Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-25 PACKET 07.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission September 27, 2021 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, September 27, 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. Members Present: Sarah Bigham, Jessica Fisher, Evan Frazier, Tony Khambata, Derek Rasmussen, Jerrett Wright Members Absent: Eric Knable Staff Present: Christine Costello, Community Development Director; Mike Mrosla, Senior Planner; Emily Schmitz, Senior Planner; Amanda Meyer, Assistant City Engineer; Steve Dennis, Council Member Approval of Agenda Bigham made a motion to approve the agenda. Wright seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (6-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 Septic Variance 8401 River Acres Road — Case V2021-063 Titan Property Ventures has applied for a variance to setback requirements for a subsur- face sewage treatment system to allow a septic system at 8401 River Acres Road South to be closer than 150 feet from the normal high water mark within the Mississippi River Corri- dor Critical Area. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2021 Page 2 of 7 Mrosla summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Rasmussen asked if the new septic system location would then be in compliance with the new standards of the proposed ordinance. Mrosla responded that is correct. Khambata asked if the separation tanks will stay in their existing locations and pump to the other side of the house. Mrosla responded yes. Khambata then asked if the separation tanks are above the flood plain. Mrosla stated that they are very close according to Washington County, noting that the location meets City's standards, and the County will look at it closer with the permit application. Khambata opened the public hearing. Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, asked if the flood plain is what we have been expe- riencing lately or the future. Khambata stated that the ordinance is adhering to what the 100- year flood plain is according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's map and FEMA. Those two organizations are responsible for remapping the 100-year flood plain. Mrosla stated particularly FEMA, but the DNR is involved as well. He pointed out that the map used is from 2010. No one else spoke. Khambata closed the public hearing. Khambata stated that a lot of the systems in this neighborhood are noncompliant, so he is happy to see some of them getting updated. Fisher made a motion to approve the variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions in the staff report. Frazier seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6- to-0 vote). 6.2 The Views Apartments — Cases ZA2021-060, PP2021-061 & SP2021-062 Pillai Builders, LLC has applied for a zoning amendment to rezone a 2.91-acre parcel located between Hardwood and Harkness Avenues and north of the Oppidan development from UR, Urban Reserve, and R-2, Residential Estate District, to R-6, High Density Residen- tial, with a PUD, Planned Unit Development; a preliminary plat to be called Harkness Apart- ments that will create one lot and one outlot; and a site plan review of a market -rate, 31- unit, three-story multi -family apartment building. Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Rasmussen asked if there is city sewer and water running along Harkness Avenue or are the utilities for the current projects coming off Hardwood Avenue. Meyer pointed out on the map where sanitary sewer and water mains were extended from Hidden Valley down Harkness Avenue to the edge of that parcel, so sewer and water would need to be extended from that location for the parcels on the western side of Harkness. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, 3305 Highway 169, #222, Plymouth, MN, stated that he was rep- resenting the applicant and would answer any questions. Khambata noted that the apartments would be market rate and asked if there would be a mix of one-, two-, and three -bedroom units and what the approximate square footages would be. Ofsthun responded that there will be one one -bedroom at about 650 square feet, 21 two -bed- rooms at about 1,100 square feet, and 9 three -bedrooms ranging from 1,250 to 1,600 square feet. Khambata asked how long their construction process will take. Ofsthun stated that it will depend on what can be completed this year, but the hope is to start grading and ordering materials with opening by next fall at the latest. Khambata opened the public hearing. Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, asked exactly how many trees will be removed. Khambata explained how the tree mitigation process. Matter then asked why they are using Hardy board siding instead of steel. Ofsthun responded that the builder prefers to use materials typically utilized for single-family homes. Matter asked if Hardy board can be recycled. Ofsthun stated that it is a pressed wood product and probably could be. He noted that Hardy board does meet City requirements. Khambata explained that the City has architectural standards that includes the allowable exterior materials. Matthew Hislop, 7560 Harkness Avenue South, stated that he wrote a letter to the Planning Commission and City Council, which was included in the packet. He noted that his points are not specifically related to the Pillai proposal but more the future development of the Harkness Avenue area. He then read his letter for the record. Khambata noted that some of the questions posed in Hislop's letter might be difficult to answer at this meeting. He asked that staff reach out to Hislop to address his questions. Fisher asked when he purchased the property six years ago if he had done any research done regarding future development in that area. Hislop stated that when they purchased the property, they did not find any indication that there would be high -density development. The conversations about high -density did not start until three years ago. Fisher asked what the 2030 comp plan showed that area was guided for. Costello stated that in 2017, the City approved the Harkness Small Area Study, which is part of the 2040 com- prehensive plan. Hislop explained that they purchased their home several years prior to 2017. Khambata stated that regarding Hislop's concern about his property diminishing in value, he believes a developer would look at it if they are developing an adjacent property and see an opportunity to significantly increase their return on investment by packaging the lots into one larger parcel. Hislop agreed that there is that potential but there is also a risk that the property to the north would want to put together a development concept that doesn't include his property, which could become an isolated single-family parcel in the middle of several apartment buildings. No one else spoke. Khambata closed the public hearing. Rasmussen stated that as he looks at the site plan and the different parcels involved, he won- ders with the two independent developments going in how much harder it will be to develop those four properties to the north without current city utilities and road upgrades. Costello re- sponded that regarding road improvements to Harkness, it would be completely developer driven and the developer would be responsible for a portion of that road upgrade. She noted that Meyer mentioned that the utilities for those four parcels would be accessible to the north. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2021 Page 4 of 7 The City cannot predict development or tell property owners what to do, so development of those parcels could be done together or separately. Khambata asked what would happen regarding road maintenance and utilities if that area was not developed for the next 15-20 years. Costello responded that those items would be part of the Capital Improvements Program. Meyer stated that the sanitary and water main extension would be development driven. As it relates to the pavement, if nothing were to happen in the next 15-20 years, the City would look to do some sort of pavement maintenance project. There is a placeholder in the CIP for Harkness Avenue reconstruction. Frazier stated that from his review, this application meets all requirements. He noted that the Planning Commission and City Council both decided that this area should be high density. This property meets the high density based on the PUD. He would like the Commission's discussion to refocus onto this application, and based on his review he believes it meets the requirements by the City. Khambata stated that he empathizes with how some people feel about development, but the Planning Commission has a very narrow purview and given the findings of fact and what was proposed, everything falls within the guidelines of what is permittable. Frazier made a motion to approve the zoning amendment, preliminary plat, and site plan review for the proposed apartment building project subject to the conditions in the staff report. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote). 6.3 CIP 2022-2026 — Case CP2021-064 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to amend the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2022-2026. Meyer summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Rasmussen asked if the County Road 19 project with the new overpass would be funded by the City or County. Meyer responded most of the costs would be the responsibility of Washing- ton County; currently it is estimated that there would be $4 million in state aid funding, $8 million from Washington County, and roughly $10 million from federal funding along with some utility funds. Khambata stated that it appears that the majority is not being funded by the City. Meyer stated that is correct. Bigham asked how partnerships with other entities such as the school district, Washington County, and HOAs are worked out for park and playground projects. Meyer stated that she would provide more information on how those specific discussions work at the next meeting. Wright asked what how streets are scheduled for construction and reconstruction. Meyer ex- plained that for pavement management or mill and overlay projects, the City looks at the age of the roadways and rates the existing conditions to propose the best maintenance for them. She noted that development driven projects are based on when the City hears of land that developers are looking to purchase. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2021 Page 5 of 7 Khambata opened the public hearing. Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, noted that she did not see any information regarding termination of Inwood Avenue by the Calarosa development on any of the CIP project lists and asked if that road will be updated. Meyer responded that Ravine Parkway through the Calarosa development has been completed so the segment of Inwood between Ravine Parkway and what used to be 65th Street should have been removed. She added as far as proposed im- provements for the existing Inwood Avenue, it is not currently included in any CIP project over the next five years but can be reevaluated if necessary. Khambata asked if staff could reach out to Matter with a follow up. No one else spoke. Khambata closed the public hearing. Rasmussen made a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment to amend the CIP for 2022-2026. Bigham seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote). 6.4 TIF Boundary Expansion — Case M2021-065 (Not a Public Hearing) The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a development district boundary expansion to include the corporate boundaries of the City. Costello summarized the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt PC Resolution 2021-001 approving the expansion of the development district boundary to in- clude the corporate boundaries of the City. Rasmussen asked what the process is for applying and obtaining tax increment financing and who makes the final decisions. Costello responded that the first step is usually a developer contacting City staff to share their proposal. She explained the TIF process, noting that the application is taken before the EDA for consideration, then ultimately to the City Council. TIF is not automatically given to any project that comes forward; it is vetted by staff, the City's financial consultant, the EDA, and City Council. Rasmussen stated with the stringent review for TIF proposals, he does not see why we wouldn't want to encompass the entire City in the boundary. Khambata stated that every 10 years the City's comprehensive plan is updated. As consumer demands, the economy, and the City change, we should not limit ourselves by allowing TIF in certain parts of the City but not in others. He believes this is a smart decision and complies with standards of practice for most cities our size. Costello noted that most cities encompass their entire boundary for TIF districts. Frazier noted that job creation was one of the things the City looks for in TIF financing, so it is usually an industrial or commercial use. Costello stated that is correct. One of the City's re- quirements is they must create at least one job full-time at 200 percent of the minimum wage including benefits, which is very important to the EDA and City Council. Frazier stated as part of the 2040 comprehensive plan there were areas of the City, mostly commercial and industrial, that we wanted to focus on for development and asked why the TIF boundary encompasses the whole city rather than just the specific areas in the comp plan guided for commercial use. Costello responded that the reason we chose the entire city instead of specific areas is because Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2021 Page 6 of 7 there could be future redevelopment programs that the EDA wants to provide to existing busi- nesses. Frazier stated that he reviewed Minnesota Statute 469.126, which provides the ability to create TIF districts but also provides other powers to the City. If we are concerned about making sure that we have these development boundary districts in order to provide TIF funding, why not make these districts around areas zoned for commercial or industrial, rather than everywhere in the city, which also includes residential properties. Costello responded that we want to include the entire city because we don't know what the future holds. There is a large industrial user coming to the area south of 100th Street, and they have asked for TIF. This proposal has the potential to bring jobs to the community. She believes by expanding the boundary to encompass the whole city, all properties are covered, and we have the ability to use programs throughout the community. If we leave the current boundary or just cover com- mercial nodes, the boundary would need to be amended each time for any proposed develop- ment outside those areas that want to utilize funding. She further explained that each TIF project would be reviewed individually. Dennis explained that this TIF boundary expansion is just a structure to make sure the City is set for future opportunities. He stated that the City wants to get the highest and best use out of every property. To structure appropriately and seek to use TIF as a tool, this gives us the maximal opportunity to achieve success. He then provided an explanation of what tax incre- ment financing is. Khambata asked if there are any examples of instances where a TIF proposal was rejected because it did not meet the City's standards. Costello responded none during her tenure with the City. She stated that the City requires that those requesting TIF must prove why they want it. It is not easy to get TIF funding. Proposals are vetted through the Finance Director, City Administrator, our financial consultant, and the City Council. Bigham made a motion adopt PC Resolution velopment district boundary be expanded t City. Khambata seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote). o 2021-001, which recommends that the de - include the corporate boundaries of the Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 26, 2021 Fischer made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 26, 2021, Planning Commis- sion meeting. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of August and September 2021 City Council Meeting Costello provided a summary of actions taken at the City Council meetings in August and September 2021. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2021 Page 7 of 7 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Khambata requested that staff respond to the property owners questions that were brought up during the public hearings. Adjournment Rasmussen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bigham seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m.