Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-24 PACKET 07. (APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES)City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission August 22, 2022 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, August 22, 2022, in the Council Chamber and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Frazier called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Jessica Fisher, Evan Frazier, Eric Knable, Derek Rasmussen, Emily Stephens, Jerret Wright Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mike Mrosla, Senior Planner; Emily Schmitz, Senior Planner; Conner Jakes, Associate Planner; Amanda Meyer, Assistant City Engineer; Riley Rooney, Planning Intern; Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director; Dave Thiede, City Council Liaison Approval of Agenda Wright made a motion to approve the agenda. Fisher seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Open Forum Frazier opened the open forum and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non -agenda item. No one spoke. Frazier closed the open forum. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Frazier 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 Thai Garden — Cases SP2022-057 & PUD2022-058 Integrity Building LLC, on behalf of Hang LLC, has applied for a planned unit development and site plan review for a proposed restaurant to be located at 7470 East Point Douglas Road South. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting August 22, 2022 Page 2 of 5 Jakes summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Brittain stated he was glad that odor prevention for emissions from the building was addressed. He asked if there are any concerns about odor that might permeate from the dumpster and if there were any protections in place. Jakes responded that has been discussed extensively and explained that there are two proposed locations on which they are working with the applicant. The first location would be right next to the building, which would keep it away from the property line to minimize any potential odor impacts on the adjacent residence. Another location would be a little bit closer, but would still meet the setbacks and Code requirements. Staff is working with the neighbors to make a decision on the dumpster location. Stephens noted this site used to be a gas station and asked if there was any sort of environ- mental remediation discussed and if the soil needs to be evaluated site before redeveloping it. Meyer responded that when the City did the demolition of the old transmission shop, some environmental work was completed and underground storage tanks were removed. Knable asked where the lighting would be on this site and if it would impact the houses behind there. Mrosla replied the applicant submitted a detailed lighting plan, which shows some lighting fixtures adjacent to the residential property. There should be minimal impact onto the adjacent properties based on the photometric plan; however, there is a condition of approval that they need to use LED lights with light shields on the back, so they are more downward directed than sodium vapor lights. They are working with the city to bring it down to 0 foot-candle at the prop- erty line from the current .7 foot-candle. Frazier opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Rasmussen stated he felt staff had addressed many of the common issues that could occur close to the neighborhood, including odor and lighting. He noted that Brittain brought up a good point with the trash enclosure location and suggested that the trash could be picked up more than one per week to help alleviate odors from the dumpster. He is pretty comfortable with the way has this was drawn up. Brittain made a motion to approve the planned unit development and site plan review subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.2 Endeavor — Cases PP2022-054 & SP2022-055 Endeavor Development has applied for a preliminary plat to be called Glengrove Industrial Park 11th Addition, which will create two industrial lots to be located on the southwest cor- ner of Jamaica Avenue and 95th Street, and a site plan review of two industrial buildings consisting of a total of approximately 350,000 square feet. Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Brittain asked if because TG-P14 was made that TG-P16 was not needed, so all drainage is going to the other pond now. Schmitz replied that is correct. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting August 22, 2022 Page 3 of 5 Knable noted that there are two ways to enter the site, the first one is right in the middle and the second at the very end, and he asked if that was the truck access. Schmitz replied there will be a shared access between Lot 1 and Lot 2, and the second access for Lot 1 will be at the end; however, there will not be a restriction for which access the trucks can use. Knable asked when Lot 2 is developed, if all traffic would just flow in and out the same way. Schmitz replied yes. Joe Bergman, Vice President, Endeavor Development, 885 Linwood Avenue, St. Paul, thanked the Commission for their consideration. He stated he would answer any questions. Wright asked what type of tenants or industries they are hoping to attract. Bergman stated for Lot 2, they are open to many different industries, such as distribution, warehousing, and light manufacturing. RJ Schinner is interested in Lot 1; they distribute paper products. He explained that the interior of their buildings can be built to suit whatever the clients' needs are. Rasmussen noted both buildings look like they are intended to set up loading dock activities and asked if the loading docks are all on the south side of the building, in the rear yard. Bergman stated that is correct and that everything they would consider is rear loaded. He noted that they look at 95th Street as the front door, and they back up to the railroad tracks behind the property. Frazier opened the public hearing. Zachary Hartfiel, 8068 Hornell Avenue South, expressed concern about gridlock in the area. He asked about the timing at the end of the day hitting the intersection of 95th Street and Jamaica. Currently, it backs up pretty far, and, if everyone from these new companies leaves at the same time, there is going to be a bigger issue. He asked what the future traffic plans were for that area, such as adding an additional turn lane going towards the highway. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Meyer stated that at this time there are no proposed public improvements related to traffic at the intersection of 95th Street and Jamaica Avenue being triggered by this project. As the City works through the Business Park AUAR, issues such as growth and traffic at all of the different intersections will be looked at. Frazier stated the Commission has heard about warrants when adding improvements to inter- sections or roads. He asked Meyer to discuss what Public Works looks for in doing those im- provements. Meyer explained we look at daily traffic and different loadings on those roadways, signal timing, possibility of roundabouts, and other traffic pieces to understand traffic patterns and needs. The City will also be working through the MnDOT warrants for traffic. Rasmussen made a motion to approve the preliminary plat and site plan review subject to the conditions in the staff report. Fisher seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to- 0 vote). 6.3 Glacial Valley Park — Case SP2022-059 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a site plan review for construction of a park build- ing to be located at Glacial Valley Park, 9900 Ravine Parkway South, following the Glacial Valley Park Master Plan. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting August 22, 2022 Page 4 of 5 Rooney summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Brittain stated that the landscape plan shows the park and the hockey rink at a different orien- tation and asked if that was still in flux, as the other plans are all consistently one way and the landscaping plans are all consistently the other. Parks and Recreation Director Dockter stated the image is accurate. The rink size was reduced and the orientation changed partly for the view lines from the park building to create better views of the prairie. Brittain asked if the trails that connected to the conservation area were going to be paved. Rooney replied that the soft trails would not be paved, and the Regional Trail will be. Brittain stated the black line on the site plan will be the Regional Trail (hard trail), and all the other ones will be grass or other materials. Dockter stated the Regional Trail will be a paved 8-to-1 0-foot wide trail. The rest of the trails will be either rock or mowed grass. Rasmussen stated he is glad the paved Regional Trail would be coming through the park, as he knew there was a section missing. He thought there was a bike trail all the way from the Lake Elmo Park Reserve to Ravine Park. He noted that the building seems to be more of a community building than other buildings at our current parks, which are basically pavilions and bathrooms. This reminds him of the Washington County Ravine Park building, where there are rooms for classes and parties. He stated he likes this proposal. Stephens asked if the pedestrian access crossing Ravine Parkway would be marked like the crossing to the west on Ravine Parkway for safety concerns. Meyer replied that the City typically does not sign and stripe crossings at intersections. She stated that we can look at this area as it is adjacent to a park to see if this would be an applicable area in which to put in a sign and striping. Rasmussen asked if the proposed 70 parking spaces would be adequate for this park, particu- larly during games and events at the community building. He also asked about overflow parking and if on -street parking was a possibility. Dockter responded it is difficult to figure out the num- ber of parking spaces that would be needed. There are equations used to estimate how many vehicles need to be accommodated for various activities, which were utilized to determine the parking needs for this park, and we are pretty comfortable with that number. Frazier opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Brittain stated he thought it looked great and will be a good amenity for the community. Parking is always going to have its challenges, but a good effort has been done to work with everything. He is excited to see this amenity in our community. Wright agreed with Brittain and thought it was a nice mix such as the hockey and soccer fields. There are many parks in the City, but this diversifies it more, and the sports part is nice. He stated that any the parking issues can be figured out. Stephens also thought this proposal is awesome. She stated any sort of additional striping for the crossing would be helpful. She knows this a parkway, but because there aren't any trees or other distractions, people fly down Ravine Parkway. That existing crossing is pretty scary be- cause people in the vehicles don't always watch for pedestrians, even at the marked crossing. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting August 22, 2022 Page 5 of 5 Brittain made a motion to approve the site plan review subject to the conditions in the staff report. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2022 Fisher made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of August 2022 City Council Meetings Thiede provided a summary of actions taken at the August 3 and August 17, 2022, City Council meetings. He also noted that Council has been working on the budget and CIP at several work- shops. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Ihil rem 8.3 Planning Commission Requests None. Adjournment Wright made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rasmussen seconded. Motion passed unan- imously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m.