Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-18 PACKET 07. City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission November 27, 2017 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, November 27, 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, Evan Frazier, Tony Khambata, David Lutchen, Taylor Mills, Derek Rasmussen, Jennifer Raymer, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: None Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Zopfi made a motion to approve the agenda. Frazier seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (9-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 Kingston Fields – Cases ZA2017-034 and PP2017-035 D.R. Horton has applied for a zoning amendment to rezone 59 acres of land from AG-1, Agricultural Preservation, to R-3, Single Family Residential, with a Planned Development Overlay (PDO). D.R. Horton also applied for a preliminary plat to be named Kingston Fields, which would create 124 single-family residential lots on two lot sizes (79 homes on Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2017 Page 2 of 6 65-foot wide lots and 45 homes on 70-foot wide lots) and 14 outlots. This proposed devel- opment is located east of Jamaica Avenue, north of Rose of Sharon Lutheran Church, and west of the Cayden Glen and Grayson Meadow residential subdivisions. McCool summarized the staff report. He stated that after reviewing the conditions of approval, D.R. Horton has requested that the public hearing be continued this evening. They want to have a dialogue with the Commission on some issues they identified so they can work with staff to make modifications to their development plan. Deb Ridgeway, D.R. Horton, 20860 Kenbridge Court, Lakeville, stated that they would like to table the decision tonight based on their need to review the conditions of approval. They would like to have a dialogue with the Commission on the architecture that they are propos- ing for the rambler-style homes. They are trying to achieve a product for first-time home buyers and feel that this product best suits that goal. They understand that the City has re- quirements regarding architecture, but want to discuss the Commission’s position on relaxing some of those requirements. She stated that Fran Hagen from Westwood Professional Services is here tonight also to answer any engineering questions. Brittain stated that the staff report talked about the developer’s desire to have garage fronts protrude farther out from the home than the required six feet and asked how far past the porch. Ridgeway explained that they are proposing six different house and floor plan styles and each of those have three different elevations. They committed to having stone accents on the front of the house, so the B Elevation plans in the packet would not be offered. Of the six houses that they are proposing, three protrude further than the required six feet. Twelve feet is the furthest that a garage would protrude from the front of the house. Brittain asked how deep the porches are. Ridgeway responded that the porches are about four feet deep. Brittain asked if the garage would then extend eight feet past the front porch. Ridgeway stated that on the worst case scenario it would be 12 feet from the porch. She then explained that the smallest floor plan they are offering is the Mason, which has the largest protrusion at 16 feet from the porch, so basically the full 20-foot depth of the garage is outside of the house footprint. The garage on the Rushmore protrudes six feet in front of the porch. The garage on the Bryant is 12 feet. The garage on the Everett is inset from the porch. The Ellsworth does not have a front porch and the garage protrudes three feet. The Cameron would be seven feet from the porch. She stated that there are three floor plans that have garages protruding more than six feet from the front porch. Brittain asked if she knows what percentage of the proposed 124 homes could end up being those models. Ridgeway responded that she does not know but anticipates an even distribution of each of the floor plans. Brittain asked if those homes would be on the 65-foot wide lots. Ridgeway stated yes, noting that there would be 75 lots with that lot width. She stated that the D.R. Horton does not allow similar frontages and house styles right next door to each other. Brittain noted that theoretically 30 percent of the homes on the 65-foot wide lots could have the extended garage. Fox asked if there could be three of the same floor plans next to each other if they had differ- ent front elevations. Ridgeway responded yes. Lutchen asked what the potential cost is to modify the Mason floor plan so it would be com- pliant. Ridgeway stated that changing the footprint of the home is more difficult than changing the exterior materials of the home without redesigning the house. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2017 Page 3 of 6 Rasmussen stated that it appears that the Mason is the biggest issue but it is also the small- est footprint and likely the most affordable, so he does not want to see this home model go away just to achieve the garage setback. He would like to see a nice variety of different sizes and footprints in the community. Although the garage does stick out further than required, he believes it may be a benefit to have more floor plans than remove this model from the proposed development. Zopfi asked if the porch could be widened since that would not impact the foundation size. Ridgeway stated that they have not discussed that. She explained that their goal is to hit the first time homebuyer market and having to redesign the floor plans and footprints of the houses would increase the cost. From their perspective, they would like to keep the plans as proposed and work with modifying the exteriors of the homes. Raymer asked if these are the only six floor plans that the developer has. Ridgeway stated that those are the six floor plans in their Express line of homes. The options may grow as the market changes. She stated that they are building this product in Apple Valley. Raymer stated that looking at the square footage so with the Mason compared to the Ellsworth they are about the same square footage and asked if they are about the same price point. Ridgeway responded that the Ellsworth would have a little higher price because it has a full basement. Fox asked if these were developed on a national level so the structure footprint can’t be devi- ated, but exterior finishes can be modified. Ridgeway stated that was correct. Khambata asked how D.R. Horton has handled these types of restrictions in the past. Ridgeway responded that they work with staff from the beginning of the process, noting that they haven’t had pushback on this product. She stated that they have approval from Woodbury and Shakopee to build this line of homes. Brittain stated that the East Ravine Master Plan had a vision of 85-foot wide lots. The City wanted larger width lots along major roadways, and he considers Ravine Parkway and Jamaica Avenue to be major roads, but there appears to be a significant number of 65-foot lots along those roadways. Eastridge Woods has 75-foot average lot widths and Cayden Glen has an 80-foot average lot width, and this proposed development does not come near the average lot width he expected to see. He asked about the depth of the lots. Ridgeway stated that the depths are similar to the 70-foot wide lots, which is about 144 feet deep along Ravine Parkway. Brittain asked for clarification on where the proposed average lot size of 11,270 square feet comes from with 65 and 70 foot wide lots, which should be 160 to 170 feet deep. He then stated that he would not be against allowing some garage forward homes but does not want to see a significant number of them. He asked if D.R. Horton purchased the property to the north of Ravine Parkway. Ridgeway stated that they would consider pur- chasing the remainder of the McHattie property if it comes up for sale. Rasmussen asked about runoff and drainage. Fran Hagen, Westwood Professional Services, 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, stated that they met this afternoon with city staff and their consultant to review the ponding, and that their preliminary designs meet the requirements. He noted that one difference between the 2007 concept plan and this proposal was that the 2007 plan did not provide enough ponding. He then described the locations of the proposed ponds and sewer lines. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2017 Page 4 of 6 Brittain stated that he agrees with staff regarding stone and brick and asked that they come back with percentages on that. This area is supposed to be the jewel of the community and he is looking for consistency with respect to the home construction. Hagen clarified that of the 124 proposed lots, 45 lots are 70 feet wide and have no issues meeting the garage setbacks. Out of the 79 lots that are 65 feet wide, even if 50 percent of the lots have a garage setback further from the house than required, that would be about 35 to 40 lots. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Levitt reminded the Commission that the developer has requested that the public hearing be continued so they can address the Commission’s concerns. She believes the developer has responded to the concerns that the community has expressed about affordability in housing and a diversity in housing stock. There can be a bit of turmoil when plans that were set in mo- tion in 2006 aren’t necessarily lining up with some of the housing demands today. She believes the developer really wants to make this successful and would encourage the Com- mission to provide the feedback regarding the garage forward design, such as a percentage of lots, so they can make adjustments to the development. She noted that in the Summers Landing development, the developer didn’t have all the builders lined up when the plat came through; when the three different builders came on line, they had different floor plans they wanted to offer. Some had garage forward designs, so a compromise was made that every third lot could have a garage forward design to provide diversity. The City also required that on any garage forward designs, the houses had to have additional architectural treatments. The developer is concerned because if more architectural treatments are added, the costs rise. It would be helpful if the Commission could provide guidance on what you think would be an acceptable amount so they can gauge how they have laid out the lots and the quantities. Rasmussen stated that 70 to 100 square feet of stone is reasonable and easily achievable without adding a lot costs. When we’re talking about the smaller lot widths and potential max- imum of 50 percent of these houses being garage forward or exceeding our setbacks, he is a little uncomfortable with that percentage, and suggested 25 to 30 percent. Brittain concurred. Allowing garage forward on every third house provides 30 to 33 percent and provides enough diversity. He does not see a significant issue with that. Lutchen reiterated the need to clarify the 11,270 square foot average lot size. Fox agrees about requiring more architectural details on garage forward houses. Rasmussen asked about Jamaica Avenue, noting that by the church it appears that it was built to be a four-lane road but is currently a single lane in each direction and asked if future development would trigger its conversion into a four-lane roadway and if this development would play a role in the future construction of Jamaica Avenue. Levitt responded that in order to improve the ride quality on Jamaica Avenue between 70th Street and Military Road in an economical way, the City reduced the road to one lane in each direction, which is a tempo- rary solution. She stated that the cost to complete that infrastructure project would be about $4.6 million dollars. She then explained that the City will swap Jamaica Avenue from 70th Street to Military Road with Washington County for Military Road from Jamaica Avenue to County Road 19. When development happens the County will construct the four lanes. The swap is necessary to enable the City to construct Ravine Parkway because Military Road will be severed and cul-de-sacced at both ends. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Lutchen expressed concern about the growing traffic on Jamaica going southbound from 70th to 80th and asked what plans are in place. Levitt responded that through our comp plan amendment, the City looks at traffic analysis based on total future growth of undeveloped land 20 years out to figure out what the projections are. Jamaica Avenue going to the south from 70th Street is a four-lane section that can carry the traffic that is proposed for the entire Upper Ravine District without having to do additional widening and at this time the City doesn’t have any plans to expand Jamaica. Our CIP projects pavement rehabilitation that would take place in the future but no expansion of the roadway. Fox made a motion to continue to the public hearing to the December Planning Com- mission meeting. Lutchen seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 9-to-0 vote. Discussion Items 7.1 Solar Ordinance Amendment McCool summarized the staff memorandum and proposed draft ordinance and asked for direction from the Planning Commission as to whether or not to pursue a zoning text amend- ment to allow solar panels to be installed on residential accessory structures, and if so, what performance standards would be required. Discussion included if small solar panel kits would be allowed; if the size of those allowable panels could be increased to 20 or 30 square feet from the maximum six square foot size cur- rently allowed; if any negative impacts, such as glare, were found in other communities; allowing carports at multi-unit residential properties to have solar panels; allowing pergolas by pools to have solar panels; requiring solar panels on accessory structures to be flush mounted; having language that solar panels are not allowed on open air structures; not hav- ing a definition of an accessory structure if it is over 200 square feet; and whether variances could be granted if a proposal does not meet the performance standards. Kristen Sachwitz, All Energy Solar, 1642 Carroll Avenue, St. Paul, commented that this ordi- nance only addresses residential and not commercial and industrial parcels. She stated that her company has installed solar panels on pergolas, especially on larger lots, and they usu- ally build the pergolas. The 200 square foot minimum triggers a building permit so that has to go through the code compliance review, so increasing the minimum size eliminates a lot of pre-existing accessory structures. Further discussion included allowing them on residential accessory structures of a certain size, whether or not to keep the language that prohibits solar panels on particular types of accessory structures, requiring the panels to be flush mounted, and what size hobby kits should be. Levitt asked that the Commission let staff know what they have consensus on in regards to changes to the proposed ordinance amendment. Brittain stated that there are two concepts – one is supporting the ordinance as written with tweaks to increase the hobby size language, and the second would be to eliminate or modify the paragraph that limits or further defines Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2017 Page 6 of 6 what accessory structures are excluded. He stated that the common theme is to require the panels to be flush mounted and to increase the size of hobby solar panels allowed. Brittain asked for a vote on who is in favor of supporting the ordinance amendment as pro- posed with the addition of increasing the hobby size and requiring panels to be flush mounted. The vote was 6 to 3 in favor. Brittain asked for a vote on excluding the third paragraph but supporting the hobby size in- crease and requiring panels to be flush mounted on the roof. The vote was 3 to 6. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2017 Frazier made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 23, 2017, Planning Com- mission meeting. Mills seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of November 2017 City Council Meetings Levitt summarized the actions taken by the City Council at their meetings in November 2017. She also noted that a Save the Date notice was provided to the Commission regarding a meeting about that is part of the My Future Cottage Grove engagement project. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Legends of Cottage Grove – A memorandum in response was provided in the packet. 80th Street Reconstruction – A memorandum in response was provided in the packet. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Brittain noted that the map orientation in the Kingston Fields staff report was not in the tradi- tional north/south orientation. He suggested that if it is easier to represent maps in a naviga- ble direction, consistency between those maps would be useful. Adjournment Zopfi made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rasmussen seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. (9-to-0 vote).