Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-01 Planning Commission Minutes Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 2024 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on February 1, 2024, in Corcoran, Minnesota. Four Planning Commissioners were present in the Council Chambers. Members of the public were able to participate in- person and monitor the meeting through electronic means using the audio and video conferencing platform Zoom. Present: Commissioners Lanterman, Brummond, Lind, and Van Den Einde. Also present: Planner Davis McKeown, Planning Technician Klingbeil, and Council Liaison Vehrenkamp. Absent: Commissioner Horn. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Lanterman, to approve the agenda for the February 1, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Lind, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 4:0). 4. Open Forum (none) 5. Minutes Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Lanterman, to approve the December 5, 2023, Planning Commission Minutes. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Lind, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 4:0). 6. New Business – Public Comment Opportunity a. Public Hearing. Lister Garage CUP (City File No. 23-031) i. Staff Report – Staff Report was presented by Planning Technician Klingbeil. ii. Public Hearing Motion made by Van Den Einde, seconded by Brummond, to close the Public Hearing. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Lind, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 4:0). iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission discussion included a question to staff as to whether there’s been any consideration to changing the sidewall height standards for accessory structures. Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Lind, to recommend approval of the draft resolution for the Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory structure with sidewalls that exceed 10 feet in height to be constructed in the front yard at 26315 Julie Ann Drive. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Lind, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 4:0). b. Public Hearing. Hope Community Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD, Rezoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendment (City File No. 23-028) i. Staff Report – Staff Report was presented by Planner Davis McKeown. ii. Public Hearing 1. Josh McKinny, Measure Group, provided a brief presentation of the application which included information on the project timeline from 2000 until present day; a recap of the neighborhood meeting; the previous rezoning of the property; efforts made to buffer the development from existing neighborhoods; clarification of right-of-way dedication along County Roads 30 & 116 and Hope Way; and provided a section view of the proposal to illustrate building heights. 2. Ted Schmidt, 20155 County Road 30, had concerns about the increased traffic and potential impacts to land uses on the surrounding properties. 3. Jason Bartels, 19795 Hunters Ridge, had concerns about the increased traffic volume and the timing of additional access points being constructed. 4. Mitch and Carrie Johnson, 10025 County Road 116 outlot B of Serenity Meadows, discussed the current traffic levels on County Road 116, had concerns about impacts to a driveway easement for their outlot, and questioned the future of the existing snowmobile trail along County Road 116. 5. Shawn Tharp, 20420 Duffney Circle, expressed a desire for an increased public notice radius, believed the increased density proposed was excessive, had traffic concerns, suggested the applicant reduces the number of units and reduce the apartment building height from 3 stories to 2 stories, and requested that they be subject to the district standards as much as possible. 6. Phillip and Glen Kothrade, 20140 County Road 30, expressed concerns regarding existing drainage issues and potential impacts after development, and requested that the screening requirement from the Hope cemetery expansion from 2012 be installed. 7. Nicole Alde, 19913 Hillside Drive, expressed frustrations with existing traffic levels, and had fears about an increase in crime. 8. Corey Hickmann, 20081 Hunters Ridge, discussed the potential for future extension of Hunters Ridge, the flooding of the pond on his property, had concerns regarding parking overflow on Hunters Ridge, the current traffic levels on County Road 116 & 30, and wasn’t supportive of the multi-family and commercial development. 9. Peter Cmeil, 20041 Hunters Ridge, reiterated concerns of the increased density and water drainage. 10. Greg Woody, 21040 County Road 10, asked for clarification on the application status and who owns the property, had concerns about the increased density, current traffic conditions of County Road’s 116 & 30, and expressed the desire to not have similar developments to Maple Grove. 11. Cataline Dima, 10599 108th Ave N, Hanover, representing Outlot A of Hope Place, discussed the intention of the LLC’s investment into the property, wanting to make things more accessible for the City and produce a return on investment to the LLC. 12. Diane Padrnos, 19795 Hunters Ridge, discussed that this proposal would make up a sizeable portion of the city’s population, believed that the proposed density was excessive, and concerns regarding traffic impacts. 13. Carrie Johnson, 10025 County Road 116, discussed concerns of future developments being similar to this application if approved. 14. Corey Hickmann, 20081 Hunters Ridge, had a question regarding the impact that the 610 Extension project would have on this proposal. 15. Micke Pattison, 20400 Duffney Circle, asked whether traffic signals would be installed on County Road 30, and concerns about the possibility of placing a stoplight at the top of a hill. 16. Ken Guenthner, 6315 Butterworth Lane, introduced himself as the commissioner of the City of Corcoran’s Elm Creek Watershed Commission, and discussed the functions of the commission. 17. Josh McKinny, Measure Group, was asked by the Chair to respond to a number of questions brought up during the public hearing. McKinny discussed the traffic study conducted during the EAW process, potential signal installation on County Road 116 at a further point, signal warrants not being met until future development comes in, anecdotal experience versus data-driven analysis of traffic studies. Motion made by Van Den Einde, seconded by Lanterman, to close the Public Hearing. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Lind, Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 4:0). iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission discussion included a series of questions directed toward the applicant; Josh McKinny, Measure Group, discussed the importance of engineering analysis in development, complying with the EAW process, and the implication of increased density; Commissioner Brummond discussed the Mayor’s discussions with State Representatives regarding County Road improvements; City Administrator Tobin discussed the significant cost of road improvements and the constraints of coopering with Hennepin County; Josh McKinny discussed providing a 50-foot right-of-way to serve outlot B of Serenity Meadows, meeting the minimum density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan with multifamily dwellings, and the history of the development plan that was established in the early 2000; Counciler Vehrenkamp and Administrator Tobin discussed Met Council density requirements and the MUSA boundary; Planner McKeown clarified the process of calculating density; Commissioner Lind pointed out that the density requirement is a range and pointed out that the proposal is at the top of the range; Administrator Tobin discussed increased density in a particular location would allow for lower density elsewhere in the MUSA; Planner McKeown addressed a number of questions that were raised during the public hearing; Mark Anderson, Sambatek Engineering, gave an overview of the grading and drainage design of the project, and planned to take the public’s input into consideration on the revised plan; Commissioner Lind asked for clarification on the resolution voting process; Chair Lanterman asked for clarification on which portion of the site is being re- guided; clarification of re-guiding versus rezoning; Chair Lanterman asked if a single parcel could contain multiple zoning guidance’s; clarification that the subdivision-in-process that is listed on Hennepin County’s property map is a result from the water tower subdivision. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Lanterman, to recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Public Institution (PI) and General Mixed Use (GMU) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Lind, Van Den Einde (Motion passed 4:0). The commission discussion continued with Chair Lanterman adding that the previous recommendation be conditioned on whether or not the property is subdivided; Commissioner Brummond had a question regarding the location of guest parking for the northern most townhome, and discussed the flexibilities being requested from the Northeast District Design Guidelines; Commissioner Lind discussed the amenities geared toward senior residents and had concerns that a sizeable portion of the residents would not be senior citizens; Commissioner Lind also discussed concerns about the lack of transition around this site, and questioned the impact that Met Council’s reorganization would have on the Comprehensive Plan; Administrator Tobin discussed his experience on Met Council’s density expectations; Commissioner Brummond acknowledged the transition efforts made by the developers, and asked for clarification on the garage flexibility request; Commissioner Brummond proposed reducing the townhome units to two sizing options; Commissioner Lind asked for clarification on the buffering around the drive-through areas; Commissioner Brummond asked if the buffer ordinance would apply to this development; Commissioner Brummond requested that the Basswood trees removed be replaced with Basswood plantings; Commissioner Brummond asked for clarification on the park and trail plan for the development; Commissioner Van Den Einde asked about the drive-through standards in the Northeast District plan, and asked for clarification on the reduced setback request; Commissioner Lind discussed the lack of transition for the properties west of Hope, and asked how the increased density would impact the rest of the city; Commissioner Brummond discussed the guidance of the comprehensive plan and the County Road 30 corridor; Commissioner Lind requested clarification on the density requirements; Administrator Tobin discussed managing the growth to prevent abrupt transitions; Chair Lanterman discussed the setback reduction request and believed it was a significant request; clarification was provided on the setback requirements in the GMU district; Commissioner Brummond asked for clarification on the setback requirements after County Road 116 expansion; Commissioner Brummond discussed the screening requirements for drive-throughs from County Roads versus from the residential neighborhoods; Commissioner Lind discussed the differing of opinions regarding traffic impact between the residents and the traffic report, and asked how that would be documented in the resolution, and asked about expanding the public hearing notice radius for PUDs. Motion made by Commissioner Brummond, seconded by Lanterman, to recommend approval of the draft resolutions approving the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and the Preliminary Planned Unit Development for Hope Community, with the addition that tree species removed be replaced with the same species under the landscaping plan. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Van Den Einde. Voting Nay: Lind. (Motion passed 3:1) 7. Reports/Information a. Other Business – Commissioner’s Horn & Van Den Einde declined to seek reappointment after their terms expire and will no longer serve on the Planning Commission. Chair Lanterman and Commissioner Lind notified the Commission that they would not be able to attend the March 7, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Due to a lack of quorum, the March 2024 Planning Commission meeting was rescheduled to Tuesday, March 12, 2024. b. Planning Project Update* - A question was asked regarding the 610 Extension Business Park concept plan. c. City Council Report* – none. 8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 2/8/2024 2/22/2024 3/14/2024 3/28/2024 4/11/2024 4/25/2024 Brummond Lanterman Lanterman Lind Lind Brummond 9. Adjournment Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Van Den Einde, to adjourn the February 1, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Lind, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 4:0). The meeting adjourned at 10:28 pm.