Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-10 PC Agenda PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2010 City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Approval of Minutes: A. September 27, 2010 3. Public Hearings: A. Consider an amendment to Section 1102.1103(5) of the City Zoning Ordinance related to restaurants and clubs and lodges with liquor in the "C-2" (General Business District). (continued from September 27, 2010) 4. Old Business: 5. New Business: 6. Announcements and Correspondence: 7. Adjournment: L:A10 FII.EStlO PLANNIlS6 CONIlVII55IONI1 O A6ENDA5VID2510 Agendadoc 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 meeti f::•: ~•. Those present were Commissioners Ringstad, Perez, Billington and How ey;~Go Natural Resources Director Danette Parr and Development Services A~,.jsfant J Commissioners Fleming was absent. ~ '''~ ~:}>~;~~ 2. Approval of Minutes: '`?>; ~~~;:;: .41 '( Howley proposed a correction to the Minutes: scratch HowlZsy s sf~tement "in ari should be" and "The city should consider using conversation easements for store on a e two of the Se tember 13, 2010 Minutes. ~~%`'`''~` ~>` The Minutes from the September 13, 2010, Planning Com proposed correction. 3. Public Hearing: A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER Affil AMI CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TO RESTAI,JRA' IN THE "C-2" (GENERAI;,,BUSINESS DI~`fR'' f~ti11~~~. y(~r~.tt. 'Ti:!::': ~ `'`:1 CDNR Director Danettg`Parr prese~fid the requesE f To accommodate resf~ilYa~ts and p~~(~~a~em at an ecoi multiple times over severa~t~~ye~cs by,,iusiness owners be reconsidered. .....,... ...................... to order at 6:00 p.m. Iunity Development Sortland. or buffers were approved with the TO SE~iT1ON 1102.1103(5) OF THE :LUBS'AND LODGES WITH LIQUOR allow an amendment to Section 1102.1103(5). rpjG advantage, the city has been approached cjUesting that the C-2 alcoholic beverages rules Billi~tgf~i~%:asked what the impacft wouldtl;e^if the measurement was changed from 100' to any point on the propeYf`yd;[ne or the prope ;~fle. s%' Parr answered=ft'~t;~taff revievJ~`d the setback requirement and the results of reducing it. She stated that some cities gofY[dlof the 10.0' setback, but others have kept it. Changing the setback to make it less, or to measure if'~~.~.ra? tl~e~parking lot or the entrance of the business, would allow for more economic developmenfi:~.>~ 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:\IO PILBS\IO PLANNING COMD9ISSION\IO MINUTES\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 Iandscap~tCiff~„ryard along adjacent properties. ,,.,, Parr answered that the bufferyard is a city zoning requirement bas~cl'on'tleadjacent land uses. For a ~;;;:~:; Residential-use adjacent to commercial, the commercial use wou7e{pe respo~i~tble for installing the landscape buffer. Parr stated that when a CUP is being propp; ~;s~~ [he miniml~f~j;tandards are typically exceeded b the develo er when it is ad~acent to a hi herx;~(ense'use. ~~'~~'~'~`~. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SEC <.y))j~D BY HOWLEY TO OPEN~TNh~:PUBLIC HEARING. ~ ''<s:~:-,. :~'•z;~.. ~~Y~ VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Ringstad, Perez and Howley. The'iritsfion carried. The Public Hearing began at 6:37 p.m. Comments from the Public: Maureen Hermann, 14151 Tile„thy Ave, ex res~edshe'r coricerjiwffh the ro osed amendment. 4 p , sf. tom' p p They originally had a chur .h;itf:;f(1;~;~oudins neighb'i5f}iood and she is hesitant that an establishment that serves alcohol could:''e locafe'd~j;the neighbor`~ood. She stated that there is an alcohol problem in Scott County, and~~f Cott Counfy~~s attemptingJimit its alcohol use. Children have bus-stops `~. ~x, and playgrounds in t ~e ne~gF~~orhoo~;r~ Bars will have ~}et~pje smoking outside due to the State smoking ordinances. She stated that grdin,~q~e~,~~urr,,ently exist.<,fo protect the adjacent neighborhoods. She expressed cogG.4',I!l~tl~~ it well b~~iJlcull to ptb~~rly~regulate the ordinance if it is amended. She requested_th'at'li'e~zdii~g;,ordinaiite~~~nendment'f3e denied. ~.~~ Phyli~s~~~~oz, 4478 PondViikyTrl SEssta~@tl'fhat the 300' state statute for churches and schools shodltl 6e~~jtplied to residenfi' fj~omes b~C~ause the churches and schools do not have to spend the ~; ..3 / night at theit~;3tyablishment. Stj'i#;:pelieve`s that 100' is not a very long distance, and that it is easy to \.:. hear the nois~~t.,a.,f the neighbors wen the windows are open in the summer. She stated that sometimes she can hear the':oise from The; asement, across the highway. f•~I ~zt:~,, f'': Sandee Wright, 1431)Q'[J~-~f~iy Ave, stated that she is located across the street from the new Crossroads developmeri#~^~She thanked staff for notifying the residents. She stated that people are busy and that notices th~~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. L:\I O PILES\IO PLANNING COMMISSION\I O MINU1'GS\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 adiacent to Residential uses. She stated that her quality of life, the value of her home and their peace Wright does not support the 7AM start time for serving liquor oq stated that they were not able to rest while the Crossroads was and 1`!ci dust was disruptive during the construction of Crossroads. Wrigh~o'"'es time on the weekends. 4 "'<~3 Wright stated that the developer of Crossroads know~t~'jaf t~tie e; She stated that residents were told that due to the 100' setti'ack would prevent ai5y from serving alcohol. She said that future developers should be responsible for cre t. and that the developer should have to buy all of the hoiri}e~s;,, ,:. ... f.;~, Wright agreed with Maureen Hermann's issues Wltt~#j~.e C-2r:ri~e says that taking smoke breaks on the backside of the Crossroads. Sti<~iat.~d'thai'there are back of the store when the front is busy. ^;;~,,~~~~., damaged. tnd Sunday. She . She stated that 7e of the 11 PM end ordinance exists. reposed tenants also are s to the Wright stated that she also has conC.e[_ps regarding the p'~i'kit?~ situation. She stated that restaurants will overflow the parking lot at C~'~g>~o.,,ds onto Timothj~'11;v,,e4 She stated that restaurants typically do not even wind down until 11 PM, atld=fftthgy will disrupt`tl~~rj?.gfice of the neighborhood. Wright stated that the increase in liquor~store~'iicX~ases the nurril~ of aggravated assaults and other violent crimes. She stated that restaurants}which ~~;1`5e~~,~I~Qhol_al5o increase the number of aggravated assault and the amount of alcoholic d~~ of%~'o Wright said other ctti;QS::I~~y~?adopted a mef(jd'd of alcohol should be located>%fiased`b"';:the density of alephe ~~. 4., Wright stated:ttiaf~fhe bufferyatd between her`lou iv that noise will come with~r~tijaurantst ~Vnght requeste :tl address low-frequency vibraf~pt),bggln tjpxSS.and ope '~p where establishments that serve and Crossroads is not adequate. She said the noise ordinance be amended to is pe exhaust systems. Linda Pelzlt,'448$ Rond+1„iew Trf'SE~ stated that `ttie she and her husband moved to Prior Lake because; tf~ls a famtly env~onrpent ~R~jzl„is concerned the smokers will step outside and smoke. She was ~~ ~C ~o4oncerned that a 1ig13~;wine es}abli,~h`ment will eventually want to escalate their beverage offering'-}pJpclude hard liqub~;~ Fl~~' ~:•::~;. ~:k~ Lee Smith,+1453'B,Lois Ave, s~af'ed that ordinance for buffers located in between residential and commercial was'eltitnated. Heexpressed concerns that a residential neighborhood will not be guaranteed to retain::~}ejr resi~Iential nature. Smith stated that it is difficult to put faith in the city ordinances when they~.ttl~ytZe'amended to accommodate a developer's project. Richard Pyle, 6285 170"' 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:\IO PILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSIOMIO MINUTESN4N0927IO.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 sated that R-1 is supposed to be the best use of the land for residential purposes, and it should havetne~fargest buffer. Michael Wright, 14300 Timothy Ave, stated that he believes the and schools is never amended because it would upset too many ~ fight with the same power that a church and school can. Wright s doesn't specify the source of the noise. ,,g~'•. Wright stated that the HVAC unit at the Crossroadsl~s bE ,;:~ doesn't require the placement of the HVAC per City co~~ The W time not being disturbed while sleeping. He said it wilf~vV'.gr~en if tl days a week. Wright suggested keeping the procedGre ~~~ftditi< <...},. measurements so that it will not "fall through the cracks". Hesltgc this ordinance amendment will cause people. Wright stated fli~f<i the expense of a few people. ~~;.~ - Sandee Wright, 14300 Timothy Ave, stated{Ij~f'~I She said that there will be more noise if outdoo(;;evefit the Crossroad building has been disturbing theii~~hous customers and workers from exitlgg out the back`~oor. ~J Z t Wright asked if more stringay~E<tp~~prdinances wil~~5'i <•:: Kevin Busse, 5101 1.6D!~St, request~;cl that the City f since they are unique~an21'~ff,.erent. ~le stated that on play the music loudly as the~i;~{se~th~;yaC.uum,cleaner create problerp$; buk ~ restaurat~( qT bar Ilki?'~Ipg1;~YS>`2 types of rest~uYalits;a~itlbars shdtlldh;t be allowe2(~ne: A MOT•.:ION WAS MADE VOTE: Ayes The public Commissioner liquor buffer for churches sxaid that residents can't je;;grdinance amendment an issue. W~~ht stated the City rts stated that'tfj~~!~~~iave a difficult lours are extend" :}q's74M five ~.::.. IU$e Permit, but cri32ting ted~hat the City address the harm not ethical to benefit everyone at mendment doffs `tab, fiddress the outdoor noise. ~.,,. ~att,:,a~lowed. Sh~~aid that the HVAC unit on 19~tl€:;~Sle;:asked'how businesses would prevent 0.F L.ryy..: v ?She asli$:c~;i~ private parties will be allowed. created cJ~te to the amended ordinance. riew the different neighborhoods individually, 6Qu Street people go to the car wash, and they He stated that family restaurants would not .Ild. He said that the City should look at what to neighborhoods. BY HOWLEY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC and Howley. The motion carried. at 7,,~2$ p.m. 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:\IO FILES\]0 PLANNING COT4MISSION\IO MINU'1'ESVvtN092710.doc Planning Commission Meefing 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 h@; ould be willing explore amending the ordinance if it addressed different areas in the city, but he wi11:~fYbt~,upport the amendment as written. ,... Ringstad stated that application is not for lowering the drinking bar or tavern. He said that smoking issue is irrelevant, and that smokes. Chain restaurants obtain a liquor license that allowg tl ordinance amendment would not be attracting any chain re~fau thanked Mr. Pile for his comments and for sharing his side' Rir ,!=.,• cannot find a location. He acknowledged that his fe1j,Q1iv.1sspmmi the amendment, and that the ordinance amendment may<t}~`;se Perez pointed out that the City Council directed staff to Ringstad said that the June 7, 2010 City Co~itCUm.,inutes did re ordinance. He said that City Council member{RI0)r}SAepey is in acknowledged that staff had done a lot of worlF;E?ut [tiaftheplat },: ..: vote. 3, ,!zr"'a+ff> Perez stated that they are fij~Kti7g~l:ecommendatibli'to the ~br cFi"K"n'gjpg the hours of a specific ~ iv .ti 4 i~j,can't ca'ti[t~,~when someone n ~o serve ~' II ~p,M. The proposed ~:... its due to the Irfiii~iicJ, hours. He tad said it is unf~(atate that Mr. Pile ~ners were appreheistv~::fo vote on ~::•,,• ~a.~k:;to staff for it to b~~tevisited. c%' >,ordinance amendment. i~'~"~}>faff to look at amending the e aUpl~h.~~ tonight. Ringstad ng coYimissioners are not ready to Howley recommendeshttat.the ordiiYarice amendment>.be tabled. He asked Parr if they have to do a workshop or if staff will haijd,e,.,it inte{Wally.. Howley req~e;ted that the ordinance amendment be tabled instead of denied. .; ,,, Billington s~lt3 fhatther~should`~e ~gmething~mor``e definitive for the council, as the ordinance will come back/ Billington ~sk~d,what the:.ap~ropnate date would be. `...,:: Parr%ans"""QYed that October`~I~j;,2010 cati'be ready. A MOTION WASMADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO TABLE THE ORDINANCE ~l~[VjaMENT T~pOCTOBER 11, 2010. VOTE: A es b Rin `s ~(i•:~Qlin ton, Howie and Perez. The motion asked unanimous) . Y Y 9~. ~, 9 Y p Y 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\IO PI,ANNNO COMMISSIOMIO MINUPESVMN092710.doc 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 reviewing this code would help, which is what generated the ordinant that businesses attempting to find a location for their business and p, neighborhoods is what prompted the review of the code. /? Ringstad acknowledged that the ordinance may not be Keeney said that if the Planning Commission can find a would not be harmful to the residential, or if there are;t'c', Ringstad thanked Keeney for his guidance. 4. Old Business: None w~:, ~~ffee<amendment, and that iendment request. He said 8ng the residential ..,.. %~,;. "~~:•: ``>r`?~. _;`'',,h ~•:,~ for what~`sft'v:~tld be done, that 5. New Business: None e., ~~;, ~>~~=>~:. 6. Announcements and Correspondench;:, ~,"`;n':•.,•;:,:.,, ~%' %t ~" F"~`~ ih Parr stated there will be no;plllSFtin~ for the Octotier'`11 meeting:"'~~~ .. ,:.; *. Ringstad asked if thef~~ljll be a me'gtfhg given that Qptober 11th is Columbus Day. ,..:., Parr answered that the wo~k~s$ssiofVVi~_not be affecte'd`by Columbus Day. Parr asked ifff>s~iouldCai:,.a stand~,rsl,.;meeting or a vJork session. Howl/ey,;_.~Allington, Perez fiii~Ringstati£S~jd,,ythat a work session would be appropriate. 7. Ad'~iurnment: The meetin ad'burned at 7:49 m. 1.,::.: 9 1 p• Joe Sortland,fDeygjppment Ser~~i;es Assistant L:\]0 PILES\]01'LANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES1MN092710.doc 6 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 3A SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1102.1103 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PREPARED BY: DANETTE M. PARR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARING: X YES NO DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2010 As the Planning Commission is aware, the City Council has expressed concern related to economic development and having limited locations to accommodate restaurants which may want to serve alcohol. As a result, the Council directed staff to review Section 1102.1103 of the City Code and prepare amendments for consideration by the Planning Commission. 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 (draft September 27~ 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 bean increase in crime activity in correlation to alcohol. • Inadequate bufferinglscreening adjacent to low density residential housing. • Limited restaurant locations where alcohol could be served in the C-2 District. • 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 in relation to the topic was held on October 11~. The City Council attended the work session as well and discussed the following areas related to the C-2 Zoning District: • Noise generators • Bufferinglscreening requirements • Hours of alcohol service • Liquor license requirements • Rationale related to the 100 foot setback • Neighborhood concerns • Economic development concerns Phone 952.447.9800 / P'ax 952.447.4245 /nryaw.cityofpriorlake.com DISCUSSION 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 I TH13), Gateway (TH 13 / CR 44l Franklin Trail), Wilds (CR 83 / CR 42), Fountain Hills Business Park (Pike Lake Traill CR 42), South Lake Village area (Park Nicollet Ave/TH 13), and Deerfield (CR 21 /Revere Way). 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 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. 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. ANALYSIS: 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. Inconsideration 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 residential areas. The Planning Commission and Cily 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 fo 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 holidays will discourage bar type uses and instead provide locations for restaurants that serve alcohol as a limited and secondary component of their business. Where the setback / separation is measured from: As was discussed at the public hearing and 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 maybe more appropriate to evaluate this on an individual site basis and allow for screeninglbuffering, limitations on hours, limitations on the type of liquor license allowed, and site layout (in cases of new construction), and other site specific conditions as necessary to mitigate anticipated impacts. Incases 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 (ultimately the CUP would not be enacted). Buffering I screening: As with any CUP, the Planning Commission (and City Council if appealed) can increase the required quantity and size of plant material, as well as berming, and fencing. Staff is proposing a condition to the proposed ordinance 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. Incases where the proposed site does not allow adequate space for a Bufferyard E to meet this requirement, the use (if it were serving alcohol) would not be allowed. • 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. The Planning Commission may choose to put limitations on what category of liquor license can be allowed as a part of the CUP. In atldifion, 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 I 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 I refuse pickup as an ordinance amendment condition, limiting the hours from lam to 7 pm Monday through Saturday and 9 am fo 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. ISSUES: 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 chat 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. Since the public hearing and work session, staff has further reviewed Section 1102.1103 of the City Ordinance and recommends the Planning Commission 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 health, safety, and welfare of the CCU residents ~^''h'Ry and to maintain the characteristics of aneighborhood. (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. ~~~~l~nn hem. n~+ho nhnll hn Innn+nrl -~ m'n'~ s.b. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d.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 followina conditions are adhered to: - ~yuor 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 holidaKs. - 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. - A Bufferyard E shall be installed and maintained along any property adjacent to the R-1 Zoning District. Additional screening material (example: additional quantity and increased size of coniferous trees) bermina, and a solid fence or wall may be required where additional screenina is found necessary as part of the Conditional Use Permit. - No outdoor amplified music or public address system is permitted. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend additional conditions as a part of the subject text amendment, or at the time a Conditional Use Permit is considered for a specific site. There are additional conditions the Planning Commission may choose to consider, some of which include the following: • Limitations on the type of liquor license allowed for the site (full alcohol, wine- includes 3:2 beer, and malt beer). - (Maybe added as a part of the text amendment or as a condition of the CUP.) • Modifications to the 100 foot separationlsetback. - (May be added as a part of the text amendment.) • Modifications as to where the setback is measured from (examples: measured from the parking area, public entrances, exit of the liquor establishment). - (Maybe added as a part of the text amendment.) • Additional screening material (size, species, and quantity), installation of berming, fencing/walls. - (Maybe added as a part of the text amendment or as a condition of the CUP.) • Limitations on hours. - (May be added as a part of the text amendment or as a condition of the CUP.) • Specifics related to how the site functions. - (Maybe added as a condition of the CUP.) As was discussed with the City Attorney at the October 11 ~ work session, the Planning Commission and 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 Planning Commission will want to state the rationale for any additional conditions that are added as a part of the recommendation to the City Council. If a text amendment is ultimately adopted by the City Council, Findings will be included as a part of the amended language. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FINDINGS Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states that recommendations ofthe 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: 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 safely, 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 andlor Federal requirements. This amendment is consistent with federal and state laws. CONCLUSION 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. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommends approval. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. The staff recommends Alternative #1. ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft Planning Commission minutes -September 27, 2010 2. Zoning Map showing C-2 areas with 100 ft buffer City of Prior Lake 0~ PRr~~:.,, N ~. ~'~ Minnesota ~y ~' ~~ W E 2010 ~1,4ti[gcti~~' ,,,., Z~JNING s USE DISTRICTS 0 100 Buffer from C-2 Zone R-S: RURAL SUBDIV RES R-1: LOW DENSITY RES R-2: MED DENSITY RES R-3: HIGH DENSITY RES - C-2: GENERAL BUSINESS PUD: PLANNED UNIT DEV. LAKE City of Prior Lake GIS X:IPlanninglQrd_AmendlC-2 Residential Buffer.mxd MVSiIC LANE NE KAA> LAKE NE (9]J~ RG EE8:1] LOUYER PRIGP LAKE GO I~41 UPPER PRIGP LAKE GO ~va~ O This drawing is neither a legally retarded map nar a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information and data from various SPRING LAKE city, county and state offices and other sources. This doparient should be used for reference only. No representation i9~ft'~de that features presented accurately reflect true location. The City of Prior Lake, ar any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Prior Lake. ~~ ®® ®® NE ~~aa~ DICE LANE NE