Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-24 MinutesCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission October 24, 2011 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, October 24, 2011, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Interim Chair Brittain called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Brian Pearson, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, Maureen Ventura, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Steve Messick, Tracy Poncin, Brian Treber Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner David Thiede, City Council Approval of Agenda Rostad made a motion to approve the agenda. Ventura seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Brittain 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 Brittain 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 go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 McMahon Shed Setback Variance — Case ICUP11 -020 P.J. McMahon has applied for a variance to the twenty foot corner side yard setback re- quirement for an accessory structure to be placed on the property line at 8414 Isle Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2011 Page 2 of 5 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. P.J. McMahon, 8414 Isle Avenue South, stated that he would answer any questions the Commission may have. Wehrle asked if the new shed would be inside the fence. McMahon responded that he plans to replace the fence on the front and on that corner with two sides of the new shed. Pearson asked what the structure would house. McMahon responded that he would move items currently stored in his garage into the new shed to make room in his two -car attached garage for another car. Rambacher asked if the shed in the rendering in the staff report is what the proposed shed would look like. McMahon responded that the siding and roof materials on the shed will match the materials of his home. Wehrle asked if there have been any negative comments received from the neighborhood. McCool responded no. Brittain asked for clarification on the requested zero setback and the amount of space be- tween the shed and street. McCool responded that the 20 -foot minimum side yard setback would be that distance from the side of the house to the side property line. He explained that grass strip between the property line and curb is the boulevard, which is part of the 60 -foot public right -of -way for Iverson Court. The boulevard will be approximately 13 -feet between the curb and side property boundary line. Brittain opened the public hearing. Suzanne Koerner, 8439 Ivywood Avenue South, stated that they have lived in the neighbor- hood for 21 years, and they hope that the Commission approves the variance. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Ventura made a motion approve the variance application based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Rambacher seconded. Findings of Fact: A. The principal structure is centrally located on the irregularly- shaped lot. B. There is an existing non - conforming shed on the property located closer than the required setback. C. The existing non - conforming shed was not constructed by the Applicant. D. There is an existing six -foot high fence located along the entire street side property line. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2011 Page 3 of 5 E. The steep slopes and mature trees in the rear yard limit placement opportunities of a new accessory structure to the proposed location. F. Placement of the structure closer to the principal structure could negatively impact site drainage from the attached garage. G. The existing non - conforming shed is deteriorating and is in need of replacement. H. The new accessory structure expansion towards the street side property line will be in the same location on the property line as the existing six -foot high fence. I. The existing shed and fence locations do not adversely impact the view of adjoining neighbors of any parks, open space, or wetlands. J. The proposed accessory structure location is not anticipated to adversely impact the view of adjoining neighbors of any parks, open space, or wetlands K. The proposed accessory structure will make the home more efficient and livable and increase the ability to bring current exterior storage items inside a structure. L. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adja- cent properties, will not increase the congestion of the public streets, will not endanger the public's safety, or will not diminish property values within the neigh- borhood. M. The proposed location of the accessory structure will not be closer to Isle Avenue that that front plane of the principal structure nor closer to the rear lot line than the rear plane of the principal structure. Conditions of Approval. 1. 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. 2. The new accessory structure shall be screened with landscaping that meets the quantity and design approval of the Planning Division. 3. The new accessory structure shall be architecturally similar in design and color to the principal structure. Final design details shall meet the approval of the Planning Division. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Commercial Zoning Districts Text Amendments McCool summarized the staff memorandum. He reported that the volunteers from other City advisory commissions are Chris Reese from the Economic Development Authority, Rick Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Johnson from the Human Services /Human Rights Commission, Rick Chase from the Envi- ronmental Commission, and Mark Nelson from the Parks Commission who will attend meet- ings when he does not have scheduling conflicts. There have been no responses yet from the Public Works Commission, Public Safety Commission, and the Advisory Committee on His- toric Preservation. He asked if the Planning Commission as a whole should serve or just a couple Commissioners. The Commission discussed the level of participation from the Plan- ning Commission, including how long the process is anticipated to take, the meeting schedule, and what the overall goal is. McCool explained this should be about a two -month process, with about four or five committee meetings. Staff would then prepare a draft ordinance. The Planning Commission would hold the public in hearing in January or February and make a recommendation to the City Council. He stated that the committee would update the uses cur- rently listed in the ordinance, whether they should be permitted or conditional uses, and how to make the ordinance more user - friendly. It was the consensus of the Commission that there should be no limit on the number of Planning Commissioners participating on this committee. McCool suggested that the Committee hold meetings on two Tuesday evenings in November and possibly a meeting on either December 6 or December 19. He noted that typically the regular Commission meeting in December is canceled due to lack of business; this year's meeting would be December 26. Brittain suggested scheduling the workshop on December 6 and moving the regular meeting to December 19, which could be canceled if there is no busi- ness to come before the Commission and that date could be used for a workshop if one is needed. He asked the Commission who would be interested in serving on the committee. The Planning Commissioners in attendance would all be interested in attending the workshop meetings. Rambacher asked if there would be an agenda for each of the workshop meetings. McCool responded the agenda and information material would be sent to the committee prior to each meeting. McCool stated that staff would prepare a meeting schedule and then notify the Commission and committee members of the first meeting. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from September 26, 2011 Wehrle made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on September 26, 2011. Pearson seconded. The motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of September City Council Meetings Thiede reported the interim conditional use permit for exterior storage of material at Werner Electric passed unanimously. He stated the Council had a workshop session last week to re- view the 2011 -2016 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He suggested providing an elec- tronic copy of the preliminary CIP to the Planning Commission. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2011 Page 5 of 5 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rambacher asked for an update on the zoning amendment for vehicle repair. McCool re- sponded that Council approved the amendment that allows vehicle repair in the B -2, B -3, and PB districts; redefined the definition of vehicle repair; and allows the nonconforming busi- nesses to continue to exist in their current form but they cannot expand their operations. Adjournment Rambacher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ventura seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 7:35p.m.