Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-05 PACKET 04.A.iv.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 9/5/12 yo • PREPARED BY Community Development John McCool ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on July 23, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on July 23, 2012. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A BUDGETED AMOUNT $N /A N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 8/27/12 ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on July 23, 2012 COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER •: • ... & July 23, 2012 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, July 23, 2012, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Neal Heurung, Lise' Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Maureen Ventura, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Ken Brittain, Brian Pearson, Ryan Rambacher Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner; John M. Burbank, Senior Planner; Robin Roland, Finance and Community Development Director; Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator; Danette Parr, Economic Development Director; Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer; David Thiede, City Council; Justin Olsen, City Council; Jen Peterson, City Council Approval of Agenda Reese made a motion to approve the agenda. Ventura seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously ( 6 -to -t) vote). Open Forum Rostad asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non- agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Rostad explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capac- ity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he ex- plained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. an Al tra 0 • .. 6.1 Runze Driveway Variance — Case V12 -023 I Paul Runze has applied for a variance to the required 20 -foot side yard setback to allow a driveway to be constructed 10 feet from the side property line at 11931 Lofton Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 2 of 11 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Reese asked how far the neighbor's home is from the property line. McCool responded 56 feet from the property line. Ventura asked about the width of the existing driveway. Paul Runze, 11931 Lofton Avenue South, stated that it is 12 feet wide. He explained that the reason for the proposed location is to avoid having to remove a large maple tree. Rostad opened the public hearing. Garrit Memelink, 11921 Lofton Avenue South, stated that they feel that the Runze's request is a want not a need. The trees that lean towards his property, which are proposed to be re- moved, are beautiful oaks that pose no danger to his house or property. He stated that Runze has given him two different plans. The first showed a water drainage system that is not shown on the application before the Planning Commission. He expressed concern about the water drainage running onto his property that could possibly kill the oak trees. He stated that when the original owners of Runze's house put in the driveway, they added a culvert for natural drainage, which goes by the house into the ravine. The Runzes have closed that drainage, and he is concerned there could be problems in the future such as septic system backup or possible flooding of the house. They are not against the Runzes expanding their driveway but are concerned about water runoff, drainage, and removal of trees creating a privacy concern. Runze responded that Memelink had previously expressed concern to him that the trees that lean toward their property may fall on his house and suggested that they be removed. He stated that the trees do not need to be removed for the driveway. He then stated that his first plan had a catch basin. His father -in -law is a professional surveyor who engineered this project, and they shot elevations throughout the property. He noted that the original driveway is now 26 years old and during heavy rains, water runs down into the garage. They are putting in a new apron outside the garage that slopes so the runoff goes into the ravine. They have also volunteered to put in a six to eight -foot high privacy hedge along the east side of their property where the driveway encroaches within the 20 -foot setback. Reese asked what material would be used for the proposed driveway. Runze responded blacktop. He then explained that their front yard drainage flows into a ravine along their west property line and toward the area in front of their attached and detached garages and then into a ravine behind their property. Runze admitted that the culvert under their driveway is plugged, but the surveyed elevations of their driveway shows the driveway elevation is lower than the Memelink's property. Reese asked if it would be possible to bring the driveway a little closer to the maple tree without damaging it if that area was going to be used for parking. Runze responded that is not intended to be a parking area, but a driving surface. Heurung asked about the health of the maple tree. Runze stated that they had an arborist look at it, and he recommended that they stay one inch from the tree trunk for every inch of diameter of that trunk. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 3 of 11 No one else spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Heurung asked about the elevation drawings that Runze's father -in -law provided showing the drainage patterns, which could address the neighbor's concerns. Runze noted that runoff either flows into his garage or into the ravine. He pointed out on the aerial photo where they are proposing the drainage would flow. He noted that staff has the drainage information. Rostad stated that if the City has reviewed the elevations and found that water runoff would not be an undue influence on the neighbor's property, he could support the variance. McCool provided the elevations for the front part of the two garages, but does not have grade eleva- tions along the east property line. Reese made a motion to approve the side yard setback variance for 11931 Lofton Avenue South, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed be- low, with a change to note the driveway would be blacktop and that staff verifies the drainage would not affect the neighboring property prior to the application going to the City Council. Ventura seconded the motion. Findings of Fact A. The topography along the west side of the property and the existence of a sanitary sewer system and drainfield on the west side of the existing driveway prohibits the property owner's ability to improve the accessibility between Lofton Avenue and the garage structures at the rear of the property. B. The proposed new driveway extension will comply with the Zoning Ordinance re- garding driveway surfacing regulations. C. The proposed driveway will not adversely impact adjoining neighbors' views of any parks or open space. D. The variance request is not specifically addressed in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but its residential characteristics are consistent with the low density residential land use designation for this property. E. The proposal continues a reasonable use on the property. F. The unique circumstances to the property were not created by the landowner. G. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. N. Granting the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other landowners in the neighborhood. The proposed driveway will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. It will not create conges- tion in the public streets, become a fire danger, or endanger the public's safety. Conditions of Approval 1. The existence of this driveway must not cause erosion to the nearby slopes of the ravine. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 4 of 11 2. The property owner must complete a building permit application for the proposed driveway. A building permit must be issued by the City before construction starts. 3. The driveway surface within 30 feet of the front property line must be hardsurfaced as required in City Code Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 9(E)(5). Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). 6.2 Walmart — Case ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc., has applied to rezone the property at 9338 East Point Douglas Road South from R -4, Low Density Residential, to B -2, Retail Business; preliminary and final plats to create one 22.5 -acre commercial lot; a site plan review of a 180,000 square foot retail store; and conditional use permits to allow a drive - up pharmacy window and recycling collection point/exterior storage. Burbank summarized the staff report. He explained that the project was publicly noticed as a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD). However, as staff reviewed the applications, it was determined that the project met the criteria for the B -2, Retail Business zoning district, and the PUD overlay was not needed. He recommended approval of all applications, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Wehrle asked where the recycling area would be located. Burbank pointed it out on the site plan, noting that is will be a masonry structure with rock -face block. Eric Miller, MFRA, a local civil engineering consultant representing Walmart, introduced Jim Gallager, PB2 Architecture, who will address architectural questions, and Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, a local land use attorney. He stated that they will answer any questions from the Commission and public. Rostad opened the public hearing. Sharon Fortunak, 7120 Ivystone Avenue South, stated that from a sociology perspective she opposes the Walmart project. She noted that the fagade on the proposed building should be enhanced. Katie Stachowiak, 9499 Jasmine Avenue South, stated her biggest concern is noise issues, and that there is not enough buffering between the residential area and Walmart. She asked if there could be some type of sound wall instead of just trees. Until this meeting, she did not know that the recycling center would be facing their house. She went to the Walmarts in Lakeville, Apple Valley, and Inver Grove Heights, and none have the loading docks, com- pactor, and recycling center directly facing residential areas. At one of the meetings she at- tended, she heard that Walmart proposed delivery hours seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and asked if those hours could be changed to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Matt Fluegel, 9480 Jergen Place South, stated that he is speaking on behalf of the residents that live on top of the hill with backyards and decks facing the drive -in theater. He had asked Mr. Gallagher at the April meeting at the ice arena to provide elevation detail site plans from that neighborhood's perspective because their properties look down at the site and they want Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 5 of 11 to ensure that the heating and air conditioning units, the top and sides of the building, and the truck loading docks are screened. Rob Thomas, 9497 Jeffery Avenue South, stated he understands that there will be a com- mercial use on that property, but the truck delivery area will be 220 feet from the back of his home. He noted that the mock elevation details they were given are not accurate. Thomas asked about the elevation of the lift station. Burbank responded 808. Thomas expressed concern about the lack of buffering, noting that at the meeting they heard there would be an eight -foot berm but that is not on this plan. He asked for more detail on what the end of Jeffery Avenue would look like. Sherry Holtmeyer, 8996 Jewel Avenue South, asked for more information on how the traffic on the bridge, which is one lane each way, will be addressed. Tracy Hamilton, 9484 Jasmine Avenue South, stated that her home will be within 200 feet of the proposed site. Her biggest concern is her family's privacy. She asked to see the mea- surements from the back of the store to her home. This store is proposed for 24 -hour opera- tion, and the increased traffic and noise would impact her family. She said that the neighbors did not ask for a berm, and would rather have a wall to mitigate safety concerns and for pri- vacy reasons. She is concerned about noise due to the location of the recycling storage area and asked why it has to be at the back of the building. She was told at the meeting in May that the trash compactor runs every 20 minutes and would be audible in neighboring homes. She asked about either a retaining wall with trees or a sound fence. She then asked what a dry pond is and displayed a picture from the Lakeville site, which she hopes it will not look like. She displayed other photos from Lakeville showing the recycling center on the side of the building, noting that it is adjacent to commercial property on the side by the road. She noted that the parking lot is large and suggested moving the building forward to provide more privacy for the neighborhood. Rediske asked City Engineer Levitt if the photograph Hamilton presented shows a dry pond. Levitt responded that without seeing the plans it is hard to know if that was a wet or dry basin or for what kind of filtration system it was designed. Rob Stachowiak, 9499 Jasmine Avenue South, stated that he has multiple issues with this plan, including safety. He noted the Woodbury store is not open 24 hours a day anymore due to safety issues. He is also concerned about traffic. He spoke with the Mayor at the meeting and was told that the traffic issues would be addressed in the future. He stated that the neighborhood asked for a berm. He does not want the recycling center backing up to his property with no buffering. He asked for a 16 -foot tall wood sound wall to help with noise is- sues and truck lights and to keep people out of the backyards. He then expressed concern about drainage from the parking areas, noting that there are already drainage issues in that area. He asked that the plan be revised to take into consideration traffic, noise, light, and drainage issues. Michelle Oliveros, 9488 Jeffery Avenue South, stated that her house is within 200 feet of the proposed Walmart and questioned if a berm was proposed along the residential properties. Burbank responded that the current plans do not include a definitive berm, but that one of the recommended requirements is that prior to going to the City Council, the landscape plan will be revised to show that trees and shrubs along the northern buffering area will be increased in size to further accommodate screening. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 6 of 11 Rod Gustafson, 9246 East Point Douglas Lane, stated he is concerned about what happens if Walmart decides to vacate the property, which they have done throughout the country, in- cluding in Hastings. There are already many buildings that have been vacant for years. He then stated that when this was first discussed six years ago, it was his understanding that the corporate officials at Walmart said there were not enough roof tops in the area. Jill Korppi, 9250 East Point Douglas Lane, expressed concern about traffic. Currently, there are problems with people running through the stop arms on school buses, and she is con- cerned an increase in traffic would bring more safety issues. Heurung explained that he is a school bus driver for ISD #833, and it is District policy that they cannot go onto private property and down cul -de -sacs. Linda Van Guilder, 9229 East Point Douglas Lane, stated her concern is also about traffic. She does not believe the intersection of Keats Avenue and East Point Douglas Road could accommodate the semi trucks that will deliver to Walmart, so they will probably exit at Jamaica Avenue and drive past the Park Pointe Townhome development. That road is re- duced to one lane in each direction near those properties. She concurred about the school bus safety concerns, noting the East Point Douglas Lane is a private road. She also agrees with Gustafson about Walmart vacating properties. She then stated that in her conversations with Cottage Grove residents at various events, she has only heard two people support this proposal. Brad Conner, 9454 Jeffery Avenue South, stated he is concerned about the inaccuracies on the plan. He stated that these are the same pictures and elevations that the neighborhood was shown at earlier meetings and were told would be revised. His biggest concern is de- creasing property values. He then expressed concern about traffic and the noise from the trash compactor. He has also heard multiple times that there would be an eight -foot berm with eight to ten -foot trees on it. Kathy Lenahan, 6630 90th Street South, expressed her support for this project, noting that most people who agree with a proposal aren't as vocal as those opposed. She stated that the issue regarding school bus safety should be addressed with the school district and the City. She believes Walmart goes out of their way to adapt to the community, and provides jobs and convenience for people in the area. She stated that she goes to the West St. Paul Walmart and then uses other businesses there, but she would rather shop in Cottage Grove. She thanked the City for bringing these types of businesses to Cottage Grove. She thinks it is important to look at the overall benefit to the City. She then stated that the property owners in the adjacent neighborhoods do not own the land where the drive -in is located and should have no expectation that that land would never be developed. Katherine Garringer, 906 Hastings Avenue, St. Paul Park, stated that she transports seniors to grocery and department stores including the Walmart in Woodbury but it would be more convenient to take them to Cottage Grove. She also stated that Walmart will bring thousands of jobs to the area. Asha Sobaskowitz Gardner, Hastings, stated that she grew up in Cottage Grove and her parents live on Langly Avenue. She responded to the comment about future development in the area by noting that the drive -in theater property is zoned residential. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 7 of 11 Alicia Severson, 9470 Jasmine Avenue South, asked for a sound -proof wall to help with the noise, which is her main concern as it will be a 24 -hour store. Mark Grossklaus, 7795 68th Street Court South, explained that the City went through a planning process for the East Ravine, which spanned several years and included many meetings and citizen input. He stated that rezoning to PUD just benefits the developer and not the City, and as the first development in the East Ravine, this would set a precedent. Roland clarified that at the beginning of the meeting it was reported that although this was advertised as being rezoned to a PUD, the developer requested that it be rezoned to B -2 and the City will be following the specific tenets of that district. She stated that staff spoke with the City Attorney, who stated that the City can hold the public hearing this evening with the understanding that the project is consistent with the B -2 district regulations, and that subsequent to the public hearing and prior to the City Council meeting, it will be re- adver- tised and re- noticed for rezoning to B -2 a full ten days prior notice to the City Council meet- ing. Grossklaus asked if this area was residential or commercial in the East Ravine Master Plan. Roland responded that this area was commercial in the East Ravine Master Plan, and it was also guided for commercial in the City's comprehensive plans since 1994. Rostad closed the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. for a short recess. Rostad called the meeting to order at 9 :05 p.m. Jim Gallagher, PB2 Architecture and Engineering, 710 West Roselawn, Rogers, Arkansas, addressed store operations. The biggest concerns for the residents behind the proposed store are noise and activity. He explained that there is not a lot of activity at the back of the store. Trucks will access the loading docks but there will not be a constant stream of ve- hicles. The recycling area is where bales of recycled material and empty pallets will be stored. It is an exterior storage use, which requires a conditional use permit. There is a bal- ing machine inside the store. A forklift brings the pallets of material to the storage area. The material is stored there until picked up by a truck every few days. The area is enclosed with three walls and is open to the back of the store. The rear wall is 12 feet high and will match the exterior materials of the building. Everything must be stored below the level of the wall. The truck docks will have a 14 -foot high wall screening them from the back with a four -foot deep pit. He explained that Walmart policy is that trucks cannot idle behind the store. The compactor is also at the back of the building, but he does not believe that it would be used every 20 minutes 24 hours a day. He explained that the 220 feet is from the back of the building to the north edge of the easement, and the houses will be about 300 feet from the building. Rob Stachowiak stated that he would like a sound barrier. He asked where the trucks come in. Gallagher pointed out the truck route on the site plan. Stachowiak pointed out that his house is at the turn - around point for the trucks. He noted that he was told that Walmart had deliveries seven days a week with an average of six trucks a day. He again expressed con- cern about noise issues from idling trucks, the compactor, and the forklift. Gallagher explained that they did not survey areas that were outside of their property. He stated that after the ice arena meeting, they rechecked their data. He pointed out elevations of various areas between the residential properties and the proposed building. The neigh- bors stated that the rendering did not portray the elevations correctly. Gallagher stated that Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 8 of 11 the rendering shows what the area will look like on the final plan. Rostad stated that clarifica- tion is needed prior to going to the City Council. Burbank stated that staff may be able to get some of the missing survey data from when construction was done for the sanitary sewer easements. Ventura asked for data on decibel levels for the trash compactor. Burbank responded that no information was submitted on decibel levels for the trash compactor but staff would research that. Rostad asked if the trash compactor is inside or outside the store. Gallagher stated that the compactor is outside the building but there is a masonry wall higher than the unit enclosing it. Ventura noted that there is no roof structure on it. Rediske asked if the gas pipeline is the reason there cannot be a berm in the easement area. Burbank responded that there are cut and fill restrictions and vegetation management requirements in the gas pipeline area. There is some ability for landscaping on the regional sanitary sewer easement. Rediske asked if the landscaping would be for noise reduction. Burbank explained that the landscaping would be for a variety of purposes within the areas that the City owns, including noise screening, park and recreation amenities, and wildlife habitat. Rediske then asked how many parking spaces there would be and what the mini- mum number is. Burbank stated 859 spaces are proposed and 830 spaces is the minimum required. Rediske asked if it would be possible to remove some of the parking spaces and move the building closer to the road to create a more area for landscaping to help mitigate noise issues. Burbank stated that there would be many facets involved in shifting the site forward to add buffering, including roadway widths, truck turnarounds, ingress /egress points, and location of utilities. Rostad noted that all that may be gained in the back is the width of a parking space based on how the parking lot is laid out. Ventura asked if a sound wall is not feasible due to elevation differences between the site and residences. Burbank responded that is one component. Heurung stated one of his concerns is the effect Walmart would have on existing businesses in the community. He noted that in the past Walmart itself said that there were not enough rooftops in this area. There are Walmarts in Hastings, Woodbury, and West St. Paul, so this Walmart would mainly be dependent on the population of Cottage Grove, St. Paul Park, and Newport, and he does not see how this area could support another business of this size after several other large retailers closed. Reese asked about the traffic flow for the pharmacy drive -up. Burbank pointed out the traffic pattern for the pharmacy drive - through on the site plan. Reese asked about the dimensions of the ingress /egress from East Point Douglas Road. Gallagher responded it is 36 feet wide. Reese expressed concern about traffic in the area, noting that currently during the afternoon rush hour traffic accessing businesses in the area backs up onto Jamaica; the Highway 61 bridge is inadequate; and East Point Douglas Road has two lanes where the proposed Walmart will be. He asked why the roadway improvements are being done in phases instead of at one time. Burbank stated that the Phase I roadway improvements that are part of this project would handle the traffic from this proposed use. Reese asked why the Public Safety Commission did not review the plan before the Planning Commission. Roland stated that the plans were submitted to the Public Safety Commission Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 9 of 11 for their review but their meeting was canceled. The Public Safety Department has reviewed the plan, and their comments were incorporated into the initial site revision. Reese asked what improvements will be done for Phase I. Miller stated that they worked with City staff and Washington County on the traffic study. They anticipate 15 percent of the traf- fic to come from north on County Road 19, 20 percent to come south on Highway 61, 25 percent to come from the north on Highway 61, 35 percent to come west on East Point Douglas Road, and 5 percent to come from the south on County Road 19. With the proposed improvements, all intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service. Levitt explained that Washington County, who has jurisdiction over CSAH 19, has indicated that they will only be requiring a right turn lane on East Point Douglas Road, The County does not want all -way stops at the intersections of East Point Douglas Road and the off -ramps from Highway 61. They feel that in its current condition, traffic will flow appropriately, but they will monitor the traffic patterns. A future signal may be warranted depending on traffic movements. Reese asked if there any concerns about queuing of traffic off Highway 61 onto County Road 19, which is currently an issue and how vehicle trips will increase per day. Miller responded that the new store will generate approximately 8,000 trips per day. He reiterated that the traf- fic plan has been reviewed by City staff and consultants along with Washington County. The County provided a letter supporting the operating conditions of the intersections with the proposed improvements as recommended and will evaluate if future traffic control measures will be needed. Miller then provided an explanation of the traffic study and the levels of ser- vice during peak hours on Highway 61 and CSAH 19. Reese asked what they expect the traffic levels to be during the PM hours off the Highway 61 /Jamaica Avenue exit. Miller re- sponded that the scope of their analysis was specific to Highway 61, CSAH 19, and East Point Douglas Road; they did not evaluate the level of service on Jamaica Avenue, Jamaica and Highway 61, or Jamaica and East Point Douglas Road. Reese expressed concern that traffic impacts on that area were not looked at due to the current heavy traffic load. Levitt re- sponded that the Jamaica roundabouts were designed based on current and future land uses along East and West Point Douglas Roads. She also stated that the intersections in the area will be able to function appropriately with the increased traffic for Walmart. Burbank clarified the Phase I and Phase II road improvements. The Phase II improvements will be done when the other properties that will benefit from that roadway construction project are developed. If Phase II was done now, the current benefiting property owners would be assessed for those improvements. The applicant will fund the Phase I road construction costs attributable to their development. Peter Coyle, Land Use Counsel for Walmart, stated that a lot of good comments and feed- back were heard this evening. The biggest concern from the residents relates to the rear view of the building. He asked the Planning Commission to lay these applications over to give them a chance to review the rear perspective to see if they can identify ways the screening issue can be addressed that is acceptable to the City and the residents. Rostad stated that the two issues brought up were traffic concerns and buffering between the rear of the store and the residential neighborhood. Ventura added that the buffering also involves noise issues, not just the view. She asked for clarification as to what noises are generated at what decibels during what hours. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 10 of 11 Reese asked how much land Walmart purchased and how much is being used on this project. Miller responded that the total development tract is 23.55 acres, and that Outlots A, B, and C would be dedicated to the City for public use, including as park /open space, storm - water ponding, and roadway easements. Reese asked if the amount of parking was driven by the City's ordinance or by the store's needs. Miller responded that they are complying with the City's B -2 ordinance for parking stalls, which requires 830 stalls. In addition, their client's base minimum for a store is a 4.5 parking ratio and they are within a few stalls of their base minimum parking ratio as well. This proposal meets both the needs of the City and their client. Heurung made a motion to table the application for further review of traffic issues and buffering. Ventura seconded. Reese asked if the motion could be amended to add Public Safety Commission review of the application. Heurung and Ventura agreed to the amendment. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items None Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from May 21, 2012 8.1 May 21, 2012 Wehrle made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 21, 2012, Planning Com- mission meeting. Rediske seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8.2 June 25, 2012 Wehrle made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 25, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Rediske seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Reports 9.1 Recap of July City Council Meetings Thiede reported that the City Council approved the rear yard shed variance on Jody Lane and the vacated right -of -way between 60th and 65th Streets for the Pinecliff 5th Addition subdivision. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 11 of 11 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Reese made a motion to adjourn. Ventura seconded. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.