Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-25 PACKET 07. City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission May 29, 2018 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, in the Council Chamber 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, Evan Frazier, Tony Khambata, Taylor Mills, Derek Rasmussen, Jennifer Raymer, Sheree Schuler, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: David Lutchen, Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Steve Dennis, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Zopfi made a motion to approve the agenda. Raymer seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (8-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 TNT Fireworks at Walmart – Case ICUP2018-032 TNT Fireworks has applied for an interim conditional use permit to allow the sale of fire- works in the parking lot at Walmart, 9300 East Point Douglas Road South. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2018 Page 2 of 9 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Frazier noted that condition #1 specifies the dates for the fireworks sales for 2018 and asked what the dates would be for the other years of the interim conditional use permit. McCool responded that set up would typically be June 15 with closing of the operation at the end of July. Frazier asked if staff would be able to enforce that without the Commission putting those dates into the conditions of approval. McCool stated yes. Chris Ulmer, TNT Fireworks, Fargo, North Dakota, stated that he would answer any questions. There were none. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Khambata made a motion to approve the interim conditional use permit subject to the conditions in the staff report. Frazier seconded. Motion passed on unanimously (8-to-0) vote. 6.2 Glengrove Industrial Park 7th Addition – Case PP2018-033 The City of Cottage Grove applied for a preliminary plat to be called Glengrove Industrial Park 7th Addition, which would create one industrial lot and two outlots on property located north of 100th Street and east of Hemingway Avenue. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Zopfi asked if Renewal by Andersen signed a letter of intent or executed a purchase agree- ment for the proposed Lot 1. Levitt stated that at the Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting this morning, the EDA entered into a purchase agreement with WAG Trust, which is the underlying property owner. The land will then be transferred from the EDA to Renewal by Andersen. The purchase agreement and land transfer will be on the June 6 City Council agenda. Khambata asked if there would be additional entrances into this lot or will it be an extension of the existing lot on Renewal’s current property. McCool responded no additional access drives have been proposed at this time. Renewal by Andersen currently has an existing private drive that connects to 100th Street. They are proposing to continue that same existing access drive, and the access into the proposed parking area will be located north of that existing drive on 100th Street. He noted that the Planning Commission will review the proposed site plan at their meeting on June 25. By the subdivision of this plat, that lot line lines up with Ideal Avenue and could provide for a future dedication of right-of-way if it is needed for a four-way intersec- tion. It is unknown what the remaining 41 acres would develop as in the future, but potentially there could be one or two accesses onto Outlot A. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2018 Page 3 of 9 Khambata made a motion to approve the preliminary plat application, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Mills seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). The Commission took a short recess. 6.3 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Case CP2018-036 Phil Carlson, Stantec, summarized the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. McCool provided information on the public hearing and the mailing of public hearing notices. He stated that he received emails from three property owners requesting that their land use designation be changed. He recommended that the Planning Commission approve the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan and receive and place on file the three email messages that were included in the Planning Commission packet. Brittain opened the public hearing. Richard Leicht, 6192 65th Street South, stated when he bought his house 15 years ago it was zoned for rural residential with a 1.5 acre minimum lot size with well and septic, and in the 2030 plan it went to low density residential, so now there could be townhouses across the street. He asked how this process works. Levitt stated that when the resident bought the prop- erty, it and the surrounding properties north of 65th Street were guided for low density. With the extension of Goodview Avenue and 67th Street for the new middle school, based on the residential growth pattern, the medium density designation is being proposed. It is for the Plan- ning Commission to consider if medium density is the correct land designation for that area. Leicht stated that he is not necessarily complaining about that but it could affect his property value. He asked why he did not get a letter notifying him of this hearing. McCool responded that the City sent letters only to properties where the land use was going to change. He pointed out the location of Leicht’s property, which is designated in the 2030 plan as low density resi- dential, noting that the land use designation does not change in the 2040 plan. Brittain explained the process for updating the comprehensive plan, which is done approxi- mately every ten years. Rodney Naseth, 8330 75th Street South, stated that he is President of the USW Local 1114 that is located at 8839 96th Street. He explained that they recently changed their board and the day he took office as President was the day they received the public hearing notice for the Langdon Village development. They were surprised to see that their union hall and historic Langdon School House do not exist in the future plan. He spent considerable time talking to the Chairperson for the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation about historic preserva- tion. He then explained that the building provides a service to the community where approxi- mately 20 self-help groups meet in their facility. Those groups benefit from having a tranquil area to meet. He believes the changes proposed for this area need re-evaluation. He asked the Planning Commission to look again at this area, noting that additional housing would take away the tranquil atmosphere. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2018 Page 4 of 9 Leslie Sievert, 9747 Miller Road, stated that Langdon was guided for mixed use in the 2030 plan and in 2040 it is still mixed use and she asked why high density housing is allowed. Carlson stated that high density is allowed in mixed use. Sievert stated that there is no other area in the city like Langdon, which is like a little town. She stated that the residents in that area will be sacrificing for others. It is not fair as they have lived there for 25 years and the City has done absolutely nothing to Langdon including road work, and now because there will be high density, the roads will be improved. She wants the area to be kept the way it is or adding low density residential but not high density. Patricia Hajney, 9675 Miller Road South, stated that they moved to the Langdon area over three years ago to keep their children in the city but have an outside feeling. Her biggest con- cern is bringing more people to a small village and what it could do to their property values, their home situation, their taxes, and everything else that goes along with development. She wants the area to stay the same and asked that the City try to figure out a way to leave Langdon the way it is. Gary Peterson, 8782 96th Street South, believes there are about 12 houses in that area. He does not want a four-story apartment building complex in Langdon that would add a lot more traffic. The City has done nothing in that area until this proposal. He doesn’t understand why they want to develop something. He can understand single-family homes going in but not high density. Nick Florin, 9815 Miller Road, stated that he purchased his seven acres in the Langdon area so they could stay in Cottage Grove but have some land. If he would have known that there could be a big development project before he bought the property, he never would have moved there. He would have moved to another rural area that wouldn’t have development. Levitt provided information on the underlying land use in the previous comprehensive plan and the master plan for the Langdon area. She concurs that the Old Langdon School House defi- nitely has historical significance. She stated that Carlson can explain how in the Master Plan it is anticipated there will be park and open space around that building. Brittain asked if this is just predicated on land use and not the City trying to force property owners to sell. Levitt stated that at this time there is no engagement to seek acquisition of parcels for active development. There are two parcels, the Majestic Ballroom site and the EDA-owned parcels, that currently have options and purchase agreements pending on them for development. She noted that those applications are consistent with the current underlying land use in the 2030 Comprehen- sive Plan. Carlson pointed out on the the area under consideration showing the current land use plan in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which is mixed use. Mixed use means generally that it can be a combination of commercial and industrial so at any time in the last 10 years this area could have been developed for office, restaurant, bank, fast food, or apartment buildings. The com- prehensive plan update is proposing a slight change in the definition of mixed use but only in terms of where residential might be located next to major roadways. He stated that in the previous plan the corner where the Acorn Mini-Storage is located was guided industrial and that is changing to mixed use. He pointed out on the map the location of the Langdon School, which is shown as a park. In the previous plan it was shown to be preserved as park space and not with development on it. This plan shows that West Point Douglas Road could be ex- tended to the Innovation Road interchange, but not how or where, as it needs to cross the Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2018 Page 5 of 9 railroad tracks. The area’s location with future access to two interchanges makes it attractive for commercial and higher density residential development. He reiterated that all of that area has been guided for mixed use for many years and has not been guided for strictly single family. He then pointed out the proposed location of the potential residential development. Naseth stated that he stayed for a steering committee meeting after the Langdon development proposal meeting and there was conversation about why there is emotional upheaval now. You can make all the plans you want and the plan may have been put in place in 2011, but the difference now is there is somebody who wants to enact it. Plans change and this has become real. Florin asked if there was going to be a major road through his yard. Carlson responded that the roadway and alignment of it is pure conjecture. In a study done about 10 years ago it was proposed that this road would come off the interchange and loop around. The alignment is in flux. Levitt stated that in the packet a different future road alignment is shown but at this point it is still in flux and the City is working with Washington County and additional stakeholders to plan that collector roadway in 2019. Ryan Finnegan, 212 Elm Street, stated that he is here on behalf of his mother’s property. He noted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Ag Preserve. They are very pro-development and bought the land for those purposes. Its current land use designation when they purchased it was rural residential. They have taken it out of the Agricultural Pre- serve program, and its expiration will be in 2021. In the email they sent to the City, they asked for high density residential but know that is unrealistic as far as how its current land use is. The reason they asked for that was ground-water contamination. They wanted to put high density on record but are not seeking that; they would like rural residential. Their concerns are about not being able to have wells due to water contamination. Stanley Waidelich, 8011 113th Street Court South, expressed concerns about the inability to sell or develop his property. He has lost money on proposed development because of lack of road access. He asked if he could put in a solar garden. He said Xcel took some of his property for power lines because they did not want to cut down trees. Betsy Dippel, 10020 Grey Cloud Trail South, stated that her property changed to Transition and asked for an explanation on that. McCool stated that in the 2030 plan, that property was designated as transition planning area and in the 2040 plan it is still in the transition planning area, so there is no change to the land use designation for that property. He explained that transition planning area is an area of land where the current or existing land use may be dif- ferent than the future land use but the City does not know what that development would be in the future. It is merely identifying that it is in transition, that it may be a rural estate lot or if city utilities were provided it could change to a low density residential designation. Dippel asked if there are any plans for the city to do something with her property. McCool responded not with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan; it is still a transition planning area land use designation. Ross Mackie, 10152 70th Street South, asked how quickly this takes effect, would there be eminent domain, and if his area could be designated as low density residential. McCool stated that much of the area west of the East Ravine is currently in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and properties in the MUSA are areas of land that the City has plans for exten- Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2018 Page 6 of 9 sion of water and sanitary sewer. The control of development is by landowners. The landown- ers would choose whether or not they would sell for development. The City would not go through eminent domain for development. We are not buying land for development; it is up to the property owners as to when they want to sell for development. The future land use desig- nation is just a guide to show what future land uses are recommended. The landowner would have some expectation of what they could do with the property by knowing what the land use is for their property but it is still their decision as to when they would sell. Levitt stated that in regard to Finnegan’s property, there is a slide that outlines his parcel to explain the difference and the acknowledgement of its removal from the Ag Preserve program. That area is in the City’s last phasing area to bring sanitary sewer and water and is outside the current MUSA. There are challenges with PFC contamination as the City continues to work with the PCA and the DNR looking for mitigation. That will provoke a different conversation if settlement dollars are used to expedite utilities to these areas. We would then be looking at how we would guide those and do a small area study to look at that in more depth and detail. McCool stated that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan did not specifically identify on the land use map those properties that were in the Ag Preserve program; it was in the chapter that identified properties with ag preserve. For the proposed 2040 plan, we are designating those properties that are actively participating in the Ag Preserve program. After they purchased the property they applied to remove it from the Ag Preserve program. It is a minimum of eight years before that program designation goes away. For this property, it expires in 2021. On the 2040 plan it shows their 155 acres as Ag Preserve. Brittain stated that the existing land use is one desig- nation and our comprehensive plan guides it so sometime between 2019 and 2040 it is no longer going to be Ag Preserve and he asked what happens in 2021 when it comes out of Ag Preserve. McCool stated that it would continue to be shown as an agricultural use on the property. In the 2040 plan, city utilities are not planned to extend that far to the east. Until then, the City sees that it would still be agricultural use. The property owner is requesting to have it changed to a land use designation of high density but his testimony this evening modified that. Finnegan explained that high density was requested to put it on record, and they are looking for R-1. They are concerned that rural residential development could be hindered because of water contamination. Brittain asked how far out it would be for the City to provide services to the area and what our zoning policy is for those areas of the community. McCool explained that there would be a study to determine whether or not it is cost feasible and to identify ben- efitted properties. Those properties would be expected to pay for sewer, water, streets, and other items related to development. He then explained that the R-1 reference is a zoning clas- sification and not land use; the R-1 is a rural residential district that requires a minimum of three acres with septic and private wells. Burbank stated that is why there is the transitional planning area as there are issues related to sewer, water, and land uses that we are not sure of and in those areas guided Transitional there could be small area studies done to address land use changes. He stated that perhaps in the future that area could be guided for transi- tional planning area. Levitt stated that we want to ensure that Finnegan’s comments and re- quests have been put on the record. We understand his concerns for development of the parcel, but there are steps that would have to be taken as part of the settlement discussions and work groups that will be established to evaluate those items. At this point she does not think we need to make any specific recommendations on land use in this area; it is noted and staff understands the situation and will be working with our state agencies in regard to those concerns. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2018 Page 7 of 9 McCool stated in response to Waidelich’s comments, in the 2030 plan his property was in the transitional planning area and in the 2040 plan it is identified as low density residential. With that designation there is the possibility of future city water and sewer available to those prop- erties. Brittain asked if road access to the area would be a problem. Levitt responded that when the City did pavement management in that area in 2010, there were concerns expressed about the viability and availability to provide access to parcels for development so she thinks this is an opportunity for us to re-engage with the resident and his concerns about access. Staff would be happy to meet with the resident to discuss options. McCool stated that low density residential allows one to four units per acre. Troy Larson, 7699 110th Street South, stated that when he moved out there 11 years ago, it was a rural area. With the recent developments and the sale of the property just to the north of his land, the City is looking at going from rural residential to low density residential and he asked why, particularly if it was because of city water and sewer. He noted that pavement improvements were unwanted by the residents and the main concerns were city water, sewer, and curb and gutter. He moved out there to have land and privacy. He noted that the whole area that is changing is primarily existing homes. He asked if that was because of proposed development of parcels between 100th and 110th Streets. He expressed concern about get- ting forced to pay for expensive infrastructure changes. He does not understand the reasoning for changing that area from rural residential to low density residential. Levitt stated that resident raised an important question. The areas in question, Ideal and 110th, 103rd Street, and River Acres Road, have some of the highest concentrations of PCF contamination. As the City is continuing to work with the State on the settlement, this is one area that we recognize as at the top of the priority regions to be targeted for a solution because many of these homes have whole house GAC filtration systems. In 2010, a feasibility report to extend sewer and water was done, and at that time it was not deemed feasible, which is why only pavement rehabili- tation to keep it in a rural condition without curb and gutter was done. The City is not advocat- ing, if we are able to extend water and sewer, to change those specific characteristics but to provide the opportunity for sewer and water extension. The resident is correct that it is becom- ing more of a viable option than it was in 2010. Brittain asked if the residents don’t wish to hook up to the city sewer and water, are they required to or would that be a requirement due to the contamination. Levitt stated that it is too premature to know those policies and directions as the state hasn’t established their work groups yet. As a city we are advocating to bring clean drinking water to residents of that area. Brittain asked if this area could not be developed until this is worked out. Levitt stated that is correct; we need to provide those answers. She ex- plained that an application was made for a proposed subdivision that would have been called Wildflower, and there was a neighborhood meeting. The applicant withdrew the application due to concern about the pending litigation and what that meant for the development of the property. The developer is waiting to see what the settlement is for this area. Larson asked about the settlement amount. Levitt stated that there is $720 million for development of infra- structure, and there are various work groups that the DNR and PCA are establishing that would have local representation on them to advocate for our area and solutions to our water supply. Larson asked if he is forced to have city water, would he get a portion of the settlement or does it get paid for. Levitt responded that those questions are being worked out with the state agencies to resolve. The City is advocating very strongly for our residents to minimize any financial exposure. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Frazier stated that at the last steering committee meeting there was a question if land use changes taxes. It is his understanding that property tax is based on the use of the property so even if it is guided for a more intensive land use, if the use is still residential you are only going to pay taxes as a homestead. Levitt responded that is correct. Frazier stated that it is his understanding that the city is not going to buy properties if there is a change in the land use. Levitt stated that eminent domain is not something that the city desires to undertake. Brittain stated that current zoning is not changing by the comprehensive plan update. The comp plan is simply a guide to land uses and to plan for infrastructure changes. If a develop- ment were proposed, a zoning amendment may be needed at that time. Frazier stated that he appreciates all the comments from citizens. His understanding of how this works is if property owners decide not to sell to a developer, there is nothing the City could do about it. Langdon is a little different because the city does own a couple parcels, which could be developed. As far as your property rights go, if you want to keep your house, you get to keep your house. This is just big picture and what it could look like by 2040. Frazier made a motion to recommend approval of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Raymer seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2018 Khambata made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2018, Planning Com- mission meeting. Zopfi seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of May 2 and May 16, 2018, City Council Meetings Levitt provided a summary of the actions taken at the May 2 and May 16, 2018, City Council meetings. Dennis stated that the grand opening for the new Central Fire Station will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 2. He provided an update on the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) convention that he, the Mayor, and City staff attended in Las Vegas last week to pro- mote the City of Cottage Grove to potential businesses. He thanked the Planning Commission for all their work on the comprehensive plan update. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2018 Page 9 of 9 Khambata asked if the notification area for public notices could be expanded based on com- ments during the comp plan public hearing. Levitt explained the numerous way the City pro- moted the comprehensive plan public hearing, including social media, City’s newsletter, the website, and the South Washington County Bulletin. She noted that the City is not legally obligated to mail notices but did send nearly 700 notices to the properties that were proposed to have their land use changed. She stated that if there is a proposed zoning change, the City has the legal obligation to notify property owners around the subject property. Cottage Grove uses a 500-foot buffer for that notification. Khambata then stated that there seemed to be some confusion regarding what the goal and role are for the comprehensive plan and requested that in the future to be more explicit. Brittain asked when Military Road closes. Levitt responded the bid award for the Ravine Park- way project goes before the Council on June 6, and then the detailed schedule would be developed. Brittain asked if there will be signage on Military Road prior to its closure. Levitt stated that there is a legal sign package that has to be put up, explaining that the State signage regulations require the signs to indicate there is a detour. Adjournment A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.