Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-05-2017MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COAT MISSION Tuesday, September 5th, 2017 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, Katie Peterson Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, John Rued, Jeff O'Neill 1. General Busllness A. Call to Order Brad Fyle called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Special Meeting Minutes — August 11t, 2017 MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 1 ST, 2017. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. b. Regular Meeting Minutes — August 1St, 2017 MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 1 ST, 2017 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. BRAD FYLE ADMINISTERED THE OATH OF OFFICE TO KATIE PETERSON. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda Charlotte Gabler asked to add the Broadway Market sign to the agenda. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Village 6th Addition for single family lots in an R-2 (Single Family and Two Family Residential) District Applicant: Paxniar, LLC Steve Grittinan explained that the original PUD for Carlisle Village was designed to include attached townhome units, small lot single family, and large lot single family. Grittman explained the area around the pond was expected to be final platted for townhome development, but was not completed. In the amendment to PUD, the applicant proposes to re -plat the seventeen townhome lots and a portion of the common area outlot to accommodate a fourteen detached townhome project. These would be controlled by an association, platted on individual parcels, and with common area maintenance controlled by an association. Grittman explained that a Concept Stage PUD meeting was held in May. One of the primary comments that came out of that discussion was transitioning from the eight attached townhome units, without isolating or making those units seem out of place. Comments related to design were also discussed at that meeting. Grittman stated that the density of the project would be less with the proposal compared to an attached townhome development. Most of the homes would be a two story unit with a two stall garage facing the street. A few of the units have three stall garages facing the street. Grittman explained in further detail the highlighted points from the PUD Concept Stage review and the response from the applicant. He noted that the importance of understanding and coordinating how the association would be set up prior to moving forward with the project. Also, Grittman suggested clarifying the responsibilities for maintenance that the association would cover as typically detached units are not covered for exterior building maintenance. The change in unit styles was also mentioned during the Concept Stage submittal and setbacks. He explained that the T -N neighborhood adjoins with the proposed development area and suggested following the T -N district setbacks of six feet for side yard, twenty to twenty-five feet for the front yard from the lot line and thirty- five to forty feet from the curb. The applicant proposes five foot side setbacks with twenty foot setbacks for the front yard from the property line and thirty-five feet from the curb line. Grittman suggested architectural treatments be applied to the detached units to better mix the existing units. A reduction in the density would occur from seventeen attached units to fourteen detached units to seven and a half units per net acre. Grittinan stated that the applicant was not making any proposals for the remainder of the original project site at this time. A reduction in the density would occur from seventeen attached units to fourteen detached units and approximately seven and a half units per net acre (from nine units per net acre). Grittman explained that one difference between the detached unit and the single family units on Gatewater Drive was that the face of the buildings would be predominately garage, which is more typical of townhome units. Grittman stated that the plat identifies individual lots, with each unit being surrounded by private property open space. 2 Staff recommended approval of the proposal with the Exhibit Z comments. Brad Fyle asked if they would be joining the existing association. Grittman thought that there was the option to join the existing association at the existing association's discretion. Fyle asked if there was a preference. Grittman declined and added that it was important to understand that it's taken care of prior to the final stage consideration. Fyle asked if the street in front of these units was a public street. Grittman confirmed. Sam Murdoff asked about setbacks. Grittman explained that with townhouse projects, the standard is twenty-five feet behind the curb. Murdoff asked if it was typical to have individual lots for townhome projects rather than having common area for the entire project. Grittman stated that it varied. Occasionally buildings are placed in a condominium fashion, but it's also possible that all the land would be subdivided with no common areas. Murdoff asked about maintenance and upkeep of the units. Grittman stated that the association documents could be structured in several ways, but that it was common with detached townhome units that the property owner would be responsible for the land on their parcel and exterior building maintenance. Murdoff asked what common area would include. Grittman stated all the grounds and the driveway, with the exception of an area near the foundation of each unit. Grittman added that typically the association documents would include architectural control and be able to enforce property standards. Charlotte Gabler asked with the wetland located in this area if any of the lots would be affected by a conservation easement. Grittman did not believe there was a conservation easement on this area and that only four of the parcels adjoined the pond area. Gabler asked if decks or patios were proposed for those four units. Grittman stated that there was a porch option noted, but they were within the private property. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing and invited the developer to come forward first. Alan Roessler, Paxmar addressed two of the items on Exhibit Z. He noted that staff asked for specific detail on handling Outlot B and D. He asked that the approval be based on that they get the HOA documents to staff and the Planning Commission before final approval to iron out all HOA responsibilities. Roessler stated that their preference was for thein to join the existing association, but that the time period to do so has lapsed. They would need to have the existing association's cooperation and approval first. Roessler explained that the problem with splitting the outlots was that they don't own that area and that the existing HOA does. Roessler also commented on the setbacks. He stated the reason for the identified setback areas was to include a greater deck area on the back. He asked for the twenty foot setback specifically on Block 3 because of the existing storm sewer pipe that requires ten feet spacing. Roessler explained that the existing townhomes have a twenty two foot front yard setback and requested having the same setback. Roessler indicated that he agreed to the remainder of the Exhibit Z comments. Murdoff asked for clarification on the first comment on Exhibit Z. Roessler requested that they would flush out the HOA responsibilities to staff's liking before coming back for final approval. Schumann explained that staff would likely be agreeable to a more general condition, but that the City would need to understand the responsibilities and obligations of the new proposal to the existing or to a new association. Schumann stated the condition must satisfy the concerns of staff especially the City Attorney prior to final stage approval. Schumann explained that the Planning Commission should provide direction on the types of things to cover in their association documents, including maintenance of common area and lots. Roessler clarified that the association would handle snow removal on the driveway and walkways, landscaping for all common and private areas to the house, maintenance of all outdoor space, architectural control, and could also step in if the maintenance became a blight. Murdoff asked if decks would be constructed right away. Roessler indicated that it would be an option, but would consider the request if desired by the Planning Commission. Murdoff also asked for a reason for the setbacks. Roessler indicated that they would like the option to build a deck, without the lesser setback. Roessler explained the option to include a deck, specifically on Block 3, would be obsolete with lesser setbacks. Roessler indicated that the decks were based on a ten by twelve dimension. Jacob Erickson, 6442 84th Street Northeast, asked about the proposed units with decks facing Gatewater Drive. Grittman responded that the decks would not be encroaching on the side yard. Fyle asked if the deck would not abut the sidewalk. Grittman confirmed. Gabler asked if it would be similar spacing as the decks seen in Autumn Ridge. Grittman confirmed. Erickson mentioned concerns with the appearance and aesthetics of the separated townhome design. Erickson noted concerns with property values and security. Fyle commented that the proposal would be less density than approved, and that the association document would ensure proper maintenance would be kept upheld. Erickson also asked if the architectural stone and other treatments per code would be met. Grittman stated that a specific percentage standard would not need to be met, but that the applicant provided drawings that the Planning Commission could comment on regarding architecture. Grittman stated that typically when calculating the amount of brick and stone required on a residential building, it excludes the garage area. It appears like a significant amount of materials were proposed for the models. Erickson expressed concern with the units with side entrances and the space between the buildings. Grittman stated that all units would need to meet the 0 building and fire code requirements. John Rued stated that the building code requires a minimum of five foot separation from the property line. Lloyd Hilgart, 6413 82nd Street, expressed concerns with traffic and parking on Gatewater Drive. Hilgart expressed concerns especially when the remainder of the site is built out. He also had traffic concerns with the two proposed homes that face Bakken Street; he asked if there was a reason the one did not face Gatewater Circle. Hilgart also requested that the developer build decks on all the units. He expressed a desire to regulate the amount of each unit style. Kara Moore, 8635 Gatewater Drive, commented that she was concerned about the proposed development of Block 1, Lot 1 as it was originally platted to remain vacant. She asked if there would be a requirement for thirty percent landscaping for the proposed units. Grittman responded that this was a PUD and standards could be negotiated. Staff have asked for additional landscaping information for the units for final approval. Jon Morphew, 8586 Gatewater Drive, commented about the decks and explained that he thought they should be required to construct the decks or they shouldn't be allowed the setback. It was noted that most of the homes in that neighborhood included decks. Rued explained that often time developers do not build the decks right away so that the homeowner can customize the deck to their liking. Jacob Erickson, asked that the Planning Commission not approve the units with the doors on the side. He believed they would detract from the development and neighborhood. Hearing no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Murdoff asked if there was a requirement in place for the existing townhomes to have decks. Schumann stated that the design features was a decision of the Planning Commission. Katie Peterson was concerned with the new units fitting in with the townhomes. Fyle indicated that instead of having one large roofline, the homes would be split up with greater architectural detail. Gabler asked if the side entrance design could be changed to have a stoop with beams to match the other design. Roessler indicated that would encroach on the setback. Roessler also added that the following would be built if approved: two of the side entrance home, four of the three car garage home, and the remainder with the 2 stall garage and the alleyway to the front door. Roessler indicated it was the intent in the future to build the same type of unit in the remainder of the outlot. If it was not approved, the attached townhome unit would be completed on the site and the remainder of the outlot. 5 Jeff O'Neill explained the importance of keeping with the original design goals of that development along Gatewater Drive and recommended incorporating some of the design features of those homes into the detached townhome unit. Katie Peterson asked if the units could provide more living space rather than garage space fronting the curb. Roessler indicated that what they'd like to do is take the existing townhome units that are already approved and built right away and detach them and add additional value and architectural features. They are not proposing to create a unit that is seen on Gatewater Drive. Decision 1: Consideration of Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for PUD and Development Stage PUD approval: BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-026, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO CUP FOR PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE, CONVERTING 17 ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE LOTS TO 14 DETACHED TOWNHOUSE LOTS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH REVISIONS THAT CITY STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL HAVE TO BE IN AGREEMENT FOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DURING FINAL PLAT AND A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A 22 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-2 WITH SAM MURDOFF AND KATIE PETERSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Decision 2: Consideration of Preliminary Plat approval: BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-027, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE 6TH ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH REVISIONS THAT CITY STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL HAVE TO BE IN AGREEMENT FOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DURING FINAL PLAT AND A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A 22 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-2 WITH SAM MURDOFF AND KATIE PETERSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION. EXHIBIT Z Carlisle Village 6" Addition PUD Amendment/Development Stage PUD And Preliminary Plat Carlisle Village 211 Addition, Outlot C, and Lots 1-5, Block 1; Lots 1-3, Block 2; Lots 1-4, Block 3; and Lots 1-5, Block 5. The applicants must show — either by design and conveyance of land to a new association which they control, or by fon-nal agreement between the current association and the new plat — that the applicant's new units will have access rights across the common area of the outlots to the public street. The final alternative must be completed as a part of the application for Final Plat and Final PUD and be approved by the City Attorney. 2 2. The detached units should be designed to meet 5 foot side yard setbacks and 22 foot front yard setbacks to accommodate standard internal lot line easements and parking use of the front driveway areas. The units adjacent to the existing attached buildings should be designed for submittal of Final Stage PUD documents to incorporate similar materials and colors, including siding, brick, and post design as noted. The unit designs, and designs that are similar in size and fagade detail to those proposed shall be the exclusive architecture used in the project, unless an appropriate amendment or adjustment is proposed and approved per the requirements of the PUD zoning regulations. 4. Prepare final Homeowners Association documents meeting the intent of the City and satisfying any concerns of the City Attorney relating to common maintenance and enforcement. As noted in item 1, above, the documents should reflect the clear right of the units proposed by the applicant to cross the common area to the public street. 5. Enforcement of Homeowners Association maintenance requirements shall not be enforced by the City of Monticello, but documents may not be amended without City approval via PUD Amendment until the Association has been turned over to individual homeowners from the control of the developer. 6. Add landscape plantings, including shrubs and perennials, to the private lot improvements for each detached unit, as illustrated in the accompanying building illustrations. 7. The plat lies along Jason Avenue, CSAH 18, and requires the review of Wright County for comment. 8. Comply with the requirements of the City Engineer's letter of August 25, 2017. 9. Comments of other City staff or those of the Planning Commission. B. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown Small Area Study Applicant: City of Monticello Jeff O'Neill provided a brief history of development in the downtown. He stressed that they would be looking at setting a vision for the downtown area and be responsible for driving public and private investments. O'Neill explained the 1997 plan elements and the changes that have been seen in the downtown. Andrew Dresdner, Cuningham Group, introduced himself and explained the vision of the plan. Dresdner explained that the plan provides guidance in terms of policies, goals, and objectives. It also provides specific recommendations for public and private investments. The plan seeks to attract a specific type of development. Dresdner explained that he hoped the plan would help Monticello to reclaim their downtown. 7 Dresdner explained that the plan is rooted in economic reality, aspirational with outreach and steering committee input provided, and a background in known and successful town building practices. Dresdner noted that walkable, human scale, and experience based places help downtowns thrive. Dresdner noted that the 2010 plan was heavily focused on shopping and that the focus to successful downtowns included more than just shopping, but living, a mix of businesses, and a mix of human experiences. The four primary goals of the plan are: shifting the center of town to Broadway and Walnut, engaging the river more thoroughly, improving the Pine Street experience for everybody, and infills with many small investments, a few medium investments, and one or two large investments. The plan also differs from the 2010 Embracing Downtown Plan because it relies less on large projects and large property assembly. The Small Area Study relies more on partnerships and small, incremental investments. It is more supportive of the traditional form of Broadway with mercantile/retail buildings that face the sidewalk and street. It incorporates a mix of development and land uses. It also builds on what people love and value in Monticello. Dresdner explained that he did not expect all the projects to build out in the next five to ten years and that it would rely on trends. Dresdner broke down the project area into four character areas and explained the recommendations for each. The character areas included: Pine Street, Walnut & Cedar Street, Riverfront, and Broadway. Dresdner stated that conversations with MnDOT were held with the consultants and City Staff to improve Pine Street and understand the feasibility of placing a traffic signal at Pine Street at 0' Street and closing off the Third Street Boulevard. Dresdner stated that a similar development would occur along Pine Street. He stated that the current buildings would be able to continue in use and form, but if properties would redevelop, buildings should be located at corners with parking in the center. This would allow greater accessibility and shared parking between properties. The plan also suggests robust landscaping and moderate setbacks from sidewalks to parking areas. Dresdner stated that Walnut Street currently has a lot of open space, with parking spaces. The plan suggests infilling these areas with quarter and half block development, primarily being housing. Dresdner recommended that Walnut Street be completed to River Street. Walnut Street between River Street and Broadway Street would be designated as a special street, which would still contain parking. hnprovements to Walnut and Broadway were proposed such as clear crosswalks and a four-way stop sign. Mid -block parking and parklets were also proposed. Block 52 was proposed to have a restaurant and East Bridge Park being redesigned to include an amphitheater. Dresdner summarized the primary goals of the plan which included: connecting the grid and connect to the river, enhancing the storefront or main street district on Broadway to include more small scale retail, entertainment, and/or dining uses, to development Pine Street as a regional avenue so that it works for more than just pass through traffic, adding more housing into the core areas of downtown, and to have a new set of river front parks. Dresdner highlighted that private property owners could remain where they are located and operating in the same manner, but the plan indicates that if business conditions change, if the market conditions change, or the property owners want to change, that this plan would be an invitation to partner and guide those properties. Dresdner explained implementation of the plan. He stated that the Planning Commission would probably entertain development regulations, parking policy, complete street discussions, and development plans. Charlotte Gabler appreciated that the plan was revisited to better handle the existing property owners that would be staying around for a while. She also added that parking policy needs to be revisited often. Dresdner indicated that parking is discussed in the later pages of the plan. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Shawn Grady, owner of Ace Hardware, indicated that the revisions to the plan did not address his concerns with parking. He was concerned with removing parking with infill housing. He indicated when special events occur in the City, his parking is taken up by other non -customers. He also did not believe the shared parking concept would work for all. Grady also stated that the plan has people asking him when he is moving his business. Gabler explained that it was the public official's responsibility to better vocalize what the plan is. John Murray, property owners of Lucille Murray's Dance Studio, stated he was in favor of developing downtown Monticello. He liked some of the changes that were made to the plan, especially for parking. His concerns were with the amount of traffic along Broadway Street, especially because his clients would be crossing Broadway Street if parking at the City -owned parking lot. He expressed that changes to the intersection of Broadway Street and Walnut Street were important. Murray asked to be flexible in thinking and to not develop to the point where parking concerns would exist. Murray added the importance of ensuring traffic concerns would be addressed for safety with any development change. Dresdner responded to the traffic concerns. He explained that traffic calming strategies were identified in the plan. Gabler indicated the next step was application. She asked if the entire downtown district could be included as a PUD type area. Angela Schumann responded that flexibility and partnerships could be worked with and that a steering committee 9 would be instrumental in moving the plan forward in terms of zoning ordinance amendments. Steve Johnson, private property owner of commercial property in Block 52, explained that the plan did not adequately represent Monticello. Johnson explained that the plan seems highly prescriptive and the plan was under -parked, especially for Block 52. Johnson mentioned some of the history of downtown and stated that assessments were made to property owners in the downtown for such improvements such as public parking lots. He also stated his favor of having a district, similar to a PUD area that would allow flexibility to achieve the highest and best use of the land. Johnson stated with a PUD, the Planning Commission and City Council would also have the ability to comment. Johnson also suggested keeping with three parking spaces per thousand square feet. Hearing no further comments, Brad Fyle closed the public hearing. Fyle indicated the difficulty in making it safe to cross Broadway Street and the overall implementation of the plan. Dresdner explained that MnDOT stated that they would be willing to place curb extensions along Broadway Street. Discussion about a four-way stop sign at Walnut Street and Broadway Street was also discussed. Dresdner stated crossing Broadway Street was well within reach and possible, per discussions with the State, County, and City Staff. Dresdner stated that this plan was for the people that live in Monticello, not the people passing through. Dresdner also added that parking changes occur incrementally. Evaluation would need to occur with any incremental parking changes. Schumann indicated that the Parks Commission and EDA board both unanimously recommended approval of the plan. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN SMALL AREA PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS PRESENTED, BASED ON FINDINGS IN RESOLUTION PC - 2017 -028. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Housing Market Report 2017 Angela Schumann stated that the Monticello EDA had a contract with WSB & Associates to help prepare economic development strategies, which included preparing an update to the current housing stock. A housing study has been prepared and reviewed by the EDA. She stated that the housing study would provide useful background infonnation to help inform land use decisions residential in nature and as the Planning Commission considers a new Land Use Plan in 2018. 10 Brad Fyle asked who wanted the plan to happen. Schumann stated that the EDA acts as the City's housing and redevelopment authority and that they were looking for a better platfonn for understanding Monticello's housing stock and inventory to base their decision making. Kurt Bearinger introduced himself and Jim Gromberg from WSB & Associates and presented the report. Bearinger indicated that by 2020, Monticello was expected to be close to 15,000 people with an additional average growth of 179 per year. The median value for single family housing value was set at about $180,000, with 16 percent of units having a value of $250,000 or more. Bearinger stated that housing costs in Monticello were relatively affordable, however nearly half of Monticello's renters were burdened by expenses. It was stated that Monticello has a good mix of owner occupied versus rental compared to county and state trends. Bearinger stated they believed the housing demand would continue. Recommendations included monitoring rental vacancy rates and availability, conversion of vacant units to rental properties, maintaining a low housing cost, increasing affordable rental housing inventory to maintain options, ensuring adequate amounts of owner/rental units for higher -income individuals looking to downsize, and increasing senior housing options. Brad Fyle explained that the report indicated that some of the rental rates were $200 and asked if that was after assistance or if that anybody could rent at that rate. Gromberg explained that it would be after government assistance. Marc Simpson asked what the number of available housing lots. Gromberg stated that it was not a part of the study, but estimated that it was under one hundred. John Alstad asked what the barriers to converting vacant homes into rental properties. Gromberg suggested looking on a block basis at the homes and their value. Then the City can step in to determine how to facilitate and get the best use out of sites. Gromberg stated that the EDA discussed how to move forward with programs to assist property owners. Charlotte Gabler asked if the EDA had a plan for converting vacant homes into rental properties. Schumann stated that the EDA wanted the foundation found in the plan first before voting on any programs. She stated that the EDA would probably look at a mixed approach such as a transformation home loan program along the core of downtown. The Planning Commission was not asked to make any formal decision on the plan. B. Consideration to call for a public hearing on Monticello ZoninE Ordinance Chapter 4, Section 13 — Telecommunication Towers and Antennas as related to Small Cell and Wireless Telecommunication standards Angela Schumann stated that the Minnesota Legislature saw the need for a change to wireless telecommunications support. Schumann explained that the City needs 11 to respond to how to manage wireless telecommunication structures in public rights-of-way. Fyle asked if the League of Minnesota Cities was recommending the changes. Schumann stated that the League provided two memos and recommended city's look at their right-of-way ordinances or adopt right -of -ordinance (which the City of Monticello does not have) and to look at related ordinances such as telecommunications towers and antennas. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3RD, FOR AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 4, SECTION 13 — TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS AND RELATED SECTIONS AS RELATED TO SMALL CELL AND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDS. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. C. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report and provided an update on recent action decisions. Schumann noted the unveiling of a new Swan sculpture at the intersection of Broadway and Highway 25 sponsored by the EDA, Ellison Family members, and Sue Seeger. Schumann also thanked the Parks Department for their work on the landscaping. Schumann lastly noted that GTS was hosting a number of educational trainings for Planning Commissioners if interested. Added Items Charlotte Gabler asked about the monument sign located at Broadway Crossing. Angela Schumann stated that staff would look at the shape and maintenance as it relates to the City Code. 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:07 PM. SECONDED THE MOTION. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: October Yd, 2017 Attest: PIA, 'L, 0 U 12 Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 13