Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-27 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission June 27, 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 27th day of June 2005 in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chairperson Reese called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Rod Hale, Shannon Nitsch, Chris Reese, Alberto Ricart, David Thiede Members Absent: Dawn Anderson (unexcused), Shane Bauer (excused), Bob Severson (excused) Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Pat Rice, City Council Liaison Approval of Agenda Motion by Nitsch, seconded by Hale to approve the agenda. Motion approved unani- mously (6-0 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 Rygh Office Building – Cases CP05-036, ZA05-037, SP05-038 Mike Rygh has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation for property located on the southeast corner of Hinton Avenue and 72nd Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 2 of 8 Street from medium density residential to commercial/service/office; a zoning amend- ment to change the zoning from R-5, Medium Density Residential to B-1, Limited Busi- ness; a variance to Title 11-10A-6C(2), Development Standards in the B-1 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of two acres; a variance to Title 11-3-9E(6)(b), Design and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Areas, to allow the parking setback to be less than the minimum requirement of 30 feet from a residential district; and a site plan review of a proposed 6,424 square foot office building. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Hale asked if the utility easement included both gas and electricity. McCool responded that the easement is for overhead electric transmission lines. Hale asked if there is a catch basin in the area for stormwater run-off. McCool stated that there is one on 72nd Street. Hale asked if it was of sufficient size to handle the run-off from a large hard surfaced area. McCool stated that the pipe is of adequate size to allow for additional flows. He explained that the flows from the site would not go through the catch basin but through a direct con- nection to the pipe from the parking lot. Hale asked if the proposed sidewalk would run just in front of the building site as there is no other sidewalk on 72nd Street. McCool responded that it would run just to the east and reconnect to 72nd Street. Hale noted that there is no side- walk north of the trail on the east side and asked if there was an intent to put a sidewalk on the east side all the way to 70th Street. McCool stated that the long-term plan is to have the connection from 70th Street. Brittain asked if there was enough space for trash haulers to get to the trash enclosure due to the curve required by the power pole. McCool responded that the spacing to the back of the curve would be approximately 24 feet. Thiede asked if there was any tenant for the other portion of the building. Mike Rygh stated that they have not yet marketed the space. Thiede then asked about the sidewalk materials. McCool stated that it would be a six-foot wide concrete sidewalk. Brittain asked if the sidewalk along Hinton would also be concrete. McCool responded yes, noting that there is an eight-foot wide trail on the west side of Hinton Avenue. Brittain asked if the long-term plan would be to have an eight-foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Hinton to 70th Street. McCool stated that there are some constraints along Hinton Avenue to the south of this site, so there could not be an eight-foot wide trail, which is why the side- walk is being proposed. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Hale asked if there would be signage along Hinton Avenue or would it be restricted to 72nd Street. McCool responded that they would be limited to only one free-standing sign on the property, which is currently shown to be located along 72nd Street. Brittain made a motion to approve the comprehensive plan, rezoning, variance, and site plan review applications based on the findings enumerated in the staff report and subject to the conditions listed below. Nitsch seconded. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 3 of 8 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, and mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed con- struction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 2. The site plan shall be modified to reflect the additional required performance standards identified in the staff report prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Final exterior construction materials and colors shall 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 shall comply with NPDES II Per- mit requirements. Erosion control devices shall be installed prior to commence- ment of any grading activity. Erosion control shall 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. The use of the site shall be restricted to office uses allowed in the B1 zoning district. 6. No access will be allowed on Hinton Avenue. 7. All curbing for the project shall be B618. 8. The applicant shall provide the City with an as-built survey of all private utilities prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for the placement of a stop sign at the ingress/egress point along 72nd Street. 10. The applicant shall pay an off-site surface water management mitigation payment to the City in the amount of $12,600 prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The applicant shall pay an area charge payment to the City in the amount of $11,265.00 prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. The applicant shall pay a park dedication payment to the City in the amount of $3,560.00 prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. The drive entrance location and size shall be modified to meet ordinance criteria, and as directed by the City engineer. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a compre- hensive sign package to the City for review and approval. Signage location shall not hinder traffic sight lines. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 4 of 8 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a compre- hensive lighting package consistent with the city redevelopment plan to the City for review and approval. All outdoor lighting shall be directed downward and away from residential property and public streets, and shall not exceed 0.5 foot- candle at the property lines. 16. The landscaping plan shall be revised to address the items identified in the staff report. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. A bona fide cost estimate of the landscaping improvements shall 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 shall in writing inform the City that said improvements have been com- pleted. The City shall 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 shall be issued until the required financial guarantee has been received and accepted by the City. 18. Any fencing on the site shall consist of Ornamental wrought iron/aluminum fenc- ing that is consistent with the City standards. 19. Outdoor speaker systems (e.g. paging, intercom, etc.) are prohibited. Motion passed unanimously (6-0 vote). Applications and Requests 7.1 Public Forum on East Ravine Master Plan Blin presented an overview of the East Ravine Master Plan. Reese opened the meeting to public comment. Rick Benson, 10702 – 80th Street Court, spoke in opposition to the parkway alignment and the trail corridor shown in the open space area proposed around the ponding area north of 80th Street. Creating access to the ponds would be a magnet for kids. He believes the park- way should be moved west to serve development on both sides of the road. Robert Eddy, 11275 – 77th Street South stated that Military Road provides a excellent ac- cess to Interstate 494, State Highway 10/61, and St. Paul. Mr. Eddy opposed the realign- ment of Military Road and supported its historic value. He proposed an alternative to the alignment proposed in the plan. Carol Speedling, 7680 Lamar Avenue South, expressed opposition to the proposed trail along the ponds north of 80th street. The water levels in the ponds fluctuate greatly, it would negatively affect wildlife, and would pose safety concerns. Any trail in the area should be on top of the hill near the parkway. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 5 of 8 Jerome Knutson, 6520 Keats Avenue South, stated that he owns the Arbor Hill Tree Farm, which is located on a 13-acre site west of Keats. He has concerns about the location of the Ravine Parkway, which is now shown crossing his property, very near his house. He has concerns about the lack of specifics on this alignment. The assumption that everyone will sell to a developer does not apply to his property; they plan to stay for some time. The plan should take into account who lives in the area and what their plans are. Carol Beskar, 7950 Lamar Avenue South, stated that she and her husband have lived in their house for several years. They bought the property in order to live in the country. She opposes the trail around the pond. She also believes the parkway should be shifted west. The varying water levels in the ponds would require a trail to be located up the hill, closer to her house. This creates issues with security. There are currently some problems with snow- mobilers. There are other places for walkways that do not impact the homeowners in the area. Dave Robens, 10701 – 80th Street Court South, stated that he is second generation on the property, his parents bought the property in 1940. He would like to see the area preserved , but not with a trail. Janelle Nelson, 10702 – 80th Street Court South, opposes the trail around the pond. She also has concerns about the assessments for sewer and water. This should not be borne by existing residents, but by the developers. She also believes the parkway should be moved west. Reese asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak. No one else spoke. Reese closed the public comment forum. Hale stated that the primary objective of the plan was to avoid piecemeal development in the East Ravine area. Rather, the plan would establish the City’s vision for how the area would develop. This plan was also intended to preserve open space in the area. A challenge in im- plementing the plan will be to financially support the amount of open space proposed with the expected residential development. As was mentioned by staff in the presentation on the plan, the Neighborhood 1 area is very detailed. Plans for the Neighborhood 2 area are less refined, allowing for more flexibility in where trails are located. The history of development in the city demonstrates that the wishes of private landowners are respected. The City Council has historically not condemned land to develop parks or trails. He wants people to appreci- ate Cottage Grove and welcomes people to access natural features. Reasonable access should be provided without much impact to property owners. Nitsch asked what the process will be in accepting this master plan. Blin responded that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the plan for the City Council. The Neighborhood 2 area is a generalized plan that will require additional review and plan development before opening this area up for development. The Master Plan adopts a land use plan, but the city will still have to rezone properties and amend development standards in the zoning ordinance before planning applications can be received. Hale noted that new roadways will serve existing property owners, but access may be diffi- cult in some cases as these roadways and infrastructure are constructed. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 6 of 8 Richard Benson explained that their rear yard is only about 75 feet to the pond, and within this area it has a 60 percent slope. Benson felt contours should be shown on the maps so everyone could see the steepness of their rear yard. Reese explained that accepting this Master Plan is merely a preliminary recommendation to the City Council. Conceptually, it provides good design with more details provided to the city before any projects are approved. Thiede stated that if the Commission approves the Master Plan this evening, it merely sup- ports general concepts for development patterns for the areas identified as Neighborhood 1 North and Neighborhood 1 South. Hale asked what the speed limit for Ravine Parkway will be. Blin explained that it will proba- bly be 30 miles per hour carrying between 3,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day. The roadway will be two lanes and without private driveway connections. A trail will probably be on the ravine side of the roadway and a concrete sidewalk might be on the other side. Nitsch asked if the street width issue had been decided. Blin explained that for local streets the plan proposes a 30-foot wide back-of-curb to back-of-curb width. Nitsch made a motion to approve the Master Plan as presented. Thiede seconded the motion. Nitsch made the motion to amend his motion to maintain the current 34-foot back-of- curb to back-of-curb standard for local streets. Thiede seconded the motion. Ricart voiced his objection to the roadway width and supports a narrower roadway surface because it provides for less impervious surface, better design, reduces cost for the city when maintaining the roadways, and studies show that motorists tend to drive slower on narrower roadways. Ricart suggested that the Commission include the street profiles as shown in the proposed Master Plan. Hale voice his support to the overall general land use plan and maintaining the city’s current street width standard. Nitsch withdrew his amendment. Thiede agreed to withdraw his second to the amendment. Brittain stated that he can see removing the street width issue from the Master Plan and pro- posed that it be dealt with as a separate motion. He said Military Road is an integral part of the plan and he does not support varying street widths. Blin stated that the Washington County Board has reviewed this and has given preliminary approval to realign Military Road. Blin also reported that there is an ad hoc group that has formed around this issue working on trail corridors and design. Hale said Military Road has been a collaborative effort between the city and county. Approving this plan is also approving the realignment of Military Road. Hale moved to remove the street designs relative to roadway widths from the Master Plan. Nitsch seconded the motion. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 7 of 8 Reese stated that Military Road could remain as a trailway segment down to Lehigh Road. He pointed out that the portion of Military Road between Keats Avenue and Lamar Avenue has not existed for many decades. Reese asked if there is still discussion about creating a corridor where the old alignment existed, but still be able to move forward with this plan. Blin replied that this has been discussed and additional research is being performed. The motion to accept the Master Plan without the street design element in the plan was unanimously approved (6-0). Nitsch made a motion to maintain the current local street standard of a 34-foot width measuring from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Roadway widths for all other streets that are not local streets would apply as shown in the plan. Thiede seconded the motion. Ricart asked if the city has calculated the cost difference in constructing and long-term maintenance for the various street widths. Blin explained that has not specifically calculated for each varying width, but can say that it is about $550 more in construction cost per lot. Ricart stated that the narrower street cross-section is aesthetically nicer and provides for sidewalks and more green space. In the long run, it costs the city less because there is about 12 percent less pavement to maintain or reconstruct in the future. Brittain explained that he is serving on the Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force, which is reviewing various reconstruction and maintenance alternatives for streets. Seal coating oc- curs about every three years. In his opinion, the additional two to four feet of road is not a significant cost increase in the long term. Blin stated that the real cost savings are in mainte- nance because it is 12 percent less street width. Ricart supported the local street width as depicted in the proposed plan because it costs less, motorists drive slower, and sidewalks are provided. Hale asked if all the other advisory commissions were provided the same studies before rec- ommending that the local street width remain unchanged. Blin reported that the Public Works Commission did not, but were adamant that the local street width standard remain as is. The Public Safety Commission was provided the same information and unanimously supported the current standard for local street widths. Reese recapped the motion on the table that the standard street width for local streets be maintained as 34 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. The motion passed by a vote of five ayes and one nay (Ricart). Reports 8.1 Committee Reports None. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 8 of 8 8.2 Recap of June City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meetings on June 1 and June 15, 2005. 8.3 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. 8.4 Planning Commission Requests Thiede stated that early on during the meetings of the East Ravine Citizens Advisory Team he asked if the city could overlay the property owners’ plat on the design so it shows how the plan interrelates with the ownership boundaries that exist. He stated that there is a greater probability that the plan could be able to be carried out on the larger, single owner proper- ties, but up in Neighborhood 1, there are a lot of smaller properties with different property owners. Blin agreed, noting that it is more difficult with multiple landowners. Brittain asked if additional signage could be installed at the right-in/right-out access at Snap Fitness. Adjournment Motion by Hale, seconded by Nitsch to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.