Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-04 - Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 7:00 PM —THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2014 The Corcoran Planning Commission met on December 4, 2014, at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were: Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Krueger, Commissioner Wu, Commissioner Theis, and Commissioner Schultz. Vice -Chair Ravnholdt arrived at 7:27pm. Also present were: Council Liaison Cossette, Administrator Martens, City Planner Lindahl, City Engineer Torve, and Code Compliance Official Pritchard. 1. Call to Order Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:00pm 2. Pledge of Allegiance I Open Forum — None 4. Approval of: a. Agenda Motion made by Krueger seconded by Schultz to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Krueger, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) b. September 4, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Motion made by Krueger seconded by Wu to approve the minutes as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Krueger, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) 5. Unfinished Business: None 6. New Business a. PUBLIC HEARING. Proehl Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Variance at 20630 Larkin Road (city file 14 -028) Staff Report — City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Open Public Hearing — Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. (7:07pm) iii. Public Comment — None iv. Close Hearing Motion made by Krueger seconded by Theis to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Krueger, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried: 5:0) (7 :07pm) V. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — The commission clarified the number of building rights remaining on Lot 1 would be four (4). Staff clarified that a secondary septic location is not required to be shown on the plat. The Commission posed the question as to whether or not two single family homes are allowed on a single lot. Planner Lindahl confirmed that accessory dwelling units may be allowed on agricultural property. Staff confirmed that a wetland delineation would be required if further subdivision were to take place. The Commission agreed that Condition 4 on the resolution should be clarified to state that wetland delineation approval is only required for Lot 2. Motion made by Theis seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the Resolution as amended. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Krueger, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried: 5:0) b. PUBLIC HEARING. Sawgrass Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD Development Plan and Rezoning for Peachtree Partners LLC on Schendel property at 20400 County Road 10 (City file 14 -027) i. Staff Report — City Engineer presented his staff report regarding offsite improvements. City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. The applicant, Dave Newman of Peachtree Partners made a presentation and was available for questions (along with Paul Robinson of Peachtree Partners and Eric Rose of Stantec). Chair Jacobs called a 10 minute recess. (8:50- 9:OOpm) ii. Open Public Hearing — Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. (9:OOpm) iii. Public Comment — Three residents spoke during the public hearing. Mr. David Foy, 8115 Co Rd 116, asked for clarification regarding impervious cover percentages in the Shoreland Overlay District. He requested the developer /applicant convey stormwater directly to Rush Creek via an underground pipe at the developer's expense. Mr. Foy stated that prior modifications to the area drainage had created more water problems for the surrounding properties. He asked for clarification of management of water from the west and southwest and stated that the creek is plugged or filled and is not conveying water properly. Mr. Foy requested clarification for utility stub locations and which services would be stubbed as well as exterior materials for the homes. He stated that private driveways are a problem and should not be allowed. Mr. Foy asked for confirmation of the responsible fire department. Mr. Chuck Lymangood, 8150 Co Rd 116, shared concerns regarding the applicant's response to Condition # 3 of the Preliminary PUD Plan resolution and stated that the applicant's proposed language should not be used as it would transfer the Council's legislative authority to the applicant and would be in direct conflict with Condition #38. Mr. Ron Ruehling, 8065 Co Rd 116, stated that he had met with the City's Engineer regarding future easements. He asked if the pond elevation levels could be set by monitoring the existing ponds so that any new ponds would remain equal. Mr. Ruehling expressed concerns about wildlife if the existing pond level on his property was modified. He requested clarification on the road use that would potentially cross his property along the northern lot line as well as the lift station location. He asked that any grading within the easement not affect his drainage and that a buffer of trees be maintained along the west property line. iv. Close Hearing Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Wu to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried: 6:0) (9:25pm) V. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — Staff responded to questions raised during the public hearing. The City Engineer stated that the northern flow pattern would remain the same. Although the volume of water from the site would increase, the rate of flow would remain the same. He also stated that stormwater management would need to be addressed as a whole and in more detail if the project moved forward. Northeast drainage from the site would be conveyed to Rush Creek via an underground pipe. East drainage would not shed to neighbors; stormwater from the east would be collected into the development's stormwater system and the new pond would match the elevation of the existing pond to the east. The lift station would be located in the northeast corner of the development and a force main would run east to Co Rd 116. The Commission discussed a number of issues and conditions related to the development. Staff clarified that collection ponds would convey water underground as needed, to avoid overflow onto trails. Staff again confirmed that water rates would remain the same and conveyance to the creek would be underground across neighboring easements and clarified that the pipe would terminate near the creek to allow sheet flow to prevent erosion. Utilities to be stubbed by the developer would include sewer and water. Staff advised the Commission that other utilities such as natural gas and telecommunications are private and would be installed at the discretion of the utility company. Trail, road, and utility stubs would be provided for future access to new development. A turnaround would be provided for the lift station. The Commission inquired about phasing. Staff clarified that phasing is just an educated guess and can be modified at the final platting stage. The Commission discussed what would be allowed in the 5' side yard setback. Staff confirmed that landscaping would be ok allowing it did not impede drainage, but that mechanical equipment would not be allowed to encroach, even if mounted to the structure. The Commission expressed concern that a 60' right of way would change the proposed berm and landscaping along Co Rd 10. They agreed that the berm is important and asked for next steps with the County to allow for less right of way. The Commission asked for clarification on the County's request for a 60' half right of way. Staff stated that 50' is consistent with previous projects, but that a 60' may be what was taken east of Co Rd 116 in Maple Grove, to allow for a median (central "safe zone" for pedestrian crossings) and off -road trails. Staff clarified that MNDOT is the authority for speed limits and speed changes are based on existing conditions; the 55mph speed limit would most likely not be adjusted until phase 1, but a residential area would typically dictate a 30mph zone. It was confirmed that a new public neighborhood park would not be required in this development due to the close proximity of the existing City Park. The standard is that a development have a neighborhood park within '/2 mile of all homes. The Commission asked if fencing along the berm would be allowed. The City's ordinance would allow fencing, however, an HOA may not and developers typically restrict fencing. The developer confirmed that home styles /colors would not be allowed to be the same for neighboring lots or the 3 lots across the street. The Commission discussed the requirements of "4 sided architecture" as well changes to the resolution regarding the requirements. The Commission agreed that 4 sided architecture would be less important if the berm and landscaping could remain as proposed. Signage location, setbacks, and lighting was discussed. Staff stated that they were comfortable with the applicants proposed changes to the PUD except for conditions #3 and #31d. The Commission discussed the conditions as well as #42g and shared concerns that the condition would lessen Council discretion. The Commission discussed a number of other conditions and suggested a number of amendments. Clarification was made for garage sizing as well as the number of new trees to be installed and installation responsibility. Irrigation was discussed briefly. The Commission agreed to leave the half right of way as proposed (40') and defer to the Council. The Commission recommended the trails be taken as easements rather than outlots as proposed by the applicant. The applicant's proposed flexibilities were discussed and minor changes were recommended. Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Theis to recommend approval as amended of the Preliminary Plat Resolution, Preliminary PUD Plan Resolution, Ordinance Amendment, and Findings of Fact. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried: 6 :0) c. PUBLIC HEARING. Park Dedication Ordinance Update (city file 14 -007) Staff Report — City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Open Public Hearing — Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. (11:41 pm) iii. Public Comment — Mr. Chuck Lymangood, 8105 Co Rd 116, suggested a wording change to clarify the financial responsibility. iv. Close Hearing Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Schultz to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried: 6:0) (11:43pm) V. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — The Commission discussed a wording change to clarify financial responsibility. Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment and Findings of Fact as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried: 6:0) d. *Proposed Ordinance Update — Planning Commission i. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — The Commission briefly discussed the changes and asked for some clarification on number of members, alternate members, Board of Appeals, and annual reports. Administrator Martens clarified changes. Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the ordinance update amendments as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. Voting Nay: Krueger (Motion carried: 5:1) 7. Reports: a. Planning Project Update — Information only b. City Council Report — Presented by Council Liaison Cossette c. Other Business i. January 2015 Meeting Date Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Theis to cancel the January 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried: 6:0) 8. Adjournment Motion made by Krueger seconded by Ravnholdt to adjourn. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Krueger, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 6:0) Meeting adjourned at 11 :59pm. Submitted by Mike Pritchard Code Compliance Official