Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 09-27-10Planning 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 conservation 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. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN092710.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 Howley asked if the 300' State statute is measured from the building or property line. 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 herwalk-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. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN092710.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 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 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 L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN092710.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 restaurant to Prior Lake rather than going elsewhere, but they are prohibited as a result of the current zoning ordinance. 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. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN092710.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 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 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. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN092710.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2010 Parr said that they would revisit it on the October 25th, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. 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 L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN092710.doc