HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-04 PACKET 04.A.i. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING ITEM # � �
DATE 2/4/15 �,'
.
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
December 22, 2014.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on
December 22, 2014.
BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A $N/A N/A
BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE
ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED
� PLANNING 1/26/15 ❑ � ❑
❑ 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 December 22, 2014
ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS
/
' � 1
ity Administrator Date
**�**�****�**********�**************************
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER
City of Cottage Grove
Planning Commission
December 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, December 22, 2014, in the Council Chambers
and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16.
Call to Order
Vice Chair Rediske 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
Members Absent: Jim Rostad
Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer
John McCool, Senior Planner
John M. Burbank, Senior Planner
Emily Schmitz, Code Enforcement Officer
Justin Olsen, City Councilmember
Approval of Agenda
Graf made a motion to approve the agenda. Brittain seconded. The motion was approved
unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
Open Forum
Rediske 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
Rediske 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 Kingston Grove — Case PP2014-042, V2014-043
Keats Land, LLC has applied for apreliminary plat for a proposed residential subdivision
consisting of 12 single-family lots and 3 outlots to be called Kingston Grove, to be located
at 7717 Keats Avenue South, and a variance to the 60-foot lot minimum width requirement
Planning Commission Minutes
December 22, 2014
Page 2 of 10
to reduce the minimum cul-de-sac lot width at the right-of-way line for four lots from 60
feet to not less than 49.5 feet. (Reese arrived at 7:04 p.m.)
McCool summarized the stafF report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact
and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report.
Mark Mason, 6111 Kalen Drive, Woodbury, stated that they believe they should be able to
build all 12 homes within a year. They have talked with neighboring property owners. The only
concern expressed was the fence issue, and they will meet with the property owner to resolve
that issue.
Johnson asked how wide the berm will be. McCool responded approximately 20 feet in width
from the toe of the slope on the west side to the toe of the slope on the east side, and it will
range from zero to six feet in height. Mason noted that the slope will be 4:1. Johnson expressed
concern that there may not be enough room in the rear yards abutting the berm and asked
about putting up a fence. Mason responded that the berm provides more than just a visual
barrier, it also is a sound barrier. He noted that those lots are much deeper than the neighbor-
ing lots. McCool stated that because of the required tree mitigation, there will be landscaping
on the berm. Mason noted that there will be covenants requiring all fencing to be uniform if
any of the homeowners wants to install a fence.
Rediske opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rediske closed the public hearing.
Brittain expressed concern about the street name because there is another street on the other
side of 80th Street with that exact name and asked why it is not 78th Street South, which is
contiguous with it. McCool stated that numbered streets are typically east/west oriented
streets; this is a north-south segment that parallels Keats Avenue and Jorgensen is the street
name for streets just west of Keats Avenue. The Public Safety and Public Works Commission
recommended that it be a named street. Brittain noted in that area the street that parallels
Keats is 78th Street. He thinks it would be more logical to continue with that name even though
the ordinance says it should be a named street. McCool responded that the Commission could
make a recommendation for a different street name.
Johnson asked if there could be confusion with two streets named Jorgensen Alcove. McCool
stated that this would be the 7600 block of Jorgensen Alcove; the other Alcove is the 7300
block. The street naming system is consistent with the street numbering and addressing
system.
Brittain stated that he looked at the street names in that area and all other streets that continue
on into a dead end such as cul-de-sac did not change their names regardless of the angle
changing from an east-west to a north-south street. He does not think this name is appropriate
and would make a condition that it be 78th Street unless there were some mitigating reasons
beyond what has been discussed. McCool asked if it could be 78th Street Circle or Court,
stating that Public Safety is interested in identifying that it is a dead-end street. Brittain would
be open to that.
Brittain asked if the requirement for a stop sign is due to its proximity to Keats Avenue. McCool
stated that the recommended stop sign would be on the northwest corner of the intersection
of 77th Street. Levitt explained that over the past several years the City has been doing a
Planning Commission Minutes
December 22, 2014
Page 3 of 10
comprehensive review of signs within neighborhoods to ensure they are all compliant with
current policy. This review is being done during pavement management and sealcoating
projects and this area has not yet been reviewed. This street would most likely to qualify for a
stop sign under this policy, because 77th Street is a neighborhood collector 77th Street would
have through movement and the two north-south streets would have stop signs.
Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and lot width
variance for the proposed Kingston Grove subdivision, based on the findings of fac't
and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the addition of changing the
name of the street to 78th Street South with circle, court, or other preference to identify
that it is a dead end. Graff seconded.
Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote).
6.2 AT&T Antennas on 81st Street Water Tower — Case CUP2014-046
SAC Wireless for AT&T has applied for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit
to replace and add antennas and replace miscellaneous equipment as part of a technology
upgrade on the water tower at 8520 81st Street South.
McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions
stipulated in the staff report.
Tom Yang, SAC Wireless, 4300 Marketpoint Drive, Suite 150, Bloomington, stated that he
would answer any questions from the Commission.
Rediske opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rediske c/osed the public hearing.
Johnson asked how the fees are determined for each antenna. McCool responded the Public
Works Department determines the fees.
Graf made a motion to approve the conditional use permit amendment, subject to the
conditions listed in the staff report. Brittain seconded.
Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote).
6.3 Hope Glen Farm Tree House — Case V2014-047
Michael and Paula Bushilla have applied for a variance to allow a tree house structure to
be 3.6 feet from the rear property line when 50 feet is required at Hope Glen Farm, 10276
East Point Douglas Road 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.
Michael Bushilla, Hope Glen Farm, 10276 East Point Douglas Road South, stated this would
be the first rental tree house in the metro area and there has been a lot of excitement about it.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 22, 2014
Page 4 of 10
Graff asked if it is their intention to expand the driveway to the tree house or will the guests
walk to it. Bushilla stated that there is a parking area in front of the barn for the tree house and
there will be a path; the tree is not very far from the venue.
Rediske opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rediske closed the public hearing.
Reese asked if there would be an additional parking pad located anywhere nearby or would
they just be using the parking area. Burbank explained that there is parking on the back side
of the barn and pointed that area out on the property layout.
Brittain made a motion to approve the rear setback variance based on the findings of
fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff repori: Graf seconded.
Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote).
6.4 Sign Ordinance Amendment - Case TA2014-035
The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a text amendment amending City Code Title 9,
Chapter 8, Signs and Billboards.
Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval.
Rediske opened the public hearing.
Alex Shepard, 7424 East Point Douglas Road South, stated that he is a member of the Cottage
Grove Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber submitted a survey to its members in July re-
garding the proposed sign ordinance amendment. They had a good response from their
membership, and most of the changes were well received. The two biggest issues are window
signage and leasing signage. Standalone leasing signs draw attention to available properties,
and most commercial properties lease based on signage. He requested that the signage be
allowed until the property is fully leased.
Justin Fox, 6701 Goldenrod Circle, added that standalone signage is more visible than signage
on buildings. When the Chamber surveyed their membership, there was very strong opposition '
to the 80 percent leased rule. It was felt that could potentially drive rents and values down
because commercial values are based on income. The other issue was the percentage of
window signage, which is currently capped at 30 percent. The members saw this as an oppor-
tunity to revisit this restriction and allow more signage on windows. A vast majority of the
membership believes that the current amount allowed is too restrictive. They are not asking
for 100 percent but are seeking approval of a higher ratio of usage.
Levitt stated that the "for lease" signs could become permanent fixtures and a code enforce-
ment issue because the City needs to ensure that they are maintained in good order. One of
the challenges is the perception in our community about leasing rates and seeing those "for
lease" signs could send the wrong message. In addition, the Council has directed staff to im-
prove the aesthetic curb appeal of businesses and the standalone signs can take away from
that. A way to ensure that they don't become permanent fixtures is to require removal when a
certain percentage is filled, which should not hamper economic vitality. Banner "for lease"
signs would be allowed on the building. Leasing information could also be incorporated on the
Planning Commission Minutes
December 22, 2014
Page 5 of 10
property's monument sign. Regarding the 30 percent limit for window signs, staff has worked
aggressively to bring businesses into compliance. The reason for the 30 percent limit has to
do with curb appeal and aesthetics. Also, glazing is classified as a Class 1 material and cov-
ering that glazing up with advertisement takes away from that. This was discussed at great
length at our workshop with the Commission and Council.
Steve Dennis, 7264 Jenner Lane South, stated that having signage is an integral part of com-
municating effectively with customers, and to limit businesses to 30 percent of window signs
is tough. The City wants to be business friendly and do whatever can be done to encourage
business growth and success.
No one e/se spoke. Rediske closed the public hearing.
Johnson asked if the bench at Cub Foods is a bus stop. Levitt responded that those benches
were installed when the locations were on active bus routes. Our job now is to ensure compli-
ance with the ordinance. Johnson asked if those benches would be left in place without
advertising or will they be removed. Levitt explained that the benches are being leased for
advertising. The City will notify the bench advertising company that ads are not allowed on
those benches that are not located on an active bus route. The City would need to evaluate if
benches are needed in those locations, and if so, the standard black wrought iron decorative
benches would then be installed. The benches that are code compliant would not be allowed
to change advertisers when their contract terminates because the goal is to not have off-prem-
ise signage. Johnson asked who has the contract. Levitt responded that the bench company
has contracts with advertisers to advertise on the benches. Johnson asked if there is an auto-
matic renewal. Levitt responded if it becomes in disrepair, a nuisance, or a violation of the
code, it would have to be removed.
Johnson asked what the business community believes would be a sufficient percentage for
window signage if 30 percent is not enough. Dennis requested 50 percent. He then suggested
that adding standards for the "for lease" signs to create a better aesthetic. Johnson stated that
20 percent vacancy in a building could be a lot but also believes that some of those signs may
never be taken down. It could also present a negative image on the community if there is
always a for lease sign up by a building. He asked how the 80-20 would be calculated and
policed. Levitt stated that it would be based on the square footage of the facility and how much
is currently occupied. She noted that the City's intent to monitor the occupancy of the different
multiple tenant buildings and ensure that if they are 100 percent full the "for lease" sign is
removed.
Imdieke asked what other communities require for percentage of window signage. Schmitz
responded that most are in the same range as the 30 percent maximum in Cottage Grove. In
her research she did not see any in the 40 or 50 percent range. She noted that required per-
manent signage such as business hours would not be counted towards that 30 percent.
Johnson asked about the type of window signage the businesses feel need extra space. Fox
stated that was not one of the questions in the Chamber's survey but would be signs advertis-
ing specials, etc. Most business owners want their businesses to look nice and professional
so they would most likely switch them out if they become tacky looking. Dennis stated that
most signs are typically professionally made. He stated that those who have invested in the
Planning Commission Minutes
December 22, 2014
Page 6 of 10
city have spent a lot of money to be here and abide by certain requirements outside the build-
ing but within their space, businesses should be able to have signage. The business commu-
nity is asking to be able to coordinate and conduct business in the best way to communicate
with customers. He noted that many people look at the window signs before they come in his
store. Window signage is an integral tool and he thinks 50 percent is a reasonable number.
He does not believe that the City has to base everything off what other areas do, but can make
our own choices for what works best for our businesses. Dennis stated that beauty is in the
eye of the beholder and it is hard to legislate beauty but he believes 50 percent is a fair stand-
ard and the Chamber would be very accepting of that.
Graff asked if consideration was given to giving business owners a certain amount of permits
per year so they could have special signage. Schmitz responded that there were some adjust-
ments to the temporary sign permit regulations. Our current ordinance requires a permit for 15
calendar days a year along with a fee. The proposal would allow four permits a year, each for
up to 15 days, with no fee required. This would allow businesses to a have banner sign for
various events. In residential areas, such as for places of worship, the ordinance would permit
nine temporary sign permits per year, each of those permits allotted for up to 15 days. Graff
stated that franchise businesses typically receive advertising materials for their corporate
office, but small businesses may not have access banner signs. She asked if there could be
some type of accommodation for window signage for those small businesses. Schmitz stated
that would be difficult to monitor and enforce. Levitt stated that the City would look at the gross
window area so businesses would need to adjust signage in their windows, such as if they get
a larger sign, they could take one down on an adjacent window.
Johnson asked if there is has anything on the City's website to help businesses looking to
lease space. Schmitz responded that the Economic Development Department posts that
information on the Growth Partners page, and it is updated as the information comes to them.
Brittain asked what percentage of the window front is allowed for required signage. Schmitz
responded that there is no number.
Graff stated that she is concerned that we are treating the small businesses in the community
by the same guidelines as franchise businesses. While she understands the need to have
consistency, that puts a burden on the small businesses because franchises have corporate
resources that they can access. She feels strongly that we need to have some distinction
between those types of businesses. Brittain stated that while he understands what Graff said,
he believes there should be an even playing field. His expectation is that once the ordinance
is in place, businesses would have their signs made they are going to have to fit within the
standards. He suggested that depictions of what 50 percent window coverage would look like
be part of the packet to the City Council.
Reese stated that the larger businesses and franchises usually have monument signs but
smaller businesses don't so they are trying to draw business with window signage. They need
to be able to have opportunities to advertise. He suggested putting in standards on materials
for temporary leasing signs.
Graf stated that the current code is 30 percent and the proposed ordinance does not change
that. He noted that neighboring cities basically have those same restrictions. Regarding the
leasing signs, he believes a good compromise is that the boulevard sign would need to come
Planning Commission Minutes
December 22, 2014
Page 7 of 10
down if 20 percent orless leased space is available, and to allow a banner sign on the building
where the business name would go showing the specific space that is available. He is in favor
of the ordinance as proposed and maybe an amendment to the ordinance regarding the 30
percent for window signage could be addressed by the Council.
Graff stated that the big businesses can afford other types of advertising such as newspaper
inserts and mailings, but smaller businesses may not have those same resources. She feels
that this ordinance is going against what the business owners in the community are saying
they would like. She asked to see what 40 and 50 percent coverage looks like and to see the
research numbers and which communities were polled.
Graf stated that our focus needs to be on business in general, both small and big business. If
50 percent is allowed, it should be for all businesses. Window signs can be a part of what
brings people into a business but that needs to be balanced by the look of the community
overall.
Rediske continued the public discussion,
Fox responded to the comments about the for lease signs. If property owners had to take
signage down at 80 percent, on-building signage could become dilapidated in the same way
that off-building signage would. Having lesser visibility of availability could exacerbate the va-
cancy problems in the last eight to ten years. He stated that on-building signage could have
the same issues as stand-alone signage.
Graf stated that he would lean toward the vacancy rate as something that was a product of
the consumer dollar not being there to be spent. Dilapidation is not his primary concern. In his
opinion, if a business complex has three out of four spaces filled, that is the proper time to
remove the yard sign. When he sees a yard sign showing a space is for lease, his first thought
is if there is anything active in that building.
Imdieke stated that before this goes to the City Council she would like to put some verbiage
regarding materials and construction standards for standalone leasing signs and examples of
what 30, 40, and 50 percent window coverage would look like.
Johnson asked about for sale signs at the proposed storage condos. McCool responded that
as part of that project, the owner provided a sign package and agreed to only allow for signage
on the one building along the frontage road but would not be allowed to have signage on the
end caps of the other structures. There will be a monument sign in the front yard area. He
noted that the proposed ordinance increases the amount of time that temporary signage on
buildings is allowed from a total of 15 days per calendar year to 15 days four times a year.
Graff asked if there is the ability to approve a variance for window signage once the sign
ordinance is approved. McCool responded that any person could make application for a vari-
ance, but he does not think staff would support approval of that variance. Burbank stated that
the ordinance would allow the property owner to come in for a sign package for that site and
all their tenants would follow the guidelines that are approved by the City Council, which would
allow for flexibility to the sign criteria.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 22, 2014
Page 8 of 10
Brittain stated that this amendment is not taking anything away that currently exists except for
the "for lease" signs. The benefits in the streamlining of the ordinance and the consolidation
of the different sections are significant. He is supportive of the window signage as proposed.
He stated that even with the restrictions proposed for leasing signs, a banner sign can be put
on the building. He supports the proposed ordinance amendment.
Brittain made a motion to approve the sign ordinance amendment. Graf seconded.
Reese asked if there could be language regarding materials and construction standards for
the freestanding leasing signs. McCool stated that if better materials are required, it becomes
more like a monument sign and may be kept up longer. Brittain stated that there has been a
lot of discussion about that. He understands the desire to improve the aesthetic appearance
of these signs, but more thought would need to go into that verbiage. Reese noted that the
City can regulate how much of a fa�ade is on a building and but can't regulate the type of
materials used on leasing/sales signs and he is just looking for consistency.
Brittain asked if the most efficient way is approve the ordinance as written and then amend it
in the future, postpone the Commission's vote, or include an amended motion to allow staff
the appropriate amount of time to suggest alternatives for aesthetics for freestanding leasing
signs. Levitt responded that staff could provide to the City Council an alternative language
option for window signage and leasing signs, provide a detailed study and examples from the
research that has been done, and address the equitable nature of enforcement of the regula-
tions through our City Attorney. She stated that the comments made by the Planning Commis-
sion will be part of the Council packet. Brittain asked if staffwould have enough time to properly
prepare between this meeting and the Council meeting. Levitt stated that this amendment is
scheduled to go to the Council at their meeting on January 21, which will afford staff enough
time to do in-depth research on these items. Brittain asked if an appropriate amendment would
be to direct staff to provide options for additional language that would specify higher levels of
aesthetics for these signs. Graff and Reese stated it would.
Imdieke noted that the proposed ordinance says one freestanding and one banner sign no
larger than 32 square feet posted on the primary structure, and asked if there is any restriction
in the proposed ordinance about the actual size of the standalone signs. Schmitz responded
that she believes it is nine square feet, noting that the freestanding sign was intended to be
smaller than the banner sign.
Graff reiterated that staff put a tremendous amount of work into this ordinance amendment
since the Commission saw it in June.
Graf asked if it is proper to have an amendment to the motion or should it be a recommendation
being that we don't have specific language. Levitt stated it should be a recommendation. Graf
stated that the motion and the second would stand, noting the recommendation as discussed.
Motion passed on a 5-to-2 vote (Johnson, Reese),
Johnson explained that he voted against the ordinance amendment because he would like to
work with the businesses. He believes that 50 percent for window signage may be too much
but 40 may be a possibility. He is sympathetic about standalone leasing signs. He is concerned
that there was not enough opportunity for the businesses to speak up. He also does not want
Planning Commission Minutes
December 22, 2014
Page 9 of 10
to amend the sign ordinance again for quite so he wants to make sure that the language is
right because it could affect people for many years to come.
Reese stated that if you take Home Depot out of the equation, the City's vacancy rate is pretty
low and he thinks we need to give the opportunity for those buildings that have space available
to advertise that and to clean up their leasing signs.
Discussion Items
None
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 24, 2014
lmdieke made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 24, 2014, Planning
Commission meeting. Graff seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote),
Reports
9.1 Recap of December City Council Meetings
Levitt reported that prior to the December 3, 2014, City Council meeting, the City's annual tree
lighting ceremony was held. At that meeting, the Council held the public hearing on the 2015
Pavement Management Project; authorized the update to the East Ravine Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR); and approved the Glengrove Industrial Park 4th Addition prelimi-
nary and final plats, which is where the Leafline facility will be built. At the December 17, 2015,
meeting, the City Council approved the Park Place Storage site plan, conditional use permit,
and variance applications.
Johnson asked if the City had projected that there would be traffic problems at the intersection
of Jamaica Avenue and East Point Douglas Road when Walmart opened. Olsen responded
that during the approval process for Walmart, there was significant conversation by both the
Council and staff on how that intersection would handle the additional traffic flow. Some minor
improvements were made. The Public Works and Public Safety Commissions held a joint
meeting to discuss coordination of the traffic lights. Different possibilities have been looked at,
including roundabouts. The City is continuing to work towards a solution. Levitt stated that a
master controller needs to be installed at 90th Street and Jamaica Avenue so the three traffic
signals talk to one another to ensure the most efficient flow of traffic. The minor modifications
that were made have helped but is not the full solution. Ideally there should be an additional
right turn lane and a dual left turn lane, but additional right of way is needed. Improvements
are needed at County Road 19 and East Point Douglas Road, which will also help the traffic
situation for that area. The City is working with Washington County for a potential project in
2017. Olsen stated that the City has applied multiple times for grant money for improvements
to the County Road 19 bridge. Johnson asked if Walmart could contribute to the solution to
the traffic problems. Levitt responded that Walmart paid $250,000 to the City for improve-
ments, and those funds will be applied to the improvements at County Road 19 as our cost
share.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 22, 2014
Page 10 of 10
Olsen reported that two residents received awards for their holiday light displays and an award
was presented to Cub Foods for their contribution to the overall good of the community during
the holiday season. He stated that the City of Cottage Grove has an excellent Public Safety
Department that focuses on community outreach and involvement including the Citizens Acad-
emy and other volunteer activities.
9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries
None
9.3 Planning Commission Requests
Reese asked for an update on Rainbow Foods. Olsen responded'there is nothing that can be
shared at this time, but there are ongoing negotiations with an entity looking to purchase both
the Rainbow building and the strip mall. �
Adjournment
Graff made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Brit#ain seconded. Motion passed unani-
mously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 9;14 p.m.