Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-02 PACKET 04.A.ii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGEND MEETING ITEM # • ` DATE 10/2/13 • ��. PREPARED BY: Community Development � Jennifer Levitt ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR *****�*****�**********************************�* COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST: Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on August 26, 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on August 26, 2013. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION � PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMEN DATE 9/23/13 $N/A N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MEMO/LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on 8/26/13 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: � �� City Administrator Date ************************************************ COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission August 26, 2013 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, August 26, 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, Wayne Johnson, Brian Pearson, Lise' Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Maureen Ventura Members Absent: Elijah Harter, Randall Wehrle Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Brittain made a motion to approve the agenda. Pearson 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 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 7310 Lamar Barn Event Venue — Case CUP13-020 Wayne and Angi Butt have applied for a Historic Places Conditional Use Permit to allow the barn located at 7310 Lamar Avenue South to be used as a wedding and event venue. (Continued from June 24, 2013, Planning Commission meeting.) Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013 Page 2 of 11 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Johnson asked for clarification on where amplified music would be allowed. Burbank re- sponded that amplified music will be allowed in the barn; no amplified music will be allowed outside or in the tent. The applicant has talked about finishing off a portion within the barn that would allow for amplified music as part of the first phase. Johnson asked if there is a timeframe for moving from the tent to the barn. Burbank stated that the timing for each phase is spelled out in their business plan. Reese asked if any music would be allowed outside. Burbank responded amplified music would have to be in the building. Wayne Butt, 7310 Lamar Avenue South, explained that their business plan has events in the tent for up to two years to raise the money to bring the barn up to code and they would need to have music or a band external to the barn for that period of time. He stated that they want to get the HPCUP approved so they are able to use the property commercially to raise money to bring the barn up to code. Dave Harris, Project Architect, 17675 Hogan Avenue, Hastings, stated that most of the con- ditions of approval are reasonable except for two issues. The first is requiring a paved park- ing area with curb and gutters as part of the initial phase. The second issue is the prohibition on amplified music in the tent, as stipulated in conditions #19 and #22, which will kill the project if there can't be music associated with an event or wedding. Condition #38 says that the noise ordinance must be complied with, which they will do. Johnson noted that the report says the applicant is proposing no outdoor music. Harris stated that was a misunderstanding. Johnson asked if the tent would be taken down after every function. Butt responded yes unless there is another event the next day that requires the same size tent. Johnson asked how they are going to address issues from rain, such as drainage and mud. Butt stated that there are no current drainage issues on the property and he does not believe there will be one with the tent. Johnson asked if the tent will be placed on grass or plywood. Butt responded it would be grass unless a dance floor is needed. Burbank stated it was part of the discussions to have bands outside the tent and barn. Butt stated that they envision an open air tent with the sides up and a band is playing under the tent structure. Brittain asked what Lamar Avenue is designated. Burbank stated that it is a local road and 70th Street and Kimbro Avenue are arterial roadways. Brittain asked if Lamar is considered a minor collector. Burbank responded from traffic volumes most likely. Brittain expressed con- cern about the extra 26,000 to 52,000 trips per event on a road that is already aging. He asked about assessments to property owners if the road needs work. Burbank responded that traffic counts are identified in the comprehensive plan and this would cause a significant increase. He explained that the City's assessment policy is related to infrastructure man- agement. Brittain stated that it looks like there will be a significant increase in traffic and the assessment policy won't change, so the burden for the upkeep of the road will be spread to the other residents living in the area. Brittain asked if Hope Glen Farm has paved parking. Burbank responded not currently but they have been notified that they will be required to up- Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013 Page 3 of 11 grade their parking. Brittain asked if it was required for Hope Glen Farm to pave the parking area right away. Burbank answered that they were given a phased approach. Brittain asked why this site is being required to pave right away versus a phased approach. Burbank re- sponded because of the proximity to neighboring properties; Hope Glen Farm is surrounded on most sides by County parkland. Brittain asked if there is a way to ensure that the existing foliage on the southern property line is maintained or replaced for screening of the proposed drive. Burbank responded that one of the conditions of approval could be the addition of landscaping if there is less than a certain percentage of opacity in that area. Brittain asked if there is a reason to have parking spaces on the south along the driveway. Burbank re- sponded to meet the total parking for a full occupancy of 400, but that will only be demon- strated parking until it was needed. Brittain asked if relocating the drive from the southern location to another part of the property was discussed. Burbank responded no. Brittain asked if the drive could be relocated north of the existing home Harris stated that they circulation works better in the proposed location. Butt displayed a picture from the 1940s or 50s showing a driveway in that location when the property was a farm. Reese asked how the traffic for this proposal compares to traffic for tournaments at Lamar Fields. Burbank does not have an accurate count on the number of tournaments but he could provide that information to the City Council. Reese asked if there are concerns about traffic if there are events at both the farm and at Lamar Fields. Burbank responded that traffic conditions would have to be reviewed, but the timing of the events may be different. Rostad asked if the applicants would be able to abide by the state's noise standards. Butt responded that they will. Rostad opened the public hearing. Robert Eddy, 11275 77th Street South, stated that he has lived in Cottage Grove since 1961 and was president of the Cottage Grove Community Hall when they had dances. He stated that Lamar Avenue was old when he moved in and has not ever had a new surFace put on it. He is excited about this coming to old Cottage Grove and thinks having this type of venue in the community would be a real asset. He hates seeing the old barn deteriorate. Aaron Rolloff, 7380 Lamar Avenue South, stated he lives directly south of the Butt's prop- erty. He is concerned that the public hearing notice was sent only to the neighbors within 500 feet and he believes it will impact people far beyond that distance. He was encouraged to read that there would be no outdoor amplified music but expressed concern about amplified music in the tent as only two sides of the tent are allowed to be down. He also does not want the driveway along the southern property line near his home, noting that the proposed use is different than the farm driveway that was there in past, which was used by farmers to drive their tractors to the fields, not hundreds of revelers leaving about the same time at night. The business plan claims that there would be several feet between the exit driveway on the south side of the barn and the dense tree line of evergreens and on the neighbor's side there is a three-stall garage between the house and garage, which should shield most of the lights leaving the property. Rolloff does not understand how that offers protection for them and does not think it is fair for the driveway to be by their house. He asked the Commission to deny the application. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013 Page 4 of 11 Peggy Rolloff, 7380 Lamar Avenue South, stated that they have lived in Cottage Grove for 13 years. When they bought their house, they were )ooking for a farmhouse with a little bit of land in a peaceful neighborhood. She does not want to live close to a loud business with a lot of traffic. She does not support the proposal for an event center in Old Cottage Grove. She believes this would cause disruption to their lives and sleep, and the overall character of the neighborhood. Jim Rise, 7363 Langly Avenue South, stated that he has lived in the area for 28 years and his property is one block to the east of the Butts' property. His family supports this project. This project will help generate revenue to help maintain the historic property. He also be- lieves it would be dis�riminatory as the Hope Glen Farm proposal was approved. As far as the tranquility of Old Cottage Grove, there are ball tournaments every weekend and leagues during the week. He has never heard any complaints about noise and traffic at Lamar Fields. The Butts have done a good job starting the barn restoration but they will need revenue to complete it Gary Miller, 7234 Lamar Avenue South, stated he is the neighbor on the north side. He stated that it is very expensive to restore historic properties. He bought the Old Wesley place and has been working on it for over 33 years, spending tens of thousands of dollars. He hopes that the City gives the Butts the chance to earn the revenue needed to restore the place. He asked that the application be approved. John Higgs, 7220 Lamar Avenue South, asked for clarification on when the caterers and other workers at the event would leave and the lights turned off if guests leave at 10:30 p.m. during the week and 12:30 a.m. on weekends. Butt responded everyone would need to be gone at those times. Higgs questioned the size of the well. Rostad stated that is not a detail for the Planning Commission. Burbank responded that as part of the approval, the septic system would be brought to commercial standards and the well volume approved by the Public Health Department. He stated that staff could try to get additional information prior to the Council meeting. Higgs asked what the current assessment is for curb and gutter. Burbank responded that the City's Pavement Management Program identifies the cost of the project that would be shared by adjacent residents with the balance picked up by the general fund. There is a policy in place and each pavement management area is subject to the same policies. McCool noted that if Lamar is upgraded, storm sewers would have to be added, which would be an additional cost. Lori Adams, 7220 Lamar Avenue South, stated that Hope Glen Farm is on a larger property with fewer houses close by, which should be taken into consideration. She wants to set some parameters to make this work for everybody. She suggested that music should not be played after 11:00 p.m. and the people gone by midnight One of her concerns is expanding the capacity of the parking area. She does not think there is anything wrong with asking for conditions. She thinks it is great that they are improving the property but the neighbors could be affected by this proposal. Steve Sobaszkiewicz, 7556 Langly Avenue South, stated that he has lived there since 1978 and was a member of the Fire Department. The fire station used to be the old community hall and his property intersects with that parking lot. Parties and events were held at the hall and he never had any problems, including traffic and noise, during them. He does not have a problem with this proposal, especially if it is to keep the barn in shape. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013 Page 5 of 11 Wayne Butt stated that in the fall of 2011 the Kohls' historic farmhouse at Highway 95 and 70th Street was burned down as a training exercise by the Fire Department. The reason the house was burned was that it would cost at $700,000 to fix up the historic house. They are in the same situation with their property. When it was advertised for sale, the realtor listed it as a farm operation or a bed and breakfast. They met with Burbank and the Advisory Commit- tee on Historic Preservation before they purchased the property to ensure that they could do what they planned. They will continue maintaining the historic farm house. He noted that they would be allowed to run an agricultural business on the property without special ap- provals, but they would prefer to host special events. They visited many of their neighbors within and extending out of the public hearing notification area. Most of the comments they heard about the proposal were positive and many compared it to the town hall dances. He received 116 signatures in favor. He asked if some of the items in the conditions of approval, such as paving the parking area, could be phased in rather than required at the start. They would review how the operation is going after the first year and address any issues. He noted that the HPCUPs approved for Hope Glen Farm and Cedarhurst did not have the same stringent requirements. Johnson asked when they first bought the property, did they know all the costs involved. Butt responded they closed on February 24, 2010, and in May 2010 the credit union informed them that they would not fund a project of this caliber because there are no comps in the di- rect area. At that time it was a$600,000 project. Johnson expressed concern about allowing them to do this to pay for their project. He understands both sides, the Butts wanting to re- store their property and the neighbors' concerns about noise, traffic and property values. Butt stated that they will restore the property regardless of whether or not they get the HPCUP. He noted that there is only one neighbor completely opposed to the proposed use. Johnson stated that they will be the most affected by the proposed use. Butt stated that he would like to use the HPCUP as a tool to help fund the renovations instead of turning the property into an agricultural use, including having farm animals. Brittain stated that the HPCUP should not create an adverse impact on the residential cha- racter of the surrounding area. He noted that a bed and breakfast would have a minimal impact on the surrounding community. This proposal would have significant impacts on road infrastructure and noise levels. Ventura commented that she does understand both sides, including the impacts to the southern neighbors and using the HPCUP to renovate an historic property. She suggested allowing amplified music within the tent with two sides down as long as the noise levels are in compliance with City Code and state standards. She is in favor of a phased project for paving the parking area. She suggested adding a condition regarding maintenance of the dense tree line along the south property line. She believes there should be a review process in place for a one-year review, and if there are problems, the HPCUP could be revoked. Rostad stated that the HPCUP can be revoked earlier than a year if there are infractions at the property. He believes commercial lighting standards requiring downward facing lights for the parking area will be less intrusive than the ball field lights. He does not believe that there would be much effect on much of the neighborhood from the lighting. Sobaszkiewicz responded to the concern about the well that when the fire station was put in, he never noticed a change in his water pressure. He noted that there used to be several Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013 Page 6 of 11 cows on that property and he could hear them mooing at night. He does not have any issues with the lighting that would be created. He also stated that this proposed use will have no impact on the water table as there are a number of farm operations with irrigation systems. Butt explained that when .they moved in they had a new well put in that is 400 feet deep. He stated that they cannot use their well for the fire suppression system; they rieed a 10,000 gallon holding cell and a pump to pressurize the system, and none of the water would come from the well. Robert Eddy stated that he feels comfortable with what the Butts want to do because they are trying to do it right. No one else spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Johnson stated that he is conflicted because it is a barn and barns fall. If they used the barn for a farm it would be attractive to him. He understands that they want to restore the barn but the proposed use would drastically affect the adjacent neighbors. He also does not believe this would benefit the overall community. Brittain stated that he admires that they are trying to restore a historic site. He would not have any issues if they were to do a bed and breakfast. The character of this area makes the endeavor more challenging. He noted that Hope Glen is a smaller operation and is farther away from neighbors so there is not a direct comparison. He stated that allowing time for the parking lot to be constructed would be reasonable. He is concerned with the effect on the southerly neighbor. The potential negative impact on the surrounding community outweighs raising revenue for historical preservation of the property. Reese noted that there is an adjacent neighbor to Hope Glen Farm. He asked that there be more cooperation to mitigate the impacts on the southern neighbor, such as adding fencing, moving the drive, or changing the current drive to be able to accommodate both ingress and egress. He does not believe the tent will be a problem. He likes what this could do for the Old Cottage Grove community. Johnson asked how when a site is being renovated it is still considered historic. Burbank re- sponded that for both the local and national registers, it is the exterior of the structure that is under the guidelines. In this instance, the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation re- viewed the request and recommended adoption of the historic places conditional use permit. The ACHP's primary charge is to educate people on the history of Cottage Grove. They also look at preservation of historic places, including the use of the HPCUP. Pearson stated that he does not agree the parking area should be paved. If the property is on the historic registry to preserve the outer look of the building, it should not be surrounded with asphalt. In addition, vehicles tend to be driven slower on gravel or grass parking lots and drives. Rostad stated that this is an opportunity to revitalize the barn and have a rallying point for the Old Cottage Grove area. He agrees with Reese that he would like to see additional efforts to mitigate the impact on the southerly neighbor. He is in favor of this proposal knowing that the HPCUP can be revoked if there are issues with the events. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013 Page 7 of 11 Ventura reminded the Commission if the HPCUP is approved as is, it does not meet what the applicant needs to move forward. Rediske stated that she agrees with the phased approach for the paved driveway. She asked about possibly relocating the driveway closer to the applicants' home. She also agreed that the HPCUP should be reviewed after the first year. Reese made a motion to recommend that fhe City Council approve the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed Historic Places Conditional Use Permit. Ventura seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 voteJ. Reese made a motion to recommend that the City Council hold the public hearing on the listing of the 1947 Arc Roof Barn into the City's Register of Historic Sites and Landmarks, Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote.) Reese made a motion to approve the Historic Places Conditional Use Permit (HPCUP) in accordance with Title 11-9-H(4) to allow for limited commercial ventures to be con- ducted at 7310 Lamar Avenue South subject to the conditions listed below, along with the following changes: remove condition #13 regarding the paved parking lot and curb and gutters, to have the applicant take some measures before it goes to Council on working on the access drive, and to have the language cleared up on what music is allowed. Pearson seconded. Brittain stated that while he is in favor of a phased approach to the parking lot, he believes that deleting condition #13 would prevent enforcement if it was deemed necessary by staff. He suggested adding language that the parking area be reviewed over a specific period of time to see if it should be paved. Reese asked if paving requirements could be added if it is reviewed next year. Burbank stated that the Gouncil could modify the conditions recom- mended by the Commission. He further explained that the only reason that the application would go back before the Council is if there were issues, and if they were related to the non- paved parking lot, conditions could be added or the permit revoked. Johnson stated that there still needs to be more discussion about the effects on the closest neighbor. Rostad stated that the motion includes additional talks between the applicant, staff, and the neighbors regarding mitigation. Ventura asked for clarification on music, specifically conditions #19, 20, and 22. The motion for approval as it was made does not allow outdoor music. Reese stated that he is willing to amend the motion but he wants to make sure there consistency and an understanding as to what is considered outdoors. Rostad commented that amplified music be allowed but must meet city and state noise stan- dards. Ventura stated that the motion should amend conditions #19, 20, and 22. Burbank stated that staff can come up with language if it is in the tent or barn. Ventura asked if music would be allowed in the tent with the restriction that it is compliant with City Code and state standards. She also asked for clarification on what is considered outside. Burbank stated outside the tent or the barn. Ventura proposed that #20 be modified to allow music in a tent subject to City Code and state requirements. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013 Page 8 of 11 Reese made a motion amending his original motion to change condition #20 to allow music in the open air tent specific to state and city codes. Pearson seconded the amendment. Reese made a motion to amend his original motion al/owing for a phased driveway over time. Pearson seconded. Motion passed on a vote of 6-to-1 (Brittain). Brittain explained that his primary concern is that this would change the surrounding area and he believes there will be issues. He is also concerned with seeing how it goes in a year and would rather have the issues resolved before it is approved. 6.2 Verizon Antenna'on BEC Tower — Case CUP13-029 Verizon Wireless has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of tele- communications antennas on the existing self-support tower with supporting equipment in the garage and a generator outside the northeast corner of the garage at the Business Enterprise Center, 7516 80th Street South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked if the proposed generator would only be used temporarily such as in the loss of power, and would not be running on a continuous or frequent basis. McCool responded that it would be used in the event of a power outage, although they do occasionally start the generator for maintenance and testing. Sarah Hall, 20120 Texas Avenue, Prior Lake, stated that Verizon has looked at the alternate location for the proposed generator and are open to the possibility of placing the unit at the north-northwest corner or the building. Rediske inquired if this would improve cell phone service for Verizon customers. Hall re- sponded yes, noting in that area there is a large capacity need for 4G internet with emails being transferred, data usage, and capacity issues. The proposed antennas will help alle- viate those issues. Johnson asked how far out people would benefit from that. Hall indicated she didn't have the exact coverage, but estimated that it would be about 1.5 miles. Reese asked McCool if the conditions of approval should include a specific color for the an- tennas and generator. McCool indicated that Condition No. 6 stipulates that the Public Works Director would evaluate the color scheme for the tower and building and determine the color that will be required for the antennas and generator. Hall stated that the pictures were only intended to be � visual example of what the antennas and generator will look like and did not represent the color scheme the City will require. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke, Rostad closed the public hearing, Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013 Page 9 of 11 Ventura made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Johnson seconded. Reese asked if they wanted to include moving the generator. McCool stated that Public Work staff will continue to work with the applicant to determine the best location for the generator. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.3 Public Improvements Surety Text Amendment — Case TA13-016 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to the City's Subdivi- sion Ordinance to allow subdividers of property to construct the public improvements within their projects either privately or publicly, with publicly designed plans and specifi- cations; and to change the amount of financial sureties that developers submit to the City for public improvements, site grading, erosion control, and landscaping to 125 percent of the construction cost. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Reese asked if changing the preparation of the plans and specifications to the City will add more time for an applicant. McCool said no. If the developer wanted an earlier start on their project, the developer can deposit a specified amount of money to the City to start the prepa- ration of the plans and specifications. If for any reason the project did not proceed forward, the developer does not get back that deposit: Rostad asked McCool about the 125 percent versus 150 percent and asked if he had looked into what other cities were doing regarding their planning, and if most of the cities maintain control of that or do the developers. McCool stated the proposed amendments to the Subdi- vision Ordinance are consistent with what other cities were doing. Rostad asked if developers will object to the proposed amendment that the city prepare the plans and specifications. McCool stated that some developers still might want to prepare their own plans for the public improvements, but the City's past experience resulted in more engineering time because of the review and revision process in developing a complete set of plans that could be accepted by the City. Even with the City's detail standard plates, other engineers would propose alternative designs that the City would not accept. Rostad asked if the City uses the developer's general layout in preparing the construction plans. McCool responded affirmatively and explained that the City works with the developer's consultant throughout the plan preparation process. Reese asked if that was consistent with how other cities operate. McCool stated he would assume so, but was unsure how much communication takes place by other communities and developers. Pearson asked if the City was opening itself up to additional liability if the City prepares the plans. McCool stated there is no additional liability because the City already has detail plates and specifications and anyone preparing the plans and specifications must comply with the city approved standards and specifications. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013 Page 10 of 11 Rostad asked if other neighboring cities have a different design process that is preferred by builders and developers. He does not want a developer to not consider developing in Cottage Grove because they are not allowed to prepare their own plans and specifications. Brittain stated that he thought the city was already preparing the plans and specifications. McCool explained that the current ordinance allows a developer to prepare the plans and specifications. The City did prepare the plans and specifications for the two residential sub- divisions approved this year because both developers agreed to allow the City to prepare them. The proposed text amendment changes the ordinance regulations to specifically state that only the City will prepare the plans and the developer has the option to finance and con- struct the public improvements or petition the City to construct the improvements. Brittain stated that he sees this as a significant value based on past experience and continuing to maintain a uniform construction standard throughout the community. Rostad agreed there was some benefit to uniformity, but is concerned if a builder or devel- oper would not want to develop in the City because they were unable to prepare their own plans and specifications for the public improvements. McCool stated that the City does have standard detail plates and design standards that all developers must follow, but occasionally additional time is spent because other consultants want to change those standards. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. Pearson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Discussion Items None Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 22, 2013 Rediske made a motion to approve the minutes from the Ju/y 22, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Johnson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of August City Council Meetings McCool reported that the City Council had three Council Meetings in August, two of which were budget meetings. On August 14, 2013, the City Council received the report on off-street parking requirements that was presented to the Planning Commission in July approved the variance application to the rear yard setback requirements to allow a porch at 8057 Jocelyn Avenue; approved the rezoning of the property on the northeast corner of 80th Street and Hardwood Avenue and the site plan review and conditional use permit for the proposed Goodwill store; and continued the conditional use permit application for an oversized acces- sory structure at 6192 65th Street for additional information. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013 Page 11 of 11 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rediske asked if there was an anticipated date that Walmart would be open to the public. Burbank replied they plan to be open sometime in the first quarter of 2014. Adjournment Brittain made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rediske seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.