Planning Commission Minutes

CITY OF VICTORIA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 19, 2006

MINUTES

Pursuant to due posted and mailed notice thereof, the Victoria Planning Commission met on December 19, 2006, 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, Bud Hiivala, William Mead VI, and Tom Vogt.

Members Absent: None.

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

A. Adopt Agenda

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Mead, to adopt the agenda as presented. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion Carried.
 

#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

A. Minutes of November 28, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting.

The following revisions were requested to the November 28, 2006 meeting minutes:

Chair Simanton stated that on page 7 at the bottom it should read: Chair Simanton stated once the City receives something in writing from the Met Council, then the City can move forward to accommodate developers.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Vogt, to approve the Minutes as corrected above. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

B. Approve Minutes from December 5, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting.

The following revisions were requested to the December 5, 2006 meeting minutes:

Commissioner Vogt stated that on page 7 the last paragraph should read: Commissioner Vogt asked for clarification if in the budget process the finance department and park and recreation had discussion on whether money would be required to be taken for some of the general facilities from the park dedication fund.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Vogt, to approve the Minutes as corrected above. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

C. Review Minutes of the December 4, 2006, joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting (Kick Off for Comp. Plan)

The above minutes were reviewed.

D. Review Minutes of the December 4, 2006 City Council Meeting.

The above minutes were reviewed.
 

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

1. Agenda Statement No. 06-39
2. Exhibits

Ms. Kreft referred to drawings in the packet. She stated the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for expansion to the outside display area and storage. She noted that a minor subdivision had gone before the Planning Commission and City Council in August of this year.

Ms. Kreft stated that additional outdoor storage would be to the east of the property.

Ms. Kreft explained that in review to the I-1 standards and ordinance there are a number of issues that are outstanding.

Ms. Kreft noted that the applicant has also indicated a future building will also be planned on the existing site where the house is located.

Ms. Kreft stated that the ordinance requires a service drive to be located adjacent to Highway 5 for property within the I-1 District. The right-of-way for this is 30 feet wide and paved to a width of at least 24 feet.

Ms. Kreft stated a trail is also proposed within the I-1 District, as well as street trees and impervious surface requirements.

Ms. Kreft stated based on the site plan submitted, staff is recommending that the request be tabled at this time until a detailed site plan be submitted including further information on the following 8 items listed:

1. Square footage of existing parking area.

2. Square footage of proposed parking expansion.

3. Plans for paving and striping of the parking lot, including number of parking spaces to be provided.

4. Stormwater and drainage plans showing topographic data and any proposed grading changes as well as on-site stormwater management.

5. Details on the decorative fence provided (i.e. height and materials).

6. Right-of-way and landscape easement for service drive adjacent to TH 5.

7. Detailed plans for expanded outdoor storage areas.

8. Amount of impervious surface on site based on requirements of the I-1 District.

Ms. Kreft noted there was discussion on utilities in the previous meeting, but not on the service drive, impervious surface or paving of the parking lot.

Chair Simanton opened the Public Hearing at 6:36 p.m.

Mr. Steve Haefner, Timberwall Landscaping Inc., said some of these items they would take into consideration when they build the building.

Mr. Haefner stated he doesn’t see where putting in a display area for landscape products should require paved parking and any of the other items. He said they are irrelevant.

Mr. Haefner said the existing parking area isn’t going to change.

Mr. Haefner stated the square footage of the proposed parking expansion is none.

Mr. Haefner said with the paving and striping of the parking lot it seems unreasonable for the City to ask when they are going to tear it up and put a building in.

Mr. Haefner stated as far as the stormwater drainage it all runs into the swamp. He said the water is purified and runs into the lake. Chair Simanton asked for clarification on the run off water being pure. Mr. Haefner said it is rainfall water.

Mr. Haefner said he doesn’t know what is meant on the decorative fence.

Mr. Haefner stated he doesn’t see a need for a service drive. He noted it is their property.

Mr. Haefner said as far as the impervious surface on the site, the site will continue to remain as is for the most part. The landscape plan includes some small patios and walkways, so there is a minimal amount of disruption.

Chair Simanton mentioned there is not a lot of detail to look at. He said the request is for outside storage and a display area and asked what the details of the decorative fence are. Mr. Haefner referred to the colored area on the drawing and the decorative fence being used to keep it separate from the yard to prevent from people wandering. He stated he was told the City requires an 8-foot fence around industrial property, but the ordinance says you can’t build a fence higher than 6 feet. Mr. Haefner stated that from the fence to the east would be the outside storage area.

Mr. Haefner said the front half would be the parking, as it is today.

Chair Simanton asked what the outside storage is. Mr. Haefner said it is the same as what they have now for landscape supplies.

Ms. Kreft noted that other than the verbal testimony that the outside storage is from the decorative fence to the east, there is nothing on the site plan that shows what that entails. Ms. Kreft referred to the drawing and said the decorative fence is shown on the east side and the I-1 District states that it cannot exceed 8 feet in height and it has to be of decorative material, which is in the ordinance.

Chair Simanton asked with a Conditional Use Permit if that can be approved and then have the applicant come back with the details. Ms. Kreft responded that staff would not feel comfortable making any recommendations without having any of the details. Chair Simanton asked if by approving a Conditional Use Permit, the City looses any leverage for things to be done afterward. Ms. Kreft said if the building met all requirements, the building permit would be the only thing needed at that time.

Chair Simanton said if the outside storage area and display area were approved it would still be subject to any review on how that would be built out.

Mr. Haefner said when they come back to get a permit for the building, the City would require curb and gutter and black top parking. He said they are just looking for a three-year fix until the property is paid for.

Chair Simanton asked for a timeframe. Mr. Haefner referred to the plan that shows the schematic for the landscape display. He said there is a driveway, house and garage. Mr. Haefner noted they received a permit to split the property. One thing they want to do is build a building and he mentioned the City is going to require that one of the driveways be eliminated and it makes sense to have the driveway further to the west. The goal would be where the house and garage and part of the display is to build a building in that area and make the driveway there now permanent. The parking area would be where it is now. Mr. Haefner said they are looking at three to five years, depending on the economy and how quickly the engineer gets things designed.

Chair Simanton asked how that property would be utilized from now until the time the building is put in if a Conditional Use Permit were received. Mr. Haefner said they are going to try and rent that house. He noted they have three years from August to use that house and at that point the house will need to have sewer and water brought in, because the septic tank did not pass inspection.

Mr. Haefner referred to the colored schematic drawing and said on the front side there is a dark line and that is the existing property line, from there to the west approximately up to the property line that is the parking area that wouldn’t change. He noted the house, garage and lawn will stay the same. He said if you’re looking at the line that goes from east to west on the edge of the display then everything to the south of that would become outside storage. That area is gravel now for parking.

Chair Simanton asked where the parking that is there now would go. Mr. Haefner said they don’t need all of what they have. They are eliminating some of what they have to put in the storage area.

Mr. Haefner stated the display areas are to provide an area where contractors or homeowners can come and walk thru and get ideas. Chair Simanton said this would be business displays for materials trying to be sold.

Commissioner Donadio asked if people will be able to use the display area when the business is closed. Mr. Haefner said yes.

Commissioner Hiivala asked if this is similar to the south side of the existing building and just an expansion to the west. Mr. Haefner said that is correct.

Commissioner Vogt asked if there’s an expiration date on a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Kreft responded no. Commissioner Vogt asked if there is any recourse. Ms. Kreft said you can review it at any time to make sure the conditions are being used.

Commissioner Vogt noted that the conditions are going to be the same in two or three years.

Commissioner Hiivala said he thinks that there is not enough information. He mentioned it would be nice to have a sketch plat to show what the long term plans are. The service drive will depend on how you access if it is required and the fencing will depend on how the whole property will look.

Commissioner Donadio asked how many parking spaces would be required based on the square footage. Ms. Kreft said it is 1 space for every 2,500 square feet of land used for sales or display and warehouse and storage require 1 space for each 5,000 square feet plus 1 space for each company vehicle. Commissioner Donadio asked what the square footage is for the proposal. Mr. Haefner said it is around 160,000-180,000 square feet total space. Mr. Haefner said there is probably room for at least 75-100 cars.

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

Chair Simanton said that they are not opposed to what would be done on a temporary basis or long term basis, but they are looking for more detail on long term plans to have a better picture.

Mr. Haefner asked if the City needed all this information before they came to this meeting why weren’t they informed. Chair Simanton asked when the permit was applied for. Mr. Haefner said a couple weeks ago. Ms. Kreft noted that staff wanted to provide the Planning Commission with the information on the I-1 District.

Commissioner Hiivala noted that there are 8 conditions, but they need more information in order to grant the Conditional Use Permit. He reiterated they need a sketch plat that shows the plans, where the roads would be and where the parking would be on the total property and then they could move quickly. Mr. Haefner said the roads aren’t changing at this point until the recent house goes away. Commissioner Hiivala said that pavers are not considered impervious coverage in the landscape display.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Vogt, to take staff’s recommendation to table the request by Timberwall Landscaping Inc., for outside storage and display area for property at 2015 Arboretum Boulevard, until staff is provided with more information on what was discussed. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

1. Agenda Statement No. 06-40
2. Exhibits

Ms. Perera explained that there has been discussion on certain streets being public or private. She stated that staff brought it to the City Council in November and they did recommend that Greencrest Drive be considered a public road and should be plowed and maintained by the City. She noted that Greencrest Drive is shown platted with Carver County as being a public road. Ms. Perera stated in order to make it official Resolution number 89-15, item number 12 states that the homeowners association is responsible for snow plowing, so that condition would need to be amended to reflect it being a public road.

Ms. Perera stated that staff’s recommendation is to amend the condition to eliminate item number 12 under Resolution number 89-15.

Commissioner Vogt asked how the confusion occurred that some people thought it was private. Ms. Perera said the width of the road and it is a difficult road to plow and maintain.

Chair Simanton asked when this development was completed. Ms. Perera said in 1989. Chair Simanton asked if they have been plowing since that time. Ms. Perera said the homeowners association has been plowing.

Commissioner Vogt asked if the City Council agreed to make this a public road. Ms. Perera said yes.

Ms. Perera stated that the City Attorney said the City could go back and re-plat the road, but it would require significant costs and it should be viewed as a public road, since it is.

Chair Simanton opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m.

Mr. Earl Hubbard, 1766 Greencrest Drive, said he is the President of the Association. He stated the City has maintained the street for 16 years. They have done everything except plowing. He noted that it all started when he came and asked that it be plowed and the City Engineer said it was a private street. Mr. Hubbard stated the feasibility report states it is a public street.

Mr. Hubbard said they have had some emergencies and the cars were getting stuck trying to get in. He said it takes less than 15 minutes to plow the street.

Mr. Hubbard stated they are looking for the early morning plow opening up the street for access in and out. He said they are not asking that any of the parking lots be plowed by the City and noted the half the parking lots are used to store the snow in the winter time.

Mr. Hubbard said there were concerns of making the turns and they can be done.

Mr. Hubbard said the only issue they see is the snow going in the driveways and their people will remove it.

Chair Simanton closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Hiivala, to approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and Resolution No. 89-15 to require the city to plow snow and maintain Greencrest Drive. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

Ms. Perera noted that this will be brought to the City Council meeting on December 28^th for approval as a consent item.

1. Agenda Statement No. 06-41
2. Exhibits

Ms. Perera noted that this one is the same as the previous. She stated in 2002 staff was directed by the City Council to bring forward a public hearing so Resolution 94-22 and 98-02 could be amended for the Conditional Use Permit for Pointe Vista Drive to hold the City responsible for the maintenance and snowplowing.

Ms. Perera stated that Pointe Vista Drive was found to be a public street that was dedicated to the City of Victoria.

Ms. Perera said that staff’s recommendation is to amend the resolutions to be eliminated.

Chair Simanton opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 p.m.

Mr. Steve L?, 8830 Pointe Vista Drive, said he is the President of the Homeowners Association. He stated they have always been a public street. He said they went before the City Council in April of 2002 because they weren’t sure if they were a public street. It was determined that it was a public street and always had been. He said the snow has always been removed, but they would just like to make it official.

Mr. L? said what brought it up was one heavy snowfall that the City didn’t plow the street and a complaint was filed and they were told that they don’t have to plow that street because it is a private street. After April, 2002 there was suppose to be a hearing to make it official and it never took place.

Chair Simanton asked when the approximate completion date of the development is. Mr. L? said they have one unit that remains for sale. He noted the development is complete and it started in 1995-1996.

Mr. Stan Hamerski, 8821 Pointe Vista Drive, reinforced what was said. He stated that Carver County has this plat and it has always been a public street. He questioned the maintenance and noted the sweeping has always been done by the City. He said this summer when the oil overlay and gravel applications were performed in Deer Run it was not done on Pointe Vista. He made calls to the City asking when it was going to be done and never received a call back. He mentioned the boulder wall was being repaired at that time. He noted the expectation is that the taxpayers maintain the seal-coating. Chair Simanton asked if that road is not up to the standard from a maintenance standpoint. Mr. Hamerski said yes.

Chair Simanton closed the Public Hearing at 7:21 p.m.

Commissioner Vogt asked staff if there is any understanding on why the City wouldn’t snowplow, seal coat or return calls. Ms. Kreft said she doesn’t know about the snowplowing, but the seal coating was an oversight and will be added to the 2007 seal coating project.

Commissioner Hiivala noted the amendment does cover both snowplowing and maintaining.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Vogt, to approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and Resolution No. 98-02 and 94-22 to require the City to plow snow and maintain Pointe Vista Drive in addition to a recommendation from the Planning Commission that the City Engineer review the seal coating and overlay. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

Ms. Perera noted that this will also be brought to the City Council meeting on December 28^th for approval as a consent item.
 

A. Appoint two Planning Commission members onto the Task Force Committee for updating the Comprehensive Plan.

1. Agenda Statement No. 06-42
2. Exhibits

Chair Simanton asked who the City Council has appointed. Ms. Kreft responded Councilmembers Roden and Tieden. Chair Simanton asked if others have been assigned. Ms. Kreft said the other committees have made appointments, but they have not been approved by the City Council. She noted that the Senior Commission has recommended Linda McNulty and the Business Development Committee has recommended Terry Hartman.

Chair Simanton asked when the first meeting would be. Ms. Kreft said they haven’t set the date yet.

Commissioner Vogt asked when the meetings would be held. Ms. Kreft said they have not decided.

Commissioner Vogt stated he would volunteer.

Commissioner Donadio stated he is available.

Ms. Kreft said that the recommendations would go before the City Council next Thursday.
 

Councilmember Tieden was not present.
 

Chair Simanton mentioned the timing of the private and public streets in developments and asked if there have been any recent ones. Ms. Kreft said that recent private streets would not be allowed. Commissioner Donadio asked how many more of these there would be. Ms. Perera said they did the research and will bring forward the details at the next meeting.

Chair Simanton asked what the advantages are of being a private street. Ms. Kreft said they don’t have to meet City standards.

A. Communications.

None.

B. Other.

Ms. Kreft said the committee has been meeting on the new downtown project. She stated a preliminary developer agreement will be brought to the City Council next Thursday that will outline fifteen items that the developer will need to complete by June 1^st in order to move forward. Chair Simanton asked if this was Mr. Crowe. Ms. Kreft said yes.

Chair Simanton asked if there is anything on the interviews. Ms. Kreft said that is going to the City Council next Thursday.

Chair Simanton asked about the analysis for pools, impervious surface and lot size. Ms. Kreft said it would be on the January 2^nd agenda.
 

A motion was made by Hiivala, seconded by Mead, to adjourn the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.
 

Respectfully submitted,

Tanya Schmieg
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.