Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 26 2011 PC Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 8, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 1. Call to Order: Chairman Perez called the September 26, 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 26, 2011 MEETING AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Billington, Howley, Perez, and Roszak. The motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of September 12, 2011 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY HOWLEY, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A . (continued) #EP 11-121 Consider 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. B. (continued) #EP 11-121 Consider 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. C. #EP 11-122 Consider an application to allow a building addition to an Animal Handling Land Use in the C-2 Zoning District. The property is located at 15900 Jordan Avenue South of th Highway 13 North of 160 Street. D. #EP 11-123 Consider an application for a PUD and Preliminary Plat for The Hickory Shores Development to amend the approved townhome design and lot layout. The property is located along the south side of State Highway 13 on Kennett Curve and Turner Drive. E. #EP 11-101 Consider a Preliminary Plat to be known as Eagle Creek Estates consisting of 67 residential lots and 14.18 acres of commercial designated property. The property is located northeast of the intersection of CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road. Planner Matzke presented the C.U.P. Application for the Cove Restaurant. If you recall at you last planning commission meeting you heard this Conditional Use Permit and Variance report so I will go through it fairly quickly to just go over again what was being requested. The Cove Restaurant which is located at the intersection of Franklin Trail and Highway 13 is seeking a renewal of their conditional use permit that was a condition of their latest liquor license approval that they had in the middle of the summer. As part of acquiring the conditional use permit, one of the things that is indicated is that the Cove Restaurant is in closer proximity than the typical restaurant with liquor license. As you recall with 1 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN092611.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 your discussion it was highlighted that the restaurant building was within 60 feet of residential property however the building is located of 250 feet from the nearest residential maintained property and because you are making determinations to whether the C.U.P is granted as well as a variance for the Cove to go from a 1 a.m. closing time to a 2 a.m. closing time. One thing that was brought up by the applicant was looking into the outdoor seating area as a condition to this C.U.P. Since then the applicant has not gotten in any type of plan for that. The applicant felt that they would just pursue it at a different time. Basically why this application is in front of you again is because you did not give final approval at your last meeting you continued it on. Perez asked we closed the public hearing and we just tabled this, correct? Planner Matzke responded yes you left off at commissioner comments, that is where you should start. Questions and Comments from Commissioners : Billington stated yes as I said last time I supported this and since there has been no new changes I don’t see any reason to change my mind. These people are trying to enhance their business in any way they can and I think they are in reason, the application is acceptable. I will be supporting it again. Howley stated no further comments, I will be supporting this. Roszak stated no further comments I will be supporting it as well. Perez stated I will too be supporting this. It does meet the criteria for the C.U.P. The ordinance change is really what precipitated this. I will also be supporting the variance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINTON SECOND BY HOWLEY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 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 MADE BY BILLINGTO SECOND BY HOWLEY TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY THE COVE RESTAURANT TO SERVE LIQUOR UNTIL 2 A.M. IN THE C-2 ZONING DISTRICT. The motion carried. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. Planner Matzke presented a request to an application for a Conditional Use Permit for the River Valley Veterinary Clinic which is located along Highway 13 and Jordan Ave. Animal handling is a Land Use Requirement that all doggie daycares and veterinary clinics are used and classified under our Zoning Code. The animal handling has two main conditions for approval for conditional use permits; the first is that no animals may be kept outside where offensive order or noise can be discerned about the property line. The other is where animals are boarded; the facility must be located a 100 feet from the adjacent property in an “R” Use district. The Veterinary clinic is proposing all indoor spaces and the building is over a 100 feet from the nearest residential unit. The total site for the clinic is 1.1 acres it is in our C-2 district. The site plan currently shows the existing 3500 square foot building which has 29 parking stalls. The building and parking spaces were constructed in 1990. They are proposing both a 3500 square foot building addition both upper and lower and additional 13 parking stalls with additional 2 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN092611.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 access off of Jordan Avenue. The clinic will be moving both their outdoor dog run and training facility to inside so they can offer this year round. The Veterinary clinic application for a C.U.P meets all the requirements and is consistent with the comprehensive. There are a few comments that need to be addressed in an engineering stand point but those can be solved when they apply for a building permit. At this time staff is recommending approval of the C.U.P. application. Questions from the Commissioners: Howley asked it says that no pervious conditional use permit has been issued for the clinic, is this because it predated our code to enforce that? Planner Matzke responded yes that’s a good question previously in 1990 when the Vet Clinic was constructed animal handling or veterinary hospitals was the land use specifically for that. It was a use that was permitted with specific conditions but did not require a conditional use permit at the time. 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 6:15 p.m. Comments from the Public th Kevin Busse (5101 160 St. SE) asked just a clarification on the Land Use Ordinance regulations for an Animal Handling Use, part a. in regards to noise; my question has more to do with the boarding and housing. You said that it will all be moved inside, is there anything like that outside or any animal exercising done outside? Planner Matzke responded the applicant made it clear to staff that the intention of his is to relocate activities inside the building. They still do some activities outside during their business hours. That is allowed, however the intention is to move activities inside to provide for year-round operations. Also, the majority of their existing outdoor area is going to be eliminated by the parking area and the building addition. The site plan does not show any fenced in areas. Kevin Busse responded my only concerned with it was that there wouldn’t be more barking noise with the expanded boarding and handling areas but since they are going to be inside there shouldn’t be an issue. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLEY AND SECOND BY BILLINGTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Howley and Roszak The Public Hearing was closed at 6:18 Commissioner questions and comments Howley stated I do not see too much wrong with this and that it’s a use approved under a conditional use permit. I think that we are now having the opportunity to put a conditional use permit on this and that they are moving the boarding and training inside. I will be supporting it. One side question in our required conditions for animal handling land use A it says which causes offensive order or noise 3 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN092611.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 discernable at the property line. Discernable doesn’t have a definition that you can quantitatively and maybe this is for the future but shouldn’t we tie this to a MPCA noise level or something like that? Planner Matzke responded we would look to the noise ordinance for a standard and hold any noise generated to that ordinance requirement. Roszak stated given that the use is consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan and no adverse effects on employment or properties, I will be supporting this as well. Billington asked Larry one question the treatment hydrological speaking is to some concern to engineering. Has that been discussed as far a design or do you anticipate any problems with the hydrology of the site? Engineer Poppler responded no. They have addressed a lot of those concerns. We would have to get a maintenance agreement on the drainage system but we are comfortable moving forward with this and can work that out in time to come. Billington stated it is a splendid use for the site and it is compliant with the comprehensive plan. I will be supporting this. Perez stated I agree with staff, it does meet C.U.P. criteria and I will be supporting this. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLEY SECOND BY BILLINTON TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RIVER VALLEY VETERINARY CLINIC TO ALLOW ANIMAL HANDLING IN A C-2 GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. Planner Matzke presented a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit amendment to an existing site that is called Hickory Shores on the south side of Hwy 13 north of Crystal and Rice Lake. The development was originally developed in 2005 by Tollefson Development. The City Council approved the final plat and P.U.D for that subdivision in August 2006 since then the development has gone through a series of bank foreclosures. Jim Deanovic is the owner of Wyatt the Puddle Pointer is the developer that has applied for this amendment. The section 1106 of our zoning ordinance lists the standards and allowed uses for a planned unit development. P.U.D. offer maximum flexibility in many areas which can include setbacks, building heights, densities in the like. The specific P.U.D. amendment and re-plat of this area in this application request applies to the town home portion of the site which is located on the farthest north in Hickory Shores. No modifications are being made at this time to the larger single family homes. The application originally proposed 38 townhomes of an attached design of 4 and 6 unit buildings. The proposed is from the 38 units to 37 platted units. Currently one 4-unit attached townhome is constructed on Kennett Curve while the remaining 34 lots are vacant. The developer is proposing to replace the approved attached townhome design with a modified attached townhome model design on the remaining vacant lots with reduction of 1 less townhome lot than previously approved. The modified lot layout of the townhomes requires re-platting of the individual property lines since the lots would be smaller in size than the original platted lots. The landscape plan that is being used is the same as the originally submitted plan that was approved when the plat was originally submitted. Impervious surface calculations do actually decrease due to the loss of one town home the other is due to the decrease foot print plan. The fees and assessment for this area were paid in 2006 when it was platted. This is basically a re-plat and the P.U.D. amendment stages because the styles are going to be slightly different than what was originally approved but much of it revolves around the aspect that the lot lines are going to be shifted around. 4 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN092611.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 Questions and Comments from Commissioners None Applicant Matthew Weiland, Development Consultant stated the owner has been working hard over the last 10 months to get this project moving. He has had numerous meetings with city staff and the bank to get the project meeting and make sure all that is needed to get done so the project can move forward. What is being proposed here tonight is very similar to what as proposed when it was originally platted. Jim Deanovic owns all the land that the project is located on so it is in his best interest to develop a nice and professional looking product. The comments that were made on the project our engineer is addressing and they will be solved so the project can continue to move forward. I would like to thank you for your time and formally ask for approval. Billington asked what is your perception of the residents around the development? Connie Roesler (17059 Kennett Curve SW) stated we met with Jim and his attorney to go through all the documents and show us the building that was going to be proposed. We were very pleased with it and with Jim. We understand that sooner or later someone is going to come in here and when we were here a year ago with K Hovnanian we were not very pleased with those people. They tried to shove stuff down our throats, they said your homes are not worth anything since you bought them in foreclosure. They were just not very nice to us. I commend Jim on his personal and professional manner he has explained everything each step of the way, he has met with us four different times. Jim has taken his time to ensure us that the new buildings will match ours and that the builders will work with us also. Billington stated it is good to hear that he has been proactive in his attempts to contact you and communicate with you and he has been very professional with his demeanor with you. Perez stated Commissioner Howley pointed out that we forgot to open the public hearing so I will take a motion to open the public hearing before we take any more public comment. 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 was opened at 6:37 pm, retroactively including the previous public comments of Matthew Weiland and Connie Roesler. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECOND BY HOWLEY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:38pm. Commissioner Questions and Comments: Roszak stated given the previous approvals and the community support I will be supporting this. 5 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN092611.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 Billington stated this project like many other has fallen to fiscal problems that has hindered it from moving forward. I commend the developers who take on these involving projects especially those who take the time to commend with local residents making it a pleasant project or as pleasant as can be. I will be supporting this. Howley stated it’s not very often that we have a win for all parties involved but based on Connie’s testimony tonight it sounds like they are happy I know the developer probably is happy the bank is happy and the city is happy and I know we are happy up here to see something moving through. I will fully support this. Perez stated I agree this is similar to what was brought forward before with some small changes. The changes give us more open spaces and decreases the impervious surface. I will be supporting this. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON SECOND BY ROSZAK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE HICKORY SHORES PRELIMINARY PLAT AND P.U.D. AMENDMENT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. Planner Matzke presented the application for a Preliminary Plat for Eagle Creek Estates. The project is located along County Road 21at the intersection of Fish Point Road which is also known as Eagle Creek Avenue. The total site area is 45 acres the development is proposing 64 residential lots and 14.18 acres of commercially zoned land. The current zoning of the development is R-1 (Low density residential) and C-2 (General Business). Access will be through future Fish Point Road connection and Credit River Road connection. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in 2, 3, 4 different phases. A park area of 1.6 acres is planned to be dedicated into the cities park system. It will add onto the existing Brooksville Hills neighborhood park. Connection of utility services are southwest of the site. Engineer Poppler presented the engineering comments on the grading portion of the plan. Before I get into the comments I would like to comment about the general layout of the project. The layout looks good. This is a challenging site with the topography and since it is within the Shoreland District. It has some land locked water basins and the area is in our wellhead protection area. Fish Point Road will connect County Road 21 to County Road 44 this will be a very important collector street for the city. I will highlight some of the more critical concerns we are seeing, additional spot elevations needed to be completed on the site mainly at our road way connections. The developer is beginning to address this. The next one I want to cover is the grading plan and the wetland delineation. It is not quite finished yet and could have a dramatic effect on the final grading and dividing up the lots on the site. We need to look at the house styles and backyard drainage we see a lot of long storm water runs in the back yards and those need to be worked out. The commercial lot is currently shown drained onto the surrounding lots but it doesn’t quite show how this is done. We need a comprehensive plan to see how this will be done. The last aspect that I want to touch on is the hydrology and storm sewer. We have a lot of comments there and how the storm sewer is going to be achieved. Planner Matzke presented the tree and landscape plan for the development. There is a total 16,000 inches of tree removed. The applicant is still revising its tree plan. About 750 to 800 trees will be going back in for tree replacement. For a 45 acre site of this size it is not uncommon to see this many trees being removed. The developer is proposing to leave a significant number of trees on the north side of the site along Cardinal Ridge. This is part due to the topography there and to create natural buffer between the existing homes and the new homes in the subdivision. For the landscape plan the developer has not shown what the plan is for the commercial lots part of that is due to that they will be 6 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN092611.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 developed individually and the landscape plan for those lots can be worked out at a later time. The developer is showing the tree replacement for the residential lots. He is showing two significant trees for each lot and that is part of our landscape requirement. He is also showing tree replacement along Credit River Road, Fish Point Road, and along the commercial properties this is part of our buffer requirement when lots front either along a collector street or between residential areas and commercial areas. Questions of Comments from Commissioners: Billington asked Larry this is one of the more daunting projects from the stand point of wetland conservation that I have seen. I note that we are operating within the provisions of the state wetland conservation act. This could complicate this further from a state statute aspect. Engineer Poppler responded yes, that why it is so important to get the final grading plans and the report finalized so we can see what we have and what we need to work with. Billington asked do you have a timeline for this? Engineer Poppler responded I don’t have an answer for that. But I know their wetlands specialist is revising the plan. You could ask the applicant that. Howley asked did they give any indication as to how the Fish Point Road was to be phased in? Engineer Poppler responded no, we have not even looked at that at this time. We were too busy getting the plan finalized before we could work on the phasing. Roszak stated no questions Perez asked Jeff can you clarify the difference between a P.U.D. Preliminary Plat and just a Preliminary plat. Planner Matzke responded yes, the Planned Unit Development of Hickory Shores was originally platted in 2005. A Planned Unit Development there is more additional benefit that is given to the city in the lines of additional park lands, infrastructure costs or other amenities. The city then works with the developer to modify setbacks or building standards to better meet the developer’s needs. This allows for a better development for the community as a whole with the park land dedicated and other amenities that can be set aside. Eagle Creek Estates is not a P.U.D. it is a regular development and is evaluated on an individual lot bases. Each of the lots has to meet our standard zoning requirements. The park dedication funds are typical of regular subdivision, they are not above the requirements but fully meet the amount of funds and land set aside. Howley stated I would urge us to not open the public hearing, being that I think there are way too many comments that need to be resolved. This is my opinion; I don’t want to take comments from the public on a plan that won’t look exactly the same when everything gets resolved I think the impacts of the wetlands not being figured out the buffers, the lots layouts the streets and utilities could look different. So I think we are premature to take public comment. Perez asked Larry you are the one that has dealt with it the most you know what the issues are. Any sense on whether it will look close or not. Engineer Poppler responded well it could look the same it could look completely different. With the storm water aspects of the project not full addressed. 7 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN092611.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 Perez stated we do have people here that did come to speak. I would suggest we open the public hearing as long as the public knows the plan could possibly change somewhat as the applicant addresses the Engineering Staff comments. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECOND BY ROSZAK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, and Roszak. Nays Howley, the motion carried. The Public Hearing opened at 7:10 Applicant Ray Brandt stated as Commissioner Howley asked Fish Point Road will go in with the first phase. We will meet the Wetland Conservation Act. The wetland was preliminarily located roughly 3 months ago we located that brought it in and we put it on the drawing. Paul Brandt met with a temp panel out there and a couple of the wetlands went away. There is one on the easterly southeast side of the property. There is a long slender one that is a result of County Road 21that one can be dealt with. There is another wetland a small one that came about. The engineering concerns are between Mr. Poppler and me. I feel that we can resolve them fairly easily and it will not alter the final look of the project too drastically. Maybe I would lose a lot here or there but it won’t change significantly. I was hoping you would approve it. I cannot get a grading permit until I meet all the requirements by staff. We did hold a neighborhood meeting and had representatives from 9 of the 87 homes within 500 feet of the property. Billington asked what was the outcome of that meeting? Applicant Ray Brant responded there were three guys that were hoping that Fish Point Road didn’t have to go through. They were glad that we were saving a 35 foot strip of trees as a buffer. I didn’t really get anything very negative at the meeting. th Joan Freak (5379 Brooks Circle SE) stated Mr. Brandt did hold a meeting on the 12 of September. The neighborhood meeting was poorly attended probably due to the fact that the address of the meeting was not posted on the letter. It would be nice if maybe another meeting could be held. I know there are concerns in the neighborhood with the wetlands. Another concern was the trails system; I love how he had added that the trails connect the park to the neighborhood. One other thing that was requested was that with the existing park Brooksville Hill, that trail system that it be included and go to Markley Lake and through the wooded natural areas. th Leroy Schommer (7505 169 Street) stated my main concern is Markley Lake and the drainage. You keep talking about the water flowing to the east to Markley Lake. When Cardinal Ridge went in the water flowed into Markley Lake and in ’99 Scott County and Prior Lake and Credit River had a lawsuit from three homeowners. With that I want you guys to take a good look at where the water is going. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECOND BY ROSZAK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Howley and Roszak. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:18 Commissioner questions and Comments 8 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN092611.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2011 Billington stated this site presents many challenges especially in the aspect of wetland conservation. It is an evolving site from what I can gather here I definitely think there needs to be more time spent on the hydrology of the site. It becomes a question on how much time do we spend. I don’t know if we continue this to a feature date whether it would be enough time to solve these issues. In the principal I like the project, but like in so many of the projects the devil is in the details and he has some details in the project and we are going to have to deal with them responsibly. I am willing to meet again on this when we have gotten some additional information. It is critical to the community on how we treat our land. I will be interested to hear my fellow commissioner comments. Howley stated I think if this gets continued tonight and the plan comes back with any substantial changes we open the public hearing again. And if the plan comes back with no substantial changes then we don’t have a public hearing. I am going to support tabling the application until the details are worked out; I think there is too much there to come to a reasonable decision that this is the project and this is what it will look like. That is where I will stand. Roszak stated I too can only support tabling this project. There are too many issues that need to be addressed. Perez I agree with staff that there are quite a few issues, some are minor but there are some that are major and need to be addressed before this can move forward. I agree with commissioner Billington that in principal this is a good development, I am pleased with how it has progressed, but until we know of everything on the site is being handled as far as hydrology. I feel that it is probably premature to approve this. As far as tabling this I guess we closed this but I would probably want to reopen it, well actually everyone was noticed on this. I am not talking about the neighborhood meeting held by Mr. Brandt and I know his number is out there and would be happy to take public comment. I guess unless this really changes I wouldn’t open it back up. A MOTION BY HOWLEY SECOND BY ROSZAK RECOMMENDING TABLING THIS ITEM TO A FEATURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE UNCERTAIN VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Howley and Roszak the motioned carried. 5. Old Business: A.None 6. New Business: A. None 7. Announcements and Correspondence: th Planner Matzke announced that the Planning Commission will be having a meeting on October 10. Howley asked is there progress being made on the Candy Cove project? Engineer Poppler responded I am meeting with the developer tomorrow morning. 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 7:26 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Development Services Assistant 9 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN092611.doc