Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-24 PACKET 07 (PC MINUTES FROM 1-27-2025) COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION January 27, 2025 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 P.M. The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chamber and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. 1. CALL TO ORDER Frazier called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Pradeep Bhat-Here; Ken Brittain-Here; Jessica Fisher-Here; Evan Frazier-Here; Eric Knable-Here; Derek Rasmussen-Here; Emily Stephens-Here. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director; Samantha Pierret, Senior Planner; Max Erickson, Planner; Riley Rooney, Associate Planner; Crystal Raleigh, Assistant City Engineer; Justin Olsen, City Council Liaison 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Brittain made a motion to approve the agenda. Stephens seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 4. 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. 5. 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 podium and state their full name and address for the public record. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPLICATIONS A. Holcim Mining Permit - MP2025-001 Holcim - MWR, Inc. has applied for their 2025 mining permit to continue mining operations at the Nelson Sand & Gravel Facility at 11250 Grey Cloud Trail South on Lower Grey Cloud Island. Rooney summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Frazier asked if there were any questions for staff; none were asked. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 2 of 14 Frazier asked if the applicant at this time would like to add anything. Patty Bestler, Regional Manager with Holcim - MWR, 2815 Dodd Road, Eagan, MN, stated Riley summed up our application very y electripreviously mined area that was mined back in the 1950s and 1960s. We ver- previously mined - mation plan is we are meeting the landowners, grades that they want for when they someday go to develop that property. The and putting it in oak plantings, that is actually part of what the City agreed to, back in 2010, in lieu of us planting many, many of planting trees every single year, we are reestablishing big Oak Savannas right now; there is some on the eastern side that ere is beautiful oaks in any questions. I also have our Operations Manager, Michael Murphy, here if you have any operations questions, but pretty much purpose of the suction dredge. Frazier said all right, thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? None were asked. Frazier Public Hearing; however, the commission does need to take a vote. Frazier said with the presentation by staff, as well as the applicant, he asked if there is any further discussion by the commission on the proposal. ecla- Fisher said I was just going to say along the same lines as that, it sounds like everything is going well, this seems status quo for several of these renewals that motion. Fisher made a motion to approve . Knable seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). B. Lochridge - Cases ZA2025-004 & PP2025-004 Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC has applied for a zoning amendment to rezone approximately 88.6 acres of land located south -2, Agri- culture, to R-4, Transitional Residential District; and a preliminary plat to be called Lochridge, which would consist of 99 single family lots and 84 townhome lots. Pierret summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Frazier asked if there were any questions for staff. Pierret replied correct invite Crystal Raleigh, with our Engineer- ing staff Raleigh stated the proposed Ravine Parkway would be designed and constructed by the development team; the City would cost share in that, Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 3 of 14 so the development team would be responsible for constructing our typical roadway section, and then the City would cost share for portions of the roadway above and beyond our standard section, so, the extra width, the medians, etc. Rasmussen asked so, would this extension just be in the future, the Kemp property is to the west of this development, and then as that develops, Ravine would continue to be pushed through to the west. Rasmussen stated all right, thank you. Bhat said as of now, Jamaica Avenue is only a single lane on either side, which is on the east of this property. How are you proposing to make that two lanes, going forward because of the anticipated increase in traffic. Raleigh replied Jamaica Avenue, would d with their upcoming project. Bhat said okay, thank you. Brittain said if I recall correctly, Jamaica Avenue from 70th to Military was traditionally a four lane, two lanes in both directions. t take place yet. Instead of reconstructing Jamaica when we needed to, it went down to a single lane both ways, with the intent as far as I am understanding, it will be two lanes both ways in the future when it becomes appropriate to redo that road; which is not part of this development, but with respect to its history and its future, it is intended to be two lanes both ways eventually as well. Fisher asked can you explain, so we were talking a little bit about this, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan says it is R-1, Low Density rezoned to R-- me understand why those two things are being used interchangeably? Pierret replied sure, I will do my best, and I may have to ask all right, so the Low Density Residential classification on the slide that I just pulled up, it definitely has to do with that, the number of should have that specific number of dwellings per acre. So, the Low Density Residential that are for, like I mentioned, with the 2.9 units okay, so are those considered four units or is that considered one unit? Pierret replied those are considered four individual dwelling units. Fisher stated I don't know if my -density number. I don't know, maybe itjust the way the drawing is and how it looks, like it feels really packed and dense to me, and I am not sure why that is. Schmitz replied so when we calculate density, we use net density, so we take out all areas of Right-of-Way, areas below high-water levels, and so, in our Comprehensive -to-four units per acre. So, we have a pr cular Zoning District was created for the purpose of having that transition and that ability to have a variety of product types on perhaps a site that might have some unique challenges so that we could find that flexibility to allow for development, but also still meet that density standard. Fisher replied thank you. Frazier asked if there were any further questions for staff. -4 because of the townhome units. Otherwise, it should have been in R-3 if they were just single-family homes in that zone. Pierret replied that correct; with those townhome units, that pushes it into the R-4 Transitional District with those differing densities of dwellings. Bhat replied okay, thank you. ormwater k the outed down? e drainage h replied okay, so, it will come into that basin in the northwest corner, and from there it would be piped down through the subdi- s replied okay. So, to be piped. Rausch said it will ultimately be in the storm sewer, i there. Raleigh said so, it will be in the storm sewer, in the streets, to either Pond 1 or Pond 2. Rausch said that pipe is now in the watershed, the one in the northwest corner is much more steep Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 4 of 14 Frazier asked if there were any further questions for staff, none were asked. At this time, he asked if the applicant would like to approach the podium and add anything additional. Good Evening, my name is Haley Daily, with Pulte Homes of Minnesota, 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 300, Bloomington, MN. With me tonight is Dean Lotter, our Director of Land Planning and Entitlement, as well as Mark Rausch with Alliant, for any of the specific engineering questions, as well as a representative for Frazier said all right, thank you. Any ques- tions for the applicant? Frazier said okay, , I think you said it was Mark you said was your engineering person? Daily replied yes, Mark Rausch with Alliant. Frazier said I wonder if he would come up. Sorry, you had just given an answer from the back, and I wanted to make sure we had you up here so that people at home can hear and we have it on the record. So, if . Mark Rausch with Alliant Engineering. Frazier said all right, thank you. And so, there was a question from Commissioner Stephens specifically about where the stormwater ponding or where the stormwater was going, whether it was going overland or whether it was being piped through. If you could just provide your kind of update on what that was. Raush replied so there is a pipe, that is correct, that picks up on the north side of Military that dumps out here. You can see it, but physically as big a pipe; this side is what takes a significant amount of flow from Woodbury and more to the west of the site, northwest, so that will follow through to this pond here. So, we will be e capture that with the swale easement. All this common area of the townhome area drains into a drainage and utility easement, Stephens replied yeah, it does. Thank you. Frazier said all right, are there any further questions for the applicant? None were asked. Frazier said all right, thank you very much. Frazier opened the Public Hearing. Pointe 11 to develop The going to go around the south side of the lake. So, a lot of us that built there and bought there were under that premise that the walking path would not go around that side of the lake. In addition to just, you know, the commitment we had from the City, y lot of space between the property line of their back yards and the wetland. And, so, I know you talked about maybe an eight- foot wide trail going through of a managed trail through there without not cutting down some of the most beautiful, mature trees around that lake. So, I just wanted to voice our concern for those of us living on the lake now; we would really like the City to uphold their agreement with us to not put the walking trail around that lake. Thank you. ath, is there a specific reason why you think that a walking path on the south side of the lake would not be appropriate? Mr. Ecker replied well, I mean, back when we were in negotiations with John and Jennifer and the City, we just thought that privacy is one space is there -foot path to go through there, the water. And then y came out and just staked, and these stakes go right through our yards, and some of these huge trees are right in the middle of gstanding believe the trail can connect all the way around anyways because of the, somebody on the other side of the, the east side. But those are some of my thoughts, Mr. Chair. Frazier said all right, thank you. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 5 of 14 Kriste.J. end of the cul-de-sac, and our back yard would butt up right to where this walking path is proposed to be, literally within a few feet of the fence that we just put in around our swimming pool that we invested in the summer after we moved in, in 2021. So, my husband and I have been residents of Cottage Grove since 2011, lived in a different neighborhood, and then moved to this neighborhood, largely due to the privacy of the back yard and we were planning to do a swimming pool. In our previous location, which was also fairly private, but it had a huge hill, which was a problem for that. So, when we found this place, we fell in love, and we said, you know what, this is a really private area, which is kind of why we decided to move there. Doing some research at the time, we actually noticed that there was this proposed plan for a walking path, and we had called the City at the time to con - Minnesotans do, to lake homes; this is our place, and being a business owner in Cottage Grove for ten years, and a practitioner is is potentialls that we really would iveway, that has already started and going around the west side of the lake, but it really seems to be encroaching a lot of homes and Frazier said thank you. Jason Johnson, I live at 8714 67th Street Court South, just a few doors down from these guys, especially through the woods there. You know, we started, we moved into this neighborhood in 2017, we heard that there was a potential of a trail that would go e lake there is bedrock, and will never really ever be developed, a trail would probably never happen, more like never was the big n, you ever spent any time looking at this lake, do some aerial, go back in time and look at some aerial photos of this lake, got a nice little spot there where they can see the weeds kind of come back into the west, southwest corner o the original meeting with Pulte and stuff, I was told by one of the City people that were there, I hate to say this, but we kind of want to be like Woodbury, like So, also the water there; have we ever, has that water been tested of any sort? I only ask because our dog has gone back in there a couple times and come I just, I don't know, it just seems like not a real good use of money and privacy; you know, we paid to have that back there, and now we have people coming in from the other side, if there is a park across the way, coming into our back yards. Our neighbor- here that the County and the City will work together to make the lanes a little bit bigger. But, it basically comes down to I would like to see the ially on the south side of 67th Street and then the Frazier said, all right, thank you. Mike Miller, 8860 67th Street Bay South, I live right on the south side of the lake, next to A.J. and all these guys. Our little neigh- nd we ses in there, or whatever, it impacts our privacy. We paid premium prices for our lots for that privacy. It also, where the trail goes e approved with the Watershed District. It is very low lying, and when it rains, even though the drain has been put in, our back yard still not to live in Woodbury, right? We have tons of walking paths already, I would prefer not to have a walking path pretty much right through my back yard. We can go around the other side, we can walk out, I mean, our whole neighborhood walks; we see these guys all awesome, and we walked the partway. So, there is lots of Woodbury-like amenities in our neighborhood already. We would, our whole neighborhood, would prefer that on hat beautiful Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 6 of 14 because its covered with Lily Pads, like now is the most beautiful time and in spring, before the Lily P have. Thank you. Frazier said thank you. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Kevin Sommer south side of Lake Robert if, in fact, you want to call it a lake; a in that neighborhood in 2013 from Pulte. The representative that convinced us to buy there was really selling the privacy aspect of that development. Back then, we were pre-Emerald Ash Borer infestation, and that area was even se area up a lot. Dodge Nature Center recently has gone in and done a fair amount of clearing, and so, our level of privacy has diminished considerably just in the last ten years. And, yeah, to now be subject to any foot trail that is going to potentially bring people in there at all hours, k as a compromise, you know, if Pulte wants to have a trail on that north side of the lake and maybe circle around on the east and west with little roundabouts there, and just avoiding that southern side of the lake, I would have no problem with that. But I think, you know, just recognizing, as has been mentioned, our lots, we paid a premium for those lots for that privacy aspect, and le. So, thank you. Frazier said thank you. 8715 67th Street Court South, Cottage Grove. One of the things I guess , is even the density that is being proposed. This is coming from an area that is very much single- ise my four girls in that cul-de- y private, protected area. And Pulte did a phenomenal job of building that area at the time, and we are grateful for the privacy and the area that was created; bu being put together at just how much density is being proposed, and I have to ask the question why? Like, is this the Cottage Grove that we understood, that was trying to develop all these single-family homes? I mean, the development that was just across Jamaica there, as it was being built out and had the single-family homes being built into it, that seemed reasonable, they did that in a way that seemed very much designed around the single-family home, about the walking path, and the walking path is a big issue in our neighborhood. B being zoned at R-4 vs. R-2, that was part of that 2040 plan, I would respectfully request that that be reconsidered, even though I understand there are special circumstances of that land and the challenges to develop it. I think still having a lower density, single-family home mix would not only protect my home values, but it would also protect my neighborhood and keep it the private, safe neighborhood that I currently reside in. Thank you. Frazier said thank you. Good Evening, commissioners, my name is Michael Goertel, I live at 8717 67th Street Court South, and first off nd the situation with southbound, especially southbound. So, as noted, probably five, or a little bit more, years ago, Jamaica was two lanes in each direction, and that was reconstructed when the roundabout on Jamaica and 70th was put in. For the in each direction, some accommodations with the new Ravine Parkway going eastbound, as well as the development to the east of Jamaica. What that accounted for was some extra turn lanes and things of that sort, but where my concern comes in is ensuring the area where what I experience is coming southbound from Military to 67th on Jamaica, there is not a turn lane for folks to go right, into 67th Street Court South. And that traffic comes up behind you quite quickly, and where my concern comes in is as natura- , as a half mile down the road. So, just awareness on that with the way the road is currently constructed. Thank you. Frazier said thank you. Frazier asked if anyone else wished to speak for or against the proposal. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the Public Hearing. Frazier had on their radar since the neighborhood meeting where specifically the trail has been brought up. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 7 of 14 Pierret said thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission. So, yes, staff has definitely heard and understands the publ concerns regarding the privacy of the trail and everything. It was in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as I noted, and also kind of speaking to those discussions, packets, approvals, things like that that went on around 2011 and 2007-ish, when these other developments to the south were put in. Nothing was put on the record as far as the conditions or things like that that would hold the City into saying that no trail would be put here. Staff did considerable amounts of research on that front, as far as verifying that that would or would not be the case. As far as mitigating any wetland impacts and things like that, it sounds like that of course appropriate permits, minimizing impacts to wetlands, are going to be required, very important things, permits through things like the DNR, things like that for trail construction; and staff is looking at varying ways of trail construction and things like Concerns regarding the density, kind of getting to area would be zoned R- request, using the townhome density and the single-family density on this acreage when we subtract the acreage of public Rights- of-Way and the wetland lake. Kind of going into the traffic concerns and everything, that was also kind of mentioned during the presentation as well about the proposed hopeful reconstruction in 2028. It was also noted in the packet that this is a County Road, and it was reconstructed as the neighbors had mentioned; it was reconstructed in a way that the County knew that they would need to be coming back here for reconstruction, sooner rather than later, as far as when new development came in and things like that. So, those will definitely be considerations as the County continues to go forward in their planning processes. ruck Another thing that was talked about was lots of big trees that were going to need to be mitigated; can you talk about how many trees you would have to take down and what that would look yo That made sense to me, so. Raleigh said Chair and Commissioner Fisher, I can speak to that. Some of the neighbors expressed and developer went together out there, lot corners were staked, and in the narrowest location, edge; that does allow some flexibility to avoid big back yard trees. So, the anticipation is that the trail can avoid some of those es y, those bigger trees through back yards would be avoided. Fisher said I was just t one these people were told in the past by people single person has said that. The fact that just environmental, the fact that it floods, li es tion of the development. So, I guess I would like to see some sort of compromise here. Raleigh replied sure, understood. I think the intention with this was to follow that Comprehensive Plan that showed us having a trail all the way around Lake Robert; so, that does generate that trail on the south side there. Fisher said yeah, but the Comprehensive Plan does, though, show that this parcel should be zoned R--4 h it, and I think maybe we can consider that here, too. Raleigh said all right. Frazier said so, I guess, and maybe I can -1, AG, I- in this area is saying it should be used as Low-Density Residential when it develops, correct? Schmitz replied Mr. Chair, Members Frazier said and Low Density Residential is according to the Comprehensive Plan definition is between two and four units per acre. Frazier said all right, and so, then we go separately to the Zoning, and Zoning can be R-1 through R-6, so we have six different residential zonings right now in the Zoning Code. Schmitz Frazier stated and some of those fall within two-to-four units per acre, and some of them are higher than two-to-four units per acre. Frazier said and so, when looking at the Comprehensive Plan vs. the Zoning map, those two things are different, and the Low Density Residential guided -1, R-2, it can fall within a couple different Zoning Districts. Frazier stated okay. So, the R-4 zone falls in there. Fisher stated understood, I read it wrong. Frazier said okay, so I just wanted to make sure everyone understood Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 8 of 14 ding; but the R-Fisher said right; Frazier said okay. Frazier said so, Crystal, I was going to ask you then if I can go back to, because I was going to have a similar question to Commis- sioner Fisher about where the trail was going to be in relation to the property lines for these homes that are on the south side. andso, people may not know exactly where their property line is; they may think it goes all the way up to or close to the water eet. ot corner to the water edge at the - erty lines back there, but the actual property that this Outlot A would be has approximately 50 feet at its narrowest point be- tween those back corners and the water. Frazier said okay. And this may not be a question for you, it may be a question for one of the planners, but do we have a setback requirement for a trail when butting up to a residential property? Pierret replied good question, Mr. Chair. We do not have any sort of setback from property lines for a trail of that type. Frazier said all right. Do we know what the setback is that this plan is kind of setting to right now, how far away are we from the property line, just kind of an average? Raleigh replied, plan tonight. again, if we dug into the packet and pulled out a scale, we could get that a little more exact. Frazier said okay, it would be unexpected for these people to believe that their where the actual property line is. And, so, we are proposing to build this trail on what will be City property, and so, the City kind And, s within Raleigh Knable said I have a question, just kind of tapping into what Jessica had talked about, about kind of a compromise. I know th area there like for boardwalks; would that be something the City and Pulte would be interested in like building a boardwalk out there, but just kind of on top of it? Raleigh replied yes, that is something se design decisions. Knable asked would it be a conversation to have the whole path like that? Raleigh replied that it could always be a conversation of that; the costs associated with boardwalks over water like that are typically pretty high in comparison to an , yeah, those type of design decisions are still being considered. Knable replied thank you. Bhat asked so the proposed trail is actually extending out of that Outlot A, right, I mean, if you look at the map of the proposed trail. Raleigh asked extending out of what? Raleigh replied Bhat said so that area of the green Outlot A and the property line of the 67th Street Court area, is that City property, or what is that? Or is it Dodge Nature Center there? Raleigh replied that area that is proposed as Outlot A is currently owned by the Wolter Bhat said my question is the south of Outlot A and the back of the property line there, the black line there, that small rectangular section. Schmitz replied Mr. Chair, Commissioner Bhat, so that sliver of property is already owned by the City; it was deeded as a part of previous development. Bhat replied thank you. rdwalks may go here or there, on the homes that currently exist there? Raleigh replied Mr. Chair, Commissioner Brittain, their landscaping plan again is something that des of the trail at this point through that area? Pierret replied not that I can recall; however, like Crystal mentioned, the plan is very andscaping is something that is very much something that could be, of course, subject to change, subject to discussions between staff, the developer, all of that lovely stuff. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 9 of 14 Brittain said I would hope that the homeowners there would be involved in that discussion as well because this is a pretty drastic change to that area, and you know, the way that a trail through there, if there were challenges; but every time a new development comes through, the entire plan changes. So, you -by- homeowners would be involved in the placement of that trail, how close it is coming to the property lines, and what type of mitigation that can happen there with respect to landscaping or other aesthetics to help minimize that impact. Frazier asked if there were any other questions for staff. of trails and connections and connectivity. However, I would say, so just reviewing all of this and the early, early plans, stormwater, I know nobody here is probably that excited about the stormwater, but this is a really large tributary area to that lake, and every- body here has mentioned the quality of the lake. And it also was in the report that this development is balancing that water level I think ter level it was just sort of a ; and if the trails are contrib- , if there is a way around some of these other things Frazier said all right, thank you. Bhat asked so why did the proposal come with the townhomes? Does it make this plan viable only with the townhomes in the plan, in the development? I mean, my question is why not go with all single-family homes, why include townhomes? What sense does it, or what value does it add to that? Pierret I think Ms. Daily would be willing to come up and provide some statement from a types, diverse housing of differing costs and affordability; you know, just the single-family homes in every single neighborhood , you know, well, I could stand up here and talk for hours about the housing needs of the City of Cottage Grove and things like that. So, the townhomes are definitely providing a different type of product for a different homebuyer or someone who is looking for something different than just a traditional single-family home. But I will invite Ms. Daily up as well, to speak to you about things from the other side. Daily said Mr. Chair and Commissioners, yes, as Sam mentioned, we, as Pulte, put in a lot of thought into what could potentially work on this site. As has been mentioned, we are following the R-uct. We have a whole market research team that does a lot of analytics to determine what exactly we feel the market could support, and in this particular location, we determined that we feel that townhomes, as well as the single-family product that we have, could meet different buyers at different stages in their lifecycle within Cottage Grove. Bhat said thank you. Frazier asked if there were any further questions for staff or the applicant; none were asked. He asked if there was any further discussion on the proposal; nobody spoke. Frazier said if no one else wants to start, I can start. Okay, so first off, I want to thank everyone for coming tonight. I know most - is is something that is potentially going to go right in your back yard, these are going to be your new neighbors, and so, you came out tonight to let us know your feelings about that, and I want to thank you for doing that. After tonight, please feel free to come back because every time we have people from the community, who are not involved in these projects, come and give their advice are willing to come out, help us look at things, and give their advice. So, first off, I want to say thank you for that. Second, so, I talked a little bit, and a couple of my questions were about where the property line is, whose property is this trail going to go on because nd of do what they want with their property, within reason. If you wanted to buy that property and do what you wanted to do with it, this is Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 10 of 14 rivacy y , I think we do want to be cognizant of the fact that this is the City be held ere; its been planned at least for the past, when did we do the 2040 Plan, ding communities, has been approved by Met Council as this is the plaCottage Grove aid, this and saying can r away we are some of the thoughts that Commissioner Brittain and maybe put, I don't know if you can put a berm in there or put some kind of extra landscaping in there to kind of separate the trail I think, make this the least y. I agree with you in that this is City-owned property, and the City should be able to do what they want with it; however, this trail does not impact the development of these homes, this trail does not impact the rerouting of Ravine Parkway, this trail does not impact d development, e meat of ng up because of , that there are ly a little more dense than hat all of these people said that they are excited about new neighbors; to me, that says a lot about their c against the development, which is really encouraging to me, but this trail is not the hill to die on with this application. Okay, bye. Frazier said thank you. Brittain said yeah, I agree with lot of varying density out to the west of this, and then it leads into the single family, larger lots out to the east. So, you know, this is a natural transition, you know, from higher density to a little bit medium to low. So, that particular point of it is I see fitting within the Comprehensive Plan. You know, I know that you mentioned that the trail was in the Comprehensive Plan, and it may , and I am concerned, especially with the comments from Commissioner Stephens and her knowledge in the South Washington County Watershed, and the neighbors comments on the water levels rising, we would want to make sure that if we did put a trail in here, s just a waste of money. So, if we could do our due diligence there as well, I know you guys do a great job of digging into the details, but to make the pond because we think its going to flood, because you can exit into trail excursion to get around those houses, so I really want to see that looked into hard, that this would be a sustainable thing; this development, but from the total perspective of our parks and trail systems, but from the past, I know there was concerns about building something back there; so, we just need to be real careful that if we are going to bui- now, the Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 11 of 14 ance between the overall public at large and the homeowners that are living there, so. Frazier said all right, thank you. or someone to make a motion then. Fisher asked how would we make a motion if we want it to be contingent on them figuring out a compromise on the trail? Like, how do we? more time to look at this before we decide on it, or? Fisher said I guess I was going back and referring to the conditions of ey can. Can somebody help me like find where that trail is referenced in the conditions, or? Pierret said so, Commissioner Fisher, I do know the trail is - oper shall be responsible for constructing the trail segment around Lake Robert, then continues on regarding the personal prop- erty encroachments on Outlot A. Frazier asked so, are you wanting to just get rid of the trail? Fisher replied well, so, there ares pieces of the trail I think that are okay around the north part and around the maybe the east ink that there should be a trail beBrittain said in your recommendation, you can recommend changing that particular recommendation with your recommendation. Fisher said right, . Brittain said exclude the trail going behind those homes, that is something that you can do, and you are the one making the motion, so you have to say that. worded appropriately. Brittain said well, you could, as simple as you said, you could say approval subject to the conditions in the staff report, excluding, with the modification of Item #11, to exclude the trail going behind the homes on the north side of the property. Fisher said okay, what Ken said. Fisher made a motion to approve the application for the Preliminary Plat and the Zoning Amendment, changing it from AG-2 to R-4, which is not R-1, for the proposed Lochridge subdivision, subject to stipulations in the staff report, amending Condition #11 to not allow the trail to run along the north side of the properties on the south side of Lake Robert on 67th Street Bay South and 67th Street Court South. Brittain seconded. Motion failed (3-to-4 vote); no votes from Knable, Frazier, Rasmussen, and Stephens. Frazier asked if there was any further discussion on the motion. ive in it. You know, if the trail is possible to be constructed there and not interfering with the water or the property lines, I just feel it would be a shame to bring it two-thirds of the way around the lake and then maybe just dead end it there or rerouting people now in front of your houses. Is that a better scenario to come take the sidewalk in front of the house, maybe, but I just think if , is my thought. install the trail without, right, because the developer installs it, correct? I think that if it goes, I mean, it seems like a really good opportunity to just go in front of the homes and then connect back with the lake, but I do think that anybody who likes to go for a walk or a bouncing back and ss. different direction. I would just say, you know, with the City owning it, I think everything you said, but they will do a better job of working with, I think, the residents on what it looks like, so. Bhat said yeah, I just think maybe we should explore the option of having a boardwalk or something along those lines, so that you can have a complete path; instead of being on an area that is going to be flood prone, maybe we should explore a boardwalk or something along those lines. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 12 of 14 alternatives? Frazier replied so, you can move amend her motion, and she can decide if she wants to agree to it or not. , there are lots of places that, you know, you have a trail. I think of tting on that bench, you know what I mean? Like, I think that theren those o go in Frazier said and this is the point I was going es. Fisher said right. Frazier said so, technically, that motion means the City could still build it up to the existing sidewalk and around; Fisher replied correct. Frazier said so, that is the motion right now is that basically the City and the developer are not going to build the trail on the north edge of the property line of these 67th Street Bay South properties. So, they have other opportunities that are Fisher replied right, no. that they would not go to the north side of those properties. Is everyone clear on that? Fisher replied correct, yes. Frazier asked Stephens does that solve your concern, or do you still want to make an amendment? Frazier said okay. Any further discussion on the motion now that we had that clarification? There was none. Thank you for all of you for bearing with us while we do math at the table here. Frazier said okay; any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the motion. ther motion. Bhat asked can we go with this motion, but the modification for Item #11 would be that the City would take a fresh look at it, and then come to a compromised solution, which would perhaps the 67th Street Bay South. City staff and the developer would have to put it into practice, and so, we have to have some definite language as to what we want ent discussion we can have; I don't know that staff loves that idea, but Emily, do you want to chime in? a boardwalk, and so we are entertaining boardwalk options in several segments of the trail to avoid impact where we can for that ly section a boardwalk that pushes the trail into the water. I would just caution on the cost associated with that type of trail as an option. Frazier asked is there any further discussion? said okay. Fisher said it at all, or they do the connections in the front and take out that part, but I think that part needs to stay in. Frazier said so like to see it pass just as recommended, then? Knable replied as is and see the City stand up and do what they think is right with that piece. Frazier asked so, is that a motion, then, or are you just discussing? Knable made a motion to approve the Zoning Amendment to change AG-2 to R-4 and the Preliminary Plat, subject to stipula- tions in the staff report as written. Rasmussen seconded. Motion passed (4-to-3 vote); no votes from Bhat, Brittain, and Fisher. 7. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 2024 Fisher made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Stephens seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 8. REPORTS Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 13 of 14 A. RECAP OF JANUARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Schmitz summarized the actions taken at the January 8 and January 22, 2025, City Council meetings. ty Council is readjourned in January, the mayor makes recommendations on various liaisons for various commissions. This year, one o I also want to thank you all for your service. I know that for at least one, re you all good until next year? Rasmussen indicated he was at the end of his term. Olsen stated so ed out, e that. If you term out, you wait for a year and then you can reapply for any commission, including the one that you currently serve on. So, please give that some thought because as a Council, we put a lot of faith in what you bring to us as advice on all of the various issues that you deal with, including challenging issues like the one you had to deal with this evening. Olsen reported that the City Council held 0 p.m., give or take, where we look at our strategic objectives for the past and decide if we want to carry those forward into current time and then into the future. We also look back at what have we accomplished tactically with respect to those objectives, and what do we want to do next, and how do - lly neat things on tap this year that we are going to be working towards. electrical getting upgraded in the next couple of years, electrical this year, building next year. We also have all of our new Water Treatment Plants coming online, so the Low Zone plant is about done, and the High Zone plant will get started here this year. so stinking fast, and of course, it all comes down to the budget; and it seems like we never stop talking about the budget. We do budget every two years, but even at the Strategic Planning session, everything has to tie back to is it in our Capital Improvement -party funding can we find, etc. e to open imited nd been reelected this last year. I look forward to four more years of serving the citizens of Cottage Grove to the very best of my ability. for being here. B. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES None. C. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTS Frazier asked if there were any requests for staff for our next meeting. Bhat said so, during the discussions today, we have had several questions on the Jamaica renewal and improvement going from one lane to two lanes on either side. Can we get some more information on that? Is that something that was discussed in some Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 Page 14 of 14 of those meetings or with the Council? Schmitz replied, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Bhat, we can follow up with some more details Brittain said in regards to that, is Jamaica going to be a City road? Are they turning that over to us? I heard some rumblings. Olsen replied yes, the expectation is that once that road is fully reconstructed, the City will take ownership. Brittain said, so, matter of time; Olsen replied theoretically, yes. Frazier said before I ask for a motion to adjourn, I do just want to thank everyone, staff and our commission tonight; I know these imous decisions on a motion. So, I want to thank everyone for being cordial about it and being intentional about their discussion on it. Like I told everyone who was here tonight, it makes the decision better in the end if we all can have an honest opinion and respect fully, it will go very smoothly and everyone will be happy with it. With that being said, Item 9 is adjournment to adjourn. 9. ADJOURNMENT Rasmussen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Knable seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.