Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-05 PACKET 04.A.i. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # . DATE 11 /5/14 a . . 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 September 22, 2014. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on September 22, 2014. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A $N/A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED � PLANNING 10/27/14 ❑ � ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO/LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on September 22, 2014 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS ; ; i` � � �� �� � City Administrator Date ************************���***�***************** COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commissio� September 22, 2014 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, September 22, 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, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Randall Wehrle 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 Graff made a motion to approve the agenda. Imdieke seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (9-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 Rudh Pool and Septic System Setbacks — Case V2014-026 Anthony Rudh, 8217 113th Street South, has applied for variances to allow an in-ground pool to be setback 39 feet from the bluff line when 100 feet is required and to allow an existing septic system to be 19 feet from the bluff line when 150 feet is required. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 2 of 16 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval of both variances based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Wehrle asked if the lot the applicant owns behind their primary site is buildable. Burbank re- sponded that because there is no public frontage for that lot, it is not buildable. Rostad asked if the application has been fully vetted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Burbank responded that typically the DNR does not comment on these types of applications, but they are training a new staff who provided some comments. He stated that he spoke with Molly Shodeen, who the City typically works with at the DNR, regarding the application. Regarding the comment about rotating the pool to minimize the setback distance, it was determined that the pool would then interFere with the septic system. Burbank explained the process that staff and the applicant went through to prior to applying for a variance to make the pool meet setback requirements. Reese asked if any response was made to the DNR regarding more details on the application. Burbank stated that he verbally responded to Shodeen at the DNR about the application. The DNR does not have any concerns about the applications. Anthony Rudh, 8217 113th Street South, explained that the two questions were related to the location and layout of the pool. The first option they looked at was turning the pool perpendic- ular to what is proposed, but with the setback requirements from the septic tanks, the pool would have been pushed to the west property line and closer to the bluff line and river. The proposed location is the best option. The other concern was about impervious surfaces but the percolation test for the septic system showed that the soil is very good and there would be no problems with runoff. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing, Brittain made a motion to approve the variance for the in-ground pool based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below, Rediske seconded, Findin.qs of Fact — Pool Setback Variance: A. The required grading and erosion control measures are much more stringent than when the Critical Area ordinance was adopted, allowing for the pool to be constructed without negative impacts to the blutfline. B. The pool is a below design grade and will not cause any detrimental views of or from the river. C. Other pools are similarly constructed in the neighborhood and have not shown to be detri- mental to the established bluffline. D. There are no significant natural communities in this location. Conditions of Approval: 1. A building permit application must be submitted for the pool. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 3 of 16 2. A state electrical permit must be obtained for the pool. 3. An erosion control plan must be submitted and approved by the City. 4. The approved erosion control measures shall be completed prior to scheduling the first building inspection. 5. Excess earthen material resulting from the construction of the pool shall not be deposited over the bluff or adjacent steep slope. 6. Drainage of the pool shall be diverted so as to prevent direct outfall of runoff over the bluff. 7. The pool safety requirements found in City Code Title 9-1 �-4 shall be followed. 8. If any archeological items are unearthed during the pool construction process, construction activities must be halted and the City must be contacted. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). � Rediske made a motion to approve the variance for the existing septic system setbacks based on the findings of fact listed below. Graf seconded. Findin.qs of Fact — Septic System Setback Variance: A. Contrary to existing ordinance criteria, the septic system was approved in 1998 by the Washington County Health Department and was subsequently installed according to that approval. 8. When the septic was installed, the review and approval of septic systems had been recently transferred from Cottage Grove to the County, and this disconnect from the zoning review process seems to have been inadvertently neglected during that transition period. C. There are no significant natural communities in this location. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). 6.2 AT&T Antennas on Kimbro Tower — Case CUP2014-028 Velocitel, o/b/o AT&T Mobility, has applied for a conditional use permit to replace and add antennas to an existing monopole tower at 10475 Kimbro Avenue South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked what the reason is for the antenna replacements. The applicant replied changes in technology. Rostad opened the public hearing, No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 4 of 16 Graf made a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed below. Reese seconded. 1. The applicant must complete a building permit application for the replacement of six exist- ing antennas and the installation of the three additional antennas and other related tower mounted equipment and cables. 2. All applicable electrical and building permits must be obtained prior to commencement of construction. 3. No advertising shall be displayed on the monopole, antenna panels, equipment building, or fence. 4. The antennas must be painted the same color as the tower. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). 6.3 Myers Second Residence — Case V2014-029 John and Sheryl Myers have applied for a variance to allow a second residential unit as part of a 5,760 square foot accessory structure on residentially zoned property at 10990 Manning Avenue South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact stipulated in the staff report. Graff asked how much of the 5,760 square feet would be the residence. John Myers, 10990 Manning Avenue South, responded that the residential portion would be approximately 1,500 square feet. He provided background information on why they are requesting this variance, explaining that two daughters require constant care, and his wife's mother is a personal care assistant who helps with their daily activities. He stated that he initially approached staff in the spring about what they believe is a permitted use. He referenced City Code Title 11-9A-3(9) that a separate living quarters for domestic servants employed on the premises is a permitted use. Staff interpreted that it was not meant to be a separate structure but attached to the principal structure, which is why they applied for the variance. They do not want to subdivide the parcel and build a house on it or add onto their existing house due to market value issues. The proposed option provides on-site living space in an accessory structure, and as needs change, they can repurpose the living space into shop space and the property would still have market value. Rostad asked if the property was subdivided, would both parcels require 180 feet of public frontage. Burbank responded yes. Rostad asked if there is enough frontage. Burbank re- sponded on a previous application, a public right-of-way was stubbed in. Also, recently the City approved a variance on 70th Street that had reduced public frontage. Johnson asked why this proposal is against the ordinance. Burbank responded that the Tech- nical Review Committee identified that they had the opportunity to construct an addition for an accessory apartment or to subdivide the property. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 5 of 16 Graff asked if language could be added to require the living space be converted to shop space when it was no longer needed. Burbank responded that conditions of approval are added for variances. Reese asked about the materials for the structure and if there would be footings or would it be a slab on grade. Myers responded that the main building structure will be a post frame con- struction with a cement floor and a floating slab. Burbank responded that footings would be required if they were to attach it to the principal structure. Reese asked if the building official was consulted to see if that was appropriate for a residence. Burbank responded that the applicant is proposing a habitable residential portion meeting city building codes for occu- pancy. Myers stated that they would build it to meet the applicable building codes. Rostad opened the public hearing. Kevin McGrath, 11000 Manning Avenue South, stated that they are the closest neighbors to the Myers and support the application. This is a rural area and they appreciate this multi- generation approach, which fits with our farming heritage. Farms usually have accessory living structures for farm hands and multi-generational families, but none of them look as nice as what is proposed. While the review group's approach may be technically correct, based on the specific facts and circumstances with this family and parcel of land, the proposed structure would have a low impact on neighboring properties. Bill Royce, 10823 Lehigh Road South, believes the applicants' intentions are very admirable. He stated the structure could be considered a bunk house for farm workers. He supports this application wholeheartedly. Gene Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive, stated that he has no problem with this request for residential space in an accessory structure. This is both a practical and economical solution to their needs for work space as well as a way for them to take care of their family's health and welfare needs. He stated that in the past there was a proposal for a residential subdivision on this property, which all the neighbors opposed. He is not aware of any adjoining owners op- posed to this proposal. It will not adversely affect the neighbors' property values. In most cases the adjoining property owners cannot see the building site because of topography and vege- tation. He believes that owners of a 40-plus acre site should be able to do what they want with their property as long as it does not infringe on the neighbors and meets the proper zoning. This idea of accessory apartments is not a new concept and we have them in Cottage Grove. He does not believe having a living quarters in a separate building on a large rural property is big issue. He noted that there are other properties with additional residential dwelling including a remodeled chicken coop and a corn crib. He would encourage the Commission and Council to approve this request. Louise Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive, stated that in this economy we should encour- age residents to care for their own families in the most economical way possible. She noted that she and her husband have spent many years as volunteer agriculture advisors to a 10,000 acre farm in Russia. Their Russian visitors were impressed that everything in America is de- signed to make life easier for citizens. She would like to keep it that way. Let's make this project easier for the Myers' family. No one else spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 6 of 16 Brittain stated that while he commends the applicant for what they are trying to do, the Plan- ning Commission's responsibilities are to adhere to the zoning policies of the community as they are written. There are times that we can deviate from the ordinances with variances if there are findings of fact; however, we also need to be cognizant of how the property may potentially be used in the future. While he empathizes and commends what the applicants are trying to do, there are other alternatives within current ordinances, including an accessory apartment attached to the principal structure or a lot split. Imdieke asked about the ordinance language regarding a structure for hired help, as the pro- posed occupants of the structure were hired through a care provider. She asked for more information on the interpretation on that code. Burbank responded that one of the points of discussion was if it fell under a caretaker residence. The Technical Review Committee deter- mined that a caretaker's residence was not a separate building, but would be in an accessory apartment attached to the principal structure. The only options are to construct an accessory apartment or apply for the variance. Imdieke asked if there are other parcels in Cottage Grove that have that separate buildings for hired help. Burbank responded that the only caretaker residence he knows of is on the Acorn Mini-Storage property but that is guided and zoned differently. Shepards Woods, which is owned by the Dodge Nature Center, has a caretaker's residence on the property but that was there prior to the zoning ordinance. The converted chicken house at Hope Glen Farm is part of a Historic Places Conditional Use Permit, and the converted corn crib is used for short-term stays, not long-term habitation. Those are the ones that staff is aware of. Those structures were created under different circumstances. He noted that there are accessory apartments and rental units throughout the city. Johnson asked if all the provisions listed in the ordinance criteria need to fit in order for a variance to be granted. Burbank responded that there needs to be reasonable findings to grant a variance. The Technical Review Committee did not feel they could establish adequate find- ings. Johnson asked if the septic system would need to be upgraded for the new building with living quarters. Burbank stated that in the summary section of the staff report it was identified that if a variance were to be granted, they would need to ensure that the current septic system would support any additional residential use. Johnson asked what the negatives would be to allow a second residential dwelling; the Commission just approved a variance for a pool, which is an amenity, but are being advised to deny this variance that he believes is for a good pur- pose. Burbank explained that each variance request is looked at on its own merit. The Tech- nical Review Committee noted that there is the ability to have an accessory apartment attached to the principal structure, which would not require a variance, or to subdivide the property. There are standard zoning procedures for creating additional residential units within the community available to the property. From a zoning perspective, there needs to be con- sistency in how these requests are addressed. There are also concerns about how future owners would use the habitable space. Reese stated that his only concern was the type of structure and removing the grove of trees for it. He understands why they do not want to add onto the house. He would rather see the applicant and staff try to work on options and come back next month with more data and details. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 7 of 16 Graf asked if in the R-1 zoning district we allow only one residential dwelling per zoned parcel. Burbank responded yes. Graf stated that the way to add a residential dwelling is through sub- dividing. That option would provide a similar outcome; the only difference is that they would own an additional lot. Graf made a motion based on the recommendation in the staff report that the variance be denied. Brittain seconded. Johnson asked if Cottage Grove allows slab on grade construction and if a pole barn requires frost footings. Burbank responded slab on grade construction is allowed and pole structures don't require frost footing foundations. Myers stated that subdividing the lot brings the same issues that adding onto their existing house would be, which is that the size of the house could be unmarketable. Graff stated that she sympathizes with the applicants and explained that she faced a similar situation trying to find a home that fit their needs. They remodeled their home, which may make it hard to market in the future. While she understands the applicants' concerns, the Commission needs to protect the greater good. This would set a precedent. She also ex- pressed concern about future use of the property if it is sold. She would also like more time for research on this application. Myers stated that they would agree to adding conditions listing what the structure can be used for. Rostad stated that he would vote to approve the variance because he believes the applicant is trying to put up a structure in harmony with the area. The accessory structure would not be detrimental to the public, neighbors, or property values. If they are willing to meet the septic requirements and building code requirements, he would be in favor of granting the variance. Johnson asked about the size of the living area. Myers responded 1,500 square feet would be the maximum size. Johnson asked how many square feet they have currently in the house. Myers responded about 3,200 square feet. Johnson asked if they are absolutely sure that a 4,500 to 4,700 square foot house would make the property unmarketable. Myers responded that they have no intention of selling any time soon and plan to retire there but as their children move out, the house would be too large. They would reconfigure the living space in the acces- sory into shop space when it is no longer needed. Rediske stated she is concerned about safety implications of a pole barn on a flat slab. Myers stated that this type of structure is getting more prevalent and can be engineered to comply with all building codes. Graff stated that she would prefer to table the application to get more information on these types of structures and to do research on if there are other properties with a second residential structure. Levitt stated that even if the application were tabled or continued, the underlying question remains that there would be two separate residences on one property. As indicated, the only ones in Cottage Grove (Dodge Nature Center and Hope Glen Farm) are of a historic nature Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 8 of 16 and have conditional use permits. There have also been indications from the applicant regard- ing storage rental. Commercial uses are not permitted on this property. The City needs to be very cautious about these types of situations. The underlying issue before the Commission is if two separate residential living quarters are going to be allowed on one parcel. Imdieke asked if they were to subdivide, could this accessory structure be a stand-alone struc- ture on that parcel. Burbank responded that accessory structures are not permitted to be built prior to a principal structure, unless it had a residential component to it. There are some ex- ceptions for agricultural buildings on a lot of record with agricultural use prior to a principal structure. Imdieke asked if the applicant could build the same structure on a subdivided portion of his parcel. Burbank responded if it had a residential component to it and the storage garage would be limited to 1,000 square feet. Imdieke stated that could be a compromise. This appli- cation could be denied and they could come back with a subdivision application. Burbank stated that a minor subdivision would require minimum public frontage, public right-of-way access, percolation for a septic system, minimum building code requirements related to hab- itable structures, and limits on attached garage size. Myers stated that if they subdivided, the structure would need to be along the public frontage instead of close to the house or a public road coming in to their property would need to be created. Imdieke asked if it would be possible for the city to work with the applicant on variances to some of those requirements for a subdi- vision. Burbank responded yes. Reese stated that a couple months ago, the Planning Commission approved an accessory structure apartment. Levitt responded that was part of Hope Glen Farm's Historic Places Con- ditional Use Permit. They have an accessory apartment detached from the principal structure and there will be a tree house suite and a corn crib, which is an ADA-accessible lodging option. None are permanent residences, other than the principal structure. Reese asked if those would have been approved with the HPCUP. Levitt responded that it would not have met zoning requirements. Wehrle stated that he thinks the proposal makes sense for their situation and would support approving the variance. Graf also agrees that what the applicant proposes probably does no harm to anyone; unfortu- nately the code requires one residential dwelling per residential lot. There are other options, including subdivision, purchasing another home in the community, or adding onto the principal structure. He does not want to approve two residential units on one residential lot, because it would set a precedence. Brittain stated that as a zoning body, we are bound to follow the rules, and if we don't like the rules than we change the rules. We do grant variances from time to time. As a zoning body we need to look at the rules, but if we cannot find applicable findings of fact, we cannot rec- ommend approval no matter how much we would like to do something else. Myers asked if the variance could be requested based on 11-9A-3(9) that allows for separate living quarters for domestic servants. Staff's interpretation was that was not meant to be a separate structure. Brittain responded that the intention is not to be a separate physical struc- Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 9 of 16 ture. Rostad believes that the Technical Review Committee got that wrong and he thinks his- torically living quarters for workers on a property have been detached from the principal structure. There would be legitimate findings to allow a separate living structure. Johnson asked how other cities compare as far as two residences on one lot; he has seen guest houses on properties in other cities within the Twin Cities. Burbank responded that staff did not explore that as part of this review. Imdieke stated that the zoning board has to follow the City Code. She believes that the inter- pretation from the Technical Review was wrong and that in agricultural areas there are sepa- rate living quarters for farm workers. Graf stated that the property is not zoned agricultural, it is zoned rural residential. Burbank responded that they meet the definition of an agricultural use per our zoning code. Motion to deny failed on a 2-to-7 vote (Ayes: Graf, Brittain) (Nays: Graff, Imdieke, Johnson, Rediske, Reese, Rostad, Wehrle). Reese made a motion to table the application so the staff and applicant can look at other options and to get more details on the proposed structure including the materials and placement of the structure. Brittain seconded. Brittain expressed concerns about how close the structure would be to the current residence and private drives versus public drives. Johnson asked if there is an opportunity for Commissioners to provide an opinion as to whether this property can be used for hired hands or domestic help. Burbank responded that request for was not advertised so he would have to check into the procedure related to action taken on something that was not advertised. If an additional public hearing was required to deal with a different section of the code, it could be advertised prior to the City Council meeting. Levitt clarified that the motion should be a continuance instead of tabling and so the verbiage in the motion would need to be changed. McCool responded that Johnson's interpretation if a second residence could be on the prop- erty if the applicant was to challenge or disagree with that interpretation, there is an application process that includes a public hearing. If this was continued, background information could be provided to the Planning Commission next month, including more detail on how that was in- terpreted, what the ordinance states, and the City Attorney's opinion. Johnson asked if this application needs to be denied first and then the applicant would reapply for another variance regarding housing for domestic help. McCool responded that if this application was denied, the applicant would have the option to appeal the City's interpretation of whether or not a second residence can be on the same parcel of land. The Planning Commission would hold the public hearing and make a decision on that application. Graf asked if the City has ever interpreted accessory apartments to be a separate building in the past. Burbank responded that there was a request for a detached accessory structure with a mother-in-law's apartment on property on Lamar Avenue. The City's interpretation was the Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 10 of 16 same as this, and the property owner did not proceed any further. Graf noted that is a prece- dent to guide the Commission in this matter. Rediske asked how the mother is paid. Myers responded through the state. Rediske asked if she is paid by the state, does that allow her to be considered a hired hand. Burbank responded that she meets the definition of being hired but it is not a separate caretaker's residence. Reese amended his motion to continue the application instead of tabling the applica- tion. Brittain seconded. Rostad stated that he does not feel that it needs to be continued. We are looking for a variance for a second residential structure, and he does not need to see the materials list and the layout. He would assume staff would take care of that part of it and get the building up to code. Motion failed on a 5-to-4 vote (Nay: Graf, Imdieke, Wehrle, Rostad, Graft� (Aye: Johnson, Rediske, Brittain, Reese). Wehrle made a motion to approve the variance to allow a second residential unit. lmdieke seconded. Graff commented that if this motion is approved, she wants to emphasize to the homeowners that they have set a precedent where the City staff's recommendation and this Planning Com- mission's recommendation are different, and urges them to have answers to the concerns expressed at this meeting when the application goes to the City Council for final determination. She also asked them to work with the City to resolve some of those issues. Motion passed on a 6-to-3 vote (Ayes: Graff, Imdieke, Rediske, Reese, Rostad, Wehrle) (Nays: Graf, Johnson, Brittain). 6.4 Nadarliyska Driveway Addition — Case V2014-030 Ivaylo and Iveta Nadarliyska have applied for a variance to minimum driveway setback and maximum driveway width requirements to allow the driveway at 7230 Jonathan Avenue South to be one foot from the property line instead of the required six feet and 31 feet wide versus the required 28 feet. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact stipulated in the staff report. Ivaylo Nadarliyska, 7230 Jonathan Avenue South, disagreed with the recommendation in the staff report that there are no unique circumstances for this request. He explained that the contractor provided three options for the driveway, told them he was licensed in the City of Cottage Grove, and he would pull the permit. After he was informed about the issues with the driveway, the City inspector set up a meeting at his property to resolve the issues with the contractor, the homeowner, and the inspector, but the contractor did not show up at that meet- ing. He does not believe he is responsible for the driveway problems because the City of Cottage Grove granted the contractor a license. In addition to his problem, there was a prob- lem on another property in the city with the same contractor. He does not understand why the Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 11 of 16 contractor was granted a contractor's license. The driveway is already done and he asked to be allowed to keep it. He believes that a bigger driveway is better for safety on the street. Graff noted that the contractor is not licensed by the City. The purpose of the building permit system is so the City can ensure the contractor is licensed. It is unfortunate that the contractor did not follow the city's codes. Johnson stated that as a contractor working in many cities, if a licensed contractor pulled a permit and something like this happened, the city require the contractor to fix the problems. However, when an unlicensed contractor is hired or does not pull a permit, the homeowner must accept the consequences for what happened. You have the option of going after that contractor through the attorney general, Better Business Bureau, or the legal system. The Planning Commission can make a decision the requested variance but cannot go after the contractor. Nadarliyska stated that there is no right for a contractor license to be issued. He has corre- spondence from the inspector that the contractor is now licensed in Cottage Grove. He asked for the license number, which he needed for his complaint with the Better Business Bureau, but the inspector did not disclose it. Imdieke asked if he is referring to the inspector or the contractor. Nadarliyska responded the contractor was granted a license from the city, and it was granted after the issue with his driveway. He stated that when he hired the contractor, the contractor said he would secure the building permit, He found out late that the contractor did not have a license at that time and did not get the permit. Johnson asked if the contractor is or is not licensed. Burbank replied that Building Division staff reported that he was an unlicensed contractor. He may have been issued one since this report was written. Levitt stated that staff will further review the claim about the contractor applying for a license. Past perFormance does come into play for the issuance of those licenses and they do have to be renewed. If for some reason an error was made, staff will work to correct that situation. Rostad opened the public hearing. Dave Leighly, 7300 Jonathan Avenue South, stated that variances are to be granted for unu- sual situations and this site is not particularly unusual. He believes permitting a variance for this condition will establish precedence for future countless situations. No one e/se spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing, Graff commented that the Commission sympathizes with the applicants for being taken in by this contractor. However, that does not preclude what the Commission has to decide. She then stated that in the applicant's email, it was noted that he was informed that the driveway was faulty and would need to be replaced, whether this variance is approved or denied. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 12 of 16 Brittain made a motion to deny the variances for driveway setback and maximum width based on the findings of fact stipulated in the staff report. Reese seconded, Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). 6.5 T-Mobile Antennas on Grange Water Tower — Case CUP2014-032 T-Mobile Central LLC has applied for an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to mount three additional antennas on top of the water tower located at 8193 Grange Boule- vard South for a total of 12 antennas. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Graff made a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed below. Graf seconded. 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building Official, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Director prior to the commencement of any construction activities. 2. Applicant must submit as-built drawings to the city upon completion of the installation. 3. The applicant must schedule a pre-construction meeting with the Public Works Director before work can begin. 4. No construction or installation of equipment on the subject sites may commence until the applicant/permittee has entered into an amended lease agreement with the City for leasing city-owned land or buildings, access, antenna installation on the water tower and all other details recommended by the City Attorney. Applicant must comply with the terms and con- ditions of the Lease. 5. Advertising on the antennas is prohibited. 6. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 7. Color and sample materials for all cables, antennas, and mounting brackets/braces must be submitted to the Public Works Director for final approval prior to issuance of the building permit. City specified manufactured colored coaxial cable will be required (painted coaxial cab/e will not be accepted). 8. No significant change in the use or design of the antennas may be made without the Public Works Director's consent. Minor modifications to service or use may be considered if such changes will not cause the antennas to violate the performance standards set forth in the City Codes or the conditions of this conditional use permit. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 13 of 16 9. Utilities must be installed underground as approved by the Public Works Director. �0. The applicant must submit detailed construction plans and specifications of the proposed antenna facilities and related equipment to the Department of Public Works for review. All proposed plans and specifications including the location and attachment of the proposed antenna equipment will require final approval from the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). 6.6 T-Mobile Antennas on Inwood Water Tower — Case CUP2014-033 T-Mobile Central LLC has applied for an amendment to the existing conditional use per- mit to mount three additional antennas on top of the water tower located at 6700 Inwood Avenue South for a total of 12 antennas. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended 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 conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed below. Imdieke seconded. 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building Official, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Director prior to the commencement of any construction activities. 2. Applicant must submit as-built drawings to the city upon completion of the installation. 3. The applicant must schedule a pre-construction meeting with the Public Works Director before work can begin. 4. No construction or installation of equipment on the subject sites may commence until the applicant/permittee has entered into an amended /ease agreement with the City for leasing city-owned land or buildings, access, antenna installation on the water tower, and all other details recommended by the City Attorney. Applicant must comply with the terms and con- ditions of the Lease. 5. Advertising on the antennas is prohibited. 6. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 7. Color and sample materials for all cables, antennas, and mounting brackets/braces must be submitted to the Public Works Director for final approval prior to issuance of the building permit. City specified manufactured colored coaxial cable will be required (painted coaxial cable will not be accepted). Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 14 of 16 8. No significant change in the use or design of the antennas may be made without the Public Works Director's consent. Minor modifications to service or use may be considered if such changes will not cause the antennas to violate the performance standards set forth in the City Codes or the conditions of this conditional use permit. 9. Utilities must be installed underground as approved by the Public Works Director. 10. The applicant must submit detailed construction plans and specifications of the proposed antenna facilities and related equipment to the Department of Public Works for review. All proposed plans and specifications including the location and attachment of the proposed antenna equipment will require final approval from the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). 6.7 T-Mobile Antennas on 81st Street Water Tower — Case CUP2014-034 T-Mobile Central LLC has appiied for an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to mount three additional antennas on top of the water reservoir located at 8250 81st Street South for a total of 12 antennas. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Johnson asked why three antennas. Kelly Mohr, T-Mobile Centreal, 1754 Snelling Avenue, Roseville, stated that there are three sectors for every tower, so they are adding one antenna per sector for the new technology, for a total of three antennas. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Imdieke made a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed below. Johnson seconded. 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building Official, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Director prior to the commencement of any construction activities. 2. Applicant must submit as-built drawings to the City upon completion of the installation. 3. Applicant must comply with the terms and conditions of the Lease. 4. The applicant must schedule a pre-construction meeting with the Public Works Director before work can begin. 5. Advertising on the antennas is prohibited. 6. Outdoor storage is prohibited. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 15 of 16 7. Color and sample materials for all cables, antennas, and mounting brackets/braces must be submitted to the Public Works Director for final approval prior to issuance of the building permif. City specified manufactured colored coaxial cable will be required (painted coaxial cable will not be accepted). 8. No significant change in the use or design of the antennas may be made without the Public Works Director's consent. Minor modifications to service or use may be considered if such changes will not cause the antennas to violate the performance standards set forth in the City Codes or the conditions of this conditional use permit. 9. Utilities must be installed underground as approved by the Public Works Director. 10. lnstallation of the three new antennas and all ancillary cables and brackets must be com- pleted before the water tower is repainted in early spring 2015. 11. The applicant is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the equipment building and access drive and for restoration of any erosion caused by stormwater runotf from the eguipment ,building or access drive. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). Discussion Items None Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 25, 2014 Reese made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 25, 2014, Planning Com- mission meeting. Wehrle seconded, Johnson asked procedurally if he was not at a meeting, does he vote on the minutes. It was reported that he can vote on the matter. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of September City Council Meetings Levitt reported that at the September 3, 2014, City Council meeting, the Council approved the Riverstone concept plan. The concept plan that was presented to the City Council addressed the majority o� the Planning Commission's questions, concerns, and issues. Levitt stated that on September 17, 2014, the City Council held the public hearing for the proposed Leafline Labs conditional use permit and site plan review for a pharmaceutical man- ufacturing facility in the industrial park related to the processing of inedical cannabis. The Council approved the applications on a 4-to-0 vote. The applicant is preparing their application Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014 Page 16 of 16 to the Minnesota Department of Health to become a medical cannabis producer. The appli- cant's timeline for submittal to the Minnesota Department of Health did not allow staff to bring those applications to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Reese asked if there were going to be changes to the construction project on Military and Radio Drive now that there are three developments going in on Dale Road, which is about a mile from that intersection. Levitt responded that the County does not have land immediately adjacent to the project to acquire the right-of-way, which is typically done during the platting process, so Washington County and the City of Woodbury are not changing their direction regarding the design of that roadway. Reese asked about the City of Woodbury's future de- velopment plans in that area now that they have houses going in on the south side of Eastridge. Levitt stated that question would need to be deferred to Woodbury in relation to extending sewer and water to that area and allowing development to occur. Adjournment Graff made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rediske seconded. Motion passed unani- mously (9-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m.