Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-25 MINUTES City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held at City Hall, 7516 – 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 25th day of April 2005 in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chairperson Reese called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Shane Bauer, Ken Brittain, Rod Hale, Shannon Nitsch, Chris Reese, Alberto Ricart, Bob Severson, David Thiede Members Absent: Dawn Anderson Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Others Present: Pat Rice, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Motion by Hale, seconded by Severson to approve the agenda. Motion approved unani- mously. Open Forum Chairperson Reese asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non- agenda item. No one appeared to address the Commission. Chair’s Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Chairperson Reese explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advi- sory capacity to the City Council, and 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 come to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings 6.1 CASE RS05-021 and CUP05-022 Gary Borner has applied for a rural subdivision to subdivide a 34-acre parcel into two parcels of 31 acres and 3 acres and a conditional use permit for a density transfer. The property is located on the 8600 block of Lamar Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 2 of 9 McCool presented the staff report. He stated that staff has added two additional conditions of approval to the staff report and the amended report has been given to the Commission. He rec- ommended approval of the application subject to those conditions. Severson asked why there was a space between the exception parcel and the new parcel. Gary Borner, 11655 Layton Avenue South, stated that there was no logical reason for the 57-foot wide gap between parcels. He stated that he would change the boundaries so the new parcel would butt up against the northern parcel so there would not be a gap. He asked if there would be any financial implications if he made the parcel larger than the proposed three acres. McCool re- sponded that there would no change to the area charges because there was only one dwelling unit applied for. Borner asked about the park dedication fee. McCool explained that for any sub- division, city ordinance requires a land dedication or park fee in lieu of land dedication. In this application, the city is not looking for any land to be dedicated for park purposes, so the city is requiring payment of a park fee. Thiede noted that with the Pinecliff development, there were two existing houses that were able to be integrated into the new neighborhood and asked whether the two houses in this proposal are spaced adequately to allow a similar type of development in the future. Blin responded that could be looked at when they apply for the building permit for the house. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Ricart made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below. Severson seconded. 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, etc.) shall be applied for and issued by the City prior to any work or construction taking place. 2. Prior to the release of the property deeds for recording with Washington County, a cash in lieu of park dedication fee shall be paid to the City, in the amount applicable at the time of release of the property deeds for recording with Washington County. 3. Prior to the release of the property deeds for recording with Washington County, the lot configuration shall be shifted to the north to abut the adjacent three-acre parcel, or shifted to the south to provide for an area of land between the two lots that is a mini- mum of 60 feet in width. 4. A rural friendly storm sewer area charge in the amount of $16,192.17 shall be paid prior to release of the property deeds for recording with Washington County. 5. The following permanent drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City as required by the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 10-5-6D): a. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement paralleling the easterly right-of-way line of Lamar Avenue along both parcels. b. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement paralleling the easterly property line of the two parcels. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 3 of 9 c. A 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement along and paralleling the property lines of the two exception parcels. d. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered along and paralleling the north and south property line of the 3-acre parcel. e. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along and paralleling the balance of the property lines. 6. The new private access drive location onto Lamar Avenue shall be reviewed and ap- proved by the City Engineer, and a right of way permit issued before installation of said access. 7. The new private access drive shall be hard surfaced to the front setback line. 8. A deed restriction for the 31-acre parcel must be recorded with the Washington County Recorder’s Office stipulating that it cannot be further subdivided or permit the construction of a residential dwelling unless the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zon- ing classification are changed to allow additional residential density. 9. Septic design, percolation tests, and soil borings must be approved by Washington County Department of Health before the City releases the deed for this newly created three-acre parcel. Reese asked for clarification on the size of the parcel because the applicant is moving the north boundary line. Borner stated that he would discuss the issue with his brother, who owns the northern property, but he would definitely move the boundary line to the north. Severson stated that the application is to subdivide a 34-acre parcel into two parcels of 31 acres and 3 acres, so the motion should reflect that the parcels sizes may change. Hale suggested adding a condition noting that none of the parcels could be less than three acres. Nitsch made a motion to add an amendment that neither of the parcels could be less than three acres. Ricart and Severson concurred. Brittain asked about the condition regarding the amount of the storm water area charge. McCool suggested leaving that condition generic without specifying an amount. Motion passed unanimously. 6.2 CASE ICUP05-024 Greenberg Farrow Architecture, on behalf of The Home Depot, has applied for an interim conditional use permit to allow an outdoor seasonal sales area at 7210 East Point Douglas Road South. McCool presented the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 4 of 9 Todd Mosher, Greenberg Farrow Architects, representing Home Depot, noted that they had re- quested a three-year duration for the interim conditional use permit. Ricart stated that he would suggest having all permits expire at the same time for comparison purposes. Brittain noted that having them all expire at the same time could create difficulty in reviewing all at once. Ricart agreed and suggested they could be done over a one-year time period. Hale asked if the fee was the same for a one-year conditional use permit. McCool responded yes. Ricart suggested that a graduated fee could be used. Thiede stated that there is really no additional cost to the city to have multiple year fees. McCool stated that the City does require a building permit each year for which a fee is charged. Hale suggested that the additional annual fee for the conditional use permit be added to the building permit fee. Brittain questioned whether any additional review is provided above the typical building permit fee. Ricart stated that more frequent reviewed allow items to be brought up to standards, which is not possible with a longer-term interim conditional use permit. Brittain asked if we have had any problems with these temporary greenhouses. McCool re- sponded that in the 18 years they have been offered, there have been no problems. Severson stated that he considers the interim conditional use permit fee the cost of doing busi- ness. Bauer suggested that perhaps a lower fee could be charged for the automatic annual review. Severson stated that the distinction between these uses and other businesses is that these are temporary uses. McCool noted that if an annual fee were recommended, it would require an amendment to the City’s fee schedule. Nitsch suggested that the fee could be considered sepa- rately from a change in fees. Severson asked if this could be considered for one year, then the fee change could be consid- ered separately. If it were determined that an annual fee should be charged, this request could be grandfathered in for a multiple year CUP. Thiede suggested that Home Depot be granted the three-year ICUP to allow expiration to coin- cide with Rainbow and Cub and to allow time to consider whether any additional fees are required in the future. Bauer asked if replacing dead plant materials on the Home Depot property should be a condition of approval. McCool responded that Home Depot is in the process of replacing the plant materi- als so a condition is not necessary. Mosher asked if the Home Depot permit could be coterminous with the other existing holders of ICUPs. Severson said his recommendation was intended to move forward on the Home Depot ICUP, then discuss the annual fee separately. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Severson, second by Ricart, to recommend approval of an interim conditional use permit for a one-year period for Home Depot, subject to the conditions listed below. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 5 of 9 1. The Interim Conditional Use Permit will expire one year from the date approved by the City Council. 2. A building permit for the temporary greenhouse must be issued by the City before the temporary structure is erected. 3. The temporary greenhouse and outdoor display and sale of nursery products and mer- chandise are allowed between April 1 and July 15. The area used for the temporary greenhouse and outdoor display and sales of landscaping materials must match the lay- out depicted in Exhibit A. 4. No landscaped materials and fencing may encroach into the drive aisles of the parking lot outside of the designated area or any fire lane designated by the Fire Marshal. 5. If the city determines that there is a parking shortage due to the temporary greenhouse, outdoor storage, or outdoor display of landscaping products, the city may make amendments to the Interim Conditional Use Permit to correct the situation. 6. A five-pound ABC rated fire extinguisher must be stored the garden center structure, and no smoking signs must be posted. 7. All electrical connections must be in compliance with State electrical requirements. 8. Overhead electrical service or electrical extension cords are prohibited from any power source within the parking lot to the greenhouse. 9. The construction/use of the temporary greenhouse in conjunction with outdoor display and sales of nursery products or other garden related merchandise is allowed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. from March 15 through July 15. The sales area must be located as detailed on Exhibit A. Christmas tree sales are prohibited. 10. The 30-foot wide access drive separating the existing outdoor garden center and the pro- posed staging area along the east property boundary line is designated as a fire lane and must not be obstructed with parked vehicles, equipment, merchandise, or anything else that prevents emergency vehicles from driving thru this area. 11. Additional signage is prohibited. Motion carried on a 7-to-1 vote (Thiede voted no). 6.3 CASE CUP05-025 Buell Consulting, Inc., on behalf of Verizon Wireless, has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the installation and operation of a wireless facility on the City’s. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 6 of 9 Peter Campbell, Buell Consulting, representing Verizon Wireless, stated that he would answer any questions from the Commission. Severson asked about the square miles of coverage before and after the antennas are added. Campbell displayed the propagation map, which shows a dramatic improvement in coverage. Hale asked what consumer services would be added that Verizon does not provide now. Campbell showed the propagation map showing the holes in coverage for the area and the map showing how the coverage would be improved. He explained that some Verizon consumers can- not maintain phone calls or cannot make calls from inside their homes during certain times of the day. Nitsch asked what the water tower would look like with the addition of these antennas. Campbell stated that their antennas would be a façade-mounted antenna system on the side of the water tower. The existing antennas on the tank are on the top. He believes that the side mounted an- tennas would create a minimal visual impact. Thiede asked about the location of the antennas on the water tower. McCool displayed Exhibit A, which shows the locations of the antennas on the tower and the location of the proposed equip- ment building. Ricart asked where the fence would be located. McCool responded that the fence would be on the west side of the equipment building to protect the heating and cooling mechanical units. Ricart asked if landscaping could be provided to help screen the fence and building from adjoin- ing residential property owners. McCool stated that was included in the conditions of approval. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below. Thiede seconded. 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, mechanical) and a commercial plan re- view packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be re- viewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshall. 2. All vegetation disturbed by construction activities must be repaired and sodded within 30-days after all construction is completed. 3. A minimum of six techny arborvitaes must be planted on the site. The preferred location is along the north and west sides of the equipment building. The Public Works Depart- ment will stake the location of these shrubs. 4. The equipment building must be constructed of exterior materials and colors that are consistent to the other accessory structures on the site. 5. The access drive to the new equipment building must be the same width as the existing drive and constructed of the same material(s). Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 7 of 9 6. The applicant enters into an agreement with the City for leasing city owned land for the building, access, antenna installation on the water tower, and all other details recom- mended by the City Attorney. 7. Advertising on the equipment building or antennas is prohibited. 8. The applicant must submit a bona fide cost estimate of the landscaping and driveway im- provements. A letter of credit amounting 150 percent of these cost estimates must be submitted to and approved by the City. Upon completion of the landscaping improve- ments and driveway extension, the applicant must inform the City in writing that the re- quired improvements have been completed. The City will retain the letter of credit for a one-year period from the date of notice to insure the landscaping continues to be in good condition. 9. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 10. All cables, antennas, and mounting brackets/braces must be painted the same color as the water tower. 11. A primer/sealer/finish must be applied to the exterior walls of the equipment building to allow easier removal of unauthorized paints and reduce the cost of cleaning walls dam- aged by graffiti. Reese asked if the city is requiring the companies’ who have installed antennas to maintain them. McCool responded that the companies are required to maintain their own equipment and the city maintains the water tower itself. Ricart asked who would be responsible for removing graffiti. McCool stated that the companies are required to remove graffiti. Motion passed unanimously. Applications and Requests 7.1 CASE V05-026 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a variance to Title 11-6-3, Solid Waste Storage, to allow the door of the trash enclosure at Coldwell Banker Burnet, 7350 – 80th Street South, to have a width of 101 inches when 108 inches is required. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact in the staff report. Hale made a motion to approve the application. Thiede seconded. Ricart asked if the enclosure were damaged, would it be required to be built to the proper size. Blin stated yes. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 8 of 9 Thiede asked for the reason that 108 inches was required for the door opening. Blin believes that dumpster size was looked at and extra space was added for the sides. He stated that it is a standard dimension that most cities require. Motion passed unanimously. Approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2005 Motion by Severson, seconded by Ricart, to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2005, meeting with a change noting that Bauer was present. Motion passed unanimously. Reports 9.1 East Ravine Update Blin stated that the consultants should have the AUAR completed in May, the Community Advi- sory Team will hold its last meeting in May, and there will be a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on June 8. He stated that the city will be adopting design standards for the East Ravine, some in the subdivision ordinance, some in the zoning ordinance, and some in the as- sociation covenants. He displayed renderings and summarized design standards for monument signs, perimeter landscaping, green strips along the major roadways, and landscaped medians and islands. The Commission discussed the County’s service center site, the possibility of a roundabout at 70th and Keats, communal mail boxes versus standardized individual mail boxes, lot landscaping standards, trails and sidewalks, street widths, new zoning districts for the East Ravine area, homeowners association covenants, minimum house sizes, architectural design standards, exterior building materials, and uniform fence design. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Recap of March City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meetings on April 6 and April 20, 2005. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Blin summarized the memo regarding the percentage break down between single family homes versus multiple family homes. Nitsch asked what the percentage breakdown for the entire city would be after all the residential units are built in the East Ravine. Blin stated that staff would have that information prior to meeting with the Council. Brittain asked about percentage of acre- age for those types of uses. 9.5 Planning Commission Requests Severson asked that staff investigate a fee structure for interim conditional use permits and how to bring those with current ICUPs into compliance. Ricart suggested that all ICUPs should have the same expiration dates. Reese stated that he would like to see the applications staggered so that all those applications are not coming before the Planning Commission at the same time. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 9 of 9 Severson stated that he would prefer that a procedure be put in place so that the permits are automatically renewed administratively with an annual fee, unless there are problems or major changes. Blin responded that staff would come back to the Commission with a report. Hale asked about determining storm water area charges, stating that he thought that they were figured on a per acre basis. Blin explained the rural friendly policy, explaining that the city takes the total possible number of lots that the parent parcel could be divided into based on zoning, then the applicant pays for one lot unit. Hale believes that the storm water area charge should be on a per acre basis. Severson again expressed concern for traffic safety in the Kohls area, particularly as more busi- nesses are added. 9.6 Adoption of 2005 Planning Commission Rules Thiede made a motion to adopt the 2005 Planning Commission Rules. Ricart seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Adjournment Motion by Severson, seconded by Nitsch, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.