Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-24 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission January 24, 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 24th day of January 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: Tim Booth, Ken Brittain, Rod Hale, Shannon Nitsch, Alberto Ricart, Bob Severson Members Absent: Chris Reese Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Motion by Hale, seconded by Severson to approve the agenda. Motion approved unanimously. 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 address for the public record. Public Hearings 6.1 CASE CUP04-058 (continued from 11/22/04 meeting) Kathy O’Brien has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a fitness center at 8700 East Point Douglas Road South. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 2 of 14 Kathy O’Brien, 8700 East Point Douglas Road South, stated that she would answer the Commission’s questions about security at the facility. Severson stated that he is concerned about the security on the premises when staff is not present. He asked for an explanation of the key card system and the monitoring system. O’Brien explained that the key card looks like a credit card and is scanned on the outside of the door, which records on the computer what time that person enters. She stated that there are six security cameras and the recordings are kept for 30 days. Severson asked when the facility is staffed. O’Brien stated that there is staff from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 12:00 to 2:00 on Saturday. Hale asked if the facility is currently operating. O’Brien stated that they have been open since the week before Thanksgiving. Hale asked if a public telephone was available. O’Brien stated that there is a telephone available for patron usage. Hale asked if there were lockers and if not, where would customers put their belongings. O’Brien stated that there are open cubbies for personal items. Hale asked if the Public Safety Commission had raised any other concerns. Blin responded no. Hale asked if the card code is renewed periodically. O’Brien stated that each card has its own number and if the card were lost, the customer would call the fitness center to cancel that card and a new card would then be issued. Hale reiterated his concerns about safety in the facility. Mark O’Brien, Snap Fitness, stated that the card access is for the individual member, and if there is a problem, the telephone is readily ac- cessible on the premises. He stated that they also have a monitor system on their home computer. Hale stated that he would like the monitoring system to be written in as a condition of approval. Mark O’Brien stated that this is gym, with restrooms, changing area, and tanning booths, but no shower facilities. Hale asked if the tanning booths were open at all times. Mark O’Brien responded that the tanning booths are key access only to those members who have paid for that service. Hale asked if there was some training involved for patrons to use the tanning booth. Mark O’Brien explained that the tanning booths only run for a set amount of minutes and then turn off. Kathy O’Brien stated that 14 other Snap Fitness franchises have opened in the area over the past three years. Severson asked if concerns regarding safety had been raised at any of the other locations. O’Brien responded that this is the first location where these concerns have been raised. Blin stated that in most of the other cities where Snap Fitness facilities are lo- cated, those types of exercise facilities are permitted uses. Brittain noted that the portion of East Point Douglas Road where the facility is located is not well traveled, and he expressed concern about security. Mark O’Brien stated that the front window is wide open and the whole interior of the facility can be viewed. Both opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Booth closed the public hearing. Hale made a motion to recommend approval of the application with a condition added to require the installation of a monitoring system with a video link to the applicants’ home. Severson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 3 of 14 Severson asked if the Commission should address the zoning code amendment to not require conditional use permits for these types of businesses at this point in the meeting. Blin stated that the Commission should discuss that at the end of the meeting. 6.2 CASE RS05-005 Kris and Elizabeth Myhre have applied to subdivide a 9.34-acre parcel of land at 9016 Kimbro Avenue South into two parcels of 6.34 acres and 3 acres. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Severson asked what would happen to the park dedication if the land was not subdivided again. Blin stated that the city would never acquire any of the land. Hale asked how that parcel proposed for dedication would be accessed. Blin displayed an excerpt from the draft plan, which shows a link coming out of the park and across to Kimbro. The area that is suggested for dedication is the triangular-shaped piece in the northwest cor- ner, which would be attached to the park but would not provide the link. Hale asked why the city is looking to take so much land. Blin responded that city ordinance allows the city to take 10 percent of the land being subdivided, and that parcel is slightly less than 10 percent at 40,000 square feet. Hale expressed concern that there is no access to the park from Kimbro. He stated that the triangle parcel does not serve the park’s needs and proposed instead cre- ating an easement along the north property line to allow future access to the park. Blin stated that would be possible. Kris Myrhe, 9016 Kimbro Avenue South, stated that he wanted to ensure that there would be enough property left on the larger parcel to subdivide it in the future. Blin stated that an easement does not count against the lot area, so the parcel would be able to be subdivided. Severson asked if the entire width of the easement would be on the applicant’s side of the property line or would half be on that side with the expectation that we would have another easement on the adjacent property if that were to be subdivided. Blin stated that he would suggest straddling the property line. Hale agreed. Brittain asked if the area in the northwest corner is a drainage swale. Blin responded that the area is on higher ground than the swale. Brittain asked if the easement would affect the park dedication. Blin responded that it would, and the city would need to work something out with the property owner to satisfy the park dedication requirement. He stated that because it is an easement, the city would want more than 40,000 square feet to satisfy that requirement. He stated that a 75-foot wide easement running the length of the property would be about an acre and a half, which he believes would be a fair compromise. Severson agreed that the easement is the better option. Booth stated that those types of easements exist around the city, including on Hillside Trail between two homes that is used for a walking path into the park. Blin explained that if the proposed easement became a walking trail, it would not be 75 feet wide. The reason for that proposed width is to have enough area to put in landscaping for screening and separation between trail users and future residential uses. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 4 of 14 Brittain asked if this easement would just be a trail for pedestrians and bike riders to access the park. Blin stated yes, because he does not believe that the County would not want to see another roadway access to the park. Hale asked if there are buildings on both parcels. Myhre responded that there are no build- ings on the three-acre parcel. Hale asked what the buildings on the northern parcel are being used for. Myhre responded that they are used for agricultural and personal purposes. Nitsch asked if Myhre preferred to dedicate the triangular parcel or the easement along the northern property line. Myhre stated that dedicating the triangular parcel in the northwest corner would greatly reduce the value of the six-acre parcel because then it would no longer be subdividable. He stated that the proposed easement was preferred. Booth opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Booth closed the public hearing. Hale stated that he prefers dedicating the easement, but because the County as the owner of the park may not want to see another entrance to the park, he would like to give the City some leeway to obtain other means of park dedication. Severson asked if the County does not want this easement, would Hale’s recommendation be to get park dedication fees. Hale stated that would be his preference. Severson made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below with a change to condition #2 removing the language regarding dedicating the 40,712 square foot area and replacing it with a 75-foot wide easement on the north end of property between Kimbro and the existing park and if the County does not want that easement that staff be directed to collect a park dedication fee. Ricart 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. A 40,712 square foot area of the site shall be dedicated as park land in the north- west corner of the site beginning in the northwest corner of the parcel and extend 240.90 feet along the northern property line, and 338 south feet along the west property line. 3. A rural friendly storm sewer area charge in the amount of $21,083.49 shall be paid prior to release of the property deeds for recording with Washington County. 4. 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 westerly right-of- way line of Kimbro Avenue. b. A 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement along and paralleling the south property line of the 6-acre parcel. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 5 of 14 c. A 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement along and paralleling the north property line of the 3-acre parcel. d. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along and paralleling the balance of the property lines. e. An easement located two feet above the high water elevation of the regional surface water drainage system flowing south across the parent parcel. (Said elevation shall be reviewed and approved by the South Washington Watershed District.) 5. The easement boundaries shall include both parcels and be based on a 100-foot wide area centered on the drainage channel identified on the survey. 6. The three existing metal sheds located within the proposed easement area would be allowed to remain in the easement, but would not be allowed to be rebuilt if they are destroyed or damaged in excess of 50 percent of the reconstruction value. In addition, the applicants would be required to give the City an indemnification letter acknowledging that any damage that may occur to the structures or their contents due to their location in the drainage easement would not be the responsibility of the City. 7. To prevent flooding, future construction on the site will require the lowest opening of all structures to be placed a minimum of one foot in elevation above the eleva- tion of the grade at the described drainage easement. 8. The new private access drive location onto Kimbro Avenue shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and a right of way permit issued before installation of said access. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASES CUP05-001 and SP05-002 ATS&R, Inc. has applied for a conditional use permit and site plan review to allow an addition to Cottage Grove Junior High School, 9775 Indian Boulevard South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Daniel Moll, ATS&R, displayed some drawings of the proposed addition and explained some background on the project. Booth opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Booth closed the public hearing. Motion by Brittain, seconded by Nitsch, to recommend approval of the applications subject to the conditions listed below. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 6 of 14 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) and a commer- cial 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. 2. A minimum of 10 trees (deciduous or evergreen) must be planted in the front yard area of the Junior High School site that abuts Indian Boulevard. A landscaping plan showing the location of these trees, species type, and size must be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval before a building permit is issued for the new addition. The deciduous trees must have a two-inch minimum trunk caliper and evergreens a six-foot minimum height. The tree plantings must be installed before a “certificate of occupancy” is issued for the new addition. 3. The exterior materials for the new addition must be consistent with the exterior wall materials and color scheme on the existing school building. 4. Rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened from public view. 5. Construction equipment, construction trailer, trailers, or construction materials are prohibited from parking or being stored on Indian Boulevard. 6. All outdoor lighting must be directed downward and away from abutting property owners. Reflected glare of spill light must not exceed five-tenths (0.5) foot-candle as measured on the property line. Motion passed unanimously. 6.4 CASES SP05-003 and V05-004 DuBois Remodeling Depot, 11825 Point Douglas Road South, has applied for a site plan review of a proposed addition and a variance to Title 11-10C-6C(1), Lot Requirements in the B-3, General Business District, to reduce the required 75-foot rear yard setback for commercial property adjacent to residential property to 48 feet. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Ricart asked what the actual setbacks are of the other buildings in the area. Blin replied that the Gerlach building to the north is setback approximately 30 feet. Hale complimented the property owner on improving the appearance of the building. He asked if the city is requiring the parking area to be paved. Blin responded yes, noting that the existing parking area in the front of the site is already curbed and paved. Staff is suggesting that the parking area in the back also be paved. Hale stated that the business next door is allowed to have outdoor storage. Blin stated that the items stored outside are for sale. He explained that the exterior storage restriction if for building materials. Hale stated that city or- dinance does not allow outdoor speaker systems, so this condition does not need to be added to every approval. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 7 of 14 David DuBois, 11825 West Point Douglas Road, stated that he is also the owner of ABC Seamless in Newport. His only concern would be equipment storage, noting that the majority of outdoor storage is vehicles and occasionally insulated floor panels stacked on a trailer. He stated that the new addition would help alleviate any outdoor storage of building materials. Hale asked where those items are stored. DuBois stated that in the back of the property. Hale asked about the purpose of the proposed addition. DuBois responded that the addition would be for storage. Booth opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Booth closed the public hearing. Hale asked about the requirement for curbing. Blin stated that the curbing is for drainage purposes and to protect the edge of the bituminous. DuBois asked if he should submit a curbing plan to the city. Blin stated yes, and it should include water run-off issues as well. Severson asked if condition #1, which references exterior storage, restricts DuBois from parking his business vehicles on the property. Blin stated that building materials are the fo- cus of the condition. DuBois stated that with the expansion, they will have more room for storage. Hale asked if the vehicles are currently parked on a hard surface. DuBois responded they are parked on gravel. He requested an extension of one to two years to hard surface the parking area. Blin stated that the city could change that to require that the parking area be paved within two years. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval, subject to the conditions listed be- low, with a two-year extension to hard surface the parking area. Hale seconded. 1. Any exterior storage and materials stored outside need to be removed or placed in the buildings 2. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) and a commer- cial 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. 3. Final exterior construction materials and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. 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. 5. All required parking areas and outdoor storage areas must be hard surfaced with concrete or bituminous. 6. All curbing for the project must be B618. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 8 of 14 7. The applicant must provide the City with an as-built survey of all private utilities prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 8. The applicant must protect the private well and septic from damage during and af- ter construction. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a comprehen- sive sign package to the City for review and approval. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a comprehen- sive lighting package consistent with the city redevelopment plan to the City for review and approval. All outdoor lighting must be directed downward and away from residential property and public streets, and must not exceed one footcandle at the property lines. 11. The landscaping plan must be revised to address the items identified in the staff report. Said plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. 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- cent of such estimate. Upon completion of the landscaping requirements, the applicant must in writing inform the City that said improvements have been com- pleted. The City must retain the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of notice to insure the survival of the plantings, and until the as-built util- ity survey has been submitted. No building permit will be issued until the required financial guarantee has been received and accepted by the City. 13. Outdoor speaker systems (e.g. paging, intercom, etc.) are prohibited. Motion passed unanimously. 6.5 CASES ZA05-008, SP05-009, and CUP05-010 Positive Companies has applied for a zoning amendment to modify the PUD (Planned Unit Development) for Pine Grove of Cottage Grove, a site plan review of a retail building, and a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through on the property located at 8800 East Point Douglas Road South. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Jay Feider, 1777 Windjammer Drive, Woodbury, displayed a color rendering of the proposed building showing that it would match the existing buildings in the vicinity. Severson asked how the drive-through lane would be accessed. Feider responded that the drive-through lane is in the back, so vehicles would have to come around the back of the building. He noted that there would be plenty of staffing room. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 9 of 14 Nitsch asked if there was enough space for semi-trucks to access the rear of the property for deliveries. Feider stated that trucks could access the rear of the building, but they recom- mend that the tenants only have small cube vans doing deliveries so that traffic would not become too congested. Hale asked how many tenant spaces the building will have. Feider stated that the building is designed for as many eight small tenant spaces, but they have talked to several possible tenants who would take two or three bays to make a larger space. Booth asked if the deliveries would be made primarily in the rear. Feider stated that each tenant would have a back door and typically the deliveries would be made in the back. Severson asked if changing the use from restaurant to retail would prohibit a small food ser- vice business from locating in that building. Blin stated that those types of businesses could go in there. He explained that originally, the site had been proposed exclusively as a single restaurant, and this proposal would change the use to multi-tenant retail. Booth opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Booth closed the public hearing Hale made a motion to approve the applications subject to the conditions listed below. Severson seconded. 1. The original conditions of approval identified in Ordinance No. 690 will be contin- ued in the new ordinance approving the PUD modification. 2. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) and a commer- cial 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. 3. Final exterior construction materials and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. 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. 5. All curbing for the project must be B618. 6. The applicant must provide the City with an as-built survey of all private utilities prior to certificate of occupancy. 7. The applicant must be responsible for It is the ensuring that all appropriate storm- water and access cross easement documentation is completed prior to the issuance of any building permits. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 10 of 14 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. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a comprehen- sive lighting package consistent with the city redevelopment plan to the City for review and approval. All outdoor lighting must be directed downward and away from residential property and public streets, and must not exceed one footcandle at the property lines. 10. The landscaping plan must be revised to address the items identified in the staff report. Said plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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- cent of such estimate. Upon completion of the landscaping requirements, the applicant must in writing inform the City that said improvements have been com- pleted. The City must retain the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of notice to insure the survival of the plantings, and until the as-built util- ity survey has been submitted. No building permit will be issued until the required financial guarantee has been received and accepted by the City. 12. Ornamental wrought iron/aluminum fencing that is consistent with the City stan- dards will be required for any fencing completed on the site. 13. Outdoor speaker systems (e.g. paging, intercom, etc.) are prohibited. 14. 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. Motion passed unanimously. Applications and Requests 7.1 CASE MP05-007 Aggregate Industries has applied for their 2005 mining permit to continue mining opera- tions on Lower Grey Cloud Island. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Hale asked if the signage would be inside or outside the gated area. McCool responded that it would inside the gated area. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 11 of 14 Bob Bieraugel, Aggregate Industries, stated that these interpretive panels would be located inside the gate, and they would be 3 feet by 2 feet so they are easily read when standing in front of them. The idea was to tell the story of how mining operations came to be there, from the glacial period telling how the material got deposited in that area. The second board would display the mining operations. The third board, which staff is objecting to, will show the property owner’s concept of what the Island could look like when the mining operations are complete. He asked if they could modify the panel to make it clear that it is only a concept. Hale complimented the applicant on the first two signs. He then stated that he is concerned about having the gate open so people could drive in and asked if access would be restricted for safety and security reasons. Bieraugel stated that the signs would be located inside the gate, only accessible during times when the gate is open. He stated that primarily their intent was to have them available for school kids coming in for tours. Hale stated that he objects to the third sign showing a possible development on the Island, which the public may think has already been approved. He suggested having the third sign show what the Island will look like when the mining is complete, noting the different uses that could occur in the future, such as parks and open space, a marina, or housing, but without showing any concept plan or layout. Severson and Booth agreed with Hale. Booth asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the application. No one did. Hale asked about condition #11, noting that to require the applicant to take the leadership in this is inappropriate. He would like to see softer language, such as “the applicant and prop- erty owner will assist in the planning and arrangements for the installation of a public boat access.” Bieraugel noted that last year similar language was struck from the approval of their 2004 mining permit. He noted that they have met with the property owner and city staff to discuss this issue. Severson made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below, with the change in language suggested by Hale for condition #11. Brittain seconded. 1. The provisions as stipulated in Title 3, Chapter 10 of the City’s Codes (Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operation) shall be complied with, except as modified below. 2. The applicant is responsible for removing any materials that may have spilled onto any public roadway. This material shall be cleaned up immediately. 3. The outer edge of mining limits abutting public right-of-way or private property shall not be closer than 100 feet to any right-of-way or property line. 4. The “future mining” designation on the 2005 Operations Plan is only an illustration of the applicant’s future desire to mine in those areas. City approval of the 2005 Operations Plan does not guarantee mining permit approval for areas shown as “future mining.” Approval of the 2005 Mining Permit does not imply approval to mine Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 12 of 14 within the required 200-foot setback from the Mississippi River or within the Missis- sippi River itself. 5. No bituminous/asphalt material shall be buried on the premises. Bituminous/asphalt, concrete, and street sweepings originating within the geographical boundaries of Cottage Grove may be temporarily stockpiled on the site for processing (e.g. crushing, screening, etc.) and/or reuse. 6. The applicant may operate the mining operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Upon notification by neighboring residents that the night-time operations (i.e. between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.) are disturbing, the applicant agrees to voluntarily cease operation during night-time hours until such time the noise source is identified and appropriate corrections are made. 7. All existing trees within the area shown on the 2005 Operations Plan as “Future Mining” shall remain undisturbed. 8. Aggregate Industries installs erosion control devices at the base of any slope where erosion is evident. A drainage swale must be constructed at the base of any eroding slope to control runoff and divert it to a sedimentation basin before entering any natural drainage system. Erosion control measures must be implemented within a reasonable amount of time. 9. Historic sites and landmarks on Lower Grey Cloud must be protected and undis- turbed. A minimum of 100 feet shall be maintained between all mining operations and historic/landmark sites. 10. A minimum of 250 trees must be planted. The plant sizes will be based on the recommendations of the arborist to improve their survivability. The applicant must hire a certified arborist meeting city approval to create a revised planting plan and to monitor the survival of all newly planted trees. The arborist must file a report with the city twice a year documenting the survivability of tree plantings and rec- ommendations for future planting plans. 11. The applicant and property owner must facilitate the planning and arrangements for the installation of a public boat access on Lower Grey Cloud Island that is con- sistent with long-term public and private conceptual development plans. 12. The concept plan for future development on Lower Grey Cloud Island cannot be erected on the property for public viewing. Motion passed unanimously. Approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of November 22, 2004 Motion by Severson, seconded by Ricart, to approve the minutes of the November 22, 2004, meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 13 of 14 Reports 9.1 Staff Reports Zoning Code Amendments Blin summarized his memo regarding proposed zoning code amendments. It was the con- sensus of the Planning Commission that they address all the proposed amendments. Restaurant Parking Requirements McCool summarized his information on restaurant parking requirements. 9.2 Recap of December 2004 and January 2005 City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meetings on December 1 and December 15, 2004, and January 5 and January 19, 2005. 9.3 Committee Reports East Ravine Update Blin updated the Commission on the East Ravine Pre-Design project. Blin asked if the Commission was interested in having a special meeting to discuss the East Ravine. The Commission agreed. 9.4 Planning Commission Requests Hale suggested that the business district in the area of Highways 61 and 95 be studied for traffic improvements. He also wants to look at the ordinance regarding agriculture busi- nesses, because he has concerns about the Bailey propagation business. He believes it is a business and should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Booth suggested that the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council on February 16 be postponed until April or May, as three Commission members are leaving and the new Commission members should participate in this meeting. Blin stated that he would suggest that to the Council. Nitsch asked about the timeframe for looking at the Mississippi River Critical Area ordinance. Blin responded that staff was planning to have the Commission start working on that later in the year, due to the East Ravine study. Nitsch asked about the mining permit fee of $500. McCool noted that Aggregate Industries also pays a gravel tax of $40,000 to the County. Severson asked if there were any candidates for the three vacancies on the Planning Com- mission and what the process was to fill those vacancies. Blin stated that there are applica- tions on file. He explained that Councilmember Rice, who is the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, and a representative from the Commission will review the applica- tions and interview the applicants. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 14 of 14 9.5 Response to Planning Commission Inquires None. Adjournment Motion by Severson, seconded by Ricart, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.