Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-03 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 3/3/10 PREPARED BY Community Development Howard Blin ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on January 25, 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on January 25, 2010. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 2/22/10 ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on January 25, 2010 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS 6 2 ""''' Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission January 25, 2010 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on January 25, 2010, 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. Members Present: Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Brian Pearson, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, David Thiede, Chris Willhite Members Absent: Obid Hofland, Tracy Poncin Council Liaison: Councilmember Justin Olson Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Willhite made a motion to approve the agenda. Messick seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved (7 -to -0 vote). Messick asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. 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. • • • ' • • • cial incinerators. Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2010 Page 2 of 8 Blin summarized the staff report. He read the proposed definition of a commercial incinera- tor: "A commercial waste incineration facility is any facility that sells services of burning solid waste or hazardous waste materials for generators other than the owner and operator of the facility." He stated that the ordinance amendment creates a new category for prohibited uses in industrial zoning districts under which commercial waste incinerators would be prohibited. He explained that if this proposed amendment was adopted, the existing 3M hazardous waste incinerator could continue in its current form under the city's zoning ordinance as a legal nonconforming use. He recommended approval of the ordinance amendment. Linse asked if the definition of commercial waste incineration facility would include an in- stance where the value of the hazardous waste material as fuel would be greater than the cost of its disposal or is it just for selling the incineration service. Blin responded that was part of the discussion before the Environmental Task Force; 3M is proposing to accept pri- marily solvent wastes, which burn at a fairly high temperature and can fuel the incinerator to burn other types of hazardous waste. Under their proposal, 3M would not pay for the waste solvents nor would the source generator or processor pay 3M for disposal. As long they are not paying for it or accepting payment, it doesn't fall under this commercial waste incinera- tion definition. Rambacher asked if the EPA has a national definition for commercial incineration. Blin rep- lied that the EPA rules do not distinguish between commercial and corporate. They use terms to differentiate between whether the waste source is within the company that owns the incinerator or outside of the company. Rostad noted that the staff report states that the City of Cottage Grove does not have the authority to approve or deny the current request by 3M to modify the permits, and asked if this ordinance would keep them from having it for commercial use. Blin responded that was correct from a city zoning land use control standpoint, 3M could not convert to a commercial incinerator as defined here. Willhite asked if there is any way for the city to know whether they are getting money for that or not. Blin responded that the city would rely on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which monitors what they bring in. The state has a fairly extensive system for tracking that waste. The city would encourage the PCA to regularly take a look at that. Linse stated that he would like to strike the word "significantly" from line 19 that states "cha- racteristics that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase" and the word "substan- tial" from line 21 that reads "pose a substantial present or potential hazardous." He believes, in the first case that "causes or contributes" is strong enough, and secondly any threat would be enough, unless there is some legal basis why those words are specifically included. Blin stated there should not be a problem removing those two words but staff will check with the city attorney. He stated that these definitions were taken in whole from state statutes. Willhite agreed with Linse about removing the words "significantly" and "substantial." Rambacher asked about the proposal for more random audits. Blin responded during the city's study of the incinerator, it was noted that PCA does very few unscheduled inspections. What we were suggesting in our recommendation is that the PCA do more unscheduled ran- dom inspections. Rambacher asked why the proposed definition for "commercial" was used rather than the EPA definition. Blin responded that the city thought this best characterized Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2010 Page 3 of 8 what the city's concern that it not become an incinerator that, for a fee, anyone could have their hazardous waste disposed at that location. The city could look at the EPA definitions, but talking with the EPA back when this issue first started, they were clear that from an emissions standpoint they don't distinguish between commercial and corporate incineration; they are more concerned with what is emitted. Rostad asked if there was a benefit to 3M to have solid or hazardous waste brought in as a replacement for the natural gas and fuel oil costs. Blin responded that saving money by not burning natural gas is the purpose for 3M bringing in outside hazardous waste. Rostad asked if the savings was significant enough so they would not need to sell that service. Blin stated that 3M represented that they could dispose of their wastes by bringing in these sol- vents to fuel the incinerator at a lower cost than the natural gas they are currently burning. Messick stated that he does not support this ordinance amendment. He understands there are certain members of the citizenry who are upset about their water and are tying this issue to that. The PCA allows 3M to burn up to a certain amount and it doesn't matter where it comes from; their only concern is the effect on health. They have said 3M can burn a certain amount and it is healthy. He noted that his lungs cannot tell the difference whether the waste came from 3M or across the state. He does not see the benefit of this proposed ordinance to the city but he sees a downside for 3M. We either say we do want a certain amount of chemicals in our air or we don't, but this hampers 3M. What they are trying to do is burn chemicals that we don't want in the ground, have a safe amount of emissions, and do so at a cost effective price. This amendment would hamper that. We would be asking them to do something at a higher price for zero gain because they could burn up to that certain amount if it was their own chemicals. What we are getting is zero gain for the city at a higher cost to a business in our city that provides jobs and revenue. Linse asked if there has been an assessment as far as what this would cost 3M and what it would cost the city in lost tax base. Blin responded no, but reiterated that 3M has represented that they don't intend to convert this incinerator to a commercial waste incine- rator. As part of the recommendations that are going to the PCA from the city, 3M agreed to prohibit commercial incineration during this permit period, which lasts for five years. At this time, we could not calculate a cost and perhaps there would never be a cost. Messick opened the public hearing. Being that there was no testimony from the public, Messick closed the public hearing. Rambacher asked how close 3M is to the EPA's limit burning their own waste. Blin re- sponded that they are quite far from those limits and they will remain significantly below those limits even if they are allowed to bring in outside waste fuels. Willhite stated that she does not trust outside hazardous waste and believes the city needs to protect the community. She does not believe the community has been protected in the past and is in favor of the ordinance amendment. .. , . Ro stad 1-to-4 vote with one abstention (Linse). Nay votes: Messick, Pearson, Rambach Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2010 Page 4 of 8 Messick stated that the comments he made during the discussion explained his nay vote. Pearson, Rambacher, and Rostad concurred with those comments. Linse abstained because he needs to review more data on this topic. 6.2 Lot Split and Variance at 7560 Harkness Avenue — Case MS10 -003 Aspen Grove, LLC has applied for a minor subdivision of a 4.67 -acre residential estate parcel at 7560 Harkness Avenue South into two lots: one lot would be 3.05 acres and the other 1.62 acres that includes the existing residence; and a variance to the minimum lot width requirement to allow the proposed lot that includes the existing residence to be 160 feet wide. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Pearson asked to see the zoning map of the area. McCool displayed the map and pointed out the location of the parcel and the boundaries of the two zoning districts that run through the property. Pearson asked if there is just one lot south of the property. McCool responded yes. Pearson then asked about the use of that parcel. McCool stated it is vacant land. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Linse asked for clarification on which lot would be brought into closer conformance with smaller lot zoning districts. McCool responded that the lot width requirements are 70 feet for single family lots in the West Draw area. If the lot was further divided in the future, the pro- posed 160 -foot wide parcel could become two lots with 80 -foot widths, would be similar to what is existing in the other residential neighborhoods in the West Draw. Rostad made a motion to recommend approval of the applications based on the find- ings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Pearson seconded. Findings of Fact: A. The Parent Parcel can currently be split into two 980 foot wide lots. B. Creating a narrower lot containing the existing residence brings the new lot dimen- sion closer to conformance with smaller lot zoning districts which is the expected norm in the area in the future. C. Shifting the lot width wider for Lot 2 lot improves future subdivision design options. D. The wider lot would help maximize design options and minimize potential tree loss with any future subdivision of the vacant parcel. Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2010 Page 5 of 8 3. Additional right -of -way of a width in accordance with the direction of the City Engi- neer will be dedicated along the portions of both parcels that abut Harkness Avenue. 4. Ten -foot wide drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the east and west property lines of each lot. 5. Five -foot wide drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the north and south property lines of each lot. 6. The Stormwater Area Charge in the amount of $7,750.00 for Lot 1 parcel must be paid at the time of the release of the deed for recording with Washington County. 7. A shared driveway access is required. Future development of Lot 2 to a higher den- sity will require additional site line analysis of the access location and may trigger relocation of the common access. 8. A cross access and maintenance easement between the two lots will be created and recorded with Washington County. 9. The future development of Lot 2 acre parcel will require the payment of park dedica- tion fees equivalent to the number of units allowed on the property by zoning at the time of building permit and at the rate applicable at the time of building permit. 10. Failure of the private well or septic on the current site requires connection to public utilities. 11. Lot 2 will be required to connect to public utilities upon development 12. Future owners of Lot 1 shall be notified about the existing recorded access easement along the north property line and that there is the potential for future access use in- tensification in the easement corridor. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.3 Lehigh Acres Final Plat Extension Gonyea Land Company has requested an extension to the final plat approval for Lehigh Acres. McCool explained that the property owner of the Lehigh Acres subdivision requested an ex- tension to their final plat approval. He summarized the staff report and recommended that the extension be granted. Rambacher asked why the development has been delayed for four years. Tom Evenson, Gonyea Land Company, stated that the market has held up the development. He explained that the developer that the owners initially contract with walked away from the project. Gonyea Land Company is marketing the property for the Biscoes, who are the property owners, but they have not been able to find a developer. He explained that the steps taken Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2010 Page 6 of 8 by the property owners to develop the property, and again reiterated that the housing market is the reason for no development on the site. Rambacher asked about the property not being connected to city sewer and water and asked if that is a marketing issue. Evenson re- sponded that city services would not be expanded into that area of the city in the near future; the expansion is occurring in the northeast part of the city in the Military Road area. Blin agreed, noting that this area is not planned for utilities for at least 30 to 40 years. Pearson made a motion to extend the final plat approval for Lehigh Acres. Willhite seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7- to -0). 6.4 Floodplain Ordinance — Case TA10 -001 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to update the City's floodplain ordinance. McCool summarized the staff report. He explained that 30 years ago, the city made the deci- sion that the flood elevation would be 700 feet above mean sea level and staff is proposing to insert that language back into the description about the regulatory flood elevation on page 2, Subsection C, Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The flood elevation along this stretch of the River, as determined by the Corps of Engineers and FEMA, is about 697 feet and the ordinance requires one foot above that regulatory flood elevation, which would be about 698 feet. To ensure safety to homes, structures, and people, the city established the regulatory flood elevation of 700 feet, which is three feet above that base. He recommended approval of the ordinance amendment. Linse asked if the optional provisions listed on pages 7, 9, and 19 would be included in the ordinance. McCool responded yes. Rambacher asked if the changes in the proposed ordinance would adversely affect anybody. McCool responded no, it would remain consistent with what has been applied for 30 years. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Rambacher made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Linse seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -O vote). 6.5 Park Dedication Fees Discussion on if the City should increase park dedication fees. McCool summarized the staff report and asked for input from the Planning Commission. He stated that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed the park fees and recommended that the $4,200 park dedication fee should remain the same for 2010. Messick asked what the current value for unimproved land is. Blin responded that because there have been no recent land sales, it is very difficult to determine what that is. Rambacher asked if Woodbury, which charges $3,600 a unit, uses the same calculation we are using. Blin responded that the city does not know how they calculate their fees; they've been be- Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2010 Page 7 of 8 hind the curve of other cities for years. Rambacher asked if Woodbury's park dedication fee is more advantageous for developers to build, if the park dedication fees could be part of the reason that the development that was extended earlier has not started yet, and if the park dedication fees are a large portion of the city budget. Blin explained that state statute allows cities to require that anyone subdividing land set aside 10 percent of that land for park pur- poses, which is how most suburban communities have acquired land for park systems. State statute also says that in lieu of a land dedication, cities may require a cash contribution. Once those funds are paid, they go into a park trust fund and by statute can only be used for land acquisition and park development purposes; they can't even be used for park opera- tions. Rambacher asked if the amount charged for commercial land is in line with other cities. Blin responded that Cottage Grove's fee is a little more conservative than other cities. Rambacher asked if the park fees are a hindrance for development. Blin responded that he does not believe it is. A study of our development fees was done a year ago and they com- pare favorably with other cities in terms of having lower fees in most cases. Thiede noted that the cities surrounding Cottage Grove have lower park dedication fees and asked if staff thinks that the park dedication fees would potentially steer developers into other areas before they come to Cottage Grove. Blin responded he does not believe so; this is a relatively small part of development costs. Pearson asked how much is in the park trust fund. Blin responded about $600,000. Willhite noted that the developers are given the option of dedicating part of their land for parks, and in most cases, they have opted to pay the money. Rostad noted those fees are ultimately passed on to the consumer; the developer pays for it up front. Rambacher asked if there was any discussion on lowering the fees. Blin responded yes but given this uncertainty as to what land values are, the city does not want to come up short. He stated that next year they may be more concrete data. He also noted that the City has been very conservative in calculating average land values in the past. Messick asked about an or- dinance to tie park dedication fees to whatever the annual survey says. Blin responded that in the past the city surveyed land sales to come up with an average price, but there have been no land sales recently. Rostad stated that probably means there has been a significant decline in the value of land. Messick believes that once a fee or tax is established, it will never go down. However, he would urge that fee stay the same since there is no new data. Rambacher asked if the park dedication fees are reviewed annually. Blin responded yes. Willhite asked if there is more of benefit for developers to dedicate land than to pay park de- dication fees. Blin responded that it depends on where the land is. He explained that the city has a master park plan and if a development includes one of those parcels, the city would want it dedicated. Rambacher asked if the city is satisfied with the current number of parks. Blin responded that Cottage Grove has a fairly robust park system currently, which is due to decisions the city made 20 to 30 years ago to acquire land. We have more parkland per capita than what is recommended. We will have to continue to acquire parkland as new de- velopment occurs. The goal is to have all lots within a quarter of a mile of a neighborhood park and a half mile from a community park. Willhite commented that our park system is one of the things that are attractive in our community and parks are good selling points for developments. Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2010 Page 8 of 8 Rambacher made a motion to maintain the current park dedication fee of $4,200. Thiede seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items None Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2009 Thiede made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 23, 2009, meeting. Motion seconded by Linse. The motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of December and January City Council Meetings Blin updated the Commission on the City Council meetings held on December 2 and 16, 2009, and January 6 and 20, 2010. He noted that the City Council had approved the pro- posed wind generator on Geneva Avenue. He asked if the Commission wanted to revisit the wind generator ordinance requirements. Thiede suggested possibly looking at areas where wind turbines would be allowed that are adjacent to current or proposed residential devel- opments. Blin asked if it would be helpful if staff put together some areas where issues may arise in the future. rinse stated that his vote may have been different had the ordinance spe- cifically spelled out something about potential future residential growth. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Rambacher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Linse seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.