Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-07 PACKET 04.A.ii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 7/7/10 ® 1 -- Community Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Howard Blin I*YreF y_nItyCr 7 :a COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on May 24, 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on May 24, 2010. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A BUDGETED AMOUNT ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 6/28/10 ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS $N /A N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on May 24, 2010 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS i' City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER • - • - May 24, 1 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on May 24, 2010, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Brittain, Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Brian Pearson, Tracy Poncin, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, Chris Willhite Members Absent: None Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner r» • �. Rambacher made a motion to approve the agenda. Pearson seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). EST r, 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 capac- ity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he ex- plained 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. 2 pproximately 15 cubic yards of • il at the Mississippi Dunes Golf driving ran 6611 1 • Street South. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010 Page 2 of 10 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. Messick opened the public hearing. Dennis Nietz, 10351 Grey Cloud Trail, General Manager of Mississippi Dunes Golf Links, stated he would answer any questions on the proposed project. No one else spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Rambacher made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and grading permit subject to the conditions listed below. Poncin seconded. 1. The conditional use permit will expire on June 1, 2012. 2. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be ob- tained prior to grading activity. 3. All erosion control measures must be in place prior to grading activity. 4. A preconstruction meeting with City representative must be completed prior to grading activity. 5. A financial guarantee, in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit, of 150 per- cent of erosion control costs, necessary site restoration, and street sweeping must be posted with the City before a grading permit is issued. 6. The City has the authority to revise the grading permit if on -site conditions or changing conditions make the original grading permit ineffective. The City may suspend or revoke a grading permit whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or is found to be in violation of any local, state, or federal ordinance or regulation. The City will provide written notice of the intent to suspend or revoke the permit based upon the above criteria. 7. Finished grades must have a minimum topsoil of at least four inches. 8. All exposed soils resulting from grading activities must be seeded within 10 days of site grading completion. The City may approve an extension of this deadline, but in no case shall site restoration be delayed beyond October 1. 9. Any grading which creates erosion or problems flood 1• 1 • andlor negatively drainage must be corrected by the land owner or operator 10. Temporary basins may be required as part of erosion and sediment control during construction operations. The duration of the basins is dependent upon the time o f excava and re of the site. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010 Page 3 of 10 11. Land shall be developed in phases of workable size such that adequate erosion and sediment control measures can be provided as construction progresses. The smallest practical area of land can be exposed at any one period of time. 12. For soil stockpiles greater than 10 cubic yards, the toe of the stockpile must be at least 30 feet from any road or drainage channel. Erosion from stockpiles shall be controlled by placing appropriate barriers around the pile as necessary to contain sediments. If these measures do not adequately control the erosion, the piles shall be stabilized by mulching, vegetative cover, tarps, or other means. Any stockpile that is intended to be left over winter must have a tempo- rary vegetative cover established and adequate sediment control measures sur- rounding its perimeter by October 31. 13. If required by the City engineer, a temporary rock pad entrance must be installed at all points where vehicles exit and must be constructed prior to com- mencement of grading activity. The rock pad is to be maintained to accommo- date continuous removal of mud from vehicles. The rock pad must meet design criteria, standards, and specifications found in the MPCA publication "Protect- ing Water Quality in Urban Areas." 14. The landowner or operator must sweep 103rd Street as needed to remove any sediment and /or debris that may accumulate due to vehicles and equipment entering and exiting the site. The City may require street sweeping within 24 hours of verbal or written notification. If the street is not swept, the City will clean the street and bill the owner or operator, as determined by the Public Works Director. 15. Corrective action and landscape restoration for erosion or sedimentation prob- lems on neighboring properties, or any location other than the permitted site, must commence within 24 hours of written or verbal notification. 16. Burying organic material or construction debris is prohibited. 17. Site grading activities cannot occur between 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. 18. The landowner and operator must allow City staff to enter the site to inspect the erosion and sediment control measures required by the permit. 21. If bedrock removal is required during grading, additional review of the grading operations by the city will be required Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010 Page 4 of 10 22. Crushing rock is prohibited. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.2 Luedtke Garage Variance — Case V10 -010 Mark Luedtke has applied for a variance to allow a 936 square foot garage to be located in front of the principal structure at 11800 Lockridge Avenue South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Burbank stated that he received a comment from Trish Thompson, 11733 Leeward Avenue. He read from the letter noting that she would not oppose the proposed structure as long as the tree coverage along the property line would not be destroyed so that the large structure would still be screened and that it only be used for personal storage. Rambacher asked if the main reason they did not add on to the existing garage because the well is there. Mark Luedtke, 11800 Lockridge Avenue South, stated that they were not able to add onto the existing garage because of the location of the well and the large trees in the area. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Rambacher asked what the structure would be used for. Luedtke responded it would be used for storage and as a workshop. Rambacher asked how many trees would be removed. Luedtke stated one significant tree and a couple smaller trees will need to be removed. Pearson asked if there is more tree coverage on the other side of the driveway. Luedtke re- sponded that there is about 80 feet of woods between the structure and the street. Rambacher asked about screening of the structure from the neighbor on the adjacent side. Luedtke responded that area is not as heavily wooded and there is a pretty good open space between their house and the back of the neighbor's house. Poncin made a motion to recommend approval of the variance application, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Linse seconded. Findinqs of Fact A. The existing home is located on the back one -third of the lot. Placing the proposed accessory structure behind the structure is prohibitive due to steep slopes, mature trees, and existing surface water drainage swales. B. The lot is heavily wooded and the structure is not readily visible from the street. C. The adjacent principal structures are closer to the road than the proposed acces- sory structure location. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010 Page 5 of 10 D. 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. E. 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. F. The property owner's well, septic drainfield, and alternative locations limit other potential sites for the accessory structure. G. The proposed location of the accessory building minimizes the number of trees that need to be removed for its construction. Conditions of Approval 1. The temporary accessory structure on the site shall be removed. 2. The property owner must complete a building permit application and be issued a building permit before any construction begins. 3. Erosion control measures must be utilized during construction. 4. The exterior materials and color for the proposed accessory structure must be similar to the principal structure. 5. Tree protection is required during construction for trees not on the structure building pad. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.3 Huesman Porch Variance — Case V10 -011 Mike and JoKay Huesman have applied for a variance to allow a three - season porch on an existing deck to be closer to the rear property line than the required 35 feet at 9014 Jasmine Court South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Poncin asked if there is a limitation on the percent of the yard that can filled with structures. McCool responded that there is a limitation in some zoning districts; this property is located in the R -3 zoning district, which has a 50 percent building coverage limitation. Other zoning districts may have a limitation on impervious surface coverage. Poncin asked if the appli- cants have less than 50 percent. McCool responded yes. Linse asked what the building permit fee would be. McCool responded that because they started construction without a building permit, the fee would be doubled. In this case a very rough estimate would be a couple hundred dollars times two. Linse asked if there would be any repercussions for the contractor. McCool responded it would be the double building Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010 Page 6 of 10 permit fee. He stated that the Building Department has inspected the work that has been done so far; for the most part it is compliant with all building code requirements. Rambacher stated that his concern is setting a precedent for granting approval after work has started without the proper permits. He asked how the City became aware of this project. McCool replied that the city received an inquiry from a neighboring property owner. He re- ported that the applicant provided letters from all adjoining property owners stating that they did not object to construction of the three - season porch. Poncin asked the applicant why they did not get a building permit. Gordon Nesvig, 7501 80th Street South, stated that he is an attorney helping the Huesman's with this process. He ex- plained that they had a permit for the deck but did not realize that it was critical that before they went any farther they would have to apply for the additional permit for the porch. They intended to get the permit before they finished the project. They did stop construction as soon as this came about. He stated that the staff report was complete and accurate. Rostad asked if the other structures on the property were properly permitted. McCool re- sponded that the 20 -foot by 50 -foot building was constructed in 2006 and a building permit was obtained before it was constructed. There is no record on the 13 -foot by 13 -foot shed, but the property owner explained that building existed when they purchased the property. Rostad asked if there would be a precedent set by doubling the permit fee. McCool re- sponded that is typical for projects that are started without a permit, per city ordinance. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Linse made a motion to recommend approval of the variance application, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Brittain seconded. Findings of Fact A. The principal structure is centrally located on the irregularly- shaped lot. B. There is an existing elevated deck in the proposed location of the addition. The ex- isting three - season porch is on top of the existing deck. C. The height of the three - season porch is less than the 9,000 square foot accessory structure that is 91 feet from the rear lot line as compared to the proposed 99 -foot setback for the three - season porch. D. The two -car attached garage is on the front of the house, which generally provides more open space along both side yards as compared to the adjoining properties. E. The existing three- season porch will not adversely impact the view of adjoining neighbors of any parks, open space, or wetlands. F. The existing three season porch will make the home more efficient and livable and increase the property's market value. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010 Page 7 of 10 G. 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. Conditions of Approval 1. The exterior materials and color for the 18 -foot by 18 -foot three season porch must be similar to the principal structure. 2. The property owner must obtain a building permit from the City and pay twice the building permit fee amount because most of the construction was completed with- out a building permit. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.4 Concrete Mixing Plant — Case CUP10 -012 PCI, LLC has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a concrete mixing plant on the northwest corner of Highway 61 and County Road 19. (The public hearing will be held at the City Council meeting on June 2, 2010.) McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Messick asked what the full name of the applicant is. McCool responded Pavement Concrete Inc. Brittain asked if there is a plan for tree replacement in the northern area of the site. McCool responded yes, noting that the property to the north is part of a phased grading plan. The first phase is in the north /northeast of the property site, and some tree removal was part of the first phase. A new application will be required for them to proceed with the next phase to the west. They have inventoried the trees in the wooded area, and as part of city ordinance requirements, tree mitigation would be required either on site or as payment for tree plant- ings off the property in the future. Brittain asked about traffic levels from this concrete plant. McCool responded that he does not have any specific numbers but it will probably be quite extensive. Brittain asked if there would be any additional traffic control planned at that inter- section. McCool responded that the city will monitor the traffic conditions, and if necessary require some type of traffic control. Linse asked who would pay for traffic control. McCool re- sponded it would be their cost. Rambacher asked if all the truck traffic on East Point Douglas Road has caused any wear and tear that should be mitigated by the companies doing the hauling. McCool responded that the city is monitoring that, and any damage caused to the roadway will have to be repaired. Linse asked if they doing site grading activities or is this proposal just an accessory use. McCool stated that the six -acre site that the concrete mixing plant would be located on has been graded so site preparation is not needed, but the property to the north is being graded, and they are removing excess material for future development. The contractor for the High- way 61 resurfacing project will probably be using this material as part of the mixing batch plant. Linse then asked if the time restrictions for the site grading activity also apply to the concrete batch plant. McCool responded that the approvals for the concrete batch plant will Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010 Page 8 of 10 expire in December 2012. The site grading on the property to north will continue beyond 2012 but another conditional use permit will be required for those future phases. Linse asked if the hours of operation for the concrete batch plant would have the same time restrictions as the site grading operation. McCool responded that it is prohibited to operated from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and he would check to see if they could operate on Saturdays and Sun- days. Linse asked if there been any thought to increasing the hours of operation of the mix plant to shorten the time period of the Highway 61 construction project. He suggested changing the prohibition on operations to 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Messick asked if there were any public comments on the application. No one spoke. Brittain stated that with respect to the hours of operation, he understands Linse's point and on this particular site, he would not disagree. However, he would like something in the record regarding the fact that this is a remote location that lends itself to extending the hours some- what. He wants to ensure that this would not set a precedent. Rostad made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed below. Poncin seconded. 1. All conditions of Resolution No. 2009 -012, which approved a grading permit for the site, will apply to this conditional use permit. 2. The concrete batch plant must be removed from the site no later than December 31, 2010. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Electronic Sign Ordinance Discussion Burbank summarized the memo regarding proposed changes to the dynamic sign ordinance. He stated that the City is working on a new reader board sign for the River Oaks Golf Course. One concern was if 24 square feet of copy area was large enough to be seen by vehicles driving by on the highway. Staff talked with the city engineers and sign display com- panies to figure out what would be a realistic size. He explained that from a static position, four -inch lettering on the sign would be visible at 100 feet, 10 -inch letters at 250 feet, and 16- inch letters at 350 feet. At 60 miles an hour, a nine -inch letter sign would be visible from 225 feet away for two to two and a half seconds. The recommendation is to keep the sign height the same and increase the width to 48 square feet for businesses located along the highway only. That would allow for two taller lines of copy that would be readable at the faster speeds. Dynamic signs on billboards would still be prohibited. Rambacher asked if there would be any liability to the city for having a big reader board sign along a highway with speeds at 60 -plus miles an hour. He expressed concern that this would be close to being a billboard, which is prohibited. He asked if River Oaks expects to see in- creased business at River Oaks due to this sign. Burbank responded that that the golf course believes additional signage would help both their golf and banquet operations. Rambacher asked if there is mock up so the Commission can see what the sign would look Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010 Page 9 of 10 like. Burbank responded that the design has not been finalized yet. The original design with the 24 square feet is similar to what the ice arena has proposed for their signage. The pro- posed larger sign would be a bigger box and extend the monument horizontally. McCool explained that billboards are generally hundreds of square feet in size. He stated the proposed ordinance amendment would have a maximum reader board size of 48 square feet, remain as a monument sign at ground level and not elevated on a pole, and be limited to businesses that fronted along Highway 61 right -of -way. Rostad asked if there has been any further study regarding the dangers of dynamic bill- boards. Burbank responded yes. McCool explained that this would be a static sign without scrolling, flashing, or videos on the sign. Rostad stated that if the reader board signs are only allowed to display a static image, he believes a larger sign area would not be a problem. Pearson asked if businesses such as McDonald's would be considered frontage along Highway 61. McCool responded they do have frontage along the highway, but if they wanted this type of monument sign, they would have to remove their existing pylon sign. Rostad asked if businesses along a frontage road such as Menards and the VFW would be prohibited from having the larger sign. McCool stated that would be part of this discussion and asked for feedback from the Commission on how to structure the ordinance. Brittain stated that this is a slippery slope and he is not a big fan of the electronic signs. He stated that people like the nice Cottage Grove, small town feel, and he is concerned that there would be too many of these types of signs and it could open the door for dynamic bill- board signs. Rambacher stated that was a discussion at a previous meeting about possibly changing the accesses for businesses on Highway 61. McCool responded that there are no planned changes to the River Oaks ingress or egress; there are other median crossings along High- way 61 that are primarily residential in character that would be closed and turn lane changes but no closures of median crossings for businesses. Burbank stated that the current com- prehensive plan does identify the long -term frontage roads along one or both sides of that area but that has nothing to do with this current Highway 61 project. Messick stated that it may be beneficial to see the proposed changes so the Commission can discuss the amendment and ask for public comment. Brittain asked about the timing for this sign and if the ice arena sign would constructed at the same time. Burbank responded that the goal was to get them bid at the same time to get some cost savings. Staff will bring the mock up and design to the next the discussion. He suggested regarding the frontage /non - frontage issue that the Commission look at the dis- tance from a principal arterial. Brittain asked if staff could provide a map identifying which particular parcels would have access based on these proposed changes. Rostad noted that the high school has a reader board sign. Brittain asked if the ice arena would have a larger sign than the school. Burbank stated it would have the same size board. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010 Page 10 of 10 Linse asked why the Commission is discussing amending the ordinance versus considering a variance for the golf course. McCool responded that staff is looking to have the same stan- dards for all other properties that may fall in that same category. Poncin stated that in one of the last revisions of the sign ordinance, the Commission talked about prohibiting reader board signs along Highway 61 and asked about identifying exactly what that language is currently and what the proposed revision would be. McCool stated that staff would proceed with preparing an ordinance amendment and establishing a public hearing date. Willhite asked if there would be any changes to the location of the highway going past River Oaks when the roadwork is completed. Burbank responded that the road is staying in the same spot; it is just being topped over. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2010 Pearson made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2010, meeting. Motion seconded by Linse. The motion passed unanimously on a 7 -to -0 vote. -u• 9.1 Recap of May City Council Meetings McCool updated the Commission on the City Council meetings held on May 5 and 19, 2010. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rambacher asked for an update on Home Depot. Burbank stated that several staff members and the mayor are at the retail show in Las Vegas to promote the city to businesses. They brought information on different facilities and properties. 9.4 Organizational Meeting and Election of Officers McCool stated that Council Liaison Justin Olsen will make a recommendation on the ap- pointment of the Chair. Once the Chair is appointed, the election of the other officers and the organizational meeting can be done.