Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-02 Planning Commission Minutes_fii Fiei a CITY OF CORCORAN Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2020 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on July 2, 2020 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present via telephonic or other electronic means were: Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Dickman, Commissioner Shoulak, and Commissioner Vehrenkamp. Absent: Commissioner Wu Also present via telephonic or other electronic means were: City Administrator Martens and City Planner Lindahl. Code Compliance Official Pritchard was present at City Hall. 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 Vehrenkamp seconded by Shoulak to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Dickman, Shoulak, and Vehrenkamp. (Motion carried 4:0) 4. Open Forum — None 5. Minutes a. Minutes — June 4, 2020 Motion made by Dickman seconded by Jacobs to approve the minutes as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Dickman, Shoulak, and Vehrenkamp. (Motion carried 4:0) 6. New Business a. Sign Variance for the Corcoran Crossroads property located at 7625 County Road 116 (PID 26- 119-23-11-0013) (city file no. 20-014) i. Staff Report — Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — Chair Jacobs allowed the audience to speak regarding the application. The property owner, Hasmukh Patel stated he was available for questions. Brent Anderson, 21100 93d Ave, shared his support for the variance and stated the owners were generous members of the community. The Commission discussed the additional fuel tanks, traffic flow, setbacks, and clarified signs being replaced/added. Motion made by Dickman seconded by Vehrenkamp to recommend approval of the resolution as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Dickman, Shoulak, and Vehrenkamp. (Motion carried 4:0) b. Sign Variance for property at 9350 County Road 19 (PID 07-119-23-43-0004) (city file no. 20- 020) i. Staff Report — Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation - The Commission received clarification on the changeable message board/dynamic sign. Motion made by Vehrenkamp seconded by Shoulak to recommend approval of the resolution as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Dickman, Shoulak, and Vehrenkamp. (Motion carried 4:0) c. Public Hearing. Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat for Eagle Brook Church on property located at the northwest corner of Hackamore Road and CR 101 (PID 36-119-23- 44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0014) (city file no. 20-023) i. Staff Report — Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. Stephanie Hauber, Eagle Brook Church, provided a verbal overview of the proposal. Open Public Hearing — Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. Manoj Thomas, 6552 Carriage Way, asked the commission to recommend denial and shared concerns with the project including: traffic, lack of outreach by the applicant, a 1,000+ signature online petition , landscaping/screening, safety/privacy/comfort of surrounding neighborhood, pedestrian safety, and shared concerns that traffic data may not be accurate and/or the software used is flawed. He requested an independent study and requested more traffic mitigation. Peter Hartz, 19169 Galloway Cir., asked the commission to recommend denial and shared concerns with the project including: traffic impacts, safety concerns, medical response delays during peak traffic, danger with added traffic in neighborhood and on Co Rd 101; he also mentioned the petition and requested a new traffic study. Gary Hahn, 6494 Larkspur Ct., shared concerns with the project including: traffic, inaccuracy of point -of -view graphics regarding distance/proximity, lack of noise and visual screening, neighborhood traffic, pedestrian and children safety, view shed of parking lot, and that the traffic study is flawed. Tiffany Checketts, 6310 Steeple Chase La., shared concerns with the project including: screening and asked for permanent berm/screening to be added and asked if parking could be shifted east and if the City could limit outlot A to residential only. Jeremy Nichols, 6334 Steeple Chase La., shared concerns with the project including: scale of the land use and size of the facility and parking lot and shared other zoning district structure size limitations. He referenced the petition and concerns with safety and privacy, as well as that the sites used in comparison were not comparable due to factors such as proximity and open space. He asked that the structure be limited to 50,000 SF. Robert Dovenberg, 335 Bergamot Dr. Medina, shared concerns with the project including: inaccuracy of point -of -view graphics regarding distance/proximity, incompatibility with surrounding land use, traffic and safety, substantial public opposition (petition), and asked the City to work with the applicant to find a different site. He also referenced RLUIPA and case law denying CUPs. Andrew Schultz, 6569 Zircon La. Maple Grove, shared his support for the church and stated the church would be a good neighbor and that the service traffic could be mitigated with parking attendants. Sarah Nichols, 6334 Steeple Chase La, shared concerns with the project including: noise, privacy, traffic, parking lot/dumpster proximity to residential, views, screening/landscaping, safety and security, street expansion into the site from Ravinia and asked the Commission to not approve with conditions, but rather require corrections to be made. She also shared concerns with the traffic study data and asked if a covenant could be required that did not allow traffic in the neighborhood. Fred Benkusky, 6215 Hackamore Cir., shared concerns with the project including: traffic, water/drainage, development in the area, parking lot lighting, and Hackamore improvement financing. Tom McKee, 6633 Bridle Path, shared concerns with the project including: insufficient traffic data, construction traffic, as well as potential accessory uses including concerts/music and noise. Nav Narayan, 6672 Carriage Way, shared concerns with the project including: traffic, property values, facility size, petition, crowds/noise, lighting, and stated the proposal does not meet CUP standards and asked the Commission to recommend denial and the applicant to find a different location. Blaine Schneider, 6449 Larkspur Ct., shared concerns with the project including: the petition, traffic, property values, ability to enter and exit the neighborhood during service traffic, children safety, and traffic study data. He also suggested the applicant provide a public park/playfield and inquired about police/security. Amy Shatava, 19223 Bridle Path, shared concerns with the project including: traffic, noise, proximity and views, size, lighting, and architectural design. She asked that more screening be provided, and existing screening remain. Jonathan Coots, 19398 Lupine La., shared concerns with the project including: scales/size of facility, number of weekly visitors, flaws in the parking study data, traffic, ability to enter/exit neighborhood, burden on infrastructure/services, noise, light, safety, property values, and asked the Commission to reject and the applicant to find a new location. Ginger Anzalone, 340 Bergamot Dr. Medina, shared concerns with the project including: views, noise, traffic, safety, property value, lighting, headlights, lack of screening, neighborhood cut -through traffic, delayed medial responses during peak traffic. She asked the Commission to deny and the applicant to find a new location. Vasanth, 6418 Bluestem Cir., shared that he seconded all concerns previously raised and reiterated traffic concerns and pedestrian safety and asked if a benefits analysis to the City was completed. Chair Jacobs called a recess at 10:15pm. The meeting reconvened at 10:22pm. Cathy Hempe, 19247 Bridle Path, shared concerns with the project including: scale/size, outdoor services, and noise. Manoj Thomas, 6552 Carriage Way, Shared concerns with architectural design and asked for clarification on process/tied motion. Tom McKee, 6633 Bridle Path, asked if additional services, such as weddings, funerals, and youth events would be provided. Jonathan Coots, 19398 Lupine La., stated that plans are designed to offer flexibility and offered his assistance to find a solution. Jeremy Nichols, 6334 Steeple Chase La., shared concerns with the project including: traffic data, parking, safety, resident comfort, structure size, and said the development would be harmful and asked the Commission to deny. iii. Close Hearing Motion made by Vehrenkamp seconded by Dickman to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Dickman, Shoulak, and Vehrenkamp. (Motion carried 4:0) iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — The Commission asked staff to clarify and answer any questions that arose during the public hearing. Staff clarified that the traffic study was conducted by the City's contract engineer and the software used has been/is used for all of Corcoran's traffic studies and that Medina's separate study reaffirms the provided study. Staff clarified that other district standards do not apply to other districts. Staff stated the application is reviewed based on ordinance standards and that RLUIPA was not discussed in the staff report. Drainage is being addressed as part of the project. Any lighting proposed would need to meet ordinance standards. Design and final material selection are a condition of approval. Outdoor accessory uses are not being proposed and would not be permitted as part of this approval. City police or private security cost would be the burden of the applicant/owner. Lighting, landscaping would need to meet ordinance and would be a condition of approval. Staff clarified that the applicant could update their plan prior to Council review to mitigate concerns raised during the public hearing. The Director of Public Safety and Fire Chiefs reviewed the plans for safety and emergency services. Staff responded that no matter the Commission recommendation tonight, the Council would make a final decision. The Commission discussed issues and concerns raised by residents/speakers at the public hearing. Landscaping and screening were discussed and included: adding berms, larger trees, more trees, and maintaining existing trees. Setbacks and the size and location of the parking lot was discussed. Staff confirmed parking lots could not likely move without filling wetland as well as snow storage and removal. The applicant stated that the parking lot was designed at peak numbers so that all parking could be kept onsite. The applicant also clarified that the capacity is 1,500 seats and that they would average about 1,000 attendants between two services. Services are held Saturday, Sunday, and Wednesday. The applicant clarified that no other uses or events were being proposed and that the broadcast site was at their Lino lakes campus but that a live band would be on location. The Commission discussed future road extensions and whether previously stubbed roads would become permanent turnarounds. Staff clarified this would need to be determined and that roads are stubbed to allow property owners the ability to develop independently. The Commission discussed Outlot A and that nothing is currently being proposed. Traffic and infrastructure concerns regarding County Road 101, Hackamore Road and concerns about cut through in the existing neighborhoods were discussed. The Commission shared concerns about pedestrian and vehicle safety and discussed traffic control and Public Safety review. Property values were discussed, and staff stated that property value studies are not typically conducted. The Commission discussed parking lot lighting as well as street lighting within Ravinia. The Commission discussed the online petition as well as the CUP conditions and if they were not met. Staff clarified the process for denial. Motion made by Vehrenkamp seconded by Shoulak to recommend denial of the resolution for site plan and conditional use permit based on the proposal not meeting conditional use permit standards 3a., 3c., and 3e. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Dickman, Shoulak, and Vehrenkamp. (Motion carried 4:0) Motion made by Vehrenkamp seconded by Jacobs to recommend approval of the preliminary plat resolution as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Dickman, Shoulak, and Vehrenkamp. (Motion carried 4:0) d. Final PUD Development Plan for Bellwether 5th Addition (PID 0-119-23-43-0011) (city file no. 20-024) i. Staff Report — Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — None Motion made by Dickman seconded by Vehrenkamp to recommend approval of the resolution as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Dickman, Shoulak, and Vehrenkamp. (Motion carried 4:0) 7. Reports/Information a. Planning Project Update — Information only. b. City Council Report* — Information only. c. Other Business — The Commission asked staff to review other Zoning District standards related to structure size. 8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings — Commissioners Dickman and Shoulak swapped dates. 7/9/20 7/23/20 8/13/20 8/27/20 9/10/20 9/24/20 Vehrenkamp Wu Dickman Jacobs Shoulak Vehrenkamp 9. Adjournment Motion made by Vehrenkamp seconded by Shoulak to adjourn. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Dickman, Shoulak, and Vehrenkamp. (Motion carried 4:0) Meeting adjourned at 12:47 am, Friday, July 3, 2020. /QIOJU Submitted by Mike Pritchard Code Compliance Official