Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-02 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 6/2/10 .. Community Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT • . • : STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on April 26, 2010, STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on April 26, 2010. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 5/24/10 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on April 26, 2010 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS ® City Administrator" Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER reffuj . . •- ETATUIT 71711 • April 4 2010 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on April 26, 2010, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. III Me] Tg Vice Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Rostad recog- nized former Commissioner David Thiede for service to the City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission from February 2005 to February 2010. He presented Thiede with a plaque high- lighting his tenure on the Commission. U*TK Members Present: Ken Brittain, Brian Pearson, Tracy Poncin, Jim Rostad Members Absent: Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Ryan Rambacher, Chris Willhite Council Liaison: Councilmember Justin Olson Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Pearson made a motion to approve the agenda. Brittain seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (4 -to -0 vote). s•- • Rostad asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Rostad explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capac- ity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he ex- plained 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 address for the public record. am Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2010 Page 2 of 4 Discussion Items Blin stated that both of the discussion items relate to new subdivision approvals. The reason for the discussion is that after a lull of almost two years, there have been some indications from developers that the city is on the verge of new subdivisions being developed, particu- larly in the East Ravine. He stated that he would like to discuss the East Ravine Standards prior to the discussion on the subdivision ordinance amendment. 7.2 East Ravine Development Standards Blin stated that when the East Ravine was master planned in 2006, the city also adopted a series of ordinance requirements and guidelines for future subdivisions. The standards in the ordinance are required for every subdivision so as a city we can be sure that those are fol- lowed. The city expects the guidelines to be incorporated into protective covenants for these developments and would be governed by homeowners associations. Blin summarized the development standards for the East Ravine, which were listed in the memo to the Commis- sion. He stated that the one question all developers who have contacted the city recently have asked is about reducing the 85 -foot wide lot size. He asked if the Commission would consider allowing 75 -foot wide lots in the East Ravine. Staff thinks that is something that could be allowed because the same size house would fit on a 75 -foot lot as on an 85 -foot lot with the required 10 -foot side yard setbacks. Poncin asked what neighboring cities' requirements are. Blin responded that Woodbury has lots as small as 55 feet in their Stonemill Farms development; the basic lot size in that subdi- vision is 75 feet. Brittain asked if the minimum 11,000 square foot lot size would be affected by allowing narrower lots. Blin responded that lot size would still be required. Brittain stated that he could see some opportunity for discussion on that but he wants to ensure that the East Ravine area would still be move up housing. The Commission requested further infor- mation on what other cities are requiring for setbacks. The consensus was to not go any less than 75 feet wide. Blin stated that in addition to the information on lot width requirements in other cities, staff could take photographs of differing lot widths so the Commission can see how it looks on a streetscape. Brittain asked if floor plans could be provided. Blin stated that there was a brief discussion on this issue with the Council during their retreat in January and generally the Council thought that perhaps they could allow for 75 -foot wide lots but don't want to relax on the amenities or downgrade the overall look of the subdivision. Olsen stated that the Council felt comfortable with lots at 75 feet wide but not smaller provided that those lots would still be adequate for move -up housing and allow the homeowner the opportunity to enjoy certain amenities. The Council in general felt that the East Ravine plan was very well done; however they were open to some tweaking but not an overall modification of the whole. Brittain stated that he would like to see some diversity in lot widths throughout a de- velopment, maybe have a percentage of lots within a development at 75 feet and the rest larger. Pearson asked about cul -de -sac widths. McCool responded that there is a minimum 60 -foot lot width at the right -of -way line and a minimum of 90 feet measured across the building setback line. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2010 Page 3 of 4 7.1 Subdivision Ordinance Discussion McCool stated that staff has evaluated the city ordinances relating to petitioning of public im- provements for new developments. Currently, the city code requires the developer to petition the city for public improvements which include the street, curb and gutter, street lights, side- walks, etc., and the city lets the contracts for the construction of those improvements. Staff is suggesting that the ordinance be amended to allow developers the opportunity to either con- struct their own public improvements or petition the city to let the contracts and assess the costs to the lots. Allowing the opportunity for the developer to construct their own streets would give them some control on when that work gets down. The city would still review their construction plans, which would still have to meet city specifications, and inspect the project. A development agreement between the city and the developer would also still be required. Brittain asked if the city engineer provided any feedback on this issue. McCool responded that the Engineering Department and Public Works feel that they would still have control be- cause the developer would have to abide by a set of standards and the city would still in- spect the project. Pearson asked if this would only be for residential developments. McCool responded that it could also be commercial or industrial developments. Rostad asked if the developers add the cost of the public improvement assessments into the cost of the home. Blin responded yes. Rostad stated that whether the city or the developer constructs the im- provements, the cost is added into the price of the home. Blin stated that the advantages to the developer of doing their own work is timing and that they can do it less expensively than the city can typically. Recently, a lot of same developers have not been able to get financing for these projects so they may be inclined to let the city do it because we essentially provide the financing for all of that construction. There is a risk to the city in doing that; if a subdivi- sion fails, the city may not get the full assessed value back. It was the consensus of the Commission to amend the subdivision ordinance and hold the public hearing at a later meeting. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 22, 2010 Poncin made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 22, 2010, meeting. Motion seconded by Pearson. The motion passed unanimously on a 3 -to -0 vote with Brittain abstaining. -, 0 M T Blin updated the Commission on the City Council meetings held on April 7 and 21, 2010. None Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2010 Page 4 of 4 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Pearson asked about the status of The Preserve at Cottage Grove subdivision. Blin re- sponded that it is in foreclosure and the redemption period ends June 1. There is a national developer waiting to buy all the lots, and they would like to be building houses this summer. The lots are deeply discounted from their asking price two years ago, which is the pattern all over the Twin Cities. Olsen informed the Commission that on April 27 the City of Cottage Grove will celebrate all its volunteers at the Annual Volunteer Recognition Banquet including the volunteers that serve on the Planning Commission. He also stated that on Saturday, May 1, beginning at 7:00 a.m. at the Public Works garage, Cottage Grove's annual spring clean up day will be held. This is the public's chance to bring household goods and hazardous waste to the public works garage to be disposed. Public Works and the County work together on the disposal of this material. There is a fee charge for disposal and a pricing sheet is available. Adjournment Poncin made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Pearson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.