Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-28 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held at City Hali, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 28th day of August, 2006, in the Councii Chambers and telecast on local Government Cabie 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, Rebecca Kronlund, Tracy Poncin, Chris Reese, David Thiede Members Absent: Rod Hale Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Mark Grossklaus, City Council Approval of Agenda Motion by Thiede, second by Bauer, to approve the agenda. Motion approved una►ri- mously (8-0 vote). Open Forum Chairperson Brittain asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non- agenda item. No one addressed 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 pubiic 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 and Application Reviews 6.1 Maul Addition — Case V06-050 Todd Maui, 9791 Hamlet Avenue South, has applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-9E- 5A, Development Standards in the R-4, Low Density Residential District, to allow an addi- Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 2 of 22 tion to be constructed above the garage 5 feet ffrom the side property line when 7.5 feet is required. McCool summ�rized 4he s�a�r report and recommended approval subjec4 to 4he condifiions stipulated in the staff report. Bauer noted that the house does not run parallel to the side property lines and asked at what point it become in compliance with setback requirements. McCool responded that only the front corner of the existing garage would not be in compliance. Brittain opened the public hearing. Mike St. Germain, 9795 Hamlet Avenue South, stated that he is the adjacent neighbor and has no objections to the variance for the addition. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Thiede made a motion to approve the application subject fo the conditions /isted below. Cavallo seconded. 1. The property owner must obtain a building permit from the city before starf+ng con- struction of the new addition. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 voteJ. 6.2 Presbyterian Homes — Cases CP06-060, ZA06-061, PP06-062, SP06-063, CUP06-064 Presbyterian Homes & Services has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the current land use designation; approval of a Planned Development Overlay zoning to allow a mixed-use residential and commercial development; approval of a pre- liminary and final planned development overlay plans; approval of a preliminary plat; and approval of a conditional use permit and site plan to allow a senior housing building to be Iocated on the former Cottage Square site. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Bob Van Slyke, Presbyterian Homes, introduced Ward Isaacson from Pope & Associates, their architect firm, who will go through the details on the building. Van Slyke explained the basic premise of the senior housing project stating that it includes 86 independent living apartment units ranging in size from 712 to 1373 square feet, 42 assisted living units ranging in size from 551 to 964 square feet, and 18 memory care units ranging from 337 to 975 square that are located on the first floor level of the assisted living building. The building will have a town center area in the center section that connects between the assisted and the in- dependent living buildings. Within the town center area the amenities include a cinema, wood- shop, club lounge, dining rooms, large community room, kitchen bistro area, general store, aerobics room, fitness room, massage therapy room, barber/beauty shop, library, chapel area, and guest room. There will be heated underground parking under the independent living building. The approximate size of the senior building is 230,000 square feet. Van Slyke stated Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 3 of 22 that there will be an agreement with the retail portion of the site that the senior housing build- ings can use the retail lots for overflow parking. He explained that all the independent living units will have decks, washer/dryer units, appliances, emergency caii system, and an optional meal program. The assisted and memory care areas wiil feature front controlled stoves, appli- ances, a meal program that includes two meals per day for assisted and three meals per day for memory care, a housekeeping program, emergency call system, and access to home care services. The entire building has controlled entrances. Ward isaacson, Pope Associates Architects, Energy Park Drive in St. Paul, displayed the site plan of the senior building and explained the various components. There will be both a visual buffer and a space buffer between the senior housing and retail projects and a fair amount of landscaping along the parking areas. They have not yet developed the landscape plan for the rear area but intend on creating a courtyard with possible water features, landscaping, and paths. He then displayed the building floor plans explaining the amenities on each floor and section. He described the e�erior of the building. Thiede asked what the cost range for rent would be for the independent living apartments. Van Slyke stated that the preliminary pricing for independent building the average rate is $1.42 per square foot, which on a 712 square foot apartment equates to $1,011 per month. The average size apartment, which is 1,052 square feet for a two-bedroom, would be about $1,494 per month. Besides the rent, there is an entrance deposit that is fully refundable to the residents, which ranges from $14,000 for the smallest unit in the independent building up to $27,118, and those deposits are fully refundable when a resident leaves the unit. The assisted living rates average between $2,450 per month to $3,350. Thiede asked about the entrance deposits for the assisted living units. Van Slyke responded that there are no entrance deposits for the assisted living and memory care units. Foich asked if the rates are fixed or would the rents increase based on usual inflation rates. Van Slyke responded that the rates do not go up the second year of the project but after the second year, the rate is generally increased by the cost of living because their costs also go up. Folch asked if the deposits earned interest. Van Siyke responded that the deposits don't earn interest but do buy down the rent by about 5 percent; the rent would be higher without the deposits. Reese asked if there was signage planned for the building. Van Slyke answered that there would be monument signs at the major entrances to the senior building. Reese asked how many signs they are proposing. isaacson stated that there would be one off Hadley Avenue and likely a smaller one would be centralized in the circle area off the front drive. Reese asked if there would be others for the commercial development. Isaacson responded yes but they have not yet determined where it would be located. Reese asked if that sign would include just the retail or the overall site. isaacson stated that he assumes the retail signage would be just for the retail. Van Slyke stated that the senior building the monument sign will have either stone or brick piers on the sides of the sign with a double sided, backlit sign that is visibie from either side of the road. Isaacson stated that it is important to carry some of the materials or colors from housing to the retail to tie the monument signs together. Reese then asked if the proposed cedar fence would be just along the back of the property. Isaacson displayed the site plan, pointing out the cedar fence along back side of the senior housing site. The final lo- cation of the fence could be discussed as the final site plan is completed. Reese asked who is responsible for the sidewalk along Hadiey and if the city approves of a cedar fence. Blin re- Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 4 of 22 sponded that cedar is acceptable and staff is confident that Presbyterian Homes will maintain it. The sidewalk would be the responsibility of Presbyterian Homes. Blin stated that as part of the development agreement between Presbyterian Homes and the EDA there is an amount set forward for streetscape improvements along Hadley and Grange, which would include that sidewalk. Poncin asked if an analysis had been done on whether there is sufficient demand in the area for this type of housing and how long they anticipate the building would take to fill. Van Slyke responded that they did a preliminary market analysis and they believe that there is demand in Cottage Grove. They also hired an outside firm, Maxfield Research, to do an independent study, which should be completed shortly. They project that the independent living would take about 12 months to fill up and the assisted living anywhere from 15 to 20 months. Cavallo asked if the architecture for the building is the standard for Presbyterian Homes or is that based on local standards. Van Slyke responded that the architecture is conducive to the surrounding community but it is not that different from most of their buiidings. He invited the Planning Commission and City Council to visit a building they are just finishing in Brookiyn Park, which is very similar to this project in size, finishes, and exterior features. Isaacson stated that they have been looking at this project for a long time and they have gone through a lot of iterations of the elevation. It is not a copy of any one building but they do feel that the flavor of it fits within the context of the City. The senior building has to look like home and feel very residential. Cavallo suggesting adding more brick on the four-story section because it looks Iike there is too much siding. Isaacson displayed the full elevation of the front of the building, noting that hey are bringing up brick on the bays that wrap around the building on the independent side as well. He explained that a rock-faced base wraps continuously around the whole building with portions where they are trying to break up the tagade so it is just not big flat building. Cavallo asked if there would be a berm where that cedar fence is planned. Isaacson stated that the land starts to berm naturally and they are not going to disturb the berm at all. The existing trees will stay and they will plant their screen trees on the beginning of the berm. Cavallo asked if the berm, fence, and trees would wrap around the west side of the building where the parking is. Isaacson stated that the pond is nice buffer on the west side of the site and they will also add landscaping there. They are more concerned about the south side of the site because the building is cioser to the residential. Cavallo suggested planting the trees that will buffer the future commercial area now so that the trees will provide a better buffer. isaacson and Van Slyke agreed that that is a good suggestion, but they need to weigh the damage to the trees that may occur from construction. Cavallo then asked what the total number of signs for both projects they plan to put on Hadley Avenue. Isaacson responded that there would be a two-sided monument sign for the senior portion, there will be a small "deliveries only" sign, and a sign for the retail area that would be smaller than the sign that would be on Grange Boulevard. Cavallo stated that Grange is more of a commercial street and Hadley is a residential street, so there only needs to be one sign for the residential building and ail the commercial signage shouid be on Grange. He then asked the city is planning to keep Hadley as a two-Iane street. Blin responded that Presbyte- rian Homes wili complete a trafFic study before the second phase of the development is pre- sented to determine if any turn lanes are necessary. Cottage Square was in existence for years and turn lanes were never needed. Cavallo expressed concern about semi-truck traffic for the commercial portion and asked if there could be two entrances into the commercial from Grange to limit truck traffic on the Hadley. Van Siyke explained that there is a concern that Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 5 of 22 another entrance too close to the stoplight would cause stacking issues, which is why they kept the entrances for both the commercial and senior housing away from the major intersec- tion. Isaacson stated that they want to create an urban streetscape and not disturb that with another entry cirive. Ne stated that the entry drive could be moved based on the traffic study. Thiede asked if they planned on demolishing the Cottage Square mall, New Moon building, and the Goodyear building and start construction on the senior housing this year. Isaacson re- sponded that they plan the demolition for this fall and to start construction late this year. Thiede asked what the timeline is for construction of the retail portion of the project. Van Slyke responded that they hope to come before the city with those plans in early 2007 and look to develop everything but the BP Amoco site within the property they own. The BP Amoco site cannot be developed until after April 2008. Thiede asked if they had received any commit- ments for the retail. Van Slyke responded that they have some preliminary commitments for a potential medicai office buiiding and some retail uses. Brittain asked about the fire access lane around the building and the base material extending beyond the width of the trail. Isaascson responded that they have not determined what that material is yet but at other facilities they own they used a paver system that has a hard sur- face but aliows grass to grow through it, cailed Grass Pave, that would make up the extra width on either side of the trail needed for fire trucks. Brittain asked if there would be noise buffering between the woodshop and the cinema. Van Slyke responded that there would be soundproofing added to the walls. Isaacson responded that those areas are in the basement so there would be a concrete block wall around the woodshop. Brittain asked if this would be a Medicare approved facility. Van Slyke responded no, but the services provided by the home care agency, which is licensed, could quaiify for Medicare but none of the rents are Medicare eligible. Reese asked about the ponds and if the two ponds could be reversed as there wouid be more runoff along Hadley Avenue. Isaacson explained how the drainage worked on the site. Reese noted that from the elevations on the grading plan, it looks like everything is going to flow down towards the Hadley pond and asked if that pond was big enough to handle the runoff. Isaacson explained the drainage flow and pointed out the flow on the grading plan. Cavallo asked what the resolution was with DeMori's and Snyders and have they found new locations. Van Slyke responded that the agreements with both DeMori's and Snyders included buying out their remaining leases and paying for relocation costs, though both businesses are currently not relocating. They did offer Snyders an option to relocate on the site but it did not work out for both parties. Bauer asked if there couid be more than one walking path from the residential area to the commercial. Isaacson pointed out that there is also a sidewalk along Hadley Avenue that con- nects to the pedestrian portion. Bauer asked on the second floor what is running along build- ing from the beauty shop to the independent units. Isaacson responded that was a porch roof and lattice, explaining that there is a flat roof portion of the building with a parapet wall to screen roof top equipment and to vent the kitchen equipment. Kronlund agreed that there should be some thought given to putting in some short paths as a safety consideration to minimize the distance people may be walking in the driving lane, espe- cially on the southwest side that would head over to where the restaurants are going to be. Pianning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 6 of 22 Isaacson responded that they could revisit the pedestrian connections with commercial site plan review. Folch noted that there are railroad tracks going past on the other side of Hadley Avenue and asked if there has been any consideration regarding soundproofing. Van Slyke responded that they plan to install Anderson Windows in the building but they are using the same exterior materials as they have on their other buildings. Poncin asked if there could be more green space and landscaping incorporated into the retail portion of the project. isaacson stated that there will be landscaped islands. Van Slyke ex- plained that they have balance the amount of green space with ensuring that there is a suffi- cient number of parking spaces for the retail tenants. Cavallo asked how much green space they plan on having in that parking lot and will there be trees or grass. Van Slyke responded that the islands will have green space. Brittain opened the public hearing. Joseph Ambalathunkel, AJS Company, Inc., owner of the BP station on Grange Boulevard, stated they purchased the business portion of the gas station without the property for a sub- stantial amount in 2004. At that time the shopping center and the businesses surrounding them were very lively and vibrant. He stated that neither they nor their lawyer knew that the surrounding property was a target of redevelopment, even after asking the city several times, even the day before the closing date, if there were any plans for the redevelopment in that area. He was assured that the BP property was not included in the plan. He stated that when he heard that Presbyterian Homes wanted to purchase the BP property, he tried contacting them numerous times times, but they did not respond. They would Iike to be able to stay in business at their current location or have a business in the same area with a reasonable rent. He noted that BP offered to sell them the property but the price was too high. He stated that when their lease expires in 2008, Presbyterian Homes will not renew the lease and will kick them out without paying anything for the business for which they paid a half million dollars and their houses are on the line as collateral. He asked for reasonable compensation. Rolland Barber, 8287 Grenadier Avenue South, stated that he lived there for over 40 years. He asked how many floors would the medical office building have and how far would it be from the residential property line. He noted that the existing berm comes up to the level of their yard and there is no rise from anybody's yard before it drops down into tne shopping center. He asked where the fence would be iocated. Brittain noted that the retail portion of the project is in a very preliminary stage and it will come before the Planning Commission for re- view before it is constructed. Van Slyke stated that the medical office building is projected to be two stories in height. Isaacson stated that the building setback will be 60 to 70 feet from the rear property line, which meets the city's setback requirement. No one e/se spoke. Brittain c/osed the public hearing, Cavallo asked Barber about the trees on his and his neighbors' properties. Barber responded that DeMori's put in the trees on the shopping center site. He stated that he has some tall arborvitaes on his property and some of the neighbors don't have any trees in the back. Most of the neighbors have a solid wood fence. Barber stated that he believes that a berm with a Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 7 of 22 fence and trees on top would be a good screen from the two-story medical office building. Blin expiained that the development site sits below the surrounding residentiai properties, so berm is probably the wrong term; there is a grade change and it goes up a small hill to the rear of the neighboring single family lots. The proposal is to put a fence on top of that hill. Cavalio asked if Barber would prefer to see that hill increased, a fence put on that, and then some trees behind that. Barber stated that there would not have to be much of a berm if it is only a two-story office building and they put a fence back there. Folch asked if Presbyterian Homes owns all the property. Biin responded yes. Folch asked if the only thing the Commission is taking into consideration is the senior housing portion and the commercial portion would become part of the project at a later date. Blin responded that the developers are seeking preliminary approval to the way the site lays out and the general building layout of the retail portion. Folch stated that she feels that to not respond to the owner of the BP station seems a little bit of an insult. Brittain stated that those issues are not in the purview of the Planning Commission, but should be dealt with between Presbyterian Homes and the owners of BP. Tniede stated that he agrees with Brittain, and noted that he is a supporter of small business, noting that having a gas station as part of the project could be beneficial. Reese expressed concern about ponding noting that the two ponds should be flipped and the number of monument signs they are proposing for the site. He would also like to see more detail on the lighting around the building. Reese made a motion to approve the applications subject to the conditions listed be- low. Poncin seconded. 1. AI( site, utility, landscaping and building plans must conform to plans dated August 22, 2006, with revisions noted in the staff report. These include the replacement of vinyl siding proposed in the building etevations with cementious siding. 2. Final site and building plans for Phase 2 of the project must be submitted for review and approva! by the City. These plans must also include a streetscape plan for Hadley Avenue and Grange Boulevard which is consistent with the terms of the De- velopment Agreement between Senior Housing Partners and the Cottage Grove Economic Development Authority. 3. AI! revisions to uti0ity and drainage plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 4. Final drainage plans must be submitted to the South Washington Watershed District for review. 5. A fraffic sfudy must be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer. This study wili be used to determine if turn lanes, tratfic control signs, and the (ike witl be neces- sary on Kadley and C3range Avenues. Costs for ali such improvements wi!l be the responsibility of the developer. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 8 of 22 6. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, etc.J must be issued by the City prior to any work or consfrucfion taking place. Detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Otficial and Fire Marshall. 7. lnstalfation of tandscaping shali occur in a timely fashion and be consistent with an approved landscaping plan. A lefter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the landscape estimate shall be submitted to the City as required by City ordinance (Ti- tle 11-6-6(�). The financial guarantee shall be in effect for one year from the date of installation to ensure the installation, survival, and replacement of the landscaping improvements. 8. Irrigation shall be provided for all sodded and landscaped areas, including the curbed landscaped island interior to the parking lot The irrigation system shall consist of an underground sprinkling system that is designed by a professiona! irrigation installer to meet the water requirements of the site's specific vegetation. The system shall be detailed on the /andscape plan. 9. Concrete aprons for all private access drives shaU be constructed per City require- ments. 10. Park dedication requirements will be met through a cash payment in the amount of $4,000 per unit. 11. Open flame grills are prohibited on the decks. 12. The developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Cottage Grove for the installation of and payment for alI public improvements in the subdivi- sion, pursuant to Title 10 of the City Code. 13.Erosion control devices sha/1 be instatled 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 stipulafed in Title 10-5-8, Erosion Control during Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 14. All site lighting must meet City Code requirements. All light fixtures must be down- ward directed with cut-otfs. The specifications of all light fixtures must be provided with the application for a building permit. Brittain pointed out to Presbyterian Homes that the first condition does not allow vinyl siding with respect to the upper portions of the building. He stated that it was mentioned that that was stili being discussed. Cavallo asked to have future discussions on signage along Hadley Avenue, more trees screening the residential areas, and increasing the size of the berm. He also wanted to com- ment that while it is not in the Commission's purview to say what a landowner can do with their tenants, his heart does go out to the owners of BP. He does not see why that business cannot be worked into the development. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 9 of 22 Van Slyke explained that they bought the property because it was for sale by BP Amoco, who had planned to close the station or sell it to another operator. Presbyterian Homes saw the purchase of that property as an opportunity to enhance the site. They have tried to resolve the issues with the curren4 opera4ors of BP, pointing aut that the lease is wi4h BP �nd nofi wifh Presbyterian Homes. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.3 7173 Lamar Avenue Lot Split— Case RS06-051 and V06-052 Michael Anderson has appiied for a simple Iot division to subdivide a 1.21-acre parcel of land at 7173 Lamar Avenue South into two parcels to allow a house to be moved onto the portion of the lot containing an existing garage, and variances to City Code Title 11-3- 8B(2), Water and Sewerage, to ailow a septic system on a lot less than the required 1.5 acres, and to City Code Title 11-3-3C, Accessory Structure Setbacks, to allow the garage to be located in front of the principal structure. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Mike Anderson, 8809 Jewel Avenue South, stated that he is a lifelong resident of Cottage Grove, has owned a business located in the city for the last 20 years, and bought a property at 7404 Lamar Avenue 10 years ago to which he made improvements. He explained that the proposal is that his partners, Dan and Michelle Grundner, would live on the property. He dis- played a drawing showing the new fa�ade of the house. He stated that site will accommodate another septic system. He noted that there are smaller lots to the east of this parcel that have septic systems and sometime in the future, city sewer and water will be extended to the area. McCool reported that as part of the packet there were letters and petitions in support of the house relocation. Also included in the packet are Ietters from some of the individuals who had initially signed the petitions rescinding their names. There were also copies of letters received that oppose the relocation from Laura Zempel, 7163 Lamar Avenue; Richard Gaalswyk, 7160 �amar Avenue; Mike and Danita Bertram, 7204 Lamar Avenue; Gary Eddy, 7259 Laverne Avenue;, and eight or nine handwritten letters from residents in the Old Cottage Grove area. Bauer asked why there is a 1.5-acre requirement for septic systems. McCool responded that was established by the City in 1988, at which time City staff felt should be the minimum acre- age for a residential parcel with septic and well. Bauer asked if the size of the parcel affects the functionality of the septic system. McCool responded provides for open space for primary and secondary fields. Anderson stated that when they first proposed moving the house, they had a lot of support. He stated that there have been a Iot of misunderstandings as to what the house was going to be used for. While he won't be living in the house, his partners would be Iiving there and the house would not be a rental house or for immigrant housing. Kronlund asked if the city was concerned about the separation of the septic system and the wells for the adjacent properties. Blin answered yes. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 10 of 22 Brittain asked if there has been an ongoing concern for the overali water quality in the area. Blin responded that there have been some problems with welis in Old Cottage Grove and the city expects that those problems would only increase in number. Thiede asked if 7163 and 7175 �amar, the two adjacent narrow lots, both have their own sep- tic systems. McCool responded that they do. Cavalio asked if city utilities extended to this area in the future. Blin answered that this area is currently outside the MUSA and in the East Ravine Master Plan, it remained outside the MUSA; however as utilities are designed for the East Ravine area, those utilities will be sized so that someday Old Cottage Grove could be served. There are currently no plans to extend those utilities. Reese asked if the house could survive being moved. Anderson responded yes. He noted that the home is structurally sound, but they will be replacing the siding and windows and adding on porches and dormers. Brittain opened the public hearing. John Perkins, 10723 Lehigh Road South, stated that he had lived in Oid Cottage Grove for 55 years and is a member of the United Church of Christ, which currently owns the house pro- posed to be moved. They do not want to destroy the house, as it is structurally sound. He has been doing the maintenance on it for the last 15 years. The house was built in 1950 and has solid plaster walls, a two-year old roof with 40-year shingles, and soiid floors, but the windows need to be replaced. He noted that the two lots that would result from the lot split would be bigger than many of the existing lots in Old Cottage Grove. He then refuted some of the points in the Gaalswyk letter. Kevin Enger, 7175 Lamar Avenue South, expressed concern about the size of the two lots that wouid be created, adding another septic system to the area that already has issues with nitrates in the water supply, the location of the existing garage, and possible stormwater runoff and drainage issues. He noted that all the neighbors within 500 feet of the properiy are op- posed to the applications. He then stated that the petition only asked for support to move the dwelling and did not reference where it would be moved to. Richard Gaalsywk, 7160 Lamar Avenue South, which is directly across the street from 7173 Lamar Avenue, stated that there are at least two current nonconforming uses on that property: a home with a septic system on less than 1.5 acres that appears to have a greater than 13 percent slope and a garage that is located closer to the street than the existing house. He ex- pressed concern about drainage and well contamination on his property. He noted that even though many of the lots in the area are smaller than 1.5 acres, that is no reason to allow more until city utilities are e�ended to the area. He expressed concern about the value and aes- thetics of the house and that it would have a negative impact on the value of his property. He noted that the current house would not have a garage. He also stated that churches are gov- erned by the same zoning regulations as other entities. Laura Zempel, 7163 �amar Avenue South, stated that she is opposed to moving the house. She is concerned about her water quality as her well is located in her front yard. She is con- cerned about the location of the septic system noting that her nitrate Ievel is high. She is also Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 11 of 22 concerned about drainage and water run-off. She also does not believe that the house would fit into the existing neighborhood. Anderson reiterated that ihe properfy wouid not be rental. He and Grundner own the property and it is going to be his residence. He stated that the house is not small. He showed some pictures of how they would renovate the home. They estimate that after renovation the home's value would be $350,000. He explained that after moving the house onto the lot, they will renovate it, add landscaping, add a garage to the existing house, and put in new driveways for both houses. They have had soil test for the septic system and were told that what they want to do will work on the property. Michele Grundner, 7838 — 76th Street South, stated that their intentions on moving the house is to preserve a part of the community and they hoped it would be welcomed. She stated that both she and her husband are long time residents of the city and she works for the local school district. Enger expressed concern about varying from the ordinances, questioning why this proposal got this far in the process. Brittain explained the function of the Planning Commission and the public hearing process. No one e/se spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Reese made a motion to deny the simple lot division and variance applications based on the fact that the lot is too small for a septic system and the original lot is smaller than ordinance requirements. Folch seconded, adding her concerns about drainage and run-off in the area. Cavallo stated that he does not believe that the septic system is a big issue if the health de- partment is going to sign off on it and the city may extend in services to the area at some point. He thinks that the house would be a vast improvement to the neighborhood due to the amount of work and money that would be invested in it. He noted that Old Cottage Grove is unique as it predates most of the area and has irregular lots. However, he does not like to grant variances when the neighbors are in unison against them. Bauer stated that he supports the motion to deny as well. He stated that he does not have a problem with smaller lots as long as everything on the property can function within it, but he is not confident that would be the case in this situation based on the information in the submittal. Thiede voiced a similar opinion as Bauer. If the septic was approved by Washington County and the existing garage situated a little differently on the lot, he might be more supportive of the applications. Brittain added that the 1.5-acre minimum lot size requirement for septic system has been in the ordinances for a long time and was based on past issues in the city. He stated that the size of the lots would be about a third of what the ordinance requires, which is a significant difference in size. Mofion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 12 of 22 6.4 Everwood — Cases CP06-043, ZA06-044, PP06-045 (continued from 7/24/06) MJR Developers have applied for a comprehensive pBan amendment to expand the MUSA boundary arod ta change the land use designation from Rura! Re�idential to Low Den�Bty Residentiai and Commercial; a zoning amendment to change the zoning from R-2, Resi- dential Estate, to R-2.5, Residential, and B-2, Retail Business; and a preliminary plat for Everwood, which would create 29 single family lots and 4 outlots, of which one would be future commercial use. The property is located on the west side of Hardwood Avenue, north of East Point Douglas Road. Bauer, due to a conf�ict of interest, recused himself from action on these applications. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the comprehensive plan amendments, approval of the zoning amendment from F2-2 to R-2.5, denial of the zoning amendment to B-2 until there is a commercial project proposed, and approval of the prelimi- nary plat, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Mike Rygh, 505 Lakeside Drive, Bayport, stated that tney have met numerous times with staff on this plan. He stated that this site would be built with upscale housing that could range is price from $500,000 to $1,000,000 house. He noted that the average Iot width at the setback is 98.3 feet. They are going to preserve as many of tne trees as possible. He stated that the biggest issue on the plat is the small cul-de-sac. He displayed a drawing of the original cul-de- sac noting that it has a 45-foot radius. After researching turning radii for various vehicles, they came up with an alternative plan and would be willing to give up one of the lots on the cul-de- sac if they can keep the costs of the turn-around down. He then displayed the alternative plan and discussed other options for roadways and layouts in the development. He stated that they are willing to work with the city on any of the proposed options. Cavallo asked which option was the final version. Blin responded that none are final; staff and the developer are still working on an alternative cul-de-sac design that allows the house pad to move to the west so the homeowner to the north does not have a house in their backyard. The site is constrained by the slope. Brittain explained that the drawings in the Planning packet are no Ionger being discussed; the packet that was placed on the dais is the version being reviewed. He noted that the only area that has not been finalized yet is the small cul-de- sac. Cavallo asked if a park would be built in the area with the steep hill and old growth trees. Blin responded that it would be classified as park land but it would be open space and the only improvements are the trail corridors. Thiede expressed concern about the three homes that would be separated from the others in the neighborhood. He asked if Timber Ridge has a homeowners association and whether the Timber Ridge, Oak Cove, and Everwood developments could all be combined in the same homeowners association. Rygh stated that he would consider that but the members of the Timber Ridge homeowners association would also have to agree. He stated that the Ever- wood developmenYs homeowners association also would address tree conservation, which would be more of an issue for Everw000d than for Timber Ridge. He explained that the Ever- wood association would only be there to maintain the monument sign, some landscape islands, and the trees. One of the residents of Timber Ridge reported that they do not have a homeowners association. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 13 of 22 Brittain asked where the monument signs and center island would be located. Rygh re- sponded that there would be two monuments, one on each side of the street to identify that they are driving into the new neighborhood. The center island would be Iocated in one of the cul-de-sacs. Poncin asked where the access point would be for the neighborhood. Blin responded that there are only two access points for Timber Ridge, one is 73rd Street and the other is Meadow Grass Avenue. Poncin stated that she would like to avoid separate monuments because of the small number of houses and the only people who would go back there would live there. Cavallo agreed with Poncin on the monument signs. Rygh stated that most of the upscale de- velopments in the metro area have separate neighbornoods created within large subdivisions. The goal is to create neighborhoods within neighborhoods, which is highiy desired by con- sumers. Cavalio stated that as you add onto an existing neighborhood with a dead-end they should not be separated from the existing neighbors. Blin stated that there appears to be con- flicting desires, one is to blend the new neighborhood into the area to the north and the devel- oper wants to market a separate area. He explained that the monuments do not have be large; they could be a relatively small size that isn't ostentatiousbut indicates that this is a dif- ferent neighborhood. Cavallo agreed but believes that the city should try to unify the two neighborhoods. Reese asked for clarification on which part of the applications should be tabled. Blin stated that rather than tabling, the Commission should not act on the request to rezone the commer- cial portion of the site from the existing R-2 to B-2. He explained that that portion would remain R-2 until such time as the development team comes in with a plan for that. Brittain opened the public hearing. Ralph Rolling, 7479 Meadow Grass Cove, stated that he owns the house at the edge of the cul-de-sac. He asked that the house pad in the small cul-de-sac should be moved so it is more in line with his house and not in nis backyard. He asked if the vote would include a delay on the decision on the cui-de-sac. Brittain responded that would depend on the motion; the Commission could vote to delay a portion of the application. Rolling stated tnat when they chose their home site, they were very conscious of the fact that the Iand right next to them was zoned for rural residential, and their expectation was that there would be big houses on big lots. If the development is approved as submitted, they would virtually have a house in their backyard. He suggested centering the cul-de-sac directly on the road, moving the cul-de- sac to the west and putting in a retaining wall on that side, or shortening the driveways. Blin responded that those ideas could be looked at. Ken Guidera, 7455 Meadow Grass Cove, stated that when he bought his house, he under- stood that this was going to be a rural residential area with larger Iots. He stated that there is not enough room to have three lots on that cul-de-sac. He is happy to hear the builder is con- sidering going to two lots. He asked that staff work with the builder on the design of the cul-de- sac. He also asked the Commission to consider the preservation of more trees and possibly to have less density on the hill. Leo Faller, 7420 Meadow Grass Cove, expressed concern about the Iocation of the trail and people walking through his yard. He asked if the trail location could be moved or if a berm and Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 14 of 22 landscaping could be added as a barrier between his property and the trail. He then asked at the beginning of Meadow Grass Cove that a sign be put up that says there is no outlet. Patricia Brick, 6803 — 74th Street South, expressed concern about the planned trails. She asked if the trail would affect her area. Blin responded that it would not. Brick stated that peo- ple access the pipeline easement and walk through her property. Blin stated that the trail and sidewalk would not be adjacent to her property. Brick then asked about the density of the de- velopment and if the developer could eliminate more houses from the plat. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Kronlund asked about the density of the larger developed area and was there ever a plan pro- posed that would correspond with the number of units as an R-2. She asked if there was any discussion about reducing the number lots. Brittain noted that most of the developments that were proposed for that area had much smaller Iot sizes than what is proposed for this development. He stated that the developer is meeting all of the setback and minimum width requirements. Rygh responded that they had initially proposed 30 lots in the cul-de-sac and have already eliminated four cul-de-sacs. The lot width average is 98 feet versus the required 85 feet. He stated that the Timber Ridge development was initially supposed to have acre and a half lots and the Iot was fully wooded before it was developed. He reiterated that they are trying to re- tain as many trees as possible. He then explained that this proposal very nearly meets the density for the R-2 zoning district, noting that the parcel has 44 acres and they are proposing 29 lots; they are just clustering alI the lots and and they are saving the nicest piece of the property with the best trees for city. He also explained that they are trading nine acres of the parcel, which is the more desirable treed area, to the Minnesota Land Trust to acquire five acres. Kronlund stated that she understood, but her comments pertained to what was told to those who bought in Timber Ridge that these would be acre and a half lots. Tom Ott, 7484 Granada Circle, which is just to the west of the Oak Cove Addition, in Hidden Oaks, explained that when Pulte developed Timber Ridge, they stubbed in city water and sewer to this property. He apologizes if information was not passed through. Kronlund asked if the tree line for Lots 1 through 4 would be similar to what is found currently on the lots directiy to the north in Timber Ridge, where there is a somewhat short backyard and the tree line was preserved as much as possible close to the house. Rygh encouraged the Commissioners to look at the wooded area in Hidden Valley to see how they have worked in the past to preserve mature trees whenever possible. Kronlund asked about the traffic im- pact in the existing neighborhood with only two access points out of the development. Rygh responded that it would be very similar to Hidden Valley with about 300 units and three access points. Brittain stated that he likes the proposal and appreciates the reduction of houses in the smaller cul-de-sac. Ne urged that before this goes to the City Council that the house be pulled up in line with the rest of the houses. He thinks two monument signs would be too many but one for identity would be reasonable. The City did stub sewer and water to that area. With the stubbing of sewer and water, the expectation should be that there would be a more urban de- Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 15 of 22 velopment, and this proposal has homes and lots similar to what is in the existing neighbor- hood. Reese asked if the trails would be re-worked before the plat goes before the City Council. Rygh responded that he was amenable to working with the City's Parks Department on the alignment. He believes that once the trails are in and backyards are abutting each other, the trespassing on properties should be mitigated. Brittain asked about condition #18 regarding planting four yard trees and shrubs on each non- treed residential lot. He stated that the way it is worded, if there are trees on the lot, nothing needs to be pianted. He asked if the language could be changed to ensure that there are a total of four trees and ten shrubs on each lot. Rygh agreed, noting that he wou�d Iike to have the leverage to keep the old trees by requiring that there should be four trees on each lot. He also suggested that the language should reference that there should be at least two trees in the front yard and two in the back yard. Brittain commented on condition #22 that the street name identified on the final plat must be consistent with the preliminary plat, but the plats the Commission reviewed had no street names; he asked that the language be changed so that the street names will match the names of the existing streets. Reese made a motion to approve fhe applications except the rezoning to commercial, subject to the conditions Iisted below, with a change limiting the small cul-de-sac to two lots. Brittain seconded. Cavallo stated that he believes that the city promised the residents of Timber Ridge that this area would be R-2 no matter what changes occurred technology wise. He believes that this development can be done under the R-2 zoning regulations rather than squeezing houses onto smaller iots. He also does not think monument signs are appropriate for this development because we shouid be binding two communities together. Reese agreed with Brittain. He stated that Rygh attended a meeting in December with a num- ber of other developers and this proposal incorporates with some the guidelines set for the East Ravine. He does not see how with these lot sizes we are squeezing homes into this area. Brittain asked if Reese would consider amending conditions #18 and #22 as previously dis- cussed. Reese agreed. Thiede commented that he is okay with everything but he is not sure he is ready to restrict that cul-de-sac to two lots. He is prepared to require further discussion. Brittain asked if the devel- oper would accept two lots on that cul-de-sac. Rygh responded that they would accept only two lots if it is cost effective. Reese stated that the intent of the limit was to give more time to come up with a solution, otherwise he would have had tabled that portion until later but he did not want to hold the project up. Thiede asked if condition #1 covers the redesign of the cul-de- sac. Brittain stated that there should be some type of verbiage in the conditions to stress our desire to have a more conducive alignment with the existing homes than just what is in condi- tion #1. Blin responded that this discussion does help give staff some direction. 1. The final pBat must conform to the preliminary plat dated August 21, 2006, except for addifional required easements, and any permifted lot reconfiguration on the Meadow Grass Cove cul-de-sac. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 16 of 22 2. The developer must petition the City for public improvements and enter into a subdivision agreement with the City for the installation of and payment for all public improvements in the subdivision and adjacent public roadways, pursuant to Titie 10 of the Crty Code. 3. The approvals are subject to applicant receiving appropriate written approvals from the Minnesofa Land Trust and any required judiciary approval. 4, The applicant receive appropriate building permits from the City, and permits or ap- provals from other regulatory agencies including, but not limited to, fhe South Washington Watershed District, DNR, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 5. The revised grading and utility plan must be submitted to City staff for review and approval prior to the submission of the �nal 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. 6. The applicant must submit a final construction management plan that includes ero- sion control measures, project phasing for grading work, areas designated for pres- ervation, a crushed-rock construction entrance, and construction-related vehicle parking for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 7. A pre-construction meeting with City staff and the contractor must be held before site work begins. The contractor shalt provide the City with a project schedufe for the various phases of construction. 8. Erosion control devices must 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 90-5-8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, 9. The deveioper must pay ior required public improvements, all trailway improvement costs, sfop signs, area charges, park dedication fees, and the reguired off site ponding costs. 10.Outlots A, B and C must be conveyed to the City of Cottage Grove at the time of re- cording of the final plat. 11. The Boundaries of outlots A, B and C shall be identified in accordance with required public property monument policies. 12.A temporary public frailway easement document for the recreational trai/ located on Dutlot D shal! be created by the applicant and recorded with Washington County at the time of the recording of the final plat. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 17 of 22 13,A permanent public trailway easement document for the final recreational trail loca- tion on Outlot D shall be created by the applicant and recorded with Washington County at the time of the development of Outlot D. 14. Park dedication requirements wili be met through a cash payment, wifh the total amount based on fees in effect at the time the final plat is approved. 15. The developer must install a six-foot concrete sidewalk conforming to City stan- dards along Hardwood Avenue and East Point Douglas Road, 16. The developer must install a wood chip recreational trail and eight-foot wide bitumi- nous pafhways as determined on the final grading plan in outlots A, B and C. The applicant will pay 100 percent of the cost for development of recreation trails on all publicly dedicated land. 17. Tree mitigation is required in accordance with ordinance criferia, 18.An additional four yard trees and ten shrubs must be planfed on each non-treed residential lot. 19. The applicant must hire a city-approved arborist to assist 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 recom- mendations of the arborist. Should trees designated for preservation be removed, the applicant will replace the trees in accordance with the ordinance criteria. Trees designated for preservation which are found to be harmed, diseased, or dying, or are not suited for location into the project rttay be removed based upon the recom- mendation of the arborist in agreement with the City and the appiicant. Trees re- moved will be replaced as required by ordinance. The developer must install snow fencing or similar fencing materiai around all trees or groups of trees that are to be preserved prior fo any grading activity on the site. 20. The applicant must submit appropriate engineering information for retaining walls. Any fencing on retaining walls must be decorative and subject to staff review and approval. 21.A stop sign must be installed at any locations deemed appropriate by the city engi- neer based on the sign installation requirements adopted by the city. 22. The final street name idenfified on the final plat must be consistent with the prelimi- nary plat. 23. AIl monument signs must compty with the City's Sign Ordinance and only be placed on private property. The Homeowners Association is responsible for fhe mainte- nance of a!I signs. 24. The applicant must submit private covenants which details the following: Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 18 of 22 . The homeowners association is responsible for all ownership and maintenance of landscaping'improvements, fencing, and outlots as depicted on the final plat, . Monument signs will be maintained by the homeowners association. • Any fencing provfded on the slte wlll be constructed of materials that are uniform in design and color. • All signs, mailboxes, and accessory lighting will be uniform in materials and de- sign and be approved as part of the Iandscape plan. • Protection and infringement management of all publicly owned openspace and areas /ocated in the Privafe conservation easement. 25. The developer must advise homebuyers that they are responsible to maintain the boulevard area that abuts their property aU the way to the curb of the street. 26. The developer is responsible for street sweeping responsibilities or the costs for the entire designated construction haul route to 70th Street during the development of the subdivision. 27. The final plat will incorporate all comments received from the City's consulting engi- neer as identified in the final City Council agenda packet. Motion passed 6-to-2 vote (Cavallo, Thiede). Thiede stated that he likes the proposal but does not agree with the limitation to two lots. He beiieves it needs further study. Cavallo reiterated his point he made eariier that he believes the R-2 zoning was a promise to the residents who built in the Timber Ridge neighborhood. 6.5 Kappa Building — Case SP06-053 Kappa Properties, ��C has applied for a site plan review of two light industrial buildings to be located in the Industrial Park on the west side of Hemingway Avenue and north of 100th Street. One building would be 20,000 square feet and the second building would be 23,125 square feet. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report, with a change noting that the site plan date is August 23 and that the second building would be 23,500 square feet. Tim Keran, Kappa Properties, 5915 Bryant Lane, Inver Grove Heights, displayed some three- dimensional renderings of the project, noting the drawings do not show the landscaping in the front of the property or the tree line at the back of the building. He showed examples of the exterior materials, noting that his proposed buildings would be a different color than the ex- amples. He stated that the top is a crushed Kasota stone and the bottom is a brownish-red crushed rock embedded into a tinted concrete. He stated that many of the 23 conditions have been addressed in their revision dated August 23. Thiede asked about parking and delivery trafFic to the site. Keran stated that there would not be a drive lane through the back of the site. The front of the rear building will have an office door and a drive-in door, and there will be an emergency exit door on the rear of the building. Thiede asked if they have demand for these units. Keran responded yes, as there are no Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 19 of 22 other availabie spaces like this in the area. He explained that this project started out because he was looking for smaller shop space. Cavallo asked if the businesses he is planning on bringing in are commercial or industriai. Keran responded they would mostly be industriai businesses and because of the zoning, they do not anticipate retail businesses. Cavallo asked if the bays would accommodate semi- trucks. Keran stated that the roll-up doors are 12 feet wide and 12 feet high, which is about the size of large delivery trucks. They do not plan to have semi-traiiers parked in the Iots, tnough there may be semi deliveries. Cavallo then asked if the berm is same size as the berm behind the other buildings in the area. McCool responded that it would be similar in size. Cavallo asked if the big hill northeast of the property wouid be Ieveied. McCool responded that is a stockpile of material that will probably be relocated onto other parcels. Cavallo then asked about the tree line, noting that it consists mostly of deciduous trees which don't provide much of a buffer in the winter. He recommended adding two or three rows of evergreen trees. He also suggested adding decorative pillars to the building to break up the fa�ade. Keran stated that they have a 100-foot setback from the property line to the rear of their building and almost 55 to 60 feet consists of existing trees. On the berm that they are putting in, most of the trees that will be planted are evergreens. Cavailo stated that he talked with some of the neighboring residents and their biggest concern was noise from semi-trucks backing up. Keran responded that was one of the reasons they don't have a drive lane on the back of the building, and he noted that the building itself provides some noise buffering. He explained that there will be landscaped islands in the parking lot and four feet of landscaping in front of all the buildings with a three-foot sidewalk. Poncin expressed concern about how semi-trucks and emergency vehicle would maneuver through the site with the landscape islands and parking in front of the second building. Keran responded that the drives were designed to be wide enough and with a big enough radius for large vehicles to navigate the site. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain c/osed the public hearing. Thiede made a motion to approve the appfication subject to the conditions listed below, with the changes noted by McCoo/. Bauer seconded. 1. All building and site development must conform to the plans dated August 23, 2006. 2. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, and mechanical) and a com- mercial 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 Officia! and Fire Marshal. 3. All oufdoor lighting must be directed downward with cuf-off fixtures. Reflected glare of spill Iight must not exceed five-tenths (0.5) foot-candle as measured on the property line. An outdoor lighting ptan must be submitted to the Planning Division before a building permit is issued. 4. The grading and erosion control plan for the site must comply with NPDES l! Permit requirements. Erosion control devices rrrust be installed prior to commencement of any grading activify. Erosion control must be performed in accordance with the rec- Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 20 of 22 ommended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Pianning Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 90-5-8, Erosion Control During Construction of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 5. A final grading plan and stormwater calculations must be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval before a building permit will be issued. 6. Final exterior construction materials and co/ors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to fhe issuance of a building permit. 7. All curbing for the project must be B612 concrete design and the concrete drive aprons compliant with city standards. 8. The applicant must provide the City with an "as-buifY'survey of a/t private utilities. 9. The developer is responsible for the cost of installing a"STOP" sign at the exit lane. The "STOP" sign must be ten feet from the roadway edge and two feet from the driveway edge. The bottom of the sign must be six feet from the ground. The "STOP" sign must be a 30-inch sized sign having a high intensity reflective face. Said sign should be mounted on a six-foot No. 3 and eight-foot No. 2 stee( posf. The applicant may request the City's Pubtic Works Department to insta(l this sign, but must pay the City for actual costs incurred by the City. ?O.AII signs musf comply with the provisions of the sign ordinance and the compre- hensive sign package submitted by the applicant. A building permit must be obtained prior to the installation of any new signs. 11.A landscaping plan must be revised to incfude fhe minimum of twenfy shrubs, grasses, and/or perennials around the base of the monument sign. The revised landscape plan must be submitted to the Planning Division before a building permit is issued and must conform to the minimum landscaping requirements imposed in City Code Title 11-6-5, Landscaping Requirements. A plan showing the underground irrigation sysfem must be submitted to tbe City. Once the irrigation system is in- staUed, the Jandowner is required to maintain and operate the irrigation system so that a!l yards and landscaped areas continue to thrive. 12.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 completion of the landscaping requirements, the applicant must submit to the city in writing City that said improvements were completed. The City will retain the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of no- tice to insure the survival of the plantings. A building permit will not be issued until the required letter of credit has been received and accepted by the City. 13. Rooftop mechanica! equipment must be screened from public view. Fina! exterior screening materia/s and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Di- vision prior to the issuance of a building permit. 14. A radio-read water meter(s) must be installed. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 21 of 22 15.A11 ground-mounted mechanical equipment accessory to the principai structure over 30-inches or greater than 12 cubic feet must be screened from public views with land- scapir►g+, berrriing OP 8 SCTEL'ii WBIUfL'iiCL'. �Ci'@L'i91119' iPi��L'i'is3IS PiYiJSt P3L' Siii11I�P 4O 6P compatible in design and color with those used on the principal structure. Screening materials may include properly maintained wood, vinyl, or metal screens or fencing as required in City Code Title 11-6-4(3). 16. The properEy owner must agree to allow city personnel to enter upon the property to maintain, repair, and inspect all public utility systems that exist on the properiy. Flushing the fire hydrant internal to the property is the city's responsibility. 17. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 18. WNen the property is re-piatted in the future, atl properly owners must sign tNe plat so that it can be recorded at Washington County Recorder's O�ce. 19. The developer must comply with all City ordinances and policies. 20. A stormwater system improving stormwater quality before leaving the site must be provided on-site. 21. The minimum width for the driveway must be 32 feet (measured at the property line). 22, Only one access drive is permitted for this property. 23.A copy of the condominium association's documents must be submitted to the City for review and acceptance before a building permit is issued. Cavallo stated that he likes this development, but reiterated that he would like to see piilars or another decorative feature to break up the fa�ade. Keran explained that they intentionally de- signed the building to be lighter on the top and darker on the bottom. The lower panel will have raking in it every four feet so it will be broken up in four-foot grids. Cavallo stated that he wouid like something that is visible from a distance. Keran aiso noted that the landscaping will also heip break up the fagade as the plantings mature. Brittain agreed with Cavailo with re- spect to the front face on the first building, which faces the street, and suggested having the doorways project out a foot. Keran stated it is hard for a rnulti-tenant building to have promi- nent focus on the fa�ade. He did note that each doorway does project out two and a half feet and the canopy projects out five feet. Blin stated that staff understands the direction from the Commission and will sit down with the developer prior to the Council meeting to look at some design options. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.6 Driveway Setbacks — Case TA06-027 (continued from 7/24/06) The City of Cottage Grove has applied for amendments to the City Code regarding drive- way setbacks. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 22 of 22 Brittain made a motion to continue this application to next month due to the late hour. Reese seconded. Applications and Requests None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 2006 Cavallo made a motion to approve the Planning Comrrrission minutes from June 26, 2006. Bauer seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Reports 8.1 Recap of August City Council Meeting Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meeting on August 9, 2006. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. 9.4 Planning Commission Requests Poncin asked about the landscaping at Office Max. Blin stated that staff is addressing those issues. Brittain asked about maintenance of the trash enclosure gate at Walgreens. Cavallo asked about the landscaping at the Mississippi Dunes townhouse development. McCool re- sponded that the developer is installing the irrigation system and landscaping. Staff has been working to get that development into compliance. Folch asked if during long meetings there cou�d be a short break. Brittain stated that he wou�d be more cognizant of that in the future. Reese asked for a copy of the tree preservation ordinance. He then asked about the 90th Street and Keats intersectian noting that a Iot of cars turn into the wrong lane. Blin stated that there was a meeting earlier in the day to address that problem. Adjournment Motion by Reese, seconded by Brittain, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously (8-to-O). The meeting adjourned at 11:18 p.m.