Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-28 PACKET 07.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission February 28, 2022 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, February 28, 2022, 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, Emily Stephens, Jerret Wright Members Absent: None Staff Present: Christine Costello, Community Development Director; Mike Mrosla, Senior Planner; Emily Schmitz, Senior Planner; Cody Flannery, Planning Consultant; Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Dave Thiede, Council Liaison Approval of Agenda Fisher made a motion to approve the agenda. Wright seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7-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. Frazier stated that those wishing to speak will have a time limit of three minutes. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 Pine Harbor Church Addition — Case PP2022-004 The Harbor Church has applied for a preliminary plat to be called Pine Harbor Church Addi- tion, which dedicates the appropriate Highway 61 right-of-way to MnDOT. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 2 of 21 Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Frazier opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the Pine Harbor Addition preliminary plat. Rasmussen seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.2 Pizza Ranch — Cases PUD2022-014, CU2022-015, & SP2022-016 Cottage Grove PR, Inc. has applied for a planned unit development, conditional use permit, and site plan review for a proposed Pizza Ranch restaurant with a drive through located at located at 7855 Harkness Avenue South. Flannery summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Gary Woolever, Project Manager, Vierbicher Associates, Reedsburg, WI, stated they are the civil designers for this project and the architect is not at tonight's meeting. This project was approved in 2019, but was not built. Woolever noted a few items that need clarification. Condi- tion #5 states six-foot concrete sidewalks along Oakwood Park Drive and they are requesting to change that to five feet. In Condition #8, a landscape irrigation plan will be part of the final landscape plan. There is a note on their plan that the installer will do the irrigation plan, and the contractor would supply the actual detail plan for irrigation. Woolever also referenced the hydrant location, noting that last year the City put in the water main across the site into Oakwood Park. He asked how the hydrant ended up in their island, noting that their contractor would probably stake the island first just to make sure that the two are compatible. Fisher asked about the changes to the Class I material thresholds normally required, as well as the different elevations. Woolever stated Pizza Ranch is a prototype, and they want all of them to mostly look the same. Stephens asked about stormwater for the site, noting that it appears they are adding more park- ing than what had been originally planned and if it was accounted for in the downstream storm sewer treatment system. Woolever replied that it was and stating that the parking lot has not changed from 2019 plans. He then noted that there is a regional detention basin that the water is going to. Frazier asked if there were any major changes from the plan that was submitted and approved in 2019. Woolever explained the changes, including the location of the water main across the site, which the City had installed; improvements adjacent to Oakwood Park so they can tie into the sidewalk, the curb, and gutter; and the addition of three parking stalls on the north side to accommodate for the drive -up window. Frazier asked if there were stacking issues at other Pizza Ranch locations that use this same type of drive -up window. Ernie Swanson, Stillwater, MN, stated he owns the Oak Park Heights Pizza Ranch that has a drive -up window, which is basically used only for pickup orders, so people are only at the window for two -or -three minutes. Stacking on a busy Friday night might be two cars, at most. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 3 of 21 Knable asked if they limit the number of pickups they have per hour; Swanson replied no, stating that typically run 25-35 pickups per night without any problems. Frazier opened the public hearing. David Olson, 8627 Jorgensen Avenue South, stated that he appreciates the additional shielding of the restaurant lighting on the building areas adjacent to Oakwood Park as well as refraining from adding their branding lighting on the north and east sides of the building. He asked that they do everything they can to help us keep that park as a natural oasis and that they maintain their landscaping and parking lot. He thanked them for coming to Cottage Grove. Olson then expressed some concern about the adequacy of the existing traffic controls throughout the east side of our North Gateway area. He stated that the Commission should approve this application. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Frazier stated he had some follow-up questions for staff. Condition #5 had a discrepancy on the sidewalk width and asked if it was five or six feet. Mrosla responded it should be five feet, noting stated that it was a typo. Frazier asked regarding Condition #8 if the City was okay with the contractor providing the irrigation plan. Mrosla replied yes, noting that Assistant City Engineer Meyer is working closely with them on the irrigation. Mrosla then addressed Mr. Olson's com- ments about lighting stating that the applicant has removed some lighting on the north side of the building and along the drive through to reduce impacts on the surrounding park and that the stand alone lights in the parking lot will have shields on them. Frazier then asked if the City is working with the applicant to provide as much landscaping as possible to shield the parking lot from Oakwood Park. Mrosla replied that the space on that side of the building is pretty limited due to setbacks for parking; therefore, much of the landscaping is adjacent to Harkness or Hardwood, but some landscaping is proposed over there. He noted that if there are any com- plaints, the applicant will work with the City to provide additional plantings. Rasmussen stated that he is comfortable with the limited stacking at the drive -through window, as it is not a typical drive -up scenario. He is also fine with the proposed Class I materials as they are breaking up the elevations with different materials. He stated he agrees with the com- ments from Mr. Olson about the lighting screening by Oakwood Park. Fisher made a motion to approve the site plan review, conditional use permit, and PUD applications, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report with the corrections Conditions #5 and #8. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.3 Renewal By Andersen Expansion — Cases PP2022-019, SP2022-020, V2022-021 Opus Development Company, LLC, on behalf of Renewal by Andersen LLC, has applied for a preliminary plat to re -plat Outlot A, Glengrove Industrial Park 8th Addition, located on the northeast corner of 100th Street and Hemingway Avenue. The application includes site plan review of an approximately 330,000 square foot expansion to the existing Renewal by Andersen campus. The proposed new facility will expand west of the existing footprint along 100th Street where the existing trailer storage is currently located. New trailer storage will be created north and west of the proposed new addition. Opus Development Company has also applied for a variance to allow the loading docks to face the public right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 4 of 21 Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Phil Cattanach, Vice President/General Manager, Opus Group, 10350 Bren Road West, Minnetonka, Minnesota, stated the only point he wanted to raise was on Condition #25 they are working with staff on the amount being requested for the funding allocation by Renewal by Andersen pertaining to the trail extension and the turn lanes. He anticipates that they will be able to verify that between now and the City Council meeting. Frazier opened the public hearing. Kate Hoelscher, 7903 113th Street South, stated in discussion with staff, it sounded like they were going to move some of the traffic that is going onto 100th Street internally. She stated they are moving a lot of trailers across the campus via use 100th Street as the main transport route. She asked if that could be moved off that street because often they're driving very slowly on a 50 MPH street. She then expressed concern about the flashing red and green lights during loading at night and asked if berming or landscaping could be added for screening. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Burfeind responded to the truck question that the new site will be a contiguous property with the building and all parking connected, which should help with the concerns that were raised. He thought that would definitely help with the concerns that were raised. He noted that more de- tailed information will be provided on the proposed roadway improvements in that area during the discussion about the NorthPoint development. He explained that a continuous left -turn lane will be added; they'll eventually have a continuous left -turn lane they can also use, which will help to get truck traffic out of the through traffic on 100th Street, where currently trucks have to stay in the through lane of traffic to turn back in. Burfeind noted there also will be additional screening for the lights along the berm, in addition to new coniferous trees being added. Frazier confirmed with Burfeind that all of the lighting on the property met requirements for bleed over onto the property lines. Rasmussen made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, site plan review, and variance for the proposed Renewal by Andersen expansion, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.4 NorthPoint — Case SP2022-022 NP BGO Cottage Grove Logistics Park, LLC has applied for a site plan review for Phase I of the Cottage Grove Logistics Park Master Development Plan. The application is to construct Building 1, approximately 281,000 square feet, and Building 2, approximately 487,000 square feet, on property located south of 100th Street and west of Ideal Avenue. Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 5 of 21 Knable asked if the sound wall would be put up before or after the proposed road would be constructed. Schmitz replied 105th Street will go in first, with the sound wall after. Frazier stated with Renewal by Andersen there was some discussion about reconstruction of 100th Street and asked if that would be driven by the NorthPoint construction. Burfeind replied these improvements are all required to be completed with NorthPoint's Phase I; we anticipate that 105th Street and the 100th Street improvements would both be completed in 2022 and Ideal Avenue in 2023. All these new roads will be built to a three -lane section — a through lane in each direction, a continuous center left, and right -turn lanes, very similar to Hadley Avenue, between 90th Street and 100th Street, with the addition of right -turn lanes. Fisher asked if the road improvements are NorthPoint's responsibility, and if they will pay for them. Burfeind confirmed that NorthPoint will be building all of those road improvements as part of their project. Christina Hubacek, Regional Vice President of NorthPoint Development, stated that they are excited to begin Phase I development, if the proposal is approved, two buildings are slated to start this spring. She stated she would be happy to take any questions. Wright asked if the businesses that will be at that location have been identified. Hubacek re- sponded that NorthPoint Development is primarily a speculative industrial developer, so they've received multiple Requests for Proposal for specific tenants; they've not yet signed any leases, but are working on some. These are all currently built -on -spec development, so there are no tenants at this time. Frazier opened the public hearing. Sarah Werz, 8642 Grospoint Avenue South, asked if this property bordered the SNA. She is concerned that with such a large industrial development near the small SNA area, there could be some kind of impact to the SNA versus what is from farm fields. She asked that the Com- mission consider requiring an EAW. Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, stated on Page 3 of the staff report there was an excerpt from the 2040 Land Use Map, that appears to show that the SNA is bordered by resi- dential on each of the three sides. She noted that there is also a NorthPoint Logistics Project in Lake Elmo, who did very detailed traffic studies. She stated that with all of the business that NorthPoint does, she believes they have a good understanding on what they can expect for traffic generation. She stated from a planning standpoint, she thinks everybody needs to under- stand what kind of traffic could be generated. Kate Hoelscher, 7903 113th Street South, stated she really appreciates the extra measures that NorthPoint is taking to mitigate sound and light. She noted that Ideal Avenue is the only way in and out of the neighborhood and they have already experienced Ideal going down to one lane because of the water project. She requested that there would always be a way in and out and if 105th Street and a way up to 100th Street were completed before Ideal was under construc- tion. She has serious concerns about traffic getting worse due to NorthPoint and the Renewal by Andersen expansion. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 6 of 21 Schmitz stated the development is not adjacent to the SNA; on the slide, she drew the boundary of the SNA and the boundary of NorthPoint. Schmitz the explained that the area Ms. Matter had pointed out on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is slated for residential development. Regarding an additional environmental review for a project of this size, an AUAR was completed for the Business Park area in 2017. Frazier confirmed with Schmitz that NorthPoint and the SNA share a southwest corner of the property, but the property south of that will be residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Schmitz responded yes. Burfeind explained that Ideal Avenue was reconstructed in 2020 as part of the 3M Settlement Agreement water main project so that road would not be torn up. He stated that Ideal will be widened to the east with curb and gutter added, but the intent is to keep traffic on the current roadway pavement for most of the construction phase. He then explained that it is NorthPoint's intent for construction access is to come off 100th Street, which is why they want to get 100th Street done in 2022. He also stated that construction vehicles will not be allowed to park on the roadways. Burfeind then stated that a very detailed, extensive traffic study was done with the Master Site Plan for this project, which is consistent with the AUAR. He stated that the round- abouts at Jamaica Avenue and Highway 61 are looked by MnDOT looks at roundabouts He explained the MnDOT processes for studying traffic highway interchanges at peak times. The City is working on getting a second access point out to the Innovation Road and Highway 61 interchange. Washington County has started their preliminary design for that roadway; it's in their Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and in our CIP in the next five years. This will slowly be building out over the next several years. Frazier noted the Renewal by Andersen expansion probably was not known when that traffic study was done as part of the Master Plan. He asked if the City is concerned with adding the number of trucks from the Renewal the expansion we just approved. Burfeind confirmed that the traffic study looked at background traffic growth and anticipates other growth occurring. Our AUAR accounted for a full build -out of this area, including residential development, so 100th Street and Ideal Avenue can handle a full build -out of the area. Fisher asked if they knew when the proposed Hadley Avenue would be constructed, noting that having that access could help avoid traffic issues when the east side starts developing. Burfeind replied that roadway realignment will be tied to residential development in that area. A neigh- borhood meeting will be held on Thursday night related to those potential residential develop- ments. If those developments are approved, the second access would be constructed in the next two years. Residential developments would not be allowed to occur without a second access point to that southern area. Fisher asked if the south portion, after the roundabout, would be dictated by future development. Burfeind responded that is correct. Knable asked if there will be any traffic signal changes at 100th Street and Jamaica Avenue. Burfeind responded that the City cannot put in a signal until it meets MnDOT warrants tripping certain conditions. The current all -way stop will work for that area, but we will continue to watch that intersection every year. He explained that this project includes adding turn lanes and putting in the bases and conduits so when a signal is warranted, all that needs to be done is to install the signal poles. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 7 of 21 Rasmussen made a motion to approve the NorthPoint Phase 1 site plan review, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Fisher seconded. Motion passed unani- mously (7-to-0 vote). 6.5 Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Case CP2022-013 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for an amendment to the adopted 2040 Comprehen- sive Plan. The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan is an outcome of a three-year community planning process. The City's strategic planning efforts for many years has worked to posi- tion the community for growth, and those efforts were solidified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. However, since the plan was completed in 2018, the community has seen an increase in overall growth. The proposed amendment is to address these changes. The amendment includes updating the staging areas, urban service areas, population forecast, and housing needs. In addition, the proposed amendment includes an update to the future land use map as a result of the adoption of the Mississippi Dunes Master Plan. Mrosla summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Frazier opened the public hearing. Lisa Mueller, N5001 810th Street, Ellsworth, WI, stated she's been at multiple City meetings since the former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course and proposed Mississippi Landing development project have been on the table. She noted Mrosla had stated in his presentation "...after Mississippi Landing goes in," as though it's a foregone conclusion. She has been impressed by the well informed and passionate appeals from local citizens and neighbors to the Dunes prop- erty as well as the agencies, organizations, and individuals who reviewed the EAW and submit- ted their comments in writing. She had submitted comments, and she and Schmitz had exchanged messages this week; for some reason, her comments were not received by the City, but they were received by Pulte Builders. She wished to provide her comments on the EAW tonight in whatever fashion you deem most appropriate, electronic or in print. Her background is as an ecologist; she's worked for close to 30 years in the greater Twin Cities metro area, in greater Minnesota, and the eastern Dakotas to protect land. She's done a lot of work buying land on behalf of the SNA program. Frazier interrupted Mueller to note this public hearing is just for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with the Mississippi Landing application next on the agenda, and asked her to save those comments for that public hearing. Mueller replied she's getting there and will try to be brief. Mueller stated she was surprised and disappointed, given the length, depth, and breadth of comments that were made on the EAW, to see it shuffled off to the Consent Agenda at the February 2 City Council Meeting. Several of us here tonight spoke at that meeting, and we asked with a high degree of earnestness that it be moved to the Regular Agenda so there'd be an opportunity for comment; those requests were ignored. She thought the clear feeling was the assumption that the Dunes project is a done deal. This is all happening despite the fact that the property: borders an SNA; has soils that are windblown sands and are underlaying with groundwater that is contaminated with PFAS, forever chemicals; is a sacred site to Native Americans; provides suitable habitat for the federally endangered rusty patched bumblebee and several other endangered and threatened species; falls within the National Park Service MNRA boundary; is protected by the newly -adopted MRCCA Ordinance; is the best and last remaining chance for the City and its partners to protect open space and park land that borders and provides access to the Mississippi River. Her sense is that the City thinks it has successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of its constituents, but they're wrong about that. She's Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 8 of 21 here tonight to remind the Commission of its charge and to articulate what is and is not possible at this juncture. Several steps are required for the Metropolitan Council's review of a Compre- hensive Plan or an amendment to a Comprehensive Plan under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Planning Commission is taking one of those steps tonight, presumably approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The City Council must also approve the proposed Amendment and authorize its submittal to the Metropolitan Council for review. The City then has to notify adjacent communities; that's a 60-day comment period by affected or adjacent communities. When a proposed amendment is finally submitted to the Metropolitan Council, they have 15 days to decide if the application for approval of the proposed amendment is com- plete. If so, the Council can take 60 days to review the conformance. She explained three Cs: Conformance with its Metropolitan System Plans, Consistency with its Non -Metropolitan Sys- tem Plans, and Compatibility with Comprehensive Plans of adjacent communities. It's important to remember that the amendment is not final until it is approved and returned by the Metropolitan Council and the City Council adopts it with any conditions or changes recommended by the Metropolitan Council. Then, and only then, can the City start taking action to implement the Amendment, such as changing land use regulations. Sharon O'Boyle, 9300 Grey Cloud Trail South, Grey Cloud Island Township, stated for historical purposes she'll make it quick. Her Grandma O'Boyle owned Mississippi Dunes prior to it be- coming a golf course. She's against there being any amendment that includes an update to the future Land Use Map regarding Mississippi Dunes. Mrosla had stated that there were supposed to be 300 units put in during this time period he was talking about; instead, the City had approved 1,200 units. That seems like you overdid it, and there have been articles in the newspaper about Washington County becoming an urban sprawl, which concerns her. It's changed the whole flavor of what Cottage Grove, St. Paul Park, and Grey Cloud are all about. Having already put in 1,200 units, to her it makes it even more necessary to keep our open spaces, Mississippi Dunes, and then to go through the steps. Right now, it seems premature to add an amendment regarding Mississippi Dunes. Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, commented on the proposed amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. On Page 3, it reads, "The proposed amendment re -guides the for- mer Mississippi Dunes Golf Course parcels from transitional planning area to low density and medium density residential. It is constant with the Master Plan efforts." She stated she didn't know what that meant. On Page 4, the image used does not make sense, and it's not repre- sentative of the Mississippi Dunes area. She doesn't think that there's a legend, there are not street names, it's really hard to understand what she's looking at. Regarding the Notice of Public Comment, there was a notice put in the Pioneer Press on February 16; she stated she doesn't get the Pioneer Press, so the first she heard about this was she saw it in the Cottage Grove Journal. Next steps, she saw that this will go to the Metropolitan Council for approval, and it will take up to 120 days for review and approval. She stated that in #8, there was a statement about wastewater and also the water supply. She's thinking that's also probably part of the AUAR, the Business Park AUAR, that's sitting out right now on the Cottage Grove website for updating. It looks like there are some pretty big changes there. Also, the St. Paul Park letter talks about three homes per acre, but the chart that was in there talked about five homes per acre. On Page 30, there's a future Land Use Map that shows the Mississippi Dunes property as transitional, but then on Page 31, there's a revised one, and not only that, it shows the DNR SNA surrounded by low and medium density residential housing on the west side, the north side, and the east side; that's new, never heard about that before. She stated she doesn't know enough about MUSA to comment on it. She noted about the links in the document that the Minnesota DNR Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 9 of 21 did respond regarding the SNA, but she couldn't make that clickable, so she doesn't know what they said. There's a Business Park expansion area, the staging area, and it goes on and on. On Page 37, under Surface Water... Frazier told Matter that her time was up. Mike Wiechmann, 10659 Grey Cloud Trail South, had questions on a bar chart that was dis- played in the last presentation. These are plat approvals; are forecasted occupancies following these approvals as well? If you look at the chart, obviously one could speculate it's a pandemic spike in 2020, probably tapering down in 2021. How has that factored into this planning and into the discussions? Are these numbers affected by pandemic spikes? We're relatively consistent in the years leading up to it, and how much is that really affecting this going forward? Has that been taken into account? If so, if we are really seeing an exodus out of the metropolitan area and into the suburbs, as we're maybe seeing here in this graph, is a 22-person steering com- mittee from 2016 really valid at this point? Do you want to reconsider maybe updating that or taking into account people like him, who moved here in 2020 from the city? At this point, he hasn't had any input on any of that because, quite frankly, it was done before he got here. He's sure there are others like him; one is sitting right here, Mr. Grams. It's just out there for consid- eration, maybe we want to think about the new members of the community and how their input might factor into this 2040 Plan. Sarah Werz, 8642 Grospoint Avenue South, asked why so many were approved if that pace was not in line with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan guides everything that the City does, then shouldn't there be limits placed, and the ability to say no if the pace is not in line with that until a study and then an amendment is made? When there is a rapid increase in housing in one area, there are many things to consider regarding how the community is affected; not all growth at this pace is good. Has the City considered the impacts on the School District? Two high schools are already over capacity; three other schools will be within two years. Within ten years, ten additional schools will be over capacity. This is directly related to the increase in housing in the community. She said it's notjust Cottage Grove; it's every community that District 833 serves. To manage this, the District has no choice but to remodel, add on, and build more schools, which costs money. So, they plan to seek a bond referendum this year for that, related to this spike in housing. The bond referendum is $432M to $582M, depending on which plan they go with. Local property owners would see an increase in their taxes to pay for this, approx- imately $264 to $408 a year, for an average $300K home. All of these homes are going to cost people more. Is the City partnering with the District in long-term planning so that they're able to keep pace with this growth? What about other agencies and infrastructure that's impacted by this growth? We need to pause and consider more than the wallets of property owners and mass -market developers. She just wants to make sure that everyone is aware of the plan pro- posed for the 103rd Street bridge; she believes this kind of falls in line with that. We're seeing growth, so we're seeing, maybe we should look at this bridge that's been in rough shape. Mayor Bailey now says it's unsafe and needs to be replaced. Werz stated that a few months ago it was fine; when she questioned if we had a park there and she needed an ambulance for her child, would they be able to get there quickly, they said oh, it's fine. Now, it's unsafe and needs to be replaced. It will be a complicated project with the angle and the railroad has to keep running during that process. It's $8.5M to do that, and who pays for that? We've asked our representa- tives at the State to ask for funding; there's no plan for that funding, that's a hope, they don't promise that. So, if that's not paid for, then who pays? And will the community be stuck with that bridge as it is, if it's not paid for? Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 10 of 21 Jennifer Nedry, 7764 Jasmine Avenue South, stated she wanted to take her hat off to all of the work that everyone has been doing: Staff, residents, and the commissioners. She appreciates it so much, but what she also appreciates is the fact that we're all invested in this community. There is friction because we care. The one thing she hasn't heard us caring about this evening, though, beyond people, traffic, lights, barriers, is the open space that is the SNA and the Mis- sissippi Dunes, so she just wanted to highlight that as something that she cares about. She believes that there's a lot of care in the community, although there's only a small contingent of us that show up meeting after meeting to talk about this; you guys take our quality of life regularly and you take it very seriously, but she just feels the need to speak out for the open space. She knows that we talk about the City parks, she takes advantage of them, she has Kingston Park in her back yard, and she's thankful for that. But with the report on climate change tonight, open space is critical to the survival of this community. Sean Woulfe, 10744 Grey Cloud Island Drive, stated the area of Grey Cloud Island is pretty quiet at night; it's a nice area to enjoy a nice fire and some family time. It's peaceful, and to add some type of development that's coming in like this would severely impact the quality of life at just any given time. He pays to live there, he likes keeping that privacy, and he feels like that's being disregarded with this type of invasion of people, an inundation of people. He plans on speaking on the next item, too, but he just asked when will it stop? Is a McDonald's coming in next or a gas station? There are only two ways in and out of this whole area, and he just feels like there's disregard of the impact of this type of process. He'd just like them to take that into consideration. Tom Nierengarten, 10500 Grey Cloud Trail South, Cottage Grove, stated he has some con- cerns. Looking at the map that was sent to him in the mail, it's hard to connect all the dots, but it looks like our neighborhood is about to change fairly soon from the quiet rural area that it is now to something different. We've experienced a project called a Pavement Improvement Plan that resulted in repaving of our road in front of us, which created an assessment. What seems to be happening now is the possibility of sewers being put in heavy limestone formations that pretty much exist in the ground right now; he thought that the cost to deal with that must be fairly significant, and he wasn't sure who was going to pay for that. That hasn't really been discussed, but we'd been asked to invest in a brand-new road several years ago, right around the time that the Dunes golf course was being discontinued. At the time, he guessed the thinking was that the road would probably be useful for another 15-20 years; that's what we'd really expect. Not being in construction, he's not familiar with what would be required to get the sewers in, across to the western side of Grey Cloud Trail. Due to the heavy rock formations, he believes that would be a significant expense and probably an unnecessary one because we're getting along pretty well with what we have right now. We weren't expecting to really have to deal with that until at least 2040, and who knows if we're even going to be here at that time. He just has some concerns that the roads for which the assessments haven't even yet been paid might have to be torn up and replaced with another road to accommodate the construction of the sewers. He thinks there are a few more questions to be considered here before it goes through. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Mrosla explained that once the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Plan are adopted, the City cannot deny an application if they meet the Comprehensive Plan and zoning requirements; we must send that application to the Planning Commission and the City Council for a formal review process. All development that occurred in this general area went through that formal Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 11 of 21 process, as it was consistent with the Land Use Plan, which is why those units got approved. If that influx was related to the pandemic, only time will tell, noting, however, the growth has con- tinued this year. In just over three years, the Metropolitan Council will be sending out notices to update our 2050 Comprehensive Plan, which will be an opportunity for citizen involvement start- ing in 2026. The 2050 Comprehensive Plan will most likely be adopted in 2029 or 2030. Mrosla then stated the St. Paul Pioneer Press is the City's official newspaper for the public hearing notices, noting that they are also posted on our website. He stated that the City's infrastructure is in place to accommodate growth and has been programmed for future growth, especially in the Upper Ravine areas. Brittain explained that the Comprehensive Plan guides our long-term goals for the community; its intent, in part, is to prevent urban sprawl so that we're not hopping to areas of the community that can't be serviced by the MUSA or City services. The areas that already zoned out in the Comprehensive Plan for activity have filled up. This Comprehensive Plan update appears to be consistent with the direction of our previous Comprehensive Plans, and will allow us to open up new areas to prevent urban sprawl or discontinuous expansion of services. That is more eco- nomical, and it allows the developers to pay for this infrastructure improvement. He asked if that was correct. Mrosla replied that was correct and was very well said. Burfeind provided clarification on the street and utility questions. The question about St. Paul Park with reference to three units an acre and different parts of the plan that had different num- bers was specific to those 13 acres that they could service off 85th Street; there was no refer- ence to any other densities at any other point in the community. He explained that the costs for the Mississippi Landing improvements will all be paid by the developer; they will not be paid for by surrounding residents and there will be no assessments as there were in 2015 for recon- struction of Grey Cloud Trail. The portion by 103rd Street will have to be realigned following the County plan and would be totally paid for by the developer, so there would be a brand-new road at no cost to the residents. Burfeind the stated that regarding the bridge, a traffic study was done for the Mississippi Landing project, and it will be a two-way, all -way stop. From a traffic standpoint, that will work for that development. There will be different safety measure enhance- ments, including flashing stop signs, flashing bridge -height signs, and more advanced warning signs. If a development was approved, there would be new traffic to the area, but that two-way stop works. The City is looking at funding opportunities to widen that bridge, but it is currently not necessary for this development. He noted that it is a complicated process to replace the railroad bridge and would need close coordination with the City, the County, and the Railroad. Fisher noted that someone had quoted Mrosla, feeling like all of this is a foregone conclusion and the City is pulling wool over eyes. Speaking for this Commission and other people she knows, we have spent a lot of time going over these things, listening to considerations, listening to people speak their opinions, and that matters to us. A woman had said everybody cares, and that's true. She sits on the Planning Commission because she cares about our community. Fisher stated that when there is a willing buyer and a willing seller and the project meets the Comprehensive Plan, the City cannot deny it just because we feel like things are going too quickly as that is illegal. She said that this City, in particular, puts in a lot of work and planning to make sure that legally we are doing what we are supposed to be doing. She's sorry that person feels like the wool is being pulled over their eyes, because she doesn't know anybody in this situation that is intending to do that. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 12 of 21 Mrosla stated the City works very closely with the School District. Every Comprehensive Plan amendment and any plat that comes in is submitted and coordinated with the School District. The City wants to make sure that there is open and clear communication with all impacted parties, including the DNR, MnDOT, the Watershed District, or other agencies. Everyone is notified when we get an application to review that and provide comment. He reiterated that the City met with the School District and discussed this proposed amendment. Knable stated to new community members that there are always opportunities to volunteer to serve on a commission and other City boards or to run for City Council. He has lived in Cottage Grove since 1991 and loves living here. It is great to hear the passion that residents have for these developments. He noted that when he moved here, residents were upset about the Sandy Hills development and wondered what would happen to the open land there and the capacity of the schools. He hears all of the concerns and comments and takes everything very seriously, but there are laws that we have to follow. He appreciated everybody coming tonight. Frazier stated a comment was made about the future Land Use Map that was included in the staff report but not in the slideshow presentation, that looked like other things had been added or changed, rather than just this proposed amendment. Looking at the Land Use Map that was already submitted and approved by the Metropolitan Council and the City Council, the whole east side of the SNA was already going to be low -density residential; in fact, there are neigh- borhoods down there already. The only change between those two maps that he can see is the change that we're talking about tonight, which deals with the Mississippi Landing Master Plan, that was already approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This Land Use Map Amendment is to ensure the approved Master Plan is consistent with the comp plan. He stated that he is supportive of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Brittain made a motion to approve the amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Knable seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Thiede stated the City Council looks for the Planning Commission to focus on whether these changes meet our ordinances and our comp plan. He expressed appreciation for the Commis- sion's work and input. He noted that the Council makes the final decision. He stated that the Council has been listening to input received from many people. He appreciates when people focus on providing verifiable facts and how something does not meet codes. 6.6 Mississippi Landing — Cases ZA2022-009, PP2022-010, and SP2022-011 Pulte Homes and Lifestyle Communities have applied for a site plan review of a proposed low -density residential neighborhood and park/open space on the former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course and additional properties to the west, which are generally located east of Grey Cloud Drive and north of the Mississippi River. Pulte Homes has also applied for a zoning amendment to rezone the approximately 228 acres of land from R-1, Rural Residential, to R- 4, Low Density Residential, and a PUD, Planned Unit Development; and a preliminary plat to be called Mississippi Landing that will consist of a total of 372 homes including 312 single- family homes, 8 age -restricted twin homes, 52 age -restricted cooperative homes, and 9 out - lots. This development will also include approximately 70 acres of open space that will be utilized for park land, wetlands, and ponding. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 13 of 21 Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Frazier stated in the Pulte Homes area, there are 60-foot lots, which are becoming more stand- ard for single-family homes, and an active adult area with 50-foot lots. He asked for more infor- mation on the requested changes on the lot line spacing for the 50-foot lots. Schmitz replied that while the 50-foot wide lots are smaller, they need to fit a decent product so they are re- questing a five-foot setback from either side property line. This is similar to what is being built in the Settlers Bluff development. She noted that people are looking to downsize and have less maintenance. Brittain asked if they were keeping the 7.5-foot setback or if they were going down to 5 feet. Schmitz stated for the 50-foot wide lots, they will have 5-foot setbacks, but any of the lots greater than 50 feet wide will require the 7.5-foot setbacks. Paul Heuer, Pulte Group, stated he and Ben Landhauser, Executive Vice President of Lifestyle Communities, would give a short presentation. He stated Pulte Group is acting as the developer of the property and builder of all the detached homes; Centex and Del Webb brands will be used here with Del Webb having 50-foot lots that are really targeted to empty nesters. Landhauser stated their latest cooperative housing development is Artessa. Heuer stated they have to satisfy the City's Master Plan and zoning ordinances. This property has a number of physical constraints, all of which play a factor in how this neighborhood is designed. Market demand is obviously a critical component, as are neighbor concerns. The City wanted more land, as did the DNR, so we worked with both of them and made that happen. There is 40 percent open space, with 372 homes (four types). He explained they widened some lots on the western edge and made them deeper for the single-family homes, which also have a non - monotony code. The 50-foot lots are the Del Webb homes. There will be a master homeowners association that would be focused on maintaining the beauty of the neighborhood; the sub - association pertains mainly to the active adult homes for mowing and snow removal. Landhauser explained what cooperative housing is and their biggest competitor is condomini- ums. He noted that It is a larger, multi -family, owner -occupied building, that will also feature twin homes. Basically, each owner has their own mortgage, and there is an association to take care of any common areas and grounds. A cooperative is basically one master mortgage on the entire property, and all buildings are under one master mortgage; each owner is a shareholder in that cooperative corporation. He explained that this typically deals with active adults aged 62 or older. Home sizes range from under 1,200 square feet to 1,800 square feet. He described the many amenities available. He noted there will be underground parking for the main building, and the twin homes would have an attached two -car garage. Sidewalks, trails, and paths sur- round the development. Rasmussen had questions regarding general drainage with the river to the south, if there will be a lift station, and how the storm water and sewer would flow on this site. Ryan Bluhm, Civil Engineer with Westwood Professional Services, explained the entire site drains from a storm - water standpoint toward the north and works itself to the east first as a wetland complex that lies along that side of the property. A mixture of infiltration and stormwater treatment ponds will be put in, which will be utilized first, before drainage outlets into the existing wetland basins. Those basins are a combination of wetlands and ponds that were created as part of the golf course, so all stormwater will still go in that same location. All sanitary will work through the development up towards the main entrance and will outlet to a new proposed lift station, and he Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 14 of 21 pointed out its location on the site plan. That lift station will push the sewers up through a force main all the way up to the top of the hill. Frazier opened the public hearing. Nycole Folsom, 10800 Grey Cloud Island Drive South, stated she's a long-term resident of Cottage Grove/Grey Cloud Island; she grew up here, went to school here, as her parents did before her. Not only does she believe that this is a huge upset to our community, but she also thinks that it is not in our best interest to go ahead with the development. The obvious thing is traffic; she doesn't believe that the Island is equipped for that amount of traffic. All the way around it, it's about seven miles with a narrow, winding two-lane road, one going each way. As is, with the traffic that's already there, there have been accidents down there; my stepmother's mother passed away just simply pulling out of her driveway when somebody crashed into her going 50 miles per hour. There's a hill that comes down from Cottage Grove to Grey Cloud Island; we refer to that as dead man's hill, it's dangerous. There's a stop sign at the bottom of it that goes underneath the tracks, it's meant to have just one vehicle go through it at a time; through the years there have been accidents down there, and there have been memorials at the bottom of the hill. With the increase in population, it could only get worse. Along with that traffic would bring an increase in crime. Vandalism has already been reported to the cemetery down on Grey Cloud, trespassing on private property, etc. She believes it is in the best interest of the wildlife and the natural habitat down there too to not have that population increase, con- trary to the plan that's proposed. She implored the commissioners to maybe consider a proposal to change it back to what it once was, which is a gated community; that would not only protect the current residents' safety with accidents and crime, but it would also reduce it from what it has been and protect the natural habitat and wildlife. Sean Woulfe, 10744 Grey Cloud Island Drive, stated he's lived there his entire life. The area where this new development will come in is a fishbowl, as they describe it, so anything that you will start to do from the moment you unearth, all of this stuff is going to run into the water. He doesn't think they have any consideration for the damage that will cause from oil, land erosion, which are just a few examples before he even gets into the people that have gotten here. Let's say you have allowed this building structure to be put up, now we have doubled the population of the whole entire area, which was, as previously stated, a gated community; no one's house is pretty much not directly visible from the road, it's all wooded where the trees are still there. This is before you take everything away, like the trees to put your houses in. You've stated that these people don't want to take care of their property before they even set foot in their new home; you are providing a service to make sure that they don't have to take care of anything. Therefore, there's a lack of respect to the land that these people are living on; they have zero regard for what happens around them, so they won't bat an eye when they throw something out their window when they start driving around this area that has many deer running across the roads. He doesn't think increasing the speed limit to get people faster to the road is safe for anyone. It takes ten minutes to get to the freeway from the island; there's only one way in and one way out, and that's either through Cottage Grove or St. Paul Park. So now you're going to say you can guarantee me an ambulance or a fire truck within a reasonable amount of time to actually save somebody's life; that critical response time is a big deal in this area, and it really saddens him that you guys think this is appropriate. Like he said previously tonight, this place is quiet at night. If you hear something like a loud motorcycle, you can hear it come in and go all the way through; you can hear that from your house. It's a nice quiet area, and it breaks his heart that you're willing to take this away from us. It's amazing that you find this okay; he doesn't Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 15 of 21 think they understand the repercussions that will even follow 20 years from now before you decide to even add more. So, what's next; McDonald's, a gas station? He didn't say this before, but he's deeply upset that you guys think this is appropriate. They've already stated that the people coming in don't care about what they have; they just want to come in, take, and dump like people do. That's upsetting because this is a nice area. Frazier reminded everyone that he doesn't want comments made from the audience; if you wish to make comments, please step up to the podium to do so. Rod Hale, 11701 Grey Cloud Trail, Cottage Grove, asked if there was an access going off 103rd Street and Grey Cloud Trail. He was told there are two accesses. His real concern is the marina issue, or at least the access to the water. Cottage Grove has 12 miles of water frontage in the City limits. We have about 100 feet that's available to the public, so he thinks this is our oppor- tunity to really provide our public with access to the river in a variety of ways. He's concerned, first of all, what kind of activity will that area be developed for or what will it promote; secondly, how large is it. If you've been down in that area on 100th and Hadley, and now with this project, we're going to be swimming in houses. He's not objecting to that, but he's objecting to the fact that we need to make sure that we've adequately prepared for that use. This is our opportunity to get some public access to the river for our people, and he hopes it is available for all Cottage Grove residents, not just for those who happen to be fortunate enough to live in this particular development. The proposal is 13 acres of park land, and he doesn't quite understand the 67 acres of preservation, whether or not that's in the park. Isn't our ordinance like 10 percent of development for parks and open space? Have you met that, then, with 220 acres, you've got 13 acres for parks; he doesn't quite understand that. He wondered if the developer had made any contact at all with the Army Corps of Engineers; he's curious because this is a mile from the main channel, and whether they anticipated doing anything in terms of accessing the waterway. Right now, that area is only about four -to -six feet deep. Regarding the public access we're going to have in this project, more than anything he's really concerned that we adequately prepare for it. If we're going to have many kids coming down there with fishing poles, we better make sure that we have good access, good service, and something that we can be proud of for a long time. Sharon O'Boyle, 9300 Grey Cloud Trail South, stated until she was eight years old, she lived in the stone farmhouse that is on the corner of the property that was formerly Mississippi Dunes. Her grandma owned that property. My family waited until there was a buyer that would keep the land use compatible with nature, the environment; a housing development is not compatible with the environment. The EAW that was done by Pulte showed that the negative impacts of a housing development outweigh any positive dollar signs. This land has a chance of being a State park. This land has already got documented endangered species, it has the rusty patched bumblebee, its got some sort of a bat, she believes, its got different kinds of birds, it is in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor, it is adjacent to the SNA, it's across and adjacent from the other side to the Grey Cloud Island Regional Park. This land is not suitable for a housing devel- opment, bottom line. They would have to dig out all of the sand because its sand, it's not suit- able. They can find another property someplace that is suitable for a housing development. Mississippi Dunes is not that property. We know climate change is a fact; this will make it worse. People have talked about the transportation issues and school issues. Her question to Cottage Grove is that Pullman Elementary in St. Paul Park is our only school for St. Paul Park and Grey Cloud Island; why is Cottage Grove even proposing that that would be the school for any sort of housing development in that area? She is against this housing development, she will continue Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 16 of 21 to be against it, and she will use her voting power and whatever other power she has, whether that is litigation or something else. Shannon Woulfe, 10411 Grey Cloud Trail South, stated she's lived there for 28 years and loves it; she's very grateful to live there and appreciates the new neighbors and the old ones. She understands that you are a businessman, and she gets that if it weren't you, it would be some- body else. You are here to make money, understandable, but you're trying to add more houses than there are people on our island; she thinks that's where a lot of her feelings come from and why she's so passionate about this. You are really changing people who have lived here for a long amount of time, have raised their families for years and years; they're having this huge change, not a small one. You could add $10 million houses out there, have a nice park, public access to everybody, but you're adding more houses than people; she asked if that wasn't a red flag to anybody besides all of us here that are fighting it. She thinks that's something to consider, but she believes that you guys already have your mind set on everything. Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, stated she has a lot of heart for this particular project. She appreciates you're volunteering; she's volunteering, that's how strongly she feels about this thing. There's something down there that's sacred, there is something down there that's sacred! And that we are going to do this is just abhorrent to her. She stated she's going to make two comments that she wants heard, and after that, she will be moving into things that she wants to see about this particular submittal. In regard to this particular submittal: 1) The proposed Com- prehensive Plan Amendment must be approved by the Metropolitan Council and adopted by the City Council in the final form before any action can be taken on the zoning and on any changes sought in this Pulte application. This process can take as much as 120 days, as stated, from the City's approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and authorization to submit it to the Metropolitan Council. So, that will be getting done around July 1, maybe, as long as everything goes okay. 2) Once the amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council and subsequently adopted by the City Council in final form, the Planning Commission could then review Pulte's requests. Under the 60-day rule, the 60 days is until the Metropolitan Council approves the proposed amendment and the City Council adopts it in final form. In addition, the City has the authority on its own to extend the period an additional 60 days; in the end, the City and Pulte can reach an agreement to extend it as much as needed if they are truly interested in doing a good job. She stated the Bulletin article had 14 pages on the issues; it was really thorough, excellent. She doesn't know if they've come back with any updates. She'd like to know who the city engineer would be assigned to this project, and she wants to know who's going to be accountable. Under Recommendation: A) The zoning amendment can't move for- ward until final approval. B) The site plan keeps changing; every time she looks at that map, it is different. Now there are more houses on it, and they are also overlooking the river, and there was supposed to be no blockage of river view. She'd like these maps to be dated with the revision date and something, but they're really hard to understand. She really wants to see a map with 103rd Street on it because this does not agree with the Washington County Southwest Arterial Study. She wants to see a map that shows how that road runs. Lisa Mueller, N5001 810th Street, Ellsworth, WI, was told by Frazier that she had previously stated during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment hearing she had spoken about how we had not received her public comments on the EAW. Frazier stated he assumed she did not want to use her three minutes to put those comments on the record, so if she wants to send them to staff, they will send them to the Commission. Mueller agreed. Mueller apologized for speaking out of turn earlier, but stated she's not a lawyer, she's an ecologist, but her understanding of Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 17 of 21 the Minnesota Rules regarding any changes to a Comprehensive Plan in the State of Minnesota do require exactly what Matter just pointed out, so she has the technical part of it written out here. Even so, the City can't enact an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on its own; it can only approve the review of the Amendment. Only the Metropolitan Council can make the ulti- mate approval, and only then is a City allowed to take any action on the Amendment. This process usually takes roughly 120 days, so the City has no power to move forward with any action on this most recent proposal, Item 6.6 on tonight's agenda, so she wanted to point that out. That's her understanding as a lay person. She's also here as a volunteer; as mentioned, she has spent countless hours over the last year trying to defend the Dunes. She also sees it as a sacred place; she is guessing that all of you have had an opportunity to spend time out there at one point or another. She happened to be out there, not on the property, but on the river looking up at the property this last Saturday. She was just struck by the grandeur of the place and the overgrown big burr oaks, and a couple of deer were passing through. That may all sound corny, but she thinks back to a camp that she went to when she was 17 years old, before she started her career in conservation, and she read A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold and his famous land ethic states that we abuse land because we regard it as a com- modity belonging to us. When we begin to see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to treat it with love and respect. She has been on the verge of tears at the prospect of this land being developed to such an extent. There are certainly gradations of possibility; one end of the spectrum the whole parcel is preserved as public open space. That is possible, it is still possible. There were many partners at the beginning of these conversations — County, State, Federal — and others she has contacted this week who will be willing to work out a deal where this land could be protected. She had personally offered to Heuer her willingness to work as somebody with 30 years of land negotiating experience my pro bono services to identify an alternative location for this project. This location is wholly unsuitable for the kind of development that is being proposed from the standpoint of soils and the wetlands. She also wanted to correct a couple of misconceptions that she has heard mentioned several times: One is that the DNR was only interested in 12 acres; that's complete crock, not true. She knows this from her work with the DNR directly working with them to try to envision what would be their best case scenario; it was very different from what we're currently seeing. Sarah Werz, 8642 Grospoint Avenue South, said Mayor Bailey stated in January that the 103rd Street bridge is unsafe; so, she'd love some clarification on that. She knows the traffic study said with this development that the stop sign with some warning lights is fine, but she disagrees. If only one car can go through at a time with this many houses and people coming through, that is not safe. People are not going to like it. She thought there was not going to be any access off 103rd Street to the development; she thought both access points were going to be off Grey Cloud Trail, so asked for clarification on that. If it is off 103rd, is it east or west of the bridge. She asked about that impact. She has heard many times that the developer pays for things that go along with the development. Were they going to pay for the bridge then? That's $8.5M, so she didn't know if that would go along with the development. She feels like the community con- tinues to be misled regarding many aspects of this property and the process. If you looked at the comments on the City survey, there's a lot of dissatisfaction with the City Council. A lot of people are stating that they want this land preserved, to be open space, and they're not happy that the City Council is disregarding resident feedback; we're being ignored. You're politely lis- tening to us and thanking us for our feedback, but we're being ignored. Take some more time to look into this. Mayor Bailey and other members of the Council continually have said that there's going to be a Regional Park on the Island soon; no, Aggregate has applied to renew their permit, that's another five -to -eight years. What's coming up next month to you guys is a Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 18 of 21 new plan from them to mine under the river on 395 acres of backwater; that's a 20-to-25 year mining operation. They are not going to do that for a couple years; they are going to do it for the long haul. So, telling us that we don't need a park on this property because we are going to have this park on the Island; no, that's not happening anytime soon if it ever happens. So, that is very frustrating to hear. We are told that you are listening to us and taking what we are saying into account, and then you're not, they're not. This can't be approved before the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved, so she doesn't even know why this was on the agenda tonight. What are they going to do? They're going to get this approved and then wait and wait and wait. David Olson, 8627 Jorgensen Avenue South, stated it makes him feel sad when he considers what we are about to do here, but that isn't so uncommon; things like this happen over time. This whole thing seems to violate his childhood and adolescent memories and adventures that took place right there. It feels like this is a loss to him, and really it is a loss, not just for him. The way we manage this loss is what defines us as a community. The landowner presented us with a plan; we pushed back, said no, this is not normal acreage, not a normal Cottage Grove de- velopment in a field surrounded by fields. This is special; this is right on the life-giving waters of the Mississippi River. We insisted on something better; more land for the SNA, more land than normal for Cottage Grove parks and open spaces, and perhaps most important of all, no homes on our river shore! No homes. Instead of new private docks for wealthy homeowners, we will have docks owned by all of us in the new Cottage Grove park on the Mississippi River. That park will be connected by undeveloped land all along the river, from the west end of this acreage to the SNA. This is not perfect. He wished we could save more of the land for all of us to enjoy, but he thinks this is the best we are going to get at this moment in time. He recommends approval of this application. Mike Wiechmann, 10659 Grey Cloud Trail South, just wanted to ask for any commentary on the apparent deviation from the Master Plan that was approved. It is particularly concerning that the southwest side, the south entrance on the preliminary plat. When we were going through all of the meetings, the open house, the commentary period, we have been going back and forth on having houses on that side of the road. It was one small concession that was adhered to from public comments, to actually remove houses from that side. One of his concerns at the open house that he asked about was what is the plan here? We're talking about a proposal; he understands its guidance, but this a significant change. We're talking about a plan and now there is another plan, a preliminary plan albeit, but now there are houses lining that side again. The point here is really if we are trying to really promote public access to the park, he just does not see that being the case here. When we're talking about entrance monuments going through a minimum of 30 houses to get to the river in this case, it just does not feel like a public space. With this being the case, it is hard to see what's currently being proposed here as anything but a space for this community, and that is not one of the goals here. The goal was to get public access to the river, so if nothing else happens, he would reconsider that point and heed the advice of the community; we did not want houses, but at least have a nice tree -lined road lead- ing into that area and make it seem like it is not just for that group. Barb Schwartz, 8041 113th Street, stated they have lived here close to 40 years and have been through a great deal. She's concerned about the environmental impact and the fact that it was decided that we would not go forward with an Environmental Impact Statement; that the EAW was sufficient. If you would all reference Colleen Toberman's article in The Journal last week, it was taken from the website at the Friends of the Mississippi, and she's talked before the Council a number of times. She went through her response to the EAW, and it was so compelling and Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 19 of 21 so well written that you had to pay attention to it. She thinks it speaks to almost everything that we brought up, and yet all of her conversations and efforts have gone nowhere. She also ques- tions how much of the effect on the environment is even part of your consideration. You are going to have lawns in the development; are you going to use chemicals on those lawns? Can you guarantee it won't go in the river? We decided we were not going to have a lawn service for our yard because of environmental reasons. A previous speaker had spoken about what happened today; we have 600 credible scientists internationally who are coming together and saying that the temperature of this planet is going to rise very quickly to 1.5, where nothing can be done. This was an opportunity to keep that open space, something that Cottage Grove can perhaps use as publicity, that we're doing it right. If this does go ahead, if it isn't already a done deal, which she has some doubts about, why can't those houses work on limiting a carbon footprint? Why can't they all be required to have solar heating? Has any of this ever been dis- cussed? She opened up The Journal and saw this picture and reacted much like these other people have; she was also heartsick, but she was primarily stunned. She couldn't believe that this is going to happen to that land. There is no place else on the river like it, and we are just going to throw it away without future consideration. I will comment on the EAW statement. Frazier told her that her three minutes was up. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Costello responded to comments about the Metropolitan Council review stating that the Plan- ning Commission can review and make recommendations on this application, but it cannot move forward for final plat or building permits until the Met Council acts on the comprehensive plan amendment, so the application will be in a holding pattern. Frazier stated he assumed the City Attorney had been consulted on that, which was confirmed. He noted the recommendation has a condition that prior to going any further, the Metropolitan Council has to agree, and if they don't, it all goes back. Costello confirmed this would then stop. Schmitz addressed how park dedication is calculated, explaining that right-of-way is excluded as well as areas below the high-water level. For this particular proposed project, there is about 121 acres is the net developable acreage, and 10 percent of that results in approximately 12 acres required for dedication. Schmitz stated that there are two access points. The furthest southerly access is onto Grey Cloud Trail and the other is off the realigned 103rd Street in Washington County's Southwest Arterial Study, which is on the west side of the railroad bridge. Burfeind stated in response to the comment about increasing speed limits that there are no speed limits being changed on the roadways in this area as part of this project. Regarding com- ments about stormwater impacts to the river and impacts to drainage, Burfeind stated there are two parts to the project. During construction, there are heavy controls from the Federal, State, and local governments. There will be a specific inspector for this project, who has to review all of the different mechanisms used to capture stormwater runoff, as well as a Watershed Inspec- tor. If this project moves ahead, they actually have to have less stormwater runoff in terms of the rate, which is a City requirement. The State and Watershed are concerned about sediment and phosphorus getting into the water, so there are significant reductions compared to how it was as a golf course. Burfeind then stated that the bridge and stop sign area is essentially a two-way intersection that will continue to work with this development based on the traffic study, which was based on a higher number of units than what is actually proposed. The bridge re- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 20 of 21 placement is not required as part of this project; it is being looked at separately by the City and County. If we get grant funding to widen the bridge, we will make that change at that time. With the general concerns of environmental impacts, Burfeind stated that will be looked at in great detail going forward. The South Washington Watershed District will continue to be part of that during and after construction. Frazier noted that this is not far away from the Hastings lock and dam system and was asked if the Army Corps of Engineers had been contacted as part of the approval process. Burfeind stated while this project involves water navigation and public access, and the Master Plan shows it will be part of a public park with a public access point; it is not on the main channel in an area where the water is more shallow. There will not be a marina with large boats; it will be for smaller boats, canoes, and kayaks. The developers would not need to any work with the Army Corps for dredging, etc. Stephens noted that the Burfeind stated that the South Washington Watershed District would be the regulatory agency for wetlands. She stated that the plans show an infiltration basin right next to the wetland, and asked if that would be taken care of for groundwater purposes or if that might change down the road to make sure they meet the Watershed requirements. Burfeind stated that's correct, the Watershed is the regional government unit that oversees the wetlands, so they have to approve any wetland delineations and whether or not there are impacts. The infiltration basins are in that same area, and they're going to be placed in areas that are suitable for infiltration. They have to meet the State rules with a certain amount of separation for bedrock. The City is requesting more work be done, including specific soil borings at each location. Frazier thanked everyone who came to the meeting tonight, noting that everyone who shows up cares. Everyone cares about this community and about what's going to happen. No one sitting in this room wants to see this be a failure, so that is what these meetings are about, that's why this process has taken so long. He stated that this is not the first time this project has been in front of the Planning Commission. He told the people in that neighborhood that they're not the first people to be worried about their neighborhood changing, and they certainly won't be the last. We see that a lot when developments come in and kind of change the character of the area, but private property owners get to decide what to do with their property as long as it complies with the comp plan and city ordinances. He wanted to make it clear that the City does not own this piece of property and can only do so much with what can do about the property. The reason the City cannot pass a law saying your kitchen has to be purple is the same reason why we can't say sorry, Pulte, we know you bought this to build houses, but you have to make it a park. The government cannot restrict private property owners from doing what they want to do with their property as long as it meets the City rules. So far, from what he's seen, this meets the City rules; they asked for R-4 density, and they are meeting R-4 density. They asked for lot sizes that are within what we usually do in Cottage Grove, so they met that. There is nothing else that we can do except to make sure the rules of the government are followed. Based on that, he's in favor of approving this preliminary plat and site plan. Frazier then stated that which schools the children in the area would attend is up to the School District, so any questions about School District boundaries should be directed to the District. Brittain stated he agreed, and he finds this consistent with planning and zoning ordinances. Regardless of any personal feelings, the proposal follows our guidelines and our Comprehen- sive Plan. He stated that there will be a lot more park land in this development than in the majority of other developments in the City. He believes the developer is going a long way to Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 21 of 21 making it something that is more than just a bunch of houses stuck wherever they can stick them. He thinks they're doing a good job, will have a quality development, and it will provide access to the river. He is also in favor of this proposal. Fisher spoke about the School District issue. As part of the bond referendum that is coming up, there has been some discussion of drawing District boundary lines. She stated that people should also be involved in School District meetings as that bond comes up; things that will be discussed include growth in certain spots and what might need to be adjusted so that all of our students get what they need. Brittain made a motion to approve the zoning amendment, preliminary plat, and site plan review for the proposed Mississippi Landing development, subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2022 Fisher made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2022, Planning Commis- sion meeting. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of February 2022 City Council Meetings Costello provided a summary of actions taken at the February 2 and February 16, 2022, City Council meetings. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Fisher asked about screening for the approved Xcel regulators, noting that the one near her house has been built, but there's no screening. Costello responded that she believes that sup- ply -chain issues might be a factor. Schmitz stated that the project is still under construction, Xcel has had some issues getting the approved fencing for both regulator projects, and the landscape plantings will be done this spring. She stated she will follow up on that. Frazier welcomed Commissioner Stephens to the Planning Commission, and thanked her for being here. Adjournment Fisher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Wright seconded. Motion passed unani- mously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.