Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-27 MINUTES City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission October 27, 2008 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 – 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on October 27, 2008, in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Reese called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Obid Hofland, Steve Messick, Tracy Poncin, Ryan Rambacher, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, David Thiede, Chris Willhite Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Reese asked if there are any changes to the agenda. Being no changes were made, the agenda was approved as submitted. 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 Fence Standards Ordinance – Case No. TA08-023 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text amendment to require that the finished side of fences must face adjacent properties or public right-of-ways and that fences in the front yard are limited to a maximum of 48 inches and are setback 15 feet from the front property line. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2008 Page 2 of 4 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. Willhite expressed concern that the 15-foot front yard setback for fences would put the fence in the middle of the front yard. Rostad asked what the smallest distance between the curb and property line is in relation to the clear view triangle proposal. McCool responded that the most common smaller distance would be 13 feet, based on a 60-foot right-of-way with a 34-foot wide street. Rostad ex- pressed concern about that if the language is changed the clear view triangle would shrink in the event the boulevard area is reduced. McCool stated it would be about two feet of the original setback requirement. Poncin asked if this ordinance would apply to both residential and rural properties. McCool responded yes. Poncin noted that at the last meeting there was discussion about rural prop- erties having gates across the driveway and if this ordinance would prohibit that. McCool re- sponded that in the rural areas where the property is more than five acres they would be able to have gates or fencing as high as six feet, but acreage lots smaller than that would have the same fence height limitations as an urban lot. Blin clarified that on a larger lot there would presumably be more room between the property line and house, and gates would be allowed, but the fence would still have to be 15 feet back from the property line and no taller than four feet. Hofland asked the reason for prohibiting electric fences, particularly for larger acreage lots. McCool responded it is a safety issue. Hofland asked if electric fences could be allowed in areas where barbed wire fences are. McCool responded that some areas agricultural uses abut urban areas. Blin asked if the Commission wants to allow electric fences in agricultural areas or on all lots that are greater than five acres that do not abut residential areas. Thiede stated that he would not have a problem with electric fences in a rural area with no public walkways near it. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Hofland made a motion to approve the text amendment with a change to allow electric fences in agricultural areas except where it abuts residentially zoned property. Thiede seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.2 Temporary Event Signs Ordinance – Case TA08-024 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text amendment to the sign ordinance to allow temporary event signs on weekends. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Willhite stated that realtors sometimes need the signs on Tuesdays. Blin asked if those signs are needed only during the day. Willhite explained that they are needed for realtor/broker walk throughs, which are generally from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Blin asked if the Commis- sion wanted to add Tuesdays from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Reese asked about the signs for new home developments. Blin responded that those signs are not allowed and could be removed if they are out on the days noted in this ordinance amendment. Messick asked if signs are allowed on open lots within a development. Blin responded that if they are marketing that lot, technically the signs are allowed. The proposed ordinance amendment is dealing with off-premise signs. Thiede asked about Parade of Homes signs. Blin responded that there is a provision to allow signage for the Parade of Homes. Thiede asked if the city issues permits to allow signs for special events. Blin stated that currently there is no provision for special permits. Reese asked about the provision to allow temporary signs for 30 days. Blin stated that is for on-site signage. Willhite asked about garage sale signs. Blin stated that the city makes exception for garage sale signs. Willhite asked about time limits for those signs and removal if they are not re- moved after the sale is over. McCool stated that there are no time limits in the ordinance and staff does not go out to look for those either. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion to approve the text amendment to the sign ordinance with a change to allow temporary signs on Tuesdays from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Poncin seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Wind Generator Ordinance McCool summarized the information in his memo to the Commission. He explained that the reason the Commission is being asked to review our ordinances is because the school dis- trict has proposed installing a wind turbine at the new high school in Woodbury. He sug- gested that the Commission start the process of looking at our codes. The City of Woodbury is initiating an amendment to their ordinances on small turbine utilities and solar panels, and we could utilize some of their findings in our review. McCool stated that at the very minimum, the Commission may want to consider an amendment to the ordinance that would not allow turbines in the new residential zoning classifications, and whether or not there should be some kind of public hearing process such as the conditional use permit required for free- standing or monopole wireless communication towers. Thiede suggested listing where wind turbines are allowed rather than where they are not and that it is probably appropriate to have the same requirements as for wireless communication towers. He added that aesthetics of alternative energy generators be addressed in the city code. Rambacher suggested defining guidelines as to where small, intermediate, and large turbines could be located and asked about a cost benefit analysis on how much these cost and what their return is. Reese asked where in the city would be the most likely for turbines to be located. McCool responded in rural agricultural areas. He stated that if there was a formal review, a condition of approval should be that the turbines would need to be removed Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2008 Page 4 of 4 upon future development of the property. Reese asked if there are accessory structures that go along with wind turbines. McCool responded there probably are and those would count against the allowance for accessory structures on the property. Thiede asked if a business could use an alternative energy source. McCool responded that is why the Commission should look at the codes to come up with possible regulations such as sizing and if there should be a formal review process. Rostad asked if the current ordinance allows wind tur- bines and believes that the Commission should start to address this issue. McCool re- sponded that wind turbines are allowed as an accessory use in all zoning districts except for the residential districts listed and a review process is part of the building permit application. They need to provide us with a considerable amount of information as it relates to the tower and wind turbine. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Being that there were no corrections to the September 22, 2008 minutes, Willhite made a motion to approve the minutes. Rostad seconded. Motion passed unani- mously (8-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of October City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meetings on October 1, and October 15, 2008. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Blin stated that in response to a question about rehab loan programs in, the city is working with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE). There is also a new federal program called the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that deals specifically with foreclosed houses, of which there are a fair number in Cottage Grove. The city will be working the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to acquire and rehab homes through that program. Messick asked if there are ways to let citizens know about these programs. Blin responded that the city will publicize these programs more often in City newsletters and on cable programs. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Thiede asked about the dates for the November and December Planning Commission meetings. Blin responded November 24 and December 22. In the past, the December meeting has been canceled. Looking ahead, staff does not foresee any pressing business to come before the Commission and asked if that meeting should be canceled. The Commis- sion concurred. Adjournment Thiede made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Messick seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.