Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-11 CPC Packeti 1 1 a tec THE IIRTMPLA CE OF MIMMESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North May 11, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of April 13, 2016 regular meeting minutes IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS V. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 2. Case No. 2016-18: Consideration of a 7' variance to the 30' Front Yard Setback for a garage to be located 23' from the Exterior/ Corner Side Yard property line for the structure located at 110 Marsh Street East. Ruth Robinson, Owner. Ryan Schalk, Applicant. 3. Case No. 2016-19: Consideration of a Special Use Permit amendment to allow for live, outdoor music, as a form of outdoor entertainment, for The Lion's Tavern and at the property located at 324 Main Street South. Grand Garage Holdings, LLC, Owner. Dave Najarian, Applicant. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. STAFF UPDATES/FOR YOUR INFORMATION X. ADJOURNMENT ate THE 1I1TN►LACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 13, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Hansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kocon (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Commissioners Collins, Hansen, Kelly, Lauer, Middleton and Siess, Council Representative Menikheim Absent: Commissioners Fletcher and Hade Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of March 9, 2016 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to approve the March 9, 2016 meeting minutes. All in favor, 6-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2016-08 Consideration of a Variance to City Code Section 31-354 Subd. 5, to allow for the construction of an in -ground swimming pool in the side yard area of the property at 655 Newman Trail, located in the TR Zoning District. Derek Paton and Kelly Mathre, owners and Nik Hawley, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicants have applied for a variance to construct a pool behind their residence. City Code requires all swimming pools to be located in the rear yard, however the property is located on a corner and therefore does not have a true rear yard. An extensive landscaping plan has been submitted to mitigate view impacts to neighbors. A letter of opposition was received from John and Tracey Abbott, 715 Liberty Court. Since the extensive landscaping plan was submitted, the Abbotts have retracted their opposition and now support the project. The applicants have received Homeowners' Association approval. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Commissioner Siess asked if any corner lot has a true rear yard. Ms. Wittman explained that the point between the back of the house and the rear lot line is considered the rear yard for corner properties. Vice Chairman Hansen asked, if there were a one foot line drawn instead of a point at the rear of the lot, would there be an issue? Ms. Wittman replied no, because technically it would have a rear yard delineated by the rear lot line, however short the line may be. Planning Commission April 13, 2016 Nik Hawley, Performance Pool and Spa, applicant, emphasized the uniqueness of the property shape. Vice Chairman Hansen opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Siess compared the case to a variance for a six foot fence. She asked for an example of a situation where this would not be approvable. City Planner Wittman responded that there was a similar request many years ago, also in Liberty. Commissioner Kelly remarked that one difference between this application and a fence is that the applicants could have put a fence in without a variance had they just moved it back. Commissioner Collins commented that the request looks reasonable. He applauded the property owner for taking steps to minimize impacts to neighbors. Commissioner Siess asked Ms. Wittman if it's true that when Liberty was created, there were to be no pools. Ms. Wittman replied there is one district in Liberty where pools are not allowed, and another where retaining walls to facilitate pools are not allowed. There are six zoning districts in Liberty that allow for pools and this is one of them, as long as they abide by easement and setbacks. Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Middleton, to approve Case No. 2016-08, a Variance to City Code Section 31-354 Subd. 5, to allow for the construction of an in -ground swimming pool in the side yard area of the property at 655 Newman Trail, with five conditions recommended by staff. All in favor, 6-0. Case No. 2016-14 Consideration of a concept Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat, and a Zoning Map Amendment for The Ponds at Heifort Hills, a 24-lot residential subdivision to be located at 8753 and 8911 Neal Avenue North, currently located in the AP Zoning District. Kenneth Heifort, property owner. Community Development Director Turnblad explained the request. Richard Gagne, representing The Ponds at Heifort Hills, LLC, is proposing to develop the 25-acre homestead of Kenneth and Geraldine Heifort, located at 8753 and 8911 Neal Avenue North. The project is planned to be developed in two phases. The first phase would be to develop the south half with 24 detached townhomes. The second phase would be to develop the north half to create another 24 detached townhomes. The developer is requesting: 1) rezoning of the first phase's 15.2 acres from AP, Agricultural Preserve, to RB, Two - Family Residential; 2) Concept PUD approval for the entire site, 25 acres encompassing both phases of development; and 3) Preliminary Plat approval for The Ponds at Heifort Hills, which represents the 24 homes in the first phase of the project. Mr. Turnblad explained that the townhomes would have a single family appearance but would be surrounded by a common area overseen by a homeowners' association. He reviewed the City, DNR and Browns Creek Watershed District rules governing the three approvals being requested and how they are met by the proposal. Staff recommends approval of the concept PUD, Preliminary Plat, and rezoning, with 18 conditions. Commissioner Siess asked about future development and whether the cul de sac would exceed 600 feet, recalling a previous development in which the length of the cul de sac was controversial. Mr. Turnblad responded that in Phase one, the cul de sac and all of the driveways are under 500 feet from the public road. If the only way to access the abutting property is via the cul de sac, then the resulting Page2of7 Planning Commission April 13, 2016 cul de sac would be more than 500 feet. Before the applicants come back with the plat for Phase two, that would have to be discussed. Ms. Siess asked if the City is required to have a certain amount of agriculturally zoned property. Community Development Director Turnblad replied that the comprehensive plan guides all property within the City for non-agricultural uses. The Agricultural Preserve classification is intended not to preserve agriculture, but as a holding zone until development occurs. It is not to be confused with the State of Minnesota's definition of Agricultural Preserve. Asked by Commissioner Kelly about the Commission's standard for rezoning, Mr. Turnblad replied if a development is consistent with the comprehensive plan, then the deciding body must find a defensible reason for denial. The Planning Commission's actions on all three of the requests will be recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner Middleton noted that MnDOT has dictated that the driveway now coming off Hwy 96 may be a driveway but may not ever be a road access. Mr. Turnblad confirmed this. Without another access point approved by MnDOT on Hwy 96, there could feasibly be one more lot created. Richard Gagne, 11373 Neal Avenue South, Hastings, introduced the development group: his wife Wendy who is also an investor in the project, Kevin vonRiedel, part of the development team, Tim Freeman, surveyor, Matt Woodruff, Larson Engineering, and property owners Kenny and Gerry Heifort. Mr. Gagne offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Middleton asked if there will be capacity for on -street parking on the private roads. Mr. Gagne stated that residents will be parking in their own driveways and if the City asks for parking areas, they will add those. Commissioner Collins asked if the neighbors were consulted regarding the present plans. Mr. Gagne replied they had a well attended meeting a month ago at City Hall open to all neighbors, with notices passed door to door. Commissioner Siess referred to the park and trail dedication "still under development" and asked if that has gone anywhere. Mr. Gagne said the applicants are still working on it. Community Development Director Turnblad added that the development will be responsible for creating an extension of the City trail system in the area, which will eventually connect Highway 96 with the trail system on McKusick and Brown's Creek. In the northwestern corner of Phase one is a wetland basin that is close to the road, so staff are looking at ways to get the trail through the wetland or to connect on the property itself. He noted the obligation is clear and the developer is willing to meet the obligation; details will be required before the final plat. Vice Chairman Hansen opened the public hearing. Ruth Bruns, 8790 Neal Avenue, asked where the cul de sacs will come in, in conjunction with the existing driveway across the road. Tim Freeman, surveyor with Folz Freeman Erickson, provided a drawing showing the cul de sac entrances as related to the existing driveways. Fred Bruns, 8790 Neal Avenue, asked if sewer and water will run down the complete length of Neal Avenue to Highway 96. Mr. Turnblad replied that sewer and water will extend across the property but not necessarily down Neal Avenue. At some point it will break off Neal to provide future access to Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission April 13, 2016 the properties to the north. Matt Woodruff, Larson Engineering, added that sanitary sewer from White Pine Way will extend along Neal Avenue through the cul de sac to the north to serve future developments. It will extend along Neal as far as possible to facilitate the connection of other residents. Jason Kehren, 8820 Neal Avenue, questioned what will happen to the road and the path. Community Development Director Turnblad answered that the trail is proposed to be on the east side of Neal Avenue. Chairman Kocon asked if the trail is included in the impervious surface calculations. Mr. Turnblad replied it is not because nothing in the Neal Avenue right of way is exempted from those calculations. The trail will follow as closely as possible the existing impervious surfaces. Tom Hooley, 2250 Oak Glen Court, asked whether the 75' setback from the pond is from the high water mark. Mr. Turnblad said it measured is from the ordinary high water level. He added that the buffer area is not from the edge of the pond but from the edge of the wetland. No grading is allowed within 75' of the wetland. During construction there will be silt fencing constructed along the 75' wide buffer strip. After construction, there will be signs delineating a conservation easement along the edge of the 75' buffer line. Mr. Hooley remarked that the fact that the open space is the pond itself doesn't seem useful for the neighborhood. Mr. Turnblad replied by explaining the other open space areas that won't be touched by development. Mr. Hooley stated that in his neighborhood, the open space is considered to be the golf course, so in his neighborhood, open space doesn't mean much. He asked the developer for examples of other developments he has done. Kevin vonRiedel, Sovereign Land Services, development consultant, answered that he has done development for 30 years all over the Twin Cities area. He provided examples of past projects he has done. Eric Knuteson, 1930 Oak Glen Trail, remarked that it is a beautiful plan for the neighborhood. Given the amount of fertilizer and chemicals that are used in different neighborhoods, he suggested the addition of rain gardens to reduce runoff to ponds. Joe Kiolbasa, 1920 Oak Glen Trail, recognized there have been changes since he last saw the plans. He asked what trees would be removed and replaced. Community Development Director Turnblad replied that submittals included an inventory of all trees indicating what is proposed to be removed and replaced. Overall, developers are allowed to remove 35% of the canopy cover without needing to replace it. The proposed tree removal is under that threshold. Landscaping requires planting three trees per lot. Mr. vonRiedel elaborated on the tree plan. He said there are currently no rain gardens in the plan but they are willing to consider adding some. Chairman Kocon remarked that water drains in a certain direction off impervious surfaces. The way the driveways are oriented, he suspects that a rain garden may not be necessary to handle rain water. Mr. Woodruff commented that a rain garden is nothing more than a way to handle stormwater. The development has been engineered to meet watershed rules for handling stormwater. Even though they are not called rain gardens, there will be infiltration areas. Mr. Kiolbasa asked if the City will install street lights. He would like to minimize light into the night sky. Mr. Turnblad said the subdivision code calls for one street light at the end of each cul de sac, so this project would require two new streetlights. Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission April 13, 2016 Mrs. Bruns asked if Neal will be blocked during construction. She asked that the City allow current residents to use the road and park cars there if necessary. Mr. Turnblad responded that most work will be done on the private property, not on Neal Avenue. There will be a period when the City will require Neal to be rebuilt, but it will never be closed off totally. Vice Chairman Hansen closed the public hearing. Commissioner Siess asked if the trail could possibly go on the west side of the street. Mr. Turnblad said it is possible to go on the west side, but the City Engineer noted that the west side has more obstacles than the east side and it would have to cross the road at some point because of south Twin Lake. Ms. Siess expressed concern about not making it a requirement that the trail be on the east side. Mr. Turnblad replied by not defining it, allows staff to place it where it physically works the best; the goal is to construct the trail on the east side. Commissioner Kelly asked about details of parking and availability of on -street parking. Mr. Freeman stated there is plenty of driveway parking in front of the three -car garages. At 32' width, the public streets will be wide enough for parking. The cul de sac could accommodate parked cars but they feel there will not be an issue with street parking for the residents because of the large size of the driveways. Commissioner Middleton asked about the 30' setback for the houses on Neal Avenue. Mr. Turnblad explained that the 8-12' wide path will follow Neal on the east side and will be separated from the road by around 10'. Mr. Middleton noted that the small amount of green space between the road and the building makes it seems like a lot of bituminous. Mr. Turnblad replied there are routinely driveways between the street and the front of the house so it's not uncommon to have impervious surface in the front yard area. Chairman Kocon asked what is planned for landscaping. Community Development Director Turnblad explained a row of trees and shrubbery in front of the homes is planned. Mr. vonRiedel added that the landscape plan shows basic boulevard plantings, basic screen plantings and basic foundation plantings. They will look at adding plantings where needed. The drawings are just a starting point. Vice Chairman Hansen acknowledged that the proposal took a long time to create due to the numerous City controls. Based on the information presented, he feels those controls have ensured that the project fits within the City guidelines. He thinks the project looks good. Commissioner Siess remarked she is sad to see open space developed, however the development looks like it has gone through the proper channels. Motion by Chairman Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Lauer, to recommend approval of Case No. 2016-14, a concept Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat, and a Zoning Map Amendment for The Ponds at Heifort Hills, a 24-lot residential subdivision to be located at 8753 and 8911 Neal Avenue North, with the 18 conditions recommended by staff Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Middleton voting nay. Vice Chairman Hansen passed the gavel to Chairman Kocon. Case No. 2016-17 Consideration of Variances pertaining to maximum accessory structure coverage for the property at 1118 Fourth Street South, located in the RB Zoning District. Chris Medin and Mary Murray-Medin, property owners. Page 5of7 Planning Commission April 13, 2016 City Planner Wittman reported that the applicant is seeking a 184 square foot variance to the accessory structure size regulation for a pre-existing structure. The purpose of the request is to convert the 1910 era garage/barn into a storage shed and to build a new 936 square foot garage. The applicants are also requesting a 240 square foot variance to the maximum accessory structure coverage. Staff recommends approval of both variances with four conditions. Chairman Kocon asked if the Commission should require that the modern doors on the existing garage be changed, since they are more modern than the building. Ms. Wittman noted that the property owners intend to beef up the structure in the future but that at this point, removal of the garage doors could possibly jeopardize the structural integrity of the building. Mary and Chris Medin, 1118 Fourth Street South, informed the Commission they would love to maintain the historic home and return the present garage space portion of it to living space. They want to preserve the garage/barn structure as much as possible, although it is in poor condition, and they also want to have a useable garage. Commissioner Lauer asked the applicants if they intent to tear up the asphalt that would no longer be used. Mrs. Medin stated they will do so in stages as they can afford it. Mr. Lauer asked how the neighbor to the south feels about the proposal. The Medins stated neither of their neighbors has any obj ection. Commissioner Collins noted he hopes that the Medins will restore the garage/barn to what it would have looked like in 1910. Mrs. Medin said she agrees, but it depends on how much restoration their finances allow. Chairman Kocon closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Siess, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve Case No. 2016-17, Variances pertaining to maximum accessory structure coverage for the property at 1118 Fourth Street South. All in favor, 7-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. STAFF UPDATES City Planner Wittman informed the Commission that MnDOT produced a new walking tour brochure for Stillwater, which is a mitigation item for the bridge. Commissioner Siess asked about the status of the yard parking ordinance. Ms. Wittman reported that on a split vote, the City Council voted to not approve the yard parking ordinance after the public hearing. Commissioner Siess recalled that one Councilmember was quoted in news articles stating he would have approved the ordinance, had height and length been included, which was not the direction Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission April 13, 2016 of the Planning Commission. She found this frustrating. Ms. Wittman acknowledged that the Commission discussed length and height limits but it was acknowledged that was not the direction given to the Commission. At the first Council meeting, they did not discuss lengths and limits a great deal. It was brought up during Council discussion at the second meeting. Ms. Wittman noted that for the issue to come back it would have to be directed by the Council or requested by a citizen. Commissioner Siess asked if there are avenues for the Council and Commission to work together. Ms. Wittman replied that having joint workshops could be beneficial when working on policy issues. Chairman Kocon stated his opinion that staff did a fantastic job of notifying anyone who needed to know about the yard parking ordinance. He feels the vast majority of citizens who probably would have wanted the ordinance didn't show up to the meetings. Commissioner Siess asked what action was taken on the senior living facility. Ms. Wittman reported that the City Council upheld the Commission's recommendation to approve the concept PUD but to deny the zoning text and map amendments; there was a lot of opposition and the public hearing was very lengthy. She believes the developer plans to back before the Council for a new public hearing to address the question of what changes need to be made to the proposal. The Council was clear that they liked the concept of senior living and support the significant amount of open space included in the proposal. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m. All in favor, 7-0. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 7 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 11, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-18 APPLICANT: Ruth Robison, property owner, represented by Ryan Schalk REQUEST: Consideration of a 7' variance to the 30' Front Yard Setback for a garage to be located 23' from the Exterior/ Corner Side Yard property line for the structure located at 110 Marsh Street East ZONING: RB: Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR: Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Ryan Schalk has applied for a variance to construct a detached garage on the property located at 110 Marsh Street East. The garage, however, is proposed to be located 23' from the south property line. Consequently, the applicant is requesting a 7' variance to the 30' Exterior/Corner Side Yard setback as per City Code Section 31-308(b)(1), Massing regulations. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to "...allow variation from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code where the literal enforcement...would cause practical difficulties for the landowner." In addition to the requirements, below, Section 31-208 indicates "[n]onconforming uses or neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or other districts may not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance" and "...a previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits." Section 31-208 further indicates: • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • A previous variance must not be considered to have set a precedent for the granting of further variances. Each case must be considered on its merits. The applicant must demonstrate that: The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to regulate and restrict use of land for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The purpose an Exterior (corner side) Side Yard Setback is to maintain an open, unoccupied and uniform space for aesthetic and environmental benefits. However, the proposed garage will be situated the furthest back from the street it can be located to be compliant with the building code provision of a 3' setback from property lines. Additionally, garages are encouraged to be in the rear of properties, which this garage is proposed. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no application elements in conflict with the comprehensive plan. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. "Practical difficulties," as use in connection with the granting of a variance, means that all of the following must be found to apply: The property owner proposes to use the land in a reasonable manner for a use permitted in the zone where the land is located, but the proposal is not permitted by other official controls; The property does not contain a functioning garage. While there is a small shed on the property, this improvement would be removed in order to accommodate the new garage. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and that are not created by the landowner; and This property is approximately 48' deep. With a minimum Rear Yard Setback of 3' and an Exterior Side Yard Setback of 30', a garage no greater than 15' in depth would be permitted without a variance. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant indicates the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality but that it will be enhanced as currently the property owner must park outside. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Make findings practical difficulties do exist for the property owner and approve a 7'variance to the 30' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] from Marsh Street East for the construction of a 326 square foot detached garage to be located at 110 Marsh Street East, with or without conditions. Case No. 2016-18 CPC: May 11, 2016 Page 2 of 3 The Planning Commission may impose conditions in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. If the Commission were to find practical difficulties do exist for the property owner, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. Plans shall be substantially similar to those on file with the Community Development Department's Case No. 2016-18. b. A building permit shall be reviewed and approved prior to the construction of a garage. c. The garage will have similar color and materials as the residence. d. As per City Code Section 31-510, Off-street parking and loading, the driveway must be surfaced in concrete or asphalt as per City Code section 33-5 standards. e. Major exterior modifications to the variance permit request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as per Section 31-204, Subd. 7. 2. Make the findings practical difficulties have not been established and deny the variance. 3. Table the application and request additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis the application is in harmony and intent of the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the applicant has established practical difficulty, staff recommends conditional approval of a 7'variance to the 30' Exterior Side Yard Setback [City Code Section 31-308(b)(1)] from Marsh Street East for the construction of a 326 square foot detached garage to be located at 110 Marsh Street East. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request Site Plan Garage Facade Rendering (2 pages) Case No. 2016-18 CPC: May 11, 2016 Page 3 of 3 The Birthplace of Minnesota 110 MARSH STREET EAST SITE LOCATION 0 CP Subject Property Municipal Boundary Parcel Boundaries 170 340 General Site Location Ryan Schalk 110 Marsh St E Stillwater, Mn 55082 (720)641-3345 ryanschalk.1119@gmail.com Variance Proposal I am requesting a variance for Ruth M. Robison of the front yard setback for an accessory building. I propose to build a car and a half garage facing south along the east side of the property. My grandmother wishes to have heated space for storage of her vehicle, household tools and equipment. At some point the lot was split from a larger corner lot into two smaller lots to accommodate the two dwellings built by the original owners. This has presented a challenge to build a functionally sized garage while maintaining the minimum setbacks. Many houses in the neighborhood have garages built along lot lines and within thirty feet of the front of their property, so this garage will conform with the existing style of the neighborhood. The garage will be fully finished with siding and roofing to match the renovations being done to the house. Thank you. Key to Elevation Drawings 110 E Marsh 1. Architectural shingles black roof pitch 6/12 2. 6" white aluminum Fascia/Soffit 3. House trim 1x6 white wood grain fiber cement 4. Window/Door trim 1x6 top with 1x4 sides/bottom white wood grain fiber cement 5. Siding 4" lap blue/grey wood grain fiber cement 6. 6" white square columns 7. Retaining wall 4 X 4 pressure treated 4' on center 8. Retaining wall 2 X 12 Pressure Treated 9. Privacy Fence 6' pressure treated 38' 10 13/16" 110 Marsh St E Property Line N Existing House Proposed Garage 46' 22' 2 16' 24' 5'x5' Stoop �• Walkway Existing Driveway Sidewalk Marsh St 24' 9" 134' 3" South Elevation 110 E Marsh .r- 0 6 5 3 4 East Elevation 110 East Marsh 1 23 4------_ 5 ------- 6 7 8 op- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 11, 2016 CASE NO.: 2016-19 APPLICANT: Dave Najarian, representing The Lion's Tavern REQUEST: Consideration of a Special Use Permit amendment to allow for live, outdoor music, as a form of outdoor entertainment, for The Lion's Tavern and at the property located at 324 Main Street South. ZONING: CBD - Central Business District COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND The Planning Commission granted approval of SUP 2006-05 which allowed for outdoor seating for Stone's restaurant. A condition of approval was that 'evening outdoor music is allowed but subject to review and revocation or adjustment upon complaint." The case files note 'piped music' was proposed. REQUEST The applicant requests an amendment to the special use permit to allow outdoor live music on the west patio, behind the structure located at 324 Main Street South. The specific request is to allow limited music past 10:00 p.m. in the summertime months that would: • Be located at the southern edge of the patio, facing to the north and to the west; and • Encompass small groups of 1-3 people, mostly playing guitar and vocals, designed to be ambient background noise for the establishment; and • The music is proposed to be amplified (though the application does indicate there would not be large amplifiers); and • Cease by 10:00 on school nights. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ANALYSIS Sec. 31-325 of the Zoning Ordinance (Allowable uses in non-residential districts) notes that outdoor musics may be allowed in the Central Business District by special use permit approved ' The line item in the commercial use table that covers outdoor music reads: "Exterior phonographs, paging systems, musical instruments, etc that may disturb the peace and quiet of the public". by the City Council. Sec. 31-207(d) states that a special use permit may be approved if the City Council finds that: 1. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. The property is zoned as Central Business District, which allows outdoor entertainment by special use permit. The request is to allow live, amplified music until 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and past 10:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Since the seating capacity for the patio remains unchanged, there is no effect on parking demand. The request does not conform to the city's noise ordinance. Sec. 38-3, Subd. 2 of the City Code prohibits the use of musical instruments or operation of sound reproducing equipment outside after 10:00 pm if it can be plainly heard more than 50 feet from the source. Therefore, the approval of the request for outside music past 10:00 pm may only be approved by the City Council if they grant a waiver to this standard. 2. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. If the Planning Commission elects to recommend approval of the request, staff recommends the conditions listed below to protect the public interest. 3. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Outdoor music, especially amplified, has been a continual source of complaints from residents within and near downtown. Downtown is a mixed -use area with many residents in addition to businesses and visitors. The request for amplified music may create a nuisance or be detrimental to residents, other businesses and visitors. Recognizing these potential impacts, Police Chief Gannaway has indicated amplified music past 10:00 pm is not appropriate. If the Planning Commission elects to approve the outdoor entertainment request, staff recommends reducing the hours when outdoor live music would be permitted to no greater than 10:00 pm, May to October. A condition allowing adjustments to the permit based on complaints received is also proposed. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Determine that the outdoor entertainment request is in conformance with the provisions for issuance of the SUP and approve the Special Use Permit request with or without conditions. If the Commission would like to approve the Special Use Permit with conditions, staff would recommend the following: a. Live outdoor music is permitted to be located on the western patio, situated in a location where sound is directed in as easterly fashion as possible and as depicted on the site plan as proposed in Case No. 2016-19. Case No. 2016-19 CPC: May 11, 2016 Page 2 of 4 b. Outdoor music shall only be permitted until 10:00 pm, seven days per week from May to October, unless a waiver to the noise ordinance is granted by City Council Resolution. c. Any changes to location, amplification, timing and/or duration shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council. d. The City reserves the right to reduce hours approved in this permit if the outdoor entertainment becomes a nuisance. e. This special use permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission and City Council for possible revocation or amendment to the conditions of this permit if substantial verified complaints, safety issues or violations of the conditions of this permit are received by the Community Development Director. 2. Determine that the proposed outdoor entertainment is not consistent with the SUP provisions or the Comprehensive Plan and deny the Special Use Permit. 3. Table the application to June 8, 2016, requesting additional information from the applicant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that if the aforementioned conditions are imposed, the request for outdoor entertainment at the Liori s Tavern meets the SUP provisions and conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval of Case No. 2016-19. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Narrative Request (2 pages) Patio Rendering Case No. 2016-19 CPC: May 11, 2016 Page 3 of 4 0 The Birthplace of Minnesota 324 Main Street South SITE LOCATION CI Subject Property ••••••• Municipal Boundary Parcel Boundaries 85 170 General Site Location w w o))--21- vE Zr lrn 0 01-0 P) vs;L---c_ ?0�s2 )9 P,194. IN �- w ) OT- #(1-U C ni)S.Az- - Zfi 1N oV z-4 B .D u e421-(067-77-E S U y� � w 1-e4J 771( liU//LE.iL 4_7- wovfr)-2q-Yt Sme9-LL 26?AP5 p- 3-T7)--A-=r- w 6 U 2_4) 1)?O572_ Y /2,4 tti 6-utmiz_ v o �L s S 0 0vL413, .3 i-2-z c. _ 0 v dZ 6-61re-- L muszz fl-5 l� 46/9-6(2e1)ND UnJO �ofi /9-5 19- comfit' s 7 & w£1.u011, )TZ?-VC Wo Lev rs.� 19-14 P L 0 (-) 2-- fril-v nivs4.;t411/5-- IP-V£2 a- No/2-77f — 50 w 4 vuovz_m tf-4Ut on%r STy\ W &)r,�2) /9-(9 fi--p(u 1/0 b5t-Ly A-(,4ole4ditO muse fsZ�✓s� w#-/-0-1- -ry V3L7 43\ )E1 2 K S b W‹ v'12_ m vs�z -'-'turf a 4�