Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-25 PACKET 08.1.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission December 17, 2012 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, December 17, 2012, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Elijah Harter, Brian Pearson, Lise' Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Maureen Ventura, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Neal Heurung Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director /City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner Dave Thiede, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Brittain made a motion to approve the agenda with the addition of two discussion items. Reese seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Rostad 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 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 go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Discussion Items 7.1 Continued Discussion on Allowing Chickens and Ducks on Residential Lots McCool summarized the staff report, which included the results of his survey of 52 other communities in the metropolitan area, Cottage Grove's Facebook page announcement of the Planning Commission's consideration of this issue, the results of the Survey Monkey opinion survey, the results of the survey available at the City Hall front counter, and other written Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2012 Page 2 of 6 responses received by the City. He asked the Planning Commission to make a recommen- dation on whether the Commission wants to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow farm animals on urban residential lots. City staff, based on the results of the surveys and information from the 52 other communities surveyed, recommended that the ordinance not be amended and continue to allow farm animals on any residentially zoned property that is a minimum of five acres. The second alternative reported to the Planning Commission was to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow farm animals, or specifically chickens and /or ducks in urban residential neighbors. A tentative schedule on how to proceed was described to the Commission if they recommended to staff that an ordinance amendment be prepared. McCool reported that the Public Safety Commission will review this information at their meeting on January 15, 2013. The Public Safety Department is responsible for the enforcement of animal control. Planning staff requested the Public Safety Commission and Public Safety staff to participate in any amendments allowing farm animals in urban residential districts. Harter asked about portable coops, which are being used for urban chickens to help prevent property damage. McCool responded that some communities allow those but have specified setback requirements. The general intent of portable coops is to mitigate matted down ve- getation in the pen area. Harter stated he would be in favor of getting more public feedback and looking at amending the ordinance. Reese noted that public health information was not included in the report. Rediske stated that the packet included an email from Autumn Carlson regarding Chicken Run Rescue and asked if it was possible for that group to address the Planning Commission. Brittain stated most communities allow farm animals but the majority of those cities required lots to be 1.5 acres or larger. He does not see enough justification to amend the ordinance. Pearson stated that he has talked to people about this issue and the overwhelming response is to not allow chickens or farm animals on residential lots. Wehrle agrees that there is an overwhelming majority of residents that don't want to see poultry in the backyard. He rec- ommended that the ordinance not change. Ventura stated that an ordinance amendment warrants a look but is concerned about conversations she has had with residents as well as many of the comments that appear in the report. There seems to be an overwhelming com- munity response against changing the ordinance. Rostad commented that he agrees with the comments for not allowing it. He has surveyed a number of people and there was no de- sire for this. He thinks there could be a lot of problems trying to draft an ordinance that makes sense. Harter realizes this may not be popular but there probably won't be an overwhelming number of people with chickens if an ordinance is passed. Most people he knows who have chickens use them for eggs, not pets or to slaughter. He would like to gather other information that might work in our community. He would be willing to spend time doing research, including looking at health and safety issues. Bob Burtman, 9476 Harkness Court South stated that he has four ducks in his backyard. He believes most of the people who participated in the survey do not live by anybody with ducks Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2012 Page 3 of 6 or chickens. He also noted that lots in St. Paul, which allows chickens, are smaller than his lot. Regarding getting the approval of neighbors, he asked why a small percentage can dic- tate what a person can do on their own property. He asked that the ordinance be changed to allow for chickens and ducks on urban lots. Kim Carlson, 7687 Hyde Avenue South, stated this past July they had a baby chicken fly into their fenced backyard that was bound with string around both of its legs. After removing the bindings, the chicken stayed in their yard for several days. Her daughter watched the chicken to ensure it was not attacked by neighborhood dogs and cats. The daughter con- tacted Chicken Run Rescue, which took the chicken. Carlson explained that this group tries to find owners for rescued chickens. She stated that a lot of issues should be looked at be- fore making a decision regarding allowing poultry and fowl on urban lots. Harter agreed that a lot more information could be presented, and he volunteered to research what might work for Cottage Grove. Reese stated that he strongly opposes changing the ordinance because of public health is- sues. The CDC reported a salmonella outbreak due to live poultry in backyards where 200 people were infected in 27 states, 34 percent were hospitalized, and 2 died in October 2012. Harter made a motion to proceed with the process of an ordinance amendment on the timeline laid out by staff. Rediske seconded. Motion failed on a 2 -to -5 vote with 1 abstention (Ventura). Ventura stated she would vote yes to continue with further research but feels without that information if it is too early to start putting together an actual ordinance amendment. Brittain made a motion to not change the ordinance. Reese seconded. Motion passed on a 6 -to -2 vote (Harter and Rediske). Rediske agrees with Harter about getting additional information, including having Chicken Run Rescue speak to the group. Harter stated that more information is needed before the City makes a decision on an issue that is becoming more popular. 7.2 D.R. Horton Concept Plan Thiede stated that he asked that the revised concept plan be presented to the Planning Commission for their input prior to City Council review at their meeting on Wednesday. McCool summarized the staff report, highlighting the changes made to the concept plan that the Planning Commission reviewed at their November 26 meeting. Brittain asked for more information on how much space there will be from the edge of 70th Street to the backyards. Levitt responded that the road section that Washington County is proposing for 70th Street is referenced as rural divided with raised median and bike paths on Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2012 Page 4 of 6 both sides. The 70th Street corridor would have a 184 -foot width. As part of the project, the City is gaining half of that right -of -way (92 feet) based upon the center line of the roadway. Daren Laberee, Westwood Professional Services, consultant for Newland Communities, dis- played the future plans for 70th Street, which they received from Washington County. On the south side of 70th Street, which has existing homes, the right -of -way is 75 feet measured from the centerline of the road, and it is 26 feet from pavement to property line. On the Newland side of 70th Street, the right -of -way will be 92 feet measured from the centerline of the road, and from pavement to the right -of -way line there will be 47 feet. Within the 47 feet there is a ditch, a 10 -foot wide trail, and some open space. Beyond the 47 feet, an additional 75 feet is requested. They are proposing to meander from 40 to 75 feet, averaging 55 feet, from pavement to property line. Laberee pointed out the 40 feet, which is the minimum, and the 75 feet, which is what they are proposing as the maximum. Brittain asked where fences would be located. Laberee stated that fences would always be outside the easement/outlot. Brittain asked if the homeowner would own the easement property. Laberee responded yes, explaining that the same encumbrances can be put on an easement as on an outlot. Brittain asked if the homeowners association would maintain the easement. Laberee responded yes. Brittain asked staff if there are concerns about having easements instead of outlots. McCool responded that there could be issues with either. With private ownership going to the right - of -way line, would always know it belongs to somebody. If it was platted as an outlot and the homeowners association ceases to exist, the outlot could go tax forfeit and maintenance re- sponsibilities would become a concern. In two other projects approved in the East Ravine, there were stipulations in the agreement if the outlot becomes tax forfeit, the City would pick it up and all the landowners within the subdivision would be billed for the costs of maintaining the outlot and its taxes. Reese asked if staff has concerns with only one entrance into the DR Horton development when Military Road is closed. McCool responded that the County will only grant one access along 70th Street. A future north extension would eventually connect to Ravine Parkway. Brittain asked about the future paved trail along 70th Street and if it is standard practice for trails to curve in closer to the roadway. Levitt responded that from a public safety standpoint the County wants to bring pedestrians closer to the intersection so there is more driver awareness of pedestrians. They are also upgrading trails to be ADA compliant. The details are being worked out in the final plan sets that the County will be going out for bid with this spring. Rostad asked prior to the reconstruction of 70th Street, will there be a right -turn lane into the two developments. Levitt responded that turn lanes are proposed into both developments. Reese asked what about the ratio of ramblers to two -story houses. Labaree responded that house style would up to who purchases the lots. Reese expressed concern that the lots may be too narrow for ramblers. Labaree explained that a 65 -foot lot has space for a 50 -foot house pad. He noted that the market today is mostly for two -story homes. Rediske asked if a section from the DR Horton site, which is separated from the rest of their proposal by the watershed area, could be added to the Newland plat. Ron Mullenbach, DR Horton Homes, responded they are not in a situation to sell the property to Newland or try to Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2012 Page 5 of 6 buy property from them to combine. There will be a main entrance monument into their de- velopment on 70th Street, and elements of that monument sign will be incorporated into neighborhood identifiers, which will provide a unifying theme for the development. Rostad asked if anyone from the public wanted to address the Commission regarding the concept plan. There were no comments. Brittain commented that he would prefer the areas between the right -of -way and property lines to be outlots instead of easements. That would be almost like backing up to a nature preserve and would have selling power even if the property owners don't own it. Brittain then stated that he likes the changes shown in Concept Sketch C. Reese also likes Concept C. He asked if there is a way of connecting the communities by trail through the watershed. McCool responded there will be trail connections between the two properties going through the watershed district; there would not be any roadways. Rostad likes the plan as well. Reese asked if the streets will be 28 feet wide. McCool responded yes. Rostad asked if there is an additional lot on the new concept plan. Mullenbach responded yes, ex- plaining that to keep the lot sizes consistent along their southerly boundary, all the lots are 65 feet wide, which added one lot in that area. Harter agreed with Concept C. He asked when Military Road is closed will it become a trail. McCool answered yes, but there will be a north -south street crossing that will allow access to the development. The Planning Commission took no action on this concept plan. 7.3 Newland Communities Concept Plan McCool asked if there were any issues that needed to be addressed in the Newland Com- munities Concept Plan. The Planning Commission took no action on this concept plan. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2012 Ventura made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 22, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting. Rediske seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of December City Council Meetings Thiede reported that the Council referred the chicken and duck discussion back to the Plan- ning Commission. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Levitt responded to Brittain's request at the last meeting regarding the 80th Street connec- tion to West Point Douglas Road. She stated that earlier in the day an email was sent to the Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2012 Page 6 of 6 Planning Commission with a detailed work plan pertaining to that area. There will be further information sent in the future. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests T"I - Adjournment Reese made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Brittain seconded. The meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m.