Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-06 PACKET 04.A.iii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 10/6/10 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 August 23, 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on August 23, 2010. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $NIA N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 9/27/10 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on August 23, 2010 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS City Administrator Date ..... COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER . • • - • •; August A A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on August 23, 2010, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. • e] To - Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1 f i[ w Members Present: Ken Brittain, Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Brian Pearson, Tracy Poncin, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, Brian Treber Members Absent: Chris Willhite Staff Present: Councilmember Justin Olsen Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). t•- ,•, Messick asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. 11 ilill 111 1!111 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. t - . M, I T. . Blin explained that to conform to City Code, the rules were changed to read that the Chair is appointed by the City Council rather than elected by the Commission. Messick asked if there were any amendments or adjustments recommended by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2010 Page 2 of 4 Poncin made a motion to adopt the 2010 Planning Commission Rules. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Outdoor Equipment/Sales Ordinance McCool summarized the staff report and asked for direction from the Commission. He stated there are four options: to allow as accessory uses, allow as accessory uses with perfor- mance standards, allow as a conditional use where there would be a public hearing process, or to prohibit them. He stated that last month the Planning Commission asked about the types of movies allowed to be rented. Staff checked with the City Attorney who identified that there is a state statute prohibiting certain types of rental display that would be harmful to mi- nors. Red Box stated that they do not provide those kinds of movie rentals. Olsen reported that this issue was also brought before the Economic Development Authority, and the EDA supported allowing them as an accessory use with performance standards. Poncin stated that she concurs with the EDA to allow it as a permitted use and suggested similar standards as other communities such as limiting square footage area. Rostad asked if the ordinance could be structured so a DVD rental machine or pop machine would need to be located adjacent to the building, and items such as firewood and windshield washer fluid could be stored between lanes and on gas pump islands. Blin stated that could be done through the performance standards. Olsen stated that was also brought up by the EDA. Treber stated that he favors the conditional use permit process to give the City more control in terms of future types of vending equipment. Messick asked if there was a plan to draft an ordinance. Blin responded that staff would come back to the next meeting with a proposed ordinance amendment. He stated that staff is looking for direction from the Commission on how that ordinance should be drafted. Brittain stated that he agrees it is useful at times to have conditional use permits for certain things, particularly items with which the City may have concerns. He stated that having it as a permitted accessory use with performance standards seems reasonable, but asked to see a list of some things that might be questionable from other cities. Blin stated staff would try to provide that at the next meeting. Linse asked if this was an allowed permitted accessory use with performance standards, could the ordinance be amended in the future if something comes up that wasn't intended. Blin responded that the ordinance could be amended but anything that pre- existed that amendment would then be a legal nonconforming use. Messick stated that he is leaning toward a permitted accessory use with performance stan- dards because there are things that need to be stored outside, such as propane. If there are items that other cities have run into issues with, those should also be addressed in our ordinance. McCool reported that the city received a zoning text amendment request from All Saints Lutheran Church requesting that the City Code be amended to allow for columbariums as an accessory use within residential zones. He displayed examples of columbariums, which al- low for urns to be placed within niches. He asked for direction from the Commission on what Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2010 Page 3 of 4 city ordinances should require as part of this type of use in residential zones. Blin stated that the City Attorney is looking into statutory requirements for cemeteries in Minnesota, and she will help us determine how much of those statutory requirements apply to something like this. Messick stated that the only concern he has is what happens if the church moves or closes. Blin stated that staff asked that question of All Saints, and they responded that if they were to move, they could take the columbarium with them. There is still a question about what happens if the religious organization goes out of existence. Rambacher asked if they want this on their property. McCool responded yes. Brittain stated that it is an amenity that would add value to the community and is becoming more prevalent with religious institutions. He thinks this is something the City should definitely consider. The ordinance should cover how to best integrate columbariums within the community, what would happen if the church went of existence, and appropriate screening or fencing. He asked staff to see how other com- munities protect these areas from vandalism or other issues that may be detrimental. Poncin added that she would be interested in seeing what restrictions the City has on cemeteries as well as what is required if a cemetery goes out of business. Linse asked if the columbarium would hold more than one person's urn or would there be in- dividual ones for each person. McCool responded that the columbarium would have niches that would hold the urns. Linse questioned whether it is really something that should come before the Planning Commission because cemeteries are covered by state statutes. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 26, 2010 Rostad made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 26, 2010, meeting. Motion seconded by Linse. The motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 9.1 Recap of August City Council Meetings Blin updated the Commission on the City Council meetings held in August 2010. He reported that the variance request by the Solbergs for a rear yard setback was approved by the Council. He then stated that on the topic of variances, in a recent Supreme Court decision on a Minnetonka case for a garage variance, the Supreme Court essentially told cities through- out the state that the tests they have been applying to variances is wrong. He explained that a case a few years ago set the standard for what constitutes a hardship. The previous test had been that an individual could not use the property in a reasonable manner if city ordin- ances had been applied. The Supreme Court found that was the wrong statutory language and that the correct hardship test should be that the entire property could not be put to a reasonable use under the ordinance requirements. The distinction is that the City has to find that the property cannot be used for that purpose with the ordinance requirements. This makes it much more restrictive and difficult to issue variances. The 2011 Legislature may rewrite the statute to allow more flexibility for cities. Staff will bring this to applicants and the Commission's attention on future variances. Messick asked if the city attorney could put to- gether a one -page advisory letter that would help the Commission with the standards in the meantime. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2010 Page 4 of 4 9.2 Public Safety /City Hall Building Update Blin reported that the City has hired Wold Architects to design the new Public Safety /City Hall building. They are currently meeting with the various departments to assess space needs and how it needs to be arranged. On September 9, the group that is working on this project will tour four or five other recently constructed city halls. Messick asked what items on this project are under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Blin responded that a site plan review is required, so the Commission will be asked to review both the site plan and architecture for the building. Staff will provide periodic updates as those plans start to get d rawn. 9.3 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.4 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Rambacher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Poncin seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m.