Planning Commission Minutes

CITY OF VICTORIA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 2, 2007
 

Pursuant to due posted and mailed notice thereof, the Victoria Planning Commission met on January 2, 2007, at 7951 Rose in the Council Chambers.

Chair Simanton opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Members Present: Chair, Gordy Simanton; Commissioners James Donadio III, William Mead VI, and Tom Vogt.

Members Absent: Commissioner Bud Hiivala.

Others Present: Holly Kreft, City Planner; Angie Perera, Assistant Planner; and Tanya Schmieg, Recording Secretary.

A. Adopt Agenda

Chair Simanton asked that under Public Hearings A and B be switched.

A motion was made by Vogt, seconded by Mead, to adopt the agenda as revised. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion Carried.
 

#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

A. Review Minutes from December 14, 2006, City Council Meeting.

The above minutes were reviewed.
 

Chair Simanton reviewed the process that would be followed tonight during the public hearings.

A.  Request for a Conditional Use Permit, permitting the use of an off-sale alcoholic beverage sales establishment for property located at 7924 Victoria Drive, Suite #102.

1. Agenda Statement No. 07-02
2. Exhibits

Ms. Perera stated the applicant, Parker Tannin’s wine shop, is applying for a Conditional Use Permit for Suite #102 of the Notermann Building to allow the use of an off-sale alcoholic beverage establishment.

Ms. Perera noted that an ordinance amendment was done in 2205 to Ordinance No. 336, which makes this use a Conditional Use within the Central Business District.

Ms. Perera stated the applicant has also applied for a liquor license.

Chair Simanton asked if this is a two-step process. Ms. Perera said this is and they have also applied for a liquor license, which will go to the City Council.

Ms. Perera stated the only concern that staff had in reviewing this is currently the ordinance does not state as to how many off-sale alcoholic beverage establishments are allowed in the Central Business District. She said there are no requirements or limitations by State. Chair Simanton asked if there was a ratio or formula that could be used. Ms. Perera said she doesn’t know of any. Chair Simanton said it could be based on population or density. Ms. Perera said that would be up to the City as to how they want to handle it.

Commissioner Vogt asked under what condition would they not approve the permit and what the criteria is for issuing a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Perera said the only condition right now would be that they are approved a liquor license. Ms. Kreft said parking concerns would be another condition. She stated the liquor license is set by each City and there is a limitation for on-sale liquor but not off-sale. Commissioner Vogt said if there are any concerns they would make it part of the Conditional Use Permit and commented on how many there should be as being part of the Conditional Use Permit or the liquor license. Ms. Kreft said if the City wanted to limit the number of establishments they would need to do so through an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Donadio said even the location of them. Ms. Kreft said right now they are a Conditional Use Permit within the Central Business District and a permitted use within the highway commercial.

Mr. Ryan Dussault, 1349 Romeo Court, said he just wanted to introduce himself. He stated the concept will be focused towards wines and microbrews, but will be a full service liquor store as well. He said he is excited and it will be a nice fit for the downtown area. He noted the space is painted and the shelving will be starting soon.

Chair Simanton asked what the opening date is. Mr. Dussault said it was February 1^st, but he is now hoping before Valentines Day if everything goes well with the City Council.

Chair Simanton opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m.

Chair Simanton closed the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m.

Commissioner Vogt asked if the parking situation with the Notermann Building is being resolved and if the parking is still adequately contained. Ms. Perera responded that it is not a change of use. Chair Simanton noted that it was approved based on the Notermann Building and the businesses coming in are consistent with what was approved.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Donadio, to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit, permitting the use of an off-sale alcoholic beverage sales establishment for the property located at 7924 Victoria Drive, Suite # 102. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

B.  Request by Mark & Joyce Ertelt for a Variance to allow an existing driveway and retaining wall to be located in the drainage and utility easement on their property located at 705 Virginia Shores Circle.

1. Agenda Statement No. 07-01
2. Exhibits

Ms. Kreft said this is considered an after the fact variance. She stated the applicant has a driveway located on the eastern drainage utility easement and has requested a variance per the direction of the City Legal Counsel.

Ms. Kreft said that staff has reviewed the request and because of the timeframe of when this was constructed is recommending that the variance be approved with the following two conditions:

1. A draintile be installed along the east side of the retaining wall and outletted into the stormsewer to allow for adequate drainage away from the property to the east by June 1, 2007.

2. The applicant enter into a Private Use of Public Property Agreement with the City.

Ms. Kreft noted that enclosed in the packet are the minutes from the August and September 2003 meetings.

Commissioner Vogt said that on the conditions there is a date of June 1, 2007 for draintile to be installed and asked what would happen if it is not installed by that date. Ms. Kreft said the applicant could ask for an extension or the City could do it and access the property owner.

Commissioner Donadio asked Ms. Kreft to go through the general reasons as to why one would grant a variance. Ms. Kreft said they would need to prove hardship and in this case there are some timeframe conflictions.

Chair Simanton asked about the variance being recommended by Legal Counsel. Ms. Kreft said it is the variance process. Ms. Kreft said the applicant applied for an addition to an accessory structure in November and when the application was made staff then reviewed the file and minutes from 2003 and after that staff met with the attorney who recommended a variance be approved to allow the structure to remain in the easement.

Chair Simanton asked about the draintile. Ms. Kreft said the drainage would need to be assessed by staff and the engineer. Chair Simanton noted at this time they are not reviewing where the draintile would go and asked if that would come back. Ms. Kreft said it could or it could be per the recommendation of the engineer.

Chair Simanton said the neighbor to the east has some issues with the drainage. Ms. Kreft said they would not involve them in the process and the City Engineer would be the one making the recommendation.

Ms. Kreft noted that according to the applicant the majority of the flow is to the southwest.

Chair Simanton asked what the size of the current building is. Ms. Kreft said it is less than 10x12 square feet, which does not require a permit. Chair Simanton asked if they are looking to increase that. Ms. Kreft said it does not exceed the maximum and thought it was an additional 3 feet. She noted that is only required in the zoning permit.

Chair Simanton asked who is paying for the draintile. Ms. Kreft responded said it would be at the cost of the applicant.

Commissioner Donadio said by approving this variance gives precedent to the granting of a permit to build a driveway all the way up to a lot line. Ms. Kreft said depending on if it is an after the fact variance and construction occurred prior to the amendment.

Chair Simanton provided some background and said there was some confusion with what the City Planner instructed the petitioner of what they could and couldn’t do at that time. He noted the City doesn’t have the paperwork or backup and the structure went in.

Chair Simanton asked if the City would have to go in and take out part of the driveway whose responsibility is it to put it back in. Ms. Kreft said the property owner would be responsible and the utility company would have to give a 10-day notice.

Commissioner Mead asked if the lien is going to be in the area of a variance. Ms. Kreft said no, staff has reviewed the site and it meets the 5-foot side yard setback.

Chair Simanton asked if the City is covered with an ordinance on who is responsible for paying. Ms. Kreft responded yes there is a six to seven page agreement. She said it is a recorded document that stays with the property.

Commissioner Vogt asked if the property agreement says anything about the need to correct the draining issue. Ms. Kreft said no.

Commissioner Vogt pointed out that in the letter from the neighbor they have a big concern about the drainage. He said the setting up of the draintile is a very important piece of this. Chair Simanton noted that under the conditions that is number one.

Commissioner Donadio commented on the talk about the driveway sizes and widths and asked how this driveway fits into it. Ms. Kreft said it is a 24-foot width. Commissioner Donadio asked how this fits into the impervious surface. Ms. Kreft said the site coverage is at 16%.

Mrs. Joyce Ertelt, 705 Virginia Shores Circle, stated that they would really like some closure to this issue and some definite decisions from the City. She noted they have dealt with many planners who have given them different information.

Chair Simanton opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m.

Chair Simanton closed the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m.

Chair Simanton stated this is a unique situation from the history that he has on it. He applauded the Ertlet’s for coming in and doing the right thing and for trying to come to some agreement with the City.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Vogt, to approve the request by Mark & Joyce Ertelt for a Variance to allow an existing driveway and retaining wall to be located in the drainage and utility easement on their property located at 705 Virginia Shores Circle with the two conditions provided above. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

Ms. Kreft noted that this will go to the City Council next Thursday, January 11^th.
 

Ms. Perera stated there is a resident here who would like to comment on the previous public hearing regarding the Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Deep Baveja, owner of Hi-5 Liquor, said that his concern is last year in December of 2005 an applicant came up in the same building for a liquor license and it came that the building was not zoned for an off-sale liquor license. He asked if that building is zoned for a liquor license. He said there are six or seven businesses going in to the Notermann Building. He commented on the parking asked if the variance still stands for a year later.

Mr. Baveja stated there are four off-sale liquor licenses in a town 5,500, Schmitty’s, Floyd’s, Victoria House and Hi-5.

Mr. Baveja said he doesn’t know how it is going to affect his business.

Ms. Perera stated that in the staff report there was an ordinance amendment in December 2005 that allows the actual off-sale liquor to take place in the Central Business District and that is viewed as a conditional use, so the applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Baveja said that when the variance was given in December of 2005 there was no other business in that building.

Chair Simanton asked if the concern is parking. Mr. Baveja said his number one concern is the amount of liquor licenses in town and second would be the parking. Chair Simanton said the Notermann Building was approved for retail and office. He noted that the City is encroaching on six to seven parking spaces that belong to the Notermann Building.

Commissioner Vogt clarified the ability to sell off-sale liquor is not a zoning issue. Ms. Perera said it is not a zoning issue because it is a conditional use allowed within the Central Business District.

Commissioner Vogt noted that the parking was addressed with the approval of the Notermann Building changes.

Chair Simanton asked if that is correct that you can buy off-sale from all the three bars. Mr. Baveja said yes, they can sell off-sale until 10 p.m.

Commissioner Vogt stated there is a license issue and asked if it is the license process that determines how this is governed or is it the conditional use process in terms of the number of licenses. Ms. Kreft said the license will be a separate agenda item with the City Council.

Chair Simanton suggested that they take a look at the ratio. Commissioner Donadio said to add that as a condition for future applicants coming forward. Chair Simanton noted that when the west side is finished there will be more of this activity.

Mr. Baveja commented on the number of off-sale licenses and said that in a star city (20,000 people) it is 1 liquor license per 5,000 people. He said that most of the cities also look into a mile radius and referred to New Hope and St. Louis Park as having a one-mile radius.

Mr. Baveja said that Hi-5 Liquor came up as not being zoned for off-sale liquor back in 2005. Commissioner Donadio asked if he is now. Ms. Kreft said no, he is considered a non-conforming use in the Central Business District. She noted that the ordinance amendment was not specific to the Notermann Building, but for the entire Central Business District. Commissioner Donadio noted that if he didn’t have the business he would have to follow the same process.

Commissioner Mead stated you can’t stop a conditional use permit. He recommended that Mr. Baveja go to the City Council because they will have the final say.

Commissioner Vogt noted that almost every town that has on-sale liquor establishments are also granted off-sale. He reiterated that the licensing is the issue.

Chair Simanton asked staff to look at if there is something out there that can be used. He commented that in this case it sounds like the establishment is a higher end wine only as opposed to an MGM that could come in on the west side. He said the demographics also need to be looked at. Commissioner Vogt made a correction that the wine shop will have hard liquor and beer. Mr. Baveja said once you have a license you can put whatever you want in it.

Commissioner Donadio asked about the ratio on a star city if the one-mile radius is a law or city practice. Mr. Baveja said it is city practice.

Ms. Perera said staff will do further research and find out how many are currently existing.

A. Follow Up/Review of impervious surface requirements for swimming pools and etc.

1. Agenda Statement No. 07-03
2. Exhibits

Ms. Perera stated there are two items: the definition of impervious surface and how to move forward with that and the other one is the calculations and research on lot sizes.

Ms. Perera read the definition from the American Planning Association Dictionary of impervious surface: "Impervious surface area shall be defined as any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water." "Impervious surface area shall include sidewalks, driveways and parking areas (gravel, bituminous, concrete, etc.) and water surface area of a swimming pool. Decks shall not be included if they are not covered and if pervious surface is located below."

Commissioner Vogt said he was surprised to see gravel listed in the definition as impervious surface. Ms. Kreft said that was given in the sample definition and it depends on the type of gravel. She said it can be removed.

Commissioner Mead clarified a water surface area of a swimming pool is impervious in their definition. Ms. Kreft said that is the proposal that they have. Ms. Perera said that sounded like the consensus from the last meeting that it was impervious from the majority of the Planning Commissioners.

Ms. Perera said if this definition is okay it can go forward for a public hearing. Commissioner Mead said to take gravel out and then it would be okay. Commissioner Vogt said he agrees with the deletion of gravel the definition looks like it could be approved.

Chair Simanton said that with a pool included on a backyard the P.U.D. was at 17,500. Ms. Perera said that 17,500 square feet is the standard residential lot. Chair Simanton asked if with the smallest lot they are in any danger. Ms. Perera said the standard residential is 25 percent. Ms. Perera referred to Atlantis and Poolside as to what type of pools could be built. She reviewed the samples provided on page 2 of the agenda statement.

Ms. Perera stated she created a three-page handout with further calculations. She looked at five different lots with existing pools. She noted that all would still have a positive remaining impervious surface area with all the different pool sizes and a 3-foot apron around the pools.

Ms. Kreft said there was a request for a 1,600 square foot pool deck and staff recommended that they downsize or put impervious pavers in. That would be in access of. Chair Simanton said if underneath the pool deck they have rock then the deck doesn’t come in as impervious surface. Ms. Kreft said correct.

Ms. Perera said to summarize the trouble with the impervious surface area is in the walkways not the pool itself.

Ms. Kreft thanked Ms. Perera for all the work done on this.

Chair Simanton said this is very concise and if it goes to City Council include the agenda statement as well.

Ms. Perera showed a color coded map.

Ms. Kreft said they will move forward with the ordinance amendment and publish the public hearing notice.
 

Councilmember Paulsen was not present.
 

A. Communications.

None.

B. Other.

Ms. Kreft gave an update on the Highway 5 project that was initiated last year. She said the funding did not come forward. Ms. Kreft said they are currently updating the RFP and will bring that forward. Ms. Kreft noted the significant funding source was the 100,000 from the federal funds that were hoped to be secured funds. MN/Dot has indicated that they will not have any funding so it will be left to the cities involved in the project. Commissioner Donadio said that money will only cover the design. Ms. Kreft said the initial RFP was to do the design and now they are looking at a corridor study that would allow future interchange. The County is also involved.

Ms. Kreft handed out the assignments for City Council Meetings.
 

A motion was made by Mead, seconded by Donadio, to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Tanya Schmieg
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.