Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-22 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission May 22, 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held at City Hail,{ 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 22nd day of May, 2006, in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chairperson Brittain called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Shane Bauer, Ken Brittain, Jason Cavallo, Tina Folch-Freiermuth, Rod Nale, Rebecca Kronlund, Tracy Poncin, Chris Reese Members Absent: David Thiede Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Mark Grossklaus, City Council Liaison Approval of Agenda Motion by Hale, second by Reese, fo approve the agenda. Motion approved unani- mously (8-0 vote). Open Forum Chairperson Brittain asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non- agenda item. No one appeared to address the Commission. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Chairperson Brittain 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 Ho King Restaurant — Case CUP06-019 Alan Hui, Ho King Restaurant, has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a restau- rant with liquor at 8711 East Point Douglas Road South. Pianning Commission Minutes May 22, 2006 Page 2 of 11 Bauer recused himself from the discussion and vote due to a working relationship with the applicant. McCooi sumr�arized the stafF repart and recarrirnended approval subjec4 to the condi4ions stipulated in the staff report. Hale stated that the Public Safety recommendation should be added to the conditions of ap- proval and suggested that the fourth condition should read: "All employees will be instructed in local and state ordinances and regulations regarding serving liquor." Cavallo asked if this conditional use permit was granted to Ho King, would another establish- ment serving ; liquor be abie to locate in that strip mall. McCool responded that the property is zoned B-3 and would allow for that type of use, but a conditional use permit is required. Reese asked if this was the first time Ho King has applied for a conditional use permit to allow liquor sales. McCool responded yes. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Briftain c(osed the pubfic hearing. Hale made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions (isted below with an additional condition regarding educafion of employees on serving liquor to minors. Reese seconded. 1. The applicant must abide all the requirements of City Code Title 3, Chapter 3, Liquor Control. 2. All electrical and fire suppression systems must comply with state electrical code and state fire code requirements. 3. The applicant must have a liquor license approved by the City Council. Motion passed unanirr►ously (7-to-0 vote with one abstention). 6.2 Temporary Fireworks Sales at Menards — Case ICUP06-026 Randy Hermann, TNT Fireworks, has applied for an interim conditional use permit to allow temporary sales of fireworks in the Menards parking lot, 9000 East Point Douglas Road. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Hale asked about electric service to the site. Randy Hermann, 15710 Rockford Road, #118, Plymouth, TNT Fireworks, stated that a generator would supply electricity, and they will have both a dry fire extinguisher and a water cannon extinguisher that meet State Statute NFPA 1124 for temporary fireworks sale. Hale asked if the employees will be trained on the use of the extinguishers. Hermann responded that they have safety training for all employees. Cavallo expressed concern about the generator, noting that it would run all night. McCool re- sponded that the closest residential properties are on the other side of the Menards building. Pianning Commission Minutes r May 22, 2006 Page 3 of 11 Cavallo asked which businesses are open past 9:00 p.m. and if 10:00 p.m. a reasonable hour for doing business in Gottage Grove. Blin responded that those are the typical business closing hours in the city; noting that Menards closes at 10:00. Folch stated that it seems like 10:00 p.m. is late for fireworks to be on sale and she would prefer to see the sales end earlier. Hermann stated that their hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and the only nights that they may stay open until 10:00 p.m. would be on July 3 and possibly a weekend night. He would be amenable to closing at 9:00 p.m. Cavallo suggested adding a condition requiring the hours of operation to be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and on July 3'they could close at 10:00 p.m. Brittain asked if having staff on site 24 hours is standard practice. Hermann responded that it is, explaining that while some operations lock the products away in a storage container each night, they find that it is more labor intensive than to put all the products on display and close up the tent each night. Brittain asked about storage. Hermann responded that everything would be stored within the tent. Reese asked about the' products that they sell. Hermann responded that all of their items are state approved pyrotechnic fireworks. They do not sell any explosive composition products. Reese asked if there were any concerns about the tent location and traffic patterns in the parking lot. McCool responded that the original proposal had the tent set up one aisle to the east and staffls recommendation was to move it to the west away from the ingress/egress aisle, which they agreed to do. Briftain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Reese stated that he does not believe that the city should limi# the hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. If they are not allowed to sell anything that is more that what is available inside other stores Iike Target or Cub, he sees no reason to put them at a disadvantage. Folch asked what other businesses seli these products. Blin responded that many of the local retailers such as Cub, Rainbow, Target, and convenience stores. Hermann explained that the fireworks are rated as Class C, which is a broad category that also includes explosive fire- works like firecrackers and rockets, but they will only sell fireworks with no explosive com- position. Cavallo retracted his request to limit the hours because those products are available at other businesses, the fireworks are not explosive, and Menards is open until 10:00 p.m. Bauer asked if there have been any safety issues at other sites. Hermann responded that he has been selling fireworks for 40 years and he has not had any instances with this product. He stated that TNT Fireworks has over 6,000 parking lot Iocations every year and has been in business since 1959. Reese made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below. Bauerseconded. 1, The Mterim Conditional Use Permit is in effect beiween June 2q 2006 and July 6, 2006. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2006 Page 4 of 11 2. A buifding permit for the 30-foot by 50-foot temporary sa/es tent must be issued by the City's Building Inspections Department before the temporary tent is erected. 3. No merchandise may be displayeai autside the �enf. 4. A portable muitipurpose dry chemical type fire extinguisher must be provided if elec- tric service is provided to the temporary tent. "NO SMOKING" signs must be posted as required by the City's Fire Marshal. 5. All electrical wiring and connections must comply with State electrical requirements. 6. Overhead electrical service or electrical extension cords are prohibited from any powersource that extends across the parking/paved area of the Menard's site. 7. Advertising signage attached to the temporary tent is permitted. Free-standing signs or off-premise advertising are prohibited. 8. Alt the requirements imposed by the National Fire Protection Association 1124, 2003 Edifion for retait sales of consumer fireworks must be complied with. 9. The minimum aisle width serving as a portion oi the exit access in fhe temporary sales tent and alt aisles accessible by the public must be a minimum of 48 inches wide. Dead-ended ais/es are prohibited. 10. Discharging �reworks within 300 feef of the temporary tent is prohibited. 11. Sale of fireworks is permitted between the hours of 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM. TNT Fire- work's employees must be on site at all times during operating hours. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.3 Health East — Case',ZA06-023, CP06-024, and SP06-025 MSPiRygh Summerhill Commercial, LLC has applied for a zoning amendment to amend the PUD for Summerhill'Crossing, located on Pine Arbor Drive, which is north of 70th Street and west of Hinton Avenue, to ailow a medical office liuilding use in place of the approved senior housing use; a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use from high density residential to commercial; and a site plan review of the project. Bauer recused himself from discussion and voting on this case due to a working relationship with the applicant. Poncin recused herself because she is an employee of HealthEast. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to tne conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Alex Young, MSP Commercial, introduced Mike Rygh, who is a partner on the project, and Lynn Sloat, Genesis Architecture. He gave a brief history on the project. He stated that the proposed building will be smaller than the approved senior housing building, their need for more parking, and tnat the pond needs to be either downsized or eliminated. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2006 Page 5 of 11 Sloat described the architecture of the building and displayed drawings of the proposed pro- ject, noting that it was designed to blend in with the residential properties in the area. Haie asked if aii the mechanicai equipment wouid be housed in the buiiding. Sioat responded that the mechanical equipment was either inside the building or on the roof, which would be screened behind by side walis. Folch asked if the pond was kept would it be fenced. Young responded that they have not proposed any fencing around the pond, noting that the pond would only be a couple feet deep on a regular basis. Folch asked if the pond was proposed for decorative purposes or for func- tional issues for stormwater. Young responded that the purpose of the pond is to control the rate at which;water would flow down to the next pond. They are working with staff to reduce the size of the pond and add more landscaping, which would provide a natural buffer. Reese asked why they are proposing a medical office building instead of senior housing. Rygh explained that they have made two attempts to market the site for senior housing, but were unsuccessful in getting enough interest in the project. He did two market studies that showed the location was marginal for senior housing and there was not enough demand for senior housing in the city. He believes the proposed medical office building is a good alternative to senior housing. The proposed building would be smaller, and there would be only daytime traffic. Young stated that the medical office building use will stimulate development of the other commercial and retail buildings. He stated that the residents who attended the neighborhood meeting were in favor of this use due to the hours of operation and the smaller building. Reese asked if the current HealthEast clinic would close. Young responded yes, and they would also bring additional groups and services with them. Reese asked about the additional services and tenants. Young stated that they wil� begin marketing the building when they re- ceive all city approvals for the project, but prospective tenants couid include radiologists, den- tists, physical therapists. Reese asked if all trash receptacles would be stored internally in the building, because he has a concern about external trash enclosures at a medical clinic. Young displayed the floor plan of the building, which shows the location of the trash storage area. Reese then asked if this project would affect tne development of a medicai clinic in the East Ravine area. Blin responded that this wiil affect the medical market for the next few years but commercial development in the East Ravine would probably not begin for at least five years. Young stated that HealthEast wants to start construction as soon as possible so that they can occupy the space by first quarter of 2007. Kronlund asked about traffic patterns on 70th Street. Blin responded that Washington County restricted access at 70fh Street and Pine Arbor Lane to right-in, right-out only and they are adamant about retaining that and they may instali a median there in the future. Brittain stated tnat when the project was initially approved, the Commission strongly recommended restricted access at that intersection. Cavallo noted that traffic levels along 70th Street are increasing and he believes that traffic control devices, such as Iights, a traffic circle, or a turning lane, will be needed at 70th and Hinton. He also stated that he would like to see a three-foot berm built along Pine Arbor Lane and Pine Arbor Boulevard with trees planted continuously down those two streets to shield the Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2006 Page 6 of 11 residential area from the commercial. He asked if the 500-foot notification boundary could be increased to 750 feet for future projects. Na(e asked if there was a comprehensive pian for handiing run-off when this development was proposed or if every buiiding site would be responsible for handling its own run-off. Biin re- sponded that the pond would handle run-off from the entire commercial site. Hale noted that when the site was fully developed there would be a lot of impervious surFaces with a consider- able amount of run-off, so he would prefer to keep the proposed pond. Blin responded that it appears the down stream ponds may have sufficient capacity to handle both rate control and water quality, which is still being analyzed. Reese about the sidewalk. Young responded that the sidewalk around the site is already built and they are proposing,a pedestrian connection from the front door to get down to the retail portion of the site. ' Folch asked if there was any protocol for fencing around ponds. Blin responded no, explaining that most ponds are constructed with a safety bench so that the first 10 feet out from the edge of the pond is one foot or less in depth. He stated that this has been a topic at many cities and the advice from the risk management industry is not to fence the ponds because it creates more of a hazard than it solves because it is more difficult to get rescue personnel into the area if someone does get over the fence. Cavallo asked about the sign package and if there would a monument sign on 70th Street. Young stated that there is a monument sign by Holiday. When they finalize their landscaping plan, they may work a!monument sign into the areas by the entrance on Pine Arbor Drive. Cavallo asked about lighting. Young responded that there would be standard lighting in the parking lot with the allowable foot candles to the edge of the site and tney will replicate the light standards that have been used in the development. There will be up/down ambient lights on the pilasters on the building, the soffits would have recessed lighting, and the entrance and exit points would be lit per code. Cavallo then stated that he believes that the drainage pond should be kept because of the additional parking. Brittain asked if the city restricts lighting to downward directed only. Blin stated yes, but the up/down lighting proposed on the building is accent lighting, which typically is not obtrusive because it just spreads light over the building itself. Brittain expressed concern about light pollution. Blin suggested a condition to require most of the parking lot lighting to be turned off at a certain hour. Young agreed, except to allow enough lighting to ensure safety. Brittain asked if there is the potential for urgent care services at this site as this is a service that the city does not currently have. Young responded that the tenants they are currently working with do not provide urgent care services but future tenants may. Reese asked if after hour care wo�ld be provided. Young responded that some after hour care could be provided on occasion. The building would not be open in the evenings but would be open on Saturday mornings. Cavallo asked if the s'treet widths in the area would accommodate emergency vehicles. McCooi responded yes.l Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes ' May 22, 2006 Page 7 of 11 ' Cavallo asked if the Planning Commission would see the revised landscaping pian. Blin re- sponded that the applications will be taken before the City Council on June 7, but at the June Planning Commission meeting staff will present what the Council reviewed. Hale asked if one motion should be made or should a motion be made for each application. Blin responded that was up to tne Commission. Hale expressed concern about giving staff authority on the pond and" be added. He believes the whole site needs to be revisited in terms of the water run-off. Blin responded that those concerns are addressed in condition #5. Hale made a motion to approve the applications for the zoning amendment, compre- hensive plan amendment, and site plan review, subject to the conditions listed below. Reese seconded. Rezoning of the project to PUD is contingent upon approval of the comprehensive ptan amendment from High Density Residential to Commercial by the Metropolitan CounciL 2. The original conditions of approval identified in Ordinance No. 707 and 757 and Resolution Nos. 02-019, 03-020, 02-021 and 04-031 shall be complied with. 3. A/1 applicab/e permits (i.e., bui/ding, e%ctrical, grading, mechanical) and a commercia/ plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 4. Final exterior construction materials and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Departmenf prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. The grading and utility plans shall be revised to meet the approval of the City Engi- neer, and must comply with NPDES ll Permit requirements. Erosion control devices must be installed prior to commencement of any grading activity. Erosion control must pe performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the "Minne- sota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook" and fhe conditions stipu/ated in Title 10-5-8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 6. All curbing for the project must be consistent with the existing curbing in the PUD. 7. The applicant must provide the City with an as-built survey of all private utilities prior to certificate of occupancy. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicanf must submit a comprehen- sive sign package 'to the City for review and approvaL 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a comprehen- sive lighting package consistent with the city redevelopment plan to the City for review and approval. All outdoor lighting must be directed downward and away from residential properfy and public streets, and must not exceed one footcandle at fhe property lines adjacent to commercial, and a half footcandle adjacent to residential. Planning Commission Minutes ' May 22, 2006 Page 8 of 11 10. The landscaping plan musf be revised to address the items identified in fhe statf re- port. Said plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11.A bona fide cost estimate of the landscaping improvements must be submitted in conjunction with a'letter of credit approved by the City in the amount of 150 percent of such estimate. Upon compJetion of the landscaping requirements, the applicant must in writing inform the City that said improvements have been completed. The City must retain the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of no- tice to insure the survival of the plantings, and until the as-built utility survey has been submitted. No building permit will be issued until the required financial guar- antee has been received and accepted by the City. 12.Outdoorspeakersystems (e.g. paging, intercom, etc.) are prohibited. Reese asked for more information on how this proposal may affect medical clinic opportunities in the East Ravine. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote with 2 abstentions). Applications and Requests 7.1 Driveway Setbacks — Case TA06-027 McCool noted that the public hearing on the proposed ordinance would be continued to the June 26, 2006, meetingj: He expiained that the current ordinances were spread throughout the city code and suggested that all sections of the ordinance relating to driveways and parking pads be consolidated in one section of the city code. He displayed examples of driveway and parking pad configurations. Reese agreed that these ordinances should be consolidated in one section of the city code. Brittain asked if landscape rock between the driveway and the side yard is currently allowed. McCool responded that' landscape rock is ailowed but if it is used for parking, it wouid have to comply with the six-foot setback requirement. Brittain asked if a gravel parking pad was cur- rently in place, wouid that be grandfathered in. McCooi responded that the city would not re- quire existing nonconforming parking pads to be paved, unless it was expanded or relocated, and that the proposal would allow gravel surfaces that are not in conformance currently to be paved in the future. Brittain expressed concern about allowing nonconforming surfaces to be paved in the future. McGool responded that staff would reference the aerial photos that were taken a year ago as the base map. Reese asked if the city encourages property owners to pave parking surFaces. McCooi re- sponded that the city has always encouraged paving of parking surfaces but in areas on the side and rear of properties, the ordinance allows for a graveled surface. Brittain stated that he does not beiieve that the ciiy should allow existing nonconforming areas to be paved. Planning Commission Minutes ', May 22, 2006 , Page 9 of 11 , Hale stated that he could support this ordinance being enforced citywide if it was administered with common sense in regard to rural properties. 7.2 Easf Ravine — Continued Discussion on Sidewalks and iViulti-Family Exferiors Blin summarized the discussions on sidewalks and multi-family exteriors as part of the East Ravine design standards from the April 24, 2006, meeting. Staff will research the issue of the number of townhouse units of a single type in any one project and suggest a lower number. He stated that staff has been working with Public Works on the sidewalk issue. It was pro- posed to narrow the sidewalk width from six feet to five feet and require property owners to remove snow from the sidewalks in the front of houses. He then explained that currently yard trees are planted behind the street easement within private property, but Public Works has proposed bringing those trees forward to create a canopy and in those areas where there is a sidewalk, the tree would be between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. Reese asked who installs boulevard trees and would the yard tree be included in the number of trees that the city is requiring the property owner to install. Blin responded that in the past the city required the developers to install the yard trees but there were issues with the quality of the installation so they now pay the city for the trees and the city plants the trees. The yard tree would be one of the five trees that have to be planted on each lot. Cavallo stated that he would like to see a four to five-foot wide sidewalk, provided by the de- veloper, and maintained by the property owners, with a grass boulevard between the sidewalk and the street. Blin responded that the standard width of a boulevard from back of curb to sidewalk edge is six feet. He reiterated that that was just proposed and may not be the rec- ommendation; and he asked for comment by the Commission. Brittain asked where the utilities usually are run along the street. He then stated that sidewalks in front houses along a direct route to a school should be plowed by the city. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2006 Motion by Nale, seconded by Reese, to approve the minutes from the Planning Com- mission meeting on April 24, 2006. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-O). Reports '' 9.1 Recap of May City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meetings in May 2006. Reese asked about the timeline for construction for 90th Street and County Road 19. Blin responded that by August, 90th Street on the west side of Keats should be done and the eastern seg- ment by October or November. Cavallo asked how the City Council responded to the Hadley Avenue residents' comments regarding the concept plan for the proposed Walden Woods de- velopment. Grossklaus!responded that the developer would be willing to work with the resi- dents and the city on those issues, including not having sewer coming from 65th Street, not having an access onto Hadley Avenue, and pushing the trail back as much as possible from that one property owner. Blin stated that the city is working with our consulting engineers and Pianning Commission Minutes ', May 22, 2006 Page 10 of 11 a landscape architecture firm to come up with a roadway design for Hadley that has a rural look to it. Cavallo asked about the access to the development from Hadiey. Grossklaus re- sponded that the developer would be amenable to eliminating that access. Blin stated that is an issue tnai the city needs to iook at more giobaiiy. The city is doing a traffic anaiysis of that area. Closing off that ro'ad access may not take any trips off Hadley, as it is a route that goes north to Woodbury and fiuture residents would most likely use Hadley to go north, even if they had to go down to 65th Street to exit the development. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Blin stated that the County is sponsoring a roundabout open house at the Bielenberg Sports Center on May 23 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The primary focus of the open house is the County's plan to build a roundabout at the intersection of Radio Drive and Bailey Road in Woodbury. He displayed a drawing of the proposed roundabout proposed for Jamaica Avenue and Highway 61 and explained how roundabouts operate. Folch stated that she thinks round- abouts are great but she expressed concern about pedestrians. Biin showed that there is a pedestrian path on the plans, explaining that the path is pulled back from the intersection and signage is added. Cavallo asked if the city has gauged how the citizens feel about round- abouts. Blin responded Ithat the experience in other locations with roundabouts is that people are very skeptical until they use one a couple times. Hale asked about the construction schedule for Jamaica and Highway 61. Blin responded that the city plans to be under con- struction in 2007. Reese asked if there were any studies on roundabout safety. Blin re- sponded that studies show that accident rates go down with roundabouts and the severity of any accidents are considerably reduced. 9.4 Planning Commission Requests Reese asked if the property owners on Hadley would be assessed for street improvements and sewer and water, if Hadiey were been recently reconstructed, and if the property owners assessed for that project. Blin responded that a modification was made several years ago to one of the hilis to put in', a median and the curve was removed from the intersection of Hadley Avenue and 65th Street during the 65th Street project and there were no assessments for either project. If Hadley Avenue was reconstructed, any assessments would be done an a rural rate. He then explained that there would no assessments for utilities until a property owner connects to the',system. Brittain noted that there are limits to assessments for infra- structure maintenance.IReese asked if an impact study couid be done regarding access to Hadley Avenue, noting that Highiand Hills has only one access and it seems to be a burden. He expressed concern!about emergency crews navigating those developments with limited accesses. Cavallo stated that he believes if a property owner does not want the improve- ments, they should not', have to pay, whether it is street improvements, water, or sewer. He also believes any improvement costs should be placed on the developer not the residents. Brittain stated that Hadley Avenue is a connection to the north and not an entrance to a subdi- vision or a dead-end sfreet, so certain assessments would be needed for its reconstruction. Cavallo stated that property owners with large acreage could be unduly burdened with assessment costs. Planning Commission Minutes ', May 22, 2006 ', Page 11 of 11 ' Reese expressed concern about the size of the entrance sign to the Pine Cliff development. He also noted that more freestanding signs are being placed at intersections. Brittain asked for a copy of the West Draw Task Force Report. Cavallo asked if the city engineer could give a report to the Commission on the city's water capacity and aquifers. Fle would like to require car washes in the city to recycle their water. Adjournment Motion by Reese, seconded by Cavallo, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimousfy (8-to- 0). The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ,� � � ��,�� • • � -• � u �n .. v� PLANNING COMMISSION ' REGUL.AR MEETING JUNE 26, 2006 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4 Open Forum 5. Chair's Explanation of Hearing Process 6. Pubiic Hearings and Application Reviews 6.1 Yeshiva School — Cases ZA06-029 and CUP06-030 Yeshiva Congregation of the Twin Cities has applied for a zoning text amendment to City Code Title 11-9D-4; Conditional Uses, to allow for dormitories as accessory uses to pub- lic, private, and parochial schools with accommodations for up to 75 persons residing on the site provided that no buildings shall be located within 50 feet of any lot line. They have also applied for a conditional use permit for a parochial school with dormitory at 8944 Indahl Avenue South. (Public hearing) 6.2 Gallas Addition — Case V06-034 Allen Gallas has applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-9D-5A, Development Stan- dards in the R-3, Single Family Residential District, to allow construction of an addition 10 feet from the rear properiy line at 8841 Upper 89th Street Circle South, when 35 feet is required. (Public hearing) 6.3 Stewart Dog Kennel — Case CUP06-028 Allen and Christine Stewart have applied for a conditional use permit to allow a dog boarding kennel at 9435 Kimbro Avenue South. (Public hearing) 6.4 Bredeson Deck — Case V06-036 Gary and Tamra Bredeson, 6385 Goodview Bay South, have applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-9B-5, Development Standards in the R-2, Residential Estate Zoning District, to allow a deck to be setback 15 feet from the side property line when 20 feet is required. (Planning Gommission review; public hearing held by City Council on 7/5/06) Planning Commission Agenda June 26, 2006 Page 2 6.5 Ideal Acres — Cases PP06-031 and V06-032 Dick Braun has applied for a preliminary plat for ideal Acres, which would consist of four single-family lots located on the west side of Ideal Avenue between 110th Street and 113th Street, and a variance to City Code Title 11-15-8B, Density Requirements in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District. (Public hearing) 6.6 Resubmittal of Applications — Case TA06-033 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for an amendment to City Code Titles 10-1-8A and 11-12-12A, Resubmittal of Applications, which would set a time frame for resubmit- ting planning applications. (Pubiic hearing) 6J Core Development Concept Plan — South Point Ridge (Concept plan review) 7. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2006 8. Reports 8.1 Recap of June City Council Meetings 8.2 Committee Reports 8.3 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries 8.4 Planning Commission Requests 9. Adjournment Continued to Julv 24, 2006 Meetinq Driveway Setbacks — Case TA06-027 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for amendments to the City Code regarding driveway setbacks. (Public hearing continued from 5/22/06) G:\planning�2006WgendasWune 26, 2006 Agenda.doc