Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-14 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM #�� • DATE 8/14/13 • 14 , • / PREPARED BY: Community Development Jennifer Levitt ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR ******************�********�*�****************** COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on June 24, 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on June 24, 2013. UDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT $N/A N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE � PLANNING 7/22/13 ❑ 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 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENT�• meetings on 6/24/13 � f� Date ***�********�****�*********************�******** COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission June 24, 2013 A meeting of th South, Cottage telecast on Loca Call to Order e Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, June 24, 2013, in the Council Chambers and I Government Cable Channel 16. Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Elijah Harter, Wayne Johnson, Lise' Rediske, Jim Rostad, Maureen Ventura, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Staff Present: Brian Pearson, Chris Reese Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Ventura made a motion to approve the agenda. Harter seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (7-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 Borner Lot Split — Case MS13-019 David Borner has applied for a minor subdivision to subdivide a 41.68-acre parcel of land generally located north of 70th Street and northeast of Lamar Fields into two parcels of 5 acres and 36.68 acres; a conditional use permit for a density transfer; and variances to the minimum lot width to allow the lot depth to be more than three times greater than the lot width, and to allow the road access to be 60 feet instead of the required 180 feet. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 2 of 10 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the variance, conditional use permit, and minor sub- division applications based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Johnson seconded. Findinps of Fact: A. The construction of a single-family dwelling on the five-acre parcel will comply with all the minimum setback requirements for the AG-1 and R=1 Districts, which are the zoning classifications that bisect this property. B. The requested variances are not specifically addressed in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but its residential characteristics are consistent with the rural residential and agricultural land use designations for this property. C. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. D. Granting this variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other landowners in this vicinity. The proposed residential structure on the five- acre parcel will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent proper- ties. It will not create congestion in the public streets, become a fire danger, or endanger the public's safety. Conditions of Approval. 1. The stormwater area charge in the amount of $16,466.56 for one equivalent rural residential unit is paid to the City of Cottage Grove. Payment must be made to the City before a building permit is issued for the five-acre parcel. 2. lf the property owner of the five-acre parcel further subdivides the parcel in the future, then the $16,466.56 stormwater area charge amount will be credited to- ward the total amount required to be paid on five gross acres based on the stormwater area charge rate that is established by City resolution or ordinance. 3. Payment of sanitary sewer and water area charges for one equivalent residen- tial unit will be paid in the future if sanitary sewer and water utilities are provided to the five-acre parcel. 4. If the property owner of the 36.68-acre parcel subdivides their parcel in the fu- ture, then payment of the stormwater, water, and/or sanitary sewer area charges that are in effect at the time the property is requested to be subdivided must be paid to the City of Cottage Grove. 5. The park fee in lieu of land dedication amounting to $3,200.00 for one equiva- lent residential unit on the five-acre parcel must be paid to the City before a building permit for the five-acre parcel can be issued. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 3 of 10 6. All applicable permits (i.e.; building, electrical, grading, and mechanical) for the construction of a house on the five-acre parcel must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City before any construction activities begin. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 7. The property owner shal/ obtain a Washington County Access Permit for the private access drive connection to 70th Street (CSAH 20) before any excavation or construction can begin. 8. A permanent right-of-way easement 25 feet in width that is north and parallel to the 50-foot wide Highway Easement as recorded in Book 257, Page 589 must be granted to Washington County. Granting this permanent right-of-way easement must be recorded at Washington County before a building permit is issued for the five-acre parcel. 9. The private access drive for the five-acre parcel must be hard surfaced with as- phalt or concrete between the 70th Street pavement edge and a minimum distance of 55 feet to the north. 10. If the City Engineer determines that a drainage easement(s) is necessary for purposes of directing off-site runotf onto or across the subject property, the property owner is required to dedicate such easements without cost to the City as recommended by the City Engineer. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote.) 6.2 7310 Lamar Barn Event Venue — Case CUP13-020 Wayne and Angie Butt have applied for a Historic Places Conditional Use Permit to allow the barn located at 7310 Lamar Avenue South to be used as a wedding and event venue. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Wayne Butt, 7310 Lamar Avenue South, introduced his architect, David Harris, who is helping to design the project. David Harris, 17675 Hogan Avenue, Hastings, stated that he is a Minnesota licensed archi- tect. He stated that he did a code analysis of the barn and has no concerns with accessibility and compatibility with building codes. The Butts need to generate revenue in order to reno- vate the barn, which is why they have proposed using tents on the front yard until the barn is completed. The tents would be rented and taken down after use. Harris questioned the need for a paved parking area. Other similar venues don't have paved parking, but are grass or gravel. He noted that a paved parking area is impervious and there is a lot of runoff. He asked that they be allowed to have gravel and review the operations in two years to see how it is working. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 4 of 10 Johnson clarified that they want to use the tent until the barn is ready to hold functions in- side. Harris responded that was correct, further explaining that they need to make revenue before work can start on the barn. Johnson asked what facilities would be available in the case of bad weather during events. Harris stated that the barn is not code suitable but could be available in an emergency situation. Brittain asked if the tent could be placed behind the barn. Harris responded no due to the grades and because that is the parking area. He also noted that there are a ponding basin and storage structure back there, and the septic system and restrooms will be located there. Brittain asked why they need the proposed access point versus improving the current drive- way. Harris responded the current access drive goes to the residence, which will not be part of the commercial venture. The proposed location is along a natural tree line and has good grades. Brittain noted that there is a home to the south and both access points will allow headlights to shine into the house across the street. He suggested adding berms to mitigate the lights and noise. A center access point may be less convenient for the owners but could mitigate impacts to the south. Harris stated that the tree line consists of fairly dense ever- green trees. Brittain asked if there is a need to have parking in the front. Harris responded that the conditions of approval could state "successful negotiations with Public Works and Planning staff as to the location and number of parking spaces." Brittain suggested having parking on the north side of the access drive, pointed at the tent when vehicles enter and exit that is handicap parking only, but if that parking is not needed, all parking should be behind the building to get it as far away from the residents to the south as possible. Brittain then asked that there be a time limit on how long the tent would be allowed to be used. He is more concerned with parking and access than with utilizing a tent on a temporary basis. Harris stated that they are open to relocating the tent location, parking area, and access drive. Rediske asked how long the tent would be up. Harris responded only during the event; the tent will be rented and put up before and taken down after the event. Levitt stated that in the conditions of approval there are specific times that there could be music. Staff is concerned about noise amplified from the tent structure versus being in the barn, which could become a nuisance to adjacent property owners. Johnson asked how old something has to be to be historical and why it's important to be historical. Wayne Butt explained that designation comes from the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, and designating the barn as historic allows it to be used as an event venue. He explained that due to financial constraints they need to do the work in phases in order to make all the necessary improvements. The long term goal is to have a house that looks like it is from 1850 and a barn from 1947. He is amenable to moving the parking from the front of the property to the back. They are currently working with Washington County on the septic system upgrade to meet commercial use requirements. The detached garage would be relocated to the west of the barn, which would become the restrooms with a water cooler fountain out front. Their first phase will include bathrooms; they will not have porta- potties. Rostad asked if conditions #15 and 16 regarding hours of operation and music are for both the temporary tent and when the events are in the barn. Levitt responded the intent was for the barn use, not within a tent structure. Rostad asked if there would be an opportunity to Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 5 of 10 limit hours of operation and amplified music for the tent structure. Levitt responded that the City's noise ordinance allows higher decibel levels from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., but the City does receive a lot of complaints at both ends of that time frame. Rediske asked if residents in the area have any concerns regarding the proposal. Wayne Butt stated that they have talked with the neighbors in February and the only concerned neighbor was directly to the south. The rest seemed happy that something was happening on this property. Rediske asked if they have any bookings yet. Butt responded they probably won't do any events this year. He stated that they plan to proceed with the parking area at the end of this year's growing season. Rostad asked if the tent could be�placed near the north end of the parking area. Wayne Butt stated that is a low-lying pond area. He pointed out where the septic system and drainfield would be located, noting that they have to stay off those areas. He then noted that a neigh- bor to the north held two sizable weddings on their property in a tent with music, which ended at a decent hour. Brittain asked what they consider a decent hour. Wayne Butt re- sponded 11:00 p.m. He stated that they do not want to disrupt the neighborhood with parties; their goal is to have a venue that can generate revenue to help maintain the historic property. Johnson asked about code requirements for the barn to hold weddings and receptions. Harris stated that it would be an assembly occupancy, which requires fire sprinkler and handicap accessibility. The barn is currently unusable for assemblies without potential liabil- ity problems. Wayne Butt stated that occupancy over 100 requires the sprinkler system, which costs from $50,000 to $150,000 because they are on a well system and have to have back-up generators. Harter asked if they are purchasing or renting the sound equipment. Butt responded renting. Harter noted that there have been advancements in sound technology that can focus music into specific areas that could help mitigate noise issues for the neighbors. Rostad opened the public hearing. Aaron Rolloff, 7380 Lamar Avenue South, stated that they live directly south of the Butt's property. He is a former chair of the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation. He stated that they like the picturesque aspect of living next to the barn so they were initially glad to hear they had plans to refurbish it. The part of the plan that is extremely unappealing is the proposed driveway adjacent to their property. Their bedroom window faces the Butt's prop- erty and it is not far from the property line. He expressed concern about exporting all the traffic past his house in order to keep their house residential in nature. They do not support having an event venue in their residential neighborhood. He noted that Hope Glen Farm, which is operating a similar venue, has 75 bookings this summer, and he does not want to be next to a place where people throw the biggest party of their lives. That would change the character of the neighborhood, especially if all the traffic from all those events is next to his house. They will have to live next to a parking lot even if the driveway is located somewhere else. He then expressed concern about late night noise issues. He does not want to live next to an event venue. It does not seem as if their concerns were taken into consideration in this plan. He urged the Commission to deny the application and if it is reconsidered, any new Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 6 of 10 proposal should send the event traffic on the current driveway, past the property owner's house, or at least not adjacent to the neighbors. Angela Butt, 7310 Lamar Avenue South, stated regarding the driveway location, they were informed by the Building Official and John Burbank that they could not use their residential driveway; it had to be separate. She does not have a problem using their driveway if the City allows it. John Higgs, 7220 Lamar Avenue South, stated that he has three concerns. One is the noise and asked if the language could be changed so all music must cease at that time rather than just amplified music. Rostad stated that all that could be addressed. Higgs asked how far the no parking area on Lamar would be, expressing concern about overflow parking on the street from events, which could cause parking issues for the neighbors. He asked if the tent would be restricted to the south side of the dwelling and in front of the barn. Rostad re- sponded that is one of the issues that the Planning Commission will make a recommenda- tion on. Higgs asked that the tents be restricted to the area in front of the barn only, and not be allowed on the north side. Lorrie Adams, 7220 Lamar Avenue South, stated that she had two home weddings with about 150 people, they catered it themselves, and most of the people were gone by 11:00 p.m. Parking was on the street but it was just family and close friends so the noise was pretty low. She stated that having two weddings in five years is different from asking neighbors to listen to weddings every weekend. She asked about the definition of unlimited events, and if they can have more than 300 people. She noted that parking for catering and other staff does not appear to be accounted for in the plan. If an event ends at 12:30 a.m., the caterers and clean up staff would leave later than the guests. Carol Stanton, 11202 72nd Street South, stated that this barn and residence is what cap- tures Cottage Grove. She is for this proposal 100 percent. She thinks this is the greatest thing that can happen and having this means the beautiful barn will always stay there. John Higgs, 7220 Lamar Avenue South, stated that he and Adams had two family weddings at their house and all the neighbors were invited, which helped mitigate noise issues. Wayne Butt thanked everybody for coming to the meeting. He noted that they are also resi- dents in the neighborhood. He has a verbal agreement with the neighbor behind him to use that property for parking also, but he does not want to excavate it. They are agreeable to using their driveway and possibly moving the driveway to the north of the property. They are willing to do whatever they can do to appease their neighbors. They don't want cars in front of the barn or house or on the street; they want everything on the behind the barn so the neighbors do not even know an event was occurring. Things may happen that are beyond their control but they will work to minimize those problems. Johnson asked how many events would be needed in the tent before enough income is gen- erated to renovate the barn. Butt does not have a date but he does want the events in the barn as soon as possible. The biggest obstacle is the required sprinkler system. He asked for a temporary interim time period to try to generate enough funding to renovate the barn. Johnson asked how late into the season could the tent be used. Wayne Butt responded it would probably be shut down by October. He does not foresee being able to use the barn until at least next year. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 7 of 10 McCool responded to the question regarding the noise ordinance. The City's noise ordinance requires the readings be taken at the property lines and there is a threshold of what those decibel levels should be between certain hours of the day. There will always be concerns about noise, whether it complies with the ordinance or not. Regarding this application, the Planning Commission will want to focus more on the first phase, the outdoor events outside of the barn structure. He believes that there will probably be a one-year timeframe for the outdoor events. The conditions of approval could be oriented focusing on the outdoor event issues, with phase two being the reconstruction or remodeling of the barn structure. For the Planning Commission's consideration, McCool suggested that the approval of the conditional use permit is only for phase one and when they want to start phase two they would need to amend their conditional use permit to have events inside the barn. It would also be important to focus on noise issues, including hours for amplified and other types of music. Johnson stated he is concerned that there is no end point to the temporary tent use. McCool responded that one of the conditions of approval could be that the tent is only allowed for one season from the date of Council approval. If they are not ready within that one year timeframe they would still need to come back to the Planning Commission to provide an up- date on the phasing of their project and what issues need to be addressed. Wayne Butt stated that he likes the idea of the phased approach but he would like two years because they probably won't have any rentals this year. He then explained that this is a historic places conditional use permit, which allows certain uses on historic properties. He does not want to keep coming back trying to sell this to the City and his neighbors. He would like to be granted the HPCUP, use the tents for two years to generate revenue, and then hold events in the barn. He enumerated the items that need to be financed from the temporary use of the tent, which include upgrading to a commercial septic system before any events can be held and grading the parking area. After paying for that infrastructure, he does not want to have to apply for the HPCUP for the barn use. Brittain stated that he does not see the benefit of having them come back for approval of phase two. McCool responded the hours of operation and how long the music can go may be longer for the barn than for the tents. Brittain suggested specifying different conditions for tent use and barn use. Levitt suggested a continuance with input and guidance from the Commission on a detailed phasing plan that takes into account neighbor concerns. Ventura stated that she is in favor of continuing this application so the applicant can work with .City staff to define a use that could be acceptable; perhaps phase one would allow the use of the tent with very strict limitations on noise. Wehrle asked about parking lot lighting and other outdoor lights. He also asked if notice was sent out. McCool responded that public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the property 10 days prior to this meeting. Harris stated that there will be ade- quate lighting similar to what is in a church parking lot; the lights would be turned off at the end of the events. Brittain asked if the existing driveway could be used as the access drive. McCool stated that he would need to discuss that with the Building Official. Lorrie Adams, 7220 Lamar Avenue South, asked if 300 guests is the limit for the tent use and could change in the future. She also expressed concern about the lighting from the Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 8 of 10 parking area being on late into the night. McCool responded that the occupancy level came from the Building Official based on the size of the floor area and exits from the building. The occupancy load would be limited by the Uniform Building Code and will be posted on the property. He will clarify that with the Building Official. No one e/se spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain agreed that a continuance is appropriate at this time. He provided feedback that the access drive not be located on the south side of the property but on the main drive; to have a severely restricted noise limits for the tent use; and the applicants work with the City and their neighbors. Harter asked if there are issues with headlights from the current driveway hitting any resi- dences in the area. Johnson stated that it is important that there is some kind of timeframe for the tent use. He also noted that in addition to music, voices could be an issue. Brittain also asked to look at the lighting at Hope Glen Farm, paved and non-paved parking, overFlow parking on grass versus improved surfaces, and maximum occupancy. Brittain made a motion to continue the public hearing for staff and the applicant to work on design changes. Ventura seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.3 Poultry and Fowl Ordinance Amendment — Case TA13-023 The City of Cottage has applied for amendments to City Code Title 5, Animal Control Ordinance, and Title 11, Zoning Ordinance, relating to fowl, poultry, farm animal, and wild animal definitions, and to reduce the minimum lot size requirements in all zoning dis- tricts allowing poultry and fowl from five acres to three acres with the possibility of requiring performance standards. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Harter expressed concern about confusion if the ordinance read 4.9 acres and suggested changing it to read "less than five acres." Harter when neighbors could object to a license after one has been issued. McCool stated that it is an annual license so every year they would need to reapply and provide a new signature report from the neighbors. Harter asked during the time period when the license is granted, could a new neighbor object at that time. McCool responded that the new neighbor would have to wait until the license expires to object. Johnson asked if the ordinance had already been amended to allow poultry and fowl on properties between three and five acres and if the Planning Commission was just discussing the standards. McCool responded there was direction from the Council to allow poultry and fowl on three-acre parcels but they did not provide details. The Planning Commission should review the entire amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. Johnson Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 9 of 10 stated that he is uncomfortable reducing the minimum lot size from five acres to three acres and if it is going to happen, he would like to see strict requirements. Rostad asked if this ordinance amendment would assist those that currently have chickens and ducks. McCool responded they would still not meet the ordinance requirements. The animals have been removed from those properties. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment with the modification from ten square feet to four square feet. Harter seconded. Johnson asked if he votes nay, is it nay to reducing the minimum lot size or is it nay to just the conditions. He stated that he does not agree with allowing poultry and fowl on lots with less than five acres. Rostad explained that this action would amend the ordinance to allow poultry and fowl on parcels between three and five acres with conditions. Motion passed on a 5-to-2 vote (Johnson and Rostad). Johnson explained that he grew up on a farm and he considers chickens a farm animal. He does not believe that farm animals belong in a city; they belong on farms and not on resi- dential parcels close to neighboring homes. Rostad explained that he has asked other residents in the city about this issue and he has not found a single person in support of it. Discussion Items 7.1 Off-Street Parking Requirements Levitt summarized the staff report. Based upon feedback from last month's meeting, it was felt that the City's parking ordinances for both retail and restaurant uses were in line with our peer communities and there were no recommended changes. We did note in the senior housing component that the 1.5 parking stalls per unit is an issue that should be addressed on a site-by-site basis. Staff has acknowledged the Commission's concerns regarding lack of visitor parking. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 20, 2013 Ventura made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 20, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Harter seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of June City Council Meetings Levitt reported that on June 5, the City Council approved the final plat for Eastridge Woods by DR Horton and they have begun site grading; the Council received the Planning Commis- Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2013 Page 10 of 10 sion's feedback on making the building massing more symmetrical for the proposed senior housing project at 70th Street and Hinton Avenue and the architect provided additional drawings to the City Council; and the Council endorsed all the recommendations from the Commission on the Ryland Homes concept plan and stressed to the applicant the necessity to dedicate the rest of the Shepard's Woods pond to the City as an outlot. At the June 19 meeting, the Communications Coordinator made presentation on all the ways the City com- municates to the public about projects and happenings in the community, and the Council approved the setback variance for the upper level addition at 7868 Ivystone Avenue. Olsen stated that he will ensure that Burbank addresses the questions that were asked re- garding the historic places conditional use permit application. He reported that the Council received a presentation in June regarding code enforcement. Johnson asked if the City Council had an opinion on the article in the Pioneer Press that Woodbury is more open for business than communities in the surrounding area. Olsen re- sponded that at the top of the list of what contributes to development is accessibility, and Woodbury can be accessed from I-94, I-494, and I-694, which provides them a big advan- tage. Accessibility is one of the common denominators for the communities in the Twin Cities that seem to be booming, such as Maple Grove and Woodbury. Woodbury also takes a very firm approach to development. He would challenge anybody to suggest that Cottage Grove is doing anything at a lesser level than any of the other surrounding communities. Our Coun- cil and Mayor are very committed to working closely with our staff and other partners in the community as well as in the development world to try to bring in both residential and com- mercial development. We have done a very thorough job of planning in the community, such as our East Ravine Master Plan. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Brittain made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Wehrle seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m.