Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-22 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held at City Hall, 7516 – 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 22nd day of August 2005 in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Vice Chairperson Brittain called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Shane Bauer, Ken Brittain, Shannon Nitsch, David Thiede Members Absent: Rod Hale (excused), Chris Reese (unexcused), Alberto Ricart (unex- cused), Bob Severson (unexcused) Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Pat Rice, City Council Liaison Approval of Agenda Motion by Nitsch, seconded by Thiede to approve the agenda. Motion approved unani- mously (4-0 vote). Open Forum Vice Chairperson Brittain asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non-agenda item. No one appeared to address the Commission. Chair’s Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Vice Chairperson Brittain explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and 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 come to the microphone and state their full name and ad- dress for the public record. Public Hearings 6.1 Silverwood – Case Nos. ZA05-048, PP05-049, CP05-050 BrightKEYS Development Corporation has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning of approximately 33 acres of land located at 7530 – 65th Street South from AG- 2, Agricultural, to R-2.5, Residential; a comprehensive plan amendment to expand the Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 2 of 8 MUSA boundary and to change the land use from rural residential to low density residen- tial; and a preliminary plat for Silverwood, which would consist of 62 lots for single family homes and 5 outlots. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. James Hill, Jr., BrightKEYS Development Corporation, Woodbury, displayed diagrams of the proposed development, identifying the location of ponds, wetlands, trail corridor, and en- trance monuments. He stated that they will preserve the trees along the border of the parcel. They have proposed putting two utility stubs on the exception parcel to accommodate future subdivision of that property. He explained that the housing style brings more of a front porch concept to the neighborhood. They are looking at house footprints from 3,200 to 6,200 square feet with three-car garages. He stated that they have been in discussion with Town & Country to build the homes. Brittain opened the public hearing. Douglas Sachs, 7570 – 65th Street South, asked what this proposal would do to his tax base, to traffic, and to his privacy. He is also wondering about the taxes for the roads that will be around him and what this will do if he divides his land. Blin responded that the develop- ment should not have a great affect on his property tax. His property is valued on the basis of the land value, which could be subdivided into two parcels, so that affects the value of the land and the value of his house, which would remain unchanged. The fact that the property to the north of his property is developing should not in a great degree increase his taxes. There will be additional traffic generated from the 62 lots; the assumption is 10 trips per house per day, which equates to 620 trips. Some of those trips will access 65th Street and some will access Hinton Avenue. Blin also suggested that the developer could provide addi- tional screening along that roadway to better buffer Sachs’ property from the project. If Sachs decides to subdivide, he would go through the same process as for this project. Sachs asked if it would be guaranteed that he could subdivide at this point. Blin responded that Sachs has enough width and lot area to create two lots, so he could subdivide his prop- erty. Sachs asked if his lots would access the new road or 65th Street. Blin stated that one of the lots would likely access the new road and the westerly lot would have to access 65th Street, but those are details that would be worked out when he applied for the subdivision. Thiede asked if he had been given options on his property. Sachs stated that he has not talked to the developer yet. Thiede asked when he first learned about the proposed devel- opment. Sachs responded that the property owner, Dahlin, told him that she had a sales agreement about two months ago. Thiede asked if we try to inform the neighbors before for possible inclusion in the proposal. Blin responded yes, and he believes that there will be further discussions on this. Brittain stated that for road assessments, the policy is that property owners are assessed for the roads that they access from the driveway, are typically not assessed for roads that run behind their properties. Bill Royce, 10823 Lehigh Road South, asked if the homes would be 3,000 to 6,000 square feet and how many 6,000 square foot homes there are in Cottage Grove. Terry Matula, Town Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 3 of 8 & Country Homes, responded that if someone bought a house with the full options, the home would be 6,000 square feet, but the base packages run from 2,400 to 3,800 square feet. No one else spoke. Brittain noted that since there was not a quorum of the Commis- sion, he continued the public hearing to August 29, 2005. 6.2 Robens Garage Setback – Case No. V05-046 David Robens, 10701 – 80th Street Court South, has applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-3-3C, Accessory Structure Setbacks in the R-1, Rural Residential District, to allow a 572 square foot garage to be constructed 28 feet from the rear property line when 50 feet is required. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Dave Robens, 10701 – 80th Street Court South, stated that is the only site he could put a garage up on his lot due to topography and tree removal. Bauer asked if the 81 feet behind the structures is unbuildable. McCool responded that di- rectly behind the existing structures, the area to the east that parcel of land widens out and he would look into how much area would be available. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain continued the public hear- ing to August 29, 2005. 6.3 Schenk Addition Setback – Case No. V05-047 Darrel Schenk, 8059 Hornell Avenue South, has applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-9D-5A, Development Standards in the R-3, Single Family Residential District, to allow an addition to be located 6 feet from the side property line when 10 feet is required. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Darrell Schenk, 8059 Hornell Avenue South, stated that the owner who had the house built provided for only the minimum at that side and only nine feet on the other side of the house, not the required 10-foot setback. He explained that there is no other logical place for an ad- dition except above the garage. He checked his neighborhood and found a minimum of four or five houses that do not meet setback requirements. He stated that it is not uncommon to find other houses, garages, or sheds that are in violation of city codes regarding setbacks. He stated that if his lot was wider than 77 feet, he would not need a variance. Nitsch asked before he got his permit was he told that he could not build livable space above the garage. Blin stated yes. Nitsch asked if Schenk was told he could get a variance before he built the addition. McCool stated that he was told about the variance process and staff was not going to issue the building permit, which was when the applicant decided to only use it as storage space. Schenk explained that the reason he agreed to build the addition as storage space was in lieu of being able to build the addition to have a bigger area. He stated Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 4 of 8 that this house was built in the early 1960s and some of the rooms are quite small. He did sign a letter stating that the addition would only be storage until he applied for the variance. He wanted to continue the project before the weather turned cold again. Thiede asked if there is a full basement. Schenk stated that the house is a split entry, which has two floors of living space but no storage or basement. Thiede asked what the square footage of the house is. Schenk responded that the house is about 40 to 44 feet by 26 feet. Thiede stated that it looks from the picture that the addition has a separate entry or stairway. Schenk stated that the entry to the new addition is from the garage. Bauer asked if the structure would change if the variance was approved. Blin stated that it would remain the same, but the use of the space would change. Nitsch asked what would be required for Schenk to be able to use this room for livable space, such as putting a wall three feet in to make a large closet. Blin stated without the variance that is one of the options. Schenk asked why garage space can be 5 feet from the side property line but living space has to be 10 feet. He stated that if the reason is due to privacy issues, he purposely did not put any windows on that side. He reiterated that the neighbor’s house is setback 23 feet from the side property line, so there is about 29 feet between the two houses. McCool stated that the minimum side yard setbacks were established to provide light, air, and space between structures and because of fire code requirements. He explained that a garage is considered to be not as important as a bedroom. Nitsch asked if the addition was constructed as living space with fire walls. McCool re- sponded that it was constructed as if it was going to be living space. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain continued the public hear- ing until August 29, 2005, due to lack of a quorum. 6.4 Biscoe Grove – Case No. ZA05-042 and PP05-043 (continued from 7/25/05 meeting) LaFaver/Mathews Development, LLCA has filed a zoning amendment application to re- zone approximately 123 acres of land from AG-1, Agricultural Preservation, to R-1, Rural Residential, and a preliminary plat application to develop 39 rural estate lots. The resi- dential subdivision plat name is “Biscoe Grove.” The project is located southeast of the 100th Street and Lehigh Road intersection. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. John Mathews, LaFaver/Mathews, Lino Lakes, stated that they have been working on the plat for approximately eight months. They are trying to keep the open spaces and ensure that there is a large distance between the roads and the back of the houses. They are re- quiring the addition of at least 12 trees per lot in addition to the trees that are being pre- served with the 23 percent they are removing. The price range of the houses will start at $600,000 and there will be an architectural control committee to review the plans before a home is built. He stated that he would answer any questions from the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 5 of 8 Thiede asked if the land is being farmed currently and who is farming it. Mathews responded that the Biscoes are farming the property. Thiede then asked why there would not be access onto 100th Street. McCool stated that the city wants to limit the number of access points for the plat; 100th Street is a connector between Lehigh Road and Manning Avenue and poten- tially traffic volumes in the future will be higher than they are today. Thiede asked if that would be a good spot to connect with Manning Avenue in terms of sight lines. McCool stated that could be discussed with MNDOT. Thiede noted that the Public Works Commission has concerns about the plan, including utilities, roads, fire hydrants, and wells. Nitsch asked if a decision has been made on whether there would be individual wells or a community well system. Michael Villari, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, responded that the community well system was proposed to reduce the possibility of contamination to the aquifer by limiting the number of access points to it. The intention is to have two wells that would be monitored through the homeowners association. The system would allow well testing on a regular basis by the county. Thiede asked if any other development in the city has this type of community well system. Blin responded no, but community wells are becoming more common. Brittain asked if the MUSA were to expand to that area in the future, how would the common well system facilitate potential hooking up to city services. Villari responded that the system can be designed to make connections with the regular city service system. Nitsch asked if these homes would have a water meter. Villari responded that meters are not needed. Nitsch asked if the city would incur any costs to put meters on these homes in the future if they are connected to the city system. Blin responded that would be included in the connection charge paid by the homeowners when they hook up to the city’s water system. Brittain opened the public hearing. Robert Johnson, 10711 Lehigh Road South, stated that he has lived there for 30 years and Lehigh Road was just gravel. He stated that the city spends one day a year patching up the potholes on Lehigh and he is fine with the condition of the road. He thinks that new addition they are planning looks like a beautiful spot. He does not want to pay for anything to do with this development, including road improvements. Lehigh Road will have to be upgraded to accommodate the new residents and the access from Lehigh onto Manning is dangerous. He reiterated that any road improvements need to be paid for by the developer and property owners. Ernie Kunshier, 10809 Lehigh Road South, stated that he is concerned about 39 new wells and sewer systems and how would that affect the water quality in the existing wells. He also expressed concern about improving the roads, which would create weight restrictions that would impact those residents who own businesses with heavy equipment stored on their properties, such as his semi-tractor. He also stated that the current intersection is dangerous and it is a good idea to put in a new intersection. McCool stated that the parcels would all be a minimum of 1.5 acres, which is the minimum requirement for septic systems. He does not believe those new systems would cause any problems for neighboring property owners. McCool also stated that there are already weight restrictions on those roads. The area to the Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 6 of 8 southwest is residentially zoned and there should not be any businesses out there with heavy equipment unless they are performing tasks on those properties. Mike Mills, 10811 Lehigh Road, stated that when he purchased his home from the Biscoe’s five years ago, they promised him that Cottage Grove would not allow any more than the four lots for Stony Ridge. He stated that Lehigh Road is just an oil paved road and he has no problems with the road in its current condition. He stated that the new residents will probably want new roads and he is not willing to pay for new roads. He expressed concern that the green space would be developed in the future. He wants the developer to pay for all improvements and suggested making Lehigh Road a cul-de-sac and allowing access to Manning Avenue. Dale Thompson, 9947 Lehigh Road, noted that the proposed pond is on high ground. He stated that when during heavy rains, the lot on the corner would be flooded. He expressed concern for increased traffic due to the development. He stated that the road is restricted year round to three tons. He also stated that he does not want to pay to improve the road- ways. He wants the area to stay rural and suggested the possibility of dividing the property into three 40-acre hobby farms. Jerry Dirksen, 9966 Manning Avenue, stated that this is not his worst nightmare of a devel- opment but he still sees his quality of life declining due to more noise and traffic. He also stated that he does not want to be assessed for new roads. He suggested that any develop- ment that goes in should be similar to what is already in the neighborhood, with at least five acre lots. Bill Royce, 10823 Lehigh Road, asked how many $600,000 homes are needed in Cottage Grove. There are executive homes being built in the West Draw and proposed for the East Ravine. He wondered when affordable houses would be built in Cottage Grove. Brittain commented that there is a pretty good diversity of homes in the city. He noted that the city is trying to develop levels of housing, including providing more expensive homes for those who want to upgrade without leaving Cottage Grove. Blin added that one of the goals in the East Ravine is to create more move-up housing for the reasons Brittain mentioned. Most of the housing in the city is in a fairly moderate price range and we hear constantly from people who want to move up to a larger home but don’t have that opportunity and have to go else- where. Johnson asked what school district this development would be in. McCool responded the Hastings School District. Johnson asked if they have been contacted about this proposal. McCool stated that he would check on that. Johnson expressed concern for the safety of the children riding on school buses. Thompson stated that the property owner of the nine acre parcel behind his property has not been able to build a house on that lot and asked if he would be able to do so if this project was approved. McCool responded that that parcel is zoned AG-1, which has a density limita- tion of one unit per 40 acres and Thompson’s home is the one unit for that 40 acres so the land use and rezoning would have to be changed before another home could be built. No one else spoke. Brittain continued the public hearing until August 29, 2005. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 7 of 8 Applications and Requests 7.1 Review of Brown Lot Line Adjustments Blin presented an overview of the application for a lot line adjustment for property located at 9670 Kimbro Avenue South. He stated that the public hearing would held by the City Council at their meeting on September 7, 2005. Nitsch asked why the lot line adjustment is being proposed. Blin responded that the neighbors want to purchase part of the Brown’s property to enlarge their property. Brittain asked about the structures on the property. Blin stated that there is no home on that parcel, just sheds and barns that will be removed. The four Planning Commissioners in attendance had no objections to the proposed lot line adjustment. 7.2 Discussion of Industrial District Open Storage Amendment Blin summarized the proposed ordinance amendments for open storage in the industrial zoning districts. The proposed ordinances include prohibiting all outdoor storage; allowing certain uses to have open storage with performance standards; and creating a new industrial district that would be fairly limited in scope, encompassing only the two properties by the rail- road, where outdoor storage would be allowed but prohibiting it in the rest of the industrial districts. Nitsch expressed concern that if the city creates a news zoning district to accommodate Lyman Lumber, other companies may want to have the same options. Thiede asked if staff could provide a percentage of land in the industrial park that the proposed zoning district would encompass. Nitsch also expressed concern about traffic from large vehicles that ser- vice those types of large industrial users. 7.3 Discussion of Industrial District Setback Changes McCool summarized the proposed text amendment for setbacks in the industrial district and asked for feedback. Bauer agreed with the reasoning to get more use out of the land and asked if additional screening would be required if the buildings were moved closer to residential areas. McCool responded yes. Brittain stated that the proposed setbacks make sense. He believes that the concept with the road up to the residential area would create more noise. McCool stated that at the neighborhood meeting, the three neighbors who attended had a preference for Con- cept A. Nitsch asked if hours of operation for those businesses abutting residential areas could be restricted so they could not operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He also stated that he prefers Concept A. 7.4 Discussion of Code Amendments for Auto Dealers and Temporary Signs Blin summarized the proposed ordinance amendment for auto dealerships. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 8 of 8 Nitsch asked about tents. Blin stated those would be prohibited. Brittain asked about service bay locations with respect to sight lines from major roads. Blin stated that those would be limited to the side of the buildings. Nitsch asked about restricting the size of signs. It was noted that signage would be governed by the sign ordinance, but it could be covered in the proposed ordinance. Nitsch asked about window signage. McCool responded that the only signage allowed on the car windows would be warranty/sticker price. Blin summarized the proposed ordinance amendment regarding temporary signs. Brittain asked how reducing the amount of time to 15 days makes it easier to enforce. Blin stated that staff looked at what other cities allow and Cottage Grove was on the high end of the scale. Thiede asked what local business owners think of the proposal. Blin stated that staff would discuss this with the Chamber of Commerce. Thiede expressed concern that some busi- nesses would find that too restrictive and may not locate here. Blin stated that all competitors in the city would have the same level with signage, so there will be more equity. Bauer asked about for lease and for sale signs. Blin stated that those signs would be allowed only on the property. Bauer asked that the language be clarified that banners are only al- lowed on structures and not between light poles or on stakes. Blin stated that cities that have restricted temporary commercial signs have created excep- tions for non-profit, community organizational promotions. Bauer stated that the language should be tailored so that signs for non-profits such as credit counseling services would also be prohibited. Adjournment Motion by Nitsch, seconded by Thiede, to continue the public hearings on Monday, August 29, 2005. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m.