Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-03 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 10/3112 s 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 27, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on August 27, 2012. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 9/24/12 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 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 August 27, 2012 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS City 4d min istrator WDat COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission August 27, 2012 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, August 27, 2012, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Elijah Harter, Neal Heurung, Brian Pearson, Lise' Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Maureen Ventura, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: None Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner; John M. Burbank, Senior Planner; Robin Roland, Finance and Community Development Director; Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator; David Thiede, City Council; Justin Olsen, City Council; Corrine Heine, City Attorney Approval of Agenda Ventura made a motion to approve the agenda. Harter seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Rostad 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 Rostad explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capac- ity 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 Famous Dave's — Case CUP12 -024 Burnwood LLC, dba Famous Dave's BBQ, has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a restaurant with an on -sale liquor license at 8479 East Point Douglas Road South. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 2 of 14 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed below. Rediske seconded the motion. 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, sign and mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and ap- proved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 2. The applicant must obtain an on -sale liquor license from the City Council before any alcoholic beverage can be served. 3. The exterior wall bump -out fagade constructed of corrugated steel is permitted to naturally corrode to an aesthetic extent as long as it does not become a ha- zard. The corrugated steel materials are allowed to discolor, but must not become corroded. 4. A minimum of 21 off - street parking spaces shall continually be provided includ- ing a minimum of two handicap accessible spaces with one being "van accessible." 5. The landscaping shall be installed as per the approved landscape plan and continually maintained in a live vegetative state, kept free of refuse and debris, and replaced when necessary. Dead plant materials must be replaced with live plantings. Plantings replacing the dead shrubs nearest to the fire hydrant at the west access drive must not be within six feet of the fire hydrant. Plant materials extending into and over the common access drives must be trimmed. 6. All signage must conform to the design, color, and location as shown in the sign package submitted by the applicant and conform to the City's Sign Ordin- ance regulations. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.2 Walmart — Case ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 (Continued) Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc., has applied to rezone the property at 9338 East Point Douglas Road South from R -4, Low Density Residential, to B -2, Retail Business; preliminary and final plats to create one 23.55 -acre commercial lot; a site plan review of a 177,808 square foot retail store; and conditional use permits to allow a drive - up pharmacy window and recycling collection pointlexterior storage. Burbank summarized the staff report. He recommended approval of all applications, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 3 of 14 Roland thanked the Metropolitan Council and Mayor Bailey for their assistance in the crea- tion of the proposed berming and buffering area between the residential and commercial properties, which is in excess of the City's ordinance requirements and exceeds other buf- fers in the City. She noted that at the July Planning Commission meeting, staff conveyed in- accurate information regarding the berm and buffer area. (Reese arrived at 7:23 p.m.) Eric Miller, MFRA, the Civil Engineering Consultant for Wal -Mart Stores, 14800 28th Avenue North, Suite 140, Plymouth, Minnesota, stated that an issue brought up at the July meeting was the credibility of the perspectives for Jeffery and Jasmine Avenues. He stated that they re- evaluated those perspectives and enhanced them. He displayed the perspectives of the current conditions and the proposed project. He explained that they worked closely with the Met Council on what could be done within the interceptor easement. The Met Council will allow landscaping within 10 feet of the interceptor sewer. He displayed the landscape plan for that area, which includes a lot of coniferous trees and larger deciduous trees to help screen the baling and organic recycling areas along with general screening of the activity behind the building. Miller then reported that they did a noise assessment to analyze how to mitigate noise concerns and introduced their acoustical consultant. David Braslau, President of David Braslau Associates, 6603 Queen Avenue South, Suite N, Richfield, Minnesota, explained that they looked at the noise emanating from rooftop me- chanical units, truck movements in the dock area, and the compactor at the back of the building. They utilized State noise standards, which supersede local ordinances. He provided a presentation on the existing noise levels in the area and the noise levels that could be ex- pected from the proposed Walmart project. In conclusion, the study shows the project will not exceed the noise standards, and the proposed mitigation features appear to be functional. Miller provided information on lighting levels. They are proposing LED lighting, which would be downcast with full cut -off in accordance with City regulations. Light spillage at the front and side property lines is in accordance with City regulations. Along the back property line, there will be no light spillage. Kevin Kielb, Bolton & Menk, 2035 County Road B East, Suite B, Maplewood, Minnesota, provided a presentation regarding traffic impacts from the proposed project. The presenta- tion covered East Point Douglas Road, the intersection of Jamaica Avenue and East Point Douglas Road, and the intersection of Highway 61, CSAH 19, and East Point Douglas Road, which included current conditions and the proposed Phase I and Phase II roadway improve- ments. He concluded that the intersection level of service would improve with the proposed project. Heurung asked what the oval on East Point Douglas Road depicted. Kielb responded that is the intersection with the future Ravine Parkway extension and is shown on the drawing to depict how the roadway network and traffic stacking in the area would perform. Brittain stated in the Public Safety notes there was a discussion about a right -in /right -out for the intersection between Cub and Yo- Joe's. Burbank responded that the Public Safety Commission recommended doing the improvements with further study on that intersection. Heurung asked if there would eventually be a traffic signal at CSAH 19 and Highway 61. Kielb responded that Washington County, who has jurisdiction of that road, wants to keep it Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 4 of 14 as is and monitor the traffic patterns. They have considered the possibility that a temporary signal could be warranted at that location as the area continues to grow. Once the full County reconstruction of CSAH 19 and the Highway 61 interchange occurs, there will most likely be signals at those locations. Heurung expressed concern about traffic backing up at those intersections, particularly when 3M has shift changes. Mike Boex, Bolton & Menk, explained that with the proposed Walmart development, the ex- tension of both Jeffery and Jasmine Avenues will no longer be necessary; the temporary tur- narounds will be converted into permanent turnarounds. He provided drawings showing how the Jeffery and Jasmine Avenue cul -de -sacs will look. Boex then discussed the public and private utilities that will be necessary for this project and displayed the utility plans. Brad Schleeter, Stantec Consulting, 2335 West Highway 36, St. Paul, Minnesota, provided information on the stormwater elements on the site and how that fits within the regional con- text of Drainage District ERA9. The Walmart property will make up about 24 acres of the total area of 125 acres. Burbank discussed tree mitigation for the site and displayed an orthophoto from 2009 show- ing the existing vegetation. He also provided the tree inventory for that site, and stated that the City Forester evaluated the trees. The vegetation on the northern portion of the property will not be disturbed by the proposed project. The vegetation south of the easement area would be disturbed during grading activity. The City has a tree mitigation ordinance that ad- dresses tree removal as part of development. He stated that based on the amount of trees to be removed, tree mitigation would be required. Jim Gallagher, PB2 Architecture and Engineering, 710 West Roselawn, Rogers, Arkansas, stated that they have not changed the building but have provided more detailed information on what it will look like. He displayed renderings of the building elevations and signage. He explained that they are requesting a deviation from the maximum wall signage allowed, which is 200 feet per wall with a maximum of 300 feet total; they are asking for 690 feet. The signs on the building are of two different characters; the first type identifies the building as Walmart and is in the middle, and the others are directional signs showing customers what part of the building they will likely find the merchandise they are looking for. Rediske asked what makes this store a Super Walmart. Gallagher responded that is a dis- tinction that Walmart is doing away with. Some stores only have general merchandise and maybe a garden center or a tire and tube express but limited or no groceries. All the stores Walmart is currently building meet the Super Walmart category so they are dropping the term. Rediske asked if there will be an auto center at this Walmart. Gallagher responded no. Heurung asked if this was a 24 -hour store, noting that was what he thought Super Walmart meant. Gallagher responded yes, and that is another distinction. Roland clarified that the Planning Commission is not being asked to comment on the sign package; that is one of the conditions for the City Council to review. Miller provided information on the site features, including the remote pharmacy facility; sus - tainability features from their recycling programs; and their pallet, bale, and organic recycling area. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 5 of 14 Burbank summarized the discussions and recommendations from the Public Works Com- mission; Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission; Public Safety, Health and Welfare Commission; and the Economic Development Authority. Roland clarified for the record that the Planning Commission's responsibility to review residential, commercial, and industrial development proposals and determine whether site plans for developments con- form to the principals and requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and City ordinances. Harter asked if the City is confident that the intersection by Cub will be safe as the traffic in- creases. Burbank stated that is the area identified by the Public Safety Commission for addi- tional review in the future. Brittain asked if the 100 -foot right -of -way should be added to the conditions. Burbank re- sponded yes. Brittain asked when the proposed sidewalk on the north side of East Point Douglas Road would connect with the sidewalk in front of Menards. Burbank stated with the Phase I development. Ventura stated that at the July meeting concern was expressed by the townhouse residents about school bus pickup safety and asked if that had been looked at. Burbank responded that he has not contacted the School District regarding that issue, but their standard policies related to bus stops along major arterials or collector roads would be followed. Heurung stated that he is a school bus driver for ISD #833 and there is a large turn around in the middle of the complex that is adequate for a bus stop. Rostad explained that there are four areas that the Planning Commission is being asked to take action on: zoning change, preliminary plat, site plan, and conditional use permits. The comments and questions to the Commission should address only those issues. He stated that during the public testimony, staff will take notes on the questions and issues raised and responses will be given after everyone has spoken. Rostad opened the public hearing. Tracy Hamilton, 9484 Jasmine Avenue South, asked if the existing noise in the area is fig- ured into the final results or is that in addition to the highway noise already there. She asked if there would be room for a fence on top of the berm to take away some of the sound. She does appreciate the proposed improvements but is still concerned about noise issues. She also asked for clarification about diesel fumes. Glen Peper, 9415 Jeffery Avenue South, asked if there will be an assessment for the two cul -de -sacs. He also asked what times construction would take place. Dan Koneczny, 9230 East Point Douglas Lane South, asked if there has been any study rel- ative to light levels impacting the view of the night sky. He is also concerned about the in- crease of traffic because the only egress point from their subdivision is onto East Point Douglas Road. He asked if the economic impact on existing businesses has been looked at. Rostad stated that this Commission is primarily charged with the zoning, platting, and site plan of the Walmart proposal and does not have jurisdiction regarding economic impacts. Burbank reported that a retail study was completed in 2009 that addresses the commercial vitality of the community now and in the future. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 6 of 14 Brad Conner, 9454 Jeffery Avenue South, asked for clarification on how the drainage in the area by depression behind the store will be handled. He also asked for more detail on the proposed berming and screening. He is not completely clear on the elevations and what is being proposed. Rostad closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. for a short recess. Rostad called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. Miller responded to the question regarding the noise study. He explained that the noise study analyzed two different components, the ambient condition and the proposed condition. The ambient condition decibel readings were between 30 and 50, depending on time of day and highway traffic. The proposed condition ranged from 42 to 47, dependent on what source is looked at. The models used were for the worst case scenario, with every rooftop unit run- ning, trash compactor running, all truck docks being used, and trucks entering and exiting. They believe they are in compliance with the tightest threshold the required by the state with the worst possible scenario. Miller then responded about adding a fence to the berm stated that the mitigation measures as proposed adequately screen noise, light, and pollution in ac- cordance with regulations. He explained that the trees and berming will help mitigate issues with diesel fumes, along with Walmart's strict no idling in the bay policy. Regarding the ef- fects of the lighting on the night sky view, Miller reported that Walmart is at the industry fore- front in reducing sky pollution from lighting in accordance with the Dark Sky Association standards. All their lights will LED, downcast, and have full cutoff which directs the lighting where they want it to go. Ventura asked how the diesel fumes in one of those bays would compare with the fumes from a truck passing a child on a street corner. Miller responded that it was not reviewed to that level. Brittain suggested that more research could be done on diesel fumes prior to City Council review. Roland responded to the question regarding assessing for the cul -de -sacs that the recon- struction of those cul -de -sacs will not be assessed to those homeowners. However, they could be assessed for future scheduled pavement management projects. McCool stated regarding hours of construction, City ordinances allow for grading operations to occur from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., but once they have the shell of the building constructed, they can work on the inside anytime. Kielb stated that as part of their analysis they do traffic counts to find out how much traffic is currently using the roadway and use projections to determine how many vehicles per day would use it in the future. The initial projections were performed by Walmart and verified by Washington County and the City of Cottage Grove. He provided more details on the traffic study and future projections. Schleeter responded to the question regarding drainage on the north side of the berm north of the building. He clarified that there is an existing dry stormwater pond north of the property into which drainage from Jeffery and Jasmine is directed. The outlet for that basin goes to the north and that system is remaining in place. The depression area is where flows come in Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 7 of 14 and drain over land to the south. With the proposed berm, drainage to the south will be blocked, so a storm pipe will be put in to take the drainage and route it around the site. Burbank provided details on the increased elevations of the new berm. He gave further in- formation on the landscape plan, noting that it meets ordinance requirements. Any additional mitigation and increase in size or densities in that area would be identified and negotiated through this process and will be included in the final development agreement. A commitment was also made to the neighbors to review with them if any changes need to be made after the two landscaping phases are completed. McCool noted that Jeffery Avenue is at a higher elevation, and due to location of the Metropolitan Council's odor reduction station there, it is a little more open with less landscaping. Staff will visit with the Met Council to see if addi- tional berming and plantings could be added on the south side of their property. Reese asked when Jeffery and Jasmine Avenues are scheduled for pavement management improvements. Roland responded within the next five years dependent on the re- evaluation of the City's pavement management program. Reese asked how the height of the light poles compares to other businesses. McCool responded staff would have to check those plans but City ordinance does not establish any height limitations for parking lot lights. Reese then asked if there was going to be any outdoor storage on the site, such as storing garden center items in the parking lot. McCool responded they would need to apply for an interim condi- tional use permit for a seasonal garden center; however, they do have an attached garden center on the southwest corner of the building. Exterior storage beyond what was approved would require another conditional use permit. Reese asked about if flooding onto Jeffery Avenue during heavy rainfalls could occur due to the berm. Burbank responded that was looked at during the planning process. Reese asked if the traffic modeling addressed week- end traffic, which includes a lot of out of town traffic to Menards. He also noted that the Pub- lic Safety Commission believes most of the traffic will come from East Point Douglas and Jamaica and not from CSAH 19 and Highway 61. He would prefer to deal with traffic issues before the store opens instead of waiting to see how it flows and frustrating people. He would like to have the traffic study show the reality of the traffic at that intersection on a daily basis instead of the average. Roland responded that Phase I of the road expansion will han- dle the flow of traffic from the Menards area. Burbank responded that Public Safety Commis- sion made assumptions based on their personal experiences. The turn land is Washington County's jurisdiction. The City is putting in the turn lane. Walmart will provide funding in escrow for stop signs or temporary signals as part of this application. Rostad asked about the time frame for taking action if there are traffic issues. Reese asked again about the intersection of Highway 61 and CSAH 19. Kielb responded that the County's explanation for this proposal is that it would be counterintuitive to have a four -way stop ahead of the ramps. Also if a four -way stop on CSAH 19 would require all vehicles heading north on CSAH 19 to stop, which would cause traffic to back up into the interchange area. Washington County wants the intersection to stay in its current condition but is ready to react fairly quickly to put in an all -way stop at that point. He stated that the traffic study does look at the peak hours. Harter asked what the worst case scenario is for East Point Douglas Road and Jamaica Avenue for the amount of traffic in that area. Burbank provided traffic count number for that area. Harter asked if Walmart will provide funding to handle potential problems at that inter- section. Roland responded that the proposals in the packet regarding the East Point Douglas Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 8 of 14 Road /Jamaica Avenue intersection were studied as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and the changes suggested will be implemented with the Phase I roadway improvements. Those costs are included in the plan. Rediske asked if roundabouts had been discussed for the CSAH 19 /Highway 61 /East Point Douglas Road intersections. Kielb responded that an intersection control analysis was done to determine the best means of traffic control at that location. Based on that analysis, a tem- porary traffic signal would be the best option at the East Point Douglas Road and CSAH 19 intersection, but a complete study needs to be done before any changes are made. Burbank stated that the Southwest Transportation Study looked at the realignment of that intersection. Rostad asked if there was any further discussion on the zoning amendment. Reese made a motion to approve the zoning amendment from R -4, Low Density Resi- dential, to B -2, Retail Business, based on the findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed below. Brittain seconded. Findings for Approval — Zoninq Amendment: A. Zoning is compliant with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. B. State Statutes require zoning and land use be consistent. C. The proposed zoning and site plan are cohesive with this land use and planning area. Conditions of Approval — Zoning Amendment. 1. The rezoning of the property from R -4, Low Density Residential ,to B -2, General Business, is only for the 23.55 -acre portion of property identified in the plan- ning staff report as the development site. 2. The Final Plat for a 23.55 -acre parcel is approved and recorded with Washington County. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Rostad asked if there was any further discussion on the preliminary plat application. Burbank recommended adding a condition regarding the 100 -foot right -of -way as part of the motion. Ventura made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, based on the findings for ap- proval and subject to the conditions listed below, with a change requiring a 100 -foot right -of -way. Rediske seconded. Findings for Approval — Preliminary Plat: A. The proposed plat is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. B. The Plat creates lots with minimum public frontage. C. The plat creates additional outlots for the benefit of the general public. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 9 of 14 D. The plat creates additional drainage and utility easements for the benefit of the general public. E. The plat creates additional right -of -way for the benefit of the general public. Conditions of Approval — Preliminary Plat: 1. The Property is zoned B -2. 2. The developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Cottage Grove for the installation of and payment for all public improvements in the subdi- vision, pursuant to Title 10 of the City Code. 3. Dedication of public right -of -way as per the recommendations of the City Engineer. 4. Dedication of public drainage and utility easements as per the recommendations of the City Engineer. 5. Park dedication requirements shall be satisfied as stipulated in the approved development agreement for this subdivision. 6. Area charge requirements shall be satisfied as stipulated in the approved develop- ment agreement for this subdivision. 7. The preliminary plat shall follow the City's standard street naming policy. 8. The proposed Outlot C shall not be platted as an Outlot. 9. The area proposed as Outlot C shall be identified on the plat as a public drainage and utility easement. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Rostad asked if there was further discussion regarding the site plan review. Reese asked about the tail hook in the access drive coming from the west. Miller responded that is a best management practice to get that access to align 90 degrees with the primary roadway. Reese asked if all the landscaping going into the berm has taken away from landscaping in the parking areas. Burbank responded that the landscape plan meets the ordinance criteria; any additional landscaping on future public open space would be as a part of the tree mitiga- tion plan. They will fund that account, and the City will plant under contract. Brittain asked along with the landscaping in the parking lot, if staff's recommendation to in- crease the landscaping closer to the building was captured in the conditions. Burbank stated it is part of the condition requiring the islands in the front and staff has had discussions with the applicant about landscaping and sizing. Miller stated that they will work with staff on it. They are not allowed to put landscape islands in certain ADA areas, where there is a vertical change in elevation, and could become an impediment or hazard. Rostad asked who de- cides what types of trees are planted. Burbank responded the City Forester is part of the landscaping review process. Also, the City is requiring that they contract with a certified arborist. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 10 of 14 Reese made a motion to approve the site plan for a 177,808 square foot retail store, based on the findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed below. Brittain seconded. Findinqs for Approval- Site Plan: A. The site schematic and design is consistent with the City's site development standards. B. The proposed site plan meets or exceeds the buffering and landscaping requirements between adjacent land uses. Conditions of Approval - Site Plan: 1. The preliminary plat is approved. 2. All site, utility, landscaping and building plans must be revised prior to submit- tal of the application to the City Council. 3. Final drainage plans must be submitted to the South Washington Watershed District for review. 4. All revisions to utility and drainage plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 5. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, etc.) must be issued by the City prior to any work or construction taking place. Detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 6. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide for the additional required plantings and increased buffering vegetation sizes along the northern portion of the property. 7. 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 professional irrigation installer to meet the water requirements of the site's specific vegeta- tion. The system shall be detailed on the landscape plan. 8. Concrete aprons for all private access drives shall be constructed per City requirements. 9. All site lighting must meet City Code requirements. All light fixtures must be downward directed with cut -offs. The specifications of all light fixtures must be provided with the application for a building permit. 10. Final architectural plans, lighting details, and exterior construction materials and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 11 of 14 11. The grading and erosion control plan for the site must comply with NPDES II Permit requirements. Erosion control devices must be installed prior to com- mencement of any grading activity. Erosion control must be performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 10 -5 -8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 12. Permanent or temporary construction easements are required on any area in- cluded in the site grading and surface water management component of the project. 13. The applicant will be responsible for ensuring that all required temporary con- struction easements, storm water and access cross easement documentation are completed prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. The applicant must provide the City with an as -built survey of all private utilities prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a compre- hensive sign package to the City for review and approval. 16. Bicycle parking shall meet City design standard policies. 17. All fencing must be constructed of a wrought iron designed materials Consis- tent with the City's commercial fencing standards. No portion of any retaining wall or fence shall encroach within any public right -of -way or upon any parcel that is not owned by Walmart. 18. Tree mitigation plan shall be identified in the development agreement. 19. A certified arborist meeting the City's approval is required as a component of the project. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Rostad asked if there was further discussion on the conditional use permit for the pharmacy drive -up window. Reese made a motion to approve the conditional use permit allowing a drive -up pharmacy, subject to the conditions listed below. Ventura seconded. 1. The site plan is approved. 2. The drive -up window shall not cause negative traffic impacts. 3. External customer communication systems shall not be audible from the property line. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 12 of 14 Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Rostad asked if there was further discussion on the conditional use permit for the accessory recycling collection point/exterior storage. Wehrle made a motion to approve the conditional use permit for the recycling collec- tion point(exterior storage, subject to the conditions listed below. Pearson seconded. 1. The site plan is approved. 2. The recycled materials stored on site shall be enclosed at all times. 3. The approved storage area is limited to the accessory exterior storage structure detailed in the approved site plan. 4. All mechanical equipment screening and trash enclosures must include a com- bination of block and brick, consistent with the principal building. All mechani- cal equipment must be screened in accordance of City Code Title 11, Chapter 6, Section 3. Trash enclosures and the accessory recycling structure must be constructed of masonry materials that are consistent with the principal structure. 5. The accessory recycling structure shall be maintained at all times and not cause odors or other public nuisances. 6. No idling of delivery trucks after five minutes on site. 7. Bollards are required in front of the structure. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Burbank announced that the applications for the proposed Walmart will be on the agenda for the September 5, 2012, City Council meeting. Staff will provide additional information to the Council as part of the approvals from this meeting. The Council report will be available for viewing Friday afternoon, August 31. Roland thanked the Planning Commission, residents, and applicant for their patience during the presentation this evening. Discussion Items 7.1 TIF Modification Modifications to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1 -3. Roland asked the Planning Commission to consider the modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Redevelopment District No. 1 -3. Reese asked for a description of a TIF. Roland defined Tax Increment Financing (TIF). She explained that the particular project the Commission is being asked to modify was built and Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 13 of 14 the City recaptured the write down of the property at the time of the development. The City fronted the costs and is recouping the value of the property sale to the development at that time. Heurung asked for an example. Roland used Presbyterian Homes as an example and explained the TIF process for that project. Roland stated that TIF District No. 1 -3 was originally scheduled to be decertified at the end of 2011. However, the initial TIF payment was not started in 1986; the first payment was re- ceived in 1988, which in effect extended the period for the TIF district to the end of 2013. In order for the City to continue to receive TIF for this district and to reimburse the expenses, the TIF plan and budget need to be modified to capture the full amount. Basically it is being modified to clarify the term of the TIF district to reflect the actual first receipt of the increment and to amend the budget to reflect the actual increment received to date and what is ex- pected through the term of the district. If this modification is not done, the City could get in trouble with the State Auditor's Office because the budget does not reflect what was actually collected for tax increment financing. The modification of this plan is going before the City Council on September 5 for a public hearing. The EDA passed a resolution supporting this modification. The Planning Commission is asked to support the modification with the attached resolution. Wehrle asked where the District is located. Roland stated that it is in the business park off 97th Street. She then read the resolution that the Planning Commission is asked to approve. Reese made a motion to approve the resolution that modifies TIF District No.1 -3. Harter seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from July 23, 2012 Ventura made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 23, 2012, Planning Com- mission meeting. Wehrle seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of August City Council Meetings Thiede reported that at the August 8 meeting, the City Council approved the appointment of Commissioner Harter to the Planning Commission and approved the driveway variance on Lofton Avenue. He noted that during August, the City Council worked on the 2013 budget. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rediske asked about the two referendums regarding recreation and park improvements. Thiede responded that a survey of Cottage Grove residents had been done asking what, if any, improvements they would like and how much they would pay for those improvements. The City Council also held a workshop to discuss the referendums. Schroeder explained that Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012 Page 14 of 14 there will be two questions on the November 6 ballot. The first asks voters if the City should issue up to $6.5 million in bonds (debt) which would result in a tax increase in order to de- velop a family aquatic center. A location for that center has not yet been chosen. The second question would allow issuance of bonds up to $7 million to improve and expand Hamlet Park and to redevelop the former Thompson Grove pool building into an indoor /outdoor play center. The play center would cost about $900,000. If a majority vote affirmatively on either or both questions, the Council would have the authority to issue debt for those projects. More information will be provided to the public in mid - September. The City has the responsibility to provide full disclosure and transparency about the questions and the results. The City will not be marketing and campaigning for or against the referendums. Brittain asked if the Parks Director could provide information to the Planning Commission on the referendum questions. Schroeder responded that staff will be coming to each of the Commissions next month to explain more completely what will be in front of the voters. He also explained that information will be provided through the regular media channels that the City uses and a brochure will be sent to all households in the October water bills. Reese asked if the City is still pursuing a TIGER grant or other grant money for the bridge over Highway 61. Roland responded the City always pursues grant opportunities. Adjournment Ventura made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rediske seconded. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.