Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-07 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF CORCORAN Page 1 of 6 Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2022 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on April 7, 2022, in Corcoran, Minnesota. All Planning Commissioners were present in the Council Chambers, but members of the public were able to participate in-person as well as through electronic means using the audio and video conferencing platform Zoom. Present: Commissioners Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. Also present: City Administrator Jessica Beise and City Planner Lindahl. Also present via telephonic or other electronic means: Council Liaison Vehrenkamp. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call Commissioner Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:19 pm. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Brummond seconded by Lanterman to approve the March 3, 2022 agenda. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 5:0). 4. Open Forum 5. Minutes a. Minutes – March 3, 2022. Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Brummond, to approve the March 3, 2022 minutes, with the adjustment to the draft to clarify the reasoning for denying the Wright Hennepin substation. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 5:0). 6. New Business - Public Comment Opportunity a. Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Administrative Permit for “Corcoran II Substation” at Larkin Road and County Road 116 (PID 25-119-23-23- 0001) (City file no. 22-004). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission Discussion included a response to staff comments made at the March Planning Commission Meeting; communication improvements between the Council, Commission, Staff and applicants; concerns over whether Wright Hennepin was applying prematurely; benefits of having a wall around a substation; the use of a slatted chain-link fence in addition to landscaping; comparisons Page 2 of 6 to Wright Hennepin’s Lawndale Substation; improving screening by increasing the amount and size of trees within the landscape plan, including the use of spaded trees and a berm, particularly on the north and west side of the property; desire and potential location for a monument; drainage issues; previously considered sites; desire for climbers and creepers in the landscaping; and color considerations. The Commission recommended a berm that straddles the property line to allow a double row of plantings on the north and west side, a chain link fence with slats, a monument sign with landscaping, and the use of larger trees, some of which should be spaded, with a priority for screening to be maximized on the west and north sides of the property. b. PUBLIC HEARING. Westside Tire Variance, Site Plan and Interim Use Permit (city file 22-011). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii. Open Public Hearing - Chair Jacobs opened the Public Hearing Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Shoulak, to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 5:0). iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission discussion include current code violations at Westside Tire; verbiage of Interim Use Permit; insufficient screening in the request; Public Safety’s concern with a 70-foot curb cut; the requested parking setback variance; the existing snowmobile trails; differences between gravel pavement and bituminous; correction on an area labeled gravel in the plans that is meant to be concrete; building usage on the west side of the property; the easement along the Ebert property; removing gravel in the easement area; possibility of disturbing an acre of soil and desire to avoid triggering review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and storage areas. Further discussion included the logistics of Westside Tire working on heavy-duty equipment and wide loads; alternatives to the 70- foot curb cut; logistics of coordination between the applicant and Page 3 of 6 public safety; uniformity of the surrounding area; lighting and landscape design standards; the quantity of stalls; previous method of servicing customers with existing curb cut; shifting south to meet setback requirements; safety history of the current curb cut; possibility of a median over the driveway; condition of the ground near the creek as justification for the setback variance; the permanence of granting a variance; Westside’s clientele and frequency of servicing larger than usual semitrucks and heavy equipment; the sunset clause associated with the IUP; and adding a crosswalk between the two properties. Motion made by Jacobs, seconded by Shoulak, to recommend approval of the 70-foot curb cut variance with the addition of a surmountable median to the plan. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. Voting Nay: Lanterman. (Motion carried 4:1). Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to recommend approval of the interim use permit and site plan application, with the deletion of condition 7a in the draft resolution. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. Voting Nay: Lanterman. (Motion carried 4:1). Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Jacobs to recommend denial of the setback variance. Voting Aye: Jacobs and Lanterman. Voting Nay: Brummond. Abstain: Van Den Einde and Shoulak. (Motion Passed 2:1:2). Commissioner Lanterman excused himself from the meeting at 10:50 pm. c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Planned Unit Developments (city file 22-022). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Davis McKeown. ii. Public Hearing – Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to close the public hearing. Page 4 of 6 Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). iii. Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included a previous final PUD plan for Cook Lake Highlands reviewed by the Commission; limiting the focus of reports for final PUD plans that include an amendment request for additional flexibility; the Commission’s role in negotiation of PUDs. Motion made by Shoulak, seconded by Brummond, to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Planned Unit Developments. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). d. Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for Bellwether 8th Addition (city file 22-007). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii. Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included the land donation for park dedication; the boardwalk design; and the road connection to Hunters Ridge. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to recommend approval of the Final PUD plan for Bellwether 8th addition. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). e. Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for Amberly 2nd Addition (city file 22-008). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii. Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included the Homeowners Association and required architectural upgrades. Motion made by Jacobs, seconded by Brummond, to recommend approval of the Final PUD plan for Amberly 2nd Addition. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). Page 5 of 6 f. Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for Bellwether 9th Addition (city file 22-017). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii. Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included rate of completion compared to initial time estimate. Motion made by Van Den Einde, seconded by Brummond, to recommend approval of the Final PUD plan for Bellwether 9th Addition. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). g. Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition (city file 22-012). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii. Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included the new PUD amendment review process; impact to traffic volumes on County Road 10; and outlots within the final phase. Motion made by Shoulak, seconded by Van Den Einde, to approve the Final PUD Plan for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). h. Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (city file 21-050). i. Public Comment • Dan Cagley, 19450 County Road 30, had questions about the impact to his property and requested to speak with City Staff following the meeting. Also asked about the future size of County Road 30 and the connection to Highway 610. • Jason Howell, 9470 Duffney Drive, stated concerns about a potential road shown behind his property as well as safety concerns with the shown location of the western-most intersection on County Road 30. ii. Commission Discussion – The Commission decided to submit comments and feedback outside of the meeting to be incorporated in the May packet for the public hearing and final recommendation to City Council. 7. Reports/Information Page 6 of 6 a. Planning Project Update b. City Council Report c. Other Business (none) 8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 4/14/21 4/28/22 5/12/22 5/26/22 6/9/22 6/23/22 Lanterman Shoulak Van Den Einde Brummond Jacobs Lanterman 9. Adjournment Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to adjourn the April 7, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). Meeting adjourned at 12:24 AM. Submitted by Dwight Klingbeil Planning Assistant