Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-22 MINUTES City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission November 22, 2010 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 – 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on November 22, 2010, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Steve Messick, Tracy Poncin, Brian Pearson, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, Brian Treber, Chris Willhite Members Absent: Michael Linse Staff Present: Councilmember Justin Olsen Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Willhite made a motion to approve the agenda. Rostad seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Open Forum Messick 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 Messick explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, 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 and Applications 6.1 All Saints Lutheran Church Columbarium – Case CUP10-026 All Saints Lutheran Church has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a 72-niche columbarium at 8100 Belden Boulevard South. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 2 of 7 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Messick opened the public hearing. Cheryl Eliason, 8013 Gary Boulevard, asked about security measures, fencing, traffic, and why the columbarium is being put at the church and not a cemetery. Ted Fredrickson, 8291 River Acres Road, introduced himself as the Chair of the Columbarium Committee. He ex- plained that the columbarium weighs 6,000 pounds, is made of granite, and will be placed on a foundation. He stated that they are not adding ornamentation to the top due to concerns about possible vandalism. In terms of security, they are not doing anything different than a cemetery would do, and there will be no fence around it. The niches are very secure and can- not be broken into. He explained that it is not being placed in a cemetery because All Saints Lutheran Church does not have its own cemetery; they use a couple different ones for burial. There will be a seating area and a small walkway around the columbarium. Poncin asked if there are federal or state regulations related to cremated remains. McCool re- sponded no. Poncin asked about recordkeeping. Fredrickson explained that the church will keep a log and the company they are buying the columbarium from will have computerized records. No one else spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to allow a columbarium at All Saints Lutheran Church subject to the conditions listed below. Treber seconded. 1. All Saints Lutheran Church maintains a record of all inurnments. 2. A building permit application must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the site preparation and installation of the columbaria. Detailed con- struction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.2 Proposed Pinecliff Sidewalk Project The City of Cottage Grove has received a petition to construct a sidewalk on the north side of the 7600 block of 61st and 62nd Streets and along the east side of Hedgecroft Avenue between 62nd Street and Hearthstone Avenue. Blin explained that a petition for installation of a sidewalk was presented to the City Council in September. The Council reviewed the petition and referred it to the Planning Commission. There was a neighborhood meeting last Thursday night where four households were represented. One of the issues brought up at that meeting was if there had been an intention to build a sidewalk with the Pinecliff subdivision. Blin stated that the answer is unclear; it ap- pears there probably was the intention to build the sidewalk when the subdivision was devel- oped but the record is not clear. In 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed this project, and initially a sidewalk was proposed to be constructed from 62nd Street south to 65th Street, Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 3 of 7 which is essentially the current sidewalk. The City Council reviewed the entire Pinecliff project at two meetings, and between the first and second meetings, the language in the approving resolution changed from building a sidewalk on one side of Hedgecroft Avenue between 62nd and 65th Street to building a sidewalk on one side of Hedgecroft Avenue. Blin stated he inter- preted that to mean the intention was to build it all the way to 61st Street. Staff has reviewed all the minutes and recordings of those meetings, but they don’t provide clear direction. This request is to retrofit a sidewalk in an existing developed neighborhood. McCool summarized the staff report, and provided a presentation highlighting the history of the development of the Pinecliff subdivision and showing various options for sidewalk construction. He stated that at the neighborhood meeting, two of the affected property owners stated that they would still be opposed to a sidewalk even they were not assessed for it. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on if a sidewalk should be constructed, and if so, the type of sidewalk and its location. Rambacher stated that at the neighborhood meeting it was noted that the City was in a transi- tional period and asked for clarity on that. Blin stated that previous to this subdivision, it was rare to build sidewalks along local streets in Cottage Grove. That thinking has evolved and as with other suburbs Cottage Grove had determined build sidewalks in residential areas. In 2004, when this project was being reviewed, the City had not yet adopted the requirement to build a sidewalk along at least one side of each local street. The developer of the Silverwood subdivision, which is adjacent to Pinecliff, did propose on their own to build sidewalks. Since then, the City, in its Comprehensive Plan, adopted the policy to build a sidewalk on each side of all new local streets. It is, however, difficult to retrofit those into existing neighborhoods. Messick opened the public hearing. Ruby Mower, 7682 62nd Street South, explained why this petition was put together. She stated that one of the main concerns was the safety of the 20 to 25 children who wait at the bus stop on the corner of 62nd Street and Hedgecroft Avenue. During the winter, the kids walk in the street to the bus stop and have to climb over snow mounds. The School District moved this bus stop to the southeast corner, but the children still have to walk in the street to get there. While she was putting together the petition and doing background research, she came across the final plat that was approved by the City Council, which said a sidewalk six feet in width must be constructed across A Street, which is now Hedgecroft Avenue. She believes that the lack of a sidewalk was an oversight on the City’s part. The petition asks the City of Cottage Grove and Lennar Homes to fund the project because it does not seem fair for the homeowners to be assessed for an oversight. She noted that before Pinecliff was built, side- walks were not a requirement but she looked at comparable developments the same age as Pinecliff that have sidewalks. Examples include Pine Arbor Boulevard off Hinton Avenue, Hadley Avenue at 65th Street has both a sidewalk and a bituminous trail, Meadowgrass Ave- nue south of 65th Street, and Highland Hills Boulevard has sidewalks through the main area. Another concern is the way the development is designed, which is a circle. The roads ac- cessing the subdivision are Hinton Avenue, which is 55 miles per hour, or 65th Street, which is 50 miles per hour. She stated that the petition for the sidewalk is for the safety of the children. Ryan Sam, 7675 61st Street South, stated that while Mower made some great points, there are at least two miles of walking paths, sidewalks, and bituminous trails throughout the neigh- borhood. Whether it was an oversight or not on the City’s behalf, he believes at this point it would be a waste of private and public money to put in a sidewalk in an area that seems to Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 4 of 7 have gotten by just fine for the past four years. He asked if it would be more expensive to re- trofit a sidewalk into an existing area than to put one in initially. McCool responded yes. Sam stated that his property is on the west side of the road but there has been talk about putting it on the west side of Hedgecroft. When he bought his house, he bought it with the understand- ing that there was not going to be a sidewalk through his lawn. He also expressed concern about the maintenance of the sidewalk, particularly snow removal. He does not see a sidewalk as something that is necessary. Lisa Slipka, 7660 61st Street South, stated that she lives in the affected area where the side- walk would be built. She agreed that Mower made some good points but she is against having the sidewalk built. She agrees that traffic comes in there fairly fast down the hill from Hedge- croft to 61st Street. The majority of drivers know that kids play in the street and a sidewalk is not going to stop that. She stated also that she spoke to, sent e-mails, and had phone conver- sations with many of her neighbors that would be affected by this, and she presented a peti- tion opposing the construction of the sidewalk regardless of the cost. She stated that more neighbors have planned to sign the petition. McCool asked if the signatures are from property owners on the east or west side. Slipka responded from the property owners affected by the proposed sidewalk. Chris Reese, 6284 Hedgecroft Avenue South, stated he was on the Planning Commission when this development was approved. He noted that during that time, the developer, U.S. Homes/Orrin Thompson, was acquired by Lennar Homes. There was discussion about side- walks, but the developer did not want any. The Commission agreed that there would be a bituminous trail going through to the next development that would hook up with the sidewalk. He asked about lane striping and more plowing at the bus stop. Theresa Peterson, 6179 Hedgecroft Avenue, stated that two concerns she has are the impact of the sidewalk on the boulevard trees and the drain tile that several houses have out to the curb. McCool stated that some trees would have to be relocated. He did not look at the drain tile as he did not know the location of those houses. Peterson stated that she is against the construction of a sidewalk. Don Grundhauser, 6424 Hedgecroft Avenue, stated that there is already a sidewalk on 62nd Street that extends south. He noted that his house is to the south and the majority of his neighbors think that if there was an assessment, it should be just to those properties getting the sidewalk. Most of his neighbors are also against the sidewalk. He believes striping the street would be more cost effective than installing a sidewalk. Slipka stated that most of the people she talked to have said they would be in favor of striping the street. She also requested a “slow children playing” sign. Brittain asked if a white stripe were to go in, would there be parking restrictions on either side of the road. McCool responded no. Brittain stated that he was involved in the original Planning Commission discussions and in his opinion there was no oversight, as it was not a part of the original development. He did ask about a sidewalk in that portion of the subdivision at that time, but the standard was that only certain types of streets got sidewalks. He noted many other areas in the city deal with the same safety issues as this neighborhood. He stated that if a sidewalk had been built, the cost would have been assessed through the purchase price of the homes, so the homeowners would have paid for it. Brittain stated that if a sidewalk were Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 5 of 7 approved, all properties in the Pinecliff development, but not in Silverwood, should be as- sessed for the cost because the entire development is responsible for the amenities when it is built. In addition, he would like to see acceptance of the sidewalk by 100 percent of the home- owners. The entire Pinecliff Addition should also be responsible for financing a road stripe. Treber stated that when he moved into Hidden Valley development in 2003, he asked specifi- cally about sidewalks in that development and was told that City standards were not to install sidewalks except on arterial streets. For example, 73rd Street has a sidewalk into the devel- opment but the rest of the development does not. He noted that Hidden Valley Trail is similar to Hedgecroft as it was constructed in a circular fashion with the same safety concerns. He asked how the City would handle requests from other neighborhoods, like Hidden Valley. He agreed that if the Commission recommends sidewalks or striping, everyone affected should agree to it. Willhite stated that she lives on Ideal Avenue about five blocks from the high school and there is a lot of traffic. She noted that her side of the Ideal does not have a sidewalk but the other side does. She stated that when they moved there in the 1980s, they asked for a sidewalk or stop sign but were turned down. She likes sidewalks and approves of the change for new de- velopments to have a sidewalk on at least one side of the street. However, she does not be- lieve that a sidewalk should be retrofitted in an existing neighborhood. She stated that there is striping on Ideal Avenue and in the wintertime they are not visible. She agrees all properties should be assessed for any improvements and it should be a consensus. She then noted that there are discrepancies in names and addresses between the petition that the Commission received in their packets and the petition just turned in to the Commission. It was noted that there has been some there has been some turnover in the neighborhood. Rambacher stated that he lives in the community at 6387 Hedgecroft Avenue. He thinks a sidewalk would be nice but he expressed concern about setting a precedent of the City paying for a sidewalk or street striping in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods requesting one. He does agree with installing a “slow children” sign. Mower stated that she is withdrawing the petition for the sidewalk or striping if the home- owners are going to be assessed. She asked for a “slow children” sign. Brian Mower, 7862 62nd Street, stated that before the petition, they had talked to the police department about speeding in the neighborhood and asked for either a sign or a speed bump, but both requests were rejected. He stated the sidewalk petition was the next step they took to improve the safety of the kids in the neighborhood. He would like to see something done to make drivers aware. Brittain agreed with Rambacher about setting a precedent. He stated that if the community wanted a striped line, which does not permanently impact any property, and they paid for it, then that is an avenue that should be open to them. Reese stated that the difference between this area and other neighborhoods is that there is a sidewalk that goes all the way around both developments but is missing a section. He stated he would be willing to pay to have the street striped. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 6 of 7 Pearson asked what signs were turned down by law enforcement. Mower responded a “child- ren at play” sign and a speed bump. Rostad stated that street signs are expensive and this could also set a precedent. There are a lot of children in most neighborhoods and there could be thousands of dollars spent on street signs. Poncin asked if the Planning Commission could make a recommendation that Public Safety look at the enforcement of stop signs and speed limits in that area. Messick stated that one recommendation could be that the Public Safety Commission and Public Safety Department take a look at enforcement issues and possible signage. Brittain added that he sees a difference between putting in a street sign and putting in a per- manent improvement, and Public Safety would be the appropriate venue for evaluating that. He would not be against those types of improvements if residents felt they were necessary and were evaluated by the Public Safety Commission. No one else spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Pearson made a motion to recommend not approving a paved a sidewalk. Treber seconded. Willhite stated that she does not believe a motion is necessary; the Commission was asked to just make a recommendation and she believes a verbal one would be appropriate. She does not feel comfortable with a formal motion. After discussion, it was determined that a formal recommendation would be made by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Blin stated that there will be fairly detailed minutes of this discussion. Pearson withdrew his motion and Treber withdrew his second for further discussion about the motion. Pearson made a motion to not recommend a paved sidewalk based on opposition from the majority of the affected households and the excessive cost to retrofit a sidewalk across those properties. Treber seconded. Motion passed on a 6-to-0 vote with two abstentions (Rambacher and Willhite). Rambacher asked if this was something the City Council deemed warranted via an assess- ment or otherwise, would there be accordance with the affected homeowners. Brittain asked if the City Council decides to approve a sidewalk, should the Commission provide some direc- tion. Blin responded that the minutes would reflect the wishes of the Commission. Discussion Items 7.1 December 27, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting – Cancel Blin stated that when the agenda for this meeting was sent out, staff did not anticipate that there would be any business for the December Planning Commission meeting. However, there may be a conditional use permit to review that needs to be done in December. This project is still tentative. He asked if it would be possible to have a special meeting on Decem- Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 7 of 7 ber 13. The reason for moving the meeting up is to allow the City Council to take action on December 15. Willhite asked when the Commission would be notified and if the information packet could be sent out as soon as possible. Blin responded staff would know by early next week and the packet will be sent out as soon as staff gets the information. Messick asked about public notification. Blin responded that public notice needs to done 10 days prior to the meeting. The Commission agreed to hold a special Planning Commission meeting on December 13. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from October 25, 2010 Pearson noted that he was present at the October 25 meeting. Poncin stated that she was absent. Messick made a motion to amend the minutes noting that Pearson was present and Poncin was absent. Motion seconded by Brittain. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Pearson made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2010, meeting. Rambacher seconded. The motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of October City Council Meetings Blin updated the Commission on the City Council meetings held on October 6 and 20, 2010. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Brittain stated that at Almar Village next to Bonngard’s Family Meats, there are extremely tall and dense shrubs, even with no foliage, that are right on the corner of the sidewalk and driveway. Adjournment Willhite made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Treber seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.