Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-24 Council MinutesA CITY OF CORCORAN City Council Meeting Minutes May 24, 2018 - 7:00pm The Corcoran City Council met on May 24, 2018 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were Mayor Thomas, Councilor LaFave, Councilor Bottema, Councilor Dejewski, and Councilor Keefe. Also present were City Administrator Martens, City Planner Lindahl, Public Works Director Mattson, and City Attorney Thames. 1. Call to Order I Roll Call Mayor Thomas called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Thomas invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Agenda Approval MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by LaFave to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Thomas, LaFave, Bottema, Dejewski, and Keefe (Motion carried 5 :0) 4. Open Forum No persons were present to speak. 5. Presentations The Council noted an award presented to Office Cody Vojacek at the First Responders Recognition Ceremony. 6. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of May 10, 2018 Council Meeting b. City Council Work Sessions c. Letter of Intent Not to Execute Purchase Agreement- 23185 County Road 10 d. Resolution Accepting Firearm Safety Donations MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by Keefe to approve the consent agenda consisting of items 6a, 6b, and 6c, with item 6d to be removed. Voting Aye: Thomas, LaFave, Bottema, Dejewski, and Keefe (Motion carried 5:0) Mayor Thomas read the resolution. MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to accept Resolution 2018 -39 Recognizing the Corcoran Police Firearms Safety Program and Accepting the Donations. Voting Aye: Thomas, LaFave, Bottema, Dejewski, and Keefe (Motion carried 5:0) 7. Claims as Presented a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500) MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Keefe to approve escrow claims as presented. Voting Aye: Thomas, LaFave, Bottema, Dejewski, and Keefe (Motion carried 5:0) b. All Other Financial Claims MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Keefe to approve all other claims as presented. Voting Aye: Thomas, LaFave, Bottema, Dejewski, and Keefe (Motion carried 5:0) 8. Staff Reports/ Memos/Commissions a. Commissioner Representatives The Council acknowledged Planning Commission Representative Meredith Wu and Parks and Trails Commission Representative Val Nybo. b. Planning Project Update The Council accepted the Project Planning Update. 9. Planning Business a. PUD Sketch Plan for Corcoran City Planner Lindahl presented a sketch plan for 31.21 gross acres on County Road 10 that includes a 200-unit senior continuum of care complex, a 125-unit market rate apartment complex, and 19 single-family homes. It is in the Southeast District and is subject to the Southeast Plan and Design Guidelines. It was guided Mixed-Residential with 8-10 units per acres. City Planner Lindahl noted that that area is currently zoned as RSF-3 which would require an update to be consistent with land use per State law. It also is located within the Shoreland Overlay District by Cook Lake with property to the east in Maple Grove proposed to be developed with this site. The applicant would reguide to High Density Residential with greater than 10 units per acre and would rezone to Planned Unit Development to propose mixed uses. The current plan is 15-17 units per acre but plans are not finalized. The applicant would also submit a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD development plan. Obtaining a PUD allows flexibility for setback distances from County Road 10 and Cook Lake, increased building height of up to 50 feet, impervious surface increased to 34%, and private drives. The Transportation Plan will require an additional right-of- way for County Road 10, sewer and water to be extended to the site, and a portion of Bass Lake Crossing trail extended to this site. It is proposed to fill some of the wetlands to the south. The Council noted that the watershed has its own standards for impervious surfaces and inquired if it was more or less restrictive that what was considered. City Planner Lindahl noted that the Shoreland Overlay District comes from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and approval from the watershed must be granted so the topic will be addressed. Kurt Manly from Hunter Homes addressed the Council. He acknowledged that an overriding issue from the project was the location and noted its consideration. Barb Rode from Saint Therese addressed the Council and explained the project in greater depth. She stated that Saint Therese's first project was in New Hope with 258 nursing home beds, 220 apartments, a pharmacy, and some home care. Other projects include Brooklyn Park and Woodbury. She noted that Saint Therese serves all faiths despite being a Catholic organization. She also noted that Saint Therese won the Real Estate Journal Award for best project in Minnesota and won the Woodbury Magazine Project of the Year. In addition to their campuses, they also lease out the 4th floor at North Memorial Hospital for transitional care and an 8-bed hospice center at St. Odilia. She explained that Saint Therese does a lot of mission work as well as market-rate housing. They are starting a new membership program to help residents stay in their homes as long as possible and are partnering with churches and parishes nearby. The Council inquired about the height of the structures. Barb Rode responded that they are 3-stories. City Planner Lindahl clarified that 3-stories is what is allowed for in standard zoning but because it lies within the Shoreland Overlay District it is reduced to 25-feet per DNR rules. The Council inquired if it was state or privately funded assisted living. Barb Rode responded that most of it is privately funded but they do accept Medicaid or waivered services in addition to donations that prevent residents from losing their homes. The Council inquired about the far proximity to a hospital with limited transportation. Barb Rode responded that Saint Therese has their own bus that takes people to where they need to go, as well as concierge services and transportation volunteers and feels confident that Saint Therese will be able to meet the transportation needs of the planned development. The Council inquired about the impact it will have on employment opportunities in the City of Corcoran. Barb Rode responded that there are positions that would need to be filled in dining services, nursing, nursing assistants, maintenance, therapeutic recreation and other. She noted that there are approximately 200 employees at the Saint Therese campus in Woodbury and they have approximately 1,250 employees across all campuses. The Council inquired if they would use the Saint Therese branding and if the developer proposed for this project had been used in their other projects. Barb Rode stated that they would be using Saint Therese branding and that they had used the same developer in previous projects. The Council stated concerns about having this project be considered "The Gateway to Corcoran" but would have its rear side facing those entering into Corcoran. Barb Rode noted that they are working with City staff on the aesthetics to be innovative with the design and noted a 15'x 15' stained glass window on the Woodbury campus that made it more appealing. The Council inquired about the guidelines for a resident coming in to live on this campus. Barb Rode explained that they help individuals stay in their apartments for as long as they can service a high-quality of care for them and it remains safe for the individual and staff assisting them. The Council inquired the market rate for the property in Woodbury. Barb Rode noted that a 2-bedroom unit was between $2,000-3,000 per month and that rates are set by the State for 52 different designated levels of care. Ward Isaacson from Hope Architects in Saint Paul, Minnesota addressed the Council to further explain the sketch plans. He noted that the town center is the community space that residents and members of the greater community can use with Saint Therese having the option to rent out spaces to the community. He explained that the concept is to wrap the levels of care around the town center as the center of the community. The plans have independent living, the town center, a 2-story care center, and a 3-story assisted living and memory care building with the first level being a dementia-specific, secured memory unit that would allow residents the option to go outside in a secured courtyard with assisted living apartments above. The Council inquired about the trail system. Ward Issacson noted that they would like to connect their trail system with the City's existing trail network. The Council inquired about having a welcome to Corcoran sign. Ward Issacson responded that could be a possibility. Beth Hustad from TREK addressed the Council and gave a report on tax implications. She explained that she looked at the site as if it were to be developed as a single-family development with 3 units to an acre and 70 units overall. The single-family development would result in $430,000 of taxes annually, while the Saint Therese project would result in approximately $1,500,000 with independent and assisted living as the taxable portions. She also noted that this is a difficult place to build a family-oriented project as the schools are too far away. The Council inquired if the apartments are taxed at full-market rate. Beth Hustad responded that they were. The Council went around and highlighted their major concerns noting the aesthetics of the development from the viewpoint of someone driving into the City of Corcoran, natural preservation, remaining 3-stories or lower, seizing State funding for the residents to help ease the financial burden, and would like to keep the setbacks. The Council noted that it was pleased with the way the plans looked, the taxes it would bring in, and the environment that lifecycle housing creates. b. Nuisance Ordinance Updates City Planner Lindahl gave an update on considerations for the Nuisance Ordinance. She noted that the Council had requested that staff look at potential updates to the Nuisance Ordinance to be more active in code enforcement. The Council discussed code enforcement standards at their February 9, 2017 and August 10, 2017 meetings. The Nuisance Code is currently broken into 4 parts: general provisions, weeds, open burning, and noise. The Code Enforcement Program operates under a complaint-based or reactionary policy on enforcement procedures and action is predicated by a complaint. She noted that the current process is slow and can take many efforts to gain compliance. Staff reviewed several cities for their standards to compare. City Planner Lindahl stated that based on research and initial Council direction, staff recommends: eliminating the individual subparts of the Ordinance to include revised definitions, consolidating and including additional actions considered a nuisance, amending the Ordinance to include revised definitions, and moving the nuisance language from the Zoning Ordinance to the Nuisance section. City Planner Lindahl highlighted some things for the Council to consider including whether abatements or citations should be part of the process, one notice or multiple notices for a violation, complaint- base enforcement or active enforcement, and if the Council should be involved. The Council inquired whether it would have to be abatement or citations exclusively or if a blend was possible. City Planner Lindahl responded that a blend is an option. City Attorney Thames addressed the Council to explain what the citation and abatement process would look like. He noted that there were different citation levels that would have to be built into the Code that would allow the Code Enforcement Official to have similar authority as a peace officer on specific items where the Code Enforcement Official could write citations based on the nuisance that results in a fine. A disadvantage would be that it would result in engaging in a court process. He noted that citations would have to be derived from the City of Corcoran's Code and not State Statutes because the court will have a state-wide payable schedule in which the cited individual could pay a fine and not address the underlying nuisance. When it reaches a level where compliance will not happen voluntarily without court persuasion, a complaint is referred and presented to a judge who gives a signature and summons to court. City Attorney Thames noted that the timing would be at the mercy of the court schedule which is often not quick or efficient. With given authority, the City of Corcoran can respond to a nuisance by presenting a charging document with specific violations and specified authority. He noted that some punishments are fines only which is not recommended because it allows the potential for the nuisance to go unaddressed. The court order allows the City of Corcoran to be protected for liability in going to the property and addressing the nuisance themselves. He also noted that the process the City chooses needs to have due process outlined in it and a chance for the affected party to appeal. The process would be for staff to seek voluntary abatement through notifications, initiate a court process with a citation if ignored with the consequence of jail or a fine, and abatement as a last resort. The Council noted that they want to have the appropriate options to employ if necessary and inquired what the next step would be. City Attorney Thames recommended to continue empowering staff. The Council inquired about locations where there would be a difference in property owner and occupant and who would be responsible. City Attorney Thames said that under the current Ordinance it is the responsibility of the property owner, but that it would be beneficial to notify both. He also noted that the City can make amendments to its Code to make the occupant or the owner the responsible party but the definition of the occupant has to be intentional. The Council discussed how much Council involvement would be beneficial to the process and discussed the benefit of issuing fines to help with the cost incurred by active code enforcement. The Council also addressed the potential danger of having City staff encroach on someone's property, as well as specific nuisances that could be of danger including hazardous materials. City Attorney Thames noted that the police typically accompany the City staff and that the City will have more authority in taking action swiftly if there is a danger present on the property. The Council noted the importance in developing a policy in which they can stand behind staff despite complaints from affected parties. City Administrator Martens stated that common complaints and the Code will be researched to develop the best policy and will be a priority for 2019 that can be added to the Newsletter. c. Corcoran Development Process and Alternatives City Planner Lindahl discussed the City policy regarding financial guarantees for the development process. She noted that the City modified their policy for financial guarantees for the Bass Lake Crossing South process which initiated a discussion on how the City of Corcoran's policy compares to other cities and to see if alternatives exist. Staff created a report outlining the existing development process and the transparency of the process to landowners and applicants. She noted that the City of Corcoran has checklists online and at City Hall that summarize the City Code and inform applicants every document they need to submit. The development process in Corcoran is similar to the development process in other cities and is based largely on timelines established by the state. The City Code allows the City of Corcoran to accept a letter of credit, cash escrow, cash, or performance bonds for 125% the cost of the improvements at its discretion. She noted that it had been a policy for the City to accept performance bonds only on public projects and a letter of credit or cash escrow for developments. City Planner Lindahl outlined some options for Council to consider if streamlining the development process is of interest. She explained that the City of Corcoran could go back to financing options that were used in the past, reduce the amount received to be 100% instead of 125% the cost of the project, make some applications go through staff's approval only, modify the Code to eliminate the Planning Commission meeting for a final PUD Development Plan since it is not required by statute, or add a second meeting each month for the Commission with planning items being placed on both Council agendas shortening the process. The Council inquired if it was possible to allow performance bonds in situations where incomplete construction affects others. City Attorney Thames noted that it may be difficult to enforce a policy like that due to its ambiguity. The Council inquired whether staff would be willing to take on more of an administrative burden. City Administrator Martens noted that having a clear and concise vision from the Council would make it less of a burden and easier to implement. The Council noted some development delays due to the City being in the beginning stages of development but expressed acceptance for that due to wanting to ensure everything is being done correctly. The Council expressed not wanting to add a second meeting unless Commissions want to and did not find it urgent to change the development process at this time. The Council also noted a desire to not have lengthy discussions on items that they do not get a vote on whether or not the project comes to fruition since Council cannot vote against a project if it meets Code requirements. City Administrator Martens stated that a future motion and vote on what to do with financial guarantees would be beneficial. Council directed staff require letter of credit or cash for developments and to reduce the amount required to 100% of the cost of improvements. d. Work Plan for Amendments to Development Rights and Open Space & Preservation Plats City Planner Lindahl gave a presentation on the Open Space & Preservation Ordinance. She noted that Corcoran's development rights program was developed with the intention of managing developing rural areas and areas where municipal services are planned but have not yet been provided. Currently it allows 1 unit per 30 acres when access is on an unpaved street and 1 unit per 10 acres when access is on a paved street. The development rights program was seen in part as a tool to incentivize property owners to construct and pave streets. Council can proceed with changes to the development rights if desired. One option is to allow all land owners to develop at 1 unit per 10 acres regardless of whether or not roads are paved which is the maximum density for Diversified Rural areas. Another option is to eliminate the program and create a minimum lot size for the Rural Residential and Urban Reserve District which has been discussed previously. The changes to the development rights will carry over and affect the Open Space & Preservation Ordinance. In 2004, the City adopted an Open Space & Preservation Ordinance that increased development rights in exchange for preservation of open space. It was updated in 2011 to make it easier for property owners to develop their land. The current Ordinance requires only 25% of the land be preserved either permanently or temporarily as open space, with 50% of the dedicated land identified as buildable. City Planner Lindahl noted that changing the Ordinance may trigger a Met Council review. Met Council has flexible design guidelines that can be adopted. She noted that the Open Space & Preservation Ordinance was created to preserve natural resources and a rural character. City Planner Lindahl presented some questions for the Council to consider including what the goal of the Ordinance should be, whether or not roads should be paved, whether density bonuses are being given for the right reasons, whether there should be more density bonuses, whether the design standards are sufficient, and whether deviations from the minimum standards should be handled as a PUD. The Council discussed having identified target areas for natural resource protection to be permanent over future years and whether there are certain areas that Corcoran will not want to bring sewer. The Council also discussed whether this item would be better addressed in a Work Session meeting before enacting policy. Council directed staff to schedule a work session to continue the discussion. e. Natural Resource Protection Options City Planner Lindahl presented the Council with some options for protecting natural resources in Corcoran with the purpose of maintaining Corcoran's rural character. An inventory of natural resources was performed by the City and is shown on the "Natural Resource Inventory Map". The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified preserving natural resources as a goal in the growth management goals and policies. Corcoran currently protects wetlands, lakes, and rivers through the shoreland overlay district and wetland overlay district ordinances. The Open Space & Preservation Ordinance is intended to be a tool to preserve natural resources and prime agricultural land. The Council can choose to adopt ordinances that would protect natural resource communities through development. City Planner Lindahl noted that one plan is to explore developing a tree preservation ordinance that would require a certain percentage of trees be preserved through development by creating incentives or penalties for tree preservation through the subdivision process. Another option is reducing lot sizes and setbacks with methods for mitigating impacts from reduced lot sizes through screening and landscaping. The Council inquired whether the Open Space & Preservation Ordinance be considered a clustering policy or whether there should be separation where the City develops a clustering ordinance in which landowners that cluster their home get additional building rights to leave space open for development. City Planner Lindahl noted that topic may be beneficial to discuss at a Work Session. She explained that they are inquiring the Council if the Council feels the City could be better preserving something that currently is not protected enough. The Council expressed indifference on the tree preservation policy. The Council discussed the benefit of old, large trees in preserving a rural character but also noted a developer's desire to be able to control the look and use of property as much as possible. City Planner Lindahl clarified that a tree preservation policy would be either preservation or replacement and could be considered as an incentive to use along with the Open Space & Preservation Ordinance. No action was taken. 10. Unfinished Business No unfinished business was presented. 11. New Business a. Preliminary Evaluation of Corcoran Water Supply Development Director of Public Works Mattson gave a presentation on evaluating Corcoran's water supply development. Currently, Southeast Corcoran has been developing using water supplied under agreement with Maple Grove. If approved, the Pulte development will expand use with a connection in northeast Corcoran. The current draft Comprehensive Plan and its predecessor both discussed utilizing Maple Grove as the initial water supply for these areas, but also discussed the potential for an eventual development of Corcoran's own water supply. The timing of a transition has not yet been evaluated and is influence by several factors. Staff recommends that the City authorize a preliminary evaluation for those factors as guidance for Council to be conducted during 2018. Maple Grove supplies water and treatment while Corcoran is responsible for infrastructure and storage. The agreement provides 1.75 million gallons of water per day. The goal of the report is to lay out the processes and explain them, outline the regulatory requirements and permits necessary, outline a project timeline and milestones, estimate the cost associated with infrastructure, and identify potential investment points. If desired, further financial studies could be undertaken in future stages. Staff is asking Council to authorize completion of an engineer's report to evaluate preliminary development of Corcoran's own water supply at an estimated cost of $5,000 which would be funded through the Water Fund if approved. The Council inquired if that would include a potential collaboration with surrounding water systems. Director of Public Works Mattson noted that Corcoran would leverage opportunities with other communities and see if joint power agreements would make sense for Corcoran. The purpose is to identify the benefits and disadvantages of different options and identify where aquifers are viable. The Council discussed whether or not it was time to have discussions on Corcoran's own water supply. City Administrator Martens noted that limited sewer capacity also plays into these discussions and that at minimum the City should be looking into collaborating with nearby communities and noted that Corcoran may not get approval from Maple Grove to serve anything substantial. City Administrator Martens also noted that any information found in this study could be used in the future. The Council noted that doing the study sooner rather than later would be integral in being able to effectively collaborate with nearby communities before these communities develop their own water supply. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Keefe to direct staff to move forward with a water study with a total cost of $5,000 maximum. Voting Aye: Thomas, LaFave, Bottema, Dejewski, and Keefe (Motion carried 5:0) b. Gambling Ordinance Amendment Request City Administrator Martens noted a request to update the City of Corcoran's Gambling Ordinance to allow for one -time type gambling opportunities. The particular request was for a gun raffle at The Stanchion. Staff had conversations with the Jaycees who said they were in favor under certain conditions. City Administrator Martens noted that the City has the option to make the ordinance specific and can limit the amount of times it can be done per year. The fees brought in would pay for the cost. MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Bottema to direct staff to change the Gambling Ordinance to allow for raffle events as requested. Voting Aye: Thomas, LaFave, Bottema, Dejewski, and Keefe (Motion carried 5 :0) 12. 2018 Council Schedule City Administrator Martens reviewed the upcoming schedule. 13. Council Liaison Calendar The Council liaison calendar was not reviewed, but was available in the Council packet. 14. Adjournment MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Bottema to adjourn. Voting Aye: Thomas, LaFave, Bottema, Dejewski, and Keefe (Motion carried 5:0) Meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Brad Martens —City Administrator