Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-22 MINUTES City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission October 22, 2007 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 22nd day of October 2007, in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chairperson Thiede called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Tina Folch-Freiermuth, Obid Hofland, Steve Messick, Tracy Poncin, Chris Reese, David Thiede, Chris Willhite Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Mark Grossklaus, City Council Approval of Agenda Reese made a motion to approve the agenda. Folch seconded. Motion approved unani- mously (8-0 vote). Open Forum Chairperson Thiede asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non- agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Chair’s Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Chairperson Thiede explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In ad- dition, 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 and Application Reviews 6.1 Historic Conditional Use Permit: Thao House – Case CUP07-058 Dr. Xoua Thao and See Vang Thao have applied for an historic conditional use permit to allow construction of a new house and allow the existing historic home to remain on the three-acre parcel at 9912 – 70th Street South. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2007 Page 2 of 8 Blin summarized the planning staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Hofland asked where the Cedarhurst mansion is located in relation to the ghost plat. Blin stated that the mansion would be at least 400 feet east and would be separated by trees and landscaping. See Vang Thao, 9912 – 70th Street South, stated that they are looking forward to building a new home on their property. She explained that the house is too small for them, their four chil- dren, and their grandmother. She stated that they don’t want to move to another location be- cause Cedarhurst is their property as well and they want to continue to help their brother and sister-in-law maintain the mansion, which requires a lot of upkeep. Dr. Xoua Thao explained that they have done some renovations to the existing home and that it also is historic, so they do not want to tear down this house to build another. He stated that the property consists of three acres. He stated that they intend to use that house for a library. Folch asked about the potential future development and if they intend to sell the other parcels. Thao stated that their intention is to build a house on one of the future lots. He explained that when they applied for the historic conditional use permit they were asked to provide a sketch of a potential future use of the property, but at this point they have no plans to subdivide. Blin stated that was staff’s suggestion so that the house would not be located in an area that would preclude possible future subdivision. Thiede asked what effect future subdivision have on Cedarhurst. Thao responded that there are mature trees all along the east property line. Thiede asked what was behind the mansion on the Cedarhurst property. Blin displayed an aerial photo of the site that shows trees and a few outbuildings behind the mansion. Thiede asked where single-family housing would be lo- cated according to the East Ravine plan. Blin responded that the area on the west side of the property is guided low density residential and this property is guided medium density, so if it were to develop in the future, lower density would be consistent with what is planned for the property to the west. Thiede noted that the commercial areas were around the intersection of 70th Street, Keats Avenue, and Military Road. Blin responded that the Cedarhurst property is guided for commercial because it is a commercial use, but all of the other commercial areas are on the east side of Keats on either side of 70th Street. Thiede asked if the proposals to date for higher density housing were located further to the north. Blin responded yes. Thiede then asked based on how this property and the surrounding properties are guided if this area would tie into future neighborhoods. Blin stated that was correct. Thiede opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Thiede closed the public hearing. Reese made a motion to recommend approval of the historic conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed below. Brittain seconded the motion. 1. The property shall be placed on the City Historic register. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2007 Page 3 of 8 2. The property owner shall be responsible for all public and private infrastructure im- provement and connection costs associated with servicing the property with public utilities. 3. The existing residence may be allowed to remain on private well and septic as long as it is properly maintained and functioning. Upon connection to public utilities, the well and septic shall be abandoned in accordance with Washington County require- ments. 4. A park dedication fee shall be paid at the time of the issuance of a new building per- mit, and at the rate applicable at the time of issuance. 5. The access to the new home shall be through the existing driveway on 70th Street. 6. Future subdivision of the property shall require the 70th street drive to be aban- doned and a new access created of a future local road from the west. 7. The design of the new structures on the property will be reviewed by City staff for compatibility with the existing architecture of Cedarhurst. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.2 Zoning Code Amendment: Landscape Ordinance – Case TA07-045 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text amendment to amend the minimum land- scaping requirements of the City Code. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure multi- family, institutional, commercial, office, and industrial projects provide enough open space within their property. (Continued from 9/24/07) McCool summarized the planning staff report and recommended approval. Willhite asked if grassy areas would be including in the landscaping requirements. McCool responded that would be part of the open space. Thiede asked if there are open space requirements in other parts of the city code. McCool re- sponded nothing for commercial or industrial areas. Thiede stated that the proposed landscape ordinance looks complex and asked if a business could have less than the minimum require- ments. McCool responded that they could apply for a variance. Thiede asked if there should be minimum requirements or could these just be guidelines. McCool responded that the proposed ordinance will be much easier to calculate than the way the city has done in the past. Willhite asked about the sustainability of the trees and shrubs. McCool responded that Brook- lyn Park had done calculations of maturity sizes and how many plantings were appropriate for the area being landscaped. Blin stated that basically at maturity about 70 percent of the land- scaped area would be shaded by trees, noting that this was developed after consultation with horticulturalists and tree experts. Thiede opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Thiede closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2007 Page 4 of 8 Willhite made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning amendment to the land- scape ordinance. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.3 Zoning Code Amendment: Dynamic Signs – Case TA07-055 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to amend City Code Title 9-8, Signs and Billboards, to prohibit dynamic signs. (Continued from 9/24/07) Blin summarized the planning staff report and recommended approval. Brittain asked if flashing dynamic signs in windows would be prohibited. Blin responded yes. Willhite stated that she did some research on this issue. In Hastings the ordinance allows signs that could be electronically changed, but they do not allow flashing, scrolling, or turning signs except at the movie theater. She does agree that if billboards change frequently, such as every 30 seconds or less, it is annoying and can be dangerous. She also reviewed a survey that was done by the Federal Highway Administration in Nevada, Utah, Texas, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts that reported there was no evidence of increased traffic safety problems directly related to the installation of electronic signs and displays in their city centers and along their highways. The survey did not list how often the signs changed. She then asked if highway department signs for things such as road construction, detours, and Amber Alerts would be allowed. Blin responded that those signs are excluded from the prohibition along with gas station price signs. Thiede asked if the signs that would not be allowed were lit or just ones those that are lit and can change. Willhite stated that the consensus was to not allow billboards but signs in win- dows that are not flashing would be allowed. Blin stated that essentially the definition of dynamic display is any kind of sign that has the appearance of movement or change whether electronic or mechanical. That would include the older electronic display signs and message boards and the newer LED television screen billboards, which was the impetus for this ordi- nance amendment. He does agree with Willhite that there are mixed results from the studies that have been done, however, the studies she referenced primarily dealt with message signs and the FHWA is now doing a study on the LED billboards. Thiede asked if the ordinance would disallow barber poles. Reese noted that there was an exception for barber poles and time and temperature signs. Blin stated that when the sign ordinance is rewritten, it is intended to meld some of the definitions together. Folch asked if the ordinance would not allow for any kind of motion, but would allow for a black sign with static lighted lettering in a store window. Blin stated that was correct. Willhite stated that she would only ban that type of sign for billboards but believes that reader board pylon signs for businesses are fine as long as they are not moving. She does not believe they are any more distracting than other signs. Blin responded that the only electronic signs allowed would be gas station price signs or in a window of a business. Willhite stated that she Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2007 Page 5 of 8 believes electronic reader board signs more attractive and easier to see, so she disagrees with prohibiting them. Brittain disagreed, stated that he does not find them attractive or adds value. He then stated that school signs are not as needed as they used to be as there are other avenue for commu- nicating with students and parents, such as through e-mail. Poncin agreed with Brittain. She also does not think those signs are aesthetically attractive so she would like to see them limited or banned. Thiede asked if businesses could have a time and temperature sign. Blin responded that under this proposal they would be allowed, but it is rare these days to see them on banks. Reese stated that he does not like the dynamic billboards but does not see a problem with electronic non-motion reader board signs. Thiede opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Thiede closed the public hearing. Folch stated that she sees the dynamic signs as a public safety issue, especially on roadways with speed limits over 45 miles per hour. She asked if the League of Minnesota Cities report looked at only limiting dynamic signs on higher speed roadways. Blin does not recall anything that addressed speed in the report. Brittain stated that typically on a higher speed roadway, there are no stop signs or stop lights, but slower speed roads have more distractions for drivers. Willhite stated that the city cannot regulate all distractions and drivers have the responsibility to pay attention while driving. She believes that our community should be able to advertise, and the city should only regulate things such as lighting and size. She also finds that non-LED signs are harder to read. Thiede stated that he does not see much difference between electronic and non-electronic reader board signs. Blin explained that one issue with electronic signs is the brightness factor or luminosity, and while it is possible to regulate the number of lumines that a sign emits, it is difficult. Brittain stated the LEDs are very directional. A back lit sign, such as the high school sign, uses a very diffused soft type of broadcast light with respect to luminosity. Messick stated that the reason for the ordinance amendment is due to the moratorium on dy- namic billboards, which have been installed in other parts of the metro area. He thinks it is good forward thinking by staff and the City Council to look at the issue of dynamic signs, but he does not see a problem in the city. Brittain stated that he would support the changes being discussed. He explained that elec- tronic reader board signs are currently prohibited. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2007 Page 6 of 8 Messick asked about the Walgreen’s sign. Blin explained that the Walgreen’s sign did not comply with the ordinance at the time. He stated that the ordinance is a little vague, noting that there is a prohibition on flashing and motion signs and that has been interpreted to prohibit all electronic reader board signs. Willhite pointed out that the Walgreen’s sign is located at a very busy intersection and it has not been the cause of the accidents that happen there. Folch stated that signs with a black backdrop and red lettering are very difficult to read, and asked if there could be language specific enough to only allow black backdrop with white let- tering and certain font sizes. She stated that electronic reader board signs can be a good way for municipal governments and schools to communicate with the public. She believes the Commission has had a good discussion on this difficult issue, noting that if the city bans those types of sign, it limits the community’s ability to convey information to the public in what is be- coming a more viable technology. Willhite asked if the Planning Commission could vote on the portion of the ordinance banning dynamic billboards and then have further discussions on reader board signs. Blin responded that could be done. Reese stated that would accept the definition change of dynamic display, which then prohibits any type of lighted sign. Willhite stated that the definition could be changed to only billboards. Brittain would recommend since electronic reader board signs are currently prohibited, the Commission should just recommend approval of the proposed amendment due to the morato- rium that will expire soon, and in the future discuss possibly allowing reader board signs. Reese asked if the billboards along Highway 61 are nonconforming. McCool responded yes. Blin stated that those three existing billboards could be converted to dynamic signs. Willhite stated that due to their non-conforming status, the city should be able to prohibit that. Blin sug- gested applying the prohibition on dynamic signs to only off-premise advertising, which is a billboard. He then asked if the Commission wanted to follow Brittain’s suggested approach to approve the ordinance amendment, which would continue the prohibition on all electronic signs, and look at amending the ordinance further in the future to possibly allow other types of electronic signs. Willhite stated that she does not want to prohibit reader board signs at all. Brittain stated that he does not want to change the proposed ordinance. He suggested that when the sign ordinance is revisited that an exception on electronic reader board signs should be made for public institutions, expressing concern that every business would put one up. Reese stated that that exception cannot be made. Blin responded that this is a preview of the difficulty in amending the entire sign ordinance. He stated that the city can only regulate the type, size, and luminosity of the sign but not the content or whether it is a non-profit, public or for-profit entity. Reese stated that he does not believe most businesses would immediately adopt a reader board sign, and one of the ways these signs can be regulated for incoming businesses is through their sign package. Messick stated that another approach could be limiting the size of dynamic signs to what is common for reader board signs. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2007 Page 7 of 8 After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that if the proposed ordi- nance is recommended for approval, the Commission would like to review the issue of elec- tronic reader board signs in the near future. Reese asked when the Commission would start looking at rewriting the sign ordinance. Blin responded the first meeting of next year, and the process would probably take several months. Reese asked if staff wants direction before the Commission starts reviewing the ordinance. Brittain suggested a workshop. Blin asked if the Commission wanted to have a broader dis- cussion on signs. The Commission concurred. Messick made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning amendment to the sign ordinance prohibiting dynamic signs. Brittain seconded. Motion passed on a 7-to-1 vote (Willhite). Willhite explained that she voted against this type of ordinance amendment in the past and is not ready to change her mind. She believes the ordinance is too restrictive. Discussion Items 7.1 Corner Lot Visibility McCool summarized his memorandum regarding corner lot visibility in response to a question from the Commission at the last meeting. The Commission discussed whether there should be an amendment to city code that would affect existing corner properties with trails or sidewalks or for future trail installations. It was their consensus that the issue should be addressed by the city and developers for future installations. Blin summarized that when new trails and sidewalks are built or the city retrofits existing streets with trails, that the trail design should be looked at and possibly have the trail curve towards the curb at intersections to give a little more space between the trail/sidewalk and the property line. Blin reported to the Commission about an Environmental Impact Study being done by Aggregate Industries on their proposed mining operation in the back waters of the river channel by Lower Grey Cloud Island. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2007 Being that there were no corrections to the September 24, 2007, minutes, they were accepted as distributed. Reports 9.1 Recap of October City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their October 3 and 17, 2007, meetings. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2007 Page 8 of 8 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Thiede asked about the lighting at the auto marshalling yard, noting there is still quite a bit of glare. Blin stated that he spoke with them a couple months ago. Adjournment Reese made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Hofland seconded. Motion passed unani- mously and the meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.