Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-05 PACKET 04.A.ii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING IT # 4 ® , p DATE 10/5/11 PREPARED BY Community Development John McCool ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on August 22, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on August 22, 2011. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 9/26/11 ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on August 22, 2011 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED E] OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission August 22, 2011 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, August 22, 2011, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Treber called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He welcomed the two new Planning Commission members, Maureen Ventura and Randall Wehrle. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Steve Messick, Brian Pearson, Tracy Poncin, Jim Rostad, Brian Treber, Maureen Ventura, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Ryan Rambacher Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner David Thiede, City Council Approval of Agenda Rostad made a motion to approve the agenda. Messick seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (8 -to -® vote). Open Forum Treber 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 Treber 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 Ehlenz Garage and Retaining Wall Variance — Case V11 -018 Todd Ehlenz has applied for a variance to the 1,000 square foot maximum size for an at- tached garage to allow a 468 square foot addition to an existing 772 square foot garage and to erect a retaining wall and parking pad within a public utility and drainage easement at 9475 Hillside Trail South. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2011 Page 2 of 8 McCool summarized the staff report. He recommended approval of the variance to the maxi- mum garage size based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report, and denial of the variance for the retaining wall and parking pad within a public utility drainage easement based on the findings of fact in the staff report. Todd Ehlenz, 9475 Hillside Trail South, stated that he is requesting a variance for the garage. He noted that he talked with City staff regarding the retaining wall and parking pad and has decided that he was dropping the request for that variance and was just pursuing the garage size variance. He explained that due to space constrictions, a six -foot wide parking pad would not be adequate, and if he gets the garage size variance, he could keep everything inside the garage. He stated that he will restore the grade on the side of the house as soon as the garage addition is constructed. Treber opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Poncin asked about notification of this application to neighboring property owners. McCool re- sponded that a public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of this property. Poncin asked what the basis was for approving this variance. McCool responded that when that ordinance was prepared four years ago, it was to ensure that attached garages would not be larger than the house. In this particular case, the house is larger than the garage with the addition would be. If the new addition plus the existing attached garage would have been larger than the living space of the house, staff would not be favorable to the variance application. Building code allows for attached garages up to 3,000 square feet. Rostad asked if that was total livable square footage and not just the foundation footprint of the house. McCool responded yes. Wehrle asked if there had been any comments from neighboring property owners. McCool re- sponded that the property owner directly to the east called to ask for clarification on the va- riance application. They expressed concerns about possible drainage issues in their backyard, but were ensured that the drainage would not change due to construction of the new addition. They have spoken with the applicant about the proposal, and were unable to attend tonight's meeting. Treber asked for clarification on the 3,000 square foot attached garage versus the 1,000 square foot attached garage. McCool responded that the Uniform Building Code has a limit of 3,000 square feet; the City Code has a limitation of 1,000 square feet. Treber asked about the intent of the City Code use. McCool responded that the City established that ordinance re- quirement so attached garages are not larger than the living area of the house. Treber asked if the City has granted any similar variances in the past. McCool responded that he would have to check on that. Wehrle asked if granting this variance would set any precedents. McCool responded that every property has its own unique characteristics and the City looks at each property on its own merits. He stated a request to build additional garage space that would be equal or greater than the house size or would not be architecturally consistent with the existing struc- ture or neighborhood may not warrant a variance. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Messick stated that the findings of fact note that the neighbor's backyard abuts the applicant's side property line, which is a unique characteristic of this property. Other findings state that the addition would fit with the aesthetics of the current home and the square footage is rea- sonable compared with the rest of the house. Treber agrees with the findings of fact. He looked at the property and believes the design the applicant has proposed makes sense. Brittain made a motion to approve the variance to the 1,000 square foot maximum size for an attached garage to allow a 468 square foot addition to an existing 772 square foot garage at 9475 Hillside Trail South, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below; and to deny the variance allowing a retaining wall and parking pad within a public utility and drainage easement. Rostad seconded. Findings of Fact - Approval of Garage Size Variance: A. The total square footage of the proposed attached garage addition and existing at- tached garage is less than the total living space for this principal structure. B. The exterior building materials, design, and color scheme for the proposed attached garage addition will match the existing principal structure. C. The proposed attached garage addition is in harmony of the existing principal struc- ture and other residential structures in this neighborhood. D. The property is unique because its east side yard abuts the rear yard of the neigh- boring property and the proposed attached garage addition is on the rear side of the existing attached garage. E. The proposal is consistent with the property's reasonable use, will enhance the property's value, and is similar to the essential character of the existing house. Conditions of Approval - Approval of Garage Size Variance: 1. The applicant must complete a building permit application and a building permit must be issued from the City's Building Inspections Division before construction of the attached garage addition can begin. 2. The applicant shall complete the project in a timely manner. 3. Dust and erosion must be controlled in accordance to best construction methods. 4. The exterior materials and color scheme of the proposed attached garage addition must match the existing principal structure. 5. Constructing a hard surfaced parking pad along the east side of the principal struc- ture must not encroach on the ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement located along the east side of the applicant's property. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2011 Page 4 of 8 Findings of Fact — Denial of Retaining Wall /Parking Pad Variance: A. The side yard slope along the east side of the applicant's property is steep and ex- tends to the base of the neighbor's privacy fence. Surface water drainage in this area is mostly along the rear lot line of the neighboring property owner (8802 Jody Circle). B. Construction of a retaining wall within the existing ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement will further limit the amount of area for storm water drainage on the appli- cant's property. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.2 Variance Ordinance Amendment — Case TAI 1 -019 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text amendment to the City's Zoning Ordin- ance relative to variances so the City Code is consistent with State Statutes. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the ordinance amend- ment. Treber opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Messick made a motion to approve the text amendment relative to variances. Poncin seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Action Items 7.1 Red Rock Corridor Transit Station Plan Review McCool provided an overview of the Red Rock Corridor Transit Station Plan. He asked the Commission for comments or recommendations on the draft final report that will be presented to the City Council for their consideration on September 7, 2011. Brittain stated that the report is consistent with the discussions the Commission has had in the past concerning how the station would interlink with existing and future functions in the City. Messick stated that the process this has gone through is commendable, due to the amount of community outreach, input, studies, and site selection. On the policy side, the policy makers at the County need to decide that until rail can be self - sustainable, if expanding the current bus- ing system would be feasible. He agrees with Brittain that it was an open process. Treber stated that on page 67 there is a graphic showing a realignment of the north on -ramps to Highway 61, and asked if that is a MnDOT or Washington County jurisdiction. McCool re- sponded it is Washington County's jurisdiction as this is the interchange of County Road 19 with Highway 61. The state was also involved with the relocation and connection of that road- way system. Treber expressed concern, specifically from the City of Cottage Grove's point of view, was that the proposed road alignments could negatively impact the development poten- Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2011 Page 5 of 8 tial for the drive -in theater site. He asked if there would be further discussions about the alignment of some of these roads. McCool stated that the concept plans for the drive -in thea- ter site were considered as part of this layout. The more adverse impact dealt with the 3M property on the south side of Highway 61, which is the reason for the curvilinear alignment; 3M felt that would have less impact for future development of their property. Not everybody agrees with that alignment, but this is the compromise that was reached. Treber asked if the alignment for the on -ramps on the northeasterly side could negatively impact the drive -in theater site. McCool responded no, that access route would be located about 1,000 feet fur- ther to the north. Treber stated that he was not reacting to the relocation of the access point; he was concerned about the amount of land being consumed for the road. Thiede responded that the service road is intended to have buildings on both sides. Treber clarified that the land would not be part of the public right -of -way onto the Highway; there will be development po- tential for that property. Thiede responded that was correct. Brittain noted that would improve the ability to develop those areas by moving the on /off ramps to Highway 61 to the frontage road, which could help prevent traffic backups. It also allows more creativity for development on the northwest side. He noted that if the East Ravine concept plan was overlaid onto this area, it would fit very well. McCool asked the Commission for a formal action, such as receiving and placing the report on file, adding other recommendations, or expressing support. The Planning Commission's rec- ommendation will be forwarded for the City Council's consideration. If there are no recom- mendations or comments, that will be conveyed to the Council as well. Brittain made a motion that the Planning Commission reviewed the Red Rock Corridor Transit Station Plan Review, believes it is consistent with past public discussions, and feels it is the preferable method and layout for a future transit station. Ventura seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from July 25, 2011 Messick made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on July 25, 2011. Rostad seconded. The motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). •• 9.1 Recap of August City Council Meetings Thiede reported that the City Council held budget workshops during the month of August. At their regular meeting on August 10, the Council approved the parking variance at Target, and they took action to not have a referendum for a community center this year because LA Fitness is looking at locating in Home Depot. Thiede explained that LA Fitness would like to purchase part of the Home Depot building to put in a fitness facility. The Council decided to let private development take precedence so the City is stepping back from the referendum for a community center at this point. Brittain stated that he is a member of the Community Center Task Force and this does not kill the community center effort. The Task Force wants to see a private business come in to fulfill a need in the community, and then reassess what needs are still left and what the city can do to fulfill those needs. Treber asked about the timing for the proposed LA Fitness project. Thiede responded that that negotiations are going forward be- Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2011 Page 6 of 8 tween LA Fitness and the property owner and development could occur within the next 18 months. McCool reported that on August 3 during the joint workshop of the Planning Commission and City Council there was a discussion relative to the different zoning districts where automotive repair is allowed. At the July meeting, the Commission discussed the proposed zoning ordin- ance text amendment that would allow auto repair in the B -2 zoning district; currently auto re- pair is only allowed in B -3 zone. As part of that discussion, it was recommended that at the Planning Commission and City Council discuss this matter at the joint meeting on August 3 and provide staff with direction as to how to prepare the ordinance amendment. At that meet- ing, the Planning Commission convened the tabled item and made a recommendation to ap- prove the proposed text amendment. This amendment combines the definitions of major repair and minor repair and permits automotive repair in the B -2, B -3, and P -B Districts. There were concerns expressed for the impact major auto repair at existing businesses might have on adjoining residential properties. The Planning Commission's recommendation was to not automatically grandfather those existing businesses in the B -2 district. Existing businesses not able to comply with the conditions for automotive repair would need to apply for a conditional use permit. At the City Council meeting on August 10, the Council discussed how to allow existing businesses that perform major repair in the community without requiring them to come back through the conditional use permit process. The City Attorney provided the City Council with language that was incorporated into the proposed ordinance that was recommended by the Planning Commission. McCool provided a copy of the final version of the motor vehicle repair ordinance, noting that the added language was on the second page under Title 11- 10B- 2(62)(8). He summarized that the zoning ordinance has been amended to allow for automotive repair in the B -2, B -3, and P -B zoning districts, and of those businesses that existed as of January 1, 2011, legal nonconforming uses will be allowed as permitted uses in those districts without formal review or approval by the City. Treber asked if that solved the issue for the business owner who testified at the July meeting. McCool responded yes. Brittain asked about the ramifications a business that is legally non- conforming, such as if the building were to burn down or the business was sold. McCool re- sponded if it burns down they have one year to rebuild, but cannot enlarge or intensify the use. If the nonconforming business did not rebuild within one year, only the permitted uses in the B -2 district would be allowed. They could sell the business to another user, and the new owner would have to comply with the conditions as they existed for the business to operate and could continue to operate as it had in the past; they would not be able to expand the use. Brittain asked where the language exists about not expanding the use. McCool responded in the nonconforming section of the City Code. Rostad stated that he is glad the businesses do not have to go through the CUP process. He asked how this remedy would apply to the proposed expansion of auto repair by leasing a couple bays at Sunbelt. McCool responded that they are going to be allowed as a legal nonconforming use. He explained that city records show they were never granted the major repair use. Rostad noted that the Planning Commission, at the August 3 meeting, focused in on the fact that there would be additional use of this property if those two bays were rented. Treber asked if Sunbelt was already doing major auto repair. McCool responded that city records would show that he never had right to do it by ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2011 Page 7 of 8 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park Trail System McCool stated that the northerly portion of the Cottage Grove Ravine Park Trail along Keats Avenue will not be accessible by pedestrians until late this year due to the extension of 85th Street. Brittain asked if there is going to be a trail on either side of the 85th Street extension. McCool responded there would be a concrete sidewalk on the south side but nothing on the north side at this time. Dock at Hidden Valley Pond McCool stated that the Parks Director's memo dated August 19, 2011 explains the problems with the dock at Hidden Valley Park and the plans to correct these maintenance issues. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Messick asked about splash pads. Thiede responded that the City Council and Parks Com- mission have held many discussions on splash pads. This may be the last year the municipal pool is open, though the YMCA said they would manage it for another year. Splash pads have been successful in other communities. The Council has not yet approved the proposed splash pad at Highlands Park, but will be looking at bids in September and voting on the project. The Council did approve remodeling the park building in Highlands Park. Treber asked for a de- scription of a splash pad. Messick explained that it is a zero depth concrete area with different water sprayers that would be an alternative or in addition to the pool. Thiede explained that the proposed splash pad in Highlands Park, which was chosen out of four proposed areas, would have three sections to accommodate different age ranges. He stated this would be a free amenity. Pearson asked about the maintenance costs associated with a splash pad and if the water would be treated. Thiede responded that the water could either be re- circulated or disposed of. The City chose to not re- circulate the water at this point because the amount of water used is not significant, which reduces maintenance costs. The maintenance of the splash pad would be considerably less than operating the pool. He stated that a copy of the splash pad report could be provided to the Planning Commission. Ventura stated that she previously served on the Parks Commission and they spent a lot of time looking at splash pads. They are unique, and could be a draw to our city from other communities. Pearson asked if the water would be on a timer or would it turn off at a certain time of day. McCool stated that there could be a timer element or it could be activated by pushing a button where the water would run for a certain time period and then shut off. Wehrle stated that he is glad to see LA Fitness, a private enterprise, come to the City and asked if they did research to whether the community would support they type of facility they are proposing. Thiede stated that they have been in business for quite a while and they have taken a look at that. Brittain asked if the gravel trail funded through a grant that connects 80th Street to Kingston Park would eventually be paved. McCool responded that the Watershed District has a plan for a storm water holding pond in that area. There will be a trail system that connects 80th Street to Kingston Park, but whether it goes around the east or west side of the pond is being eva- luated at this time. No improvements will be made to that trail until that decision is made. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Poncin noted that she noticed the Holiday Station on 70th Street and Hinton Avenue has a new dynamic sign that is changing every three minutes. McCool responded that the ordinance states that dynamic signs can change once every four hours, so staff will look into that. Poncin asked about color graphics. McCool stated that color graphics are now allowed but it would have to be a static image, with no flashing, changing, or movement of lighting. Adjournment Messick made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Pearson seconded. Motion passed un- animously (8 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.