Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-27 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission September 27, 2010 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on September 27, 2010, in the Council Chambers and tele- cast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:20 p.m., following the tour of the Public Safety /City Hall building. Messick asked Councilmember Olsen to provide information to residents regarding tours of the Public Safety /City Hall building. Olsen stated that there have been discussions regarding a new public safety /city hall facility for over 10 years. The City Council asked staff to provide tours of the current building. He provided contact information for anyone interested in learning more about the proposed public safety /city hall project. Messick, on behalf of the Planning Commis- sion, thanked the Public Safety Director and the Mayor for the informative tour. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Brian Pearson, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, Brian Treber, Chris Willhite Members Absent: Tracy Poncin Staff Present: Councilmember Justin Olsen Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Linse made a motion to approve the agenda. Willhite seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Messick asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process 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. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2010 Page 2 of 6 Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 Columbarium Text Amendment — Case TA10 -023 All Saints Lutheran Church has applied for a zoning text amendment to allow outdoor columbaria, a structure with small recesses for the placement of urns containing cre- mated remains, as a conditional use in residential zoning districts where cemeteries are allowed. MCCool summarized the staff report. He stated that the draft resolution does not contain a definition of columbarium and proposed incorporating the following definition into the ordin- ance: "A place such as a vault for the respectful and usual public storage of cremated human remains within cinerary urns. Columbaria are accessory to places of assembly for worship, cemeteries, or mausoleums." He recommended approval of the proposed text amendment with the addition of the definition of columbarium. Messick asked if the definition would be added to Title 11 -1 -3. MCCool responded yes. Messick asked about the process for amend- ing the city code by adding the proposed definition. MCCool explained that the recommenda- tion for approval or deny would include the definition of columbarium in the text amendment. Linse asked if the city would become responsible for maintaining the columbaria and urns if the church becomes defunct. MCCool responded that as part of the conditional use permit application process, those policies that would be reviewed and that would not be the city's responsibility. Messick opened the public hearing. Jules Erickson, Senior Pastor at All Saints Lutheran Church, 8100 Belden Boulevard South, clarified the policy question noting that according to the company that they are working with, columbaria are movable objects. She stated that she has talked with the two cemeteries in the area (Old Cottage and Newport), and both stated that they could take the columbaria in the event the church would be dismantled. Rambacher asked how many urns are in these columbaria. Erickson responded that the one they are looking at has 72 niches which can each hold two urns. Rostad asked if they foresee having multiple columbaria on their site. Erickson responded that if they filled the entire columbarium, they could develop outside reservoirs. She stated that over 50 percent of the people she has had the privilege to escort to the gates are cre- mations. Linse asked how tall the columbarium would be at All Saints. Erickson responded 48 to 52 inches tall. Pearson noted that there was space for two urns in each niche. Erickson stated that two sin- gles could go together, a married couple could go together, a son and father could share a space, or other combinations. She stated that all of these would have to be prepaid in order for them to go forward with it. She thanked the Commission for considering this proposal. No one else spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2010 Page 3 of 6 Willhite made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment allowing columbaria, including the definition of columbarium as proposed. Linse asked for clarification on when the Planning Commission would determine size, height, and location requirements. MCCool responded when applications are received. Rostad seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.2 Outdoor Equipment/Storage Text Amendment — Case TA10 -022 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to allow outdoor merchandise display and storage as a permitted accessory use with performance stan- dards in all commercial zoning districts. MCCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Rostad asked as the proposed ordinance is written, do items at gas stations between the pumps have to be moved next to the building. MCCool responded that staff reviewed various commercial sites, including gas stations, grocery stores, and retail stores, and the require- ments vary from site to site. Menards has a larger provision to allow more storage outside their building, Cub Foods has no reference about outdoor storage, and motor fuel stations generally have prohibitions on merchandise being stored or displayed outdoors. The City will revisit the conditions of approval for specific locations and address outdoor storage issues with each individually. Pearson asked if there are current prohibitions on having items displayed outdoors at gas stations. MCCool responded that it varies from site to site. In general, merchandise is prohi- bited from outdoor storage or display. Messick asked if that is addressed under conditional use permits. MCCool responded yes. He explained that this proposed text amendment would clarify if there could be vending ma- chine units and set performance standards. Linse asked if section f in the proposed ordinance, which reads: "outside display should be a representation of the products sold or rented on site..." means that the items have to be ex- actly what the store sells. For example, if Walgreens does not sell movies inside their struc- ture, but they want to rent movies outside, would that be a permitted use. He noted that a strict reading of the ordinance would not allow it. He asking if the definition could read "gen- eral merchandise" or something similar. MCCool responded yes. Rambacher asked about enforcement of conditional use permits that were granted in the past that do not allow outside storage or display, but the outdoor storage /display exists. MCCool stated that staff would be enforcing exterior storage of retail products outside the businesses in our community. Messick opened the public hearing. Linse suggested adding "outside display should be a general representation of the products sold or rented on site... ," which could eliminate some of the ambiguity. Rostad asked what if Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2010 Page 4 of 6 MCDonalds decides to move their Red Box outside. McCool responded they could but would need to follow the performance standards in the ordinance. Treber asked for an explanation on the intent of the text amendment. He expressed concern about the city not having control over future types of exterior storage and display. He tends to favor the conditional use permit versus permitted use with performance standards be- cause that would give the Council the opportunity to look at each proposal an individual basis. Messick responded that staff asked the Commission for direction on this issue and it was his understanding that the consensus of the Commission was to allow outdoor storage and display as a permitted accessory use with standards. Olsen stated he is also the liaison to the Economic Development Authority, and this issue was also brought before the EDA, whose recommendation was similar to the recommendation that ultimately came from the Planning Commission. The EDA was not interested in the conditional use permit process; they felt the City could accomplish the same goal with performance standards and not make it too cumbersome for businesses. No public testimony was received. Messick closed the public hearing. Rambacher asked if the reason for section f is to not have inventory stored on pallets outside businesses. McCool responded that anything stored or displayed outside should have a re- lationship to the business. Brittain asked about Cub Foods storing water softener salt outside when they sell it inside. McCool stated that there is no provision recognizing how much storage Cub Foods can have outside their building; that is something staff will discuss with them. Willhite made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment allow- ing outdoor merchandise display and storage as a permitted accessory use with per- formance standards in all commercial zoning districts with the addition of the word "general" in section f. Treber seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Update on Nelson Mine EIS McCool provided an update to the Planning Commission on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for the proposed expansion of mining operations at the Nelson Mine on Grey Cloud Island. He also played a few short videos showing aspects of the mining operations. There was a question about how many apparatuses there were. McCool responded one dredge that has twin clams. 7.2 Red Rock Corridor Update This update will be given at the October 25, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 23, 2010 Rambacher made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 23, 2010, meeting. Motion seconded by Pearson. The motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2010 Page 5 of 6 Reports 9.1 Recap of September City Council Meetings None 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rambacher asked about ordinance requirements for storage of boats and RVs during the winter and if there are any resources available for residents to refer to regarding legally storing these items. MCCool responded that the city code is available for viewing on the city's web page. He explained that the city code allows a maximum of four vehicles (i.e.; cars, trucks, boats, trailers, snowmobile, RVs, etc.) to be parked outside a building structure. Ve- hicles must be parking on improved parking surfaces, not grass, and those parking surfaces need to meet property line setback requirements. Brittain suggested placing an article about vehicle storage and parking in the monthly newsletter that is sent with the utility bills. Treber stated that the traffic along Hinton Avenue has been significantly increasing and he expressed concern about children crossing Hinton but not at the intersection with 80th Street. MCCool stated that would be a Public Safety issue and he would contact them. Rostad asked if there would be any sidewalk issues that may be coming before the Planning Commission. McCool responded that residents in the Pinecliff neighborhood, which is north of 65th Street and west of Hinton Avenue, presented a petition to the City Council requesting construction of a sidewalk on one side of Hedgecroft Avenue. He explained that when Pine - cliff was developed, the developer was required to construct a sidewalk from 65th Street to 62nd Street. A year later the Silverwood Addition was developed to the west of Pinecliff and that developer constructed sidewalks on one side of all streets within that subdivision. The City Council received the petition and placed it on file but there was no action ordering the project to be done. Public improvements are typically paid by assessment, and the residents of that neighborhood would pay those. The residents were advised that the city received their petition, but if they want the sidewalk constructed, they would have to provide the city with a petition agreeing to the assessments for the improvement. Olsen stated that he was the Councilmember who made the motion on the sidewalk petition, and he asked Community Development and Public Safety staff to look at the original agreement with the builder to see if they had fulfilled their responsibility for sidewalks in that development. Linse asked if there was talk of a park as well. MCCool responded the same residents have also asked for the development of a neighborhood park in that area. The Parks Commission evaluated sites in the wetland areas between the Pinecliff and Silverwood subdivisions. The Public Works De- partment is evaluating the costs of a developing a playground with a play structure in that area and will make a recommendation to the City Council on whether a neighborhood park should be developed in that area. Linse asked if that park would be paid for through as- sessments. MCCool responded that would be an option, but what has been discussed so far is that park fees paid by the developer would be used. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2010 Page 6 of 6 Linse asked about the Minnesota Supreme Court case on variances and requested ex- amples of what reasonable use and undue hardship prior to getting the next variance appli- cation. Adjournment Rambacher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Linse seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.