Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-23 PACKET 07.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission June 25, 2018 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, June 25, 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, Sheree Schuler, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: Jennifer Raymer Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner Steve Dennis, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Frazier made a motion to approve the agenda. Rasmussen seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Brittain asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non -agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Brittain explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 Giefer Shed — Case V2018-040 Jason Giefer has applied for a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located in front of the principal structure at 8003 River Acres Road South. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2018 Page 2 of 8 Pattsner summarized the staff report. He reported that staff received a letter of objection to the variance application from the adjoining neighbor; that letter is attached to the staff report. He recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Lutchen stated that whenever there is an objection by a neighbor he likes to give it special attention so citizens understand their objections are taken seriously. He believes that there could be some runoff but it is just a question of how much there will be. He stated that there should be a special review and asked who would pay for that. Levitt responded that the appli- cant has not submitted a topography survey to document the elevation of the finished floor of the shed and how that could potentially relate to the surrounding ground elevation, and staff has asked that a surveyor hired by the applicant take some topography shots and ensure that drainage from the additional fill material for the shed will not negatively drain onto the adjacent property. The drainage needs contained within the drainage and utility easements or within the property itself, so to provide assurance to the resident who raised objections, the City added a condition of approval to ensure there would not be a negative impact before a building permit is issued. Rasmussen stated that looking at the aerial photo, it almost appears as though the driveway is on or over the property line. McCool responded that aerial photos are not the most accurate; there was a survey in one of the illustrations that shows that the driveway is not on the adjoin- ing property. Khambata noted that the neighbor who objected stated that there was a retaining wall related to the driveway on the neighbor's property and asked if there are any encroachments on record that might be a contributing factor to the neighbor's objection. Pattsner responded that, to his knowledge based on surveys and aerial photos, the retaining wall does not encroach on the neighbor's property but it may be that the retaining wall causes water runoff onto the neighbor's property, which is what is meant in the objection. Levitt stated that if the Commission is con- cerned about encroachment issues, a condition could be added that in the survey for drainage, property line issues are addressed appropriately. Brittain asked if there are drainage issues caused by some other feature on this property, is it within this application for review or is that be a separate issue. Levitt responded that the review should ensure that runoff is contained within the drainage and utility easement. If there are items that the City could work with the landowner to make improvements to mitigate, we would work to resolve that. The applicant may have further information on these concerns. Khambata stated that it sounds like the objection would be addressed by having the survey done and reviewed by staff. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Khambata made a motion to approve the variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions in the staff report. Lutchen seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0) vote. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2018 Page 3 of 8 6.2 Renewal by Andersen Parking Lot — Case SP2018-035 and CUP2018-035 Renewal by Andersen, 9900 Jamaica Avenue South, has applied for a site plan review of a proposed parking lot expansion and a conditional use permit to allow the parking of semi- trailers on property they are purchasing located north of 100th Street and east of Heming- way Avenue, which is adjacent to their property at 9900 Jamaica Avenue South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Lutchen asked if there will be fencing around the perimeter of the lot. McCool responded that there was no fencing proposed as part of their application. However, if they were to decide later to have fencing, they could. They do not have fencing around the storage area at their existing facility. Rasmussen asked if the drive to the east is a private drive or a city street. McCool responded that of the 30 acres Renewal currently owns, their westerly property line is along the existing private drive, which they own, noting that the City does not maintain that roadway. The access to the additional paved surface area to the west will continue to be that same access point, and there will not be any additional access onto 100th Street. Rasmussen asked what a tem- porary infiltration station is compared to a retention pond. McCool explained that it is a depres- sion where water runoff will go to soak into the ground; heavy rainfall events would go to the regional ponding area located to the northwest. The infiltration station is sized to adequately hold a sufficient amount of rainwater that would run off the hard surfaced area. Rasmussen noted that there is curb on the north and south but nothing on the east or west and asked why the City is not requiring curb and gutter. McCool stated that if they were to have future expan- sion, that curbing would have to be removed. Lutchen asked if there would be additional semi -traffic, and if so, would there be wear and tear on 100th Street. McCool stated that their existing trailer parking is along the south side of the existing structure, they currently rent a parking area on the northwest corner of Ideal Avenue and 95th Street, and they park trailers along their private road. They would like to relocate those trailers to the proposed parking area. There would be more trailers but once they are parked, there would not necessarily be more trucks. Frazier asked if the requirement for the earth berm and tree lines on the new property is similar to their current trailer parking area. McCool responded that there is an earth berm along the southerly part of the property that is of sufficient height to screen the majority of all the loading docks and the trailers that are currently parked on the south side of the building. The purpose of the proposed earth berm is to screen the 93 parking spaces, and the purpose of the landscaping to the west is to help soften the view from 100th Street to the northeast. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Khambata made a motion to approve the site plan review and conditional use permit applications, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Lutchen seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2018 Page 4 of 8 6.3 Menards — Cases SP2018-037, CUP2018-038, and V2018-039 Menard, Inc. has applied for a site plan review and conditional use permit to construct a 43,808 square foot storage building at the southeast corner of their existing retail store located at 9000 East Point Douglas Road South, expand the lumber yard addition east of the existing pallet racking line, and create a special order area and delivery staging area within their existing outdoor storage area; and a variance to reduce their existing 396 cus- tomer parking area by 40 parking spaces and to construct the proposed storage building with a dark green -colored corrugated sheet metal exterior panels (Class 4 Material). McCool summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings listed in the staff report. Lutchen asked if the Hudson store has any parking issues as it is approximately 50 feet larger than the Cottage Grove store and has 358 parking space, which is what is being proposed. McCool responded that he has not been to the Hudson store to see how their parking situation works, but the applicant could address that. He noted that at the Cottage Grove store, there are weekends and special sales days, such as Black Friday, when the lot gets pretty full. Staff wants to ensure there is no overflow parking onto other properties. Lutchen asked if there were empirical studies done by staff to examine the parking loads or request that Menards submit parking statistics to see how full the lot gets. McCool responded that Menards provided the chart in the staff report. Mills stated that in the report it discusses concerns about losing parking during the winter time due snow storage in the parking and asked how much space that takes up. McCool responded that typically they stockpile snow along the east side of their parking area, and occasionally they push it in the stormwater detention basin. If that basin is eliminated, there is nowhere else to store snow other than on designated parking spaces. If there was consideration to recom- mend approval of the variance, the Commission could look at a condition addressing with snow storage in the parking lot. Rasmussen asked for further information on the elimination of the stormwater detention basin and the proposed underground detention. McCool responded that the City's Engineering De- partment evaluated the proposed underground drainage system, which would be similar to what was done for Hy -Vee, and it appears that it is possible, but more calculations need to be done. If they are going to have off-site drainage, Menards would be required to pay the City $250,000 as the downstream stormwater basins would need to be bigger to accommodate for more water flow leaving this site. McCool noted that if the Planning Commission does not approve the parking variance, the site plan and conditional use permit cannot be approved because the proposed warehouse would be built on the existing parking lot. Khambata noted that in the report it states there was insufficient response from the applicant and asked if the responses were not satisfactory or if they did not respond promptly to the requests. McCool stated that they responded but in staff's opinion the responses were not satisfactory to show that the parking area would be sufficient. Khambata stated that the other component is the relative percentage of green space on the property is already below the Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2018 Page 5 of 8 required 20 percent and asked what other properties in the City might also be below that re- quirement. McCool stated that most of the older commercial properties probably do not meet the 25 percent open space requirement. That requirement was adopted in 2005 or 2006. Menards built their building in 1995 and the only green space they have is along the perimeter of the property, which is about ten feet in width, the stormwater basin, the boulevard area across the front of the property, and some landscape islands internal to the parking area. He believes that they have about 15 percent open space currently and with the elimination of the stormwater basin, that would drop it to 9 percent green space. Lutchen believes that the local management team would not sacrifice 40 parking spaces un- less they believe it would not have any adverse impacts and inquired if staff asked Menards to provide data to support that conclusion. McCool responded that prior to completion of the staff report, staff did ask for additional information, and they provided the parking chart found in the staff report. Rodney Wekkin, Menard Inc., 5101 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, stated that he has a number of figures regarding parking to help prove that this store has sufficient parking. Di- rectly relating to Hudson, because it has the same parking figures as being proposed at Cottage Grove, in the opinion of store management there, they have not had adverse impacts or issues parking that store. Of the 21 stores in the metro area, Hudson is their number one store in sales and does $22 million more annually than Cottage Grove. He provided more information on sales at other stores and how many parking spaces they have. He stated that they can demonstrate based on the stores in the Twin Cities that there is adequate parking at Cottage Grove. He noted that they are landlocked on their current site, which limits where the proposed warehouse could be located and would eliminate some parking spaces. Since this store was built in 1995, Menards has gone through three prototype upgrades, so the Cottage Grove store is behind where the company is prototypically at. He explained some of the up- grades that will be done inside the store, which means that they need the proposed warehouse to relocate product. He stated that he would answer any questions from the Commission. Mills asked about snow removal and storage at other locations that have similar parking con- figurations. Wekkin stated that each store's snow removal is handled individually by the man- agement team at the store. He imagines there are instances during heavy snowfall years, snow is removed from the property. He would need to speak with the store management on what their plans are for snow removal. Mills stated that would be a critical part in understanding if there would be adequate parking. Khambata asked how they have mitigated parking variances in other municipalities and do they have any proposed remedies during Black Friday and other large sales day, such as contracting for overflow parking at other neighboring properties. Wekkin responded that they request parking variances for almost every store that they develop, as most municipalities' parking requirements require in excess of what they generally need. Their stance is that they plan for adequate parking levels for normal business days and not for the handful of days a year when they are the busiest. Khambata asked if they have a plan to handle overflow parking if they are at capacity. Wekkin responded that they don't have cross access agreements with any neighboring property owners. They feel, based on their history of developing stores and the sales volume at Cottage Grove, that there is adequate parking. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2018 Page 6 of 8 Rasmussen asked if it is possible that some of the locations with less parking than Cottage Grove may have shared parking with a mall or other large retailers. He noted that both the Hudson and Eden Prairie stores have other parking options. Wekkin stated that he would need to look at each store to see what type of agreements are in place. There have been cross access parking agreements with neighboring properties, but it is unusual. Zopfi stated that he is also familiar with both the Eden Prairie and Hudson stores, and whether or not there is an official agreement between the neighboring properties, customers will take it upon themselves to park where they can find a space. The Cottage Grove store has a chal- lenge where there are no other options. While the store size is similar to Hudson, it is not the same as there is not a shopping center next to it with additional parking. He expressed concern about cutting more parking by over 150 spaces than what is required by ordinance. Brittain agreed with Zopfi and Rasmussen. The City has parking ordinances for a reason. He noted that staff does their due diligence to verify what would work best and does not see any findings of fact that would support a variance for parking. There are also several other staff recommendations in the staff report that he agrees with. He stated that the proposed ware- house would be in front of a business that fronts Highway 61, so the coordination of the building materials along that whole frontage is important. He does not see a hardship; Menards can maintain reasonable use of the property. Khambata stated that they could find creative ways to reconfigure the current usage of their property to achieve some of their goals. He does not see a hardship. He expressed concern about the green space diminishing below 10 percent and having 90 percent impervious sur- face. Those requirements are in place for a reason as well. This is not a project he could support. Lutchen stated that when we talk about hardship, part of it is opening space inside the store where the current product is that will be in the shed and what he is concentrating on is as much as it is hardship is the statement being that the city felt that the store made insufficient reasons and that Menards made insufficient claims with justifying this permit application when it is his opinion that it would be hard for him to believe that local management would sacrifice valuable square feet in the parking lot to alleviate some of the floor space in the store. He thinks that local management teams realize the cost of having those missing 40 spots and felt that this is a good move. He believes that local management team and the corporate office know what is best for their store versus city staff and neighbors. Lutchen made a motion to approve the parking variance, as after reviewing the data presented he feels as if the variance to remove 40 parking spaces is justified as the best judgment of the local management team feels there will not be any adverse impacts, and he added that a snow management plan must be developed. Frazier seconded. Mills stated that it is difficult to vote on this application as there is not sufficient information regarding the snow removal plans. Motion failed on a 2 -to -6 vote (Lutchen and Frazier voting to approve). Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2018 Page 7 of 8 Khambata stated that he thinks this proposal has some merit, especially if they are comfortable with it but he agrees with Mills that in the absence of a snow removal plan and further details on parking figures. He asked if it would be possible to table the applications to provide the applicant an opportunity to produce those items. Brittain stated that is a possibility but they would also have the opportunity to do that before going to the City Council. Zopfi made a motion to deny the variance application based on the findings of fact in the staff report. Mills seconded. Motion passed on a 6 -to -2 vote (Lutchen and Frazier). Khambata made a motion to deny the site plan review and conditional use permit appli- cations based on the denial of the variance application. Zopfi seconded. Motion passed on a 7 -to -1 vote (Lutchen). Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 29, 2018 Khambata made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 29, 2018, Planning Com- mission meeting. Mills seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of June 6 and June 20, 2018, City Council Meetings Levitt provided a summary of the actions taken at the June 6 and June 20, 2018, City Council meetings. Dennis asked if the Commission had any questions for him. Rasmussen asked how Straw- berry Fest turned out. Dennis stated that everything he heard was that it turned out really well, though there was a challenge with the weather on parade morning. Most events at the park were well attended and people seemed to be having a good time. Lutchen asked what rela- tionship the City has with the Strawberry Fest Committee. Dennis explained the Strawberry Fest Committee is an independent organization, but the City's Public Safety and Public Works Departments work closely with them on logistics and security details, and two Councilmembers are liaisons to the Committee. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Mills asked who is responsible for mowing the former Payless Shoes property. Levitt re- sponded that the Code Enforcement Division is working on that issue. She noted that the City has been working with our local businesses regarding neglect of landscaped areas. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2018 Page 8 of 8 Adjournment Lutchen made a motion was made to adjourn the meeting. Mills seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m.