Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-27 PACKET 07.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission July 26, 2021 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, July 26, 2021, 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, Jessica Fisher, Evan Frazier, Tony Khambata, Eric Knable, Derek Rasmussen, Jerrett Wright Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ben Boike, Community Development Director; Mike Mrosla, Senior Planner; Emily Schmitz, Senior Planner; Sam Burns, Planning Intern; Amanda Meyer, Assistant City Engineer; Steve Dennis, Council Member Approval of Agenda Frazier made a motion to approve the agenda. Knable 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 Basic Needs — Case CUP2021-054 Basic Needs Inc. of South Washington County has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for a drop-off area for Basic Needs Thrift Shop, to be located in the 80th Street Cross- ings shopping center at 6990 80th Street South. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 2 of 9 Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Knable asked if the directional signage includes painted arrows in the parking lot. Schmitz re- sponded yes, specifically for vehicles coming around the back side of the building and out to Belden Boulevard. Khambata asked if there was going to be any landscaping or physical barrier between the drop- off area and Belden Boulevard so that vehicles cannot cut out of line and cause a traffic jam. Schmitz responded that the plan is for the striping of the drive aisle to provide a clear transition between the right-of-way and the property line. She pointed out that there are parking stalls that extend within the right-of-way, but they will be removed as part of this request. Khambata opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Khambata closed the public hearing. Rasmussen stated that he is happy to see this vacant space being put to a good use. Frazier made a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions in the staff report. Bigham seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.2 ICC Addition — Case SP2021-053 Innovative Chemical Inc. has applied for a site plan review of an 18,600 square foot addition to the Innovative Chemical Company (ICC) building located at 7769 95th Street South. Mrosla summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Knable asked how many dock doors are on the existing structure. Mrosla responded that there are a total of six dock doors, one is on the southern side of the building and the rest are facing the drive aisle. Knable asked if the City is concerned about the proposed dock door blocking any of the last three if there are multiple trailers parked there. Mrosla stated that after review, staff does not have that concern as there is limited delivery and truck staging at the dock doors. Paul Narpaul, President of Innovative Chemical, stated under this new proposal there will be no stationery trailer parking and all traffic will be in and out. There are currently two trailers there that will be removed in the next 60 days or so. Wright asked if the addition would create an increase in traffic and will any improvements be needed to the existing roads. Narpaul stated that they should not impact traffic significantly. The additional space is strictly warehouse, so they won't see a significant increase in staff. Rasmussen noted that it appears that the stormwater pond would be constructed over the utility easements and asked if there are any concerns about stormwater pipes dumping into that pond or being on top of the utility easement if the pond fills up. Mrosla responded that engineering staff has looked at that and provided reports from the applicant showing the balance of the pond and that emergency overflow would be provided at the southern part overland into the catch basin. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 3 of 9 Khambata noted that it also appears that the stormwater basin is going to overlap with some of the proposed landscaping. He asked if trees would be removed and replaced, or would the applicant pay into the landscaping fund. Mrosla responded that the landscaping from the orig- inal site plan was never planted so there will be no tree removal as part of this application. The trees shown in that general area will be planted elsewhere on site to fill gaps or complement what is existing. As part of the conditions of approval, they need to submit an updated land- scaping plan showing where the trees shown on the original plan are going to be located throughout the site. Khambata opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Khambata closed the public hearing. Khambata stated that based on the previously approved variance to the rear yard setback with the utility easement in place, he can support this proposal as it looks like they are covering the impervious surface with a stormwater catch basin. Fisher asked what the timeframe is for landscaping and tree planting to be completed once a building is constructed and expressed concern that the trees weren't planted after construction in 2004. Mrosla responded planting and landscaping depend on the time of year when con- struction was completed. He stated that it is his understanding from looking at the case file, that there was some type of agreement with staff at the time not to plant those trees as the security deposit for the tree planting was released. There is a condition of approval to require the applicant to provide a 150 percent of the cost of the landscaping to ensure planting is done. That fee is usually collected at the time of the building permit. If the trees aren't planted, the City would utilize those funds to plant them. Rasmussen made a motion to approve the site plan review for the addition to the ICC building subject to the conditions in the staff report. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.3 Shoppes at Cottage View — Case PP2021-050 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a preliminary plat to be called Shoppes at Cottage View, which will subdivide 55.82 acres of land located west of CSAH 19 (Keats Avenue), north of East Point Douglas Road, and east of Walmart, into three lots and one outlot for future development. Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Rasmussen asked if there will be a trail connection between Ravine Park and this development. Schmitz responded she believes that is still in the plans and long term the trail will connect to Ravine Parkway on the east side of Keats Avenue. Khambata asked if this right-of-way will line up with the entrance to Ravine Regional Park on the east side of CSAH 19. Meyer responded that the access off Keats is about in the same proximity as the access to the Ravine Regional Park. Regarding the trail crossing, the City is communicating with the County as they work through their capital improvement planning. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 4 of 9 Knable asked if the City does not receive any federal grants and feels we are a little early in platting the property. He also asked when the City will hear if we received the grant. Meyer responded that the City applied for the federal grant funding through Rep. Craig's, Senator Smith's, and Sen. Klobuchar's offices, and we should be notified sometime in August on whether or not we received that funding. Knable asked what the plan is if that federal funding does not come through. Meyer responded that the City would have to reevaluate, including phasing of the project. Khambata asked if we did not get any federal funding, would the City look at TIF financing. Meyer responded TIF funding could be a possibility, but would need to ask the City's Finance Department and report back to the Commission. Khambata asked if the worst case scenario is that the City develops the rights -of -way for eventual development, but it may not happen as quickly as the City would like. Meyer responded that is correct and stated that this is a proactive approach. The plat would not be recorded until the City is sure that we would receive federal funding. Khambata then asked if this could sit idle without causing any issues for the property owner. Meyer responded yes. Boike explained that the City wants to have the right-of-way in place if we receive that grant funding, and it does help get things rolling for future development on the site. The northeast corner of this site would be the potential location for the community center with future residential on the northwest corner. Wright asked about the timeline if the federal funding does come through. Meyer responded that it is her understanding that the funds would be received in 2022, so if we hear that we received it, the City would commence designing the utilities and street construction so we could start working next year. Knable asked if Ravine Parkway would connect into Jergen Avenue or will it be its own separate entity that will connect into Ravine Parkway by City Hall. Meyer explained that this section of Ravine Parkway would be stubbed into the farm fields to north and would eventually route north and tie into the existing intersection of 90th Street and Keats Avenue. Fisher asked who owns the property. Schmitz responded that it is owned by Gerry Herringer and the City is working proactively if we receive the grant dollars. Fisher asked if the City would purchase the property after receiving the funds. Schmitz responded no, explaining that the right-of-way would dedicated by the property owner, understanding that future development would occur. Khambata opened the public hearing. Gabriel Schoer, 7979 110th Street, asked about the snowmobile trail, which travels diagonally across the property to the VFW. Schmitz responded that the snowmobile club works with the Public Safety Department on those routes along with the property owners, but she does not know the specifics. Khambata stated that it is his understanding that property owners need to approve any trails that cross their property; he would assume that until any development hap- pens there would be no change unless the property owner no longer gives permission for the trail use. He stated that staff could reach out and get a more definitive response. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 5 of 9 Robin Johnson, 9483 Jergen Avenue South, asked the right-of-way has been given for the future Ravine Parkway, how far behind the current properties along Jergen Avenue what would the road, and will the current property owner have the choice in who develops the property or does the city have a say in that. Khambata responded that the City has a say in the standards that any future development would be required to meet but the sale of the property would be between the property owner and the buyer. Schmitz responded that the City does not have the right-of-way to extend Ravine Parkway but this plat dedicates that right-of-way to the City and it will then be under the City's ownership at that time. The property owner still maintains all this property until such time the plat is recorded, which then would dedicate that right-of-way. That is dependent upon the federal funding grant. Schmitz added that the remaining parcels of this plat will be owned and maintained by the current property owner until such time a development is approved, which will separately come before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Boike responded that it would be roughly 500 to 600 feet east off the back of the single-family properties on Jergen where that alignment occurs. He pointed out that Mr. Herringer, the cur- rent property owner is willing to provide right-of-way as part of developing that land proactively to set the parcels in place to allow for the grant funding and set the tone for future development on the site. Knable asked how far back the utility easements on the south side of Lot 1, Block 2, are from the homes and if there are gas or utility lines. Boike stated that the is 110 feet of total easement so any development to the south of those properties would be setback a minimum of 110 feet. Lauren Wilkinson, 9382 Jergen Place South, asked if there are plans to open Jergen Avenue to development or is it going to stay closed forever. Boike responded that he does not believe that the City has plans to connect to Jergen Avenue, as there is quite a bit of an elevation drop south of Jergen. No one else spoke. Khambata closed the public hearing. Frazier stated that the right-of-way north of the subject property is not being dealt with tonight; it is only Ravine Parkway to the boundary of the property we are talking about. Schmitz re- sponded that is correct. Frazier asked if the future Ravine Parkway north of that property would be a separate application at a separate time with a public hearing. Schmitz stated yes. Knable believes the City is just hoping for the federal funding so we don't have to go a different route to try to finance this and thinks we are a little early on this plat. Khambata stated that this parcel has been a topic of conversation for years and he thinks this is the smartest layout for it. At one point it was just going to be one large parcel with only one way in and out. He likes that the traffic has been shifted closer the CSAH 19. Frazier stated to Knable's point, he thinks we are early but based on the representations from staff, we are not going to lose anything or not harm anything to go forward with the plat now. If the federal funding does not appear, the City is not going to do it in this fashion; it is just trying to get things moving so that as soon as we get the money we are ready to go on it. Frazier made a motion to approve the Shoppes at Cottage View preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the staff report. Bigham seconded. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 6 of 9 Motion passed on a 6-to1 vote (Knable). 6.4 Smallidge Fields — Case PP2021-057 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a preliminary plat to be called Smallidge Fields that will create two commercial/industrial lots, one of which will be utilized for a future water treatment plant on 57.68 acres of land located south of 100th Street and east of Ideal Avenue. Burns summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Khambata asked if subdividing the land now does not initiate the immediate development of a water treatment facility and any future development would require another application and pub- lic hearing. Burns responded that is correct, explaining that this application is just subdividing the existing parcel. Khambata asked for an example of an existing water treatment facility to show what the neighboring property owners might expect. Burns stated that he does not have a visual aid to share this evening. He stated that people envision a water treatment plant to be a large industrial use but that is not the case. This will be a drinking water treatment facility with minimal traffic accessing the site and will be built as part of the 3M settlement. He reiterated that this proposal is just to subdivide the property. Khambata stated that he envisions that a water treatment plant is a building where water is pumped out of the well to be filtered and then flow into the water lines. Meyer explained that Cottage Grove currently has three temporary water treatment plants. The permanent water treatment plants would meet the City's architec- tural standards. With this specific water treatment plant, she stated that this property is in an industrial guided area and is directly adjacent to the south district sewer project. There could be some sewage discharge from the drinking water treatment plant so having that plant close to a major trunk sewer is a huge benefit. Some other items to note regarding this plant is that a plant is needed in this pressure zone, the property is guided for industrial, and is adjacent to the south district sewer. She noted that it is anticipated that the replacement of the carbon filters would happen once every three to five years, and that work could all take place within the building. Boike stated that future development of the property would require a site plan review process, and architectural standards, setbacks, and screening requirements would be reviewed during that process. Khambata opened the public hearing. Connie House, 8234 110th Street South, asked if it is a certainty that the City will put a water treatment facility there or could it change to a sewer plant. She asked for more details on sew- age seepage. She also asked how far from the property line the building would be. Khambata stated that setbacks would be part of the site application process that will be done in the future. Meyer responded that this property is only being viewed for a drinking water treatment plant. The City is not looking for a site for a wastewater treatment plant. She explained that the City has been working for many years with the State and 3M to get a permanent drinking water treatment process so that is all we are looking to build on this site. She then stated that this year the City this year is installing a trunk sanitary sewer line from the Met Council line, which is a couple miles east of here up to Ideal Avenue on the northern side, and it will be in close Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 7 of 9 proximity to the proposed drinking water treatment plant so that a sanitary sewer pipe from that plant can run to the trunk sewer system to discharge any sewage that is generated through the process. Khambata asked for an explanation of the water filtration process could result in waste water. Meyer responded that as the water is filtered, particles coming up from the groundwater is trapped, and every so often those filters need to be backwashed, which would is discharge through the sanitary sewer. Burns responded that this application is purely for subdividing the parcel, and at a later date, if the drinking water treatment plant moves forward, questions about setbacks and screening will be addressed then along with the opportunity to share concerns and ask questions. Khambata asked what the normal setback would be for that area. Boike responded that for the 1-2 zoning district the minimum setbacks are 40 feet for both the side yard and the front yard. He noted that this is a large parcel, so the setbacks would most likely be larger than the 40-foot minimum. Aaron Zywiec, 7980 113th Street South, asked about future roads and traffic for the area, par- ticularly 105th Street and 110th Street. He noted that it appears as if the water treatment plant is timed to go with the sewage line. He also asked if the entrance to the plant would be off 110th Street or would it be on the road over the new sewage trunk line. He then noted that he did not know this area is proposed to be future industrial and asked why it isn't closer to 100th Street and away from the houses. Meyer responded that the traffic specifically relating to the drinking water treatment plant would be very minimal, which would include staff periodically monitoring and maintaining the plant's operation along with trucks every three to five years replacing the carbon media from the filters. She provided information regarding 105th Street and the sewer extension and how traffic would be routed through the area in general. She also noted that 100th Street will become a future county road as part of the South Arterial Study that Washington County has been doing to get traffic from Innovation Road down to 100th Street. Zywiec stated that there is a waste water treatment plant at the end of 110th Street and he believes it would be more logical to locate the drinking water plant either more east or north, but noted that a water treatment plant might be the least concerning industrial use for the resi- dents. His main concern is increased traffic on 110th Street. Boike stated that the land use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has this parcel and parcels to east guided industrial, the areas across Ideal Avenue to the west is residential, and to the south is also guided as residential. In terms of location, the City is landlocked by 3M so there is limited availability in terms of unde- veloped property. Boike then stated that when different uses abut each other, such as industrial and residential, site plan requirements kick in, including screening and setbacks. House asked if it is for sure that the water treatment plant would go on the southern part of the parcel. Khambata responded yes, the parcel is being subdivided so that the City can purchase the southern half of that parcel for a water treatment plant. Meyer explained that the City is waiting for the State to finalize their drinking water supply plan before moving forward with additional applications for that plant. Gabe Schoer, 7979 110th Street South, asked if the building would be sited north or south. He stated that he has built a number pump houses and generally they just look like a large house, and if it was to the south, it would actually benefit the neighborhood. Khambata explained that the parcel will be split in half and the specific position of the building is not yet known. Schoer asked where he could follow the progress on this process. Khambata responded on the City's website. Boike stated that notices regarding the site plan review process will be sent to each property owner within 500 feet, similar to what was sent for this application. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 8 of 9 Zywiec asked what the purpose was for subdividing the parcel, such as to allow for future expansion or is there a plan to build two separate buildings. Boike responded that the City would only need the southern half, which is why the property is being subdivided. The property owner of the northern parcel could continue using it or sell it in the future. No one else spoke. Khambata closed the public hearing. Khambata stated that while this type of use sounds concerning, after seeing several applica- tions come through for temporary drinking water treatment plants, they have been required to conform with the neighborhood they are located in. He stated that there would not be a big industrial building next to houses. He believes the Planning Commission has been pretty good about holding the City accountable to building standards regarding materials and screening. Additionally, he stated that the City is preparing for when we receive the settlement money to put in a permanent facility. The three temporary facilities are expensive to run, and he thinks this is a good investment to the City. Wright thanked the residents for coming to the meeting to provide testimony on how this could affect them. He stated that there are more processed that need to happen before this is con- structed but if the residents are engaged during that process, it will benefit them and the city is very good about listening to that feedback. Rasmussen made a motion to approve the Smallidge Fields preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the staff report. Knable seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2021 Frazier made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2021, Planning Commis- sion meeting. Fisher seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of July 2021 City Council Meeting Boike provided a summary of actions taken at the City Council workshop on July 14, 2021, and at the City Council meeting on July 21, 2021. Dennis stated that he would answer any questions that Commissioners may have. Rasmussen asked about Cottage Grove's population and when would the City receive the census results. Dennis responded that he does not know exactly when the results will be received, but he does believe the population should be close to 40,000; the current population is around 36,000. Bigham asked when the school district is notified about new developments and homes. Dennis responded that the City meets with School District officials at least once a month. Boike stated that the City provides the School District information on new home permits every two weeks along with being notified when plats are submitted. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2021 Page 9 of 9 None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Adjournment Rasmussen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Frazier seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.