Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-18 PACKET 04.A.i. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # ' DATE 11/18/15 • �. �` 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 September 28, 2015. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A $N/A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION: DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED � PLANNING 11/2/15 ❑ � ❑ ❑ 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 September 28, 2015 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: �� �3 �( / �� City Administrator D te * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission September 28, 2015 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, September 28, 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. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Justin Fox, Adam Graf, Kimberly Graff, Jake Haagsman, Wayne Johnson, Jim Rostad, Roger Zopfi Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John M. Burbank, Senior Planner John McCool, Senior Planner Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Grafif made a motion to approve the agenda. Haagsman seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously(8-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 Hy-Vee — Cases PP15-034, SP15-036, CUP15-037, V15-038, ICUP150-039 Hy-Vee, Inc. has applied for a preliminary plat for the re-subdivision of Grove Plaza 2nd Addition; site plan review of the Grove Plaza Shopping Center redevelopment; conditional use permits and variances related to the redevelopment and proposed uses on the prop- erty; and an interim conditional use permit for a seasonal garden center. The properties included in this project are at 7210, 7282, and 7362 East Point Douglas Road South. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2015 Page 2 of 8 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Phil Hoey, 2963 20th Street West, Northfield, Minnesota, representing Hy-Vee, gave back- ground information on the company. He displayed schematics of the inside of what the store might look like and described what makes Hy-Vee unique. He described the various depart- ments, products, and areas in their stores. He provided images of the current decor packages for their stores. Johnson asked if the proposed store is comparable in size to stores in other cities. Hoey re- sponded that it will be the same size as the stores that just opened in Oakdale and New Hope. He noted that the store is now proposed to be around 98,000 square feet instead of the 92,800 in the staff report. Brittain opened the public hearing. Justin Wick, 8200 Harkness Road South, provided to the Planning Commission a packet of information listing concerns he has regarding the proposed project. His concerns include the close proximity of the building to his property, which is proposed to be closer than the former Rainbow Foods building; increased truck traffic; more noise from the mechanical equipment that will be closer to his property; odors from the trash containers that are west of his property; and inadequate screening. He also had questions about the way the property boundaries were marked and does not believe it is accurate. Other concerns include the elimination of green space and mature evergreen trees that currently provide significant visual screening. He be- lieves that the enjoyment and use of his property and his home value will be negatively im- pacted by this project. He suggested a couple options to help mitigate issues, including purchasing his property or implementing design changes so it is not setback so far south. He asked that the parking spaces proposed at the southwest corner of Hy-Vee's property be removed, a berm with mature evergreen trees be installed, replace the fence on the north side of his property with a taller fence on top of a retaining wall, replace the fence on the west side of his property with an eight-foot tall fence; relocate the trash compactor and dumpsters to the west side of the loading dock, ensure that all mechanical equipment is located away from the southeast corner of the building, and make sure that the lighting plan meets the ordinance criteria about glare on residential properties. He also asked that light poles not be allowed behind the building. He displayed a concept plan to help with screening for his property. Therese Alverson, 8198 Heath Avenue South, agreed with Wick's comments. Her biggest concern is the noise that would be generated. She would also like a higher privacy fence on the back side of all the residential properties. Janet Wyman, 8280 Harkness Road South, expressed concern about the proposed drainage system. She asked where the water would go and which direction the pipes lead. She also noted that in the past there were issues with noise from the generator at Rainbow when the power went out; the generator for the proposed building could be larger and noisier. She is also concerned about lights in the back of the building affecting the neighborhood. She is thrilled about filling the space but has concerns about the size of the proposed project and its infringement on the neighborhood. It needs to be planned correctly with consideration for the neighbors. She also expressed concern about trash and fence maintenance. She then stated that Hy-Vee could impact existing businesses in Cottage Grove. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2015 Page 3 of 8 No one else spoke. Brittain c/osed the public hearing. Johnson asked if a traffic study was done. McCool responded that a traffic study was not done for these uses. A study had been done in the late 1990s when the center was upgraded. Based on the square footage of the retail grocery and additional convenience store, he does not believe there is going to be that much of an increase in traffic. The project will not require any roadway improvements to the access drives that connect to East Point Douglas Road. Johnson stated that this may be more of a destination as there are going to be many compo- nents to the proposal, including a restaurant, and he is concerned about the effect this will have on traffic flow in the area. Levitt stated that the site plan shows that enough stacking for left and right turns into the site from East Point Douglas Road to the west is provided. The access point to the north part of the site is controlled by a traffic signal. The City will work with the applicant to ensure that the timing of the signal adapts to the necessary stacking that is anticipated for the site. There may need to be some adjustments to the loop detectors to en- sure that we have the proper stacking and to adjust for any increased volumes that may be using that access point to the convenience store. It is anticipated that the higher volume would access the site at the traffic signal. Engineering does not have any concerns pertaining to the traffic leaving or entering the site. Rostad asked if there would be stacking issues in the left turn lane going into the north en- trance off East Point Douglas Road coming down from 80th Street. Levitt responded that the City has looked at that traffic signal quite a bit in the past, including adding flashing yellow arrows and changing the timing. The traffic signals on 80th Street and entering the center are timed together so they can be adjusted as needed. Levitt stated that she does not anticipate that the traffic signal timing needs to be adjusted but it if becomes an issue, the City has the ability to sequence them to prevent stacking issues on the left turn movement. Graf stated that it appears that the internal island that transects the entrance of the lot off East Point Douglas Road will be removed, which should hopefully allow for smoother inflow and outflow. Levitt stated that is correct. Brittain asked for more information on the proposed underground water storage system and what happens when it fills up. Levitt provided a description of how the system works. Storm- water that flows down 80th Street from about the BEC area and on this site currently goes into the pond where the gas pump island is proposed to be. That water will now go into the large underground filtration system and will continue to flow as it currently does and discharge to the Hamlet Park pond. The ultimate discharge point does not change as part of the project; this is how it will be contained, infiltrated, and cleaned before it is released to the Hamlet Park pond. She noted tMat the South Washingfon Watershed District has given the City a grant for this project. This is not just an improvement to gain additional square footage on the site; it provides an enhanced benefit to water quality, which is why the Watershed District is partner- ing on this project as well. Brittain asked if the City is aware of any issues with the current drainage towards the neighborhood. Levitt responded that there have been some drainage issues on the north side of the Home Depot property from another property but that has been mitigated; the overall system functions fine from a rate control standpoint, so there are no issues pertaining to flooding concerns and we do not anticipate any from the proposed system. Graf asked if this system has been implemented anywhere else. Levitt stated that this is not a new system and has been utilized throughout the Twin Cities, primarily on redevelopment sites Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2015 Page 4 of 8 where it is chalienging to find enough space for the necessary stormwater ponding. One ex- ample is the Walmart site in Roseville. Graf asked if there is information on how long these systems last before they need upkeep, maintenance, and replacement. Levitt responded that proper maintenance requirements will be addressed in the developers agreement between the City and the applicant. They would also have to submit a maintenance plan to ensure that it functions for the length of the project. Graf asked if that is the applicant's financial responsi- bility. Levitt stated that they will be constructing that element of the project, but there will be reimbursements from the Watershed District grant. Graf asked about ongoing maintenance. Levitt said that would be their responsibility. Graff asked where the garbage dumpsters would be located. Hoey pointed out the location of the dumpsters on the proposed site plan. He stated that the dumpsters and trash compactors could be moved to the other side of the loading dock. Hoey addressed some of the concerns from the neighbors. He stated that they will remove the back parking area, the grades would be as high as possible, and adjustments will be made to allow for the trees to be planted at a higher level. With regard to the fencing, the five-foot cedar fence will be replaced with an eight-foot fence and it will continue along the north side of the residential property. He stated that instead of doing a retaining wall, they will do a 3:1 grade and put the eight-foot tall fence on top of that, which will get the fence higher than four feet from where it is currently. They will ensure that the site is screened properly to prevent vehicle headlights shining on residential properties. He believes that they will be able to add some additional trees for screening of the loading dock area. They will also replace deciduous trees with evergreens by the property that will be most impacted by the development. Hoey said that the majority of the rooftop mechanical units will sit near the back-center of the building. They will provide a more detailed rooftop plan. They will not have light poles behind the building; the only lights will be the wall packs on the back of the building. They use an LED light system that shines directly down. Graf thanked the applicant for addressing the neighbors' concerns. Graf made a motion to approve the applications for Planning Cases PP2015-034, SP2015-036, CUP2015-037, V2015-038, and ICUP2015-039 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Graff seconded. Hoey stated that they have concerns with several of the conditions of approval. He asked if Condition #43, regarding the letter of credit for 150 percent of the landscaping estimate, could be adjusted to 110 to 115 percent. He stated that they agree with Condition #46 limiting deliv- ery trucks to idle no longer than five minutes, as long as cooling systems on refrigerated trucks could stay operating as it is a food safety issue. Condition #72, limiting outdoor display to 30 percent of the building and two machines or cabinets per building frontage, they agreed with the 30 percent limitation but asked that the limit on the number of machines be eliminated and left up to the store director. Regarding Condition #81, which limits the construction/use of the temporary greenhouse in conjunction with the outdoor display to between May 1 and July 1, he asked that the store director have a little flexibility on the dates for the operation of the greenhouse, noting that in most circumstances they come down on July 1. He also noted that Condition #83, regarding are parking issues due to the temporary greenhouse, outdoor stor- age, or outdoor display, that the store director have the discretion to determine if parking is compromised by a seasonal display. Graf believes that Condition #81 can be amended with staff and presented to the City Council for correction. Graf asked what the term would be for the ICUP. McCool responded that an Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2015 Page 5 of 8 ICUP is time sensitive so there should be a time element as to how long that would be allowed. In the application it was proposed to be a three-year period beginning in 2016. The staff report initially stated that it would expire in July 2019. If they want to continue operation, they would have make a new application as the other operations do. Graf asked on past ICUPs for green- houses, if there have been issues relating to parking that staff has been able to address directly without involvement of the Commission and Council. McCool responded that there have never been any parking issues. Graf asked if Condition #83 is in all of the ICUPs that have been granted for these uses. McCool responded yes. Rostad asked if the site plan shows more parking spaces than are required and if the tent does reduce the number of required parking spaces, why would the City enforce that. McCool re- sponded that the outdoor temporary garden center is anticipated to be located in the northwest corner of the site and would temporarily remove about 50 parking spaces. The City ordinance requires for a minimum of 509 off-street parking spaces for this shopping center and they are proposing 569 spaces, so they would be in compliance even with the removal of 50 spaces for the temporary outdoor storage. Graf stated that he will not amend his motion and recommended that the applicant's concerns be addressed with staff prior to the City Council making a decision. Motion passed unanimously(8-to-0 vote). 6.2 Solar Energy Systems Text Amendment— Case TA2015-025 The City of Cottage Grove has applied foe a zoning text amendment to City Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Special Zoning Provisions, to add Section 10, Solar Collector Systems, to reg= ulate solar energy systems in all zoning districts. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed ordinance amendment. Graf noted at the workshop on the draft ordinance, a couple of the industry professionals men- tioned an escalation clause along with bonding, and asked if it that was determined not to be an option. McCool responded that staff did not provide that. At some point there may be an agreement with the utility company and that could be addressed in the agreement. Graf asked if that could fall under "may at its discretion allow." McCool responded it could. He stated that it could be considered with the conditional use permit. Graf asked if the Commission should make a recommendation on whether or not to add the alternative language. McCool responded yes. Zopfi asked on the special exceptions paragraph for the solar collection system, is the ordi- nance referring to per device or per property for the cumulative area of six square feet or less. McCool responded the intent was per device but it is not clear how many devices there could be on the property. He suggested revising the language to read "six square feet per device and no more than X devices per lot." Zopfi suggested that it be per property without a building permit or approval. Burbank stated that these could be looked at as an accessory structure, and most of the zoning districts limit the number accessory structures and suggest that it could be rolled into that. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2015 Page 6 of 8 Haagsman asked if the six square feet is an arbitrary number or a standard size, and what happens if it is slightly larger. McCool stated that if it was a pedestrian walkway or right-of-way or traffic signal, the City would not be concerned about it, but if it was a residential or commer- cial application, six square feet would be the maximum. Johnson asked what size Hy-Vee is proposing. McCool responded that he does not have that information yet. Rostad stated that it is all going to be dependent on what is being powered. McCool stated that staff would look into that further before the ordinance goes to Council. Brittain opened the public hearing. Gary Borner, 8615 Lamar Avenue South, speaking on behalf of the Borner Family Farms, LLC and the Borner Family Trust, stated that they are exploring the idea of a solar farm. Their property is outside the MUSA boundary. He asked what level of participation does the City of Cottage Grove view the solar garden concept as it relates to ground-mounted on parcels larger than five acres outside the MUSA. He appreciates the definitions listed in the ordinance and the addition of a decommissioning plan in the event of default or abandonment. Steven Geis, 4280 Scenic Lane, Woodbury, stated that he has farmed agricultural ground both within and outside the MUSA area. He stated that the proposed ordinance seems very restric- tive inside the MUSA area. He asked about the next steps in the process for this ordinance amendment and what will be allowed in the MUSA and outside the MUSA. . McCool stated that this is the public hearing on .the proposed ordinance. The Planning Com- , mission will make a recommendation to the City Council, and if the recommendation is made tonight, the ordinance would go to the Council on October 7. The draft ordinance proposes that freestanding and large solar collection systems would not be allowed in the MUSA area of the City. The ordinance would require a minimum of five acres for freestanding anywhere within that area. Freestanding would not be allowed on urban lots because they are not a minimum of five acres. The ordinance would allow for large utility systems outside the urban service area by conditional use permit. McCool stated that this topic has been discussed at several Planning Commission meetings, an Environmental Commission meeting, and a joint workshop between the Planning and Environmental Commissions. Brittain believes the consensus is that inside the MUSA, there is significant interest in ensuring that the City can continue to expand. The ordinance does provide the opportunity for larger scale operations outside the MUSA. Graf stated that financially, the City and County invested money into infrastructure to facilitate development, which would not be consistent with solar farms. No one e/se spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Rostad commended staff for the work they have done on this ordinance, and thinks this is a sound text amendment regarding solar energy systems. He believes that land within the MUSA is too valuable allow larger scale solar farms. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2015 Page 7 of 8 Rostad made a motion to approve the so/ar energy systems zoning text amendment, with the verbiage under C(1) on lines �13 through 116 and striking the verbiage for the alternative language that was provided. Graf seconded. Johnson wanted to make sure that as far as the six square feet meets what Hy-Vee is propos- ing. Brittain asked if Rostad and Graf would be okay to add to the motion that staff review current pending applications so there are no conflicts. Rostad agreed to allow the staff some flexibility to accommodate that particular use. Graf agreed, noting that he likes the restrictive- ness of the ordinance. Fox asked about adding language regarding MUSA changes. Rostad stated that he is o{cay with this ordinance as it exists with our current comprehensive plan. Graf stated that he doesn't think we should forgo recommending approval, noting that the City Council can determine that if they so choose. He thinks having a plan in place sooner rather than later is better. Brittain concurred, noting that changes to the comprehensive plan take a lot of things into considera- tion, and he doesn't feel that should hold up the implementation of this ordinance. Fox asked if the bulk of the ordinance be recommended but any language regarding solar farms on five acres or more be deferred. Brittain stated that the motion is to include those. McCool stated that this proposed ordinance requires a conditional use permit for any solar collection system that is going to sell back electricity to a utility. Systems for private use only would need be allowed but would need to be in compliance with the development standards and a building permit would be required. Zopfi agreed that this ordinance should be approved as a starting point and asked if it could be amended as needed. McCool responded yes. Motion passed unanimously(8-to-0 vote). Discussion Items None Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2015 Graff made a motion to approve the minutes for the August 24, 2015, Planning Commis- sion meeting. Graf seconded. Motion passed unanimously(8-to-D vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of September City Council Meetings Levitt reported that at the September 2, 2015, City Council meeting, the Council approved the Kingston Grove final plat, feasibility report, and plans and specifications; and the variance, minor subdivision, and site plan review for the proposed storage center on the former Rush property. At their September 16 meeting, the Council approved a variance allowing an acces- sory structure in front of the principal structure at 9263 Military Road. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2015 Page 8 of 8 Olsen updated the Commission on the construction occurring in the Business Park, including Werner Electric, Renewal by Andersen,American Agco, and Up North Plastics. He announced that the new City Administrator, Charlene Stevens, will start her new position on October 5. He shared information with the Commission on the Business Enterprise Center (BEC). Olsen then stated that the Arts Commission awards an Artist of the Month who is featured on the Arts Commission Art Beat Facebook page and provided information on how to nominate an artist. Graf asked for a comparison of the results for the BEC with St. Paul's incubator for the same period. Olsen stated that he would research that. He noted that St. Paul's incubator has more lab space and Cottage Grove's has more business space. Graf noted that it is hard to have a fair test on the success of the BEC due to the tough economy. Graf asked about the senior housing project on 70th and Hinton. Olsen stated that it is his understanding that the investors have walked away from the deal, but he does not have any other information. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None. Adjournment Haagsman made a motion to adjourn. Graf seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:�8 p.m, (8-to-0 vote),