Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-06 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 4/6/11 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 February 28, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on February 28, 2011. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 3/28/11 ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on February 28, 2011 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS Wj Ci ty Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER VWW72 • February 1 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on February 28, 2011, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Steve Messick, Tracy Poncin, Brian Pearson, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, Brian Treber Members Absent: Michael Linse, Chris Willhite Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Open Forum Messick asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Rambacher made a motion to approve the agenda. Poncin seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process 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. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 Aggregate Industries Mining Permit — Case MP11 -003 Aggregate Industries has applied for their 2011 mining permit to continue their mining operations on Lower Grey Cloud Island. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Patty Christianson, Aggregate Industries, stated that operation will continue as it has in past years; they are not making any significant changes this year. Messick asked about the progress on the tree plantings. Christianson responded that last fall they planted 60 trees as part of the oak savannah. This year they will ensure that everything is going well with those trees, and possibly surround them with mesh so the deer can't get to them. There are also established plantings at the mine and they are doing well. Messick asked in anyone wished to speak for or against the proposal. No one spoke. Brittain made a motion to approve the mining permit with variance, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Treber seconded. Findinqs of Fact A. The city has allowed the dredge to operate 24 hours per day seven days per week since 1995 when the dredge was first installed. B. Since the dredge has been operation, only one noise complaint was received by the city. That complaint was received in 1996. The applicant was contacted and the problem was resolved in a timely manner. C. Residents are encouraged to immediately contact Aggregate Industries of any noise issues so that the problem can promptly be identified and mitigated in a timely manner. D. The variance relating to the hours of operation will be evaluated annually. Conditions of Approval 1. The provisions as stipulated in Title 3, Chapter 10 of the City's Codes (Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operation) shall be complied with, except as modified below. 2. The applicant is responsible for removing any materials that may have spilled onto any public roadway. This material shall be cleaned up immediately. 3. The outer edge of mining limits must be a minimum of 100 feet from abutting public right -of -way, private property, or any archeological sensitive area. 4. The "future mining" designation on the 2011 Operations Plan is only an illustration of the applicant's future desire to mine in those areas. City approval of the 2011 Op- erations Plan does not guarantee mining permit approval for areas shown as "future mining." Approval of the 2011 Mining Permit does not approve their ability to mine within the required 200 -foot setback from the Mississippi River, within the Mississippi River itself, or in the vicinity of archeological sensitive areas. 5. Bituminous /asphalt materials are prohibited from being buried on the premises. Bitu- minous /asphalt, concrete, and street sweepings originating within the geographical Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2011 Page 3 of 5 boundaries of Cottage Grove may be temporarily stockpiled on the site for processing (e.g. crushing, screening, etc.) and /or reuse. 6. The applicant may operate the mining operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Upon notification by neighboring residents that the night -time operations (i.e. between the hours of 10 :00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.) are disturbing, the applicant agrees to voluntarily cease operation during night -time hours until such time the noise source is identified and appropriate corrections are made. 7. Aggregate Industries must install erosion control devices at the base of any slope where erosion is evident. A drainage swale must be constructed at the base of any eroding slope to control run -off and divert it to a sedimentation basin before entering any natural drainage system. Erosion control measures must be implemented within a reasonable amount of time. 8. Archeological and landmark sites as identified in the burial mound group known as 21WA9 and the recorded Grey Cloud Townsite 21WA48 on Lower Grey Cloud Island must be protected and undisturbed. 9. No vehicular traffic is allowed off existing access routes so as not to accidentally dis- turb or destroy burial mounds or any other archeological sites. 10. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all state and federal permits relating to their mining operations on Lower Grey Cloud Island. 11. The applicant's current reclamation plan is titled "Harbor Island Concept Plan." The City has not provided any formal review or approval of the "Harbor Island Concept Plan" and is only an illustration of a development concept that the applicant and landowner have considered. The City's approval of the 2011 Operations Plan does not guarantee approval or imply future approval of the Harbor Island Concept Plan. 12. The City approves the Oak Savanna Reclamation Plan, Revised 9 -3 -10. If a pre- scribed burn is scheduled, the applicant must notify the City and property owners on Lower Grey Cloud Island a minimum of five business days before burning. A burning permit from the MN DNR is required. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Sign Ordinance Amendment Discussion (Campaign Signs) McCool summarized the staff memorandum and the proposed draft ordinance amendment. Messick asked if `local street" is a defined term in the city code and is the intention of the or- dinance to be municipally -owned street. McCool responded that he would check the code for the definition of local street. For general purposes, a municipal street is a local street, which Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2011 Page 4 of 5 also includes collector streets and arterial streets. Messick suggested changing it to "munici- pally -owned street" so it is clear. Treber expressed concern about places where two feet from the back of a sidewalk would be less than 10 feet from the back of curb and suggested changing the language to be "the greater of 2 feet from the sidewalk or 10 feet from the back of curb." Rambacher noted that subsection G3 limits noncommercial signs in residential and agricul- tural areas to two on any one lot, except as provided in subsection G4, which does not limit the number of signs. McCool responded G4 is primarily the citation from the Minnesota Statutes that allows for those signs during the election timeframe. During the election period, which is 46 days prior to the primary through 10 days after the election, there is no limit on the number or size of signs. Subsection G3 limits noncommercial signs during any other time. Brittain asked for clarification of Treber's suggested change. Treber explained that he was trying to resolve any situations where a sidewalk is within that 10 -foot area; he would like signs at least 10 feet from the road whether there is a sidewalk or not. He thinks the intent is that if there is a sidewalk that is nine feet from the curb, the sign would then need to be two feet from the edge of the sidewalk, which means it would be eleven feet from the curb. Rostad suggested simplifying the language to say "ten feet from the street and two feet from any existing sidewalk." Messick reported that the Planning Commission would hold the public hearing on this ordin- ance amendment at the next meeting. 7.2 Public Safety /City Hall Project Update Blin provided an update on the Public Safety /City Hall facility and displayed the current build- ing and site plans. He noted that the Planning Commission will hold the public hearing on the site plan at their April 25 meeting. Brittain asked if all the parking would be built initially or would there be space to add future parking if the need develops. Blin responded that current plans show 113 spaces up above and 30 spaces below, but if more is determined to be needed, there is plenty of space for proof of parking. Brittain asked if there would be a left turn lane established in the Parkway. Blin responded no, but that could be looked at with the site plan. He explained that in addition to looking at the plans for this building site, the Commission will also be looking at the plans for the Parkway. Messick asked if access to the park, permits, and parking fees had been worked out with the County. Blin stated that the County is aware that if anyone parking at the new city building would effectively get free use of the park, how- ever this site is quite a distance to the park. Rambacher asked if the EOC training room would be used for staff or the community. Blin responded primarily by the Public Safety Department, which does a lot of police and fire training, but it will also be available for use by the commu- nity at large. Brittain noted that the Community Task Force discussed areas in the community to hold meetings and gatherings. Rambacher asked if any green products would be incorpo- rated in the building. Blin responded that this will be a sustainable building as much as possi- ble. The Environmental Commission had asked if the building would be SEED certified. The architects explained that the city would probably not seek SEED certification because they estimated the cost would be between $40,000 to $60,000 for documentation, but building will be as efficient possible. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from January 24, 2011 Rambacher made a motion to amend the minutes noting that he was not present at the January 24, 2011 meeting. Pearson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Pearson made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on January 24, 2011, meeting. Brittain seconded. The motion passed unanimously (7- to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of February City Council Meetings Blin updated the Commission on the City Council meetings held on February 2 and February 16, 2011. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rambacher asked if there has been an increase in building permits for new homes. Blin re- sponded that while permits are at very low levels, the city is seeing the first uptick in develop- ment. The third addition of the Pinecliff development has been approved and they may be coming in for the fourth addition. There is developer looking to develop 40 acres in the East Ravine; Mississippi Dunes is looking at adding 29 lots; and the Everwood Addition was just approved for another 8 lots. Rambacher asked if the homes being built are different than those built in the past. Blin responded the houses are smaller. He stated that all the develop- ers are saying that the demand is for smaller houses. The developer for the proposed East Ravine project is discussing smaller lots with the City. The standard lot width is 85 feet in the East Ravine, and they are asking to be allowed to have lots that are 75 feet wide. That will be something the Commission will look at when the application comes in. Rambacher asked if the City has programs geared to first time home buyers. Blin responded that the Washington County HRA offers programs for first -time home buyers. Adjournment Rambacher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rostad seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.