Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-28 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission March 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 March 2005 in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Acting Chairperson Brittain called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Dawn Anderson, Shane Bauer, Ken Brittain, Rod Hale, Shannon Nitsch, Chris Reese, Alberto Ricart, Bob Severson, David Thiede Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Others Present: Pat Rice, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Motion by Hale, seconded by Thiede to approve the agenda. Motion approved unanimously. Open Forum Acting Chairperson Brittain 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 Brittain 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 March 28, 2005 Page 2 of 18 The Chair noted that the Public Hearing on this case had been continued from the February 28, 2005 meeting. McCool presented the staff report, noting that a trail easement running through the property is no longer being recommended. An area south of the proposed plat would be sufficient for the future east-west trail corridor in this area. David Pierce, landowner and developer of the proposed plat, stated agreement with the current recommendation on the trail easement. he questioned why the park dedication fee was required at the time of final platting and asked if the fees could be paid with each building permit. McCool responded that it has been the long standing City practice to collect the fee with the final plat. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Severson asked for a clarification on condition #12, which addresses the future responsibility of the lot owners should the common area in the outlot go tax forfeit. McCool described the purpose of the condition. Severson and Hale suggested that the condition be reworded to be more clear as to what future action the City could take in the event the outlot goes tax forfeit. Motion by Hale, seconded by Ricart, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the conditions listed below, with the condition that the language in condi- tion #12 be revised. 1. Any well found on the site must be capped and sealed in accordance with State Laws and appropriate records submitted to Washington County and the City’s Public Works Department. 2. A “STOP” sign must be installed on the shared private driveway connecting to Lamar Avenue. The Public Works Department will install the signs and the devel- oper must reimburse the City’s for all costs. 3. A sign identifying the four property address assigned to each of the four lots along Lamar Avenue must be installed at the entrance of the shared private driveway. An address plaque for the two lots in the southwest corner of the plat must also be installed at the private access drive that connects to the private road known as 68th Street South. 4. Cash payment in lieu of land dedication for park purposes must be paid to the City prior to the City releasing the final plat to the developer for recording at Washington County Recorder’s Office. The park fee rate will be the amount at the time the final plat is approved by the City. 5. The developer must comply with the tree preservation ordinance and tree re- placement shall comply with minimum requirements. Submittal of a building permit must include a tree inventory for that particular lot. City ordinance allows up to 20 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 3 of 18 percent removal of significant trees. Each building permit application will be reviewed by planning, building, and engineering staff to ensure appropriate loca- tion and building elevation are considered for preserving significant and specimen trees. 6. The private access drive connecting to Lamar Avenue must be paved with asphalt or concrete. Each private driveway lying between the paved shared private drive- way to the front edge of the home or garage must also be paved with asphalt or concrete. 7. No private driveway should have a slope greater than 10 percent. The shared pri- vate driveway connecting to Lamar Avenue must not have a slope greater than 8 percent. 8. A copy of the ingress/egress easement and maintenance agreement must be sub- mitted to the City for review and approval. The developer is required to record the ingress/egress easement/maintenance agreement at the same time the final plat is recorded. This document must stipulate that the abutting property owners utilizing this private roadway are solely responsible for maintaining this private roadway. Maintenance of this private roadway must allow emergency vehicles reasonable access to each of the four parcels at all times. 9. If 68th Street is reconstructed to city standards, then the roadway providing ac- cess to the two parcels in Block 2 is required to be dedicated as a 60-foot wide right-of-way and constructed to city standards. 10. Fences, play equipment, swing sets, sand boxes, firewood, kennels, and/or any other materials or obstacles are prohibited from locating in any drainage and utility easement of any lot or outlot. 11. The applicant must obtain a right-of-way permit from the Cottage Grove Public Works Department for purposes of connecting the shared private driveway to Lamar Avenue. 12. Outlot A must be placed under the control of a homeowners association. The ap- plicant must prepare the declaration of covenants for the homeowners association and submit this document to the city for review and approval. Included in the document must be a provision that if the homeowners association defaults on payment of property taxes and Outlot A becomes tax-forfeited property with the city obtaining ownership, the city will bill annually each landowner within the Oak Wood Glen subdivision the cost to maintain this property and all property taxes due thereon. 13. As long as Outlot A remains in the R-1 District zoning classification and in the “rural” land use designation of the city’s adopted Comprehensive Plan 2020, it must be permanently reserved as open space. Motion carried 9-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 4 of 18 6.2 CASE CUP05-016 LMMM, Inc., dba Carbone’s, has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a restaurant with liquor to be located in the Shoppes at Almar Village, 7155 Jorgensen Lane South. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Thiede asked if there would be a gas station on the parcel. Blin stated that the gas station would be discussed later in the meeting. Anderson asked if the gas station would affect the parking spaces. Blin responded that the gas station would add 24 parking spaces, so they will meet their parking requirements on their site. Rice asked if the two outlots have their own separate parking areas. Blin responded yes. Hale asked about the use of the space next to the proposed restaurant. Blin stated that Carbone’s was taking part of that space, which is currently vacant, and the remainder would be leased. Thiede asked how many square feet would be left in the vacant space. Blin stated about 1,500 to 1,800 square feet. Reese asked if additional trash enclosures or mechanical equipment would be needed. Blin responded that those items are already present on the site. Thiede made a motion to approve the application, subject to the conditions listed below. Nitsch seconded. 1. The sale of intoxicating malt liquors without an on-sale license will be permitted subject to: The licensee must hold an on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license issued pursuant to City Code; and At least 60 percent of the gross receipts generated at the licensed establishment must be attributable to the sale of food. Upon request by the City Clerk at any time during the license period for the on-sale wine license, the licensee must provide a verified statement evidencing that the establishment’s food revenues for the 12 months preceding the submission of the statement constituted at least 60 percent of the establishment’s gross revenues for the same period; and The licensee must affirmatively state in its application for an on-sale wine license that the licensee intends to make sales of intoxicating malt liquor under Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 5 of 18 applicable local code, and the license approving the on-sale wine license must refer to on-sale wine and intoxicating malt liquor. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASE PP05-013 U.S. Home Corporation has applied for a preliminary plat for Pinecliff 2nd Addition, which would consist of 118 lots for single family homes and 5 outlots, to be located on the northwest corner of 65th Street and Hinton Avenue. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Severson asked how the lot sizes for the existing homes would compare to the lots for the new homes that will be built. McCool responded that they would be slightly larger. Jay Liberacki, U.S. Home Corporation, stated that the agreement with the current homeowners is that the lots would be a half acre in size. Brittain asked if that would pose a future problem with respect to the value of those homes compared to the value of the homes in the rest of the development. McCool responded that all the homes should have similar property values. Nitsch asked about the requirement for four trees on each lot and if that would be done up front. McCool responded yes. Thiede asked about the exception parcel, noting that the conceptual drawing of future development on the parcel shows a cul-de-sac coming off Ideal Avenue. He expressed concern that that neighborhood would be isolated and asked if it was possible to stub the street to that parcel so the cul-de-sac would be part of the neighborhood. McCool stated that staff did look at whether or not there would be a requirement for a cul-de-sac or future roadway extension from this neighborhood to 65th or Ideal through that area. The property owner of the exception piece was ambivalent about a street connection. Blin stated that there are three options: leave the plat as it is, stub a street to the west property line of the exception parcel as a cul-de-sac or through street. He stated that it is up to the Planning Commission on what they prefer. Brittain asked if the road that has been moved to the west, Ideal Avenue, has to be called Ideal. He asked if it would be possible to re-name that road. McCool responded that to the south of 65th Street, it is Ideal Avenue and it was the Public Works recommendation that it be a four-way intersection of Ideal and 65th. Brittain asked how many homes are in Cottage Grove north of this development on Ideal. McCool responded only the two existing homes in the proposed development and they would be allowed to continue using their existing addresses off Ideal Avenue. Ideal Avenue becomes Tower Drive as it goes north into Woodbury. Hale noted that the current ordinance does not specify the number of trees on a lot, except to require a boulevard tree. McCool stated that was correct. Hale asked if this was the first Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 6 of 18 development that the city would require a minimum number of trees and shrubs to be planted on each lot and if it was driven by a lack of adequate landscaping on existing developments in the city. He believes a property owner should be able to decide how they want to landscape their property and to require them to plant a set number of trees and shrubs gets into an area where the city is specifying how they should live. Brittain asked if the reason for that requirement is because the development would be contiguous with the East Ravine development. McCool responded yes. Hale stated that the East Ravine plan has not yet been approved, and the tree planting proposal has only just been presented to the Commission so there has not been a full discussion on that issue. McCool stated that most homeowners do landscape their properties, but there are usually a few in each neighborhood who do not, so this requirement will ensure that there are some trees and shrubs on each property. Rice stated that this was brought as a workshop item to the Council about a month ago and the Council wants to see landscaping that is more than bare minimum, but the ordinance has not been changed yet. Severson asked if the physical location of the plantings would be left up to the homeowner or the developer. McCool responded the homeowner. Nitsch asked about fences, noting the currently the ordinances do not specify types of fences. Blin stated that the fence type would be controlled by the homeowners association protective covenants. Nitsch expressed concern that each developer would choose a different type of fencing and stated that the city should set a standard with this development for the types of fencing allowed in new developments. Hale stated that fencing is referenced in the conditions of approval. Ricart stated that only applied to fences along the main roadways. Anderson stated that the condition reads “if the homeowner chooses to put a fence in.” She expressed concern that there would be some properties with fences and some without. Blin explained that staff is suggesting that along Hinton and 65th Street, any fencing should be installed behind the line of landscaping, so the fence is less visible from the street. Jay Liberacki, Vice President of U.S. Homes, stated that the new homes would equal or exceed the values of the two existing homes on the site. He explained that the reason that they proposed not having a road connect to the exception parcel is because Ideal Avenue would become a local street, rather than the collector street it currently is. He then stated that he thought the boulevard tree and the landscaping in the buffering areas between lots would be included in the requirement for four trees and 10 shrubs per lot. In terms of fencing and the discussion about the East Ravine study, he hopes the city doesn’t get that dictatorial. He believes that there should not be only one fence style chosen that would have to be along every arterial street; the fence style should match the identity of each neighborhood. He stated that they plan to have the fence undulate down the road around ponds and there would be landscaping in front of the fence in some areas and behind the fence in others, so it would not be a continuous line of fence down the road. He stated that current city ordinance allows fences to be built up to the property line. He expressed concern about having the fences built 10 to 20 feet in from the rear property, which would reduce the Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 7 of 18 size of the back yards, to allow landscaping on the street side of the fence for the public view. Thiede asked if the developer would install the fences. Liberacki stated that they are not going to require fences, but if the property owner wants one, the style would be regulated, as the most important thing is continuity of style. He stated that typically fences are not constructed right away due to financial issues most people have when buying a new house, most residents who back onto busy streets put in fences within a few years of moving in. He also believes that they have done a very good job of perimeter landscaping. Staff has talked to him a lot about Highland Hills and he believes that the Pinecliff development has 20 percent more trees along the perimeter than the Highland Hills project. Ricart asked about the width of the planting buffer zone, because a single line of trees does not create the density to make the boulevard appealing and the backyards would be visible. Liberacki responded that there would be a 15 to 20 foot strip along the rear property lines where there would be a random spacing of conifer and evergreen trees with a heavy emphasis on big shrubs, such as lilacs and honeysuckles that grow 12 to 15 feet in height. Anderson stated that if the reason for the requirement for shrubs to be planted along the road is for visual effect for passersby, the whole purpose would be defeated if the fence is built on the outer perimeter of the landscaping. Liberacki asked if the goal is to create livable lots or to create an attractive view through somebody’s neighborhood and backyard. Anderson stated that is why we are requiring the four trees on the lot itself and not counting the boulevard trees as part of that four so there would be landscaping on both sides of the fence. Ricart stated that this would greatly enhance the city as the quality of the boulevard is going to be much better than Jamaica if it becomes greener and the fence is not visible. Thiede stated that the only way for the fence to be consistent is if the developer puts it in at the beginning of the development. Nitsch stated that they are going to set the standard for future subdivision. The location of the fence and planting will be a model for future developments. Liberacki stated that when the plants reached their mature size, they will dwarf the fence. McCool stated that as part of this project the city is requiring that the right-of-way portion from the fence to the road has to be maintained, either by the abutting property owner or by the homeowners association. Liberacki stated that the boulevard area along 65th Street and Hinton Avenue would be maintained by the homeowners association. Hale stated that it is his understanding the city is not requiring a fence, but if a fence goes in it has to be uniform within that neighborhood. He does not want the same fence required throughout the city; they should be unique to each neighborhood. The only issue he sees the need to discuss regarding the fence is whether the landscaping should be on the inside or the outside of the fence. He expressed concern about homeowners needing to cross the fence to maintain the landscaped areas. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 8 of 18 Liberacki stated that he believes that the proposed landscaping for this development is better than at many of the commercial projects in the city. On the other side of Hinton, in the first addition approved last fall, the County is allowing landscaping in the right-of-way. He will work with staff to see if the County would allow the plantings, particularly the shrubs, to be put between the trail and the property line so the fence could be along the property line. Brittain asked that while this development may have more additional landscaping than another development they may not have had the same tree issues because it is on a case- by-case basis. McCool agreed. Reese asked if there was a stipulation on the first addition on where fencing can go. Blin stated that the fencing could be located at the toe of the slope, so the landscaping would be on the side of the slope with the fencing at the bottom of the hill. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Reese asked who would pay to move Ideal Avenue. McCool stated that would be part of their development costs. Reese asked if the Public Safety Commission had any concerns about traffic along Ideal Avenue. McCool responded no, noting that there has been a two- thirds reduction in traffic volumes since Hinton was opened. Anderson asked if there would be a park on both side of Ideal Avenue. McCool responded that with the realignment of Ideal Avenue, the park would lie on a single piece of land. Hale asked if the monument sign would have the developer’s name on it. McCool stated that only the plat name would be shown on the sign. Hale asked if that was in our sign ordinance that we don’t allow advertising on residential monument signs. McCool answered yes. Anderson asked if a consensus had been reached on the fence. Brittain stated that based on the conditions of approval, the fence would be on the inside of the landscaping, unless there was a motion to amend the conditions. Reese asked if the association would determine what type of fence could go in there. McCool responded that the developer has included a picture of the type of the fencing that would be allowed on the property. Blin clarified that U.S. Homes, when they write the covenants, would specify the type of fence that would be allowed and staff would work with them to come up with that fence. Severson stated that he does not care what type of fence is allowed, he wants to ensure that the landscaping would be between the fence and road to screen the fence. Reese expressed concern about the shrubs becoming trash collectors, so while we may not like the fence being there, it could be better than the alternative in five years. He asked staff to provide examples of a place where there is a continuous fence and a place where the shrubs are in front of the fence. He stated that a standard could be set tonight for something that is going to be built out over the next 20 years without any idea of what it is actually going to look like. He stated that the Planning Commission agrees that there should not be a long, continuous fence. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 9 of 18 Severson stated that the homeowners association would maintain the area between the fence and roadway. Reese asked if the monument sign for the first addition was constructed yet and asked if an amendment to condition #8 to require that the monument signs for the first and second additions be similar. Liberacki stated that the signs would be uniform. Ricart stated that he would like that language added also. Hale asked about condition #9 requiring the developer to submit a copy of the homeowners covenants to the city and asked if it could be changed to require that they submit a copy for approval. Blin stated that he would tighten that condition up prior to going to Council. Nitsch made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below, with a modification to condition #8 to require the monument signs for the first and second additions to be uniform.Severson seconded. 1. The developer must pay park dedication fees in lieu of land dedication and recreation fees at the rate applicable at the time of recording. Payment of the park fees in lieu of land dedication and recreation fees will be based on the number of lots platted within each final plat phase. 2. Outlots B and C must be conveyed to the City of Cottage Grove. Calculations for the area charge amounts will include all outlots, except for the area below the normal water elevation. No credit will be given to parkland dedication for Outlots A, D, and E. 3. A concrete sidewalk six feet in width must be constructed along one the east side of Ideal Avenue, between 65th Street and Street A at the north end of the plat and along one side of 62nd Street, between Hinton Avenue and Street A. An eight-foot wide bituminous trail must be constructed along the north side of 65th Street and within Outlot B, between Street A and Ideal Avenue. A six-foot wide bituminous trail must be constructed between Lots 11 and 12, Block 8. The cost to repair damaged sidewalks or trails during the construction process will be the developer’s responsibility. 4. The developer must hire an arborist to assist with all facets of tree preservation on the site. The arborist will supervise installation and maintenance of tree preservation fencing and tree/brush removal process. When or if grading occurs within the dripline of a tree slated for preservation, the arborist must be on site to review grading for those areas. 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 developer will replace the trees in accordance with the ordinance criteria. Trees designated for preservation which are found to be diseased, dying, or not suited for location into the project may be removed based upon the recommendation of the arborist in agreement with the City and the developer. The developer is responsible for tree review, removal, and potential mitigation until such time as the property is sold to Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 10 of 18 the homeowner. Prior to closing on the house the developer will review the status of the trees on the site and remove/replace any dead or dying trees. On the public property, the developer will be responsible for the removal and replacement of dead, dying, or diseased trees until such time as the entire plat is built out and all private lots sold. 5. The developer submits appropriate engineering information for retaining walls. All fencing and retaining walls must be decorative and subject to staff review and approval. 6. The revised grading and utility plan, which reflects changes recommended in the staff report and modifications to the grading plan to increase stormwater quality ponding, must be submitted to the City for staff review and approval prior to the submission of the final plat applications to the City. All emergency overflow swales must be identified on the grading and erosion control plan. 7. Elevations at the foundation of all structures must be a minimum of two feet above the emergency overflow elevation and/or high water elevation of any stormwater pond. 8. All monument signs must comply with the City’s Sign Ordinance and must be placed only on private property. The Homeowners Association or the landowner where the monument signs are located is responsible for the maintenance of the sign on their property. All monument signs must be uniformly designed with materials and color. 9. The developer must submit a copy of the private covenants which details the following: a. The homeowners association is responsible for all ownership and maintenance of common land area landscaping improvements, common fencing, and outlots as depicted on the final plat. If the outlot goes tax forfeited and the City obtains ownership, the City will bill annually each landowner within the Pinecliff Second plat a proportionate cost to maintain these areas. b. Monument signs must be maintained by the homeowners association. c. Fencing along Hinton Avenue, 65th Street, and Ideal Avenue must be constructed of the same materials and color. Should an individual property owner decides to install a fence that parallels any of the roadways described above, the fence must be placed on the house side of the landscaping that is required along the perimeter of the subdivision. d. No barrier or planting should encroach upon or over any public walkway system. e. The developer must advise homebuyers that they are responsible to maintain the boulevard area that abuts their property to the curb of the street. This Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 11 of 18 includes the boulevard along Hinton Avenue and 65th Street. If the Homeowners Association is responsible for maintaining the boulevard along these public roadways, it should be stated as such in the private covenants. f. All structures (e.g. principal structure, accessory structure, play structures, sand boxes, swimming pools, etc.) compost, firewood, kennels, and etc. must setback a minimum of 30-feet from the common boundary line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 8. If the property owner desires to erect a fence, then the fence must be placed on the house side of the landscaping along the public trail that is centered on the common boundary line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 8. The public trail and landscaping between Lots 11 and 12, Block 8 must be maintained (including snow removal) by each homeowner the homeowners association for this neighborhood. g. All mailboxes must be uniformly designed with materials and color. 10. A 10-foot wide maintenance bench must be two-feet above a pond’s normal water level. 11. Pond slopes above the ten-foot maintenance bench must not be steeper than a 4:1 slope. 12. The developer must comply with all city ordinances and policies. 13. Street names will be determined by the City. The developer must modify the final plat to include street names assigned by the City. 14. Monument signs constructed for the development must not reference the developer’s company name. 15. All landscaped entrance features must be irrigated. Severson asked if there would be any modifications to condition #9c clarifying the fence issue. Anderson stated that she likes the idea of a uniform fence running along Hinton, however, requiring a homeowner to put a fence in would be wrong. Ricart agreed. Brittain stated that a fence would not be required, only that U.S. Homes would decide what type fence could be built. McCool stated that was correct. Brittain asked if that is reflected in condition #9c. Blin stated that staff would tighten that language up. Reese asked if we are requiring any fencing that is not along Hinton or 65th or Ideal to be uniform. McCool responded that would be left up to the individual homeowner for interior lots. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 12 of 18 6.4 CASES SP05-017 and CUP05-018 Kath Fuel Oil Service Co. has applied for a conditional use permit and site plan review of a motor fuel station with car wash and convenience store to be located at Almar Village, 7033 Jorgensen Lane South. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Severson asked if the 19 conditions are the same as the previous approvals. Blin stated yes. Reese asked about the developer’s commitment to build the project. He stated that the tenants went into Almar Village with the understanding that there would be a gas station/convenience store. Blin stated that the city cannot place a condition that this must be built. Reese just wants to know if there is a commitment to build the gas station. Anderson asked about the rear elevation of the building. Blin displayed the drawing of the rear elevation, which is the car wash. The elevation shows the brick, EFIS, and the roof line. There are some opaque glass block panels that would let light into the car wash. Thiede pointed out that the monument sign and landscaping would cover the rear portion of the building, including the car wash. Ricart asked if there was an elevation showing what the canopy looks like in relation to the building. Steve Dahl, Kath Fuel Oil Service Company, 3096 Rice Street, Little Canada, stated that they are very committed to build at this location. However, their business plan changed because they had an opportunity to buy eight other stations, otherwise this would have been built two years ago. It is their intention to build the gas station and convenience store this fall. He displayed a drawing of the canopy elevation, noting that the approval two years ago required that the canopy columns would have the same brick as the building. Brittain asked if the brick would extend the full height of the canopy columns. Dahl explained that the height of the canopy is 14 feet 6 inches, and the bricking would extend up to 11 feet of the column. Brittain asked why the brick does not extend to the top of the columns. Dahl responded that aesthetically, it looks better as proposed. Blin stated that there is some flexing of these columns, so it is not a good idea to have brick all the way to the top. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Severson made a motion to approve the applications subject to the conditions listed below. Reese seconded. Reese stated that he wants to ensure that the requirement for the brick on the front of the building be included in the conditions. Blin responded that he believes that is a condition, but he would ensure that it is included. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 13 of 18 1. The project must conform to all conditions of approval for the Planned Unit Development for the Almar Village development included in Ordinance No. 698. 2. All building and site improvements must conform to plans dated September 15, 2003 and stamped as received by the Community Development Department on February 28, 2005, with the exception of the design of the gas station entryway. This entryway must be redesigned to match the design of the entryways at the Almar Village retail development, with the use of brick archways. 3. The site plan, grading, and utility plans shall be modified to reflect the comments and additional required performance standards identified in the staff report. 4. 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 construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 5. The convenience store entrance canopy must include brick along the piers and on the recessed building façade, within the canopy location. 6. Final exterior construction materials and colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The materials and colors must be in substantial compliance with the currently under construction shopping center. 7. The applicant shall provide the City with an as-built survey of all private utilities. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign package to the City for review and approval. All signs shall 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 shall submit a comprehensive 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 one foot- candle at the property lines. 10. The landscaping plan and irrigation plan shall be revised to meet 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. 11. 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 percent of such estimate. Upon completion of the landscaping requirements, the applicant shall in writing inform the City that said improvements have been completed. The City shall retain the financial guarantee for a period of one year Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 14 of 18 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. 12. Rooftop and at-grade electrical or mechanical equipment shall be screened from view with materials and landscaping similar to or compatible in design and color with those used on the primary structure. 13. A radio-read water meter shall be installed. 14. The trash enclosure shall in accordance with Title 11-6-3 and include the use of dog-eared plastic composite wood boards for the gate screening material. 15. No lighting in any manner is permitted on the face of the gas station canopy, with the exception of the areas allowed for signs. All lighting under the gas station canopy must be recessed from the bottom of the canopy. 16. Exterior storage, display, or sales of merchandise is prohibited at the gas station C-store, except for temporary sales by permit. 17. The number of fueling stations shall be limited to 12 (6 pumps). 18. No fast food (Class III) restaurant shall be allowed as an accessory use or within the gas station C-store use. 19. An additional hydrant shall be added to the site as required by the City’s Fire Marshal. Motion passed unanimously. 6.5 CASE M05-020 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a review of the proposed creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-13. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Reese asked why this is necessary. He expressed concern that the city may be short sighted on the value of that property. Blin stated that the City Council and Economic Development Authority will be addressing that issue. Reese stated that the reason he asked is because the current TIF District runs out in six years and with the highway projects being completed in the next three years, Cottage Grove will be more accessible. He was wondering why we are doing this now instead of waiting. Blin stated he would get a response from the EDA to address those questions. Hale stated that the Planning Commission is not being asked a policy question, only if this is an appropriate TIF District according to our comprehensive plan. He asked if the Planning Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 15 of 18 Commission or the EDA holds the public hearing on the policy issue. Blin responded that both the EDA and the City Council hold public hearings. Bauer asked how many years the new TIF District would be in effect. Blin responded 10 years from the date of passage. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Nitsch made a motion to approve the application. Ricart seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6.6 CASE TA05-019 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text amendment to Title 10-4-3C, Schedule of Park Dedication Requirements, to consider an increase to the cash amount required to be paid in lieu of a land dedication for subdivision or residential land. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Reese stated that he believes that Cottage Grove is more like Maple Grove or Chanhassen and asked how the $3,000 fee was decided on. He noted that the land values in the East Ravine are very high and believes the city should adopt higher park dedication fees now instead having to come back in a year to look at increasing the fees. Blin stated that the reason staff has recommended $3,000 is that it is an amount that the city can defend. He explained that county records currently show raw land sales in the $65,000 to $75,000 range. The higher values for land in the East Ravine area have not yet shown up in the county records. Ricart asked if the fee schedule could be simplified so all types housing units pay the same fee. Blin stated that could be done. Thiede stated that he would rather not raise the fees to the higher amount now, because the city can justify the proposed $3,000 increase. He stated that the Commission could look at the fees again later. Anderson stated that she agreed with Thiede regarding the proposed increase amount, noting that the fees are passed on to the future homeowners in the developments. However, she believes that there should be a difference between park dedication fees for town homes and single family homes. Nitsch asked why the fees could not be based on land cost. Blin stated that could be done but the proposal for a set fee per lot is for ease of administration. That option also could lead to disputes between the city and developers regarding land values. Ricart asked if the money collected was used to maintain the public areas of the city. Blin stated that the funds go into a park trust fund, which can only be used for acquisition and development of park parcels. The city cannot those funds for operating expenses such as park maintenance. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 16 of 18 Reese asked what the park dedication fees would be for the Pinecliff plat. Blin explained that the park fees for that plat would be a combination of land dedication and park dedication fees. Severson asked if the park dedication fees from a particular development should cover the costs of that facility when it is fully constructed or just the land itself. Blin responded just the land. He explained that the city also may assess the costs to develop the park. Severson stated that he would prefer to base the park dedication fees on the value of the land to ensure that the city is getting what it is entitled to, even though it would be more difficult administratively. Blin stated that if a parcel of land has already been purchased but not platted yet, the park dedication fees would be based on the purchase price at the time of purchase. Brittain opened the public hearing. Jay Liberacki, Orrin Thompson Homes, stated that he is working with staff on the developers agreement for the west portion of Pinecliff. He stated that from the whole development, the city will receive the green belt, one half of the park, and approximately $210,000 for park dedication, which would be used for improvements to the park. He noted that they purchased the land over four years ago for less than $65,000 per acre. Hale stated that he supports the idea that the park dedication fee should be uniform between single family and multi-family homes. He explained that multi-family land has a higher value and a higher density, which requires more city consciousness for providing some form of recreational service or open space. He also noted that in the preliminary stage of discussions on developments, the Parks Commission and staff determine if a park is needed or would a park dedication fee be more appropriate. Blin stated that staff tries to ensure that the Parks Commission is involved in that decision. He explained that with the East Ravine, there will be a detailed master plan that will note which developments would have a park. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Nitsch made a motion to approve an increase to park dedication fees to $3,000 for all residential housing types. Ricart seconded. Motion passed on a 7-to-2 vote (Anderson and Reese voted against the motion). Applications and Requests None. Approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2005 Motion by Reese, seconded by Ricart, to approve the minutes of the February 28, 2005, meeting with a change noting that Ricart was absent and did not second the motion to table the Oak Wood Glen application. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 17 of 18 Reports 9.1 East Ravine Update Blin suggested that the Planning Commission hold a special meeting on April 18, 2005, to discuss the East Ravine study and to receive information from the City Attorney regarding the role of the Planning Commission. The Commission agreed. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Recap of March City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meetings on March 2 and March 16, 2005. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquires Blin reported that the gas station signs have been removed from the Almar Village monument sign. He stated that staff is working with Bailey Nurseries to get more control of their excavation/ponding operation. He noted that there will be an update on the Red Rock corridor at next month’s meeting. 9.5 Planning Commission Requests Severson stated that there are still a couple billboards left up on Highway 61 and asked whose responsibility is it to ensure that those signs are removed. Blin stated that Clear Channel, who owns the new signs and the seller of the property, is responsible for taking those down. He stated that Xcel Energy was scheduled to remove the power feed to signs today and Clear Channel has assured staff that as soon as that is done, the signs will be removed. Severson stated that the city needs to look at improving the appearance of the antennas that are being installed on the city’s water towers. Anderson asked if the sign ordinance could be re-visited to allow open house signs, which are temporary and typically up for only two hours. Reese asked about the grading operation on the corner of Keats Avenue and East Point Douglas Road, noting that there appears to be more material being removed recently. McCool stated that he would check on that. He noted that last fall they had capped off everything they were going to remove from the site. Reese asked that staff and Commissioners commenting on the East Ravine be more careful in putting time lines out there regarding when things are going to be developed. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 18 of 18 Brittain noted that in the retail building at 8700 East Point Douglas Road, in front of Snap Fitness, there is an exit/entrance that looks like it is right-in/right-out only, and he has received comments from citizens about confusion there. He asked if additional traffic signage could be placed there. Reese asked for an update on the tenant relocation at Cottage Square Mall. Blin will provide a list to the Planning Commission of the tenants and their planned moving dates. He stated that by the fall, there would only be about three or four tenants left, and the owner of the property, Presbyterian Homes, is working with those tenants to relocate. 9.6 Annual Organizational Meeting and Election of Officers Severson made a motion to nominate Reese as Chair. Hale seconded. There were no other nominations. Motion passed unanimously. Hale made a motion to nominate Brittain as Vice Chair. Reese seconded. There were no other nominations. Motion passed unanimously. Brittain nominated Nitsch as Secretary. Reese seconded. There were no other nominations. Motion passed unanimously. Adjournment Motion by Hale, seconded by Nitsch, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.