Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-16 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 3/16/11 m I 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 24, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on January 24, 2011. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 2/28/11 ❑ 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 24, 2011 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS City Adp inistrator `Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: MAPPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER January 24, 2011 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on January 24, 2011, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. - • o • Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Brittain, Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Tracy Poncin, Brian Pearson, Chris Willhite Members Absent: Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, Brian Treber Staff Present: Councilmember David Thiede Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Messick asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Pearson made a motion to approve the agenda. Willhite seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (6 -to -® vote). . . •, ■. • • Messick explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity 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. allow Stephen Allwine has applied for a zoning text amendment and a conditional use permit - d use d•. training facility 7624 Oth Street Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 2 of 5 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the zoning text amend- ment and the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked if the applicant subdivided their property into a parcel less than ten acres, would that would affect the conditional use permit. McCool responded they would need a minimum of ten acres for the dog training operation. Amy Allwine, Woodbury, explained their primary business focus is to give people something fun to do with their dogs. They believe the location is a good fit, especially with the off -leash dog park located nearby. Poncin asked if there was an acreage requirement in the R -1 district, where this type of use is currently allowed. McCool responded a minimum of ten acres is required, so there would be no change. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. Poncin seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Willhite made a motion to approve the conditional use permit to allow a dog training facility subject to the conditions listed below. Linse seconded. 1. The principal residential structure must be constructed and have a valid certifi- cate of occupancy prior to the dog training facility operations commencing. 2. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) must be com- pleted, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. 7. The final parking design shall be required to be reviewed by the Planning Staff. Any parking improvements on the site must not negatively impact the drainage of the site or • _ nt prope 8. Fencing utilized on the site for screening will be constructed from wood or vinyl composite material. Internal site fence materials must be reviewed and approved by the Planning D ivision. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 3 of 5 9. All indoor and outdoor training facilities must be cleaned on a daily basis and waste removal from the site must be contracted with a commercial refuse hauler. 10. Rest room facilities shall be provided as directed by the Cottage Grove Building Division and the Washington County Health Department. 11. The standard City and State noise rules will be applicable to the site. If the City re- ceives noise complaints, the property owner must bring the noise on the site into compliance upon notification by the City. 12. The standard City and State nuisance ordinance rules will be applicable to the site. if the City receives odor complaints, the property owner must bring the odor on the site into compliance upon notification by the City. 13. Repeat violations related to noise, odor, or permit criteria will require additional re- view of the conditional use permit by the City Council, with possible revocation of the conditional use permit as a remedy. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Discuss Campaign Sign Ordinance McCool summarized the staff memorandum. He explained that the City's current ordinance limits the number of noncommercial signs posted on any parcel of land but state law does not have any regulations on the number or size of campaign signs, so our ordinance is inconsis- tent with state law requirements. He asked if the current city ordinance prohibiting attaching campaign signs to fences should remain. Blin added that to enforce that ordinance, there is a danger of damaging fences. Willhite stated that the prohibition of signs on fences should be dropped. McCool stated that the other issue to be discussed is the prohibition of signs in public right -of- ways; the state and county prohibit them in their right -of -ways. He explained that in Cottage Grove, streets have a variety of right -of -way and roadway widths, which result in different sizes of boulevard space between the curb and property line. He suggested establishing a di- mension such as 10 or 15 feet from the curb for local city streets. The ordinance does allow removal of signs if they impede the visibility of traffic. He also asked for direction on if the city should limit the size and number of noncommercial sign beyond election times. He asked if an ordinance amendment should be drafted. Brittain asked if signs attached to utility poles, traffic poles, and in the clear view triangle would be prohibited. McCool stated that staff is recommending that noncommercial signs be pro- hibited from those. Willhite asked if the city is trying to conform to the state statute. McCool responded yes, but there are three issues that the city can regulate. Blin clarified that the city ordinance cannot be more restrictive than state statute. Willhite asked about the election period of August to November 15 listed in the ordinance. McCool stated that is the current ordinance requirement; Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 4 of 5 state law stipulates it is 46 days prior to the primary election to 10 days after the general elec- tion. Willhite asked if the city can regulate signs on fences for private property if the property owner wants the sign attached to their fence. McCool stated that the city ordinance could re- gulate that. Willhite asked if the state regulates signs attached to fences. McCool responded they do not address that. Willhite asked if that would be more prohibitive than the state. Blin stated that regulating setbacks and attaching signs to fences are in the purview of the cities. Willhite stated that she does not want to restrict signs on fences. Linse asked if both sides of a fence are private property. McCool responded yes. Brittain asked for clarification, noting that the state law talks about the number of signs but does not talk about prohibition of placement. Blin stated that cities may still restrict where signs are located, but cannot restrict the number or size and ordinances need to conform to the duration in state statutes. Poncin expressed concern that if signs are allowed to be attached to fences, large banners could be placed there. She noted that freestanding signs need to support themselves and would therefore be limited in size. Linse asked what the current ordinance says about signs in right -of -ways. McCool responded that city ordinance prohibits signs in the right -of -way. Blin explained that the city gets com- plaints about signs that may be in the right -of -way, and staff then spends time to determine where the right -of -way is, which varies throughout the city and even on certain streets. McCool also suggested language regulating how far from a sidewalk a sign could be, such as two or three feet. Messick stated that the state statute is explicit in regulating time, place, and manner, but the Commission could look at regulating locations within the right -of -way. Willhite suggested that signs be flat against the fence instead of being attached to the fence and going out, which would help to mitigate blocked views. Brittain stated that with respect to signs on fences he agrees with Poncin that freestanding signs could help limit sign size without city regulation, but the burden on the city to remove signs attached to fences could cause additional problems. He stated that city ordinances should conform with state statutes during election time, and during non - election times he would be in favor of keeping the existing ordinances in place to help mitigate problems without inhibiting free speech. Willhite asked if the city's ordinance lists the dates that signs can be out during election time. McCool responded that the ordinance states August 15 through November, but that was prior to the primary date change. Messick asked if staff received enough feedback. McCool stated that staff will draft a text amendment for the next Planning Commission meeting. He asked if the Commission wanted to evaluate the draft ordinance first or hold the public hearing next month. It was the consen- sus of the Commission to evaluate the draft at the February meeting and hold the public hearing in March. Blin provided an update on the Public Safety /City Hall facility. He stated that by next month's meeting, revised plans should be available. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 5 of 5 • • • • • •. • • 11MWIF11TUO Pearson made a motion to approve the minutes of the joint meeting with the Public Safety Commission and the regular Planning Commission meeting on November 22, 2010, meeting. Poncin seconded. The motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). •rrI 9.1 Recap of December and January City Council Meetings Blin updated the Commission on the City Council meetings held on December 1 and 15, 2010, and January 5 and 19, 2011. He reported that Councilmember Dave Thiede is the new liaison to the Planning Commission. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries 1015Th- 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Thiede asked the Commission if they want any reports from the City Council. He stated that the MPCA is going to renew the permit for the 3M incinerator for five years. The response pe- riod on the permit is open until February 2. On Wednesday, January 26, there will be a public information meeting at the South Washington County Service Center at 6:30 p.m. and the En- vironmental Commission has made recommendations on the permit. Blin stated that since October the City has operated an air monitor located on the 3M campus, which will continue for up to three years. The samples will be taken prior to and after 3M bringing outside waste to the incinerator to allow for comparison of the air quality. He explained the monitoring process and noted that the early results show that they have not found any substances that are signifi- cantly higher than other areas of the Twin Cities and none that are close to any established health values. He explained the monitoring process. Linse asked about the state's lawsuit against 3M. Blin explained the state brought an envi- ronmental damages lawsuit against 3M to sue for damages from groundwater contamination due to PFCs. If the state is successful, there would be monetary damages paid to the state. It is yet to be determined if the city would get part of any settlement. Lake Elmo is joining the state in the lawsuit; Cottage Grove has not yet made that determination. <, • • unanimously Willhite made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Poncin seconded. Motion passed i • s »: adjourned !: