Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-28 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission January 28, 2002 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held at City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 28th day of Janu- ary, 2002, in the Council Chambers. Call to Order Vice Chairperson Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Myron Bailey, Timothy Booth, Bob Hudnut, Herb Japs, David Lassen, Bob Severson, and Eileen Weber Members Absent: David Piggott (unexcused) Chris Willhite (unexcused) Staff Present: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Japs moved to approve the agenda. Booth seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Open Forum Vice Chairperson Bailey 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 Vice Chairperson Bailey explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and the City Council makes a�l 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 ad- dress for the public record: Public Hearings 6.1 CASE PP01-075 (continued from October 22, 2001) Heritage Development of Minnesota has filed a preliminary plat application for a pro- posed subdivision, Acorn Ridge, which would consist of 24 lots for single-family homes. This subdivision is located on the south side of 70th Street, west of Granada Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 2 of 20 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. McCool reported that a letter was received from Robert Newby, 7124 Granada Avenue South and a copy of this fetter was given to each Planning Commis- sion member. Booth asked about the drainage and utility easement 70 feet in width along the northwest boundary fine of Lot 5. McCool pointed out on the preliminary plat the location of the required 70-foot easement and described the drainage pattern for his particuiar area. Japs asked if culverts wouid be constructed in the ravines. McCool referred to the grading plan and showed the various locations where culverts would be constructed to aliow private driveways to cross the drainageways. Japs asked if the ravine would be left natural. McCool responded yes, but some debris will be removed from the drainageways and siopes restored to correct erosion. Japs then asked if any water would fiow from the north side of 70th Street. McCooi responded that there is a stormwater holding pond in the souihwest corner of the Pine Summit Addition. An outiet pipe crosses beneath 70th Street. Surface water drainage flows southward and eventually to the low point at the southwest side of the site. Japs asked if most of the utilities wouid be underground. McCooi reported that afl the private utilities lines wifl be underground. Hudnut asked for more information about the holding pond and if there were any safety is- sues due to its size. McCool responded that he does not know the total storage area for stormwater and asked the developer's engineer to respond. Japs asked if Washington County has considered reducing the speed limit along 70th Street, McCool responded that he is not aware if the County is considering reducing the speed limit, but they have talked about future improvements to 70th Street. Severson asked why the private road was proposed and if that cul-de-sac could be ex- tended. McCool responded that topography constricts the buildability of that particular area. He stated that the City will require the property owners to be responsible for maintaining the private drive. He explained that because of the triangular configuration of the property, the roadway is not able to get ali the way to the end. Severson asked if the private drive was the best option due to the topography. McCool stated that the developer had evaluated various routes and alternatives for this roadway layout, which resulted in this layout. Severson asked if soil tests were performed for the individual sanitary septic system. McCool responded that a few test holes and soil borings had been done on-site. Soils proved to be favorable septic drainfield systems. He stated that at the time building permit is applied for, soii borings and percolation tests would be required for each lot. Hudnut asked about the ordinance parameters for street lighting. McCool stated that gener- aily the spacing is 200 to 250 feet, and the light standards would be same as those installed in other residential subdivisions in the city. Hudnut then asked why land was not required for park dedication. McCool responded that in the City's Comprehensive Plan 2020, no land in that particular area had been identified for a public purpose. For this reason, a park fee in lieu of land dedication and a recreation fee are required to be paid for each lot. Hudnut asked about tree preservation due to the need to remove 626 significant trees. McCool re- sponded that significant trees defined by City ordinance include hardwoods that are six inches or larger in diameter and softwoods that are 12 inches in diameter. He stated that Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 3 of 20 many smaller shrubs and trees would also be removed. He also stated that there would be a number of cottonwoods removed along Highway 61 for grading the stormwater pond. John Hill, Heritage Development, 422 East County Road D, St. Paul, Minnesota, stated that they have re-designed the plat from their initial submission to get the county road access across from Goodview Avenue. He stated that they initially had two access points, but the County would only ailow one, which made it difficult due to the topography of the site. He stated that the private drive was necessary because if the cul-de-sac was extended, the road would go into a couple of ravines and require addition tree removal and steeper slope for the roadway. Hiil stated that they did soil borings and found no problems with the percolation tests for the septic system. Japs stated that the layout of the road seems to follow the tree lines. Hill responded that their initial design with the two access points minimized the number of trees that needed to be removed. He stated that they do not want to remove any more trees than they have to be- cause the trees are an asset to the site. Japs then asked if there is any way the pond could be reconfigured so that fewer trees, which would screen the homes from Highway 61, would need to be removed. Hili responded that they worked with the city engineer to save as many trees possible, but not much can be done to save trees where the stormwater pond is needed. Bailey opened the public hearing. Brian Dufrene, 6352 — 70th Street South asked about tra�c control at the 70th Street and Goodview intersection. McCool responded that the County is requiring a designated right- turn lane for eastbound traffic on 70th Street and there is no proposal for a traffic signal. Dufrene stated that he has many safety concerns regarding that intersection. McCool re- sponded that Washington County had expressed that they would be improving 70th Street sometime in the future. John Patterson, 7156 Granada Avenue South, stated that his home is directly east of Lots 16 and 17. He asked for clarification on the response to Japs' question about maintaining the integrity of the ravines. Patterson also expressed concerns for the amount of trees that will be removed for the roadway and house pads. McCool pointed out the grading boundary lim- its for the roadways and slopes and explained that the grading pian does not show tree re- moval for building pads because it is unknown where each house wiil be constructed at this time. McCool explained the minimum setback requirements for the R-2, Residential Estate and said these are the same minimum requirements as for the Hidden Oaks and Howards Addition. Patterson stated that he has similar concerns about the traffic on 70th Street and asked if there would be covenants dictating uniform building requirements for the homes within the development. He also asked about street lights and stated there are no street lights in the Hidden Oaks and Howards Addition developments. He asked if the foot candle requirement could be reduced. Patterson then expressed concern that he and several neighbors have about the developers grading portions of their properties. He explained that when the surveyors initially surveyed the property, he believes they were on his property. He requested scheduling a meeting between the surveyors and the property owners to ensure everyone understands where the property lines are. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 4 of 20 Hill responded that he does not foresee any grading taking place in that area, and they will make sure that no buildozers cross the property lines. He stated that there will be architec- tural guidelines for the development and each builder wiil know what they are before they purchase lots from Heritage Development. Japs asked if they have established any particular covenants yet. Hill responded that they have no specifics yet and explained that they would have a meeting with their builders to come up with the guidelines. Japs asked what the price range would be. Hill responded that the higher valued homes may range between $300,000 and $400,000. Hudnut asked about the concerns regarding the 70th Street access. Hill responded that they were required by Washington County to connect across from Goodview at a 90 degree an- gle. Hudnut asked what the County's rationale was. Hill responded that the County was con- cerned about sight distance issues. Mike Viilari, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, 412 East County Road B, stated that they worked with MnDOT and the City's consulting engineer in determining that the Goodview Avenue extension is the safest location for motorist to en- ter onto 70th Street. He explained that the County also requested that the developers extend the right-of-way 75 feet into the property to provide for future widening and accommodate a right-turn lane into the Acorn Ridge project. Severson asked if any estimates on noise leve�s from Highway 61 have been done for the lots that would abut Highway 61. Villari responded that they have not done any noise studies yet. Weber asked if they accept the condition about the tree preservation and tree mitigation. Hiil responded that they find all the conditions acceptable. Severson asked if the Public Safety Commission had concerns with the private driveway. McCool responded that they had discussed it at their meeting, but there was more discus- sion about their concerns about the roadway widths. He stated that the public street widths would be constructed to city standards. He stated that the Public Safety Commission wanted to ensure that the private drive would be accessible by emergency vehicles. He explained that one of the conditions stipulated in the staff report requires that the private drive be paved 18 feet in �vidth with the appropriate amount of sub-base material beneath the private drive. He stated that the Public Safety Commission has not had an opportunity to respond back to staffs memorandum expiaining ordinance requirements and Washington County's requirements. McCool then stated that Public Safety had asked about the ability to provide for additional roadway connections through the plat. He stated that access is not allowed onto Highway 61 and because of the existing residential properties on the east side, the roadway cannot connect to Granada Avenue. Japs stated that the Hidden Oaks subdivision does have a cul-de-sac with a long driveway extending back to one or two propeRies, and to the best of his knowledge, there has been no problems. Severson expressed concern for allowing narrow private drives for purposes of maximizing the number of lots in a subdivision. He stated that he would support a private drive if the to- pography is such that a private drive is the only reasonable approach. He stated that if there are no topography issues, a private drive should not be allowed. McCool responded that there is a slope and extending the public roadway into that area wouid require significantly more grading and more tree removal. Lindquist stated that there is an 8 percent road grade limitation by city ordinance, and the private drive gives more flexibility and reduces the need Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 5 of 20 for extensive grading and tree removal. She stated that private roads may be proposed for hard to access niches. Weber asked about Mr. Newby's concern for the possibility of a commercial land use on the lots closest to 70th Street. Hill responded that they are residential developers and do not do commercial developments. Jim Henry, 7189 Granada Avenue South requested that the Public Safety Commission review the traffic issues raised by the residents. He stated that there is a problem on 70th Street due to the traffic from Pine Summit. He then stated that he is concerned about the street lighting and asked if the lights could be shielded or brought down to the minimum power rating. Bailey asked if anyone e/se in the audience wanted to speak. No one else spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut moved to approve the application subject to the condifions stipulated be/ow. Booth seconded. Severson asked if a condition regarding no burning should be added. McCool responded that burning is prohibited and is a standard condition within grading permit process. Japs asked about the landscaping and trees plantings at the cemetery and if that should be a condition of approval. McCool responded that the city would work with the developer to have some trees planted near the cemetery boundary. Japs stated that he supports the motion. He stated that he would like to have the City Coun- cil to look at reducing the ponding requirement. He then discussed the street light require- ment and stated that the neighboring development with the same type of lots does not have �ighting and it does not appear to be a probiem in that area. He stated that he would support dropping the requirement for street lights because it is a rural development. Japs moved to amend the motion to not requi�e street lights. Booth seconded for dis- cussion purposes. Lassen stated that the West Draw is developing and is not sure if street lighting should or should not be allowed. He asked if the ordinance was in effect when the homes to the east were buiit. McCool responded that Howards Addition is an older plat than that of Hidden Oaks addition and is not sure what the requirements were then. He explained that the de- veloper of Hidden Oaks had requested the City not install street lights, and the City Council agreed. Japs stated that not requiring street lights would allow for a consistency with the neighboring subdivisions. Booth stated that he does not concur with that philosophy for pub- lic safety reasons and suggested that the Pianning Commission's recommendation to the City Council remain as written in the staff report. He stated that he does not want to set a precedent for not requiring street lights and supported the idea that maybe the lighting could be subdued. He stated that the City Council shouid make that decision. Lindquist stated the City Council would be advised of the Planning Commission discussion relative to street lighting so an amendment to the conditions concerning this issue wouid not be necessary. Bailey stated that he would prefer not approving an amendment and letting the Council make Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 6 of 20 the decision. He stated that street lighting is required in ali new developments and the Coun- cil should make the final determination if they should be required in this development. Lassen asked if there was a standard style of street lights or if that is up to the developer. Lindquist responded that there are two types of poles because there are two different pro- viders; in the older areas NSP provided the street lights, but the city now provides them in new developments. She stated that the city tries not to have too much differentiation be- tween the poles so the parts are uniform. She exp�ained that in the residential areas there is a standard type of pole. Bailey stated that street lights are required for all new developments and wants to leave the requirement in the conditions and let the City Council make the final decision. Hudnut called the question on the amendment. Japs and Booth retracted their amendment to the condifions of approval and re- quested that the content of the discussion to go to the City Council. Patterson stated that he was not necessarily against street lights; he wanted to point out the fact that their neighborhood does not have them. He stated that his concern is that the lights would be too bright. He also stated that he would not be opposed to some security lighting on corners in his neighborhood. He suggested that street lighting in rural neighborhoods be spaced further apart and with a lower candie power than what is used for residential neighborhoods that have an urban density. Being no further discussion, Bailey restated the motion to approve the preliminary piat sub- ject to the conditions as follows: 1. The three existing field accesses a/ong the north boundary of this site sha/1 be re- moved by the developer. Lois 1 and 24 are prohibited from having direct access onto 70th Street and Lots 9 thru 16 are prohibited fiom having direct access onfo State Trunk Highway 10/61. 2. Any well found on the site shall be capped and sealed in accordance with state laws and appropriate records submi#ed to Washington County and the City's Pub- lic Works Department. 3. A"Stop" sign shall be installed on Goodview Avenue at the 70th Street (County Road 22) intersection. The City Public Works will install the sign and the developer shall be responsible for the Cify's costs. 4. Cash paymenf in lieu of land dedication for park purposes and recreation fee sha/l be paid to the City prior to the City releasing the final plat to the developer of pur- poses of recording it at Washington County Recorder's Office. Presently, the park fee in lieu of land dedication is $1,000.00 per lot and the recreation fee is $150.00 per lot. Based on the 24 lots, the total paymenf is $27,600.00. 5. The developer sha/l comply with the tree preservation ordinance and tree replace- ment shall comply with minimum requirements. The developer shall submit a tree mitigation plan for prior to City Council approval. planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 7 of 20 6. At the minimum, each driveway shall be paved with asphalt or concrefe from the roadway edge to the fiont lot line. If erosion or drainage prob/ems are experienced on public or private land, the homeowner will be required to pave more of their driveway for purposes of mitigating the erosion problem. 7. Driveways shall nof s/ope greater fhan 10 percent befween the roadway edge and properfy line. 8. The finat plat shall include the labeling of the site as Block 1 for the entire 24 lots. 9. The centerline of the 30-foot wide ingress/egress drive shall be the common prop- erty boundary line for Lots 14, 15, 16, and 17. This strip of land sha!l not be a sepa- rate lot of �ecord. A copy of the ingress/egress easement and maintenance agree- ment shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The developer is required fo record the ingress/egress easemenbmaintenance agreement at the same time the �nal plat is recorded. This document sha/I stipulate that the abutting property owners utilizing fhis private access drive are sole/y responsible for main- taining this private access drive. Maintenance of this private drive must allow emergency vehicles reasonable access to each of the four parcels at all times and shall be a paved surface not less than 18 feet wide on an appropriately designed gravel base. The driveway shall include an adequate turn-around for larger vehi- c/es. 10. Goodview Street shall be renamed as Goodview Avenue South and Goodview Bay shall be renamed as Goodview Bay South 11. The final plat shall provide for the dedication of 75 feet soufh of the north section line of Section 7 for public roadway purposes. 12. The public roadways shall be constructed in accordance to City standards, mean- ing a bituminous roadway surface that is 32 feet wide and a concrete curb and gutter section. The total paved roadway width would be 34 feet measuring back-of- curb to back-of-curb. 13.A drainage and utility easement 70 feet in width shall be platted along the north- west boundary line of Lot 5. 14.Fences, play equipment, swing sets, sand boxes, firewood, kennels, and/or any other material or obstac/e are prohibited from locating in the drainage easement as depicted a/ong the rear property line of /ots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 and along the front and side yards of Lots 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. 15. Submiftal of a building permit shall include a free inventory for that particular lot. City ordinance allows up to 20 percent remova! of significant trees. Each building permit application will be reviewed by planning, building, and engineering staff to ensure appropriate location and building elevafion. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 8 of 20 o.� CA;t Cru�-uu9 Mike Rygh has applied for a comprehensive pian amendment to change the land use from low density residential to high density residentiai to allow a senior housing project as a part of the mixed-use development to 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. Hudnut asked if the parking spaces in front of the senior housing building were reserved for the senior residents. Lindquist responded that drawing was just a schematic of the senior housing and Mr. Rygh does not have a particular user yet. Hudnut asked about the structure in the back. Lindquist answered that a stormwater pond was planned for that general loca- tion. Severson asked if amending the comprehensive plan would only be applicable if there is a PUD. Lindquist responded that was correct. Severson then asked if it only applies to this specific piece of land. Lindquist responded yes. Severson asked if the city is setting a prece- dent for any other part of the city by doing this. Lindquist does not believe so. Severson asked if the PUD goes forward, there can only be senior housing as a result of this compre- hensive plan amendment, and to flip it around, only if there is senior housing would the PUD be approved. Lindquist believes so. Bailey stated that staff is trying to ensure that senior housing is a part of the proposed development and that an office building or additional retail would not be able to be built. Lindquist responded that Mr. Rygh's proposal is for the entire site, so the Council could not approve just the senior housing and deny the rest of the pro- ject; it is a package. Severson stated that he does not see any reference in the recommen- dations that ties the project to the PUD. Lindquist responded that this could be added and stated that staff's intent is for them to be tied together when the Council is asked to take final action. Weber stated that while she supports the need for development of senior housing, she is concerned about the location of this project. She noted that the comprehensive plan says siting of senior development projects should occur within areas of the community that currently have or plan to have services that can meet some of the primary needs of that community, pedestrian linkages to activity areas, access to public mass transit, siting near natural amenities, and close proximity to retail. She stated that the most desirable, successful senior housing developments are connected to the urban center of the city, near transit and commercial developments, and she does feel this proposal meets those criteria. Lindquist stated that proposed senior housing concept was the same as approved by the Planning Commission in November because Mr. Rygh does not yet have a particular senior housing project lined up yet. Weber stated that because this is an amendment to the comprehensive plan and the proposal should fit the criteria from the comp plan. Lindquist stated that the comp plan amendment should have come in with the applications for the rest of the project, but initially the area was proposed as an office building and then evolved into senior housing due to the Commission's and the city's interest in that type of development. She stated that the amendment was proposed to recognize that this component of the PUD must be senior housing. Weber stated that she believes that the senior housing was only proposed as a lure to get the commercial development approved. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 9 of 20 Lassen stated that he is concerned about approving a comp plan amendment for only 3.16 acres of the parcel. He stated that at the neighborhood meeting, there was talk about possi- bly expanding the size of the senior housing component and reducing the size of the com- mercial aspect of the development as a compromise, and re-guiding only that small parcel would limit the ability for expansion. He asked if another comp plan amendment would be required if it was decided to increase the size of the senior housing component. He stated that he is not in favor of the PUD and approval of this amendment would basically finish the existing site plan for PUD. He stated that he would like to see more compromises reached between the community and the developer. He further stated that he would be reluctant to approve the application tonight because he believes there is stiil the need for more discus- sion. He also understood that the development would not begin for weil over a year, so is no rush to make a decision. Lindquist responded that Mr. Rygh would like to get Council ap- proval so he could start marketing his project. She explained that it is difficuit to get propos- ais or money invested until the approval is received from the city. She stated that later in the meeting there will be a discussion regarding potential land uses for the commercial aspect and what types of businesses would be allowed or restricted. Lindquist also stated that the Planning Commission recommendation for approval of the PUD has already been sent to the Council for formal action, and this application reflects that action. Lassen stated that he be- lieves approving the comp plan amendment this evening would be detrimental to the future discussions and would be premature. Hudnut commended the Planning department and others for facilitating a neighborhood dis- cussion. He believes that Lassen is suggesting that the Planning Commission have one more discussion prior to approving the proposal. Severson asked what Hudnut was referring to when he said more discussion. Hudnut responded the developer discussion with the neighborhood and moving toward a further definition of senior housing. Lassen responded that he would like to see a compromise coming from both sides. Severson asked what kind of compromise he expects. Lassen stated that he expects to see some changes to the site plan. He believes a true compromise means all parties walk away with changes that are beneficial. Mike Rygh, 8235 — 115th Street South, stated that the issue tonight is the senior housing component. He explained that the reason application was submitted was because the comp plan does not allow the density required for senior housing. He stated that when the senior housing goes in, the city will find a way to provide the services that the seniors want. He fur- ther stated that the PUD gives the city the control that the Planning Commission is con- cerned about. He stated that the senior housing and the commercial area are tied together, and if the comp plan amendment were approved, it wouid tie them into senior housing. He stated that the rest of the site would be dealt with at the Council level. He then stated that a list of uses for the commercial aspect is being discussed at the neighborhood meetings. He believes that the senior housing component is supported by most everyone. He asked the Commission to focus on the senior housing comp plan amendment tonight, which is what tne application is for. Lassen stated that at the neighborhood meeting he heard Rygh say that he was looking to the neighborhood for suggestions on ways everyone can come together to create a suc- cessful project. He stated that there seems to be further compromises and decisions that can be made, such as possibly expanding the senior housing to include the day care center area. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 10 of 20 He suggested that adding more senior housing would be worthwhile. Rygh stated that he did not hear that there was opposition to the child care center and the only opposition is to the retail portion, but he would only be willing to possibly shrink the retail slightly and adding more green space. He stated that the other strong concern was the allowed uses, which are still being discussed with the community. He then stated that in his discussions with serior housing developers, he was told that they would not be interested in sites that did not have retail in close proximity. Lassen asked Rygh about his time frame noting that in previous dis- cussions the starting date was noted as being no eariier than 2003, and if that is true, why does a decision need to be made this evening instead of next month. Rygh stated that h� has already delayed this process for months and he would like to get the issues resolved and start marketing his project. Weber stated that it does not seem unreasonable to ask for another month. Rygh responded that he does not see what the issue is on the senior hous- ing. He stated that the retail portion of the project would not be coming back to the Planning Commission for discussion; it has already been recommended for approvai by this body and is before the City Council for approval. Weber asked what his marketing analysis of the project shows about the desire of seniors to live next to a large gas station/convenience store. Rygh responded that he does not have anything specific on that, just that there is a need for services. Joe Fogarty stated that sen- iors generally want access to services. He stated that in reference to the large gas station, they have compromised and reduced the number of pumps at the gas station but the size of the convenience store itself is directly related to the product lines it would carry. Weber asked about proximity to commuter rail. Fogarty responded that people who have looked at sites near the commuter rail were not interested in those locations. Bailey opened the public hearing. Dick Hansen, 6918 Homestead Avenue South, asked the Planning Commission to recom- mend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment. He stated that he is concerned about re-guiding the property before a senior housing project has been finalized. He also stated that there are already areas within Cottage Grove that are designated R-5, Medium Density Residential, which could be suitable for consideration for senior housing. He stated that the City Council has put out a request for proposal (RFP) for senior housing, and he believes it is reasonable to wait for the RFPs to come in before we designate a parcel of land for senior housing. Hansen then stated that there seems to be time to look further into this issue be- cause development cannot start until August 2003. He explained that there was open dis- cussion of the overall PUD at the recent community meeting, and the neighbors are looking forvvard to a foilow up discussion, including possibly expanding the senior housing aspect of the project. He stated that this would be a difficult discussion without knowing what the true needs are, so allowing more time to receive the RFPs would be beneficial. He asked the Planning Commission to table the decision for one month. Gary Wilkinson, 6907 Homestead Avenue South, stated that one of the issues that keeps coming up is the reluctance to create a precedent. He stated that this amendment addresses the needs of one particular project and couid have implications on similar projects that could go elsewhere in the city. He stated that while staff did not foresee any specific issues of con- cern, depending on the situation, he believes there is a risk of giving the process too much latitude if the comprehensive plan is updated on an acre by acre, project by project basis. He then stated that as it relates to this particular project and in terms of the acreage specifically Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 11 of 20 one of the questions raised earlier is if Rygh was able to identify a builder for the senior pro- ject and three acres was not enough, they would have to come back before the Planning Commission asking for another amendment to the comprehensive plan. He does not believe that that is a wise use of anybody's time. Since there is no immediate need for a decision since the building process could not start for a year and seven months, that we take the time to thoroughiy consider all aspects of the project to ensure that it is done in a fair and rea- soned manner. in doing so, the fear that some of these precedents might be set can be set aside and we can go through the process thoughtfully and deal with the issues thoughtFully without putting ourselves or the city in jeopardy for years to come. Mark Grossklaus, 7795 — 68th Street Court South, stated that he is concerned that the city is veering away from the recommendations in the West Draw Task Force Report. He agreed with Hansen that the city should wait for the resuits of the senior housing RFP before making a decision on this proposed senior housing project. He stated that the Cottage Square and Armory sites seem to better locations for senior housing. He reported that there have been inquiries about those areas, but not about 70th and Hinton. He also pointed out that 150 citi- zens don't want the density higher than that required for R-2.5. He stated that if this amend- ment is passed, the city is setting a precedent for other parts of Cottage Grove. He asked the Commission to deny this proposal or table it to the next meeting. Carol Amacher, 6803 Ideal Avenue South, stated that she shares many of the same con- cerns as her neighbors. She stated one concern setting a particular block for the senior housing, which takes away some of the flexibility of the PUD. She is aiso concerned about granting a comprehensive plan amendment for one developer. Amacher then stated the city does not have enough information on what type of senior housing is needed, what the needs of the seniors are, price range, etc. She stated that the different types of senior housing have different needs, such as independent Iiving that is typically for the lower senior age groups who usually are more mobile. She stated that she has experience working with senior citi- zens and having a mother living in an assisted living facility. She stated that senior housing is a real need but the city should know what that need is before decisions like this are made. Kathryn Peterfeso, 6792 Homestead Avenue South, stated that she believes there is a need for senior housing but she does not feel that the need has been appropriately defined. She stated that the city should find out exactly what is needed before a senior housing develop- ment is built. She also stated that this area has been designated as a neighborhood com- mercial area without defining what neighborhood commercial is. She stated that the compre- hensive plan should not be amended every time a developer requests it. She stated she is asking the Commission to deny the application because more information is needed on where appropriate sites for senior housing have been determined. Dennis Pian, 8027 — 77th Street South, stated that he had been a member of the Planning Commission many years ago. He stated his objections to the whote development on that parcel land because he does not believe commerciai developments should be allowed in residentiai areas. No one e/se spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Severson asked Planning staff to explain the application and the process. Lindquist re- sponded that the application before the Commission tonight is to re-guide 3.16 acres to high Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 12 of 20 density residential, which addresses a concern raised by the Council regarding the senior housing component of the proposed PUD. She stated that the Planning Commission rec- ommended approval, on a 6-to-3 vote, of the PUD rezoning, the two conditional use permits, and the preliminary plat. She explained that the comp plan amendment would be brought to the Council with those applications. Severson stated that the options before the Commission include tabiing the application, approving the application, or denying the application. He asked what the next step would be if the Planning Commission votes to deny the application. Lindquist responded that the application would go to the Council with the Planning Commis- sion's recommendation to deny the comprehensive plan amendment. She explained that de- nial would be inconsistent with the previous recommendation of approval for the mixed-use project, which reflects the senior housing component. Severson then stated that tabling the application would allow more time for discussion but in the context of what is being asked for, he does not foresee any significant changes. Weber stated that it would be inconsistent for those Planning Commission members who voted against the project previously to approve this application. She stated that it seems that the purpose of this Commission is to rubber stamp, with minor changes, the proposals that come before them, but she believes that the purpose of the Planning Commission is to ad- vise the City Council. She stated that the Planning Commission is composed of citizens of the community, not staff or technical experts. She reiterated ;hat she does not think there is anything inconsistent with continuing to vote how one voted before. She stated that if a Commissioner felt that project was a bad idea before, and still feels that is a bad idea, it is consistent to say so. Lassen stated that he is concerned about the timing of the application. He stated that he be- lieves that there might be opportunities to make some changes to the proposal, but approv- ing this application tonight could hinder that prospect. He stated that he did not support this proposal initially, but he feels that he couid if the issues were addressed sufficiently. He stated that the comp plan amendment would not be before the Commission tonight if the Council did not have questions about the project. Japs asked when the application was scheduled to go the City Council. Lindquist responded that it was scheduled for the March 6 City Council meeting. Japs stated that there would be one more scheduled Planning Commission meeting prior to that. He explained that he likes the senior housing proposal; however, he is concerned that the senior housing component could turn into some other form of high density housing. He asked if this proposal would re- quire that the development include senior housing. Lindquist responded that was correct. Japs stated that he liked that, but he believes more discussion is needed about other related issues. Japs made a mofion to table the applicafion to the February 25, 2002, Planning Com- mission meeting. Lassen seconded. Severson asked what the value would be to table the application and what is expected to change between now and then. Booth stated that no matter what the Planning Commission vote is, the Council is weil aware of all the issues surrounding the whole PUD. Lassen stated that significant issues were raised at the neighborhood meeting that would probably enter the discussion at the Council meeting. Severson agreed that they would be heard at the next Councii meeting, but he is not sure why the application should be tabled. Lassen responded Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 13 of 20 that the Commission should just ensure nothing is done prematurely before the Council dis- cusses the issues raised at the community meeting. Lindquist clarified that while the neighborhood, developer, and city staff may get together, the Council will not discuss the proposal until their March 6 meeting, so there won't be any direction from the Council. Lassen stated that because the Councii has not approved the PUD yet, it would be prema- ture for the Commission to blunt the process at hand. Weber stated that a motion to table is not debatabie. Bailey explained that the motion was not being debated; the Commission was continuing their discussion on the appiication. He stated that Commission members have questions about the purpose for tabling. He stated that he after watching the Council meeting, he believes their intent was to ensure that Rygh is tied to a senior housing project. He does not see the need to table the application. Severson stated that the City Council noted that there was one item that needed to be ad- dressed to tie the project down, which is why this application is before the Commission. He stated that the definition for the ideal senior housing definition in this city, �ike any other city, will never be defined. He stated that the Commission should deal with the application, be- cause it is needed to ensure that senior citizen housing is a part of the mixed-use develop- ment. He supports the application and is not sure why the vote is being delayed. He does not foresee any significant changes to this proposal. Weber again stated that a motion to table is not debatable and asked for a vote on the mo- tion. Bailey called for a vote. The motion to table was passed on a 4-to-3 vote (Bailey, Booth, Severson). 6.3 CASE TA02-005 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to amend Title 5, Chapter 4 of the City Gode relating to animal control. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval. She stated that Planning Commission Chair Wiilhite, who had served on the Nuisance Ordinance Work Group but could not attend tonighYs meeting, had some concerns about the city's licensing process. Lindquist explained that the Nuisance Ordinance Work Group was toid that the administra- tion of the licensing.program was not part of the ordinance discussions. She stated that that level of administration is not reflected in the ordinance, but if the Planning Commission feels strongly about it, the information can be forwarded to the Council. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut moved to approve the application. Japs seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8.4 CASE TA02-006 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to amend Titie 4, Chapter 6 of the City Code relating to open burning and recreational fires. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 14 of 20 Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approvai. Japs asked if all language referencing permits for recreational fires would be deleted. Lindquist responded affirmatively. Booth asked for clarification regarding barbecue grifls at multi-family dwellings. He stated that the proposed ordinance requires that griils have permanently attached covers and must be permanently attached to the deck. He stated that ground floors of multi-unit buildings typi- cally have concrete patios rather than decks and he does not understand how a grill could be bolted to concrete. Lindquist responded that the small grills would not be approved by the fire chief. She explained that there have been fires at multi-family buildings caused by grills and this section addresses those safety concerns. Booth asked for further information on the requirement to permanently attach grills to the decks of multi-family dwellings. Lindquist stated that she would check with the fire department for clarification. Booth suggested that the requirement that barbecue torches or similar heating, cooking, burning, or lighting equipment or device be affixed to a deck or railing within five feet of a multi-family dwelling be amended to say "may be not operated within five feet of a muiti-family dwelling." Lindquist responded that they are not allowed to have charcoal grills at muiti-family dwellings. Booth stated that that should then be clarified in the ordinance. Lindquist stated that she would get clarification from the fire department. Bailey opened the public hearing. Gary Kjeliberg, 7389 Inman Avenue South, stated that he was the Chair of the Nuisance Ordinance Work Group, and clarified that the prohibition on grills is for multi-family only. He explained that the requirement to attach the grill to the deck was to prevent griils from tipping over and causing fires. Bailey asked if the Work Group had checked with other cities about their policies for grills at multi-family dwellings. Kjeilberg responded that he was not sure if they had checked on this particular issue, but they did check with other cities regarding vari- ous aspects of the nuisance ordinances. No one else spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing. Booth stated that he is not comfortable with the way that section is written and suggested sending the ordinance back for clarification. Lindquist asked if Booth wanted to table the or- dinance until next month or could staff fine tune the language before sending it to the Council for approval. It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to fine tune the language and send the ordinance to the Council. Booth made a motion approve the application with the language regarding permits for rec�eational �res deleted and the language regarding grills on decks in multi-family dwellings amended. Hudnut seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6.5 CASE TA02-007 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to amend the city's noise ordinance, Title 11-6-17 of the City Code. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 15 of 20 Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey c/osed fhe public hearing. Severson made a motion to approve the ordinance amendmenf. Boofh seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6.6 CASE TA02-008 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to amend Titie 11, Chapter 6 of the City Code relating to giare. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Booth stated that 11-6-8A, which reads "reflected glare of spill light shall not exceed five- tenths (.5) foot candles as measured on the property line when abutting any residential par- cel and one (1) foot candle on any commercial or industrial parcel," should be clarified to mean that the reflected glare cannot exceed 1 foot candle at property line on any commercial or industrial parcel. Lindquist stated that if a commercial or industrial parcel shares a prop- erty line with a residential parcel, the residential regulations must be followed. She stated that the abutting land use is the measuring point. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to approve the ordinance. Booth asked if the motion included the amended language. Hudnut stated that he did not feel it was necessary. Booth responded that ordinances must be worded properly. Severson asked if Booth wanted to use his suggested language specifically. Booth stated that the in- tent of the ordinance should be clear that the 1 foot candle requirement is measured at the property line and not required for the whole property. Hudnuf amended his motion to include the revised language, Booth seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6.7 CASE CP02-010 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to add policy statements to the design review section of the Historic Preservation Element re- garding demolition permits for non-significant resources and mitigation of the loss of properties with historical, architectural, archeological, or cultural value. Li�dquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Booth stated that currently a property listed on the city's historic register must be reviewed and certificate of appropriateness issued when a building or demolition permit is requested, which he agrees with. He stated that he is concerned that the amendment was for properties Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 16 of 20 that were determined to be ineligible for the City Register. His concern was not regarding the requirement to record the properties, either with photographs or sketches, within five days. He asked who notified the Preservation Officer when a permit was requested. Lindquist re- sponded that the city did. Booth then stated that he disagrees with the statement "In cases involving historic properties which may be technicaliy ineligible for listing in the City Register of Historic Sites, a reasonable effort is made to preserve and protect historical, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources." He asked who makes the reasonable effort and who would be responsibfe for any expenses incurred due to this requirement for properties that are not listed on the historic register. Japs stated that he serves on the Historic Preservation Committee and pointed out that the architectural recordings include photographs, drawings, and sketches, which is typically what has been done. He stated that if the structure was not significant, but there was something unique about it, Mr. Vogel will take pictures of it for recording purposes. Booth stated that he does not have a problem with that portion of the amendment; he was concerned about relo- cating a structure to a new site, and salvaging architectural elements, and archeotogical ex- cavations. He asked who determines what is reasonable and who pays. Lindquist responded that the developer would be responsible for any expenses. She stated that she was aware of only one building that was relocated, which was a church. Japs stated that the church was on the historic register. Booth reiterated his concern that the amendment was for properties that are not eligible for the historic register. Lindquist stated that Mr. Vogel and the Historic Preservation Committee would make the recommendations and the Council would make the final determination. Booth stated that he would like to strike the second portion of the amendment because he is uncomfortable with that. He stated that he might support the amendment if the city was responsibie for the expenses. Lindquist responded it is not in- tended that the city pay. Booth reiterated his concern that the amendment covers properties that are not on the historic register. Lindquist responded that that does not mean every prop- erty not on the historic register qualifies for this requirement. She explained that there is a listing of properties that were evaluated as to whether they comply with the historic register criteria, and those that do not qualify are left on that �ist, though they still may have some historic merit. Gary Kjeilberg, 7389 Inman Avenue South, stated that he is against this change, because he sees it as an infringement on the property owner's rights to their property. He was also con- cerned about who wou�d be responsib�e for expenses. He asked what would happen if a building was not safe and needed to be demolished, but couid be considered to have some historic value. He stated that the city should protect buildings on the historic register, but if they are not listed there, then it should not be an issue. He believes that these requirements would be a burden to the property owner. Lindquist suggested that "reasonable effort" couid be defined and clarified in the amend- ment. Japs stated that in rapidly developing communities, those things that are unique and part of the character of the community can be easily removed. He stated that the intent is to have older structures evaluated for historic significance and recorded before they are de- molished. He stated that this is an attempt to make people aware of their heritage. Hudnut asked what happens if something significant is discovered during demolition, couid Vogel stop the demolition. Lindquist responded that he cannot. She expiained that the listing on the historic register is a formal process that goes through commissions and the City Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 17 of 20 Council for approval and at this point has been agreed to by the property owner. Japs stated that Vogel has investigated most of the older properties in the city and he does not believe that there is anything that he has not had at least looked at. Booth stated again that he has no problems with the first section regarding allowing the city five business days to record pertinent historical data about structures, but he be�ieves that the second paragraph goes beyond what he feels is reasonabie and the potential for excess is great. Bailey opened the public hearing. Kjellberg asked if Vogel finds is a significant property that should be on the register, could he stop the demolition. Lindquist responded that she does not believe he could stop the demoli- tion. She stated that at this point, property owners whose properties are listed on the register have requested to be on the register. She stated that the program is cooperative, not regu- latory. No one e/se spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Weber stated that she feels the wording is fine tne way it is. She stated that the word "rea- sonable" would preclude any extreme measures. Japs stated that so far in the past, struc- tures have just been recorded and documented. Severson asked about procedures for a comp plan amendment and if an ordinance would need to be approved regarding the permitting process. Lindquist responded that there is a permitting process that is followed internally. She stated that the historic preservation section of the comp plan is different than the other sections because it is much more specific relating to their processes and more directive than some of the other sections. She stated that to be the most clear, an ordinance should go along with it; aithough right now it is done internally. Japs made a motion fo approve the application. Weber seconded. Motion passed on a 5-to-2 vote (Boofh and Severson). Applications and Requests 7.1 Discussion of Permitted Uses in Neighborhood Commercial Developments Lindquist stated that at the neighborhood meeting for the 70th and Hinton development, one of the topics was land uses in neighborhood commercial areas, particularly what uses would be appropriate and if some should be specificaliy restricted from neighborhood commercial districts. She explained that staff had proposed the same land uses that were approved for the Almar Village development. She stated that adult uses would not be allowed in neighbor- hood commercial districts under the existing zoning ordinance, but it would not hurt to list those uses as restricted. She asked the Commission to let staff know if they have any input on this topic. She stated that there will be another neighborhood meeting. Booth stated that he likes the idea of having a category of excluded uses for neighborhood commercial districts so there would be no ambiguity. Bailey asked if the gas station/convenience store would be aliowed to sell adult magazines. Lindquist responded that adult use wouid have to be the primary use. Bailey asked what if Pianning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 18 of 20 video store could sell adult videos, and if the restricted use list would allow the city to prohibit all adult uses. Lindquist responded that was the intent. Weber asked if there were rules as to how close adult uses could be to residential areas, schools, churches, etc. Severson stated that aduft uses should not be allowed in neighborhood commercial. Lindquist stated that she would talk to the attorney to get clarification because video stores are allowed. Hudnut asked about tattoo parlors. Severson stated that he likes the idea of having the excluded use list for neighborhood commercial. Weber asked the excluded use list could include references to scale or size of businesses, such as large box retailers, which would not be appropriate in a neighborhood commercial district. Lindquist responded that the PUD limits building size, and stated that the list is for uses in the two 9,000 square foot retail buildings. Weber thought that the discussion was for neighborhood commercial developments in general. Lindquist responded that this list could be used for future developments, but it is specifically being requested for the proposed pro- ject on 70th and Hinton. Bailey stated that the Council approved a moratorium on future neighborhood commercial districts until they are defined and asked when that process would begin. Lindquist re- sponded that staff is hoping to commence next month. Bailey asked if those discussions would occur at a workshop. Lindquist responded that it would depend on the Commission's preference. She stated that staff would provide information to the Commission to help facili- tate the discussion. Weber asked if public input or a public hearing could be held earlier rather than later in the process. Lindquist responded that the Planning Commission can hold a public meeting whenever they want. She stated that typically staff prepares information for discussion and then receives input. Lassen asked if the recommendations would result in the comp plan with definitions for a neighborhood commercial district. Lindquist responded that the comp plan would not be amended. She explained that the recommendations would be- come performance standards for neighborhood commercial districts in the zoning ordinance. James Chilcott, 6790 Ideal Ave�ue South, stated that due to the amount of public input re- ceived there may not be a need to work up a proposal, but to just hold a public meeting. He stated that there is a tremendous interest in defining neighborhood commercial districts and the citizens are ready to participate. Lassen stated that he feels it would be helpful to have some parameters before the issue is brought for open discussion at a hearing. Severson stated that he would like to see some alternative versions for discussion purposes. Lindquist stated that staff will look at what other commu�ities have to see would be emulated and will try to define some of the performance standards relating to that. Severson stated that part of the thought process include aware- ness of what the trends are for neighborhood commercial developments. Bailey agreed and stated that size and architecture should be looked at along with uses. Lassen suggested that different locations within the community have a similarity to them. He stated that the pro- posed development has some nice features that would have been nice in previous neighbor- hood commercial districts. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 19 of 20 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 17, 2001 Hudnut made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on December 17, 2001. Japs seconded. Weber asked if where excused and unexcused absences are reflected. Lindquist responded that a roster is kept that notes whether the absence is excused or unexcused, but they are not reflected in the minutes. She suggested that they could be reflected in the minutes if the Planning Commission desired it. The Planning Commission concurred, Motion passed unanimously. Reports 9.1 Recap of December 19, 2001, and January 2002 City Council Meetings Lindquist stated that at the December 19, 2001, meeting the City Council tabled the applica- tion for a PUD for the proposed commercial development at 70th and Hinton and approved the Cedarhurst conditional use permit and liquor license. She reported that at their January 2, 2002, meeting, the Council passed the moratorium on development of commercial property that is not within the City's MUSA boundaries, which is in effect for a year. She stated that the moratorium does not affect the Rygh project but does affect several other areas that are siated as neighborhood commercial as well as other commercial areas, namely at County Road 19 and Highway 61. The Council is interested in doing some pla�ning for commercial, both on the small and regional scales. Severson asked for clarification on the one-year moratorium. Lindquist responded that no development could occur in those areas outside the MUSA. She then stated that the Council held a workshop on the park and ride lots and narrowed down the options down to three locations. Lindquist reported that at their January 16, 2002, meeting, the Council approved the Rose of Sharon conditional use permit. They also discussed the Kohls Gateway Redevelopment pro- posal, which has ceased because land acquisition costs became financially unfeasible. She stated that the city is also not moving forward with the road project either, because the two were linked. She stated that Mayor Shiely would like the Council to discuss the Gateway area, perhaps deleting the residential properties. Lindquist then stated that the Council held a workshop on the sign ordinance that dealt with non-commercial signs, which includes free speech signs and political signs. She stated that ordinance modifications to location and size for those types of signs will be made. Severson asked if there is concern about non-com- mercial signs. Lindquist responded thaf it is important that the City has a provision in the or- dinance that allows for them, which it does not clearly state, and there have been cities that have actua�ly had their whole sign ordinance thrown out because of that. 9.2 Committee Reports None. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2002 Page 20 of 20 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Japs asked about Hardwood Avenue construction. Lindquist responded that the city is cur- rently not proceeding with the road project. Japs asked if Harwood was going to progress as a road in the near future. Lindquist stated that Hardwood would be instailed at some point; however, the development in the West Draw has not occurred as rapidly as assumed, so she does not think it would be occurring soon. Weber asked for an update on redevelopment of the mall areas. Lindquist responded that the Home Depot project is still moving fonvard, but construction cannot start until Walgreen's moves, probably this summer. She stated that there have been calis regarding possible senior housing or other redevelopment of Cottage Square, but nothing has been formally submitted. Japs asked if the Armory was moving. Lindquist responded that there has been discussion that it may a good senior housing site, but she thinks that the primary focus of the Council has been redevelopment of commercial areas. She stated that it is her understanding that the County is looking to relocate some of their services into a separate building and that the Armory buiiding is fairly obsolete. Japs asked if the County courts would move out of the Armory building. Lindquist responded that their CIP mentions relocating into a separate building, and while they haven't chosen a location yet, they have been hoping to consolidate into one spot in Cottage Grove. Severson asked about the Burger King site. Lindquist re- sponded that the City is going to construct a regional pond on the property for Grove Plaza and needs to go through that area and she expects some action this spring. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Lindquist stated that a letter had been sent to the County requesting a traffic study in the vicinity of 70th Street and County Road 19. Adjournment Weber made a motion to adjourn the meefing. Severson seconded. Motion passed unanimousJy.