Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-26 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission August 26, 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 26th day of August, 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 Lassen David Piggott, Bob Severson Members Absent: Eileen Weber (resigned), Chris Willhite (unexcused) Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Associate Planner Approval of Agenda Severson made a motion to approve the agenda. Hudnuf 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 CASES RS02-056, CUP02-057, and V02-067 Northern Natural Gas Company has applied for a simple lot division to acquire an addi- tional 4,000 square feet of land; a conditional use permit to allow a public utility/ public Planning Commission Minutes Augus� 26, 2002 Page 2 of 22 service structure south of their existing building, which is located south of 70th Street and west of Keats Avenue; and variances to Title 11-8A-2(6)(A), Lot Dimensions and Set- backs in AG-1, Agricultural Preservation District. McCool summarized the staff report. He stated that the applicant had proposed planting 20 conifer trees, spaced 12 feet apart, in the area between the fence and the property line, but they now have concerns that the trees would be spaced too closely together. He stated that the applicant has proposed spacing the trees 20 feet apart, which would reduce the number of trees to 15. McCool stated that staff concurs with that change and suggested revising the condition of approval to require a minimum of 15 evergreen trees. He then stated that the applicant asked if they could use exterior materials with a brick appearance and staff told them that the city would need to approve the proposed materials. He suggested that the third condition of approval for the conditional use permit be amended to include "... or materials acceptable to the Planning Department." McCool recommended approval of the applications subject to the conditions stipulated in the stafF report, with the suggested changes. Leland Mann, Northern Natural Gas, 1650 West 82nd Street, Minneapolis, stated that North- ern Natural Gas is in agreement with the conditions of approval and that he would answer any questions from the Commission. Booth asked why the building could not be sited to meet the setback requirements. Mann re- sponded that the layout of the pipeline dictates where the building is located and that it also must conform to industry engineering standards. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to approve the simple lot division, conditional use permit, and variance applications, subject to the conditions listed below. Japs seconded. Severson asked if the motion included the two changes recommended by staff. Hudnut responded yes. Simple Lot Division 1. A storm sewer area charge for NNG's 12,000 squaie foot parcel and one equivalent residential unit for Goebel's property shall be paid to the City prior to the City re- leasing the property deed to the applicant for recording at the Washington County Recorder's Office. The storm sewer area charge for NNG's parcel is $1,823.69 and Goebe/'s equivalenf residential unif is $1,143.94. The City agrees fo defer payment of the storm sewer area charge for the balance of the Goebe/'s property until such time further development of their property occurs. 2. The following permanent drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated fo the City as required by the Cify's Subdivision Ordinance (Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 6(D)): a. A 20-foot wide drainage and ufility easement centered on the west, south, and east common boundary lines between Goebe/'s and NNG's properties. Planning Commission Minutes Augus( 26, 2002 Page 3 of 22 b. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the north boundary line of NNG's 100-foot by 120-foot parcel. 3. NNG's original parcel of land (P/N 02-027-21-34-0002) shall be combined with the additional real estate they are purchasing from Goebe/'s so that both parcels are one taxing parcel. A certified copy of fhe lot combination from the Washington County Assessoi/ Treasurers Office shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new equipment building. Variance Findinps of Fact A. Compliance with the city's minimum /ot width and lots size requiremenfs is not critical for utilify sub-stations as long as appropriate landscaping and building de- sign is provided. B. The future land use designation as delineated in the City's Comprehensive Plan 2020 is low density residential. It is anticipated that this area will be rezoned to a zoning classification that is consistent with the adopted Plan. For this reason, NNG's structures, ancillary equipment, and above-ground piping would likely comp/y with the minimum setback requirements for residential development. Variance Conditions ofApproval 1. Fifteen (15) evergreen trees shall be planted as depicted on the approved landscaping plan. These trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. NNG is re- sponsible for maintaining these trees. 2. The exterior materials for the new 16-foot by 24-foot equipment building shall be constructed of a decorafive masonry materia/ with integral color or materials ac- ceptable to the Planning Department. All four sides of the structure shall be con- structed of the same materials and color. The gab/e roof shall be constructed of material and design acceptable to staff; a plain corrugated metal roof is not acceptable. Conditiona/ Use Permit 1. All applicable permits (i.e. building, electrical, etc.) shall be applied for and issued by the City prior to any work or construction taking place. Detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by fhe Building Official and Fire Marshal. 2. No advertising shall be displayed on or a�xed to any structure on NNG's parcel. 3. The exterior materials for the new 16-foot by 24-foot equipment building shall be constructed of a decorative masonry material with integral co/or or materials ac- ceptable to the Planning Department. All four sides of the structure shall be con- structed of the same materials and color. The gable roof shall be constructed of material and design acceptab/e to staff; a plain corrugated metal roof is not ac- ceptab/e. 4. 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 Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 4 of 22 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, survival, and replacement of the land- scaping improvements. Mofion passed unanimously. 6.2 CASES ZA02-053, PP02-054, SP02-055, and CP02-066 (continued from 7/22/02 meeting) Pulte Homes of Minnesota has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning from R-2.5, Residential, and AG-2, Agriculture, to PUD, Planned Unit Development; com- prehensive plan amendments to change the land use from rural residential to low density residential and a MUSA ezpansion to bring three acres into the Metropolitan Urban Ser- vices Area; and a preliminary plat and site plan review for Timber Ridge 4th Addition, which would consist of 85 patio homes and 58 senior housing units to be located on the northwest corner of 70th Street and Harkness Avenue. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. Japs asked if the agricultural parcel is on the Tinucci property and what percentage of tree removal does the ordinance allow. Burbank responded that ordinance criteria are 40 percent, but the ordinance gives some flexibility. Japs asked if this property was at 49 percent re- moval. Burbank stated that was correct, and that they are saving the types of trees the city wants to save. Japs then asked what percentage of trees was preserved in the Timber Ridge 3rd development. Burbank responded that including property the city acquired, they saved about 64 percent of the trees, and if the city property was excluded, which the City Council did not do, they saved 40 percent. Japs noted that on Timber Ridge 3rd only 49 percent of the trees were saved on the property and that other properties belonging to someone else were used to bring that percentage up. Burbank explained that those other properties were part of the parent parcel for Timber Ridge 3rd, which the city acquired for the Hardwood Avenue extension and much of the property is a treed hillside. Severson asked what the phasing would be for this project. Burbank responded that they are looking to start construction in 2003. Severson asked when the east and west accesses to the project would occur. Burbank responded that the eastern access is part of the approved Orrin Thompson project and that they are looking to do the entire road at one time. McCool stated that the first phase of the Orrin Thompson to the east would be the twin homes along Hinton Avenue and the second phase would be the townhouses with access from 70th Street. Severson stated that he is concerned about the phasing of these projects and if the developments don't occur in a timely fashion, there could be traffic congestion because only one access would be provided for this development. Burbank stated that the property owners to the north could apply for development over the next few months and there is a future road connection to the Lodges at Pine Summit development. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 5 of 22 Bailey asked if the long-term plan is to attach the road to 65th Street. Burbank responded that the roadway stub along the north plat line could to link up with the existing Hadley Ave- nue connecting to 65th Street. Lassen asked if the tree preservation requirement for a PUD was 50 percent. Burbank re- sponded that the 50 percent calculation was for multiple-family units; this area is guided for low density residential and single-phase low density development is 40 percent. He stated that if this was guided for medium density, 50 percent removal would be allowed. Dennis Griswold, Pulte Homes, stated that this proposal differs from their original plan be- cause they have introduced a senior housing component, but the overall concept of dealing with the physical characteristics of the site (the trees and slopes) has not changed. He ex- plained that major stands of trees will be preserved, so that the character of the vicinity will remain. He stated their products span life-cycle housing needs from single-family homes in Timber Ridge 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Additions for young families, to the patio homes for active adults and the senior housing project in this proposal. He explained that the concept for the non-sewered area to the north is to provide estate-type lots for single-family detached houses. He then stated that currently their only access is at 70th Street and Harkness, but they are planning an emergency access at the south end of Timber Ridge Drive, an access to the west through US Homes' property, and a roadway extension to 65th Street. He stated that they agree with the conditions of approval in the staff report. Japs asked if their previous development proposal did not include the agricultural land. Griswold stated that was correct. Japs asked if that area was crucial to this development. Griswold responded that they could do the development without the three single-family lots. He thinks it is a nice addition to the development because it provides a product that is limited in the city. Japs stated that he was inquiring about the three single-family homes on acreage lots in the agricultural area. Griswold responded that is the proposal for that particular prop- erty and is meant to be a longer-term transition with the future proposal for the property the north. Japs stated that he is concerned about tree preservation and asked Griswold to describe his approach to tree preservation around home sites. Griswold stated that their approach is generally to deal with a site in a mass-grading format. He explained that they determine the tree removal boundary within the initial layout and then put up tree preservation fences to dictate that line in the field. He stated that it is difficult to customize tree removal on individ- ual, standard-sized lots, but for larger lots, such as those three proposed in this project, they could deal with removal on a per lot basis. Japs stated that the reason this area was zoned R-2.5 was to provide for larger home sites where trees could be preserved. He stated that he is concerned about the amount of trees to be preserved, and suggested reducing the num- ber of units in the development to allow more trees to be preserved. Doug Stevens, Summerhill Cooperative Development, 350 West Burnsville Parkway, Suite 500, Burnsville, stated that they got involved in this development based on their response to the city's senior housing request for proposal. He explained that their product consists of in- dependent senior (55 and older), owner-occupied housing and the prices would range from $145,000 to $210,000. He explained that it would be a cooperative and residents would not have to pay the full price outright; they could buy a share and pay monthly. He introduced Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 6 of 22 Roger Holley, an architect with Miller-Hanson Partners, who specializes in multi-family housing, and has been the architects on their Summerhill projects. Roger Holley stated that the proposed building would provide 58 units ranging from 1,200 to 1,800 square feet and would provide a number of amenities including underground parking, common areas in the middle of the building, and a dining area for resident gatherings, game rooms, card rooms, a library, and a fitness room. He explained that they located the building away from a clump of existing trees. He displayed pictures of the building they completed in Eden Prairie and noted that this site will provide a great location for senior housing with the tree ridge behind the building. Severson asked if a resident paid the 100 percent share, are the monthly charges for asso- ciation membership and utilities. Stevens responded yes. He explained that there will be staff on duty, including a caretaker and an office manager. Japs asked why the monthly charges for the largest unit, which is only 50 percent larger than the smallest unit, are almost double than they are for the smallest unit. Stevens responded that the monthly charges are based on square footage. Japs then asked if they consider trailways to be an amenity to a development like this. Stevens stated that they have not yet finalized their landscape plan, but they are planning to have garden plots and a path system connecting to the trailways through Timber Ridge 4th. Burbank stated that because of the multi-facets of the applications, some details such as the trailways were not included, so staff is recommending an administrative site plan review to catch those details that are typical for developments under current policy. Lassen asked what the square footage for the senior housing complex would be. Stevens stated that the largest unit will be 1,800 square feet and the smallest would be 1,200 square feet. Bailey opened the public hearing. Bill Schumal, 9377 Jergen Avenue South, asked if there would be an arborist on staff or a consulting arborist to supervise, monitor, and maintain the preserved trees. Griswold re- sponded that there would be a private consultant. Schumal asked to what Pulte attributes the failure of trees that they have tried to save; was it poor planning, supervision, maintenance, or something else. Griswold stated that development puts stress on existing trees. He stated that they have found that pruning some of the trees close to the removal line is very benefi- cial, and they generally try to work around the root zone. Griswold then explained that the density for the project, including the senior housing, is in conformance with the requirements of the comprehensive plan. He also stated that the Tim- ber Ridge 1 st Addition was being constructed in a former gravel pit, so there were very few trees on the property. He stated that in this proposal, there are several open pasture areas and the majority of the trees on the site are located on the wooded slope and the wooded area to the north. He explained that some of the tree removal is to accommodate access to the property along the east side of the site. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 7 of 22 Burbank clarified that the tree preservation ordinance differentiates between multi-unit and single unit, but it does not say medium density or multi-family. He stated that this is a planned unit development and it is based on the premise of a low density development. He clarified that in terms of the ordinance criteria for tree preservation, he erred on the conser- vative side. Jayme Sanders, 6690 — 70th Street South, asked about drainage and landscaping. Griswold stated that there is a requirement for ponding that would work with the ponding on the US Homes property. He then explained that there will be foundation plants and a tree in the back yard area of each of the units. He stated that there are existing trees along part of that prop- erty line and if appropriate, trees could be planted in any gaps to add more buffering. He stated that they could possibly do some berming to help screen that property line. No one else spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Japs made a motion to deny the zoning amendment. Japs stated that he is not against the development, but he does not see any purpose in building on the agricultural land at this time. He stated that this would be piecemeal devel- opment and that it is not crucial to this proposal. There was no second; the motion for denial failed. Piggott made a motion to approve the compiehensive plan amendment, zoning ordi- nance amendment, preliminary plat, and site plan review subject to the conditions listed be/ow. Severson seconded. 1. The final site plan design for the attached cooperative housing portion of the project shall be submitted to and approved administratively by the Community Development Department. 2. 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 sub- division, pursuant to Title 10 of the City Code. 3. The applicant receive appropriate building permits from the City, and permits or approvals from other regulatory agencies including, but not limited to the South Washington Watershed District and fhe Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 4. The revised grading and utility plan must be submitted to the City Staff and Minne- sofa DNR for review and approval prior to the submission of the �nal plat plan ap- plications to the City. All emergency overflow swa/es must be identified on the grading and erosion control plan. Drainage calculations must be submitted prior to City Council review of fhe preliminary plat. 5. The applicant submit a final construction management p/an that includes erosion contro/ measures, project phasing for grading work, areas designated for preser- Planning Commission Minutes August26,2002 Page 8 of 22 vation, a crushed-rock construction entrance, and construction-related vehicle parking for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 6. 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. 7. Erosion contro/ devices shall be installed prior to commencement of any grading activity. Erosion control shall be performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Plan- ning Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 10-5-8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 8. 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 completed. The City shall retain the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the dafe of notice, to ensure survival of the planfs. No building permit shall be issued until the required financial guarantee has been received and accepted by fhe City. 11.The developer shall install and pay for required stop signs, area charges, park dedication and recreation fees. 12.A revised /andscaping plan shall be required for the portion of the site attributed to the 58 unit attached cooperative housing building. 13. The deve%per shall install sidewa/ks six feet in width along all public streets as identified in the staff report, ad 8 foot bifuminous pathways as determined on the final grading plan. Damage to sidewalks during the home construction process shall be the responsibility of the developer. 14. The 3.818-acre residential lot shall be resfricted to be developed as proposed, or with similar patio style town homes upon formal amendment of the plat and site p/an. Lassen asked about the proximity of the senior housing component to the proposed devel- opment at 70th Street and Hinton Avenue. Burbank stated that are several proposals for projects with senior housing components and each have different components, such as full- care, independent living, or assisted living. He explained that this proposal was based on the RFP for senior housing sent out by the city. He then stated that the applicant agrees that the developer's agreement would include a clause restricting housing type. Lassen asked if the RFP was done before the 70th and Hinton development proposal by Mike Rygh. Burbank re- sponded that that proposal was under review at the time the RFPs were sent out but it had. Japs stated that he is concerned about the lack of trails, the density of the project, and the removal of an excessive number of trees. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 9 of 22 Motion passed on a 4-to-2 vote, with one abstention (Hudnut). Burbank asked if the recommendation included the architectural controls and the Tinucci parcel. Bailey responded that it did. 6.3 CASE PP02-058 (continued from the July 22, 2002, meeting) The City of Cottage Grove and Kohls Department Stores, Inc. have applied for a prelimi- nary plat for Gateway North Redevelopment Area to create four commercial lots and two outlots on property located at East Point Douglas Road and Harkness Avenue. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report with the addition of a condition related to the 80-foot right-of-way for Harkness Avenue. Severson stated that he has concerns about the road structure for Hardwood Avenue, which includes three lanes heading south and one lane heading north, and the increase in the number of commercial parcels. McCool responded that there are now two lanes northbound and two lanes southbound with turn lanes. Severson asked if the bank exit was going to tie into the Kohl's exit. McCool responded that it was. Severson then asked if the Kohl's en- trance/exit has been widened. McCool responded that there will be two exit lanes, a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane out of the Kohl's and US Bank's shared access. Severson asked if that road would be a four-lane road or a two-lane road. McCool responded there would be one entrance in and two exits out and a left turn lane into Kohl's northbound. Severson re- iterated his concern about traffic congestion and too few access points in the area. Piggott asked if the frontage road would be tied into the Jensen development concept plan. McCool responded that was correct. Bailey asked if the Jensen property would continue to have access onto 80th Street. McCool responded yes. Bailey then asked if the new cul-de-sac is going to line up with the road go- ing into Kohl's. Burbank responded that it would. Bailey asked if there would be a stoplight at that intersection. McCool answered no. Japs stated that he is also concerned about the single access into Kohl's and the new inter- section. He asked if this had been brought to the Public Safety Commission. McCool re- sponded that the packets are distributed to all city departments and those staff liaisons present them to their respective advisory commissions. Japs asked if the Public Safety Commission responded. McCool stated that staff has not received any response from the Public Safety Commission. Japs asked if the Public Safety Commission reviewed it. McCool responded that he has not seen their agenda, but typically the Technical Review Committee packet is sent to them with their packets. Japs stated that the Public Safety Commission should review this proposal so that concerns about traffic and access could be addressed before the project is built. He then asked what percentage of the park would be developed. McCool stated that the affected southern portion of the park currently consists of approxi- mately 20 acres of land and with this proposal, the balance of the park parcel would be 13.5 acres, Lot 2 would be 3.5 acres, and Outlot C would be .4 acre. Japs asked if Lot 2 would be composed of all park property. McCool responded that currently Lot 2 is all park land now, Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 10 of 22 but is being platted for commercial use. He explained that this lot could be split into two commercial pads, depending on how the area develops. Japs then asked how far north commercial development would go in this area. McCool responded that the city held a public hearing held on the rezoning of this area, which includes all property in the shaded areas on the map with the exception of the park property and another parcel. He explained that there will be a request to rezone those properties to a commercial designation. He stated that it is staff's intent that the northern boundary line of these parcels would be the extent of the commercial zone. Burbank stated that only half of the park property is part of this particular plat. He explained that the park consists of 65 acres and the development is only affecting the southern half of the park. Severson asked what the access points would be for Lot 2, Block 3. McCool responded that it hasn't been looked at it in detail yet but there could possibly be a shared access between the two parcels on the south of the right-of-way. Severson then asked about Lot 1. McCool responded that the requirement would be that the access would align from this roadway connection. Severson stated that he likes the fact that the Commission received information showing the whole area and what is proposed, but he is still concerned about all the potential access points to what he believes will be a fairly high-traffic area, and he thinks that it should be looked at more closely. Booth asked if Oakwood Park would retain its existing access. McCool responded that the access to the park would be relocated to the north. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to approve the preliminary p/at for Gateway North Addition subject to the conditions listed below. Japs seconded. 1. Drainage and utility easements to facilitate public infrastructure installation and ponding will be dedicated on the plat as requested by the City Engineer. 2. The storm sewer assessment rate as adopted in the City's fee resolution at the time a building permit has been �led by the landowner shall be paid to the City for each of the three commercial lots. Payment of this storm sewer assessment is cal- culated on the gross acreage for the developing lot and paid to the City at the time a building permit is requested. The current rate is $7,374.71 per acre and may be subject to change without notice. 3. The waterworks area charge as adopted in the City's fee resolution at the time a building permit has been �led by the landowner shall be paid to the City for each of the three commercial lots. Payment of this waterworks assessment is calculated on the gross acreage for the developing /ot and paid to the City at the time a building permit is requested. The current rate is $2,170.00 per acre and may be subject to change without notice. 4. The sanitary sewer area charge as adopted in the City's fee resolution at the time a building permit has been filed by the landowner shall be paid to the City for each of the three commercial lots. Payment of this sanitary sewer assessment is ca/cu- Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 11 of 22 lated on the gross acreage for the developing lot and paid to the City at the time a building permit is requested. The current rate is $1,380.00 per acre and may be subject to change without notice. 5. A park fee in lieu of /and dedicafion as adopted in the City's fee resolution at the time a building permit has been �led by the landowner shall be paid to the City for each of the three commercial lots. Payment of this park fee in lieu of land dedica- tion is calculated on the fair market value of the developing lot and paid to the City at the time a building permit is requested. The current park fee rate is 4 percent of the fair market value of fhe property and may be subjecf to change wifhout notice. Japs asked for a friendly amendment to add a condition that this packet would go to the Public Safety Commission for review prior to the City Council meeting. McCool stated that this application is scheduled to go to the City Council on September 4, 2002, which is prior to the September Public Safety Commission meeting. Hudnut accepted the addition of the condition. Piggott asked if the project would be stalled if the Planning Commission recommendation is not made to the Council on September 4 so the Public Safety Commission could review the application. McCool responded that he does not know the exact timing of everything, but he stated that he would check to see if the Public Safety Commission reviewed the application at their July meeting. He stated that if they did, the proposal would go to the City Council on September 4. He explained that if Public Safety had not reviewed the proposal, that could create an issue and he would then have to confer with the City Administrator. Lassen asked when the Public Safety Commission meets. Bailey stated the second week in September. Lassen then asked if pushing the application to the September 18 Council meeting would be problematic. McCool stated that staff was asked to have this application reviewed at the September 4 meeting due to timing of the project. Severson stated that Commission members have expressed concern at two or three meet- ings about the traffic movement and he had hoped that other Commissions would have commented on the proposal, which may have mitigated some of those concerns. He stated that he believes that traffic problems will increase in that area as it develops in the future. He then stated that it seems as though the city is more concerned about traffic movement in residential areas than in commercial developments. McCool responded that the street design has changed by having two lanes north and two lanes south and the shared access with the bank. Booth stated that he has those same concerns about traffic flow but he does not know how they could be resolved. Severson stated that the area is boxed in because the traffic can only come onto 80th Street from that one spot. McCool stated that he understands the Commission's concerns. Severson stated that while the road was widened, there are two lanes going north and two lanes going south, and turn lanes were added, but he does not believe that has really solved the problem. Motion passed on a 6-to-1 vote (Piggott). Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 12 of 22 6.4 CASE SP02-064 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services has applied for a site plan review of the sanitary sewer interceptor line that is proposed to be constructed along Keats Avenue to the Waste Water Treatment Piant. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Burbank reported that staff received a letter today from the South Washington Watershed District stating that they would be utilizing the city's approval process, but they have a list of conditions that need to be completed. McCool stated that just prior to the meeting, staff received a list of questions related to the project, which was not signed. He read the list for the public record: 1) If the work is neces- sary near the common property line east of Ridgewood, what steps will be taken to assure that the mature trees on the line will not be damaged. 2) What on going maintenance will be done to ensure trees survive any operations cutting roots, compacting soil in critical root zones, or damaging upper canopies of limbs? 3) When will the operation take place? High risk for oak wilt spread is April to July with moderate risk throughout the growing year. 4) Where exactly will excavation be done? How and where will the excavated soil be placed? 5) Why not put it someplace where it will not disturb residential backyards and trees? 6) Critical root zone is defined in two ways — one half to two times the height of the tree or one foot for each inch of diameter. Any other case since excavation within the critical root zone would seriously injure trees. How could there be an easement large enough to enter the sewer without damage to nearby trees? 7) Can privately owned trees on the easements legally be removed or killed without permission of the landowner? Severson asked what the easement size was. McCool responded that it varies in different locations because different locations have different depths; the deeper the pipe, the bigger the easement. Severson then asked what would be the minimum easement widths. Tom Rosher of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, working with Metropolitan Council En- vironmental Services (MCES), responded that it is 25 feet on either side of the center line, with a minimum of 50 feet. He stated that there are two phases in Cottage Grove and two projects in Woodbury, an 83-foot tunnel and a major lift station. He stated that the project is for an interceptor sewer line that will provide for the ultimate needs of both cities and deliver wastewater to the new Eagles Point Wastewater Treatment Plant being built on the site of the former Cottage Grove Waste Water Treatment facility. Japs asked what topics Rosher was going to address. Rosher responded that he could dis- cuss some of the major construction items, including a meter station, about 6,800 feet of 48- inch pipe, nearly 30,000 feet of 54-inch pipe, 13 jacked crossings, 8,000 feet of tunnel, and a lift station. Lassen asked for a description of the tunneling and if that would be done under 70th and 80th Streets. Rosher responded that there would be tunneling under 70th and 80th Streets, and there would be 13 jacked or tunneled segments in addition to the long tunnel in Wood- bury. He stated that the pipe will be crossing back and forth over County Road 19 to try to miss features and homes. All County Road 19 crossings would be jacked to lessen interFer- ence for traffic. He stated that there would be one open cut crossing on 90th Street east of Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 13 of 22 the Ridgewood subdivision and approximately 300 feet of open cut construction along East Point Douglas Road between the VFW and Park Grove Estates. He explained that the crossings at Highway 61 and Miller Road will also be jacked. Bailey opened the public hearing. Brian Hensel, 9307 Jergen Avenue, asked about the purpose of the interceptor line and if Woodbury had a wastewater treatment plant. McCool responded that Woodbury does not have a treatment plant and all their flows currently go to the Pig's Eye treatment plant in St. Paul, but new trunk facilities are needed due to the additional growth area in Woodbury east of Keats Avenue. He stated that some additional flows would go to Pig's Eye. McCool ex- plained that the interceptor pipe process has been discussed for over 10 years. In 1990, a formal information process was initiated to specifically deal with the location of a new waste- water treatment plant in the southeast metro area, and it was decided that the current plant located in Cottage Grove would be expanded, which led to construction of the interceptor pipe that would extend through Cottage Grove and into Woodbury. Hensel stated that his house abuts the Jansen farm and asked where the pipe line would be located in relation to the farm's fence. McCool responded that the center of the pipe would be parallel to and ap- proximately 40 feet from the property line. He stated that there would be a permanent 65-foot wide utility easement, 40 feet on the west side and 25 feet on the east side, and a 125-foot temporary construction easement on the east side of the permanent easement. McCool then pointed out Hensel's property and noted that a manhole will be located just to the east of his property. Hensel asked how close the pipe would be to the surface. McCool responded that in this particular area, the closest point that pipe would be to the surface is about 27 feet. Hensel then asked if the farmer would be compensated for his land being trenched. McCool responded that MCES took care of those details. Donald Knutson, 9053 Jergen Avenue South, stated that he had mailed comments to the Planning Commission. He asked why Woodbury did not take care of their own wastewater and that it had to flow through Cottage Grove. McCool responded that an outflow is needed for a wastewater treatment facility and the only connection is in the area is to the Mississippi River, which does not go through Woodbury, and due to gravity flow, it needs to come through Cottage Grove. Knutson asked why the pipe could not continue south on Keats Avenue where there are no residential houses, rather than going down 90th Street. McCool responded that the interceptor is designed as gravity flow system, and if the route continued down Keats, lift stations would be needed. Knutson stated his concern about the effect this pipe would have on his home's valuation. McCool responded that the pipe would be located 40 feet from the rear property line and over 30 feet deep with no visible structures, and there should be no impact to the valuation of the adjoining properties. He then asked if a housing development could be built over the pipe. McCool responded that the property could be de- veloped. He explained that while no building structures would be allowed on the 65-foot easement, public roadways, water lines, storm sewers, and holding ponds would be allowed. He stated that the area could also be used for rear yards in a housing development. Knutson asked how close a building could be to the pipe. McCool responded with a 65-foot perma- nent easement, the closest any structure could be was 65 feet away from Knutson's rear property line. Knutson stated that he is opposed to the proposed route and does not under- stand why it cannot go down Keats Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 14 of 22 Piggott left at 9:05 p.m. Dale McAleese, 9295 Jergen Avenue South, stated that he believes property values will be heavily affected. He then explained that he chose his lot because of the large oak trees on it. He stated his concern that construction of the pipe 40 feet from his property line would kill his oak trees and noted that he was told by a forester that the pipe would need to be 125 feet away so there would be no impact on his oak trees. He asked why the pipe can't go down Keats Avenue and noted that it is down hill on Keats from 90th Street to Highway 61. McCool responded that at the intersection of East Point Douglas Road and Highway 61 the terrain goes back uphill along East Point Douglas Road. McAleese asked why they could not put in a lift station there. McCool responded that the proposed route does not require any lift sta- tions except in Woodbury. Rosher stated that a very large lift station would be needed. He then explained that the interceptor would convey flow from both Woodbury and Cottage Grove. McAleese reiterated his concern that construction of the pipe would kill his oak trees and asked what kind of compensation he would receive if the trees died. McCool asked if the trees were on McAleese's property. McAleese responded that they were. Rosher volun- teered to meet with McAleese at his property to look at the situation and try to come up with a solution. McAleese asked how interceptor alignment was decided and why it ended up near residential properties and not continue down County Road 19. Bailey asked why this location was chosen for the sanitary sewer interceptor line and what the size and cost of a lift station would be. Rosher stated that there were several reasons why this alignment was selected rather than continuing down Keats Avenue/County Road 19. He explained that early in the process it was decided that the interceptor line should not go through Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park, which is on the east side of County Road 19. He stated that other reasons include future widening of Keats Avenue and the location of existing Northern Natural Gas pipelines. He then explained that it is better for a utility line to run along a property line rather than through the middle of a property, such as the Jansen farm, which is why it was shifted to the west property line. McAleese asked why the pipe could not go under County Road 19. Rosher responded that to do so would require cutting into the road, which would take it out of service for up to a year and a half, or tunneling under the road, which would be very expensive. In addition, if maintenance becomes necessary, there could be safety hazards on a busy county road; however, gravity systems have no mechanical parts, so maintenance would be very infrequent. McAleese stated that he did not want the manholes structures sticking up from the ground behind his house. Rosher ex- plained that the manholes would two feet below grade, so they would not be visible. McAleese asked why this was not put up for community vote. Kolleen Schneider, 9498 — 92nd Street South, asked about the trail being removed on 90th Street. McCool responded that during construction of the interceptor pipe, the trail on the north side of 90th Street will be removed but the city is requiring that it be reconstructed to city standards when construction is completed. Schneider requested that all the property owners along the pipe line be contacted regarding tree preservation for this project. She stated that the whole area along Ridgewood property line is full of very large oak trees. She stated that she hopes the Commission shares the same concern for preserving trees along an already developed as area as it does for new developments. She requested answers to the questions that were raised in the letter read by McCool. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 15 of 22 Reino Banttari, 8600 Keats Avenue South, asked if the area around Keats Avenue open up for development once the interceptor line was constructed. McCool responded yes. Banttari then asked if the line would be big enough to take care of future needs without constructing more lines. McCool responded that 11 sewer stubs will be installed on the pipe in Cottage Grove, so as new development, city systems will connect to those stubs. Sherry Holtmeyer, 8996 Jewel Avenue South, asked how long 90th Street would be closed. Rosher answered four to five days. Holtmeyer asked if the cut would be on the east or west side of Jewel Avenue. McCool responded the east side of Jewel. Holtmeyer stated that she understands there are engineering reasons why the interceptor can't go down Keats, but asked if the pipe could be moved 30 to 50 feet east so there is less disruption to the neighboring property owners, with compensation to Mr. Jansen. James Lichtblau, 9448 Jergen Place South, stated that his property abuts the drive-in thea- ter. He stated that there is a gas pipe line running behind his house and asked what safety precautions would be taken. Rosher responded that the interceptor line would abut the Northern Natural Gas easement. He stated that they have been working with Northern Natu- ral Gas and orange safety fence will be installed on the line of that easement to cordon off the construction area. Lichtblau then asked if the trees that are removed will be replaced. Rosher responded that a tree inventory has been done and the MCES is in the process of discussing tree replacement with the city's Community Development Director. McCool stated that a condition of approval in the staff report was to provide a tree inventory. Lichtblau asked if residents in the area would be updated on this process. McCool responded that public hearings on this issue were held in the early 1990s and information meetings have been held since. Lichtblau stated that he did not live in this area in the early 1990s and asked if he should have been told about this when he purchased his home. Bailey asked if the trees were on his property. Lichtblau said he bought his property because of the way it looked and he was not here in 1990 to express his concerns. Bailey requested that Rosher collect a list of individual homeowners who had concerns and contact them. Lichtblau asked how the residents would be informed any decisions. McCool responded that staff could fol- low up with those individuals who commented publicly here. Lichtblau then asked if, during construction, the trail would be closed for safety reasons. McCool responded that trail on the 90th Street would be cordoned off. Lichtblau asked what precautions would be taken in the area between his house and the drive-in theater. McCool responded that it is not a public trail. Heather Reese, 9313 Jergen Avenue South, asked if there would be no buildings within 65 feet of their eastern property line. McCool responded that would be true for those properties with a 65-foot permanent easement abutting their rear property lines. Reese then asked what if a road would be built behind their houses. McCool responded that there probably would not be a road built there and in his opinion that you would probably see residential lots that back up to the common boundary line. Reese then asked if that property up to the ex- isting property lines would be owned by individual homeowners because she is concerned that if it were not, maintenance could become an issue. McCool stated that each lot would have its own ownership. Reese then asked if the city thinks that someone would buy a lot that has a sewage pipe running through it. McCool responded that people have bought lots with a high pressure natural gas pipe running through the back yards. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 16 of 22 Holtmeyer asked when the plan shown in Exhibit A was finalized. Rosher responded that the facility plan was finalized early in 2000. Holtmeyer asked if it could be revised. McCool does not believe so. Rosher responded that they would like to proceed with construction. Holt- meyer stated that it sounds like a lot of people are upset and did not know about it. Knutson again stated his concerns about the project. McCool responded that staff would share the residents' concerns with the City Administrator, the Community Development Director, and the City Engineer. He stated that the city will evaluate the comments of those who testified this evening and will update them. Banttari asked if the interceptor line would be installed above or below the main gas line that runs along County Road 19. Rosher stated that the interceptor pipe will cross the gas pipe- line and be jacked the pipe beneath the gas line. He stated that they are closely coordinating this work with Northern Natural Gas. Hensel asked why residents were not notified when the route was approved in 2000 and who approved it. McCool responded that there was a public information meeting regarding the alignment of the interceptor, but he needs to research the specifics on the meeting. Hensel asked if the Planning Commission could deny this application. McCool responded no. Hensel asked if the Met Council decided the alignment. McCool explained that city ordinances re- quire that the Planning Commission review site plans that affect the Mississippi River Critical Corridor area, but staff extended that review to include the entire pipe all the way through Cottage Grove. He stated that the city provided to the Met Council certain construction de- tails and ordinance requirements. As part of that, staff has recommended that a tree preser- vation inventory is done for the whole interceptor corridor through Cottage Grove. Hensel asked if the city will follow through on ensuring that the tree preservation ordinance is ad- hered to and replacement trees are planted. McCool stated that before this issue goes to Council he will discuss it with the City Administrator and Community Development Director. He explained that the Planning Commission recommendation is sent to the City Council and their approval or denial would be sent to the Met Council. Schumal asked what percentage of trees needs to be preserved to comply with the tree preservation ordinance. McCool responded 40 percent. Schumal stated if the construction would stay 35 to 40 feet away from his tree, he would not have any problem with this project. He asked how the inventory was going to be done and if residents could be contacted. Chris Reese, 9313 Jergen Avenue South, stated that he believes that his property's value would go down because construction equipment is stored behind his home for several years, trees in the area are killed, and a manhole cover is located 30 feet from the back property line. He asked what precautions would be taken to ensure that there is no easement runoff going through his backyard during the next two years. He also stated that he never saw a notice for a public meeting mailed to his house in 2000 regarding this alignment. McAleese asked why he never received any information on this project in 2000, because he would have attended meetings in opposition to this alignment. Councilmember Cheryl Kohls stated that the discussion of the sewage treatment planUinterceptor line issue has been going on for years. She stated that the City Council and Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 17 of 22 staff fought against the wastewater treatment plant, but the Met Council overrode the citys objections. She stated that under state law the Met Council has control over regional matters such as wastewater treatment plants. She stated that this is the first time she also has seen a detailed plan of the interceptor route. She displayed the information that she was been given and was approved by the Met Council, which shows the general site location. She stated that in fairness to the property owners, they did miss a lot of public hearings and arti- cles in the Bulletin. She asked staff if this is the first detailed meeting that the residents have been notified of. McCool responded that he would look into that. Kohls stated that she does not believe that the final layout was determined until fairly recently. Rosher responded that they have been working on that for a few months and what the Planning Commission is seeing has not been changed since early this year. Kohls stated that it is not really true that the residents should have known for years. Chris Reese stated that it appears that residential neighborhoods in Woodbury are affected as those in Cottage Grove. He asked how the city could approve a plan without knowing the exact details. Bailey asked if there was anyone e/se who had not had the opportunity to speak. Being none, Bailey c%sed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to table the application so there could be a meeting with the residents. Lassen seconded. Bailey stated that this item would tabled until the September 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Motion tied on a 3-to-3 vote (Hudnut, Japs, Lassen to tab/e). Severson stated that he is concerned that the Planning Commission did not have a chance to ask questions and that a motion to table does not allow for discussion. He stated that he would like to bring it back to the table for the sake of discussion. Severson made a motion to approve the application for purposes of discussion. Booth seconded. Severson asked if the Commission was only to review that portion that goes through the Mississippi River critical area or the entire segment that runs through the City of Cottage Grove. McCool responded that the preparation of the staff report was for the entire portion in Cottage Grove. Severson stated that the way he reads the report leads him to believe that the reason that the Planning Commission is reviewing the site plan is because it is going through the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. McCool stated that is correct. Severson asked that if there was no overlay in place, would this have come before the Planning Com- mission. McCool responded that it would probably have been submitted to the Planning Commission for their information, but site plan reviews don't require public hearings. Severson asked if there would be a formal public hearing on this issue later on. McCool said no. Severson asked when the Commission got looked at the original overall plan. He then stated that he thought that the route would avoid any areas that are currently populated with residents. He asked what the next step is, especially if the Planning Commission votes for Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 18 of 22 denial. McCool responded that he would need to confer with the City Administrator and Community Development Director to get better answers. He stated that it was not intended that the exact design details and construction plans would be reviewed for approval. Severson stated that the concern he heard from the residents is the location of the intercep- tor route and if the plan can't be changed, then all this discussion is for naught. He asked why this is before the Planning Commission if the route has already been dictated by the Metropolitan Council after years of discussion. McCool stated that staff is somewhat sur- prised that there is discussion about the alignment of the corridor because that the decision has been made and those meetings held. He explained that the purpose of the staff report was specific to the critical area corridor and given the opportunity, staff expanded on that be- cause the city was concerned about tree loss in those areas identified. He again stated that he would have to talk to the City Administrator to see what the process would be regarding the request for a neighborhood meeting. Booth stated that he does not believe there would be any weight if the Planning Commission and City Council denied the application, because it seems like these decisions have already been made. McCool stated that the Commission's only authority is in the critical area. Hudnut stated that because there are so many unanswered questions, the Commission should not move forward on this. Lassen stated that he has questions about both the site plan review and the underlying process. He does not believe that it should be approved just because it is going to go through anyway. Japs stated that notification of the citizens is always a concern of his and he does not know what the rules are for notifying residents about a sewer system installation, but he feels that residents within 500 feet should have been notified, even though it may not be a city proc- ess. McCool reported that mailed notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the interceptor corridor. Hudnut called for the question. Bailey stated that the motion is to approve and has been seconded. Severson asked if regardless of the way the Commission votes, it would still go to the City Council. Bailey stated that was correct. Severson then asked if this would go to the Council without the site plan having a recommendation on the critical overlay segment. He stated that there seem to be two issues and asked if there should be separate motions or recommendations that deal with these other issues. Bailey stated that the issues cannot be separated and the application has to be recommended for either approval or denial. Severson stated that he needs to know if the Commission is voting on just the critical area site plan review or the siting of the whole interceptor line. McCool responded that the Com- mission is not looking at the siting of the pipe; what staff is soliciting from the Planning Commission are comments on the environmental impacts to the corridor and tree preserva- tion issues. Lassen stated that he can't separate those two issues because the location of the corridor impacts an existing neighborhood. He stated that if the Commission cannot dis- cuss the location, why talk about tree mitigation. McCool responded that was why staff was looking to get a tree inventory and find out the impacts for mitigation. Severson and Booth removed their motion and second for approval. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2002 Page 19 of 22 Lassen moved to tab/e the application. Hudnut seconded. Motion passed unani- mously. Bailey stated that the application has been tabled until the Planning Commission meeting on September 23, 2002, for further information from city staff and the Met Council about the process for the interceptor location and tree mitigation. He stated that technically the Com- mission was only supposed to look at the critical area near the waste water treatment plant but because staff grouped it all together, they offered the citizens an opportunity to speak on this issue. Applications and Requests 7.1 Jensen Concept Plan for 7420 — 80th Street South McCool summarized the staff report for rezoning the property at 7420 — 80th Street South from B-1, Limited Business, to B-2, Retail Business and a site plan review of a proposed office/retail building. He stated that the information on the plan is being submitted to the Commission to solicit comments to aid in the review and noted that the formal public hearing would be held at the September 23, 2002, Planning Commission. Roger Jensen stated that he was one of the original developers of the office condominiums at 7121 East Point Douglas Road, which are being displaced by the Kohl's project. He stated that the proposed building needs to be open in May 2003, because the tenants have to move out the office condos at that time due to the timeline for the Kohl's project. He explained that the site is challenging due to the topography. He stated that retail space would be located on the lower level and offices on the upper level of the proposed 14,000 square foot buildings, which they are planning to build in two phases. Severson asked if the access to 80th Street would be right-in/right-out. McCool responded that there is an existing median cut that provides four-way access. Severson stated that it is difficult to make turns from the existing buildings on 80th Street. He noted that 142 parking spaces are proposed and asked how many would be at Kohl's. McCool answered about 350. Lassen asked if the property could be accessed from the proposed frontage road for the Gateway North project. Bailey responded that access to this parcel is one of the purposes for that frontage road and that there would also be access from 80th Street. Severson stated that while it is good that there would be two accesses to this project, he still has concerns about the traffic patterns in that area, particularly from City Hall west to the stoplight. Bailey stated that he believes the main issue was changing the zoning from B-1 to B-2. Jensen stated that they believe that there would be too much office space for the area, so they are looking for some retail on the first level with parking in front and primarily office on the second level. Planning Commission Minutes �Augusk26, 2002 Page 20 of 22 Japs asked where the pond for the parking lot water run-off would be located. He also asked for further information on tree loss and requested that the Public Safety Commission review the proposal. Jensen stated that he would like to fast-track the process because of the Kohl's timeframe, and he asked if this is a project that city would like to see in the community. He stated that most of the current tenants are interested in relocating to the new building. Hudnut stated that conceptually he would favor the project. Bailey stated that he does not see any issues with the project. He stated that the main con- cern of the Commission seems to be understanding the traffic flow. Lassen stated that traffic flow is also his concern but not just for this project, but for the over- all area. Bailey stated that if the project is serviced by the frontage road in the rear, it would help the traffic situation for the building. Severson stated that the staging of the road construction is an issue because the applicant wants to fast track the project, which means it would be open before Kohl's. He pointed out that if this building is open next May, all the decisions regarding the road phasing and align- ments need to be made soon. Lassen asked if there were any zoning issues associated with this project. Bailey stated that currently the parcel is zoned B-1, Limited Business, and they are asking to be rezoned to B- 2, Retail Business, which would allow some retail. Lassen asked what the property is guided in the comprehensive plan. McCool responded commercial. Bailey stated that the discussion on both the rezoning and the site plan would occur at the September 23 meeting. Severson requested further information on the road layout for the entire area when at the September meeting when this proposal is brought back before the Commission. Japs asked if it would be feasible for the only access to be onto 80th Street and if so, then the proposed frontage road in rear would not be as critical. Severson asked how the number of parking spaces for this project compares to other office buildings along 80th Street. Bailey stated that the parcel for this proposed project is larger than the other office sites. Japs asked if parking lot access onto 80th Street could be shared with the office building next door. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 22, 2002 Lassen made a motion to approve the minutes of Planning Commission meeting on July 22, 2002. Japs seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Reports Planning Commission Minutes August26, 2002 Page 21 of 22 9.1 Recap of August City Council Meetings McCool reported that at the August 7, 2002, City Council meeting, the Council approved the simple lot division on Lamar Avenue; entered into an agreement for joint powers with Wash- ington County for the park and ride facility on West Point Douglas Road between the Rodeo and the All Seasons Golf site; authorized the city administrator to sign off on the park and ride layout; approved the subdivision agreement, authorized the preparation of plans and specs, approved the plans and specs, and set a bid date for the improvements for Timber Ridge 3rd Addition; approved the Thompson Land Development proposal for the property located north of 70th Street and west of Hinton Avenue; approved an amendment to the pre- liminary plat for Hale's River Bluff Acres to reduce the amount of stormwater area charges; and authorized Planning staff to prepare and distribute requests for proposals for the East Ravine future growth area. McCool stated that the August 21 City Council meeting had been rescheduled to August 28. On that agenda, there will be a workshop on the MUSA extension for landowners in the West Draw; the presentation of the Timber Ridge 3rd Addition roadway connection to Hidden Oaks; the preliminary plat, conditional use permit, and site plan review for Applebee's; the Kohl's site plan and rezoning applications; and an amendment to the AUAR for the West Draw. 9.2 Committee Reports Japs reported that the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation would not be meeting in September. Their next meeting is in October. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Japs asked when the Planning Commission adds a condition to its recommendation, is that condition included in the resolution that goes to the City Council. McCool responded that it is included in the draft resolution and noted in the memorandum to Council. Japs asked about the connection between Timber Ridge 3rd and Hidden Oaks and noted that the Commission approved an emergency access road from the long cul-de-sac to 70th Street in Timber Ridge 4th. McCool responded that there are no emergency accesses connecting to 70th Street for Timber Ridge 4th; there would be a pathway connection. He stated that because of the hill, the County does not want any vehicular access, emergency or temporary, at that location. Japs then asked if the Highlands Hills subdivision has an emergency access. McCool stated that it does. Japs asked if the Highland Hills emergency access could serve as a pattern for the connection between Timber Ridge 3rd and Hidden Oaks. McCool responded that the City Council wanted something unique that did not look like a roadway, that it would be a more curvilinear connection, and they did not want to just have an access with poles in the middle. Japs asked if citizens were involved in this process. McCool responded that it was his understanding that information would be provided those residents who commented at the Council meeting. Bailey asked if the Commission could get a copy of the proposed road layout for the entire Gateway North redevelopment area. McCool stated that would be part of the staff report for the Jensen proposal that the Commission will review next month. Planning Commission Minutes August26,2002 Page 22 of 22 Severson asked about the weeds at the Almar Village site. McCool responded that the site has been graded and the most of the weeds removed except for the area within the right-of- way of 70th Street, which will be taken care of when the contractor does some utility work. Lassen asked how long a property can stay graded without being seeded or sodded. McCool responded that there is no specific time in the ordinance. Lassen stated that the ordinance, Title 10-3-3C, states that all areas altered because of grading activity shall be permanently seeded or sodded within 10 days of site grading completion, but in no case should site resto- ration be delayed beyond October 1. McCool responded that that was amended as a part of the grading permit ordinance adopted by the city and was moved from the subdivision ordi- nance into the zoning ordinance. Lassen asked how long that site can be left as is without ramifications to the applicant. McCool responded that there would have to be vegetation cover on the property, but it could remain vacant. Lassen stated that the parcel has been graded twice and he expects that within 10 days there should be some sort of ground cover to keep the weeds and dust under control. Bailey stated that if something is not done by the next Planning Commission meeting, which is very close to October 1, this should be looked at by staff. Lassen noted that the ordinance states that the violation is a misdemeanor and shall be a violation of the approved site and building plan, landscaping plan, or grading plan and shall render the approval or plan null and void. Hudnut asked if there were any plans for upgrading the architecture between Home Depot and Rainbow. McCool responded that there were. Bailey stated that the Commission re- ceived a copy of those changes with the Home Depot staff report but there have been modi- fications since then. McCool stated that he would get a copy to the Commission. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Bailey reported that Eileen Weber resigned from the Planning Commission. He thanked Weber for her service on the Commission and wished her luck in future schooling. He stated that he and Councilmember Kohls will discuss the process for appointing someone to fill the vacancy on the Commission. Adjournment Hudnut made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bailey seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.