Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-23 PACKET 08.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission August 28, 2017 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, August 28, 2017, in the Council Chambers 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. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Justin Fox, David Lutchen, Jennifer Raymer, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: Derek Rasmussen Staff Present: John M. Burbank Senior Planner Ryan Burfeind, Assistant City Engineer Christine Costello, Economic Development Director Steve Dennis, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Zopfi made a motion to approve the agenda. Fox seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (5 -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 Hren Minor Subdivision — Case MS2017-025 Tom and Nicolle Hren have applied for a minor subdivision to subdivide a 3.129 -acre parcel of land at 6450 Preserve Pass South into two parcels of 1.5 and 1.629 acres respec- tively. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 2 of 8 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Zopfi asked if water and sewer could be extended to Lot 24 in the future. Burbank responded if they chose to; currently city utilities are only available to the one lot, and the pipe is not sized to accommodate both lots. Brittain asked for more information on the shifting of the lot lines. Burbank pointed out on the map where the former and proposed lot lines are located. Tom Hren, 10600 67th Street South, explained the reason they moved the property lines was because Parcel B has a large hill on the easterly part of the lot, and the proposed lot configu- ration would provide more flat space and room to adequately position a home and to take advantage of the public utilities that were installed. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Fox made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Raymer seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 5 -to -0 vote. 6.2 Werner Electric Rooftop Solar Garden — Case ICUP2017-028 Novel Werner Solar One LLC has applied for an interim conditional use permit to allow a 750 KW AC roof -mounted community solar garden at Werner Electric, 7450 95th Street South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Zopfi asked if the tilt of the panels would be towards 95th Street. Burbank responded yes. Paula Fitzgerald, 2925 Alvarado Lane North, Plymouth, MN, stated that the applicants concur with all the conditions in the staff report. She explained that in the glare study, the result that was the low potential for temporary after image, which is the lowest classification, and the model that was utilized in the glare study did not include the anti -reflective glare coating that will be utilized on their panels that will mitigate glare further. Additionally, these panels are designed to absorb light rather than reflect it. They are doing everything they can to make this work well for the community in that precise location. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Zopfi made a motion to approve the interim conditional use permit subject to the con- ditions stipulated in the staff report. Lutchen seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 5 -to -0 vote. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 3 of 8 6.3 Harkness Avenue Small Area Study — Case CP2017-027 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment for the Harkness Avenue Small Area Study, which includes modifying the land use from low den- sity residential to medium and high density residential. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Lutchen asked why the comprehensive traffic study was not done in this phase. Burbank ex- plained that the existing study covered the traffic analysis based on the existing roadways and projected units. If the land use is changed and a project is proposed, that would be the time to do a study based on the development proposal. Traffic studies are expensive, and the City typically wants the developer to pay for that study. John Shardlow, Stantec, stated that if the City chooses to go forward with any of the alterna- tives, we would need to generate traffic information for submittal to the Metropolitan Council so they could analyze the traffic within traffic analysis zones (TAZ). The study would look at the carrying capacity of adjacent roads to decide if the developer would be required to add turn lanes or other capacity in those improvements. There is no information currently to do a traffic study related to specific improvements that might be required as conditions of approval but we do know that the roadways adjacent to this area have the capacity to be improved to accommodate future traffic. Brittain opened the public hearing. Matthew Hislop, 7560 Harkness Avenue South, stated that this is just a conceptual phase and asked how the process begins to move forward, how the decision making process works, and at what point in time is the value of his opinion the most relevant. Shardlow responded the property and the land use alternatives can be looked at from a variety of different per- spectives. The residents who came to the neighborhood meetings believe this to be a unique area and wonder why the city would want to change it. One of the things the City Council asked Stantec to do as land use planners is to test the physical feasibility and if the land is suitable for the proposed types of development. He encouraged the Commission to look at the goals and policies and decide if this is an area where the city should provide density in close proximity to transit, which is one of the objectives identified by the Steering Committee and Planning Commission, or is a unique area that you want to preserve and protect. He noted that there will be a transit station on 80th Street. He then stated that tonight would be a good time for residents to express their thoughts about the future of this area. Hislop stated that he has seen pockets of open land in urban areas around the metro. There is a lot of traf- fic walking and driving down Harkness Avenue because it is a piece of nature in the middle of town. He has questions about when water and sewer would come in, what the development concepts would look like, and what the intent of the City is. He also asked what the driving factor is behind the potential development of the area. Brittain responded that the reason for the timing is that the comprehensive plan is being updated. He further noted that the City is not going to force landowners sell their property or build something specific there; this is a vi- sion that the City could have for the 2040 comprehensive plan for what would best fit with the infrastructure in that area, including the size of the roads and utilities, to prevent urban sprawl and undue assessments in areas that are populated at a lower density. Brittain further stated Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 4 of 8 that tonight is a good opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal and that anything the Commission decides tonight isn't a plan to make something happen there; it is strictly a con- cept to give developers and landowners a heads up about what densities would be allowed there. Burbank stated that this application will be going to the City Council for final disposi- tion. The meeting tonight is the official public hearing, although the Council typically does accept comments at their meetings. Cindy Harriman, 7480 Harkness Avenue South, stated that she feels nervous about this pro- posed amendment and that the City has control and can make decisions about her property. The reason she was able to buy her home is because the former owners moved out because they were upset about eminent domain used for Hardwood Avenue behind her property. She asked what she would tell prospective buyers of her property if she decides to sell in the fu- ture. She stated that she has talked with some neighbors and nobody is interested in selling their land. She does not want to be forced out of her home. She is opposed to any develop- ment in the area. Brian Buffie, 7505 Meadow Grass Cove South, stated that he lives on a cul-de-sac west of Hardwood Avenue and that he is opposed to the development of this area. He noted that they paid a premium for their parcel when they built their house based on the natural area, the woods, and the quiet of Hardwood Avenue. He also feels a connection to Harkness Avenue as his kids call it the reindeer way. He stated that almost every day they see wildlife running through the parkland and green space in the area. He understands why the study is being done due to the location and transit opportunities in that area, and he looks at as an oppor- tunity to really think about and focus not just on the "can" if the study shows it is possible but the "should we do this." He expressed concerns about the impact on traffic by adding 400 - plus units of high density along with town homes and twin homes. He also expressed concern about clear cutting all the trees along that corridor. He is against this proposal. Linda Peterson, 7471 Hydram Avenue South, explained that her parents live on Harkness Avenue and she will be inheriting that property. She stated that neither she nor her daughters will sell those five acres. It does seem one of the driving forces is the Metropolitan Council's bus station proposal. She and her parents are against the development. Hislop stated that he agrees with the comments about can or should. Development in that area, which is one of the core corridors off of 80th Street, will change the cultural dynamic of Cottage Grove. He is concerned that this is being driven largely by the Metropolitan Council and the need for mass transit. He is against the concept. Ralph Rolling, 7479 Meadow Grass Cove South, stated that he was shocked to hear that there was a plan for high density apartments, and that it seems like it is just being pushed through. The previous comprehensive plans left this area the way it is. He stated that allowing this type of development would completely changing that area into an apartment place. He noted that there is a lot of wildlife in that area, and expressed concern about clear cutting of the land. He asked if this is a conceptual development plan, why the zoning is being changed ahead of someone developing the property. He also noted that meeting the goal of an addi- tional 5,000 residents by 2040 can be done in other ways like continuing to build really nice single family houses. The Legends development has not yet been completed so we don't Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 5 of 8 know how that will impact traffic in the area. His opinion is to not change something in antici- pation that some developer is going to come in with a development proposal. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Shardlow reported that his firm is working with the City to do the environmental review neces- sary to attract a business of statewide significance. Cottage Grove is in competition with an- other city in the metropolitan area for that business. One of the things that business is looking for Cottage Grove to demonstrate is that there will be housing available in the community to support their employees if they were to put that major project in the city. The City has been approached in the past by other major businesses and as someone who works in communi- ties throughout the area, the availability of employees in the community is one of the main constraints they are facing. He stated that the transit station would be bringing employees into the community to support those businesses as well as providing service for people who live here to work elsewhere. The Metropolitan Council is enforcing transit service on the City of Cottage Grove, and the City recognizes it as an asset that it may need to build its tax base in the future. He then stated that he had heard speculation that taxes would increase if this amendment was approved. He explained that taxes are based upon the use of property, not the zoning or the land use guiding. Finally, the City does not have the authority to take people's private property for economic purposes, so those who testified that they don't want to sell have complete control about the use of their property. As long as they continue to feel that way, the property will not develop, even if the City wanted it to. Brittain stated that the city is not asking to change the zoning of the property, just to make a recommendation on future land use designation, which eventually could turn into a zoning change. Burbank explained that the current land use designation is low density residential, so absent any changes, a builder could request that the zoning match the land use, which is one to four units per acre, and put in a single-family development similar to other developments in the area. This amendment would not rezone properties; it is a land use discussion to aid us when we complete the 2040 comprehensive plan. He stated that more information on future transit plans can be found on the Washington County web site, under Red Rock Corridor. Land use designations are looked at every 10 years as part of comprehensive plan updates; it is part of the City's long-term vision on how we are going to grow as a community. Fox asked if this just would allow for future rezoning, not currently rezoning the land. Burbank responded that somebody could come in and request a zoning amendment at any time, but that zoning request would have to match the land use. In this particular instance, the current land use is low density residential and several of the options in the proposed concept plan would fit that designation so the property could be rezoned. Zopfi stated that during the public testimony, there were many comments regarding imminent development in that area. He explained that this is a long-term vision. He noted that it ap- pears at least half of the acreage in the area is owned by residents who have no intention of selling their properties for a very long time. He noted that there are always concerns about developers only paying for the land and not the house, but you don't have to sell your prop- erty unless you get an offer that makes sense for you. The reality is that development hap- pens when all things come together at the right time. None of these concepts plans might come to fruition ever or for a long-time into the future. What we are looking at doing is setting Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 6 of 8 up this little pocket so that we can guide the future plan and more importantly establish restrictions in that area for future development, such as tree preservation. Brittain agreed with Zopfi. He stated that the City has the responsibility for planning for the fu- ture, and to let property owners know what those plans are for their property and for the prop- erties around them. He noted that the City is short on the number of apartments, stating that young people who grew up in Cottage Grove don't have many options if they want to stay within this community. There are valid discussions on where are the most appropriate places in the community for various land uses and developments, but the City needs to leverage large roadways, existing commercial districts, and existing utilities for larger density develop- ments. He sees this as an opportunity of someday having higher density housing close to Highway 61 and 80th Street. He sees bus rapid transit as a benefit but not a driving factor. Zopfi stated regarding high density and apartment construction, especially in our current time frame, market rate rent is about $2 a square foot. He stated that this area would not be for af- fordable housing. The amount of money per square foot is too high due to various factors in that location. Shardlow stated that when they looked at laying out this concept plan, it was clear that that they were to look at market rate apartments because underground parking would be necessary and fitting the units into that area, including tree preservation, automati- cally dictates greater cost. Around the Twin Cities metropolitan area, there are a lot of high - amenity multi -family residential developments being built. Lutchen reiterated that this would not happen overnight. These discussions have been going on since April and there will be more discussions in the upcoming months. He would encour- age neighbors to attend these meetings and to understand that this is only a conceptual plan. Brittain re -opened the public hearing. Buffie appreciates the comments by the staff and Commission and the concept plan can be looked at for future use and planning. He stated that the Commission also has the opportunity now to say no to this proposal. He asked why this wasn't originally included in the 2040 com- prehensive plan. Brittain responded that the 2040 comprehensive plan has not been completed yet; work on it is still in progress. The study of this area is not an afterthought, it is part of the ongoing process for the 2040 plan. Buffie expressed confusion about the need for high density housing for people who can't afford to purchase a single-family home but saying that apartments in that area would need to be market rate due to construction costs. He does not understand how the numbers can work without subsidies. Brittain stated that he did not mean to imply low rent apartments for this site; it was in general for the community to find places for those types of housing. Buffie stated that there is space around Highway 61 south of 80th Street, particularly the park and ride on the frontage road that could be utilized for this type of development that would not disrupt a culture in a community that many people who have shown up tonight feel very strongly about. He also stated that expecting people to walk from any of the area on Harkness down to a bus stop in the middle of winter is extremely short sighted. A resident asked how quickly the zoning in the area can be changed once this plan is ac- cepted. Burbank explained the process. Following this Planning Commission meeting and public hearing, the City Council would take action to either make a modification to the land Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 7 of 8 use or not. The small area amendment would go to the Metropolitan Council. The City has to notify adjacent communities and the school district for a 30 -day comment period. Then the Met Council makes its decision whether or not to approve the amendment. In this particular project, there are no big regional impacts but is looking at additional housing within the com- munity, which is one of their goals, so he wouldn't see any hold ups at the Met Council. The City Council would then have to adopt the Met Council's recommendation. Once that land use is in place, zoning could be changed if a developer submitted applications. Zopfi clarified that the zoning does not automatically change with the adoption of this small area study. He asked if a developer buys one of the parcels along Harkness tomorrow for a single-family or villa development, the applications could be before the Commission before this amendment is approved. Burbank responded yes, if the proposal meets the current land use of one to four units per acre and that a higher density development would not meet the current land use. A resident stated he understands that development would not happen imminently but the res- idents in the area have also made long-term plans to live in that area. He also noted that if for some reason he wanted to sell his home in the middle of this process, buyers may not be at- tracted to their property because it is essentially spoken for in the future. Burbank stated that one of the key components of a comprehensive plan is to provide information regarding pos- sible future uses for properties and surrounding areas. Shardlow stated that every city in the metropolitan area is subject to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, which says that within nine months after adopting a comprehensive plan, the city shall change its official controls so as not to be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. That doesn't mean that they have to rezone properties, but if the city were to go forward on one of these alternatives, they would be directing Stantec to prepare that plan, which would include policy language about how and when it would be implemented. The City Council could say that rezoning would only be con- sidered in accordance with this comprehensive if the assemblages of land are a certain amount or percentage or other parameters. Adopting a comprehensive plan and changing a land use is indicating generally an intent to rezone based upon a future proposal. Brittain closed the public hearing. Fox made a motion to approve the Harkness Avenue Small Area Study with a condition added requiring a percentage of land for development. Lutchen seconded. Zopfi asked to amend the motion to ensure the assemblage language is set for both the east and west sides of Harkness Avenue. Brittain asked if that would include percentages of each side independently. Zopfi responded independently. Shardlow clarified if he meant that the policy consideration for minimum assemblage before rezoning could take place should apply to the entire study area, both sides of Harkness Avenue. If this goes forward and the Council approves it, they will bring the actual plan back to the Planning Commission to see the rec- ommended language before it goes to the Metropolitan Council. Fox accepted the recommended amendment to his motion. Lutchen also agreed. Motion passed unanimously on a 5 -to -0 vote. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2017 Zopfi made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 24, 2017, Planning Com- mission meeting. Raymer seconded. Motion passed unanimously (5 -to -0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of August 2017 City Council Meetings Councilmember Dennis summarized the actions taken by the City Council at their meetings in August 2017. Dennis recognized two former Planning Commissioners, Sam Awad and Jeff Abelson, who provided great service on the Commission by volunteering to act on behalf of the community. Awad moved out of Cottage Grove and Abelson had a change in his employment status so he was unable to fulfill his term. He then reported that he and Brittain interviewed several ap- plicants for the three vacancies on the Commission, and at the September 6 City Council meeting, those three appointments will be acted on. He then thanked Assistant City Engineer Burfeind and staff for arranging a community tour of many of the current projects taking place in the City. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests 8.4 Election of Planning Commission Secretary Brittain asked if there are any nominations or volunteers for Planning Commission Secretary. Raymer volunteered to serve as Secretary. Brittain asked if anyone else had a nomination or wanted to volunteer. There were none. Motion passed unanimously to appoint Raymer as Secretary of the Planning Commis- sion. Adjournment Lutchen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Zofi seconded. The meeting was ad- journed at 8:23 p.m. (5 -to -0 vote).