Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-29 Council MinutesCITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 The Corcoran City Council met on December 29, 2004 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were Councilors Bucher, Gageby, Guenthner, Lymangood and Thomas. Also present were Administrator Vergin, Planner Lindahl, Engineer Vander Top, Attorney Carson, and Consultant Buss. Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 7:02 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 with the following additions: • Presentation by Mayor Guenthner before Hedgestone EAW discussion • City of Medina/CUDD Project - New Business • Administrator's Report - Council and Staff Reports Open Forum There was one request from the public to speak during open forum. Loren Kohnen, 22755 Winchester Trail -- As Chair of the Planning Commission, and also a member of the Wastewater Commission, Mr. Kohnen expressed his appreciation, on behalf of the Planning and Wastewater Commissions, to the Council for their help and encouragement over the past four years. Consent Agenda MOTION by Thomas, seconded by Bucher, and carried unanimously to approve the consent agenda as follows: a. Approve the December 21, 2004 Regular Council Meeting Minutes as presented. b. Approve the year end claims, #4972 - 4979, in the amount of $3,374.58, as presented. c. Adopt Resolution No. 2004 - 100, accepting W. H. Cates Long Horn Estates Development. d. Adopt Resolution No. 2004 - 101 accepting Windmill Ponds. e. Adopt Resolution No. 2004 - 103 accepting Triden Ridge Estates. Presentation Mayor Guenthner addressed the audience, stating that he wanted to outline briefly how the Council and the City arrived at this point, referring to the Hedgestone Development. He referenced a comment received during the December 16, 2004 Planning Commission meeting that "there has never been so much divisiveness in the community as there is right now" pertaining to this development. He also referenced a comment made by Mayor Elect Cossette that "this development is a good example of what our plan is; if you don't like the plan, you have to change it." Mayor Guenthner further stated that when he was first elected to the City Council, the Met Council intended for approximately 90% of Corcoran to be designated as urban reserve by 2040, meaning it would be held for urbanization at some point in the next 40 years. The entire City, except for an area in the northwest and southwest would have fully urbanized suburban development. This was not acceptable to the Council at that time. Call to Order Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Open Forum Loren Kohnen Approval of Consent Agenda Mayor Guenthner Presentation Overview of Comp Plan Process to Point of Development CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 In 2002, the Comp Plan was approved and accepted by the Met Council. The plan, as submitted, indicated that 70% of the City would remain diversified rural in nature and only 15% of all developable land would have sanitary services provided, due to planned and physical limitations. The City's 2020 Land Use Map indicates as such. The City is using an Phased Zoning approach with the Agriculture zoning district, meaning most of the City's developable areas are zoned as Agricultural, in order for current uses to continue under current standards until such time as those areas are developed. Rezoning must be requested by landowners and will be granted as needed or wanted, provided that the request meets City standards and policies, including the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is complex by design. The process began six years ago. Through a series of meetings, at both the Council and Planning Commission, as well as goal setting sessions, work groups, and public open houses, the Comp Plan was created. It was a citizen -driven, focused, collaborative project to preserve Corcoran as an open space community, provide additional tax base to the City, and to provide housing opportunities for senior citizens, those just starting out, and everyone in between. What does the Comp Plan say about this project (Hedgestone) and the area it is located in? The land is considered in the downtown district in the SE corner, after lengthy discussion and debate, due to the proximity of adjacent communities and sanitary sewer connections. That area is the catalyst for development in Corcoran, for "urban executive" type housing, and is scheduled, according to the Comp Plan, for sanitary services to be provided between 2004 - 2010. Page 37 of the Comp Plan further describes the area as having public sewer and water and designed to incorporate natural resources, sidewalks and trails to connect neighborhoods, parks and varying densities at 1 - 3 units per acre, through attached and detached housing cluster, with an average of 2.5 units per net developable acre. Does this project conform with the comp plan, should it be approved and in what form? Mayor Guenthner then thanked the audience for their indulgence and patience, adding that in his opinion, it was appropriate to provide this information to the Council and audience at this time. Hedgestone Development - EAW Findings of Fact Planner Lindahl reported on the EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) Findings of Pact for the Hedgestone Development. The EAW was required for the 287 single family homes originally proposed on the 216.78 acre site. The property is located west of County Road 101 and North of the Hackamore Road. The Minnesota Environmental Review Program rules require a mandatory EAW for residential development with more than. 250 homes for a city the size of Corcoran. The City authorized the distribution of the EAW on November 15, 2004, and it was published on November 22, 2004, The 30-day EAW comment period ended at the end of the business day on December 22, 2004. The response to the EAW was prepared and included in the public packet as the "Record of Decision", which includes all written comments submitted by Hedgestone Development - EAW Findings of Fact 6 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 public and governmental agencies as well as the responses. The purpose of the environmental review process is to provide usable information to the project proposer, governmental decision -makers, and the public concerning the primary environmental effects of the proposed project. The EAW should identify measures to protect the environment that can later be imposed as conditions of approval in future development applications. The Council has three courses of action when reviewing the EAW including requiring additional information to address possible environmental effects not adequately discussed in the EAW; make a finding of "no need" for an EIS, or order an EIS. The City received 6 comment letters from reviewing agencies, none of which stated that the EAW was inadequate or incomplete, or asked for additional information or time to review the EAW, or identified the need for preparation of an EIS. The City received 8 comment letters from citizens. Staff is recommending approval of the resolution declaring a finding of "no need" for an EIS, based on the review of the EAW. The Record of Decision is intended to serve as the City's Findings of Fact of a decision that an EIS does not need to be prepared for this project. Discussion was held regarding a "Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet/Environmental Impact Statement for Corcoran Project" received from Attorney Jon Kingstad late in the afternoon on December 29, 2004. The petition questions whether the jurisdictional responsible governing body is the Met Council or the City of Corcoran. According to Attorney Carson, the City is the appropriate RGU for this project. Attorney Carson further stated that it is not clear exactly what the petitioner is requesting and the request is not relevant to the decision at hand. Discussion was held regarding a letter received from the MPCA regarding their review of the project. Planner Lindahl expounded that the MPCA did not completely review the EAW due to staff limitations, however, the MPCA has historically been able to prioritize staff time for projects that may have significant environmental impacts. The fact that the MPCA did not conduct a complete review signifies the MPCA's acknowledgement that no significant environmental impacts would be expected. Councilor Lymangood further stated that the MPCA identified the City as the RGU in their letter to the City regarding the EAW. Various other issues were discussed as they related to the EAW, including gauges on sprinklers for watering of the parkway and other areas, the water supply, traffic and storm water studies, impact on wildlife, and intersection upgrades. Councilor Lymangood noted that the DNR stated in their review of the EAW that there would be slight improvement in bird species because of the development. Engineer Vander Top reported that the Storm water Study is currently being drafted and will provide greater detail than the water supply study. It will provide information on rate control and storm water impacts. The water study addresses a possible joint water supply agreement with the City of Maple Grove. More detail will be developed as that agreement is CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 further investigated. Projected levels of service regarding traffic impacts are identified in the traffic impact analysis. Vander Top went on to state that regardless of the development, improvements will need to be made to intersections on County Road 101 by 2010, and those improvements are identified in the Engineer's report. Of specific concern is the intersection at Hackamore and County Road 101. Councilor Lymangood noted that the Developer should pay a proportional share of the improvement at that intersection, as indicated on page 10 in the Record of Decision. Councilor Lymangood expressed concerns that the storm water calculations were not included in the EAW. Engineer Vander Top further stated that current and post -development water run-off rates and volumes, and water supply information is not specifically included in the EAW, however, they are referenced in the Record of Decision and available in the Feasibility Study, Planner Lindahl further stated that the approving resolution had been modified on the advice of Attorney Carson. Specifically, the conditions identified on page 2 were removed and incorporated into the Developer's Agreement, which is referenced in the resolution. MOTION by Gageby, seconded by Thomas, and carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution #2004 - 103 Revision 2, declaring a finding of "no need" for an environmental impact statement (EIS) based upon the review of the Approval of Resolution 92004-103 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) dated November 11, 2004, for Declaring a Finding of "No Need" the project proposed by Laurent Development Company, LLC, (City File No. for an Environmental Impact 04-039), incorporating into the Record of Decision the Storm water Runoff Statement (EIS) studies completed by the City Engineer and provided to the City. Councilor Lymangood further noted regarding the submitted petition, that the petitioners argue that the Met Council is the appropriate RGU for this case, but the petition was not copied to the Met Council. _Hedgestone Development — Rezoning,Planned Unit Development (P_[TD) Preliminary Plan & PreliminarX, Plat Planner Lindahl provided an overview of this application request. At this Hedgestone Development — time, the applicant has submitted a request for approval of a rezoning from R- Rezoning, Planned Unit 1 to PUD, a preliminary plat and PUD preliminary plan for a single family Development (PUD) Preliminary residential development that will consist of 283 homes within the 216.78-acre Plan & Preliminary Plat site. The property is located west of County Road 101 and North of Hackamore Lane. The subject properties are zoned R-1 (single family residential) and are guided Urban Residential, which is planned for development with sewer and water up to 3 units per acre. The property is bordered by the City of Maple Grove on the east (across County Road 101) and the City of Medina on the south (across Hackamore Lane). A small portion of the northwest corner of the site is identified as High Quality Natural Resource (forest) by the Comprehensive Plan and there are several wetlands on the site. The proposed project is located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) of the City. This is the area planned to be serviced by sanitary sewer and municipal water. The subject property is zoned R-1, which allows single family homes at a density of three units per acre. 4 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 The applicant is requesting a rezoning from R-1 to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The purpose of the PUD District is to promote creative and efficient use of land by providing design flexibility in the development of residential neighborhoods and/or non-residential areas that would not be possible under a conventional zoning district. The plan show 283 units on lots of varying sizes, ranging in width from 50 feet to 100 feet. The PUD zoning allows flexibility from all the standard lot sizes and the applicant has requested PUD flexibility to reduce the minimum lot sizes. The developer has generally tried to provide common open space around the perimeter of the site to provide an open space transition between the existing homes and the proposed new homes. The applicant is proposing to construct Gleason Road as the main east -west connection through the site. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which shows Gleason Road extending west from County Road 101 to 661h Avenue. Gleason Road is shown as a parkway with landscaped median and boulevards. The developer is also proposing to realign Gleason Road at County Road 101 to lessen the impact on the existing neighborhood. There are 5 existing homes on Gleason Road, which are not included as part of the development. A new street is proposed to be constructed for these five homes. The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this application on December 16 and recommended approval of the rezoning (five in favor and one against), PUD preliminary plan (five in favor and one against), and preliminary plat (five in favor and one against), with conditions, including the followings: • no vinyl or metal siding be allowed • streetlights allowed at intersections only • centralized mailbox locations • a prohibition against RV parking be identified in the HOA documents • rain sensors included on sprinkler systems • only 4 driveways allowed on any cul-de-sac • as builts required pre- and post -construction • city access be provided for pond maintenance • the City be allowed to install signage regarding to on -street parking as needed • existing Gleason Road be paved The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed this sketch plan on November 16 and again on December 14, and noted that the trails appeared to be generally consistent with the Parks and Trails Plan. The Parks Commission also expressed a desire for a public park in this area in addition to the proposed private park. The proposed plat leaves approximately 36% of the site as permanent open space, which includes the private park. This is above the minimum standards required. The Commission will review the plan in further detail when the final plat is submitted. Brief discussion was held regarding increasing the trail easement from 10 to 15 feet. The Parks and Trails Commission is recommending cash in lieu of land for park dedication, which equals privately $1.7 million; a 12% credit for the private park; credit for the open space in the trail easements and for the trail paving if the trail is in the right of way, and credit for 1 acre of a 5 acre site (3 acre net) in the CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 Northwest corner of the development where a public park was identified. No credit will be given for the underpass, which could be eliminated. Staff s role in this process is to identify if the plans are in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, City Code, Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and City Policies. The PUD allows for flexibility due to a higher design standard, provided the PUD is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required. The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether the plat meets the standards outlined in the Comprehensive Land Use Regulations. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. All comments received from the public and other agencies were included in the packet for this meeting. Additional comments were received after the Council packet was prepared, and those comments are available for review this evening. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning request, PUD preliminary plan and preliminary plan. Approving conditions are identified in Resolutions No. 2004 - 105 and 2004 - 106. Planner Lindahl noted that the draft resolutions were revised prior to the meeting, indicating that the word "should" was changed to "shall" in all instances. Council reviewed the following outstanding issues: Whitetail Drive Planner Lindahl identified conditions #51 - 55 in the draft resolution approving the PUD preliminary plan relating to this outstanding item be revised to require: • The applicant shall dedicate the cul-de-sac that currently terminates Whitetail Drive as a public street. The existing cul-de- sac parcel is adequate for public right of way. This land shall be dedicated regardless of whether or not the driveway easement remains. • The City encourages the applicant to work with the other four affected property owners to vacate the Whitetail easement. If the easement is vacated, the street connection to this development shall be opened to provide public street access for these residents via the new streets within this development. • An emergency vehicle access with knockdown bollards shall be provided at the two new public street rights of way adjacent to the Whitetail easement. • The right of way for the public street accesses north of the new Whitetail public street shall be extended to the north property line. • The applicant shall revised that plans to provide public right of way south of the required public street for the Whitetail cul-de- sac (shown as Road R) through Outlot E to provide a future connection to Gleason Road, should any of the existing homes on Gleason Road be redeveloped or subdivided in the future. Terry Forbord, Laurent Development, 100 S. Fuller Street, Shakopee, responded that the developer had no objections to the conditions as presented. CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 Council was advised that four homes on 50-foot lots had been eliminated in order to meet the 30-foot perimeter setback. The developer's planner, John Uban, added that some property lines of these homes extend into the 30-foot setback, but the homes do not. Further discussion was held regarding transitional landscaping along the northern border of the development and the Whitetail Drive residents. Council expressed concern regarding adequate screening lot to lot. Terry Forbord commented that various elements will be used to provide adequate screening in addition to landscaping, such as berms, and moguls, adding that in some cases, greater distance between homes does not necessarily mean better screening. Elevation changes are also being taken in to consideration. Mature trees will be used and the landscape plans addresses species, height, distance, etc., in great depth. Councilor Lymangood further stated that the final landscape plan will require Council approval at the time of final plat. He also encouraged the developer to work with property owners to establish sufficient screening. Existing Gleason Road Planner Uban stated that a different formula for landscape screening will be used on the southern edge of the 50-foot lots to screen from the existing Gleason Road homes, because there is more open space between the homes. Council again agreed that the landscape plan would require formal approval at the time of final plat. However, Council Lymangood expressed concern that discretion would be lost in the future if plan specifics were not addressed at this time. Mayor Guenthner declared a recess at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Councilor Lymangood expressed his concern over the following outstanding issues that need to be addressed: • The level of detail (or lack of) in the landscape is of significant importance • The plan is different than what was originally submitted • Access to Whitetail Drive has not been addressed adequately • Perimeter views for the existing Gleason Road homes have not been thoroughly reviewed and there is a concern that there is not enough screening for these five homes from the 50-foot lots • No agreement for vacation of the easement for the Tabor driveway Lymangood further stated that berms and trees sound reasonable, but the developer should be working with the existing neighbors to ensure that it is adequate, and he doesn't see that happening. Councilor Gageby reminded that this is the preliminary plan. The conditions are in place for the developer to respond to these issues prior to the final plat being approved. Issues addressed tonight will be identified in the conditions and worked on prior to submission of the final plat. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance do not require any screening or buffers, but the City can request and require through the PUD, which allows the City to create the conditions for approval. Gageby further stated that he feels the developer has demonstrated in other developments that he will follow through with the plans that have been set forth because it is in his best interest to do so. CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 Paul Boehmer, 19104 Gleason Road, questioned if the new driveway the developer would put in for his home would be of the same materials of his current driveway, which is made of concrete. Council felt this was reasonable. Extensive discussion was held regarding ghost platting the existing Gleason Road properties for purposes of planning for future sewer and water services if redevelopment occurred. Council felt that it was not appropriate to require ghost platting at this time. A ghost plat of the SE corner was requested and completed to plan for future road access issues. This is a different situation. Terry Forbord, Laurent Development, stated that they are very comfortable with the plan as submitted and feel that they are uniquely qualified to deal with the 5 existing Gleason Road properties because they have dealt with similar situations in other developments. The applicant feels that it is unfair to require them to provide sewer services to these five parcels, as redevelopment could occur in the future. Suggested that dedication of cash equal to the cost of paving be set aside by the Developer if they so choose to pave the road in the future. MOTION by Lymangood, seconded by Guenthner, to amend conditions number 42 and 58 as follows: 42. Utilities shall be stubbed to each property for future extension to adjacent properties to include the five existing Gleason Road properties. The extension shall be at the Developer's expense. 58. Gleason Road shall be paved with curb and gutter to serve the 5 existing homes at the expense of the developer. Amendment to motion being considered: MOTION by Thomas, seconded by Guenthner, and carried to amend condition 58 to not require curb and gutter. Roll call on the motion to amend: Bucher, aye; Gageby, naye; Guenthner, aye; Lymangood, naye; Thomas, aye. Motion to amend carried. Consideration of original as amended. MOTION by Lymangood, seconded by Guenthner, to amend conditions number 42 and 58 as follows: 42. Utilities shall be stubbed to each property line for future extension to adjacent properties at the expense of the developer. 42.a. Utilities shall be stubbed to each property line of the five existing Gleason Road properties. The extension shall be at the Developer's expense. 58. Gleason Road shall be paved to serve the 5 existing homes at the expense of the developer. Roll call on the motion: Bucher, naye; Gageby, naye; Guenthner, aye; Lymangood, aye; Thomas, aye. Motion carried. Planner Lindahl identified conditions #fi42 and 56 - 58 relating to this outstanding item as follows and as modified through Council motion to require: 8 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 • Utilities shall be stubbed to each property line for future extension to adjacent properties at the expense of the developer. • 42.a. Utilities shall be stubbed to each property line of the five existing Gleason Road properties. The extension shall be at the Developer's expense. • The applicant must submit a request for vacation of the existing right of way for those areas not to be utilized in the realigned Gleason Road. This easement vacation shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Council prior to final plat approval. In the event that the City chooses not to vacate any such existing right of way, then the City will allow existing driveways on existing Gleason Road to be constructed by the applicant over the existing right of way to the newly aligned Gleason Road. All costs related to driveway extensions will be the cost of the applicant. All land, other than existing or new right of way that he driveway extensions lie upon, shall be deeded by the applicant to the owner of said driveway. • The developer shall provide new driveways for the two existing homes on the eastern portion of the existing Gleason Road alignment. The cost of these new driveways shall be bome by the developer. Materials used in the construction of the new driveways shall be consistent with the current driveway materials. • Gleason Road shall be paved at the developers expense to serve the 5 existing homes. Tabor Driveway Denise Tabor, 19450 Gleason Road, advised the Council that they have not reached an agreement with the Developer regarding the issue surrounding their driveway, nor have they (the Tabors) changed their position since the December 16 public hearing. Mayor Guenthner encouraged the two parties to continue to try and reach an agreement that would be suitable for both parties. Councilor Lymangood suggested the following: • Public right of way be dedicated from the northern property line to the Tabor property for public access if future redevelopment occurs • Pavement with curb and gutter be installed up to 350 feet south of the north property line of the development • The remained of the driveway be paved at the expense of the developer • An electronic gate be installed at 350 feet from Gleason Parkway at the expense of the developer • The gate would be removed if future redevelopment of the Tabor property occurs, the expense of which would be at the City's discretion • The southeast extension must be vacated if these conditions are acceptable to both parties • If the Tabors and the developer agree upon an alternative agreement to these conditions, those must be finalized at the time of final plat Denise Tabor further stated that they would not agree to these conditions and would not vacate the easement, and would go to court to reaffirm their position if necessary. They feel they are losing a great deal of privacy and risk residents and others using their driveway, thinking it is part of the development. 9 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 Ms. Tabor also questioned if sewer and water would be stubbed to her property line as the other 5 existing Gleason Road properties. Council questioned if the City could acquire public right of way over a private driveway easement. Attorney Carson advised that if it was a condition of redevelopment, it was appropriate. The public right of way would be dedicated to the City and the Tabor's would retain the private driveway easement until such time as redevelopment occurs. Future development would create the public road. Engineer Vander Top reported that the developer is required to stub services to the northern boundary of the development, but not necessarily to the Tabor's property line. Councilor Lymangood stated that in order to be consistent, it should be stubbed to the Tabor's property line, provided that an agreement regarding the easement can be reached between the Tabors and the developer. MOTION by Lymangood, seconded by Bucher, and carried unanimously to amend condition #50 to include the conditions identified through discussion. Planner Lindahl noted that she would revise condition #50 relating to this outstanding item as follows and as modified through Council motion: a. The developer shall dedication the area of the Tabor driveway north of "Road A" as public right-of-way 60 feet wide to the north property line. b. The applicant shall either: i. Relocate the Tabor access as shown on the plans with proof of vacation of the driveway easement and compliance with the following: 1. The developer shall provide paved access with curb and gutter shall be provided up to 350 feet from the north property line 2. The developer shall pave the remainder of the driveway to the north property line 3. The developer shall install an electronic gate 350 feet from the north property line 4. The electronic gate shall be removed when a public street is constructed to the north at the time of future development. 5. The cost and removal of the gate shall be a the discretion of the City 6. The developer shall stub sewer and water to the north property line 7. The developer shall provide a small sign at the intersection at "Road A" to identify the private drive 8. The Tabor driveway easement shall be vacated 9. The developer shall pay the cost of all such improvements OR ii. The applicant must revise the plans to retain the existing driveway easement in its existing condition as shown on the Alternate Plan. OR 10 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 iii. The developer and the Tabors may reach some other agreement for providing access. Any change to the plans other than those identified in items (i) or (ii) above shall require City Council approval. Council requested an additional condition regarding the trail identified across the Tabor driveway, that the trail material be consistent with the driveway material (i.e. non -paved trail if the driveway remains unpaved.) Mayor Guenthner declared a recess at10:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Parks and Trails recommendations Planner Lindahl identified conditions #64 - 75 relating to this outstanding item. Consultant Buss was present to discuss the process used by the Parks and Trails Commission to develop these conditions. Paul Heuer, Laurent Development, requested that the Council reconsider several of the conditions suggested by the Parks and Trails Commission, specifically the credit for woodland area in the NW corner, and credit for all trails constructed for public use. Heuer further stated that the City should provide incentive, through park dedication credit, for developers creating this type of environment. Terry Forbord added that there is no incentive for the developer to build parks and public trails if credit will not be given. Consultant Buss stated that Parks and Trails Commission determined the cost for trail construction to be $17 per lineal foot. Heuer also requested that the developer receive full 20% credit for the private park. The Council would not agree to this, adding that the formula used by the Parks and Trails Commission was appropriate. Councilor Lymangood also requested that Exhibit G be amended to conform to the conditions set forth in the resolution. The developer noted that they would revise this exhibit for resubmittal with the PUD final plan. MOTION by Thomas, seconded by Gageby, and carried to amend condition 72.a, to allow credit for construction cost of public trails within the easement, not to exceed $17 per lineal foot. Roll call: Bucher, naye; Gageby, aye; Guenthner, aye; Lymangood, aye; Thomas, aye. Motion carried. Conditions 464 - 75 relate to this item as follows, and as amended through Council action. • Sidewalks and trails shall be as shown on the plans, except as otherwise noted. • The developer must provide details on the proposed underpass, including lighting, materials and dimensions, if the developer chooses to construct the under pass. • The developer must clearly distinguish between the public sidewalks and trails and the private trails. Details must be provided for City review and approval. • Sidewalk and trails details must be provided. The trails sections may be different for the upland areas and the areas adjacent to wetlands. • The HOA shall be responsible for snow removal on public sidewalks and maintenance of private trails within the development. 11 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 • A 20-foot trail easement shall be provided to the City for all public trails. • Public benches and trash enclosures may be provided within these trail easements in a manner consistent with the design of the development, at the discretion of the City. • This condition was removed. 0 Park dedication shall be cash in lieu of fees due at the time of final plat, except hat credit shall be given for the following: a Credit for the land area of the 20-foot wide trail easement required for off -road trails and other trail land areas outside the right of way • Credit for construction costs of trails located within the 20-foot wide trail easement for off -road trails and other trail land areas outside the right of way, not to exceed $17 per lineal foot • Credit for paving costs of trails within the right of way of Gleason Parkway • The Gleason Parkway trail shall be moved to the north side of the road and the sidewalk to the south side of the road to reduce conflicts with the private park • Acceptance of and credit for one acre (+/-) of significant woodland area in the northwest portion of the site with land dedication for one (1) acre of the park land (1 acre is the area outside of wetland and ponding areas). The remainder of the site shall not be accepted as park dedication and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association as common open space. • 12% credit for the private park based on the finding that the private park provides 60% of the neighborhood park needs for the southeast district. Neighborhood parks are 20% of the City Park requirements (20% x 60% = 12%) + No credit shall be given for the proposed pedestrian underpass • No credit shall be given for the on road trails proposed • The remainder of the fees shall be cash in lieu of land (approximately $1.3 million due for 191 homes after credit is given for park dedication. • The final amount of credit shall be calculated at the time of final plat • Park dedication fees shall be due for the homes in each phase of development, prior to release of the final plat until the required park dedication fees are met. Park dedication fees shall be based on the park dedication fees per unit due at the time of final plat approval * The HOA documents shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. These documents shall ensure that the pool and community building are owned and maintained by the HOA. 0 Details on the private park, including structures, lighting, parking, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to approval of the final plat for Phase 1. 12 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 • The developer shall plant and maintain any landscaping proposed within the proposed public park for two years to ensure that the vegetation is established. West property line screening Extensive discussion was held regarding screening to be provided by the developer for the properties on the west side of the development. Again, Terry Forbord identified that specific planting descriptions are included in the landscape plan, which would be approved by the Council at the time of final plat. John Uban added that 32 trees will be added in that area on 8 different lots. Council suggested 4-5 10- foot tall evergreen trees be planted for each lot abutting existing lots , as well as changing the grade as appropriate. Mr. >~ orbord further stated that mature pine trees would be used, in species that grow between 12 - 18 inches per year. Alignment of GleasonParkwa and 661h Avenue connection Discussion was held regarding removing the parkway requirement on the west side of the development and shifting the road north to provide additional buffering from south properties. Roger Anderson, Civil Engineer for Laurent Development stated that all of those could be accomplished in that area if that was the city's desire. Discussion was held regarding retaining walls in the right of way and Engineer Vander Top added that a "clear zone" needs to be maintained, but retaining walls can be in the right of way. Mr. Anderson further stated that any vacated right of way created by shifting the road would go to the adjacent property owners, and that existing vegetation would be preserved wherever possible. Further discussion was held regarding the extension of 66th Avenue. The following public comments were received: William E. Mason, Corcoran property owner -- Mr. Mason stated that he has owned property on 66th Avenue in Corcoran for 40+ years, and expressed concern about additional expense to him as the landowner to upgrade 661h Avenue. Feels that it is a taking of his property and that is not right. The City is changing the terrain, removing trees and increasing traffic and water flow if they allow this development to go in. Engineer Vander Top stated that the connecting road would be constructed at a width that would stay within the platted right of way, as identified in the Engineering Design Guidelines. There would be no additional cost to Mr. Mason to make the connection, as all costs would be borne by the applicant, Laurent Development. Council agreed by unanimous consensus that the appropriate time to complete the connection would be during Phase I1 of construction, or at such time as development occurs in that area of the development. Extensive discussion was held regarding screening to adjacent properties along the west road of the development (80-foot lots). John Uban displayed a overhead showing elevations in that section as relating to house location. Evergreen and over story trees would be added, and the existing wetland area 13 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 and natural vegetation would be retained and embellished for buffering. Mr. Forbord offered to provide a profile of this area along with the landscape plan for consideration of the Council, adding that they would work closely with staff to develop the landscape screening. Council suggested that the developer use the same degree of density as identified in other areas to screen the road from adjacent properties and limit lighting wherever possible. The Council recommended the additional trees required for the west property line north of Gleason Parkway be required for the lots abutting the existing lots in this area as well. Extension to Hunter Road Planner Lindahl identified conditions #59 and #71 pertaining to this issue. Engineer Vander Top added that staff is not recommending a connection from Gleason Parkway to Hunter Road for several reasons. The grade is too steep to make a safe connection and Hunter Road residents don't want it. However, additional right of way should be acquired to make a round cul-de-sac on Hunter Road, for maintenance reasons (plowing, etc.). The Council did agree to retain the trail easement in this location, but not require construction at this time. Improvement to Hackamore Road The developer proposed that turn lanes and bypass lanes be added in this area to accommodate traffic on Hackamore Lane, further stating that they would pay for this type of improvement. Foundation Drains Extensive debate was held regarding the requirement of a foundation drainage system throughout the development. The developer would prefer that the City Engineer have discretion to determine if foundation drains are required. However, Councilor Lymangood expressed a preference that an assumption be made that they are required and the Council could determine that they were not. Councilor Lymangood further stated that the Wastewater Commission has recommended that foundation drains be required and the onus should be on the developer to prove that they aren't. Engineer Vander Top noted that either option was fair. Different techniques could be employed to serve each parcel. Condition #78 was amended to read as follows: 78. The developer shall submit a foundation drainage system plan for review and approval by the City Council. The City Council shall have the authority to require foundation drains. County Ditch #16 Engineer Vander Top stated that this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on December 16. The ditch location has been identified, however, it has not been maintained for a number of years. Vander Top further stated that this property does not rely on the ditch being cleaned in order to drain. The rate of runoff will not be increasing and the 100 year flood elevation will stay the same. There is no reason to clean the ditch at this time, however, staff recommends that if residents want the ditch cleaned, they could submit a petition for the cleaning and have the costs assessed back to the benefiting property owners. 14 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 Wildlife Protection Discussion was held regarding protection of wildlife identified in the Record of Decision, specifically Blanding's Turtles and Trumpeter Swans. Engineer Vander Top stated that the City will have a program in place for erosion control and it would be possible to tie requirements for wildlife protection to that program in that area. Mayor Guenthner questioned if it was fair to make this a requirement even through the EAW didn't identify any species found, just that the conditions existed for the wildlife to exist in these areas. Wayne Jacobsen, Laurent Development, provided information regarding the potential impact on trumpeter swans, stating that there would likely be little or no impact. Items have been included in the EAW to minimize the impacts on wildlife throughout the development area. Council further discussed a recommendation to limit construction activity within 1000 feet of the nesting site between the months of April through June. It was determined that the development area is more than 1000 feet from the nesting site. Comments were heard from Robert Staplin, 6760 Olde Sturbridge Drive, who stated that he has had discussions with the DNR and the concern is not the construction of the development within 1000 feet of the nesting site, but the construction of the sewer. Alignments to serve the Hedgestone Development could have a significant impact on the nesting swans. Discussion was held regarding minor language revisions to conditions #86 and #60. Bruce Malkerson, Legal Counsel for Laurent Development, also identified several modifications that the developer was requesting, specifically Exhibit A, provided for extension of the timeline for final plat submittal for all phases through 2011. Attorney Carson stated that the City is permitted by law to extend the statutory limits, adding that it makes sense to extend the timeframe for a project of this size. Council has to be comfortable with the timeline proposed and has discretion to change it. Terry Forbord stated that many large PUDs have this type of agreement in place to adequately provide a framework for the success of the project. Council expressed concern that the proposed date was too long, and could feasibly extend the project to completion in 2016. Councilor Gageby expressed concern that approving this as presented would commit future councils and questioned if that was truly appropriate. Planner Lindahl added that there is condition in the approving resolution that requires final plat of Phase 1 within two years. This exhibit relates to future final plats. Paul Heuer presented a condition to allow the Developer to construct a lift station and force main to service the development if services are not available by December 31, 2006. Engineer Vander Top stated that all engineering issues are addressed as identified by the Developer. Planner Lindahl concurred with t the Engineer's assessment of the proposed language. Attorney Carson added that this item is being requested in the event that sewer can't be provided by the City for some reason. Terry Forbord added that he felt it was reasonable to request this so that the developer can be assured that the City will also follow through. They have put up a great deal of money to finance the project and want to ensure that the project will proceed forward. Councilor Bucher suggested that both paragraphs of 15 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 condition 4 of the PUD preliminary plan resolution be worded consistently in relation to the timing indicated in the last sentence of paragraph 1. The following public comments were heard: Greg Hogland, 19220 Hackamore Lane -- Mr. Hogland expressed concerns that a number of mature trees along his property line would be lost once development starts, and that the rate of water runoff would increase. Mayor Guenthner stated that the runoff rate cannot increase per the conditions put in place for approval. Roger Anderson added that the Developer would work with the property owner to ensure that grading along the property line was minimal and existing vegetation would be preserved as much as possible. Engineer Vander Top added that storm water runoff is also addressed in the Engineer's memo to Planner Lindahl, as it relates to grading and landscaping along property lines. Terry Forbord added that the landscape plan identifies 12 trees to be added along Mr. Hogland's property line. Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road -- Advised the Council that he had received a copy of a petition filed by Attorney Jon Kingstad in the mail today and requested that the Council explain how they could proceed forward when this clearly identified that the City could not. Mayor Guenthner responded that Attorney Carson had addressed the petition with the Council at the beginning of tonight's meeting at it was determined that it had no bearing on the action being considered this evening. Mayor Guenthner declared a recess at 2:45 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:50 a.m. MOTION by Thomas, seconded by Gageby, and carried to adopt Ordinance No. 215, approving the rezoning from R-1 to PUD as requested by Laurent Development, for the "Hedgestone" Development, on property located west of County Road 101, North of Hackamore Road, and on both sides of Gleason Road, as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. Roll call: Bucher, aye; Gageby, aye; Guenthner, aye; Lymangood, naye; Thomas, aye. Motion carried. Approval of RezoningR-1 to PUD, Ordinance No, 215 MOTION by Gageby, seconded by Bucher, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2004 - 104, approving the Findings of Fact for rezoning, with a Approval of Findings of Fact, modification to item 8 to include the words "will be" in place of the word Resolution No. 2004-104 "is", on file with the City Clerk's Office. Roll call: Bucher, aye; Gageby, aye; Guenthner, aye; Lymangood, naye; Thomas, aye. Motion carried. MOTION by Bucher, seconded by Thomas, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 105, approving a PUD (Planned Unit Development) Preliminary Plan as Approval of PUD preliminary requested by Laurent Development, LLC, for the "Hedgestone" Development, plan, Resolution No. 2004-105 on property located west of County Road 101, North of Hackamore Road, and on both sides of Gleason Road, with amended conditions #1 - #92. Roll call: Bucher, aye; Gageby, aye; Guenthner, aye; Lymangood, naye; Thomas, aye. Motion carried. 16 CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 2004 MOTION by Gageby, seconded by Thomas, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 106, approving a preliminary plat as requested by Laurent Development, LLC, for the "Hedgestone" Development, on property located west of County Road 101, North of Hackamore Road, and on both sides of Gleason Road, with amended conditions with language consistent with Resolution No. 2004 - 105. Roll call: Bucher, aye; Gageby, aye; Guenthner, aye; Lymangood, naye; Thomas, aye. Motion carried. Staff noted that some numbering changes and minor modifications to the language of the resolution to include the amendments would be required for readability. Rather than trying to draft the exact format at this time, the Council agreed that this was standard operating procedure for staff to revise the resolution numbers and language after the meeting to reflect the Council motions. Staff was given discretion to do so. Unfinished Business There was no unfinished business for consideration New Business City of Medina/CUDD project Administrator Vergin provided this item as information only. The City of Medina Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on January 11, 2005 regarding a Charles Cudd Housing Project proposed on Hackamorc Road in the City of Medina. Staff will provide informal comments to Medina regarding traffic impacts and road improvements. Council and Staff Reports _Administrator's Report Administrator Vergin, on behalf of City Staff, wished to thank the outgoing Council and Mayor for their hard work and dedication to the City, further stating that it has been pleasurable working with the current council and outgoing members would be missed. MOTION by Bucher, seconded by Thomas and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 3:11 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kary Tillmann Susan Vergin, City Administrator Approval of Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 2004-106 Unfinished Business New Business Rackamore Road -Medina Reports Adjournment 17