Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-06 Planning Commission Minutes Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2025 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on February 6, 2025, 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 Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind were present at the start of the meeting. Absent: Yang Also present: Planner Klingbeil, Planner Lindahl, and Council Liaison Vehrenkamp 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Lind, seconded by Kozicky, to approve the agenda for the February 6, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind (Motion passed 4:0). 4. Open Forum – Public Comment Opportunity (None). Motion made by Kozicky, seconded by Hargreaves, to close the open forum. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind. (Motion passed 4:0). 5. Minutes Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Kozicky, to approve the minutes for the December 5, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind (Motion passed 4:0). 6. New Business a. . Public Hearing. Spaeth Garage Conditional Use Permit (City File 24-046). ii. Planner Klingbeil presented the Staff Report. ii. Public Hearing (None). iii. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Hargreaves, to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind. (Motion passed 4:0). iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation Commissioner Lind asked if this was a common occurrence or is there a desire at a policy level to change. Chair Brummond explained it is a priority of the commission for these projects to be addressed. Commissioner Hargreaves asked what can typically occur in an accessory structure. Planner Klingbeil explained they are typically for storage or a personal workshop but if it becomes a commercial use or dwelling like it would require additional permits from the City. Commissioner Hargreaves asked if an accessory structure could have a bathroom. Chair Brummond explained her accessory structure did have a bathroom. Planner Klingbeil explained that it can it’s just an issue if there were to be a kitchenette or bedroom. Commissioner Kozicky asked about exceeding the height and if an accessory structure needed to match the color of the primary structure. Planner Klingbeil explained that it does not unless it’s an accessory dwelling unit. Commissioner Kozicky asked if it was an issue for neighbors. Jordan Spaeth, 7090 Jubert Lane, Corcoran, MN said it wasn’t an issue for neighbors to the commission. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Kozicky, to recommend approval of the Spaeth Garage Conditional Use Permit. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind (Motion passed 4:0). b. Public Hearing. NE District Design Guidelines Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File 24- 047). i. Planner Lindahl presented the Staff Report ii. Public Hearing (None). iii. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Hargreaves, to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind. (Motion passed 4:0). iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation Commissioner Kozicky asked if there was history of why the ordinances were done where the commission would not want to change the ordinances now. Planner Lindahl explained that the NE District Standards were done to have a higher level of design but more specifically for the mixed use and commercial areas of the NE District and not all the issues relating to an industrial project. An individual came forward with some issues relating to their project and staff discussed the changes were appropriate for an industrial project like the individual’s. Commissioner Kozicky asked about the sharing of the parking lots and whether it was more of an uninterrupted asphalt parking lot with a buffer in between. Planner Lindahl explained in the truck loading bays there is a lot line between the truck loading area and rather than having green space to separate the two that it would be used by both and part of any development proposal they would need to have a cross-access easement and maintenance agreement that the area is maintained by both lot owners. Commissioner Kozicky asked if this was common due to the large trucks maneuvering involved to make it easier. Planner Lindahl said the practice was very common on multi phased projects both for commercial and industrial. Chair Brummond said when there is a developer developing more than one of the lots but it's not going to be the same company necessarily as what they're talking about when they meet in lot lines. She said she struggles with the issue because part of the intent that went into the Northeast District design guidelines was not just a standard but overall, it was supposed to take greater care of the environmental factors like the impervious surface portion. She said she understood that it makes sense not to require a buffer space where a lot line is going to be utilized like the bays are going to be facing each other and they're going to be utilized for the same purpose. She wondered whether it made any sense to ask for a greater environmental component somewhere else within that larger development. She said that having been a part of the Northeast District design guideline implementation process that when they were considering it, they hoped that there weren't going to be any issues where applicants came in and then issues came up, but she thought it's how it goes. She said one feels like okay here's where we missed or here's where we missed but she remembered that overall, that was one of the greatest goals in requiring some higher design guidelines. She said she doesn’t have a proposal of what that might look like but that she understanded the rationale but struggle with it being a massive impervious surface. Commissioner Kozicky asked if there could be drainage issues with it not having any kind of permeable surface. Chair Brummond said she didn’t think there's drainage issues other than the fact that groundwater is being collected and it’s not in the ground, but she didn’t think they would design the unit in a way that would have standing water. She said she was confident that they would do a phenomenal job to make sure that all the water went somewhere but that it would be paved, and she believed there were other requirements making it difficult to look at the bigger picture. Planner Lindahl explained that they were absolutely and that right one of the things was to make it more of a sustainable development and so one piece in the Northeast District is that developers must provide at least three resiliency options from the Northeast District. She said she knew they have EV charging stations, rain gardens and native plants. She said the landscaping components are required to incorporate a chloride management plan, which is unique to the Northeast District. This would manage chloride going into waterways and part of that means thinking about snow storage as part of the design to limit salt use in a parking lot so one doesn’t put the snow pile in the southeast corner where it's going to melt across the parking lot and require more salt and this was one of the things and there were other things that were unique to the Northeast District which were some of the storm water management requirements. The City requires native plantings in the Northeast District. Planner Lindahl explained that the City discourages reliance on Kentucky Blue Grass in favor of more natural lawns in the northeast, but this is not a requirement. She said then there some additional parking standards related to landscape buffers and so while they do miss that in this zone between the two buildings that if the commission adopt that change, they’d be making up for it because they were requiring landscape parking lot islands in the Northeast District that are not required in other districts. Commissioner Kozicky asked if the picture she was holding was an example of a of the shared space between the two buildings. Planner Lindahl said the picture Commissioner Kozicky was holding was a rendering of the project they were looking at tonight as an example. Commissioner Kozicky asked if normally there would be a buffer. Planner Lindahl confirmed she was correct. Commissioner Kozicky asked if there was enough space for a truck to maneuver with the buffer. Planner Lindahl said it can be challenging for different trucks with the buffer and explained it’s unusual to have it in these types of developments. Commissioner Hargreaves asked if there was any way that you can increase the natural vegetation at the ends of the parking areas. He said it's one thing to have all the asphalt that is draining the water into a culvert system or sewer system but if there's some way, they could conceal it from passersby. Planner Lindahl said she believed they could and along the streets both on the north and the south and that they were not reviewing the development proposal yet but there is landscaping and berming along the street. Commissioner Hargreaves clarified that he wasn’t talking about the front and that he was talking about the sides at the end of the large parking areas. Planner Lindahl said that there were two things. That there would be landscaping along the street that would screen the development, but if he’s asking could they put an endcap island on the parking zones in the middle that she believed the answer was yes. She said the idea was not to have it every 15 stalls which makes it very difficult but they're showing an endcap as depicted on page 38. Commissioner Hargreaves said he was talking about how at the ends is it populated with as much vegetation as possible. (Commissioners were looking at slide 38 on screen). Chair Brummond wanted to clarify because the item under consideration was a zoning ordinance amendment and recommended that the commission find language that would be applicable for any industrial or commercial development in the Northeast District, and not focus on a specific site. She said the commission needed to be less specific and more general on how the ordinance would regulate another commercial application or any industrial application with a zero setback request, and what language would be necessary to require larger screening. Planner Lindahl said her point was they were not reviewing the site plan so she wanted to be careful reviewing the image in the packet, which showed endcaps of landscape islands in the middle which will provide a little bit of screening and also control the parking area in the middle and so that is not in the code the commission could certainly add in the draft language. She said they could add that in but that the commission cannot be review the development application tonight. She clarified that the Commission should decide if it makes sense to have landscape islands when they have tractor trailers maneuvering and does it make sense to have an island in the middle separating two users that really are functioning functionally using the same spaces. Commissioner Hargreaves clarified that he was not referring to this and said when you have this type of request, the condition should require additional vegetation at the end of a massive parking area. Planner Lindahl believed it was a site plan. Commissioner Hargreaves didn’t think it was a site plan and said anytime there is a large parking area one should be able to conceal the end of that parking area. He said he didn’t think it’s specific to the development and thought it was anytime there was a large development with the parking lot oriented the way it was (looking at slide 38) that the site can populate the end of it with vegetation. Planner Lindahl said there were two issues that they're asking about: should there be a minimum setback between parking lots along a shared lot line and should there be landscaping requirements every 15 stalls. Commissioner Hargreaves said the shared lot line that he’s talking about the ends of the large parking areas and if they gave him some time, he could come up with general language that would address that but that they were talking about it now and he’s letting the commission know what his thoughts are. Brandon Champeau, Hempel Companies, 10050 Crosstown Circle, Eden Prairie, MN, asked if these issues could be brought up at the City Council meeting in March. Planner Lindahl said the commission is looking at the code currently and that the site plan cannot be reviewed at this stage, and Staff would like clarity on whether the issue is islands or setbacks and then the commission can modify or not recommend approval of the change. Chair Brummond said she could try her hand at clarifying. She thought there wasn’t an issue with the lack of islands every 15 ft. She thought that there isn't an issue with the shared lot line for the zero setback in these parking bays. She thought the ask was that language be added that when there is a zero setback for the parking bay that that there is increased screening over the ends of the where the bays sit. She said that is her attempt at coming up with language if she was understanding it correctly because the ask is not for the site but that they’re saying that whenever the issue would be under consideration that they would always like to see increased vegetation. Commissioner Hargreaves agreed with Chair Brummond. Planner Lindahl said she didn’t think the commission was going to come up with language on the fly. She said she didn’t know how you would articulate the language but if they were reviewing a site plan they could look at the issue. She thought it was bad language to say this, but they could look at something different for the council and say something like they could direct staff to develop language to require additional perimeter landscaping where the zero setback is waved. Chair Brummond asked for clarification if they wanted to screen some other way, or they just want it screened or want increased vegetation. Chair Hargreaves said both. Chair Brummond said she didn’t know if that going the direction of screening language made it easier. Planner Lindahl said that she would suggest the direction is where zero setback for the parking bays request that the applicant shall provide additional screening at the perimeter of the site beyond minimum ordinance requirements. Commissioner Hargreaves said that would be fine. Chair Brummond said even though in that language again they cannot require that additional vegetation be placed specifically where they want it. Commissioner Hargreaves said he understood. Commissioner Lind asked if there was a way to do it percentage wise such as removing X% of what would be landscaping by not having the 15-stall requirement and no set back and what if they increased the percentage buffering on the perimeter by X% but if it's a policy change that maybe didn’t work. Chair Brummond said Commissioner Lind was looking at trying to throw some equation on it instead of just increased. Planner Lindahl said Commissioner Lind made it a measurable tool to see whether they met it or not and she appreciated it. Commissioner Lind said their goals were to minimize the environmental impact and maximize the aesthetic and by giving no setback requirement there should be a give on perimeter, landscaping, and maximizing the appeal and that's obviously happening but how do they make sure that they feel comfortable with it. Planner Lindahl said she would have to think about it but she thought she heard what was being said and she thought the Commissioner was talking about something else but that they’re talking about if they eliminate the island requirements that they should make up the green space elsewhere on site she thought is kind of where they’re going and she feels like that's a measure that they could do that's maybe measurable more so than add more landscaping or something but that she didn’t know exactly yet and that she needed to think about it but she thought she liked the idea and that it was probably feasible. She said it's weird because that specific site is the one industrial site that they have about 20% and hard cover on the site and so it's a lot of green space on this site. Brandon Champeau, Hempel Companies, 10050 Crosstown Circle, Eden Prairie, MN, said normally they were 30-33% coverage too. Chair Brummond said she liked something measurable could be applied to a site because sites are going to vary in their size, and she thought that a measurable is the direction to go but then she thought the other part of that is there probably is impervious surface limits already in there and so they also want to make sure they’re not being redundant. Planner Lindahl said she heard what the commission is attempting to do, and she liked the idea for the island piece to wave the islands to make up that green space and the island square footage of green space elsewhere on site feels manageable. She said she would work through that before the council meeting but that feels manageable. She thought if there's a zero setback for parking bays at additional screening at the perimeter of the site beyond minimum ordinance requirements probably something they could flush out a little more specifically because she knew they like to have numbers that they can check is the loss of setback. Chair Brummond was wondering if because they’re at a zero setback is whatever number that's usually used to measure that is that somehow help in a measurable. Planner Lindahl said regarding it that's the same thing as the island they could apply that to both if they wanted to make that recommendation. Chair Brummond said she didn’t know that they have to because they’re also rational understanding that this really is how it functions so she didn’t know that they need to stack that's what she was trying to say but she felt like if they could somehow get a measurable amount out of one of those. Commissioner Lind said she thought based on what they were trying to do what's important is where the perimeter visibility to the road or whatever they decide how do they maximize the impact of that. Brandon Champeau, Hempel Companies, 10050 Crosstown Circle, Eden Prairie, MN, pointed out that if they were doing a typical industrial building with a landscape buffer in the middle trucks need 120 ft to kind of maneuver to back into the building so by doing the shared truck court, they reduce the previous area because they're moving back and forth. He said if they did the landscape, they’d have to have to be 120 ft to 240 ft versus the shared truck which can maneuver 200 ft so actually by sharing it they are because they're crossing property lines but it's less impervious. Chair Brummond said she appreciated that they are doing that. She asked if they feel confident that that is something that every proposal comes in to do or is it something that they have to spell out. Commissioner Lind asked if they feel like that loses aesthetic. Brandon Champeau, Hempel Companies, 10050 Crosstown Circle, Eden Prairie, MN, said they’d have a larger area then with just a landscape island down the middle or if they did the landscape stalls would be challenging for trucks especially in the winter with snow falling. Commissioner Kozicky said she was for less impervious surface overall and that they were already at 20% versus a lot of developments. She asked if the City of Corcoran had a maximum impervious surface amount. Planner Lindahl said they do and in the industrial district it is pretty high. Commissioner Kozicky said he’s below that already. Planner Lindahl said the industrial district it's a 70% maximum impervious surface coverage. Commissioner Kozicky clarified that includes the tops of the buildings and gas parking lots and everything. Planner Lindahl said It does. Commissioner Kozicky said she thought with the 20% they’re talking about just the parking area. Planner Lindahl said no, his site in building his site. Commissioner Kozicky said there's a big wetland area. Planner Lindahl said there was upland that's not being developed so compared to some other industrial sites that were on the screenshe thought they'll be lower but the code would allow 70% impervious surface coverage but again they’re not talking about his project but she thought the point is well taken that if they put the island between the two buildings they have more green and more impervious surface and eliminating the island actually reduces impervious surface which is what was said was important. Commissioner Kozicky said it's just a bigger area. Planner Lindahl said it's an unbroken area that's right. Commissioner Lind said it's a great point that it looks different but if they go back to facts of what the commission cares about it makes sense. Chair Brummond said she didn’t know if she had full confidence that everybody comes in with a plan that doesn't try to maximize. She was wondering if it's still just worth thinking about something that could be written up. Commissioner Kozicky said that Brandon Champeau said they need 120 ft so whatever his area is maybe when they have a shared one there's a maximum footage between buildings that they could write into there that that keeps them from making it bigger than it needs to be. Planner Lindahl said that truck turning radiuses are standard regardless of who the user is and she thought he said 120 ft for that. Brandon Champeau, Hempel Companies, 10050 Crosstown Circle, Eden Prairie, MN, said it’s industry standard and that sometimes they could get down to 110ft, but it gets a little tight and they don't want to make it difficult especially with snow. Commissioner Lind asked does the design guidelines have a different policy if it's a single user or multiple tenants or do they have different guidelines on design standards based on that. Planner Lindahl said no. Not for these issues they’re talking about tonight. Commissioner Lind said she didn’t know for example like business park when she hears that she thinks communal spaces that all tenants will use resources she didn't know if they call something and that she knew it was an industrial zone but was wondering if they brought out any design guidelines difference between if they’re hosting five companies or one. She thought the smooth surface was better looking. Chair Brummond said her only point of clarification on that is that just in the commercial or is it in all zoning. Planner Lindahl said as they’ve drafted it the U tilt up pre-cast smooth face is only allowed in the i1 industrial district, and it would be allowed in the other districts in the Northeast District as a class three or complimentary material but not as the primary material. Chair Brummond said if no one else has any other comments we are making a motion to approve City file 24-047 with the language directing staff to look at language for a measurable additional landscape around the perimeter for the lack of parking islands and potentially increased vegetation or screening around the zero setback. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Hargreaves, to recommend approval of NE District Design Guidelines Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File 24-047). Directing staff to look at language for measurable additional landscape around the perimeter for the lack of parking islands and potentially increased vegetation or screening around the setback. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind (Motion passed 4:0). 7. Reports/Information a. Other Business b. Planning Project Update c. City Council Report – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp Commissioner Lind asked for information about the St. Thomas Apostle Concept Plan and if it went to the Planning Commission. Planner Klingbeil explained a concept plan first goes to council and then once it’s a formal application it will come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lind asked what the Council’s feedback was on the Lother Subdivision. Councilmember Vehrenkamp said they have submitted an application for a comp plan amendment. Planner Klingbeil said they submitted a comp plan amendment to reguide the project from existing residential to conservation residential and if that gets approved they would come through with the actual plat. Commissioner Lind asked if it was 22 lots on 10 acres. Planner Klingbeil confirmed that was correct that the density would be 2-3 for conservation whereas low density residential would be 3-5. 8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar Suggested City Council Meetings 02/13/2025 02/27/2025 03/13/2025 03/27/2025 04/10/2025 04/24/2025 Brummond Hargreaves Kozicky Lind Yang Brummond 9. Adjournment Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Lind, to adjourn the February 6, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind (Motion passed 4:0). The meeting adjourned at 8:47 PM