Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-04 PACKET 04.A.iii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # " ado DATE 4/4/12 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 February 27, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on February 27, 2012. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 3/26/12 ❑ 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 February 27, 2012 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS 3 ' City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on February 27, 2012 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS 3 ' City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission February 27, 2012 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, February 27, 2012, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Interim Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Messick welcomed new Planning Commissioner Chris Reese. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Steve Messick, Ryan Rambacher, Lise' Rediske, Jim Rostad, Chris Reese, Maureen Ventura Members Absent: Brian Pearson, Randall Wehrle Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Robin Roland, Director of Finance and Community Development Danette Parr, Economic Development Director David Thiede, City Council Open Forum Messick asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Approval of Agenda Ventura made a motion to approve the agenda. Rambacher seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Messick explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory ca- pacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he ex- plained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 3M Carbon Filtration Facility — Case SP12 -005 and V12 -006 3M Company has applied for a site plan review of a carbon filtration facility at 3M Cottage Grove, 10746 Innovation Road, and a variance to architectural regulations to allow two Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 2 of 7 proposed buildings to be constructed of pre- engineered metal panel walls and roofs that will match the colors and style of their existing wastewater treatment building and con- struct two outdoor water storage tanks. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain stated that he is an employee of the applicant and has discussed this matter with city staff and Planning Commission Chair. It was determined Brittain will not benefit from the ap- proval or denial of these applications and his participation in the discussion and the Planning Commission's actions are appropriate. Pat McGrann, 3M Facility Engineering, 733 Haven Hill Road, Eagan, stated that he is the project coordinator for this project. He reported that this facility will be a non - occupied space. The facilities will be controlled by 3M's existing automated computer and pumping systems. The structure will be kept at around 50 degrees, which is one reason the metal panels are more appropriate for this type of facility. The treated water will be approximately groundwater temperature. They will not be performing any other activities besides filtration at this building. The secondary building is a booster station. The pumps will be used to provide water pres- sure for the carbon treatment facility and private water systems. McGrann explained that treated water will go into the potable water reservoir and untreated water will be pumped into the non - potable reservoir. The new pumping station will feed the water back into the existing reservoirs, which would function as they currently do. There will not be any chemicals present in either of the buildings; they will strictly be used for carbon treatment and pumping. Reese noted that new ground piping will be installed. McGrann explained that because of the infrastructure that is currently there and that the wells feed directly to the pumping stations at the reservoirs, they have to put a new distribution system to this facility from all of the wells. They will install new high density polyethylene underground piping mains to collect water from the different well systems. They will not be abandoning any of the existing piping from the points where they tie back to the reservoirs. Reese asked if the water would be going to the river from this new facility. McGrann stated that the discharge from this new facility will only go to the reservoirs, not into the river. Rediske noted that the filters will be replaced every two years and sent back to the vendor to be cleaned. She asked where the vendor is located. McGrann responded Pennsylvania. He explained that the material will be tested periodically according to MPCA standards. They will be operating what is called a lead lag. The first tank will filter the water, which will be run through a second tank. When they get breakthrough on the first tank, the process will be re- versed; the lag tank becomes the lead and they change out the first tank with new carbon. The carbon is sent to the vendor to be re- energized through a kiln process and returned to 3M for non - potable use. He stated that 3M will follow Minnesota Health Department standards. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Reese made a motion to approve the site plan review of the 3M carbon filtration facil- ity with a variance to the Zoning Ordinance architecture regulations for the two pro- Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 3 of 7 posed carbon filtration facility and booster station, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Ventura seconded the motion. Findings of Fact. A. The proposed carbon filtration facilities are internal to the 3M Cottage Grove site and cannot be seen from the Mississippi River or any public roadways. B. All the minimum building setback requirements of the 1 -3 District are complied with. C. The proposed exterior materials and colors are similar and consistent with other buildings on the 3M Cottage Grove site. D. The building height of the proposed carbon filtration facilities and two new reser- voir tanks are less than the height of other structures that currently exist on the 3M Cottage Grove site. E. The proposed carbon filtration system is being installed as an environmental re- mediation project designed to remove PFC's from the groundwater and is for the protection of human health and the environment in accordance with the MPCA Minnesota Decision Document and MPCA approved Remedial Design /Response Action Plan for the 3M Cottage Grove site. F. This remedial activity will prevent PFCs from potentially desorbing from the sedi- ment into surface water and groundwater. Conditions of Approval: 1. 3M must comply with the remedial actions documented in the Minnesota Decision Document made by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff in approving the recommended response action alternatives. 2. The applicant receives building permits from the City of Cottage Grove prior to constructing the two buildings and reservoirs. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.2 American Motorsports Bar and Grill Expansion — CUP12 -007 and V12 -008 American Motorsports Bar and Grill, 7240 East Point Douglas Road South, has applied for a conditional use permit to expand their restaurant with liquor and for a variance from minimum parking requirements. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked for more details on the smoking area. Burbank explained that it would be an enclosed area in the back where people could stand outside to smoke. Tom Shannon, American Motorsports Bar & Grill, stated that the smoking area will meet the Minnesota De- partment of Public Health standards, which includes having open sides. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Rediske asked if customers would be served food or beverage there. Shannon responded that has not been decided yet. He explained that the area would have a roof to help with noise control and there will be a fence to block it from the neighboring properties. Rambacher asked if there were any pictures of the back of the building. Burbank displayed a picture of the area and pointed out the features, noting that there is a six to eight foot high fence along the back property line near the residential area with vegetative screening. Brittain asked if there would be an impact on the total seat count if food was served in the smoking area. Burbank responded that seating for the smoking area was not factored into the parking calculation as this was the first time tables were discussed. If additional parking would be needed for whatever seating count was produced, that could be added to the rec- ommendations to the City Council. Shannon stated that the area would be for people who want to smoke and drink, but they probably would not serve food there. Rambacher asked if people are allowed to bring their drinks outside to the smoking area. Shannon responded yes, as long as the area is fenced. Rostad asked if there would be any access from the back. Shannon responded no, but the fence will have an emergency exit gate with a panic bar on the inside. Burbank stated that the Fire Marshal approves the current proposal because it improves emergency egress from the premises. Reese asked if there would be another entrance added to the restaurant. Shannon re- sponded that they may put an entrance in the new portion but they have not yet made that decision. Reese asked if there are any plans to make improvements to the parking lot. Burbank responded that is being discussed as part of the negotiations for improvements to the mall. Reese noted that when the restaurant is busy, there is a lot of parking spillover, and he wants to make sure that is part of the planning for the area. He expressed concerns about the layout of the parking lot and the lighting. Rambacher asked if the smoking structure would be heated. Shannon responded that they would put in temporary heaters that meet code requirements. Thiede asked to have the location of the smoking area pointed out on the layout. Shannon pointed out the area. Thiede then asked how big the area would be. Shannon responded about 30 feet deep and 40 feet wide. Rambacher asked if the bathrooms would be expanded. Shannon responded yes, explaining that the hallway to the smoking area and the expanded with bathrooms would go into the ex- isting banquet room. Brittain noted that the ordinance amendment packet that will be discussed at the workshop following the meeting mentioned outdoor seating at restaurants and distance from residential properties. He asked if this proposal would be in compliance with that. McCool stated that the proposed ordinance recommends a 200 -foot setback and the smoking area would be about 180 feet from the residential properties. He explained that currently the city ordinances do not address outside seating areas and what is being proposed for discussion at the work- shop is new language. Burbank stated that if the ordinance was changed, this property Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 5 of 7 would then be a legal nonconforming use because it was established prior to the amendment. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Rambacher stated that it is problematic with people smoking out front by the entrances and having a smoking area makes sense. Rambacher made a motion approve the amendment to the existing conditional use permit and the variance to parking requirements, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Brittain seconded. Findinqs of Fact A. The established zoning and land use allow for commercial and restaurant use. B. The site, which has a history of tenant space turnover and vacancy, is being put to a reasonable use with the expansion of a successful venue. C. The amount of available parking, the established tenant mixes, and existing hours of business operations will not negatively alter the overall use character of the site. D. The expanded use is absorbing the parking previously allotted to the vacant tenant space into which they are expanding. Conditions of Approval 1. The restaurant must not exceed a capacity of 256 seats. 2. All other conditions of Resolution No. 04 -73 and 06 -133 must continue to be met. 3. Repeat violations related to the CUP permit criteria will require additional review of the conditional use permit by the City Council, with possible revocation of the conditional use permit as a remedy. 4. The outdoor smoking area is permitted at the rear of the facility subject to review by the City's Building Official, Fire Marshal, and City Clerk and the Washington County Health Department and the Minnesota Department of Health for compliance with all appropriate regulations prior to use. If it is found through additional review that noise, lighting, odor, or other issues are determined to be causing a negative impact on the adjacent residential uses, the City Council may revoke the outdoor smoking area use. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Discussion on Accessory Structure Regulations (Ordinance Amendment) Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Burbank summarized the staff memorandum and provided a slideshow showing a compari- son of existing accessory structures to their principal structures. He asked for the Commis- sion's direction on if the ordinance should be clarified. The Commission discussed building materials; colors; current ordinance language; whether there have been complaints or issues regarding accessory structure exteriors; which zoning districts would most likely see more dense redevelopment; and whether to base exterior material requirements on lot size or zoning district. Suggestions included requiring the exterior materials of accessory structures on lots 1.5 acres or smaller to match the principal structure; drafting a list approved exterior materials; and establishing ordinance standards for the different zoning districts, such as including the R -1 district with the agricultural districts and creating standards for accessory structures over 160 square specifically for properties less than 1.5 acres with those standards whether in or out of the MUSA. Burbank stated that staff will craft ordinance language for further discussion. 7.2 Discussion on Home Occupation Permits (Ordinance Amendment) Burbank summarized the staff memorandum. He stated that staff is suggesting eliminating the home occupation permit process and fees but increasing the performance standards and updating the allowed uses. McCool stated that there have not been many issues with home occupations in residential neighborhoods. Reese stated that he would like to keep the permit process but not require payment. He be- lieves this could help the City track the businesses in Cottage Grove in order to help them grow. He noted that the Economic Development Authority (EDA) receives a monthly list from the Secretary of State on new businesses in the City. Rostad noted that some of those businesses on the Secretary of State's list are listed at a residential address but the work would be conducted off -site, such as a contractor. He does not believe the City should force businesses to register, particularly if there is a fee. Burbank stated that in trade -type home occupations, language is added to those permits specifying certain restrictions, such as storing equipment and materials on site. Ventura stated that there should be an education component about home occupations, whether or not permits would be required. Brittain asked if the City could identify new businesses through the Secretary of State. Burbank stated that could be one way to track them. Brittain asked what value the City re- ceives from the permit process. Reese stated that an annual permit process would let the City know that the business is still operating; it is a one -time registration with the state. Danette Parr, Economic Development Director, stated that Reese is correct that a permit process would be helpful in tracking businesses in the City; but the benefit may be out- weighed by the amount of work it would require. She noted that the proposed business ac- celerator could provide an opportunity to reach out and network with small businesses. She noted that smaller businesses want less intrusion. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 7 of 7 Ventura stated that when she looks at the number of permits from 2000 to 2012, she finds it interesting that the numbers for home occupation permits have exponentially gone down, and believes the number of home -based businesses have actually increased because of the economy as more people working from their homes. Burbank stated one reason could be that people don't realize they need to have a permit. Reese stated that he does not think the City should step up enforcement without a permit process in place unless more information is provided to the residents regarding home occu- pation standards. Burbank responded that there could be an educational component through the City's newsletter and website. In terms of the performance standards, he is not suggest- ing that the City actively cracks down on home occupations; it is more to enforce the ordin- ance on the illegal operations, such as auto repair. McCool stated that the City does not want to duplicate services, and if the state has a register of businesses, the City can use that listing to network if needed. Ventura noted that the Secretary of State's list does not include self - proprietors. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from January 23, 2012 Ventura made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on January 23, 2012. Rambacher seconded. The motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of February City Council Meetings Thiede reported that on February 15, the historic places conditional use permit at Cedarhurst and the Aggregate Industries mining permit were approved. He also stated that the Lehigh Acres final plat extension was approved, noting that there should be more discussion on how long the City continues to extend final plat approvals. The reduction to the park dedication fees was approved at the February 1 meeting. He then reported that the Council has had a fair amount of discussion on the charter petition, and the applications for the Charter Com- mission have been sent to the judge. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Reese made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rambacher seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m.