Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-25 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission November 25, 2002 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held at City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 25th day of November, 2002, in the Council Chambers. Call to Order Chairperson Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Myron Bailey, Timothy Booth, Robert Hudnut, Herb Japs , David Lassen Members Absent: Bob Severson, Chris Willhite Staff Present: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Japs moved to approve the agenda. Hudnut seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Open Forum Chairperson Bailey asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non- agenda item. No one spoke. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Chairperson Bailey explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and the City Council makes all final decisions. In addi- tion, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should come to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings 6.1 CASES ZA02-081 and PP02-082 Pulte Homes of Minnesota applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning from AG-2, Agriculture, to R-2.5, Residential, and a preliminary plat for Timber Ridge 4th Addi- tion, which would consist of 61 single family homes to be located on the northwest corner of 70th Street and Harkness Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 Page 2 of 11 Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Japs asked what was planned for the properties around the proposed project. Lindquist re- sponded that the property to the north is designated for rural residential; however, property owners in that area have expressed interest in hooking up to city water and sewer. She ex- plained that the Council is planning to hold a workshop on this issue and a neighborhood meeting with the property owners in the area may be held to see who would be interested in urban development. Japs then asked about the road connection to 65th Street and stated that he did not recall any recommendation regarding this in the West Draw Task Force report. Lindquist responded that because the area was mostly rural residential, there was not much discussion about a roadway connection to 65th Street. She explained that if there were fur- ther developments in the area, a road connection would be needed. Japs asked if the Tinucci property would be an outlot. Lindquist stated that it would be a separate lot of record. Japs then asked if the trees on that property were part of the tree count for the development. Lindquist responded that they were not counted. Booth asked if one access to the east would be sufficient. Lindquist stated that that was the only access between Timber Ridge 4th Addition and the approved Orrin Thompson project, Pine Arbor, and that there was a large stormwater pond on the southern end. Booth asked if the stub on the upper northeast side was to access 65th Street to the north. Lindquist re- sponded yes, but it would not be a designated collector road. Lassen asked if the future extension of Hardwood Avenue was a part of Timber Ridge 4th. Lindquist replied that it was not, so an adequate turn-around within the confines of the prop- erty would be needed. Lassen asked if Hardwood would be a cul-de-sac. Lindquist stated that she did not yet know if it would be a cul-de-sac or a road extension to 65th Street. Japs stated that he was concerned about a roadway connection to 65th Street because it would hook up with Woodlane Drive and become a short cut from Woodbury through the neighborhood to the Cottage Grove business district. McCool stated that the road connection to 65th Street would be to the east of the Woodlane Drive connection. Dennis Griswold, Pulte Homes, stated that the proposed extension to the north was for the convenience of the neighborhood, but they would be amendable to looking at other options for a northern extension that would not be a convenient short cut. He explained that the pro- posed layout, which consists of 61 single family homes, was configured to save as many trees as possible on site. He then stated that they will be working with an arborist on the tree removal. Griswold stated that this development would be an extension of the Timber Ridge community on the south side of 70th Street, but with a higher price point. He stated that they have read the staff comments and agree with the comments relative to the public open space. They would provide, in conjunction with the city, a path system through the neighbor- hood that would allow public access to the wooded features on site. He stated that they would also construct a tot lot and gazebo. .Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 Page 3 of 11 Hudnut asked for more information on the nature trail system. Griswold stated that there would be sidewalks and a trail system, probably constructed of wood chips, through the natu- ral areas. He stated that the trail system that would connect to 70th Street, with the potential of connecting to 65th Street if the property to the north develops. He stated that could also be beneficial for the school property if it continues up to 65th Street. Japs complimented Pulte Homes on the awards they recently received and asked if they would be building the same homes in Timber Ridge 4th as are being built in the other Timber Ridge additions. Griswold stated that they are looking at the same models but with more op- tions and would range from $250,000 to $350,000. Japs asked what caused the problems with grading and tree removal at Timber Ridge 3rd Addition. Griswold responded that they are refining their tree removal process. He explained that a swath would be cleared through the trees to accommodate the tree fence, which would clearly mark the tree removal area. He stated that the area would then be inspected by the arborist and the city. Japs asked if the removed trees are sold. Griswold responded that Pulte does not retain the removed trees, but the bid by the tree clearing company probably includes that. He stated that some of the wood is chipped on site and used as mulch along the save line. Japs then asked when Pulte expects to start the project. Griswold responded that they are looking at getting city approval this winter and starting the project in the spring 2003. Booth asked if there had been any consideration given to extending Hardwood Avenue to the north and making it a collector road. Griswold stated that they follow city direction for overall traffic system, and that their mandate for this layout was to provide access to the property to the east. Lindquist stated that Meadowgrass Avenue is the primary collector between 70th Street and 65th Street. She stated that the stub to the north does not necessarily mean that it would go straight to 65th Street and that staff believes most of the traffic would come from the neighborhood. Booth asked where Meadowgrass Avenue was located. Lindquist responded that it is to the west of the proposed development, Japs stated that he is concerned that this type of road alignment would cause the same problems as what happened in the Highlands neighborhood that brought traffic onto Ideal Avenue between 65th Street and 70th Street because Ideal was aligned with County Road 13 from Woodbury. Bailey opened the public hearing. Richard Abel, 7465 Granada Bay South, asked the Commission to look at developments as if they own one of the houses in the area and have something at stake. He stated that when Pulte started development of Timber Ridge 3rd, they butchered the area by removing too many trees, and asked if there are penalties for tree removal violations. He then expressed concern about through-traffic in neighborhoods. No one else spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 Page 4 of 11 Japs made a motion to approve the application with added conditions. Those conditions would include deleting Timber Ridge Lane and allowing the developer to make it into a lot. Another condition would set penalties for violating the tree removal ordinance, and he sug- gested that the penalty for the first 10 illegally removed trees would be $1,000 and $10,000 for any tree above that. He would add to condition #19 the requirement that the developer pay a performance guarantee for tree preservation and that there be four evaluations of the preserved trees. The first evaluation would occur when grading was complete, the second when the project is half complete, the third when the project is complete, and the fourth would occur three years after the project is complete. If the developer exceeds the standards, pay- ment would be due at that time. Lassen seconded the motion. Booth stated that he would like to add a condition that Hardwood Avenue be stubbed north at Lot 5 Block 1 so there is access to the north. Japs stated that he would not accept that as a friendly amendment. Lassen asked Japs if he was concerned that Timber Court could be extended to the north as a through-street rather than a cul-de-sac as contemplated in the concept plan. He asked what time constraints there were. Lindquist responded that the city has time to review the issue. Booth explained that he suggested extending Hardwood Avenue because that would circum- vent movement through the neighborhood, noting that lots did not directly front on Hardwood. Lindquist stated that the application could be tabled for further discussion; however, staff will continue to recommend a connection to the north. She stated that Public Safety wants two accesses to developments, and that this is a fairly consistent development pattern with more circuitous routes through the neighborhood. She stated staff would be concerned about the future of the parcels to the north if there were no means of access to 70th Street. Booth stated that is why he is suggesting Hardwood Avenue be extended north to 65th Street. Bailey stated that he would also be extremely concerned if access was cut off because prop- erty owners to the north may want to develop in the future. He also stated that he does not know if the city can legally require such harsh penalties for violating the tree preservation ordinance. Japs stated that Pulte has done illegal grading and tree removal in the past. Bailey concurred with Japs' intent but there may be some other way to do it. Lassen made a motion to table the applications to the December 23, 2003, meeting. Hudnut seconded. Motion passed on a 4-to-1 vote (Japs). 6.2 CASE CUP02-083 Gateway Center, LLC. has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a women's work- out facility (Workout Express) to be located in Gateway Center, 7145 East Point Douglas Road South. Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 Page 5 of 11 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. John Pope, Pope Associates, stated that he would answer any questions from the Com- mission. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Booth made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below. Hudnut seconded the motion. 1. The applicanf receives a building permit for any tenant improvements necessary to the site. 2. Parking on fhe site will be monitored. Parking calculations will be made for future tenants to ensure compliance with the ordinance criferia. Parking is not allowed on the shared access drive between the Gateway Center and Walgreen's or within the parking areas of adjacent businesses. 3. Signage for the use shall be in conformance with City code and the approved sign package for the PUD. 4. The equipment in the work-out facility shall not impede required safety access or egress dimensions. The final equipment layout shall be reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure conformance with applicable fire codes. 5. The occupancy limif is 25 individuals as defermined by the Chief Building Official. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASE TA02-065 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to add a neighbor- hood business district to the zoning ordinance. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Lassen asked if the city attorney felt that the language in the current comprehensive plan was clear regarding the two remaining neighborhood commercial districts. Lindquist stated that the comp plan clearly states that they would be smaller neighborhood commercial areas. Japs stated it is good that those areas are identified in advance, but he asked if they were not zoned that way, how could the city ensure that people would know that they were guided for neighborhood commercial. Lindquist responded that in the past signs have been placed on the property. She also stated that if someone comes in to City Hall to ask, staff would inform them what the future plans for the area are. Booth stated that the information is available in the Planning Department, but he does not know what else could be done. Japs suggested better communication with real estate agents. .Planning Commission Minutes t�tovember 25, 2002 Page 6 of 11 Lassen asked what maps are available that show the current zoning and future land uses. Lindquist responded that the two maps are separate and are available on the web site. Lassen asked if there was a way to combine or coordinate the two maps. Lindquist stated that she would check to see how this could be done, possibly by referencing the other map. Hudnut asked where the covenants would be recorded and who has oversight. Lindquist re- sponded that the city would approve the covenants, and then they would be recorded against the property with Washington County and the city would receive a copy. She stated that the covenants would then be the zoning regulations for that property and would supercede the city's zoning ordinance. Bailey opened fhe public hearing. He noted that the testimony should center only on the proposed ordinance, which would not affect Almar Village or the Rygh development as they have already been approved. Dick Hansen, 6918 Homestead Avenue South, stated that the size of neighborhood commer- cial districts should be reduced from seven acres to five acres. He also would like to see hours restricted for all businesses, not just for gas stations. Hansen asked why the square footage allotment for gas stations with canopy and car wash is 4,000 square feet but a liquor store is allowed 5,000 square feet. He also asked why drive-through banks, which could have two or three lanes, are allowed as a conditional use but not drive-through restaurants, which have only one lane. Hansen then noted that under permitted accessory uses it states "busi- ness signs as permitted," and noted that the ordinance states that there would be covenants that cover signage for the whole district. He also asked for a definition of class 1, 2, and 3 restaurants, and if a conditional use permit would be required for restaurants with liquor. He then asked about the limit for off-street parking, noting that if only 20 percent of the building space were allowed, there would not be much parking available. Lindquist clarified that the parking language means is that there is a minimum standard for the number of parking spaces per use and that the total number of spaces can only exceed the required amount by 20 percent. She explained that the restaurant categories are defined in the zoning ordinance and include liquor, fast food, and sit-down restaurants. She then ex- plained that the city has a separate sign ordinance and the language about signage in the accessory use portion of the proposed ordinance is standard language directing people to the sign ordinance. Mary Ann Marty, 9905 Military Road, asked for clarification on the size of proposed liquor stores versus gas stations. Lindquist responded that was a policy decision that the Planning Commission needs to make. Lassen stated that the Planning Commission did not look at the square footage allowed for gas stations when they decided on the size for liquor stores. He stated that the intent was to not allow a warehouse-size liquor store in a neighborhood com- mercial district. He then explained that initially the maximum size in neighborhood commer- cial projects was 10 acres but the Commission reduced it to 7 acres. He stated that the Commission felt it was more important to limit the square footage of each store to 7,000 square feet, which would guarantee that there would be no big box retailer, than to limit the maximum acreage of the site. Booth stated that the Commission did not want large gas sta- tions in neighborhood commercial areas. .Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2002 Page 7 of 11 Marty asked why the original proposal for only a gas station and convenience store at Almar Village was changed. Lindquist responded that the Almar Village project was always planned to be larger than a gas station/convenience store. Marty expressed concern about a liquor store locating in Almar Village and asked if that was related to the public hearing this evening. Lindquist stated that the public hearing was to discuss the draft ordinance for future neighborhood commercial districts and that this ordinance would have no effect on the Almar Village project, which has already been approved. She explained that the liquor license is a separate process that goes through the City Council; the Planning Commission will not see the liquor license application for any liquor store that goes into Almar Village. Marty stated that because the applicant is LindquisYs secretary, Lindquist should step aside and allow the issue to be handled by someone else due to conflict of interest. Bailey reiterated that the Almar Village project has already been approved and the Planning Commission is discussing the proposed ordinance that would govern future neighborhood commercial districts. He stated that the liquor store at Almar Village is an allowed use, but under the proposed guide- lines for future developments, a liquor store would be a conditional use. Marty then stated that in the past she has requested that horse trails be implemented with the comprehensive plan and that her handout contains her formal request for horse trails. Marty noted that the memo notifying her of the meeting was dated November 13, 2002, and postmarked November 19, 2002, and asked about the delay. Lindquist responded that the letter was originally drafted on November 13, but was edited and mailed on November 19 and the date was erroneously not changed. Marty stated that notices should be sent out at least two weeks in advance. She then stated that other neighbors in the area did not receive notifi- cation of this meeting who had requested being notified of this meeting. Bailey stated that staff, through direction from the Planning Commission, sent notification to those near the al- ready approved proposals to receive input on the proposed ordinance. He reiterated that this proposed ordinance does not have any effect on any projects that have already been ap- proved, namely Almar Village and the Rygh project. Marty stated that Amy and Ken Kaiser, Pat and Paul Kotnour, and Judge Wozniak want to be included on the mailing list for anything that is proposed in the area. Gary Wilkinson, 6907 Homestead Avenue South, stated that he is pleased that the city put a moratorium on development of additional neighborhood commercial districts until an ordi- nance was developed for that usage. He stated that the proposed seven-acre size limitation is arbitrary, and that the Commission needs to look at the space allocation. He stated that these areas should not be designed to draw people from all over town, but should be used for the convenience of those in the immediate area. He stated that to keep a development for neighborhood convenience, the range of sizes should be set on the low end, possibly five acres, and then on an exception basis, after determining an individual neighborhood's needs, the size could be adjusted to seven acres. He stated that overall the work done by the Com- mission is positive and noted that he was pleased about the notification, particularly in the Bulletin about two weeks ago. Keith Homer, 7232 Jordon Avenue South, stated that he understands that while this new zoning amendment would not affect Almar Village, that project should be a guide for future neighborhood commercial developments. He stated that when Almar Village was proposed, .Planning Commission Minutes PFovember 25, 2002 Page 8 of 11 many of the residents in the area signed a petition raising concerns about the development and that they were told a liquor store would not go in there because of zoning requirements. He expressed his concern for locating a liquor store at Almar Village due to its proximity to two schools. He asked about the proposed requirement for a conditional use permit for liquor stores. Bailey stated that the conditional use permit process includes notification of neighboring property owners within 500 feet and a public hearing. Lindquist explained that the City Council holds the public hearing and makes decisions on liquor licenses. She stated that while the conditional use permit allows for notification, the city is required to grant that permit if the applicant meets the conditions of the conditional use. Deanna Harley Bennett, 7245 Jordon Avenue South, stated that she does not understand why the map in the notification highlights Almar Village if it won't be affected by the proposed ordinance. Lindquist responded that the comp plan guides a small neighborhood commercial area on the corner of 70th Street and County Road 19, kitty corner from Almar Village. Bennett asked what the proposed square footage of that commercial area was. Lindquist re- sponded that there is no proposal for that site; the intent is to have an ordinance for a neighborhood commercial zoning district ready before there are any proposed projects. Bennett asked if that area would be zoned PUD. Lindquist responded that it would have the for neighborhood commercial, which this proposed ordinance creates. Bennett stated that she has concerns about the wording limiting liquor stores to 5,000 square feet, which she feels is too large for a neighborhood convenience center. Lassen asked what size the two remaining commercial districts are. Lindquist responded that they are both under seven acres in size. Jim Chilcott, 6790 Ideal Avenue South, asked that the Commission look at the reducing the seven-acre minimum size, which he feels is too large for residential areas. He noted that Season's Market is four acres and fits very nicely into the neighborhood. Japs stated that one of the reasons for the public hearing is to receive input on the proposed ordinance. Chilcott asked if Japs felt seven acres was too large. Japs responded that after learning that Sea- son's Market is four acres, he would be willing to look at reducing the size. Lassen stated this ordinance would replace the PUD scenario for neighborhood commercial districts, and he would also be willing to look at reducing the size from seven acres. He then stated that he would not be in favor of allowing applicants to prove their need to increase the size from whatever is decided to be the maximum size. Mark Grossklaus, 7795 — 68th Street Court South, thanked the Planning Commission for un- dertaking this process. He asked how many acres Gateway Center is located on. Lindquist responded that the Gateway Center consists of 5.18 acres. Grossklaus then asked if the Commission looked at developments in other communities for comparison purposes. Lassen stated that the Commission looked at a number of different neighborhood commercial dis- tricts, focusing primarily on berming, landscaping, and excluding certain types of businesses. Booth stated that city staff had several examples of other commercial centers and their sizes, after which the Commission settled on seven acres for the maximum size. Paul Kotnour, 9770 Military Road, asked for clarification on why there is a neighborhood commercial area proposed for the area kitty corner across from Almar Village, which would make that corner a large commercial area. Lindquist responded that there may be a benefit to Planning Commission Minutes November25,2002 Page 9 of 11 having both corners commercial based on the intersections in the area. She explained that there was a lot of discussion on that issue during the comp plan update. She reported that the city is embarking on a planning process for the whole East Ravine area, and while staff told the consultant to generally look at the land uses in the approved comp plan, there could be discussion about locating the neighborhood commercial elsewhere. Kotnour stated that this issue should be looked at during the planning process, because he feels that neighbor- hood commercial districts should be separated by several miles. Amy Kaiser, 9880 Military Road, stated that she is concerned about kids congregating in commercial centers and does not believe that liquor stores should be allowed because they are too close to homes and kids. Chilcott stated that they would like the city to maintain some type of control over neighbor- hood commercial areas. Bailey stated that the city would have control over design standards, space constraints, size, types of businesses permitted, etc. No one e/se spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to approve the ordinance. Boofh seconded. Hudnut fhen moved to amend the ordinance from seven acres to four acres. Bailey stated that he would like to table the ordinance for further discussion based on the input received this evening. Lassen expressed his concern about the moratorium expiring. Lindquist stated that the Council would be voting on an extension to the moratorium at their meeting on December 4. She explained that those areas not approved for a project but designated neighborhood commercial would not be able to be developed at this time because they are outside of the MUSA. Japs stated that reduced size, not allowing a liquor store, and re-location of one of the neighborhood centers should be considered. Booth stated that he was interested in a workshop to discuss the comments received from citizens. Lindquist stated that the agenda for the December meeting is pretty full, but she would schedule a workshop for the January 27, 2003, meeting and another public hearing at the February 24, 2003, meeting. The Commission agreed with this schedule. Lassen stated that he concurred that the three points raised by Japs should be discussed further. He also stated that maybe notification of public hearings should be increased to in- clude more than those within 500 feet of any proposal. Bailey made a motion to tab/e the application. Japs seconded. Motion passed unani- mously. Hansen asked for a copy of the ordinance. Lindquist stated that it would be available on the city's web site. Planning Commission Minutes fdovember 25, 2002 Page 10 of 11 Applications and Requests 7.1 Bus Benches in Public Right-of-Way Ordinance McCool summarized the staff memo. He stated that the unresolved issues include allowing advertising on bus benches and aesthetic issues. Booth asked if all the benches on the list have advertising. McCool stated they probably do. Bailey asked if the issue would come back to the Planning Commission. McCool noted that at last month's meeting, the Commission seemed in agreement with the ordinance except for allowing advertising. He asked the Commission for their recommendations on whether to al- low advertising on bus benches and if design standards for the benches should be incorpo- rated in the ordinance. Lassen asked if all the benches on the map are bus benches. McCool responded that those were the locations of existing benches in the community. Lindquist stated that both bus stop locations and bench locations are noted on the map. Japs asked if there have been any comments from the company who currently maintains the benches. Lindquist answered no. Japs stated that in some respects having another entity re- sponsible for maintaining bus benches is good because it can be held accountable. Bailey asked if the city is currently collecting fees for bus bench advertising. Lindquist re- sponded no. Booth stated that he would support not allowing advertising on bus benches. After further dis- cussion, the consensus of the Planning Commission was to not allow advertising on bus benches. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 2002 Hudnut made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 2002. Booth seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Reports 9.1 Recap of November City Council Meetings Lindquist reported that at their November 20, 2002, meeting, the City Council approved the Capital Improvement Program comp plan amendment and the site plan for the sanitary sewer interceptor. At their workshop, the Council directed staff to enter into a contract with Hoising- ton Koegler for the East Ravine planning process. 9.2 Committee Reports 1►GTiT� ,Planning Commission Minutes Navember 25, 2002 Page 11 of 11 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Lassen asked for an update on installation of the fence at Almar Village. Lindquist responded that staff has talked to the builder about its installation as well as other issues associated with the commercial and residential components of the project. She indicated that the City will be holding up on certificates of occupancy for the townhouse units until some of those issues get addressed. Booth asked when the gas station would be coming into that project, or have the plans changed. Lindquist indicated that it is her understanding that there is another user interested in the gas station and that something must have fell through on the previous deal. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Lindquist stated that included as part of the Planning packet was a letter the city sent to Ted Mondale at the Met Council regarding their Blueprint 2030. She explained that originally the Met Council was planning to approve the Blueprint in December, but now they may recom- mend future approval. Adjournment Hudnut moved to adjourn the meeting. Booth seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m.