Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-28 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission September 28, 2009 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 – 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on September 28, 2009, in the Council Chambers and tele- cast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Brian Pearson, Tracy Poncin, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, David Thiede, Chris Willhite Members Absent: Obid Hofland Council Liaison: Councilmember Justin Olson Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Thiede made a motion to approve the agenda. Rambacher seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved (8-to-0 vote). Open Forum Messick 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 Messick 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 Applications 6.1 Butchko-Vacca Garage Variance – Case V09-017 Michael Butchko and Christine Vacca have applied for a variance to allow construction of an 840 square foot (30-foot by 28-foot) detached accessory structure in front of the prin- cipal structure at 8039 River Acres Road South. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2009 Page 2 of 5 McCool summarized the staff report. He noted that a letter was received from Linda Coltvet, 8077 River Acres Road, the neighboring property owner to the east of the applicant’s site, stating that they are in support of the application. He recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Ken Huber, 7725 – 74th Street South, stated that he is representing the property owner. He stated that the property owners have numerous vehicles and equipment being stored in the yard. The proposed garage would be used to store this equipment. He stated that the prop- erty is totally wooded and this proposal minimizes the number of oak trees that need to be removed. Their septic system and drain fields also impact where an accessory structure can be located. Thiede asked how the 170 square foot utility shed could be reduced to 160 feet, which is one of the conditions of approval. McCool stated that he discussed that issue with the property owner, who stated that he will cut off a foot of the lean-to roof structure on the south side of the shed. He explained the reason for the size reduction of the existing shed is that city or- dinance allows for one accessory structure no greater than 850 square feet in the R-4 zoning district and a second accessory structure no larger than 160 square feet. Rambacher asked if there was thought given to locating the proposed structure to the loca- tion of the existing shed. Huber explained that the septic tanks are located between the shed and the home. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion to recommend approval of the variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Thiede seconded. The recommendation to grant these variances is based on the following findings of fact: A. The existing home is located on the southern one-third of the lot. Placing the pro- posed accessory structure on the north side of the home will lessen the ability to see the accessory structure from the River. B. The provisions of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District were considered, and it was determined that the proposed accessory structure will not adversely impact any of the criteria listed in City Code Title 11-15. C. 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 endanger the public’s safety, or diminish property values within the neighborhood. D. The property owner’s septic drainfield system is located five feet south of the pro- posed location of the new accessory structure. For this reason, the proposed building cannot be moved further south without relocating the drainfield. E. The proposed location of the accessory building minimizes the number of trees that need to be removed for its construction. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2009 Page 3 of 5 F. The Burlington Northern Railroad tracks are located on the north side of River Acres Road. For this reason, there are no residential structures across the street from the applicant’s property. The recommendation for approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Erosion control measures must be utilized during construction. 2. The exterior materials and color for the proposed accessory structure must be similar to the principal structure. 3. The property owner must complete a building permit application and be issued a building permit before any construction begins. 4. The existing 10-foot by 17-foot accessory structure must be reduced in size so that it does not exceed 160 square feet. 5. The proposed accessory structure’s lowest floor elevation must be at or above 700 feet mean sea level. The lowest floor elevation must be certified by a registered land surveyor and a copy of this survey certification given to the Building Division. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.2 Outdoor Wood Burning Facilities Ordinance The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to add regulations for outdoor wood burners. McCool summarized the staff report, noting that the changes recommended by the Planning Commission at the August meeting were incorporated into the draft ordinance. He stated that an unsigned letter was received by the City regarding concerns about smoke odor during summer months in residential areas. Linse asked about Title 4-8-5B where it says the outdoor burner must not be located in any required front yard. McCool clarified that burners are not allowed in front of the principal structure. Rambacher asked how burners would be considered a nuisance. McCool responded that residents would have to make a complaint to the city. Staff would work with the owner of the burner to try to mitigate those concerns. Linse asked why the language limiting outdoor wood burners to operate only between Octo- ber 1 and April 1 was removed. Poncin stated because the ordinance limits outdoor wood burners to properties that are a minimum of three acres. It was noted that the burners could also be used for hot water heaters, swimming pools, etc. Linse stated that in Title 4-8-5F the “or” should be removed because the burners should meet both standards, not just one. He then asked in Title 4-8-5G what happens if the outdoor burner passes one of those standards but fails the other. McCool responded that it has to Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2009 Page 4 of 5 meet both standards. Linse stated that should be two sections, one being safety and the other being the EPA. McCool stated that that section could be broken down; subsection G would require meeting appropriate safety standards and subsection H would require Phase 2 units or the latest Phase. Linse asked if the “or” in G should be changed to “and” to imply that it has to satisfy all three. Thiede responded that depending on where the unit is manu- factured, it has to meet that particular safety standard, such as the Underwriters Laborato- ries, the ANSI, or the Canadian Standard, but not all three. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Linse made a motion to amend Title 48-8-5F by deleting “or testing and.” He would also amend Title 4-8-5G by splitting it and adding subsection H. Subsection G should read “The outdoor wood burner must be laboratory tested and listed to appropriate safety standards such as Underwriter Laboratories, American National Standards In- stitute, or Canadian Standards Association” and subsection H would read “The out- door wood burner must be EPA outdoor wood qualified at the Phase 2 emissions level or latest established Phase for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Voluntary Program.”Rambacher seconded. Motion passed unanimousl (8-to-0 vote). Willhite made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance with the proposed amendments. Rostad seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Discussion Items None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2009 Thiede made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 24, 2009, meeting. Motion seconded by Rostad. The motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of September City Council Meetings McCool reported that there were no Planning Commission agenda items that were presented to the City Council at their meetings on September 2 and September 16, 2009. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2009 Page 5 of 5 Adjournment Thiede made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rambacher seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.