Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-26 Planning Commission MinutesCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission February 26, 2018 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Thursday, February 26, 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, Taylor Mills, Derek Rasmussen, Jennifer Raymer, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: Justin Fox, David Lutchen Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Christine Costello, Economic Development Director Steve Dennis, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Raymer made a motion to approve the agenda. Zopfi 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 Southeast Industrial Park — Cases PP2018-017, V2018-018, & SP2018-019 Opus Development Company has filed applications for a preliminary plat, site plan review, and variance. The preliminary plat is called Southeast Industrial Park and creates one in- dustrial lot and three outlots on property located at the northwest quadrant of Hemingway Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 2 of 12 Avenue and 91st Street for Phase I of the Southeast Industrial Park for the North Star Sheets LLC parcel and supporting industrial park infrastructure for future development. The site plan review is for a 161,000 square foot industrial building, with a variance due to loading docks being visible from the dead end of Hemingway Avenue. The site plan is for 12.6 acres of the 37.4 total platted acres. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Phil Cattanach, 10350 Bren Road West, Minnetonka, stated that he is a developer with Opus Development Company. He commended City staff on how open they have been and the dili- gence on the front end that enabled them to bring this user to Cottage Grove. Rasmussen asked what Northstar Sheets manufactures. Cattanach responded that they man- ufacture a product used on a daily basis but there are levels of confidentiality that they have to abide by currently. Brittain opened the public hearing. Mel Sinn, 9225 Harkness Avenue, asked if they operate 24 hours a day and what kind of lighting they have. Cattanach responded that initially there will be two shifts but based on demand needs, they may flex up to three shifts. The lighting plans are currently being reviewed by staff as part of the building permit submittal and will be compliant with City codes. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Khambata made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, site plan review, and variance applications based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions in the staff report. Raymer seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.2 Thompson Grove Country Club — Cases CP2018-001 & PP2018-002 The Cottage Grove Economic Development Authority has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use of property at 6541 85th Street South from Parks and Private Open Space to Low Density Residential, and a preliminary plat to subdivide a 1.36 -acre parcel of land into three single-family residential lots. The subdivision name is Thompson Grove Country Club and will be located at the site of the former Cottage Grove municipal pool building. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Christine Costello, Economic Development Director, reported that the EDA approved this pro- posed development at their March meeting. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 3 of 12 Rasmussen stated that he generally likes the development and believes it would be a good use of the space, would fit in well, and it would be nice to get this piece of property developed. Raymer made a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary plat for Thompson Grove Country Club subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Khambata seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.3 USS Solar Meister — Cases ICUP2018-011 & V2018-012 USS Solar Meister LLC has applied for an interim conditional use permit to allow a one - megawatt community solar garden on an approximate 38.9 -acre parcel at 11501 70th Street South, and a variance application to allow the solar energy system to be located within 300 feet of the property boundary lines bordering two other community solar gardens. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Rasmussen stated that when the Commission worked on the updated solar ordinance, there was discussion about having space between developments to control the density. He asked if that made it into the updated ordinance. McCool responded that there was conversation but that language is not in the ordinance approved by the City Council. Brittain asked if this parcel could be subdivided or the footprint of the solar garden increase in the future to be 300 feet from the property line. McCool stated that is one of the concerns expressed by the Kohls, whose property is adjacent to the proposed solar garden. They re- quested that if it was allowed to be located in the southwest corner, there be a condition pro- hibiting them from expanding the proposed one megawatt solar field. Language included in the conditions of approval states that they are able to lease the 10 acres but would not be able to expand in the future. Brittain asked if they could subdivide the parcel to get around that condition. McCool responded that the property is currently zoned AG -1, Agricultural Preserva- tion, which has a 40 -acre density limitation for residential dwellings. This is a taxing parcel with 38.9 acres, so it cannot be subdivided unless the comprehensive plan was amended and the property rezoned to a different residential zoning classification. Khambata asked if the other two projects were decommissioned in the future and the property subdivided, would there be issues with the 48 -foot setback. McCool responded not necessarily because this solar field would exist, so any future residents would know the neighboring solar field existed before homes are constructed. Khambata asked if the comprehensive plan for the future use of that property would address the distance to the existing solar garden. McCool responded that the comprehensive plan land use designation is agricultural so the land use designation would have to change to allow more residential density on those properties. Frazier asked if the other two solar sites comply with the setback requirements. McCool re- sponded that when they started developing in 2015 and 2016, the setback requirements were 25 feet minimums on the side yards and 50 feet on the rear and front yards. The City ordinance was amended in 2017. Frazier asked if the access drive proposed for the southwest corner would be able to be used by two properties. McCool responded that in the proposal with the Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 4 of 12 solar garden being centrally located on the property, they were going to use an existing field access to the property. If the variance to locate the solar field in the southwest corner was approved, they propose to construct the access drive along the west property line. Currently Ecoplexus has an easement over the westerly side of that property line for their utility service to connect from their solar field to 70th Street. Brittain asked in the long-term future if the adjacent solar gardens adjacent were removed and the property rezoned to a higher density, when this application expires would it have to relocate or be allowed to remain. McCool explained that the variance would run with the property, so it would be allowed to continue in it is current location. Brittain opened the public hearing. Cheryl Kohls, 11825 70th Street South, stated that she agrees with the variance to allow the solar panels in the southwest corner provided that the rest of that parcel cannot be developed with another solar garden. McCool stated that prohibition is included in the conditions of ap- proval. Kohls stated that her farm has been in the family for many generations, but now her property essentially is an island surrounded by for-profit commercial/industrial uses in an area zoned agricultural. She stated that they need to be assured that this 10 acres will be the last, and they will not have solar panels five feet from the property line a couple years from now. She appreciates that USS Solar met with her to go through the proposal and the landscape plan. She expressed concern about being able to sell the property in the future. They are planning to leave the property to their children but their son does not want it because of all the solar panels in the area. She asked that something be put into the recommendation that ab- solutely makes it clear that on this 40 -acre site, solar is only allowed on those 10 acres. Erica Forsman, Project Developer with US Solar, 100 North 6th Street, #218C, Minneapolis, provided background on their company. She stated that community solar gardens when de- signed correctly can seamlessly integrate into the community, increase the tax base, support landowner rights, enhance nearby crop yields, and strengthen the local environment and wild- life. She stated that they started working with the property owner in 2017. They identified this as an ideal site for solar due to the physical characteristics, proximity to the distribution facili- ties, available capacity within the Xcel infrastructure, and that it meets all of the requirements of the current solar ordinance. After reviewing the site and talking with the landowner, they came up with the option for the variance that could be a benefit to the community, the land- owner, and the neighbors. She provided information on their system design, noting that it would occupy about 8 acres of land. She stated that the proposed fence is an eight -foot roll farm -style fence without barbed wire. The staff recommendation is for a six-foot chain-link fence; they are open to that if that is the City's preference, but national electric code requires a seven -foot minimum fence around any PV system, so they would need to be at least that height. If the other gardens were approved with a six-foot fence, they may have barbed wire on the top to get that extra foot. That is not their preference because it does not blend in as well and can look more commercial. Forsman explained that access from 70th Street that meets the ordinance would be to update the existing field road to 15 feet wide. They have discussed this with Washington County, who had no preliminary issues with that access point. There will also be a 20 -foot drive aisle around the perimeter inside the fence for emergency vehicles. Forsman stated that they met with the Kohls to discuss the landscape design that would include pollinator friendly plantings. She Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 5 of 12 noted that Kohls requested that they put in three rows of evergreen trees. They updated the landscape plan to include two rows of evergreen trees and one row of dogwood trees, which should create a very thorough screen from neighboring properties and the public right-of-way. She explained that all tillable acreage within the solar site will be transformed into a diverse mix of pollinator -friendly low lying deep-rooted grasses, which will be planted under the mod- ules and between the rows. Compared to row crops, the proposed landscaping would reduce stormwater runoff, increase crop yields of neighboring farmland, and improve air quality, water filtration rates, and soil nutrient levels. They will control for noxious weeds throughout the life of the project to maintain the prairie -like vegetative appearance. Forsman then discussed the decommissioning of the solar field. When the project reaches the end of its operational life, USS Solar Meister will be responsible for dismantling, recycling, and reselling all of the components. She addressed three items in the staff report and conditions. The first is that a solar garden is not a public nuisance, the second is that the resale and recycle value will exceed the cost of decommissioning, and third, the City and taxpayers are not at risk. Their modules do not contain hazardous materials, and community solar gardens are not connected to government utilities. They are also required to be fenced and buffered from view with professional landscaping. Additionally, almost all of the land has permanent vegetation, which improves erosion control. For these reasons, a community solar garden, whether it is operational or not, is not a public nuisance that would require government involve- ment in decommissioning or removal. Upon the end of the project's life, the components may be resold or recycled. The aggregate value of the equipment exceeds the cost of decommis- sioning and removal. In the worst case scenario where the project owner fails to decom- mission, neither the lender nor any power generation entity wants the asset, and the landowner fails to decommission, and the land transfers to the City under tax forfeiture, the solar equip- ment would still not pose a hazard or a public nuisance threat so there would be no reason for the City to spend funds to remove it. The City can draw on their decommissioning budget and would gain the value by reselling and recycling equipment along with the value of the entire forfeited parcel. Their application includes information about project costs and salvage value of the equipment and the proposed decommissioning bond of $15,000 per megawatt, which falls in line with what they have been required to do in other jurisdictions. They are aware that the ordinance allows the city at its discretion to require the owner or operator to provide a financial security in the amount equal to 125 percent of the cost estimate for decommissioning. The staff recommendation was to take the maximum 125 percent estimated cost only and does not consider any portion of the salvage value of the equipment. If the City wants to only look at the projected cash up front, then they would like the opportunity to work with a local contractor to whom they can assign the recycle and resale value of all of the hardware in exchange for a no -cost removal. This is something that is done commonly in tree clearing. Forsman stated that they would be acceptable with the site design locating the solar garden in the middle of the parcel, which meets current ordinance, if that is the preference of the City. After reviewing the site, talking with the landowner, and the neighbor, they feel it may be a better option for the community to locate the garden in the southwest corner of the property. She stated that the Ecoplexus site has an access road for interconnection that runs the entire length of the property from 70th Street to their site. If the City approve the variance, they plan to work with Ecoplexus to use that access road. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 6 of 12 Frazier asked if the Commission went with the decommissioning language in the staff report, would it change what they are planning. Forsman responded that when they applied, it was not their understanding that there would be no consideration of the salvage value and that is why they put those numbers together. If the proposed conditions are approved, they want the opportunity to work with a contractor to provide a bid that would be deemed acceptable by the City and then 125 percent of that number could be considered. She noted this is higher than any other decommissioning bond than they have ever had to do. Khambata asked what factors cause a solar garden to become obsolete and what triggers the decommissioning of a site. Forsman explained that solar gardens have 25 -year contracts with Xcel. The risk is very low of a garden becoming obsolete within that contract period. All of the major investment is upfront, so operation and maintenance costs versus the value of the en- ergy being produced for a guaranteed buyer are low. If the LLC defaults, the lender could choose to continue operating the solar garden because of the contract with Xcel and the infra- structure are already in place. She noted that the City requires a solar garden to be removed if it is non -operational for 90 days or more. Rasmussen stated that he likes their proposed fence design, unfortunately the other two have a chain-link fence with the barbed wire on top. He wishes a more rural fence design was in- corporated into the ordinance. Given its location, he agrees with staff that the fence should be consistent with the other two solar gardens in the area. He then asked for more information on their tracker system, including maintenance and how often they fail. Forsman stated that track- ers are pretty common technology and while there can be failures with any moving parts, it is much cheaper to repair and maintain than a wind turbine. Based on their experience, they have a quarterly regular maintenance schedule. She then explained that the panels reset automatically every morning, and the trackers have a mode that can protect the mechanism from being damaged from high winds. It will sit there for the rest of that solar day and then realign in the morning. Rasmussen asked if US Solar had proposed another project in Cottage Grove. Forsman responded there have been no applications before the Cottage Grove Plan- ning Commission, although they have looked at other sites. She explained that US Solar is a long-term owner unlike other solar companies. Brittain asked about the NEC requirement for a seven -foot fence height. McCool responded that for the other two projects the City required that the fence be a minimum of six feet; the companies had proposed the fencing and the City merely identified the six-foot minimum height requirement. If there is a code requirement in some other industry of seven feet, the City would abide by that as well. He noted that the fence for the solar garden to the south is a six-foot chain-link with three barbed strands. McCool stated as it relates to the decommissioning amount, the ordinance regulations are different than what the applicant proposed but is consistent with the requirements for the other four solar projects that have been approved. At the end of the 25 years, if the developer leaves the site, we use the money that is on file for the financial guarantee to decommission the units, as we don't know what those numbers are going to be for salvage or resale. The ordinance requires 125 percent of the value of constructing the project. Frazier stated in the recommendations it just says 125 percent of the accepted decommission- ing estimate which sounds like if we accept that they can try to find a better deal than what Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 7 of 12 they initially proposed. Brittain stated that the City should maintain what our ordinance re- quires. The applicant could propose an alternative to the City Council. Frazier asked if that the Commission does not make specific findings of fact on the decommissioning, the City Council could. Levitt responded that is correct. The Planning Commission is being asked to acknowledge the 125 percent procedure as outlined in our ordinance, and if the applicant wants to change the financial guarantee, they would make their request to the City Council. Mills asked what type fence Kohls would prefer. Brittain noted that there will be three rows of trees that would shield the fence from view, so he does not see a conflict in allowing them to have a taller fence in order to remove the barbed wire. Mills stated that her question was regarding the style of the fencing, not the height. Khambata noted that it sounds like US Solar has been communicating with the property owner to resolve those issues. Levitt stated that the adjacent resident has provided testimony and a written response in regards to their wishes so she does not believe it is appropriate to re -open the public hearing. Rasmussen asked about noise and construction activity, which was raised in Kohls' letter. He expressed concern about allowing construction to start at 7:00 a.m. on the weekends and would like to see some restrictions on noisy activities on Sundays and possibly Saturdays. Levitt stated in the recommendations for another projects, construction hours are listed to be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, and not allowed on Sundays, and he would like those same hours for this proposed project. Levitt stated that as the Commissioner has outlined, staff would be supportive of adding a condition with those hours of operation, which are consistent with other projects. Raymer asked what the Commission is voting on tonight. Her understanding is that we are being asked to vote on the interim conditional use permit, a variance to move it to the south- west corner of the property, a reaffirmation of the ordinance for the decommissioning account, and the addition of the construction hours. Brittain stated that the Commission would take action on the ICUP and the variance. In the conditions for the ICUP and variance, it lists that they need to pay the upfront decommissioning costs, so the Commission is not voting on the ordinance requirement for those costs unless the Commission wants to change what is in the staff report as a condition. It appears there is a consensus to change the condition for hours of operation for construction. Khambata made a motion to approve the interim conditional use permit for a 25 -year period and the variance, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions in the staff report with an added condition to limit the hours of construction to Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and no work on Sunday. Zopfi seconded. Rasmussen stated that for this particular project, he is in support of the variance to locate the solar garden adjacent to the two others. He supports what is proposed but is nervous that there could be miles of these solar gardens in that area. The infrastructure is there and he sees this rapidly expanding and completely changing the look, feel, and atmosphere of that part of town. Brittain asked if it is stipulated in the staff report that the fence height is six feet. McCool stated that is required along with it being chain link. Brittain asked if the Commission wanted to allow a seven -foot fence, the motion would need to be amended. McCool stated that it could be Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 8 of 12 changed to a minimum of six feet, which is what the requirement was for the other projects. Brittain suggested that the condition be changed to requiring the fence to be consistent with the other projects in the area. He asked Khambata if he would like to amend his motion. Khambata and Zopfi agreed to amend their motion to reflect the fence height language. Raymer stated her concern is the variance to move it into the corner of the lot. When the Commission amended the ordinance, we were very thoughtful and specific about location and setbacks. Khambata stated he believes that was in relation to new developments so as not to impede upon other property owners whereas this is abutting two other solar gardens. Motion passed on a 6 -to -1 vote (Raymer). 6.4 McDonald's — Case SP2018-013 Landform, on behalf of McDonald's USA, LLC, has applied for a site plan review of a full site redevelopment of their existing property at 7355 East Point Douglas Road South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Sean Murphy, Landform Professional Services, 105 South Fifth Avenue, Minneapolis, stated that he is here on behalf of McDonalds USA LLC, and that they are excited about this rede- velopment project. He stated that he would answer any questions from the Commission. He noted that there are a certain number of conditions that they have some concerns with that they are working with staff to resolve prior to the City Council meeting. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Rasmussen believes this will be huge improvement but has concerns about the amount of parking in the proposed layout. He works in a similar industry and explained what his company typically uses as a formula for parking. He noted that parking is currently challenging in the current configuration. He understands the high drive-through percentages but removing al- most 20 stalls would make it even more challenging. Brittain stated that while he agrees with Rasmussen, they were granted a variance in the past, which stays with the property, so there isn't anything that the City can do about that. Frazier made a motion to approve the site plan review application subject to all condi- tions in the report. Rayner seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.5 Triple Angels — Cases PP2018-014 & SP2018-015 Triple Angels Healthcare has applied for a preliminary plat to be called Cottage Grove Woods, which will re -plat approximately 17.6 acres of land and surrounding property at 7150 West Point Douglas Road to create two lots and one outlot, and a site plan review for a 9,215 square foot one -level assisted living facility with 15 additional parking spaces and a future building addition of approximately 6,732 square feet with additional parking. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 9 of 12 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Chris Arnes, VSI Construction, 11751 Troy Lane North, Maple Grove, stated that they do not have any objections to the stipulations in the staff report. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Khambata made a motion to approve the site plan review application subject to all the conditions in the report. Mills seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). 6.6 Hamlet Heights — Case PP2018-009 Eternity Homes, LLC has filed a preliminary plat application to subdivide a 10.35 -acre par- cel of land into 24 single-family residential lots and 2 outlots. The subdivision plat name is Hamlet Heights. The project is located west of Pine Hill Elementary School (9015 Hadley Avenue), south of the Thompson's Grove neighborhood on the southerly extension of Hamlet Avenue, and north of the Pinehill Acres neighborhood. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Zopfi asked if Outlot A would be dedicated to the City for drainage improvements. Burbank responded yes, but there are no dedication credits being given for that. Zopfi asked if Outlot B is being dedicated for the additional fire access. Burbank responded yes and also for the trail linkage to the community park. John Anderson, Eternity Homes, 425 Third Street, Farmington, stated that staff did a good job explaining what is being proposed. He noted that the 24 proposed lots meet all the require- ments of the zoning district. Eternity Homes is planning to build all the single family houses in the development, though some lots could later be sold to another builder. He stated that the home prices could range from $350,000 to $450,000. He explained the proposed drainage on the site. He then noted that they have included a trail connection at the end of the cul-de-sac connecting to the existing trail that will double up as the emergency access. An outlot will be dedicated on the west side adjacent to the water tower site that could potentially give access for a trail corridor up the hill to the school. Anderson stated in regards to the condition about the cost for the school trail that they do not yet know where the trail is going to go so they don't want to commit to an exact price or percentage. He asked that condition #27 regarding archi- tectural standards be amended to state "record the private covenants" versus "record the ar- chitectural guidelines" as it won't be a recordable document, noting that they will give out those standards to the buyers as a disclosure and put them into a set of private covenants. He stated that they plan on starting street construction this year and have a house built by this summer. Brittain opened the public hearing. Bill Murphy, 8960 Hamlet Avenue South, stated that he has lived on the dead end of Hamlet Avenue for over 58 years and is disappointed that 24 houses will now be built. He expressed Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 10 of 12 concerns about damage to his home from blasting of the bedrock for construction. He stated this is not the first time a developer has tried to build houses there, noting that Orrin Thompson Homes attempted to add more houses next to the existing homes but canceled that plan after damaging four homes due to excavation of bedrock in that area. About eight years ago, the City put in holding ponds south and east of the empty lot, and the houses in the area shook during the excavation but were not damaged. He is very concerned as a new holding pond will be dug out next to an existing home. At the neighborhood meeting, one homeowner that lived on top of the hill stated that last year during work being done at the bottom of the hill in the empty lot by the water tower, their house shook from the pile driver being used. The developer stated that they did soil sampling which did showed no problems and asked that this be looked into further. The staff report talked about maximum length of a cul-de-sac being 600 feet and this new cul-de-sac will be over 1,600 feet and that the Public Safety Department approved this exception. He has a hard time picturing fire trucks and ambulances going down the trail. He is hoping that the Planning Commission will set up whatever is necessary between the City and the developer to ensure that the existing homes will not be damaged. Patrick Nickle, 8991 Hamlet Avenue South, asked about the weight restriction difference be- tween Hadley and Hamlet Avenues. He expressed concern about construction equipment traveling on Hamlet Avenue. He stated that when they built the wells, there was a big sink hole in front of his house that was fixed by Public Works. He asked if the roads are damaged from the heavy equipment, who would pay for the repairs. He wants to make sure it is not the homeowners and taxpayers like when the sinkhole was filled. Nickle then stated that he has invested a lot of money into his garage, and asked who would pay to repair any damage to it or his home. At the neighborhood meeting, he was told that it should be the contractor but he wants a solid answer before any construction is started. Levitt explained that condition #16 states "The grading permit shall outline the means and methods for export/import of material and whether blasting is required. If blasting is identified, then a detailed monitoring plan will be required. All monitoring and testing for blasting activities and any property damage documented through the monitoring process is the financial respon- sibility of the developer." This requires that the developer will need to provide the City with a detailed plan with their grading permit application. In many City projects, blasting is necessary, including the construction of the Hamlet ponds. During that project, the City engaged a blasting company and had additional monitoring around the perimeter including the homes adjacent to the site to ensure that we were compliant. In this development, the City is asking the developer for those same strategies. Hadley Avenue is constructed to as nine -ton road from 80th Street to 95th Street and can support heavy truck traffic. The reason this road is posted at a much lower load restriction is because the neighborhood did not want that road to be a truck hauling route. When there is construction activity that is isolated for a specific purpose, the City has issued road restriction permit variations to enable them to access sites. The City requires a pavement condition index to be performed on the roads in the specific route prior to and after completion to check for and mitigate any damage. Levitt stated that she is not familiar with the settlement issues for the wells. Nickle expressed concern about the emergency lane. He asked where emergency vehicles would access the trail from and if they would utilize the Hamlet Park trail. He noted that he has had difficulty in his squad car making the turn off 95th Street to get onto that trail, so anything bigger than an SUV may have problems. He asked for more information about the emergency vehicle access. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 11 of 12 Levitt stated that staff discussed the emergency vehicle route with the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief. It would only be utilized if the primary access is blocked. Many of our projects have secondary accesses that are typically trails to ensure that there is always a secondary access if the central means of access is obstructed. Public Safety's input was sought, and they have indicated that this route is acceptable to them. Staff has also worked with Public Works to ensure that plowing would be adequate to meet the needs during the winter. Nickle asked if the access trail would be coming from 95th Street or around Hamlet Park. He noted that the trail is not plowed well enough now for emergency vehicle access. He stated that it should be maintained now and tested before the development is approved. Levitt re- sponded that the Public Works Director has indicated that he would take the necessary means to plow it wide enough in the winter to secure this as the secondary access, so next winter season it would be maintained to that standard. Nickle asked if that could be tested before this is approved. Murphy expressed concern about a cul-de-sac being 1,600 feet in length. The Public Works Department may say it is okay but it needs to be looked into, especially the emergency access. He noted that nothing has been said about the soil samples and asked that it be looked at again. There have been damages to houses in the past due to bedrock in the area. Brittain explained that if anything in addition to just digging a foundation needs to be done, the devel- oper has to submit a plan and mitigate any damage that is caused. Sharon Thorson, 8990 Hamlet Avenue South, stated that her house was the one damaged due to the bedrock, and she appreciates staff's concern about the issue. She asked that the hours of construction be put into the report. Levitt responded that condition #53 addresses the hours of operation, which are Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and no construction allowed on Sunday. It also outlines the fines for violation of the working hours. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Frazier stated that staff and the developer have made real attempts to try to mitigate concerns and hopes there won't be any issues with blasting. He is confident that Public Works, the Fire Marshal, and City Staff will be able to handle any issues that come up. Based on his review, he is satisfied with this proposed development. Brittain asked since there is a lot snow right now, if between now and the City Council meeting Public Safety could look again at the emergency access, including the turn from 95th Street, to see if there are any tweaks that need to done. Khambata made a motion to approve the Hamlet Heights preliminary plat subject to all the conditions in the report. Zopfi seconded. Frazier stated that the developer asked that condition #26 be amended from architectural standards to private covenants. Burbank stated that staff would support that modification to reflect that the covenants would be consistent with the sheet that was submitted to the Com- mission. He then stated that when this application goes to Council, the trail costs condition would reflect that it would be as spelled out in the developer's agreement. Khambata and Zopfi agreed with adding those changes to the motion. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 12 of 12 Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update Status Report — Presentation by Stantec Phil Carlson, Stantec, provided a presentation on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update process. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 18, 2017 Frazier made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2018, Planning Com- mission meeting. Raymer seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of February 21, 2018, City Council Meeting Levitt provided a summary of the actions taken at the February 21, 2018, City Council meeting. Council Member Dennis provided information on two events related to the My Future Cottage Grove initiative including the Community Center Task Force meeting on March 5 at 5:30 p.m. and the Single Family Housing Panel on March 15 at 5:30 p.m. He then announced events at the Eagles Bar & Grill at River Oaks Golf Course. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.