Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-26 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held at City Hall, 7516 — SOth Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 26th day of November, 2001, in the Council Chamber. Call to Order Chairperson Wilihite called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Myron Bailey, Timothy Booth, Bob Hudnut, Herb Japs, David Lassen, David Piggott, Bob Severson, Eileen Weber, Chris Willhite Staff Present: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Bailey moved to approve fhe amended agenda. Hudnut seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Open Forum Chairperson Willhite asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non-agenda item. No one spoke. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Chairperson Willhite explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Councii, and the City Council makes all final decisions. in addition, she explained the process of conducting a pubiic hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should come to the microphone and state their full name and ed- dress for the public record. Pubiic Hearings 6.1 CASE PP01-O80 Pulte Homes of Minnesota has applied for a preliminary plat for Timber Ridge 2nd Addi- tion, which would re-plat two lots into four lots for single-family homes and two outlots. This subdivision will be located on the southwest corner of 70th Street and Harkness Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 2 of 20 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Hudnut asked why the applicants were requesting the two additionai lots. McCool explained that the lots couid be divided and still meet ordinance requirements. Wilihite opened the pubiic hearing. No one spoke. Willhite closed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to approve the preliminary plaf for Timber Ridge 2nd Addi- tion, subject to fhe conditions listed below. Bailey seconded. 1. Outlots A and B are unbuildable parcels, unless combined with adjacenf parcels of land for purposes of complying with the minimum development standards for the R-2,5, Residential District. Sa/e of either parcel is restricted to only combining al1 or a portion of the property to abutting real esfate. 2. A!l certified and pending assessments for Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 32, 8/ock 1 (origina/ taxing parcels) shall be paid in full prior to recording the Timber Ridge 2nd Addition final plat with the Washington County Recorder's Office. 3. Cash payment in lieu of land dedication for park purposes and recreation fees shall be paid to the Cify prior to the City releasing the final plat to the developer to record at the Washington Counfy Recorder's Office. The park fee in lieu of land dedication is $1,000.00 for each of the two newly created lots and the recreation fee is $150.00 per new lot Based on the two newly created lots, the total payment is $2,300.00. 4. Pulte Homes, lnc, shall enter into a contracfual agreement with the City to pay al! additional costs for extending and completing the construction of the roadway and utility services to the west boundary line of Timber Ridge Addifion. 5. The Developer pays to the City $10,000.00 to complete the construction of 71st St�eet South. 6. lndividual access fo and from any /ot abutting 70th Street is p�ohibited. 7. The City vacates underlying drainage and utility easements that a�e within Outlot A and Outlot B of Timber Ridge 2nd Addifion. 8. The Developer shall reimburse the City alI costs associafed with vacating and re- leasing underlying drainage and utility easements that are no longer warranted, The city resolution vacating and discontinuing certain easements must be re- corded with the Washington County Recorder's Office before the Timber Ridge 2nd Addition final plat is recorded by the Developer. 9. The applicant provide temporary easements over the western 10 feet of Lot 2, 8/ock 2 and Lof 2, Block 1 and temporary easements over the southern 20 feet of Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 3 of 20 Lot 2, Block 2 and the north 20 feet of Lot 2, Block 1. These easements must be granted to the City prior to the City releasing the final plat for recording. 10. The Developer shall complete grading the street, boulevard, and front yard area along 71st Street that abuts Lot 2, 8/ock 1 and Lot 2, Block 2 before the City will issue a building permit for either lot. Motion passed unanimously. 6.2 CASE CUP01-081 Xoua Thao, dba Cedarhurst, Inc., has applied for a conditional use permit for limited commercial ventures conducted at an historic property located at 6940 Keats Avenue South. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. It was noted that Conditions #6 and #9 are the same and one of them should be deleted. Condition #10 should also be deleted as it is a condition of the 1977 permit and is obsolete. Severson asked if condition #8 referred to one event on the same day or two events on the same day. Lindquist responded the intent was one event equals one day. Lassen asked about technical review packet previously received, which proposed building expansions on the site. Lindquist responded that is the old plan proposed by Lee Gohlike, the previous owner. It was used to iilustrate the current site layout, but no expansions are proposed. Willhite opened the public hearing. Xoua Thao, owner of Cedarhurst, 6940 Keats Avenue South, stated that he would like to suggest that the two-day restriction is too restrictive. He stated that businesses are sea- sonally related and restricting to two days a week is too restrictive; November and Decem- ber are the holiday season. Japs asked Thao what a fair restriction would be. Thao stated that primarily weddings are held on the weekends. He noted that the ballroom seats 120. He asked if not 120, could they have more days. Japs stated that the property has been operating for a couple of years and asked if there had been many police calls to the property. Lindquist responded that there were a variety of calls; some were traffic related and not related to Cedarhurst. Willhite suggested the approval run for one year. Weber stated that using the property at its capacity shouid be considered. She felt the ca- pacity restriction should be at least the legal capacity of 120. Lindquist explained that the proposed condition limited large events to any event having 75 people of greater to twice a Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 4 of 20 week. Japs stated that the applicant could have an unlimited number of events if atten- dance was under 75 people. Lassen asked about the benchmark selected for the capacity issue. Lindquist stated that in 1997, under the old application, 50 peopie were suggested. More recently, she attended a function and 75 seemed more appropriate. Lassen stated that he lives in close proximity to the property and parking is important when having larger events. Piggott asked how many cars could park on the property. Thao responded that there are two parking areas that could accommodate up to 100 cars, plus other areas on the prop- erty. Mary Ann Marty, 9905 Military Road, stated that her property was once a part of Cedar- hurst and that one of the parking areas is next to her property. She stated that she does not understand why the conditional use permit should change. Lindquist explained that a home occupation permit is not consistent with the existing ordinance standards. Additionally, the owners would like to apply for a liquor license. Planning staff indicated they would not sup- port a liquor license at any property which operated a commercial establishment through a home occupation permit. Marty stated that if that is the case, the notice is in error and she opposes the liquor license. She stated again that cars would be parked at her back door. She explained that the driveway to Military Road was ciosed a long time ago. No one e/se spoke. Willhite closed the public hearing. Weber asked about condition #5, regarding landscaping. Lindquist responded that there would be infill of coniferous trees but the number of trees is currently not known. Booth asked if the application could have a time limit placed on it. He suggested eliminating condition #8 and then see what happens after one year. He expressed concern about lim- iting events because the owners need a successful business operation. He stated that they are trying to generate income to maintain the property. Booth made a motion to approve the application for one year. Weber seconded. Piggott asked about deleting conditions #8, #9, and #10. Lindquist stated that staff's only concern is that if problems occur it may be more difficult to enforce because there were no limitations on the number of people. Lindquist asked if the applicant could keep a record of attendees throughout the year, which will help in the review. Thao stated that under the current conditional use permit, Gohlike had a license from another catering business. Willhite stated that she would like to see a record of attendees. Thao stated that the distance to the neighboring property is quite far and there is a fence between the properties. He stated that the parking lots are not close to the neighbors. Hudnut made a motion to approve. Willhite stated that there already was a motion, deleting conditions #8, #9, and #10. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 5 of 20 Weber suggested that a record of attendees and the dates of the events be available for the City to view. Booth agreed to amend motion. Lassen suggested that the application be reviewed after the first year to see if problems occurred. He stated that it would make sense that there is some limitation on the number of events and capacity. Booth asked why and stated that the city should give the business a chance. The city has control at one year and it would be a win-win situation. Weber stated that the one-year renewal will increase the owner's accountability as to how it is run and in relationship with neighbor. Hudnut cailed for the question. Motion for the amendment passed on an 8-to-1 vote (Lassen). Marty asked who set the capacity at 120. Staff responded the fire marshal wouid set the capacity of the building. Weber stated that the neighboring property owners should work out their differences. Marty stated that this has gone on for 20 years. Weber stated that Thao has not owned the property for 20 years; they just purchased it. Marty stated that they are asking for additional numbers, which is telling her that there are going to be additional cars. Weber stated that she would encourage the two parties to sit down and try to resolve their differences without the city in between. She stated that the applicants are on the verge of doing something different, and it is a good time for the parties to sit down together and try to work this out the best possible way for all concerned. Marty stated that she never heard of a business not having restrictions and that to her is the problem here. She stated that that should have been looked at. 1. The permit is limited to the following uses: wedding/banquet hall, receptions, conferences, exhibition, and tours. In the event the applicant receives a liquor li- cense from the City, liquor can only be sold in conjunction with the above events. The premises cannot operate as a restaurant, bar or liquor store. 2. The applicant hard surface the two driveways from the road pavement to the property line. Should spillover gravel continue onto the two public roads, addi- tional hard surfacing may be required. 3. The applicant must remove all exterior storage and bring the site into compliance with City nuisance and zoning ordinances relating to storage within 30 days of City Council approval. 4. Business and commercial activity upon the premises shall not take place from 12:30 a.m, to 5:30 a.m. of any day. 5. Natural screening and coniferous /andscape materials shall be placed and lo- cated between the site and the adjacent Marty property, A landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Pianning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 6 of 20 6. The driveways entering from 70th Street and Military Road shall be marked and posted as "private driveway." 7. The property shall be conformance with and maintained in conformance with all applicable State and County Health regulations. 8. The City's Building O�cial and Fire Marshal re-inspecf the premises to insure compliance of all building and fire regulations. 9. Some of the existing shrubbery vegetation on the east and west sides of the pri- vate access drive connecting to 70th Street shall 6e trimmed back to improve site visibility before crossing the existing 6ifuminous trail and entering onto the roadway. 10. The property owner must apply for a building permit for al1 restoration work to the principal structure or any accessory structures. A building permit is a/so required for demolition of any structure on the site. The City's Historic Preservation Officer shall be notified prior to any work to be performed on any structure Original motion passed on an 8-to-1 vote (Lassen). 6.3 CASES ZA01-061, PP01-062, SP01-063, CUP01-064, CUP01-065 (continued from August 27, 2001) Mike Rygh has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning from R-2.5, Resi- dential, to PUD, Planned Unit Development; a preliminary plat to create five commercial lots; a site plan review of a neighborhood convenience center; and conditional use permits to allow a gas station and a daycare center. This proposed development will be located on the northwest corner of 70th Street and Hinton Avenue. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Japs asked if the six acres included both the commercial development and the senior housing. Lindquist responded that the senior housing component is 3.16 acres and the commercial component consists of 6 acres, which includes about 1.5 acres of right of way, so there is about five acres of actual commercial land. Kathy Anderson, KKE Architects, introduced Mike Rygh, the property owner and developer, and Joe Fogarty, Edina Realty. She stated that they would answer any questions the Commission may have. Joe Fogarty, stated that Mr. Rygh asked him to assist with this project after the area was designated for commercial. He stated that about 11 years ago an application for a conven- ience store was filed for the Bright Keys site. He explained that at that time it was identified that the residents of Cottage Grove wanted convenient services so that they did not always have to go to the business district in the city. He stated that through the comp plan, the city selected the corner of 70th and Hinton as an appropriate site for providing services. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 7 of 20 Fogarty also stated that the trip generation for the site would be 90 percent destination or origination with Cottage Grove residents, which is different than the Almar Viilage project that will attract commuter traffic along County Road 19. He stated that the proposed con- venience center would also benefit those who work second shift and asked that hours of operation of the convenience center not be limited. He agreed about limiting the hours for the car wash. He also expressed concern about eliminating the canopy lighting and the di- rected lighting because it could make the property unnoticeable after dark. Fogarty stated that they engaged KKE Architects to ensure a high-quality development that would attract quality tenants. He expressed concern about attracting those types of tenants if the hours were limited as it would limit their profit potential. He also stated that having the gas station open 24 hours would enhance the security of the area because there would be employees in attendance at the site. Piggott asked for further information on the senior housing component, such as whether it would be housing for seniors or assisted living. Fogarty responded that they don't have any details yet as they will not be the developer of the senior housing. He stated that they have interviewed three or four entities to be the manager of the senior housing project. He ex- plained that originally they wanted to do a five and a half acre commercial project at the site and that on their initial submission, they had included an office building. He stated that they reacted to the city's request to include senior housing, but they have not selected a co-de- veloper yet. Japs asked if they could guarantee that senior housing would be developed or could it re- vert to a commercial office building. He stated that he supports the senior housing compo- nent but is against a commercial office building in that area. Rygh responded that Lindquist could probably provide the best response. He stated that they are interested in senior housing, and they have no reason to buiid something other than that. He explained that they originalfy thought senior housing would be built below the hill in the West Draw, this site would be a better fit because of the services available in the proposed development. He stated that he would have no problem with the city in the recommendations for approval requiring senior housing. Lindquist stated that the PUD would require senior housing; how- ever the current or future property owner could request something different at a later date but the Council can say no. She explained that the applications have come to the Planning Commission as a package with the senior housing component, which wouid be what gets approved. Japs stated that he understands that under new state laws, residential zoning can be changed between different residential classifications with just a majority vote of the Council. He asked in a PUD, if senior housing were required, if that be a residential desig- nation, and would a super majority of the Council be required to change it to commercial office. Lindquist responded that was correct. Japs stated that during the comprehensive plan update process, the Commission looked at several areas for neighborhood convenience centers. He explained that they had initially recommended the area at 65th and Hinton, but the recommendation was to move it to 70th and Hinton, which he believes was an appropriate move. He stated that during the discus- sion, Seasons Market in Woodbury was used as a model and that the size of the commer- cial development would be the same size or smaller than Seasons Market, which is less than four acres. He stated that the proposed commercial development exceeds five acres and asked if the commercial portion has to remain that size. Fogarty stated that the Sea- Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 8 of 20 sons Market is about 3.98 acres. He explained that the difference between the two sites is that the Seasons Market has a smaller convenience store and that the proposed develop- ment in Cottage Grove would have a day care center. He stated that the proposed devel- opment would have about the same or less retail space than Seasons Market. Japs asked for clarification that without the day care center, the size of the retail space would be closer to that of Seasons Market. Anderson responded yes because the day care has a large out- door play area. She stated that the commercial area would be different than the Seasons Market, with more open space. Japs stated that there are three different components to the project: senior housing, day care center, and a commercial entity. He asked for a break- down in the acreage for those components. He also stated that the property is currently zoned R-2.5 and he asked Rygh if there was adequate screening so that R-2.5 homes could be put into the area. Rygh responded that according to the plan, the senior housing would abut the residential area in the majority of the space and would be appropriately landscaped. He stated that senior housing exists in residential areas in many cities. He also stated that more parking is shown on the plan than is actuaily required and he imagines that there would be some change in the configuration to enhance the whole site. Japs then asked if there would be screening between the gas station and the residential properties across the street. Rygh responded that the gas station wants to have some visibility on 70th Street but there would be large pines and some screening on D Street between the gas station and the residential homes across the street. Japs stated that his primary con- cern was the access road on the interior portion of the property. Anderson stated that their intention is to use a combination of berming and overstory coniferous trees to provide screening from the residents. Bailey asked if the developers had a timeline for completion of the project. Rygh responded that it would be no sooner than 2003, which would be when Hinton is upgraded. Hudnut asked why they proposed a day care center. Fogarty responded that the location would be convenient for those who commute out of Cottage Grove to work in other com- munities. Hudnut stated that there are already day care centers in town and asked why they feel that this one is necessary. Fogarty responded that this would be a superior loca- tion to the others in town. Anderson stated that the day care center with the senior housing component is a viabie trend. Hudnut stated that Seasons Market only has eight gas pumps and asked why this proposal is for 12 pumps. Fogarty responded that they have not de- cided on 12 pumps. He stated that the stronger component is the convenience sales and six to eight pumps would probably be enough. He stated that the current studies do not support a 12-pump station, and they would have no probiem if the city limits it to eight. Piggott asked if the questions could be restricted to the legality of the proposal and not the motivations and appropriateness of the type of businesses, because if the Planning Com- mission does not approve this application, they applicants could say that the decision was based not on the comprehensive plan but on personal feelings toward the project. Lassen commented on problems with the gas station location being limited to a right-in, right-out access to 70th Street. Fogarty responded that the concern is shared by the devel- opers but he believes this project is viable if the anticipated future road improvements take place. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 9 of 20 Willhife opened the public hearing. She stated that all persons testifying need to state their names and addresses for the public record and asked that the testimony not be re- petitive. She also stated that the Commission has received and reviewed the information from the neighborhood and understands their position. Jim Chilcott, 6790 Ideal Avenue, stated that he takes issue with Willhite's remark that the Commission understands the position of the citizens. He stated that they have tried to be very professional in approaching the Commissioners, Councilmembers, and city staff. He stated that the many citizens in attendance at tonighYs meeting indicates that the residents are committed to their neighborhood. Chilcott then read an excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes of August 27, 2001: "Chair Willhite asked what type of senior housing they were planning. Ms. Anderson responded that they do not yet have a developer for the senior housing so it could be assisted living or independent living. She stated that the office use would also be nice because it is usually closed at night and there is less traffic. She stated that they are Iooking at this as a market-driven commercial project." He stated that the neighbors feel that they do not have the protection of zoning ordinance because the proposal is not to make minor alterations to the comprehensive plan but major alterations. Chilcott stated that there are several issues that need to be addressed, such as how the commercial district was designated, how the district got so big, why the district is neces- sary, and why the city seems blind to citizen concerns. He stated that the neighborhood group has submitted a petition signed by over 150 residents asking for that the proposal be denied due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. He stated that the comprehen- sive plan clearly calls for an R-2.5, Residential, guiding for this parcei; however, the pro- posal recently submitted to the Commission has both high density and medium density components. He further stated that the City Council envisioned a neighborhood conven- ience center with one or two gas pumps and a convenience store while the proposal is for a freeway-style six island facility. Chilcott stated that they believe city staff is misusing the planned unit development portion of the city's zoning ordinance. He stated that most neighborhoods in Cottage Grove were developed not through the flexibility of a PUD but through the rigid constraints of our zoning regulations. Chilcott stated that the purpose of the PUD is to contain urban sprawl, and the PUD portion of the city's zoning ordinance is a tool that city planners can use to entice developers to invest in the more challenging areas within a community, such as vacant lots between existing developed areas, rundown shop- ping centers, or abandoned industrial zones, by releasing developers from strict adherence to a particular zoning ordinance. He stated that the flexibility found in the PUD ordinance can be alaused by indiscriminate use of the ordinance where it was never intended. He ex- plained that this proposal is not to revitalize a decaying urban zone or to convert a rundown shopping center into a living community. Chilcott reported that they delivered to the Planning Commission the videotape of the City Council workshop on November 11, 1999, where they discussed neighborhood conven- ience centers. He stated that it was clear that the Planning Commission and the City Coun- cil wanted very small convenience centers, and it was pointed out they considered Seasons Market too big. He stated that the West Draw has some of the most valuable land in the City of Cottage Grove and developers would not need to be enticed to develop that parcel of land. He then stated that the citizens chalienge not only the indiscriminate use of the PUD but also its very legality in this case. He referenced their letter to the Commission Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 10 of 20 where they point out that the city staff's original justification for the use of this PUD zoning was the mistaken conclusion that the 10-acre minimum area requirement is met because there is an adjacent new residential PUD proposal. He stated that Section 11-14-3A2 clearly requires a pre-existing PUD development. He stated that after this was pointed out, city staff now thinks the original justification no longer applies but that item #3 now does. He stated that this 8.77-acre site is not a transition zone as defined by the comprehensive plan and the citizens believe this interpretation is also erroneous. He explained that staff's reason for why it qualifies for item #3 is that it is bounded by minor arterials. He stated that they do not believe that the City Council did not intend for the PUD to be used as a catchall ordinance, because there are several criteria required for its use, the first of which is the size of the parcel. He explained that parcel size is important because any landowner could propose a mixed-use development along any minor arterial road within the city. He stated that the only reasonable interpretation of the clause in item #3 is that the property is located in a transitionai area between different land use categories or the property is located in a transitional area on a principal or minor arterial. Under this interpretation, the City Council allowed for additional flexibility in the use of PUDs within transitional zones where sensitive development could be achieved. He read from the ordinance ". .. sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant transportation or scenic corridors." He stated that transitional zones are pre-eminent in that passage. The city staff further indicates the weakness in their argument by the lot split discussion on page 4, third paragraph of the staff report, which reads "The current proposal encompasses a total of 10.6 acres. This includes right-of-way and the senior housing component. The retail portion is 5.61 acres with the senior housing being 3.16 acres. The site does not qualify for the exceptions listed in items 1, 2, or 4; however the property is located bounded by two minor arterial roads, 70th Street and Hinton Avenue, and therefore qualifies under the ex- ception #3. In addition, if it were not for the lot split processed by the County, the original parent parcei size at the time of the initial appiication was 37.459 acres, which is above the 10-acre minimum for a PUD district." He contends that that additional sentence does not help it meet the intent of the code. He stated that the citizens conclude that the application and inappropriate use of the PUD ordinance, if approved, is a violation of city ordinance 11- 14-3A and is detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods. He respectFully requested that the Commission deny the applications. Japs asked for Chilcott's thoughts on the senior housing component. Chilcott stated that he thinks that senior housing can be incorporated in an R-2.5 zoning district. He also stated that the B-1 zoning would allow for senior housing. He stated that the neighborhood feeis that senior housing wouid be fine in that area, but they think the focus here is on taking advantage of that corner for a gas station. He stated that at the August meeting there was discussion regarding putting restrictions on the PUD but they feel that the PUD is not de- signed to protect the community, the zoning ordinances are. He stated that in the West Draw report, senior housing was initially siated for development in the mining pit area. Lindquist responded that the B-1 zoning would permit nursing homes, congregate care, rest homes, or retirement homes provided the site contain not less than 600 square feet of lot area for each person to be accommodated. She stated that it also allows hospitals. Gary Wilkinson, 6907 Homestead Avenue South, stated that he is reinforcing Chilcott's tes- timony. He stated that the traffic study is flawed because it excludes impacts from the High- way 61 and i-494 construction that will take six years to complete. He stated that commut- Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 11 of 20 ers would then be looking for alternate north/south routes, and once the Hinton-Tower project is completed, more traffic will run through the area. He asked what type of arrange- ments or adjustments does the staff and Commission see that would keep the drive along Hinton or 70th Street from becoming heavily congested. Lindquist responded that the County hopes to begin construction of the Hinton-Tower project in 2002 and completed in 2003. Willhite stated that Hinton-Tower would be a more direct route north and south and should kept traffic out of the neighborhoods. Wilkinson stated that his contention is that adding additional traffic due to the highway reconstruction to the existing tra�c would be a significant issue that was not addressed in the traffic study. Wilkinson then stated that the traffic study made a series of assumptions as it relates to level of service. The study indi- cated that Hinton would be four-lane divided, there would be traffic lights at 69th and Hinton, and there would be traffic lights at 70th and Hinton. He then asked based on the assumptions in the traffic study, where does that stand in the future. Lindquist responded that the traffic study looks at the existing condition based on traffic numbers that the city has available and then models the development. The study is done on a 20-year time frame and the numbers on 70th and Hinton are the projections that the County has set up for Hinton after reconstruction. She stated that if the model is run without putting the signal lights in, the levels of service are less than with the signal lights. She stated that the traffic consultant told her that to make 69th Street operational, a signal light would be needed to allow traffic to make left turns from 69th Street to Hinton, because of high traffic volumes. Wilkinson stated that he is concerned that with the increased residential development in the area, traffic going to Woodbury, a commercial development on the corner, that the road im- provements and traffic control mechanisms may not be in place untii 2020. Lindquist re- sponded that the study is not implying that the improvements would be installed in 2020; they just used the traffic projections from the County. She stated that the traffic situation would be monitored and a traffic light would be installed if there were enough traffic to war- rant that. Wilkinson stated that he does not believe that the traffic study took into account ali of the property in the West Draw that couid be developed. He also stated that he is con- cerned about the safety of pedestrians, particularly children, waiking to the convenience center. Wilkinson asked if there is a guarantee that the senior housing component would be built. He stated that rather than doing senior housing with this project, once there is a developer with a viable project, the zoning could then be changed to match the comprehensive pian. He also stated that the staff report noted that future property owners would have to build as approved or have significant changes approved by Council, which tells him that there is no guarantee that Rygh would be developing the property and somebody else could. He stated that the new developers would have to go before the Planning Commission and the City Council to have any modifications approved, which means there is no guarantee that the senior housing component would be built. He also pointed out that the staff report notes that staff does not support the changes in the land use to a multi-family project or additional commercial use in the future, which also suggests to him that there is no guarantee of senior housing. His third point is that the staff report, on page 6, says "approval in concept of the commercial plan now." He stated that suggests to him that the way the development is laid out on the map could change. He reiterated that while approval by the City Council would be necessary to modify the plan, there is no guarantee that what was approved to- night would be built. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 12 of 20 Wilkinson then stated that the size and proximity of the development is an issue. He stated that the comprehensive plan detaiis guidelines for residential convenience centers. These guidelines include that a residential convenience center could be between three and ten acres, it could hold one major retailer with four to eight smailer stores, could serve people in a one and a half mile radius, and could conceivabiy serve from 2,500 to 44,000 people. His contention is that with Almar Village being developed two miles away given the guide- lines that the convenience centers serve a mile and a half radius, there is an overlap of about a mile. He then compared the proposed development with the Seasons Market, Val- ley Crossing, and the County Road 19/Hudson Road project and noted all they are in close proximity to highways and are surrounded on a minimum of two sides by commercial. Wil- kinson then stated that the size of the development makes a difference and this one seems too large. He suggested that if commerciai development needs to go there, it be limited to a convenience store with two gas pumps. Japs asked Wilkinson how he felt about the senior housing and day care center. Wilkinson stated that personally he liked the idea of a senior center, but this isn't the only way it could be done. He stated that it could be done through B-1 zoning once the city receives a viable project, and not with a PUD. He stated that he has heard that Cottage Grove is one of the easiest areas in the metropolitan area to find day care. He stated that if another day care center is needed, he wants to make sure there is a good enough reason for having it lo- cated at 70th and Hinton, not just because it would be located on that corner. Dick Hansen, 6918 Homestead Avenue South, thanked the city staff for requiring a traffic study. He stated that he has lived in the area for over 23 years and expected single-family unattached residential homes to be built on that location, which he would still like to see go in. He stated that he does not believe the Planning Commission intended this type and size of development to occur on that location. He believes that the vision was for a small neighborhood convenience center with a small gas station, not one with 12 pumps. He also feels that that the senior housing project is being used only to get the Planning Commission and City Council approvals. He asked the Commission members if this was the neighbor- hood commercial center that they had in mind. He stated that it seems to him that the neighborhoods do not want convenience centers based on the number of homeowners signing petitions against the two that have been proposed. He asked that the Pianning Commission to recommend a moratorium on all neighborhood commercial center requests until a zoning definition can be completed. He stated that the neighborhood also has con- cerns about the misuse of the PUD process. Jeff Thompson, 7813 -69th Street Court, stated that he is concerned about the right- in/right-out turn on 70th Street. He stated that he is also concerned that the location of the gas station could be changed from 70th Street to 69th Street because of the right-in/right- out. He then stated that he does not have an opinion on the senior housing component; however, he does feel that another day care center is not needed in Cottage Grove. Lindquist responded that the project approved by the Planning Commission and Councii would be what was approved. If the property were sold, the approved pians go with the property and the new owners would have to buiid what was approved according to the con- ditions of approval. She stated that when Orrin Thompson purchased the Pine Summit de- velopment, which was approved through a different developer, Orrin Thompson built con- Planning Commission Minutes November26,2001 Page 13 of 20 sistent with the plan. She did state, however, that they could request changes, similar to anyone else requesting a change before the Planning Commission and Council. She then explained that with a PUD all changes would need to be approved by the Planning Com- mission and City Council. If the zoning were B-1 or B-2, the property owner would not need to get approvals before the Commission and Councii as long as their changes met ordi- nance criteria; staff can administratively approve those items. She stated that if a project meets all ordinance criteria for a B-1 or B-2 zoning, it is very difficult for a city to deny. She reiterated that with a PUD, what was approved is exactly what gets built, whereas a devel- oper can come in under a straight zoning and if they meet setback and other pertormance standards, the project could change. She also stated that while changes could be re- quested to a PUD, the process would be public whereas they would not necessarily be with straight zoning. Wilkinson replied that while what Lindquist stated may be true, this property is currently zoned R-2.5, even though it is designated commercial. He stated that the city should wait to rezone the property from R-2.5 to a commercial designation until a viable project is pro- posed so the city can retain control over what is developed. He reiterated that if the zoning were changed to PUD, the project may be buiit as presented, but there are no guarantees that it won't be changed. Lindquist stated that because the land use pian designates the parcel as commercial, if it was not rezoned to a PUD, it should be rezoned to a commercial zoning designation. Wilkinson stated because the Iand is zoned R-2.5 and requires a zon- ing change to be developed, the city can be more picky about the development allowed. Japs asked Lindquist if she wanted to comment about the land use guiding issue. Lindquist responded that the property is designated for a commercial land use and recent state law required that the city needs to bring the zoning into compliance with the land use plan that was approved. She stated that Wilkinson is correct, if the Planning Commission did not like the project, they would not have to approve the rezoning to a PUD to B-1 or B-2, but even- tually the city, by law, is required to bring the zoning into compliance. Unless the Council and Commission feel that the land use plan needs to be changed, the city will continue to receive commercial project applications for the site. Chilcott stated that instead of using the term "guided commercial," he thinks that it should "neighborhood commercial." He stated that the citizens' position is that the PUD is illegal in this case, per the reasons that they mentioned. He also stated that it is dangerous to ap- prove this PUD, because then with the existing PUD, the parcels to the west and north could qualify for a PUD rezoning. He stated that that parcel of land should not need an in- centive to develop it. He asked the Commission to work on a definition of a neighborhood convenience center. Willhite asked if anyone e/se wished fo speak. No one did. Willhite closed the public hearing. Piggott made a motion to approve the applications subject to the conditions listed below. Bailey seconded. Japs stated that he is concerned about the size of the gas station. He stated that he feels that six pumps would be adequate rather than the proposed 12. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 14 of 20 Weber stated that she wanted to speak against the motion. She feels that there are 33 conditions, which are too many and that a new proposai should be drafted that incorporates some of the concerns of the staff and citizens. She believes it is appropriate to look at the purpose and viabifity of a project when looking to change how a parcel of land is used. She also believes that the arguments for the project contradict each other. She stated that there is no evidence that seniors living in the senior housing complex would want to be near a 12-pump gas station/convenience store/car wash that is open 24 hours a day. However, another argument was that it is a superior location for commuter convenience and not really to serve the seniors. She believes that seniors really want a lot more convenience than just a place to buy milk and bread, they need services, transit, and other things that would make their location more convenient. Weber is also concerned about the number of avail- abte parking spaces, which seems to her to mean that it is not a neighborhood convenience center but a development for commuters. She stated that a child care center and a senior center could fit into a neighborhood pattern and she referenced a nice one located in Woodbury, however she does not see that kind of planning for that here. She also stated that she does not see a need for a big gas station. She then expressed her concern that the development wouid detract from the scenic pastoral aspects of the area. Weber stated that this proposal needs to be reworked to be more consistent with the city's expressed and written goals. Lassen complimented the applicant on the aesthetics of the proposal. He stated that he does feel that there are aspects of this particular proposai are consistent with some of the goals set forth in the comprehensive plan. However, it is clear that this proposal in its en- tirety is inconsistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan. He stated that he can ap- preciate that the intention that the city saw a need for small convenience centers and added them to the comp plan and that that is a potential for this corner; however, this par- ticular proposal has gone beyond that. His other comment regarded a comment that was made that this is unique in comparison to other PUDs in that is serving the citizens directly around the proposal versus traffic flow coming from other areas of town. He stated that a large percentage of people in Cottage Grove work outside of the city. He stated that he gets his gas either near his work or as he runs errands, so that has never been a real draw for him as a reason to have a gas station. He stated that he needs to support the intent of the comprehensive pian and he feels that this particular proposal is inconsistent with it. Hudnut stated that he wanted to speak against the motion also because he has concerns about the scale of the proposal. According to the comprehensive plan, there are two types of commercial, either neighborhood oriented or community oriented in scope and size. He stated that the Seasons Market in Woodbury is more neighborhood oriented but the pro- posed development appears to be more community oriented. According to the comprehen- sive plan, commercial development shall be designed and located where there will be minimai impact on adjacent residential land uses. However, this one would be a major im- pact because the scale is too large. He then stated that the comprehensive plan also says that to serve a neighborhood of a 1,000 people, which is roughly what this is, you need a convenience shopping center approximately .8 of an acre, or for 2,000 people, it should be 1.2 acres. According to the comprehensive plan, the purpose of a neighborhood conven- ience center is to promote neighborhood cohesion, but as we have heard tonight, this plan would only promote neighborhood disruption. Therefore, he wouid oppose the motion. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 15 of 20 Willhite stated that there is a motion and a second to approve the applications subject to the recommendations. Severson asked if the change suggested by Japs to reduce the size of the gas station to six pumps was included in the motion. Piggott responded that he does not think this would impact the size of the store. Japs responded that the six pumps, as op- posed to 12, would be designed to bring the gas station down to what he considers a more neighborhood size in deference to a larger commercial place. Piggott stated that that would not have an impact on the size of the structure. Severson stated that there was concern by the homeowners about the number of gas pumps and the hours of operation. Bailey stated that the hours of operation are dealt with in the recommendations. Piggott asked if limiting the number of pumps would limit the economic viability of the project and if so, it is the city's business. It was the consensus that the motion be changed to limit the number of gas pumps to six as opposed to twelve. 1. The applicanf shall revise the preliminary plat drawings and legal description to match the correct lot of record descriptions prior to the document being released for recording with Washington County. 2. A revised ufility plan shall be completed and submifted to ti►e City for staff review and approval prior to the submission of the final plat applicafion to the City. The revised plan shall detail that all sanitary sewer and water service lines and asso- ciated hydrants, manholes, gate valves or other required infrastructure. 3. The developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Cottage Grove for fhe installation of and payment for all public improvements in the sub- division, pursuant to Title 10 of the City Code. 4. The applicant receive appropriate building permits from the City, and permits or approvals from other regulatory agencies including, but not limited fo the South Washington Watershed Districf, Washington County, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 5. The revised grading and utility plan, which reflects changes recommended in the staff report, including modifications to the plan to increase water quality ponding� must be submitted to the City for sfaff review and approval prior to the submis- sion of the final plat applications to the City. All emergency overflow swales must be identified on the grading and erosion contro/ plan. 6. The applicant submit a�nal construction management plan that includes erosion control measures, project phasing for grading work, areas designated for preser- vation, a crushed-rock construction entrance, and construction-related vehicle parking for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 7. A pre-consfruction meeting with City staff and the contractor shall be held before site work begins. The contractor shall provide the City with a project schedule for the various phases of construction. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 16 of 20 8. Erosion control devices shall be installed prior to commencement of any grading activity. Erosion control shall be performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 10-5-5, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 9. The applicant shall revise the infernal roadway access points on the site plan as recommended in the staff report. 10. A revised landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for staff review and ap- proval prior to the submission of the fnal plat plan applications to the City. The landscaping plan shall meet ordinance criteria. Additional coniferous landscape screening sha/l be included along the western p�operty line. 11.A letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the landscaping estimafe, sfreef sweeping, paving and cuibing, and irrigation systems should be submitted to and approved by the City. Upon completion of the landscaping improvements, the owner shall, in writing, inform the Cify that said improvements have been com- pleted. The City shall retain the financial guarantee covering the landscape im- provements for a period of one year from the date of notice, to ensure survival of the plants. No building permit shall be issued until the required financial guaran- tee has been received and accepted by the City. 12. The developer shall install snow fencing or similar fencing material around all trees or groups of trees that are to be preserved prior to any grading activity on the site. 13. The developer is responsible for the cost of installing "STOP" signs at each of the private access drive connecting to the proposed private street, the public street and at both street connections with the adjacent minor arterials. 14.Access control shall be deeded to Washington County on Hinfon Avenue and the 70fh Street CSAH 24 right-of-way lines, except for the designated 60-foot wide openings centered on the proposed public road. 15. For areas outside of public right-of way, and blanket easements, 30-foot wide util- ity easements shall be platted over the public water and sanitary sewer lines or as required by the City's Engineer. 16. The private internal access road between the commercial structures and the sen- ior housing lot shall have a minimum paved surface area of 30 feet. Concrete curb and gutfer be installed along the parking lots private access drives. 17.A1I monument signs shall comply with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall only be placed on private property, and no pylon signs shall be allowed. The property owners association shall be responsible for fhe maintenance of all signs. Sign covenants regulating signage for individual tenants should be submitted for re- view and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Pianning Commission Minutes November26,2001 Page 17 of 20 18. The address sign for each structure shall be clearly seen from the public street. Each unit shall a/so display its unit number on fhe front of the building (entrance of the buildingJ. 19. Prior to fhe re/ease of the final plat for recording with Washington County, the de- veloper shall pay to fhe City the required parkland dedication fee. 20.An eight-foot wide bituminous trail shall be installed within the linear landscaping island along the north side of the internal access road. Said trail shall be a mini- mum of four feet from the curb line. An eight-foot wide bituminous off-road trail lying within and paralleling the wesf boulevard of the proposed public road shall be required. 29. The developer shall install public seafing benches every 300 feet along the public trails. 22. Parking shall be prohibited along the private access drive and appiopriately posted. 23. The design and construction materials for alI buildings in the PUD building shall be the same as identified on Sheet A-3 of fhe architectural submittal dated August 3, 2001 from the KKE Architects Inc. The final colors schemes and construction materials samples shall be submitted to the Community Development Departmenf for review and approval. Minor architectural and construction material finishing detail deviations may be approved 6y the Director of Community Development prior to the re/ease of the building permit. 24. Only one gas statioNc-sfore with car wash as depicted on the approved site plan shall be allowed. 25. Trash enc%sures sha// be required for all commercial buildings on the site. These structures shall be modified to meet ordinance criteria, and reflect the same de- sign and construction materials as the principal building. A solid wood or equivalent vinyl board door shall be utilized on the structure. 26. The canopy of the proposed gas station shall be proi►ibited from being backlit and the canopy lighting must be flush mounted recessed lighting, and fhe materi- als and design must be architecturally compatible with the entire development. The canopy size shall be reduced by 30 percent of the area shown on the site plan dated 10-10-01. 27. Exferior storage, display, or sales of inerchandise is prohibited on all of the com- mercial pads, except for temporary sa/es by permit. 28.A private cross drainage and utility easement document identifying usage rights, maintenance responsibilities (including litter) and other drainage related items shall 6e created and recorded with all of the parcels platted in the commercial Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 18 of 20 portion of the proposed PUD. A cross parking and access easement document shall be created and recorded with all of fhe parcels platted in the commercial portion of the PUD. 29, The applicant submit private covenants which details the following: a. Ownership and maintenance responsibility for all landscaping shall 6e the Homeowners Association. b. Building color and exterior materials comply with City approved materials. c. Monument signs shall be maintained by the property owners association. 30. Site lighting cannot exceed .5 footcandles at the residential property line, 1 foot- candle at the commercial property line and must be downward directed and not produce glare. 31. The gas station shall not operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. The car wash shall not operate befween the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 32. The uses on fhe commercial portion of the site shall be restricted to the permitted and conditional uses listed in Attachment A. 33. Prior to the release of the final plat for recording, the developer shall pay the re- quired area charges in the amount of $110,226.31. 34. The gas station be limited to six pumps. Motion approved on a 6-to-3 vote (Hudnut, Lassen, Weber). Applications and Requests 7.1 City Register of Historic Sites and Landmarks Review and comment on the draft preservation planning report for the Healy House (Hope Glen Farm) Historic Site for listing in the City Register of Historic Sites and Landmarks. McCool summarized the preservation planning report prepared by Bob Vogel, the city's Historic Preservation Officer. Hudnut moved to approve. Severson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2001 Bailey made a motion fo approve the minutes of the October 22, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes. Hudnut seconded. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 19 of 20 Japs asked when there is a tie vote, how is it sent forward to Council. Lindquist responded that there would be no recommendation from the Planning Commission. Motion passed unanimously. Reports 9.1 Recap of November City Council Meetings Lindquist reported that at the November 7 meeting, the Council held a workshop on MUSA expansion in the East Ravine to discuss potential timing and what the Council wanted to do. She stated that the city needs to update our system plans: the comprehensive sanitary sewer, water plan, storm sewer plan, and an AUAR, which would take probably a year or two to do. She explained that that process wiil be starting and because they are compre- hensive plan components, this Commission would review them. Lindquist stated that on November 20, 2001, the Council on a 4-to-1 vote denied the reguiding and rezoning requests for the Stoltz, Hoekstra, and Snow properties near the Kohls site. Severson stated that he watched the broadcast of that meeting and thought that it was a very interesting discussion by the Council. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Japs asked that now that the Rose of Sharon Church has been demolished, what is the timeframe for the rest of the development. Lindquist responded that the city is still talking with EBL&S, the Grove Plaza property owners, about the development agreement. She ex- plained that Walgreen's took longer than anybody had expected. Japs asked if Home De- pot is still looking at coming into Grove Plaza. Lindquist responded that they were, probably not until next summer. Bailey asked when the old Burger King building would be demol- ished for the gas station. Lindquist responded that she did not know. Bailey asked why that was delayed. McCooi responded that it had to do with the agreements with EBL&S and that Rainbow Foods has slated it as a project for next year. Lindquist stated that the city needs to put in some public utilities. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries The Commission discussed the architectural guidelines and several Commissioners ex- pressed interest in the city adopting an ordinance incorporating these guidelines. Lindquist stated that the Commission would discuss the guidelines and neighborhood commercial zoning at a future meeting. Japs asked if the other half of the Hinton/70th Street project would be on next month's agenda. Lindquist responded probably not. Japs then asked if the Acorn Ridge wouid be on next month. Lindquist responded that it probably would. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2001 Page 20 of 20 Lindquist reported that the next meeting is scheduled for December 24, which is Christmas Eve, so it has been changed to Monday, December 17, 2001. Lasson asked how the area around 70th and Hinton was guided, because the map shows the commercial district surrounding by medium density residential, with R-2.5 and then more medium density. Japs stated that on a flat map, it doesn't make sense, but the topog- raphy of the area does. He stated that the medium high density is located down below a steep hill with R-2.5 overlooking that. Booth asked if the hill would be graded away, Lindquist responded no. She stated that the commercial came after the West Draw report and there was concern about trying to adjust some of the residential to go around there, She also thinks that regardless of the discussion tonight, we knew the road was going to ring the commercial area and so part of the idea was that there would be a built-in transi- tion. It may not be a nice buffer, but it provides that additional separation. Willhite stated that the only thing the Commission did not know at that time was that the school would be buiit in the area. Bailey acknowledged receipt of the architectural guidelines. He suggested that some of the criteria should perhaps be incorporated into the ordinance. Willhite wanted to make sure the City wasn't too restrictive in their standards. Severson acknowledged the concern how- ever, felt that the City needed to be prepared for more development as the City continues to mature and the transportation system continues to improve. Adjournment Hudnut moved to adjourn the meeting. Japs seconded. Motion passed unanimously. � , � �7 � � �C ��%�j�/ C�.�.�v-v l/ I�v / ��`�C i / ���/,