Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-25 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission February 25, 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 25th day of Febru- ary, 2002, in the Council Chambers. Call to Order Chairperson Willhite 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 Also Present: Councilmember Cheryl Kohls Approval of Agenda Bailey moved to approve the agenda. Piggott 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 Council, and the City Council makes all final decisions. In addi- tion, she 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 V02-011 Donald and Cynthia Oreskovich have applied for a variance to Title 11-9E-5A, Low Den- sity Residential District Development Standards, to allow construction of a garage addi- tion 19 feet from the side property line when a 20-foot side yard setback is required. The property is located at 7499 Hidden Valley Court. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 2 of 14 Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. John Oney, on behalf of Don and Cindy Oreskovich, stated that the dwelling has a three-car garage and they are proposing to rotate the garage so it is more accessible and appealing to the property. He explained that the garage is not deep enough for parking vehicles and there is a hole in the sheetrock at the back of the garage due to the depth problem. Severson asked to see the pictures of the current garage and the proposed change. McCool pointed out the proposed improvements on the overhead. Hudnut asked why a variance was requested if the addition could be done without one. Oney responded that proposed variance would keep the aesthetics of the house. McCool stated that what the applicant is looking to move the garage back one foot so instead of projecting out in front of the house, it would come straight across. Severson asked if the addition would be the equivalency of a four-car garage. Oney re- sponded that it would still be a three-car garage. He stated that the reason for the change was to add depth to the garage but the square footage of the garage would not change. Willhite asked what the original third stall would be used for. Oney responded that it is going to be eliminated. Lindquist asked if it would be used for storage or living space. Oney re- sponded that footprint wise it would just be entry into the garage. Severson asked how a 12- foot by 22-foot addition would not change the existing floor space. Oney explained that they are trying to establish greater depth for the garage. Jennifer Oreskovich, Inver Grove Heights, stated that currently to park an average-sized vehicle in the garage, the applicants have to smash into the sheet rock wall and the addition would allow angled parking. Piggott asked if this proposal had been brought before the Hidden Valley homeowners asso- ciation. Oney stated that it has. Piggott asked if they had the approval of the homeowners association. Oney responded that he does not know but that they are going through the for- mal processing of the request. Oreskovich reiterated that when they pull into the garage they smash their vehicle into the wall to make it fit in the garage. Willhite opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Willhite closed the public hearing. Japs asked if the homeowners association would have to approve this application. Piggott responded yes. Booth stated that he does not believe that approval by the homeowners association is ger- mane to the discussion by the Planning Commission, because if the association denies it, even after the City approves the addition, it could not be built. He asked if the addition could be built if the size was reduced by a foot. Lindquist responded that that was correct. Booth Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 3 of 14 stated that because the house is on a corner lot, he does not believe one foot would make a big difference and that the addition would even out the face of the house. Willhite stated that they would not need the extra foot if the reason for the change is to allow for angle parking. Booth stated that the addition would give the garage greater depth. Japs asked for the size of the current garage. Lindquist responded that it has a 20-foot depth and the new garage would be 22 feet deep. Booth stated that if the addition directly abutted a neighbor, he would be concerned but the property is on a corner lot. Severson made a motion to deny the variance application based on the findings of fact listed below. Japs seconded. 1. The establishmenf of findings demonstrating that there are practical difficulties or pariicular hardships for granting the variance was not clearly ascertainable during the application review. 2. The property owner has received reasonab/e use of the property without installa- tion of the proposed garage addition, and the placement of the principal structure on fhe property does not prohibit the applicant from enlarging the building within fhe constraints of the required sefbacks. 3. It would not be reasonable to expect granting of variances contrary to ordinance criteria without the establishment of a clear and unique hardship. Lassen asked if the foot in the front of the fa�ade couldn't be added was due to architectural aesthetics. Lindquist responded that without the variance, to construct the same size addi- tion would impinge on the front windows. Hudnut again asked why a variance was needed if the addition could be built without one. Booth stated that without the variance, the addition would impinge on the front windows, which would cause other architectural issues. Motion to deny the application passed on 8-to-1 vote (Booth). 6.2 CASE ICUP02-012 Linder's Greenhouses has applied for an interim conditional use permit to allow a sea- sonal garden center at Grove Plaza, 7200 East Point Douglas Road. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Peter Linder, Linder's Greenhouses, explained that the location change was due to con- struction occurring in the area. He stated that they are comfortable with the recommenda- tions of approval. He also stated that they have operated in that location for five years and are not aware of any complaints. Willhite opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Willhite closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 4 of 14 Piggoft made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed be- low. Hudnut seconded. 1. The Interim Conditional Use Permit shall expire five years from the date approved by the City Council. 2. A five-pound ABC rated fire extinguisher shall be stored the Garden Center structure, and no smoking signs shall be posted. 3. All electrical connections shall be in compliance with Sfafe electrical requirements. 4. Overhead electrical service or electrical extension cords are prohibited from any power source within the parking /ot to the greenhouse. 5. A building permit for the temporary greenhouse shall be issued by the City before the temporary structure is erected. A building permit is required for each year the temporary greenhouse is used on the prope►1y. 6. The construction/use of the temporary greenhouse in conjunction with outdoor display and sa/es of nursery products or other garden related merchandise shall be allowed beiween fhe hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. from March 15 through July 15. The sa/es area shall be located as detailed on Exhibit A of the staff report for Case lCUP02-012. Christmas tree sales are prohibited. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASES SP02-013 and V02-014 URS Corporation, on behalf of Target Corporation, has applied for a site plan review of parking lot improvements and a variance to Title 11-3-9, Off-Street Parking and Loading, to allow 550 parking spaces rather than the required 605 parking spaces at Target, 8655 East Point Douglas Road. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. He explained that Target had some concerns regarding several of the conditions of approval. He stated that they objected to the recommended planter boxes but would agree to providing tree grates, which is also acceptable to staff. They also expressed concern about condition #1 regarding the letter of credit required for landscaping. He stated that they offered to provide the city with a bond, but as he explained to the applicant, city policy does not allow bonds; it requires letters of credit or cash escrow for securing financial guarantees. McCool stated that the applicant questioned condition #3 regarding exterior storage, display, or merchandise sale items on the property, and their concern centered around the truck and loading dock area. He stated that he explained to them that it was not the city's intent to prohibit semi-trailer parking at the loading dock area, but to prohibit merchandise storage outside the building. He then stated that the applicant asked if condition #6, regarding the total number of carts that could be stored in the front area of the building, included only the carts stored in the cart storage area or all carts including those in the cart corrals. He explained that the intent was to limit the Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 5 of 14 number of carts stored next to the building to 200. McCool then explained that the Planning Commission should decide whether to recommend 544 parking spaces or 550. He explained that the applicant proposed adding an additional six spaces, for at total of 550, if the city de- sires. He stated that staff would be comfortable with the 544, which gives Target a little bit of leeway. Severson asked if the proposed change to condition #6 would just clarify that the 200 carts would be stored in the cart storage area. He also asked if the change to condition #5 was just to the wording by adding "or planter boxes." McCool responded that was correct. He also clarified that the planter boxes/tree grates were a recommendation, not a requirement. Hudnut asked why it was a recommendation rather than a requirement. McCool responded that the overall landscaping for the Target property does not conform to the city's ordinance requirements because the property was developed prior to the ordinance requirements being adopted. He stated that Target is making an attempt to bring the landscaping on the site into compliance, but like all other projects, staff does not expect them to fully meet the ordinance requirements. Booth asked if they were required to bring their landscaping into compliance with the ordi- nance. McCool responded that they were not required to upgrade the landscaping, but when applications for improvements come before the city, staff tries to identify areas that could be upgraded to meet ordinance requirements. Booth asked why Target would have to post a letter of credit to do a voluntary upgrade of their landscaping. McCool responded that it is part of the guarantee that the landscaping does get done. Bailey asked if Target would rather do the tree grates rather than the planters. McCool re- sponded that they would. Bailey stated that he would prefer to take out the recommended and require either the planters or the tree grates. Weber asked if Target could add more bike racks. She then asked if Target would comply with the letter of credit requirement. McCool responded that the applicant will address that. Weber stated that Target was financed with a TIF district and she thinks they should follow the ordinance and provide a letter of credit. Tom Lincoln, URS Corporation, 700 Third Street South, Minneapolis, representing Target Corporation, stated that Target is in the process of renovating the store and as a part of that they want to bring the store up to their "brand" level by improving the site and have voluntar- ily proposed to make some improvements to the parking lot. He stated that the result of the renovations will impact the number of parking spaces and that Target would be agreeable to either the 544 or 550 spaces. Lincoln stated that Target opposes the letter of credit because that is not part of their normal business operations and because they are voluntarily improv- ing their landscaping. Lincoln stated that they would like the cart storage issue to be clarified by requiring the limit of 200 shopping carts to the cart storage area in front of the buiiding but not include other storage areas, such as cart corrals. Willhite opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Willhite closed the public hearing. Hudnut moved to approve the application subject to the conditions listed be/ow. Piggott seconded. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 6 of 14 Bailey asked if the approval included amending the conditions of approval. Willhite clarified that it was proposed that condition #5 read "several planter boxes or tree grates." Bailey asked if this should be a recommendation or a requirement and stated that he would prefer that. Lassen asked if the number of pianter boxes/tree grates should be specified if they are required. McCool responded that he believes three or four plots could be created. Bailey suggested requiring a minimum of three. Hudnut stated that he would like to keep the word "recommended" in the conditions to recognize the voluntary nature of the enterprise. Bailey agreed. Willhite clarified that condition #5 would be amended by adding "a minimum of three planter boxes or tree grates." Bailey stated that condition #6 should be read "The maximum number of shopping carts allowed to be stored in the cart storage area in front of the Target Store building is 200." Hudnut agreed. Willhite stated that the motion was for approval with amendments to conditions #5 and #6. 1. Installation of landscaping shall occur in a timely fashion and be consistent with an approved landscaping plan. A letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the landscape estimate shall be submitted to the City as required by City ordinance (Title 11-6-6(�). The financial guarantee shall be in effect for one year from the date of installation to ensure the installation, su►vival, and replacement of the land- scaping improvements. 2. The property owner is responsible for ensuring fhaf fhe planf materials wifhin the landscaped islands are water periodically and maintained in a healthy state. 3. Exterior storage, display, or merchandise sa/es items other than meichandise in the garden center are prohibited outside the building. 4. A minimum of one deciduous tree shall be planted in each of the proposed curb islands located at fhe west end of Target's parking lot. 5. It is recommended that several planter boxes having one deciduous tree per planter box be constructed in the sidewalk area lying between the shopping cart storage area and the pharmacy's protruding wall. 6. The maximum number of shopping carfs allowed to be stored in front of the Target Store building is 200. Motion passed unanimously. 6.4 CASE CUP02-015 Site Acquisition Consultants for AT&T Wireless Services of Minnesota, Inc. has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the addition of antennas on top of the City's water tower at 6950 Meadowgrass Lane. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 7 of 14 Weber asked how much the city receives for allowing antennas on top of water towers. Lindquist responded that leases typically run from $10,000 to $11,000 annually. Dave Trost, Site Acquisition Consultants, 12675 Germane Avenue, Apple Valley, stated that a letter of consent and an amendment to their other tower lease would be reviewed by the City Council at their next meeting. Willhite opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Willhite c/osed the public hearing. Severson made a motion to approve the application subjecf to the conditions listed be/ow. Bailey seconded. 1. All grass areas disturbed by construction must be repaired and sodded within 30 days after all construction has been completed. 2. All applicable electrical and building permits must be obtained prior to commence- ment of construction. 3. No advertising shall be displayed on the antennas or anfenna panels. 4. The antennas must be painted the same color as the fower. Motion passed unanimously. 6.5 CASE CUP02-016 Site Acquisition Consultants for AT&T Wireless Services of Minnesota, Inc. has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the addition of antennas on top of the City's water tower at 7130 — 92nd Street South. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Severson asked how many antennas could be installed on the water towers. Lindquist re- sponded that it would depend on what they were mounted on and the capabilities of the tower. She stated that the city requires that the applicants provide information regarding any impacts the antennas may have on public safety antennas. Dave Trost, Site Acquisition Consultants, 12675 Germane Avenue, Apple Valley, stated that they submitted a structural report with their lease amendment for this site stressing that the tower would be abie to handle the additional antennas. He stated that there seems to be a difference in the count; he has six antennas currently mounted and they would be adding four more. Lindquist stated that her understanding is that there are four new antennas, but one is a re-located antenna. Trost stated that he would check with the radio frequency engi- neer. Willhite opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Willhite closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 8 of 14 Piggott made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below and stipulating that the city and the applicant coordinate the exact number of antennas. Bailey seconded. 1. All grass areas disturbed by consfruction must be repaired and sodded within 30 days after all construction has been completed. 2. All applicable electrical and building permits must be obtained prior to commence- ment of construction. 3. No adverfising shall be displayed on the antennas or antenna panels. 4. The anfennas must be painted fhe same co/or as the tower. Motion passed unanimously. 6.6 CASE CP02-009 (continued from 2/25/02) Mike Rygh has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use from low density residential to high density residential 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 based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. She stated that the neighborhood and the developer had met and discussed several issues relating to the PUD project, such as lighting, changes to the gas station, reducing pumps, reducing retail space, and permitted and conditional uses. However, there were no substantiai changes to the senior housing component. Some neighbors had requested that additional areas of the PUD be designated for more senior housing, but the applicant wants to move forward, recognizing that if a senior housing pro- vider requires more area, another application to amend the PUD would need to be filed. Piggott clarified that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the commercial aspect of the project and that issue for this meeting was the senior housing component, and the proposed rezoning for townhouses would not be discussed. Lindquist responded that was correct; the Orrin Thompson project is not part of this evening's discussion. Mike Rygh, 8235 — 115th Street South, emphasized that the discussion should center on the senior housing component. He stated that he and the neighborhood group had come up with some compromises on the commercial aspect of the project, including reducing the number of gas pumps from six to four, sensitivity to the lighting situation, having the back of the gas station face 70th Street, and moving the canopy. He stated that he would like the City Coun- cil to decide on the whole project, both the commercial and senior housing components, at the same time. He reiterated that the senior housing component is the issue this evening. Willhite opened the public hearing. Dick Hansen, 6918 Homestead Avenue South, thanked the Planning Commission for tabling the application to allow another month for discussion and was glad that the Commission is Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 9 of 14 trying to define neighborhood commercial centers. He stated that only six acres of the parcel was guided for commercial and the remaining area, which is where the senior housing com- ponent would be located, is still guided for low density residential. Therefore, if the compre- hensive plan amendment is denied, that area stays low density. He asked the Commission to deny the comp plan amendment. He stated that the residents in the area prefer that the parcel remain low density residential. Hansen then stated amending the comp plan is what he considers a special process and should not be taken lightly. He stated that changing the designation of the land should not be changed without a firm proposal. He stated that the application could be tabled for another month to allow review of the requests for proposal that the city has received regarding senior housing to learn what is needed and how much land would be required. He believes that three acres seems to be too small for a senior housing project. He stated that he was encouraged to learn that the applicant is working with some parties who are interested in the project, but he would be more comfortable after the RFPs had been reviewed to see whether this proposal is reasonable. He asked the Com- mission to take additional time to look at the RFPs and if the senior housing needs to be ex- panded, this whole process would have to be repeated. He stated that there are already areas within the city that are designated R-5, including an area about two blocks away in the gravel pit off 70th Street. Gary Wilkinson, 6907 Homestead Avenue South, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for letting the residents participate in the process. He agreed with Hansen that the RFPs should be reviewed for location and proposed development size before the city makes a de- cision on this project. He then stated that he was concerned about setting a precedent by amending the comp plan for a development that is only three acres in size. He stated that he does not think that the goal of the comprehensive planning process is to make decisions based on particular proposals, but to plan the best way to develop the city using that frame- work. He stated that the approval of a comp plan amendment for this project should wait until more is known about the actual senior housing project and how much land would be needed so the comp plan would not need to be amended again. Wilkinson stated that the project has always been discussed as a ten-acre parcel that was designated as commercial; however, only about six acres has that designation, and the rest, where the senior housing is pro- posed, is designated as low density residential. He believes that the only reason senior housing component was proposed was because the Planning Commission and residents did not find the office building to be a satisfactory use of the land. He stated that he does not be- lieve that amending the comprehensive plan for three acres is appropriate, and the city should wait for the results of the RFPs before approving senior housing for this area. He asked that the Pianning Commission deny the request for the comp pian amendment and have the Council decide on the commercial component as a separate issue. No one else spoke. Willhite closed the public hearing. Piggott made a motion to approve the application based to the findings of fact listed below. Booth seconded. • The introduction of senior housing reduces some of the land use impacts upon the regional systems, including roadways and school system as compared to other multi-family developments. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 10 of 14 • The proposed location is consistent with some of the facfors that support locating senior housing: access to commercial services, good visibility, and good vehicular access. . The establishment of senior housing is one component of lifecycle housing that has been a stated goal of the Council and City in the Comprehensive Plan. . The project meets the goals and policies identified in the comprehensive plan that relate to the establishmenf of life cycle housing opportunities. Hudnut asked if the property designation is low density residential. Lindquist responded that the entire parcel is zoned R-2.5, but the comprehensive plan designates approximately six acres as commercial. She explained that this comprehensive plan process was initiated at the Council meeting during discussion about an interpretation in the zoning ordinance. She stated that zoning ordinance reads that a residential PUD has to have a density within the range specified in the comp plan. If the site is not designated for residential use, the appro- priate density would be determined by the city based on Council findings on such densities consistent with the intent of the PUD and the comp plan. She stated that the zoning has al- ways been R-2.5 and the applicant is proposing to change it to a PUD, which had been rec- ommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Weber asked about the RFPs that have been received. Lindquist replied that several RFPs have been returned to the city. She explained that the RFPs had gone out for four specific sites. The city received two that were site specific but most were not site specific and indi- cated that the developers would be willing to work with any sites the city directed them to. The four sites were Mr. Rygh's parcel, the Langdon area, the Cottage Square Mall area, and the Armory area. Lassen asked if there were any specifications on size of the locations in the RFPs. Lindquist responded that she has not yet thoroughly reviewed the RFPs but that will be done shortly. Motion passed on a 6-to-3 vote (Hudnut, Lassen, Weber). 6.7 TA02-017 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text amendment to Title 6, Chapter 2 of the City Code relating to motor vehicles and parking regulations and to Title 11, Chapter 3 relating to off-street parking and loading. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Hudnut asked if a vehicle is defined as anything that is self-propelled, such as a boat, trailer, or RV. Willhite responded that a vehicle has to have wheels, and a boat on a trailer is con- sidered a vehicle. Hudnut asked if a boat on a trailer would be considered one of the four vehicles allowed and an RV could be one of the four. He also asked if there were no size limitations on RVs. Wiilhite responded that was correct. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 11 of 14 Severson asked if a property with a four-car garage could have four vehicles parked inside and four vehicles parked outside on an approved surface. Lindquist responded that was correct. Willhite asked if a vehicle could be parked along the side of the house on an improved sur- face. Lindquist responded yes, as long as the surface met setback requirements. Severson asked about parking for the tractor portion of a semi-truck; he noted that the tractor portion has been reclassified in the ordinance from Class II to Class I. Lindquist stated that currently is allowed. Hudnut asked it the trailer portion was allowed to be parking in residen- tial areas. Lindquist responded that they are not allowed. Willhite opened fhe public hearing. AI DuBois, 8064 Gary Boulevard, stated that the ordinance looks good. He asked who would enforce the ordinance, why the violation has to be reported, and if anybody was out looking for violations. Willhite responded that violations are currently handled on a complaint-basis. Lindquist added that if a complaint was received, staff would address other similar violations on that same block. A resident asked if people could park their vehicles in the street across from their property. Lindquist responded that there is nothing in the city code that requires a person to only park their vehicles in front of their house. The resident then asked if those vehicles could be parked over night from October through April. Lindquist responded that vehicles would have to be moved between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and that the police department enforces on- street parking violations. Weber asked if the ordinance change would not allow parking of vehicles in front or back yards for the purpose of selling them. Willhite stated that vehicles cannot be parked any unimproved surfaces. No one e/se spoke. Willhite c/osed the public hearing. Hudnut asked for clarification about item 6-2-4C(6), which states that "No uncoupled boat, camper, or trailer shall be parked regularly or consistently in the public right-of-way," and asked if a coupled boat, camper, or trailer may be parked consistently and regularly on the public right-of-way. Lindquist responded that the assumption is that if a boat, camper, or trailer is attached to a car, it would be moved. Hudnuf made a mofion to approve the ordinance amendments. Japs seconded. Mo- tion passed unanimously. 6.8 CASE TA02-018 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text amendment to Title 11-6-2 of the Cottage Grove City Code relating to exterior storage. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 12 of 14 Willhite opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Willhite closed the public hearing. Piggott moved to approve the ordinance amendment. Bailey seconded. Lassen asked if the ordinance would allow freestanding basketball hoops in driveways. Willhite responded that 11-6-2B(2) allows for swings, slides, and other non-motorized rec- reational equipment. Motion passed unanimously. 6.9 CASE TA02-019 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text amendment to Title 4-1-3M of the City Code relating to firewood storage in residential districts. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Willhite opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Willhite closed the public hearing. Severson made a motion to approve the fext amendment. Hudnut seconded. Motion passed on an 8-to-1 vote (Weber). Applications and Requests None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2002 Weber stated that on page 8 of the minutes, the second sentence in the last paragraph should have referenced that the information about senior housing was taken from the com- prehensive plan. Weber moved to approve the minutes as amended. Japs seconded. Mofion passed on a 7-to-0 vote with two absfentions (Piggott, Willhite). Reports 9.1 Recap of February City Council Meetings Lindquist reported that at their February 6 meeting, the City Council discussed utility charges and costs for the new Rose of Sharon church. Lindquist stated that at their February 20 meeting, the City Council re-appointed Tim Booth, David Lassen, and David Piggott to the Planning Commission for three-year terms. The Council also approved the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan relating to the Historic Preservation Element and approved the Acorn Ridge preliminary plat. They also discussed a new river access park on Lower Grey Cloud Island and directed staff to continue to pursue development of that river access park with Washington County, who owns the property, as Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 13 of 14 well as with the Met Council and the DNR for any funding sources and the neighbors about concerns that they may have. The Parks Commission is the primary commission working on this project. Weber asked where questions regarding park pianning for Grey Cloud should be directed. Lindquist responded John Burbank, who staffs the Parks Commission. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Weber referenced the attendance roster noting that the vast majority of absences are unex- cused. She asked why her absence from the August meeting was listed as unexcused when she had faxed a written notice to the city. She requested that the city revisit the issue of re- quiring written notice as opposed to calling because things may come up the day of the meeting. Lindquist responded that this is an ordinance adopted by the City Council and is not a rule adopted by the Planning Commission. She explained that Commission members have until the next meeting to submit a written notice about an absence, and the request has to be signed by the Chair and the Council liaison. She stated that she submitted Weber's note for the August meeting to the Council liaison and it was not signed, which is why the absence is unexcused. She stated that she could forward to the Council Weber's concern about the or- dinance. Weber stated that if no other Planning Commission member agrees with her, she would not pursue the issue. Piggott stated that he had submitted written notice about his ab- sence in July but it is noted on the attendance roster as unexcused. Hudnut stated that he agrees that the process is unduly onerous and legalistic. Lindquist explained the reason for the ordinance and what the Council considers to be excused absences. Weber expressed concern about the Council liaison judging after the fact whether the absence was excused or unexcused, and that she thinks the purpose was to ensure attendance at citizen advisory meetings. Wilihite stated that that was correct but the Council also listed specific reasons that were acceptable. Weber referenced PiggotYs example where he had sent in notice and it was judged after the fact as not being acceptable. Lindquist responded that there is no in- tent to judge people after the fact, and that the reason for allowing written notice to be re- ceived prior to the next meeting was so that notifying the city would not be onerous in case of an emergency. Weber asked what the rules are for City Council absences. Bailey stated that they are an elected body and the voters get to make that choice at election time. Severson stated that he is okay with the process and thinks that it keeps the commission members focused on their responsibilities. Japs asked for an update on the grading activity occurring at Highway 61 and County Road 19. McCool responded that two years ago, the Planning Commission and City Councii had reviewed and authorized a grading permit to remove excess material on the northwest and northeast corners of that intersections. He stated that last fall the property owner authorized a construction contractor who needed fill material to remove the material and haul it away. He explained that currently the excavation operations on the site have ceased, but will probably start up again this spring. He also stated that the city has not yet received any de- velopment plans for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Japs asked if the grading was open ended. McCool responded that any excavation would have to comply with the approved grading permit. Japs then asked if the grading is being Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2002 Page 14 of 14 done in compliance with the plan. McCool responded that they have not yet removed all the material that the city authorized. Booth asked about the time frame for the long-range study of the 70th Street, Keats Avenue, and Military Roads intersections by Washington County. Lindquist stated that she talked with Washington County and explained about our comp plan process. She stated that they want to complete the study, which would be completed in the next couple of years, so the city can include that information in the citys comp plan. She explained that the actual work would probably not be done for a long time. Booth then asked if the city would review any recom- mended plans from that study so there would be some definition for evaluation of develop- ment requests. Lindquist responded that for any development to occur in that East Ravine area, the city's comp plan would need to be amended, so the road configuration that would evolve out of that study would presumably be adopted into the comp plan amendment. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries McCool stated that in response to a question at the last Planning Commission meeting about foot candles for street lights, the standard is .2 foot candle measured 30 feet from the pole base. Severson thanked staff for sending out the packet on rules and procedures. Adjournment Weber made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Severson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission then adjourned to the conference room for a workshop on neighborhood commercial zoning districts.