Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-28 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission February 28, 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 28th day of Feb- ruary 2005 in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Acting Chairperson Booth called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Dawn Anderson, Tim Booth, Ken Brittain, Rod Hale, Shannon Nitsch, Chris Reese, Bob Severson, David Thiede Members Absent: Alberto Ricart Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Motion by Hale, seconded by Brittain to approve the agenda. Motion approved on a 6- to-0 vote. Open Forum Acting Chairperson Booth 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 Acting Chairperson Booth 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 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 ad- dress for the public record. Public Hearings 6.1 CASE PP05-006 David and Liane Pierce have applied for a preliminary plat for Oak Wood Glen, which would consist of a cluster development of six lots for single family homes and one outlot, to be located west of Lamar Avenue, north of 68th Street. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 2 of 10 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. He then stated that staff is suggesting adding a condition relat- ing to the ownership of Outlot A, if the outlot goes tax forfeit. He recommended that the con- dition would require the homeowners association would be responsible for maintaining and paying property tax on Outlot A and in the event that the property goes tax forfeit, the six property owners within the subdivision plat would be charged by the city the annual cost to maintain Outlot A. Dave Pierce, 14627 Valley Creek Trail, Afton, stated his only concern was the park dedica- tion fee. He stated that if they are required to pay the $2,000 per lot park fee, then Outlot A should be private. He does not want a public park or public trail corridor to meander through Outlot A. He suggested that if the city does want a trail corridor through the property, then one should be laid out on approximately two acres of land in lieu of the park dedication fee. Booth suggested that at Pierce’s request, the Commission could move to table the applica- tion to give them another month to work with city staff on this issue. Pierce stated that he would consider that option. Keith Willinbring, Pioneer Engineering, stated that the reported 17 percent tree removal is only about half of the trees removed. That figure only includes the tagged and located trees. The cluster development was to use some of the outlot area trees for each lot. Booth asked why a private drive was proposed and not individual driveways onto Lamar Avenue. Willinbring responded that was due to the steepness of the slope. Pierce stated that they would like to table the public hearing until March so they could work out the park dedication issues. Booth suggested opening the public hearing to allow testi- mony from those in attendance this evening. Blin requested that the applicant write a letter to the city to allow the case to continue for another month. Pierce stated that he would do so. Booth opened the public hearing. Mark Nyman, 6340 Lamar Avenue South, stated that the property is very hilly. He stated that he likes the rural nature of the area and expressed concern about how close the houses would be to each as compared to the rest of the area. He asked for further clarification on tree removal and expressed concern about how the final project would look. He agreed with the property owner regarding the possibility of a trail or park on the outlot. No one else spoke. Booth closed the public hearing. Thiede stated that when he originally looked at the proposal, he was concerned about emer- gency vehicle access. He believes that the cul-de-sac is satisfactory, but he is concerned about the drive with the “Y” intersection. He asked if it would be possible to make that into a triangle or a little bigger to accommodate larger trucks. McCool stated that the Public Safety Commission and Public Safety staff have reviewed the layout of the plat and they believe that the way the shared access drives are laid out allows adequate access into and out of the property. The shared drives are proposed at 28 feet in width with drainage swales on Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 3 of 10 both sides of the roadways, which is a design standard for rural roadways in the city. The city is also requiring that they comply with city standards as it relates to the sub-base materials. Booth stated that the city tries to stay away from privately-maintained roads and asked why this would be different. McCool responded that city ordinance does allow for shared drives due topography or configuration of the lots, with City Council approval. Booth asked what differences there would be if this were a city road, such as construction costs. McCool re- sponded that new road construction requires a 60-foot right-of-way, an urban roadway de- sign with concrete curbs on both sides, and some sort of storm sewer system within the roadway. He stated that a rural roadway would be 28 feet in width, with gravel shoulders and drainage swales on each side. Hale asked if there would be any ponding on the property. McCool stated that there are two detention ponds, which would capture the run-off from the shared private drive, driveways, and roof tops. Hale asked if the city would have access to those ponds. McCool responded that utility and drainage easements are shown on the plat. Hale agrees with Pierce as it re- lates to the outlot. He stated that if the trail only serves that development, why does the city need that easement. McCool responded that the city could extend the public trailway system into this area, particularly as part of the East Ravine development. Hale then asked about the area charges for stormwater and what would be exempt from the levy. McCool re- sponded that it is calculated from a gross land area and any part of the part of the land below the high water elevation is taken out of the calculation. Hale asked if the city was requiring that the drive be paved. McCool responded that the city is requiring a rural design standard, which would have a certain amount of class 5 sub-base material with a bituminous surface, but no curbing. Hale expressed concern that there is sufficient room on the property to con- tain runoff so there would not be any problems downstream. McCool responded that the cal- culation for the ponding area is based on the impervious surface within the development and that information has been shared with the South Washington Watershed District and re- viewed by the city engineer. Hale then asked how the city measures frontage on lots like this. McCool explained that as part of a cluster development in the R-1 zoning district, the subdivision ordinance requires a minimum of 40 feet of frontage per lot. Hale stated that was for the urban service area. McCool stated that the ordinance does not reference whether it is urban or rural, 40 feet is the minimum requirement. Anderson asked what provisions the city has that Outlot A would never be developed. McCool stated that a condition of approval could be added that stipulates that Outlot A is un- buildable, except if the zoning changes in the future and city services are available to the property. Thiede asked how does development fits with the East Ravine. McCool stated that this area is outside the developed area of the East Ravine plan. The northeast quadrant of Cottage Grove is guided for rural estate lots. He stated that the Council will be discussing whether or not the city would be more accommodating or restrictive towards rural estate lot develop- ments in the future. Booth summarized that lot width, tree preservation, parkland fees, and the trail issue were the issues that need further information. Reese stated he is concerned about how the private road is going to be maintained. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 4 of 10 Brittain made a motion to table the application. Nitsch seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6.2 CASE ZA05-011 and PP05-012 Ronald Reimann, Sr. has applied for a preliminary plat, Prairie Oaks, to create three buildable lots of record located at 6100 and 6120 Hadley Avenue South and a zoning amendment to rezone the property from AG-2, Agriculture, to R-1, Rural Residential. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ron Reimann, 6120 Hadley Avenue South, stated that the purpose of the application is to create a third buildable parcel out of two parcels. He explained that the third lot would be owned by a family member, as the two existing lots are. He stated that realigning the prop- erty lines along the existing roadway permits future subdivision of that southern piece, but he does not have any plans to further subdivide that parcel unless another family member wanted to move in. Reimann then stated that he believes the current asphalt driveways are adequate for public safety purposes. He explained that they had a prairie fire about five years ago, and the emergency vehicles were able to access and exit the property without any problems. He explained that the other reason he did not want to widen the road now is that their objective is to restore as much of the 26 acres as they can to prairie and oak sa- vanna. He stated that he would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission. Brittain asked about the route the emergency vehicles used to get in and out of the property. Reimann explained that they went to the home to the north used the turn-around on the side of the house. Brittain asked if the other house has the same turn-around space. Reimann re- sponded yes, but it is a different configuration. Brittain asked why the city engineer recom- mended improving the road at this time. Blin stated that Public Works always prefers a full- width street. Brittain noted that the report stated there could be as many as six additional lots and he asked where those would go. Reimann stated that the area along the southern edge would accommodate two lots and the north parcel could be divided to accommodate another house. He reiterated that he and his son, who owns the other property, only intend to subdi- vide the property for family, but they have no plans to subdivide further at this time. Booth opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Booth closed the public hearing. Hale made a motion to approve the rezoning from AG-2 to R-1 subject to the condi- tions listed below. Reese seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Brittain made a motion to approve the preliminary plat with the variance to the road- way requirements, subject to the conditions listed below. Nitsch seconded. 1. A final plat application must be submitted to the City for review and approval and be recorded with Washington County prior to the release of any building permit for the new lot. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 5 of 10 2. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, etc.) must be applied for and issued by the City prior to any work or construction taking place. 3. A rural friendly storm sewer area charge in the amount of $$12,221.90 must be paid prior to release of the plat deeds for recording with Washington County. 4. A parkland dedication fee for the one new residential lot must be paid to the City at the time of the issuance of the plat for recording. 5. Future subdivision of any of the three parcels must require improvement of the road within the public right-of-way to full city standards. 6. A deed restriction detailing the private roadway maintenance requirements and fu- ture roadway improvement requirements be recorded for each of the parcels in the subdivision. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASE SP05-014 Kelco, Inc. has applied for a site plan review of Pointe West Business Center, which would consist of two commercial buildings, to be located in the 8600 block of West Point Douglas Road South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Hale asked if the building elevations would be the same between bays 9 and 10. McCool re- sponded that it would. Hale asked if another access drive from West Point Douglas Road at the south end of the site could be developed. McCool responded that the grade difference between the property and West Point Douglas Road on the south side of the site precludes another access. Brittain asked if irrigation would be provided. McCool answered yes. Brittain then asked about the EFIS material. James Kellison, President of Kelco, Inc., developer of the site, de- scribed the building materials which included colored concrete block, EFIS, copper coping material along the roof line. He also described the materials between bays 9 and 10. Kellison then explained that the time constraints on the project are due to the need to house tenants who would be vacating Cottage Square Mall. He described that the rear doors would not be truck bays, but rather bays to move materials in and out. Nitsch asked if there would be outside dumpsters. Kellison said all trash containers would be inside. Typical residential -type containers would be used. Thiede asked if on the southerly building the service doors shown on the front of the building could be moved back to the mechanical room on the other side of the building. Kellison re- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 6 of 10 sponded that it was a function of the interior floor layout. The potential tenant would be moving product into the building through the service door. Reese asked about the dimensions of the parking areas on the south end of the site and the drive lane leading to it. Kellison responded that at a minimum it would be 60 feet, which meets city standards. The drive lane would be 24 feet, which also meets those standards. Hale asked if the corner of the north building would be landscaped. Kellison responded that it would be landscaped. Hale asked if the park dedication would be based on land value only or would it include the building value. McCool answered that it is based on land only. Brittain asked if the door on the east side of the south building could be of an enhanced de- sign. Kellison responded that he is working on an improved look to that part of the building, which would be submitted with the building permit application. Booth asked about the driveway widths. McCool responded that a width of 32 feet is required by city ordinance. He explained that city staff has discussed the possibility of changing ordi- nance requirements to a 30-foot width if curb radius also increases. Kellison stated they could meet the City’s requirements. The Commission discussed the access width and reached consensus that 32 feet should be met. Kellison responded that they would meet this requirement. Reese asked if there would be restaurant tenants. Kellison stated that none are proposed at this time. They have received inquiries from a coffee shop. If a coffee shop were to locate in the project, a drive-through window would not be provided. Anderson stated that since this is a very visible part of the city, we should determine if we want a consistent design along West Point Douglas Road. The two buildings in this project should have the same design. Brittain stated that the southerly building should have the same entrance features as the north building. Kellison stated he would work on design revision to ensure the same façade treatment on both buildings. Brittain suggested that a mix of colors would help the look of the building. Booth asked if a condition should be added about enhancing the architectural design for the east wall of the southerly building. Blin recommended a condition requiring additional design work to ensure a consistent design. Booth opened the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. No one spoke. Booth closed the public hearing. Severson made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below.Brittain seconded. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 7 of 10 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, 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 Marshall. 2. The grading and erosion control plan for the site must comply with NPDES II Per- mit requirements. Erosion control devices must be installed prior to commence- ment of any grading activity. Erosion control must be performed in accordance with the recommended 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. 3. A final grading plan and stormwater calculations must be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval before a building permit will be issued. 4. Final exterior construction materials and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. All curbing for the project must be B618 concrete design and the concrete drive aprons compliant with city standards. 6. The applicant must provide the City with an “as-built” survey of all private utilities. 7. The developer is responsible for the cost of installing a “STOP” sign at each exit lane. The “STOP” sign must be 10 feet from the roadway edge and 2 feet from the driveway edge. The bottom of the sign must be 6 feet from the ground. The “STOP” sign must be a 30-inch sized sign having a high intensity reflective face. Said sign should be mounted on a six-foot No. 3 and eight-foot No. 2 steel post. The appli- cant may request the City’s Public Works Department to install this sign, but must reimburse the City for actual costs incurred by the City. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a comprehen- sive sign package to the City for review and approval. All signs must comply with the provisions of the sign ordinance and a building permit must be obtained prior to the installation of any new signs. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit to the Plan- ning Division a comprehensive lighting package. All outdoor lighting must be downward directed and away from the public street. The maximum amount of illu- mination measured at the property boundary line is 1.0 footcandle. 10. A revised landscaping plan must be submitted to the city before a building permit is issued. The revised landscaping plan must conform to the minimum landscap- ing requirements imposed in Title 11-6-5, Landscaping Requirements of the City Codes. An underground irrigation system must be included in the plan. 11. A bona fide cost estimate of the landscaping improvements must be submitted in conjunction with a letter of credit approved by the City in the amount of 150 per- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 8 of 10 cent of such estimate. Upon completion of the landscaping requirements, the ap- plicant shall in writing inform the City that said improvements have been com- pleted. The City will retain the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of notice to insure the survival of the plantings. No building permit must be issued until the required letter of credit has been received and accepted by the City. 12. Rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened from public view. Final exterior screening materials and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. A radio-read water meter(s) must be installed. 14. A park fee amounting to four percent of the fair market value must be paid to the City before a building permit is issued. 15. All ground-mounted mechanical equipment accessory to the principal structure over 30-inches or greater than 12 cubic feet shall be screened from public views with landscaping, berming, or a screen wall/fence. Screening materials must be similar to or compatible in design and color with those used on the principal structure. Screening material may include property maintained wood, vinyl, or metal screens or fencing as required in Title 11-6-4(3) of the City Codes. 16. The property owner must agree to allow city personnel to enter upon the property for purposes of maintaining, repairing, and inspecting all public utility systems that exist on the property. Flushing the fire hydrant internal to the property is the city’s responsibility. 17. The existing watermain along the north and south property boundary lines must be protected during construction. 18. Outdoor storage is prohibited. This includes a prohibition on all exterior trash or re- cycling containers, except during times of trash and recycling pick up. 19. The applicant must convey an indemnification letter to the City recognizing the planned encroachments on all public drainage and utility easements, and holding the City harmless for any costs incurred during public projects that may occur in the easements. 20. A minimum of six accessible parking spaces must be provided on-site, one of which must be van accessible. The site plan must be revised to show the location of these accessible parking spaces. 21. The landowner is required to allow the city reasonable access to perform any work necessary to an existing or future installation of any public utility on this property. If certain site improvements (e.g. outdoor lighting, curbing, hardsurfaced parking, sidewalks, fencing, landscaping, private utilities, signage, etc.) are within any pub- lic easement and must be temporarily removed in order to allow the city access to Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 9 of 10 the public utility, the City has the right to remove the private improvement. The City is not responsible to replace the private improvement or reimburse the land- owner. The cost to replace and restore the disturbed area is solely the responsibil- ity of the landowner. This condition runs with the land and is binding on all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the real estate property. 22. Before a building permit is issued for any part of the development, revised building elevations must be approved by staff showing design enhancements to the pro- posed south building. These enhancements must incorporate design elements from the north building including, but not limited to, entrance features around doorways. 23. The minimum width for both access drives must comply with the city’s 32-foot width requirement. Motion passed unanimously. Applications and Requests None. Approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2005 Motion by Nitsch, seconded by Thiede, to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2005, meeting with a change noting that Acting Chairperson Booth called the meeting to order. Motion passed unanimously. Reports 9.1 East Ravine Design Standards Blin summarized the proposed design standards and asked for feedback from the Planning Commission. Hale suggested that if a neighborhood has a public amenity such as a park or school, there should be a sidewalk or trail through that neighborhood to allow public access. Nitsch expressed concern about boulevards between sidewalks and streets being too nar- row. The Commission asked about enforcing the landscaping requirements for individual lots. Severson asked if the requirement for five trees was appropriate. The Commission con- curred with the recommendations for incentives for basements and larger garages, particu- larly for townhomes. The Commission also concurred that there should be some flexibility in setbacks for attached garages, rather than just requiring them to have a greater front set- back than the house. They also expressed concern about reducing the side yard setbacks. Reese asked if townhouse heights could be limited. 9.2 Committee Reports Hale asked if another Planning Commissioner could be appointed as the liaison to the Advi- sory Committee on Historic Preservation, because his schedule does not permit him to attend those meetings. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 10 of 10 Hale stated that at the East Ravine Citizens Advisory Team meeting on February 23, traffic engineers provided a report on the adequacy of road designs to serve the East Ravine area. There was also a report on infrastructure for sewer and water, and a very ambitious time line was presented. He reported that an AUAR, which is a modified environmental impact state- ment, is due to the Council in April. 9.3 Recap of February City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meetings on February 2 and February 16, 2005. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquires McCool summarized his memo on mining permit application fees. Hale stated that he be- lieves that the fees Cottage Grove charges are too low. It was the consensus of the Com- mission that the mining permit fees should be increased. Nitsch suggested that the money received for mining should be put into a trust fund so that when the mining operations are complete, the funds could be used for redevelopment on the Island. Nitsch made a motion that the city investigate a better permit fee plan for mining op- erations, such as on a sliding fee scale based on tonnage. Reese seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9.5 Planning Commission Requests Reese asked that the gas station signs be removed from the Almar Village monument sign until the gas station is built. Booth asked about the status of the gas station. Blin stated that the plans were approved two years ago and they received an extension of their approvals until May 2005. They are going to let the site plan approval expire and reapply for a new site plan review, with no changes to the plans. This application should be on the March Planning Commission agenda. Hale asked again about the Bailey property and the agriculture business being conducted there. He would like to see that type of business be required to be reviewed by the city. Reese asked about the Red Rock corridor and potential businesses along that area. Blin stated that he would provide an update to the Commission on this project. Adjournment Motion by Severson, seconded by Reese, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m.