Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-22 PACKET 07.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission May 18, 2015 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, May 18, 2015, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Brittain called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Brittain, Justin Fox, Kimberly Graff, Wayne Johnson, Kathy Kline, Jim Rostad, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: Adam Graf Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John M. Burbank, Senior Planner John McCool, Senior Planner Steve Dennis, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Graff made a motion to approve the agenda. Johnson seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Brittain 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 Brittain 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 Church of St. Rita — Case SP2015-016 and CUP2015-017 MCL Architects, Inc. has applied for a site plan review and conditional use permit amend- ment to allow an addition to the north side of the Church of St. Rita, 8694 80th Street South. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Rostad asked about the specific purpose for connecting the two sidewalks. Burbank respond- ing that people trying to access the front or the back from either entrance would not have to walk into a drive lane. Graff asked about the design for the stormwater drainage pond; she expressed concern because it is very close to the property lines of a residential area and would like to ensure that there are safety measures taken. Burbank responded that there are no requirements for fenc- ing around stormwater management ponds but as part of their design there is a safety bench as well as a vegetation bench so there will be no steep drop off. Rostad noted that the aerial photo shows a large structure and asked if that is being moved. Jeffrey Brinkman, 8445 72nd Street South, representing the Church, responded that they are going to demolish the garage and try to utilize the new addition for storage or possibly build another garage on the site. Brittain opened the public hearing. Sylvia Strong, 8445 78th Street Court South, stated that she approves of this application be- cause as a teacher at the Church there is always a struggle to find the room they need for the kids who attend the lessons. She believes this will be an amazing improvement to the Church and the neighborhood. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Kline made a motion to recommend approval of the site plan review and conditional use permit amendment subject to the conditions in the staff report. Graff seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.2 Up North Plastics Addition — Case No. SP2015-018 and V2015-019 Up North Plastics, Inc., 9480 Jamaica Avenue South, has applied for a site plan review of a proposed 240 -foot by 361 -foot (86,640 square foot) warehouse addition on the west end of Up North Plastics' existing facility and a variance to allow loading docks on the south elevation facing 95th Street. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Graff asked for more detail on the two openings shown on the building elevation diagram. McCool responded that those are overhead doors for trucks to access the warehouse, similar to the two existing overhead doors on the west side of the existing building. Zopfi asked about if the proposed fencing will tie into the existing fencing. McCool responded that it would continue to the north property line of the site. John Hill, 7764 Irish Avenue South, representing Up North Plastics, stated that the extension of the existing seven -foot fence along Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2015 Page 3 of 7 the west property line will extend up to the northwest corner that ties into the six-foot fence along the CP rail line. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Graff asked if the variance needs to be approved separate from the site plan. McCool re- sponded that they can be approved together because without the variance, the site plan could not be approved. Rostad made a motion to approve the site plan review and variance based on the find- ings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Graff seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.3 Juenemann Shed — Case V2015-020 Mark and Toni Juenemann applied for a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located 10 feet from the street side property line when 20 feet is required at 8315 Jorgensen Alcove South. Burbank summarized the staff report and asked the Commission to review the information related to the application in relation to the ordinance criteria and make a recommendation to the City Council. Kline asked if there was anything there prior to this shed. Mark and Toni Juenemann, 8315 Jorgensen Alcove South, responded that there was nothing in that area. She pointed out that they do not have a large back yard. They initially wanted a shed in the southeast corner of the property but there was not enough space to meet the setback requirements as the property line is at a 45 degree angle in that area. Mark Juenemann stated that one of the main sources of confusion is that he thought the easement line was the setback line and they could build 10 feet from the property line. Toni Juenemann stated that the aerial photo of their property shows a line from the road 22 feet in, and they thought that was what was approved. She stated that where the shed is currently located is beautiful and it is partly hidden by their landscaping. Mark Juenemann stated that the information that was written on the permit was not highlighted. Kline stated that she drove past the site and from her perspective the back yard is very small and the shed is concealed. Mark Juenemann stated that if they have to move the shed, it could be to the southeast corner but there are trees and a pergola there, and if they moved it 10 feet further in, the shed would be too close to the fire pit. He stated that they would not let this create any problems for the neighbors or be unsightly. Kline noted that when she drove by she noticed that the house directly next to their backyard is very close and asked if they had talked with that neighbor. Juenemann responded that neighbor was not home when they asked for signatures but he has discussed the issue with him and he is in favor of letting the shed remain in that location. Zopfi pointed out that on the survey below where it says "Lot 7" it says "drainage and utility easement per plat," which is what those 10 -foot designations are around the perimeter of your lot. He believes a lot of people misconstrue the surveys and think that their lot line goes to the curb and that is not the case. Mark Juenemann stated that he understood where the property line is. He asked what the dashed line represents. Zopfi responded that it is the drainage and Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2015 Page 4 of 7 utility easement. He explained that the Planning Commission has to discuss the criteria for granting a variance, particularly #4. Toni Juenemann asked for clarification on criteria #4. Zopfi responded that it means that the problem was not caused by the property owner but in this case it was because they built the shed and it was not put there by another entity. He noted that the request does not quite meet the criteria. The City Council will make the final determi- nation but the Planning Commission has to go by what is in the ordinance. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Graff stated that while this aesthetically looks nice, that is not what the Commission is gov- erned by. Granting a variance based the way it looks on this property could set a precedent. Regarding criteria #4, she understands the miscommunication but the other structures, the pergola and firepit, that are preventing the shed from being moved to the correct location were done by the applicants. The Planning Commission needs to abide by the ordinances, and in this case she does not see a way to approve the variance. Mark Juenemann stated that he has noticed several other sheds that are closer than 20 feet to the property line. Brittain noted that some of those structures could have been built before the ordinances were in place or they are in different zoning districts with different setbacks. Brittain reopened the public hearing. Suzanne Koerner, 8439 Ivywood Avenue South, stated that Cottage Grove is trying hard to be a progressive community and bring more residents and she is afraid that we will become a cookie cutter community and lose the individualism that makes this City so special. She thinks that the City should be more flexible. She believe having a nice shed in a nice location im- proves the property values of the whole neighborhood and is more important than if it is only a few feet off. Johnson stated that this type of variance has come up before and we cannot have people coming to us after the fact to ask for forgiveness instead of permission. He does sympathize with the applicants, and noted that there can still be individualism and creativity but it has to be kept within certain guidelines and zoning. One of the hardest things about being on the Planning Commission is knowing that while it looks nice, as a board we have to look at the City as a whole and what would happen if this is granted. Toni Juenemann asked if it would have helped to have more of her neighbors attend in support of the application. Brittain responded that while we encourage public input, the Commission's hands are tied in certain areas. The individuals that currently live next to the shed may not live there forever. Toni Juenemann asked why the public hearing notices were sent. Brittain re- sponded that if the Commission is able to find some findings of fact that could justify approving the variance, public input is of value. If we can't find any findings of fact to support the variance, then it has a different level of impact. Brittain closed the public hearing. Zopfi asked if it would be possible to split the difference and move the shed five feet instead of ten feet. Burbank responded that the current ordinance criteria is for a 20 -foot side yard setback from the street side property line, so they would still need a variance and the inability to meet criteria #4 would still be there. Zopfi asked if the City Council can amend those nine Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2015 Page 5 of 7 elements. Burbank stated that the City Council makes the final decision; the Commission will provide feedback to the Council based on the staff report, public hearing comment, testimony, information from the applicants, and the guiding principles in the ordinance criteria. Graff stated that if the Commission approves variances without following the ordinances, that could set a precedent, and while your shed looks nice, the next application may not. She does not see a way around those nine criteria. Graff made a motion to deny the variance due to the lack of findings of fact. Fox seconded. Fox noted that the Commission's hands are tied. The shed looks great but the Commission has to follow the ordinances. Rostad stated that he is struggling with this application and did look to see if there are other options such as orienting it differently. This is one of those circumstances where the Commis- sion has to meet certain criteria for a variance and from a Planning Commission standpoint he can't find any findings of fact. It is up to the City Council to determine if there are any findings of fact. Brittain stated that if they had applied for a variance before it was built, the Commission could have looked for ways that could help them make good use of their property and fit within the ordinances but the Planning Commission has to follow the guidelines. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 City Code Amendment — Solar Energy Regulations McCool summarized the staff memorandum and requested direction from the Commission. Johnson stated that the City needs to start this process so we are prepared. He thinks it needs to be "not very friendly" so that if somebody wants to do this, they have to show commitment to it. The ordinance needs to have strict maintenance requirements, and require that it has to be removed if the property owners move unless there is an agreement with the new owners that they are going to continue utilizing it. He suggested requiring permits and inspections for installation, and possibly an annual permit/inspection so the City knows if it is being used. Rostad agreed. He expressed concern about the impact of solar panels on the property values for neighboring properties, and does not want to allow freestanding solar panels in residential areas. Other suggestions include allowing them on rooftops and having a limit on the coverage amount on houses. Regarding commercial gardens, he believes companies should lease roof- top space instead of productive land. Fox supported solar for commercial areas but agreed that it would adversely impact residential property values. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Zopfi agrees with the other Commissioners especially on residential. He suggested looking at prohibiting side wall installations and make it roof -top only in residential areas with limits to a certain percentage of the roof area. He also thinks the ordinance should cover all residential areas including agricultural because those areas could develop in the future. On the commer- cial side, it is viable to lease space on the exterior of buildings. He believes commercial and industrial areas can benefit from solar leases. Brittain agreed with Rostad that freestanding panels on small residential lots should not be allowed. He would like more information about the efficiency of the panels and how much roof space is needed before restricting the percentage of rooftop coverage. He also thinks there should be some protection from glare. Brittain stated that the ordinance should have language for rural residential areas, such as lot sizes, percentage of that land use, and development restrictions. He also suggested requiring a conditional use permit for larger areas so as devel- opment occurs there is the ability to have it removed. Johnson and Rostad expressed concern about glare. Kline noted that the City of Rosemount's ordinance has been in place since 1989 and asked if the City could have conversations with other cities and counties on the extent that their ordinances are used residentially and com- mercially as well as their experiences. Rostad suggested adding language about fixing any damage caused after the panels are removed. Graff suggested looking at roof pitch for glare issues, looking at how far apart houses are built from each other, and possibly having a mini- mum lot size where solar panels would be allowed. Zopfi asked if the city has an ordinance regarding wind generated energy. McCool responded yes, noting that it does allow for freestanding structures and to extend beyond the roofline. He stated that staff would do additional research and put together a draft ordinance for further discussion by the City's Advisory Commissions. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 27, 2015 Graff made a motion to approve the minutes for the April 27, 2015, Planning Commis- sion meeting. Johnson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of City Council Meetings Levitt reported that at the April 15 City Council meeting, the Council approved the East Ravine AUAR comments, the AGCO TIF District, the AGCO site plan, and the variance to allow an accessory apartment in an accessory structure on Manning Avenue. At the May 6 meeting, the Council approved the Renaissance Fireworks interim conditional use permit at Grove Plaza for a one-year period, the Walmart garden center interim conditional use permit, the conditional use permit to allow a 1,008 square foot legal nonconforming detached accessory structure on West Point Douglas Road, and the preliminary plat for Glengrove Industrial Park 4th Addition with a 10 -foot minimum side yard setback variance for off-street parking at AGCO. The City Council also requested a workshop at their June 3 meeting to discuss off -premise signs; staff is preparing information to explore various options including a policy for advertising for civic organizations in the community. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2015 Page 7 of 7 Dennis announced that there will be an open house for outgoing City Administrator Schroeder on May 20 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. at City Hall; the Night to Unite informational picnic will be held on May 21 at Kingston Park from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.; Night to Unite will be held on August 4; and there will be a Memorial Day event at the Veterans Memorial at City Hall at 1:00 p.m. He reported that the Council held an economic development workshop in April to reinvigorate the Shop Local program, and are looking for ideas on capturing more market share in the community. The Commission discussed the Shop Local program. Dennis then talked about safety measures that residents can take to help prevent crime in their neighborhoods. Johnson asked about the signage at the Famous Dave's building. Dennis responded that there is an abatement process that will be put into effect at Famous Dave's to remove the signage and ensure that the property is maintained. Johnson asked about open land availability and what the City's maximum population could be. Burbank responded that the Metropolitan Coun- cil are fine tuning their population projections for 2020, 2030, and 2040. There is a draft out for public comment and the City sent a response letter. It is showing Cottage Grove continuing grow, and that the region could add about 37,000 households that are affordable. The City will begin updating our updated comprehensive plan later this year and will be looking to accom- modate that growth with our land use for all types of housing opportunities. He stated that for 2020 and 2030, the number for additional units of affordable housing in Cottage Grove is 594, which is about 18 percent of our total household growth. Fox asked for an update on the Rodeo building. Levitt responded that there is no update. Rostad asked about the proposed senior living development on 70th Street and Hinton Avenue. Levitt stated that staff has met with the developer, and they are still looking at various financing mechanisms and partners. They have not yet filed any planning applications. Dennis reported that Mayor Bailey and Economic Development Director Danette Parr are at the International Shopping Center convention meeting and networking with companies and investors on potential development opportunities for the City. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries McCool summarized his memorandum to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed fireworks storage container at the Rainbow Foods parking lot. 8.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Graff made a motion to adjourn. Rostad seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. (7 -to -0 vote).