Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-22 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission September 22, 2008 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 – 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on September 22, 2008, in the Council Chambers and tele- cast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Reese called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He introduced new Planning Commissioner Ryan Rambacher. Roll Call Members Present: Obid Hofland, Steve Messick, Ryan Rambacher, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, David Thiede, Chris Willhite Members Absent: Tracy Poncin and Eddie Tharbes Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Reese asked if there are any changes to the agenda. Thiede moved to approve the agenda without changes. Hofland seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Open Forum Reese 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 Reese explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory ca- pacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should come to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings and Application Reviews 6.1 Theis Porch Addition – Case No. V08-022 John and Renee Theis have applied for a variance to rear yard setback requirements to allow the construction of a porch addition at 6811 Wildflower Drive. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 2 of 4 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Thiede asked if setbacks for decks are less than for porches. McCool responded that an open deck without wall or roof structures could be as close as eight feet to the rear lot line. John Theis, 6811 Wildflower Drive, explained that the addition is needed because their kitchen is too small. Reese opened the public hearing. Scott Chabot, 6792 Cattail Avenue South, stated that his backyard is adjacent to the Theis property and he approves of the proposal. He explained that because the deck is already there, it does not build out the house any further. Shane Seif, 6788 Cattail Avenue South, stated that his property is also adjacent to the rear of the Theis property. He has no objections to the proposed addition. Lee Bacon, 6742 Wildflower Avenue South, stated that he is representing the homeowners association board as the architectural committee chair. After reviewing the proposal, he does not believe there would be any issues with the association’s covenants. No one else spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Thiede made a motion to approve the variance to allow a porch addition, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Messick seconded. Findings of Fact A. The depth of the property would only allow for the construction of a six-foot deep addition without a variance. B. There is an existing elevated deck in the proposed location of the addition. The proposed addition will replace a portion of the existing deck and will actually be one foot further from the rear property line than current conditions. C. There is no ability to expand the house towards the side lot lines due to existing setback conditions. D. The proposed addition will not adversely impact the view shed of adjoining neighbors of any parks, open space, or wetlands. E. The addition will make the home more efficient and livable, lighter and airier, and increase the property’s market value. F. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adja- cent properties, will not increase the congestion of the public streets, will not en- danger the public’s safety, or diminish property values within the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Conditions of Approval 1. The exterior materials and color for the 13-foot by 16-foot addition must be similar to the principal structure. 2. The property owner must be issued a building permit before any construction begins. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Fence Amendment McCool stated that staff prepared a draft ordinance amendment to fencing requirements based on the discussion at last month’s Planning Commission meeting and the public hear- ing could be held on October 27. The amendment includes a 48-inch maximum height for a fence in the front yard of residential properties, a 15-foot front yard setback, and requiring that the finished side of the fence should face outward. Thiede asked if the front yard set- back was from the street. McCool responded that it would be from the front property line. There was discussion about the location of the front property line and the need for a 15-foot setback for a fence. McCool stated that the setback is proposed due to visibility and sight lines from driveways. It was the consensus of the Commission to not have a setback if not more than 50 percent of the fence is opaque, but to require a 15-foot setback for a privacy fence. McCool explained that the same fencing requirements for urban lots would apply to rural lots that are five or less acres in area. Since farm animals are allowed on acreages that are five or more acres, then fencing would be allowed along the property boundary lines, but must be less than six feet in height. Regarding the discussion on concrete wall fences, McCool reported that a concrete wall would require support footings and would be treated as an accessory structure. Accessory structures are not allowed in front yards and must setback 10 feet from the rear lot line and 6 feet on the side. A building permit would be required. There was a question about policing fences that need maintenance. McCool responded that language could be included in the ordinance amendment requiring that fences be kept in good condition and structurally sound, and when a fence would be determined to be dilapidated. Thiede suggested that during road construction projects, the city should look at replacing fencing along major roads with consistent materials. Rostad suggested that there be better enforcement for fencing around properties with above-ground pools. 7.2 Discussion on Real Estate Signs McCool reported that staff met with three realty companies, Coldwell Banker, Remax, and Edina Realty, to discuss open house signs. It was concluded that they would allow for tem- porary open house signs on Saturdays and Sundays from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and those signs would be allowed to be up to six square feet per side. He stated that staff would have a draft ordinance prepared for a public hearing at next month’s meeting and asked for the Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Commission’s input on that ordinance amendment. Willhite stated that the only problem she could foresee is that on Tuesdays there are tours by realtors and people from out of town need directional signs to get to the homes. Reese would like to address signs for new devel- opments addressed, particularly the number at intersections. Willhite suggested regulating distance between those signs and only allowing one at each location. There were questions about enforcement including possible fines. 7.3 Newspaper Boxes McCool summarized the memo regarding newspaper boxes and ordinances from other cities. He stated that Woodbury has an ordinance, but is re-evaluating it since they currently have not been enforcing their regulations. McCool asked how the Commission would like to proceed. Commission members expressed an interest in developing an ordinance that addresses aesthetics and proper maintenance, requiring a concrete pad beneath the distribution box, and registration with filing fee for a certain period of time. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 25, 2008 Being that there were no corrections to the August 25, 2008 minutes, Willhite made a motion to approve the minutes. Messick seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to- 0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of September City Council Meetings McCool reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meetings on September 3, and September 17, 2008. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Messick made a formal request to start a program for older or historic areas of the city with home improvement loans set at a fixed rate that would be paid back when the house is either sold or after a certain period of time. The loans would be secured by the property. It is his understanding that these loan programs can be budget neutral, and when the value of the house increases, the house is taxed at the higher value. He asked that the request be for- warded to the correct governing board. He noted that at least three cities in Minnesota have implemented this type of program. Rostad noted that in the mortgage bail out bill passed a couple months ago, funds were set aside for that purpose. Adjournment Thiede made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Hofland seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.