical and stated there are many of examples. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained there are several of these types of grade percentages in town; including up to 15 percent. He explained the roads that were at this or similar percentages. Arends: Questioned the length versus the grade and asked the Commissioners to visit the site. He suggested options for the cul-de-sacs. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied he was unsure of the length of other grades throughout Prior Lake and specified the bottom cul-de-sac size. Fleming: Mentioned all five Commissioners did travel to the site and look at the property. Arends: Asked if the Commissioners felt if it was a short drop off. Fleming: Said he does not necessarily agree. Arends: Suggested thinking about stopping at 30 mph when someone is backing out of their driveway. Fleming: Mentioned the reasoning for Planning Commission Meetings was to gather comments. James Hubbs: Resides at 15316 Jeffers Pass NW. Commented on the 500 radius for getting notification letters, traffic concerns such as: stop sign on Majestic Lane and Jeffers Pass, speeding, blind curves, through traffic, right turns, stopping along Jeffers Pass. He asked if the utilities would be underground. Fleming: Replied it is his assumption that utilities would be underground. Project Engineer Monserud: Responded it is a city requirement that utilities get buried. Hubbs: Asked about the relocation of fire hydrants on Majestic Lane. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained the watermain connection and the hydrant replacements. Hubbs: Said his primary concern is the new street and the street going through. Steve Weisser: Resides at 3854 Majestic Lane NW. Commented on the meeting with the developer, the cul-de-sac being a done deal, better traffic flow, excess traffic through neighborhood, specs on the cul-de-sac, driveway length and safety issues. Fleming: Replied this is never a done deal, that is why we have Planning Commission meetings. Rod Glaesman: Resides at 3778 Majestic Lane NW. Asked for clarification on how adding more vehicles to Jeffers Pass is a benefit. Planner Matzke: Explained the purpose of a PUD and the PUD benefits for the community as a whole, rather than a neighborhood benefit. Glaesman: Commented on the two existing exits, U-turns on busy streets, slope of the road, waiting on problems before addressing them, speed limits, traffic controls, and traffic volume on 21 and 82. Fleming: Asked when the appropriate time for a comprehensive traffic study would be recommended. Planner Matzke: Explained when a traffic study is generally needed and stated the Planning Commissioners could recommend one; however, it is not typically done for projects of this scale. He commented on the local traffic study that was prepared by the developers engineer. Glaesman: Reiterated a question made earlier regarding how to control having to make the U-turns. 4 Fleming: Stated this is a step taken as the process evolves. He mentioned he would like to have a condition that a comprehensive traffic study be explored; taking in to consideration that we are reviewing a number of homes that is less than the typical standards by 800 or more and doing so to responded to Mr. Glaesman’s question. Judith Burman: Resides at 3852 Majestic Lane NW. Shared concerns of not being happy regarding the proposed changes, checking with police regarding traffic/speeding issues, speed traps, losing contracts on the sale of her house due to the through street, Scott County real estate and signs at the end of the cul-de-sac. David MacLeod: Resides at 15314 Jeffers Pass NW. Shared comments on the advantages of the through street, concerns of the distance of the grade, the comments made by staff, assessments and the consideration of townhomes rather than single family. Nancy Berg: Residing at 3856 Majestic Lane NW. Commented on location of her home, grade, backing out of driveway, curve and the through street to making access to Mystic Lake. Chad Lemair: Resides at 16345 Stemmer Ridge Rd NW. He commented on property having constraints, keeping an open mind, speed signs, future development, adding homes, taxes, doing due-diligence with the comprehensive plans, and this would be a win-win for residents and City. He gave some examples with his own neighborhood going through a street connection project and stated it is a good addition to the neighborhood. Becky Glaesman: Residing at 3778 Majestic Lane. Stated she can appreciate the comments given by Mr. Lemair to keep an open mind. She shared the concerns of the roads and the issues with U-turns on 82 to get onto 21. She suggested working together to figure this out. Don Morrison: Resides at 3798 Majestic Lane NW. Commented on the knowing the development was going to be there someday, traffic and asked what will happen to the trees on the hilltop. He shared concerns of the road and asked for an overlay for the two cul-de-sacs to examine location of driveways. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:10 P.M. ON ITEM 4A. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Commissioners Comments: Kallberg: Stated there are many issues here. He shared concerns with speed limits, U-turns, stop lights, entering downtown, elevation, controlling speed, traffic movements, site lines, backing out of driveways, cul-de-sacs, private property and he reiterated some of the comments made by neighbors. He verified the size of cul-de-sac radius versus diameter and stated he is unsure of his decision at this moment. Tieman: Said he had drove through this area and with hearing the neighborhood concerns he is struggling with the advantages of this through street for Majestic. He suggested some solutions to the through street that would get the benefits without sending more traffic through the neighborhood. He stated he does agree with the residents and has a problem supporting this. Tschetter: Stated he is equally vexed by this proposal. He said he sees a lot of tradeoffs that are being considered as well as a lot of benefits and merits on both sides. He commented on the agreement for the need and opportunity to develop the property; however, the focus of the discussion is on the roads. He asked Staff, is it possible to build an elbow opposed to a cul-de-sac to connect street A; basically, extending that cul-de-sac into the new development. Project Engineer Monserud: Asked for clarification Tschetter: explained there is a nonconforming cul-de-sac right now on lower Majestic Lane; if that became a 90 degree turn into the development; is that an acceptable option. Project Engineer Monserud: Explained the problem is, the road is too long of a dead-end street for our city standards. Tschetter: Said so a different type of variance but it would be an option. Project Engineer Monserud: Replied Staff would not be in support of that variance. Tschetter: Explained his reasoning for his prior questions. He said he heard both sides of the discussion around U-turns, but also heard that this opens a connection to a neighborhood network of roads that takes you to stop lights and controlled intersections to enter the streets safely. He commented on 5 overlooking significant cost benefits and safety benefits if we do not open this connection. He said as much as we have concerns with speed, grade, ice, and traffic control in the community network, it is also important how we control traffic and maintain safely in the county network and said there is a significant benefit here. He asked if there are traffic calming options being considered and gave an example of a stop sign at Jeffers Pass and Majestic; would there be a similar option on Majestic and Street A. Project Engineer Monserud: Stated a stop sign is not used for speed calming, rather assigning right - of-way and said if they could explore some of other traffic calming mechanisms if the Commissioners felt this to be a beneficial recommendation. Tschetter: Commented on understanding neighbor’s anxiety, the streets having sidewalks, traffic calming efforts needing to be considered for this development to move forward and speed monitoring systems. Ringstad: Listed the benefits that come to the city with the PUD and development in itself, the through street, elimination of the private driveway on 21 and the additional 100 calipers inches of trees. He explained the details of each benefit, stating the city is getting a little better than a marginal benefit by considering the approval of the PUD. He mentioned a comment made by a resident regarding building townhomes rather than single family and commented on traffic controls, main issue at hand, development approvals, what is being opposed tonight, traffic, road configurations, his visit to the site, U-turns, and a traffic study. He stated in respect to the 20-unit planned unit development; he does support with regards to the road set up. He said he would like to hear a little bit more or see other ideas or options. Fleming: said he shares the concerns about how to integrate what is a great plan and this application does meet our PUD requirements from Section 1106 of our Code of Ordinance; however, doesn’t think we are completely there and feels we need more information. He commented on conversations and comfort levels from some residents and more information. He recommended/directed staff to have a plan/traffic study/feasibility report on the elbow, drainage and traffic calming and then if he had that information layered on or coupled with any modifications or creative thinking on behalf of Mr. Manley that could marry with that feasibility study, we would be in a better position to feel good about this regarding a denial or approval. He would like to propose to table this item until next meeting or the meeting after that (2-4 weeks from tonight). He offered to open this up to the Commissioners reactions on what was just shared. Tieman: Asked if we table this would the public hearing be closed. Fleming: said yes, the public hearing has been closed. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOLLOWING THIS MEETING. Ringstad: Stated regardless of the cul-de-sac or through street, he would like some additional information, as he sees valid points on both. He commented on the development itself not being opposed besides drainage and he is reassured by staff in past developments on that subject. He mentioned more information regarding road configuration. Tschetter: Asked for clarification based on if the traffic concerns were normally addressed in the PUD preliminary discussions. He commented on traffic concerns are an on-going discussion in all our neighborhoods and gave an example of Mushtown Road. He said he felt they are separate items from the PUD. Project Engineer Monserud: Said as you allotted to; yes, traffic safety is a moving target in perpetuity throughout the community. He commented on the studies, reviews and the reason why we have a traffic safety committee Tschetter: Stated with that clarification he is trying to separate that this is two different discussions. He explained the two-different discussion taking place; merits and the five criteria and traffic. He stated he didn’t feel this is the proper forum for traffic. Fleming: Replied that it is an analysis or a calculus of distance of the two discreet issues. He explained how he would feel more comfortable versus how he feels now about this situation. He therefore, doesn’t 6 feel comfortable of unsettled questions regarding traffic concerns and feels it would impact the value of the nine conditions. City Engineer Wedel: Stated he respects the line of discussion this evening and sending this back for further study; however, there was a tremendous amount of study that went into the plan to get it to where it is today. He stated there will not be a different recommendation regarding street connection if this is tabled tonight and returned to a future Planning Commission meeting. He explained the reasoning why street connection is important from a staff’s perspective and the opportunity of having versus not having a cul-de-sac. He commented on the consideration and steps taken prior to decision of a cul-de-sac changing into a through street including street grade, transition, not impeding anyone’s home or driveway, safety, stopping sight distances, traffic speeds, volumes of cars and stated if there was a safety issue, they would not recommend approval of the plan. He felt offended with the insinuation the staff has not done the due-diligence on these matters. Fleming: Gave an example of his job and explained a similar situation that used the process of exhausted strategies in interventions. He said he doesn’t think anyone is purposely or intentionally trying to denigrate the staff; rather, that he would like to exhaust the creativity before a decision is made. He stated if in two to four weeks we feel it has been exhausted, then great; however, there still could be more options for us to consider. Tschetter: Asked if he could re-state the motion or if he could re-frame it, potentially. Fleming: Replied the motion is to table the item to a future Planning Commission meeting and believes all the comments are noted regarding feasibility to traffic study including incorporating the elbow which was mentioned. Applicant Kurt Manely: Said he appreciates everything that has been said. He commented on the amount of time put into this project including working closely with staff and the desire for the connection of streets to be made. He said they based their entire plan, time and money on the direction of staff. He mentioned their contract is completed on May 1st and asked for a decision either way so this can move to the City Council. He stated comments made by their Engineering firm, fulfilling requirements by City Staff, meeting with the neighbors and encouraged neighbors to come to this meeting tonight. Tschetter: Proposed a motion to approve this is contingent on the developer and City Staff putting together a proposed plan or approach to address traffic and safety in the course of development and work on that concurrently. Planner Matzke: Stated a point of order on more discussion can be made; however, since there is one motion on the table right now, that motion would have to be acted on whether approved or denied and a new motion brought forward as a point of order for clarification through that. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOLLOWING THIS MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Ringstad, and Kallberg. Nays by Tieman and Tschetter. The Motion carried. B. PDEV18-000011 – 6626 Rustic Road SE – Variance – The property owners, Eric and Erica Delain, are requesting a variance to construct an addition and deck on a non-conforming structure. The request is to position the proposed addition and deck in the rear of the home with a 62.2-foot setback from the ordinary high-water elevation. The property is located in the R1-SD, Low Density Residential Shoreland District. PID251400040. Planner Schwabe introduced the request to consider approval of a resolution approving a variance from the minimum lake setback for a property in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential shoreland) Zoning district. The subject site is located along the southern shores of Boudin’s Bay on Lower Prior Lake, west of Highway 13. The property contains a single-family home that is a two-story (with basement walkout) structure. She explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. She presented a resolution, location map, applicant narrative, proposed survey dated March 29, 2018, existing and proposed deck illustration, building elevation and plans dated November 30, 2017 and letters of support from adjacent property owners. 7 Commission Comments/Questions: No Comments from Commissioners. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AT 7:50 P.M ON ITEM 4b. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Applicant: Erica Delain: Resides at 6626 Rustic Road. Eric Delain: Resides at 6626 Rustic Road. Erica Delain: Said she would like to add to Planner Schwabe’s very thorough report a conversation she has had with the two neighbors from each side of the house and they both submitted letters of support. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:52 PM On item 4b. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Commissioners Comments: Fleming: Stated he did have an opportunity to read through the submission to the Staff and Commissioners and felt it was very well done and said he appreciated that she proactively reached out to their neighbors. He said this makes perfect sense; the five conditions/thresholds for 1108.400 have been met and will be supporting this resolution. Kallberg: Said he appreciates that they are increasing the setback; reducing the impervious surface and asked about building another fireplace. He mentioned the comments of significant jetting inward of the lakeshore and commented on the original plat of the property. He said it is a good plan and he will be supporting it. Applicant Erica and Eric Delain: Replied no plans to rebuild the fireplace. Tieman: Stated this is a great plan; they did a great job laying this out and conversing with neighbors. He said he fully supports this agenda item. Ringstad: Said all variance criteria has been met and he will be supporting this tonight. Tschetter: Stated he completely agrees and applauded the applicants for getting neighbors on board and keeping the staff happy and making this an easy one. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR 6626 RUSTIC ROAD CIRCLE SE WITH THE TWO LISTED CONDITIONS REGARDING ITEM 4B. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. C. Amendment to Prior Lake City Code Subsection 1101.400 – Amendments – Consider amendments to Subsection 1101.400 of the City Code related to Definitions. Planner Schwabe introduced the request to consider amendments to subsection 1101.400, Definitions, of the Prior Lake zoning ordinance related to the addition of definitions. She expla ined the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. She presented the proposed amendments to Subsection 1101.400. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Stated he was questioning the striking; but, explanation was given as report went on. 8 Tschetter: Asked if we developed these definitions ourselves or are we lifting them from a broader glossary from the State or County level. Planner Schwabe: Explained the development of definitions and where they are formed from, including State Status as well as our City Attorney; so, a little bit of all for a best fit scenario for our community. Tschetter: Said he is surprised to see these terms be ambiguous or vague and not consistently apply to various levels of our government. Ringstad: Said he will be supporting this tonight; better clarification and perhaps a bit more than housekeeping. Tieman: Stated he will support all these changes. Kallberg: Commented on some verbiage regarding commercial motor vehicle regarding tractor trailers. Schwabe: Replied it is the intension of the comment regarding commercial motor vehicle and tractor trailers; however, staff will be reviewing the wording. Kallberg: Explained reasoning for reviewing the tractor trailers verbiage and mentioned a typo between tractors and trucks needing a comma. He said with these changes he will be approving these amendments. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AT 8:02 P.M ON ITEM 4c. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:03 PM on item 4B VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Commissioners Comments: No Comments MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1101.400 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad, Kallberg and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: ANNOUNCEMENTS McCabe reminded the commissioners that they have been invited to a joint work session with the City Council on Monday, May 7, 2018. Potential topics for discussion will be emailed to commissioners for their input early this week. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:04P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Ringstad, Kallberg, Tieman and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Sandra Woods, Community Development Services Assistant.