Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-29 PACKET 07.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission April 23, 2018 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday April 23, 2018, in the Council Chamber 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, Evan Frazier, Tony Khambata, David Lutchen, Taylor Mills, Derek Rasmussen, Jennifer Raymer, Sheree Schuler, Roger Zopfi Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Christine Costello, Economic Development Director Pete Koerner, Public Safety Director Steve Dennis, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Raymer made a motion to approve the agenda. Frazier seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (9 -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 Modern Automotive Performance — Cases SP2018-026 & CP2018-031 Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2018 Page 2 of 8 A. RJ Ryan Construction, on behalf of Modern Automotive Performance, has applied for a site plan review of a proposed 24,080 square foot addition to the existing Modern Auto- motive Performance building located at 9800 Hemingway Avenue South (Public Hearing) Costello summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Pete Koerner, Director of Public Safety, explained what the changes that were made to the City's noise ordinance in 2014. He reported there were 29 noise complaint calls about Modern Automotive Performance, which were mostly received around dinner time; there have not been a lot of complaints after 9:00 p.m. He stated that Public Safety keeps a spreadsheet listing every time they have a noise complaint, which is shared with the building official and code enforcement officer. He noted that officers have not observed any violations. While he no longer goes on patrol, he does drive by there occasionally and usually the doors are closed. The dyno machine, if the door is open, is extremely loud. He stated that when he was standing about three feet from the door, he could barely hear it outside, but is not sure what noise emanates through the venting as he did not go to the neighborhood. Most of the time when complaints are received it is because the door is open. When the officers first started respond- ing to these complaints in 2013, they would sit in the area and if they didn't hear anything, they would clear. It was made specific that if a complaint is received, the City contacts one of the owners or managers during the day and at night whoever is there. The violations they have encountered were reckless vehicles, which were issued citations. Sometimes vehicles will go down that road to the dead end because that area is isolated. Officers do extra patrols in that area. When you look at the numbers, this is not unique for certain businesses and he thinks we need to come up with something to alleviate some of these calls. Lutchen asked about the timing of the calls. Koerner responded there seem to be more calls in the evening, but he did not do an analysis of the call times. It generally starts around dinner time. He listed the days of the week and times from the 12 calls in 2014. Lutchen asked if he found correlations between those times and special projects or events. Koerner stated that the analysis has not been that specific. Rasmussen asked for a description of the noise ordinance including times and if the decibel levels are measured. Koerner responded that the noise ordinance states that between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. no person shall congregate or participate in any party or gathering of people from which noise emanates in a sufficient volume to unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of other persons. He noted, however, that does not mean that noise issues can only be enforced during those hours. Rasmussen clarified that there is no decibel level but just whether it disturbs others. Koerner stated that was correct, it is what a reasonable person would find disturbing. Brittain summarized that there have been complaints but there have been no activities during police presence that have been actionable. Khambata asked if the number of calls received annually specifically include noise ordinance violation or all calls. Koerner responded everything. Khambata asked if there is data on the number of noise ordinance calls per year. Koerner responded that he could provide that infor- mation for the Council meeting. Khambata also asked if other automotive shops in the City Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2018 Page 3 of 8 have generated noise complaints. Koerner stated that this is the only automotive business that the police have received complaints about. Mills asked when the complaints come in have they been coming in as isolated calls or nu- merous people calling on the same day. Koerner responded generally it is just one caller, but there could have been several neighbors with concerns and one person makes the call. Chris Carey, 9461 Dunes Lane South, owner of Modern Automotive Performance, stated that he is available to answer any questions. Brittain asked with the new layout, if the area with the dyno would be blocked by the new addition. Carey responded no. He stated out that the dynamometer is located on the far south side of the building and pointed out the noise mitigation they did on that garage door. A lot of different proposals were made about where they could add the addition on the back of the building. They needed additional dock doors, so maneuverability of semi -trucks was key to the location of the addition. Brittain asked if the company has a policy when the dyno is in operation whether the doors are open or closed. Carey responded that the doors are always closed, so if there are photos or videos of them open when the dyno is in operation, disciplinary action would be taken. Brittain asked if there are other doors in the structure that if they were open, noise could come out of. Carey stated potentially, if doors three and four on the south side of the building are open during the day. He then explained that when they opened in 2012, they serviced vehicles. They stopped doing that in 2012 along with no longer offering public use of their dynamometer machine; it is only for their internal research and development purposes or employee use for their vehicles. Employees are instructed to keep those doors closed at all times. The building is heated and air conditioned so there should be no reason during the summer months that the doors should be open. They do receive deliveries of raw materials and piping, so they have to take the forklift out there. Additionally, when cars are going in and out, the doors are open but should only be for a short period of time. Brittain asked during those short periods of time if the dyno would be running. Carey said potentially, it would be a very ironic situation but it could happen, so the dynamometer is enclosed in a room within the bigger warehouse. Lutchen asked where the dyno machine is located in relation to the new addition. Carey pointed out the location on the site plan and stated that it would act as a barrier to anyone on the north side of the new structure. He stated that they are also adding three feet of berming along with trees and landscaping for additional screening. Lutchen asked if fencing could be added to complement the trees as a mitigating factor. Carey stated that they would be willing to explore that, but believes most of the noise goes up. There is a very large intake fan and a large exhaust fan; they did add a structure on the roof to further try to mitigate sound through the exhaust fan, which is where the majority of the noise is coming from. Raymer asked if they were adding any more dyno machines. Carey stated no. Raymer then asked what their hours of operation are. Carey responded 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. He explained that the dyno machine is used for research and development purposes, and the employee who operates it is a part-time employee and has different hours, so he may work until 6 p.m. occa- sionally. Raymer asked when actions were taken to mitigate the sound. Carey stated almost immediately. When they took occupancy of the building in 2012 was when they received the most noise complaints. He does not want to be a bad neighbor so they spent thousands of dollars to try to reduce the noise emanating from the building. The noise complaints have Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2018 Page 4 of 8 dropped considerably since 2012, but for some reason they are now back up again. He stated that they use the dyno only a couple days a week, and the total length of time that the sound is occurring is approximately 10 seconds, after which they are reviewing the data they col- lected and making changes, and it is at least three to five minutes later before another 10 second dyno pull would be enacted, so it is never a constant sound. Rasmussen asked what other noise reduction efforts have been done in addition to the baffling on the doors and putting the dyno in a room within a room. Carey stated that he is not certain what insulation is in the room, there is sheetrock, and there are steel framed walls from floor to ceiling. Noise in the building when the dyno is operating is hardly discernible. Mills asked what days of the week they operate. Carey stated that their hours of operation are Monday through Friday, but one of the benefits they provide their employees is use of the facility. It is very rare that an employee would be using the dynamometer on the weekend, so when employees are there on the weekend, they are typically using a lift to do oil changes and other tasks. He noted most of the noise complaints Koerner reported were early evening with only a couple Sundays. Schuler asked if the employees have noticed any differences since the improvements were made to reduce noise since 2012. Carey stated that he hasn't heard anything from the em- ployees but the mitigations they did to the garage door, the main door, and the exhaust system on the roof would only make a difference outside the building. Brittain asked why the security fence is only around the parking lot. Carey stated that employ- ees typically keep one project vehicle parked in the lot. Some of those vehicles have a large amount of money invested in them. They have had a trailer stolen from their back parking lot and another vehicle had items stolen from inside it. Brittain opened the public hearing. Brandon Robertson, 9719 Heath Avenue South, stated that it looks like the proposed addition and landscaping could block some of the sound from reaching his house. He is not necessarily for or against this project, but he is against the noise. He reported that there is a lot of noise late at night, but he does not call every time. There is less noise during the winter. He stated that they cannot keep their windows open during the summer. He does not believe that they realize there is a neighborhood right behind them and he does not know what they can do to make it quieter. He noted that he has called in one time about loud music during an event. The police responded and the speakers were directed away from the neighborhood. He may call the police every time he hears noise so it can be tracked. He doesn't know what the answer is but he does want to see the business succeed. Kevin Farrell, 9769 Heath Avenue South, stated that he has lived in that house all his life and the noise is loud. He thinks some of it comes from the dyno but most of it is from their custom- ers. He has a new baby who has been woken up by noise. He stated that vehicles whip around the parking lot and rev their engines. He does not know if the proposed berm and trees would help. He is all for expansion but there has to be more that they can do about the noise. Robert Luna, 9817 Heath Avenue South, stated that his house is located just north of where they want to plant the trees. He is St. Paul Police officer, and has called twice about the noise. Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2018 Page 5 of 8 He gets home after 2 a.m. and can hear the machine running at that time. He believes opera- tions should conducted during business hours of 9 to 5. He can't leave his windows open during the summer because it wakes his children up. He does see the police presence in the area but being a police officer he also understands other calls for service happen when they are investigating a noise complaint. He noted that Carey had talked about disciplinary actions he has in place for his employees but that has not helped with noise issues after hours. There are also people whipping around in the parking lot. There needs to be a time limit where no- body should be in the building. He also noted that the garage doors are not always closed. Luna's fiancee, 9817 Heath Avenue South, stated that the noise is constant and there are people coming in and out of the building after 2 a.m. along with using the dyno machine and revving vehicles in the back. The machine is used multiple times per week. She stated that if she has to call the police every time, she will; she did not think that those calls were being tracked. She doesn't want to bombard the dispatch center because there are other things going on. She doesn't believe the new trees or a fence will help. Mark Loomis, 9759 Heath Avenue South, stated that when this area started developing it was supposed to be zoned for light industry. On the weekend that place is crawling with people and the doors are open. Most of the vehicles going in and out are have loud exhausts. He expressed concern about the speed that vehicles use when exiting the parking lot. He stated that most of the people there on the weekend are not working on anything; it is like a club- house. When the doors are open, you can hear grinders, air compressors, and music coming from inside the building. He was told that no work was to be done outside and everything would be done inside the building with the doors closed. He would like to be able to open his windows in the summer. He then stated that the former owner of the property told him when the second building was built, the berm would be extended all the way along the houses and planted with pine trees. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Carey stated that the comments about the noise occurring in the late evenings and early morn- ings is very troubling to him as he was not aware of it, and it absolutely should not be happen- ing. He hopes the lines of communication remain open beyond this hearing as he would like to resolve these concerns. There are terms for employee use of the facility, and it is not okay for them to be keeping anyone awake at night by causing noise. Brittain asked if there is a security system on the doors. Carey said yes. Brittain asked if that can be monitored as to when the doors are open and closed. Carey responded he would look into that, noting that he also has security cameras. If he is made aware of when this occurs, he can look through the camera to see who it is. He stated that they have a shop use policy statement and he will check to see if there is any language regarding hours. He will amend those policies if needed. Brittain suggested that for customers coming in with loud exhausts to ask them to be cognizant of the neighborhood they are driving within. Brittain asked staff to advise the Commission what can and cannot be considered regarding noise abatement for this application. He hopes current noise levels will be reduced and lines of communication will stay open. The addition of the new building does not seem like it will introduce more noise. Levitt responded that with a site plan, the Commission determines if Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2018 Page 6 of 8 setbacks, height of the building, architectural standards, landscaping, and parking, are con- sistent with City ordinances pertaining to those criteria. The testimony tonight concerns the operation of the existing facility. Staff, including the Public Safety Director, are taking notes, and the applicant expressed his sincerity to determine a means to mitigate those problems, but it is an operational issue not related to the specific building being proposed, which is a warehouse facility. She encouraged the Commission to look at the application through the lens of a site plan approval and not through the operational procedures of the existing facility. Frazier asked if legally it would be improper for the Commission to put a condition on this site plan that said that there is an existing sound issue that has to be mitigated before the site plan can be enacted. Levitt responded that one condition that the Commission could potentially add would be that the applicant develop a noise mitigation strategy prior to a certificate of occu- pancy for the facility. Brittain stated that if someone on the Commission wanted to add that, he would like to have the details fleshed out by the City Attorney and the applicant before the City Council meeting rather than working out the details tonight. Lutchen made a motion to approve the site plan review subject to the conditions in the staff report with an additional condition that staff work with the applicant to come up with a noise mitigation plan. Raymer seconded. Khambata stated that if we looked at this independently from the existing business, we would not turn down an approval for a warehouse in the industrial area. Brittain stated that the motion is for approval. Khambata asked if there is a way we can separate the two, and approve the site plan and still have the City work with the business owner on the noise issues. Brittain explained that the method would be for the Commission to vote on the current motion and if it fails, then another motion could be presented with different verbiage. Motion passed on an 8 -to -1 vote (Khambata). Khambata explained that he voted against the motion because a condition was attached that is unrelated to the site plan application. He understands there is work that needs to be done between the existing business and the neighbors, but he does not believe attaching it as a condition to what would otherwise be an acceptable proposal is appropriate. B. Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 is proposed for the con- struction of an addition to the Modern Automotive Performance building at 9800 Hemingway Avenue South. (Not a Public Hearing) Costello summarized the staff report and recommended adoption of Resolution PC2018-001 approving Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18. Khambata made a motion to approve Resolution PC2018-001 approving the modifica- tion to Development District No. 1 and establishment of TIF District No. 1-18. Raymer seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2018 Page 7 of 8 6.2 HERO Center — Cases SP2018-027, CUP2018-028, PP2018-029 Leo A Daly has applied for a site plan review of the proposed HERO Center, which is an integrated public safety training facility to be located on the southeast corner of 85th Street and Keats Avenue (CSAH 19); a conditional use permit to allow a public building in a resi- dential zoning district; and a preliminary plat to create one lot to be called HERO Center Addition. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Lutchen asked if the training center would provide services to surrounding east metro depart- ments. Rinzel responded that the goal of the HERO Center is to provide the entire east metro region with an opportunity to train. There were two reports by the Department of Public Safety in 1999 and 2009 that affirm that the east metro was lacking public safety training facilities; the west, north, and south metro areas all have training facilities like this proposed facility. We envision this to have the capacity to offer training to over 600 officers. This area is lacking a secure, consistent location to receive needed training. Mills asked if there are any concerns regarding any noise issues from any of the training ex- ercises. Rinzel pointed out on the site plan how the training center was laid out, noting that the gun range would be located on the east side of the facility so it would be as far away as possible from any residential structures. There will be some outside training and helicopter landings. The latest any outside training would occur would be 10:00 p.m. He noted that neigh- boring residents would be notified about loud training exercises. Rasmussen asked who will staff and maintain this building. Rinzel responded that currently this is a joint ownership between the Cities of Woodbury and Cottage Grove and a Joint Powers Agreement has already been drafted regarding ownership and operation of the facility. Through memberships of both agencies and outside members, there will be enough funding received to ensure building operations. The facility so it will be open to the public during the off times for citizens to utilize the gun range. There will also be DNR training for ATVs/snow- mobiles and gun safety. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Khambata made a motion to approve the site plan review, conditional use permit, and preliminary plat applications for the proposed HERO Center, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Zopfi seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2018 Page 8 of 8 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 2018 Frazier made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 26, 2018, Planning Commis- sion meeting. Mills seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of April 4 and 18, 2018, City Council Meetings Levitt provided a summary of the actions taken at the April 4 and 18, 2018, City Council meetings. Councilmember Dennis announced upcoming events, including the Arbor Day tree planting event on April 28; curbside pickup of buckthorn between April 30 and May 1; 2018 Clean Up Day at Public Works on May 5; and the Acacia Masonic Lodge 51 Annual Pancake Breakfast on May 6. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries 8.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Zopfi made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Lutchen seconded. Motion passed unani- mously (9 -to -0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. to the Comprehensive Plan workshop in the Training Room.