Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-28 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission July 28, 2003 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 28th day of July, 2003, 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, Tim Booth, Ken Brittain, Rod Hale, Robert Hudnut, David Lassen, Chris Reese, Bob Severson Members Absent: Chris Willhite Staff Present: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Hale made a motion to approve the agenda. Hudnut seconded. Motion carried unani- mously. 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 CUP03-026 The Cottage Grove VFW Post 8752, 9260 East Point Douglas Road South, has applied for a conditional use permit to allow expansion of the nonprofit lodge use on the property by adding space for serving liquor and food. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 2 of 15 Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Hudnut noted that condition #3 does not provide any guidance regarding landscaping. Lindquist responded that the property is far from meeting the ordinance criteria, and the pro- posed improvements would only start to bring the property into compliance. She stated that the city is looking at size and species to landscape around the building rather than the quan- tity the ordinance requires. Hale asked about condition #5, as this area will be sewered in the near future, and he does not want to see them have to make expensive improvements to their septic system if they have to connect to city sewer and water. Lindquist responded that it is her understanding that their system was upgraded with the last building addition and there should be enough capacity for the seasonal use, but staff is looking for an analysis of the system to ensure that. The applicant agreed with the conditions for approval. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing. Hudnut made a motion to approve the application subject to fhe conditions listed be- low. Brittain seconded. Severson asked if Hale was okay with the way condition #5 is written. Hale stated that he is. 1. The applicant apply for and receive approval of a building permif for the patio and fence installation. The fence shall be a decorative, aesthetically-pleasing privacy fence, generally consistent with the plan submittal and cannot be constructed of chain link or similar material. 2. The applicant receive approval of an amended liquor license prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. A landscape plan detailing species, size, and location shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit Landscaping shall be added in the east as depicted by the submitted site plan and around the build- ing, particularly in the front. Trees and shrubs should be added. 4. Use of the building shall be limited to functions of the VFW and other private groups for parties, wedding receptions, and other similar occasions. The building shall not be used for a restaurant or nightclub open to the general public. 5. The on-site sewage disposal system shall be upgraded if necessary to meet all code requirements. Any alterations or addifions to the system shall be made in such a manner as to easily facilitate fhe connection of the building sewer to the public system when it is extended fo the site. 6. The applicant post the eastern drive aisle for no parking and include a four-foot wide sidewalk along the eastern drive, adjoining the patio. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 3 of 15 7. The applicant remove one of the two freestanding signs, eifher the brown wooden sign or the readerboard. Should the applicant choose to maintain the readerboard, the sign must be permanently installed consistent with building code requirements and city aesthetic regulations by October 1, 2003. Motion passed unanimously. 6.2 CASES CP03-027 and ZA 03-028 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to amend the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) boundary and to amend the future land use map by changing the land use designation for certain properties from rural residential to low density residential and for certain properties from low density residential to rural residential; and a zoning amendment to rezone Lots 4 through 7, Block 3, Homestead at Highland Hills from R-2, Residential Estate, to R-2.5, Residential, and to rezone Lots 24 through 29, Block 3 and Outlot F, Homestead at Highland Hills, from R-2.5 to R-2. The purpose of these applications is to clarify the boundary line between land uses and zon- ing districts on the City's Comprehensive Plan and official zoning map. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Hale asked if this was consistent with preliminary plat approval. McCool stated that it is and that the final plat for Homestead at Highland Hills has been approved and is now under con- struction. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey c/osed fhe public hearing. Severson made a motion to approve applications. Hale seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASES CP03-029, ZA03-030, and PP03-031 Pulte Homes of Minnesota has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to allow ex- tension of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) boundary; a zoning amendment to change the zoning from AG-2, Agriculture, and R-2, Residential Estate, to R-2.5, Resi- dential; and a preliminary plat from Timber Ridge 6th Addition, which consists of 46 lots for unattached single-family homes, including 4 existing residences. This proposed sub- division is located south of 65th Street and north of Timber Ridge 4th Addition. Hudnut stated that because his property is one of the subject properties, he would not be participating in the discussion or voting on this agenda item. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 4 of 15 Hale stated that there are three issues to be decided: MUSA expansion, rezoning, and pre- liminary plat approval. Lindquist responded that was correct but there is also a comp plan amendment to change the land use from rural residential to low density residentiai. She clarified that if the Commission feels they cannot support the project, the comp plan amend- ments should be denied, which would then mean that the other applications are also denied. Hale then asked is staff is suggesting that Outlot A be a residential lot. Lindquist responded yes. Hale asked what Lot 6 would be zoned. Lindquist answered that the entire property will be rezoned to R-2.5 and explained that Lot 6 was an oversized urban lot that could be de- veloped in the future. Severson asked if other lots could also be further developed. Lindquist stated that the other one is Lot 1, Block 4. Hale then asked how many parcels were being subdivided to create the 47 lots. Lindquist responded that six existing lots were part of this proposal. Hale asked if any the existing parcels would be non-conforming to maintain their well and septic. Lindquist responded that that it is staff's expectation that two out of the four would be required to hook up to urban services. Hale asked if those property owners know that. Lindquist responded yes, and it appears Lots 1 and 6 can maintain their septic systems although it isn't con- firmed. Hale stated that he is uncomfortable with the size of Lot 6 as it is in the middle of the plat. Lindquist responded that is the Tinucci parcel and a portion of it was platted with the Timber Ridge 4th Addition. She stated that it is her understanding that Mr. Tinucci is going to remain in his current residence and wants to maintain the larger parcel at this time. Hale then asked if all these parcels are covered by the homeowners association. Lindquist stated that staff is recommending that. Brittain asked if Lot 6 were developed at a future date, would they be able to hook up to city services. Lindquist responded that those provisions would be made because it is staff's ex- pectation that all these lots would eventually be urbanized. Brittain then asked if the entrance road on 65th Street would be called Hadley Avenue, because it would make sense to con- tinue the street name if it becomes a four-way intersection. McCool stated that the Public Safety and Public Works Commissions are also involved in street naming. He explained that when naming streets in a subdivision, there is a general street theme for that neighborhood, and Hadley may not fit into that scheme for the Timber Ridge 6th Addition. He stated that staff's preference is for four-way intersections to have only two street names. Lindquist stated that that there may be some interest in not having it named Hadley so that the name conveys that it is not a through connection. Severson asked if there were other lots that could accommodate future development. Lindquist responded that Lot 1 could. Severson asked if Lot 26, Block 2 could. Lindquist re- sponded that it is an oversized lot but the topography would make further development diffi- cult. She stated that the only lots that were intended for further development would be Lots 6 and 1. Hale asked if those lots are assessed on an acreage basis or lot basis. Lindquist replied that the area charges are based on acreage. Severson asked if Hadley Avenue and 65th Street would meet at a four-way intersection. Lindquist stated that was the intention. Severson asked what would happen if the realign- ment of Hadley Avenue did not occur. Lindquist replied that the plat would have to be re- Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 5 of 15 vised. She stated that staff has met with the property owner to the north, who owns the property on both sides of Hadley, and he seemed open to discussion about the modification. Hale asked how realigning Hadley Avenue would affect the Highland Hills development. Lindquist stated that there would be no impact on Highland Hills plat because the land on the west side of Hadley is not part of that development. Booth asked if the plat was contingent on the road realignment. Lindquist stated that a con- dition should be added that the plat as proposed is contingent on the Hadley modification or the plat must be modified to have a four-way intersection. Hale asked how the city could make the developer do that if they don't have control over the property. Lindquist responded that the city only wants the plat in this configuration if Hadley gets straightened, otherwise they need to modify their plat to have a four-way intersection at 65th Street and Hadley Ave- nue. The Commission concurred. Booth asked what is the maximum density that could go in an R-2.5 zoning district. Lindquist responded that there is no maximum density listed as a condition of the R-2.5 zoning district, but the zoning ordinance criteria lists minimum lot size, depth, etc. She explained that the density in this development is so low due to the topography. Booth then asked if the plat could be changed, which could bring it to a higher density. He stated that he does not have any problems with the layout as is and rezoning to R-2.5 with this density, but he is con- cerned that the plat could be changed that could result in higher densities. Booth stated that the plat and the rezoning are not linked, so the plat could be changed, and the only way to avoid that is to rezone to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Severson stated that he has a similar concern about the plat changing. Booth asked what it would take to rezone to a PUD. Lindquist stated that the Commission would need to hold a public hearing next month, because that was not part of the notification. Lassen asked if the Commission could table the applications and send them to the Council for discussion prior to Planning Commission action. Lindquist suggested that the Commission could approve the comprehensive plan amendment, but table the rezoning for Council direction or express to the Council the preference to rezone as a PUD. Booth agreed with that. Hale stated that the R-2.5 zoning district was originated by the West Draw Task Force for use in the West Draw. He stated that his only concern with the proposal is that a couple of lots could be further subdivided; however, they would have to meet the R-2.5 regulations. He stated that the zoning being requested is consistent with the intent of the West Draw Task Force Report. Lindquist stated that the property in question was designated rural residential in the task force recommendation. She explained that the Task Force came up with that new zoning category, which was supposed to apply to the West Draw. Bailey stated that he does not foresee the plat changing, and he agrees with Hale's com- ments. Lindquist stated that it is staff's assumption that the Tinucci parcel could have three additional lots. Eric Pederson, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, stated that the Timber Ridge 6th Addition would have a lot of the same types of amenities as the other Timber Ridge subdivisions, but it would be a more upscale community. He stated that the lots are larger, and they anticipate Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 6 of 15 that home prices would average between $500,000 to $600,000. He displayed a photo showing where the trees are being preserved, the protected stream, and the location of the path. He then reported that they held a neighborhood meeting on July 22, which was at- tended by 16 property owners. Most of the concerns of the neighbors had to do with traffic. He stated that they worked with staff to address traffic concerns and the Hadley Avenue and 65th Street intersection. Hale asked about their response to the staff requirement that Outlot A be a residential lot. Pederson stated that they would work with staff on that. Hale then asked if Hadley cannot be aligned from the north, what provision would they make to align it from the south. Pederson stated that they would work with staff but their preference would be for Hadley to be straight- ened out. Severson asked what percentage of trees would be preserved Outlot B was excluded from the tree calculations. Pederson stated that he does not know what those percentages would be. He stated that they attempted to locate most of the lots in the open areas to minimize tree removal. Severson stated he is concerned that Lots 6 and 11 could be further developed in the future, which would result in more tree loss. Lindquist referenced Exhibit J, the tree in- ventory, which shows that the western parcel is almost totally devoid of trees and the eastern portion of the project is generally outside of the development. Severson stated that what it really says is that the area with most of the trees has the potential for further development. Hale stated that while the proposed development meets the tree preservation criteria as pro- posed, if the other lots were to develop, that could significantly impact the tree preservation. Lindquist responded that if Lot 6 develops, they would be held to the tree removal require- ments in the tree preservation ordinance, and she believes that as a two-phase develop- ment, 20 percent removal allowed, but not the 40 percent removal rate. Bailey opened the public hearing. Jim Zins, 7199 — 65th Street South, stated that he has donated a portion of his property to the City, so it would not be developed. He stated that there is a protected watenvay, which cannot be built on within 75 feet, and that the topography is such that it would not allow for home construction. No one else spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing, Hale made a motion to approve fhe comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use from rural residential to low density residenfial. Severson seconded. Motion passed on a 7-to-0 vote. (Hudnuf not voting). Brittain made a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment to expand the MUSA boundary. Hale seconded. Motion passed on a 7-to-0 vote (Hudnut not voting). Hale made a motion to approve the zoning amendment to change the zoning from AG- 2, Agricultural and R-2, Residential Estate, to R-2.5, ResidentiaL Brittain seconded. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 7 of 15 Booth stated that he is concerned about rezoning to R-2.5 because of the ability to change the plat and allow more development. Lassen stated that the intent of the West Draw Task Force was to have the area zoned R-2.5, which would not allow any type of multi-family housing. He stated that he is less concerned about the difference between R-2 and R-2.5. Booth stated that the reason he brought it up is because there was a difference with what the West Draw Task Force Report had guided for the area, which had some land zoned R-2 and some zoned R-2.5. Lassen asked about the difference between R-2 and R-2.5. Lindquist stated that it is a rural/urban issue. She explained that the residents in area at that time wanted the area left rural, but have now requested that it be modified, She explained that the West Draw Task Force came up with the R-2.5 for urban low density residential develop- ment. Booth stated that he does not have a problem with this layout, but he is concerned about the density increasing for an area that was designated as rural residential. Lindquist stated that this area had been designated rural, but the Commission has already modified that by approving the comp plan amendment. Booth reiterated his concern that the plat could change. Bailey stated that could happen with any plat. Lindquist explained that there could be a myriad of different layouts, but as long as they meet the R-2.5 ordinance criteria, it would be difficult to deny the plat. Lassen stated that with the comp plan approval from the Commission, the land is no longer rural and the R-2.5 zoning is fine with him. He stated that if it is a different layout, he would still be confident with the R-2.5 zoning that the density would be relatively similar, because the plat would have meet the R-2.5 ordinance criteria and tree preservation ordinance crite- ria. Booth asked if the density in the R-2.5 could go up to three units per acre. Lindquist stated that would be the density for a relatively flat parcel of land. Booth reiterated his con- cern that the plat could change and the density could increase with the R-2.5 zoning, espe- cially with the subdivision of those larger lots. Lassen stated that he would like to see single- family homes in the area and the R-2.5 zoning would accomplish that. Booth stated that it becomes a density issue. Bailey asked if Tinucci would have to apply to the Planning Commission if he decides to subdivide. Lindquist stated yes. Bailey stated that the city would have some control with the tree preservation and other issues on some of these outlots if those homeowners decide to further develop their properties. He then stated that he understands Severson's concerns about the tree issue but as he looks at the tree diagram, the Tinucci property is not as dense as the area on the other side that won't be able to be developed. Motion passed on a 7-to-0 vote (Hudnuf not voting), Brittain made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed below, Reese seconded. Severson stated that he wanted to add a condition regarding the realignment of Hadley Avenue. Lindquist stated that the lot lines on Lots 11 and 26 may be able to be moved slightly to avoid requiring variances. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 8 of 15 Bailey clarified that a condition would be added regarding straightening Hadley Avenue and asked Brittain and Reese if they would be okay with adding that as a condition to their mo- tion. They both agreed. Severson stated that there had been some discussion about making a comment to the Council about rezoning to PUD. He asked if it was approved as a PUD, would the property owners of the larger lots still be able to subdivide and develop their properties. Lindquist re- sponded that the property owners could come in for a PUD amendment. 1. The developer shall petition fhe city for public improvements, and enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Cottage Grove for the insfallation of and payment for all public improvements in the subdivision and adjacent public roadways, pursuanf to Title 10 of the City Code. 2. The applicant receive appropriate building permits from the City, and permits or approvals from other regulatory agencies including, but not limifed to the South Washington Watershed District, DNR, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 3. The revised grading and utility plan must be submitted to City staff and Minne- sota DNR for review and approval prior to the submission of the final plat plan applications to the City. All emergency overflow swales must be identified on the grading and erosion control plan. Drainage calculations must be submitted prior to City Council review of the preliminary plat. 4. The applicanf submit a final construction management plan that includes ero- sion control measures, project phasing for grading work, areas designated for preservation, a crushed-rock construction entrance, and construction-related vehicle parking for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 5, A pre-construction meeting with City staff and the contractor shall be held be- fore site work begins. The contracfor shall provide the City with a project schedule for the various phases of construction. 6, Erosion control devices shall be installed prior to commencement of any grad- ing activity. Erosion control shall be performed in accordance with the recom- mended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 10-5-8, Ero- sion Contro/ During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 7. The developer shall pay for required public improvements, all trailway improve- ment costs, roadway collector improvement fee, stop signs, area charges, park dedication fees, and fhe required outdoor neighborhood recreational facility in- stallation costs. 8. The 7.74-acre ouflot shall be conveyed to the City of Cotfage Grove. No credit will be granted to the developer for calculated area charges or park fees. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 9 of 15 9. The developer shall install sidewalks six feet in width along all public streets as identified in fhe staff report, and eight-foot bituminous pafhways as determined on the final grading plan. Damage to sidewalks during fhe home construction process shall be the responsibility of fhe developer, The applicant will pay 50 percent of the cost for development of nature trails through the project includ- ing on publicly dedicated land. 10. The applicant hire a city-approved arborist to assisf with all facets of tree pres- ervation on the site. The arborist will supervise installation and maintenance of tree preservation fencing and the tree and brush removal process. Mitigative measures to aid in preservation of trees slated to remain will occur based upon the recommendations of the arborist. Should trees designated for preservation be removed, the applicant will replace the trees in accordance with the ordi- nance criteria. Trees designated for preservation which are found to be harmed, diseased, or dying, or are not suited for location into the project may be re- moved based upon the recommendation of the arborist in agreement with the City and the applicant Trees removed will be replaced as required by ordi- nance. The developer shall install snow fencing or similar fencing material around all trees or groups of trees that are to be preserved prior to any grading activity on the site. 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit prior to the removal of any of the existing buildings on the site. 12. The applicant shall submit appropriate engineering information for retaining walls. Any fencing on refaining walls must be decorative and subject to staff re- view and approval. 13. The subdivision plat should be modified to convert Outlot A into a platted lot and Lot 1, Block 2 should be removed from the plat. 14. A stop sign shall be installed at the intersection of 65th street, and any other lo- cations deemed appropriate by the city engineer based on the sign installation requirements adopted by the city. 15. Final street names meeting the approval of fhe city's planning staff shall be identified on the final plat. Street names shall be limifed to 10-characters (in- cluding spaces) in length and named according to the City's Street Naming Sys- tem or as accepted by the City's Public Safety Departmenf and City Council. 16. All monument signs shall comply with fhe City's Sign Ordinance and shall only be placed on private property. The Homeowners Association shall be responsi- ble for the maintenance of all signs. 17. The applicanf submit private covenants which details the following: Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 10 of 15 • The homeowners association is responsible for all ownership and mainte- nance of landscaping improvements, fencing, and outlots as depicted on the final plat. . Monument signs shall be maintained by fhe homeowners association. . Any fencing provided on fhe site shall be constructed of materials that are uniform in design and co/o% • All signs, mailboxes, and accessory lighting shall be uniform in materials and design and be approved as part of the landscape plan. 18. Prior to the re/ease of the final plat for recording with Washington County, the developer shall pay to the City a total of $94,000.00 for park fees in lieu of land dedication. 19. The developer is hereby given notice that they will be required to pay $111,097.41 for the collector roadway improvemenf fee to be utilized for pro- posed roadway improvements to Hadley Avenue and 65th Street South. 20. The developer shall advise homebuyers that they are responsible to maintain the boulevard area that abut their property all the way to the curb of the street. This includes the boulevard along 65th Street. 21. All existing wells and/or sanitary treatment systems that are to be abandoned shall be sealed, capped, or removed (whichever is most appropriate) in accor- dance to County and State requirements. A cerfification proving that this work was done shall be given to the City. 22. Street names shall be limited to 10-characters (including spaces) in length and named according to the City's Street Naming System or as accepted by the City's Public Safety Department and City Council. 23. No parking on 65th Street. Secondary access fo any lot abutting 65th Street is prohibited. 24. The triangular shaped parcel of land abutting the western boundary line of Lot 20, Block 3, Timber Ridge 4th shall be platted as an outlot to be dedicated to the adjacent lot of record. 25. The plat intersecfion with 65th Street must align with Hadley Avenue. If Hadley Avenue is not realigned the plat must be modified to create a 4-way inter- section. Motion passed on a 7-to-0 vofe (Hudnut not voting). 6.4 CASE CUP03-032 Diaz Auto has applied for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor display of passenger automobiles for sale at Diaz Auto, 9471 Islay Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 11 of 15 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. McCool noted that condition #8 should be changed to require one handicap parking space. Severson asked if the current owner sold the property, would the new owner be required to bring the property into compliance. McCool responded that if the new owner made modifica- tions to the operation or business, they would need to apply for an amendment to the condi- tional use permit, and at that time, the city would take another progressive effort to bring the property into compliance with city code requirements. Hudnut asked for clarification on the landscaping requirements. He stated that paragraph 3 notes that 23 trees are required for compliance but the recommendation is only for a mini- mum of 11 trees. McCool stated that for non-conforming properties, staff has been requiring only the planning of 50 percent of the required trees, so for this property, there are eight ex- isting trees on the commercial portion of the parcel, which were subtracted from the mini- mum number required by city ordinance and 50 percent of that number is what staff is re- quiring. He stated that if there was another application for this property, the city would again ask that 50 percent of additional compliance be required. Rick Diaz, Diaz Auto, stated that he concurred with the conditions of approval. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing. Severson made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below with the change fo condition #8 to require only one handicap parking space. Lassen seconded. 1. All vehicles displayed or parked outside shall be in good running condition. Wrecked or inoperable vehicles shall not be stored on the site, unless they are inside the building or the outdoor storage area that is fenced on the south side of the building. 2. Windows, roof, hood, etc, of vehicles shall not be used for displaying advertis- ing media. This shall not be construed to prohibit information/warranty/price list on a window of the vehicle. Pinwheels, pennants, streamers, and other atten- tion-attracting devices are prohibited. Antenna pennants would be allowed. 3. Parking on West Point Douglas Road and Islay Avenue is prohibited. 4. Exterior lighting for security purposes shall deflect light away from adjoining residential properties and the public street. 5. The applicant shall prepare a landscape plan and submit it to fhe Planning Divi- sion prior to final resolution by the Cify Council. The landscaping plan should provide a minimum of 11 oversfory trees and/or ornamental trees and 27 shrubs. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 12 of 15 6. Installation of landscaping shall occur in a timely fashion and be consistent with an approved plan. A letfer of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the landscape estimate shall be submitted to the city as required by City Ordi- nances (Title 11-6-6-F). 7. A"STOP" sign shall be installed at the exit drive onto Islay Avenue. The sign shall be 10 feet from the roadway edge for Islay Avenue and 2 feet from the driveway edge. The bottom of the sign shall be six feet from the ground. The "STOP" sign shall be a 30-inch sized sign having a high intensity face. Said sign shall be mounted on a 6 foof No. 3 and 8 foot No. 2 steel post. The appli- cant may request the City's Public Works Department to install said "STOP" signs, but must reimburse for actual costs incurred by the City. 8. A minimum of nine handicap accessible parking spaces (one of which shall be van accessib/e) must be provided with proper signage. 9. /f a trash dumpster is provided on site as a permanent means to dispose of waste materials, said dumpster shall be stored in an enclosure pursuant to Title 11-6-3, Solid Waste Storage, of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 10. No vehicle may be displayed on an elevation higher than three feet off the ground. lf an elevated display (ramp) is provided, landscaping shall be piovided on the front and two sides of the display/ramp. 11. No vehicle shall be parked on nor cross-over the individual sanitary treatment system. 12. The City rescinds Resolution No. 73-102 and 75-21 as adopted on August 15, 1973 and February 5, 1975, respectively. Motion passed unanimously. 6.5 CASE TA03-034 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to amend Title 11-6-6, Tree Preservation, of the City Code. Lindquist summarized the staff report. She stated that received an e-mail from the city attor- ney, who made a recommendation for a language change for 11-6-6C(5), to say "after title to the common areas has been transferred to the homeowners association" instead of "after ownership." Lindquist recommended approval of the zoning text amendment. Lindquist stated that the top of page 6 is in italics, but it should be an underlined as it is an addition. Bailey clarified all of #3 should be underlined. Lassen asked if the second line of the first sentence on page 7 under warranty requirements, which says "any replacement tree which is not alive or healthy as determined by the city or which subsequently dies due to construction activity" could be deleted. Lindquist stated that Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 13 of 15 the intent is that the developer would not be responsible to replace trees in the construction area that were hit by lightning or other natural disaster. Lassen suggested using the phrase "act of God." Hudnut asked if the arborist would be chosen by the city or approved by the city. Severson stated that he thought the city would provide a list of approved arborists for applicant to choose from. He stated that he also does not like the wording "chosen by the City" and sug- gested that a list of arborists that meet the city's criteria be established, but he does not want the city to choose an arborist. Lindquist stated that the city does choose consultants, such as traffic engineers. Lassen asked if the city is working with one or two arborists in particular. Lindquist responded yes and noted that the one is working on Timber Ridge 4th, who was hired by Pulte and accepted by the city. Hudnut recommended changing the language to "approved" rather than "chosen." Booth stated that there is no criteria in the ordinance defin- ing what constitutes a certified arborist. Hale stated that arborists are certified. Hudnut stated that on page 4, #4.6, the language should then be changed from "city-appointed arborisY' to "city-approved arborist." Bailey opened fhe public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing, Hudnut made a motion to approve the application with changes. Booth seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6.6 CASE TA03-035 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to amend Title 11-6- 3B, Solid Waste Storage: Specifications for Enclosure Structures, of the City Code. Lindquist summarized the staff report. She stated that the city attorney e-mailed her informa- tion earlier in the day regarding requiring existing properties to comply with the trash enclo- sure requirement. The attorney said that is true as a general statement. In application to a specific property, however, it may not be possible to require an upgrade; for example, if a property could not accommodate required parking if a trash enclosure was constructed, the city would not be able to force the property into nonconformance with another type of zoning requirement. But if appropriate variances were granted or if no variances are needed in order to comply, then the city can require the owners to construct a trash enclosure. She stated that this ordinance does not require the trash enclosures, but modifies the performance standards for the construction of trash enclosures for both new construction and retrofitting for existing properties. Lindquist recommended approval of this zoning text amendment. Bailey opened the public hearing, No one spoke. Bailey c/osed the public hearing. Hale made a motion to approve the application. Hudnut seconded. Motion passed unanimously, Planning Commission Minutes Jul�r 28, 2003 Page 14 of 15 Applications and Requests None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2003 Severson made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2003, Planning Com- mission meeting. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Reports 9.1 Recap of July 16, 2003 City Council Meeting Lindquist reported that at the July 16, 2003, City Council meeting, the Council approved the amendment to the conditional use permit for Hanson's Auto Care; modified Title 4 of the City Code regarding commercial trash enclosures; approved an agreement with Kohls regarding tree mitigation, received the letter to St. Paul Park regarding the Rivers Edge project for re- view; and approved the final plat for Pine Summit 6th Addition, which would complete the Pine Summit build out. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Severson asked about the construction project by the Golf Dome. Lindquist stated that is the park and ride lot. Severson again stated his concerns about how the percentage of tree preservation was ar- rived at for the Timber Ridge 6th Addition by allowing the developer to include a parcel of land that is not developable in their calculations. Lindquist stated that there is a legally plat- ted lot on the southern portion of Outlot B. Booth agreed with Severson's comments. Hale stated that those wooded areas become an amenity to the overall project. Bailey stated that it is his thought that those would be premium lots due to the open space behind them. He stated that he understands Severson's comments, but pointed out that the developer does have to purchase that property and, in essence, give it to the city as open space that won't be developed. Severson responded that the city would now be responsible for long-term maintenance of those areas that are given to the city. Brittain stated that the trees in those areas that are not developable are naturally protected from being cut down. He stated that homeowners of treed lots could cut down some of the trees on their lots if they want. He stated that he was more concerned about tree preservation on Lots 6 and 11 as they could be further developed in the future. Bailey asked if the other five or six remaining rural residential properties on the south side of 65th Street were slated for future development. McCool stated that there has been one in- quiry about city services for one of the lots. Brittain asked if those lots were developabie due Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 15 of 15 to topography. Lindquist stated that there could be a few buildable lots on some of those properties. Booth asked about the Rivers Edge AUAR and expressed concern about potential traffic is- sues on Hadley Avenue based on the traffic study. Lindquist stated that the traffic study was done for the Mississippi Dunes Estates project and the property to the north, not for the Riv- ers Edge project. Booth suggested closing Hadley Avenue at Pine Hill Elementary School, except to emergency vehicles and school buses, to force traffic down 95th Street to Jamaica. He stated that he does not see any other solution. Bailey stated that the Swanlund property north of Mississippi Dunes Estates would eventually develop so there could be connection roads with Mississippi Dunes Estates. He stated that he does not believe that many people would use Hadley to access Highway 61 because it is a slower route through a residential area, whereas 95th Street would be quicker. Booth stated that while he would agree, there could still be excessive traffic on Hadley and a solution would be to close Hadley if it became a problem. Bailey asked about the next phase for the Rivers Edge AUAR. Lindquist re- sponded that St. Paul Park is required to address all the concerns that they received, which would be part of the final AUAR. Hale reported that there will be a meeting on August 4 at 7:00 p.m. at St. Paul Park City Hall to discuss the project. Lindquist asked what would be discussed. Hale stated that the developers would be there to display maps and layouts; there will not be a formal presentation, but they will take questions. Severson asked what the timetable for the project would be. Lindquist responded that they initially thought they would be done by the fall and starting construction next year. Booth asked if that included the ex- tension of 95th Street. Lindquist responded that the 95th Street extension would be done after Phase 6, which is about five years out. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Lindquist reported that there will be an open house for the East Ravine Planning Project on August 7, 2003, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. She stated that a short presentation would be given at 6:00 and 7:00. Attendees are invited to make comments. Adjournment Hudnut made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Booth seconded. Motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.