Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-08 Council Minutes., At' ,iC CITY OF CORCORAN City Council Minutes February 8, 2024 — 7:00 pm The Corcoran City Council met on February 8, 2024, in Corcoran, Minnesota. The City Council meeting was held in person and the public was present in person and remotely through electronic means using the audio and video conferencing platform Zoom. Mayor McKee, Councilor Bottema, Councilor Nichols, Councilor Schultz, and Councilor Vehrenkamp were present. City Administrator Tobin, City Clerk Friedrich, Public Works Director Mattson, and Administrative Services Director Hughes were present. City Attorney Thames was present, and City Planner Lindahl was present virtually. 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Mayor McKee called the meeting to order at 70.02 pm. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor McKee invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Agenda Approval City Administrator Tobin noted the addition of item 7a Draft Council Meeting Meetings for January 25, 2024, and revised agenda item 9a Organics Recycling with legal review. MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Bottema to approve the a Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, Bottema, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols. (Motion carried 5:0) Commission Representatives Mayor McKee noted Planning Commissioner Brummond was present for Commissioner Lind, and Parks and Trails Commissioner Christenson was present virtually. 5. Open Forum (Public Comment Opportunity) Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in -person during Open Forum for items not included on the agenda. City Administrator Tobin explained the instructions to participate in the public comment opportunity. Mark Woda, 19461 102nd Place, opined on the access to Hunters Ridge Road to the E and opined an access entrance and exit for construction traffic should exist. Mr. Woda genda as modified. �Ilwether community noted it is difficult to enjoy the Bellwether community, as a retired resident, with all the construction traffic that is occurring in the development. Mr. Woda noted the percentage of taxes paid by residents in the Bellwether community to the City of Corcoran. Mr. Woda noted his request for the City to make a goodwill gesture and open Hunter's Ridge Road as an alternate road regardless of the obstacles. Mr. Woda thanked Council for their time. Terry Lehman, 10224 Ironwood Lane, supports a connection to Hunter's Ridge Road from the Bellwether community. Ms. Lehman opined on the documentation from previous Council meetings regarding Hunter's Ridge Road and referenced document number 10611827 filed with the Hennepin County Recorder. Ms. Lehman noted paragraph 10, sub paragraphs f and g, describes a feasibility study at a specific phase of the development plan from August 10, 2018. Council requested the audience in the lobby and within the Council Chambers to please quiet themselves to allow the speaker the courtesy of their time in Open Forum. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Nichols to extend Ms. Lehman's time past the 5-minute mark. Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, Bottema, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols. (Motion carried 5:0) Ms. Lehman opined the limited access of two roadways within Bellwether place the residents in a potentially dangerous situation in the event of a natural disaster such as flood or fire, or in the event of an 1 evacuation due to a national emergency. Ms. Lehman thanked Council for their attention to this matter. Jason Bartels, 197500 Hunters Ridge, does not support immediate connection through Hunter's Ridge Road, and noted there are wooden emergency barricades in the event of an emergency, and opined on exits from the community on the north and northeast sides. Council questioned where the data resource came from regarding Bellwether property taxes. Ron Lindenfelser, 19469 102nd Place, noted the data was created from information from the Bellwether newsletter. Mr. Lindenfelser noted it was recent information, and included the quantity of homes sold, in process of being sold, and total quantity of lots. Mr. Lindenfelser noted the revenue was obtained by averaging approximately $7,000 per lot in property tax revenue from the Bellwether community, with the base of 324 homes that residents are currently living in within the Bellwether Community. Mr. Lindenfelser noted property tax revenue follows two years after the actual home is built. Mr. Lindenfelser noted the numbers reflect a summary of the Bellwether community lot map that includes streets and homes. Council noted the difference in total property tax on a $400,000 home, the portion that is City tax and noted the data referenced in Open Forum is not comparing apples to apples regarding property tax and revenue totals. Council provided context from a historical perspective on Hunter's Ridge Road. Council noted the difficulties residents experience within new developments and understands the perspective by Bellwether residents to open Hunter's Ridge Road. Council reviewed actions by the previous Council that approved the Bellwether development, but that they would not connect existing residential streets to Bellwether until very late in the process. Council referenced current resident complaints with Bellwether and not wanting to live with construction traffic, but noted residents outside Bellwether community, didn't want to live in separate development's construction traffic, and noted it would be an even greater imposition for them who didn't choose to buy in a new construction development, to have to go through that. Council noted the understanding of dealing with construction traffic. Council noted that current Councils need to be a good steward of the promise that was previously made to those residents and be accountable for that decision that was made. Council noted being open to looking at the specifics of the contract but clarified the City should not have to pay for things they don't need to pay for. Council clarified that the City amount of property taxes typically is about a third of what the total property tax amount is. Council noted services of providing police protection, fire protection, and parks and trails to the community through City taxes. Council thanked residents for coming to the meeting and noted residents can reach out to Council via email on the website. Larry Souther, 10226 Elm Lane, noted discussions with the Mayor and City Administrator regarding the connection at Hunter's Ridge Road and emergency vehicle stakes, to allow emergency vehicles, but not allow construction traffic, and asked for clarification of whether that was still a viable plan or if it was being considered. Mayor McKee noted discussions with the Director of Public Safety Gottschalk and reviewed that type of emergency access does not work in this type of development as the emergency access points won't necessarily be the same throughout all the phases of the development. Council and staff noted that currently emergency access is in place if needed on Hunter's Ridge Road, minus the payment and curb. Council reviewed development over the past eight years, and noted eight years ago, there was only one development in the City of Corcoran. Council reviewed the progress of developments in Corcoran, and that construction traffic has impacted each development. Council noted all taxpayers in Corcoran pay a portion of City tax based on property values. Council requested patience of the residents who live in the developments from the start of the project to the finish, as all the developments are great developments in Corcoran, and work through the middle of the project development when construction traffic seems to be greater. Council also noted the predictability of developments and forthcoming construction traffic. Another resident came forward and asked to speak. Mayor McKee noted elimi Anating a back -and -forth dialogue between Council and residents but allowed the resident to approach the podium to speak. Chris Lehman, 10224 Ironwood Lane, requested documentation of previous Council 7s action to not allow construction traffic on Hunter's Ridge Road. Council deferred the request to Public Works Director Mattson, noting the discussion has been referenced in previous Council meetings. Mr. Lehman noted if residents in Bellwether better understood previous Council discussions, related to the contract, indicating no construction traffic. Mayor McKee noted Council would work with staff to try to locate past discussions to gain some context on 2 the discussions from past meetings. City Administrator Tobin noted staff could work with Ron to provide the data once it is located. City Administrator Tobin noted there are two seat openings on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested residents to visit the website for the Planning Commission application. Council asked the audience to remain seated while the oath of office presentation for Sergeant Dan Wilcox was completed. Another resident raised their hand and requested to speak at the podium on the Hunter's Ridge Road discussion. Mayor McKee noted this would be the last Open Forum resident to speak on the Bellwether community and Hunter's Ridge Road discussion. Nancy Johnson, 19453 102nd Place. oained on concern of safety issue of limited road accesses within the Bellwether community and with Stieg Road being difficult to access. Ms. Johnson n possibilities of having the current road accesses blocked. there are oted Council noted there will be communications to residents regarding details on verification of emergency standards of access points to the Bellwether community. 6. Presentations/Recognitions a. Swearing in and Oath of Office — Dan Wilcox City Clerk Friedrich read the oath of office and Sergeant Wilcox repeated the oath of office with his right hand raised. Mayor McKee noted Sergeant Wilcox' police officer work history. Council thanked him for his military service. 7. Consent Agenda a. January 25, 2024, Regular Council Minutes* b. Financial Claims February 8, 2024* c. Resolution 2024-09 Pioneer Society Lawful Gambling Donation Request J. Resolution 2024-10 Additional Election Judges in 2024 e. NE Infrastructure Improvements — HUD Grand Agreement f. Water Treatment Plant —Pay Request 9 MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Vehrenkamp to approve items 7a-f as presented. Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, Bottema, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols. (Motion carried 5:0) Planning Business (Public Comment Opportunity) CA 3019 Additional Concept Plan City Planner Lindahl presented the sketch plan for the 3019 Addition. City Planner Lindahl noted the applicant is requesting informal feedback on a sketch plan on the 66-acre parcel. City Planner Lindahl the parcel is a vacant piece of property, and the property is guided a mix of rural ag residential and rural service commercial, with the corresponding zoning rural residential and transitional rural commercial. City Planner Lindahl noted the transitional rural commercial is a holding zone like the open reserve but a holding zone until commercial development is proposed. City Planner Lindahl noted the parcel is outside of the MUSA at the corner of County Road 19 and 30, and noted the natural inventory does show some natural resources off -site. City Planner Lindahl noted the only natural resources on this site are the shoreland from the adjacent Creek. City Planner Lindahl reviewed there are several parcels in the area that are planned for rural commercial, which tend to be contractors' yards and uses that do not require sewer and water. City Planner Lindahl noted this parcel as it exists has seven development rights and noted that there's several rural commercial properties that also have development rights shown on the development rights map. City Planner Lindahl reviewed the application includes residential lots within North South Street, and then on 15 commercial lots on the West side and requiring both a re -guiding and a rezoning to move the land use boundary between the rural residential and the commercial slightly further east, and then rezoning the property from rural residential and transitional rural commercial to rural commercial to accommodate those commercial uses. City Planner Lindahl reviewed the applicant has met several times with staff to discuss development on this parcel, and noted in October of last year, the applicant submitted a formal development application that was deemed incomplete. City Planner Lindahl noted in the last month, the city administrator met with the applicant and the applicant submitted a written request to pause the development proposal and allow a sketch plan to be reviewed with the Council. The applicant would like to talk about the development rights program and discuss a few of the concept plan comments that staff provided regarding the 3 development rights program. City Planner Lindahl noted the development rights program has been in place since the early 1980's with a reset in the early 1990s. City Planner Lindahl noted the developments rights tool is a tool to manage density in rural areas to ensure lots are large enough to accommodate wells and septic systems. City Planner Lindahl noted staff acknowledges there are some concerns and inconsistencies between the code and the map and reviewed the code indicates that the program identifies the maximum number of residential units or non-residential units that be need may be developed. City Planner Lindahl noted the council has consistently required a development right for residential or commercial lots in the rural area and is the message relayed to the applicant when staff met with them starting in 2022, about this project and suggested that a concept plan be brought forward to the council to have this discussion. City Planner Lindahl noted the parcel has seven development rights and the applicants plan shows 19 lots which is 12 more than allowed by the code under the policy that the city has used. Next slide. City Planner Lindahl noted review by Council to weigh in on the policy of development rights and either reaffirm the historic Council direction that one development right is required for development in the rural residential urban reserve and rural commercial districts, or to modify the policy as requested by the applicant to remove the requirement for development rights in the rural commercial district. City Planner Lindahl noted modifying the policy is a change but is certainly something given the inconsistencies in the code that Council could do. Staff believes it's important to clarify that development rights in the rural residential districts remain based on acreage, meaning one development right per 10 acres. Cit Planner Lindahl noted it would be unfair to all the landowners in Corcoran to re -guide property to commercial and assign those commercial development rights to 15 acres of residential land. City Planner Lindahl noted the necessity of Council direction, to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to clarify policy direction this evening. City Planner Lindahl noted as land starts to develop it is relevant to clean up any question about how development rights are applied. City Planner Lindahl noted the primary concern from staff is the development rights program, elimination would then only require compliance with minimum lot size, and staff believes the concept lots proposed are too small to be successful long-term. City Planner Lindahl noted the concept lots are like what is in the historic industrial district, and we know that those lots are too small for businesses to be able to expand over time, and be able to accommodate parking, septic systems, and outside storage, which are common in the rural commercial district. City Planner Lindahl noted the City has a minimum lot size in the rural commercial district, but like our minimum lot size of two acres in the rural residential, it's balanced by the fact that there's only so many development rights. City Planner Lindahl noted there are outstanding issues regarding stormwater traffic, grading, etc., and that typically, an applicant would submit a concept plan first, to trigger the feasibility study, prior to coming in with the preliminary plat application. City Planner Lindahl noted in this case the process was completed a little bit differently, and noted the feasibility study is not yet complete. City Planner Lindahl noted stormwater is a significant discussion item. City Planner Lindahl reviewed the sketch plan and requested Council provide the applicant feedback on the sketch plan, which is advisory only and it's not a binding decision. Cit Planner Lindahl reiterated the issue of development rights is the reason for the discussion tonight and is a significant policy issue. Council discussed zoning possibilities that could override the building rights program, rezoning, amending the code, and differences in light industrial and mixed use. Council discussed allowing the downtown business park to be duplicated in the rural area, and effectively means Council is deciding against preserving the rural character of Corcoran. Council noted intentionally changing policy to make it advantageous to a higher density runs counter to what Council has been trying to accomplish. Council discussed addressing rural development of commercial parcels regarding specific feedback for the applicant. Council discussed OS&Ps and building rights to the rural residential district. Council discussed expansion of commercial lots being relative to the business that has growth. Dave Leinhart, attorney for the developer, spoke briefly on the inconsistency between the building ordinance and the application of development rights against the commercial portion of the sketch plan. Mr. Lenhard referenced code section 10 70.07 clearly states the intention is to apply this to the residential areas, which is consistent with other how other parts of the zoning ordinance read. Mr. Leinhart noted code 10 70.07 references development rights map reflects the number of development rights, remaining properties, etc., and is intended to show the maximum number of residential units that may be developed per an individual parcel, with nothing referenced about an intention to impose development rights against commercial parcels. Mr. Leinhart further added ordinance 10 40.090, which is the CR rural commercial and 10 40.0953 which is the TRC or transitional rural commercial, neither of ordinances do not mention the development rights map or development rights restrictions at all. Mr. Leinhart noted the ordinance reviews regular zoning area requirements like minimum lot size and setbacks, but nothing that refers to imposing development rights restrictions against the two commercial areas within the sketch concept plan. Scott Dahlke, Civil Engineering Site Design, reviewed proposed sketch plan, and noted affordability of housing, and keeping costs reasonable with high quality. Mr. Dahlke disagreed with comment by City Planner Lindahl that lots within the sketch plan are too small for commercial lots. Mr. Dahlke noted 2.5 acres is a functional size with 10,000 sq ft building, with 50 percent covered by impervious surface with remainder as green space. Mr. Dahlke noted the hatched areas reference impervious surface with the remainder as green space; noted the 50 percent impervious coverage and stormwater requirements through watershed; and trying to meet all the requirements of City and county entities. Mr. Dahlke opined on the appropriate size of the commercial properties and allowing expansion for businesses by purchasing adjacent properties. Mr. Dahlke noted the larger properties are limiting due to increased costs with size of buildings on larger properties. Council questioned changing building rights or potentially increasing lot size requirements, Council noted the 10-acre minimum based on value of residential lots. Council discussed areas impacted include the Public Works area, Doboszenki's, and D&D. City Planner Lindahl noted most commercial businesses are looking for 10-acre parcels, but Council direction is needed to clarify building rights on commercial properties. Attorney Thames noted code could be updated, with City authority to change, and clarification on what is on development rights map and commercial lot standards, to alleviate issues with interpretation. Council noted having staff review code to reflect code change within application process for a different standard. Council feedback on the sketch plan included staying within the building rights allowed and maintaining with buffer between commercial and residential. Council discussing changing the rural commercial standards and dropping development rights and requested staff review rural commercial standards and bring back to Council for review. Council provided direction to staff to maintain rural residential standards and investigate modifying rural commercial standards by the end of second quarter. 9. Unfinished Business O Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in -person during public comment opportunity for items ga- d. City Administrator Tobin explained the instructions to participate in the public comment opportunity. No persons participated in the public comment opportunity. a. REVISED: Organics Recycling Administrative Services Director Hughes reviewed Hennepin County Ordinance 13 regarding organics recycling per Hennepin County ordinance 13, State law, and Minnesota Pollution Control agencies recycling requirements. Administrative Services Director Hughes reviewed the city had three options to comply with the organics recycling requirements; 1) City provides an organics recycling drop off site for residents to use, 2) City could offer curbside organics recycling collection for all residents through a single provider under contract with the city, or 3) the city could require haulers to each provide curbside organics recycling to residents when requested. Administrative Services Director Hughes noted the organics recycling fee could vary from hauler to haul. Administrative Services Director Hughes summarized at the January 11 Council meeting, it was brought to staffs attention that community members had been billed by Republic for organics collection, though they did not sign up to participate. Administrative Services Director Hughes noted staff has researched this and investigated to determine what has happened and we've learned that some of Republic customers had requested the organics recycling service. Administrative Services Director Hughes noted per the ordinances stated previously, with organics recycling being offered to all the haulers waste collection customers, all customers had to be charged. This was in compliance with the City Ordinance 117 and Hennepin County Ordinance 13, which both require the service to be offered. Administrative Services Director Hughes noted currently, other licensed residential haulers have not been asked by customers to provide the organics service so they are not charging at this time; However, under this current framework, if any of the customers from another service haulers were to ask for curbside organics recycling, that hauler or that service provider would charge all customers. Administrative Services Director Hughes noted Hennepin County ordinance 13 currently offers an exemption to the curbside organics collection mandate. Administrative Services Director Hughes noted Corcoran is a fourth-class city and can set up and offer to residents an organics collection site within its boundaries or could partner with a neighboring community if this site was provided, the city need not require curbside organics collection. In this example, haulers would not be prohibited from providing curbside service, but they're not mandated to do so. Therefore, customers could select a provider that fits their individual needs based on if they need organics or not. Administrative Services Director Hughes reviewed at the Council meeting on 21 720237 5 Council reviewed the option to provide a collection site and determined not to establish one. The City Council is empowered to alter this approach and seek qualifications for this exemption. Administrative Services Director Hughes noted, absent a decision to pursue the exemption, the City must nominate a single curbside provider to collect organics from all residents or continue to mandate that every hauler does so. Administrative Services Director Hughes reiterated all solid waste haulers must charge all customers for curbside organics, if this service is provided to any of its customers, based on Minnesota state statute 115 8.93 Subdivision three C, which states a licensing authority shall prohibit mixed municipal waste. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by McKee, to approve Option 1 and provide an organics bin on City property, and repeal the requirement in Chapter 117 of Code requiring haulers to offer organics recycling. City Attorney Thames clarified that the exemption allows the City the option to repeal that portion of 117 that mandates that all haulers offer organics recycling, allowing a free-market element so those providers that don't offer organics collection can still operate, even if some haulers continued to offer organics. City Attorney Thames noted a resident has the option to select a provider that doesn't offer organics recycling because they don't have that as part of their fee. City Attorney Thames noted Hennepin County Ordinance 13 and State Statute do requ Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, (Motion carried 5:0) ire any hauler offering organics recycling to c Bottema, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols. harge all residents the same. b. Stieg Road Improvements —Approve Plans/Specs; Authorize Bids MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Nichols to approve Stieg Road improvements, authorize plans/specs, and authorize bids. Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, Bottema, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols. (Motion carried 5:0) c. Public Works Resignation and Hiring Process Authorization MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Vehrenkamp to accept resignation by Clyde Bechtold and authorize staff to begin hiring process for two maintenance worker positions. Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols Nay: Bottema (Motion carried 4:1) Councilor Bottema voted nay to accepting the resignation of Clyde Bechtold. Council thanked Mr. Bechtold for his service. d. County Road 116 Multi -Modal Trail Maintenance Discussion Council noted a previous Council resolution of support based on previous information. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Schultz to decline the opportunity based on lack of information received. Voting Aye: Nay: McKee, Schultz, Bottema, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols (Motion fails 0:5) MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Vehrenkamp, to submit the original resolution approved on November 20, 2023, and not consider any verbiage changes to the resolution. Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, Bottema, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols. (Motion carried 5:0) Council discussed Hennepin County partnering with Three Rivers Park to complete some higher quality underpasses as part of a single trail that transitions through open space, rather than a parallel trail next to a County Road. 10. New Business (Public Comment Opportunity) O Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in -person during public comment opportunity for item 10a. City Administrator Tobin explained the instructions to participate in the public comment opportunity. No persons participated in the public comment opportunity. a. Cropland Bids/Parcel Weed Control Discussion Council discussed a charity operating in the area and throughout Minnesota, as a potentially interested party in renting a parcel, and teaching farming to minority communities. Council noted a possible property tax relief from working with charitable entity. City Administrator Tobin mentioned the timeline of 8 weeks before the actual crop season may begin and noted if the cropland bidding 0 process fails to produce bids, the City may need to review another weed control MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Nichols to open the cropland bids for a ne City regarding personal property taxes on each parcel. Council discussed the bidding process, t additional options. pro . t impact of zero to the cess he possibility of zero bids received, and directing staff on Fri endly amendment made by Bottema, to direct staff t0 proceed with Option 2, but if no bids are received, proceed to Option 1 or Option 3, and present to Council at the second meeting in March. Council and staff discussed different costs associated with hiring a contractor to spray or mow versus having internal staff spray or mow. City Attorney Thames clarified in theory a non-profit would trigger PILT, then effectively the non-profit would win the bid at a net zero. City Attorney Thames added a high bid wins the RFP but adding the prerequisite to being a qualified bidder is you can't result in a contribution over zero to the City. Voting Aye: McKee, Schul (Motion carried 500) 11. Staff Reports tz , Bottema, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols. 12.2024 City Council Schedule Council received schedule. 13. Adjournment Council discussed a possible lawsuit forthcoming and noted a closed session with the City Attorney would be advisable in the future to review implications. MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Schultz to adjourn. Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, Bottema, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols. (Motion carried 5:0) Meeting adjourned at 9:47 pm on Michelle Friedrich —City Clerk February 8, 2024. r 7