Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-24 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission June 24, 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 24th day of June, 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, David Lassen David Piggott, Bob Severson, Eileen Weber, Chris Willhite Members Absent: Herb Japs (excused) Staff Present: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Booth moved to approve the agenda. Hudnut 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 RS02-048 Harry C. Wolf has applied for a simple lot division to subdivide a 12.49-acre parcel into two parcels of 9.49 acres and 3.0 acres at 6150 Lamar Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes June�24, 2002 Page 2 of 17 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing, Hudnut made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed be- low. Boofh seconded. 1. A park dedication fee in lieu of land dedicafion and recreation fee is paid to the Cify of Cottage Grove for the new residential development. The fees required by City resolution af the time the building permit is issued shall apply. Currently, the park fee is $1,000 per single-family dwelling and the recreation fee is $150 per resi- dential unit. 2. A storm sewer area charge in the amount of $20,608.50 shall be paid prior fo re- /ease of the property deeds for recording with Washington County. 3. The following permanent drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City as required by the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Title 10, Chapter 5, Secfion 6(D)): a. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement paralleling the wesferly right-of- way line of Lamar Avenue. b. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement cenfered on the common bound- ary line between the two parce/s. c. A 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement along and paralleling the east prop- erty line of the 3-acre parcel. d. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along and paralleling the balance of the property lines. e. An easement located 2 feet above the high wafer elevation of the regional sur- face water drainage system flowing south across the parent parcel. (said eleva- tion shall be reviewed and approved by the South Washington Watershed District.) 4. The private access drive location onto LamarAvenue shall be reviewed and ap- proved by fhe City of Public Works Department. Motion passed unanimously. 6.2 CASES ZA01-058, PP01-059, and SP01-060 (continued from 4/22/02) 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 De- Planning Commission Minutes June�24, 2002 Page 3 of 17 velopment; and a preliminary plat and site plan review with variance for a multi-family residential development consisting of 300 dwelling units to be located on the northwest corner of 70th Street and Hinton Avenue. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Piggott asked what comparison was for the number of children per household between sin- gle-family homes and twin homes. McCool responded that the estimate for twin home struc- tures was 102 students, which is .35 per unit, compared with 160 students (.55 per unit) for detached single-family homes. Piggott stated that it would be better to have more children living near an elementary school, which would reduce the need for busing. He then ex- pressed his concern that there would not be much single-family housing in the West Draw if this proposed development were approved. McCool displayed the city's zoning map and pointed out areas in the West Draw that are zoned R-2.5 that will be sewered. Lindquist stated that there are other properties located near the approved Highland Hills development that are zoned R-2.5. She then stated that the issue of the number of children was raised by several residents who were concerned that their children would not be able to attend the new school. Lassen asked about the discrepancies in the estimated value per unit on the twin homes from previous discussions. Weber stated that the language about trails and pedestrian access to the schools sounds ambiguous, and she expressed her concern about the safety of children who would walk to the new school. McCool responded that area in the north has 3:1 slopes, which means in- stalling a trail would be very difficult. Weber stated that the trail on 70th Street also has large slopes. McCool stated that staff does not believe it is the best location to have the trail on this particular site. He explained that there are opportunities to locate trails on other proper- ties that are currently not under development. Hudnut asked if the amount of dedicated open space was appropriate given the acreage of the site. McCool responded that he would look into that as it relates to the R-5 ordinance re- quirements. Bill Pritchard, Orrin Thompson Homes, introduced Joe Cooper from James R. Hill, the engi- neer, who can address any grading questions. He stated that staff did a wonderful job pre- senting the issues and thanked the Planning Commission for giving them the time to get through all the issues. He stated that in addition to concerns about the number of units, they also had to deal with access issues through the County. He explained that the issue regard- ing access from 70th Street has been resolved between the County, the City, and them- selves. He stated that the regional stormwater pond was another issue that needed to be resolved. Pritchard explained that the base price for the twin homes in Woodbury range from $250,000 per unit, and they estimate that the twin homes proposed for Cottage Grove would range between $200,000 to $250,000. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 Page 4 of 17 Hudnut asked why they requested rezoning from R-2.5 to PUD. Pritchard responded that they wanted to provide twin homes in the community, but the R-2.5 district does not allow for them. He stated that the density in that area with twin homes would be comparable to single family. He stated that either they had to request a rezoning to PUD or to a different medium density zoning district, which would be higher usage than what they wanted. Bailey opened the public hearing. Mark Grossklaus, 7795 — 68th Street Court South, expressed his opposition to rezoning to PUD. He stated that he believes that most projects proposed over the past few years have been PUDs. He asked why staff has proposed this piece of property be changed from R-2.5 to PUD. He stated that he does not believe this project meets any of the eight purposes for a PUD rezoning that are listed in the city code. He then asked what the city is getting back from using the PUD for this proposal. He stated that there are no PUDs proposed for the West Draw area in the West Draw Task Force Report or comprehensive plan. Grossklaus asked each Commissioner to explain their vote on this proposal. Jim Chilcott, 6790 Ideal Avenue South, asked what the city was getting for giving the PUD. He stated that the residents have no objections if the area was developed as R-2.5. He stated that it seems that with the PUD the city is giving the developer more density, but are not getting anything substantial back for it. He then stated his concern about the lack of open space. He stated that in the mining pit area, the terrain rises on three sides, and with possi- bility of 160 children living in that bowl shaped area, where would they play. He stated that the only park proposed is a tot lot. He read a passage from Title 10-1-1 from the subdivision ordinance regarding the purpose of subdividing land into home sites. He stated that putting a development on 20 acres of land in a bowl shaped area adjacent to a major arterial road is not sound policy. He reiterated his concern about the lack of open space. Willhite arrived at 7:55 p.m. Chilcott then referenced Title 10-3 of the city code regarding open space requirements. He stated that the citys ordinances require that a developer dedicate land to the city to maintain the quality of life in the community. McCool responded that as part of the conditions, the city is requiring a cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication, which would amount to $261,900. Chilcott stated that he does not believe that is sufficient. He stated that he would like to cre- ate a livable community and feels that more open space is needed in this development. He asked that each Commissioner to comment on the issue of open space in this proposal. Dick Hanson, 6918 Homestead Avenue South, stated that he has mixed feelings about the proposal. He thinks that the twin homes are a nice form of housing and he likes the concept of offsetting them so they are not all in a row. He also believes that because the develop- ment is geared toward the retirement community, there would not be as much of an impact to the neighborhood in terms of traffic. However, he believes that leaving the area zoned R- 2.5 for single-family homes is the best option for this area, particularly because of the prox- imity to the new elementary school. He also expressed concern about the lack of open space in the western portion of the site. He believes that that area should also have lower density housing, even though it is not in the comp plan, which would encourage more families to live Planning Commission Minutes June�24, 2002 Page 5 of 17 closer to the school. He believes that it would be common sense to have more children in that area who would not need to be bused to school and who also not have to cross any busy roads to get to the school. No one else spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Piggott moved to deny the applications. Willhite seconded. Lindquist stated that because issue of the park dedication was raised, she would like to go over the process the city currently uses and asked for the Planning Commission's input on the process. She explained that the upcoming Planning Commission agendas are provided to the various advisory commissions (Public Safety, Public Works, and Parks Commissions) and those advisory commissions provide comments that are incorporated into the Planning Commission and City Council documents. The Parks Commission reviewed this proposal and did not request park land dedication, which is why staff is recommending that there be payment in lieu of land dedication. She stated that the Parks Commission generally works from the comprehensive plan, which shows a variety of sites located throughout the commu- nity for future public parks. She stated that the issue Mr. Chilcott is raising is really one of open space and activity areas for the development and she does not think that that is neces- sarily the same thing as the park dedication requirement. She stated that the Planning Commission and City Council have the ability to require additional open space for residents in multi-family areas. She disagreed with Chilcott stating that staff believes with the PUD the city has more leverage to ask for additional open space or activity areas than with some of the other zoning districts. She stated that the Planning Commission could make a recom- mendation to the Council that the city should request land dedication rather than the fee. Chilcott stated that he understands what Lindquist is saying. He then referenced Title 11-9E- 4, which states "The area shall be permanently reserved as open space. It may be accepted by the City as partial fulfillment of the park dedication requirements if consistent with parks and open space elements of the comprehensive plan. If not so dedicated, the open space shall be placed under the control of a homeowners association." He then reiterated his con- cern about the lack of open space. Severson asked how staff would classify the amount of open space on this proposal. Lindquist responded that the property lends itself to a fair amount of open space; however, much of that open space is not usable due to the slopes. Severson asked what other con- cepts would the open space improve with those conditions. Lindquist responded that a PUD is the operational vehicle to require more open space because the R-5 is an odd amalgama- tion of a zoning district with some single-family characteristics, such as setback require- ments. Severson asked if other land use concepts would improve the amount of open space available or if it is limited by the topography of the area. Lindquist responded that significant modification would be needed on the western portion of the project to allow for a consider- able increase in open space. She then stated that the other portion of the property would be almost as dense as a single-family project. She stated that the layout for a single-family de- velopment would not look much different; the circulation and placement of the structures would probably be similar due to the slope to the west. Severson asked if the only way to significantly improve the amount of open space is to change the product components. Planning Commission Minutes June�24, 2002 Page 6 of 17 Lindquist responded that would be her opinion, but the developer may feel there could be other ways to do it. Severson asked if it would be possible with the topography, particularly on the western por- tion, to be able to reasonably increase the open space using the proposed product or to do so would the produce have to be changed. Pritchard stated that the western half is guided as medium density residential, which is 10 units per acre for a maximum of 400 units. He stated that the site is constrained due to steep slopes, storm water retention ponds, and tree pres- ervation. He stated that they are proposing of a density about seven units per acre. He ex- plained that the product they chose to build on this site has been marketable in other communities. Pritchard stated that they are two-bedroom units. He then stated that they don't believe that there would be as many children living in the town home units as projected by the school board, based on their experience with other similar developments throughout the area. Booth asked if the western portion was the only area being developed, would that require any action by the Planning Commission. Lindquist responded that if they went with their pro- posal using the current R-5 zoning, which meets the ordinance criteria, the Planning Com- mission would still have to hold a public hearing and recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Booth asked if the only reason they are requesting a PUD is to build twin homes on the eastern portion of the project, which is zoned single-family. Lindquist responded that is staff's understanding. Booth stated that he is concerned about the density, even though the pro- posed density is less than would be allowed by ordinance. He understands that this proposal is a lot less dense than it could be but there is not a lot of physical place between these buildings for kids to play, though that is the nature of high density housing. Lindquist clarified that the area is guided medium density residential, which allows 5 to 10 units per acre. Bailey asked if there would be an opportunity to put in a sidewalk to the school when the property to the west is developed. Lindquist responded that the city would be interested in bringing the sidewalk to the school, however on the southwest corner there is a wooded area with steep slopes. She stated that the open space is actually more in the middle of this pro- ject by the ball fields. She stated that when reviewing one of the Pine Forest subdivisions, staff wanted to make a connection to the back end of the school, but the school district did not want to provide a path across their property. She stated that might also be an issue for this development because the sidewalk would go into their wooded area. Booth asked if the Parks Commission has plans for a park in the West Draw. Lindquist stated that the school will have two ball fields, two soccer fields, and a playground, which the city considers part of the recreational uses for the community. She stated that other areas include a small neighborhood park by the West Draw water tower that was dedicated as part of the Orrin Thompson/Centex project; the regional park located south of 70th Street, which would have ball fields and other amenities; a neighborhood park in the Highland Hills subdi- vision off 65th Street; and Highlands Park. She stated that when staff lists park facilities, schools are usually included on the list and joint arrangements are made between the city and the school district. Booth then asked if the access to the school property could be on the eastern portion of the property. Lindquist responded if a sidewalk was extended to the school property from the southwest, there may not be a sidewalk going through the wooded area Planning Commission Minutes June�24, 2002 Page 7 of 17 unless the school decides to add one. Bailey stated that it was his understanding that the only way for a sidewalk to be constructed to the school is when the property on the other side of this proposal develops. Bailey stated that in his opinion the attached twin homes are a type of housing needed in Cottage Grove; he looked at the product in Woodbury and thought it was a very nice devel- opment. He explained that the city does not have a zoning classification for this type of housing, and believes that the only issue between twin homes and single family homes is the fact that they are attached, otherwise this could fit into an R-2.5 proposal. He stated that he has heard from many people who would love to see this type of housing come to the city. He stated that he would vote in favor of this proposal. Booth agreed with Bailey. He stated that he believes the city needs more diversity in the types of housing. He does not believe that the twin homes are too dense; they would be sin- gle-story rather than two-story, and it would be a nice development. His only concerns are on the western portion of the property. Lassen stated that he does like the concept of twin homes and he think overall the concept of the twin homes is good, but he does have concerns because of the R-2.5 zoning of the area, which is the primary reason he cannot support the project. He stated that he also has concerns about the concept proposed for the western portion of the property. He stated that he would like to explore other product options. He understands the topography of the land limits what can be developed there, but believes that is an issue worth pursuing. Severson stated that he supports the project. He also has concerns about the western por- tion, but he believes that without integrating that with the other portion in a PUD, rather than utilizing the current R-5 zoning, the quality of the project could suffer. He stated that he un- derstands the concern about R-2.5, but other space available is available for single-family homes. He reiterated that he is in favor of the project and feels that it is the best overall compromise that he has seen during the process. He likes the concept of the housing stock and thinks it is a nice blend. Piggott stated that the reason he made the motion to deny the application was because he is strongly in favor of supporting the comprehensive plan. He stated that while there are proba- bly too many units proposed for the western portion, that area was zoned R-5 and he would support that portion of the development. He stated that he voted to approve the commercial project on the corner because it was in the comp plan. He stated that the eastern portion of the site is zoned R-2.5 and guided for single-family homes in the comp plan, so that is what should be developed there. He believes that in the spirit of the agreement, if the city supports multi-family development in the quarry and the commercial development on the corner, then it would be consistent to maintain the R-2.5 zoning on the rest of the parcel. Willhite also has concerns about the western portion. She feels that it is too dense, but be- cause it is in the comp plan that way, she would support it. She stated that she agrees with Piggott regarding staying consistent with the comprehensive plan. She stated that she will vote against this proposal for that reason. Planning Commission Minutes June�24, 2002 Page 8 of 17 Hudnut stated that he is favor of the motion to deny because he thinks there is an insuffi- ciency of open space and because it requires more density than envisioned by the comp plan or West Draw Task Force. Weber stated that she feels that the residents gave very articulate and well researched ar- guments against the proposal. She reiterated her concerns about children walking along 65th Street to get to the school. She also agrees with the principles that Piggott and Willhite espoused, and she will be voting to deny the applications. Bailey thanked the residents for their input. He stated that there was a motion and second for denial and called for a vote. Motion passed on a 5-to-3 vote (Bailey, Booth, Severson). Piggott departed at 8:46 p.m. 6.3 CASE PP02-041 Pulte Homes has applied for a preliminary plat for Timber Ridge 3rd Addition, which would consist of 115 lots for single family homes, to be located south of the Timber Ridge subdivision and east of the Hidden Oaks subdivision. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. She stated that there was an error in the staff report and the de- veloper is not required to pay a park dedication fee and there should be an amendment to that condition. She explained that recreation and park fees were waived as part of the park dedication for the Pine Summit park development, because there was a large amount of park land dedication by the water tower site as well as the southern portion of the project. Lassen asked if it would be possible to open up of the road connection after construction of this project is done, which may help alleviate some construction traffic concerns from the citizens. Lindquist responded that something like that could be done, but she suggested after a percentage of the residences was completed rather than the whole project. Willhite asked where the sidewalks would be located. Lindquist pointed out the proposed sidewalks on the drawing. Hudnut asked if there would be trails throughout the project. Lindquist responded that only sidewalks had been proposed but no trails. Lassen asked if the trees on the portion of land that is designated for Hardwood would be removed when Hardwood was constructed. Lindquist stated that Hardwood would be located further to the east of the trees noted in the diagrams and those trees would not be removed. Booth asked what would be the access to the area. Lindquist responded that the only access to the site without the 74th Street connection would be from the northeast, which goes through the Timber Ridge project that is currently under construction. McCool pointed out the Planning Commission Minutes June�24, 2002 Page 9 of 17 location of the roadway connection to Timber Ridge. Lassen asked if the three roads on the south would be dead ends and there would only be one access to the site. McCool re- sponded yes. Booth asked if the west access was closed during construction, would con- struction vehicles have to travel through the Timber Ridge neighborhood. Lindquist responded that was correct. Booth stated his concern about moving construction traffic from one neighborhood to another. Lindquist stated that when Orrin Thompson develops their property adjacent to this project, there would be another road connection. Lassen asked when that is expected to happen. Lindquist stated that that is their last phase of the Pine Summit development. Severson asked what the timing was for the phases of the proposed development. Lindquist stated that the developer would explain the timing of the project. Severson then asked when the properties to the east and the north would be completed. Debbie Brodsho of Brodsho Consulting stated that she is also the landscape architect for the project. She introduced Tom Stanke, Division President of Pulte Homes; Brian North, repre- sentative from Pulte Homes; Jennifer Kilkelly, representative from Summit Ridge, who is the landowner; and John Wingard and Rick Thompson who are the site engineers from Boland Surveying & Engineering. She explained that the project would be broken into two phases; the first phase, which is on the northeasterly corner, is planned to commence in 2002 and the rest of the plat would not be ready for development until at least 2003. She stated that the site is planned to be graded in its entirety, including the roadways and the building pads, but the road connection to Hidden Oaks would not be constructed until the first phase is completed. Severson asked about the tree situation. Brodsho stated that the landowner was part of the West Draw Task Force. She explained that the city had initiated the acquisition of the far eastern portion of the site for right-of-way for the future Hardwood Avenue and utility corri- dor. She stated that the intent of the landowner and the city was to always preserve the trees on the hillside, and it was given to the city as a conservation easement. She then stated that that transfer of ownership was not supposed to happen until the property was platted. She stated that since the ownership transfer happened before the plat, they worked with the city to come up with a fair and workable solution so that the area fees would be charged to allow them to receive credit for the trees on the property that was given to the city. She also stated that they believe the park dedication was satisfied when the landowner gave 20 acres to the north to the city. Brodsho commented that they are aware of the objections of the neighbors to the west re- garding the road connection. She stated that the most direct route from the subdivision will be to the north through the Timber Ridge 1st and 2nd Additions. She explained that the ac- cess going through Hidden Oaks is a more circuitous route and does not believe that many people would use that route often. She stated that they are open to whatever the neighbor- hood and the city agree upon. Weber asked for clarification on how the number of trees preserved changes so dramatically. She also asked about condition #10 that requires an individualized tree preservation plan to be submitted with the building permit application. Lindquist responded that they could do all Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 Page 10 of 17 the site grading and tree preservation off the large plan, but staff is requesting that they pro- vide tree preservation plans for each individual lot to ensure that the trees slated for preser- vation are consistent with the overall plan. She stated that this is already being done with the Hidden Valley projects. She stated that this process allows for alternations to be made to the building plans that may require fewer trees being removed. Weber asked if the number of trees being removed would be the same except that the percentage drops because the size of the land in question grew. Lindquist stated that the amount of trees removed would be the same, but the developer asked the city to consider the trees on the property they sold to the city as part of their tree inventory. Lassen stated that he wants assurance that those trees would not be removed, and if that were the case, he is okay with the plan. Booth asked about the area charges and noted that the report stated that those fees are calculated using 4.04 acres of the citys land to add to their tree count. Lindquist stated that the city owns the whole green space but the developer is only asking to count the trees on the 4.04 acres to get them to the 40 percent tree re- moval. Bailey asked if they would be paying the city to use those trees as part of their count for tree preservation. Lindquist responded that there has not been any exchange of money, and explained that the city paid Gonyea for the property by crediting his area charges, which is why they are being asked to pay the area charges back. Bailey opened the public hearing. Bob Newby, 7124 Granada Avenue, stated that while he does question the number of trees being removed, he does think the plan seems to be well thought out. He stated his concern about the connection of 74th Street and the potential impact on the Howard's Addition and Hidden Oaks neighborhoods. He presented a petition that was submitted to the City Council in June 1997 requesting that 74th Street not be extended and that there were 42 signatures on it, which included virtually every resident in the area at that time. Newby then stated that the proposed Pulte neighborhood would be different from the neighborhoods to the west; the Pulte proposal is based on traditional lots with city services and street lights. He then stated that currently there is only one way into and out of his neighborhood, which helps deter van- dals and burglars because they would have to come back out the same way they came in, but extending 74th Street would give them two ways to escape. He suggested that a linear park could be constructed utilizing a unique paving surface such as cobblestone with vege- tation on the shoulders. He stated that this could be built wide enough to allow access to emergency vehicles and snow plows. Newby stated that he would like to meet with the de- velopers and the city to come up with a solution. Beth Rosga, 7294 Granada Avenue, stated that her concerns about traffic safety noting the street has hills and curves and vehicles are already traveling too fast on the road. She stated that she is opposed to a connection, which would add more traffic to the area. Dave Oster, 7493 Granada Bay, asked if the Planning Commission members have driven on Granada. The Commission members stated that they had. Oster stated that this is not a normal city street; it has a lot of curves and hills. He explained that all the lots are wooded, which hinders some of the sight lines around the curves. He believes that there would be too much traffic coming through their neighborhood when the new development is completed Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 Page 11 of 17 because it would be a more direct route. Oster then stated that when he purchased his home he knew the road was proposed to go through. He stated that he talked with the developer and was promised that the woods would not be disturbed much. He expressed concern about allowing Pulte to count the trees on the city property as part of their tree preservation plan. Jim Henry, 7189 Granada Avenue, stated that he is also concerned about traffic safety and expressed his opposition to the road connection. John Parkinson, 7490 Granada Circle, stated that this is a very unique area, with the homes on acreage lots with well and septic. He stated that connecting the road would increase traf- fic through an area that does not have street lights and sidewalks. No one else spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion to approve the application without the road connection, su6- ject to the conditions lisfed below. Willhite explained that she does not want the road to connect the two developments because of their differences, including no street lights and sidewalks in the western subdivisions. She stated that she understands the residents' concerns. She also stated that there will be sev- eral ways in and out of the proposed development, so it is not necessary to connect the road. Weber asked for clarification on the motion. Willhite stated that the motion is to ap- prove the preliminary plat without the road connection. Lassen seconded. Booth asked if it was the city or developer who wants the road connection. Lindquist re- sponded that the developer does not feel that they need to have the access, but the city has always had it in the plans to be extended, which is why it was dedicated in the Hidden Oaks project. Severson asked if the city wants that road connection, besides access for emergency vehi- cles. He believes that the traffic pattern will change when the new development is built. Lindquist stated that emergency vehicle access is a good reason for a connection, particu- larly for the Hidden Oaks neighborhood, which has only one access. She stated that there is also the intent of neighborhood linkages and cohesion. She suggested that the city could do a traffic study to see what type of impact the road connection would have. Weber asked if it would be feasible to table the application pending a traffic study. She stated that she would also like to receive further information on preserving more trees. She believes it is disingenuous to fix the tree preservation problem by adding trees on city-owned land as opposed to figuring out how to preserve more trees. Lindquist stated that the Plan- ning Commission could table the application. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 Page 12 of 17 Lassen stated that he does not understand what a traffic study would accomplish. Lindquist responded that traffic patterns would be projected based on the route times for all three con- nections. She explained that the consultant would create a model directly related to travel time. Hudnut asked Bailey to call the question. Bailey stated that the there was a motion to ap- prove the application without the road connection and a second to that motion. Lindquist clarified that the change to the park dedication condition is part of the motion. Booth asked if the motion meant no road or adding an emergency road. Willhite stated that the motion was for no road connection. Severson asked if the tree preservation compromise was also part of the motion. Lindquist stated it was. Weber stated that according to Roberts Rules of Order, when the question for a vote is called, the Commission has to vote on the question. The question to call for the vofe was approved on a 7-to-1 vote (Weber). Bailey called for the vote. He re-stated that the motion was for approval of the preliminary plat without the road connection and that condition #8 is modified to not include payment of park dedication fees. 1. The developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Cottage Grove for the installation of and payment for all public improvements in the subdi- vision, pursuant to Title 10 of the City Code. 2. The applicant receive appropriate building permifs from the City, and permits or approvals from other regulatory agencies including, but not limited to fhe South Washington Watershed District and the Minnesofa Pollution Control Agency. 3. The revised grading and utility plan must be submitted to the Cify for staff review and approval prior fo fhe submission of the final plat plan applications to the Cify. All emergency overflow swa/es must be identified on the grading and erosion con- trol plan. 4. The applicant submit a final construction management plan that includes erosion control measures, project phasing for grading work, areas designated for preser- vation, a crushed-rock construction entrance, and construction-related vehicle parking for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 5. A pre-construction meeting with City staff and the contractor shall be held before site work begins. The contractor shall provide the City with a project schedule for the various phases of construction. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 Page 13 of 17 6. Erosion control devices shall be installed prior to commencement of any grading activity. Erosion control shall be performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the "Minnesota Consfruction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Plan- ning Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 10-5-8, Erosion Control During Consfruction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 7. A letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the landscaping estimate, street sweeping, paving, curbing, and irrigation systems should be submitted to and ap- proved by the City. Upon completion of the landscaping improvements, the owner shall, in writing, inform the City that said improvements have been complefed. The City shall retain the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of notice, to ensure survival of the plants. No building permit shall be issued until the required financial guarantee has been received and accepted by the City. 8. The developer shall install and pay for required stop signs and area charges. 9. An individualized tree preservation plan shall be submitted with the building permif application for fhe lots with existing frees. 10. The developer shall install sidewalks six feet in width as detailed on the review plans. Damage to sidewalks during the home consfrucfion process shall be the re- sponsibility of the developer. 11. The applicant must obtain permission from Minnesota Pipeline Company to permit the installation of the two private drives. The permission must be in wrifing and re- viewed by staff prior to final plat approval. 12. The hvo designated wetlands must be preserved and an average 50 foot buffer be maintained around the wetlands. Properties affecfed by wetlands and ponding shall have a deed restriction establishing the expected proper treafinent of those features. 13. The "dump" material that was identified in the ravine on the eastern side of the property shall be removed from the site by the applicant prior fo fhe installation of the pond outlet pipe by the City's confractor. Motion passed on a 6-fo-2 vote (Weber, Booth). Weber departed at 9:55 p.m. 6.4 CASE V02-049 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a variance to the city's sign ordinance (Title 9- 8-8, Off-Premises Advertising Signs, and Title 9-8-5F, Prohibited Signs) to allow an off- site sign for the Gateway Center. The sign would be located on the southeast corner of 80th Street and East Point Douglas Road, near Hollywood Video. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 Page 14 of 17 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Willhite asked if the sign could be the same as the Walgreen's sign rather than just similar. Lindquist responded that while it does not have the same type of other signing associated with the Walgreen's sign, it will be constructed with the same materials and at the same height. Bailey asked this area is Gateway North, are there future plans for the area by Target to be Gateway South. Lindquist responded that Gateway South would probably be at Highway 61 and County Road 19. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Severson made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below. Hudnut seconded. 1. No other free-standing sign shall be erected on Lot 2, Block 1 of Grove Plaza 2nd Addifion. 2. Home DepoYs signage shall not exceed 626.5 square feet. 3. Home Depot obtains sign and building permits for the monument sign. Motion passed unanimously. Applications and Requests None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 20, 2002 8.1 Regular Meeting Hudnuf moved to approve the minutes of the May 20, 2002, regular meeting. Willhite seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8.2 Joint Planning Commission and City Council Workshop Severson made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 20, 2002, joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop. Lassen seconded. Motion passed unani- mously. Reports Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 Page 15 of 17 9.1 Recap of June City Council Meetings Lindquist reported that at the June 5, 2002, meeting, the City Council approved the interim conditional use permit for Inver Hills Community College and the interim conditional use permit for the crushing and recycling operation at Up North Plastics. They also discussed the 2003-2007 capital improvement program and wanted further discussion on the city budgeting process. She stated that the CIP is part of the comprehensive plan and therefore it must come before the Planning Commission for public hearing. She believes that would happen in August or September. Lindquist stated at the June 19, 2002, meeting, the Council approved the garage setback variance on Hadley, the applications for the Jamaica BP/Amoco, and the final plat for Pine Summit 5th Addition. She stated that the Council received information on the permanent park and ride lot, which would be located on tax forfeited property adjoining the Rodeo prop- erty, where the lot is located temporarily. She stated that the city is continuing to work with MnDOT on a final design. Willhite departed at 10:04 p.m. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Lindquist stated that a proposed landscape plan for the Grove Plaza pond was included in the Planning Commission packets. Severson asked if there would be any running water put into there or was it just going to be a pond. Lindquist responded that it will just be a pond. She explained that black dirt was put into the pond to help seal itself so it would hold some water. Hudnut asked if there would be a fountain. Lindquist responded that there would not be enough water to support a fountain. McCool stated that currently no storm sewer is dis- charging into the pond other than from the Rainbow site, but the Home Depot site would be connected to this pond and once that connection is made, more water would be flow into the pond. Bailey asked if any other areas would flow into the pond. Lindquist stated that the hill from 80th Street drains onto the Home Depot site, which then will drain into the Grove Plaza pond. She stated that the Walgreen's pond will also drain into that pond. Lassen asked if there would be an underground irrigation system for the landscaping. Lindquist replied that there would. Severson asked if Planning Commission members feel that the way the PUD ordinance is written is an appropriate vehicle for what the city intends it to be. He also questions if the or- dinance is clear to citizens. Booth believes that people will have their own interpretations, and he thinks ordinances should be somewhat vague to allow alternatives to come before the Planning Commission and Council. Bailey agreed but he is tempted to say it would be nice if it were black and white. Lindquist responded that the ordinance is not that old and could be refined. She thinks that there is probably a difference in philosophy regarding use of the PUD and maybe there should be some discussion, but she also thinks it permeates into Plenning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 Page 16 of 17 the Council. She stated that staff does not have any problem using the PUD. She does not perceive it as a way around ordinances, and stated that the PUD is much more current than any of the other zoning districts, She stated that it provides flexibility and allows the city to negotiate things from developers that we can't under the regular ordinance districts. She be- lieves the reason people are uncomfortable with the PUD is because it could be construed as overly broad and doesn't provide the level of certainty as with the other zoning districts. She also stated that PUD tends to be used for developments that are controversial, which is an easy thing for residents to target. She asked if the Commission felt the PUD was over- utilized or is comfortable with its use. She stated that in the Orrin Thompson case, there is no zoning district that would allow twin homes except the PUD. Hudnut stated that he be- lieves those issues are easier to handle on a case-by-case basis rather than doing a general study. Severson stated that he likes the PUD and sees it as a positive vehicle, but his con- cern is that it is perceived by the public as a negative vehicle. He stated that he would like to find a way to communicate during the process why a PUD is being considered. Bailey sug- gested that in the staff report a comparison list of what the city and the developer will each receive from a PUD. Booth stated that with the Orrin Thompson case it could have stated that with the PUD the density would have been less than with the straight zoning of R-5 and R-2.5. Lindquist stated that staff could try to enumerate some of those of issues, but it is a gray area. Booth stated that the PUD is a valuable tool for the city. Booth asked when the comp plan amendment workshops would be held. Lindquist re- sponded that they have not been formally scheduled yet, but they will take place no earlier than the fall. She explained that the city is planning to hire a consultant to do the work and staff needs to put together an RFP for this project. Booth stated that he is interested in life- cycle housing, including entry level apartments. Booth asked what the time line was for the neighborhood commercial ordinance. Lindquist responded that staff received only a few comments on the draft ordinance. She stated that a workshop would be put on next month's agenda and if the Commission does not get the op- portunity to discuss the topic, it will be rescheduled for another meeting. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries a. Neighborhood Meeting Policy Hudnut stated that he believes it would be a good idea to have a neighborhood meeting or- dinance and that other communities require neighborhood meetings for developments. Lindquist responded that the city has no ordinance requirements for neighborhood meetings, though staff does suggest to developers to hold one, but it is up to the developer if they choose to do so. Hudnut stated that was a good reason to make that an ordinance require- ment. Lassen agreed, particularly with a PUD proposal. Severson stated that he does not believe this should be an ordinance. Lassen stated that he also does not think there should be an ordinance but some sort of language would be beneficial. Severson suggested putting a check box on the application asking if the developer intends to hold a neighborhood meet- ing, which would emphasize it. Hudnut feels that an ordinance would be helpful for a wide variety of proposals and he noted that the Woodbury ordinance states that developers shall hold a neighborhood meeting for preliminary plats, special use permits, PUDs, and rezon- Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 Page 17 of 17 ings. Lindquist responded that she is uncomfortable with requiring neighborhood meetings for minor applications. Lassen stated that in Woodbury signage that specifically states what is being proposed is posted for on the sites of proposed developments. He asked if that could be done in Cottage Grove. McCool stated that it has been done but there does not seem to be much of a reaction to the signage. Booth asked if that would occur too late in the process. Lindquist stated that signage would be required when developers apply, which is how Woodbury does it. Bailey stated that he would be in agreement with the signage sug- gestion but if staff is already recommending to developers that they hold a neighborhood meeting, that should sufficient. Lassen suggested that if developers choose not to hold a neighborhood meeting after staff suggests it, that they be required to post a sign. Lindquist responded that if the city requires a sign, it should be required for all developments. Hudnut reiterated that he feels it is important to make neighborhood meetings an ordinance require- ment, but the most important thing is citizen participation, whether through a neighborhood meeting or a sign. Adjournment Severson moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:28 p.m. Hudnut seconded. Motion passed unanimously.