Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-11 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 8/11/10 a ®� 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 June 28, 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on June 28, 2010. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A BUDGETED AMOUNT $N /A N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE p� iC •1111 •� � •U DATE ® PLANNING 7/26/10 ❑ 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 June 28, 2010 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS ' 1 gyp.. ✓ F.' City Ad nistrator r'„ Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER • • • June 2. 2010 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on June 28, 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: Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Tracy Poncin, Jim Rostad, Chris Willhite Members Absent: Ken Briftain, Ryan Rambacher, Brian Pearson Staff Present: Councilperson Justin Olsen Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner 0313#M, • •.•- c. Willhite made a motion to approve the agenda. Rostad seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (5 -to -0 vote). •- • Messick asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. • • s 111111 1 1;11111 1 • • 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. HI MEMEW11 - 115reno AM ilreEMEFFUIT ••r ra.,- ` '.111 'l Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 2 of 12 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. Justin Bannworth, FMHC, 7400 Metro Boulevard, Suite 260, Edina, representing Clearwire, stated that they are trying to complete the final piece to provide coverage to the Cottage Grove area. Poncin asked how many carriers would be on the antenna and is there an opportunity to share. Bannworth stated that Clearwire has several different investor partners including Sprint, Google, and Comcast, so different outlets could potentially use the service. There is also opportunity to share the antenna. Poncin asked about cellular coverage. Bannworth stated that the design intention is for this tower to be co- locatable, which is why the re- quested height is 100 feet. Messick opened the public hearing. Brian Edwards, 9003 Jergen Avenue South, stated that he is speaking on behalf of a group of six families. He explained that they did not attend the neighborhood meeting because no one realized that they received a letter about that meeting. He asked about the frequency the tower would be operating at, what the transmission power is going to be, the visibility of the tower above the tree line, and how the tower would affect property values in the neighbor- hood. Their main concerns are technical, health, aesthetics, and affect on property values from this antenna. Bannworth stated that John Mullens, an RF engineer from Clearwire, was in attendance and could answer those questions. John Mullens, 6427 Hearthstone Avenue, Cottage Grove, stated that the service itself operates at 2.5 gigahertz and the dish antenna typically operates at 11 or 18 gigahertz depending on the spectrum and what licenses are available from the FCC. The panel antennas that provide the service operate at 5 watts, which is considerably lower than most cellular transmissions and is why they have more sites. Linse asked if regulatory agencies set maximum frequency and power. Mullens responded that the frequency is in a block that is owned by Clearwire. The output power is based on the equipment that they use and the equipment is not capable of transmitting any higher than that. If capacity deems it necessary, they may need to add a second transmitter at the same power but the total power in each carrier remains the same. He stated that there are guide- lines for maximum permissible exposure, and they run a study on every site they build to determine the amount of RF power that it is received by anyone in the area. In every study they have run on a tower similar to this, they are nowhere near the maximum allowed. He explained that he ran the study on this site and it was about 1/100 of 1 percent of the threshold. Bannworth stated from a visibility standpoint they looked at a large number of other locations around the area and felt the location selected best protects everybody's interest. They placed the pole as close to the tree line as possible to minimize the aesthetic impact. The tower will be constructed of a COR -TEN steel material, which over time oxidizes and changes to a natural brown color that will blend better with the backdrop of trees. The tower is three feet above what they need for RF to have contact with the next site. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 3 of 12 In response to the question regarding impact on property values, McCool stated that the city has not specifically studied that but he does not believe there has been any adverse impact from the antennas. Willhite stated when she was a realtor, she never used towers when con- sidering the value of a house. There has been more concern about power lines than anything else. Linse asked about the term of the lease and the estimated service life of the tower. Bannworth stated that the term of the lease has not yet been quite determined yet, but the leases are for 25 years at the other five sites they have in town. Rostad stated that condition #7 says no significant change in the use or design of the anten- nas and asked if that would cover the change in power if they need to upgrade. McCool re- sponded that what staff means in condition #7 is that are three sizes of dishes: 24 inch, 35 inch and 17 inch. If for some reason they felt that they need a bigger dish, such as going from a 24 inch to a 35 inch, the city would accept that, but for anything bigger than that they would need to amend their conditional use permit. The same thing applies with the pole antennas. It would not be based on power, as that is regulated by the FCC. Willhite asked when the first pole was erected in the city. McCool responded about 1993 or 1994. Blin stated that the Federal Communications Act prohibits cities from overly restricting these types of communications towers. Cities can guide the location of these towers but ef- fectively have to find a place for them. He noted that the typical microwave in residential kitchens operates at a higher wattage than these antennas do. No one else spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Linse made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed below. Willhite seconded. 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building Offi- cial, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Director prior to the commencement of any construction activities. 2. The applicant must schedule a pre - construction meeting with the Public Works Di- rector before work can begin. 3. No construction or installation of equipment on the subject sites may commence un- til the applicant/permittee has entered into a lease agreement with the City for leasing city -owned land or buildings, access, antenna installation on the water tower, and all other details recommended by the City Attorney. » MOM Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 4 of 12 the building permit. City specified manufactured colored coaxial cable will be re- quired (painted coaxial cable will not be accepted). 7. No significant change in the use or design of the antennas may be made without the Public Works Director's consent Minor modifications to service or use may be con- sidered if such changes will not cause the antennas to violate the performance stan- dards set forth in the City Codes or the conditions of this conditional use permit. 8. Utilities must be installed underground as approved by the Public Works Director. S. The applicant must submit detailed construction plans and specifications of the pro- posed antenna facilities and related equipment to the Department of Public Works for review. All proposed plans and specifications including the location and attachment of the proposed antenna equipment will require final approval from the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. A landscape plan must be prepared for the city's approval and must include a va- riety of evergreens on the west and south sides of the proposed fence. The plant- ings shall be installed before a final inspection of the tower is performed. If any of the plantings die or are damaged during the terms of the lease for the tower, they shall be replaced by the owner of the tower. 11. The six -foot high composite privacy fence must be painted a color that matches the exterior wall of the baseball equipment building located southwest of the tower. The applicant or the owner of the tower is responsible for maintaining this fence. The gates must also be constructed of the same composite materials and screen the equipment at the base of the tower from public view. 12. The tower must be constructed of weathering steel, best known under the trademark COR -TEN steel. 13. The applicant or owner of the tower must enter into a lease agreement with the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 14. The applicant or owner of the tower is responsible for any repairs or maintenance of the paved access drive between the Woodridge Park parking lot and the proposed tower site. ME= 10,000 . «.y of '• to the ongoing of PFC contamination at the 3M Cottage Grove i • • Road. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. A letter from Neil Convery, 10861 Kingsborough Trail, dated June 24, 2010, was distributed to the Commission. McCool explained that Mr. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 5 of 12 Convery's letter pertains to 3M's clean -up process for PFCs and nothing pertinent to the proposed private access drive project. Staff reported that Mr. Convery will be contacted and information about the PFC clean -up work will be provided to him. Willhite asked what material will be used to restore Area D9 and if that material is contami- nated with PFCs. McCool explained that the excess soil materials from the excavation work to improve the private access drive to the East Cove will be transported to and used as res- toration material at the D9 site. The material from the roadway project is not contaminated with any hazards materials. Pat McGrann, representing 3M Cottage Grove, stated that 9,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of material must be hauled to Site D9 to complete the restoration of that area. Instead of haul- ing this amount of material from some other off -site location, the excess material from the access road project will be used. The existing access drive has a 25 percent grade at the steepest segment. The proposed project will reduce this grade to approximately 12 percent to provide safer motor vehicle access to the proposed well houses and the East Cove. Linse asked how the stormwater pollution prevention permit is monitored. McGrann ex- plained that the SWPP permit is already in place for the proposed private access drive im- provement project. The contractor that completed the hazardous waste removal for Sites D1, D2, and D9 will be the same contractor for the road project. Vegetated areas disturbed during the construction process will be re- vegetated with a seed mix that will begin growing within five to six days. A private contractor inspects all the erosion control and monitors sur- face water runoff after each rain event. Inspection reports are prepared daily and a copy is given to the City. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Linse made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions listed below. Rostad seconded the motion. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 6 of 12 6. A copy of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general storm water permit from the MPCA must be given to the City. 7. 3M will provide a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a copy of all the erosion control inspections to the City Engineer. Motion passed unanimously (5 -to -0 vote). 6.3 Wille Driveway Setback Variance — Case V10 -009 Friedrich and Hilde Wille have applied for a variance to the six -foot side yard setback re- quirement to allow a driveway to be one -foot from the side property line at 8226 Innsdale Avenue South. (Public hearing continued from May 24, 2010, Planning Commission meeting.) Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. A letter from Megan and Jeremiah Menke, 8461 — 81st Street, dated June 26, 2010, was received and a copy of the letter was distributed to the Commission. Blin reported that the Menkes requested that if the variance is granted, that there is a requirement the existing six -foot high privacy fence be maintained. Willhite asked what the repercussion is if the property owner does not maintain a fence if it is a condition of approval for the variance. Blin explained that if the applicant does not comply with the conditions of approval, they would be required to remove that portion of the concrete pad that is within six feet of the side property line. Linse asked how common it is for the City, when approving variances, to include conditions requiring a fence. Blin stated that City ordinances permit the City to impose certain condi- tions and safeguards to mitigate adverse impacts, and these types of conditions are typically applied to most variance approvals. Past approvals of some variance applications have been granted because certain landscape screening was proposed. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion to recommend approval of the variance application, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below with an added condition that the privacy fence be maintained. Poncin seconded the motion. A. The parking pad is along the .- yard . yar of .. neigh and the B. A privacy fence has been * on the pad from the pr adjacent C. There are other g driveways and pa rking lar setback from side property lines. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 7 of 12 Conditions of Approval 1. The property owner must obtain a building permit for the driveway. 2. The property owner must maintain a privacy fence along that portion of the parking pad that is six feet or c loser to the side property line. Motion passed unanimously (5 -to -0 vote). 6.4 Fairbanks Porch Variance — Case V10 -018 Kurt Fairbanks, 6592 Hadley Avenue South, has applied for a variance to allow a porch addition to be constructed 25 feet from the rear property line when the required rear yard setback is 35 feet. McCool summarized the staff report. He noted that the applicant has provided a letter from the property owner immediately behind his lot stating that they are not opposed to applicants building an enclosed porch. McCool recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Willhite asked if there are any homeowner covenants regarding additions in the subdivision. McCool responded no. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Poncin asked if there is a deck proposed on the back of the porch and what is the setback for decks. McCool responded that a deck would be allowed to go within eight feet of the rear lot line as long as it had no wall or roof structure. Kurt Fairbanks, 6592 Hadley Avenue South, stated that the reason they want a covered deck is that this is a new development with no trees and a lot of sun in the back yard. Rostad made a motion to recommend approval of the variance application, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Poncin seconded. Findings of Fact. A. The lot is only 126 feet deep on the south side property line that is perpendicular to the street. N. The retaining wall in the rear yard of the property and resulting grade separation between the proposed addition and rear adjacent property minimizes the scale of the setback deviation. C. The proposed structure does not minimize the view of adjoining neighbors of any open space, property's D. The proposed enclosed porch will make the home more efficient and livable and in- Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 8 of 12 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 endanger the public's safety, or diminish property values within the neighborhood. Conditions of Approval: 1. The exterior materials and color for the enclosed porch must be similar to the prin- cipal structure. 2. The property owner must obtain all required building and electrical permits. 3. The rear yard shall be landscaped with a variety of deciduous and evergreen vege- tation to screen the structure. Motion passed unanimously (5 -to -0 vote). 6.5 Matthews Garage Height Variance — Case V10 -020 Daniel and Kristin Matthews have applied for a variance to the 18 -foot maximum height for accessory structures to allow a 19 -foot high garage at 7729 Jeffery Avenue South. (The public hearing will be held at the City Council meeting on July 21, 2010.) Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. He reported that letters were re- ceived from Eric and Elizabeth Svedin and Larry and Connie Schyma, who are adjacent property owners. The Svedin letter states no objection to the request provided the following conditions are agreed to: the structure be used only for storage and hobby purposes; be used for personal reasons and not business reasons; the staircase on the west side of the building to provide access to the storage area not include a deck or larger area where people could gather; access to the structure not be via a paved driveway; and the applicant agree to plant at least two trees on the west side for screening purposes. The applicant is agreeable to all of those conditions. The Schyma letter raised many of the same issues, but also asked that the stairway be moved to the east side of the structure. Willhite asked if it is possible to put the staircase on the east side or on the inside. Dan Matthews, 7729 Jeffery Avenue South, stated that due to code requirements the main entry door is on the east side, and there are slope and water runoff issues or the east side. To put the staircase inside, they would need to change the truss spacing. Linse asked if there should be a couple inches added to the 19.2 feet to account for roof shingles. Blin stated that staff will determine the height with the sheathing and shingles. Linse asked if the garage height was less than 18 feet, they would not need a variance with any conditions. Blin responded yes. Messick stated that as guidance to send to the Council, the way the property is sloped shows hardship for the applicant. Since there would not have been any conditions if the structure was under the 18 feet, the variance should be approved without those conditions. Blin stated that the city does enforce the home occupation ordinances. He asked the appli- cant to address the request for additional trees. Matthews stated that they do plan on plant- ing a couple of trees on the west side of the property. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 9 of 12 Rostad asked if the step structure on the west side of the house falls within setback require- ments. Blin responded yes. Messick asked if there were any public comments on the application. Eric Svedin, 7725 Jeffery Avenue South, stated that he submitted his letter because he wanted to address some concerns he has about the building. He stated that they have lived in their home for 20 years and built their landscaping around the privacy of their yard. Matthews has been cooperative and agreed to plant some trees to help obstruct the view of the building from their home and pool, but the biggest concern he has is the impact a large structure next door would have on his property value. He stated that Matthews agreed to to plant the trees in a timely manner. He added that he does not want to hold the project up, and asked that this get worked out so Matthews can finish the garage. Larry Schyma, 7677 Jensen Avenue South, stated that the reason he brought up moving the staircase to the east side is so his neighbor has some privacy. He stated that he was never approached about the building being built. He expressed concern about the impact of prop- erty values due to the size and height of garages being built and other code enforcement is- sues he has seen in the neighborhood. Messick stated that there is a height limitation of 18 feet and the only reason the Planning Commission is addressing this is because the struc- ture is a foot too tall. He encouraged Schyma to contact the City to discuss the code enforcement issues. Willhite stated that her concern about the garage is that one of her friends had the same is- sue with a larger garage being built next door and the friend had no recourse. She was asking the questions ensure that everything was going well between the neighbors. Counciimember Olsen stated that from the Council's perspective, if anyone has concerns about property issues to visit with the Councilmembers. He stated that the Council is com- mitted to ensuring all properties in the city are kept to the highest standards enforceable by city code. Poncin made a motion to recommend approval of the variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Willhite seconded. Findings of Fact: A. Due to the elevation drop in the backyard of the property, the slab elevation of the accessory structure is significantly lower than the first floor elevations of the applicant's home and those of the neighboring properties. B. Without measurement equipment or references, a 1.2 -foot elevation deviation of the height of the accessory structure is imperceptible to the naked eye from the property lines. C. The applicant's lot and adjacent lots are populated with mature deciduous and evergreen trees that provide screening of the structure. D. The structure is not readily visible from the street or adjacent properties. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 10 of 12 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 endanger the public's safety, or diminish property values within the neighborhood. Conditions of Approval: 1. The property owner must revise the existing building permit application prior to the commencement of any additional construction begins. 2. Erosion control measures must be utilized during construction. 3. The exterior materials and color for the proposed accessory structure must be similar to the principal structure. 4. Tree protection is required during construction for trees not on the structure building pad. Motion passed unanimously (5 -to -0 vote). 6.6 Subdivision Ordinance Amendment — Case TA10 -017 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for an amendment to the City's Subdivision Ordin- ance that allows developers the opportunity to construct the public improvements with their project. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the ordinance amend- ment. Messick asked if the City would see a savings in cost and time if developers construct the utilities. McCool responded that the city's time was billed through the assessment process, so the developer paid that cost. Most developers, particularly the national builders, want the option to construct the public improvements themselves because they have better control as to when the work gets done. Linse asked if other cities use a similar structure as this. McCool answered yes, noting that some cities do not provide for the option of petitioning the city and the developer has to do the work. Staff believes some developers may want the option to petition the city to construct the public improvements. Messick asked if the cost savings would be more for the developer. McCool stated the developer controls the timeframe and contractor. Rostad asked if developers have to acquire the off -site surety, on -site surety, and the engi- neering /administrative escrow. McCool responded yes. He explained that the on -site surety covers individual lot requirements such as tree planting, sod, driveways, sidewalks, etc. The off -site surety is for public improvements, such as street lighting, streets, curbs, etc. Linse asked if the sureties referenced in Title 10 -3 -4A are defined somewhere else within the ordinance. McCool stated that it is defined in lines 124 through 148 of the draft ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 11 of 12 Poncin asked if the city would lose consistency in design and materials if developers do their own street lights and sidewalks. McCool responded that the city has a set of templates with specifications on construction details that they have to comply with. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Messick stated that he supports the ordinance amendment because it will reduce the costs for developers while giving the city control. Willhite made a motion to recommend approval of the variance application, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Poncin seconded. Motion passed unanimously (5 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Organizational Business Messick stated that the Planning Commission needs to elect a Vice Chair and Secretary. He noted that there is a quorum present but asked if the election needs to be held at this meet- ing. He suggested holding the election at the next meeting when more Commission members will be present. Messick made a motion to continue the organizational meeting and election of Vice Chair and Secretary to the next meeting. Willhite seconded. Motion passed unanim- ously. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2010 Rostad made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2010, meeting. Motion seconded by Willhite. The motion passed unanimously on a 5 -to -0 vote. 9.1 Recap of May City Council Meetings Blin updated the Commission on the City Council meetings held on June 2 and 16, 2010. He also provided an update on the planning and design for a new public safety /city hall facility. The Planning Commission will be involved in reviewing plans for that facility. The Council has determined that the new facility will be located on the Ravine Park site, near the Wash- ington County South Service Center building. Willhite asked if other locations such as the area on County Road 19 north of the mansion were considered. Blin responded that in the preliminary site selection, some sites in that area were looked at but it was thought that that area is on the periphery of the community plus there are no utilities and the roadway network is not in place. Willhite expressed concern about the location selected as it is part of the Ra- vine Park. Blin stated that the area that would be developed is the open level area adjacent to County Road 19 that previously was planted with crops. That land would be replaced with Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010 Page 12 of 12 land that the County believes is better suited for park purposes as it is part of the geographi- cal feature of the East Ravine itself. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Wilhite made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Linse seconded. Motion passed un- animously (5 -to -® vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.