Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-01 PACKET 04.A.ii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM DATE 12/1/10 • • Is • - •• •' ' 1 , t 11111 Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on *ctober 1 Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on October 25, 2010. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 11/22/10 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ F a ministrator z Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: APPROVE E I D OTHER City • Cottage Grove Planning Commissior October 25, 2010 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on October 25, 2010, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. 1- 1_0 19 M6617i Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Brittain, Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Tracy Poncin, Ryan Rambacher, Brian Treber, Chris Willhite Members Absent: Brian Pearson, Jim Rostad Staff Present: Councilmember Justin Olsen Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Willhite made a motion to approve the agenda. Rambacher seconded The motion was approved unanimously (7-to-O 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 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. VIRIT Paula and Michael Bushilla have requested an amendment to the approval of their lot split to allow a second driveway at 10276 East Point Douglas Road South. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2010 Page 2 of 5 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings • fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked about the driveway access for the separate parcel. McCool responded that it would remain the same. Brittain asked about the grades of the existing and proposed drive- way access. McCool responded that the grade starts to get steeper as it gets closer to the barn and there is a pretty flat area on the east part of the property. Brittain asked about the potential for additional subdivision in the future. McCool responded that it is unlikely unless the property was rezoned. Currently it is zoned R-1, which has a three-acre minimum. As part of the lot split approval, a variance was granted to allow the easterly parcel to be 2.9 acres. Currently our comprehensive plan guides this area as rural residential. Brittain asked if the proposed driveway is primarily for access to the barn, what is insufficient about the westerly driveway access. McCool responded it would continue to be used as the primary access to the house and other accessory buildings on the property. Brittain asked what the benefit would be from the new driveway access to the barn. McCool responded that the grade of the existing driveway becomes very steep as it gets closer to the barn. Michael Bushilla, 10276 East Point Douglas Road South, explained that the current access to their house and barn is almost impossible for a fire truck or ambulance to get in there. He stated that vehicles have to go around the garage, in front of the chicken coop, and up and around the barn to get to the back of the barn, which is its entrance. Treber asked why the prohibition on another access drive was added to the prior approval. McCool responded that there already were two accesses that connected to East Point Douglas Road. Brittain explained that when the lot split and variance were approved in 2006, there was concern about potential development in the future. Access to the barn was not considered at that time as a reason for restricting additional driveways. Blin added that since 2006, the new plan for the Cottage Grove Ravine Park shows the entrance, which is just north of this property, moving to County Road 19 so the park traffic would be moved away from East Point Douglas Road. Also, the area on the northeast corner of East Point Douglas and County Road 19 was guided for commercial development, but is now guided for park expansion. The combination of those two factors will reduce future traffic on East Point Douglas Road. Messick asked if anyone wanted to speak on this request. No one spoke. Linse made a motion to recommend approval • the amendment to the lot split at 10276 East Point Douglas Road South to allow a second driveway. Willhite seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-O vote). !he City of Cottage Grove has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to amend the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2011-2015. (Continued from September 27, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting) Blin summarized some of the projects proposed in the CIP and their funding sources. H' recommended that the Commission find that this five-year capital improvement plan is co sistent with the city's comprehensive plan. I Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Messick asked if there is a graph showing the city's debt and the ideal curve. Blin responded that the Finance Department did not have that ready yet. He explained that graph showed how debt is retired and new debt comes on and that the city tries to keep it even over time. He stated that the city tries to keep the levy on individual homeowners consistent over time so there are not big spikes and downturns. Rambacher asked how the change allowing developers to construct public improvements in their developments, i.e.; Pinecliff 3rd Addition, impacts the CIP. Blin explained that developer assessments would go down. The city has been constructing those improvements for the developers and charging them back. Under the new program, developers would be paying those costs up front. Rambacher asked why the city had been constructing those improve- ments. Blin responded to ensure city standards were met for improvement projects because those are public streets that the city owns and maintains. The trend with cities has been to move from publicly constructed to privately constructed improvements with controls on how they are designed and installed. It also puts the financial risk on the developer and not on the city. Linse asked about the gross levy for 2010 versus 2011 on page 66 regarding what the in- crease represents. Blin stated that he would have to check with the Finance Department. Messick opened the public hearing. No public testimony was received Messick closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amend- ment to amend the CIP for 2011-2015. Pearson seconded Motion passed on a 6-to-1 vote (Linse). Linse explained that until he has a response from staff to his question, he is uncomfortable with recommending approval, but he has no specific objections to anything specific within the CIP. VA 0• I :_ MOM • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Brittain stated that he would prefer the Langdon site. However, he expressed concern about the location of parking as shown as the proposed plan. Blin stated that the plan shows all structure parking and he pointed out proposed uses in the plan. Brittain asked if a parking structure or surface parking would be constructed first. Blin responded that the station would come first with surface parking that over time will evolve into structure parking. Rambacher stated that the City has talked about development in the Langdon area. He asked about bringing sewer and water to the area as part of one big project. Blin responded that Langdon as the site of this station predates the knowledge that the wells were contami- nated. Rambacher asked about the City developing the Langdon site prior to the Red Rock Corridor coming in. Blin stated that is a challenge for the design group and can development be done in a modular fashion. He stated that the City is not going to hold off for years to re- develop this area only to find there is no commuter rail. Treber stated that he strongly supports the Langdon site because of its superior access and future development possibilities. He agrees that the city should ensure the accommodation of future development around this. He understands that the Commission is voting to support this site versus the other site and not the actual plan. Blin stated that is correct. He explained that the location of the station platform is fixed due to a curve on the track. Treber stated that in the future, the City should address access to the Hamlet site. Willhite stated that she agrees with the proposed location of the station because of the curve in the tracks. Linse asked if the City could incur risk due to the contamination of the wells. Blin does not believe so as the contamination is in the groundwater and if this area is developed, city sewer and water would be put in. Linse stated his concern that rehab costs could make this location cost prohibitive. Blin reported that the city's Economic Development Authority is one of the largest land- owners in the Langdon area. Messick summarized that the Commission supports the Langdon site due to its size and better access. He then stated that if the City has a dream of increasing retail and commercial development, it is not going to happen until residents of Cottage Grove work in the city. He would like the Planning Commission to be involved with anything specifically dealing with commercial or industrial development in the future. Linse made a motion to recommend the Langdon Village site for the future Red Rock Corridor station. Treber seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Blin provided an update • the Public Safety/City Hall building. He stated that McCool chairs the Site Planning Subcommittee that is looking at site options, layouts, building configura- tions, and access. He explained that the City is working with the YMCA on a community center and the Washington County Library on the possibility of locating new facilities on this same site. The YMCA and Library have not made any decisions on this yet. He reported that Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2010 Page 5 of 5 on October 28 at 7:00 p.m., there will • an open house with the architects at City Hall with I tours • the Public Safety facility starting at 6:30. I I ri Mot IN UPT15MY I ZMP =0 Blin updated the Commission on the City Council meetings held on September 1 and 15, 2010. McCool summarized the memo to the Commission in response to two questions from the September 27 meeting: a pedestrian crossing of Hinton Avenue between 76th Street and 80th Street and off-street vehicle parking. He reported that staff discussed the pedestrian crossing issue with the Public Safety Department, and they have been working with the Pub- lic Safety Commission and Crestview Elementary School to try to direct all the student pede- strian traffic along Hinton Avenue to 80th Street to cross with the crossing guards. Willhite asked if there would be a pedestrian crossing at 79th Street. McCool responded no, due to amount the traffic on Hinton Avenue, the traffic speed, and no traffic control devices such as stoplights. Treber suggested placing flashing LED lights to draw attention to the speed limit reduction to 20 miles per hour, particularly during the times before and after school. Blin stated staff would ask the engineering department what measures could be taken. He added that Hinton is scheduled to be reconstructed in the next two to three years and that could provide an opportunity to look at pedestrian safety improvements. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Rambacher made a motion to adjoum the meeting. Brittain seconded Motion passed unanimously (7-to-O vote). The meeting adjoumed at 8:24 p.m.