Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-07 PACKET 04.A.ii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # ` DATE 9/7/11 , A. Its PREPARED BY Community Development John McCool ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on July 25, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on July 25. 2011. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 8/22/11 ❑ 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 July 25, 2011 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS �l3( City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: [ ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission July 25, 2011 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, July 25, 2011, in the Council Chambers and tele- cast 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, Brian Pearson, Tracy Poncin, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, Brian Treber Members Absent: None Staff Present: Danette Parr, Economic Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Myron Bailey, Mayor Justin Olsen, City Council Messick made a motion to approve the agenda. Rambacher seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). A• Treber 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 Treber 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 Target Parking Lot — Case V11 -015 Target Corporation has applied for a variance to off - street parking requirements to elimi- nate approximately 70 parking stalls at Target, 8665 East Point Douglas Road South, to Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2011 Page 2 of 7 allow for the installation of four bio- infiltration islands in the parking lot and a bio- infiltra- tion basin at the rear of the building to reduce and improve storm water runoff. Treber recused himself from this Planning Case as he is an employee of Target Corporation and asked Vice Chair Messick to conduct this agenda item. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Cindy Robb, Group Lead for Target Corporation, stated that they have been working on this project closely with the Washington Conservation District for the last nine months. They be- lieve it will be a significant improvement to the look of the Target Store and for water quality concerns for that particular site and the whole sub - watershed. She noted that this is a joint partnership with the Washington Conservation District and the South Washington Watershed District. Brittain asked if the recent addition of the grocery section in the Target store was looked at in their parking analysis. Eric Pagett, Real Estate Department for Target Corporation, 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, responded that it was a consideration. The calculation that is criti- cal to parking demand is store volume. They provided a conservative approach to that calcu- lation, which shows that even from Black Friday through the holidays, their demand levels reach about 450 stalls maximum. They are comfortable that they are providing their guests with the most convenient access and parking in those scenarios. Rambacher asked why the basins have different shapes and sizes. Robb responded that the shape of the basins has to do with the water flow in the parking lot. They are putting them where existing catch basins are located so they don't have to re -route the storm water system on the site. She noted that these is not an even split of storm water flow within the parking lot; the two larger basins have more water going to them. Rambacher asked who will monitor and maintain the catch basins. Robb responded Target would. Target would be entering into a ten - year maintenance agreement with the Washington Conservation District, and their obligation to perform proper maintenance on the basins would be recorded to their deed. Pearson noted that the locations of the basins are where snow is piled during the winter and asked what they have planned for snow removal and storage. Robb stated that they talked with their store facility technician in detail, and he was comfortable based on the parking needs on the site that they could either put the snow next to the basins or in the small parking areas between the basins and the edge of the parking lot. They could also haul the snow off site. They would not store any snow within the basins because it would be detrimental to the plantings. Pearson asked who would monitor that. Robb responded the store facility technician. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the variance to off-street parking requirements at Target, 8655 East Point Douglas Road South, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Poncin seconded. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Findings of Fact: a. The Target Store has operated since the 1989. During that time, Target's parking lot has never been fully occupied by parked vehicles. Reducing the total number of parking spaces by 70 additional parking spaces will not detrimentally impact Target's parking needs or affect any other business in the Cottage Grove Plaza. b. The construction of the five bio- infiltration basins interior to Target's parking lot will generally improve the aesthetic appearance within the parking lot and bring it more into compliance with City requirements. C. Construction of the bio - infiltration basins for management of storm water runoff and improving water quality before discharging it downstream is consistent with the intent of the ordinance without negatively affecting the operation of the site. in fact, the installation of the bio- infiltration basins will improve internal traffic circulation. d. A parking need assessment was performed by Target to ensure that off-street parking will continue to adequately serve their customers. The results of their study found a strong correlation between store sales and car counts. In applying the parking need formula to the Target Store in Cottage Grove, the results were about 30 parking spaces less than the 480 parking spaces they are proposing. e. The Target Store property is part of a community shopping center known as Cottage Grove Plaza. Most of the other businesses in this retail area appear to have vacant parking spaces as well as Target's parking lot. f. The character of the proposed bio- infiltration basins will be in harmony with the other landscape islands within the Cottage Grove Plaza. g. The variance is consistent with the adopted Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan. h. The proposed 480 off - street parking spaces will continue to provide adequate parking for Target Store's customers. Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant must provide the City with an as -built survey of each bio- infiltra- tion basin upon finishing the project. 2. The applicant shall complete the project in a timely manner. 3. Dust and erosion must be controlled in accordance with best construction methods. 4. Stockpiles of materials, storage of construction equipment, and debris must be properly managed and controlled to ensure the safety of the public. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2011 Page 4 of 7 5. Landscaping within the bio- infiltration basins shall be maintained and free of noxious weeds. Motion passed unanimously on a 6 -to -0 vote with one abstention (Treber). Brittain commended Target Corporation for undertaking this project to improve the appear- ance of the parking lot and helping to improve the community. 6.2 Auto Repair Ordinance Amendment— Case TAI 1 -016 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance relative to motor vehicle repair and auto body repair businesses in commercial zoning dis- tricts. (The public hearing will be held by the City Council on August 10, 2011.) Parr provided a brief history on why this amendment is being proposed. She stated that on August 3, 2011, there will be a joint meeting with the Planning Commission, City Council, and Economic Development Authority to generally talk about the City's commercial districts. The discussion will center on the City's vision, if we should more comprehensively look at our commercial districts, and revising our ordinances to be more reflective of our vision. There may be some open areas to create new economic development while still preserving our important adjacent residential community. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the ordinance amend- ment. The Planning Commission held a lengthy discussion that covered the distinction between auto body work and auto repair work. The Commission discussed how nonconforming vehicle re- pair uses should be dealt with if they cannot meet the ten proposed conditions. The discussion included how to differentiate between a nonconforming use and a legal nonconforming use. The definitions for automobile major and minor repair and the proposed vehicle repair defini- tion were reviewed. Other topics discussed by the Planning Commission pertain to the following: • Uses permitted in the B -2 and B -3 districts; • Impacts the proposed ordinance amendment might have on existing nonconforming vehicle repair businesses; • Conditional use permits apply to property, not ownership; • Enforcement; • Potential impacts auto repair businesses may have on adjacent residential and com- mercial properties; and • Aesthetic issues such as storage of inoperable vehicles on the site. Treber asked if there were any public comments. Judd Beattie, owner of Sunbelt Sales and Leasing, stated that due to the change in the econ- omy, they want to lease out two bays in their shop area to a local couple who has been in auto repair business for 30 years. He explained that there was a misunderstanding when they re- ceived their conditional use permit in 1992 for a car lot and the minor and major auto repair Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2011 Page 5 of 7 was never defined clearly. It was his understanding that major auto repair was the auto body repair, which he knew would be inappropriate adjacent to residential properties. He stated that he did not realize that the CUP regulated what types of repairs could be done in a closed ga- rage. They are trying to clear up this misunderstanding. He believes any kind of mechanical work inside a closed garage should be allowed. He then expressed concern about being re- quired to get another conditional use permit due to the cost and amount of time it requires. He applied for three CUPS and every resident adjacent to his property has signed a petition each time in support his business being there. He stated the proposal for leasing the space will not change anything. Sunbelt Auto will keep one of the three bays and the other business will oc- cupy two bays and the office. He requested that if the City decides to require a CUP for major auto repair that his CUP for minor auto repair be changed to major auto repair so he would not have to go back a fourth time. He also asked if the requirement that garage doors be closed at all times be removed. There were no other public comments The Planning Commission continued discussing the proposed ordinance amendment. Some Commissioners were in favor of not distinguishing the definition for major and minor auto re- pair. The Commission further discussed if vehicle repair is a permitted use with conditions in the B -2 District or if a conditional use permit should be required for all auto repair uses. McCool asked if the suggested conditions to the permitted use with conditions and to the con- ditional use permit were properly addressed. The Commission briefly discussed the following conditions: 1) Garage service doors open or closed while vehicles are being repaired; 2) a six - foot fence should be required to enclose inoperable vehicles on properties that are within 100 feet of residential property; 3) determining how long an inoperable vehicle can be parked on a property; 4) if the five existing business be exempt or part of a conditional permit review process. Councilmember Olsen stated that on August 3 a joint meeting with the City Council, Planning Commission, and Economic Development Authority will be held. He noted that from the dialo- gue there has been a lot of reference to waiting for more information from the City Attorney and suggested that the Commission consider tabling this discussion to the August 3 workshop and have the City Attorney present to provide further clarification. The EDA would also have the opportunity to provide input as this could have significant impact on business development and growth, particularly regarding changes to the B -2 zoning district. Brittain made a motion to table the discussion for further discussion on August 3 and to bring it back for formal action at the next Commission meeting or to reconvene their meeting at the workshop meeting on August 3, 2011. Rambacher seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Variance Ordinance Amendment McCool summarized the staff memorandum and draft ordinance amendment. He stated that this ordinance amendment would bring our city code into compliance with state statute re- Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2011 Page 6 of 7 quirements that were revised during the 2011 Legislative Session. He asked if the Commis- sion had any changes to be incorporated into the text. If not, the public hearing on this draft ordinance amendment will be held at the August 22, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Brittain commented that in the past the variance wording has been problematic and he thinks staff has done a good job of integrating the new state statutes and making it easier for prop- erty owners to make relatively good use of their properties. The Commission had no changes to the proposed amendment. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from June 27, 2011 Messick made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on June 27, 2011. Pearson seconded. The motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). = 9.1 Recap of July City Council Meetings Olsen reported that at the July 6 City Council meeting, there was a conversation about the bidding process for the proposed Public Safety /City Hall building. The Council also voted voted 4 -to -1 to join Woodbury, St. Paul Park, and Newport in sending a resolution to the County indicating that support for CTIB funding for transportation related issues. Parr noted that the horse barn variance on Manning Avenue was approved by the City Council. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Brittain asked for an update on the Ravine Parkway extension and the timeline on when the trail will be reopened. Pearson asked who is responsible for taking care of the dock that is currently under water at Hidden Valley Pond. Parr responded Public Works. Pearson asked if there has been any dis- cussion on this. Olsen responded that there has been extensive discussion. Part of the issue is that the dock was not put on floatation devices so when the water gets high, it becomes submerged. A couple years ago, water pumps were installed to pump water out of the area. Olsen stated that he would like flotation devices installed on the dock. Treber expressed con- cern about safety on the dock as kids have walked out on it while it was submerged. Parr asked, regarding the tabled auto repair ordinance, if sufficient discussion takes place at the August 3 special meeting, would it be possible to proceed to the City Council on August 10 versus coming back to the August 22 Planning Commission meeting for recommendation. She clarified that while the Commission took public comment this evening, this meeting was not the public hearing; the public hearing is scheduled to be held by the City Council on August 10. This was due to the timeframe needed to publish the public hearing notice; there would not have been adequate notice of the hearing as staff was directed by the Council to resolve the issue in a timely fashion to be proactive and customer friendly with the business that was Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2011 Page 7 of 7 asking for this to be reviewed. The Commission discussed attendance at the August 3 meet- ing; that the Commission could make a recommendation if there was a quorum and send that to the City Council for the August 10 meeting; and the possibility of a special meeting prior to August 3, which they decided was not necessary. Those not attending on August 3 could pro- vide input to staff prior to the meeting. She noted that staff should have answers from the City's legal counsel by the August 3 meeting, and she will forward those responses to the Commission when she receives them. After the discussion at the August 3 meeting, the Commission whether to send a recommendation to the Council for the August 10 meeting or if further discussion should be held at the August 22 Planning Commission meeting. Brittain asked if there would be an opportunity to separate the two issues, the ordinance change and the exemption, that are the sticking points. Parr responded that they are two separate issues. It was the consensus of the Commission that following receipt of any legal information, those Commissioners who would not be at the meeting on August 3 could provide written input that could be added to the record so a recommendation could be made at that meeting as long as there is a quorum. Parr noted that if there was no quorum, it would come back before the Planning Commission at their next meeting because it was tabled. Adjournment RamBacher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Poncin seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.