Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-02 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 11/2/11 a 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 September 26, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on September 26, 2011. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 10/24/11 ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on September 26, 2011 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS r L City ministrato _ Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: [ ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on September 26, 2011 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS r L City ministrato _ Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: [ ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER W07"WIT- 7 -7 117 MMI Planning Commission September 1 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, September 26, 2011, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Chair Treber called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CWT Members Present: Ken Brittain, Steve Messick, Brian Pearson, Tracy Poncin, Brian Treber, Maureen Ventura, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner David Thiede, City Council Approval of Agenda Messick made a motion to approve the agenda. Pearson seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Treber asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. 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. • UMU M-UMM WIETM MMM 6.1 Werner Electric Exterior Storage — Case ICUP11 -019 Werner Electric has applied for an interim conditional use permit to allow for limited ex- terior storage of material within an enclosed area on their property at 7450 95th Street South. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2011 Page 2 of 7 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the interim conditional use permit subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. He stated that there is language in the report regarding landscaping around the fenced area and asked the Commission to dis- cuss if that should be added to the conditions of approval. He also noted that the applicant re- quested a five -year timeframe for the interim conditional use permit, but staff recommended a three -year period that would terminate on October 1, 2014, Ben Granley, Werner Electric, 7450 95th Street South, explained that when they built their facility one of the conditions in the agreement was that there would be no outside storage. Their business has been growing significantly and they have plans to add another 80,000 square feet onto the warehouse, which they plan to do in the next three to five years. They are not ready yet to make that significant investment but they are experiencing an increased need for storage, which is why they are currently putting some material outside. The material they would store outside is 10 to 20 -foot lengths of PVC electrical conduit; there would be no liquids or hazardous materials. He explained that they asked for five years to give them a longer period of time to construct the building addition based on economic and business con- ditions. In addition, this exterior storage area would be a significant investment of about $150,000 to $200,000 for blacktop and fencing and to comply with all the requirements in the conditions of approval. Due to that cost, if the ICUP is approved for only three years, they probably would not pursue this any further. They want to keep all their operations within Cottage Grove. If this ]CUP is not approved for the five -year period, they would have to oper- ate that service out of a branch or contract with another warehousing firm in another city. Werner has been growing significantly over the past couple years and has added 27 jobs to the community, and 16 of those 27 employees live in Cottage Grove. He asked the Commis- sion to consider the five -year period for the ICUP. Treber asked about the three -year period that city staff recommended. Granley responded that based upon all the improvements they would have to make, the cost is too high. Treber asked what they would do with their current exterior storage if this application was not ap- proved. Granley stated that they would move the material to either their Rochester branch or to a contracted warehouse based in Oakdale. Treber asked why three years was recom- mended. McCool responded that ICUPs for other types of applications have typically been for three years. This is something new and would be on a trial basis. They would have the op- portunity to reapply after the end of three years. Granley explained that the warehouse is 38 feet in height and the office is 16 feet, so it is very well screened from the residential side, and they are going to add fencing on the back side for screening. Brittain asked if there would be the ability to extend the ICUP for an additional two years when the three -year period ended. McCool responded that they could apply for an extension of the ICUP. He stated that the concern is that the longer the time period, it would be more perma- nent than interim. Staff would prefer to see the building addition in that case. Brittain asked what they would do with the exterior storage area when the addition is constructed. Granley stated that the office expansion would be located where the b]acktopped storage area would be located. When they make the improvements, that area would have to be excavated. The warehouse expansion would probably happen before the office space. Brittain asked if there was a possibility for having a review after the three -year period and if there were no problems, extending the ]CUP for an additional two years without having to go through this process again or would staff prefer to hold another public hearing. McCool stated staff would be com- Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2011 Page 3 of 7 fortable either way. He stated that enforcement will continue during whatever time period is approved; staff would not wait until the end of the three -year period to address any issues. He asked the Commission for a recommendation on whether it should be three or five years. Granley explained that the screening material over the black chain link fence would be either black or tan. He stated that they take a great amount of pride in their corporate image and will ensure that the property is maintained. Treber opened the public hearing. Dan Pendar, 7473 96th Street South, expressed concern about code enforcement on this property. He stated that there are currently code violations such as trailer parking and outdoor storage that are not being enforced. They have four trailers out front and there is the overflow of the conduit stored in public view. McCool responded that enforcement of code violations is typically done by the City's code enforcement officer, but with this planning application, the two Planning Division staff members would ensure compliance. Granley stated that the City has informed Werner that they are in violation, which is the reason they applied for this ICUP. He explained that the trailers were moved to the front to get them off the grass. Because they are starting construction soon to expand the parking lot and they can't store the trailers on the grass so they have to expand the asphalt, which will be in addi- tion to this project. Once the construction is complete, the trailers will be parked in the back. City staff is working with them to remedy the code violations. Messick stated that he was on the Planning Commission when the site plan was approved for the Werner Electric the building and citizen concerns were addressed at that time. He does understand Pendar's concern as he also lives in that area. He does not have a problem with the five -year timeframe. He understands the City's concern that they don't want permanent outdoor storage. He supports Brittain's suggestion to have a review at three years to see how things are going and not have to go through the full process to extend it for another two years, unless there were issues. Brittain stated he would be comfortable, especially in this economy and with this particular applicant being such a good community participant, to extend the timeframe to five years unless staff felt that the three -year limit with a more intensive review is necessary to provide additional enforcement capabilities. Messick agrees, noting that the con- ditions should protect the aesthetics of the property, and he would support an amendment to five years. Brittain asked Pendar if he is comfortable with the proposed solution to the violations and if he has any other concerns. Treber asked if Pendar's property backs up to Werner's property. Pendar pointed out his property on the aerial photo, noting that he can see through the trees into that area. Treber asked where the materials are stored. Pendar pointed out the area where the conduit is stored and where the four trailers are parked along the face of the build- ing. Brittain asked if the four trailers would be moved when the black top is finished. Granley responded yes. Brittain asked Pendar when the trailers are moved and the stockpiled material is stored in the screened area, if that addressed his concerns. Pendar stated that addresses the immediate concerns but he is concerned that if the area gets full, the storage would again be visible. Brittain stated that it his understanding that there will be oversight of this property and the property owner has been working to resolve the issues. He also stated that after the Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Interim Conditional Use Permit expires, he would prefer that they expand their building instead of reapplying for another ICUP for exterior storage. Treber asked if there are restrictions regarding exterior storage and parking on this property. McCool responded with the original approval of the application, it prohibited outdoor storage of exterior materials, it does allow for equipment or vehicles to be parked at the loading dock at the east side of the building. McCool responded that vehicles cannot park on the grass, so the trailers are parked temporarily on the south side of the building until the new parking area is constructed. Brittain noted that Werner Electric is working toward resolving the issues by this [CUP, so the violations will only be for the short -term. Granley stated that they were asked by the code enforcement officer to move the trailers off the grass until they got the expansion done. The only place they had to put them was in front and they also don't want them there. He re- stated that the trailers will be moved as soon as the parking lot is extended. He noted that asphalt plants close at the end of October or beginning of November. Pendar asked where the additional runoff from the hard surface area will go. McCool re- sponded that the existing storm water management system on the site will accommodate the additional runoff. No one else spoke. Treber closed the public hearing. Wehrle asked if they anticipate getting the parking area and storage area done before the as- phalt plants close this year. Granley responded that due to the timing of the Council meeting, the exterior storage area would be cutting it close but they definitely will get the parking lot ex- pansion done this fall. He does not believe that they will be able to meet all the conditions by the end of the year. Wehrle asked what would happen to the product stored outside if the sto- rage area is not done until spring. Granley stated that they will either move it inside or to one of their branches in the interim. It is hard to anticipate the construction schedule due to the weather. Thiede suggested that this application could be put on the October 5 City Council agenda in- stead of the October 17 meeting as currently scheduled. McCool stated that staff will check to see what is on the agenda. Messick noted that proper notice was given for this hearing, and this is the public hearing. Brittain suggested that if they could get the asphalt down this year, allowing the fence to be installed when winter is over. Granley stated that it would be helpful to have an extra two weeks. He stated that they were planning to host a get together with all the surrounding neighbors to explain what they are doing prior to the Council meeting. Messick made a motion to amend the conditions of approval to change the expiration date to October 1, 2016. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Messick made a motion approve the application for an interim conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed below, with the approved amendment. Poncin seconded. 1. The Interim Conditional Permit shall expire on October 1, 2016. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2011 Page 5 of 7 2. An administrative review shall be completed by the City after the first year of the permit duration to determine conformance to permit conditions. 3. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) must be com- pleted, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any con- struction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. 4. The storage area shall be constructed with a bituminous surface to control dust and erosion. 5. impervious improvements on the site must not negatively impact the drainage of the site or adjacent properties. 6. The constructed exterior storage area is required to be reviewed and approved by Planning Staff prior to use. 7. Fencing utilized on the site for screening will be constructed from heavy duty opa- que woven material. Prior to installation, fence materials must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. 8. The placement, movement, or stockpiling of materials in the approved exterior storage area shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 9. The exterior storage areas are limited to the areas identified in the staff report dated September 26, 2011. 10. No liquids or hazardous materials can be stockpiled within the enclosed storage area. 11. The standard City and State noise rules will be applicable to the site. If the City re- ceives noise complaints, the property owner must bring the noise on the site into compliance upon notification by the City. 12. Repeat violations related to exterior storage outside of approved areas, noise, un- sightliness, or permit criteria will require additional review of the ICUP by the City Council, with possible revocation of the ICUP as a remedy. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Zoning Text Amendments — Commercial Zoning Districts McCool summarized the staff memorandum regarding undertaking an amendment to the City's zoning ordinance relating to commercial districts. He asked the Commission to consider reviewing the commercial zoning district ordinances as it relates to the uses, purpose state- ments, and development standards. He suggested that representatives from other City Com- Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2011 Page 6 of 7 missions could be involved in this discussion. Messick stated that he likes the idea of involving the other Commissions. He suggested scheduling a workshop that involves the Planning Commission and members of other commissions. Brittain asked what the benefit would be for input from the other Commission. McCool responded that they may have suggestions that the Planning Commission and staff may not have thought of. Treber asked what other commis- sions would be involved. McCool responded that an invitation could be sent to the other com- missions asking for a representative to participate in this process. He stated that this process would take several months to complete. Poncin stated that a matrix of uses would be more user - friendly. Ventura noted that the matrix could also be a benefit for economic development as well because it is a quick snapshot look at what is needed for different zoning areas. The consensus of the Commission was to hold a workshop and invite a representative from each of the other City Commissions. 7.2 E- Packets and Distribution List McCool reported that the City is moving toward distributing all Commission packet materials electronically. There will be iPads available in the Council Chambers for use by Commis- sioners during the meeting. In advance of the meeting, the packet will be distributed by e -mail. He stated that staff would like to have a workshop on how to access information on the iPads and asked if the Commission wanted to meet before the start of next month's meeting or set up a separate time. Treber asked if the intent was to start with the next meeting. McCool stated if that is okay with the Commission. Brittain asked to have this month's packet e- mailed to the Commission as a test to ensure that everyone will be able to access the packet, and if the Commission is comfortable, hold a workshop on the iPads prior to the meeting. Treber asked if the documents would be PDFs. He asked the Commission is they were comfortable getting a -mails with PDFs. Brittain asked if the packets would be sent in color. McCool re- sponded yes. McCool noted that the updated Commission roster was sent in this packet and asked the Commission to review their information to ensure that all e -mail addresses are correct. He will send out this month's packet to the Commission as a test. Thiede stated that the City Council has been receiving the Council packets electronically for awhile now and there have not expe- rienced any difficulties. Brittain asked about the process for creating electronic packets, and suggested using Adobe Professional. Thiede stated that he spoke with staff to ensure that the program used would convert packet items into searchable PDF documents. It was the con- sensus of the Commission to come in at 6:00, prior to the start of the next Planning Commis- sion meeting, for training on the iPads. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from August 22, 2011 Poncin made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on August 22, 2011. Ventura seconded. The motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 9.1 Recap of September City Council Meetings Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Thiede reported that on September 7 the City Council heard a presentation on the Red Rock Corridor and approved going forward with the proposed plan. The Council also approved the name "Sunny Hill Park" for the neighborhood park in the Pinecliff subdivision and the Cottage Grove Recreational Facility Use Policy. On September 21, the Council approved the plans and specifications and established a bid date for the splash pad project; reviewed the results of the best value bidding process for the Public Safety /City Hall project and awarded the bid to Graham Construction Services; and received a petition signed by 114 adults and 24 kids to keep the municipal pool open for another year. He noted that it is too expensive to continue operating and maintaining that pool. Brittain asked if future plans include an aquatic center with a pool facility. Thiede responded that a pool /aquatic center was the number one recom- mendation from the Community Center Task Force. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Splash Pads McCool stated that a summary copy of the splash pad study was provided to the Commission. He stated that the complete report could be sent to the Commission electronically if they are interested. The City Council awarded the bid for construction of the splash pad at Highlands Park, and construction will start this fall with plans for opening by July 1. Dynamic Sign at Holiday Station on Hinton Avenue and 70th Street McCool explained that there was a timing issue with the new dynamic sign at the Holiday Sta- tion, which was programmed by the vendor who installed it on a Friday. They had the issue resolved on the Monday following the weekend when the vendor was able to come out to make the correction. Brittain asked if this is problem occurs during the week, could the City ask the business to turn off their sign until it is fixed. McCool responded yes. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Brittain asked for an electronic map of the City. Adjournment Ventura made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Pearson seconded. Motion passed un- animously (7 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m.