Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-24 PACKET 07. City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission December 20, 2021 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, December 20, 2021, in the Council Chamber and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Frazier called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Jessica Fisher, Evan Frazier, Eric Knable, Derek Rasmussen Members Absent: Jerret Wright 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 Brittain made a motion to approve the agenda. Fisher seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (5-to-0 vote). Open Forum Frazier opened the open forum and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non-agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Frazier closed the open forum. Chair’s Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Frazier 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 Mississippi Dunes EAW - Case EAW2021-077 Pulte Homes has applied for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for develop- ment of land guided Transition Area, which is generally located at the former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course site south of 103rd Street and north of the Mississippi River. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Schmitz introduced Jane Kansier, a Senior Planner with Bolton & Menk, who summarized the EAW process, timeline, purpose, and content. Kansier stated the City Council will discuss this on January 19. The public hearing will be held this evening, and all comments and responses will be compiled and provided to the Council and included in the Record of Decision. No re- sponses to questions or comments are required this evening, and no action of the Planning Commission is specifically required. Frazier stated speakers will have three minutes to provide their comments. He noted that writ- ten comments can be addressed to Senior Planner Emily Schmitz, whose email can be found on the City’s webpage. He explained that the comment period is open until Thursday, January 6, 2022. Frazier opened the public hearing. Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, provided the following questions and statements: 1. Did the Planning Commission Members read the public comments that were submitted re- garding the EAW? 2. There are 37 daily trains that run by the proposed development. Missing from the EAW was information like the distance between the tracks and the residences in the development. Negative impact on the residents’ quality of life due to: noise pollution; diesel engine smells and air quality; train vibrations; structural damage to houses due to foundation and settling issues; potential grass fires in dry, hot summers from sparks; train schedules: morning, afternoon, evening, night, all the time, when do they run; and train loads: how big, how much, what’s on them, any hazardous materials. How would increased future rail traffic impact future residents; what are the mitigation plans for these issues? 3. The substantial increase in impervious surfaces from rooftops to roads; what’s the mitiga- tion plan? 4. Building a senior apartment building on a slab foundation on wetlands; slabs will freeze and thaw and crack. Vibration from trains will exacerbate the problems; what’s the mitigation plan? 5. There’s a Section 11B to stormwater about water quality and volume control; it says the developer indicates that if they cannot meet the requirements, the purchase of off-site miti- gation credits is an option. In a sensitive critical area, mitigation should be an absolute requirement. There should be no purchase of off-site mitigation credits. Where would a statement like this ever be considered for the type of area under review? 6. Traffic study does not reflect the development’s future traffic load with industrial develop- ment going into the east. 7. There is only one way in and out of the development. There is a “potential” for one more outlet. What if all those homes had to be evacuated? How do the residents all get out at one time with one outlet for 369 single-family homes, 130 senior units, and a multi-family building? Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 2021 Page 3 of 4 8. Please request a copy of my EAW comments and review the many issues with the EAW. If you’re going to allow the development to move forward, then you must help protect both the Mississippi River and future homeowners in that development. This is only a portion of what she submitted. Sharon O’Boyle, 9300 Grey Cloud Trail South, Grey Cloud Island Township, stated she read the whole thing, both the EAW and the historical description of the house, which she found really interesting since she lived in the house on the corner of Mississippi Dunes until she was eight years old. Her Grandma O’Boyle owned the land before it was sold to become Mississippi Dunes Golf Course. After reading the historical part, one of the questions was about if there’d been anything to meet guidelines if there’d been any important person living there. She didn’t know if this would count, but her Grandma O’Boyle was the first woman to be a Postmistress in St. Paul Park; she thinks that rates as something important and is of historical value. She noticed with the EAW that they addressed the endangered species that have been seen in that area, on the property, and if you put 500 units on that land, you’re going to lose the endangered species. So she thinks development is fine, but not on that property, and she’s said that all along. You have a chance to include it with the SNA, along with the Grey Cloud Island Regional Park; make it one whole thing, whether that be the State, with the DNR, or in combination with the City, like we have with the Grey Cloud Island Regional Park, as that’s a combination of entities that put that together. The other thing that she noticed in the EAW is the fact that the land is sand; the EAW says that all of that sand would have to be removed for there to be any housing put in. To her, that’s a red flag; if you have to remove that much soil, it’s not a good place to put a development with the fact that you’re going to have to use sump pumps because it’s in a flood plain. The other thing she thought about was she had worked at Pullman Elemen- tary with the Rainbow Kids Club many years ago. Where are all the children going to go? She’s heard from residents in Cottage Grove that Pullman is at capacity, so if you’ve got 500 homes, you’re going to have to build another school. That doesn’t make any sense either. After reading it, they’re saying it’s going to be two people per household; to her, it seems like they’re mini- mizing. Based on two people per household, that’s an additional 125,000+ gallons of water per day, about 136,000+ gallons of sewage per day, and 4,000 extra cars on the road. So, choose wisely. Frazier stated that there were two emails and a handwritten letter that were provided to staff prior to the meeting; those will be included as written public comments for this hearing so those will also go to the City Council for their review. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Fisher stated in response to Ms. O’Boyle’s comments about Pullman Elementary, she’s on the PTA at Pullman Elementary. She understands that this new development, along with the new development going in already just south of Mississippi Dunes, would be in the Pullman bound- aries. Pullman is not at capacity, and she just wanted to make sure that was in the public comment. She is also involved in class sizes, as she’s on another School District committee, noting that this is not really the place to discuss School District issues, but there have been new schools built very recently that are not at capacity. She thinks the School District is doing a good job working with the City in anticipating our population growth and being able to support those children in the schools. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 2021 Page 4 of 4 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 22, 2021 Rasmussen made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 22, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Knable seconded. Motion passed unanimously (5-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of December 2021 City Council Meetings Costello provided a summary of actions taken at the December 1 and 15, 2021 City Council meetings. Dennis wished each of the Commissioners and their families a happy holiday season. He expressed appreciation for all the work the Commissioners do for the City. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Brittain made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Fisher seconded. Motion passed unani- mously (5-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m.