Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Ordinance Amending Section 1102.1103 of the Zoning Ordinancef'~, P~o~ u t~`'!1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2010 AGENDA #: 9A PREPARED BY: DANETTE M. PARR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8~ NATURAL RESOURCES DIRECTOR PRESENTER: DANETTE M. PARR AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1102.1103 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION: Introduction In response to concerns related to economic development and having limited locations to accommodate restaurants which may want to serve alcohol, the Council directed staff to review Section 1102.1103 of the City Code and prepare amendments for consideration by the Planning Commission. The C-2 District is located in six areas throughout the City and collectively is approximately 149 acres (map attached). Areas zoned C-2 include: Crossroads (Commerce / TH 13), Boudins (Boudins Ave / TH13), Gateway (TH 13 / CR 44/ Franklin Trail), Wilds (CR 83 / CR 42), Fountain Hills Business Park (Pike Lake Trail/ CR 42), South Lake Village area (Park Nicollet Ave/TH 13), and Deerfield (CR 21 /Revere Way). Section 1102.1100 of the Zoning Ordinance regulates C-2 land uses as permitted uses, uses permitted with conditions, and uses permitted by a Conditional Use Permit. In the case of restaurants, clubs, and lodges with liquor, they are permitted by a Conditional Use Permit and regulated with the following conditions: Section 1102.1103(5) Restaurants and Clubs and Lodges with Liquor. Conditions: a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an "R" Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. C:IDocuments and Settings\cgreenlMy Docwnentsl5harePoint DraftslC2 Ordinance Amendment CC Report.docC:\Documents and Settings\cgreen\My Documents\SharePomt Drafts\C2 Ordinance Amendment CC Report.doc d. A bufferyard, as determined by subsection 1107.2003, shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property in an "R" Use District. The C-2 (General Business) Zoning District is the largest commercial district in Prior Lake. For that reason, when a prospective business looks to locate in the City, the subject site commonly involves property in the C-2 District. Approximately 97 of the total 149 acres of the C-2 District have parcels within 100 feet of residentially zoned property, which can create challenges in relation to locating restaurants that may serve liquor. History On September 27, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the possibility of amending Section 1102.1103 related to requirements for restaurants, clubs, and lodges serving liquor, that are within 100 feet of residential areas. At the public hearing, citizens raised various concerns in relation to the proposed amendment (September 27th minutes attached). Some of the concerns included the following: • Negative impacts of having alcohol in proximity to children. • Noise and low frequency vibrations in adjacent residential structures. • Smoking taking place outside by patrons. • Desire to see the 100 ft setback maintained or increased. • Belief that there would be an increase in crime activity in correlation to alcohol. • Inadequate buffering/screening adjacent to low density residential housing. • Limited restaurant locations where alcohol could be served in the C- 2District. • Need to address all impacts that may be created as a result of an amendment. After the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed the proposed text amendment, it was determined that additional consideration was necessary and that the topic would benefit from a work session. A work session was held on October 11, 2010. The City Council attended the work session as well and discussed the following areas related to the C-2 Zoning District: • Noise generators • Buffering/screening requirements • Hours of alcohol service • Liquor license requirements • Rationale related to the 100 foot setback • Neighborhood concerns • Economic development concerns On October 25, 2010 the Planning Commission held an additional public hearing related to the Ordinance Amendment. The public hearing reviewed many of the concerns conveyed as a part of the September 27th public hearing. After a lengthy discussion (draft minutes attached), the Planning Commission ultimately recommended denial of the Ordinance Amendment 2 (3-2), stating that they could not reach a consensus on what the required setback should be. The Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) had representatives who spoke at the public hearing and stated support for the amendment. Current Circumstances Under current regulations, if a prospective restaurant, club, or lodge serves liquor and is located in the C-2 District of the City, the establishment must comply with the following: 1. Must meet all Zoning Code requirements, including the conditions detailed in Section 1102.1103(5) of the City Code (detailed later as a part of this report). 2. Must have a Conditional Use Permit granted for the use and be able to meet any additional conditions the Planning Commission finds appropriate (and City Council in cases of appeals). 3. Must be located over 300 feet from a church or school (MN State Statute requirement that applies to establishments that sell liquor in all Zoning Districts); 4. Must have a liquor license granted by the City Council (the Council may also place additional conditions as part of granting the liquor license). Section 1102.1100 of the Zoning Ordinance regulates C-2 land uses as permitted uses, uses permitted with conditions, and uses permitted by a Conditional Use Permit. In the case of restaurants, clubs, and lodges with liquor, they are permitted by a Conditional Use Permit and regulated with the following conditions: Section 1102.1103(5) Restaurants and Clubs and Lodges with Liquor. Conditions: a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a co/lector or otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an "R" Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard, as determined by subsection 1107.2003, shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property in an "R" Use District. As with any proposed ordinance amendment, staff reviews the various aspects of the proposal and any anticipated impacts that could result in response to the amended language. In consideration of the amendment, staff has evaluated the various aspects of the proposal and considered areas that may need additional mitigation to limit their impacts on the adjacent 3 residential areas. The City Council will ultimately need to determine if there are any aspects which they believe cannot be adequately mitigated. Some of the contemplated aspects include the following: Hours: After contacting numerous bars and restaurant chains that contain a bar component, it is clear that an important aspect of their success and where they choose to locate is based on their ability to serve alcohol most commonly until the early hours of the morning. For that reason, staff believes that one of the most effective ways to mitigate concerns often associated with bar uses is by limiting the hours that alcohol can be served. Staff believes that limiting the hours of alcohol service from lam to 10pm on Sunday through Thursday and from lam to 11 pm on Friday, Saturday, and legal holidays will discourage bar type uses and instead provide locations for restaurants that serve alcohol as a limited and secondary component of their business. The planning commission discussed the possibility of amending lam to 10am. There are restaurant establishments that serve a brunch menu with liquor before gam and often in conjunction with special sporting event "tailgating" or following early church services. Where the setback /separation is measured from: As was discussed at the work session, the previously established 100 foot setback from the building housing the use and that of residential areas may not be adequate in all cases to mitigate anticipated impacts. For that reason, staff believes it may be more appropriate to evaluate this on an individual site basis and allow for screening/buffering, limitations on hours, site layout (in cases of new construction), and other site specific conditions as necessary to mitigate anticipated impacts. In cases where the approved conditions could not be met, the proposed use would not be allowed to locate at the proposed site with alcohol as an aspect of the restaurant. Buffering /screening: Staff is proposing a condition to the proposed amendment that would require the CUP applicant install a Bufferyard E (the most intensive bufferyard provided in the Code) when the restaurant (serving alcohol) is adjacent to the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. In addition, the Planning Commission may also require an increased bufferyard as a part of the CUP process (and City Council if it's appealed). • Liquor license: Three categories of liquor licenses can be granted by the City Council: 1) Full liquor license, 2) Wine license (3:2 beer is included with wine), and 3) Malt (beer) liquor license. In addition, the City Council may choose to put additional conditions on the liquor license, such as hours of service. • Delivery: Hours and location of delivery should be evaluated with each site and addressed as a part of the CUP. • Garbage /refuse pick-up: Early or late in the day hours of garbage pick-up can have a negative impact on adjacent land uses. For that reason, Subsection 601.305 of the Ordinance limits times of garbage and refuse collection. To provide further clarity and consistency, staff is proposing to also add the hours of garbage /refuse pickup as an 4 ordinance amendment condition, limiting the hours from lam to 7 pm Monday through Saturday and 9 am to 12 noon on Sunday. Outdoor smoking: Currently, Minnesota law does not outright prohibit people from smoking, but instead has limited restrictions related to smoking in public places. However, these restrictions only apply to very limited situations when the smoking is taking place inside or near the entrance to the establishment. For that reason, staff is challenged by how to adequately address citizens concerns related to patrons smoking outside the proposed establishment. The outdoor smoking concern exists in the case of alcohol being served by a restaurant or not. Outdoor seating: Currently, outdoor seating is allowed as an accessory use in the C-2 District, provided a list of conditions detailed in Section 1102.1104 can be met. If alcohol is proposed to be served in an outdoor area, it is only allowed on a limited basis when the conditions can be met and if the City Council agrees to include the outdoor area as part of the premises covered by the liquor license. The subject text amendment does not propose changes to Section 1102.1104 related to outdoor seating. If the City Council wishes to add additional conditions or change the language related to outdoor seating, such as specifying a setback from residential areas, the Council should direct staff to have the Planning Commission hold a public hearing related to outdoor seating and bring it back to the Council for consideration. Since the public hearing and work session, staff has further reviewed Section 1102.1103 of the City Ordinance and recommends the Council consider the following ordinance amendment changes (the language below that is proposed to be removed is shown with a strikethrough and the areas proposed to be added are underlined): 1102.1103 Uses Permitted By Conditional Use Permit. No structure or land in a "C-2" General Business Use District shall be used for the following uses except by Conditional Use Permit. These uses shall comply with the Commercial Performance Standards of Subsection 1102.1300, the requirements of all the general conditions provided in Subsections 1108.202 through 1108.204, with the specific conditions imposed in this Subsection and with any other conditions the Planning Commission, or City Council in the case of an appeal, may impose that are intended to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of t#e C~ residents and to maintain the characteristics of a neighborhood. (5) Restaurants and Clubs and Lodges with Liquor. Conditions: a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. 5 -TiTh~C--dG~tti~ hni ~e~irvr +hn i ~n.7c~tlQti~-CC-fCC7GC°ca-G 'T ' '~~1~"f Vr s. b. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. ~.c. A bufferyard, as determined by subsection 1107.2003, shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property in an "R" Use District. d. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an "R" Use District, unless all of the following conditions are met: Liquor shall only be served from the hours of 7 am to 10 pm on Sunday through Thursday and from 7 am to 11 pm on Friday, Saturday, and holidays. r Garbage and refuse collection shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 7pm Monday through Saturday and 9 am to 12 noon on Sunday, as specified in subsection 601.305. Customer entrances to the restaurant shall be through a vestibule area with an inside and outside door. Y A Buffervard E shall be installed and maintained along any property adjacent to the R-1 Zoning District (excluding R-1 properties located across major collector and arterial roadways). Additional screening material (example: additional quantity and increased size of coniferous trees), berming, and a solid fence or wall may be required where additional screening is found necessary as part of the Conditional Use Permit No outdoor amplified music or public address system is permitted. As was discussed at the October 11th work session, the City Council cannot be arbitrary when imposing conditions on the use. The conditions must relate to a potential harm that the condition is seeking to mitigate. The City Council will want to state the rationale for any additional conditions that are added as a part of the text amendment. Findings should be included as a part of the amended language. Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states that recommendations of the Planning Commission and final determinations of the City Council shall be supported by findings addressing the relationship of the proposed amendment to the following policies: 6 1. There is a public need for the amendment. There is a public need for the amendment. The proposed amendment would create economic development opportunities while also protecting adjacent residential areas. 2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the City. Objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan include: • Encourage a diversified economic base and broad range of employment opportunities. • Promote sound land use; and • Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to ensure the public safety, health, and welfare. Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance include: • Provide for compatibility of different land uses by segregating, controlling, and regulating unavoidable nuisance producing uses. • Maintain a tax base necessary to promote the economic welfare of the City by insuring optimum values for property in the City. The proposed amendment strives to accomplish these objectives and purposes by strengthening the existing ordinance, and by providing incentives and alternative methods for development of establishment which serve liquor. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. This amendment is consistent with federal and state laws. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Conclusion As the City of Prior Lake has continued to grow, so have citizen's requests for the City to actively work to attract local restaurants that community members can frequent. In addition, prospective business owners have approached the City wanting to locate restaurants in Prior Lake, but have found it challenging to find a location that will also allow them to serve alcohol as a restaurant offering. In order to encourage an expansion of local restaurant offerings for citizens, while also supporting economic development, an ordinance amendment may be appropriate. However, it's important that any contemplated ordinance be responsive to adjacent land uses, while providing a balance between commercial and residential uses. Staff continues to believe that an important aspect of creating that balance involves limiting hours of operation for restaurants that serve alcohol and are located in proximity to residential areas. ISSUES: The City Council may choose to include additional conditions as a part of the subject amendment. Some of the conditions the City Council may choose to consider include the following: 7 • Modifications to the 100 foot separation/setback language. • Modifications as to where the setback is measured from. • Additional screening material (size, species, and quantity), installation of berming, fencing/walls. • Increased limitations on hours. FINANCIAL If approved, the Ordinance Amendment would allow for increased IMPACT: economic development, which would facilitate a more diverse tax base and job creation. However, in some cases there may be a cost associated with the need for additional staff time to respond to concerns or provide increased enforcement to assure that the restaurant, clubs, and lodges are complying with their Conditional Use Permit and liquor license. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Ordinance Amendment as proposed, or with changes as specified. 2. Deny the proposed amendment. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for a specific purpose. RECOMMENDED The staff recommends Alternative #1. MOTION: Re ie ed Frank yl ity Manager 8 0~ PRIOR ~ ~ ti u x ~~MVESO'tP' ORDINANCE NO. 10-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1102.1103 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, The health, safety and welfare of City residents, businesses and the public is promoted and protected by sound land use regulations; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to provide compatibility between different land uses by segregating, controlling, and regulating uses and conditions on uses within zoning districts to mitigate, to the extent feasible, the impact of various; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the City's 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan is a document developed through the collaboration of Residents, Businesses, Civic Organizations, the School District, other Governmental Entities, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, the City Council and City Staff that sets out 10 Areas of Strategic Emphasis (Vision Elements); and WHEREAS, The City Council finds the regulation of land uses to assure for the expansion and diversity of the business tax base, as well as removing obstacles to economic development are important goals as a part of the Economic Development Vision Element; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted two public hearings on the proposed amendment to allow restaurants in the C-2 Zoning District to sell alcohol with a Conditional Use Permit, subject to a valid liquor license issued by the City Council; and WHEREAS, The City Council conducted a work session to consider allowing restaurants to serve alcohol with a Conditional Use Permit and the types of conditions to require in the CUP to protect adjacent residential uses; including but not limited to restricting hours when alcohol may be served; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds all property to a certain degree is unique and the conditions provided for in proposed City Code Section 1102.1103 (5) a-d may require site specific conditions to mitigate, to the extent feasible, any conflict between the restaurant with alcohol use and a residential use; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds the Planning Commission conducts a public hearing on all applications for Conditional Use Permits and that based on testimony it hears and reliable evidence in the record it may impose reasonable conditions, in additions to those set out in City Code Section 1102.1103 (5) a-d, on the approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and www. cityofpriorlake . com Phone 952.447.9800 /Fax 952.447.4245 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE WHEREAS, The City Council finds the Planning Commission, and the City Council in the case of an appeal, is in the best position to develop conditions for individual applications for a Conditional Use Permit that reflect the relationship of the proposed restaurant with alcohol use to adjacent residentially zoned properties; including any unique property characteristics; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that there are five areas within the City zoned C-2 where a restaurant that serves alcohol is presently not permitted because of the required 100 foot separation from a residentially zoned property and that without this amendment it will be difficult to identify locations where a restaurant that wants to serve alcohol can locate; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that residents living in Prior Lake desire additional restaurant options; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that individuals considering locating a restaurant business in Prior Lake require the ability for a restaurant to serve alcohol because the revenue from the sale of alcohol has a positive impact on the economic viability of the already difficult restaurant business; and WHEREAS, The City Council desires to attract more restaurants to the City and at the same time balance the concerns voiced by property owners at the public hearings on this consequences of the proposed ordinance amendment. WHEREAS, The amendment is consistent with federal and state laws, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN THE FOLLOWING: Section 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. Section 1102.1103 is hereby amended as follows: 1102.1103 Uses Permitted By Conditional Use Permit. No structure or land in a "C-2" General Business Use District shall be used for the following uses except by Conditional Use Permit. These uses shall comply with the Commercial Performance Standards of Subsection 1102.1300, the requirements of all the general conditions provided in Subsections 1108.202 through 1108.204, with the specific conditions imposed in this Subsection and with any other conditions the Planning Commission, or City Council in the case of an appeal, may impose that are intended to promote and protect the up blic health, safety, and welfare of taae C~ residents ~~t",,.i -~ho~y and to maintain the characteristics of a neighborhood... (5) Restaurants and Clubs and Lodges with Liquor. Conditions: a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. 2 Thc~plh~~~~~r~n~th~pcc c~hnll hn Innn}off .. minimum of '1(1!1 fnn} frnm nrw nrnnnr}v Inns}orl in nn ~~~~~ I Ian flit}rin4 E.b. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d.c. A buffer_yard, as determined by subsection 1107.2003, shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property in an "R" Use District. d. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an "R" Use District, unless all of the following conditions are met: Y Liquor shall only be served from the hours of 7 am to 10 pm on Sunday through Thursday and from 7 am to 11 pm on Friday, Saturday, and holidays. y Garbage and refuse collection shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 7pm Monday through Saturday and 9 am to 12 noon on Sunday, as specified in subsection 601.305. y Customer entrances to the restaurant shall be through a vestibule area with an inside and outside door. y A Buffer yard E shall be installed and maintained along any propert adjacent to the R-1 Zoning District (excluding R-1 properties located across major collector and arterial roadways). Additional screening material (example: additional quantity and increased size of coniferous trees), berming, and a solid fence or wall may be required where additional screening is found necessary as part of the Conditional Use Permit No outdoor amplified music or public address system is permitted. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 15th day of November, 2010. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of November, 2010. Drafted By: Prior Lake Community Development & Natural Resources Department 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Call to Order: Chairman Ringstad called the September 27, 2010, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m Those present were Commissioners Ringstad, Perez, Billington and Howley, Community Development Natural Resources Director Danette Parr and Development Services Assistant Joe Sortland. Commissioners Fleming was absent. 2. Approval of Minutes: Howley proposed a correction to the Minutes: scratch Howley's statement "in an easement, or buffers should be" and "The city should consider using combination easements for stormwater management" on page two of the September 13, 2010 Minutes. The Minutes from the September 13, 2010, Planning Commission meeting were approved with the proposed correction. 3. Public Hearing: A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1102.1103(5) OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TO RESTAURANTS AND CLUBS AND LODGES WITH LIQUOR IN THE "C-2" (GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT). CDNR Director Danette Parr presented the request to allow an amendment to Section 1102.1103(5). To accommodate restaurants and put them at an economic advantage, the city has been approached multiple times over several years by business owners requesting that the C-2 alcoholic beverages rules be reconsidered. Questions by the Commissioners: Billington asked what the impact would be if the measurement was changed from 100' to any point on the property line or the property line. Parr answered that staff reviewed the setback requirement and the results of reducing it. She stated that some cities got rid of the 100' setback, but others have kept it. Changing the setback to make it less, or to measure it from the parking lot or the entrance of the business, would allow for more economic development. Billington asked if it would be more generous for the developer or property owner if the measurement began from the property line. Parr answered that measuring from the property line, as opposed to the building, would be a larger hindrance. Amore generous amendment would be a reduction of the 100' or measuring from the noise generator, such as the parking lot of the entrance of the building. Currently, it is measured from the building to the closest Residential-use property line. Howley asked if the 300' State statute is measured from the building or property line http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission min 2.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 Parr answered that it is ambiguous, but it is typically done from the building to the property line. Howley asked if there would have to be 100' from The Cove building to the nearest Residential-use property line, if they were to apply for a conditional use permit for liquor. Parr answered that she believed the Cove is legal nonconforming. Billington asked how stringent the City is when determining the landscape bufferyard along adjacent properties. Parr answered that the bufferyard is a city zoning requirement based on the adjacent land uses. For a Residential-use adjacent to commercial, the commercial use would be responsible for installing the landscape buffer. Parr stated that when a CUP is being proposed, the minimum standards are typically exceeded by the developer when it is adjacent to ahigher-intense use. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Ringstad, Perez and Howley. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began at 6:37 p.m. Comments from the Public: Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Ave, expressed her concern with the proposed amendment. They originally had a church in the Boudins neighborhood and she is hesitant that an establishment that serves alcohol could be located in the neighborhood. She stated that there is an alcohol problem in Scott County, and that Scott County is attempting to limit its alcohol use. Children have bus-stops and playgrounds in the neighborhood. Bars will have people smoking outside due to the State smoking ordinances. She stated that ordinances currently exist to protect the adjacent neighborhoods. She expressed concern that it will be difficult to properly regulate the ordinance if it is amended. She requested that the zoning ordinance amendment be denied. Phyllis Broz, 4478 Pondview Trl SE, stated that the 300' state statute for churches and schools should be applied to residential homes because the churches and schools do not have to spend the night at their establishment. She believes that 100' is not a very long distance, and that it is easy to hear the noise of the neighbors when the windows are open in the summer. She stated that sometimes she can hear the noise from The Basement, across the highway. Sandee Wright, 14300 Timothy Ave, stated that she is located across the street from the new Crossroads development. She thanked staff for notifying the residents. She stated that people are busy and that notices that are published in the Prior Lake American are often missed by the standard reader. Wright stated that when the Kwik Trip was originally proposed, a CUP was going to be written to protect the neighborhood. However, the developer pulled the project and constructed the Crossroads, which did not require a CUP. Wright stated that on September 27, 2010 she was sitting in her walk-out basement, and she heard a noise on the other side of the Crossroad building. She walked outside and could hear two people talking, but she was not certain because she could not see what was on the other side of the Crossroads building. She stated that the building does not prevent noise, and that a building does not protect her children from noise while they sleep at night. Wright stated that ordinances should not be amended for commercial sites unless standards to protect the adjacent residential are increased. She stated that she wakes up at 5:30AM due to a http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November I5, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission min 2.doc 2, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 commercial garbage truck. Wright stated that HVAC units on the Crossroads are disruptive at night. Wright stated that her family would have to pay money to have a sound test performed by a sound expert to prove that low-frequency sound issues exist in her home. Wright stated that tenants moving into the Crossroads have been disruptive, and that interior work in the Crossroads is also disruptive. Wright recommended that the 100' setback be increased, or adopt Savage's liquor 500' required setback. She stated that other cities don't shoehorn Commercial uses adjacent to Residential uses. She stated that her quality of life, the value of her home and their peace has been damaged. Wright does not support the 7AM start time for serving liquor on Saturday and Sunday. She stated that they were not able to rest while the Crossroads was under construction. She stated that dust was disruptive during the construction of Crossroads. Wright does not approve of the 11 PM end time on the weekends. Wright stated that the developer of Crossroads knows that the existing liquor ordinance exists. She stated that residents were told that due to the 100' setback would prevent any proposed tenants from serving alcohol. She said that future developers should be responsible for creating the setback, and that the developer should have to buy all of the homes. Wright agreed with Maureen Hermann's issues with the C-2. She says that workers also are taking smoke breaks on the backside of the Crossroads. She stated that there are deliveries to the back of the store when the front is busy. Wright stated that she also has concerns regarding the parking situation. She stated that restaurants will overflow the parking lot at Crossroads onto Timothy Ave. She stated that restaurants typically do not even wind down until 11 PM, and that they will disrupt the peace of the neighborhood. Wright stated that the increase in liquor stores increases the number of aggravated assaults and other violent crimes. She stated that restaurants which serve alcohol also increase the number of aggravated assault and the amount of alcoholic use of youth in the community. Wright said other cities have adopted a method of determining where establishments that serve alcohol should be located, based on the density of alcoholic establishments. Wright stated that the bufferyard between her house and Crossroads is not adequate. She said that noise will come with restaurants. Wright requested that the noise ordinance be amended to address low-frequency vibration, boom boxes and open pipe exhaust systems. Linda Pelzl, 4486 Pondview Trl SE, stated that the she and her husband moved to Prior Lake because it is a family environment. Pelzl is concerned the smokers will step outside and smoke. She was also concerned that alight-wine establishment will eventually want to escalate their beverage offerings to include hard liquor. Lee Smith, 14538 Lois Ave, stated that ordinance for buffers located in between residential and commercial was eliminated. He expressed concerns that a residential neighborhood will not be guaranteed to retain their residential nature. Smith stated that it is difficult to put faith in the city ordinances when they may be amended to accommodate a developer's project. Richard Pyle, 6285 170th St, stated he agrees with the proposed amendment. He has lived in the community for thirty-six years and raised his family here. His daughter is a chef and they have tried to find a location where his daughter can start a business in Prior Lake, but they have been looking for three years without success. He has found that there is no place with a C-2 zone where they can put their preferred business. He stated that food establishments require the sale of alcohol to make a profit. Pyle stated there is no place to have breakfast in Prior Lake. Every potential location for a restaurant in the Prior Lake has been within 100' of residential. He said that they would like to bring a restaurant to Prior Lake rather than going elsewhere, but they are prohibited as a result of the current zoning ordinance. http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission min 2.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 Bruce Becksted, 16090 St Paul Ave, stated that he doesn't believe the ordinance needs to be changed, as it has been working well for a number of years. Becksted stated that the ordinance change is being amended to benefit the developers at the cost of the residents. Lee Smith, 14538 Lois Ave, stated that a sliding scale of buffer zones based on the proposed use should be considered, so that it doesn't burden all of the businesses. Lee stated that R-1 is supposed to be the best use of the land for residential purposes, and it should have the largest buffer. Michael Wright, 14300 Timothy Ave, stated that he believes the State 300' liquor buffer for churches and schools is never amended because it would upset too many people. He said that residents can't fight with the same power that a church and school can. Wright stated that the ordinance amendment doesn't specify the source of the noise. Wright stated that the HVAC unit at the Crossroads has been an issue. Wright stated the City doesn't require the placement of the HVAC per City code. The Wrights stated that they have a difficult time not being disturbed while sleeping. He said it will worsen if the hours are extended to 7AM five days a week. Wright suggested keeping the procedure a Conditional Use Permit, but creating measurements so that it will not "fall through the cracks". He suggested that the City address the harm this ordinance amendment will cause people. Wright stated that it is not ethical to benefit everyone at the expense of a few people. Sandee Wright, 14300 Timothy Ave, stated that the amendment does not address the outdoor noise. She said that there will be more noise if outdoor events are allowed. She said that the HVAC unit on the Crossroad building has been disturbing their household. She asked how businesses would prevent customers and workers from exiting out the back door. She asked if private parties will be allowed. Wright asked if more stringent noise ordinances will be created due to the amended ordinance. Kevin Busse, 5101 160th St, requested that the City review the different neighborhoods individually, since they are unique and different. He stated that on 160th Street people go to the car wash, and they play the music loudly as they use the vacuum cleaner. He stated that family restaurants would not create problems, but a restaurant or bar like Hooters could. He said that the City should look at what types of restaurants and bars shouldn't be allowed next to neighborhoods. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PEREZ AND SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Perez, Billington and Howley. The motion carried. The public hearing closed at 7:28 p.m. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Howley stated he is inclined to not support the ordinance amendment as it is currently written. He agreed that each neighborhood is different, and is concerned that if all the conditions are met, the conditional use request must be approved. He thought that the location of the building/noise creator, should be revised to protect the residents. He stated that the 300' state statute might be more appropriate. Additional conditions could be added to serve the best interests of the community. Not every site is the same, and it should be treated as such. He stated that sliding scales may be worth considering. Billington said he is in favor of a better definition of what is acceptable in a given location. He thought that 100' is too close, and that 300' would be more appropriate, to provide for a better buffer to the adjacent residents. The number of trees in the buffer has been appropriate. The buffer needs to be http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission min 2.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 enforced stringently. He said that 100' is too close and that it should at least be 300', but can support the other conditions presented by staff. Perez said that he is not in favor of increasing the buffer to 300'. He said that economic development is important to the city, but the cost of doing so should be determined. He said that a lesser standard in the city ordinance would not ensure public safety and welfare. Perez said he would be willing explore amending the ordinance if it addressed different areas in the city, but he will not support the amendment as written. Ringstad stated that application is not for lowering the drinking age or changing the hours of a specific bar or tavern. He said that smoking issue is irrelevant, and that you can't control when someone smokes. Chain restaurants obtain a liquor license that allows them to serve until 1AM. The proposed ordinance amendment would not be attracting any chain restaurants due to the limited hours. He thanked Mr. Pile for his comments and for sharing his side. Ringstad said it is unfortunate that Mr. Pile cannot find a location. He acknowledged that his fellow commissioners were apprehensive to vote on the amendment, and that the ordinance amendment may be sent back to staff for it to be revisited. Perez pointed out that the City Council directed staff to pursue this ordinance amendment. Ringstad said that the June 7, 2010 City Council minutes did request staff to look at amending the ordinance. He said that City Council member Rick Keeney is in the audience tonight. Ringstad acknowledged that staff had done a lot of work, but that the planning commissioners are not ready to vote. Perez stated that they are making a recommendation to the City Council. Howley recommended that the ordinance amendment be tabled. He asked Parr if they have to do a workshop or if staff will handle it internally. Howley requested that the ordinance amendment be tabled instead of denied. Billington said that there should be something more definitive for the council, as the ordinance will come back. Billington asked what the appropriate date would be. Parr answered that October 11th, 2010 can be ready. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO TABLE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO OCTOBER 11, 2010. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Billington, Howley and Perez. The motion passed unanimously. Ringstad asked what the public hearing standing of the October 11 meeting would be. Parr said that the public is welcome to hear, and that the public hearing had closed. Ringstad invited the public back and encouraged them to share new comments but to not reiterate. Parr said that staff would republish the hearing. Ringstad asked republishing would affect the October 11th Planning Commission meeting. Parr said that they would revisit it on the October 25th, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission min 2.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 Perez asked if there should be discussion with the City Council. Keeney, City Council liaison, asked what method should be utilized. Ringstad said that they would appreciate some more feedback from the City Council. Keeney said that there are locations that are artificially limited by the ordinance amendment, and that reviewing this code would help, which is what generated the ordinance amendment request. He said that businesses attempting to find a location for their business and protecting the residential neighborhoods is what prompted the review of the code. Ringstad acknowledged that the ordinance may not be ready yet. Keeney said that if the Planning Commission can find a recommendation for what should be done, that would not be harmful to the residential, or if there are no suggestions. Ringstad thanked Keeney for his guidance. 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business: None 6. Announcements and Correspondence: Parr stated there will be no publishing for the October 11th meeting. Ringstad asked if there will be a meeting given that October 11th is Columbus Day. Parr answered that the work session will not be affected by Columbus Day. Parr asked if it should be a standard meeting or a work session. Howley, Billington, Perez and Ringstad said that a work session would be appropriate. 7. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Joe Sortland, Development Services Assistant http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission min 2.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2010 1. Call to Order: Chairman Ringstad called the October 25, 2010, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Ringstad, Perez, Billington, Fleming and Howley, Community Development & Natural Resources Director Danette Parr, Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Services Assistant Joe Sortland. 2. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the September 27, 2010, Planning Commissiori rrleeting were approved as presented. 3. Public Hearing: A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1102.1103 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TO RESTAURANTS AND CLUBS AND LODGES WITH LIQUOR IN THE "C-2" (GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT). CDNR Director Danette Parr presented the request to allow amended language for Section 1102.1103 of the Zoning Ordinance. To accommodate restaurants and assist with economic development, staff was directed by the City Council, after being approached over several years by business owners, to review the C-2 ordinance and consider amending the ordinance related to serving alcoholic beverages. On September 27, 2010 the'Planning Commission held a public fiearing for the ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to hold a work session on October 11, 2010 to discuss the proposed ordinance amendment and to table the proposed ordinance amendment to October 25, 2010. The Planning Commission had a work session on October 11, 2010 and the majority of the City Council attended as well. Questions by the Commissioners: Howley asked what the Bufferyard E consisted of Parr answered that BufferyardE'is the most intensive bufferyard and consists of a mixture of vegetation (canopy trees, coniferous trees, and bushes-can also have fencing in some cases). The intensity varies depending on the adjacent use, the width of the separation, and the type of buffering installed. Billington asked if it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to set up standards that reach beyond the Bufferyard E standards if warranted. Parr answered that the Planning Commission can determine if larger buffers are necessary. Billington asked how a setback of 200' or 300' for establishments adjacent to residential uses would affect development in the C-2 zone district. http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25. 2010 Parr answered that increasing the setback would limit more businesses wishing to serve alcohol Billington asked if the City has a quantifiable number of the properties affected by an increase in the required buffer. Parr presented the 100' buffer setback map for C-2 zoning districts and answered that an accurate number of the properties that would be affected by a setback increase to 200' or 300' was not available since a number of these areas are not developed at this time. Sergeant Tom Kahlert was presented to answer questions regarding businesses serving alcohol. Ringstad asked what the Prior Lake Police Department has experienced in regards to police calls related to serving hours at establishments that serve alcohol. Sergeant Kahlert answered that the majority of the incidents typically occur during,closing hours around 2AM, but that establishments with limited business hours do not create many problems. Ringstad asked Sergeant Kahlert if the Police Department has observed any correlation between the number of incidents reported and the type of liquor license the establishment has been granted. Sergeant Kahlert answered that the number of incidents are typically related to establishments open until 2AM, with the exception of The Cove. Ringstad and Parr clarified that The Cove has a wine and beer license. Ringstad asked if the Prior Lake Police Department has received noise complaints from residents living adjacent to businesses: Sergeant Kahlert asked Ringstad to clarify. Ringstad explained that the proposed ordinance amendment is attempting to find a balance between restaurant hours of operation and types of licenses allowed. Ringstad asked Sergeant Kahlert if he sees them as'reasonable conditions to protect the neighborhood. Sergeanf Kalhert answered that there is an establishment on the lake near residents which has experienced a number of incidents and that he believed limited hours of operation would alleviate the number of reported incidents. Fleming asked if he Police Department has received calls related to alcohol at establishments which serve alcohol around 7AM or SAM. Sergeant Kahlert answered that he is not aware of that. A MOTION WAS MADE BY FLEMING AND SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Ringstad, Perez, Fleming and Howley. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began at 6:30 p.m. Comments from the Public: http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Linda Pelzl, 4486 Pondview Trl SE stated that the State of Minnesota has a required 300' setback for establishments that serve alcohol from churches and schools and asked why there is not a 300' setback for residential homes, as they have to live at the residence overnight. Parr answered that the State was contacted to determine why the 300' setback exists and staff was informed that it's a longstanding rule and likely was originally meant for safety reasons. Parr added that this requirement does not apply to daycare establishments. Pelzl stated that she understands that an increased setback would hinderahe'fiumber of businesses and finds it odd that the State would have a setback for churches and schools but not residents. Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Ave, asked Sergeant Kahlert if Captain Jacks ever gets calls during the day. Sergeant Kahlert answered there has been occasions when a delivery vehicle was making noise. He was not aware of any complaints about patrons. He said that the majority of the complaints are during the late night hours. Hermann stated that there is a business located behind her name and that garbage pickup often takes place during late hours, such as 3AM and 4AM. She stated that no recourse occurs when they complain. Ringstad clarified with Parr that there are restrictions-in regards to garbage pickup. Parr answered that residential and business garf~age pickup is;limited to 7AM to 7PM on weekdays and Saturday, and 9AM to noon on Sunday. She asked Hermann if she has called to report the late night garbage pickup. Hermann answered that they have called and that noftling has been done. She asked what will happen if the conditions of approval are not followed by the business. She asked if the liquor license could be revoked or if fines will be enforced. Parr answered that the City has the ability to revoke a Conditional Use Permit if it does not comply with the conditions of approval. The liquor licenses are reviewed on an annual basis and that repercussions can occur>if conditions are ignored. Hermann asked if there could be a law where if a business incurs a number of infractions it can lose its liquor license. Parr answered that in conversations with the City Attorney, it was indicated that specific requirements could be created in relation o a set number of violations. Parr cited a store in the City that was illegally selling tobacco to underage customers. After a number of infractions the business lost their license to sell tobacco and the business closed. Ringstad stated that he agreed with Hermann's suggestion that establishments which do not comply with the conditions of approval should lose their liquor license after a number of infractions. Hermann asked if there is other land in Prior Lake for restaurants and bars to be constructed on. Parr answered that the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan details where the current and future commercial land is to be located. Some of the commercial areas are currently not developed. http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Matzke answered that many of the developments are driven by high traffic counts as well as existing utilities. Outside areas, on vacant land, can cost more to develop due to the required infrastructure costs associated with them. Hermann stated that the residential land values are lowering as a result of the development. Matzke answered that businesses don't succeed without residents nearby and that the City ordinance are in place to protect the residents. Jeff Phelan, 14271 Timothy Ave NE, stated that many of the Boudin neighborhood residents' fears regarding the Crossroads development have been realized. He said that;there have already been violations and that they don't seem to be enforced. He said that the setback. of 100' is not sufficient. Phelan stated that opening a business should not have to be at the expense' of the neighbors and requested that the Planning Commission deny the proposed ordinance amendment. David Fawcett, 6811 Boudin St NE, stated that his townhome building is within 100' of the Crossroads. Fawcett said that on October 25, 2010 a truck couldn'`f`make the turn into<the Crossroads parking lot, and went into his parking lot, went around the townhome driveway and nearby a school bus stop. He said that his fears of the Crossroads development have been proven correct.' He said that snow plow trucks clearing the Crossroads development will also"be disruptive. He says that there are numerous places in Prior Lake where he can have a drink. He asked if the City is pursuing revenue at the cost of the residents. Leland Smith, 14358 Lois Ave NE, said that one of the'2030 Prior Lake Vsion Plan's goals is to replace the Boudin neighborhood homes. He suggested the houses ofthe Boudin neighborhood are going to be taken. He stated that the system favors the businesses instead of the residents. Deno Howard, 15351 Schroeder Cir NE, Chairman for the EDAC, stated that the goal of the EDAC is to attract businesses, keep businesses in Prior Lake and make it a better place to live and work. One business the EDAC interviewed went out of business asa result of the C-2 ordinance. The EDAC also interviewed another business that wants ~o come here but cannot due to the current provisions. Howard said that the City is often criticized for being difficult due to the current ordinances, and this proposed ordinance amendment is an opportunity to fix that. A case by case option would at least give the proposed business the`opporturity to present their case. Howard stated that the progress that has occurred`r1 Prior Lake has'imptoved the City;`even if it did not personally benefit her. Terry Gutowski, 5426 Fairlawn Shores Trl SE, a member of the EDAC, stated that he owns a business. Gutowski stated that Prior Lake is a mixed use community, and it has been for a long time. He asked how you utilize the space for businesses to benefit both residents and businesses. He asked what the city needs as they go; hrough the 2030 Vision Plan, and said he would prefer to see Prior Lake capitalize on their opportunities. He doesn't think that 200' setback solves the problems anymore than a 100' setback will. He said that a vacant business/building or an empty lot is also not a benefit to the community. Mary Viereck, 14089 McKenna Rd NW, a member of the EDAC, stated that she has two businesses and they want to be good neighbors to the residents of the community. Being a good community is having a good business base. She stated that they want to attract new business and retain old ones. Sandee Wright, 14300 Timothy Ave NE, stated that the research she cited at the September 27 Planning Commission meeting was from the Science Daily published in February, 2010. She found another study stating that an increase in off-premise alcohol sale sites creates more aggravated http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 assaults. Violence associated with restaurants that serve alcohol was smaller but still significant. The density of two off-site liquor stores near the Boudin neighborhood, plus any additional restaurants, will harm not only the neighborhood but also the City. Wright stated that she too is a home-based business owner. She stated that she isn't irritated with change, but her experience in the process. She said when they bought their home the land use map said it was not going to be developed commercially. She said that their daily lives have been impacted by the Crossroads development. She said that workers stand outside the Crossroads and that they park on the back street of the establishment. Wright stated that the noise disturbs them when they try to sleep. Wright expressed concern about the 11 PM closing time. Wright said that the noise from Highway>13 and the children at the daycare disturb them. ' Wright requested that if a restaurant is proposed, that the noise ordinance be improved and that noise complaints be enforced more stringently. Fleming told Sandee Wright that the City has discussed many;of the issues and options that the Wrights have suggested to the City. He asked Wright if she knew the details of the scientific article. Wright answered that she did not have the article with her. Fleming stated that he will review the scientific article. Pat Wiese, 6830 Boudin St NE, stated that areas of development should be determined and designed on specific sites. She said that she didn't think that the Crossroads site is suitable for such uses. Ron Wiese, 6830 Boudin St NE, expressed concern about the Boudin Crossroads in regards to the proposed ordinance amendment. He said that the owners of the adjacent buildings are opposed to the ordinance amendment. He stated that he does not understand where the landscape buffers would be located on the adjacent site and that there is little roam for improvements. He said that when the Kwik Trip project pulled out, the developer did what they wanted. Wiese stated that no one in the Boudin neighborhood thinks the proposed ordinance amendment is a good idea. He said that there are twelve!homes on Timothy Avenue and that children live on it. He said they know employees aren't allowed to smoke inside, but it would not be appropriate to smoke in the back with kids iri the neighborhood. Wiese said that the daycare center is too close for liquor and beerto be served nearby.,. He stated that the 300' setback for schools is to protect children, and stated'that both schools and homes contain children. Wiese recommended the Planning Commission deny the proposed ordinance amendment. Dick Pyle'6285 170th St E, stated that he thinks that the Planning Commission is on the right track. He said that limiting the hours and types of licenses are good steps toward compromise. He stated that he believes the quality of the restaurants defines the quality of the community. Pyle stated that the economic conditions exist in Prior Lake to support quality restaurants. He thanked the Planning'Commission for the public hearing and listening to the concerns of the public. Pyle said there is opportunity to develop in Prior Lake, and he would still like to do that in the City. He stated that the facility and location, where the traffic will be an asset, is still not available. Pyle stated that compromise is needed between the residences and the businesses. Michael Wright, 14300 Timothy Ave NE stated that the hours of operation being proposed in the ordinance amendment are not reasonable and that it would be harmful to the general welfare of the residents. He stated that he believes another work session is necessary to see what is established as reasonable. Wright suggested that an economic scorecard be created to determine if a development will create enough economic benefits to compensate for any harm to the adjacent residential areas. http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Wright does not believe that Prior Lake has more rules than Savage. He stated he believes the challenges of development are due to geography rather than ordinances. Wright said that Savage has ordinances that control how many customers can be served in an establishment serving alcohol. He said that an economic scorecard to determine what the city is gaining for property tax and how much the residential property values are harmed should be implemented for all areas of the City. Wright stated that due to the successful businesses across Highway 13 from the Boudin neighborhood, the retail value of the Prior Lake businesses will benefit without harming the property values of the residents. Wright stated that when he moved to Prior Lake garbage collection was one day a week and now it us six or seven days a week. Wright said he would like to limit the trucK$ that pick up garbage and limit the hours of operation. ° Fleming asked Wright what the top three items of an economic scorecard would be. Wright answered financial, overall benefit, money gained to alleviate property tax for residents, buffer space and mitigating plans. Leland Smith, 14358 Lois Ave NE, asked about the t?ankrupt developer of Crossroads' and what happens to the escrow. Ringstad asked Parr if EFH has provided a letter of credit to protect the City for any required outstanding obligations. Parr answered that EFH filed for Chapter 11 and that a letter of credit is`in place should any obligated requirements not be completed. Ringstad asked if the second lift has been constructed. Parr answered that the second lift had been completed. Matzke answered that the letter of credit is also held for a warranty period, such as landscaping as well as engineering, utility and lift work. Sandee Wright, 143OU Timothy Ave NE. asked when the warranty period ends and if it could be used to replace any trees that have died. Matzke answered that the period is for at least one year. He said it could be used to replace any trees that have died. Matzke stated that the trees in the Crossroads landscape buffer have been inspected and they were found to be alive'but have lost their leaves due to the changing seasons, but that the landscaping will be re-inspected again in the spring. Wright stated that the trees died during the summer and that they are not dormant. She said that some orange fencing has been placed in the Crossroads development and that it is unattractive. She stated she believes it is to prevent pedestrian traffic between the Phelan home and the Crossroads building. Matzke answered that the fence could be for future snow retention. Wright said that the fence is for impeding traffic. http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November I5, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Ave NE, stated that she believed EFH was obligated to construct the sewer and water system after the completion of the road development. She asked if EFH's letter or credit would cover this obligation. Ringstad said that tonight was to discuss the proposed C-2 ordinance amendment. Hermann stated that liquor licenses are not granted to establishments that owe the City money. A MOTION WAS MADE BY FLEMING AND SECONDED BY PEREZ TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Perez, Billington, Fleming and Howley. The motion carried. The public hearing closed at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Fleming stated that the Planning Commission takes deliberations seriously and considers all options and implications. He believes that site specific criteria, in concept, appear to be a good Lvay to go. Fleming stated that the different treatment of neighborhoods would be difficult to implement. He asked if it would create a perception to developers if neighborhoods are treated differently. Fleming said that there are geographic areas in the City that don't work no matter what, due to the lack of good fit. He asked what numbers of conditions are needed to legitimize a request. Establishing criteria for one part of town and then another set of criteria for a`different neighborhood could prove to be troublesome. Fleming stated that an economic scorecard will never be;able to quantify the emotions of residents. Fleming didn't understand the reasoning for establishing a 7AM time for serving alcohol, if establishments were not going to be opening until 4PM. Perez stated that a month ago they were not at a point,where they could come to an agreement. Perez stated that reviewing requests on a site specific basis would be beneficial and appropriate for a conditional use permit. A public hearing and public comment would be allowed during the Planning Commission's consideration of a request. Perez stated that serving the welfare would be met with the site specific review. Perez stated that he will support the proposed ordinance amendment. Billington stated that the Planning Commission is attempting to perform a balancing act for what's in the best interest of the businesses and the quality of life for the residents. He stated that many of the issues voiced tonight and last month were discussed with the City Council. Billington said that site specific reviews would provide the Planning Commission the tools to have a strong overview of any requests in the C-2 district. Billington asked Parr in regards to subsection "5-D" of the proposed ordinance amendment: "the building housing the use hall'be 100' from residential use district, unless all of the conditions are adhered to", if the conditions are met, could an establishment move closer to the residential area. Parr answered that if an establishment could meet all of the conditions of approval, the required building setbacks and any additional conditions of approval the Planning Commission found appropriate, the establishment could be located closer to the residential area. Billington stated that he was not in favor of such a scenario. He requested that a 200' setback be required rather than a 100' setback, along with all of the conditions of approval. Billing stated that stringent standards for developments have been used in the past to protect the welfare of the residents and the sale of alcohol should be no exception. http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Billington said that policing the sale of alcohol through hours of operation, landscape buffering and screening and license type could be used as tools to protect the neighborhood. Billington stated that there are existing rules to protect the residents from noise related to garbage pickup, but he was not sure how to address the concerns of outdoor smoking. He said that a closer setback is onerous to the residents. Billington asked Parr if liquor license approvals are the responsibility of the City Council. Parr answered that the Planning Commission decides if additional conditions of approval are necessary when considering the approval of Conditional Use Permit. She said that in the case of an establishment wishing to serve alcohol, the Planning Commission can limit what license they can apply for. If appealed, the City Council will consider the condition. Ultimately;>provided9there are no conditions on the liquor license placed by the Planning Commission as a part of the CUP, the City Council is responsible for granting liquor licenses. Ringstad asked Parr if the Planning Commission can add a condition in regards to what type of liquor license may be requested in the C-2 zoning district, as part of the Planning Commission's recommendation of the proposed ordinance amendment. Parr answered that if a recommendation of approval with conditions is approved by the Planning Commission, all recommendations will be brought to the Council for their consideration: Billington stated it would not be wise to determine what kind of licenses should be made available. Billington asked when the Conditional Use Permit is reviewed. Parr answered that Conditional Use Permits vvil:h issues will be reviewed as often as needed. She stated that approved Conditional Use Permits continue to be rwiewed to ensure they are in compliance in regards to landscaping, conditions of approval and match the approved site plan. Parr cautioned the Planning Commission that a condition to require a yearly public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit would likely be too onerous for the subject business:->,However, if an establishment is violating the Conditional Use Permit, a review would be warranted and performed. Billington asked where the 200 setback should be measured from. Billington stated that he recommends that a 200' measurement be measured firom the parking area to the nearest residence. Billington acknowledged that the setback could be challenging for the implementation of the business, but he would rather err on the side of l:he citizens. Howley asked if a solid wall can be constructed inside the building setback Parr answered hat in the case of a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission has the ability to change the way~~in which a site mitigates an adjacent neighborhood. Howley asked if the Planning Commission can create a conditional of approval for how high a wall can be when considering a Conditional Use Permit. Parr answered yes. Howley asked if there is public comment when liquor licenses go before the City Council for their annual approval. Parr answered yes. http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Howley stated that he feels that noise is often generated as a result of operational issues. He stated that tenants are unaware of what the conditions of approval are. Howley stated that the operational issues should be taken into consideration with the approved rules. Howley stated that the liquor license is important to the business owners and that the approval of the liquor license should be given consideration with the proposed ordinance amendment. Howley believes that what existed first is what should be given weight and that he will side with the residents. He said that some proposals will not work when adjacent to residential. Howley acknowledged that the majority of the people who spoke were from the Boudin neighborhood. Howley stated that when most of the homeowners purchased their homes the Crossroads development was a church and the region was less developed. Howley said that the Boudin neighborhood should have an overlay districf: Undeveloped tracts of land have existing ordinances to protect future residents and developments. Howley stated that an ordinance amendment for the entire C-2 zoning district will not have,his support. Howley stated that the Boudin neighborhood is not blighted and they are not asking for development. Howley said that development will come in time; but ti~at it should not happen adjacent to a neighborhood that does not believe it will be appropriate. Howley stated that if there is an overlay district to`»protect the Boudin neighborhood, he would be able to support the ordinance amendment. Ringstad agreed with Fleming regarding the hours of operation and changing the serving of alcohol from 7AM to 11AM. Ringstad questioned if a full liquor license n<the C-2 zoning district liquor would be appropriate if it's within 100' of a residential neighborhood. Ringstad acknowledged Sergeant Kahiert's statement that the majority of the problems occur at establishments during the later hours. He stated that Prior Lake does have problem establishments, but that there are also places that serve limited alcohol under limited hours of operation and are not problem businesses. Ringstad said that if he thought a probtem business would be located close to residences that the ordinance amendment would not be'considefed.' He stated that the Conditional Use Permit process allows the Planning Commission to provide consideration on a case by`case basis. Ringstad sta#ed that he has concerns regarding Howley's recommendation of an overlay district.... Ringstad said that the Crossroads building is in the C-2 zoning district and should have the opportunity to apply for a license to serve alcohol should an establishment wish to do so. He stated he would like to find a balance to allow the growth of businesses while protecting the adjacent neighborhood. Ringstad stated he would support the ordinance amendment. Fleming asked Billington if he favors a 200' minimum setback with or without conditions. Billington answered that the 200' setback would include the conditions, including changing the hours in which an establishment can serve alcohol from 11AM-10PM on Sunday-Thursday and 11AM-11 PM on Friday, Saturday and Holidays. Fleming asked if the Planning Commissioners would consider a 200' setback measured from the C-2 building housing the use to he nearest residential use, and if two or more of the conditions of approval are met, the building can be the located 100' or 150' from the residential use. Perez stated that he would not be in favor of a 200' setback. Ringstad asked Parr if the Gateway Center would not be eligible for liquor sales if any setback is enforced. Parr said the Gateway Center would be ineligible if a setback of 100ft is applied. http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November I5, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Perez stated that a 10AM starting time for serving liquor would be appropriate, and that he approved limiting what type of liquor license. Howley asked the Planning Commissioners if they had given consideration to measuring the setback from whichever is closer, the building housing the use or the parking lot. Perez answered that measurement should be handled on a case by case basis. Ringstad stated that the buildings and measurement will be revisited each time a Conditional Use Permit goes before the Planning Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PEREZ AND SECONDED BY FLEMING TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED WITH A CHANGE TO 5-D: LIMITING THE SALE OF ALCOHOL FROM 10AM-10PM SUNDAY-THURSDAY AND 10AM-11 PM FRIDAY, SATURDAY AND HOLIDAYS, AND LIMIT THE TYPE OF LIQUOR LICENSE TO WINE AND MALT BEER. Fleming asked Billington regarding his position on the setback. Billington stated he supports a minimum setback of 200'.. as a protection for the residents. He stated that he believes the other conditions outlined by staff are reasonable for a business and he supports including all of the conditions in 5-D plus a minimum setback of 2C~0'. Fleming asked Billington to read his proposed revisions to the ordinance amendment. Billington said 5-D would read: the building housing the`use would be located a minimum of 200' from a residential use district, and including all the conditions, including the following: The hours of serving alcohol would be limited from 11RM-10PM Sunday-Thursday and 11AM-11PM Friday, Saturday and Holidays. The available liquor license would be limited to wine and 3.2 beer. VOTE (on previous motion)_ Ayes by Ringstad, Perez: Nays: Fleming, Billington and Howley. The motion failed 2-3. Perez stated that he can't support the 200' setback with all of the conditions, plus any conditions included by; he Piannir~g Commission. Ringstad asked what the process for the ordinance amendment will be. Howley asked if the Planning Commission technically made a motion of denial. Parr answered that for clarity to the City Council, a motion of denial should be made. A MOTION WAS MAbE BY H©WLEY AND SECONDED BY FLEMING TO DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. VOTE: Ayes: Fleming, Howley and Billington. Nays: Ringstad and Perez. The motion carried 3-2. Parr asked if the Planning Commission would provide findings that would articulate their recommendation of denial. Ringstad answered that the setback appeared to be the reason of denial and that the minutes will clarify the motion of denial. http://finance)/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Fleming asked if the hours of operation were a point of denial. Ringstad said that it sounded like the denial was setback driven more than hours. 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business: None 6. Announcements and Correspondence: Parr announced that the meeting was Chairman Ringstad's last night on the Plarining Commission. Chairman Ringstad has served on the Planning Commission for nine<years. Parr stated a few thoughts regarding Chair Ringstad's time on the Planning Commission and thanked him for his service. 7. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m Joe Sortland, Development Services Assistant http://financel/teams/am/October 4 2010/November 15, 2010/C-2 Planning Commission minutes.doc 11 , � - ' i ��, �'�' `� -�i i'' �� ' � �'�- - � , � ��;- �, � _ : ,,: �-� � . � �,,, . � ,� � � s� � -- � � � _ � �� � , _ , � �' ; ,.- - - _ -� � � �� , � � - � � �� � � . ' i = �` � LFZ �� �` � I � ���� ,, _ � _ � �-, � � �, � � �`� � _ (� � , �., ,:' S�� ��I j �4 I � I � �I . � � i.. F ��.�� a ��-!, f(-� 7 ., - r � � �..�', —1 }� �" ' � � � � 4 4 �� F ��. I � �� .'� ' I I '-...� . �p�� �G�T:.�,`I S' �' - 1 l.. . r , �� - t F� I 1 I i � �p�.,K_� � �1 � •. 1 I I `I �� . /• ' I I\' �9[ ...., �'�. �� �� i . ' a �. a � �\�,�, 1 ' � t -" � ;. _ ��t� _ � ;�ot "; :��� �a., � �" � ��3 i 4� � � , � i - , � _'- � r � �. �; �, •i�.� �_. - I _ _:.. � } �- t _. . l � ,; � ; I _ � � .� , , �,�_, �� � = ,` t , � u_ .�. � _ �,,; � - ' �� �;,- �� 1.1'- - 9 , 1 F'I �' i3 �;��. � I . � � I -t `i z F�-:.rV2?' �� � "'Z-p t'�'� ' �' I �� � \ ) -� � . - A_. r � �4 �1� .. _ _ I � ���� t- r x .,_ . � � I ,{�� I ,r � ;` - 2 � . ; i�' -: 1 - �er. i ,F � �-a { � � ��,u��.� 1 , y ,� r - �;� ia � � ` �, � 1 ! s ��,: < - � � :` � > �1�� ��' c ,. ._.. ; , - ,I � `' I _� ''` m �€ � � . I' F�" r , � ��'' 1 I �wi � � � : �`\.,�I j� � � `t ^�' 1��.�-T'� fp�.. . ' .�. � �'�- �� � �� � � .�.� ii � _ . �� J — � ,s � ��, . ,�+ i . � • •i j . _ � � -�-� - l _� � ,x ,- . _ � _ � � _ �� r r � , . �A ��� � � _ '�.; � S r� �y f . . � � _ . - � � � � �^� �r . . r '_ I ' 4 yc- � ��� - � t �E h .. I i •r��� I *� �% � � � �� �� �,'ft s � � - � :';� i ` y �n; 2 � _.� � . i �� e __ � . - � -_ � `��i�� ;,._ 2 i� � � - �� , �_ • � - � ��� � � � � L�,s� , � _ :: , _ � , � ` � , .:= : : _ � I � i I � , I -'- '-- '; F .,. __ _ _ _ — J � ��. , ���� T �' - ; __ m� — r--,��I��'� _ -- �;: `f I � - F I, J �F 1 j�l L� �_ f T f � �I ���-1 C�' .�� � _ r ,_. _- _ _ , � �� � � � ��� t � ,. - �-' ��� f�i � , y: � � '� ' � � = � � � ,?� �� - } ��� � I _ ,��;�- . � 1 � �I `�,� , � - 1 ,f I-; f-� ,' I '� \ ,. , , , � i { ; � ; ` , � � �� / .' � � � - _ ��� ��� I . ; 1 I - ..� � 1 �-� -- _ t� � _ , � ' ;i s �` r I �I '' � - � , , . I i •, f �I -- � � — _ - , _ — —� � �` � ; I , � � � �� "i�, - � ���.�\ r _ ��_ . � -�� — ��, � b�+" � � _��� — �- _—� ' , , � -- � � := _ � -� � (��� F = � , _ �.. I _ , � U � D , C �C � C K `� $� m _ � � z � V: � "O @ � (0 E N t '3 °- � E � �' ` ` � p_ � m�o.c o �y m Y � C • C O w . m o J 3 � � `- � � � � � m a�o�°gr o � � � � N � `° = o� � N O � � N � p (n a E F� �`� b E`o S ` m � U c� �n � 'v� � c . � ; ��° v��a� > � � p � U � � � � � j m� 8 "az 'L � � � H E� v� ❑ � CO - N T��Ls `w a C O �� f� a�i E N @ N o U �„€� o o� C N � � ���� a� c a� ��� O� O � � 3�� c m �E _�"ond"� � { �"�KF N � [0 � � � 2 C� � W V�I vS'$0-��c��oo � � � � N M N � Y O � a� E m U �' Q' �' �' U d � � o m �i. 'v c�• '��i � � a = � $ � � 88 b'� . \� /,; � � X � € � „ � a a '� ° - ,._.