Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-06 - Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 7:00 PM —THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014 The Corcoran Planning Commission met on March 6, 2014, at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were: Chair Jacobs, Vice -Chair Ravnholdt, Commissioner Krueger, Commissioner Wu, and Commissioner Theis. Also present were: Council Liaison Thomas, Administrator Martens, City Planner Lindahl, and Code Compliance Official Pritchard. 1. Call to Order Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:00pm 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Open Forum — None 4. Approval of: a. Agenda Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Wu to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, and Theis (Motion carried 5:0) b. February 6, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Commission discussed and by consensus, removed and replaced "straw vote" language with "Commissioners Jacobs, Wu, and Theis voiced their support for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioners Ravnholdt and Krueger voiced they were not in favor of the amendment." Motion made by Theis seconded by Wu to approve the minutes as amended. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, and Theis (Motion carried 5:0) 5. Unfinished Business: None 6. New Business a. PUBLIC HEARING - Maple Hills Community Center Maple Hill Estate 3rd Addition Preliminary Plat (city file 14 -001) i. Staff Report — City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report ii. Chair Jacobs opened the Public Hearing iii. Public Comment — None iv. Close Hearing — Motion made by Krueger seconded by Theis to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, and Theis (Motion carried 5:0) V. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — The Commission had a brief discussion. The Commission noted that the site plan was already approved and this was simply a plat to adjust the lot line; therefore, no further discussion was needed. Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Theis to recommend approval of the draft preliminary plat resolution subject to the findings and conditions prepared by staff. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, and Theis (Motion carried 5:0) b. PUBLIC HEARING - Peachtree Partners, LLC request for Schendel property Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Amendment and PUD Sketch Plan (city file 14 -005) i. Staff Report — City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report ii. Chair Jacobs opened the Public Hearing iii. Public Comment The Applicant, Peachtree Partners, LLC, (including Peter Pflaum, Paul Robinson, David Newman, and Terry Forbord) made a presentation. The presentation included an explanation for why single family homes were in demand as opposed to multi - family dwellings. The applicant agreed that a feasibility study was needed to determine site conditions for storm water management, transportation, and infrastructure. They explained their belief that single family homes will have more school -age children than multi - family dwellings. They believe this project could be the catalyst for development of a school in town, as well as future residential and commercial development including bringing sewer and water closer to the City Park and downtown area and help to realign and adjust the County Road 10 and County Road 50 intersection. They noted that they worked with the City to develop a plan that met the Comprehensive Plan goals, but they would not be opposed to keeping County Road 10 as is. David Foy, 8115 Co Rd 116, expressed frustration that there was no prior communication to the neighboring parcels from the City or developer regarding the proposed development. He does not believe Rockford School District will build a school in Corcoran. When searching the MILS, Mr. Foy found that multi- family housing accounted for 8 -10% of housing sales in the area. Also stated were concerns regarding storm water drainage for surrounding properties as they have already experienced seasonal flooding. Mr. Foy inquired if the City could require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be completed, even though the proposed development is under the 250 unit threshold. A comment was made regarding the removal of trees on the east of the property, and that the City has a Tree Preservation Ordinance to protect those trees. He also requested that the City "slow- down" the review process. Dennis Stieg, 19320 Stieg Rd, shared concern that the process is being rushed and that the City should hold off for higher density as is noted in the 2030 Comp Plan and the City must decide its "identity." He also commented that if the Met Council's density requirements are not met in mixed use areas, the City will end up with large pockets of extremely high density; Brooklyn Park was noted as an example. Mr. Stieg was involved in drafting the 2030 Comp Plan and believes the site was meant to be a "multi- generational walking community" with mixed density in close proximity to downtown and the park. He is concerned that Rockford School will not get bond approval to build a school in Corcoran. Also noted was that the amount of trees and natural resources to be removed to allow for this development would create a significant change. Chuck Lymangood, 8105 Co Rd 116, submitted a document: Summary of Comprehensive Plan Impacts Schendel Property Application dated March 6, 2014 to the Commission and the City as well as made copies available for public review. The document was entered into public record. In this document, Mr. Lymangood included portions of the 2030 Comp Plan with highlighted areas where he felt the proposed development was not consistent with the 2030 Comp Plan. Also included were statistics of multi - family home starts and developments both locally and nationwide as well as maps from the Comp Plan. Along with these documents, Mr. Lymangood expressed concern for the proposed reduction of City Park property and relocation of park amenities to western Corcoran. He described the plan as isolated and stated that the Comp Plan requires interconnectedness to the surrounding properties which is not shown on proposed plans. Also mentioned were the inconsistencies with the Comp Plan regarding the type of housing units and affordability of housing prescribed in the Comp Plan. He also shared concerns about the lack of connections between this property and existing properties. Mr. Lymangood summarized his presentation with the statement that this application would not be a Comprehensive plan amendment, but rather a "de facto Comp Plan rewrite" and approving the proposal would reverse the intent of comprehensive planning. iv. Close Hearing Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Wu to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, and Theis (Motion carried 5:0) V. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — The Commission had a lengthy discussion regarding the Comp Plan and PUD Sketch Plan. Staff and applicants answered questions as they were asked. It was clarified that the natural resource evaluations are different than the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology (MNRAM) evaluation used for wetlands but they are similar tools. The applicant submitted natural resource evaluation reports March 5 and March 6, but staff had not yet reviewed the reports so they were not included in the packet or discussion. It was confirmed that although the City works with developers to preserve trees, there are no Tree Preservation Ordinances. Commissioners asked how much fill and /or grading would be needed in the eastern portion of the property to support the development plan. The applicant stated that developers try to "balance" fill, meaning fill is moved around the site and as little fill is hauled in or out of the site as possible. Commissioners commented that there was a lot of extra information presented and added at the meeting and they would need to review it. Clarification was given as to whom, how, and when notice to surrounding properties is required. Notice is published in the official newspaper, on the City website, and at City Hall 10 days prior to the public hearing. Notice is also sent to all properties within 350' of the subject property. In this case, the developer also held a neighborhood meeting in which mailings were sent out to surrounding property owners. This project was also before Council in January and December for informal discussion and the applicant has been meeting with staff to identify issues. The Commission asked the applicant for home sale /value ranges. The developer stated their price point would range from $350,000 - $475,000. It was discussed that a traffic study would be needed. At 9:32pm, a short recess was taken; the meeting reconvened at 9:38pm. Transportation and traffic issues were discussed, including County Road 50 access, consistency with the 2030 Comp Plan, County Road 10 realignment, and County Road 116 improvements needed for County Road 10 realignment. Staff answered questions raised during the Public hearing. Staff confirmed that the City Council can order a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to identify and mitigate environmental issues. A realignment of County Road 10 would require a feasibility study even without an EAW. The feasibility study could also be a part of a discretionary EAW. Staff stated that although code does require access and infrastructure planning for surrounding properties, including stubbing streets, trails and other infrastructure to adjacent properties, it does not require the applicant to show possible future planning of the surrounding areas or "ghost platting." The current sketch plan does not show access to the northeast or a great deal of infrastructure connections, so this is something that would need to be addressed in the preliminary PUD /plat. The Commission discussed the County Road 10 realignment. The question was posed whether or not County Road 10 would be vacated or become a local street. The Commission had concerns regarding access to private property as well as park access if County Road 10 were vacated. It was clarified that the realignment was still up for discussion. Commissioners expressed concerns with losing Meister Field as part of the 10/50 intersection realignment and how park dedication money would be collected and used. The Commission inquired about the 20310 County Road 10 property, which is surrounded on 3 sides by the subject property. The applicant stated they have had initial discussions with the property owner and would work with them on future development planning. The applicant also stated there would be a 5 year build -out. Some Commissioners expressed that they would like to see a mix of single family and multi - family housing. When asked about the possibility of multi - family housing units, the applicant stated that it was their opinion that the current market would not support multi - family housing in this location. The applicant added their suggested solution to shifting density. They stated that the current Mixed Use Districts could be "flipped" from 25% residential and 75% commercial to 75% residential and 25% commercial. When asked about requests in their PUD for shared driveways, they stated they were asking for flexibility, but not planning on utilizing them. The Commission asked about housing variety. The applicant stated they would most likely use 1 -2 national builders with a variety of home styles, sizes, and price points. A Commissioner stated that the Comprehensive Plan has changed since it was adopted and may continue to change in the future. The applicant added that this would bring sewer and water closer to the City Park and "Downtown" and could be a catalyst for future development, both residential and commercial. The Commission asked if there would be any costs to the City for this development. It was shared by staff that if County Road 10 were realigned, there could be substantial City costs. Commissioners asked about history of the application. Staff stated that the project was in front of the Council twice before in recent months as concept and sketch plans. Motion made by Theis seconded by Jacobs to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Voting Aye: Jacobs and Theis. Voting Nay: Ravnholdt, Krueger, and Wu. (Motion failed 2:3) Motion made by Krueger seconded by Ravnholdt to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Voting Aye: Ravnholdt, Krueger, and Wu. Voting Nay: Jacobs and Theis. (Motion carried 3:2) The Commission offered feedback to the applicant's PUD Sketch Plan. Commissioner Theis said County Road 10 should not be closed. She also stated that the park land and ball field should not be removed and that the applicant should add more park land. Commissioner Krueger believes County Road 10 should not be vacated but should become a local road. He also stated that the park land should remain and there should be some multi - family housing units. Vice -Chair Ravnholdt inquired if homes could have frontage on County Road 10 if it were a local road and if phasing could be adjusted to make County Road 10 a Boulevard. He also expressed concern for storm water issues. Commissioner Wu would like to see County Road 10 as a local road and for the development to be more open to surrounding areas with more connections. She also requested more housing types such as lifestyle housing and less expensive homes as well as more diversity in housing. Chair Jacobs would like the entrance monument sign to be relocated further away from the County Road 50 entrance and closer to where home sites start. He also stated his opinion that more trees /woods should be retained and wetlands should be restored. c. Planning Commissioner Application —Alan Schultz i. Commission Discussion & Recommendation Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Krueger to recommend appointment of Alan Shultz to the Planning Commission. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, and Theis. (Motion carried 5:0) 7. Reports: a. Planning Project Update - Information Only b. Liaison Report — Presented by Councilperson Thomas c. Other Business — None 8. Adjournment Motion: made by Ravnholdt seconded by Theis to adjourn. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, and Theis. (Motion carried 5:0) Meeting adjourned at 11:24pm. Submitted by Mike Pritchard Code Compliance Official