Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-27 Council MinutesCITY OF CORCORAN City Council Meeting Minutes April 27, 2023 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran City Council met on April 27 2023 in Corcoran Minnesota. person and the public was present in pers conferencing platform Zoom. on and remotely through electronic The City Council meeting was held in means using the audio and video Mayor McKee, Councilor Bottema, Councilor Nichols, Councilor Schultz, and Councilor Vehrenkamp were present. City Administrator Beise, City Clerk Friedrich, City Planner Lindahl, Public Works Director Mattson, and City Attorney Thames were present. 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Mayor McKee called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Beise noted changes to the agenda include removing item 7a 2023-02-23 Draft Work Session and Regular Council Minutes, and an update to item 7h Comcast Broadband Agreement, tabling item 8c and part of 8d Public Hearing for Rush Creek Reserve 3rd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD with public comments to May 11, updating item 10b Project Closeout Timeline, and removing Closed Session item 12a Hackamore Road Improvements and Purchase of Property. City Administrator Beise noted there are public comments scheduled for later in the meeting. MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Schultz to approve the agenda as amended. Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema Schultz Vehrenkamp and Nichols (Motion carries 5:0) Commission Represents tives Mayor McKee noted Planning Commissioner Van den Einde and Parks and Trails Commissioner Christenson were present virtually. 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 Beise explained the instructions to participate in the public comment opportunity. Jason Bartels, 19795 Hunters Ridge Road, commented on improvements and potential assessments to residents that live on Hunters Ridge Road. Mr. Bartels noted appreciation for the responses received from staff earlier in the week. Mr. Bartels also acknowledged the city for video recording of Council meetings to review previous Council discussions. Mr. Bartels noted an understanding that the Council authorized a feasibility study for road conditions and opined on a predetermined expectation of additional costs. Mr. Bartels noted the road is in reasonable shape except for the culvert area, and commented it feels like there's already a bias towards additional expenses. Mr. Bartels opined the condition of Hunters Ridge Road seems to have deteriorated due to delays in preventive maintenance, possibly related to considerations for Bellwether construction traffic. Mr. Bartels noted if additional costs are determined to be necessary, it is his opinion Bellwether should bear that responsibility, as their potential and possible use of the road contributed to the delay in regular maintenance. Mr. Bartels respectfully asked the Council not to financially penalize long-time residents of Hunters Ridge for decisions made regarding Bellwether years ago. Presentations/Recognitions a. Oath of Office - Aaron Burns [l City Clerk Friedrich read the Police Officer's Oath and Officer Aaron Burns recited the Police Officer Oath. D. Resolution Recognizing National Public Service Week Mayor McKee read Resolution 2023-41 Recognizing Public Service Week and Administrative Staff. MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Bottema approving Resolution 2023-41 Recognizing Public Service Week and Administrative Staff. Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols (Motion carries 5:0) 7. Consent Agenda a. 2023-02-23 Draft Work Session and Regular Council Minutes b. 2022-08-11 and 08-25 Draft Work Sessions and Regular Council Minutes c. Financial Claims d. Body Worn Camera Audit e. Keefe Minor Subdivision f. CR10 &Brockton Lane Turn Lane Improvements —Bid Award g. Hunters Ridge Street Improvements - Geotechnical Quote h. Comcast Broadband Agreement i. Resolution 2023-39 Charitable Gambling Permit -St. Thomas Church j. Resolution 2023-40 Temporary Liquor Licenses-(.orcoran Lions k. Engineering Proposal for Pedestrian Crossings Mayor McKee entertained a motion to approve Consent Agenda items 7a-k. Council noted tabling of 7a. Mayor McKee made a friendly amendment motion to approve Consent Agenda items 7b-k. MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Nichols approving Consent Agenda items 7b-k, as presented. Council requested Consent Agenda item 7g be pulled for further discussion. Motion fails for lack of vote. MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Nichols approving Consent Agenda items 7b4 and 7h-k, as presented. Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols (Motion carries 5:0) Regarding 7g, Council noted geotechnical quote is for a study of what needs to be completed, and noted confusion on the recent overlay in 2021. Public Works Director Mattson noted the public comment regarding Hunters Ridge Road improvements specifically pertains to the east side of 116, from 116 to Bellwether, not the west side. Public Works Director Mattson noted there was a previous overlay project done on the west side in 2021 and added its helpful to understand the history of the development agreement with Bellwether and how it has influenced the timing and condition of the road. Public Works Director Mattson noted the specific factors, such as the bituminous curve and utility considerations, helps clarify the complexity of the project, and decisions regarding road improvements are based on thorough assessments and follow established city policies. Council and staff discussed a piece of land known as the "spite strip" at the end of Hunters Ridge Road and the history behind its acquisition. Further discussion noted, the developer was required to obtain the connection to the strip, but the city later intervened due to concerns about the lack of another exit from the neighborhood. This intervention may have led to the city essentially requiring the sale of the land. City Attorney Thames clarified the city directly purchased the land, through a purchase agreement, with the purchase facilitated using funds reimbursed by the developer, with the developer meeting the agreed -upon price. This type of arrangement, where the city directly purchases land from a developer, with reimbursement from the developer, is not uncommon in similar situations and was reached through negotiations. MOTION: made by Vehrenkamp, seconded by McKee approving Consent Agenda item 7g, as presented. Council requested further clarification of delay in sealcoating the specific portion of the street. Public Works Director Mattson explained the process of road evaluation and noted in 2021, because of the uncertainty of the access in the contract considerations, it was decided not to move forward with maintenance. Public Works Director Mattson added factors such as the presence of bituminous curb and gutter, utility placement, and access considerations can significantly influence the decision -making process. Public Works Director Mattson noted decisions made in 2021 may not directly apply to the current situation, especially if there have been changes or new information. Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schul tz 8. Planning Business (Public Comment Opportunity) Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in -person for items 8a-f, noting 8c has been tabled and noting the Public Hearing item 8d is tabled. City Administrator Be' explained the instructions to participate in the public comment opportunity. Steve Miller, 7474 Fir Lane North, does not support the PUD amendment within item 8a, and commented on multiple changes to the Applewood Pointe development. Mr. Miller commented that it is evident there is deep concern and frustration among homeowners regarding the proposed changes to the Applewood development. Mr. Miller noted the significant departure from the original plan, including the increase in the number of units, the lowering of the age requirement from 62 to 55, and the shift from individual ownership to rentals, has understandably left many feeling betrayed and disillusioned. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Vehrenkamp to extend Mr. Miller's public comment time. Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols (Motion carries 5:0) Mr. Miller urged the council to hold the developer accountable for at least maintaining one aspect of the original plan, such as the unit count. Additionally, Mr. Miller requested evidence be provided that increasing the number of units to 145 would not exceed the maximum overall site density for the entire development, as outlined in a site plan. Mr. Miller requested Council ensure that any age restrictions are legally binding and enforceable to prevent future deviations from the agreed -upon terms. Mr. Miller summarized his opinion of the importance of upholding previous commitments, adhering to site plan regulations, and ensuring enforceable agreements to protect the interests of the community. Mr. Miller thanked Council for their time. Lynn Alberts, noted his comment is 5 minutes and 30 seconds and requested Council approve additional time to complete his comment. MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Vehrenkamp to extend Mr. Alberts's public comment time to 5 minutes 46 seconds. Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols Nay: Bottema (Motion carries 4:1) Council provided comment on approving public comment opportunity extended speaking time before it is necessary. Lynn Alberts, 7490 Fir Lane, opined on the history and concessions made during the Cooko Lake Highlands PUD process. Mr. Alberts commented on the multiple rejections of the project by both the Planning Commission and the Council, as well as the exceptions granted to the developer, such as deviations from shoreline development regulations and proceeding with utility installations without completed contracts. Mr. Alberts opined the proposed PUD amendment seeks to increase the number of units from 100 to 196, which would exceed the maximum allowable density for the entire development. Mr. Alberts expressed concern over the increased traffic, potential safety hazards, and changes from owner -occupied units to rentals, as well as the shift from an age -restricted demographic. Mr. Alberts opined on the lack of penalties or consequences for changing the project from ownership to rentals and emphasized the precedent this sets for future developments in the city. Mr. Alberts requested the city hold the developer accountable and consider alternative options, such as single-family homes or reducing the overall density of the development. Trevor Sherber, 23240 County Road 30, started so comment on item 8b. Council requested as the applicant of item 8b, to please wait until staff presents their report, and public comment has ended. Council noted Mr. Sherber would be allowed to comment as the applicant. a. Cook Lake Highland PUD Amendment Council requested clarification when evaluating a new application for a development project, it's important to consider it on its own merits and within the context of applicable zoning laws, regulations, and community needs. Council noted each application should be assessed based on its alignment with relevant criteria, such as land use plans, zoning ordinances, and environmental considerations. Council noted while previous applications for the same project may provide some context, they should not dictate the outcome of the current application and each application should be evaluated based on its own merits and compliance with the applicable regulations. Council noted PUDs, a Planned Unit Development (PUD), is a zoning 3 designation that allows for flexibility in land use and development standards within a defined area. Council noted when considering a modification to an existing PUD, such as the one being discussed, it involves reviewing proposed changes to the original plan and assessing their impacts on the surrounding area, infrastructure, and community, and while it may be considered another PUD, the modification represents a change to an existing plan rather than an entirely new development proposal. Council noted it is essential to evaluate any proposed modifications based on their potential impacts and compliance with relevant regulations. City Attorney Thames added when evaluating a new application or a modification to an existing development project, it's crucial to consider various factors, including zoning laws, regulations, community needs, and the specific merits of the proposal. City Attorney Thames added previous applications for the same project can provide context, but they shouldn't determine the outcome of the current application, and each proposal should be evaluated based on its own merits and compliance with applicable regulations. City Attorney Thames noted Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), modifications to existing PUDs involve reviewing proposed changes and assessing their impacts on the surrounding area, infrastructure, and community and ensures that any modifications align with regulations and address community needs effectively. Council clarified a PUD amendment has the same standard of PUD, and Council would have the same discretion on the amendment as the original PUD to approve or reject. City Planner Lindahl clarified the original Planned Unit Development (PUD) preliminary plat and plan included 19 single-family homes, a daycare, a 32-unit memory care facility, and a 100-unit senior cooperative (Co -Op). City Planner Lindahl noted there were modifications made when the final plat and PUD were presented, and noted the memory care units were initially approved for 27 units instead of 32 due to an error from the architect. City Planner Lindahl reviewed the proposed changes to the PUD include increasing impervious surface coverage from 39% to 39.8% to accommodate minor adjustments under the playground area of the daycare site. City Planner Lindahl outlined the increase in memory care units from 27 to 32 units is consistent with the original preliminary plan. City Planner Lindahl noted the applicant is requesting to change the 100-unit senior Co -Op to a 145-unit senior apartment complex without altering the building footprint or significant changes to the building elevations. City Planner Lindahl reviewed the additional units will be accommodated with underground parking, resulting in a total of 240 parking stalls, exceeding the required 218 stalls according to city code. City Planner Lindahl noted the proposed changes Jo not impact the site plan or the impervious surface coverage. City Planner Lindahl summarized the proposed PUD amendment does not involve any physical changes to the footprints of the development, the density of the plan remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the proposed plan being 9.9 units per acre, slightly higher than the approved nine units per acre, but still within the required range of eight to 10 units per acre. City Planner Lindahl reviewed the issue of park dedication fees, and noted the city has the statutory right to collect these fees as part of the final plat approval and although there is no change to the plat in this case, the city can still collect additional park dedication fees for the additional units based on the agreement negotiated during the approval of the original PUD. City Planner Lindahl this could amount to an additional $139,000 in park dedication fees for the city. City Planner Lindahl noted a resolution approving the planned unit development has been prepared, with a revised resolution reflecting the park dedication change. If the council does not support one or more of the requests, they should provide findings of fact for denial and direct staff to bring the resolution back for adoption at the next council meeting. City Planner Lindahl noted one resident letter has been received and incorporated into the public record. The applicant is present and available to answer any questions from the council. Council and staff clarified the memory care units increased from 27 to 32 units due to an architect error, and the 32 units will not count as a dwelling unit as there will not be a kitchen in the unit, and moving from 100 units to 145 units and noted the new PUD amendment. Council questioned the conversion of units to non - units and if that violates the original PUD. City Planner Lindahl noted that at the time the units were being discussed as dementia units, the property wasn't re -guided, and it is the building with same the same 32 units resulting in no violation of the original PUD. Council clarified that if the change is not approved then Applewood will not meet the density requirement at 100 units. Council and City Planner Lindahl reviewed ication fee for the units and it was noted the memory tier has paid the park dedication but the park ded memory care pays as if it's a commercial use. City Planner Lindahl noted memory care, park dedication is calculated based on the percentage of units within the memory care compared to the total units in the development. City Planner Lindahl explained in this case, it's 18% of the units in the project. Then this percentage is multiplied by the acreage of the entire project and the commercial feet. In the revised 11 resolution, the park dedication for the memory care decreases from $17,000 to $15,000 because the percentage of units allocated to memory care is smaller. Council noted the change from age 62 to 55+ community and concern of additional traffic in the community. City Planner Lindahl noted the draft resolution references 145-unit senior apartments and uses that specific language because City Code defines senior as 55+ and noted the ATI manual does not distinguish between 55 and 62 in terms of trips. City Planner Lindahl noted ATI does distinguish between market rate and senior housing, and Corcoran's City Code does not. City Planner Lindahl added because the resolution indicates it is senior housing, it could not be changed, unless the applicant would come back to Council and ask for PUD amendment to change the senior housing to a market rate apartment. City Planner Lindahl noted within the resolution under Item 4, language should be changed to include senior apartment in lieu of age -restricted, and multi -family to senior. Alex Hall, United Properties, discussed the Applewood project and the efforts made over a year to get it started. Mr. Hall noted initially, the plan was for Applewood to be a HUD insured deal, requiring the pre -sale of 60 percent of the units before starting the community. Mr. Hall indicated marketing began in February 2022 with the aim to sell 60 of the 100 homes. However, in February 2023, it was decided not to pursue Applewood any further. Council noted lack of clarity regarding the percentage of home needing to be sold within the project. Mr. Hill noted that over the course of a year, significant investments of time and resources into marketing the Applewood community. Despite obtaining 110 reservations, it became clear that these reservations didn't translate into solid sales. Each reservation only required a $500 deposit, which could be refunded at any time. Despite having 110 reservations, the conversion rate to actual sales was expected to be around 30%, meaning you would need approximately 200 reservations to reach the required 60% presale threshold. Mr. Hill noted after reaching out to reservation holders and finding only around 20-25 potential buyers, it became evident that continuing to market the project would not be financially viable, and it was decided not to pursue it further. Mr. Hill added this decision was made to prevent reservation holders from waiting unnecessarily and to avoid further financial losses. Council noted there were assurances and promises made regarding the Applewood project, indicating that there would be no problem in achieving the necessary reservations and sales. Council added these assurances led to expedited permits and infrastructure work to meet the projected timeline for breaking ground in the spring. Council acknowledged despite the assurances, the reality of the situation didn't align with the expectations. Mr. Hill noted the Applewood project situation and the proposed alternative with the Amira product. Mr. Hill reviewed the amount of effort put into the Applewood project, but noted due to market conditions and other factors, it didn't progress as anticipated. Mr. Hill reviewed pivoting to the Amira product is a logical response to the demand for rental options among seniors. Mr. Hill noted experience with Amira communities in Roseville and Wilmington with demonstrated success and appeal to the target demographic. Mr. Hill reviewed the proposed changes to the Applewood project include maintaining the same footprint and amenities while adjusting the housing type to better meet market demand, are logical. Council and Mr. Hill discussed other communities similar to the Amira development within the Twin Cities area and noted Bloomington and Roseville. Mr. Hill noted emphasis on the underground parking expansion to accommodate the increased density, aInng wifih the demographic trends supporting the demand for senior housing options, [air a strong case for the proposed alternative with the Amira product. Mr. Hill added the consideration of traffic patterns and the lifestyle of the senior residents further reinforces the viability of the project. Council discussed the density target, changing the memory care to stay under the number of units that is permitted. Beth Hustad, Trek Real Estate, stressed the memory care error wasn't a bait and switch, and noted 32 units were approved. Ms. Hustad noted understanding Council's disappointment and frustration with the perception of the proposed changes as a major alteration to the PUD. Ms. Hustad noted a significant amount of effort went into collaborating with staff, seeking feedback from Council in a work session, and attempting to navigate the planning within the parameters of the mixed -use zoning on the property. Ms. Hustad noted the evolving market dynamics and the changing preferences of seniors in housing options and a desire to serve the senior demographic and stay true to the original purpose of the project. Ms. Hustad reviewed the efforts made to communicate with and address the concerns of neighbors and noted support and feedback from adjacent neighbors. Council discussed density requirements, memory care, stories of the apartment, and lowering the density. City Planner Lindahl noted review of density ranges, calculating how many units are permitted on the low end and at the top end to gather a sense of where density ranges are, and to determine fit within the density range. Council noted a project completion date. City Planner Lindahl noted completion dates are for public improvements, and a specific completion date for building completion is not typical as cities understand projects phase with market demands. Council noted accommodating the change in market with a 100-unit co-op to a 100-unit rental with the proposed 62+ age requirement. City Planner Lindahl reiterated the City Code specifies senior designation. Council noted value in the original proposal, and that it adds a different type of housing into the city, still allows homeownership, and has a potentially less negative impact on surrounding property value by not being a rental. Council discussed directing staff to table item to the May 11, and utilizing the 60-day extension if necessary. Council discussed including two resolutions at the future meeting to include approval or denial. Council and staff discussed PUD and community benefit. MOTION: made by Bottema, to deny the three PUD amendments allowing an increased impervious surface coverage, 32 units for the memory care building on Lot 2, Block 1, and a 145-unit apartment building on Lot 1, Block 2 all for "Cook Lake Highlands". Motion fails for lack of second. MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Nichols, to table the item to May 11, and bring back a resolution to deny the three PUD amendments allowing for an increased impervious surface coverage, 32 units for the memory care building on Lot 2, Block 1, and a 145-unit apartment building on Lot 1, Block 2 all for "Cook Lake Highlands and a second resolution allowing for an increased impervious surface coverage, 32 units for the memory care building on Lot 2, Block 1, with denial of the 145-unit apartment building on Lot 1, Block 2 all for "Cook Lake Highlands". Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols (Motion carries 5:0) b. Scherber Roll Off CUP and Site Plan City Planner Lindahl presented the application and noted the request is for a time extension for T. Sherber roll off conditional use permit with site plans the council approved in May of 2021. City Planner Lindahl noted code allows city staff to administratively approve a one-year extension. City Planner Lindahl noted the in 2022 and it was administratively approved with a one-year extension to applicant submitted the request expire on May 27. City Planner Lindahl noted the applicant has requested a second one-year extension and reviewed the second extension would need to go to Planning Commission and Council for review. City Planner Lindahl noted the Planning Commission reviewed the request on April 6 and voted to deny the request. City Planner Lindahl noted the staff report identifies the reasons for the denial included lack of narrative for the delay and that the applicant was not present at the meeting. City Planner Lindahl noted the zoning ordinance does have standards for extensions, and the applicant must demonstrate a good faith effort and provide reasons for the delay. City Planner Lindahl noted restrictions on financing, or some special circumstances could qualify as reasons for the delay. City Planner Lindahl noted staff met with the applicant a couple of weeks ago to review revised plans and noted the applicant is working with their engineer to update the site plans to address the conditions of approval from the approval in 2021. Trevor Scherber, applicant, noted the biggest hurdle has been the drain the coming through the property. Mr. Scherber also noted a pond on the property as a challenge with routing the drain tile. City Planner Lindahl reviewed the applicant needs to get the plans approved, and before work can begin, planning and engineering need to sign off on plans and authorize them to move on to the site. Public Works Director Mattson noted the plans would need to be approved through City engineering and then the plans would go to the watershed for review. City Planner Lindahl noted there is currently equipment on -site that was not present in 2021, and noted the business does not have authority to operate on the site until they have the site plan approved through both the City and the watershed. MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Vehrenkamp, to table item until May 22, allowing the applicant time to revise the plans, and submit to the City for an approved plan for construction, and send to the watershed. 0 Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols Nay. Abstain: Bottema (Motion carries 4:0:1) Councilor Bottema abstained as he didn't believe a motion was necessary. c. Rush Creek Reserve 3rd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Item was tabled to May 11. A. Public Hearing: Rush Creek Reserve 3rd Addition Easement Vacation Mayor McKee opened the public hearing. MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Nichols, to continue the public hearing to May 11. Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schul Nichols Mayor McKee stated the public hearing will be located at City Hall at 7:00 pm or as soon thereafter. Mayor McKee called for an 8-minute Council recess at 9:07 pm. Mayor McKee reconvened the Council meeting at 9:15pm e. Karineimi Concept Plan City Planner Lindahl presented the Karineimi concept plan. City Planner Lindahl noted Council saw a different version of this in February 2023. City Planner Lindahl noted in 2022, the council approved Karineimi Meadows. City Planner Lindahl noted a portion of this property includes nine residential lots and one out lot with four development rights remaining. The applicant then got an option on another site with another four development rights for a total of eight development rights. City Planner Lindahl noted the applicant proposed an Open Space Preservation plat with three commercial lots and eight residential lots. The property is now guided and zoned rural residential, and the previous plan, like this plan, is proposing to re -guide a portion of it to rural commercial. City Planner Lindahl noted the new concept includes six commercial lots and two residential lots south of the creek adjacent to Larson Road. The commercial lots require the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning. The site also includes three outlots, an outlot behind the Public Works building, a large outlot along the length of the creek, and a small outlot on the North, that the applicant has indicated he would like to combine with the first lot. City Planner Lindahl noted the code prohibits the creation of outots without development rights except as part of an Open Space Preservation plat, as part of an urban area, or as part of a stormwater pond or wetland complex. City Planner Lindahl noted the plat would need to be redesigned to incorporate those outlots with the adjacent property. City Planner Lindahl noted all of the lots are impacted by either shoreland wetland floodplain; there's a creek that runs from the north to the southwest corner of the site, and adjacent to that and scattered throughout are a number of wetlands and floodplain related to those two items. City Planner Lindahl noted the two residential lots on the South would have access from Larson Road and the commercial lots would all access off of a new public street on north of the Public Works site. City Planner Lindahl noted the cul de sac is longer than we typically like to see, but the code does allow longer cul de sacs where there are unique site conditions. City Planner Lindahl noted Public Safety has reviewed and provided minimum standards are met with 32400t wide streets. City Planner Lindahl noted the new public street is the responsibility of the developer to construct. City Planner Lindahl indicated the project could require some improvements on Larsen Road to serve the two new residential lots and would be something the City would look at as part of a formal application. City Planner Lindahl reviewed the proposed trails and sidewalks noting trail dedication as part of Karineimi Meadows. City Planner Lindahl noted the City did not record the trail easement yet, because field locate is necessary for the trail. City Planner Lindahl outlined one of the complications of the trail is the discussion by the Parks Commission regarding most of the trail location in a floodplain. City Planner Lindahl noted conversation about building the trail up and paving it or do we keep it lower and leave it as a grass mowed trail or wood chip trail. City Planner Lindahl noted Parks Commission recommendation was to keep it as a mowed, wood chip trail. City Planner Lindahl outlined the trail recommendation on the south which was the old boundary of the Kareneimi Meadows plat, that the trail actually slide south to follow the creek all the way down to County Road 19. City Planner Lindahl noted the East West trail corridor on the North was deferred as part of Karineimi Meadows until the commercial ity Planner Lindahl noted if the commercial development moves forward, the City development proceeds. C 7 would take that trail as part of this project. City Planner Lindahl reviewed Park dedication would be the net area of the new trail easement that wasn't deeded with Kareneimi Meadows with the remainder as cash in lieu of land. City Planner Lindahl noted with a formal development application, it would go to the Parks Commission, Planning Commission and to Council for the final decision. Nate Kareneimi, applicant, added the sketch plan eliminates the access off of County Road 19, creating larger residential lots, sets the standard for residents within the area. Council and staff discussed the proposed buffer yard ordinance between commercial and residential noting the creek and the three wetland setbacks would probably meet the buffer. Council and staff noted the three outlots would need to be combined with something else as the City does not allow unbuildable outlots. Council noted stormwater ponding and using outlots for this purpose. Council noted it could be advantageous to consider longer range parks and recreational space and determine whether the area would be valuable to parks and trails as a greenway corridor versus a trail easement, especially if it's not buildable or portions of it aren't buildable and just retain as natural space wildlife habitat. Council provided feedback to applicant on eliminating the shared driveway with Public Works, trails, and utilization of outlots. Mr. Kareneimi thanked Council for their time. f. Transition Buffer Yard Amendment Discussion Mayor McKee outlined the recommendation by the Planning Commission 3-0, to include changing the penalty for buffer yard violations from a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor, requiring plantings to be native or compatible with native plantings, and allowing tall native grasses to planted in lieu of shrubs. City Attorney Thames clarified the distinction between a petty misdemeanor and a misdemeanor. City Attorney Thames noted a petty misdemeanor is not considered a crime under Minnesota law. It carries no potential jail time and typically results in a fine. The maximum fine for a petty misdemeanor is $300. This type of offense may not involve any further conditions or actions beyond paying the fine, as there is limited discretion for imposing conditions by the prosecutor. City Attorney Thames noted a misdemeanor is a criminal offense under Minnesota law. It can result in up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Unlike a petty misdemeanor, a misdemeanor allows for greater discretion by the prosecutor to impose conditions or requirements as part of resolving the case. This could include actions such as community service, counseling, or restitution. City Attorney Thames summarized while both petty misdemeanors and misdemeanors may result in fines, misdemeanors offer prosecutors more flexibility to impose conditions aimed at promoting compliance or addressing underlying issues. However, both types of offenses are typically resolved with a focus on achieving compliance rather than punishment. Council and staff discussed native prairie grasses and shrubs for a continuous buffering of grass. City Planner Lindahl noted deemed SAP acceptable by the City would be a 50-foot wide, it the standard is 50-feet, a 50-foot deep planting of prairie grasses. MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Schultz to adopt Ordinance 20w3-483 Amending the Text of Section 1060.070 of Title 10 of the Corcoran City Code (Zoning Ordinance) (City file 22-034). Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schultz Vehrenkamp and Nichols (Motion carries 5:0) MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Schultz to approve Resolution 2023-32 Findings of Fact for and Ordinance Amending the Text of Section 1060.070 of Title 10 of the Corcoran City Code (Zoning Ordinance) (Cit file 22-34) Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Sc hultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols (Motion carries 5:0) MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Schultz to adopt Ordinance 2023-484 Summary of Ordinance 2023-483 Amending the Text of Section 1060.070 of Title 10 of the Corcoran City Code (Zoning Ordinance) (City fIle 22-034). Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols (Motion carries 5:0) 9. Unfinished Business - (Public Comment Opportunity) Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in -person for items 9a-b. City Administrator Beise explained the instructions to participate in the public comment opportunity. No residents participated in the public comment opportunity. a. Parks and Trail Commission Appointment MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Nichols to appoint Gary Erzberger to the Parks and Trails Commission for a term ending February 28, 2025. Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols 8 (Motion carries 5:0) b. Fund Creation MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Nichols approving Resolution 2023-37 To Create and Amend Funds Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols (Motion carries 5:0) 10. New Business - (Public Comment Opportunity) Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in -person for items 9a-b. City Administrator Beise explained the instructions to participate in the public comme public comment opportunity. a. Park Design Assistance nt opportunity. No residents participated in the City Administrator Beise reviewed the history of the remaster of City Park. City Administrator Beise noted over the last couple of years, staff has working on the remaster plan for city park, and Council addressed a a goal to efficiently develop park planning and park projects. Staff reviewed options on how to move forward some of these projects in an efficient and effective manner. City Administrator Beise noted a project management and construction management approach, an RFP approach, and a park consultant approach. Council and staff reviewed options, the RFQ versus and RFP process. Staff noted a niche park development specialist to guide the city through the City Park remaster would be beneficial. Staff and Council discussed funding. MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Nichols, to direct staff to go forward with the next steps for the park consultant approach. Voting Aye: McKee, Bottema, Schultz, Vehrenkamp, and Nichols (Motion carries 500) Mayor McKee and Councilor Nichols volunteered to be on a su development consultant. D. Project Closeout Outline bcommittee in interviewing the park City Administrator Beise outlined the process of completion of several public infrastructur our community and requested discussion regarding the formal acceptance process for th s within ese projects and e project the related policies and practices. City Administrator Beise noted in the past, the City's approach to project closeouts and acceptance has been less proactive, relying primarily on developers to move quickly through the closeout process. City Administrator Beise added recent experiences have highlighted potential inefficiencies and delays in this approach. City Administrator Beise noted one aspect the City may wish to discuss is the formal acceptance of projects by the City. City Administrator Beise reviewed establishing clear criteria and procedures for project acceptance, as well as considering whether formal resolutions or acknowledgments from the city council are warranted. City Administrator Beise noted addressing the issue of financial guarantees throughout the project lifecycle, and added letters of credit and other forms of financial surety are commonly used. City Administrator Beise noted recent requests have raised questions about the City's current policies and practices in this area. City Administrator Beise advised it may be worthwhile for the City to review and potentially revise the City's policies related to financial guarantees to ensure they align with our objectives and priorities. Council discussed limiting how many phases are open at a time, and ensuring that activity closes on phases. Council asked for range of authority by statute. City Attorney Thames confirmed the City does have the authority to put a requirement in development contracts that makes it so that so many phases can be opened and closed. Council discussed enforcement of timeframes within development contracts. Staff suggested allowing the developer a construction season to complete everything and then move to an action plan for phases that are lagging. Council discussed closeout security levels as an important aspect to consider in the overall review of project acceptance and related policies. Council noted ensuring our security requirements align with the remaining work in a given project or phase and provide an adequate cushion for any potential discrepancies or unforeseen challenges. Council discussed revising our current standard of 25 percent security level to allow for more flexibility. Council reviewed flexibility in adhering to this percentage and establishing criteria for determining the appropriate security level based on the specific circumstances of each project. Council noted factors could include the remaining tasks, anticipated completion date, potential risks, and cost of administering any outstanding work. Council provided staff direction. c. City Center Drive Streetscape Steve Heglund, Stantec, and Rachel Brands, Landscape Architect with Stantec, presented the final stage of the City Center Design Project. Mr. Heglund noted the goal is to obtain Council feedback to ensure the project sets the vision for the downtown corridor. Mr. Heglund reviewed pedestrian amenities and noted one of the highlights of the downtown district is pedestrian -friendly corridors. Mr. Heglund requested feedback on boulevard lighting, and streetscape furnishings. Council provided staff direction. 11. Staff Reports a. Planning Project Update Council received report. b. te Hackamore Road Improvement Project Upda Public Works Direction Mattson outlined the project and noted four bids were received, and were very competitive, roughly $900,000 less than the engineers estimate. Public Works Director Mattson outlined the next steps with information coming at the next Council meeting. Public Works Mattson noted JPAs or other agreements would need to be executed and approved before the project can move forward. Council and staff discussed the neighborhood informational meeting noting it would occur sometime in May. Council and staff discussed trail completion with a goal of completion by the end of the year. a. Hackamore Road Improvements and Purchase of Property 12. Closed Session Continued b. Discussion of properties. 23-119-23-14-0005 25-119-23-23-0001 14-1 19-23-41 -0002 26-1 19-23-21 -0007 26-1 19-23-21 -0008 26-119-23-21-0006 26-119-23-24-0008 12-119-23-33-0001 25-119-23-12-0002 25-119-23-12-0003 25-119-23-11-0001 14-119-23-31-0010 24-119-23-31-0009 23-119-23-11-0001 14-119-12-13-0004 Mayor McKee stated: 'City Council is going into closed to consider an offer for real estate. Under the authority of Minnesota Stat. § 13D.05 subd. 3(c)(3) the City is permitted to close a meeting to consider offers and counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property. The city council is going into closed session to consider an offer for real estate or personal property; the following properties are the subject Of the second closed session: PI D: 23-119-23-14-0005 26-119-23-21-0006 25-119-23-23-0001 26-119-23-24-0008 14-119-23-41-0002 12-119-23-33-0001 26-119-23-21-0007 25-119-23-12-0002 26-119-23-21-0008 25-119-23-12-0003 25-119-23-11-0001 14-119-23-31-0010 24-119-23-31-0009 23-119-23-11-0001 14-119-12-13-0004 ." Mayor McKee recessed the Council meeting at 11:43 pm. Mayor McKee reconvened the Council meeting at 12:11 am. Mayor McKee stated: "In the closed session, the City Council discussed an offer for real estate and personal property; staff was provided direction." 13. 2023 City Council Schedule 14. Adjournment MOTION: Meeting adjourned at 12:11 am on April 28, 2023. 11 Michelle Friedrich — City clerk 1