Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-03 MINUTESREQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM #L • DATE 3/3/04 J. // PREPARED BY: Community Development Howard Blin ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR ,,.,...,���....�..,...�.......�,,.,�..,<..�.....�. COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on January 26, 2004. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on January 26, 2004. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A $N/A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE � PLANNING 2/23/04 ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO/LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Approved minutes of Planning ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS , � ity Administrator REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Commission meeting on January 26, 2004 a� a Date .....�........��........,.......�.��,.,.����,,.� COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: [�APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held at City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 26th day of Janu- ary 2004 in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. 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, Chris Reese, Bob Severson, and Chris Wilihite Members Absent: David Lassen (unexcused) Staff Present: 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 SPO4-002 Cooperative Services Group, LLC has applied for a site plan review of a proposed coop- erative housing community, Summerhill of Cottage Grove, consisting of 56 owner-occu- pied units for active seniors 55 years and over to be located on the northwest corner of 70th Street and Hinton Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 2 of 14 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Booth asked if the proposed 99 parking spaces, 67 in the underground garage and 32 in the drive area, meet the city's code requirements. McCool responded that it does, noting the minimum parking requirements for this type of development is 1.5 parking spaces per unit and their proposal is 1.7 spaces per unit. Booth asked what the city's opinion was on private roads versus public roads. McCool responded that the city has accepted private roadways in the community. He stated that the Public Works Department has concerns about the private road because they receive complaints from the public about roadways that are not main- tained or plowed. Severson asked if there is a difference in the construction of a public road and a private road. McCool responded that the city would require the road to be constructed to city stan- dards, except for the width. He explained that the PUD approval was for a 30-foot wide road and the applicant is proposing 28 feet. Hudnut asked if the proposed retail area would meet the needs of the senior citizen residents and if they are the primary market for that retail space. McCool responded that the area has been identified for neighborhood commercial and will provide services to the other residential neighborhoods surrounding the development as well as the senior housing. Severson asked if the reason that the road is proposed to be private is because of the width issue. McCool responded that was correct. Hale asked about the trail. McCool responded that the applicant has proposed an eight-foot wide bituminous trail on the north and west sides of the private road and the city would re- quire a trail or sidewalk along the east and south sides when the commercial site develops. Hale asked if both would be eight feet wide. McCool responded that the city requires a six- foot concrete walkway as part of the commercial development, but the two walkways should be of consistent width and type. Hale asked why the walkways would be bituminous. McCool responded that the approval in 2002 included the eight-foot wide bituminous trail but staff believes that a six-foot wide concrete sidewalk would suffice. Hale stated that he is con- cerned about the road being private because other private commercial roads in the city have not been maintained well. Severson asked if parking would not be allowed on either side of the street due to the width. McCool responded that was correct. Severson asked if the road was built to the city standard of 34 feet, would parking on the street be allowed. McCool responded it would allowed on both sides of the street. Severson asked how many feet parked vehicles would remove from the street width. McCool responded about 16 feet total. Severson stated that he is concerned about the road width and wanted to prohibit street parking regardless of the width. Bailey noted that the city approved the PUD with a 30-foot wide road with no parking on either side of the street and asked if there sufficient space for turn lanes in a roadway that is 28 feet wide and with no parking on either side. McCool responded there would not be enough room for turn lanes within a 28-foot roadway width. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 3 of 14 Severson expressed concerns that the 99 on-premise parking spaces would not be su�- cient, especially if the residents had guests. McCool stated that there are 69 spaces in the underground parking garage for the residents and 32 spaces outside. Willhite also ex- pressed concern about the number exterior parking spaces, particularly for guests. McCool responded that the city ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit, so the proposal ex- ceeds the minimum number of parking spaces required. Doug Stevens, Cooperative Services Group, stated that the 67 parking stalls in the lower level should be adequate for the residents of the cooperative, and the outdoor parking spaces would be more than adequate for visitors, based on his past experience with these types of developments. He stated that parking would not be a problem for the residents, which is one of the reasons they are requesting the 28-foot roadway width so parking would not be allowed on the street for the safety of the senior citizens residents who may have to cross it. He asked for consideration of the 28-foot wide roadway. Randy Hedlund, consulting engineer, stated that the 28 feet is the standard width for streets in Eden Prairie, and over the last 10 years there has been a trend to go with less pavement and more green space and landscaping. Brittain asked why they wanted the road to be a pri- vate drive. Stevens stated that the project was already approved for a private road. He reit- erated that the road would be built to commercial standards. Brittain asked if they would prefer the eight-foot bituminous trail or the six-foot concrete sidewalk. Stevens stated that prior approval of the project had the eight-foot bituminous sidewalk, but they would prefer a six-foot wide concrete sidewalk. Severson asked who would pay to maintain the private road. Stevens replied that the PUD requires that there be an agreement acceptable to the city for the maintenance and repair of the private road, which would be part of the final plat approval process. Severson asked if that means there would be a cost-share between the senior housing and the commercial areas. Stevens responded that was correct. Severson then asked about the cost elements to reside in the senior housing complex, and if it includes the purchase price of the unit, association fees, and monthly maintenance costs. Dina Meyer, Marketing Coordinator for Cooperative Services Group, explained how the financing works and the various fees that are paid by the residents. Booth stated that the units are supposed to be for those 55 years of age or older, but he thought the law would prohibit housing projects like this from disallowing individuals that are younger than 55 years of age from occupying these types of projects. Stevens stated that federal and state laws do allow senior only communities of which the minimum age is 55 years. Hale asked if the amenities provided for this project are comparable to their other projects. Stevens replied that the amenities in their cooperative projects are all similar. Meyer ex- plained that all of their Summerhill projects consist of the same common room amenities. She stated that after the residents move in, Summerhill holds focus group meetings to see if there is anything they can improve on for their next project. Hale asked for details on the elevators. Meyer explained that there is one elevator centrally-located in the building and it provides access from the lower level garage to the third floor. Hale then asked if the units are all sprinkled. Meyer responded yes. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 4 of 14 Brittain asked if there would be portions of the building that will be unfinished. Meyer re- sponded that they have to be 60 percent pre-sold before construction can begin. The units that are not pre-sold are finished by Cooperative Services Group. Brittain expressed con- cerns about the amount of lap siding proposed for this project as compared to other Summerhill projects, which appear to have more brick on the exterior of the building. Roger Holley, Miller Hansen Partners Architects, stated that the exterior materials consist of 40 percent masonry, brick, stone, and rock-face block. He stated that while this building does have less brick than other residential structures in other communities, those buildings have vinyl siding. This building does have less brick than some, but does provide more decks that are set back in alcoves and projected out from the building. Brittain asked if the lap siding is painted or maintenance free. Holley responded that it is a cementitious siding that comes pre-primed and takes a final paint coat weil, but will need to be repainted eventually. He explained that it is more stable and durable than wood or vinyl siding. Reese asked where the dumpsters would be located. Holley responded that the dumpsters would be located in the garage. He explained that residents place their trash in the chutes located on each floor, which empty into the dumpster. The dumpster is rolled out on trash day, so there are no exterior exposed trash bins. Severson asked about the slope of the garage and the height of the garage door. Holley re- sponded that the garage doors would be 7 feet in height and 18 to 20 feet wide. Hedlund responded that the garage floor is only two feet below the road, which makes for a minimal slope. Severson asked what the ceiling height in the basement would be. Holley responded the ceiling height is about nine feet but due to some plumbing fixtures, the clearance is ap- proximately seven feet. Tim Nichols, Cooperative Services Group, stated that they are delighted to be in Cottage Grove and that their Summerhill project will make the city proud. Hudnut asked about the thickness of the walls between the units. Holley explained that the walls between the units are a double stud wall, with a one-inch air space between the studs, insulated with a very high sound absorption rating. Willhite asked how wide the common walls are. Holley responded that the thickness of the common walis would be 11-7/8 inches. Bailey opened the public hearing. Mike Rygh, 835 Quinton Avenue and the property owner of the site, stated that the building, from an architectural standpoint, exceeds what he thought they would be building. He stated that he would prefer the 28-foot wide road because he does not want vehicle parking on the road. Bailey asked if Rygh had discussed the road width with retailers to see if that would be sufficient. Rygh stated yes. Bailey stated that the city has several private roads that have not been maintained well, which is why the Commission is concerned about the private road. Rygh stated that the road would be built to city standards and may be conveyed to the city in the future. He then asked about the widths of other private roads in the city. McCool re- sponded that the road by the Super 8 Motel and MGM center is 25.5 feet wide, the roadway between Subway and KFC is 27 feet wide, between Walgreen's and TCF is 31 feet wide, West Point Douglas Road in front of the park and ride is 31 feet, and the road between the Plannjng Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 5 of 14 Holiday station and Cub Foods is 33 feet wide. Severson asked if Rygh was concerned about truck traffic maneuvering in the commercial area with a 28-foot wide road. Rygh re- sponded that because there aren't many curves and sharp turns, there should not be many problems; however, he does not have the expertise to know what the difference would be between a 28-foot road and a 30-foot road. He stated that he would ask the representatives of the gas station if they have any concerns. Bailey stated that was one of his concerns be- cause most of the truck traffic has to use Hinton Avenue. Dick Hansen, 6918 Homestead Avenue South, welcomed the Summerhill project to Cottage Grove, noting that during the PUD approval process residents in the area had pushed for senior housing to be included with the development. He stated that a 28-foot wide road would be safer for the senior residents to cross, but he has some concerns about truck traf- fic, and he asked about the turning radius from the road into the development. McCool re- sponded the minimum radius would be 30 feet. Hansen stated that staff does not object to the 28-foot wide road if it was constructed to commercial standards or to reducing the eight- foot bituminous trail to a six-foot concrete sidewalk. He objects to allowing parking on the roadway because condition #19 in the approved PUD ordinance stipulates that parking is not allowed on the roadway. He then stated during the initial discussion on the development, the neighbors had expressed concern about the size of the site, but he is really pleased with what has been proposed. Hansen reiterated that he was pleased that the first piece of prop- erty to develop is the senior housing, but he wished that part of the project was bigger and suggested moving the day care center to make room for another senior housing building. Bailey asked for clarification of the turn radius. McCool responded that the senior housing has a 26-foot wide drive with a radius of approximately 30 feet. City ordinance requires commercial driveway widths to be a minimum of 32 feet with a radius of 30 feet. No one else spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Brittain stated that he would prefer a six-foot concrete sidewalk rather than an eight-foot bituminous trail. Willhite asked if there are any requirements regarding pedestrian crosswalks on private roads. McCool responded that the city would require marked crosswalks at those intersec- tions where the sidewalk would connect with the private road. Hudnut made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed be- low, with a six-foot concrete sidewalk rather than an eight-foot bituminous trailway. Hale seconded. 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, etc.) shall be applied for and issued by fhe City prior to any work or construction taking p/ace. Detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshall. 2. Installation of landscaping shall occur in a timely fashion and be consistent with an approved landscaping plan. A letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the landscape estimate shall be submitted fo the City as required by City ordinance (Title 11-6-6(�). The financial guarantee shall be in effect for one year from the date Plannjng Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 6 of 14 of installation to ensure fhe installation, survival, and replacement of the land- scaping improvemenfs. 3. Irrigation shall be provided for all sodded and landscaped areas, including the curbed landscaped island interior to the parking lot. The irrigation system shall con- sist of an underground sprinkling system that is designed by a professional irriga- tion installer to meet the water requirements of the site's specific vegetation. The system shall be detailed on the landscape plan. 4. The applicant shall submit samples of exterior building materials to the City for re- view and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. All retaining walls over four feet in height shall be designed by and approved by an engineer and a fence not /ess than four feet in height installed the top edge of the retaining wall that is greater than four feet in height. 6. A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be construcfed along the south side of Pine Arbor Boulevard, extending from Pine Arbor Lane to Hinton Avenue. A public walkway shall also be constructed along the south and east sides of the private drive at the time commercial development occurs on Outlot A. 7. A"STOP" sign shall be installed at each exit lane leaving the site and at each right lane of the private road that connects to public roadways. Each sign shall 6e 10 feet from the roadway edge 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 foot — No. 3 and 8 foot — No. 2 stee/ post The applicant may request the City's Public Works Department to insfall said "STOP" signs, but must reimburse for actual costs in- curred by the City. 8. Concrete aprons for each of the iwo private access drives shall be constructed per City requirements. 9. The developer shall pay to the City a park fee in lieu of land dedicafion and recreation fee as required by Title 10-4-3 of the City Codes. This cash payment amounts to $84,000.00 for the park fee and $8,400.00 for the recreation fee. Payment shall be made to the City prior to the City releasing the final plat to the developer for recording. 10. Open flame grills are prohibited on the decks. 11. Snow removal within the private road lying between Pine Arbor Lane and Pine Arbor Boulevard shall be performed in a timely manner to maintain safe roadway condifions. 12. The developer shall pay for the installation of "NO PARK/NG" signs along bofh sides of the private road that connects between Pine Arbor Lane and Pine Arbor Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 7 of 14 13. The developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Cottage Grove for the installation of and payment for all public improvements in the subdi- vision, puisuant to Title 10 of the City Code. 14. The applicant receive appropriate building permits from the City, and permits or approvals from other regulatory agencies including, but nof limited to, the South Washington Watershed District, Washington County, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 15. The applicant submit a final construction management plan that includes erosion control measures, project phasing for grading work, areas designated for preser- vation, a crushed-rock construction entrance, and construcfion-related vehicle parking for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 16.A pre-construction meefing with City staff and the contractor shall be held before site work begins. The contractor shall provide the City with a project schedule for the various phases of construction. 17. Erosion control devices shall be installed prior to commencement of any grading activity. Erosion control shall be performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Plan- ning Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 10-5-8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 18.In fhe event public utilities within fhe 40-foof wide drainage and utility easement that is centered on the private road must be maintained, installed, or repaired; it will be the responsibility of landowners within the PUD to pay for and re-construct the private improvements (e.g. private road, sidewalks, street lighting, etc.). 19. Street lighting along the private road and parking lot lighting shall be installed at the developer's expense. A lighting plan showing the location of the light poles and the specifications for these fixtures shall be submitted to the City for approval. Landowners within the PUD will be responsible for the cost of installing, main- taining, and operating utility costs for this outdoor lighting system(s). 20.A concrete curb and gutter complying with the city's standards shall be con- structed along the private roadway edge. 21. The private road shall be designed and constructed of materials that are appropri- ate for commercial traffic volumes and compliant with the current Minnesota Transportation Department's design criteria for delivery truck type of vehicles. Plans and specifications for fhis private roadway shall be submitted to the city for review and approval before construction begins. 22,With the exception of aquatic/wetland type of plantings, no free or shrub shall be planted be/ow the high water elevation for the stormwater holding pond. Additional deciduous frees shall be planted along the west and norih sides of the stormwater holding pond. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted to the city for ap- proval before a building permit is issued by the City. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 8 of 14 Willhite stated that her only concern is future maintenance of the private road because other private roads in the city have not been maintained. She asked if the city had any require- ments for maintenance of private roads. McCool responded by explaining that there is a city ordinance relating to private road requirements. Booth stated that he wanted to add a friendly amendment to the conditions that the sidewalk on the north side of the private road be changed from an eight-foot bituminous to a six-foot concrete, so the sidewalks on both sides of the private road would be six-foot wide concrete. He also wants to add a condition that no parking is allowed along the 28-foot wide private road. He would also ask the City Council to discuss making it a public road rather than a pri- vate road. Bailey noted that condition #12 requires that the developer pay for and install "No Parking" signs on both sides of the private road. Booth noted that the PUD approval had a 30-foot wide road and what the Commission is recommending is that the road be 28 feet wide with no parking on either side. Hudnut agreed with the changes. Hale stated that McCool made a strong argument in the staff report for a 30-foot minimum width but did not have it in the recommendations. McCool stated that he was agreeable with the 28-foot width, but Public Works has concerns for a 28-foot wide road and is very ada- mant that it not be allowed. Willhite asked why Public Works does not want the 28-foot wide road. McCool responded that they were concerned about traffic volumes that may be created due to commercial businesses that are allowed in this neighborhood and that truck turning movements will be constrained with a narrower road. Severson stated that regarding the public road versus private road issue, he does not want to put anything in the recommendation but would like the Council to consider this issue. Mofion fo approve the application passed unanimously. Severson made a motion to recommend that the City Council consider that the 28-foot private road be changed to a 28-foot wide public road. Booth seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6.2 CASE VO4-003 Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. has applied for a variance to Title 9-8-8, Off-Premises Adver- tising Signs, and 9-8-9, Legal Nonconforming Signs, in accordance with Title 9-8-16, Vari- ances, to allow for replacement of existing legal nonconforming off-premise signage on property located in the community entrance corridor between the railroad tracks and to the west of Highway 61 across from Camels Hump. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Bailey asked if this covers all the signs that are currently on Highway 61. McCool responded that it includes the signs from 70th Street to 80th Street; there are other billboards along US Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 9 of 14 Highway 10/61 that are further southeast of 80th Street. Bailey asked if the monument piece or the billboard would be closest to Highway 61. McCool responded that the pillar structure would be farther away from the highway and no portion of the sign could overhang the right- of-way. Bailey then asked about the height. McCool stated that the applicant would address the height issue. Severson asked if the signs include lighting. McCool responded yes. Severson asked about the intensity based on the square footage, if it would be at the same level as the current signs, and if the lighthouse on the top would be lit. McCool stated that the final design of the signage has not been determined yet, but lighting the face of the billboard will generally be from the bottom edge of the sign and directed upward. Booth asked how much land would be dedicated to the city as part of the agreement, so the Planning Commission knows what the city is getting in return for the sign variances. McCool displayed a map showing the 40-acre parcel of land that would be dedicated to the city. Severson asked if the land was all under single ownership. McCool responded yes. Willhite asked if the city regulates billboard lighting. McCool responded no, other than the lighting source cannot be directed toward public right-of-way or residential properties. He ex- plained that their design has the light source pointed upward toward the billboard itself. Wiilhite asked if the lighthouse would be lit. McCool responded that it would not be lit. Hudnut asked if the West Draw ponding would take an appreciable amount of the 40 acres. McCool responded that was correct. Hudnut asked why the signs needed to be kept. McCool responded that if the signs were not allowed, then the city would have to purchase the prop- erty for ponding. Hudnut asked how much that would cost. McCool did not know. Hudnut stated that the city is going to lose some of those signs anyway because of the ponding. Hale asked if Clear Channel was the fee owner of that property. McCool responded yes. Chris McCarver, Clear Channel Outdoor, 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, stated that the city had contacted them about acquiring that piece of property, and through negotiations between himself and city staff, they came up with the idea for Clear Channel to sell the prop- erty to the city for one dollar and remove all seven structures on the property and in ex- change, Clear Channel would be allowed to construct three new sign structures on the property. He stated that if they did not get the variances, the city would initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire the property. McCarver explained the construction of the poles would include bricking on the monopole, but the final design has not yet been determined; the ex- hibits in the staff report are just examples of what the sign structures could look like, and the final design decision would left up to the city. He stated that the lights are mounted on the catwalk and shine up at the sign. He then explained that the State of Minnesota is a dual permitting state which means both a local permit and state permit are required. Hudnut asked if the city was going to take the entire 40.5 acres for the West Draw improve- ment project. McCool responded that would be part of the property that would deeded to the city. Hudnut asked how many acres would the actual stormwater improvement take. McCool responded that he would need to check the stormwater management plan. McCarver stated that the only thing that they are requiring is a path to get to each of the structures. They have Plannjng Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 10 of 14 been moved them as far to the north as they could because most of that property on the south end was going to be the stormwater retention pond. He then stated that the purchase agreement is planned to be signed on January 28, and will include the legal description for the entire property, the construction details, and that the city is going to be overseeing the final design. Hudnut asked what the final design would be. McCarver reiterated that the city would make the final determination. Hudnut then asked about the size of the signs. McCarver responded that the sign faces would be either 12 feet by 25 feet or 10.5 feet by 36 feet. Hudnut stated that he thinks that the lowest square footage would probably be most appropriate to the Commission. McCarver explained that during discussions with city staff, Clear Channel stated that they needed to maintain the same amount of square footage that was on the property, but they did not need to maintain the number of structures. The three structures that they came up with include the smallest industry standards for sign faces. McCool stated that this proposal has also been presented to the Economic Development Authority, which is staff's recommendation based on the results with EDA. Hale stated that the bulk of that area is wetland and asked if they needed DNR approval. McCarver stated that city staff checked on that, but cursory review shows that a permit may not be needed because the signs would be located to the north, which is a drier area and the sign structure foundation would be less than 200 square feet. Hale asked if they have any signs in St. Paul Park from the 70th Street overpass south into Cottage Grove. McCool stated that the northernmost sign (south of 70th Street) is located in Cottage Grove. McCarver stated that their entire property goes to the Cottage Grove border, and all the signs would be removed as part of this deal. Hale asked what the proposed spacing would be between the three sign structures. McCarver responded that they have proposed 500 feet spacing between signs, which is the state's minimum requirement, but the final locations will be determined by city staff and Clear Channel when they go through the permitting process. Hale asked if the signs would be the same size as the similar sign on lo- cated on Interstate 35. McCarver responded that the sign on Interstate 35 is 14 feet high by 48 feet wide, and they stayed away from that size due to their discussions with city staff. Booth asked if these signs would be on Cottage Grove land. McCarver responded yes, with a perpetual easement to Clear Channel. Booth asked if the signs could be rebuilt if they were damaged or destroyed. McCool responded yes. Bailey asked if all the old signs would be removed and replaced with the new signs at the same time. McCarver explained that there are three Clear Channel signs and three signs owned by another sign company on their property. Part of the purchase agreement is that they have to effectuate the removal of those signs. He stated that the three Clear Channel signs and the largest of the competitor's signs will be removed and replaced. Because of a lease agreement, there may be a delay in removing the other two signs. He stated that the lease on those signs ends in 2005. He reiterated that they would not have any more square footage for signage than they currently have. Reese asked how soon the Clear Channel signs would be removed and the new signs in- stalled. McCarver responded that they would remove their signs very soon and begin con- Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 11 of 14 struction of their new signs sometime in March, so that they could be installed while the ground is frozen. Booth stated that the role of the Planning Commission in this case is not to approve the de- sign of the signs but to approve a variance to replace six signs with three signs. He stated that staff would work out the details. Brittain asked about the discrepancy between the earlier statement of seven signs to now there being six. McCarver explained that Clear Channel owns three structures: a single-face poster, two signs that have three posters on each one, and their competitor has three struc- tures that are all single face. Brittain stated that the map in the staff report shows seven sign locations. McCarver stated that the seventh sign was the "land for sale" sign, which will be removed because the land is no longer for sale. Hale asked that due to changes in the city's sign ordinance, he thought that some of these signs would be in violation of the off-premises advertising ordinance and would have to be removed. Booth stated that those signs pre-date the sign ordinance update and are legal nonconforming, but if they are more than 50 percent damaged they cannot be replaced. Hale stated that language should be added to the recommendations so that the city does not become liable for damage to the signs from flooding. McCarver stated that they have dis- cussed this with staff and all they have asked is that access to the signs needs to be main- tained. Hale asked if there would be a concern if there was five feet of water around the sign and they can't get access to it. McCarver stated that it is a concern of theirs, which is one of the reasons these signs would be located as far north as possible where is more dry ground. Hudnut stated that he is concerned about the internal consistency of the Planning Commis- sion's approval of variances. He stated that requests to vary from the ordinance criteria must be treated with reverence because actions in one application can weaken the integrity of the ordinance and will be scrutinized in future applications. He noted that last month the Com- mission denied a variance to setback requirements to allow a home to be built closer to the river bluff line. Booth responded that these signs exist, they pre-date the ordinance and are not required to be removed, and no one else can put up a freestanding sign because it is not allowed by ordinance, and this is a compromise to go from six ugly signs to three reasonable signs located further north of the gateway area of the city and the city gets land in return for needed ponding. Willhite stated that she voted to deny that other variance because the property was located in the critical area, but she has supported other variances. Bailey opened the public hearing. Nobody spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Willhite made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed be- low. Reese seconded. 1. The tofal number of freestanding off-premise advertising sign structures on the property shall be reduced to three. 2. The total square footage of copy area on the site shall not exceed the existing amount of 2,868 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 12 of 14 3. With the exception of the three approved signs, no additional freestanding off- premise advertising sign structures shall be allowed on the property. 4. A certificate of survey shall be su6mitted detailing the existing and proposed sign /ocafions. 5. A 20-foot wide permanent drainage and utility easemenf shall be created and dedi- cated over the proposed underground electrical routes. 6. The existing signs on the site shall be removed prior to the final approval of the new structures by the Building Department. The final location of the new signs shall be approved by the Community Development Departmenf. 7. The minimum wind load design of the new signs shall be no /ess than 90 MPH. 8. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) and a commer- cial plan review packet shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building O�cial and Fire Marshal. 9. Final exterior construction materials and co/ors for sign support structures shall be consistent with the materials and colors of the gafeway redevelopment area, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 10. The landscaping plan shall be revised to address the items identified in the staff report Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11.A bona fide cost estimate of the landscaping improvements shall be submitted in conjunction with a letter of credit approved by the City in the amount of 150 per- cent of such estimate. Upon completion of the landscaping requirements, the applicant shall in writing inform fhe City that said improvements have been com- pleted. The City shall retain fhe financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of notice to insure the survival of the planfings. No building permit shall be issued until the required financial guarantee has been received and accepted by the City. Motion to approve the application passed on a 7-to-1 vote (Hudnut). Applications and Requests None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 22, 2003 Hudnut made a mofion to approve the minutes of the December 22, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (Willhite ab- sent). Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 13 of 14 Reports 9.1 Recap of January City Council Meetings McCool reported that at the January 7, 2004, City Council meeting, a resident spoke at the open forum to express her concerns about an adult foster home located in her neighborhood and asked how that could be allowed in the neighborhood without any notification to the property owners. McCool explained that state law specifically prohibits communities from adopting ordinances prohibiting the existence of those types of homes in the community and there are no notification requirements. Staff sent a letter to the resident regarding this infor- mation. McCool then stated that the Council accepted the appointment of Howard Blin as the new Community Development Director. The Council also approved the Council liaisons to the advisory commissions, and Councilmember Pat Rice will continue as Council liaison to the Planning Commission. McCool reported that the City Council at their January 21, 2004 meeting, approved on a 3- 2 vote Werner's bluffline setback variance for their new house, which included an amendment to the Planning Commission's recommendation that the property owner be fined for removal of any plant material. McCool explained that the variance is for a minimum setback of that height of the building on the back side of the house, but not less than 20 feet from the bluff line. 9.2 Committee Reports Hale, the Planning Commission's liaison to the East Ravine Planning Project, reported that there was a Citizens Advisory Team meeting in December and an open house on January 8, 2003. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Bailey noted that during the discussion on private roads earlier in the meeting, McCool read a list of the current private roads in the city. He noted that there was no consistency to the standards for these private roads and asked if it is in the city's best interest to either develop standards of not allow private roads. McCool stated that construction of private roads de- pend on the project, such as the minimum width of a private road in a residential develop- ment is 20 feet but commercial properties would need a wider road. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Bailey stated that the request for more information on another access to Kohl's was pulled from last month's agenda because Severson was not there and he was the one who re- quested the information. McCool stated that staff evaluated that second access drive. He stated that there is a relatively steep slope, and to get an acceptable grade from the public road to the parking area would require the reduction of parking spaces, and the city was re- luctant to lose more parking within that project. Severson expressed his concern about future congestion in that area as it develops. Plannrng Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 14 of 14 McCool reported that there were about 120 attendees at the East Ravine Open House on January 8 and he recapped the presentation and other information from the open house. He stated that staff has received only 20 responses to the survey that was passed out that eve- ning. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to have additional workshops on the East Ravine Planning Project beyond the regular Planning Commission meetings. The Commis- sion concurred. Hale commented that he does not believe there will be a lot of people at- tending meetings unless it impacts them personally, but he does think that the other commissions should be more involved. He stated that he has attended all the meetings, and the response from the public generally has been that they see one big development. He stated that it is incumbent on a public official to better articulate the purpose of the planning study. He explained that in the past developers and landowners have determined the way that the city has developed, and this is an attempt by the city to have the citizens help de- termine what they want their city to look like in the future. Adjournment Brittain made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Hudnut seconded. Motion passed unanimously and the regular meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Workshop Session The Planning Commission discussed ordinance requirements addressed in the Planning Staff's memo dated January 20, 2004 relative to Currency Exchange Businesses. The Planning Com- mission directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance that does not require or establish any mini- mum setback requirements from other businesses or land uses, no requirements relative to architectural (i.e.; front door location or security matters for doors and windows), defines "cur- rency exchange," and allows this type of business as a conditional use in all commercial zoning classifications. There was also the general consensus that this business use should be required to obtain a business license from the City Council. The Planning Commission did not yet want to set a public hearing, but instructed staff to prepare a draft ordinance for their review at the next meeting. The workshop session ended at 10:18 p.m.