Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-02 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF CORCORAN Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 2021 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on September 2, 2021, 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, Lanterman, Shoulak, Vehrenkamp, and Wu. Also present: City Planner Lindahl, City Administrator Martens, and Council Liaison Nichols. 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Commissioner Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Vehrenkamp, seconded by Lanterman, to approve the September 2, 2021, agenda. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Lanterman, Shoulak, Vehrenkamp, and Wu. (Motion carried 5:0). 4. Open Forum (none) 5. Minutes a. Minutes – August 5, 2021. Motion made by Vehrenkamp, seconded by Lanterman, to approve the minutes. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Lanterman, Shoulak, Vehrenkamp, and Wu. (Motion carried 5:0). 6. New Business – Public Comment Opportunity a. Final Plat and Final PUD Development Plan for “Tavera 2nd Addition” (PID 35-119-23-41- 0001 and 35-119-23-41-0002) (City File No. 21-036). i. Staff Report – Planner Lindahl presented the staff report. ii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – The Commission discussion included a comparison of Final Plat and Final PUD plans to preliminary approvals, wetland buffers and setbacks, the variety of trees shown in the landscape plan, lot dimensions and setbacks, ability of homeowners to add a deck or porch in back yard, the stormwater maintenance agreement, LP trim, creation of an approved tree list, and traffic and road improvements on County Road 116 and Hackamore. Motion made by Shoulak, seconded by Wu, to approve the Final Plat and Final PUD Development Plan for “Tavera 2nd Addition” with amendment to item 19h regarding the 15’ wetland setback for structures. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Shoulak, Vehrenkamp, and Wu. Abstained: Lanterman (Motion carried 4:0:1). b. Public Hearing. Zoning Amendment for Assembly Uses (City File No. 21-034). i. Staff Report – Planner Lindahl presented the staff report. Mayor Mckee clarified the proposed setback under the performance standard option. Mayor Mckee stated the Commission can also choose to make a recommendation for no changes be made to the existing ordinance. Commissioner Lanterman asked for the City Attorney’s opinion on the two options and ability to rezone districts as needed. ii. Public Hearing – Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jonathan Coots, 19398 Lupine Lane, stated his support for removing conditional uses from low-density residential zones. He stated if performance standards are applied, he preferred the Mayor’s sliding scale approach to the setback than a blanket setback. He argued that the large collective of the City should be driving the City’s decision rather than large property owners. Sarah Nichols, 6334 Steeple Chase Lane, reminded the Commission that 1,000 people signed a petition that opposed the proposed large church building one year ago. She said the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. She said setbacks and controls need to be adjusted. She also reminded the Commission of the meeting on July 2, 2020, that ended at 2 AM due to public outcry of a proposed assembly use in a low-residential area. Katherine Drivas, 6747 Olde Sturbridge Drive, argued in favor of the proposed performance standards as this will provide applicants with clear baseline as to what the City is willing to approve. She stated her opposition to completely preventing assembly uses from certain areas because these places should be either in or close to areas within the MUSA. She has concerns with lack of infrastructure available to accommodate large buildings in the Rural Residential area while making the development affordable. She stated that residential development is what is driving significant traffic in the area. She also believed that impacted property owners with a significant investment in land within this area have the right to fully exercise their property rights, and believes if property owners can work with developers to meet the standards of Option 2 is a fine compromise for everyone. She stated her opinion that places of worship and schools in the heart of the community are valuable. City Administrator Martens noted that Greg Hoglund and Tim Boser were on the Zoom call earlier, and that they both have voiced their opinions at previous Council meetings. iii. Close Hearing Motion made by Vehrenkamp, seconded by Wu, to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Lanterman, Shoulak, Vehrenkamp, and Wu. (Motion carried 5:0). iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – The Commission discussed the approval process, the potential for variances and PUDs as a result of the performance standards, the implications of sending kids to school in commercial or industrial areas, how to responsibly accommodate growth and development, agreement in changing the name of the definition for places of worship, the need for the City Attorney to specifically weigh-in on both options, the ease of administration and clarity with Option 1, the implications of removing cultural institutions and residential facilities in residential districts, the legality of removing larger residential facilities in low-density residential districts, the potential of keeping places of worship and schools in residential districts as well as add them to GMU and I-1, and previous Council discussions with and without the City Attorney on both options. The Commission discussed applying the standards based on the footprint versus total gross area of the building, tiered setbacks, the maximum size of the setbacks, allowing increased landscaping and sustainable stormwater management as a method for relief from the setback standards, and application of setbacks for parking. Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Vehrenkamp, to table item 6b. for additional discussion at the October 7, 2021, with the City Attorney present. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Lanterman, Shoulak, Vehrenkamp, and Wu (Motion passed 5:0). 7. Reports/Information a. Planning Project Update – The Commission discussed status updates for projects recently went through the Planning Commission and how changes to proposals between Planning Commission and City Council meetings are handled. b. Reschedule Planning Commission Training – Planner Lindahl explained that due to the new opening on the Planning Commission, the training will most likely be postponed to January 2022. c. City Council Report – Councilor Nicholas confirmed Cook Lake Highlands was approved and discussed insights received from developers on the Urban Conservation Subdivision ordinance discussed at the previous Council work session. City Administrator Martens brought up a sketch plan for the Roehlke property for residential and commercial lots and encouraged early feedback from the Planning Commission. d. Other Business – Chair Jacobs recognized Commissioner Vehrenkamp’s appointment to the City Council and thanked him for his service on the Planning Commission. 8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 09/09/21 09/23/21 10/14/21 10/28/21 11/10/21 11/22/21 Lanterman Shoulak Jacobs Wu Jacobs Lanterman 9. Adjournment Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Wu, to adjourn the September 2, 2021, Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Lanterman, Shoulak, Vehrenkamp, and Wu. (Motion carried 5:0). Meeting adjourned at 9:58 PM. Submitted by Natalie Davis Planner