Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-26 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission September 26, 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 26th day of Sep- tember 2005 in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chairperson Reese called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Shane Bauer, Ken Brittain, Rod Hale, Rebecca Kronlund, Shannon Nitsch, Chris Reese, Alberto Ricart, David Thiede Members Absent: Bob Severson (excused) Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Pat Rice, City Council Liaison Approval of Agenda Motion by Hale, seconded by Brittain to approve the agenda. Motion approved unani- mously (8-0 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 Biscoe Grove – Case No. ZA05-042 and PP05-043 (continued from 8/29/05 meeting) LaFaver/Mathews Development, LLCA has filed a zoning amendment application to re- zone approximately 123 acres of land from AG-1, Agricultural Preservation, to R-1, Rural Residential, and a preliminary plat application to develop 39 rural estate lots. The resi- Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 2 of 12 dential subdivision plat name is “Biscoe Grove.” The project is located southeast of the 100th Street and Lehigh Road intersection. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. He stated that condition #13, which deals with the laneway on each side of the internal medians, should be changed to require 25 feet from back of curb to back of curb as recommended by the City Engineer, rather than the 24 feet referenced in the staff report. Another change would be to condition #19, which references the incorrect amount that the developer must pay to the city for the reconstruction of 100th Street and Lehigh Avenue; the correct amount is $611,500. Hale asked why 100th Street has been identified for improvement and could the $611,500 be set aside for road improvements without specifying the roads instead of requiring improve- ments to 100th Street. He then asked if a right angle intersection at Lehigh and Manning could be constructed when Lehigh is improved. McCool responded that alignment and con- nection would be evaluated at the time the road is reconstructed. Hale asked who would pay for improving the rest of Lehigh. McCool responded that it would be assessed against the adjacent property owners. Hale suggested that instead of using the money to improve 100th Street that it be applied to the Lehigh intersection. He also stated that he supports naming the interior streets after the family who owned the land. Thiede asked if the loop road would have curbs and gutters. McCool responded that the road would be built to city standards. Thiede asked what the cost difference would be if the road was constructed more like a rural street than a city street. McCool responded that he does not have any figures on what the cost would be without the curb and gutter. Thiede then asked what the original intention for allowing clustering in rural areas. McCool responded that it provides for open space within the plat, and the common area would be under the maintenance and ownership of the homeowners association. Brittain asked for more detail on why the southerly road idea was abandoned. McCool re- sponded that the roadway would not provide any benefit to the plat or to the adjoining prop- erty owners and the state wants to limit the number of accesses to Highway 95. Blin stated that Highway 95 is not scheduled for improvement for about 20 years, but when it is, the grades would be changed so there would be better site lines. Brittain asked it the trailway connection through Outlot F would be a bituminous trail. McCool responded that it would be a gravel trail. Brittain expressed concern about the safety of the trail when the vegetation matures. Reese asked about the minimum foot print for multi-level homes. Matthews stated that it would 1,400 square feet for the foot print, and 2,600 square feet on both levels. Reese re-opened the public hearing. Robert Johnson, 10711 Lehigh Road South, stated that he has lived there for 30 years and when he first moved out there, Lehigh Road was just a gravel road and the lots were at least five acres in size. He stated that the current residents of the area feel the roads in the area are adequate and do not want to pay for roadway improvements. He believes that 39 homes clustered in that area would be too many, and that the city should wait until Highway 95 is upgraded before a development of this size is built. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 3 of 12 John Perkins, 10723 Lehigh Road South, expressed concern about adding 39 more septic systems and 400 more vehicle trips to the roadway system in the area. He also stated that the drainage problem needs to be fixed. Mike Mills, 10811 Lehigh Road South, agreed with Perkins. He stated that development should occur around County Road 19 first and then move down into this area. He asked why the amount for road improvements went down since last month. McCool explained that the roadway costs noted in the report last month were for urban roadway standards with storm sewer, which was only half the cost to improve the roadways. The proposal is now to recon- struct the roadway to rural standards and to require the developer to pay 100 percent of the road improvement cost for 100th Street and Lehigh Road along the length of the Biscoe property. Dale Thompson, 9947 Lehigh Road South, asked what the road reconstruction would consist of, noting that the roads are in bad condition. He expressed concern about the safety on the roads from increased traffic. No one else spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Thiede agrees with the residents that this development does not fit in the area as it is de- signed. He stated that if the development was more random with different sized lots, he might be able to support it. Brittain noted that in the comprehensive plan, this area is slated for rural development. One of the best ways to keep this area rural is to develop it rural. He thinks property owners should have the ability to make the best use of their property. He also stated that this devel- opment would have similar densities to what is already in the area. He expressed concerns about the safety of the roadway system in the area, which is why he does not support this development. He would prefer to have road constructed on the south end of the property rather than reconstruct 100th Street. Hale asked if we have moved away from a common well system. McCool responded yes. Hale stated that the comprehensive plan refers to this as rural development and the density for this development is more than three acres per lot. He is also concerned about the inter- sections to Highway 95 and would like to see if the Lehigh intersection could be squared off to make it a true right angle with Manning Avenue; he believes that there is enough right-of- way to accomplish that. He suggested using the money for set aside for improving 100th Street to improve the Lehigh Road-Manning Avenue intersection. Reese asked if there was any development coming on the other side of Manning Avenue. McCool stated that the city has not heard of any proposed developments in Denmark Town- ship. Hale made a motion to approve the applications subject to the conditions listed be- low, with changes to conditions #13 to change the width to 25 feet; #15 to negotiate the street name between the property owner and staff; and #19 to change the amount to $611,500. Bauer seconded. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 4 of 12 Hale stated that he struggles with the idea of having a developer pay for all the costs to im- prove a public road. He also stated that he does not think that the city should pay to improve 100th Street and he would like to see that money spent to improve the Lehigh and Highway 95 intersection. Blin stated that that intersection would be dealt with when the road was re- constructed. He stated that it does appear that there is sufficient right-of-way to “T” the inter- section and raise the road a bit so that Lehigh comes in at a higher grade. Reese asked about the condition that stipulated that the funds go to specifically improve 100th Street, noting that there had been discussion about making those funds unspecified. Hale made a motion to add an amendment to condition #19 that the developer pays to the city $611,500 for future road improvements without designating where those funds are used. Bauer seconded. 1. A “STOP” sign must be installed at each street connection to Lehigh Road. The Public Works Department will install the “STOP” and street signs. The developer must reimburse the City for all costs. 2. 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 Washing- ton County Recorder’s Office. The park fee at the time the final plat is approved by the City Council must be paid. 3. The developer must comply with the tree preservation ordinance. Submittal of a building permit must include a tree inventory for that particular lot. City ordinance allows up to 20 percent removal of significant trees. Each building permit applica- tion will be reviewed by Planning, Building, and Engineering staff to ensure appro- priate location and building elevation are considered for preserving significant and specimen trees. 4. Private access connecting to 100th Street, Lehigh Road, and Manning Avenue is prohibited. All existing field accesses to any of these roadways must be removed. The surface of each private driveway lying between the public street and the front edge of the home or garage must be asphalt or concrete. 5. No private driveway should have a slope greater than 10 percent. 6. 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. 7. The plat is modified to include the dedication of a 40-foot right-of-way for Lehigh Road and 100th Street, measuring from the center line of each roadway. The plat must also be modified to include the dedication of a 100-foot public right-of-way for Manning Avenue as recommended by MnDOT. This 100 feet is measured from the centerline of Manning Avenue. 8. All monument signs must comply with the City’s Sign Ordinance and must be placed on private property. The Homeowners Association or the landowner where Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 5 of 12 the monument signs are located is responsible for the maintenance of the sign on their property. 9. All monument signs, accessory lighting, and mailboxes must be designed with uni- form materials and color. 10. The developer must submit a copy of the private covenants that details the foll- owing: 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 Biscoe Grove plat a proportionate cost to maintain these areas. b. Monument signs must be maintained by the homeowners association. c. Fencing along Lehigh Road, 100th Street, and Manning Avenue must be con- structed of all the same materials and color. 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 is between their property boundary line and curb/edge of the street. This includes the boulevard along Lehigh Road, 100th Street, and Manning Avenue. 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. As long as Outlots A, B, and C remains in the R-1 District zoning classification and in the “rural” land use designation of the city’s adopted Comprehensive Plan 2020, they must be permanently reserved as open space. g. The homeowners is required to plant a minimum of six trees on the property and include a minimum of $10,000 of landscaping that is completed within one- year the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Deciduous trees must have a trunk diameter of a minimum of two inches and coniferous trees a minimum of six feet in height at the time they are planted. h. Home occupations are only allowed in the principal structure. 11. A 10-foot wide maintenance bench must be two feet above a pond’s normal water level. Pond slopes above the 10-foot maintenance bench must not be steeper than a 4:1 slope. 12. The six center medians must be platted as outlots. The homeowners association is responsible for the maintenance and ownership of these landscaped islands. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 6 of 12 13. The paved lane width between the outside curb of the street and the median’s curb must be 24 feet, measured from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. 14. A landscaping plan for each of the center medians and for the entire project area must be submitted to the city for review and acceptance before the City Council takes final action on the zoning and preliminary plat applications. 15. The loop street will be named Lehigh Lane South and the cul-de-sac named Lehigh Court South. 16. All other state, county, and watershed agencies having review and permit approval authority must provide the City written approval of this project before the City Council takes action on the final plat. 17. Street lighting typically designed for urbanized areas is not recommended for this rural subdivision, although some street lighting might be required. The city engi- neer will make final recommendations for street lighting once a final plat applica- tion is filed with the city. 18. The developer must comply with all city ordinances and policies. 19. The developer pays to the city $610,800.00 for future improvements to Lehigh Road and 100th Street. 20. A landscape island is required in the center of the cul-de-dac turnaround in the northeast corner of the plat. This landscaped island must be platted as an outlot. The homeowner association is required to own and maintained this outlot. 21. A public trail easement must be described in the declaration of covenants and granted to the city that allows pedestrians to walk on the trail that crosses private property. There was a 4-to-4 vote. Yeas: Bauer, Hale, Kronlund, Ricart. Nays: Brittain, Nitsch, Reese, Thiede. Thiede stated that he voted against the motion for reasons he expressed during the discus- sion. Nitsch explained his opposition had to do with the roadway intersections. He also stated that while it is a nice development, it does not fit in that area. Brittain stated that he also has concerns about the roadway and does not believe that making Lehigh into a right angle intersection with Highway 95 is an acceptable alternative; the site lines are still going to poor. He believes that adding a road on the southern boundary would be acceptable and provide a much safer access point. Reese also expressed concerns about the safety of the roadways in the area, even with the proposed improvements. 6.2 Nextel Antennas on Pine Summit Water Tower – Case CUP05-051 Nextel Communications, represented by FMHC Corporation, has applied for a conditional use permit to allow installation of a wireless communications facility consisting of up to Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 7 of 12 12 panel antennas and ground equipment on the City’s water tower located at 6950 Meadow Grass Avenue. McCool summarized the staff report. He noted that a letter had been received in opposition to the application from Mr. and Mrs. William Skinner, 6903 Skylark Court South. He ex- plained that their concerns included increased traffic in that area, the proximity to the neighborhood park on the north side of the water tower, and interference with television and radio signals. McCool recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ken Nielsen, FMHC Corporation, asked for a change to condition #5, which requires the brackets/braces, antennas, and cables be painted. He explained that most of the equipment and cables will be on the inside of the water tower and the only thing that will be on the exte- rior will be the antennas and brackets, and those will be painted to match the water tower. Hale asked about the impact the antennas may have on other communication devices such as cell phones, television, and radio. Nielsen responded that is regulated by the FCC, and if their rules and regulations are followed, there generally is no interference. He stated that in regard to the residents’ concerns for safety, he explained that the scheduled maintenance for the facility is once per month and in case there is an emergency, so there will be minimal trips to the site. He explained that installation of wireless antennas on a water tower is gen- erally perceived to have lowest impact as far as the aesthetics. Hale asked if there was any information on when these systems would use satellites rather than antennas. Nielsen stated that he did not know, but he believes that it would be at least another 20 years. Nitsch asked if the antennas interfere with television and telephone reception, what recourse the city has to address the issue. Blin stated that residents could contact the city to start that process. However, that is such a remote possibility and he has never heard of cell tower in- terference as it is such a low watt transmission. Brittain asked to see the frequency maps. Nielsen stated that there are areas of poor to no service to the north and east and the new antennas would improve the service in those areas. Hale asked if the lease agreement has a different standard for whether the equipment is in- side the water as opposed to outside, such as different fees. McCool responded that Public Works negotiated the agreement, which is presented to the City Council with the conditional use permit application. Hale asked if the lease requires removal of the equipment when it becomes obsolete. McCool responded yes. Nielsen stated that Public Works is requiring all equipment to be located inside the water tower because of the proximity to the park and residences, and this water tower was built with a mezzanine specifically for this use. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Reese asked what the city’s capacity is to locate wireless facilities. McCool responded that two more smaller users could go on this water tower and there is space available on other water towers and on freestanding monopole structures, which requires co-location. Reese asked for information on the maximum number of wireless antenna locations in the city be- fore more monopoles would need to be built. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 8 of 12 Thiede made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed be- low, with a change to condition #5 to require that all external hardware be painted to match the water tower. Hale seconded. 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshall. 2. The applicant enters into an agreement with the City for leasing city owned land for the building, access, antenna installation on the water tower, and all other details recommended by the City Attorney. 3. Advertising on the antennas is prohibited. 4. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 5. All cables, antennas, and mounting brackets/braces must be painted the same color as the water tower. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0). 6.3 Dufresne Lot Split – Case RS05-055 Robert Dufresne has applied for a simple lot division of a 2.4-acre parcel at 7003 Good- view Avenue South. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Robert Dufresne explained that they bought this property because of the views of the river valley and the reason they want to purchase a portion of the neighboring property is to assure that there would be no outbuildings built to obstruct those views. He displayed some pictures of the property and its views. Reese opened the public hearing. Scott Sesker, 7003 Goodview Avenue South, owner of the subject property stated that they would rather manage and pay taxes on a 1.5-acre property, instead of the original 2.5-acre parcel. He stated that as long as the property is kept open, he will be satisfied with the arrangement. No one else spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Thiede asked if the lot could be subdivided in the future. Blin responded that the lot could be split only with the approval of the city, noting that there would issues with the lot width and access to the parcel. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 9 of 12 Thiede made a motion to approve the application, subject to the conditions listed below. Nitsch seconded. 1. The .9-acre parcel is not a buildable residential parcel. 2. The applicant shall file with Washington County the appropriate document(s) re- quired by their administration to combine the .9-acre severed parcel from property at 7003 Goodview Avenue South (Geocode No. 07-027-21-21-0020) with the parcel at 7025 Goodview Avenue South (Geocode 07-027-21-21-0019) that is owned by the applicant. 3. The percolation test for the new alternative drain field location for 7003 Goodview shall be reviewed and approved by Washington County prior to release of the deed for recording with the county. 4. No additional access to 70th Street will be allowed. 5. An additional 10-foot drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the proposed property line. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0). 6.4 Industrial District Setbacks – Case TA05-052 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to City Code Title 11- 11-4, Development Standards in the Industrial Zoning Districts, to change certain setback requirements. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Brittain asked why undulating berms were proposed rather than a straight continuous berm. McCool responded that it is for aesthetic purposes and those lower areas would have addi- tional landscaping for screening. Thiede asked if this ordinance apply regardless of lot size. McCool responded that any area zoned I-2, General Industrial, that would abut any residentially zoned districts would have these setbacks. Reese opened the public hearing. Deb Nelson, 9890 Heath Avenue South, stated that she would prefer to see no development on the parcel behind the residential area. She expressed concern about vehicle access be- hind the buildings due to noise and light issues. No one else spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Thiede asked about lighting requirements. McCool responded that lighting is looked at when proposals for development come through for approval. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 10 of 12 Nitsch asked if the city already had lighting standards. McCool responded yes. Nitsch stated that he thinks this proposal makes sense to ensure that everything would be a minimum of 100 feet from the residents’ property lines. Reese noted that the diagram in the staff report is just an example and anything that would go in there would need to come before the Commission and Council for approval. Bauer stated that in other industrial parks he has seen, less obtrusive buildings tend to be located closer to residential neighborhoods. Nelson expressed concerns again about this proposal and asked that all parking and loading docks be moved to the front of the buildings and asked for more space between the residen- tial area and the industrial area. Nitsch explained that this proposed ordinance amendment would ensure that all parts of an industrial development are 100 feet from the residential property lines rather than the 35 feet for parking areas and loading docks allowed in the cur- rent ordinance. Hale asked where the fence row is located. McCool responded in the middle of the windrow behind the residential properties, noting that more of the tree mass is located on the indus- trial land. Hale suggested that the city could start planting vegetation now so that there will be substantial growth in four to five years. McCool stated that this summer, the city did plant trees in that area where there are currently no trees. Hale suggested that the industrial area be separated from the residential area with significant growth of conifers. Nitsch made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment, includ- ing requiring more trees and landscaping. Thiede seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0). Applications and Requests 7.1 Industrial District Open Storage Blin summarized the past discussions regarding open storage in the industrial zoning dis- tricts and asked for direction from the Commission. Brittain reiterated his viewpoint that allowing another use with open storage would add stress on the roadways from truck traffic and would not add much to the tax base. Reese asked if CP Rail leased the property to Lyman Lumber, could the city control what Lyman Lumber can do. Blin responded that the city attorney says the city’s zoning controls would apply. He explained that CP Rail, by federal law, is exempt from local zoning controls because they are a rail carrier, but only for the railroad property they own and operate. Nitsch asked if we blanket prohibit outdoor storage, how does that affect a used car lot. Blin responded that the prohibition on outdoor storage would only affect the industrial districts and does not affect any business zoned district. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 11 of 12 Bauer stated that he believes there is some value to having a nationally recognized business in the city. It may not bring in a lot of property taxes but the employees would utilize the local businesses. He agrees with the proposed ordinance for a new I-5 zoning district. Blin explained that if the I-5 zoning district was approved, the performance standards would require all outdoor storage to be screened completely from adjacent properties outside the district and public rights-of-way. He stated that CP Rail has commissioned a study to look at the economics of a lumber yard to see what the city could gain or lose from that use. Thiede asked if this use would allow an auto junk yard to locate there. Blin responded no; the only uses that would be allowed in the I-5 district are the uses that are currently allowed in the I-2 district plus automobile distribution facilities and lumber yards. Ricart asked for more detail on the required screening. Blin explained that the screening would be a combination of earth berms and landscaping with minimum heights. Ricart ex- pressed concern about screening from Highway 61, noting the topography in that area. Hale asked if the EDA has taken a position on this issue. Blin stated that they are waiting for a recommendation from the Planning Commission because they see it as a land use issue. From the comments he has heard, they may favor the creation of an I-5 district. Hale stated that locating the district near the rail system makes sense and he agrees with the screening requirements. Reese asked if there is no ordinance amendment, would CP Rail be able to expand the auto marshalling yard. Blin responded yes. Reese asked if creating the I-5 district would restrict them from expanding without making improvements for screening. Blin responded that they could expand even with the new ordinance without city approvals because they have a fed- erally mandated ability to circumvent city zoning ordinances. Nitsch made a motion to hold a public hearing on creating a new I-5 zoning district. Thiede seconded. Motion passed on a 6-to-2 vote (Brittain, Ricart). 7.2 East Ravine Residential and Commercial Performance Standards McCool summarized the staff report and past discussions on performance standards for the East Ravine. Thiede asked if it was the intention to create new zoning districts. McCool answered yes. Thiede then asked if it would be feasible to use the existing districts because the city already has a lot of zoning districts. McCool responded that the reason staff did not use the existing classifications and are implementing new standards is so that existing neighborhoods would not become nonconforming. Thiede asked if those areas could be grandfathered in. Blin stated that it could be done by adding the effective date of the new standards to ordinance so everything beyond that date would need to comply. However, that would be difficult ad- ministratively as staff would have to try to determine when a house was built. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 Page 12 of 12 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 29, 2005 Motion by Thiede, seconded by Bauer to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting on August 29, 2005. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0). Reports 9.1 Committee Reports Nitsch reported that Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation is working on producing a deck of playing cards with an historic fact regarding the city on each card. The Committee reviewed improvements to two historic properties, including an addition to a house and an outbuilding to be built over a well at Hope Glen Farm. Brittain reported that the Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force finalized their recommenda- tions to the City Council, which will be discussed at their meeting on October 5. 9.2 Recap of September City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meetings on September 7 and September 21, 2005. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. 9.5 Planning Commission Requests None. Adjournment Motion by Ricart, seconded by Nitsch, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously (8-to- 0). The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.