Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-12-19 PACKET 07. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVALCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission November 28, 2022 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, November 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. 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; Conner Jakes, Associate Planner; Amanda Meyer, Assistant City Engineer; Dave Thiede, City Council Liaison Approval of Agenda Wright made a motion to approve the agenda. Knable 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 spoke. 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 Lot Split at 6525 Hadley — Case MS2022-060 Mark Tinucci, Sr. has applied for a minor subdivision to subdivide a 4.26-acre parcel of land located at 6525 Hadley Avenue South into two parcels of 1.75 acres and 2.51 acres. Jakes summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting November 28, 2022 Page 2 of 6 Rasmussen stated one of the slides showed quite a bit of elevation change on that piece of property and asked how much dirt would have to be moved to make this a buildable site and for more information regarding the scope of work. Ryan Peterson, Lake & Land Survey, Inc., 1200 Centre Point Curve, Mendota Heights, stated there will be a lot of dirt to move. Originally, they had planned to go further down into the valley, but to minimize that as much as possible where the new house is going to be, the driveway will be on the outside edge of the circled area on the site photo displayed. There will be movement of dirt for both the house and the driveway, because of the topography there. Rasmussen asked if the driveway would be coming in and staying on top of the hill and then splitting off, and if the new house location is behind the existing house. Peterson displayed the preliminary site and grading Plan and showed the locations of the proposed driveway and how it stubs into the existing driveway at the new property line. The easements were written to be a part of the driveway easement, except it would not be going entirely on it as it makes more sense to stub them in straight to the existing utilities in the street. When the digging takes place, water and sewer will be put in at the same time. He stated that they don't know the exact volume of what will be dug out of there. He also noted that when the house is being dug, it will all be fill because it is a pretty steep valley there. Rasmussen asked how many trees will need to be removed. Peterson replied that there are not many trees in that area; most of the trees are to the west and the east. They have not done an official tree survey, but the tree removal will be pretty minimal. Frazier asked if the plan would be to have the house basically in the center of Parcel A, just to the east of the new driveway. Peterson confirmed that. Frazier asked if this application is for a parcel split and not a site plan or plat. He also asked if the site plan was provided to ensure that the new parcel will be buildable. Jakes stated that was correct. Frazier then asked if there were applications submitted for the building permit for the new house yet. Jakes responded no build- ing or grading permits have been applied for yet. Frazier confirmed with Jakes that the question tonight is if the parcel can be split and the new parcel is buildable. Brittain asked if after the lot split, everything would be handled by the Building Department or would that come back before the Planning Commission. Jakes stated that this minor subdivision is all that would come before the Commission; the remainder will be handled internally by staff through normal review processes. Frazier opened the public hearing. Blake Reichert, 6521 Hadley Court South, stated he lives right behind Parcel A. He asked for clarification on exactly where the driveway would be located. Frazier stated that it looks like it would be just to the east, pointing it out on the site drawing. Reichert then asked about the proposed location of the house. Frazier reiterated that this application is only for the lot split and not the proposed house. Reichert stated he lives on the lot to the rear of this parcel and ex- plained when they purchased their property, they a premium for the location near the woods, with the understanding that there was a single home behind their lot. Adding a second parcel is a substantial change, especially if a house is built there. He is concerned about the distance between that proposed house location and the property line. He noted that there are a lot of trees on that lot that may have to be removed if a house was built. From the lot line there are dense trees, which would have to be removed, so they would be looking into the back of the potential house if Parcel A is approved. He also wonders what rights he has living behind this property and if the current property owner agreed to only having a single-family home on that parcel. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting November 28, 2022 Page 3 of 6 Shaun Duff, 6519 Hadley Court South, said he lives next to the Reicherts. He asked if he could approach the Commission to show them a photograph of the trees. Frazier stated the Commis- sion did not need to see that. Duff stated they bought their home because of the privacy and paid a premium for the lot. The idea of the Planning Commission voting to lower the value of their home is disturbing to them. Unfortunately, some of their neighbors weren't able to be here tonight, but they're all very upset with this idea. If you vote to pass this, there will not be a lot of happy people in that neighborhood. Shana Duff, 6519 Hadley Court South, stated as Reichert pointed out, there are a lot of trees and a lot of elevation. Rainwater already runs close to the back of their house, so when those trees are removed, with all that elevation, it will get into their house. She also expressed concern that this is an environmental issue that could create definite topography changes in the whole environment downstream. She hopes this doesn't pass. Reichert explained that the top of the hill, which is the end of the property line, is above the top of their house. That should provide a sense of how steep that slope is, and it is where the trees would be cleared to build the other house. The topography is pretty fragile. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Frazier asked staff to address some of the issues mentioned by the residents. Jakes stated in 2006, when the original approvals went through for this development in Timber Ridge, there were considerations for an additional lot there, which is part of the reason that Outlot E was created with the plan that those lots could be combined when subdividing the larger parcel. He then explained that the City Code requires that the removal of more than 35 percent of trees would require a tree inventory, so an updated tree inventory would be required as part of a Building Permit application. Requirements would be worked out at that point. Any new structures built on the property would need to meet all setback requirements for that zoning district. Frazier stated that the Commission does see tree inventory requirements as part of a lot of applications. If trees have to be removed, sometimes that needs to be remediated with replace- ment trees that is determined by a calculation in the Code. He also stated that if a house were to be built on this property, they need to provide a grading plan to ensure that drainage would not be a problem on their property as well as on neighboring properties. The grading plan is reviewed by the City Engineer before a building permit is issued. Brittain asked if there is a natural flow of water through some type of ravine in this area that will be substantially impacted by any type of development due to the significant amount of dirt being moved. Meyer responded when looking at the existing grades of the property, the water drains from north to south, and the City would require a grading permit application to be submitted. With this lot split application, they provided just a preliminary site and grading plan to show that the minimum setbacks and requirements would be met; those would include the driveway not exceeding a 10 percent slope and that water services could be met for the property. An official grading plan would look at the details, such as the natural flowage of the property and impervi- ous surfaces and to ensure that there would not be any impact to adjacent properties. Brittain asked what the Planning Commission is allowed to consider from a zoning perspective with respect to this application, when is a lot allowed to be split, and what rules surround that. Costello replied that for a minor subdivision, the Commission looks to see if it meets minimum lot size, setback, and other requirements for that zoning district. If the lots are buildable, a private Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting November 28, 2022 Page 4 of 6 property owner has the right to bring that forward to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. If for some reason it did not meet the requirements, staff would let the Appli- cant know that. In this case, those minimum requirements have been met. Frazier thanked the residents who provided comments on this application. He noted that Com- missioners do not go out and look at these properties; they rely on staff, applicants, and the residents to describe the application details. He explained this is a private property, and as a government body, the Commission does not get to tell a private property owner what to do with their property unless there's already a rule in place. We can't deny the application because we don't like it or it might affect somebody around them. As long as they meet the rules and the established requirements, we can't stop that; if we tried, the City could get sued, and we'd lose. The job of the Planning Commission is just simply to look at if the application meets the require- ments of the City. Based on his review of this proposed minor subdivision, it meets those requirements. Frasier noted that there will be additional reviews by the Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions if they apply for a building permit for a new house to make sure they meet those criteria. As far as the minor subdivision of this parcel, he believes it meets the requirements that the City has in place for a single-family lot. Wright stated this is just one part of the process and told the residents to stay engaged. In his time on the Planning Commission, staff has always been very good about having people meet middle ground. If you're having issues with the drainage, let staff know. Brittain asked if the surrounding neighbors would be notified if a building permit is submitted. Jakes replied that generally the policy is not to notify the surrounding area; when building per- mits are submitted, they are reviewed through our normal processes. He told the residents if they want to provide him with their contact information, he could stay in touch with them as they go through this process. Costello added she hopes that the Applicant would consider reaching out to his neighbors and talk with them should this proceed forward. Fisher made a motion to approve the minor subdivision subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Stephens seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Case CP2022-065 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment for minor map- ping corrections and a text amendment to allow for density bonuses as a tool to assist in the development of affordable housing in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Mrosla summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Rasmussen asked for more clarification regarding the density bonus. He noted that develop- ments are approved with a PUD, which typically has some flexibility to density, and asked what is the advantage to adding this density bonus. Mrosla responded that through the PUD process, they cannot actually increase density. If the Zoning District says 40, they cannot go above 40; however, they can use the density bonus if it meets the criteria of the City's public policy goal, such as affordable housing. Otherwise, they have to stick to that strong threshold with no flexibility. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting November 28, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Fisher asked if White Pine would be rezoned into Mixed Use as well or if that would remain High Density. Mrosla replied that will stay High Density, as they meet all criteria. Frazier asked if this density bonus was an opportunity that the Metropolitan Council offers to cities in the MUSA. Mrosla replied that is correct, noting that a number of cities allow density bonuses as a tool, but it has to be listed in the Comprehensive Plan; if you don't list it, you can't use it. Frazier asked if cities that we consider peer cities have this program and use it. He stated developments have to meet these income requirements, and while it is probably difficult to do that in a single-family, low -density residential area, it theoretically applies to all areas where housing can be built. Mrosla confirmed that was correct, explaining that it is very hard for single family, so it is more geared towards multi -family projects. Frazier stated The Legends stuck out to him, as it is guided High Density, but somehow ended up with a higher density and asked if they built more density than they were allowed or if that was re -guided after the building was built. Mrosla explained that the property was actually zoned Commercial in the 2030 Compre- hensive Plan, so density did not play a factor. When the City did the 2040 version, it slipped through because this area was guided as High Density and Mixed Use; previously it was Com- mercial, which is how that was allowed. Frazier confirmed that it was previously a Business District that allowed senior housing. Frazier opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.3 Daycare at 7781 Hardwood — Case SP2022-063 Jakes stated there is a request for continuation of a site plan review for a proposed daycare at 7781 Hardwood Avenue South, which is adjacent to the Shoppes at Gateway North. The Appli- cant is currently proposing an 11,680 square -foot daycare facility. In order to allow for additional time to revise the site plan and work through various items, the applicant is requesting to con- tinue this case to the December 19, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting. Fisher made a motion to continue Planning Case SP2022-063 to the December 19, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2022 Wright made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 24, 2022, Planning Com- mission meeting. Rasmussen seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of November 2022 City Council Meetings Costello and Thiede provided a summary of actions taken at the November 2 and November 16, 2022, City Council meetings. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting November 28, 2022 Page 6 of 6 Costello notified the Planning Commission that this is her last Planning Commission meeting, as she's accepted a position elsewhere. She stated it has been a pleasure to work with all of the Commissioners. Thiede mentioned the City Code recodification. Costello noted the Zoning Code portion of the City Code will come before the Planning Commission on December 19 for recommendation, and then it will go to the City Council on December 21. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Meyer had emailed a response about the stoplight at 80th Street and East Point Douglas Road. 8.3 Planning Commission Requests None. Frazier, on behalf of the whole Planning Commission, thanked Costello for all of her work for the City in all of the many roles she's held. He wished her good luck in the future. Adjournment Wright made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unani- mously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.