Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-23 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission September 23, 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 23rd day of Sep- tember, 2002, in the Council Chambers. Call to Order Chairperson Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Myron Bailey, Timothy Booth, Robert Hudnut, Herb Japs, David Lassen, Bob Severson, Chris Willhite Members Absent: David Piggott (unexcused) Staff Present: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Severson made a motion 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 V02-071 Michael J. and Judith A. Blitz have applied for a variance to Title 11-3-3E, Accessory Structures, to allow construction of a 14-foot by 12-foot shed in front of the principal structure at 6899 Lamar Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes SeptEtriber 23, 2002 Page 2 of 15 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Hudnut asked if the proposed shed could be grandfathered in that location due to the prior structure. McCool responded that the previous shed has been removed and any new con- struction would have to meet current city ordinances. Michael Blitz, 6899 Lamar Avenue South, stated that when they purchased their property 14 years ago, a metal shed was located where they are planning to build the new shed. He ex- plained that the old shed had deteriorated and was removed. He stated they have a unique situation because their lot is situated on a hill and the front of their lot is densely wooded so that the shed would be only minimally visible from the street during the winter. He then stated that the shed would be built into an alcove of trees and shrubs with additional shrubs being planted. He explained that the new shed would be a permanent structure with a ce- ment floor, custom built by a professional in a design and with exterior materials similar to the house. He stated that the shed would be used to store lawn and garden equipment and tools and would have electrical service. He explained that there would not be enough space to build the shed on the side of their property and that locating it in the rear yard would result in having to remove several large trees. Another option would be to extend the garage in- stead of building a shed; however, the cost is too prohibitive. He stated that their neighbors to the south have a shed in their back yard and the only way to access it is from a dirt path. Blitz stated that the hardship would be that building the shed elsewhere on the property would impact the natural beauty of the area by requiring trees to be removed. He asked the Planning Commission to grant the variance allowing them to build a shed in the same loca- tion as their previous shed, which was located in front of their home. Hudnut stated that Blitz indicated the shed would not be visible to anyone but themselves. Blitz responded that it would be slightly visible from Lamar Avenue during the winter. Japs asked if their neighbors had commented on the placement of the structure. Blitz re- sponded that they had not, nor had anyone commented about the previous shed. Hudnut asked what size and kind of trees would need to be removed to site the shed in the rear of the property. Blitz responded that the trees are about 30 feet tall and are primarily evergreens. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion to approve the request based on the findings of fact listed be- low. Hudnut seconded. . The requested variance would nof create a negative visual impact to neighboring properties. . An accessory sfrucfure exists in the front yard of their neighbor's property (6939 Lamar Avenue). Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 Page 3 of 15 • The distance from the accessory structure to the front property line is 56 feet The minimum front yard setback is 30 feet. . The proposed accessory structure is designed to match the existing structure and is residenfial in nature. The accessory structure is set back from the road, meeting the minimum principal structure setback. Lassen commented that hardship has not necessarily been established, and he agrees with staff that it seems to be more of an inconvenience than a hardship. However, given the fact the structure would not be visible and would be built in the same location as the previous shed, the hardship could be having to remove trees to site it in another location. He stated that he would be in favor of approving this variance. Bailey stated that he looked at the property and believes the situation is unique because they had a shed in that location, the property has dense vegetation, and they went through the process of coming to the city to build a new shed in the same location as the old shed. He stated that he would also be in favor of approving the variance. Willhite stated that she also looked at the property and saw the larger garage that the Blitz's neighbors has been approved for and she understands why they did not want to locate their shed in the back, which would require the removal of the mature trees. She stated that that would have an impact in the rural area. Lassen stated that the documented reasoning should be that the hardship is due to the par- ticular physical surroundings whereby significant tree removal will impact the neighborhood. Booth asked if they could have rebuilt the existing shed in the same area. McCool responded that they would not have been able to replace more than 50 percent of that building. Severson stated that in the motion, he does not see any reference relative to the hardship issue and asked why the neighbor's property was referenced. Lindquist responded that the reason it is noted is because the neighbor received a variance to locate an accessory struc- ture in front of the principal structure. She stated that when this is sent to the Council, it could be noted in the findings of fact that there was a pre-existing shed in that location and that the variance would not create a negative visual impact to neighboring properties. The Commis- sion concurred. Lassen stated that he believes that the approval could be based on ordinance criteria #3 regarding particular physical surroundings. Lindquist agreed. Booth stated that under normal conditions he would not be in favor of this type of variance but he did not want penalize them for removing a dilapidated shed when they could have just left it up. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes Sept�mber 23, 2002 Page 4 of 15 6.2 CASES ZA02-068, SP02-069, and V02-070 (continued from 8/26/02 meeting) Roger A. Jensen has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning from B-1, Limited Business, to B-2, Retail Business, and a site plan review with variance for park- ing setbacks for a proposed office/retail development to be located at 7420 — 80th Street South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report, with two corrections to the recommendations. He stated that condition #8, relating to the concrete apron for the access drive, should reference 80th Street and Hardwood Court, rather than East Point Douglas Road; and condition #12, relating to the revised landscape plan, should include tree mitigation. He stated that the staffs recom- mendation of approval is predicated on the applicant providing the city with a revised devel- opment plan for the project prior to the applications being forwarded to the City Council for final action. Hudnut asked about the memo from the Public Works Commission regarding closing access to 80th Street. McCool responded that on Friday, staff received a memo from the Public Works Commission noting their recommendation that the only access allowed would be from the frontage road at the rear of the site and that access onto 80th Street not be allowed. He explained that there is an existing median cut on 80th Street and a designated left turn lane into the parcel. Lindquist stated that staff was surprised by the recommendation from the Public Works Commission to not allow direct access to 80th Street, because the property had been designated and zoned commercial when 80th Street was reconstructed. She stated that her assumption was that the design for the 80th Street reconstruction included the left turn lane and the median cut as it did for the office building to the east. She stated that at that time the road in the back was not part of the plans for the area. Lassen asked if the Planning Commission approves this project, could the access to 80th be denied at a later date. He stated that he believes there should be both accesses to this property because he is concerned about the timing of the construction of the cul-de-sac in the rear of the property. Lindquist responded that the recommended approval before the Commission includes both accesses, so the Planning Commission would have to add a con- dition to close the 80th Street access. She stated that the Public Works comments would go to the Council along with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Japs asked if there was diagram showing what exists and is planned for the whole area. He also asked what the property line with Burnet Realty would look like. McCool responded that the developer has not submitted their revised landscape plan, but the original submittal showed plantings only on the northwest and southwest corners of the property. Japs asked if the property to the east was also a commercial property. McCool responded that it was. Japs then asked if there would be a road cut to allow left turns across 80th Street into the prop- erty. McCool responded that a left turn lane already exists for the eastern site. Japs stated that there would be two adjacent businesses with left hand turns and asked if it would be possible to link those two parking lots. Willhite asked if Japs was referring to the doctors office. Willhite stated that that access is on the east side of the property and the Burnet property does not have access to 80th Street. Japs asked if the Public Safety Commission could comment about the multiple accesses onto 80th Street, and he stated that he believes Planning Commission Minutes SeptAmber 23, 2002 Page 5 of 15 the cut was designed to support an individual family. Lindquist stated that the property was always zoned and guided commercial, which should have been considered in the road de- sign. Japs stated that he is concerned about safety issues because the primary use of that access has been for one residential parcel and traffic will increase when it becomes a com- mercial property. He then asked if there was an overview showing the cul-de-sac in the rear. McCool displayed the plan for that area. Japs asked what the area on the corner of Hard- wood and the cul-de-sac would be zoned. Lindquist responded that that area was planned for commercial and will be discussed later in the agenda. He then asked if the area at the north end of the cul-de-sac would remain parkland or change to commercial. Lindquist re- sponded that area would remain parkland. She then noted that the Public Safety Commis- sion reviewed all items on tonighYs agenda at their September 17 meeting and they did not have any comments. Lassen asked if the access from 80th Street would be right-in/right-out. McCool responded that it would be a full access. Lassen asked if it could be limited to right-in/right-out. Lindquist responded that the median would then have to be closed. Lassen asked if that would be an option if there are traffic concerns and congestion on 80th Street. Lindquist responded that the Commission should make that part of the conditions of approval is they wanted to restrict access in the future. Severson stated that he still has concerns about traffic flow in that whole area, both now and in the future. He also asked for an overview of what the whole area would look like when de- veloped as proposed. He stated that he wants to ensure that adequate consideration is given to the traffic situation. He asked if the whole infrastructure issue has been looked at. He stated that progress has been made on this issue, but he still has concerns. He stated that he is uncomfortable with the proposal based on traffic considerations. Lindquist asked Severson what exactly he was looking for because modifications have been made along the Hardwood corridor area to address previously stated concerns and a traffic study was done. She asked if he thinks 80th Street does not have the capacity to handle this project. Severson responded that 80th Street currently has the capacity, but it may not in the future. He stated that he is also concerned about the traffic study being too localized, does not have a broad enough view, and may use outdated figures. He reiterated his concern that while the roads are adequate for current traffic levels, when the area is fully developed there could be major traffic issues. Lindquist asked if the Commission would like to have a presentation from the traffic consultant. She explained that traffic counts are done every two years. She explained that the traffic study for the Hardwood area was done by the same company who did the AUAR, and they have the estimated unit counts for the entire West Draw area. She stated that their projections are through 2020, and their recommendations don't relate only to what should be done now, but what should be done for the future also. She then explained that 80th Street was recently reconstructed and the design should have taken future devel- opment into account. Severson stated that he believes the perspective seems to be more technical as opposed to what he calls practical. He stated that he wants to try to avert future traffic problems now. Willhite asked for clarification on the stormwater plan. McCool responded that there is an existing storm sewer system on the south side of 80th Street. Willhite asked where that goes. McCool responded that it goes down through the Grove Plaza Shopping Center. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 Page 6 of 15 Bailey pointed out that conditions #5 and #11 are the same. Roger Jensen stated that he had his architect, Steve Otto from DB Architects, and Alan Krebman with PDA Landscape Consultants and Civil Engineers, with him to answer any questions. Hudnut asked Jensen about plantings on the west side of the property. Jensen stated that they have a revised landscaping plan that staff has not seen yet and he displayed that for the Commission's information. Krebman stated that he has been working to revised the land- scaping plan based on the comments from the staff report. He explained that they have added landscaping on the north side and the west side of the property and are preserving more of the existing trees. He stated that they have addressed some site plan issues such as providing access to Hardwood Court, and shifting both of the buildings to the west slightly. He stated that their current plan enables them to relax some of the grades on the property and to direct all of the stormwater runoff around the perimeter. He then explained that he is a certified tree inspector and has evaluated the trees on the site. He stated that they are trying to save trees that of desirable species and are structurally sound and that they will mitigate for tree loss. Hudnut asked what sizes of the various plantings would be. Krebman responded that over- story trees would be about 2'/= inch caliper and ornamental trees at 1?/z inches. He stated that would also add some evergreen trees to mitigate the visual aspect of the parking near the property line and possibly do some planting on the neighbor's property along the prop- erty line to mitigate the proximity of the parking. Japs asked why the access road on the north side comes through the middle of the property and not at the northwest corner of the site, which would not require as much paving. Lindquist responded that less grading would be required due to the topography. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to approve the site plan review and variance for the parking setbacks, subject to the conditions listed below. Lassen seconded. Severson asked if the motion included the modified conditions referenced by McCool. Hudnut responded that his motion did include the modifications to condition #8, relating to the concrete apron for the access drive, which should state 80th Street and Hardwood Court, rather than East Point Douglas Road; included tree mitigation as part of condition #12; and deleted either condition #5 or #11, which are the same. Variance 1. Additional plant materials shall be planted between the parking area and north boundary line/righf-of-way line for purposes of mitigating visual impact parking wifhin the 20-foot setback requirement may have. Site Plan Review 1. Exferior storage, display, or merchandise sales items outside the building are prohibited. Planning Commission Minutes Sept2mber 23, 2002 Page 7 of 15 2. The landowner grants to the City without any cost to the City all utility and drainage easements as deemed necessary by the City. 3. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, demolition, grading, right-of-way, etc.) shall be applied for and issued by the City prior to any work or construc- tion taking place. Detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshall. 4. Additional stormwater sewer systems internal to the site and catch basins on each side of the access drives are required to be constructed. Surface water drainage directly into fhe public roadway is prohibited. A revised drainage plan must be submitted to the City prior to a building permit being issued by the City. 5. The exterior walls of all trash enclosures shall be constructed with fhe same exterior materials and color as the principal structure and contain an opaque gate. 6. Roof-fop mechanical units shall be screened as required in Title 11-6-4, of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 7. The applicant shall submit samples of exterior building materials fo the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. A concrete apron for the new access drives on 80th Sfreet and on Hardwood Court shall be constructed per City standards. 9. A"STOP" sign shall be installed at each exit drive. Each sign shall be 10 feet from the roadway edge and 2 feet from fhe driveway edge. The bottom of the sign shall be six feet from the ground. The "STOP" sign shall have a 30-inch, high-infensity face. Said sign shall be mounted on a six-foof No. 3 and eight- foot No. 2 steel posts. The applicant may request the City's Public Works De- partmenf to install said "STOP" signs, but must reimburse the City for actual costs incurred. 10. Exterior lighting for securify purposes and illuminating the parking lot shall de- flect light downward and away from adjoining properties and public streets and consistent wifh ordinance foof-candle requirements. 11. The revised landscape plan and free mitigation plan dated September 25, 2002 has been submitted to the City. The revised landscape plan exceeds the mini- mum ordinance requirements by providing 10 additional trees and 10 shrubs. The ten additional trees will be deducted from the 65 Category A, 127 Cafegory B, or 254 Category C tree mitigation requirements. Cash paymenf in lieu of tree replacement shall be made to the city prior to a building permit being issued by the City. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 Page 8 of 15 12.Irrigation shall be provided for all sodded and landscaped areas, including the curbed landscaped island interior to the parking lot. The irrigation system shall consist of an underground sprinkling system that is designed by a professional irrigation installer to meet the water requirements of the site's specific vegeta- tion. The sysfem shall de detailed on the /andscape plan. The property owner is responsible for ensuring that the plant maferials within the landscaped islands are water periodically and maintained in a healthy state. 13.Installation of landscaping shall occur in a timely fashion and be consistenf with an approved landscaping plan. A letter of credif in the amount of 150 per- cent of the landscape estimate shall be submitted to the City as required by City ordinance (Title 11-6-6(�). The financial guarantee shall be in effect for one year from the date of installafion to ensure the installation, survival, and replacement of the landscaping improvements. 14. All retaining walls over four-feet in height shall be designed by and approved by an engineer. 15. The developer shall make payment to the City of Cottage Grove an amount equivalent fo the design and construction of a retention/detention pond meeting the NURP standards and criteria. The City is committed to using this money for purposes of surface water treatment downstream. 16. The developer will be required to pay the costs to construct public utilities that will serve this property. 17. The four parking spaces closest to the west boundary line shall be eliminated for purposes of allowing a paved surface to extend west of the drive aisle a dis- tance sufficient to allow a motor vehicle parked in the c/osest parking space to back into the extended drive aisle. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASES ZA02-072 and PP02-073 Cheetah Properties, LLC have applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning from AG-1, Agricultural Preserve, to R-2.5, Residential, R-5, Medium Density Residential, and R-6, High Density Residential; and a preliminary plat for a subdivision to be called Mississippi Dunes Estates, which would consist of 185 single-family homes, 137 town homes, and 78 senior housing units. This proposed subdivision would be located on the southwest corner of Hadley Avenue and 95th Street. Bailey stated that the applicant has requested that this item be pulled from the agenda; how- ever, he asked the Commission if they would like to open the public hearing for testimony from those who attended this evening. Lindquist stated that the public hearing could be opened and then continued next month, so the residents who attended tonight would have the opportunity to speak. The Commission concurred. Bailey stated that the Commission would listen to input with the understanding that the proposal may change. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 Page 9 of 15 John Tschida, Cheetah Properties, stated that they would like to make their formal presenta- tion at the next meeting, which will include revisions to the proposal. Bailey opened the public hearing. Yvonne Bergman, 9908 Hamlet Court South, stated that she is speaking on behalf of the Pine Glen Villas Homeowners Association. She understands that the plans may change and asked if a date had been set to discuss those changes. She noted that the homeowners as- sociation shared staff's concerns regarding traffic, the density of the housing development, a three-story apartment building, screening the proposed development from existing develop- ments, sidewalk issues, safety issues, and the impact on the neighborhood north on Hadley. Bailey informed Bergman that the proposal is scheduled for public hearing and review at the October 28, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Gordon Nesvig, 7501 — 80th Street South, stated that his concern about this particular plat is that it cuts off 95th Street, which is a four-lane road from Jamaica to Hadley. He explained that he owns 70 acres just to the west of this property and on the opposite side of what would be 95th Street, and his property abuts the Swanlund property, which is immediately to the north of this property. He stated that he is working with D.R. Horton to develop those 70 acres as well as other property he owns in Grey Cloud Township. He stated that they would like 95th Street to continue westerly to where it intersects with Grey Cloud Trail, which is just inside the Cottage Grove border. He then stated that the railroad is very close to Grey Cloud Trail at that point and they are proposing to build an overpass over both the railroad and Grey Cloud Trail, which would then curve back to the Trail. Nesvig explained that there is a stand of mature trees on the border between the Swanlund property and the Cheetah prop- erty, and he envisions that a two-lane 95th Street be built on the south side of that grove of trees, and in 2008, when the Swanlund property comes out of agriculture preserve, two lanes would then be built north of the trees, to create an attractive boulevard. He stated that extending 95th Street from Jamaica to Grey Cloud Trail would help reduce traffic issues on the Hadley Avenue and it would be an alternative to the 103rd Street underpass. He stated that DR Horton is willing to contribute their share of the costs for the road connection and he would dedicate the necessary land on his side of the property line for right-of-way. No one else spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion to continue the public hearing. Severson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6,4 CASE SP02-074 Silver Creek Real Estate Development Ltd. LLC has applied for a site plan review of a 78- unit, three-story senior housing complex to be located in the proposed Mississippi Dunes Estates subdivision, which would be located on the northwest corner of 100th Street and Hadley Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 Page 10 of 15 Bailey asked if this application had also been requested to be pulled from the agenda. Lindquist responded that it was. 6.5 CASE CP02-075 The City of Cottage Grove and Gene Stoltz have applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use from low density residential to commercial and to expand the MUSA boundary for property located at 7750 Harkness Avenue South. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. She noted that staff received a letter from Ms. Weber, who is the property owner directly to the north, stating that she does not support the request and would prefer not to have commercial extended into this site. Lindquist explained that city staff does not foresee any northward expansion of the commer- cial area due to topography and the lack of visibility from and frontage onto 80th Street. She then stated that the only way more commercial could be added in the area would be to make all of Hardwood Avenue commercial, but that would not be feasible due to topographic re- strictions on the west side of Hardwood and the amount of ponding on the eastern side of the Hardwood corridor. Bailey asked if the land directly east of the site was Oakwood Park. Lindquist responded that it is. Japs asked if Lot 1, Block 1 would also be commercial. Lindquist responded that that had al- ready been re-guided and rezoned as part of the Kohl's proposal. Japs asked if there would be no commercial to the north of Lot 1, Block 1. Lindquist responded that was correct. Japs then asked what the Economic Development Authority's opinion was regarding increased commercial development in that area. Lindquist stated that the Economic Development staff has the same opinion as Planning staff about commercial development north of the pro- posed area, and she believes that the EDA has a similar impression. Japs asked if the new entrance to Oakwood Park would be located to the east of this site. Lindquist stated yes. Bailey stated that he assumes screening would be provided when that site develops. Lindquist responded yes and noted that there are more stringent requirements where a commercial area adjoins residential areas. Japs asked how much of a buffer would be re- quired. Lindquist responded that the building setback is 75 feet. McCool stated that the set- back for parking is 30 feet and that the site would be graded within about 30 feet of the north property, which would impact some trees. Japs asked if a border of mature trees could be saved along the northern property line. He then stated his concern about preserving the quality of life for neighbors whose properties would abut the commercial area. Lindquist stated that the site would not be fully graded for at least a year because the house needs to remain there, though some grading work in the area would be done for the reconstruction of Harkness and construction of Hardwood Avenues. Willhite asked which property Ms. Weber, who wrote the letter referenced during LindquisYs summary, lived at. Lindquist pointed out that Kay Weber owns the five-acre parcel north of the property to be re-guided, but lives in a home directly east of that property. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 Page 11 of 15 Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion to approve the applicafion for a comprehensive plan amend- ment, subject fo the conditions listed below. Hudnut seconded. 1. Approval of the comprehensive plan amendment is obtained from the Metropolitan Council. 2. The City shall mainfain access control to the property. Motion passed unanimously. 6.6 CASES CP02-076 and ZA02-077 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use from low density residential to commercial and to expand the MUSA bound- ary and a zoning amendment to change the zoning from R-2, Residential Estate, to B-2, Retail Business, for property located in Oakwood Park. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Hudnut asked what position the Parks Commission has taken regarding taking part of a park. Lindquist responded that the Parks Commission discussed the issue and they are comfort- able with the removal of this portion of the property. She stated that the Parks Commission made a motion to allocate the proceeds from the sale, less expenses associated with the project, to the Park Trust Fund. She explained that there has been discussion about ex- panding Hamlet Park, and the money could be allocated to purchase land and upgrade the Hamlet Park area, though this is still in preliminary discussion. Willhite asked where the Kohl's access would be located. Lindquist responded that the Kohl's access would align with the new cul-de-sac. Bailey asked if there would be stop signs or traffic lights there. Lindquist responded that initially there would be side stop signs, but the traffic study notes that signals would probably be needed by 2020. Japs asked where the current road into the park and the park building are located. McCool pointed out the park access and park building on the map. Lindquist stated that grading would come close to one edge of the parking lot. Japs then asked if the parking lot would be left intact. Lindquist responded that the parking lot and park building would not be touched. Lassen stated that he does not believe that only a small portion of a park should be taken, but either none or all of the park. He stated that there is viable commercial land there, but he is concerned about the aesthetics of a park right behind a commercial development. Willhite stated that she does not believe that the area east of the designated business district in Oakwood Park would be viable because it is not visible from 80th Street. She stated that Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2002 Page 12 of 15 the city should not take all 65 acres of Oakwood Park for commercial when only 3.5 acres are viable for commercial development. Lassen asked where the play structure would be located. Lindquist responded that the play- ground equipment would be relocated closer to the picnic shelter, because its current loca- tion is too secluded and will be impacted by site grading. Lassen then asked if there would be buffering between the picnic shelter and the back of the commercial buildings. Bailey stated that when an application for development of the commercial comes in, the city would ensure that there would be a good buffer. Lassen then asked if there would be a tree line between the area being graded and the parking lot. Lindquist responded that that area is fairly open without a lot of trees and several disk golf holes are located there. Lassen stated that he wants to avoid any issues about parkland abutting a commercial area when devel- opment is proposed. Lindquist responded that the Commission could make a motion to give notice to future developers that the Planning Commission expects sensitive treatments and screening. Lassen asked if a preserved corridor with at least a 30-foot setback could be dedicated in the comp plan. Bailey asked if there were more stringent requirements for buff- ering and setbacks between two different zoning types. Lindquist responded that was cor- rect. Lassen asked if a buffer would be a possibility when a site plan is submitted. Lindquist responded that if additional buffering is desired, it would probably be on the park side. She stated that a fair amount of tree mitigation will be needed for the two road projects and Kohl's, and the city is looking at the corridor and Oakwood Park as two of the primary loca- tions for this mitigation. As proposed, the commercial sites will be wholly graded and an ex- isting tree buffer would not occur. Japs asked what percentage of tree loss is expected. McCool responded that he is still com- puting those numbers, but they would be available before the Council meeting. Japs asked if any consideration was given to only having an entrance from the Jensen property onto 80th Street and not constructing the proposed road due to the amount of grading required. Lindquist responded that some of the area is already graded, and the city is working with Burnet to shift their access. Booth asked about the timing of the cul-de-sac construction in relation to the Jensen prop- erty. Lindquist stated that the cul-de-sac is an option on the plans and specs that the Council approved and could be deleted. Booth asked if Burnet does not relocate their drive, would this drive not be necessary. Lindquist responded that the traffic study notes that turning left from the Burnet property to go south will be very difficult once the area is developed. Booth asked if the city can require Burnet to change their access. Lindquist responded that finan- cial compensation could potentially be associated with a change in access. Bailey asked how much money could the city receive for the Park Trust Fund from the sale of this land and what the funds would be used for. Lindquist responded that the money could possibly be used for the Hamlet Park expansion. Bailey asked if the money was not used for Hamlet Park, would it still be used for park projects. Lindquist responded that Parks Com- mission made that motion, though the Council has not discussed it yet. Bailey asked if the Planning Commission should make a motion on this issue. Willhite asked if it could be put in as a condition of approval. Lindquist responded that the Commission could make a motion stating the Planning Commission supports allocation of the proceeds to the Park Trust Fund after costs. Bailey stated that he has heard from people who want to ensure that the money Planning Commission Minutes SeptEmber 23, 2002 Page 13 of 15 is only used for park projects. Lindquist responded that she would be concerned about mak- ing it a condition of this action because it is a separate issue. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to approve fhe comprehensive plan amendment and the zon- ing ordinance amendment subject to the conditions listed below. Booth seconded. 1. Approval of the comprehensive plan amendment is obtained from the Metropolitan Council. 2. The City shall maintain access contro/ to the property. Motion passed unanimously. Hudnut asked if Lassen wanted to make a motion requiring a buffer corridor. Lassen stated that that had been more of a question. Hudnut made a motion to concur with the Park Commission that any proceeds, less expenses, from the sa/e of the Oakwood Park land would be dedicated to the Park Trust Fund. Bailey seconded. Hudnut asked for an explanation of the Park Trust Fund. Lindquist explained that the trust fund is monies that are obtained from developers when they do development without dedi- cating park land, and that the city can legally extract those funds because development represents an increase in demand on the city's park system. She stated that the funds tradi- tionally have been utilized for new construction and expansion of the park system rather than maintenance and upkeep of existing. Hudnut asked if any amount could be withdrawn. Lindquist responded that it is programmed through the CIP process. Motion passed unanimously. Applications and Requests McCool reported that site plan review and building permit applications were received for the relocation of the Park Grove Pet Hospital, which will be located on the east half of the vacant lot across from the library, on the corner of 79th Street and Hemingway. He stated that staff is administratively reviewing the site plan because the proposal complies with all minimum setback requirements for parking, landscaping, and building construction. He explained that the building would be a 4,851 square foot one-story structure with a brick fa�ade and vinyl siding, and that 51 parking spaces would be provided. Severson asked if there would be any other buildings besides the main structure. McCool responded that a trash enclosure would be located just to the south of the building. Hudnut asked if the Planning Commission would formally review this application. McCool responded that the ordinance allows for administra- tive review of projects in compliance with ordinance requirements. Lindquist explained that conditional use permits, variances, rezonings, and comp plan amendments would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Bailey asked if Tutor Time was administratively re- viewed. Lindquist responded that it was, and also some of the projects in the industrial park. Planning Commission Minutes SeptEmber 23, 2002 Page 14 of 15 She asked if the Commission would like to review all applications. She stated that staff sparingly uses administrative review, and that previous Commissions agreed that if the ap- plication meets ordinance criteria, they do not need to see it. Hudnut stated that he just wanted to understand the process and requested that administrative review be used spar- ingly. The Commission's consensus was that if an application meets ordinance criteria, they would not need to review it. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 26, 2002 Hudnut made a motion to approve fhe minutes of the Augusf 26, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Japs seconded, noting a change on page 9 that the vote was 4- to-2-to1. Motion to approve the August 26, 2002, minutes with the correcfion passed unanimously. Reports 9.1 Recap of September City Council Meetings Lindquist reported that at the September 4, 2002, meeting, the City Council approved the amendment to the West Draw AUAR relating to the change for Kohl's. She stated that at the September 18, 2002, meeting, the Council approved the lot division and variances for North- ern Natural Gas; and approved the comp plan amendment for Timber Ridge 4th Addition but tabled the rezoning to PUD, preliminary plat, and site plan review for that project. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Booth asked if tree mitigation for a project could occur on other property. Lindquist re- sponded yes. Booth asked if that is a possibility for the Oakwood Park area, which may help create a buffer. Lindquist responded that the city would be mitigating a fair amount in Oak- wood Park area between Kohl's and Hardwood Avenue. Booth stated that he did not realize the city had to mitigate for that roadway, and asked if commercial developments, such as the Jensen proposal, where it may not be possible to mitigate entirely on the property could miti- gate off-site. Lindquist responded that was correct. Japs stated that there have been concerns about tree issues and losses and asked if the Planning Commission could review the tree preservation ordinance to see if it needs to be updated. Lindquist responded that the Commission could look at the tree preservation ordi- nance and asked if they could wait until they have finished with the neighborhood commer- cial ordinance. Japs made a request to look at the tree preservation ordinance in November. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Willhite asked for an update on Almar Village. Bailey responded that staff included a memo in the Planning Commission packet noting that the site has been cleaned up and the devel- Planning Commission Minutes Sep4amber 23, 2002 Page 15 of 15 oper has applied for a building permit for the commercial strip center, but the permit has not yet been issued. Bailey then stated that, as requested by Severson, staff included an overlay of the area around Kohl's, and, as requested by Hudnut, a rendering showing the improve- ments to Grove Plaza between Home Depot and Rainbow. Adjournment Japs made a motion to adjourn fhe meeting. Booth seconded. Motion passed unani- mously. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.