Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-28 PACKET 07. City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission October 24, 2016 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, October 24, 2016, 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: Sam Awad, Ken Brittain, Justin Fox, Kimberly Graff, Jake Haagsman, Derek Rasmussen, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: Adam Graf, Jim Rostad Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank Senior Planner Dave Thiede, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Graff made a motion to approve the agenda. Fox 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 capac- ity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he ex- plained 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 Robertson Accessory Structure – Case V2016-055 Mark Robertson has applied for a variance to allow a 30-foot by 45-foot detached acces- sory structure to be constructed in front of the existing house at 10860 68th Street South, which is a parcel of land less than five acres in size. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Mark Robertson, 10860 68th Street South, stated that the building would be located in front of the house on a flat area that needs very little grading, and only two trees would have to be removed. He stated that he may want to expand the building to be 48 feet long. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Rasmussen made a motion to approve the variance application based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Haagsman seconded. Levitt asked the Commission if they would like to entertain the applicant’s request for the ad- ditional three feet; the report references a 30-foot by 45-foot structure. Burbank noted that the maximum square footage allowed in the R-1 zoning district is 2,500 square feet total. Rasmussen amended his motion to add a condition that the maximum size of the structure cannot exceed the allowable square footage in that zoning district. Haagsman seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.2 Primrose School – Cases CUP2016-056 & SP2016-057 Primrose School of Cottage Grove has applied for a conditional use permit and site plan review for the proposed development of a 12,070 square foot single-story facility with ac- companying outdoor playgrounds and a 50-stall parking lot to be located on 1.68 acres at 6927 Pine Arbor Drive South (northwest corner of the 70th Street and Hinton Avenue intersection). McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Fox asked if this use would affect the liquor license for the restaurant on the neighboring parcel. McCool responded that this is a daycare facility, not a school. The City Code requires a separation for schools but not for daycares. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Zopfi made a motion to approve the conditional use permit and site plan review sub- ject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Graff seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.3 Above Ground Power Lines Variance – Case V2016-058 SEV MN-1 (Sunrise Energy Development) has applied for a variance to City Code Title 11- 4-10C(12) to allow a 12.4 kilovolt feeder power line to be above ground for a distance of Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 3 of 7 approximately 1,250 feet at 10992 Point Douglas Drive South in the location of an existing above-ground utility line. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the inability to establish any supporting findings of fact. Rasmussen asked if there are any examples of how large a 12.4 kilowatt utility pole would be. Haagsman asked what the code states about putting the lines underground until it gets to the nearest pole. Burbank responded when the lines make the connection to the public utility then they can go above ground. He noted that the City Code and the resolution of approval of the Myers community solar garden require the power lines to be underground. The appli- cant initially proposed running the whole line above ground but have compromised and are now proposing that it run half underground and half above ground on new poles in the exist- ing area. Bill Weber, Sunrise Energy Ventures, 601 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka, explained that their application is for a variance. The finding that the Commission could make for approval is that there are practical difficulties involved, which is the key phrase in the state law that allows a city to grant a variance. He outlined a couple practical difficulties. One is that they have run into a severe technical problem with Xcel in going south along Manning Avenue, which caused them to look at a route going straight west. The essential connection that needs to be made is to the three-phase power line along Highway 61. There are two ways to go – one is south along Manning and back up Highway 61 and the other is straight west along the section line across the Smallidge property. The eastern half of the line would be buried; only the western half, which is about 1,200 feet, would be above ground and there are already ex- isting poles there. The practical difficulty they are running into on the Smallidge property is that there are several buried lines in the corridor that they would like to traverse, including a buried electric line that runs north-south across that corridor. He also pointed out that they believe the visual impacts of this above ground run will be minimal. He displayed some pho- tographs of the area and pointed out where the overhead lines are proposed. He noted that this is a rural area of the city, the Smallidge’s own the land both north and south of the exist- ing line, the neighboring homes are at least 1,000 feet away, there are woods and buildings creating a buffer, and across Highway 61 is the municipal golf course, so it is a pretty iso- lated site. He explained that they had Gopher State One Call come out to locate the lines and he pointed out that the locations of those lines, including a buried gas line on the north side of the driveway. He noted that Smallidge farms very close to the poles and would rather not have the lines buried in that area. Weber stated that they could either use the existing poles or replace them with three-phase lines. He believes it is reasonable for the Planning Commission to find that there are practical difficulties. Given the isolation and unique loca- tion, the impact on other properties would be minimal. Brittain opened the public hearing. Gene Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive, stated that staff have not visited the site or con- tacted him, which would provide a better understanding of the difficulties involved with addi- tional buried lines. He displayed a photo of his property and explained that there are existing poles that serve the farm that go for a quarter mile east and a quarter mile north to the farm Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 4 of 7 buildings. The existing buried lines take up most of the grass area between the gravel and the current telephone poles. They are not interested in giving up more cropland or widening an easement area that would render the land unusable in the future. As far as the poles be- ing unsightly, he pointed out the poles that were installed on Innovation Road/County Road 19. He believes the issue of utilizing poles or burying lines should be between Xcel Energy and them. He stated that they are not asking to install additional poles, but to use existing poles. He noted that he had met with staff about 15 months ago regarding possible uses for a portion of their property that has frontage along Highway 61 and was told they could not develop it until city sewer and water are available. He did point out that there are numerous businesses and churches in that area operating without city sewer and water. He asked if that property is so remote, who would see the poles on his property. The Smallidges own all the land for half a mile north of that existing line and all the property for three-eighths of mile to the south. He does not believe that the poles would affect the views of any of his neigh- bors. He concluded by stating that this is an issue that affects only his property; it is not going through anyone else’s backyard and will not be visible to other property owners. This is not a request for additional poles. He asked that the Commission approve the variance request. He also pointed out that all the poles that are visible in the photo are not on his property; most are in the Highway 61 right-of-way corridor. Jim Pederson, 11300 Point Douglas Road, stated that he is Smallidge’s neighbor to the south and the existing poles are not visible from his property. James Baillargeon, 11340 Point Douglas Drive, stated that he is the closest neighbor to Smallidge bordering the south end, and noted that in the summer the poles cannot be seen and in the winter binoculars would be needed to see the poles. He has no objection to the variance. Mike Mingo, 10940 Manning Avenue South, asked if this was part of the approval of the solar garden. Brittain stated that a requirement of the approval was that the power lines must be buried. Mingo asked if this application would change that approval and a new application would need to be filed. Burbank stated that the resolution of approval for the community solar garden says that prior to the construction of the facility, they needed to provide a utility routing plan to the City. They are requesting the variance as they are trying to prepare that plan. The previous approval would stand as it is; this request is just to facilitate that require- ment. If they power lines were routed underground, they would not need any further approv- als. The resolution and the City Code require power lines for solar gardens to be under- ground until it hits a feeder point. Mingo asked if they are changing where the community solar garden inverters would be located. Brittain stated that the only thing that is changing is that they want the power lines on poles instead of underground. Mingo expressed concern about changing the approved plan, and if this application does change the site plan, there should be a new application for the solar garden. Weber stated that they are not changing the whole site plan. All the solar panels would stay where they are. They are moving the point of utility interconnection from over by Manning Avenue to the Smallidge property on the west. He believes this proposal would be better for Mingo because there wouldn’t be the required utility poles from Xcel near Manning Avenue. The rest of the previously approved site plan is staying the same. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Smallidge stated that he did not initiate this application; however, he is trying to accommo- date Xcel and the solar energy company. If this variance is denied, the lines will not be on his property, but will go towards Manning Avenue. John Myers, 10990 Manning Avenue South, stated that he owns the property where the pro- posed solar garden would be located. He does not care whether or not this variance is approved because the power lines would either go to Manning Avenue or across Smallidge’s property. The most direct route is to cross Smallidge’s property. There are power poles on Manning Avenue that would have to be upgraded to a bigger pole. If the variance is denied, there will still be poles. He pointed out the route that the power lines would take. There will be no real change to visual impacts in the area. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Graff asked if in the City’s comprehensive plan it is required for all new development that power lines must be buried. Levitt responded that the City does require that in new residen- tial developments all the power lines be underground. The difference is that the developer, and not the city (taxpayers), pays for that. In this case, with what is being requested, if they were on the poles when future development occurs, there is no guarantee the developer would bear the financial costs for burying the power lines and the City could be responsible for those costs. Levitt then explained that the City Council had directed staff to engage with Xcel Energy to underground the power line on CSAH 19/Keats Avenue/Innovation Road. At the time, the City was not in a position financially to absorb the additional costs because the developer, which in this case is the City, bears the costs for undergrounding; Xcel does not pay for that. When the City Council approved the CSAH 19 and East Point Douglas Project last month, they directed staff to negotiate and evaluate the costs to underground the line. There is con- cern about who would bear that financial burden in the future. Levitt noted that the hardship that the applicant referenced was regarding the number of utilities in the driveway corridor. On urban lots, there are street light wires, gas lines, electric lines, Comcast and Qwest lines, and in some cases fiber optic lines. Many of those utilities do run in a joint trench. This means that hardship cannot be substantiated. Fox asked if the existing poles are Xcel service lines and only go to the residence. Levitt re- sponded that they need the higher three-line wire for the three-phase. Typically the lower line is the house services. Brittain made a motion to recommended denial based on the inability to establish any supporting findings of fact. Zopfi seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Pledge of Allegiance McCool explained that the City Council is leaving it up to the individual advisory commissions as to whether or not they want to say the Pledge of Allegiance prior to the start of meetings. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 6 of 7 Graff stated that this is a City Commission and should say the pledge as the City Council does, which would offer consistency to City staff operations. Rasmussen agrees. Brittain stated that he thinks this is a great thing, however, he believes it would be inconsistent if some commissions do and some don’t. Whether or not the pledge is recited should be done by Council direction. Levitt explained that the City Council had received a request from one of the commissions to add the pledge to their agenda, and Council’s direction was for staff to work with each Commission to see if that is something they wish to incorporate. The Mayor and Council are flexible to the Commission’s request and didn’t want to have an overarching mandate for each Commission to do it, so it would be at the Planning Commission’s discre- tion if you wish to amend the agenda to provide for the pledge. Graff made a motion that the Planning Commission will recite the Pledge of Allegiance before each meeting with the conditional approval to recite the Pledge by each of the other Commissions. Awad seconded. Burbank reported that the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation reviewed this topic. They typically have a busy schedule to fit it in their allotted time so they are proposing to say it at their annual meeting and think about it privately the rest of the year but will defer to the Council’s decision. Motion passed on a 6-to-1 vote (Brittain). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2016 Fox made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 22, 2016, Planning Commis- sion meeting. Zopfi seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of September and October City Council Meetings Thiede summarized the actions taken by the City Council at their meetings in September and October 2016. Brittain asked when HyVee was going to open. Thiede responded they hope to be open in fall of 2017. He stated the owners of the Home Depot will not tear down the building but will remodel it; it is projected to be finished at the same time as HyVee. Merchants Bank is on schedule to move to their new building at the end of this month, and their existing building will be demolished shortly thereafter. Levitt reported that the Dominium project is under con- struction, and they would like to get the utilities and footings in before winter begins. There will be a formal groundbreaking ceremony on December 6. Thiede noted that the house has been demolished and its history was recorded; Dominium has agreed to use some of the materials from the house in their project. Brittain asked for an update on the Junction 70 Grille. Thiede stated that the footings are in. Levitt stated that the contractors’ schedules are challenging but they are progressing on construction. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 7 of 7 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Graff made a motion to adjourn. Zopfi seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. (7-to-0 vote).