Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-06 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 7/6/11 a PREPARED BY Community Development Danette Parr ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on May 23, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on May 23, 2011. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A BUDGETED AMOUNT $N /A N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 6/27/11 ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY El SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on May 23, 2011 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER May 23, 1 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on May 23, 2011, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Vice Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Brittain, Steve Messick, Tracy Poncin, Brian Pearson, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad Members Absent: Michael Linse, Brian Treber, Chris Willhite Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner David Thiede, City Council Derrick Lehrke, City Council Open Forum Messick asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Rostad made a motion to approve the agenda. Rambacher seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (6 -to -® 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 Cottage Grove Ravine Addition Preliminary Plat — Case PP11 -012 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a preliminary plat to subdivide a 42 -acre parcel of land into one lot and seven outlots to be called Cottage Grove Ravine Addition. The proposed new Public Safety /City Hall facility will be located on Lot 1, Block 1. The property Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 2 of 7 is located south of the easterly extension of 85th Street and east of Keats Avenue South (CSAH 19). McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the condition stipulated in the staff report. Messick opened the public hearing. Dale Andrews, 8430 Keats Avenue stated that she does not support the proposed Public Safety /City Hall project as a whole and does not understand how the plat creates one lot and seven outlots. McCool explained that the proposed Lot 1, Blockl is the planned site for the Public Safety /City Hall facility, and there are seven outlot parcels fabled A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Outlot A is located north of Lot 1, Block 1; Outlot B is along Keats Avenue; and Outlot C abuts the Cottage Grove Ravine Park. Outlots D, E, and F are smaller parcels of land along the south boundary of the 42 -acre parcel of land to be platted. These outlots will be owned by the County and will have drainage and utility easements platted over the entire area of said outlots. Outlot G will be City -owned land and will also have a drainage and utility easement platted over the entire area of said outlot. Levitt stated that the smaller outlots are currently drainage and utility easements that are part of a storm water system. Outlot F will have a storm water pipe that will discharge storm water from the street. Outlot D will have a storm water pipe to discharge from Lot 1, Block 1 that will meet rate control and water quality re- quirements. Outlot E will have storm water discharge from the street. Outlot G is a storm water basin that will provide water quality and rate control from impervious surfaces before flowing into the ravine. Water quality is improved as compared to the water that already discharges into the ravine. Andrews stated that she understands that the outlots are for drainage from the building and road and that no buildings will be constructed on the smaller outlots. Andrews stated that she does not understand why the Commission is considering this subdi- vision plat when the entire 42 acres is currently under a land swap deal that is being renego- tiated between the County and City. Andrews stated that she has those documents with her and she is curious why the application before the Commission is based on the current contract when the County will soon be voting on a new one. Messick stated that this application just changes the platting but does not change the legal ownership. McCool explained that a taxing parcel will be subdivided to create various parcels. Andrews stated that the new contract is very specific regarding Lot 1 Block 1 but does not include those other parcels. She asked if the Commission is voting on the application tonight. Messick responded that the Commission would vote on a recommendation to the City Council, who would make the final approval on June 1. Andrews asked the Commission to vote this down until the City can confirm what the contract is going to look like. Levitt explained that the agreement that was in place in 2005 addressed this land swap. As part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, this area was always identified as a civic campus. Now, just like with the Washington County Service Center, once a plat is in place and site plans prepared, the specifics of the agreement can be better understood and articulated in detail for the site. The County and the City are working on an agreement, which was on the May 18 City Council agenda but was continued to the June 1 meeting. She ex- plained that the exhibits in the land swap and cost share agreements are represented with Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 3 of 7 these seven outlots. The drainage and utility easements are critical. She stated that this plat is consistent with those agreements. Thiede stated that the document in the packet shows these outlots. Andrews said that is the document that is currently in place but the document she has is the proposal in front of the County for approval. Thiede responded that her document was from the meeting on May 4. Andrews expressed her opposition to the project. Thiede explained that the Council is asking the Planning Commission to review the preliminary plat to subdivide a 42 -acre parcel of land into one lot and seven outlots to be called the Cottage Grove Ravine Addition. The proposed Public Safety /City Hall will be located on Lot 1, Block 1. He stated that Levitt gave a specific explanation on the functions of the outlots. Andrews asked why the City presented this plat when they have a different proposal in front of the County, noting that the new agreement does not discuss all the outlots. She reiterated that the new agreement does not look like the old agreement. McCool stated that this property is owned and controlled by Washington County. He explained that 85th Street north of the platted area is under different ownership and is not part of this plat, which is why it does not appear on this plat. He noted that the boundary and size of Lot 1, Block 1, which is the site of the proposed Public Safety /City Hall site, is not changing and the lot size will still be 6.82 acres. Brittain explained that the Planning Commission reviews preliminary plats before ownership changes. He believes this platting is independent of the agreement with the County. The Planning Commission reviews how this parcel of land is going to be utilized in conjunction with the comprehensive plan and the East Ravine Task Force recommendations. He clarified that there are two separate issues; the agreement that the city will have with the County and the platting process itself. Messick stated, as he stated at the last meeting when the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan, that the Commission has jurisdiction over land use, but as a private citizen and not as a Commissioner, he has concerns about the project. He approved the site plan because it met ordinance requirements. Whether he wants the project approved or not, the decision is left to the elected policymakers. He echoed the fact that this Commission routinely will vote on land use before ownership changes. Brittain asked if there was still going to be a trail connection and if so, is it going to go under the bridge. McCool said yes. Brittain asked how the trail connections interrelate with the drain- age easements. Levitt responded that the trail systems will be maintained by the City of Cottage Grove but they will reside within Washington County's property. She described the trail connections for that area, noting that there will be access into the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park from essentially three different directions, which has been coordinated with the Washington County Parks Division. Rostad asked if the ownership does not work out to fit this plat, would the plat come back be- fore the Commission. Brittain asked regardless if the Public Safety /City Hall building is built on Lot 1, Block 1, or not, Ravine Parkway will be constructed where it is proposed on this plat based on the East Ravine study and this plat identifies specific drainage easements that are primarily focused on the roadway and the bridge. Levitt responded that was correct, and the Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 4 of 7 plat is consistent with the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, the East Ravine AUAR, and the East Ravine Task Force Report. The only outlot that is contingent on the building site is Outlot D, which is for drainage coming from that site. All the other outlots are necessary for the impervious surface that is being created by the roadway. No one else spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Cottage Grove Ravine Addi- tion, subject to the condition listed below. Poncin seconded. 1. All drainage and utility easements recommended by the City Engineer are shown on the final plat. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). 6.2 Ravine Regional Park Lot Split (Kimbro Avenue) — Case MS11 -010 Washington County has applied for a minor subdivision of a 9.5 -acre property at 9028 Kimbro Avenue South into parcels sized at 7 acres and 2.5 acres, and a minor subdivision of a 4.84 -acre property at 9016 Kimbro Avenue South into parcels sized at 2.5 acres and 2.34 acres for the purpose of land acquisition and expansion of the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Poncin asked if there was just one residence on all three properties. McCool responded yes. Poncin asked how many acres the combined parcels would have. McCool answered that there would be about eight acres of land. Brittain asked which zoning district has a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres for rural lots. McCool responded R -2, Residential Estate. Brittain asked if there could potentially be enough area for well and septic on 2.8 acres per parcel. McCool responded yes. Brittain stated that any subdi- vision should meet the current zoning standards or an amendment to the zoning should be made. Rambacher asked about access to the parcels if the property was subdivided into three lots. McCool responded that they all would have frontage along Kimbro Avenue. Brittain asked if there was enough frontage on Kimbro Avenue to meet the minimum lot width of 180 feet. It was noted that there is a total of 662 feet of frontage, which would allow for 180 -foot lot widths. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the minor subdivision of land at 9038 and 9056 Kimbro Avenue, subject to the conditions listed below. Pearson seconded. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 5 of 7 1. Parcel B and the existing 3.22 acre parcel identified as PIN 23.027.21.12.0004 shall be combined as one 8.06 -acre taxing parcel in conjunction with the recording of the deeds for the parcels created through the action of this application. Proof of said combination shall be furnished to the City within seven business days of the com- bination. 2. The stormwater area charges shall be waived for the 9.5 -acre Parcel A if it is acquired by Washington County. 3. The stormwater area charges shall be deferred for the 8.06 -acre combination parcel until such time as the property is subdivided further, and payment shall be at the rate current at the time of subdivision. 4. The following permanent drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City as required by the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Title 10- 5 -6D): a. 10 feet wide and 181.14 feet long along eastern property line of Parcel B adjacent to Kimbro Avenue b. 10 feet wide and 658.42 feet long adjacent to the western property line of Parcel B c. 5 feet wide and 591.8 feet long adjacent to the northern property line of Parcel B d. 5 feet wide and 241.99 feet long adjacent to the southern property line of Parcel B 5. Prior to releasing the deeds for recording, the accuracy of the existing drainage easement recorded in Document #646998 shall be reviewed by the City Engineer in terms of location and size as based on the East Ravine surface water management plan, and that a new easement shall be created and dedicated to the City for public drainage and utility purposes as per the recommendation of the City Engineer. 6. Modifications to the private access drive locations onto Kimbro Avenue shall be re- viewed and approved by the City Engineer, and a right of way permit issued before modification of said access points. 7. Park dedication shall be waived for the 9.5 -acre County acquisition parcel. 8. Park dedication shall be deferred for the remaining 4.84 -acre parcel until such time as the property is subdivided further, and payment shall be at the rate current at the time of subdivision. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 New Law Regarding Variances McCool summarized the staff memorandum on the new law regarding variance applications. He asked for direction from the Commission on initiating an ordinance amendment that would be consistent with the new law requirements for variance applications. It was the consensus of Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 6 of 7 the Planning Commission to have a draft ordinance prepared for their review at the next meeting. Brittain stated that he agreed with the new law, because it is necessary for cities to have the ability to grant variances. There was a concern when this court case came up that the state might insist on strict adherence and not take into consideration the environment, sur- roundings, local community values, and balancing the use of property with the surrounding owners. 7.2 Minnesota Court of Appeal Decision — Procedural Due Process Rights McCool summarized the staff memorandum, noting that it was provided for informational pur- poses only and that there have not been any issues with how the City of Cottage Grove operates. It was noted that Messick was in attendance at the April 25, 2011, meeting. Messick made a motion to amend the minutes to reflect that he was in attendance. Pearson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Pearson made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on April 25, 2011, meeting as amended. Rambacher seconded. The motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). 9.1 Recap of May City Council Meetings Levitt reported that the City Council took action on the EAW for 3M East Cove by approving the negative declaration on the preparation of an EIS and the conditional use permit for the grading project. The Council held a workshop session on the 2012 budget. Thiede reported that the Council approved the interim conditional use permit for TNT Fireworks and the rec- ommendations made by the Environmental Commission regarding sustainability issues for the Public Safety /City Hall facility. McCool stated that at the May 4 Council meeting there was an update relating to the Nelson Mine EIS process, explaining that the applicant is continuing to work with State and Federal agencies on wetland mitigation. Because of that wetland mitiga- tion issue, the preparation of the EIS has been put on hold at this time. That will eventually come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for review. The Council also ap- proved the final plat for the Everwood 3rd Addition and the extension of the Oak Cove final plat, and appointed a Veterans Memorial/Tribute Committee. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries McCool stated that the Building Official and Fire Marshal reviewed the question about fire suppression at the Ice Arena, explaining that they had meetings with the contractor prior to the installation of the fire suppression system in the ice arena, and the location of the fire sup- pression system above the ceiling area was taken into consideration. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Levitt provided a presentation on the proposed future plans for 70th Street. Brittain asked if 70th Street from the Highlands Park area to County Road 19 would be a four -lane road in the future. Levitt responded yes. Pearson asked if vehicles could turn west onto 70th Street out of Hidden Oaks neighborhood from Granada Avenue. Levitt responded no, according to this study; traffic could only take a right out of the neighborhood. She explained that this is a plan- ning document and has not been engineered and designed at a level that is ready to be im- plemented and residents will have some input before those plans are completed. Andrews asked if 70th Street is a county- maintained road. Levitt responded yes, however, the County works very closely with the City on any planned roadway improvements. Andrews then asked if Military Road was a county or city road. Levitt stated it is a county road. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rambacher asked for information on programs regarding first -time homebuyers in Cottage Grove and marketing of foreclosed homes. McCool responded that he is not aware of any programs, but he could look into it. Messick stated that a couple years ago, there was a simi- lar question, and at that time the Commission received information about programs in Brook- lyn Park and some county and state grants. He requested that city staff provide a list of any existing programs and about possibly having a joint meeting with the Economic Development Authority. Adjournment Rambacher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Poncin seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.