Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 12 2011 PC Meeting Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 1. Call to Order: Chairman Perez called the September 12, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Roszak, Perez, Howley, and Billington, Planner Jeff Matzke, City Engineer Larry Poppler and Development Services Assistant Peter Aldritt. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO APPROVE THE SEPTMEBER 12, 2011 MEETING AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Billington, Howley, Perez, and Roszak. The motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of August 22, 2011 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 22, 2011 MEETING MINUTES WITH THE MODIFICATIONS NOTED BY HOWLEY AND PEREZ. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A . (continued) #EP 10-121 Bluffs of Candy Cove. Jason Miller has submitted an application for Variances related to building setback, lot area, and bluff impact on a site consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cove Trail, north of TH 13. B. (continued) #EP 10-122 Bluffs of Candy Cove. Jason Miller has submitted an application for a combined preliminary and final plat to be known as The Bluffs of Candy Cove consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cove Trail, north of TH 13. C. #EP 11-121 An application for a CUP to allow The Cove Restaurant to continue serving liquor in the C-2 zoning district. The property is located at 15750 Hwy 13 S, at the intersection of Franklin Trail and Hwy 13. D. #EP 11-121 An application for a variance to allow The Cove Restaurant to serve liquor until 2 AM. The property is located at 15750 Hwy 13 S, at the intersection of . Franklin Trail and Hwy 13 Planner Matzke presented thatthe Planning Commission had decided to table the public hearing for thth The Bluffs of Candy Cove from the August 8 meeting to the September 12 meeting after listening to the comments from the public, applicant and staff. There were still numerous engineering issues that needed to be addressed and the commission felt it better suited to leave the public hearing open until the engineering issues were addressed. Planner Matzke presented the request to consider Jason Millers application forvariances related to building setback, lot area, and bluff impact, and for his 1 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN091211.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 combined preliminary and final plat application on a site consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes.The property is located east of Candy Cove Trail, north of TH 13. The topography of the area is very steep all the way from the 904 up to 984 elevations. Access to Candy Cove Trail is through city owned property. Due to the steep bluffs on which the property is located, this plat involves some major engineering to allow for access from Candy Cove Tail and to allow for housing pads to be placed. Questions from the Commissioners: Perez asked what grading is going to happen just north of the retaining walls. What type of trees are going to be removed and what part of the hill will be removed? Engineer Poppler responded the bulk of the hill will be removed with the grading plan to construct the grades and the driveway entrance. The portion that is retained is the “V-shaped” area in the retaining walls that would remain up in elevation. The walls would be retaining the “V-shaped” area which would be the remaining part of the hill. Perez asked who would maintain the walls and the trees? Engineer Poppler responded we would work out an easement agreement with the developer for the walls and the trees. Applicant Jason Miller wanted to shed some more light on these properties and the difficulties on developing these properties. We want to blend the grades in a way that benefits the largest number of people and still respects the individual rights of the adjacent property owners. Howley asked attached to the staff report there is a laundry list of engineering comments. Why have these comments not been addressed if they are different ones from before? I thought this was the reason to keep the public hearing open to address these comments? Applicant Miller responded I am quite concerned about that myself, a large portion of those are different comments and City Staff are more concerned with at this point storm water runoff and stuff like that. We addressed most of the comments from last time about the different plans and the grading. I wish I could explain more about the storm water comments but I do not fully understand the engineering calculations. I apologize that we were not able to get all the comments answered but I feel we are a lot closer. Howley asked Larry can you comment on these, looking at the staff report these comments do not look easily attainable? Engineer Poppler responded the ones in bold are the ones we are most concerned with. There are some concerns with the storm water runoff these comments we are still not satisfied with. The non- bolded comments are not as critical and wouldn’t necessarily keep it from going forward. Howley asked how many revisions and communications went back and forth between you and the developers engineer? We kept the public hearing open for this meeting because we felt that there were too many comments to be addressed by the earlier meeting and yet still there is a long list of comments. I am perplexed as why there are still so many comments. 2 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN091211.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 Engineer Poppler responded we met with the developer and his engineer after the meeting to address the comments when we received the revised plans all the comments were not met. There was not enough time for the developers engineer to answer all the comments. Perez asked as far as the different options that Jason has shown with moving the driveway three feet can you comment on that Larry? Engineer Poppler responded I felt that the driveway is fine where it is. With the steep grades you don’t want to have the driveway way curve much or change it around to drastically. Billington asked are the comments on the hydrology solvable? Engineer Poppler responded yes this is something we can work out. But before we make any approvals we need a plan that can indicate that. CHAIRMAN PEREZ OPENDED UP THE FLOOR FOR THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK ON THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE The Public Hearing continued at 6:36 p.m. Comments from the Public: Mark Toohey 5584 Candy Cove Trail, stated with the current plans, the bluff will completely come out and our concerns is with the noise that will enter Candy Cove. If they put two 8 foot retaining walls ten feet apart and kept the trees then it could keep Candy Cove Trail quiet. Kathleen Pribble 5584 Candy Cove Trail, stated we haven’t heard from Jason since the last meeting so as far as working something out it hasn’t been addressed at all. Perez asked Larry was this looked at by the applicant of city staff in regards to the size of the retaining walls. Engineer Poppler responded this was the proposal by the developer. There is a lot of different ways you could grade the hill. The proposal that is before us minimizes the amount of wall needed to retain the hill, but the more hill that needs to be retained the more of a wall is needed. Mark Toohey stated I have some photos of the wall that I had to install when I developed the property. I had to go through a similar process and many neighbors were concerned with the bluff coming out and allowing noise to enter Candy Cove. Kathleen Pribble stated what we are trying to do is to try and save as much of the trees and the land to keep Candy Cove quiet and peaceful. Jason Miller stated we did look at keeping more of the hill there but it resulted in a 25 foot high retaining wall. We tried to do two 4ft retaining walls but I haven’t been able to work with my neighbor. I still have the offer on the table to pay cash to assist with the relocating of Mr. Toohey’s retaining walls and to assist him in other landscaping alterations. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Howley, Perez and Roszak. The motion carried 3 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN091211.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 The public hearing was closed at 6:45 p.m. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Billington stated it is obvious that this project meet the components of the practical difficulties of the variance. The problem I have as far as recommending approval is the engineering, hydrology and storm water issues. We need to see more of the hydrology and engineering of it. We need to spend more time to get these issues resolved and we need to get these solved soon so we are not talking about this in January. I will support the variances and the combined preliminary and final plat application if these issues can be resolved. Howley asked I have one more question to Larry. The portion that is referred to as the pond is this still on the MNDOT right away? Engineer Poppler responded no there is a portion of that lot that juts out that is still part of the lot and is not in the MNDOT right-of-way. Howley stated I am on board with all the variances and they meet the criteria on which we would grant them. In a perfect world we would put two lots there and not three, but I am sure that the project isn’t a go with just two there or I would imagine that there would be two there. The second issue is grading down that existing berm with the trees on it. Unfortunately in order to get the housing pads in there the berm is going to have to go under the knife; there is just no other way to grade it. I certainly support some of the illustrations that work with the neighbor to get smaller retaining walls, but it is their property and if there cannot be a compromise then we will have to go with the 17 foot wall. I am still shocked that we have this many engineering comments open. There is no way I would put forth a recommendation to send this on to City Council with this many comments. There needs to be more time involved in working through the drainage and grading issues. I will be in support of tabling this project. Roszak stated once again I admire the applicant’s tenacity to complete this project. I also encourage the applicant to work with the neighbor to go with the option of having two smaller retaining walls. In my mind a 17foot high retaining wall is never a good option. Until the engineering issues can be worked through I cannot support moving this forward. At this time I will also support tabling the project. Perez stated I do agree with my fellow commissioners in that these engineering issues need to be worked out before I can make a recommended approval to the City Council. I would like to see you do as much that is feasible to protect the berm if you can’t then try and mitigate it as much as possible. Until you can come up with an engineering plan that can meet all the satisfactions of everyone I too cannot recommend this to be moved on. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECOND BY ROSZAK TO TABLE THE DISCUSSION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST UNTIL THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. Perez asked Jeff as far as the public hearing goes what is the next step? Planner Matzke responded since the public hearing has been closed by the Planning Commission and the discussion and recommendation tabled this topic can be discussed again at a future meeting once 4 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN091211.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 the developer has addressed City Staff comments. Likely that will take a minimum of a month based on the complexity of the project changes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON SECOND BY ROSZAK TO TABLE THE DISCUSSION OF THE COMBINED AND PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. an application for a CUP to allow The Cove Restaurant to Planner Matzke presented a request to continue serving liquor in the C-2 zoning district. The property is located at 15750 Hwy 13 S, at the intersection of Franklin Trail and Hwy 13, and application for a variance to allow The Cove Restaurant to serve liquor until 2 AM. The property is located at 15750 Hwy 13 S, at the . intersection of Franklin Trail and Hwy 13 Questions from the Commissioners: Billington asked what is the area between the Cove and the residential locations; it is pretty heavily treed is it not? Planner Matzke responded that is correct it is a large wooded area and there is some distance between the restaurant and the residential areas. Billington asked have we checked with the authorities? Are there any pervious complaints or problems with the restaurant? Planner Matzke responded yeah our police department has not had any recent major calls to the site. They have mentioned in the past that they make routine stops at the closing hours of area restaurants with liquor licenses to see if there are any disturbances or possible DWIs. With the request to move the time to 2 a.m. it just pushes their patrolling times for these area back an hour from 1 a.m. to 2 a.m. There are already a few restaurants in the City that are open to 2 a.m. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECOND BY HOWLEY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began at 7:05 p.m. Comments from the Public Applicant Bruce Larson 24790 Newport Ave, statedthat at The Cove we just serve beer and wine, we do not serve any hard liquor at the restaurant. Applicant Larson asked is this meeting for the outdoor patio also? Planner Matzke responded no this meeting is not for the outdoor patio, because City Staff did not receive any site plans or drawings of the outdoor patio area with the application. 5 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN091211.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 Planner Matzke stated that The Cove had shown interest in possibly wanting to construct an outdoor patio area but we did not receive all the materials that would show what the outdoor patio would look like and where it would be placed. Perez asked Jeff is that a Conditional Use Permit as well for the outdoor patio? Planner Matzke responded it is in some ways once we see the site plan for it there is a level at which changes the perplexity of the site. Right now one of the major things for this site is parking. Our code does allow an outdoor seating area to be an accessory use to an existing conditional use permit and not require additional parking, but there is a maximum square footage as to what that outdoor area would be. Without having a proposed site plan City Staff cannot evaluate the size and location of the outdoor patio area and whether it would require an amended Conditional Use Permit or separate variance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECOND BY ROSZAK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. A motioned to close public hearing 7:08 Commissioner questions and comments Howley asked if he does submit a formal application for this patio is there application fees and such that he could combine this into one C.U.P. application, and we wait to vote on this? Planner Matzke responded yes that is an option; however, if you would like to talk with the applicant if he would like to table the approval we could possibly review it under this application. City Staff is unaware what the applicant’s timeline is for wanting to change his hours to stay open until 2 a.m. but adding this to the review would push out his timeline a bit longer for being able to change his hours. Howley asked Applicant Bruce Larson if he had any comments? Applicant Larson said yes if it’s a few hundred dollars for this application then we would like to wrap it into one. Planner Matzke responded it just depend on how quickly you can get us a site plan of what the outdoor patio area would be, then we can move forward with reviewing the plan. Perez asked Howley do you have any additional comments? Howley stated my only reservation is about the adjacent properties if they would ever be developed but since there is a steep hill behind it and the lift station to the right there is no way that anybody will build closer to it. With that possibility thrown out I have no issue with it. Roszak stated that I will support this as also. Billington stated yes, I will too support this. It is a compatible conditional use for the property. 6 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN091211.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 Perez stated obviously we had a change in ordinance so that’s why we are seeing the conditional use permit, it seems reasonable and meets all the C.U.P. criteria. As far as the variance for the hours change I have no issues with that we have some other establishments that have the same hours of being open to 2 a.m. I have no issues supporting this. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLEY SECOND BY BILLINTON TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE COVE RESTAURANT TO CONTINUE TO SERVE LIQUOR IN THE C-2 ZONING DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. A MOTION WAS MDE BY HOWLEY SECOND BY BILLINGTON TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE COVE RESTURANT TO SERVE LIQUOR UNTIL 2 AM IN A C-2 ZONING DISTRICT VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. 1. Old Business: A.None 2. New Business: A. None 3. Announcements and Correspondence: th A. Reminder about the September 24 workshop at the Lonsdale public library Planner Matzke asked if there were any Planning Commission members that were going to th attend the Government Training Service on the 24 to please notify me. The work shop will consist of topics in relation to land use, C.U.P.s, findings of fact and legal jargon. Desyl Peterson is one of the attorneys that will be leading it. She also led the workshop that was here a few months ago. th Planner Matzke stated that you will have your September 26 meeting, there is a sizable agenda including the continuation of The Cove CUP, the Eagle Creek EstatesPreliminary Plat, as well as items involving the Hickory Shores Development and the River Valley Veterinary Clinic. Perez stated that Ray Brandt the developer of Eagle Creek Estates is a holding neighborhood meeting this Wednesday at Fire Station One on Fish Point Road. Planner Matzke also introduced Dan Rogness as the new Community and Economic Development Director. MOTION TO ADJORN BY HOWLEY SECOND BY ROSZAK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Development Services Assistant 7 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN091211.doc