Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-05 PACKET 04.A.ii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE 6/5/13 PREPARED BY: Community Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM # ' � r ' ,� s Jennifer Levitt STAFF AUTHOR ******�***************************************** COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meetings on March 25, 2013 and April 22, 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meetings on March 25, 2013, and April 22, 2013. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A $N/A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION ►1 I■ ■ ■ ■ ■' � PLANNING PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS DATE 4/22&5/20 PARKS AND RECREATION HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MEMO/LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meetings on 3/25/13 and 4/22/13 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS �S� �f Date ******************************�***************** COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission March 25, 2013 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, March 25, 2013, 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. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Elijah Harter, Wayne Johnson, Brian Pearson, Lise' Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Maureen Ventura Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Dave Thiede, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Brittain made a motion to approve the agenda. Rediske seconded, The motion was ap- proved unanimously (7-to-0 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 capacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he explained 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. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 3M Building 143 Exterior Materials — Case V13-010 3M, 10746 Innovation Road South, has applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-6-13, Architecture Requirements, to allow metal wall panels on the exterior of the new Fall Protection Building to match the colors and style of existing buildings on the site. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2013 Page 2 of 7 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad c/osed the public hearing, Harter made a motion to approve the variance. Rediske seconded. Brittain offered a friendly amendment to add that approval is based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions in the staff report. Harter amended his motion to add Brittain's friendly amendment. Rediske seconded. Findinps of Fact: A. The proposed 1,500 square foot building addition is internal to the 3M Cottage Grove site. The c/osest public road from the proposed building addition is approximate/y 2,860 feet. B. The building addition cannot be seen from the north shore of the Mississippi River because of the bluff along the south side of the Mississippi River. C. All the minimum building setback requirements of the l-3 District are complied with. D. The proposed exterior materials and colors are similar and consistent with other buildings on the 3M Cottage Grove site. E. Other existing structures on the 3M site are taller than the proposed addition, F. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned Heavy lndustry and the proposed building addition is con- sistent with other manufacturing buildings on the 3M site, The requested variances will not adversely impact the adjoining properties or views from the Mississippi River. G. The variance request is not specifically addressed in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but its industrial characteristics are consistent with the industrial land use designation for this property. H. The proposal continues a reasonable use on the property, l, The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. J. The qranting of the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land in the neighborhood. The proposed building addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. lt will not create congestion in the public streets, become a fire danger, or endanger the public's safety. K The current use of the existing building is a permitted use within the Heavy Indus- trial, I-3 District. The proposed building expansion will allow the permitted manu- Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2013 Page 3 of 7 facturing use to a/so expand. City ordinances do not require city approval of the manufacturing facility. Conditions of Approval; 1. All applicable permits (i.e.; building, electrical, grading, mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 2. The applicant receives building permits from the City of Cottage Grove prior to construction. 3. 3M must obtain all required State permits before manufacturing operations begin in the new addition. 4. 3M must provide a copy of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general storm water permit to the City Engineer. 5. 3M must provide a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a copy of all the erosion control inspections to the City Engineer. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote.) 6.2 Wozniak Property/DR Horton Development — Cases PP13-008 and ZA13-009 DR Horton has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning from AG-1, Agri- cultural Preservation, to R-3, Single Family Residential, with a Planned Development Overlay; and a preliminary plat for a residential subdivision to be located north of 70th Street, approximately a third mile west of Keats Avenue, that will consist of 134 single family lots and 13 outlots. McCool summarized the stafF report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked about the viewing triangle associated with the trail along 70th Street and if a condition needs to be added to address visibility from the trail. McCool stated that the City has talked with Washington County about this issue and it is being considered. Reese asked about maintenance if the homeowners association defaults. McCool re- sponded that the homeowners association is required to own and maintain certain areas. If those properties go tax forfeit and the City picks up those parcels, all 134 lots within the subdivision will be billed for their portion of any maintenance costs. Reese asked who would maintain the buffer strip along 70th Street if the homeowners association ceases to exist. McCool responded that the 13 homeowners would maintain their respective part of the buffer strip. Rostad asked if accountability for snow and ice removal, mowing, etc. is the homeowners association or the property owner. McCool responded that the responsibility for mainten- Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2013 Page 4 of 7 ance and snow removal ultimately belongs to the property owner. The homeowners asso- ciation, which is comprised of all the property owners in the development, could decide that they do not want to take care of certain things and the responsibility falls back onto the property owner. Brittain had concerns about some of the street names in the development. McCool pro- vided the street names in the area. Brittain expressed concern about Jewel Lane and 68th Street and asked about the precedence of a street changing its name mid-block and not at an intersection. McCool responded that staff considers this to be a one-street alignment connecting to the same street, Jensen Avenue. As part of the City's street naming system, a looped road that connects back to the same road is a lane. Brittain noted that a temporary turnaround is not required for the future northerly extension of Joliet. McCool responded that DR Horton is proposing development in four phases. Brittain then asked where the 12 parking spaces on the west side of Joliet Avenue would be located. McCool pointed out the location of the on-street parking area, which is near the park. � Mike Suel, DR Horton, 20860 Kenbridge Court, Lakeville, introduced Fran Hagen, Westwood Professional Services, who is the engineer for the project. Suel stated that re- garding the 70th Street buffer they met with staff last week and are now leaning toward having that area be an outlot. They understand the Commission's concerns regarding HOAs, stating that DR Horton writes the HOA documents to stand up over time. Suel then described the homes that they will be building in the development. There will be seven basic home plans with three to four front elevations to choose from. They will also provide flexibility in the designs based on homeowner requests. They only have two-story homes planned for this development. The homes range from 2,300 to 3,400 square feet. He pro- vided pictures of the proposed homes. There are several details, such as wrapping brick around the sides of homes, to work out with the City. Reese asked about if fencing along 70th Street has to match the East Ravine Design Stan- dards of black chain link. McCool responded that if there was to be fencing, all the proper- ties would have to use the same materials and color and would be required to be on the house side of the berm area. The design standards do not reference a specific type of fence, only that it has to be the same materials and colors. Reese asked if the berm would be consistent with the berm in the Newland development. McCool responded that the DR Horton development is lower in elevation than the Newland development, which does have some parts of the berm at six feet in height, and there are grading and drainage issues on the DR Horton property. Fran Hagen, Westwood Profes- sional Services, responded that berm size is based on the elevation of the road in relation to the backyards and the existing grades. He explained that from the back of the houses to the berm it is about six to eight feet but from the roadside it is zero to four feet. Rostad asked about the conservation easement regarding tree removal in the northeast corner. McCool responded that there will be documentation as part of the plat review that those trees are to be preserved. In addition, the homeowners association restrictive cove- nants will list what homeowners can and can't do in that conservation easement. Rostad asked about enforcement. McCool responded that enforcement would be up to the home- Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2013 Page 5 of 7 owners association. McCool stated that the City is requiring a connection of the public utili- ties to the three-acre parcel located to the west. In order to install those utilities, there will be some tree removal in that wooded area. There may also be a public street extended to that parcel. If that is the case, tree mitigation would be re-evaluated. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain asked for feedback from the Commission on the street name Jewel Lane versus 68th Street. The Commission discussed the street names for the development. Brittain rec- ommended having more continuous use of street names. Reese asked if the developer is planning to put in a monument sign. Suel pointed out the location for their monument sign by the entry from 70th Street noting that there will be landscaping around it. Thiede asked if the homeowners associations for the two developments would be con- nected as was discussed during the concept plan approvals, particularly the neighborhood that includes homes from both developers. Suel stated that they have had conversations with Newland about combining the associations on the west side. They both agree that it would make sense to join the west lots with the Newland lots. Brittain asked if they don't come to an agreement with Newland, will DR Horton have one or two associations. Suel responded one, but the documents have not been drafted yet and he needs to discuss the documents with their association attorney and managers. Suel stated that their preference would be for Newland and DR Horton to have their own HOAs and include the westerly DR Horton properties in the Newland HOA. Rostad suggested that all properties to the east of the watershed should be in one homeowners association and everything to the west in another. Wehrle asked if Public Works was okay with the landscape islands. McCool responded that they have accepted the islands but they don't want the responsibility for maintaining the islands. Brittain made a motion to approve the zoning amendment from AG-1 to R-3, the Planned Development Overlay (PDO), and the preliminary plat, subject to the 89 con- ditions stipulated in the stafif report with the addition of a recommendation to change the names of Jewel Lane to 68th Street and 69th Street with a caveat to evaluate if it is possible to also rename Jewel Lane in the Newland development as well. Reese seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote), Project Update Burbank provided a presentation updating the Planning Commission on current projects in the City. Rediske asked if the Highway 61/Keats Avenue interchange project for which the City is re- questing grant funding is part of the Walmart construction. Burbank responded that the interchange area is a separate project; Walmart is part of Phase I of the East Point Douglas Road project, which includes the addition of a turn lane and roadway and trail improve- ments. Phase II would be triggered by additional commercial development. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2013 Page 6 of 7 Rediske asked for an update on the reconstruction of 70th Street from Highway 61 to Hinton Avenue. Burbank responded that the County has approved plans for that project and staff could provide a copy of those plans. Reese asked if East Point Douglas Road would be temporarily closed during the construc- tion. Levitt responded that when utilities are being installed, there will be a detour in place for about six to eight weeks. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2013 Reese made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 25, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Pearson seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 7-to-0 vote (Johnson did not vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of March City Council Meetings Thiede reported the City Council approved final plat for Mississippi Dunes Estates 4th Addition, resolved the issues regarding the Pinecliff homeowners association, approved a permit for underground utilities through the center of Sunny Hill Park, approved The Alley Church's expansion, and appointed Wayne Johnson to the Planning Commission. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries ►�r•Ti� 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Reese asked if the strip mall with Caribou is completely leased and if so, should the "for lease" signs be removed. McCool responded that there may be one vacant tenant bay. Rostad asked about the Rush building. Burbank explained that Northern Tier refinery in St. Paul Park is using the parking lot for temporary parking of contract workers. 9.4 Annual Meeting and Election of Officers Rostad stated that the Commission should review the Planning Commission Rules. If there are any changes, they will be addressed and voted on at the next meeting. Thiede explained that Councilmember Olsen, Planning Commission Liaison, asked that the Planning Commission nominate a Chair for approval by the City Council. Reese nominated Brittain for Chair. Brittain nominated Rostad for Chair. There were no other nominations. These nominations will be sent to Olsen for appointment. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to defer the appointment of the Vice Chair and Secretary to the next meeting after the Chair has been approved by the Council. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2013 Page 7 of 7 Adjournment Brittain made a motion to adjourn the meetinq, Reese seconded. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. C ity of C ottag e G rove Planning Commission April 22, 2013 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, April 22, 2013, 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. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Elijah Harter, Wayne Johnson, Brian Pearson, Lise' Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Maureen Ventura Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Reese made a motion to approve the agenda. Brittain seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (8-to-0 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. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 Zoning Text Amendment: Auto Dealerships in I-2 District — Case V13-011 CMC Enterprises Incorporated has applied for a zoning text amendment to allow automo- tive sales as an accessory use with an automotive repair business (inside the principal structure) in the I-2, General Industry, zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 2 of 6 McCool summarized the staff report and the proposed draft ordinance and recommended approval of the text amendment. Christopher Carey, 9461 Dunes Lane South, stated that his company purchases vehicles to create products, such as exhaust systems, intakes, etc., to mass produce those parts. When they are done with the vehicle, they would like to be able to sell it. They believe that they will exceed the five vehicle sales maximum. Rediske asked in the draft ordinance under E(1)c, is the minimum lot width 300 feet or 425 feet. McCool responded 425 feet and he would change that error in the ordinance. Rediske asked how many cars Carey thinks they will sell. Carey responded that all vehicles will be stored inside and there will be no signage and it is not their primary use. He foresees that they could sell around 12 vehicles a year. Rostad asked if the definitions of auto repair and auto body repair needs to be spelled out. McCool responded that auto repair and auto body are defined in the current zoning ordinance. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Reese made a motion to approve the ordinance amendment. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote,) 6.2 Hyde Avenue Setbacks Variances — Case V13-012 J.G. Hause Construction has applied for a variance to reduce the required 35-foot rear yard setback to 22 feet to allow construction of a house at 7675 Hyde Avenue South and a variance to reduce the required 30-foot front yard setback to 20 feet to allow construc- tion of a house at 7679 Hyde Avenue South. McCool summarized the staff report. He reported that an unsigned letter in opposition to the variances was received today and was distributed to the Planning Commission. Staff rec- ommended approval of both variance applications based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Jeff Hause, Bayport, Minnesota, stated that the two lots could be viable for the community, which is the reason for the setback variances. Rediske asked if there are proposed buyers for either of the lots. Hause responded not at this time. Rediske asked about the setback for a deck on the house at 7675 Hyde Avenue. Hause responded that a deck would be approximately 16.4 feet from the rear property line. Rediske asked if the city would want a deck on this house with a variance to 22 feet. McCool stated that city ordinances allow deck structures to be as close as eight feet to the rear lot line, so this would exceed the minimum requirement. Brittain stated that he would have concerns about the requests if there were homes directly behind the lots, but there is open space. Rediske asked if there would be issues related to the drainage pond. McCool responded that staff would not allow any structure to be built within the easement. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 3 of 6 Johnson asked how long the development has been there and why the lots have not been built on yet. McCool responded the development was platted 27 years ago. The minimum setback requirements are the same as they were at that time. These were probably the two least desirable parcels in the subdivision plat because of the stormwater basin in the back yards. He does not know the ownership history or why the property owner did not build on those lots in the past. Rediske asked if the houses would be dramatically different than the existing houses in the neighborhood. McCool responded that they would be two-story structures; the other homes are split entries. The exterior materials would be similar. Rostad opened the public hearing. Kevin McCormick, 7683 Hyde Avenue South, stated that when he moved in a year ago he was under the impression that those lots were not big enough to build on. The neighbors had told them that nothing could be built there because it backs onto a wetland and the lots were not big enough. He stated that in the past there was an attempt to build one house on both lots but that was not approved. He does not know why two houses could now be approved for those lots. McCool stated that the plat was approved in 1986 and at that time the drai- nage and utility easements existed on those parcels. There are easements that are six feet in width on along each side of the lot and extend along the backs of those parcels. He pointed out McCormick's lot noting that the rear easements are also on his lot. There is a 10- foot drainage and utility easement along the front of all the lots within the subdivision plat. He does not know why a house was not built on those parcels 27 years ago; the parcels were platted to comply with the minimum lot width and lot area requirements. McCormick asked why variances are needed to build these houses and why the lots are less desirable. McCool responded that the parcel depth from the front property line to rear prop- erty line compared to the other parcels in the subdivision is shorter. The parcel to the south (Lot 7) has a drainage and utility easement that occupies the easterly third of that parcel, where nothing such as a shed or deck could be built, so it limits the amount of buildable area. The other parcels in the subdivision do not have those characteristics. Rostad stated that if those two lots were unbuildable the plat likely would have been required to be changed. The lots are buildable, and even though nothing was built since the plat was approved, does not take away from that fact. McCool stated that other structures could be built on the lots without variances, including manufactured homes, which would be out of character for the neighborhood. Staff believes the setback requests are reasonable for single family structures that would be compatible with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. He noted that 27 years ago the owner could have applied for variances to be able to build on those parcels. Both lots exceed the minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet and both parcels comply with the minimum lot widths. Reese asked how these two lots compare with 7663 and 7659 Hyde. McCool responded that he researched the building permits for houses in that neighborhood; the home at 7663 was built in 1994 and is a tri-level with a total floor area of 912 square feet. He did not look at the lot sizes. Reese asked why they are not requesting a front yard setback reduction for the house at 7675 Hyde instead of the rear yard. Hause responded that it did not seem detri- mental to the back yard to reduce that setback. Reese expressed concern about the lack of Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 4 of 6 space in the back yard for play structures or sheds. Hause stated that other types of homes could fit on these lots without variances but he is trying to have the homes fit into the neigh- borhood. Stacy McCormick, 7683 Hyde Avenue, stated that if the home was pulled forward it would be too close to the neighbor's driveway. Aesthetically two brand new houses among homes that built in 1986 would not match the neighborhood. Johnson asked how encroachments onto the park space could be avoided. McCool re- sponded that one of the conditions of approval for both parcels is that a park boundary marker must be purchased and installed on the northeast corners of the lots, which would provide a site line for the park boundaries. Any encroachments would be a city code enforcement issue. No one e/se spoke. Rostad c/osed the public hearing. Reese asked if this was a new development, would the City allow these variances. McCool stated that during the platting process, the City would make sure that all parcels were build- able. If someone chose to build a bigger house that would require variances, staff would not be able to control that. Harter asked if the city required Newland to redo their plat to make sure everything fit prop- erly. McCool responded that during the platting process all the properties complied or ex- ceeded the minimum requirements for setbacks and lot area. Staff is not aware of any variances that would be needed to build houses on any of the lots in those plats. He is sure that was case for this subdivision 27 years ago. Reese asked how much brush and vegetation will need to be removed in order to build the homes. McCool responded that enough material would be removed to provide for usable yard space. No vegetation would be removed from the City's parkland. Burbank stated that the square footage of the property at 7663 Hyde Avenue is 7,682 square feet. He explained that one of the previous owners was Richard Hubbs, who built several of the homes in that neighborhood. He was never motivated to build on those lots and stock- piled materials from other projects there, though he always intended to build. Levitt stated that when the Newland and DR Horton met with the Commission in the work- shop session they were looking for the front yard setback to be reduced to 20 feet and the City approved a compromise to 25 feet. Brittain stated that the house at 7679 is on the radius of the cul-de-sac and it looks like it would be in symmetrical alignment with the homes adjacent to it, so if it was pushed back another 10 feet it would stick out more. He stated that if these lots backed up to other homes, he would have a significant concern. People buying these houses will know that there will be limitations to what can be done in their backyards. He stated that building homes on these lots that would meet all requirements without variances could be a negative detraction to the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 5 of 6 Reese noted that he asked why 7675 could not be moved closer to the front property line. Brittain stated that he would be concerned that a front yard variance would crowd the adja- cent homes. Reese asked if there was any thought to �building split levels that would be con- sistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. Hause stated that they did consider that but they want the finished square footage to be consistent with other homes in the neighbor- hood. They could change these homes from two-story to multi-levels or split entries as long as they kept a similar footprint to end up with around 2,000 square feet finished. Johnson asked what times during the day construction can take place. McCool responded that City ordinances have a construction timeframe of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., which applies to all properties. Pearson asked if they went to a split level home trying to keep the same square footage, the footprint of the house would be bigger. Hause replied yes. He noted that the house on the north lot was originally placed farther north but was impeding on the driveway to the north. Pearson asked if the driveways in encroach onto the side yard easements. McCool stated that the driveway on parcel to the north does not meet the six-foot minimum setback re- quirement and he does not know the history of that. For the new home staffis requiring that the driveway not encroach into that easement, so this parcel will have a six-foot setback between the driveway edge and the side property line. Brittain made a motion to approve the rear yard setback variance at 7675 Hyde Ave- nue, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Statf Report. Rediske seconded. Motion passed on a 7-to-1 vote (Reese). Reese explained that he voted nay because there was no discussion after the motion. He stated that he hopes that builder will talk to staff about other house styles for those lots. Brittain made a motion to approve the front yard setback variance at 7679 Hyde Ave- nue, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Staff Repori: Harter seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Discussion Items None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 25, 2013 Wehrle made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 25, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of April City Council Meetings Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2013 Page 6 of 6 Levitt reported that on April 3 the City Council approved the rezoning, PDO, and preliminary plat for the Newland Development, and the rezoning, PDO, and preliminary plat for the DR Horton development. The final plats for both developments should be before the City Council at their June 5 meeting, with site grading and public utility construction starting in June. Reese asked when about the homeowners association. Levitt responded that they are cur- rently working with their attorneys on that and it should be part of the final plat discussion. The Council approved allowing a pot bellied pig as a therapy animal at 8230 Ivywood Ave- nue, as they met the requirements for the Americans with Disabilities Act. If there are any similar inquiries, they will be handled administratively by staff. The Council also approved the Kok Funeral Home site plan and variance. At the April 17 meeting, the City Council approved the variance allowing metal panels for 3M Building 143 and appointed Jim Rostad as Chair of the Planning Commission. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Reese asked about the Famous Dave's project. Olsen responded that the challenge the franchisee faced was financial in nature, but there are some things occurring behind the scenes that seem to be positive at this point. There are also parking challenges, which could be solved with a cross-parking agreement with one of the surrounding properties, and the franchisee is working with city staff on a solution. Reese asked if Woodbury was going to take care of their portion of Radio Drive up to the turn into East Ridge and if County will do the rest of it. Levitt responded that the County's plans are under preliminary design for a roundabout at Military and CR13, which is slated for 2014. The pavement rehabilitation will probably end prior to reaching Military Road. Annual Meeting and Election of Officers 10.1 Adoption of Rules Harter made a motion to adopt the 2013 Planning Commission Ru/es. Wehrle seconded, Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 10.2 Election of Officers Rediske nominated Brittain as Vice Chair. There were no other nominees for Vice Chair. Motion passed by unanimous consent. Brittain nominated Rediske as Secretary. There were no other nominees for Secretary. Motions passed by unanimous consent. Adjournment Brittain made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Reese seconded. The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.