Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-22 PC MinutesCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission July 22, 2013 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, July 22, 2013, 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, Wayne Johnson, Brian Pearson, Lise' Rediske, Jim Rostad, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Chris Reese, Maureen Ventura Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director /City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Brittain 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 Leicht Accessory Structure — Case CUP13 -023 Richard Leicht has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a 1,000 square foot accessory structure in addition to the existing 2,480 square foot accessory structure at 6192 65th Street South. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 2 of 11 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval to allow an additional 520 square feet for accessory structures, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Richard Leicht, 6192 65th Street South, noted that city sewer and water lines are a mile from his property, and he does not believe his property is within the MUSA boundary. He volun- teered to remove the structure if any houses are built within 250 feet of his property. Brittain asked for clarification on the MUSA boundaries and projected use. Burbank dis- played the 2030 utility staging map and the development staging map, pointing out the loca- tion of the applicant's property and noted that it is in the current MUSA. He indicated that he consulted with the City Attorney regarding a condition to tear down the structure. The Attor- ney advised that should not be added as a condition based on the language in the City Code, which says "if future site development renders the structure non - conforming, the building must be brought into compliance or removed as a condition of development ap- proval." The removal of the structure when development occurs only applies to the property on which the structure is located, not when it occurs on surrounding properties. This type of condition would also be difficult to enforce and monitor. Burbank reiterated that staff is re- commending 520 square feet, which would bring the total to 3,000 square feet for accessory structures. Brittain asked how often the Comprehensive Plan is updated and when was the last update. Burbank stated the comp plan is updated every ten years and the current plan, which is the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in 2006. Leicht stated that when he bought his house, he got a copy of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, which shows he is not in the MUSA. He does not believe he is in the MUSA and the 2030 plan is for the future. He also noted that the closest public land is a park that is over a mile away. Burbank pointed out that green area on the map is identified as a land use that is public parks and private open space. McCool stated that the applicant's illustration was prepared in 1998 and adopted in 2002. Leicht then objected to the requirement to plant six trees, noting that the area is surrounded by trees and the structure is not visible at highway speeds. Rostad asked for more information on tearing down the structure if houses were built within 250 feet. Burbank clarified that the trigger for removing the structure was when the appli- cant's property were to redevelop. Rostad noted that this property does appear to be within the MUSA in the last adopted comprehensive plan. Johnson stated it is his understanding that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the City on new development, no matter when it may occur until the next plan is adopted. Leicht reite- rated that he will tear the building down when houses are built. He believes he should be able to have an addition 1,000 square feet of accessory structure the area develops, because city water and sewer are not available to his property. Harter asked if approval for 1,000 square feet would prevent future development. Burbank explained that a variance application and another public hearing would be required to allow the 1,000 square feet. The fee for a variance application for a project started prior to receiv- ing the variance or a building permit is $800. Burbank stated that the adjacent properties could develop at any time regardless of the size of this accessory structure. Harter asked if this was approved for 1,000 square feet, would the building would need to get torn down Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 3 of 11 when the area develops. Burbank explained that Section D of the ordinance criteria states that "if future site development renders the structure nonconforming, the building must be brought to compliance or removed as a condition of development approval." The trigger would be the redevelopment of his property, not of surrounding properties. Rostad noted that the City cannot force the applicant to take down the structure. Burbank clarified that if Leicht's property were to redevelop, the structure must be removed but not if the adjacent properties develop. Leicht asked for that to be added as a condition. Rostad explained that the only way that the City can require Leicht to tear it down is if his land is being redeveloped; not the adjacent properties. Leicht asked again for a condition to require the removal of the structure if anything is built within 250 feet of his property could. He noted that the building would not impact property values in the area. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Rediske asked about the possibility of tabling the application for a month to allow Leicht to consult with his attorney. Leicht stated that he talked with the attorney by phone and he re- ally does not know what would change. His attorney does not believe the property is in the MUSA. Rediske asked when he bought the property. Leicht replied 2003. Rediske asked when the current comp plan was adopted. Burbank responded that the 2030 comprehensive plan was adopted in March 2006. Rostad noted the 2030 plan would replace the 2020 plan. Brittain stated that the Commission is bound by the zoning ordinance and the comprehen- sive plan. Leicht offered to take down the structure when city water and sewer is installed to his property because he believes that he will then be in the MUSA. Brittain explained that the MUSA is a designated area and does not necessarily mean that the utilities lines are in. He also stated that the 2020 Comp Plan is now invalid, and the 2030 Plan is the guiding docu- ment. The comp plan is updated every 10 years, and the Planning Commission is guided by the current comprehensive plan. Leicht asked if the Commission would be protecting the City if he took down the structure when development occurred in the area. Brittain stated that le- gally it would be difficult for the City to require the removal of the structure. He explained that the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council based on City ordin- ances and the current comprehensive plan. He also noted that there is no apparent hard- ship. The City Council does have more flexibility than the Planning Commission. Johnson stated the City cannot make an agreement that bypasses what is established le- gally; the law will override that agreement. Leicht stated that a condition about tearing down the structure could be added to the interim conditional use permit. Brittain made a motion to approve the conditional use permit application to allow a 520 square foot accessory structure in addition to 2,480 square feet of accessory structure already on the property for a total of 3,000 square feet, subject to the conditions listed below and to add a condition regarding removal of the structure if future develop- ments renders it nonconforming. Wehrle seconded. 1. The maximum total detached accessory structure space on the site shall be limited to 3,000 square feet plus one tool or garden shed at 160 square feet or less in size. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 4 of 11 2. The property owner must complete a building permit application and submit de- tailed construction plans for the new structure. A building permit must be issued by the City before construction resumes. 3. The building permit fee shall be doubled based on post- construction application. 4. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 50 feet and the rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 75 feet. 5. The exterior siding materials and color scheme for the accessory structure shall be similar to the color palette of the principal structure. 6. The accessory structure shall be used for personal use only; no commercial activ- ity is permitted. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all surface water management requirements established by the City Engineer. 8. Six additional six -foot high coniferous trees shall be planted on the site to screen the new structure. 9. If future site development renders the structure nonconforming, the building must be brought into compliance or removed as a condition of the development approval. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote.) 6.2 Bielke Porch Addition — Case V13 -028 Bernard and Sue Bielke have applied for a variance to rear setback requirements to allow a porch addition to be 31 feet from the rear property line when 35 feet is required at 8057 Jocelyn Avenue South. Burbank 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. Tony Jurgens, 8054 Jody Avenue South, stated that his property is adjacent to the appli- cant's and he supports the variance application. He noted that his property is the closest lot to the proposed structure. No one else spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the rear yard setback variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Johnson seconded. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 5 of 11 Findings of Fact: A. The lot is uniquely shaped. B. The exterior building materials, design, and color scheme for the proposed attached porch addition will match the existing principal structure. C. The proposed addition is in harmony with the existing principal structure and other residential structures in this neighborhood. D. The trees and vegetation on this site and that of adjacent properties provide ade- quate screening. E. The proposal is consistent with the property's reasonable use, will enhance the property's value, and is similar to the essential character of the existing house. F. The addition does not impact or compromise any existing drainage or utility ease- ments placed on the property. Conditions of Approval. 1. The applicant must complete a building permit application and a building permit must be issued by the City's Building Inspections Division before construction of the addition can begin. 2. The applicant shall complete the project in a timely manner. 3. Dust and erosion must be controlled in accordance with best construction methods. 4. The exterior materials and color scheme of the proposed attached porch addition must match the existing principal structure. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.3 Goodwill — Case ZA13 -024, SP13 -025, CUP13 -026 1501 Partnership has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning of the prop- erty at 7350 80th Street South from B -1, Limited Business, to B -2, Retail Business; a site plan review of a 19,387 square foot retail building; and a conditional use permit to allow a donation drop -off facility. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of all the applications, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. John Johannson, Welsh Companies, 4350 Baker Road, Minnetonka, introduced Chris Simmons, one of his partners; Mr. Burnett, the property owner; Mike Brandt, an engineer with MFRA; and John Patterson, with Fendler & Patterson. Johannson stated that in general they found the staff report to be thorough and accurate and they agree to the conditions. He pointed out the western driveway onto Hardwood Court is a full access point; the other, which is lined up with the donation center, is intended to be a one -way exit only. The front Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 6 of 11 entry faces south. The pond is new; when this property was developed, stormwater was not a large issue. Mr. Brandt has spent considerable time in discussions with the Watershed District, and they believe that the SWWD's conditions and requests for changes can be ac- commodated. They also are agreeable with the EFIS change. He noted that they are not asking for signage with these applications; that will be a separate permit. He believes that Goodwill will request a sign on the western side of the building so it is visible from the high- way interchange. The renderings in the application are not intended to represent all the signage, but they will comply with the City Code. Johannson asked if the proposed sidewalk along Hardwood Court would be installed within the right -of -way. McCool responded yes. Johannson stated that their adjusted drawings show the sidewalk going from the corner of Hardwood Avenue and Hardwood Court east to the end of their property line, and asked for clarification of the condition. McCool stated that the property line extends further east. It is about 20 feet short of the cul -de -sac of Hardwood Court. Staff's recommendation is to have the sidewalk all the way from Hardwood Avenue to the east end of their property. Johansson agreed to the sidewalk location. He pointed out that one of the conditions lists "Harkness" and asked if that should say "Hardwood." McCool responded yes and it will be changed. Johannson then provided background information on Goodwill. Brittain asked for more information on EFIS materials, including if the face would be uniform or appear to be brick, if the wall itself would have some sort of pattern on it, and is it a pre- fabricated wall or a solid flat shape with a color in it. John Patterson, Fendler & Patterson, 20341 Fairlawn Avenue, Prior Lake, explained that the building face is a combination of brick, block, EFIS, and a couple bands of natural stone. The building face jogs in and out to give it interest. It does not have a flat face and is not a prefabricated wall. Brittain asked if the EFIS areas are large sheets or a veneer material. Patterson responded that it is a veneer material on top of the concrete block. Brittain asked if the material comes in a brick size or is it a big sheet size they cut out. Patterson explained that EFIS is stucco; it has insulation and is troweled on for texture. Rediske asked what the elevation difference is between the current hill and the proposed. Patterson explained that the hill will be graded down slightly. Rediske asked if there is a de- mand in Cottage Grove for a Goodwill or thrift store. Patterson responded that the board determines which cities they feel a Goodwill store should be located in. Cottage Grove has been a target for a number of years. Rediske asked what the demographics of the Goodwill market are and will this one be similar to the Woodbury store. Patterson answered that all their stores are the same. They get new and semi -used products. Rediske stated that she is concerned about a Goodwill store being located on a focal point in the City and then deteri- orating into one of the older Goodwills. Patterson responded that Goodwill has a new image and the buildings that were built in the last eight or nine years are well kept and very clean. Their leases generally are 10 years with a couple five year options, and the buildings are de- signed for re -use. Johannson stated that the costs of new development are significant. Goodwill has recently expanded to Maple Grove, Woodbury, St. Louis Park, and Edina. The merchandise in their stores is reflective of the community. Their recent growth has been in productive second ring suburbs with a responsible, desirable demographic. They have had numerous requests from consumers to come to Cottage Grove. They also do research on where they could locate a store. Rediske asked if there are any statistics on what percentage of the Woodbury store's customers are from Cottage Grove. Johannson stated that he try to Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 7 of 11 find that information. Rediske asked if there would be room on the site for additional busi- nesses. McCool responded only for the proposed building. Rediske asked if there would be a sidewalk from the new building to the neighboring commercial building. McCool responded if the adjoining property owner agrees, staff would add a requirement that a sidewalk connect to the parking area of the adjoining property. Brittain asked about the grade between the two parking lots. McCool responded it is about three feet, but there is a 20 -foot span of green space between. Harter asked if they are changing the image of Goodwill to make it more like a Savers. Johannson responded that in the retail industry Goodwill has become a desirable user and tenant. It is a use that other retailers respect; they don't run from Goodwill. Goodwill runs a first -class operation and their stores reflect the community. They are a professional retailer whose board of directors are executives with other retailers. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Rostad asked for details on the retaining walls. McCool responded that they will look at the existing walls to make sure they are structurally sound. Johannson stated that they are going to look at the walls and make any necessary repairs. They will also refresh and maintain the landscaping on the site. They would like to either paint or screen the large transformer on the corner. Rediske made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning amendment based on the findings listed below. Harter seconded. Findings of Fact: A. The purpose statement for the B -2 District accurately describes the best land use for this corner lot. B. The B -2 zoning classification currently surrounds the subject property. C. The subject property is on the northeast corner of Hardwood Avenue and 80th Street, both with a minor arterial roadway functional classification. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Rediske asked if the motions are passed tonight, will she receive a response to her question regarding the number of Cottage Grove residents shopping at the Woodbury store. McCool replied that staff will follow up on those questions for the Commission. Rediske asked if they had looked at alternative locations in the City. Johannson responded that they looked at the Home Depot parcel, the area by Target, and the new development by the Walmart. They decided they preferred the 80th Street trade area. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the site plan review of the retail building and conditional use permit for a donation drop -off facility, subject to the conditions listed below. Pearson seconded. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 8 of 11 1. All applicable permits (i.e.; building, electrical, grading, mechanical) and a com- mercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed con- struction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 2. The applicant receives building permits from the City of Cottage Grove prior to construction. 3. Final drainage plans must be submitted to the South Washington Watershed District for review. 4. 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. 5. Concrete aprons for all private access drives shall be constructed per City requirements. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 ac- cordance with the recommended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook" and the conditions stipu- lated in Title 10 -5 -8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivi- sion Ordinance. 9. The applicant must provide the City with an as -built survey of all private utilities prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 10. All mechanical equipment screening and trash enclosures must include a com- bination of block and brick, consistent with the principal building. 11. The drive -thru shall not cause negative traffic impacts on public or private property. 12. The EIFS - Color 1 material is required to be constructed across the upper one - third of the north, east and south sides of the donation drop -off part of the building. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 9 of 11 13. Construct a six -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Hardwood Court, between Hardwood Avenue and the easterly end of Hardwood Court. 14. Construct a concrete walkway between the south parking lot and the Oak Commons south parking lot, subject to the approval of the Oak Commons ownership. 15. A demolition permit is required for the removal of the existing structure. 16. Storm sewer pipe must be reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). 17. Utility and drainage easement over the stormwater basin shall be granted to the City. 18. An outdoor lighting plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval. All outdoor lighting fixtures must direct light in a downward direction. 19. Property address shall be 7375 Hardwood Court South. 20. Retaining walls greater than four feet in height shall be designed by an engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 21. Dedicate to the City the southerly 66 feet of the property for public right -of -way purposes. 22. The applicant is required to comply with the recommendations cited in the Stantec's letter dated July 11, 2013. 23. The applicant is responsible in removing debris from Hardwood Court and Hardwood Avenue during their grading and construction process. These streets shall be swept clean daily or as needed. 24. The property owner is responsible for maintaining the stormwater basin. A document outlining the scope and frequency to maintain this basin must be submitted with the building permit application. 25. The design and materials of any fencing on the subject property must match the specifications of the Montage Commercial Majestic 314 - Rail Fence. A fence is required along the higher elevation of a retaining wall that is four feet or higher. 26. A "STOP" sign shall be installed at each exit drive. Each sign shall be ten feet from the roadway edge and two feet from the driveway edge. The bottom of the sign shall be six feet from the ground. The "STOP" sign shall be a 30 -inch sized sign having a high intensity face. Said sign shall be mounted on a 6 -foot - No. 3 and 8 -foot - No. 2 steel post. The applicant may request the City's Public Works Department to install said "STOP" signs, but must reimburse for actual costs incurred by the City. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 10 of 11 27. Installation of landscaping shall occur in a timely fashion and be consistent with an approved plan. A letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the landscape estimate shall be submitted to the City as required by City ordinance (Section 28- 41(1)). The financial guarantee shall be in effect for one year from the date of installation to ensure the installation, survival, and replacement of the landscaping improvements. 28. Irrigation shall be provided for all sodded and landscaped areas. 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 vegetation. The system shall be detailed on the landscape plan. 29. Roof -top mechanical units shall screened as required in 11 -6 -4 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 30. The exterior color of the overhead doors for the drop -off donation drive -thru shall be a color that is similar and complimentary to the color scheme for the exterior walls of the building. 31. The area charges, connection charges, and related development fees and charges will be added to the building permit fee. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items None. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 24, 2013 Wehrle made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 24, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Harter seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of July City Council Meetings Levitt reported that at the July 17, 2013, meeting, the City Council unanimously approved the Borner lot split and approved the poultry and fowl ordinance on a 4 -to -1 vote. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 11 of 11 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rediske asked about the status of Famous Dave's. Levitt responded that the City is currently working with the franchisee. Rediske asked if there were any additional retailers going into the development by Walmart. Levitt stated no formal applications have been made. Harter stated he heard Chipotle is coming. Olsen stated that there are a lot of people kicking tires but no one is buying yet. Staff and Council are trying to remain tightlipped so they don't overpromise and under - deliver. The development community seems to be a little more excited this year. Rediske asked when the proposed senior housing project would be back on the agenda. Burbank stated he talked with the applicant and they are working on the partnership arrangements, so that will be coming in the future. Brittain asked about the Kok Funeral Home addition. Burbank responded that they submitted revised elevations to staff, who accepted the modifications, and are preparing the construction documents. Adjournment Brittain made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rediske seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:19 p.m.