Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-12 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission December 12, 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 12th day of December 2005 in the Council Chambers. Call to Order Chairperson Reese called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Shane Bauer, Ken Brittain, Rod Hale, Shannon Nitsch, Chris Reese, Alberto Ricart, David Thiede Members Absent: Rebecca Kronlund (excused) Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Public Hearings Washington County South Service Center – Case SP05-063 (Continued from 11/28/05) Ankeny Kell Architects, on behalf of Washington County, has applied for a site plan review of the Washington County South Service Center building. The proposed 47,221 square foot building would be located at 90th Street and County Road 19 (Keats Avenue). Jim Luger, Washington County, described the location of the project and how it relates to the East Ravine Plan and the Ravine Park. Luger also described the agreement between the County, City, and Metropolitan Council to replace the property with additional park land. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Brittain asked if the entrance to the Park were moved to the north, would the road access to the scenic overlook be maintained. Luger responded that it would. Hale asked if this facility would enhance the park and would the parking area be available for park users. Luger responded that it would improve security and trail connections into the park. Trailhead parking would likely be further north on the other side of the small ravine. Hale then asked when the park access might change. Luger stated that if it were changed, it would be when the city facility was built. Reese asked what could change in the plan. Luger responded that a new master plan for the park would determine what specific changes are made to the park. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 Page 2 of 4 Pam Anderson, Ankeny Kell Architects, described the site planning process and the design concepts behind the facility. Reese asked if the area behind the building was open to the public. Luger answered that it would be available for public use but not encouraged. Hale asked if there would be a link from the rear of the building to the remainder of the park. Luger responded that the slope behind the building is very steep, so it is not likely. Hale stated that he could envision this facility drawing people to the park and enhancing the public’s use of the park. Nitsch asked how many employees would be housed at the site. Stephanie Alsted, Ankeny Kell, responded that there would be 79 employees at the opening and 199 by 2020. Nitsch asked if enough parking is provided. Anderson responded that there is room for expansion of parking. Bauer stated that design theme is to create a farmstead look, yet the building is low and flat. This is the most common comment he has heard from the public, that the building has an institutional look. Anderson responded that a two-story building was considered, but for operational efficiencies and cost considerations, it is shown at one level. Anderson next described the brick, stone, stucco, and metal shingles proposed for the exterior materials. Hale asked if the Washington County Parks Commission had reviewed the plans and what their comments were. Luger stated that they had been involved throughout the project. Thiede asked what the metal material was meant to represent. Anderson responded that the finish on the material would not be bright but rather more muted and natural looking. She showed photos of building that used similar metal panels. Washington County Commissioner Myra Peterson stated that she had looked at some of the buildings shown and the material lightens up the façade and plays well off the windows. Reese asked why they are not proposing using more glass. Anderson responded that glass is the most expensive material and is not energy efficient. Reese stated that emphasis should be placed on having the building blend into the site. Commissioner Peterson stated that the rain gardens planned for the front of the building will create a very natural foreground for the building. Ricart stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the materials, but questions the arrangement. The building lacks a base, middle, and top. He asked if the rendering accurately showed what was being built. He also stated that the building plays with scale and noted the height of the door. Nitsch asked how many employees and members of the public would be using the building and questioned whether sufficient parking would be provided. Anderson responded that Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 Page 3 of 4 initially there would be 79 employees. They did analysis of the parking demands for both employees and the public and determined it was sufficient. Commissioner Peterson stated that the landscaping will greatly enhance the overall look. She also stated that she had initial concerns over the metal panels, but she has looked at other buildings using the panels and has learned to accept them. Bauer wanted to echo Reese that this is the first piece in the East Ravine to be developed and wants it to set a high standard for the East Ravine. Reese stated that the building reminds him of the Hudson Hospital and does not fit into the surroundings. Ricart stated that the site presents a design challenge – a rustic design which fits in or a sculptural piece. Reese asked what the distance is from Keats to the Parkway. Blin stated that it is about 150 feet from Keats to the Parkway. Anderson stated that it is over 200 feet from the front of the building to the Parkway. Hale stated he thinks the landscaping is well done, though he would prefer a more natural design for the building. Hale made a motion to approve the site plan review for the Washington County South Service Center building subject to the conditions listed below. Bauer seconded. 1. All site improvements must conform to the site, landscape, and utility plans dated October 31, 2005. 2. All building improvements must conform to the building elevations dated October 21, 2005, and revised November 22, 2005. 3. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, and 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. 4. The South Washington County Watershed District must review all drainage plans. 5. The project must conform to all City Code requirements and performance standards. Motion passed on a 6-to-2 vote (Reese and Thiede voted against). Thiede stated that he feels the building is unimaginative. Reese stated that he likes the landscaping but he believes the building would stand out too much. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2005 Page 4 of 4 Ricart stated that the city should have a design review board to evaluate projects early enough to have meaningful input. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2005 Motion by Thiede, seconded by Nitsch to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting on November 28, 2005. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0). Adjournment Motion by Thiede, seconded by Nitsch, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously (7-to- 0). The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.