Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-01 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF CORCORAN Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes December 1, 2016 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on December 1, 2016, at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were: Chair Jacobs, Vice-chair Schultz, Commissioner Wu, and Commissioner Russel. Commissioner Theis arrived at 7:02pm. Also present were: City Administrator Martens, City Planner Lindahl, Code Compliance Official Pritchard, and Council Liaison Hank. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:00pm 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Wu seconded by Russel to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russel, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) 4. Open Forum – Ms. Sharlyn Hall, 5166 Country Cir, Greenfield, MN 55357, shared her opposition to the Interim Use Permit for the MN Solar application to construct a Solar Garden at 23710 Highway 55. Her concerns included decreased property values, safety, appearance, and a danger to or decrease in wildlife. Ms. Hall inquired about public notice procedures for this type of application, specifically who would have received notice and when. 5. Minutes a. Minutes – November 3, 2016 Motion made by Wu seconded by Theis to approve the minutes with amendments to Commission Discussion regarding Agenda Item 7a. and Agenda Item 7b. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russel, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) 6. Unfinished Business – None 7. New Business a. PUBLIC HEARING. Ordinance Amendment for Dynamic Signs in MP District (city file 16- 029) i. Staff Report – City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. i. Open Public Hearing – Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. ii. Public Comment – None iii. Close Hearing Motion made by Schultz seconded by Wu to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russel, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – The Commission asked for clarification from staff regarding other ordinance standards. Staff clarified that this ordinance amendment would allow dynamic signage in the MP District and that all other standards would remain the same. Staff also stated that this amendment was by Council direction as an outcome from the Maple Hill Estates variance application regarding signage. The Commission asked if other residential uses, such as an apartment complex could install dynamic signage. Staff clarified that this amendment only added dynamic signs as an allowed sign in Manufactured Home Park (MP) District and that other uses would have to either apply for a variance or ordinance amendment. Staff clarified that if the amendment was adopted by the Council, Maple Hill Estates would be able to apply for a Sign Permit for their dynamic sign. Motion made by Theis seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the Findings of Fact and Ordinance Amendment as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russel, Wu, and Theis. Voting Nay: Schultz. (Motion carried 4:1) b. Lennar Ravinia 7th Addition PUD Amendment (city file 16-030) i. Staff Report – City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – The Commission discussed the requirement for additional Park Dedication. Staff clarified that when Ravinia received preliminary plat and PUD approval, Park Dedication was calculated differently. With the original PUD approvals, a 23 acre natural park, 3 net acre neighborhood park, and 5 acres of trails were dedicated. The Commission discussed the Schwalbe approvals and Staff clarified that the City took cash in lieu of land. The Commission asked if the City did not take cash for the extra 12 lots what impacts it may have in the future. Staff stated that the park system within Ravinia is larger than necessary. Staff stated that 1 acre of park can support approximately 1,000 people. The Commission shared concerns if the City would still be able to collect Park Dedication on future phases if they were to be expanded. Staff clarified that this determination is for the 7th Addition only, and future expansions may be required to pay additional park dedication. The Commission expressed concerns regarding the grading along neighboring property lines, specifically those located at the north of the Hunter Lane neighborhood. Staff shared that the City previously required Lennar to work with property owners along this area regarding trees and fencing. The Commission discussed tree preservation and asked how it is monitored. Staff clarified that the 2014 approvals included a tree preservation plan and that the City engineer monitored this through pre-construction meetings and daily site inspections. The Commission noted that a lot was removed on the northwest corner of the plat. Mr. Tabone stated that lots were shifted to maintain access for the Tabor parcel. Staff stated that because the Tabor parcel was not part of the development, long-term solution for access was required and that an agreement between Lennar and the Tabor’s would be required as part of the final plat. Motion made by Schultz seconded by Russel to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment and grading expansion request as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russel, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) c. PUBLIC HEARING. IUP for Solar at 23710 Highway 55 (City file 16-032) i. Staff Report – City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Open Public Hearing – Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. iii. Public Comment – Ms. Michelle Mathews, MN Solar (applicant) asked for clarification regarding anti-reflective coatings and whether or not the proposed coatings meet the requirements. She also asked for clarification for turn-around requirements. Ms. Mathews stated that according to the glare study, after image is suggested, but no permanent damage. She shared that in her discussion with Xcel Energy, they stated that they do not bury utilities and that further clarification may be needed. Ms. Mathews spoke to concerns shared by Ms. Hall during Open Forum. She clarified that they reached out to Corcoran residents, but not neighboring community residents. Ms. Mathews stated that security and safety concerns would be addressed with the proposed fencing. She stated that the proposed landscaping would promote pollination and wildlife habitat for birds and foul, but that deer and larger animals may be restricted due to the fence. Ms. Mathews stated that the proposed use would not create any noise or odor that other industrial uses could create and believes that this is a better buffer to residential areas. Michael Krause, MN Solar (applicant) shared concerns regarding the decommissioning requirements. He stated that the materials are high value and although there is significant value to reclaim, the value of the materials is greater than the cost to remove. He said that some of the materials could be re-used and others could be recycled. He states that in reaching out to the neighboring businesses, there was general support of the project. Ms. Sharlyn Hall, 5166 Country Cir, Greenfield, MN 55357, again shared her opposition and concerns regarding the proposed solar garden. Her concerns included decreased property values, appearance and site views, screening, glare, and fencing. iv. Close Hearing Motion made by Theis seconded by Wu to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russel, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) v. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – The Commission asked Staff for clarification on the notification policy. Staff clarified that notice was posted in the City’s official paper: Crow River News, on the City’s website, at City Hall and notice was mailed to all property owners within 350’ of the subject property. The Commission briefly discussed solar gardens and that they are relatively new to Minnesota. Staff shared that only a few gardens have been constructed. The Commission asked for clarification on the type of plantings. They will be planting native grasses under the panels, pollinators along the border and trees and shrubs around the property. The Commission focused on the vegetation along the north and southwest lot line. The Commission asked if neighboring trees counted towards credit for landscaping requirements. Staff clarified that offsite trees do not typically count towards the requirements. By consensus, the Commission recommended requiring more screening around the property and that it should be located on the property. The Commission asked for glint and glare clarification. Staff clarified that the study shows a potential for temporary after image. The study is based on industry standards. Staff clarified that the panels are non-rotating/static, but that the study showed potential for glare to the West. Staff also clarified that the study was submitted by the applicant, but conducted by Westwood Professional Services and compared to industry standards. The Commission discussed the 30 year termination and asked if it could be renewed/extended. Staff confirmed that any extension or renewal would require a new IUP. Staff clarified that the residential use would remain on the property and that there would be a single lot/PID with multiple use classifications. The Commission asked for clarification regarding an easement shown on the survey. Ms. Mathews clarified that the easement was an old Century Link easement and had been released. The Commission asked if there were any concerns regarding bird safety and if there were any studies completed. The Commission inquired about the overall height of the panels. The applicant confirmed that panels would be approximately 9’ tall but would not exceed 12’. Staff confirmed that the glint and glare study shows potential for temporary eye damage, but no permanent eye damage. The Commission discussed future uses. Staff clarified that the property is currently zoned UR and guided as light industrial and that allowing the solar garden would not prohibit future development. Staff clarified landscaping requirements and stated that there are minimum sized required for plantings including a 2 ½” minimum diameter for deciduous trees and 4’ minimum height for coniferous. The applicant is proposing 7’ coniferous trees. The Commission agreed that off-site landscaping/trees do not count towards the minimum required for site screening and recommended extending the screening along the West and North boundaries. At the Commission’s request; staff and the applicant clarified the decommissioning plan. The Commission discussed the installation regarding underground and above ground utilities. Staff stated that everything is required to be buried, but if Xcel Energy will not allow them to be buried, it may need to be addressed. Motion made by Schultz seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit request with an amendment to condition 6. J. to not allow credit for offsite landscaping. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russel, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) 8. Reports/Information a. Planning Project Update – Information only b. City Council Report – Council Liaison Hank updated the Commission on City council activities. c. Other Business – None 9. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 11/21 12/8 12/19 01/12/17 01/26 02/09 02/23 Theis Wu Russel Jacobs Schultz Theis Schultz 10. Adjournment Motion made by Schultz seconded by Theis to adjourn Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russel, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) Meeting adjourned at 9:09pm. Submitted by Mike Pritchard Code Compliance Official