Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-22 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission April 22, 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 22nd day of April, 2002, in the Council Chambers. Call to Order Chairperson Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Myron Bailey, Timothy Booth, Robert Hudnut, Herb Japs, David Piggott, Bob Severson, Chris Willhite Members Absent: David Lassen (unexcused) Eileen Weber (unexcused) Staff Present: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Hudnut moved to approve the agenda. Willhife seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Open Forum 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 Chairperson Bailey 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, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should come to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings 6.1 CASE CUP02-034 Gerald and Linda Hodgin have applied for a conditional use permit to allow a women's fitness center at 8700 East Point Douglas Road South. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 Page 2 of 13 Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Gerald Hodgin, 8196 Grange Boulevard, stated that they have no plans to add tanning, mas- sage, or other services that would be regulated under state codes; this would be a women's exercise facility with no showers provided. He explained that the facility would be open from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and they would not shut down in the middle of the day. He stated that all employees would be trained in CPR. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut moved to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below. Booth seconded. Severson stated that there seems to be with very few parking spaces left for future tenants at this building and asked if the building owner would have to limit who they rent the additional spaces to. Lindquist responded that the building was constructed with three additional spaces based on a retail occupancy. She explained that the proposed use uses the same amount of parking spaces as a retail use, but the dance studio took up the three additional spaces. All future tenants must be either retail or something with a smaller parking demand. 1. The applicant receive a building permit for any tenant improvements necessary to the site. 2. Parking on the site will be monifored. Parking calculations will be made for future tenants to ensure compliance with the ordinance criteria. Parking is not allowed on Easf Point Douglas Road or 92nd Street. 3. Any future physical massage services shall be performed by a practitioner licensed through the City Clerk's office. 4. Signage for the use shall be in conformance with City code and the approved sign package for fhe PUD. 5. The amount of equipment in the facility shall not impede required safety access or egress dimensions. The final equipment layout shall be reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure conformance with applicable fire codes. Motion passed unanimously. 6.2 CASES ZA01-058, PP01-059, and SP01-060 (continued from 8/27/01) Thompson Land Development has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning from R-2.5, Residential, and R-5, Medium Density Residential, to PUD, Planned Unit Devel- opment; and a preliminary plat and site plan review with variance of a multi-family residen- tial development consisting of 300 dwelling units to be located on the northwest corner of 70th Street and Hinton Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 Page 3 of 13 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended tabling the applications for further information. Japs asked how the intersection of 70th Street and Harkness Avenue would look. McCool re- sponded that the northerly extension of Harkness would be a local street with city jurisdiction, it would be directly across from the current location of Harkness so it would be a four-way in- tersection, and that once the roadway enters that site, it may require some curve so it can intersect with the roadway that would be extended to the north. He stated that the city is not looking to extend that roadway to 65th Street. Piggott stated that if this proposal is approved, there would only be a small portion of that area still zoned R-2.5 that would accommodate single-family homes. McCool responded that the R- 2.5 also extends to the northwest. Piggott stated that in this parcel we are taking the southern portion out and putting it into twin homes. McCool stated that that was correct. Piggott ex- plained that he did support the PUD for the commercial development and he does not dis- agree with the plans for the area zoned R-5 because they are consistent with the comprehen- sive plan, but he does not think that twin homes should be allowed in the area that was zoned R-2.5 and designated for single-family homes. Willhite stated that she agrees with Piggott. She stated that there is a need for twin homes, especially single-level, but not where they are proposed to be located. She stated that there should be a buffer between single-family homes and commercial development. Bailey stated that the buffer is the senior housing. Willhite asked how much of the senior housing buffers it. Bailey responded that the senior housing is three-stories. Japs stated that when this first came before the commission, he was concerned about putting single-family homes next to the commercial development, but the developer told him that they did not see a problem. He stated that as far as twin homes or single-family homes, he leans toward staying with the plan, but he is concerned about increasing the number of homes from 58 to 72. He then stated that one of the purposes for a PUD is to create smaller parcels with increased public space, but he does not see that happening here. He stated that he could support the twin homes if it was closer to 58 units and open space was added. Booth agreed with Japs that he sees no benefit to the city from a PUD in that area. Hudnut asked for more information on grading, erosion, and the six proposed retaining walls. McCool responded that staff does not foresee any erosion problems, but due to the slopes, there is a possibility of erosion. He stated that these issues are addressed through the grading permit process. McCool stated that staff also does not have significant concerns about the retaining walls. He explained that the 16-foot wall along the holding pond may be rather high and the city would require fencing along the top edge of that retaining wall. He stated that the slopes are generally shown to be 3-to-1, which is the maximum slope that city ordinances will allow. Hudnut stated that he had read in the staff report that there was a particular concern regarding the retaining wall between the two properties. McCool pointed out on the map the existing slope between the two properties and stated that it is a 3:1 slope coming down to the base of that slope. He stated that the highest retaining wall on the east edge was six feet in Planning Commission Minutes April �i2, 2002 Page 4 of 13 height, and that there is 20 feet of space between the building structures and the retaining walls. Bill Pritchard, Vice President for Orrin Thompson Homes, 935 Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata, stated that they held a neighborhood meeting on April 18 and about a dozen people attended. He reported that the primary issues that were discussed included traffic concerns, the density for the multi-family portion, and the number of children that could move into the area schools. He stated that they have had a traffic study done, which showed that the area can accommo- date the proposed development. He stated that they are working with the County on a number of issues, such as access into the multi-family. He believes they have accomplished that with a right-in/right-out only and the future Harkness would be the collector street, which would also serve this neighborhood. In regard to the school issue, he will look into the demographic information on how many school age children could move into the development. He stated that typically there is a significant difference between the number of school-age children for a single-family development versus townhomes/twin homes. They also had a lengthy discussion at the neighborhood meeting regarding twin homes versus single-family homes. He stated that with a twin home development there would be a homeowners association that would maintain the grounds. Pritchard stated that the twin homes would all be single-story and would not be as visible across Hinton as single-family homes, which are typically two stories. He stated that he believes there was a consensus from the neighborhood meeting that the twin homes would be acceptable. Pritchard stated that the reason they requested rezoning to PUD was a philosophical issue. He explained that the twin homes, with a density of 2.9 units per acre, fit within the parameters of overall density for single-family, which is one to four units per acre. He stated that if the Commission looks at the blended density, they are considerably under the overall density for the west half of the property, which is 6 to 10 units per acre maximum so they could have 240 to 400 units; they are proposing roughly 220 units. He then stated that there could potentially be 58 single-family homes or 72 twin homes, which is a difference of 14 units and he asked the Commission to look at density trade-off. Pritchard displayed pictures of the current conditions along Hinton Avenue and what it would look like with the twin homes. He explained that the twin homes would be the same type of units that they are building in Woodbury by Tamarack Road and Radio Drive. He stated that the primary market for the twin homes are empty nesters and retirees. He then explained that the 43 proposed townhomes will be slab-on-grad, single-story structures and will also be geared for empty nesters. In addition, they will be constructing lodges similar to those at Pine Summit. He stated that the lodges would be on public roads and that there would be two-car garages for each unit plus two parking spaces on each driveway, and they will work with staff to provide some guest parking. Pritchard then stated that they added over 1.5 acres of green space in the center of the devel- opment and will work with staff to possibly provide additional play equipment. He stated that there are two major arterial trailways along 70th Street and Hinton currently proposed, and they will work with staff on some interconnecting trails into the development and into the school. He explained that they changed the loop road in the multi-family section to make it less curvilinear, moved the entrance street back from 650 to 700 feet, and increased the right- of-ways on all streets to 60 feet to allow parking on both sides of the street. Pritchard stated Planning Commission Minutes April •22, 2002 Page 5 of 13 that they are providing a regional stormwater pond on the southeast portion of their site, which is sized to accommodate runoff from more than just their development. He stated that they will be working with staff on how stormwater charges would be shared. He stated that there is now some question on whether or not there was a wetland on the site. Japs asked what the target group of purchasers would be for the lodges. Pritchard responded that the primary buyers for the lodges are generally young professionals without children and first-time homebuyers. Bailey opened the public hearing. Mark Grossklaus, 7795 — 68th Street Court South, stated that based on the comprehensive plan, multi-family development is way beyond the 2015 projections. He stated that since 1999, more than 100 multi-family housing units have been built and with the 2015 projections show- ing only 200 more, this proposed development would add way more than that. He then stated that this is the last R-2.5 zoning area left that west of the Highlands, and the MUSA does not go beyond 65th Street. He stated that last year they circulated a petition and 150 citizens sup- ported the area remaining R-2.5. Grossklaus stated that the citizens in the area do not want this development. He then stated that the one of the City Council's goals was to develop housing that is valued at $300,000 or up. He believes that there is plenty of affordable housing in Cottage Grove. He also expressed concern about the possibility that the residents in the Highlands will not be able to send their kids to the new school because of the over-density in the West Draw. Japs asked Grossklaus' opinion about allowing the twin homes, but at the same density as for single-family home, and adding a park in that area. Grossklaus responded that there would not be much of a park because all they are required to dedicate is less than an acre. He also stated that the city has a lot of multi-family housing, which is not selling. He would prefer to see more upscale housing. He asked the Commission to deny the application and not table it. Gary Wilkinson, 6907 Homestead Avenue South, wanted to reinforce what Grossklaus said and agreed with what Piggott and other Commission members about keeping the area con- sistent with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. He stated his concern about blending densities. He believes that the proposed development is too dense for the parcel. He also believes that more land should be dedicated for a park. He asked if the Commission would be amenable to twin homes on top but at a slightly lower density. He then suggested that the upper portion be left as is with single-family detached homes, and the twin homes could be built in the lower portion. No one e/se spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to continue fhe public hearing. Severson seconded. Japs asked about the tree preservation plan. He stated that it was indicated that their plan met the city guidelines of preserving 50 percent of the trees; however, he was concerned about removing a big portion of the trees to put in the road. McCool responded that there are tree mitigation ordinance requirements, so any trees removed in excess of what is allowed by ordi- Planning Commission Minutes April •22, 2002 Page 6 of 13 nance would be required to be replaced. Japs asked if a different layout could be designed so that more trees can be preserved. Severson asked to see a drawing of what the eastern portion would look like with single-family homes. He asked what the difference would be for open space requirements between a sin- gle-family development and a twin home development. McCool responded that there would not be any park or open space requirements for a single-family development; it would only apply to medium density or PUD. Severson then asked if all of the homes would be two-story. McCool responded that the developer said there would possibly be more two-story structures with a single-family development. Severson stated that in the artisYs rendition along 70th Street, there might be more of a visibility issue from 70th Street with two-story houses. He then asked about trails going through the single-family area. McCool responded that staff would look at sidewalks along some of the roadway connections, particularly the roadway connections that would go to the north of the property. He stated that when the area to north would develop, the city would require trail connections to the elementary school as well. Hudnut asked for clarification on the number of multi-family units projected in the comprehen- sive plan. Lindquist responded that the estimate was for 200 new housing units per year with about 25 being multi-family, which was based on historic information from previous years. She explained that one of the reasons for the increase was that there was an unanticipated project proposed by DR Horton that included both commercial and residential. She stated that Grossklaus was correct about whaYs proposed; however, the R-5 district on the western por- tion of the property was always anticipated for multi-family. Booth asked about the 23 or 24 shared accesses and stated that the layout looks very con- fusing. Lindquist responded that those would be shared private drives and that is one of the concerns staff has. She stated that staff may require either deleting some lots or spreading the area out because there is too much overlap in the drive aisles. Pritchard stated that they had done a drawing that squared off some of those driveways, but he does not have it with him this evening. He explained that they intend to straighten out some of those driveways and maybe even add an eyebrow, which would lengthen and shorten some of the driveways. He stated that they would have further information on that at the next meeting. Motion passed on a 6-to-1 vofe (Piggott). Booth asked about the 60-day rule. Lindquist responded that the applicant has granted the city an e�ension to the end of June. 6.3 CASE PP02-022 (continued from 3/25/02) Rodney W. Hale has applied for a preliminary plat for a proposed subdivision, Hale's River Bluff Acres, which would consist of three lots for single-family homes. Variances are re- quired for lot width at right of way, Title 11-9A-5; structure setback from bluff line in the Mississippi River Critical Area, Title 11-15-8C; septic system setback from bluff line, Titles 11-3-8B and 11-15-8F, which require a 150-foot setback from the bluff line; and density re- Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 Page 7 of 13 quirements of four dwelling units per quarter/quarter section, Title 11-15-8B. This subdivi- sion would be located on Lower Grey Cloud Island. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Japs asked if the parcel were divided into two lots, would it improve the buildibility of the par- cels. Lindquist responded that the formal application was for three lots, so that is what the staff report is based on. Hudnut asked for more information on the need for alternative drainfields. Lindquist responded that with every septic system, the city requires an alternative drainfield. The area shown in Exhibit C is large enough for a primary and secondary field. Doug Hale, Oak Grove, Minnesota, stated that he is representing Rod Hale. He stated that Rod Hale has lived on the Island since 1980 and has been a resident on the river since 1966. He believes that due to the layout of the land and the fact that it is in the backwaters, which is not a high traffic area because of the shallow nature of the water, any development on this property would be sheltered from the main river. Hale stated that in response to Japs' ques- tion about dividing into only two lots, Rod Hale was not interested in that option. Bailey opened the public hearing. Nanette LaChapelle, 11973 Grey Cloud Trail, read a letter she wrote in opposition to the pro- posed development, which she then distributed to the Commission. The letter stated her con- cern about the number of variances needed. It is also noted that the neighbors are at a disad- vantage due to the density requirements and that the first one to apply may get all the density available for development. She referenced the Grey Cloud Master Plan for a future regional park on the Island stating that either the city or the Met Council should buy property from will- ing sellers to put in trust for future park use. She stated that if Hale is serious about selling his property, one of the aforementioned parties should purchase his property and place it in trust for a future park. She stated that if this does not happen and the variances are granted, the land would probably not end up in the park. She then stated that the DNR strongly opposes Hale's request for variances, which is in direct conflict with the staff report. She stated that if his property can only be subdivided into two lots according to the current zoning ordinances, that would be fair. She stated that if the variances are granted, precedence will be set for fu- ture growth, parkland will be diminished, and current residents will have limited options. She then stated that the CityVision report recommended a park on the Island. Bill Christofferson, 11971 Grey Cloud Trail, stated that he is disappointed that Hale as a City Councilmember did not talk with the neighbors before he made application, especially be- cause of the density issue. He asked what defines a dwelling unit. McCool responded a house that can be lived in. Christofferson asked if a cabin would be considered a dwelling unit. McCool responded that a structure with running water and sanitary facilities would be consid- ered a dwelling unit. Christofferson responded that he believes there are already four or five dwelling units per quarter/quarter and he questioned the proposal for the subdivision. He stated that there should be a three-acre minimum for lot size in the area. He also stated that Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 Page 8 of 13 the city should set guidelines to change the process for the density requirements, so it is not first-come, first-served. He stated that he strongly opposes the subdivision. Eujeana Kulvich, 11523 Grey Cloud Trail, stated that she lives to the west of the property and she agrees with Christofferson and LaChapelle. She stated that Hale has a conflict of interest because he is on the City Council. She does not believe that there are enough buildable acres on either of the proposed lots. She stated that if Hale is granted the variances, the other prop- erty owners would expect the same treatment. She noted that Hale indicated that he may not sell both of the properties upon plat approval and has requested that any approval be for a longer period of time than the traditional one year approval. She stated that the DNR opposes creation of a plat or subdivision that requires variances in order to create such a plat. She asked the Commission to deny the applications. John Appert, 11395 Grey Cloud Trail, stated that he owns 42 acres on the Island. He stated that he does not believe Hale has a conflict of interest for wanting to develop his land and be- ing on the Council. He asked for clarification on using up credits that would exist for other homeowners and if this development could jeopardize his opportunities in the future. Lindquist responded that the ordinance allows four dwelling units per quartedquarter and there is cur- rently no formal process for administration for who gets the density. She explained that when first-come/first-serve was discussed, staff was not saying that is how it should be applied. Appert asked if there were any way to protect the neighbors. Lindquist responded that cur- rently there are three units in this quarter/quarter, so the question is who gets it any additional units. Christofferson stated that there are four dwelling units in that quarter/quarter section, which includes a cabin. Lindquist responded that she does not believe that the cabin would count. Christofferson then stated that he has a duplex. Lindquist responded that in her opinion Hale's cabin would not qualify as a dwelling because it is not year-round habitable space. Christofferson explained that he was referring to LaChapelle's cabin. He stated that McCool defined a dwelling as having sewer and water, so it should not matter if it is used seasonally. Kulvich asked if a quarter/quarter consists of 40 acres and there should only supposed be four dwellings on those 40 acres. Lindquist responded that was correct. Kulvich stated that the Christoffersons have a double house, LaChapelle has a house, and the Hales have a house, so that is four dwelling units and she asked how Hale could make two more buildable lots on his acreage. Lindquist responded that the way it is calculated is that there was one additional unit left because there are three structures in the quarter/quarter. Kulvich pointed out that LaChapelle has a cabin. Fred Madsen, 10971 Grey Cloud Trail, stated that he does not have a problem with subdivid- ing the land as long as there is enough space to do it within the zoning ordinances. He stated that because of all the variances required, precedence would be set. Bailey noted that the Planning Commission had received a letter from Jerry Taube, 10626 Grey Cloud Island Drive, in opposition to the application. No one e/se spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes April•22, 2002 Page 9 of 13 Piggott explained that a conflict of interest occurs when a person actually votes on something that he or she would financially benefit from. He stated that he is opposed to this proposal be- cause of the number of variances requested and the fact that the applicant wants an exten- sion on the time limit to develop the property. He stated that the city has been pretty strict on what can be done in the critical area and the sheer number of exceptions and variances are excessive. Piggott made a motion to deny the application. Willhite seconded. Japs stated that what constitutes the number of units in a quarter/quarter should be clarified. Booth stated that one of the criteria for approval of a variance is strict enforcement would cause undo hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property. He stated that most of the variance requests are not for conditions unique to this particular parcel. He stated that undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by official controls. The applicant has reasonable use of the property and denying the variances does not deprive him of a reasonable use. He agrees with Piggott that the application does not meet the criteria for a variance. Willhite stated that the Planning Commission does take the DNR seriously. She stated that she does not like all of the variances requested. She stated that she served on the CityVision Task Force and explained that they did not explore many other options for uses on the Island except for a park and she does not necessarily agree with the park recommendation in the re- port. She stated that she is concerned by the number of variances requested and agrees with Booth that they don't meet the hardship line. She stated that she does not want to change anything on the Island until the city looks further at Lower Grey Cloud Island because the DNR has strong opinions on the critical area. Motion to deny passed unanimously. 6.4 CASES SP02-026 and CUP02-027 (continued from 3/25/02) TCF Bank has applied for a site plan review with variance and conditional use permit for a bank with drive-up window to be located on Lot 2, Block 1 of Carly's 2nd Addition. Severson asked about the traffic flow through the area. Lindquist responded that there is one entrance to the site from the shared private drive that will be aligned with the Walgreen's en- trance and traffic would be controlled by stop signs. She stated that there is a bypass lane on the far west side of the site to allow vehicles to bypass the drive-through. Severson stated that he is concerned about vehicles exiting the bank due to the Walgreen's configuration. Lindquist responded that staff prefers the aligned intersection to staggered entrances, which has higher chances for accidents. She stated that there could be some internal stacking because it is somewhat close to the road access, but it should not impact traffic flow through the site. Severson asked what the distance is from the street to the entrance. McCool responded that it is about 95 feet, which is approximately five car lengths. Lindquist asked if Severson was con- cerned about the private drive or that there is only one entrance to TCF. Severson stated that he is concerned that there is only one access into the bank and that the area overall could be- come very congested. Lindquist asked if he would prefer to have two access points into the Planning Commission Minutes ApriF22, 2002 Page 10 of 13 bank. Severson stated that his biggest concern is traffic flow through the overall area. Lindquist stated that staff is more comfortable with having only one entrance, based on the discussion at the March Planning Commission meeting. Willhite asked if there were one or two lanes in each direction. Lindquist responded that it was a two-lane drive. Japs asked if the access road intersected with the entrance to the Rainbow Foods parking lot. Lindquist responded that the private drive is at the signal light. Severson stated that his con- cern is that traffic coming from 80th Street could become stacked up at the signal light. Lindquist stated that a right turn lane would be constructed. Booth stated that there is no ad- vantage to moving the access to the west because then it would not align with the signal light. He stated that it is hard to plan for traffic patterns when the Commission does not have all the plans available. Japs asked if there was a diagram showing the whole site. Lindquist stated that she discussed with the developer for Walgreen's the previous circulation concerns, and was told that they would extend the median further down to help define the drive aisle, but they could not close the access because it is their truck circulation. Mike Kraft, Shea Architects representing TCF Bank, explained the exterior materials they would be using for the building, noting that it would be consistent with other TCF buildings that have been constructed since the 1930s. He stated that the face brick would be identical to what is being used at Walgreen's. He asked if their applications could be forwarded to the May 1 City Council meeting, because they want to start construction as soon as possible. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. McCool displayed a revised site plan of the entire site including Walgreen's, the retail center, and TCF. The Commission reviewed and commented on the plan. Severson made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed be/ow. Japs seconded. Booth requested that the applicant work with the city to add more landscaping to the site. 1. The site plan shall be modified to reflect the additional required performance stan- dards identified in the staff report. 2. Black vinyl-clad galvanized fencing or its equivalent is required for any fencing associated with the site development. 3. All applicable permits (i.e., building, elecfrical, grading, mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building O�cial and Fire Marshall. 4. Final exterior construction maferials and colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Depariment prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Commission Minutes Apr�l 22, 2002 Page 11 of 13 5. All curbing for the project shall be 8618. 6. The applicant shall provide fhe City with an as-built survey of all private utilities. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for the placement of a stop sign at the parking lot entrances and the 80th Street access point. 8. The stockpiling of snow sha// be prohibited in the surface water ponding area. 9. The applicant shall pay an offsite surface water management mifigation payment to the City in the amount of $13,732,00. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a comprehen- sive sign package to fhe City for review and approval. 11. Prior to fhe issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a comprehen- siye lighting package consistent with the city redevelopment plan to the City for re- view and approval. All outdoor lighting shall be directed downward and away from residential property and public streets, and shall not exceed one footcandle at the property lines. 12. The landscaping plan shall be revised to address meet the items identified in the staff report Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13.A bona fide cost estimate of the landscaping improvements shall be submitted in conjunction with a lettei of credit approved by the City in the amount of 150 percent of such estimate. Upon completion of the landscaping requirements, the applicant shall in writing inform the City that said improvements have been completed. The City shall retain the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of notice to insure the survival of fhe plantings. No building permif shall be issued until the required financial guarantee has been received and accepted by the City. Motion passed unanimously. 6.5 CASE TA01-071(continued from 9/24/01) The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to Title 11-3-9, Off- street Parking and Loading, of the City Code relating to required off-street parking. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Japs asked how staff decided on 1.5 parking spaces for senior housing. McCool responded that the number came from a survey of other communities and what Cottage Grove currently requires for other similar types of developments. Japs stated that he has concerns about the lack of parking at multi-family dwellings and noted that the proposal is for one visitor parking space is required for every ten units. Willhite stated that she does not believe there is ade- quate parking required for senior housing. Japs stated that he would like to amend the number Planning Commission Minutes ApriE 22, 2002 Page 12 of 13 of required visitor parking spaces for multi-family parking to one space for every five units. Lindquist stated that typically there is parking in the garage and two spaces available in the driveway. Japs stated that he does not feel that there are enough parking spaces available in multi-family developments. Willhite agreed with Japs on the multi-family parking and again stated her concern about the number of spaces being required for senior housing. Bailey asked if multi-family includes apartment buildings. Lindquist responded yes. Bailey stated that he feels staff would be more inclined to add additional visitor parking to an apartment building complex than maybe to twin homes. Lindquist stated that he's right because apartments don't necessarily have garages or driveways. She stated that one space per five units could result in too many required spaces. Japs asked if the number of required spaces could be 50 per- cent more than what is recommended. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing. Japs made a motion to approve the ordinance with amendments to increase the multi- family visitor parking by 50 percent, which is 1.5 spaces for every 10 units and to re- quire two parking spaces per unit for visitor parking for senior housing rafher than the proposed 1.5. Willhite seconded. Booth asked about surfacing requirements for single-family homes. Lindquist responded that driveways in single-family residential developments have to be either asphalt or concrete, but parking pads behind the front line of the house can have landscaping materials or gravel. Booth then stated that the ordinance allows the parking surface to encroach on the front yard drainage and utility easement abutting the street and he asked about parking surfaces for driveways that access the street from the side yard. Lindquist responded that if that was where the only driveway on the property was located, that would be okay. Booth reiterated that it says the only exception for an encroachment is the front yard drainage and utility ease- ment. Motion passed unanimously. Applications and Requests None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 25, 2002 Japs made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on March 25, 2002. Willhite seconded. Mofion passed unanimously. Reports 9.1 Recap of April City Council meetings Lindquist stated that at the April 3 meeting, the City Council approved the final plat for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the final plat for Pine Summit 3rd Addition, and the final plat for Acorn Ridge. They also approved an amended development and assessment agreement for Grove Plaza and Home Depot. , Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 Page 13 of 13 Lindquist reported that at the April 17 meeting, the Council directed staff to send a letter to Washington County requesting improvements be made at 70th and Harkness. The Council approved the interim conditional use permit for the radio-controlled airplane field, a subdivision agreement for Acorn Ridge, the conditional use permit for the telecommunications tower off 70th Street, the retail center site plan, the PUD rezoning and subdivision for Carly's 2nd Addi- tion, and the preliminary plat for Highland Hills. She stated that there was also a request to delete the condition requiring right-of-way easement dedication for a rural subdivision that occurred in June 2000, but the Council decided to uphold the dedication requirement. Japs asked for more information on the 70th Street and Harkness Avenue intersection and the alignment of the road and the impact on those trees. Severson stated that putting in a turn lane could help mitigate traffic concerns. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Hudnut stated that he was impressed with the neighborhood groups that have been meeting with Newland Homes and Thompson Homes. He requested that an ordinance be drafted to require these types of ineetings early on in the process when a development is proposed. Severson requested that how development density is computed be looked into further in rela- tion to buildable versus unbuildable acreage. Lindquist stated that every property would have some land use designation associated with it but that does not ensure that there is maximum density on any of it. Japs stated that the steep banks in the West Draw adds to the beauty of the area and developers would be able to have fewer lots than they would in a former corn- field. He stated that the separation between housing areas is part of what makes the area attractive. Severson asked if the Commission was going to meet again to discuss neighborhood com- mercial zoning districts. Lindquist responded affirmatively. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. 9.5 Approval of 2002 P�anning Commission Rules Severson made a motion to approve the 2002 Planning Commission Rules. Hudnut seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Adjournment Japs made a motion to adjourn. Willhite seconded. Motion passed unanimously.