Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-01 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission June 1, 2009 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 – 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on June 1, 2009, in the Council Chambers and telecast 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: Obid Hofland, Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Brian Pearson, Tracy Poncin, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, Chris Willhite Members Absent: David Thiede Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Willhite made a motion to approve the agenda. Linse 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 Application Reviews 6.1 Martin Driveway Setback Variance – Case No. V09-014 Elmo and Marilyn Martin, 8688 Ira Avenue South, have applied for a variance to driveway setbacks to allow a driveway extension to be three feet from the side property line when a six-foot side yard setback is required. Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Elmo Martin, 8688 Ira Avenue South, stated that in the late 1970s there was a crushed lime- stone pad in the location where he currently parks his camper; that if he parked his camper on the driveway, it would be a safety hazard backing his vehicles out of the driveway; and it would be a hardship to put a parking pad in the back yard due to trying to maneuver it around an existing tree. He stated that down the street, a brand new parking pad was put in up to the property line, but he would stay three feet from the fence line. The Commission asked Martin about parking on the driveway in front of the garage and how far his camper is parked from the fence. Martin responded that he would not be able to use his garage if he parked his camper on the driveway, and the camper is three feet from the fence. He explained that due to the size of his lot and width of his house, it would be very difficult to accommodate the six-foot setback and still have a parking pad large enough to be useful. He noted that on one side the house is setback 13 feet from the property line and on the other there is 10 feet. There were questions from the Commission regarding the neighboring property that put in the parking pad all the way to the property line and whether the aerial photo showed the gravel pad as the camper is parked where the pad would be located. Burbank responded that the permit for the neighboring property was issued a year or two ago, and their gravel pad did show up on the aerial photo. He explained that the ordinance does allow for improving what was there before but not for expansion. Burbank then stated that he did a physical inspection of the site and there was no evidence that there had been a parking pad there. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Willhite asked if there had been any comments from the neighbors. Burbank responded that none had been received by the City. Martin stated that he had heard from some of his neigh- bors and they did not have any objections to the variance. Willhite asked if staff’s only sug- gestion to the Martins is to park the RV on the driveway. Burbank responded that was one option and another alternative would be off-site storage. Willhite stated that she visited the property and believes it would be more of an eyesore in the driveway than on the side of the house. There appears to be space to walk between the camper and the fence, and the house on the abutting property has the garage on that side of the property. There was a question about the primary goal for the ordinance change for driveway and parking pad setbacks from two feet to six feet. Burbank responded to maintain air space and light and because there are many areas of the city where the houses are much closer to- gether. The Nuisance Ordinance Task Force chose to treat driveway and parking pads as ac- cessory structures, which have a six-foot side yard setback and a ten-foot rear yard setback, to keep the areas maintainable. Willhite stated that she supports the variance application because the RV would be more visi- ble parked in the driveway, it would be expensive to have to store the RV off-site, and their back yard is not set up for a parking pad. Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Poncin stated that with the three-foot setback, the RV would be too close to the property line. She asked if is it a right to have unlimited storage space within your property or does the city honor the setbacks that were designed by a citizen task force. She is inclined to require the setback because of aesthetics and what she would like to see in her neighborhood. Other comments in favor of the variance request included the applicant’s testimony that there was a limestone parking pad in that location in the past. Willhite made a motion to recommend approval of the variance application based on the following findings: the area abuts the garage side of the adjacent home; the side yard setback of the adjacent home exceeds the minimum side yard setback and is uni- quely large for the area; testimony of a gravel parking pad existing prior to the or- dinance amendment; parking area is screened; less public impact on the proposed area than parking on the existing driveway; and no neighborhood opposition received. Linse seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.2 Danner Grading Permit – Case GP09-202 Danner, Inc. has submitted a grading permit application to excavate approximately 415,104 net cubic yards of earth materials from approximately 38.3 acres of land located northwest of Keats Avenue and East Point Douglas Road. McCool summarized the staff report and recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Hofland asked if the area is currently fallow ground. McCool responded primarily but to the north there is some agriculturally tilled ground. Poncin asked if the north part of the parcel that will be 13 feet higher than the graded area and would that be separated by a berm or a wall. McCool responded that as they grade into the hill, this site with the finished elevation will be 13 feet lower than the farm land to the north and there would be a 3:1 slope on that side. There discussion regarding elevation levels on the property compared to adjacent areas, in- cluding Keats Avenue. There was a question regarding the prohibition on crushing rock on site. McCool responded that staff’s recommendation is to prohibit crushing materials on site. The applicant stated that they did core samples and there is mostly sand and very little rock on the site. Another question was regarding access to the site if they cannot use Keats Ave- nue. McCool stated that they would use the existing drive on the property they are currently grading. There was a question regarding erosion on the north part of the property. McCool stated that as they grade, they will be lowering the elevation so the water will be coming to this site but the conditions of approval deal with erosion control measures. A question was asked regarding the amount of truck traffic and public safety issues. McCool responded there would not be that much equipment leaving. The applicant stated that there may be a truck leaving every five to eight minutes. Marly Danner, Vice President of Danner, Inc., explained that they excavated the front part of area about four years ago and now they have made a deal with the property in the back to bring his site down to grade to meet the requirements of a development but his development Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2009 Page 4 of 5 did not come out because there was too much dirt to move and they didn’t have any place to go with it but they have places to go with the dirt. When they are hauling, which might be only once a month, the trucks would probably come out five to eight minutes apart. There was a question about how each phase of the grading would take. Danner stated that they figured that in five years the site would be leveled with a development phase coming before that. Messick asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. There were none. Rambacher made a motion to recommend approval of the grading permit application subject to the conditions in the planning staff report. Hofland seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.3 Tree Preservation Ordinance – Case TA09-009 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to amend the tree pre- servation ordinance in the City Code. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval. There was a question regarding how to define trees per acre for tree mitigation purposes. Burbank stated that the woodland method for determining trees is eight trees for every 500 square feet of trees. It was asked if this new ordinance would decrease the number of trees in the community. Burbank responded that it creates a fair playing field between the different ways trees are inventoried. The developer is allowed up 40 percent removal for residential de- velopment and 50 percent for commercial. On larger sites it was a daunting task to tag every individual tree, which is why the alternative woodland method is being proposed. Blin stated that the more heavily treed area of the city is the West Draw. Most of the East Ravine is cur- rently farm fields. Another question regarded adding trees on the farm properties. Blin re- sponded that the tree mitigation aspects won’t come into play because there are very few trees. The East Ravine master plan does require that five trees must be planted on a single family lot. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Hofland made a motion to recommend approval of the tree preservation ordinance amendment. Willhite seconded. The motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 3M Incinerator Land Use Discussion Blin updated the Commission on the 3M incinerator issue. He gave a brief history on the city’s approval of the initial application for the incinerator. He stated that after numerous discus- sions, both the city and 3M have agreed to take a step back to see if there is some mediated solution. One of the solutions may be that 3M would consent to a new conditional use permit with new conditions such as prohibiting a commercial incinerator process where they would charge fees to burn waste. Their current proposal is to buy the waste from a single source. He then reported that the City Council has initiated an Environmental Task Force to look at the in- Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2009 Page 5 of 5 cinerator issue over the next several months. There was a question as to whether this is a cost issue or a pollution issue. Blin responded that it is a cost issue for 3M. He stated that 3M reports the emissions from the incinerator are very clean and the combustion of these mate- rials is effective to 99.9999 percent of any of the materials burned, and the PCA has assured the city that the emissions now and the emissions with 3M accepting non-3M waste would still be well within the regulations established by the MPCA and the federal EPA. It was asked if the MPCA could limit the use of the incinerator to only 3M waste and waste from the company they are proposing to use. Blin responded yes. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 27, 2009 Willhite made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 27, 2009, meeting. Motion seconded by Pearson. The motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of May City Council Meetings Blin reported on City Council actions from their meetings on May 6 and May 20, 2009. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rostad asked when the Jamaica BP station reconstruction was planned to commence. Blin responded that staff has talked with them and their current plans are to wait until 2010. Blin stated that there is no business to come before the Planning Commission for the June 29 meeting and asked if that meeting should be canceled. The Commission concurred. Adjournment Rambacher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Pearson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.