Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-28 MINUTESREQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 8/1104 _�. � 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 June 28, 2004. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on June 28, 2004. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION: � PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: DATE 7/26/04 $N/A N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MEMO/LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Approved minutes of Planning Commission ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: ,��..�..�...�. COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ meeting on June 28, 2004 � 0 ity Administrator Date ,�.��,..�.�...�.,.��..�.��....,.�,,�„ [J�APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER 1. City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission June 28, 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 28th day of June 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, Ken Brittain, Rod Hale, Shannon Nitsch, Chris Reese, Alberto Ricart, Bob Severson Members Absent: Tim Booth, Robert Hudnut Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Others Present: Pat Rice, Councilmember Approval of Agenda Bailey suggested that the agenda be amended to hold the public hearing for agenda item 6.3 prior to the public hearing for agenda item 6.2. Motion 6y Hale, seconded by Severson to approve the agenda with the above noted change. Motion approved 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. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 2 of 6 Public Hearings 6.1 CASE VO4-030 John Smetana and Maureen Waiton have applied for a variance to Title 11-3-3C, Acces- sory Structure Setbacks, to allow a garage to be setback 11 feet from the side property line when 20 feet is required and to allow the structure to be located in front of his princi- pal structure at 11821 Lockridge Avenue South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. John Smetana, 11821 Lockridge Avenue South, stated that the neighbor on the east side has no objections to the location of the garage. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Nitsch made a motion to approve the applicafion subject to the conditions listed be- low. Hale seconded. 1. Erosion control measures must be utilized during construction. 2, The exterior materials and color for the 24-foot by 28-foot accessory structure must be similar to the principal structure. 3. The property owner must complete a building permit application and be issued a building permit before any construction begins. 4. If a vehicle, trailer, boat, or any materials/personal property that do not violate city codes relating to exterior storage are stored or parked on the north or east sides of the new accessory structure, a six-foot high privacy fence must be constructed along fhe easterly property boundary line. This privacy fence must be located on the applicanPs property and at a minimum extend from fhe northern terminus of the neighbor's fence to the norfhernmost point of the new accessory structure. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASE VO4-033 Loretta Lee and Conrad Lee, 8630 Hyde Avenue South, have applied for a variance to Title 11-3-4D, Visibility, to allow an elevated deck to be setback 10 feet from the corner side property line when 20 feet is the minimum requirement. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. He stated that staff is also recommending that condition #1 be modified to remove the language relative to doubling the building permit fee, but still requir- ing the applicants to obtain a building permit. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 3 of 6 Conrad Lee, 8630 Hyde Avenue South, stated that the deck was being constructed to im- prove the side entryway into the home, which was dilapidated and in disrepair when they moved into the house two years ago. He submitted to the Commission a petition signed by many of his neighbors supporting the variance. Bailey opened the public hearing. James Brown, 8698 Hilo Trail South, stated that he supports granting the variance for the deck as he feels this would improve the property and the neighborhood. No one e/se spoke. Bailey closed the public hearing. Severson made a motion to approve the variance subject to the conditions listed be- low, with the modification proposed by staff for condition #1. Reese seconded. 1. The property owner obtains a building permit from the city and pays a penalty amount that is twice fhe regular building permit fee for this project This is consis- tent with city policies relative to construction without appropriate building permits. 2. No wall or roof structure shall be erected on the deck structure. Motion passed unanimously. 6.3 CASE CUPO4-031 and SPO4-032 EBL&S Development Corporation has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through window and a site plan review of a 2,900 square foot building to be located at 7190 East Point Douglas Road South, in Grove Plaza Shopping Center. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the applications subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Severson asked if the mechanical units would be located on the roof of the building. Blin stated yes, the higher parapet will screen them from the south, but they will still need an en- closure on the roof because of the elevation difference from 80th Street. Steve Paetzel, Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group, stated that he would answer any questions the Commission may have. Hale asked if the roof line would be similar to the rest of Grove Plaza. Paetzel responded yes. Blin stated that the building was designed to replicate Grove Plaza with columns and multi-colored fabric awnings. Hale asked if the parcel was independently owned or part of Grove Plaza. Blin stated that it is a separate parcel owned by EBL&S, who owns Grove Plaza. Severson asked if the use changes from a coffee shop, would the parking requirements change. Blin responded that if the use were to convert to retail, the 16 spaces would meet Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 4 of 6 the requirements for retail, because the parking requirements for retail is much less than for a restaurant. Bailey asked if all four sides of the building would be designed the same. Blin responded yes. Bailey then asked what type of signage would be allowed for this building. Blin stated that they are allowed a total of 150 square feet of wall signage on three sides of the building and no one sign may exceed 100 square feet or 15 percent of the building face, whichever is less. He stated that the proposed sign package would fit within those guidelines, and would include signs on three sides of the building, the south facing Home Depot, west side facing Hollywood Video, and the north side facing 80th Street. Nitsch asked if there would be a monument sign. Blin responded no. Ricart asked about landscaping, particularly the back of the building facing 80th Street. Blin stated that the submitted landscaping plan includes a mix of conifers and deciduous plant- ings, which staff found acceptable. Brittain expressed concern about traffic flow and the bushes on the Mainstreet Bank site blocking vehicle sight lines. Severson asked if the only entrance was on the front of the building or is there a side en- trance. Paetzel responded that the only planned entrance is on the south side of the building. Severson noted that the five parking spaces to the northwest have no access to an entrance. Blin agreed, noting that those would probably be employee parking. Bailey asked if there would a door on the back of the building. Blin stated that there will be a service entrance on the back. Severson stated that he also has concerns about traffic flow. Bailey suggested a three-way stop at the intersection to slow down traffic. Reese stated that he is concerned about where the drive-through exits to the parking lot due to obstructed sight lines from the vegetation in the area and the drop-off area for the video store. Blin stated that staff did look at that conflict point but there is no engineering solution for it. Severson stated that if the building was flipped, the problems might be alleviated. Hale asked if the architect could respond to these questions. Paetzel stated that they looked at several options for this site, including rotating the building but then they lose parking. The current design maximizes the usable area on the site and they believe this is the best solu- tion that poses the fewest traffic hazards. Hale asked about the drive-through exiting into a lane with oncoming traffic. Paetzel responded that they could put in curbing or signage at that point. Hale asked about the five parking spaces on the north. Paetzel stated that those spaces are for employees and they expect any overflow parking to use the Home Depot lot. Hale asked if they have Home DepoYs permission to use that parking area. Blin stated that there is a cross-access agreement. Brittain asked about the function of the large island across from the handicapped parking spaces in the southwest corner and if the opening on the west could be closed. Paetzel stated that it could be closed to create a hammer-head turnaround. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 5 of 6 The Commission discussed other options that may help alleviate their concerns about traffic flow in the area. Hale asked if a traffic consultant or engineer could look at the proposal and make recom- mendations. Blin stated that a cursory review was done with the city's traffic consultant. Hale suggested tabling the application for further information on traffic flow. Bailey opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Bailey closed fhe public hearing. Nitsch made a motion to table the applications for further informafion. Ricart seconded. Severson reiterated his concerns about traffic flow and safety and that those items be spe- cifically looked at. Bailey suggested looking at shifting the building and adding stop signs. Motion passed unanimously. Applications and Requests None. Approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2004 Motion by Severson, seconded by Britfain, to approve the minutes. Motion passed unanimously. 9.1 Recap of May City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council during their meetings on June 2 and June 16, 2004. Reports 9.2 Committee Reports Hale stated that the East Ravine Citizens Advisory Team met on June 21. Two issues came out of that meeting, reducing certain street widths from 34 feet to 30 feet and alleys for resi- dents fronting on the parkway road. Bailey announced that there will be a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on Wednesday, July 14, to discuss the East Ravine Planning Project. Hale then reported that the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation met on June 15 and discussed allowing the use of artificial materials that are similar to the original materials on buildings. Planning Commission Minutes • . June 28, 2004 Page 6 of 6 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Severson asked about the status of Barrel Reconditioning, Inc. Blin stated that staff has been working with the owner and there is a tentative agreement to limit the number of traiters on the site to no more than nine. Severson asked if they would have to pave the trailer park- ing area. McCool responded that paving was never required originally but the employee parking area was required to be paved. Bailey thanked staff for including the Economic Development Authority minutes in the Planning Commission packet. 9.4 Response to Planning Commission inquires Blin reported that the new Clear Channel signs were installed prior to removing the existing signs. Staff spoke with Clear Channel, who stated that all but one of the signs will be taken down in the next few days. The Viacom sign is under lease until November, when it will be removed. The city is suggesting that they take down some of the signage on one of the new signs because the agreement calls for a total fixed amount of signage allowed. Adjournment Motion by Reese, seconded by Nitsch, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.