Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-27 PACKET 08. City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission October 23, 2017 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, October 23, 2017, 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, Evan Frazier, Tony Khambata, David Lutchen, Taylor Mills, Derek Rasmussen, Jennifer Raymer, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: None Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank Senior Planner Steve Dennis, City Councilmember Brittain welcomed Commissioners Frazier, Khambata, and Mills to the Planning Commission. Approval of Agenda Zopfi made a motion to approve the agenda. Raymer seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (9-to-0 vote). Open Forum Brittain asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non-agenda item. Tom Lynch, 8896 83rd Street Court South, stated that the surface on the entrance ramps from Jamaica Avenue onto northbound Highway 61 is very rough and asked what could be done. He then asked if there are any plans to fix the black top on the rest of 80th Street from Ideal Avenue to Highway 61. McCool stated that staff would follow up with responses to those questions. Dennis explained that a portion of 80th Street was reconstructed in 2016, which was the first part of the phased approach being taken to reconstruct 80th Street from Keats Avenue to Highway 61. The portion from Ideal to Highway 61 was postponed due to the construction traffic for the Hy-Vee store to mitigate any possible damage to the new pavement. Lynch also expressed con- cern about the pavement on Jamaica Avenue. Brittain asked if anyone else wanted to speak on anything not on tonight’s agenda. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the open forum. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2017 Page 2 of 7 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 Gutterman Front Porch – Case V2017-029 Michael Gutterman has applied for a variance to front yard setback requirements to allow a front porch to be 21 feet from the front property line when 30 feet is required at 8930 83rd Street 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. Mike Gutterman, 8920 83rd Street Court South, stated that he and his wife want to be able to sit out front to watch their children. He noted that there have been efforts in communities across the country to get residents into their front yards. He asked that the Commission approve their variance application. Brittain opened the public hearing. Tom Lynch, 8896 83rd Street Court South, stated that when Gutterman approached him with the petition he thought this was a good idea, but after thinking about it, he believes the pro- posed addition would not be harmonious with the neighborhood. When he built his extra garage, he had to go by all the requirements, so he believes his neighbor should too. He is opposed to the application. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Rasmussen stated that because this would be an open air structure, he supports it as he likes front porches. He clarified if this were to be an enclosed porch, he probably would not approve it. He believes this open air structure would fit the neighborhood well and should not harm neighboring properties. Fox made a motion to approve the front setback variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Raymer seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 9-to-0 vote. 6.2 Park Place Storage – Cases CUP2017-031, SP2017-032, and V2017-033 Park Place Storage has applied for a site plan review and conditional use permit to allow approximately 237,778 square feet of storage condominiums to be located at 7552 West Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Point Douglas Road South and variances to City Code Title 11-6-5, Landscaping Require- ments; Title 11-6-13, Architecture; and Title 11-10D-7, Self-Storage Facilities. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the finding of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Zopfi asked about the payments for the shortfall on tree planting and for parkland dedication based on square footage, particularly the deadlines for paying those fees. McCool stated that the deadlines for those payments are incorporated in the conditions of approval. The reason for the square footage basis is the timing of the buildings that would be constructed. At the end of that timeframe, if they are only on phase three of five, both final payments would be due at that time. Frazier asked if this is the same application as approved in 2014. McCool responded that this proposal is identical to the one submitted in 2014. There are no changes to the project itself, including the same square footage, site plan, and conditions of approval. Frazier noted that in the staff report it stated that in lieu of making landscaping the applicant can pay the fee and asked if that is allowed by ordinance. McCool responded that the City ordinance has a mini- mum requirement for landscaping. The property owner does have the right to remove up to 40 percent of the existing trees without triggering tree mitigation but in this particular case all the trees are going to be removed, so they exceed the 40 percent maximum that can be re- moved. In lieu of that, tree mitigation is required so they need to make up that difference. Brittain clarified that the fee paid would go back to the City to plant trees somewhere else. Raymer asked if they requested not to pay the landscaping fee. McCool responded that they are requesting not to have to plant all the trees; in lieu of planting they are going to pay the City cash and the City will use that cash to plant trees someplace else, such as along West Point Douglas Road or in some future roadway improvement project. Zopfi asked about the proposed materials for each building. McCool explained that there will be brick and mortar on the front of Building A and on the end caps for each of the five build- ings. The interior buildings will be metal, which is a class 4 material that is not allowed to be more than 10 percent by ordinance, because they are interior to the property with limited access to those who have a unit. Lutchen asked if signage will only be on Building A. McCool responded yes. Lutchen asked if there is any more detail on the signage. McCool explained that the conditions of approval state that all signage must comply with the City’s sign ordinance, which would allow for one freestanding sign for the entire property or they can have wall mounted signs. For wall- mounted signs, it is a percentage of the frontage of Building A. The signs could be lit. Rasmussen stated that he has a concern that there is only 30 feet between the entrance gate and West Point Douglas Road, which does not provide enough space for large vehicles to enter the site without encroaching on the roadway while waiting for the gate to open. He sug- gested moving the gate to the south of Building A, which could provide about 60 feet for the entrance drive. That should be able to be done easily without affecting the overall layout of the property. McCool stated that can be looked at. He explained that there is only one access proposed and it is located on the northwest corner of the property. The security gate was Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2017 Page 4 of 7 proposed to be in front of the building and the applicant can address whether or not that gate could be moved to the back of the building. Raymer asked for clarification on the payment for tree mitigation and if the applicant is re- questing that this payment not be required. McCool stated that staff has accepted his pro- posal to pay for landscaping in lieu of planting trees. The amounts have been broken down to a square footage basis per building, so for whatever building they are constructing, that square footage will be multiplied by the rate identified in the staff report. Brittain asked if that is in the conditions of approval. McCool stated that condition #25 is the payment in lieu of landscaping, which will be paid as part of the building permit fee for each building. If they do not complete all five building structures within five years, the developer will have to pay the balance that is owed for both landscaping and park fees, which is condition #26. Khambata asked at what phase in the project are they going to construct the berm adjacent to the single-family dwelling. McCool responded with the first phase when they do the mass site grading on the entire 13-acre property. Frazier asked if the interiors and doors to the units would be metal. Paul Jorgensen, 4630 Quebec Avenue North, New Hope, responded that the inside of the buildings will be sheet rocked. The exteriors of the interior buildings will be metal. Frazier asked why. Jorgensen re- sponded for practicality. The panels they use look like concrete. They are using Fabcon panels above the garage doors as it is expensive to span that. Fox asked about moving the gate inward to the inside corner of Building A. Jorgensen stated that they probably should have caught that earlier and they will relocate the gate entrance. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Frazier asked if the person who owns the house next to this property had made any com- ments on the proposal. McCool responded that property owner had not contacted the city regarding this project either in 2014 or this year. Lutchen asked how many units there would be and if this project would increase traffic on West Point Douglas Road. McCool responded that it depends on the sales of the units. Jorgensen explained that the units would range from 300 square feet to 1,500 square feet with a few that are 2,400 square feet; the average size would be about 1,000 square feet. Lutchen asked if these would be pre-built with a set number of units or be built to suit. Jorgensen responded once they know where the garage doors and service doors are, the size is basically set. Lutchen stated that he has not seen any plan showing how stacking of vehicles entering the facility would be handled. Jorgensen stated that the main solution is that there isn’t a keypad; the site is accessed using a key fob. It’s a quick action gate that has battery back-up. Brittain concurs that this is the intent of what was approved in 2014, agrees with staff’s rec- ommendations to not have the metal endcaps due to their visibility from adjacent parcels, does not have any concerns with the interior structures as proposed, and believes all the recommended conditions are appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Zopfi made a motion to approve the conditional use permit, site plan review, and vari- ance applications for the proposed storage condominiums project, subject to the con- ditions stipulated in the staff report with a modification that the gate setback will be in- creased after further discussion between staff and the applicant. Raymer seconded. Fox asked if the motion includes the findings of fact. Zopfi modified his motion to include the findings of fact. Raymer concurred with the modification to the motion. Motion passed unanimously on a 9-to-0 vote. Discussion Items 7.1 Proposed zoning ordinance amendment to allow solar panels on residential acces- sory structures. McCool summarized the staff memorandum and asked for direction from the Planning Com- mission as to whether or not to pursue a zoning text amendment to allow solar panels to be installed on residential accessory structures. Commissioners had questions about the definition, types, size, and height of accessory struc- tures; if existing solar panels have been installed on attached garages; why would solar panels be installed on an accessory structure versus a taller principal structure; the history of the ordinance; and concerns about glare. Lauri Mueller, 8731 Grenadier Avenue South, stated that she would like to install solar panels on her property and signed a contract in April. The reason she wants to put the panels on her garage is because that is the area that receives the most sunlight. She displayed photos showing that there are mature trees in her front and rear yards that block the sun from her house. She cut down a tree by her driveway to allow for better sun exposure to her garage. The garage is large enough to provide 112 percent of her energy usage in solar panels. She showed a mock-up of the proposed solar panels on her garage noting that they would be black in color. She hopes Cottage Grove would encourage the use of solar power and not put up roadblocks for those interested. She asked why those with newer houses could install solar panels on attached garages and those in older houses cannot put them on detached garages. She would understand not allowing solar on sheds but garages are typically solid structures. Lutchen asked if the panels would sit flat against the shingles of the roof and there is not going to be any lifts. Kristen Sachwitz, All Energy Solar, 1642 Carroll Avenue, St. Paul, re- sponded that in this instance the panels would be flush mounted, which means they run parallel to the roof surface and would be no more than six inches from the roof surface. Frazier asked how many cities All Energy Solar works in. Sachwitz stated that they work in four states and most of their business is done in Minnesota. This is the only jurisdiction that she has worked in that does not allow solar on accessory structures. She understands some of the concerns that justify implementing that condition in the solar ordinance but thinks some Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2017 Page 6 of 7 are unfounded, especially regarding glare and structural issues. Most solar panels are in- stalled by professional installers that go through the building permit process. They have done pergolas but most of them are built in accordance to building code requirements, structural loads, and wind loads. Raymer asked if accessory structure but if it was allowed on an accessory structures could have solar panels on them, would a variance be required because it would be facing the street. McCool answered no; if the ordinance allowed for solar on accessory structures, we would have issued the permit. Brittain asked if the ordinance remained unchanged, would that be something that a variance could be granted for. McCool responded they would have the option of applying for a vari- ance or requesting a zoning text amendment. He noted that in the foreseeable future if sev- eral people ask for a variance to allow solar on accessory structures, it would probably be better to just change the ordinance. Brittain expressed concern about allowing solar panels on all structures until there is more data. If at some point there are a lot of variance requests, he would be supportive potentially of an ordinance amendment. There was discussion about whether a conditional use permit process could be utilized for solar installations in residential areas or if the variance process is better. The Commission also believes Mueller’s property could be a candidate for a variance. There was concern about discriminating against older properties that have detached garages, and about how to define an accessory structure, and being the only city not allowing panels on accessory struc- tures. It was suggested that instead of redefining what an accessory structure, to have setback, building code conformance, and other requirements. McCool provided the timeline on the solar energy system ordinance, which was first adopted in 2014 and amended in 2017. Questions about what the panels look like and if there are panels that look like shingles that would blend into the roof better. Sachwitz explained about the different types of solar panels available, noting that there are technical spec sheets for the different types that address the materials and anti-reflective coatings. Burbank explained that he did the initial review of the building permit application and found that it did not meet the current ordinance. Staff had several discussions on finding a solution for the homeowner and one of things talked about is that because this is a prohibited use, a variance can’t be granted. The City can grant variances for setbacks and dimensions for permitted uses, but can’t grant a variance for something that is not permitted, which is why we are having a discussion on an ordinance amendment. It would either be to keep it as pro- hibited or find a way to modify the ordinance to allow for it, such as it can only be on an accessory structure of a minimum size or to have minimum setbacks or other requirements. Brittain asked if he misunderstood about granting a variance. McCool stated that the City Attorney would need to offer an opinion. The Commission asked for the City Attorney’s opinion on whether or not variances can be granted and for information on what other cities allow for solar energy systems in residential areas. They also requested that if variances cannot be granted, to provide draft language on Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2017 Page 7 of 7 how the ordinance could be amended to allow solar on residential accessory structures. Some suggestions for language included allowing it on the detached garage if there is no attached garage or basing it on a minimum square footage basis. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2017 Frazier made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2017, Planning Com- mission meeting. Fox seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of September and October 2017 City Council Meetings McCool summarized the actions taken by the City Council at their meetings in September and October 2017. Dennis reported that on October 25, the City will be holding the “My Future Cottage Grove” Launch Party and invited the Commission to attend. He reminded everyone about the on- street parking ban between 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. that starts November 1 through March 31. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rasmussen expressed concern about the income requirements for the Legends of Cottage Grove. When the applications for this project were heard by the Planning Commission in April 2016, the Commission was informed that a minimum of 40 percent of the units would be oc- cupied by persons with income less than 60 percent of the area median income. He noted that their website says the project is funded through the Section 42 affordable housing tax credit program. Under Section 42, units will only be rented to those with less than 60 percent of the median income. He asked if other senior living facilities in the City have similar re- strictions and how can he answer questions about this. McCool responded staff will provide more information to the Commission but that project has always been an affordable senior rental project. The other projects, such as Norris Square, are market rate. The funding of that project was specifically related to affordable housing. Adjournment Zopfi made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Lutchen seconded. The meeting was ad- journed at 9:02 p.m. (9-to-0 vote).