Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-18 PACKET 07.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission April 27, 2020 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held virtually at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, April 27, 2020, in the Council Chamber and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Khambata called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Sarah Bigham, Ken Brittain, Evan Frazier, Tony Khambata, Eric Knable, Derek Rasmussen, Jerret Wright Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ben Boike, Community Development Director John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Dennis, Council Member Approval of Agenda Wright made a motion to approve the agenda. Bigham seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Khambata opened the open forum. Khambata asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non -agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Khambata closed the open forum. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Khambata 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 Hoelscher Accessory Structure — Case V2020-014 Mark and Kate Hoelscher have applied for variances to accessory structure requirements for location, maximum size, height, and architectural materials to allow a 40 -foot by 60 -foot accessory structure to be constructed in front of the principal structure at 7903 113th Street South. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2020 Page 2 of 6 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Knable asked if they will be required to replace any trees being removed from the property and if the other buildings were built before the new ordinance was put in place in January. Burbank responded to the second question that staff did not check the dates but believe they all were based on their locations. Boike stated regarding the first question, the proposed location of the accessory structure is an open area so no trees would need to be removed to build the structure. Rasmussen stated that the staff report required the metal roof, siding, and color to match the color of the stucco house, but he does not see that in the conditions of approval. Boike re- sponded that condition #3 requires that the sheathing match the color of the principal structure. Frazier asked when the Metropolitan Council announced the change to the MUSA. Burbank responded that the amendment to the development staging area was part of the City's 2040 comprehensive plan. The 2030 comp plan detailed that it would be changing in 2020. Frazier asked if city staff has been planning on the Met Council changing the MUSA boundaries since 2010. Burbank stated that whenever the City updates the comprehensive plan, we look for future growth areas knowing that may not necessarily develop in that timeframe. In this case, it was accelerated due to the watermain extension into that area. Frazier asked when did the Met Council announce that they would adjust the boundaries in January 2020. Burbank re- sponded that there was no announcement; it is just following the comprehensive plan. Brittain noted that the comprehensive plan guides the zoning and asked when the City esti- mated the expanding the MUSA to this area if it hadn't been for the water issue, as he believes that the MUSA wouldn't have changed in this area if there hadn't been the water issue. Burbank stated that the 2030 plan did show it entering the MUSA serviceable areas in 2020, so nothing really changed between those two plans other than the allocation of water services in that area did come in. The planning for the MUSA expansion is a backdrop to the comprehensive plan; it is not in the forefront. It guides the land use for that area, which is shown as low density residential that would allow for municipal services in that area. Kate Hoelscher, 7903 113th Street South, explained that they were specifically looking for land that they could either build or one already had an accessory structure. Before purchasing the property, they asked the City and were told they could construct that type of building. She noted that they have called every year to make sure that it was still okay to build this structure. While filling out the forms, they called multiple times to clarify the process. When they turned in the application in the beginning of February, they thought they were good to go; however, they found out there were changes that impacted everything. She stated that there is precedence for these requested variances in this area and they applied for them within a month of the changes. Khambata asked if they had known these rules were going to change, would they have accel- erated the construction of the building. Hoelscher responded that they would have done it two years ago instead of working on other parts of their house. Khambata opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Khambata closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2020 Page 3 of 6 Khambata stated that his thoughts are similar to Brittain's, which is the comp plan is guiding document, but until there was a legitimate need to bring this area into the MUSA, he does not think the City had any intention of doing so. He agrees that the water issue accelerated the timeline. He believes this fits the criteria for the variance. Brittain stated that he does not see the transition into the MUSA significantly changing how this property and the surrounding properties. There are no new development coming into that area. He believes this accessory structure is consistent with the surrounding homes and that the variance could be granted in this case. Frazier stated that the it sounds like the plan has been for this property to be in the MUSA since 2010, and whether or not it was sped up because of the 3M settlement, this was always a possibility. The homeowners bought their property in 2016. The City's ordinances allowed for the rules to change as soon as the boundaries changed. He thinks the problem is when we look at the criteria for the variance, there are a lot of other properties in this area that all are affected in the same way. Frazier noted that we may grant this one today, but next week some- body else could come with the same story. His issue with granting the variance in this case is that it does not appear to meet the variance criteria because there is testimony in the record saying that the MUSA boundary change has been in the City's comprehensive plans, and the ordinance requirements changed as soon as the MUSA boundary changed. He doesn't want to open this up to having to grant a lot variances rather than just changing the ordinance. Khambata stated that because the application was filed about the same time that the MUSA was changed affords some consideration. If somebody applied a year from now, that would be different than somebody who has been proactive. He also stated that an average person prob- ably would not understand the impact of comp plan changes. Frazier understands that position but coming from his background, the Commission does not look at this as would an average person know, we would look at when did the ordinance change and what the ordinance says now. There was a change in the law and now we have to abide by the law unless an application can meet the variance criteria. He is not convinced based on the testimony that the criteria for variances #2, #3, and #4 can be met due to the MUSA bound- ary change. He agrees that variance #1 to allow the structure to be placed in the front of the property meets the criteria. Burbank provided a clarification on the timing. The 2030 plan did have specific five-year incre- ments for the development staging areas. The 2008 recession impacted those timeframes, so the City decided to be vague on the dates for staging areas in the 2040 plan. The City deter- mined the next areas for growth, and the timing would be determined by the market. The Met Council did not agree with that, so the City had to establish dates, which is when the 3M water discussion came in and modified some of the time frames for those areas. The areas where the City is looking to grow are very specific and is infrastructure related, which is the key factor between these development staging areas. It was fluid as a result of the 2040 comp plan review. Knable agreed with Frazier that the variance criteria are met for the front yard placement. He noted that they had from 2016 to build this structure under the old ordinances that were in place. He does not know if they meet the criteria for a variance and is not seeing a reason why the Commission should approve this. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2020 Page 4 of 6 Brittain asked staff to review the other homes in this area and how they relate to the ordinances with respect to the variances that are being requested. He agrees with what Frazier and Knable are saying about the letter of the law, but he does not believe this area will be redeveloped in the future. Burbank responded that the homes in the area vary by age. In terms of redevelopment, a lot of those parcels are small enough that it will take a grouping of parcels in order to have a viable development. If full scale urban development were to occur there, he does not believe that accessory structures would be a big issue for development. Burfeind added that a big challenge for redevelopment in this area is that sewer is not readily available to the area. The City did look at extending it with the watermain extension, but it was severely cost prohibitive. The closest sewer connection is at 100th Street and Jamaica Avenue, so there are no real plans in the future to extend that sewer line. The watermain extension would have also been cost prohibitive without the 3M settlement funding. Boike stated that in terms of the comment that they have had time to build the structure, it was not discovered by staff until they submitted their application in February that the MUSA line impacted their request. He noted that this was out of the control of the property. As the Chair mentioned, when they submitted in February for the location variance, it was discovered that the MUSA line changed and the resulting variances that are needed was based on that. Khambata asked if any plans have been submitted for future development of that area. Boike responded that there are no redevelopment plans for this area, and these properties are well established. There could be a lot split if a parcel is large enough but there are no redevelopment plans for this neighborhood at this time. Khambata stated that his position on this is if this applicant were on a city lot or if they were the only one in the neighborhood who wanted a 2,400 square foot accessory structure and they are asking for this variance, his position would be drastically different and would be in step with what Frazier said. However, in this current situation, the land use is not changing, and other properties have abided by that 2,500 square foot guidance. He does not believe it would impact the neighbors on either side or across the street, which is why he thinks this tilts the scale in favor of allowing the variance as it is in keeping with characteristics of the neighborhood. It is screened on the front and the side, and it is going to have a minimal impact. Brittain made a motion to approve the variances based on the findings of fact and sub- ject to the conditions in the staff report. Wright seconded. Frazier asked if the motion was to approve all four variances in one vote. Brittain responded yes. Motion passed on a 5 -to -2 vote (Frazier and Knable). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2020 Frazier made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 23, 2020, Planning Commis- sion meeting. Bigham seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2020 Page 5 of 6 Reports 8.1 Recap of April 2020 City Council Meetings Boike provided a summary of actions taken at the City Council meetings on April 1 and 15, 2020. Dennis stated that there was a question from Bigham asking for an update from a community development perspective on how plans for the city are moving along during the time of Covid- 19. He provided information on how the City is responding to issues including providing busi- ness assistance through the EDA trust fund as well updating the Commission on current and future commercial and residential development. He noted that there are also weekly remote City Council meetings regarding issues related to Covid-19. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Boike responded to the question from Brittain regarding guidelines for virtual meetings. He stated that the City does not have formal guidelines but noted that Roberts Rules still apply. He noted that there are different options for chatting during meetings. He asked if there are things staff could do better to assist Commissioners to make these meetings run more smoothly. Boike then responded to a question from Wright on ways to improve the audio from City Hall. He explained that based on those audio issues, staff at City Hall are in different rooms as being in close proximity led to those problems. The City's IT staff is working with SWCTC to improve the audio. Wright noted that the audio for this meeting was much improved. 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Brittain asked about the storm sewer pipe being installed east of County Road 19 through the ravine and if there other utilities are being install as part of that project. Burfeind responded that is a South Washington Watershed District project and is strictly a storm sewer pipe. This is the last phase of their Central Draw Overflow Project, which allows water to route from Wood- bury through Cottage Grove to the Mississippi River. In terms of future development in that area, the Metropolitan Council sewer interceptor and the Cottage Grove water main run along County Road 19, so future development would likely start along County Road 19 and move to the east. Rasmussen asked if there would be other projects stemming from the 3M settlement agree- ment happening in Cottage Grove in the near future. Burfeind responded that the only other project approved in the city was the Granada Avenue Water Main Extension, which is south of 70th Street. He stated that the temporary water treatment plant and the River Acres and Granada Avenue water main extensions are the only projects in City in the immediate future. In terms of the long-term solution, due to Covid-19 and other associated challenges with mod- elling and updates, the State has indicated a fall completion timeline for the long-term plan, which will include a plan for each community and what they see as the best solution. Boike reminded the Commission that due to Memorial Day, the May Planning Commission meeting will be held a week earlier on Monday, May 18. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Adjournment Rasmussen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.