Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-29 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission August 29, 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 29th day of August 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 (arrived at 8:22), Bob Severson, David Thiede Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Pat Rice, City Council Liaison Approval of Agenda Motion by Hale, seconded by Bauer to approve the agenda. Motion approved unani- mously (7-0 vote). 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 advisory capacity to the City Council, and the City Council makes all final decisions. In addi- tion, 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 Robens Garage Setback – Case No. V05-046 David Robens, 10701 – 80th Street Court South, has applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-3-3C, Accessory Structure Setbacks in the R-1, Rural Residential District, to allow a 572 square foot garage to be constructed 28 feet from the rear property line when 50 feet is required. Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 2 of 13 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Reese re-opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Severson made a motion to approve the variance application based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report and subject to the conditions listed below. Nitsch seconded. 1. The property owner completes a building permit application, submits detailed con- struction plans to the City, and obtains a building permit from the City. 2. The exterior materials and color for the accessory structure must be similar to the architectural design and color of the principal structure. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0). 6.2 Schenk Addition Setback – Case No. V05-047 Darrel Schenk, 8059 Hornell Avenue South, has applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-9D-5A, Development Standards in the R-3, Single Family Residential District, to allow an addition to be located 6 feet from the side property line when 10 feet is required. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Darrel Schenk, 8059 Hornell Avenue South, stated that originally the house only had a single car garage and a second stall was added later. He stated that he felt it was necessary to add living space at his house. He explained that behind the house there is a pool and deck, so he could not build the addition onto the back of the house. The other side of the house is only about nine feet from the property line, so he could not build that way either. He stated that if he moved the addition in four feet on top of his garage, it would look silly. He has found that within the area that he lives there are a number of houses and garages that do not meet side yard setback requirements. Schenk read a letter from his neighbors, Ray and Agnes De La Rosa, who live on the west side of his property stating that they have no objections to the addition as long as no windows are installed on that side. Schenk stated that there are no windows in the addition on that side. Hale asked how Schenk accesses the space. Schenk stated that the access is from a door- way from the dining room into the garage and up a stairwell to the addition and from a small deck. Hale asked if they would use the same accesses if the space was converted to living area. Schenk said yes. Thiede asked how long the 10-foot minimum side yard setback has been in place. McCool stated that he joined the city in 1988 and that was the setback requirement then, but he does not know what it was when the home was built. Thiede then asked if in that area, any other variances have been granted for setbacks. McCool stated that staff has not found any in the city’s records but Schenk has provided addresses of other properties that do not meet side yard setbacks. Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 3 of 13 Severson asked when the garage addition was built, if a variance needed for the side yard setback. McCool responded no, it is six feet from the property line and five feet is the re- quirement. Hale asked if Schenk would need to apply for another building permit. McCool responded no, the inspections have already been conducted and the structure was built to living standards. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Hale made a motion to approve the variance based on the following findings of fact: the structure already exists, there are no windows on the addition, the adjacent struc- ture is 20 feet from the property line, the property is limited by a 77-foot frontage, and the applicant has the neighbor’s support. Brittain seconded. Reese asked if there is any screening between the neighbor’s property and the new addition. McCool responded that the common property line between the two structures is somewhat wooded, but does not impact the neighbor’s view of the addition. Severson asked if the only other alternative would be to build put a three-foot closet into the addition and the rest of the area could be living space. McCool stated that was correct. Thiede asked how there could be 26 feet between the two neighboring houses when both lots are only 77 feet wide. Schenk stated that the neighbor’s house is a two-story home and the house was built as far to the west as possible. Brittain stated that he visited the property and noted that there is a significant amount of open space between the two homes. He is in favor of granting the variance because of the unique placement of the homes already there. He suggested adding a condition that no win- dows be allowed on that side of the home. Nitsch stated that he does not see a hardship in this case. He believes that there would have been plenty of time to apply for a variance prior to construction and still have the addition completed by winter. He stated that the applicant built the addition knowing that he might not be able to use it for living space. Nitsch noted that putting in a wall to create a three-foot wide storage area would have negated the need for a variance. Thiede expressed concern that if this variance is granted, a precedence could be set where people build something and then apply for the variance. Brittain stated that if this applicant had applied prior to building the addition, there could have been sufficient information avail- able to grant the variance. Hale agreed. Nitsch stated that he does not see a hardship and that is one of the requirements needed to be granted a variance. Hale stated that he believes that there is a hardship due to the size of the lot. Motion passed on a 6-to-1 vote (Nitsch). Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 4 of 13 6.3 Biscoe Grove – Case No. ZA05-042 and PP05-043 (continued from 7/25/05 meeting) LaFaver/Mathews Development, LLCA has filed a zoning amendment application to re- zone approximately 123 acres of land from AG-1, Agricultural Preservation, to R-1, Rural Residential, and a preliminary plat application to develop 39 rural estate lots. The resi- dential subdivision plat name is “Biscoe Grove.” The project is located southeast of the 100th Street and Lehigh Road intersection. McCool summarized the staff report. He stated that the developer provided some additional information on landscaping improvements on the medians, a declaration of covenants, prairie grass, and their monument sign, and this information was distributed to the Commis- sioners at their places on the dais. He recommended approval of the applications, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. John Matthews, LaFaver/Matthews, Lino Lakes, stated that he would answer any questions from the Commission. Severson asked what changed on the proposal since the concept plan was presented to the Commission. McCool stated that a cul-de-sac was added in the northeast corner and the roadway alignment for the north entrance was moved to the north. Nitsch asked about condition #18 and if the developer has to comply with those other agen- cies requirements before any permits are issued by the city. McCool responded that the city can approve the plat, but the developers would have to obtain all permits from other agencies. He stated that the applicant has revised the development and grading plan to pro- vide for more on-site detention of stormwater run-off. The Commission discussed the roadway connection options for the development, expressing concern about the safety of the intersections of Lehigh and 100th Streets with Manning Avenue. Reese opened the public hearing. Mike Mills, 10811 Lehigh Road, expressed concern about having 39 septic systems added to the area, which could cause groundwater problems. He stated that when he bought his home five years ago, he was told that there would be no development allowed for at least 20 years. He also stated that he is concerned that the green space will be developed in the fu- ture. He noted that the current homeowners in the area have not asked for any roadway im- provements but new homeowners would probably want a new road. He stated that there is a gas line easement running through the property that is not shown on the plans and that the neighboring property owners do not want an access road built behind their properties. Dale Thompson, 9947 Lehigh Road, stated that the comprehensive plan shows the agricul- tural land in that area as not being developed until after 2020. Lehigh Road and 100th Street are not very good roads and $800,000 is not enough money to rebuild those roads. No one else spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 5 of 13 Thiede stated that this area is on the outer edge of the vision for development for Cottage Grove, and his first preference would be to leave it agricultural. He does not think the plat lay out is very imaginative and should be more random rather than built on the horseshoe alignment as proposed. Hale believes more information is needed on these applications before a decision is made. He stated that this development would provide an opportunity for people to have a different kind of lifestyle than with a conventional home served by public utilities. Reese asked about the separate septic systems for each lot. McCool responded that individ- ual septic systems for each lot has always been part of the proposal. He explained that there had been consideration for a community well system rather than individual wells for each lot. Reese then asked if variances for septic systems would be needed for any of the lots. McCool responded no, all the lots meet the minimum lot size requirements for septic sys- tems. Reese asked if there would be an issues regarding public safety vehicle access. McCool answered no. Hale asked if each lot met the minimum frontage width requirements. McCool responded that the zoning ordinance allows exceptions to lot width requirements for cluster developments in the R-1 zoning district. Hale then asked where the road improvements would begin. McCool responded that the cost estimate is only for the lineal frontage of the property abutting Lehigh and 100th Street, and not for the entire roadway. Severson asked how much it would cost to improve all of Lehigh Road. McCool responded that the city engineer figured the cost on $300 per lineal foot. Hale asked where the gas easement is located. McCool pointed to the easement on the plat map, noting that it is 100 feet in width. Hale asked about the drainage issues noted in the watershed district report. McCool stated that the plans have been revised but need to be reviewed by the watershed district. Matthews stated that they added an additional pond and are working to address the other technical issues. Hale stated that he does not want to give any approval until there is some clarification on access to Manning Avenue. Mills stated that this proposal is for growth from the outside in. He knows that Cottage Grove will expand out to that area, but he does not want to see growth there for at least 10 years. Reese stated that tabling the application would be to receive further information on roadway issues from Mn/DOT. Matthews stated that he sees this proposal as an opportunity for people who want to stay in Cottage Grove but want to upgrade their lifestyle. He stated that the improvements to High- way 61 will bring more development to the area. He reiterated that the open space will not be developed in the future; it will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Hale made a motion to table the applications until September 26, 2005, for further in- formation on the roadway access issues, including costs. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0). Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 6 of 13 6.4 Silverwood – Case Nos. ZA05-048, PP05-049, CP05-050 BrightKEYS Development Corporation has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning of approximately 33 acres of land located at 7530 – 65th Street South from AG- 2, Agricultural, to R-2.5, Residential; a comprehensive plan amendment to expand the MUSA boundary and to change the land use from rural residential to low density residen- tial; and a preliminary plat for Silverwood, which would consist of 62 lots for single family homes and 5 outlots. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Severson asked how many acres would be part of the comp plan amendment. Blin stated between 250 to 300 acres. Hale asked if the Planning Commission should vote on the amendment to expand the MUSA for those other areas as well. Blin responded yes. Hale then asked if there was sewer ca- pacity available for that whole area. Blin stated there was capacity available. James Hill Jr., Director of Land Development for BrightKEYS Development Corporation, stated that the exterior elevations would have more of a front porch dominated three-car ga- rage concept and they are working with Town & Country Homes to build these homes. He reported that they had a conversation with Doug Sachs, who is the neighboring property owner, regarding several issues Sachs raised at last week’s meeting. He explained that they are placing a homeowners association in the common area, which would hold that property until there was a subdivision of Sachs’ property; putting two utility stubs that would allow for those lots to be serviced in the event of future subdivision; and maintaining the existing tree line along the property line. He also stated that they worked with staff and the Parks Com- mission on an alignment for a public trail system through the project. Brittain asked if the homeowners association would own the open space around the remain- ing homeowner. Hill responded yes. Brittain asked if road assessments for the entrance to the subdivision or the road behind abutting that common open space would be paid by the homeowners association. Hill responded yes. Hale asked if the developers have talked with the property owner on the west side. Hill stated that they have had discussions with that property owner about the project. Hale asked if there would also be landscaping and screening along the west boundary line. Hill stated that they plan to sit down with staff, the neighboring property owner, and an arborist to dis- cuss how, based on the number of trees that would need to be replaced, they might best provide screening. Hale asked if the adjoining property owners have livestock. Hill re- sponded neither does. Reese opened the public hearing. Doug Sachs, 7570 – 65th Street South, stated that he spoke with the developer about his concerns and they have worked out agreements on most issues except regarding his drive- way encroachment. He then stated that regarding application to rezone all the properties on Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 7 of 13 the map, he feels that while this won’t affect him as a small property owner, the other prop- erty owners who are in the area to be rezoned should decide if they want to apply for it, in- stead of one lump vote on it. Hill stated along the property line there is a small piece of driveway and a small retaining wall that is encroaching into the Dahlin property and they have been working with Sachs on how they can resolve the encroachment, such as slicing out a little outlot or granting an ease- ment. Hale asked if Sachs property and the property to the west would be exempted from the MUSA boundary amendment. Blin stated that those two properties would be included in the MUSA amendment. He explained that all the properties would maintain their current zoning. Charlie Morehouse, 7490 – 65th Street South, stated that he owns the three acres to the west of the proposed subdivision. He stated that he was contacted by the developer a few days before the last meeting and would like to be contacted earlier in the process for the next proposal. He also noted that at a meeting he attended he learned that water and sewer access to his property will be coming from the back but evidently will be coming with the next development. No one else spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amend- ment, rezoning, and preliminary plat applications subject to the conditions listed below. Thiede seconded. 1. Approval of the preliminary plat for Silverwood is conditioned upon approval by the City Council of a rezoning of the property from AG-2, Agricultural, to R-2.5, Residential. 2. The developer must petition the city for public improvements, and enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Cottage Grove for the installation of and payment for all public improvements in the subdivision and adjacent public roadways, pursuant to Title 10 of the City Code. 3. The applicant must receive appropriate building permits from the City, and per- mits or approvals from other regulatory agencies including, but not limited to the South Washington Watershed District, DNR, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 4. The revised grading and utility plan must be submitted to City staff and Minne- sota DNR for review and approval prior to the submission of the final plat plan applications to the City. All emergency overflow swales must be identified on the grading and erosion control plan. Drainage calculations must be submitted prior to City Council review of the preliminary plat. 5. The applicant must submit a final construction management plan that includes erosion control measures, project phasing for grading work, areas designated for preservation, a crushed-rock construction entrance, and construction-re- Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 8 of 13 lated vehicle parking for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 6. A pre-construction meeting with City staff and the contractor is required before site work begins. The contractor must provide the City with a project schedule for the various phases of construction. 7. Erosion control devices must be installed prior to commencement of any grad- ing activity. Erosion control shall be performed in accordance with the recom- mended practices of the “Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook” and the conditions stipulated in Title 10-5-8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. 8. The developer must pay for required public improvements, all trailway improve- ment costs, roadway collector improvement fee, stop signs, area charges, park dedication fees, and the required outdoor neighborhood recreational facility installation costs. 9. Outlots A, B, D and F must be conveyed to the City of Cottage Grove. No park dedication credit will be granted to the developer for calculated area charges for Outlots A and D. Park dedication credit will be given for Outlots B and F as determined in the subdivision agreement, and the balance of the parkland dedi- cation requirement will be met through a cash payment to the Park Trust Fund. These fees must be paid prior to release the final plat for recording. The amount of the cash payment will be based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. 10. The developer must install sidewalks six feet in width along all public streets as identified in the staff report, and eight-foot bituminous pathways as determined on the final grading plan. Any repairs necessary to the sidewalks during the home construction process will be the responsibility of the developer. The ap- plicant will pay 100 percent of the cost for development of recreation trails on all publicly dedicated land and for the required trailway along the north side of 65th Street. 11. Tree mitigation shall be required in accordance with ordinance criteria. 12. An additional four yard trees and ten shrubs must be planted on each residen- tial lot. In addition, each lot must have a minimum of four inches of black dirt in all landscaped areas. 13. The applicant must hire a city-approved arborist to assist with all facets of tree preservation on the site. The arborist will supervise installation and mainte- nance of tree preservation fencing and the tree and brush removal process. Mitigative measures to aid in preservation of trees slated to remain will occur based upon the recommendations of the arborist. Should trees designated for preservation be removed, the applicant will replace the trees in accordance with the ordinance criteria. Trees designated for preservation which are found to be harmed, diseased, or dying, or are not suited for location into the project may Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 9 of 13 be removed based upon the recommendation of the arborist in agreement with the City and the applicant. Trees removed will be replaced as required by ordi- nance. The developer shall install snow fencing or similar fencing material around all trees or groups of trees that are to be preserved prior to any grading activity on the site. 14. The applicant must obtain a demolition permit prior to the removal of any of the existing buildings on the site. 15. The applicant must submit appropriate engineering information for retaining walls. Any fencing on retaining walls must be decorative and subject to staff re- view and approval. 16. Stop signs must be installed by the developer at all locations deemed appropri- ate by the City Engineer based on the sign installation requirements adopted by the city. 17. Final street names meeting the approval of the city’s planning staff shall be identified on the final plat. Street names shall be limited to 10 characters (in- cluding spaces) in length and named according to the City’s Street Naming Sys- tem or as accepted by the City’s Public Safety Department and City Council. 18. All monument signs must comply with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall only be placed on private property. The Homeowners Association shall be responsi- ble for the maintenance of all signs. 19. The applicant must submit private covenants which details the following: The homeowners association is responsible for all ownership and mainte- nance of landscaping improvements, fencing, and outlots as depicted on the final plat. Monument signs shall be maintained by the homeowners association. Any fencing provided on the site shall be constructed of materials that are uniform in design and color. All signs, mailboxes, and accessory lighting shall be uniform in materials and design and be approved as part of the landscape plan 20. The developer is hereby given notice that they will be required to pay for the collector roadway improvement fee to be utilized for proposed roadway im- provements to 65th Street South. Said fees shall be detailed in the subdivision agreement, and must be paid prior to the release of the final plat for recording with Washington County. 21. The developer must advise homebuyers that they are responsible to maintain the boulevard areas that abut their property all the way to the curb of the street. This includes the boulevard along 65th Street. 22. All existing wells and/or sanitary treatment systems that are to be abandoned must be sealed, capped, or removed (whichever is most appropriate) in accor- Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 10 of 13 dance to County and State requirements. A certification proving that this work was done shall be given to the City. 23. No parking on is allowed on 65th Street. Secondary access to any lot abutting 65th Street is prohibited. 24. The developer agrees to pay the deferred charges for street improvements re- lated to the reconstruction of 65th Street of $11,492 plus accrued interest to the date of the agreement. The charges were to be deferred until the property is subdivided and the final City Council approval is received for the subdivision. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0). Applications and Requests 7.1 Review of Oakwood Park Concept Plan Blin summarized the Oakwood Park Concept Plan report. He stated that the Parks Commis- sion has been working on this report. He noted that there will be a neighborhood meeting on September 8 at City Hall to get input from the public. Brittain asked if there would be play- ground structure in the park. Blin responded that there would probably be some type of play structure. Brittain asked if there would electricity available for the amphitheater. Blin re- sponded probably. Thiede asked what the designers of the concept plan used for input from the community to create this plan. Blin stated that the idea was to create a community park to serve a larger area with facilities that are not currently located in any other park. The park facilities plan was utilized for a portion of this plan. Thiede asked if the baseball field would be removed. Blin stated yes. Hale asked if Harkness was included in the MUSA boundary expansion. Blin responded no, because the property owners in that area are currently not interested. Reese asked if the retail development would be about the size of the existing Gateway North building. Blin responded that the square footage of the proposed three buildings would total approximately the size of that building. 7.2 Discussion of Industrial District Open Storage Amendment Blin summarized the proposed ordinance amendments for open storage in the industrial zoning districts. Bauer asked how much area the new zoning district would cover of the industrial park land. Blin responded about 150 acres. Nitsch asked how much land would be available in that new district after the marshalling yard and Lyman Lumber are accounted for. Blin stated that I-5 district would include the auto marshalling yard and the site for the proposed Lyman Lumber yard. He explained that a new zoning district would create an area where all users are in conformance. However, if the marshalling yard goes away, another user could come in with an open storage use. He ex- plained that because the auto marshalling yard is operated by the railroad they have an exemption from the zoning ordinance; federal law prohibits local government from imposing zoning regulations on railroads. Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 11 of 13 Hale asked if the new district could allow outside storage by special use permit. Blin re- sponded that the suggestion is that any use within this district would be by conditional use permit and the city would prohibit certain types of storage, such as hazardous waste, or allow only certain uses. Hale stated that he would favor that approach. Brittain stated that he would prefer to prohibit open storage instead of creating a zoning dis- trict to allow it in places. He stated that he does not see any benefit to the city by changing the policy to allow more open storage. Nitsch agreed with Brittain. Blin stated that screening requirements could be added to the new zoning district. Brittain expressed concern over truck traffic impacting the condition of the roads in the area. Blin stated that what CP Rail is proposing is to build a street to serve all their properties in the area, and they would contrib- ute some of the cost of reconstructing 95th Street. Hale asked about the position of the Economic Development Authority on this proposal. Blin stated that the EDA also has mixed opinions on this proposal. Reese asked if the I-5 zoning district was adopted, would the marshalling yard need to meet the screening requirements. Blin stated that with that new zoning district, the city would be in a better position to work with CP Rail on that. Nitsch stated that most outdoor storage facilities do not have many buildings, so they do not generate much in tax revenue. Brittain expressed concern about the legality of limiting the types of businesses allowed in that new zoning district. He believes it would be easier to just not allow open storage in the industrial park. Hale stated that there are already restrictions on what businesses can locate in the industrial park. He believes the city would have better control with the new zoning dis- trict. Hale asked staff to create an ordinance for a new zoning district with guidelines for the Planning Commission to review. Bauer asked if there was a way for the lumber company to come in without the city creating a special zoning district. Blin stated that the current zoning ordinance could be interpreted that lumber yards are allowed, but that would also mean that lumber yards would be allowed in any other part of the I-2 district. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff should draft language for an I-5 zoning district for further discussion prior to public hearing. 7.3 Discussion of Industrial District Setback Changes McCool summarized the proposed text amendment for setbacks in the industrial district and asked for feedback. Brittain stated that he prefers Concept A because it offers a buffer zone between a busy roadway and residential homes. He asked if a reasonably sized building could be placed between the roadway and the homes and still meet the setback requirements. McCool re- sponded yes. Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 12 of 13 Hale asked which concept the three residents who attended the meeting preferred. McCool stated Concept A. Hale asked what the EDA preferred. Blin responded that the EDA has recommended the 100-foot setback. It was the consensus of the Commission that Concept A was preferred and that staff should bring a draft ordinance for public hearing at the September 26 meeting. 7.4 Discussion of Code Amendments for Auto Dealers and Temporary Signs Blin summarized the proposed ordinance amendment for auto dealerships. Severson asked how the proposed standards compare with the existing dealerships on Highway 61 towards Hastings. Blin stated that he would check on that. Severson then asked if there is concern about multiple dealerships locating near each other. Blin stated that could be controlled through zoning. Currently, dealerships are allowed as a conditional use in the B-3 zoning district. We could create a B-4 zoning district specifically for auto dealerships. Severson asked where staff envisions dealerships locating in the city. Blin stated along Highway 61. Blin summarized the proposed ordinance amendment regarding temporary signs. He stated that staff is proposing to prohibit freestanding temporary signs and only allow banners at- tached to a building for a maximum of 15 days per calendar year. He stated that staff will be meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and will report back to the Commission. He asked if the Commission would allow an exemption for non-profits such as the Strawberry Fest, church fairs, schools, etc. with a qualifier that they have to be civic entities. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 25 and August 22, 2005 Motion by Nitsch, seconded by Thiede to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meetings on July 25, 2005 and August 22, 2005. Motion passed unani- mously (8-to-0). Reports 9.1 East Ravine Update Blin updated the Commission on the East Ravine Planning Process. He stated that the comp plan amendment is being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council, which should be done in about a month. The public comment period for AUAR has closed and six entities commented on it. Nitsch asked if there are any plans for the rest of the rural area in Cottage Grove, par- ticularly along its eastern border near the proposed Biscoe Grove development. Blin re- sponded that that area will urbanize but probably not for at least 20 years. The only guide for that area is the comprehensive plan, which shows most of that area with either an agricul- tural or rural residential use. 9.2 Committee Reports None. Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 2005 Page 13 of 13 9.3 Recap of August City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meeting on August 10, 2005. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. 9.5 Planning Commission Requests Severson asked if there has been any dialogue recently with 3M regarding the frontage road along Highway 61 that stops at the 3M property. Blin responded that has not been discussed recently but there are several other topics that the city will be discussing with 3M and this is- sue can be added to that list. Nitsch asked about the proposed roundabouts at Jamaica Avenue and Highway 61. Blin re- sponded that there is a design study being done. Adjournment Motion by Severson, seconded by Brittain, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously (8- to-0). The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m.