Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-15 Council MinutesDocument No 5.a. December 9, 2004 Agenda CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2004 1 The Corcoran City Council met on November 15, 2004 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were Councilors Bucher, Gageby, Guenthner, Lymangood and Thomas. Also present were Administrator Vergin, Planner Lindahl, and Engineer Vander Top. Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Agenda Approval MOTION by Bucher, seconded by Thomas, and carried unanimously to approve the agenda as presented. Open Forum Gary Scharber questioned why the City Council was pushing the process on the proposed development by Laurent. Mayor Guenthner informed Mr. Scharber that matter would be covered under the agenda. Diane Somers stated that she was told that a previous meeting, but did not feel that her concern had been addressed. EAW Discussion Mayor Guenthner replied that he would allow public comments during the meeting. He further informed those present that there would be two items to deal with, the procedures and scheduling, and then the EAW. Representatives from Laurent Development were present and were allowed the opportunity to provide background information on the proposed development in the SE district of the community. President Terry Forbord addressed the group stating that they, the developer, had made a request of the City, which is not uncommon. Laurent has been very straight forward and on record for the past four years with the intent to develop this property. They have followed the Comprehensive Plan process, along with the modifications to the zoning and subdivision ordinances, at which time there was a moratorium in place preventing any development to occur. At this time due to other commitments of Laurent Development and tax ramifications they are seeking approval prior to year end, allowing them to close on these properties. Because the development exceeds 250 units (it has 287 units) it does require that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared. Laurent has requested the City to direct staff to review the EAW, receive comments from the Staff and then direct the EAW to be forwarded on to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB). Engineer Vander Top noted that there are three different types of environmental reviews. For this residential development an EAW is required. Once the EAW is submitted to the EQB there is a 30 day period to accept comments. At the end of the 30 days the comments are reviewed and it is then necessary to determine whether or not an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) is necessary. During that process no approval actions by the city can be taken. Call to Order Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Agenda Approval Open Forum Gary Scharber Diane Somers EAW Discussion Document No 5.a. December 9, 2004 Agenda CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2004 2 It was noted to the public that there will be other opportunities for the public to comment on the project during the development review process. Terry Forbord further commented that they are proposing a master planned community, and as a part of their process they will be holding a neighborhood meeting on Monday, November 22. They encourage every ones attendance. He further noted that they intend to provide clustering, open space, preserve and enhance the natural resources, create amenities and features that are uncommon from a regular subdivision, there will be 4 ½ miles of trails, with 37% of the 218 acres as open space. Planner John Uban outlined the schedule that they, the developers, are requesting. The process would allow them to take the plan to the Parks & Trails Commission and the Planning Commission, with the Council considering preliminary approval on December 29. Bob MacIntyre questioned what the steps would be after the preliminary plat approval. Mr. Uban responded that they would then need to have final plat approval, which is another sequence to the process. Mr. MacIntyre further questioned if preliminary plat approval is granted doesn’t that invoke commitment to allow the development. Attorney Malkerson (for Laurent) noted that once a preliminary plat is approved they have one year to proceed with the final plat. The final plat must meet all of the conditions of the preliminary plat. Gary Scharber questioned what is the process if approved tonight. Malkerson responded that there would be no approvals tonight, only action allowing them to submit the EAW and start the 30 day comment period. Diane Somers – keep it rural, don’t want the traffic, if this is done before the end of the year there is no turning back. The developer responded that if the plan fits the City’s Comprehensive Plan then they have a vested right to proceed. Todd Hendries, Olde Sturbridge, moved here to the commitment of rural, the acceleration is to the advantage of the developer, not to the City. Gary Scharber, upset about the way it came about, what about respect to the residents. Feels process is very unethical. Stan Shilinski, concerned with process of the EAW, just received it last week and now willing to act on it. Wants to be sure that the city is looking at the highest standards for development. This is a significant process to be done right; impacts on wetlands, infrastructure, and traffic. The EAW process is there for a reason and it should be Document No 5.a. December 9, 2004 Agenda CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2004 3 followed. Jean Shilinski questioned if all of the property was in the Wayzata school district and if they are aware of this development. Forbord responded that the Wayzata School District did receive a copy of the city’s comp plan that identifies the growth anticipated in that area. Matt Faue questioned if the city approves the project on December 29, is the city on the hook for the first phase or the entire project. Engineer Vander Top replied that the entire project would receive approval, but there would be conditions. Robert Staplin thanked Mayor Guenthner for the work that he has done for the City. Afraid that the city is getting the cart before the horse. Presume there will be sewer from Co Rd 101. There is more of a pressing need for sewer in the downtown area. Stated that he was never notified of the rezoning of this property and would like to request a copy of those minutes. The comp plan can be amended. Would like to see the process slowed down, need to address were the needs are for sewer first, which is downtown. Paul Jacobs stated that there was not reasonable process of notice. Attorney Malkerson addressed the question of notice and process. This special meeting was called at a regular council meeting; there is no special requirement for noticing this meeting, which is to address the draft EAW. Denny Kinvig questioned when the rezoning was done, and if the development it is for homes or multi residents. Forbord responded that it is for all single family homes. Mayor Guenthner reviewed the zoning map and described the process that the city took through the preparation of the comp plan, the land use map, and then the zoning map. In February 2004 the city held an in house training session for the planning commission, city council and others that wished to attend. At that training session, speaker Desyl Peterson, an attorney, stated that no matter how you publicize the process that once a project comes then people become aware. Councilor Lymangood noted that a special mailing had been done in September 2003 informing the public of the processes and dates of meetings that the city would take action on zoning of properties. Copies of that mailing will be made available to those interested. Jean Shilinski stated that she lives in a single family neighborhood; the proposed neighborhood is not one she would want to live in. Todd Hendries stated that the character of the city is being Document No 5.a. December 9, 2004 Agenda CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2004 4 challenged, if he wanted this kind of development he would live in Maple Grove. Tim Ekblad commented that this is flying under the radar. He never received a notice. Doesn’t want city to speed through the process, it’s a lack of integrity. Mayor Guenthner stated that when the city sends out information/ communications, we (staff and representatives) try to be factual. He questions what is going around in broadcast emails; dissemination of information that may not be factual. Matt Faue stated that 99% of the people in Corcoran don’t want this. Keep it the way it is. Building 15 homes along Mohawk and Horseshoe where they are constructing walking trails, but we can’t use them, they are building fences around them. Gary Sharber – put sewer and water development to a vote. Attorney Malkerson stated that the seven county area is under the legislation of metro area wide planning by the Metropolitan Council. You don’t put if up for a vote. Councilor Lymangood reminded them that a Charter Commission meeting had been held regarding the previous petition by CUT. CUT members were notified of the meeting but no CUT representatives were present. Mayor Guenthner declared a five minute recess. Mayor Guenthner reconvened the council meeting. Reminding those that the action before the city council is whether or not to accept the EAW and submit it to the EQB. Directing that council would now ask questions of staff and the developer. Councilor Gageby stated that before them are the EAW and the two staff reports. In general it seems solid. In the 30 day review process will issues be addressed during or at the end. Vander Top responded that there are issues that need to be addressed, such as traffic, sewer and water, storm water management. The developer agrees that these need to be addressed and can be done in conjunction with the EAW process. At the end of the public comment process, the City as the RGU (Regulating Government Unit) will need to address comments and to what level they respond to the comments. If the Council does choose to continue forward with this process then staff will work with Laurent to identify the issues. Councilor Thomas commented that there are significant outstanding items from the EAW. Recess Reconvened Vander Top responded that it is not unprecedented to submit an EAW as it is tonight. Document No 5.a. December 9, 2004 Agenda CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2004 5 Councilor Lymangood expressed his concerns with the scheduling and the content of the EAW, also questioned why the full print out from the DNR is not included in the EAW. John Uban responded that the DNR prefers that it not be included, so that if there were rare species on the property you would not have that information in the public’s hand. Further noting that there are not rare species on this property. Lymangood expressed his interest in having this information, or a comment that there is no impact. Malkerson replied that they would provide this to staff. Councilor Lymangood identified concerns, page 9, #17 post and pre-water quantity not identified; page 8, #14 need to know 100 foot flood elevation, need that confirmed for the 2 foot lowest floor elevation above flood elevation; if the number of units has changed that needs to be addressed. Councilor Gageby noted that the EAW is still being worked on, it indicates that there are no steep slopes, would need to follow standard practices for erosion control, this can all be addressed in the development agreement. Lymangood again expressed his concerns with the timing. Would be much more comfortable with a typical time line. Before a sketch plan or rezoning is done, the EAW should address the inequities. Then submit to the next regular scheduled council meeting. Should provide notice to those within 500 to 600 feet, rather then the required 350 feet. Councilor Gageby replied that this not the ideal schedule, that it is not unprecedented, and it is not unwarranted. This developer has participated with the city during the planning process. We extended the moratorium to be sure we had the right tools in place for good development. The developer has made a reasonable request, we can pass this along for the 30 day comment process. There are still many controls that the city can put in place to protect the city. Mayor Guenthner stated that he is less concerned with the EAW process then he is with the PUD and development agreement process. EAW has controls in place. There are steps that will need to be followed to allow the Parks & Trails Commission and the Planning Commission to review the project, which can be done while the EAW is in process. Councilor Thomas stated that there is no risk to the city in allowing the EAW to go forward, but don’t know at this time if we would be ready to make a final decision by the end of December. Councilor Bucher stated that the EAW in of itself is not unprecedented. Need to have time for staff to review and be comfortable with bringing it Document No 5.a. December 9, 2004 Agenda CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2004 6 forward. Vander Top stated that staff is concerned with the level of information and will try to meet the schedule, but do not want to commit to this. Want to be sure that it is done correctly. Mayor Guenthner brought up discussion regarding sewer and water services to the downtown area. The city’s focus has been on the SE and SW districts. There have not been any conversations with the property owners in the downtown area. Identified the process to get services to the Laurent development. The City would need a water agreement from Maple Grove. Sewer is more impendent upon the Met Council, which we anticipate to be available at the earliest in the fall of 2005. Stan Shilinski stated that the city is short changing the public if the information is being altered during the process. The public does not have time then to make comment. The City must sign the EAW that the information is complete and accurate. Malkerson responded that the developer pays for all costs. EAWs have open questions so that there are questions. There are traffic guidelines, there are worksheets to determine what environmental impacts there may be. This can be extended for an additional 30 days, can do an EIS. By doing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) the city has more control to deny. We the developer take that risk. MOTION by Gageby, seconded by Thomas, to approve the submittal of the EAW for review by the EQB. Councilor Lymangood offered an amendment to the motion requesting that both Corcoran staff memos be included as addendums to the EAW. Amendment not accepted. SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Lymangood to place this matter on the next regular scheduled council meeting and provide notice to property owners within a 700 foot radius. (Motion died due to the lack of a second.) MOTION TO AMEND MAIN MOTION by Lymangood, seconded by Bucher to include both Corcoran staff reports as an addendum to the EAW. Voting Aye: Guenthner and Lymangood. Voting Nay: Gageby, Thomas and Bucher. (Motion Failed) VOTING ON MAIN MOTION: Voting Aye: Bucher. Gageby, Guenthner, and Thomas. Voting Nay: Lymangood (Motion Carried) Summarized next steps. The EAW will be submitted the EQB for publication and distributed to the appropriate agencies as required. There will be a Submit EAW Next Steps neighborhood meeting held by Laurent on December 22. The Document No 5.a. December 9, 2004 Agenda CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2004 7 Parks and Trails Commission will review on November 16, Agreed that notices for the public hearing will be sent to those property owners south of the golf course and east of 116. The Planning Commission will review the on December 2. No action by the City Council can be taken until after the 30 day review process is complete. MOTION by Gageby, seconded by Thomas to adjourn,. 9:50 p.m. Voting Aye: Bucher, Gageby, Guenthner and Thomas. Voting Nay: Lymangood. (Motion Carried) _____________________________ Susan Vergin, CMC City Administrator Adjournment