Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-28 PACKET 08.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission June 23, 2014 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, June 23, 2014, 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, Adam Graf, Kimberly Graff, Jody Imdieke, Wayne Johnson, Lise' Rediske, Jim Rostad, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Chris Reese Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Brittain made a motion to approve the agenda. Imdieke 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 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 61 Marine & Sports Expansion — Case CUP2014 -011 61 Marine & Sports has applied for a conditional use permit to expand their exterior storage area onto property leased from James Caturia, which is east of their current location at 11730 West Point Douglas Road South. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 2 of 15 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. He stated that Condition #14 should be modified to read "Future ownership of the expansion area by the applicant shall void Condition #13." Brittain asked if trees would be planted in the front. Burbank stated that trees would be planted on the perimeter of the area; their landscaping plan needs to be reviewed as part of the pre- vious approval. Graff asked about the square footage of the leased area. Al Stewart, 9435 Kimbro Avenue South, responded just less than an acre. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the 61 Marine & Sports storage area onto leased property east of their current location, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, with the modification to Condition #14 as staff stated. Rediske seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.2 Northern Natural Gas at 3M — Case CUP2014 -012 and V2014 -013 Northern Natural Gas has applied for a variance to the 100 -foot minimum front yard setback requirement to 53 -feet for a 6 -foot by 8 -foot structure and a conditional use permit to add new piping and maintenance structure on the 3M property located at 8450 110th Street South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked for an example of the proposed decorative masonry brick. He expressed con- cern for the appearance of the equipment building from the road. Not planting trees in front for security purposes was acceptable. McCool displayed an illustration provided by the applicant showing the exterior materials proposed for this building. Johnson asked if that is similar to what is used on the building along County Road 19 in Wood- bury. McCool noted that is a pump station for sanitary sewer. He stated this building would look more like an equipment shed than a home because it will only be six feet by eight feet and will not have any windows. Rostad asked if the fence would be at the borders of the leased area and if they would plant trees outside the leased area. McCool responded yes and stated that 3M approved the plant- ing of those trees. Wehrle asked why the new security fence is not required to match the existing green colored vinyl coated fence. McCool stated city staff recommended black vinyl coated fencing for the new fence. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 3 of 15 Rostad opened the public hearing. Gene Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive, stated that he farms the land on three sides of this proposed site. He is concerned that the new shrubbery could encumber the access gate to the property he farms and needs the gate to be a minimum of 24 -feet wide so he can get equipment through the gate. He then pointed out on the aerial photo that surrounding all of the leased area is native prairie grass, which he planted after the construction of the various pipe- lines and requested that this type of prairie grass be replanted after the construction is com- pleted. He stated that he met with a representative of Northern Natural Gas and was assured that they would replant the same or similar prairie grass seed mix. McCool pointed out the location of the existing farm access, noting that they are proposing to plant three trees on the north side of the pipeline and five arborvitae trees on the east side of the pipeline. The existing farm access is not proposed to change and the new access to the NNG site would be located centrally on the leased area. He stated that a gravel surface material will be installed inside the fenced area to provide for low maintenance. Tony Stucchi, Northern Natural Gas, 223 Verbena Avenue, Watertown, MN, stated that he met with Smallidge on site and agreed that when they were done working they would replant the same type of vegetation that currently exists. Smallidge provided Northern Natural Gas with the list of the grasses that are in there. The area within the fence will be gravel. Graf asked if Smallidge would rather not have the trees. Smallidge expressed concern that as the trees grow, they could make the access narrower and he would rather not have them there. He does not consider the equipment or proposed building to be unsightly. Graf asked what size trees are proposed. Stucchi responded six -foot tall arborvitae would be planted about three to four feet from the fence. The trees could be cut back so they don't encumber the gate. He noted that Northern Natural Gas would rather not plant trees because they have to be maintained. Brittain asked how far away the farm access is from the boundary of the leased area. McCool stated that it appears to be right at boundary; the westerly posts that secure the gate system would be at the southeast corner of the leased area. Brittain asked about the distance from the green fence to where the trees will be planted. McCool responded that it is 53 feet to easterly valve system and the trees will be north of the leased area. The City will work with the property owner, the tenant, and Northern Natural Gas about the placement of those plantings. There could be more plantings on the northeast corner of the site and maybe only one or two on the south side of the existing pipeline. He noted that Northern Natural Gas does not want trees planted over the pipelines. Johnson asked if there are no trees there currently. McCool stated that is correct. Johnson asked why trees would need to be planted. McCool responded if development were to take place in the future, those trees would be mature at that time. Rostad stated that he would be fine without the required plantings. He would encourage the City Council to consider allowing them not to be planted. Brittain disagreed, noting that in the future the area could look different look. The industrial park will expand. He would rather have trees all the way around it, but understands for security reasons that's not a good idea. Having Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 4 of 15 trees on the north and east sides is appropriate. He feels comfortable that staff can work with all parties to mitigate any issues that could occur. Johnson asked about the life span of arborvitaes. McCool does not know. Rostad does not believe that they are as hardy as evergreens. He believes the City is putting an undue burden on the applicant to maintain the trees. Graff stated she sees the need for the trees but also that the access to the farmland needs to be protected. She agrees with letting staff work with the parties involved but she would like it a little more formal. No one else spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the variance and conditional use permit, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, with the ad- dition of a condition that staff work with the applicant to maintain the access to the farmland. Graff seconded. Rostad stated that he will vote in favor of this application but encourages the City Council to look at it closely. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.3 Norton Shed Addition Variance — Case V2014 -014 Chad Norton has applied for a variance to allow an addition to an existing shed to be 3.5 feet from the rear property line when the minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet and allow the existing accessory structure to encroach 6.5 feet onto a ten foot wide drainage and utility easement at 8884 Greenway Avenue South. McCool summarized the staff report and asked that the Planning Commission make a recom- mendation for either approval or denial based on their discussions and testimony received on this variance application. Chad Norton, 8884 Greenway Avenue South, submitted a letter to the Commission from the neighbor whose property is adjacent to the shed location. He explained that the shed was originally a plastic structure with a tarp over the top and he improved it into a code compliant structure. He believes that the new roof improves the drainage into the yard because gutters were installed versus water draining off the tarp roof that eroded the soil beneath the tarp roof. McCool noted that a letter was received in the mail today and a copy was provided to the Planning Commission. It was from Paul and Diane Norton, 6681 90th Street, stating that if building permits were filed and approved by the City, then they should be allowed to have the building. But if no permits were issued for the building, then they should not be granted vari- ances. Included with the packet is a letter from Jeff and Sylvia Harris, 8905 Greenway, who commented on both this application and the next variance application on tonight's agenda. They stated that if the City prohibits structures in easements, they should not be granted variances. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 5 of 15 Norton stated that when the shed rear yard setback was brought to his attention from a con- cerned neighbor to the south, he spoke with the Building Division about bringing the shed into compliance and was told that it was just an improvement to an existing structure. Brittain asked if the structure was at least 10 feet from the property line would a permit be required for this type of improvement. McCool responded any expansion or renovation to a structure would require a building permit. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Johnson asked if this was brought to the City's attention by a neighbor after it was built. McCool responded that the City received a complaint, and staff checked the City's records but did not find a building permit for the addition on the west side of the existing shed. The City's Code Enforcement Officer contacted the property owner to discuss their options, which were to move it off the drainage and utility easement and comply with the 10 -foot setback or apply for a variance to allow it to remain in its current location. Johnson asked if there is a requirement that so many neighbors in a certain area have to approve a variance request before the City can. McCool responded no. Graf asked if the addition was not there, would the structure would still encroach on the ease- ment by about a half foot. McCool responded that was correct. Brittain stated that he has traditionally felt very strongly about adhering to the City's ordi- nances; however, where there is no harm done, variance requests should be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. In his opinion on this particular application, the shed and addition have been there a long time and there haven't been any issues with drainage and getting access to the utilities. He would be in favor of approving this variance as long as the conditions are met and if there are problems, the shed would need to be removed. Rostad agreed with Brittain. Imdieke also agreed. Graf made a motion to grant a variance to allow an existing shed to be 3.5 feet from the rear property line when the minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet and allow the existing accessory structure to encroach 6.5 feet onto a ten -foot wide drainage and utility ease- ment based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Imdieke seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.4 Kobilka Fence and Shed Variance — Case V2014 -015 Ronald and Joan Kobilka, 8900 Greenway Avenue South, have applied for a variance to allow and existing 8 -foot by 16 -foot accessory structure to be approximately 8.5 feet from the rear property line when the minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet and allow the acces- sory structure to encroach on a utility and drainage easement and allow a fence five feet in height along the north side property line that is in the front yard when the maximum height is 30 inches for that segment 15 feet from the front property line and four feet from the 15 foot front line setback to the front plane of the house. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 6 of 15 McCool summarized the staff report and asked that the Planning Commission make a recom- mendation for either approval or denial for both variance applications based on their discus- sions and any testimony received on these applications. He noted that eight letters supporting the variances and two letters opposing the variances were received. The supporting letters were included in the staff report. Copies of the two letters objecting to the shed encroachment in the easement were distributed to the Planning Commission. Brian Kobilka, 8372 Beacon Road, Woodbury, stated that the applicants are his parents who reside at 8900 Greenway Avenue South. He stated that they have lived there for 50 years and got a building permit for the shed. Due to issues with the neighbor's shed it was noticed that this shed was within the drainage and utility easement by about 13 inches. There is a gutter system on the shed. As it relates to the fence, his parents thought they were in compliance as the new fence on the north matches the existing fence on the south that was compliant when it was constructed. They were not aware of the 30 -inch height limitation and built the north portion to match the existing fence on the south side of the property. It is a trellis fence, which is part of the theme of their garden. Many neighbors have told them that they like the fence. Graff asked if the fence impedes their neighbor's site lines from their driveway. McCool replied that the neighbor was in attendance but left after his application was approved. Kobilka ex- plained it is more than just the aesthetics of the fence, but also protects the shrubbery and plantings in the area and preventing a child from possibly falling into the egress window well on the other side of the fence. Johnson stated that while he does not see a problem with the fence, he is concerned about people violating the ordinance and then asking for a variance after the fact. Brittain stated that half of the fence was constructed in 2000. He does not see this was an intent to circumvent the ordinances but to have symmetry between the north and south fences. When the southerly fence was built it was in compliance with the ordinances at that time. He noted that there is a condition that if the fence needed to be rebuilt it would have to comply with current ordinance regulations. Brittain said if the fence variance is denied, the property owner would only have to remove or lower the fence on the north side because the south fence is a legal nonconforming use. He also noted that it is not a privacy fence; it is a trellis and the proposed conditions of approval include ensuring that plant materials not get overgrown and become a safety issue. Rostad stated that one of the challenges is that the fence on the south property line was built to code at that time. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Rediske made a motion to approve the fence variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions in the staff report. lmdieke seconded. Graff stated that the fence and garden are beautiful and agrees with approving this variance. She would like to make sure that the City remains vigilant to construction activities to ensure they are in compliance with ordinances instead of asking for a variance after the fact. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 7 of 15 Motion passed on a 7 -to -1 vote (Johnson). Johnson stated that he doesn't think the fence should be removed and his main reason for opposing the variance is that he wanted to be on record that it has to stop where people build something and then ask for variance approval. Graf made a motion to approve the shed setback and easement encroachment variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Rediske seconded. Graff wanted to be on record that this one is different than the previous shed variance appli- cation as it seems that the setbacks were not measured correctly. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.5 Hope Glen Farm — Case CUP2014 -016 Hope Glen Farm, 10276 East Point Douglas Road, has applied for an amendment to their historic places conditional use permit to enlarge their existing pavilion by constructing roof extensions on four sides of the pavilion and to construct an 824 square foot tree house that will provide overnight lodging. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Paula Bushilla, 10276 East Point Douglas Road, explained they need the accessible apart- ment in the corn crib and the tree house honeymoon suite due to requests from wedding parties for a place to stay, they are trying to stay unique in the popular barn wedding business, and it would help them generate income during the off - season. It is very expensive to maintain the six historic buildings on their property. The final reason is that they want to put Cottage Grove on the map as the first tree house lodging available in the Twin Cities. She then stated that they were told that if there is a handicap accessible accommodation on the site, they would not need to make the tree house accessible. Bushilla explained that they need the eaves on the pavilion so it can accommodate 300 guests. Rostad asked at end of the pavilion is the fireplace located. Michael Bushilla responded that it is on the south side of the pavilion facing Highway 61 and the parking lot. Rostad asked if putting in an impervious surface was part of the last approval. Burbank responded that is part of the 2012 approval and they are finishing up the design process. Rostad stated that he is concerned that they have not met that condition of the previous approval and have now applied for more. Burbank responded that is the last condition that needs to be met and they have been working with the City to complete the driveway surfacing requirement. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Graff asked why a variance would be needed it the tree house is located in the proposed tree. Burbank responded that the rear yard setback requirement for that zoning district is 50 feet and this tree is closer to the property line than that. Graff asked if there are similar trees on Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 8 of 15 the property that could be utilized. Bushilla responded no and they understand they would need to go through the variance process to use that tree. Imdieke made a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness. Rediske seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Brittain made a motion to approve the amendment to the existing Historic Places Con- ditional Use Permit to allow the construction of an eave addition to the perimeter of their existing open air event pavilion, a handicapped accessible apartment in the exist- ing historic corn crib on the site, and a tree house honeymoon suite, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Imdieke seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.6 Rumpca /Bailey's Materials Processing — Case CUP2014 -017 Rumpca Excavating has applied for a conditional use permit to continue to process mate- rials and recycling of concrete and asphalt for the sale of processed products on the Bailey Nurseries property at 6750 103rd Street South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of a modified version of the conditional use permit application to allow the applicant to continue excavating the stormwater basin in the northwest corner of their developed site and re -grade the slope in the northeast corner of the developed area. Brad Rumpca, 1045 36th Street, Hastings, stated that the only material contactors were bring- ing to the site was construction projects in Cottage Grove and all the material they are stock- piling is only for jobs in Cottage Grove. Rostad asked where the stormwater basin that was to be created would be located and how large it was supposed to be. McCool showed the locations on the grading plan and the aerial photo of the property. Rostad opened the public hearing. Tristan Wilwert, 9449 Dunes Lane South, stated that he lives at the top of the eastern edge of the property above the area and there has already been some deterioration of the hillside, some of which has since been fixed. Sand was removed in the proximity of the lot lines of the residential area right up to the fence line, which could cause their fence to collapse. None of the fences have collapsed yet but could very soon. He expressed concern about landslides due to all the rain this year. He is also concerned about the dust and dirt that blows up from the site. There are concerns about how close the grading operation is to the property lines and asked if there are setback requirements. It appears they are mining sand and not just grading; they are using mining equipment and removing earth, which is totally changing the topography. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 9 of 15 Leonard Evanoff, 9453 Dunes Lane South, showed where his property is located and stated that several neighbors were unable to attend this meeting but have voiced concerns about the dust and noise and starting work too early on weekends. The neighbors would like them to adhere to the 9:00 a.m. start time. He stated that he understood from the original grading permit they were supposed to start grading 30 to 50 feet from the property line but they have gone all the way up to the fence line, which has led up to erosion issues. They made an attempt at fixing the slope, but since they've taken out too much material there is no land there, just a 28 degree slope right at the fence line. The neighbors would like to see a more gradual slope from the fence line out 30 to 50 feet. He also expressed concern about drainage in that area. As they made the repairs on the south side of the fence, they kind of bermed it a little bit and now there is ponding on top. He has concerns about erosion, the instability of the slope itself, landslides, and the possibility of affecting the foundations of the homes. He believes they should have to adhere to all permit requirements. The neighborhood wants the conditions properly repaired and the stability and safety of the slope evaluated. He also requested miti- gation of the dust caused by processing and recycling material on the site; his house is full of dust even with the windows closed. Dora Salazar, 6658 98th Street Circle South, stated that she has lived in the townhome area for 10 years and has had a constant dust problem; she can't open any of her windows and needs to have an HVAC company clean her air conditioner and get her windows cleaned every couple months. Rediske asked if the City Engineer or the contract engineer has looked at this site. McCool responded that staff has met with the property owner, Bailey Nurseries, and Rumpca Exca- vating. Staff asked them to address many of the concerns that have been expressed. Staff also asked that they provide soil information and reports and studies on the soil stabilization along the east side closest to the residential properties. The deadline to get those reports back to the City Engineer for review is August 1. Rostad asked if the reports and studies would be done by an independent party. McCool responded by the applicant's engineering consultant. Rediske asked if the work includes dust control or mitigation. McCool responded yes. Johnson asked why this application should move forward before the existing issues are figured out. He believes that trees should have planted between this property and the residential areas, which would have helped mitigate some of the dust issues. He then asked if the pit or the houses were there first. McCool explained that Bailey Nurseries owned the site before there was any housing. Over time, Bailey Nurseries expanded their facilities to the north and have been grading out excess material to be able to create buildable areas for additional greenhouses on the property. It is correct that the grading plan that was approved in 2003 showed a 30 to 40 foot separation from the crest of the slope to the easterly boundary line. Currently, there is a zero setback and the City wants them to correct that. Also as part of the 2003 grading plan, Bailey Nurseries identified that they would plant a thousand trees. Staff has asked, as part of the conditions of approval, for an update on the tree planting, and how many and where those trees were planted. The City is allowing the existing material that was stockpiled and processed to be removed because the stormwater basins cannot be graded with that material in the way. Johnson again asked why, if there are outstanding issues, we are moving forward without those issues being resolved. McCool responded that those issues are currently being worked on, many of them have already been completed, staff is waiting on Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 10 of 15 the soils report for the stabilization of that slope that is due by August 1, and the City is con- tinuing to work with Bailey Nurseries and Rumpca Excavating to get erosion control devices in place. However, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done on the site. Brittain stated that it appears this work has been done over the past 11 years and he can understand expansion over time but all he sees is a large excavation pit and not grading for a new building. He asked at what point this would be considered a mining operation instead of grading for a new building. He has concerns as well about moving forward without making sure we have answers to those questions. McCool stated that it is a land use issue. The activity that is taking place for hauling in and processing material is not an allowed use in the agricul- tural district; it is an illegal operation. Brittain said that he believes the City would have more control over or at least understanding of what was happening. He asked to see the reports. McCool stated that staff required them to do the north half of the approved grading plan and to adhere to the requirements. They need to make corrections to ensure it is in compliance. Brittain asked about the time period. McCool stated that it would be a working process; they have to remove material for the excavation of the stormwater basins. He stated he does not know what the time period would be. Brittain understands that material needs to be removed in order to complete the process but he would like to see more details on how long it would take. This has been going on for a long time and the phased approach should be defined so it minimizes the impact over such a large area. Rostad stated that if expansion of the nursery was the ultimate goal, it seems as though some areas to the north were suitable already, which makes the activity on the far east edge of the property appear more like a mining operation. If expansion was truly the goal, it appears they have plenty of room to the west to put in new greenhouses. Wehrle stated that he has the same concerns as Brittain and agrees that the Commission should see a schedule instead of letting this continue without a completion deadline. He would like to see a plan before the Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council and to make sure this is a grading operation, not a mining operation, with a finite period of time to complete it. Rostad expressed concern that removal of the sand could destabilize many of the lots in that area and wants to see the report on soil stabilization. Graff stated that if they have until August 1 to provide the requested reports that the City put a cease and desist order for continued work. A meeting with Bailey Nurseries as the property owner and Rumpca Companies as the subcontractor needs to be held. Brittain stated that Bailey's Nursery existed originally so complete mitigation of dust, dirt, and debris is not likely to happen, but he does think more needs to be done right now. We should consider allowing them to continue removing the stockpiled material as long as it does not make the situation worse or create more issues. He believes more information and a timeline about the project is needed. Rostad stated that they could be allowed to remove the material that has been brought in so they can continue work on the far westerly edge for the stormwater basin. He would like to see restrictions on working on the area to the east until there is more information about erosion. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 11 of 15 The recommendation from staff primarily deals with the westerly portion and allowing them to work on the stormwater ponds. McCool stated that the City is requiring them to mitigate the erosion issues on the east slope. Telling the contractor to stop work may create bigger prob- lems later. Staff directed Rumpca Excavating to stabilize that slope, prevent any more erosion from occurring, and provide vegetation on the slope. They are actively working on that, which City staff supports. He understands that the Planning Commission is interested in additional information as it relates to the timeline. He asked if the Commission wanted to table the appli- cation to receive additional information or to direct staff to have that information available for the Council. Brittain asked if a time limit could be imposed on a conditional use permit. McCool responded as a condition of approval in an interim conditional use permit. Brittain agrees that work must be done for safety reasons and he does not want to prevent that. He also understands it is going to take time to put together the appropriate plans and soil borings, but he does not believe that there should be an open -ended time period for completion. McCool stated that City staff is expecting the work to be done in a timely manner. He stated that the time line would be provided with the additional information the Commission is seeking. Johnson asked if they have gone beyond the area they were allowed. McCool responded that they went beyond the boundaries of the grading plan that was approved in 2003. Johnson stated that that area must be restored, and they should not be able to do anything until they put back what they took. Rediske asked if the Commission could recommend the August 1 deadline for the engineering report, table this topic until after that report is done, and hold Rumpca Excavating and Bailey Nurseries to the 2003 grading permit requirements. McCool responded that is an option. He stated that if the Commission considers that, staff would allow them to mitigate and control erosion as needed on that slope. Rediske agreed. Rostad stated that the Commission wants them to stop digging on the site and start remedi- ating the area. No one else spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain asked if a motion was made to table this application, does the motion need a date for when it comes back to the Commission or should that be left up to city staff to work with the applicant. McCool stated staff would recommend coming back at the next Planning Commis- sion meeting, which is July 28, and requiring them to provide the additional information the Commission is seeking. Burbank stated that they are working under the existing grading permit, they just got their 2014 stormwater permits, and the engineers are monitoring the stabilization work that needs to be done, so they can continue under that grading permit but cannot do any additional digging or import material. Imdieke asked if in the grading permit there is discussion about the setback violation. Burbank responded that the original permit did not talk about violations because they did not occur yet. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 12 of 15 After the city got involved, the violations were noted, which is why the engineer's report and soil stabilization are being required to correct that hill so it matches the original grading plan. Bridget Nason, City Attorney, stated that the 60 -day review deadline is July 27, so the city needs to extend that date for the review be completed by the Planning Commission and City Council. McCool explained that by state law, the City has the ability to require an additional 60 days for the City's review. Staff will provide written notice to the applicant that we are initiating that extension. Graf stated that they are not in compliance with the grading permit and favors tabling this application to the next Planning Commission meeting. Graf made a motion to table the application to the July 28, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. Wehrle seconded. Rediske suggested adding "or until the engineer's report is due back." McCool stated that would be part of the Planning Commission packet. Johnson asked how tabling would affect the engineers' work on erosion issues. Burbank re- sponded they would have the ability to continue under the current grading permit but cannot do additional grading. Brittain asked if under the current permit, will they only be able to excavate the storm basin and not grade the easterly slope or can they work on both. Burbank stated that based on the soil reports, if the engineers feel there is imminent danger, they could make the corrections under the existing permit but not be able to do any additional grading up the slope to the north. Graff asked if that needs to be added to the motion. Burbank stated no, because the other permit stands alone. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.7 Summerhill Senior Housing — Cases ZA2014 -018, SP2014 -019, CUP2014 -020 Mesaba Capital Development has applied for a zoning amendment to the approved PUD to allow a senior housing development, and a conditional use permit and site plan review for an 86 -unit senior care building at 6937 Pine Arbor Drive South, which will include inde- pendent living, assisted living, and memory care options along with a bistro, conference rooms, and common areas. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked about the long -term plan for the utility poles along Hinton Avenue. Burbank explained that the City Council discussed that last year when Hinton Avenue was being recon- structed. Olsen stated that the Mayor is in favor of undergrounding utilities as much as possible for both aesthetic and safety reasons. For any new developments in the City, such as those along 70th Street near Jamaica Avenue, all of the wiring is taking place underground and that Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 13 of 15 is the goal for the future. If the Planning Commission has a strong feeling either way, he rec- ommended letting the Council know. Brittain asked if the utilities were undergrounded, would that be in the trail area or under the street. Burbank believes underneath the trail area. Brittain stated that he would prefer that the utilities are undergrounded for both safety and aesthetic reasons. It isn't his expectation that the applicant would be responsible for this, but there should be a coordinated effort with the utility companies to underground the utilities in that area. Olsen stated that the Council has pushed very hard for a full reconstruction of 70th Street. Initially the entire corridor was for a complete overhaul, including re- grading, in the 2016 cal- endar year. Council has said unequivocally that due to safety, speed, and traffic count per- spectives, this corridor should be addressed sooner rather than that. Rediske asked if there are plans for a more up -to -date traffic report. Olsen explained that earlier this year the City sent a response letter to Washington County regarding their CIP and one of the items requested was a new traffic study. Rostad stated that if that study was done in 2001 they probably thought that 70th Street would be busier than it is right now because of the aggressive building that was going on at that time. Olsen noted that it was actually esti- mated to be slower because they did not anticipate the development to the north that took place a lot sooner than expected. Della Kolpin, Senior Partner at Mesaba Capital Development, 5201 Eden Avenue, Edina, stated that Burbank provided a thorough presentation of their proposal. She stated that she and the other representatives of the project would answer any questions about the project. Graff stated she is concerned about the traffic on 70th Street and the memory care unit and asked if there would be some kind of barrier in the event one of the residents wanders. Kathy Kopp, Augustana Care, 9007 East 14th Street, Minneapolis, stated that they have a secured memory care unit with locked doors. The outside memory care garden will also be secured and their staff monitors the residents. Rostad opened the public hearing. Kevin Raun, 6791 Pine Arbor Boulevard, stated that he thinks this looks like a great project. He asked about the future plans for 70th Street, such as if it will be four lanes and will there be a roundabout. He believes those plans are critical before that whole area gets developed. He then stated that ladder trucks don't work well with high tension wires and is surprised that Public Safety did not recommend adding a road around the building or undergrounding those wires. He also expressed concern about the number of parking spaces. Graff stated that she met with Wayne Sandberg from Washington County and City Engineer Jennifer Levitt about six months ago to discuss the plans for 70th Street. She was told the goal for 70th Street is a four -lane road with a right -turn lane on both sides and a turn -lane in the center, similar to Valley Creek Road in Woodbury. They also told her that will not overly impact the properties on either side but she is skeptical about that. Dick Hansen, 6918 Homestead Avenue South, stated that he has been following this prop- erty's development the entire time. He stated that this proposal is not a big change from the Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 14 of 15 previous PUD approval. It would be nice to have a restaurant in that area. He stated that he was in favor of a retirement community. The issues are the continued growth and the traffic. This is an opportunity to make some needed improvements, which may mean that it takes longer to develop this property, but he would rather see it done right, including undergrounding the utilities and getting the roads coordinated correctly. He thinks it is ludicrous to think that a 2001 traffic study is valid today. He was told when the property started to develop that the traffic would be re- evaluated to see if signals would be needed by the Holiday gas station. There are serious safety issues and plenty of justification to do this right and he encourages the Commission to take that into consideration. No one else spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Rostad stated that the County is responsible for 70th Street. Graff stated that she does not think that should stop this development. The developers will have to work with the County as well as the City on that issue. Graf thanked the residents for speaking about their concerns on traffic. He shares those con- cerns as he lives on 70th Street near Highway 61. He urged the residents to contact the County Commissioners about the traffic issues on 70th Street. Imdieke stated that the parking lot at Norris Square Presbyterian Homes seems smaller than what is being proposed in this plan and asked if their underground parking capacity is bigger. Burbank responded that both have about the same number of units. That project also includes a cross parking easement but there has not been much development on the commercial site yet. As to the traffic issues on 70th Street, if the Commission recommends approval of the three applications, staff would discuss the plans with the County and bring any additional information to the Council. Rediske stated that the former operator indicated they have the ability to do visits with the neighbors, such as nursing visits or Meals on Wheels, and asked if Augustana would be able to do something like that. Kopp stated that they would have to take a look at the market de- mographics to see if they could support that. Augustana also has home health care services and tries to meet community need. Graf made a motion to approve the zoning amendment, conditional use permit, and site plan review for the proposed senior care building to be located at 6937 Pine Arbor Drive, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Graff seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items None Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 19, 2014 Brittain made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 19, 2014, Planning Com- mission meeting. Rediske seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014 Page 15 of 15 Reports 9.1 Recap of June City Council Meetings McCool stated that there was a special meeting on May 23, 2014 on a special event permit for the Minnesota Barbecue Festival to be held at Mississippi Dunes Links Golf Course, which the City Council approved. On June 4, the City Council approved the interim conditional use per- mits for temporary fireworks sales by Renaissance Fireworks at Rainbow Foods and for tem- porary fireworks sales by TNT Fireworks at Cub Foods. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries McCool stated that Washington County provided a response to the questions from the Com- mission on plans for Military Road and Radio Drive and how roundabouts are designed. Olsen stated that Washington County announced that they have approved two additional round- abouts, one in Grant Township and one in Woodbury. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Johnson asked when TNT Fireworks would open at Cub Foods. McCool responded that the greenhouse is currently being dismantled and once that is done, TNT can put their tent up. Graf thought that there was to be a traffic study done on 70th Street this spring. Olsen responded that the County did a speed study, which is different than a traffic study. Rediske asked for an update on Chipotle and Noodles & Company. Olsen stated that the building has been demolished and will be rebuilt with the objective to having those businesses open by September 1, depending on weather. Rediske asked if the building would still have room for three businesses. Olsen responded that there will be additional space allocated for another business. Adjournment Rediske made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unan- imously (8 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.