Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-05 Planning Commission Agenda PacketCITY OF CORCORAN *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. Corcoran Planning Commission Agenda May 5, 2022 - 7:00 pm 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval 4.Open Forum 5. Minutes a. Minutes – April 7, 2022* 6.New Business - Public Comment Opportunity a.Public Hearing. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Corcoran Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (city file 21-050) i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation b.Public Hearing. Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Application for “Walcott Glen” (city file no. 22-015)) i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation c.Public Hearing. Preliminary Plat and Variance for Kariniemi Meadows at 23185 County Road 10 (city file 22-013) i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation d.Public Hearing. Ditzer Garage Conditional Use Permit at 9320 Cherry Lane (PID 12-119-23- 43-0013) (city file 22-020) i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation e.Public Hearing. Preliminary Plat and Variance at 7310 Rolling Hills Road (city file 22-002) i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation HYBRID MEETING OPTION AVAILABLE The public is invited to attend the regular Council meetings at City Hall. Meeting Via Telephone/Other Electronic Means Call-in Instructions: +1 312 626 6799 US Enter Meeting ID: 818 6303 1118 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment sections in the meeting. Video Link and Instructions: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81863031118 Or visit http://www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 818 6303 1118 Participants can utilize the Raise Hand function to be recognized to speak during the Public Comment sections in the meeting. Participant video feeds will be muted. In-person comments will be received first, with the hybrid electronic means option following. www.corcoranmn.gov *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. 7. Reports/Information a. Planning Project Update* b. City Council Report* – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp c. Other Business 8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 05/12/22 05/26/22 06/09/22 06/23/22 07/14/22 07/21/22 Van Den Einde Brummond Jacobs Lanterman Shoulak Van Den Einde 9. Adjournment CITY OF CORCORAN Page 1 of 6 Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2022 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on April 7, 2022, in Corcoran, Minnesota. All Planning Commissioners were present in the Council Chambers, but members of the public were able to participate in-person as well as through electronic means using the audio and video conferencing platform Zoom. Present: Commissioners Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. Also present: City Administrator Jessica Beise and City Planner Lindahl. Also present via telephonic or other electronic means: Council Liaison Vehrenkamp. 1.Call to Order / Roll Call Commissioner Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:19 pm. 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval Motion made by Brummond seconded by Lanterman to approve the March 3, 2022 agenda. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 5:0). 4.Open Forum 5.Minutes a. Minutes – March 3, 2022. Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Brummond, to approve the March 3, 2022 minutes, with the adjustment to the draft to clarify the reasoning for denying the Wright Hennepin substation. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 5:0). 6.New Business - Public Comment Opportunity a.Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Administrative Permit for “Corcoran II Substation” at Larkin Road and County Road 116 (PID 25-119-23-23- 0001) (City file no. 22-004). i.Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission Discussion included a response to staff comments made at the March Planning Commission Meeting; communication improvements between the Council, Commission, Staff and applicants; concerns over whether Wright Hennepin was applying prematurely; benefits of having a wall around a substation; the use of a slatted chain-link fence in addition to landscaping; comparisons item 5a. Page 2 of 6 to Wright Hennepin’s Lawndale Substation; improving screening by increasing the amount and size of trees within the landscape plan, including the use of spaded trees and a berm, particularly on the north and west side of the property; desire and potential location for a monument; drainage issues; previously considered sites; desire for climbers and creepers in the landscaping; and color considerations. The Commission recommended a berm that straddles the property line to allow a double row of plantings on the north and west side, a chain link fence with slats, a monument sign with landscaping, and the use of larger trees, some of which should be spaded, with a priority for screening to be maximized on the west and north sides of the property. b. PUBLIC HEARING. Westside Tire Variance, Site Plan and Interim Use Permit (city file 22-011). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii. Open Public Hearing - Chair Jacobs opened the Public Hearing Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Shoulak, to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 5:0). iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission discussion include current code violations at Westside Tire; verbiage of Interim Use Permit; insufficient screening in the request; Public Safety’s concern with a 70-foot curb cut; the requested parking setback variance; the existing snowmobile trails; differences between gravel pavement and bituminous; correction on an area labeled gravel in the plans that is meant to be concrete; building usage on the west side of the property; the easement along the Ebert property; removing gravel in the easement area; possibility of disturbing an acre of soil and desire to avoid triggering review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and storage areas. Further discussion included the logistics of Westside Tire working on heavy-duty equipment and wide loads; alternatives to the 70- foot curb cut; logistics of coordination between the applicant and item 5a. Page 3 of 6 public safety; uniformity of the surrounding area; lighting and landscape design standards; the quantity of stalls; previous method of servicing customers with existing curb cut; shifting south to meet setback requirements; safety history of the current curb cut; possibility of a median over the driveway; condition of the ground near the creek as justification for the setback variance; the permanence of granting a variance; Westside’s clientele and frequency of servicing larger than usual semitrucks and heavy equipment; the sunset clause associated with the IUP; and adding a crosswalk between the two properties. Motion made by Jacobs, seconded by Shoulak, to recommend approval of the 70-foot curb cut variance with the addition of a surmountable median to the plan. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. Voting Nay: Lanterman. (Motion carried 4:1). Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to recommend approval of the interim use permit and site plan application, with the deletion of condition 7a in the draft resolution. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. Voting Nay: Lanterman. (Motion carried 4:1). Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Jacobs to recommend denial of the setback variance. Voting Aye: Jacobs and Lanterman. Voting Nay: Brummond. Abstain: Van Den Einde and Shoulak. (Motion Passed 2:1:2). Commissioner Lanterman excused himself from the meeting at 10:50 pm. c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Planned Unit Developments (city file 22-022). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Davis McKeown. ii. Public Hearing – Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to close the public hearing. item 5a. Page 4 of 6 Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). iii. Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included a previous final PUD plan for Cook Lake Highlands reviewed by the Commission; limiting the focus of reports for final PUD plans that include an amendment request for additional flexibility; the Commission’s role in negotiation of PUDs. Motion made by Shoulak, seconded by Brummond, to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Planned Unit Developments. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). d. Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for Bellwether 8th Addition (city file 22-007). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii. Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included the land donation for park dedication; the boardwalk design; and the road connection to Hunters Ridge. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to recommend approval of the Final PUD plan for Bellwether 8th addition. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). e. Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for Amberly 2nd Addition (city file 22-008). i. Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii. Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included the Homeowners Association and required architectural upgrades. Motion made by Jacobs, seconded by Brummond, to recommend approval of the Final PUD plan for Amberly 2nd Addition. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). item 5a. Page 5 of 6 f.Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for Bellwether 9th Addition (city file 22-017). i.Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii.Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included rate of completion compared to initial time estimate. Motion made by Van Den Einde, seconded by Brummond, to recommend approval of the Final PUD plan for Bellwether 9th Addition. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). g.Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition (city file 22-012). i.Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl. ii.Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included the new PUD amendment review process; impact to traffic volumes on County Road 10; and outlots within the final phase. Motion made by Shoulak, seconded by Van Den Einde, to approve the Final PUD Plan for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). h.Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (city file 21-050). i.Public Comment •Dan Cagley, 19450 County Road 30, had questions about the impact to his property and requested to speak with City Staff following the meeting. Also asked about the future size of County Road 30 and the connection to Highway 610. •Jason Howell, 9470 Duffney Drive, stated concerns about a potential road shown behind his property as well as safety concerns with the shown location of the western-most intersection on County Road 30. ii.Commission Discussion – The Commission decided to submit comments and feedback outside of the meeting to be incorporated in the May packet for the public hearing and final recommendation to City Council. 7.Reports/Information item 5a. Page 6 of 6 a.Planning Project Update b.City Council Report c.Other Business (none) 8.Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 4/14/21 4/28/22 5/12/22 5/26/22 6/9/22 6/23/22 Lanterman Shoulak Van Den Einde Brummond Jacobs Lanterman 9.Adjournment Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to adjourn the April 7, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). Meeting adjourned at 12:24 AM. item 5a. 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 6.a TO: Corcoran Planning Commission FROM: Kevin Shay through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: April 28, 2022 for the May 5, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting RE: PUBLIC HEARING - Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (city file no. 21-050) REVIEW DEADLINE: N/A 1. Description of Request This is a City-initiated project to update the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines that were originally adopted in 2004. Since that time, the Comprehensive Plan has been updated twice and the modifications are needed to bring the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and current City vision. 2. Background The 2040 Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2019 after nearly three years of public meetings. The Comprehensive Plan is the vision for development in Corcoran. Although it is a physical plan, it is a reflection of the community's social and economic values. These values are translated into the type of land use the City desires and programs regarding economic development, housing, parks, transportation and other key areas. Following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City initiated updates to the Zoning Map and other ordinances as required to bring those documents into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This update is one of those implementation steps. On June 10, 2021, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance establishing a development moratorium in the Northeast District so that the City could complete the water supply plan for the Northeast District and review the development standards for this area. The moratorium is set to expire on June 10, 2022. City staff applied for and was awarded a Hennepin County planning grant for the Northeast District. Upon receipt of the grant, the City website was updated to provide information about the process and encourage public participation. The City held a kick-off meeting with Hennepin County on December 1st to establish expectations, schedule and deliverables. A second meeting with Hennepin County Transportation staff was held on February 16th to review street connections to the County Roads. An online survey was developed and available for public comments from December 17th – January 14th. A total of 166 individuals participated. Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 2 May 5, 2022 On January 11th, a Landowners Open House was held at Hope Community Church to gather feedback from landowners and residents on the proposed changes the plan. Notice was sent to all landowners in the Northeast District and posted on the City website. The meeting was hosted off-site because we expected good turnout and were pleasantly surprised that more than 100 people attended the event. The input gathered at the event suggests that residents desire more retail, restaurant and job opportunities in Corcoran and that they have a strong preference for preserving natural areas where possible and providing landscaping and green infrastructure (including rain gardens, off road trails for bicyclists and pedestrians, parking lot islands) with new development. On March 15th, a second open house was held at Hope Community Church to gather additional feedback from landowners and residents. This meeting was also well attended with an estimated 70 residents and landowners in attendance. On April 7th, the Planning Commission discussed the draft plan. Due to the length of the items prior to the draft plan on the agenda, the discussion regarding the plan was limited. Staff asked the Commissioners to provide additional comment regarding the plan prior to the May meeting. Commissioner Brummond provided multiple comments which are attached to this report and have included in the draft Northeast District plan. 3. Analysis The purpose of the Northeast District Plan update is not to amend the Comprehensive Plan, but rather to amend the Northeast District Plan to reflect the land use designations adopted in the Comprehensive Plan and the adopted zoning map. While no changes are proposed to the land use or zoning, the update is intended to establish new standards for development in this area. The work plan established with the City grant application is to develop a new plan informed by stakeholder input that includes: • A new concept plan for the Northeast District • Planned infrastructure improvements • Creation of a street hierarchy • Identification of parks, trails and plazas • A walkable destinations map • Updated landscaping and screening requirements • Gateway signage standards • Architectural standards – styles, placement, massing, height, etc. • Parking location and design standards • Utility installation standards • Strategies for sustainability, resiliency and preservation of natural resources such as encouraging the use of green infrastructure for stormwater management Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 3 May 5, 2022 The draft Northeast district plan takes the feedback received from meetings with County staff, city council and residents to create a document which accomplishes the goals of the Hennepin County grant and takes the feedback into account. The draft northeast district plan includes the following sections. 1. District Overview and Purpose a. Purpose Statement This outlines the purpose of the district. It clarifies that these standards are adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance and are in addition to the basic standards established by the applicable zoning district. The purpose of the standards is to establish standards for commercial, industrial, mixed use and business campus districts for job-creating businesses that will expand the tax base and provide jobs or provide retail/service businesses to support Corcoran residents. The standards will ensure quality site design that will result in attractive business and residential development. b. Application This describes that the content of the plan is in addition to those standards found in the Zoning Ordinance. c. Sustainable Design Framework This section describes Corcoran’s definition of sustainability and how sustainable design should be incorporated into new development. Sustainable development meets the public demand and requires the responsible use of resources without unacceptable social, economic, or environmental consequences. This goal was adopted in Chapter 9 (Water Resources) of the Comprehensive Plan and provides a good starting point for development of the Northeast District plan standards. d. Utility Plan (sanitary sewer, water, stormwater) The plan has been updated with the most current infrastructure planning information. It is our hope that the water supply planning effort that is being discussed concurrently with this plan can be updated in time for the final document preparation in April. e. Street Hierarchy and Standards We have developed a master street plan based off the version presented at the Open House and created design standards like those adopted as part of the Southeast District Plan. Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 4 May 5, 2022 At the Planning Commission meeting on April 7th, Chair Jacobs stated his concerns about a planned future street east of Duffney Drive where he lives. Another resident of Duffney Drive spoke about his concerns about the location of the planned street and intersection with County Road 30. Staff noted that intersections were generally spaced according to County spacing guidelines after discussion with County transportation staff. Following the Planning Commission staff met and agree to shift the planned intersection to the east, which would provide more separation from Duffney Drive in the future if the street is constructed. The map in the document reflects this change. The final street alignment will be determined when development is proposed and the ultimate intersection will be permitted by Hennepin County. 2. Design Principles a. Allowable Uses This section lists businesses that are currently permitted in the zoning districts but are proposed to be prohibited in the Northeast District. They include contractors operations, equipment rental, lumberyards/building material sales, mini storage/self storage buildings, motor vehicle, boat or equipment repair or sales. • The Planning Commission may wish to provide feedback to staff on any types of businesses that they do not believe are appropriate in this district given the gateway location and the desire to expand the tax base and create jobs. b. Buildings – Architecture, Placement, Massing, Height, Uses The City has adopted building standards in Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, we are recommending additional standards for the Northeast District to reflect the public feedback. c. Parking – Location, Standards (including bike racks and EV charging stations), landscaping and stormwater standards Parking lot standards have been developed to require landscape islands, stormwater design, lighting design and maintenance plans that ensure long term sustainability. We are trying to avoid the creation of large heat islands by requiring parking lot islands to break up the pavement areas and encourage new businesses to minimize hard surfaces. Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 5 May 5, 2022 d. Electric Vehicles As part of the sustainable design strategies incorporated into the document we have included a requirement to provide a small amount of electric vehicle parking for sites with more than 100 parking spaces. The update adds definitions to Section 1020 of the Zoning Ordinance related to electric vehicles. These definitions are included in the draft ordinance. e. Screening – trash, loading areas, mechanical equipment, etc. These standards are established in Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance and the northeast district adds to these standards in an attempt to preserve the rural character. f. Landscape standards – plant materials, hardscape, etc. The landscape standards included in the plan encourage the use of native plant materials to reduce the need for irrigation. A preferred tree list has been included that developers will be required to utilize when selecting species for development in the northeast district. A suggestion from Parks Commissioner Sharon Meister was made to remove the following trees from the list: • Scots Pine • Freemans Maple • Tilia Cordata • Amur Corktree • Weeping Willow • New Horizon Elm Staff is not recommending a change to the preferred tree list because the intent is for the list to encompass a large number of trees to provide numerous options for tree species. We have reviewed the list with our registered landscape architect and believe that these trees can be appropriately located and be a positive addition to the landscape. However, the Planning Commission could modify the list if desired. g. Parks and Trails The Parks and Trails plan was adopted as part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and no significant changes are included. However, since the plan was adopted, the City has acquired a portion of the City parks and trails in the Bellwether development so the plan exhibit has been updated to reflect current conditions. Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 6 May 5, 2022 h. Stormwater Management Stormwater management is part of every development and the plan has included strategies and examples to provide environmentally responsible and visually pleasing stormwater management solutions within the northeast district. Next Steps • The City Council is scheduled to review and approve the updated Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines at the May 26th meeting. 4. Summary The Northeast District Plan is adopted as part of the City Code as an appendix to the Zoning Ordinance. As part of the ordinance amendment to adopt the plan, staff has included the removal of the existing Northeast Design Guidelines and the inclusion of definitions related to the new terminology used in the Northeast District Plan. 5. Action Move to recommend approval of the following: 1. Ordinance approving an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 2. Resolution approving findings of fact Attachments 1. Ordinance approving an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 2. Resolution approving findings of fact 3. Public Comments ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX Motion By: Seconded By: CITY OF CORCORAN AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 10 (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE (CITY FILE 21-050) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Title 10, Appendix A (Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by removing the existing strikethrough text as follows: NORTHEAST DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES At one of the major entrances to the City of Corcoran, the Northeast District Plan establishes a gateway to the community that reflects the City’s rural character. The plan offers opportunities for expanded tax base, jobs and services by taking advantage of Maple Grove’s nearby higher density development. The primary entry into the Northeast District is County Road 30, where a mixed-use PUD (planned unit development) will combine a mix of low and medium density residential with mixed-use commercial, including neighborhood retail, service retail, commercial and office uses. The edge of the district along County Road 101 is planned primarily for high quality business parks, with some destination commercial or retail uses closer to the County Road 30 intersection. General Site Development • The commercial area along County Road 101 should be designed as high quality business parks, with appropriate office, commercial and light industrial uses. • Retail uses should be limited to the commercial area indicated near the County Road 101 and 30 intersection or included within the County Road 30 mixed-use PUD area. • Within the PUD, residential development should provide for life-cycle housing for empty nesters, retirees, and first-time home buyers with a range of housing types (condominiums, townhouses, and single-family attached) and densities. Streets, Trails, Parks and Public Amenities • County Road 30 is a major entry point into the City of Corcoran, which warrants a unique design treatment as it meets County Road 101; this intersection should be developed as a “gateway” with significant landscaped open space and appropriate entry elements; the design should express the unique character of Corcoran. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 2 • County Road 30 from County Road 116 to County Road 101 should be developed as a green corridor with landscaped setback, center boulevard and other enhancements that will express a sense of entry while maintaining an open, rural road character. • Enhancements at the intersection of County Roads 116 and 30 should be designed similar to major County Road 116 intersections in the downtown and southeast district. • The County Road 116 rural greenway should continue north through this district, with trail connections to new civic or community spaces as well as retail or destination uses within the PUD. • Mixed commercial-retail within the PUD should be designed around public or common areas that are linked by trails or sidewalks. The design should also include sidewalks and trails to connect neighborhood retail and public spaces to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. • Mixed-use and new residential development within the PUD should include a designated neighborhood park in addition to natural open space (woods, wetlands, meadows, etc.). • The planned extension of County Road 117 to County Road101 should be planned and designed in a way that is sensitive to existing residential uses in that area. Direct access for new developments should be limited on County Roads 101, 116 and 30. Future plans for access on these roads should balance traffic demand and future development. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 3 SECTION 2. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1020.020 “Definitions” of Title 10 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding the new underlined text as follows: CHARGING LEVELS – means the standardized indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an electric vehicle’s battery is recharged. The terms 1, 2, and DC are the most common charging levels, and include the following specifications: 1. Level 1 is considered slow charging with 120v outlets. 2. Level 2 is considered medium charging with 240v outlets, charging head and cord hard- wired to the circuit. 3. DC is considered fast or rapid charging. Voltage is greater than 240 ELECTRIC VEHICLE – a vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the electrical grid, or an off-grid source, that is stored on board for motive purposes. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS – means a public or private parking space that is served by battery charging station equipment that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle. URBAN GARDEN - Small-scale gardens located in an urban area that produce food crops. Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment:Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, Font color: Black Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 4 SECTION 3. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Title 10 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding a new Appendix C as follows: See Attachment A SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ADOPTED by the City Council on the xxth day of May 2022. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 5 Attachment A Appendix C (Corcoran Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines) Appendix C Corcoran Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines Adopted May XX, 2022 DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 2 | District Overview and Purpose | 3 Purpose Statement Application Sustainable Design Framework Municipal Water and Sewer Street Hierarchy Design Principles | 9 Allowable Uses Buildings Parking Electric Vehicles Screening Landscape Standards Parks, Trails and Open Space Stormwater Management Implementation | 22 Table of Contents DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 3 | Overview 1. To allow for master planning and development of housing, employment and service uses through the use of unified developments that share common architectural schemes, landscape and site plan design, connected streets and pedestrian routes and green spaces. 2. To incentivize the development of high-quality industrial and business developments that will provide employment opportunities in Corcoran. 3. To encourage the use of sustainable, environmentally-friendly building and site development techniques. 4. To develop a transportation system that supports vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. 5. To promote master planned developments to increase the efficiency of infrastructure design. 6. To implement the land use goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Purpose Statement The purpose of the Northeast District Design Guidelines is to establish standards for this gateway to Corcoran. The area offers opportunities for expanded tax base, jobs and retail and service businesses to serve the existing and new residents in Corcoran and surrounding communities. The newly constructed Dayton Interchange and the planned Highway 610 extension provide a once in a lifetime opportunity to develop the area in a manner the reflects the unique Corcoran character as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The standards will ensure quality site design that will result in attractive business and residential development. The district will allow development consistent with the primary zoning district and provide additional regulations and performance standards to accomplish the following goals: District Overview and Purpose 01 Application The format and content are specifically tailored for use as a supplement to the Zoning Ordinance. All provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply to parcels in the Northeast District and these standards shall be in addition to those provisions. Where there is a conflict, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Sustainable Design Framework The vision of the Northeast Design Standards is to encourage sustainable development that meets the public demand and requires the responsible use of resources without unacceptable social, economic, or environmental consequences. These guidelines are intended to provide a framework for meeting that goal. DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 4 | Overview Northeast District Land Use Map DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 5 | Overview Northeast District Analysis Map DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 6 | Overview Municipal Water and Sewer The municipal sanitary sewer to serve the Northeast District exists and will generally flow north to the lift station at near County Road 101 at the City’s north border. Water is currently provided to the Northeast District from the City of Maple Grove. This agreement limits the area that can be served and requires landowners to pay the both the Maple Grove and Corcoran water fees. Developing a Corcoran water system has been a priority for the City. The City has identified a well and treatment site on County Road 116 north of Hunter Road. The City is in the planning stage, but hopes to have the well operational by 2023. However, at least one more well will be needed to serve the Northeast area and search area have been identified as shown on the Water Supply map. The well alone is insufficient and the City has been actively searching for a water tower site. The preferred tower site is also shown on the Water Supply map. Street Hierarchy The Dayton Interchange at County Road 101/Brockton Lane and I-94 and the planned extension of Highway 610 will increase traffic along the County Road 101 and County Road 30 corridors and providing opportunities for new businesses in the Northeast District. The Comprehensive Plan identified the major roadways as County Road 116, County Road 101, County Road 30, Stieg Road and Schutte Road. The street hierarchy map has been refined as part of this plan to provide more detail about street classifications and design. The City will continue to work with Hennepin County to ensure that as improvements are made to the County streets in the Northeast District they reflect the City’s goals. As improvements are made to these streets, emphasis should be placed on enhancements to traffic controls, pedestrian connections, lighting, gateway elements and landscaping at key intersections. As part of this vision, the City will look for opportunities to provide grade-separated pedestrian crossings in addition to the at-grade crossings. The County road corridors should be designed with green boulevards on both sides and a landscaped median similar to the County Road 30 design. Final design will be coordinated with the County. The existing road network should be maintained as a continuous network, with new connections where needed. Cul-de-sacs should be avoided in favor of connecting streets that will facilitate resilient multi-modal routes within the district. The Northeast District has three main types of streets which are described and illustrated on the following pages. Each serves a specific function toward the creation of a well-connected and economically viable district. The developer shall be responsible for construction of all streetscape improvements along adjacent streets. These improvements include all hardscape, landscape and site amenities, such as trails, sidewalks, benches, bike racks, street trees and plantings. Water Search Area DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 7 | Overview Northeast District Street Classification Map DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 8 | Overview County Road 30 (Mid-Block) County Road 101 & 116 (Mid-Block) Collector Street Local Street DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 9 | Design Principles Design Principles The Northeast District should continue to provide a mix of residential, commercial, office and industrial uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Design Guidelines for the district shall be the same as those described in the Zoning Ordinance for the zoning district in which the development is located and these Design Standards will provide an additional layer of standards. Allowable Uses The Northeast District is a gateway to Corcoran and the uses in non-residential areas should be developed with new light industrial, office-industrial, high tech and professional services businesses to provide quality employment and wages. To accomplish this goal, land uses in the Northeast District shall be all uses allowed in the underlying zoning district, except that the following uses are prohibited in the Northeast District, except those uses legally established prior to May 26, 2022: 1. Contractors operations 2. Equipment rental 3. Lumber yards/building material sales. 4. Mini Storage/Self Storage Facilities. 5. Motor Vehicle, Boat or Equipment Repair 6. Motor Vehicle, Boat or Equipment Sales Buildings New development site and building design should provide a visual cue that you are in Corcoran. The use of regional building materials and native plants for all development is encouraged. Development in this district should be thoughtfully designed to reflect Corcoran’s rural character. The use of natural materials (such wood siding, brick and stone) is encouraged. Buildings shall have architectural details, features and patterns to provide visual interest. All structures shall comply with the building standards in Section 1060.050 and the additional standards in this section. Single family detached homes shall comply with the Design Requirements in Section 1040.040, Subd. 8. Attached homes shall comply with the Design Requirements in Section 1040.060, Subd. 9. 02 DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 10 | Design Principles Properties in the Mixed Use, Commercial, Business Park and Industrial district shall comply with the following: Exterior surface materials of buildings shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the adopted building code and the manufacturer’s specifications and shall be subject to the regulations listed below. Products listed as “integral colored” shall continue its surface color consistently through the depth of the product as opposed to being colored, painted, or stained on the surface only. Materials shall be divided into class I, class II and class III categories as follows: Class I. The following materials are considered class 1 materials as specified: 1. Brick 2. Marble, granite, or other natural stone 3. Integral colored cast stone (the stone is colored consistently through) 4. Textured cement stucco 5. Architectural wall cladding (Nichiha, Equitone and similar brands) Material must be through colored and at least 5/8 inches thick. 6. Copper 7. Porcelain 8. Glass 9. Other materials of similar quality as approved by the City Council?? Class II. The following materials are considered class II materials as specified: 1. Exposed aggregate concrete panels 2. Burnished concrete block 3. Integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block 4. Cast-in-place concrete 5. Insulated exterior wall panels (E.I.F.S., Drivit and similar brands) 6. Fiber-reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch 7. Prefinished metal. 8. Integral colored concrete panels other than smooth finished. 9. Other materials of similar quality as approved by the City Council?? Class I materials: Single Family Class I materials: Multifamily Apartment Class I materials: Commercial / Mixed Use Class I materials: Industrial DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 11 | Design Principles Class III. The following materials are considered class III materials as specified: 1. Unpainted or surface painted concrete block (scored or unscored) 2. Unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels 3. Unfinished or surface painted metal 4. Smooth finished concrete panels 5. Brick, stone, or integral colored material which has been painted 6. Other materials of similar quality as approved by the City Council?? At least 60% of each building face visible from off the site must be of class I materials except as permitted by this section: Not more than 10% of each building face visible from off the site may be of class III materials. Portions of buildings not visible from off the site may be constructed of greater percentages of class II or class III materials if the structure otherwise conforms to all city ordinances. The mixture of building materials must be compatible and integrated. Large uninterrupted building elevations are not permitted. No wall may have an uninterrupted length exceeding 80 feet without including at least two of the following: changes in plane; changes in color, texture, materials or masonry pattern; windows; or an equivalent element that breaks up the elevation. For buildings in the I-1 districts which are not located on a County Road or adjacent to or across from any residentially zoned property, class I materials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 percent provided that the architecture and site plan shall meet the following minimum criteria to be considered superior quality: 1. The exposed height of the building wall shall not exceed 15 feet. 2. The number of required plant units shall be increased by 20 percent or the size of 20 percent of the overstory trees installed shall be increased to 3 1/2 caliper inches. 3. A minimum of ten percent of the building facade must be windows or glass spandrels. Class I materials: Commercial Class I materials: Office / Warehouse Class I materials: Commercial / Office Class I materials: Commercial / Retail DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 12 | Design Principles Parking Parking shall comply with the standards in Section 1060.060 of the ordinance and the additional standards in this section. Bicycle racks shall be provided for all multi-family and non-residential uses and may be placed near the entrance if a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian access to the building entrance is maintained. Bicycle parking may occupy a maximum of two required parking stalls without requiring additional parking. Parking bays shall have landscape islands at each end of the parking bay, and bays in excess of 15 spaces in length shall be divided by intermediate islands. Trees shall be located in the islands to shade the parking lot to reduce the heat island effect. These landscape islands shall provide at least 360 square feet of area for planting trees, shrubs and/or groundcovers. Intermediate landscape islands shall provide at least 180 square feet of planting area. A landscape buffer shall be provided between all parking areas and the public sidewalk. The buffer shall consist of shade trees, low shrubs or perennial flowers and a decorative fence or masonry wall. Plantings and parking lot screen walls or fences shall be no less than three feet and no more than four feet in height to allow views into and out of parking areas Parking lots should incorporate stormwater management into the parking lot as an amenity feature. These features when appropriately designed can be used to meet the landscape island requirements. Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged as to reflect glare away from adjoining property, adjacent residential uses and public rights-of-way and be in compliance with Section 1060.040 of this Chapter. Bike Parking Parking Lot Islands Parking Lot Screening Parking Lot Stormwater DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 13 | Design Principles Electric Vehicles All new developments are encouraged to provide parking and services for electric vehicles, to expedite the establishment of a convenient, cost-effective electric vehicle infrastructure. All new parking structures or lots with at least 100 parking spaces shall provide services for electric vehicles (EV) as required below. 1. Multiple-family residential land uses shall have 5% of required parking as Level 1 stations for resident parking, and one Level 2 station for guest parking. At least one handicapped accessible parking space shall have access to an electric vehicle charging station (EVCS). 2. Non-residential land uses with parking spaces available for use by the general public shall have at least 1% of required parking as Level 2 stations with a minimum of two spaces served by Level 2 charging, with at least one station adjacent to an accessible parking space. In non-residential zoned districts, DC charging stations may be installed to satisfy the EVCS requirements described above on a one-for-one basis. Notwithstanding the requirements above, all new or reconstructed motor fuel stations as defined in Section 36-142(d)(20) shall be required to install at least one additional Level 2 charging station. A DC charging station may be installed to meet this requirement. In addition to the number of required EVCSs, the following accommodations shall be required for the anticipated future growth in market demand for electric vehicles: 1. Multiple-Family Residential Land Uses: all new, expanded and reconstructed parking areas shall provide the electrical capacity necessary to accommodate the future hardwire installation of Level 2 EVCSs for a minimum of 10% of required parking spaces. 2. Non-Residential Land Uses: all new, expanded and reconstructed parking areas shall provide the electrical capacity necessary to accommodate the future hardwire installation of Level 2 or DC EVCSs for a minimum of 10% of required parking spaces. These requirements may be revised upward or downward by the City Council as part of an application for a conditional use permit or planned unit development based on verifiable information pertaining to parking. DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 14 | Design Principles Screening In addition to the standards in Section 1060.030, the additional standards in this section are intended to preserve the rural character of Corcoran while allowing new development to bring jobs and homes to the community. No loading docks or overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property. The visual impact of rooftop equipment shall be minimized using one of the following methods: 1. A parapet wall. 2. A fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and incorporates the architectural features of the building. 3. The rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the roof or the sky, whichever is most effective. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers, aboveground tanks); refuse and recycling handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from off-site views utilizing a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height. A chain link fence with slats shall not be accepted as screening. All utility services shall be underground except as provided in Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance. Landscape Standards Site design and landscaping should be designed to work with the existing topography of the area, wooded areas, wetlands and natural viewsheds and corridors. Sustainability, in terms of the landscape, is the ability of plant species to maintain healthy growth with minimal human assistance. Selecting plants suited for a specific condition is key to their sustainability over time. Benefits of utilizing sustainable plant species include less time spent towards maintenance, less maintenance costs, and positive contributions to the larger environment and its ability to perpetuate itself. Development landscaping shall include a full complement of overstory, ornamental and evergreen trees, shrubbery and ground covers which are hardy and appropriate for the locations in which they are planted and provide year-long color and interest. Development in the Northeast District shall select from the following list of preferred trees and shrubs that suit unique conditions and environments found in Corcoran. The following plant materials shall be used in the Northeast District: Coniferous Trees Common Name Abies balsamea Balsam Fir Abies concolor White Fir Abies fraseri Fraser Fir Juniperus virginiana Red Cedar Larix laricina American Larch Picea abies Norway Spruce Picea glauca White Spruce Picea glauca var. densata Black Hills Spruce Picea mariana Black Spruce Pinus banksiana Jack Pine Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine Pinus resinosa Red Pine (Norway Pine) Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Conservation Development Site Design and Street Trees Site Design and Landscaping DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 15 | Design Principles Deciduous Trees Common Name Acer x freemanii Freeman’s Maple Acer x freemanii ‘Sienna’Sienna Glen Maple Acer rubrum Red Maple Acer saccharum Sugar Maple Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye Betula nigra 'Cully’ Heritage River Birch Betula papyrifera Paper Birch Betula populifolia Grey Birch Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Crataegus crus-galli var. inermis Thornless Cockspur Hawthorne Crataegus mollis Downy Hawthorne Gingko biloba Gingko (male only) Gleditsia tricanthos var. inermis Thornless Honeylocust Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree (male only), ‘Espresso’, ‘Stately Manor’ Malus spp.Crabapple, ‘Adams’, ‘Calocarpa’, ‘David’, ‘Donald Wyman’, ‘Dolgo’, ‘Harvest Gold’, ‘Prairifire’, ‘Professor Sprenger’ Malus ioensis Prairie Crabapple Ostrya virginiana Ironwood Phellodendron amurense ‘His Majesty’Corktree ‘His Majesty’ Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen Prunus serotina Black Cherry Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Quecus alba White Oak Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak Quercus elllipsoidalis Northern Pin Oak Quercus macrocarpa Burr Oak Quercus rubra Red Oak Quercus velutina Black Oak Salix alba Weeping Willow Salix nigra Black Willow Sorbus americana American Mountain Ash Sorbus decora Showy Mountain Ash Tilia americana American Linden (Basswood) Tilia americana ‘Redmond’Redmond Linden Tilia cordata Littleleaf Linden, ‘Morden’, ‘Shamrock’, ‘Norlin’ Ulmus americana ‘Princeton’Princeton Elm Ulmus americana ‘Valley Forge’Valley Forge Elm Ulmus pumila ‘New Horizon’New Horizon Elm Ulmus wilsoniana ‘Patriot’Patriot Elm DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 16 | Design Principles Shrubs Common Name Alnus incana Speckled Alder Amelanchier alnifolia ‘Regent’Regent Serviceberry Amelanchier interior Inland Serviceberry Aronia melanocarpa var. elata Glossy Black Chokeberry Betula pumila Bog Birch Cornus alternifolia Pagoda Dogwood Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Cornus racemose Gray Dogwood Cornus rugosa Round-leaved Dogwood Cornus sericea Red-osier Dogwood Corylus americana American Hazelnut Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut Crataegus chrysocarpa Fireberry Hawthorn Crataegus macrosperma Large-seeded Hawthorn Diervilla lonicera Bush Honeysuckle Euonymus atropurpureus Easter Wahoo Ilex verticillata Winterberry Juniperus communis Common Juniper Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark Ribes americanum Wild Black Currant Ribes aureum Golden Currant Ribes cynosbati Prickly Gooseberry Ribes missouriense Missouri Gooseberry Rosa blanda Smooth Wild Rose Salix bebbiana Bebb’s Willow Salix discolor Pussy Willow Salix pedicellaris Bog Willow Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Sambucus racemose Red-berried Elder Staphylea trifolia Bladdernut Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis Wolfberry Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood Viburnum Viburnum lentago Nannyberry Viburnum opulus var. Americanum American Highbush Cranberry Celtis occidentalis / Hackberry Tree Picea mariana / Black Spruce Pinus resinosa / Red Pine Quercus alba / White Oak Prunus virginiana / Chokecherry Tree Gleditsia tricanthos / Honeylocust DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 17 | Design Principles Ground Cover All land area not occupied by buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks or other hard surfaces shall be sodded or mulched and landscaped with approved ground cover, flowers, shrubbery and trees. Traditional lawns of mown Kentucky bluegrass are the most common groundcover in the area and have their place in new development. However, they are not conducive to sustainable practices desired in the Northeast District as they require large amounts of water and maintenance. Alternatives to traditional lawns are available and appropriate as part of a sustainable environment. Native prairie plantings and bee lawns are viable options to traditional lawns in Corcoran. The plant composition of these alternatives are widely varied and can be tailored to suit specific conditions and aesthetics. The overriding concept is that they provide habitat, food and shelter for a variety of animals, birds and insects and they are sustainable with minimal intervention. An overlooked benefit of prairies and bee lawns is that they visually change with the seasons, providing a changing view throughout the year. The City supports the use of these ground covers when a maintenance plan is provided for review and approval by the City. Landscaping Options The City encourages the use of special design features such as xeriscaping; rain gardens/bioretention systems; landscaping with native species; green rooftops; heat island reduction; and aesthetic design. All new development must include two of the following alternative landscape options: Xeriscaping: Xeriscaping is landscaping which uses plants that have low water requirements, making them able to withstand extended periods of drought. Xeriscaping landscapes are a conscious attempt to develop plantings which are compatible with the environment and make a conscious effort to minimize use of water. Rain Gardens/Bioretention Systems: Bioretention systems can be described as shallow, landscaped depressions commonly located in parking lot islands or within areas that receive stormwater runoff. For credit under this section, the rain garden/bioretention system shall be above ground and a visible part of the green or landscaped area. Stormwater flows into the bioretention area, ponds on the surface, and gradually infiltrates into the soil bed. Pollutants are removed by a number of processes including absorption, filtration, volatilization, ion exchange, and decomposition. Filtered runoff can either be allowed to infiltrate into the surrounding soil (functioning as an infiltration basin or rainwater garden), or discharged to the storm sewer or directly to receiving waters (functioning like a surface Pollinator Lawn Pollinator Lawn Xeriscape Rain Garden / Bioretention DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 18 | Design Principles filter). The use of under drain systems are discouraged unless where infiltration is prohibited by the water resources management plan. Runoff from larger storms is generally diverted past the area to the storm drainage system. Landscaping With Native Species: Fifty percent (50%) of the plantings used in the landscape plan shall be of native plant communities approved by City staff. These plant communities include: 1. Upland deciduous forest: Oak forest, maple basswood forest, white pine hardwood forest, black ash swamp, and tamarack swamp. 2. Brush prairie: Dry oak savannah, oak woodland- brushland. 3. Oak openings and barrens: Dry oak savannah, oak forest. Green Rooftops: Green rooftops are veneers of living vegetation installed atop buildings, from small garages to large industrial structures. Green rooftops help manage stormwater by mimicking a variety of hydrologic processes normally associated with open space. Plants capture rainwater on their foliage and absorb it in their root zone, encouraging evapotranspiration and preventing much stormwater from ever entering runoff streams. What water does leave the roof is slowed and kept cooler, a benefit for downstream water bodies. Green roofs are especially effective in controlling intense, short duration storms and have been shown to reduce cumulative annual runoff by fifty percent (50%) in temperate climates. Aesthetic Design: Sites shall be designed to include three (3) of the following: public art, fountains, plazas, perennial beds, entrance landscaping, or other amenities reviewed and approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC). Gateway signage is desired at the County Road 101 at the north Corcoran border and at the County Road 101/ County Road 30 intersection. Developers of property at those intersections will work with the City install this gateway signage and related landscaping. This would satisfy part of the aesthetic design requirement for those properties. Alternative Energy: New developments may use solar energy systems (SES) to support the development. Building Integrated SES and Building or Roof Mounted SES is encouraged in the Northeast District as allowed by Section 1060.110 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the Ordinance does not currently allow wind energy conversion systems (WECS) as an allowed use, the City shall consider the amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow small WECS as an accessory use. Native Species Green Roof Entry Design Alternative Energy DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 19 | Design Principles Urban Garden: Small-scale urban gardens that produce food crops are found to have beneficial outcomes for food security, the environment, physical health, and social wellbeing. For this section, an accessory outdoor garden can satisfy one of the landscaping options as long as it serves as a community garden, institutional garden, and or a chef’s/ kitchen garden for a business such as a restaurant. Raised garden beds may be utilized. Additionally, an accessible urban garden can be part of the design for public plazas or private open spaces as required elsewhere in this Appendix. Parks, Trails and Open Space There are two existing parks in the northeast district: the Community Park and the Neighborhood Park. Both parks were dedicated to the City as part of the Bellwether development and are open to the public. Parking lots are planned in the northwest corner of the neighborhood park and southwest corner of the open space park. The Parks and Trails plan adopted in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan anticipates a second Neighborhood Park south of County Road 30. The City parks will connect to homes and businesses through a series of trails and sidewalks. On- and off-road trails are planned along all County roads. The City plans a number of on- and off-road trails throughout the district. Additionally, Three Rivers Park District plans for the Diamond Lake Regional trail to connect through the Northeast District, including a connection to the Community Park. As development occurs open space will transition to homes and businesses. In order to ensure that opportunities to gather outside, maintain viewsheds and retain same of the character of Corcoran’s rural beginnings, all non-residential properties with principal buildings in excess of 100,000 square feet of floor area shall be required to have a public plaza space. The public plaza space shall include benches, bike racks trash receptacles, lighting fixtures and other amenities to create a welcoming space for tenants of the building and members of the public. These plaza spaces should be visible from the public street and maintained by the landowner. Multi-family residential developments shall be required to provide landscaped private open space for their residents. This open space shall be designed and landscaped for outdoor recreation. Outdoor Recreation Space Trails Landscaping Public Space Design DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 20 | Design Principles Walkable Destinations Map A five or ten minute walk - 1/4 or 1/2 mile radius - is a common measure of walkability. DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 21 | Design Principles Stormwater Management Water features and drainage systems are essential components of development in the district. A mix of ponds, fountains and other water elements provide focal amenities and year round activities within the framework of an environmentally responsible, visually pleasing strategy to manage stormwater. Each site has a responsibility to utilize best management practices (BMP) to pretreat run-off, reduce erosion and encourage infiltration in compliance with City and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission standards. Water and landscape should be utilized within multipurpose areas that accommodate both active and passive recreational use – the following examples illustrate only a few of many possibilities: 1. Pervious pavements, underground storage and other creative techniques should be used to meet BMP standards, particularly in areas where more density is expected. 2. Stormwater reuse 3. Green architecture, expressed through green roofs, gray water recycling and other techniques should be included to reduce the impact of new development on stormwater systems. 4. Water feature design should include both formal elements (such as reflecting pools or fountains) and natural/informal forms (such as ponds or fountains) and should explore creative ways to integrate wet landscapes with active, urban spaces. The City and the watershed are working to reduce chloride in our water system. All multifamily and non- residential developments are required to provide a Chloride Management Plan. Studies (see MCES publication regarding Nine Mile Creek, March 2021) show that chloride (or salt) found in surface waters and shallow aquifers has been increasing over the past 20 years. One source of the river’s chloride is the salt applied to our streets, parking lots, driveways and sidewalks in the winter and results in peak chloride values between March and May. Due to the chloride’s toxicity on the environment, watershed organizations and regulatory agencies have increased their focus on the urban sources and some watersheds are implementing practices for reducing salt applications. Rush Creek (the receiving water for the Northeast District) is at high risk for being impaired according to State’s data base. Chloride Management Plans will be regulated under the City’s MS 4 permit. Silva Cells Pervious Pavers Underground Stormwater Green Roof DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 22 | Implementation The design guidelines will be administered by staff as part of the development review process. Staff will incorporate design review to ensure compliance with the design guidelines as a standard step in the development review process. Implementation03 DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only 23 | Implementation This page left intentionally blank DRAFT Apr28-22 for review only City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 10 (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE (CITY FILE 21-050) WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran obtained a Hennepin County grant to develop new design standards for the Northeast District; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to add Appendix C to the Zoning Ordinance (Corcoran Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines); and WHEREAS, staff prepared an ordinance amendment to remove the existing Northeast District Design Guidelines from Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance and add a new Appendix C; and WHEREAS, staff prepared an ordinance amendment to add definitions related to the Northeast District Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendment would be consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendment would be consistent with other City Code standards and City policies; and WHEREAS, the amendments reflect the Council’s vision for development of this area and provides guidance to landowners and developers; and WHEREAS, the City sough public input through an online survey and two open houses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed text amendments at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the amendment based upon the finding that the proposed amendments would be consistent with State law and the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and compatible with other provisions of the City Code. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 2 of 2 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xx day of May 2022. ___________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise –Administrative Services Director From:CenturyLink Customer To:Jessica Christensenbuck Cc:Tom Anderson; Kendra Lindahl, AICP; Natalie Davis Subject:Re: NE district plan Date:Saturday, April 9, 2022 8:30:49 AM Attachments:image008.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png Jessica, Thanks for asking for my opinion since I am very interested in this and sent the original list. The most important criterea in choosing trees is that we can encourage native birds, butterflies and bees by planting trees and shrubs that support them in their lifecycles. The trees I would recommend removing from the list include: Scots Pine- they are non-native and I have seen them being removed at Crow Hassan Park. Also, they are not doing well on our property. Freemans Maple- the wood is weak and needs a lot of care. Tilia Cordata-non-native, many diseases Amur Corktree-non-native from Asia Weeping Willow-looses a lot of branches New Horizon Elm-non-native I am at my sisters in Florida (sorry) but let me know if you need anything else. Take care. Sharon From: "Jessica Christensenbuck" <jchristensenbuck@corcoranmn.gov> To: "Tom Anderson" <tompand@yahoo.com>, "sharonmeister" <sharonmeister@embarqmail.com> Cc: "Kendra Lindahl Forwarding" <klindahl@landform.net>, "Natalie Davis" <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 3:58:04 PM Subject: FW: NE district plan Tom and Sharon – See below and attached. Kendra is curious if you guys have any feedback on the list of trees that they compiled from the list you guys had passed along to me. The list appears to begin on page 14. Thanks! From: Kendra Lindahl, AICP <KLindahl@landform.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:55 AM To: Jessica Christensenbuck <jchristensenbuck@corcoranmn.gov> Cc: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: NE district plan Jessica, We expanded the park preferred tree list that you gave me from Tom and Sharon when we did the NE district. I worked with my registered landscape architects to develop this list. The public hearing is scheduled for May 5th but I would appreciate any feedback from Tom prior to that meeting if he has concerns. Kendra Lindahl, AICP LANDFORM, Principal Planner Direct: 612-638-0225 　 NOTICE: All drawings, specifications, instruments of service, and other documents, data, or information of any kind, including all electronic files and data ("Documents")attached to or "linked" from this E-mail are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. Your use of the Documents is controlled andrestricted by the terms of use. By downloading the attached files or by accessing the links contained in this E-mail message, you are agreeing to the terms of use.COPYRIGHT © 1994-2020 LANDFORM. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NOTICE: indicated professional registrations are for the state in which the office is located; to obtain information about other state licenses, please contact HumanResources at 612-252-9070. Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. From:Natalie Davis To:Corinne Brummond Cc:Kendra Lindahl, AICP Subject:RE: Comments/Questions on NE District Design guidelines draft Date:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 2:38:41 PM Good afternoon Commissioner Brummond, I think you are right that an urban garden could potentially satisfy the plaza requirement and the landscaping requirement as long as the remaining elements under the landscaping option for Aesthetic Design are also satisfied (aesthetic design must include at least three from the following list: public art, fountains, plazas, perennial beds, entrance landscaping, or another amenity). I think what I will do is make the urban garden landscaping option specific to the production of food so that a well landscaped plaza doesn’t satisfy both landscaping options. What do you think about adding the following verbiage under Landscaping Options: Urban Garden Small-scale urban gardens that produce food crops are found to have beneficial outcomes for food security, the environment, physical health, and social wellbeing. For this section, an accessory outdoor garden can satisfy one of the landscaping options as long as it serves as a community garden, institutional garden, and or a chef's/kitchen garden for a business such as a restaurant. Raised garden beds may be utilized. Additionally, an accessible urban garden can be part of the design for public plazas or private open spaces as required elsewhere in this Appendix. Thank you, Natalie Davis McKeown Planner Direct: 763-338-9288 Work Cell: 763-258-4272 City Hall: 763-420-2288 From: Corinne Brummond <corinne.brummond@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 8:19 AM To: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Cc: Kendra Lindahl Forwarding <klindahl@landform.net> Subject: Re: Comments/Questions on NE District Design guidelines draft Natalie & Kendra, Thank you for this in-depth reply. I appreciate the time that it took to put the reply together and can imagine the discussion that occurred before as well; to understand the reasoning behind the responses to each issue has been beneficial to me. It gives me a chance to view the issue from a different perspective, one with greater scope, than merely the singular issue, particularly on the private open space guidelines and housing type issues. When referencing urban farming in the NE district, the term culinary garden or chef's garden more specifically or accurately defines what I was considering. I was imagining gardens where some of the herbs and produce for the restaurant were produced and harvested on site, like the first picture you included. If the garden is open to the public/private I don't see why it couldn't also qualify as a plaza space. A follow up question, would this then fulfill the two landscaped options required under the NE district design draft? I would lean towards yes, because the other environmental factor at work is reduction of the transportation of food supply. Additionally, I would think that the second picture of a gardened plaza would be permissible as a landscape option; however, it seems this represents a well landscaped plaza and shouldn't count as both landscape requirements. I hope that I have given you the additional information you were hoping for in order to complete the draft on the intended timeline. If there is something I have neglected, please feel free to email or call me. Thank you, Corinne Brummond corinne.brummond@hotmail.com 612.207.8581 From: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 1:41 PM To: Corinne Brummond <corinne.brummond@hotmail.com> Cc: Kendra Lindahl Forwarding <klindahl@landform.net> Subject: RE: Comments/Questions on NE District Design guidelines draft Good afternoon Commissioner Brummond, As promised, here is a more in-depth to your email below. County Road 30 and Maple Grove Kendra and I believe there is value in referencing the Maple Grove median on County Road 30 as an example because sometimes people don’t understand what is meant by landscaped medians and boulevards. We will see if there is another way to get the point across. Please note, we don’t believe that referencing Maple Grove as an example at all limits the City in terms of the final design since this will be coordinated with the County at the time of the road upgrade. Urban farming as an allowable use I think it would be helpful to define what you mean by urban farming as it can mean different things. Urban farming (along with urban agriculture and urban gardening) can be used as an umbrella term that encompasses a diverse mix of food production activities, including fisheries, forestry, animal husbandry, aquaculture, beekeeping, and horticulture. It is common for people to use the term urban farming interchangeably with community gardening, homesteading, or subsistence farming. How are you using the term in relation to what you hope to see in the Northeast District? Are you hoping to see commercial urban farms as an allowed use? Would this include the keeping of farm animals? Are you hoping to see community gardens as an allowed and/or accessory use? Are you hoping to encourage institutional gardens (e.g., a restaurant cultivates some of its food on-site)? Does something else come to mind when you say urban farming? Keep in mind that the Northeast District is poised to be a key job creation area in the City. While there is anecdotal evidence that some forms of urban agriculture can drive economic development, the data available is inconclusive and the case studies behind this claim usually focus on densely populated and impoverished urban areas with food security concerns. It is unclear how this finding would apply to a developing area within an existing, affluent agricultural community. Additionally, I am not finding strong evidence that urban commercial farms or community gardens would create more jobs than a self-storage facility (and some of the reasoning behind removing self-storage facilities specifically in this district is the lack of jobs it creates compared to the amount of acreage used). I believe most community gardens could qualify as a recreational facility of a non-commercial nature, which is an allowed primary use in all of our residential districts. I believe it makes sense to allow accessory community gardens and institutional gardens as well. One could make the argument that gardening/small-scale food production as an accessory use qualifies as an “incidental and customary use” which is allowed in all of our urban districts. A similar argument could be made that accessory urban gardens could qualify as a “play and recreation facilities, including swimming pools and tennis courts, for the use of the property owner and guests” which is an allowed accessory use in our urban residential districts. Finally, I believe gardens could qualify as an amenity/related use that can be located within the plazas that will be required of significant developments within the NE District. If we want to change our zoning code to specifically call out community and institutional gardens as an accessory and/or primary use, then I believe we need to address this as a separate code issue that would apply to our urban districts across Corcoran. As mentioned in my previous email, commercial greenhouses and nurseries are an conditional use in the C-2 District found within the NE District. They are also a conditional use in the C-1 District. They are also allowed as an IUP in RSF-1 and RSF-2. Farmers markets are an allowed interim use in the General Mixed-Use District. The draft plan specifically calls out bee lawns as an approved alternative to traditional lawns on p. 17. Tailoring housing options for families rather than senior housing We are concerned about the legality of limiting housing types. Developers are sensitive to market demand and would be tentative of moving forward with a development if a market study shows there is saturation of a specific housing type within a given area. It is current practice for staff to encourage developers to complete market studies that confirm market demand, particularly when specialty housing (such as senior and assisted living developments) is proposed. The typo on p. 13 is noted and will be corrected. Urban garden as a landscaping option I like your idea of adding an accessory urban garden as something that can count towards the landscaping options provided. To be clear, when you are saying urban garden, are you being specific to food production (like what is pictured below although it wouldn’t necessarily need to be this big)? Or would any garden/vegetation qualify (such as what is pictured below)? And are you okay with this also counting towards the required plaza if accessible to the public and/or private open space if accessible to residents? Native plantings We understand your desire to require more than 50% native plantings, but we agree that 50% is a good starting point. The preferred landscaping list primarily includes trees and shrubs that are native to the area, so we believe developments can easily exceed the 50% metric. However, it is also important to keep in mind that flexibility may be needed in the long-term implementation of the plan as our climate continues to shift. Public plaza maintenance The intent is for the public plazas to be maintained by the landowner. The language will be clarified to reflect this expectation. Private open space guidelines Due to the variety and scale of anticipated developments, staff is hesitant to be prescriptive of private open space as sometimes strict requirements become arbitrary and limit creativity or options. We want to avoid establishing standards that may quickly prove to be unrealistic and require developers to request a variance or PUD flexibility. Each development is different, so we believe it is more important to clarify the expectation for private open space that offers outdoor recreation within the development, and we are confident the design can be effectively managed through the review process. I believe this (in combination with my earlier email) addresses your comments and questions. Please let me know if there is anything I didn’t touch on. If you are able to get back to me on Monday/Tuesday regarding your thoughts on the urban gardening piece, I would greatly appreciate your insight as I am actively researching verbiage to include in the plan, and the revised draft needs to be ready by the end of next week. Feel free to give me a call as well as email. Have a great weekend, Natalie Davis McKeown Planner Direct: 763-338-9288 Work Cell: 763-258-4272 City Hall: 763-420-2288 From: Corinne Brummond <corinne.brummond@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 10:18 PM To: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: Comments/Questions on NE District Design guidelines draft Natalie, Since we didn't get the opportunity to discuss the draft for the NE district design guidelines last commission meeting, we were asked to submit our comments and questions to you via email but the end of this week. The following are my comments and questions. I do not anticipate any immediate feedback but look forward to the chance to discuss at our next meeting. Page 6 under Street Hierarchy: "The County road corridors should be designed with green boulevards on both sides and a landscaped median similar to the County Road 30 design in Maple Grove." Comments/Questions: I find the landscaped medians and boulevards in Maple Grove on County RD 30 to be quite sparse. Why limit ourselves if we could achieve a higher standard and appearance by setting a standard not dependent on Maple Grove? In other words, is it better to set a standard of planting or appearance that is conducive to our desired look and remove the comparison to Maple Grove? Page 9 under Allowable uses: Comments: I agree with the elimination of mini storage/self-storage facilities in this area and I can see the overall plan is to have the industrial businesses in the southern part of Corcoran. I don't currently have concerns with this section. Question: Would urban farming/greenhouses be an allowable use in this district? Page 9 & 10 under Buildings: Comments/Questions: I understand this section is related to the building materials, but I see multistory family apartments as an example. I am wondering if there is any limitation to the total number of residential dwellings specific to senior citizens. With two going in in the SE District and the Bellwether community already in the NE district, it seems there are a number of options already so will the multistory apartments added in the NE district be aimed at families? Page 12 under Parking: Comments: I am excited about the idea of avoiding heat islands and I believe that the design standards being outlined are a great step towards better balance. Page 13 under Electric Vehicles: Comments: I believe there is a typo in the second section. The sentence reads, "Notwithstanding the requirements of subsections a above..." I thought perhaps there was a section a but it doesn't appear so. Page 17-18 under Landscaping Options: Comments/Questions: If a restaurant or coffee shop were to open in this area and they had an urban garden where they grew some of their own food would be meet one of the two required landscaping options? I wish we could require a higher percentage of native plants in the landscaping, but I think 50% is a good metric. Under the Aesthetic Design section, who is the Development Review Committee? If at the time that development requests come in and this becomes a popular option for one of the two required landscaping options, is there a plan to limit the number of public art pieces or fountains, etc or is it up to the discretion of the DRC? Page 19 under Parks, Trails, and Open Space: Comments/Questions: Who is responsible for maintaining the public plazas should a building be required to build one because of their size? The last two sentences reference the multi-family developments and the requirements for landscaped private open space for the residents. The guidelines regarding this open space are very slim. Is there are reason more guidelines aren't given? Would that be part of the PUD process? Overall, I want to commend those who have worked hard to create this draft. It is evident that there is a desire to preserve natural elements and achieve a more harmonious existence between development and nature. This is a value that residents of Corcoran esteem. Thank you, Corinne Brummond From:Tom Anderson To:sharonmeister@embarqmail.com; Jessica Christensenbuck Cc:Kendra Lindahl, AICP; Natalie Davis Subject:Re: NE district plan Date:Wednesday, April 27, 2022 11:06:04 AM Attachments:image004.png image005.png image002.png image003.png image008.png image006.png image007.png Tree and Shrub List for NE design 4-25-22.docx Good afternoon, Jessica reminded me that I should finish this project. I had started it shortly after she sent it out, but as often happens I got distracted by the next shiny thing... This is actually a very nice list of trees and shrubs. Sharon identified some of her least favorites and I have made comments on some of the trees and shrubs on the list. The truth is I like most of them and most will grow in Corcoran. As I have been thinking about this, I am figuring out that my priority is not so much which varieties of trees we are favoring but being clear about what we are trying to do with those trees: Most of Corcoran was originally a Maple-Basswood Forest with some areas of prairie and some Oak Woodland and Brushland (Oak Savana). The plants found naturally in those habitats can provide a good basis for plantings. (See the links found below) Trees and shrubs which are in the care of an individual should be under the control of that induvial (plant what you want in your own yard). Trees and plantings which shield and restrict the view of properties should feature trees and shrubs which might have originally been found in the area when possible. Plantings which are designed to shield structures from view from the road should include a variety of trees and shrubs which present a 'natural' and pleasing vista to those driving by. Ideally the depth of the plantings should be large enough to minimize the presence of the structure being screened. Evergreens alone are not a good solution. There were not many evergreens in Corcoran when Europeans arrived, and we should take that as a clue. It is my experience and observation that the 'sweet spot' for evergreens in Corcoran is very small. When they are planted, they don't amount to much, as they grow, they are attractive, and they do offer some year-round privacy but after a few years they lose their bottom branches, or their health declines and they are not attractive and not very functional. In most of Corcoran and area left untended will turn back into woods. You need to keep the buckthorn and other invasives under control, but it will fill in. Proper site preparation, good plant stock, careful planting and good care in the first few years are essential to the development of healthy trees and shrubs. A bad example: I drive to and from our house using CR 30. just west of Mama G's there is a wetland and at the north side of the wetland is the Bellwether development. All that blocks the view of the homes from my view is a single line of spruce trees. They look out of place, and they do not improve the view and in 10 years it will not be much better. That single row of evergreens does not give much protection to the residents from the noise of CR30 and Mama G's nor do they provide much shade from a very open southern exposure. A better example: Old Sturbridge Road runs east from CO 116. There are three homes facing CR116, but they are set well back from the road, pretty well screened by trees and the rest of the community is deeper in the woods, invisible from the road. 16e6ce1617f4b780a59324f79c301a6f.jpg (2833×1507) (pinimg.com) MHs39 Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest factsheet (state.mn.us) I hope this is helpful. Tom Tom Anderson tompand@yahoo.com 763 428-2559 On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 02:58:18 PM CDT, Jessica Christensenbuck <jchristensenbuck@corcoranmn.gov> wrote: Tom and Sharon – See below and attached. Kendra is curious if you guys have any feedback on the list of trees that they compiled from the list you guys had passed along to me. The list appears to begin on page 14. Thanks! From: Kendra Lindahl, AICP <KLindahl@landform.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:55 AM To: Jessica Christensenbuck <jchristensenbuck@corcoranmn.gov> Cc: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: NE district plan Jessica, We expanded the park preferred tree list that you gave me from Tom and Sharon when we did the NE district. I worked with my registered landscape architects to develop this list. The public hearing is scheduled for May 5th but I would appreciate any feedback from Tom prior to that meeting if he has concerns. Kendra Lindahl, AICP LANDFORM, Principal Planner Direct: 612-638-0225 NOTICE: All drawings, specifications, instruments of service, and other documents, data, or information of any kind, including all electronic files and data ("Documents") attached to or "linked" from this E-mail are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. andinternational copyright laws. Your use of the Documents is controlled and restricted by the terms of use. By downloading the attached files or by accessing the links contained in this E-mail message, you are agreeing to the terms of use. COPYRIGHT © 1994-2020 LANDFORM. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NOTICE: indicated professional registrations are for the state in which the office is located; to obtain information about other state licenses, please contact Human Resources at 612-252-9070. Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest - MHs39 | Minnesota DNR (state.mn.us) Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest - MHs39 Rich mesic hardwood forests on loamy soils derived from calcareous till or wind-deposited silt over bedrock. Pre... 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 6.b TO: Corcoran Planning Commission FROM: Nicholas Ouellette through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: April 28, 2022 for the May 5, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting RE: PUBLIC HEARING. Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Application for “Walcott Glen” at the Northwest Corner of Hackamore Road and County Road 11 (PIDs 36- 119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36-119-23-44- 0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033 and 36-119-23-44-0030) (city file no. 22-015) REVIEW DEADLINE: June 5, 2022 1. Description of Request The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning, preliminary plat and planned unit development (PUD) plan for “Walcott Glen” on 35.07 acres at the northwest corner of Hackamore Road and County Road 101. The residential development includes 85 townhomes and 44 single family units. Development plans show the construction of the project in a single phase. Key plan application materials are attached as part of this packet; however, due to size limitations not every item is included. The complete application is available at city hall. 2. Parks and Trails Commission Review The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed this item at their April 21, 2022 meeting. The Commission voted to recommend accepting cash-in-lieu of land for park dedication. 3. Background On November 22, 2021, Council reviewed a concept plan for the project and provided feedback to the applicant. 4. Context A. Preliminary PUD Sketch Plan Zoning and Land Use The properties are zoned Single Family Residential (RSF-2) district and Planned Unit Development (PUD) district. The project includes 9 parcels. The five largest existing lots have single family homes and the remaining lots are vacant. The site is guided Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Walcott Glen – (22-015) 2 May 5, 2022 Plan. The site is located in the Southeast District, Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and the 2020-2025 phase of the 2040 Staging Plan. Municipal services are available to serve the development. Surrounding Properties Properties to the north and west are located in the Ravinia development, guided Low Density Residential and zoned PUD district. The properties developed with single family homes on lots ranging from 55- to 75-ft. wide. The site is bordered by the cities of Medina to the south, Maple Grove to the east and Plymouth to the southeast. The adjacent land uses in these cities are residential. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) map identifies wet prairie wetlands on the site. The wetland delineation provided by the applicant identifies four wetlands on the site. 5. Analysis Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, the detailed comments are included in the attached engineering memo and the approval conditions require compliance with the memo. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning application. The proposed zoning for a property must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City must deny the rezoning application. The Zoning Ordinance and Map are the enforcement tools used to implement the goals and standards set in the Comprehensive Plan. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a PUD. A PUD must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community and surrounding area. The City’s discretion in approving a preliminary plat is limited to whether the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of the preliminary plat approval. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the plat. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 3 May 5, 2022 B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Rezoning to PUD District The project includes nice parcels. Five of those parcels are large existing lots with residential homes. Four of those parcels were platted as part of the Ravinia 11th PUD but are vacant (Lot 1, Block 3, Outlot B, Outlot C and Outlot E). Those parcels would need to be released from the Ravinia PUD and will be incorporated into the Walcott Glen PUD. The remaining previously unplatted properties are zoned Single Family Residential (RSF-2) district and are proposed to be rezoned to PUD district. The Zoning Ordinance has established a PUD zoning district with the purpose of promoting a creative and efficient use of land by providing design flexibility in the development of residential neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas that would not be possible under a conventional zoning district. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility for: • Garage width requirements for townhomes. • Garage size requirements for townhomes. • Lot size and width standards for single family homes. In exchange for this flexibility, the applicant has stated that they will: • Preserve wetlands. • Preserve existing trees along County Road 101 and Hackamore Road to buffer the development. • Create a landscaped buffer between the development and existing homes in the Ravinia neighborhood to the west. • Add 12 trees on the south property line to buffer the development from Hackamore Road. • Provide an additional 55 ft. of building setback from County Road 101 for the homes on 62nd Avenue N. • Provide a small private park. • Project will result in a financial contribution towards the Hackamore Road Improvement Project. • Accommodation of the Hackamore Road on-road trail within the project rather than within the right-of-way. The PUD flexibility and the detailed development plan are discussed in the PUD Plan section of this report. The City must review this request for compliance with the PUD standards as follows: 1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The planned unit development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive plan. The proposed pre- development density of approximately 3.97 units per acre is expected to be within the 3-5 units per acre required in the Low Density Residential land use classification when calculated with Walcott Glen – (22-015) 4 May 5, 2022 post-development numbers at final plat. The plan incorporates the on-road trail and street connections anticipated within the site. 2. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying zoning district. The planned development of 44 single family homes and 85 townhomes. The single family homes are consistent with the intent of the RSF-2 district, which allows single family homes. Townhomes are not permitted in the RSF-2 district; however, Section 1040.140 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of the PUD district is to allow for mixing of land uses that could not otherwise be accomplished through standard zoning regulations. The applicant is requesting approval of PUD zoning for flexibility for modification of townhome building standards and single family lot standards for this development at a density consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, except that PUD flexibility is requested as noted in the staff report. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer indicates they will preserve wetlands, preserve existing trees to buffer the development, establish buffers and screening between the existing development and the townhomes, provide a small private park and provide an additional 55 ft. setback from County Road 101 for the lots on 62nd Avenue N. The PUD allows the applicant to request flexibility from the performance standards in the ordinance in exchange for a high quality development than might otherwise be expected. The Planning Commission could find that the PUD flexibility requested by the developer results in deviations from the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not off-set by the PUD benefits proposed by the applicant and, therefore, are in conflict with the applicable provisions of the ordinance. 4. The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and/or operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or phase. The planned development is feasible without dependence upon any other subsequent phase. The project will be completed in a single phase and integrate into the existing Ravinia neighborhood. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 5 May 5, 2022 5. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. With the improvements required by the feasibility study, the development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The developer is providing public trails and sidewalks consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The private park will serve neighborhood residents in addition to the existing public parks in the surrounding area. 6. The planned development will not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The planned development is a residential neighborhood developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The development is estimated to be 3.97 units per acre where 3-5 units per acre are required for this property. 7. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher standards, more efficient and effective uses of streets, utilities and public facilities, it shall maintain and enhance any natural resources within the development, and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations. Staff finds the developer meets this standard. The development will meet the City’s density goals while providing land for land for a private park, trails and quality architecture. The Zoning Ordinance states that “the rezoning of the property defined in the development plan shall not become effective until such time as the City Council approves an ordinance reflecting said amendment, which shall take place at the time that the City Council approves the final development plan”. The Council should approve the rezoning to be effective at such time as the final PUD plan is approved. Preliminary PUD Plan The PUD offers enhanced flexibility to develop the site through the relaxation of most typical zoning district standards. The PUD allows for a greater variety of land uses, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this flexibility, the City expects a higher level of design, more sensitive development or more significant infrastructure improvements than might otherwise be required. The entire project will be built in a single phase and includes 44 single family homes and 85 townhomes. The plans show an approximate net density of 3.97 units per acre. This complies with the Low Density Residential land use category requirement of 3-5 units per acre. The City applies this Walcott Glen – (22-015) 6 May 5, 2022 density evaluation on a parcel-by-parcel basis (3-5 units per acre for low density). When the City updates its Comprehensive Plan, the Metropolitan Council requires the City to show that they will provide a minimum of three units per net acre on average across all residential districts in the City’s MUSA. The formula used by the Metropolitan Council shows that following the land use classifications in the adopted 2040 plan will result in slightly more than three units per acre. In order to monitor compliance with this goal, the Metropolitan Council plat monitoring program requires cities to ensure that each plat is in compliance with the density range for the adopted land use and provide an annual report. Regardless of housing type, development on this parcel must comply with the adopted density range. Lot Standards The development is being reviewed against the RSF-2 district standards for the single family units. While the applicant has not requested flexibility from RSF-2 lot standards, plans provided by applicant show flexibility is required from the lot size and lot width standards for the single family homes as follows (shown in red below): Proposed RSF-2 (Single family) Minimum lot area 6,926 sq. ft. 11,000 sq. ft. Minimum lot width 50 ft. 80 ft. Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 80 ft. 100 ft. Front, From all other streets 25 ft. home/20 ft. porch 20 ft. Side 7.5 ft (15 ft. between homes) 10 ft./5 ft. garage Rear 30 ft. 30 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 35 ft. 35 ft. *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s narrative does not request flexibility from the rear yard setback. Staff notes 25 ft. rear setbacks are shown for lots along Lupine Lane and Goldenrod Trail and 30 ft. rear setbacks are shown for lots along 62nd Avenue. Many of these lots can accommodate the 30 ft. rear yard setback and plans should be revised to show the correct setback distance. While all of the homes appear to meet the rear setback requirement, porches/patios/decks for Lots 33, 39, 40 and 41 encroach into the rear yard setback. Porches/patios/decks for these lots will not be permitted to encroach into the rear yard setback. Staff has included a condition that the applicant revise plans to show compliance with the required 30 ft. rear setback. Lot 38 is the only lot with frontage along County Road 101 (a major roadway). Plans show a 50 ft. front yard setback from County Road 101. Building setback flexibility may be provided through additional landscaping in the required front setback adjacent to arterial streets. Section 1060.070 in the Zoning Ordinance allows the applicant to reduce the required setback up to 40% if the applicant provides a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, two ornamental trees and ten Walcott Glen – (22-015) 7 May 5, 2022 understory shrubs for 100 ft. of length along the property line where flexibility is requested, or preserves the equivalent number of existing trees and shrubs. The tree preservation plan shows approximately 12 overstory trees being preserved in the required front setback. The proposed 50 ft. setback for Lot 38 does not comply; a 40% reduction in the 100 ft. setback requires a 60 ft. setback. The applicant shall revise plans to show the 60 ft. setback and required landscaping of 2 overstory deciduous trees, two overstory coniferous trees, two ornamental trees, and 20 understory shrubs for the 200 ft. of property line where flexibility is requested. Single family homes are concentrated on the perimeter of the site to provide a transition from the existing single family homes in the Ravinia development and the townhomes located in the center and southeast areas of the site. Ravinia homes adjacent to the north are situated on 55 and 65 ft. wide lots. The applicant has proposed placing the largest single family lots in the Walcott Glen development along the west property line to provide a transition from adjacent 75 ft. wide Ravinia lots. The townhomes are reviewed against the RMF-1 district standards as follows: Proposed RMF-1 (Townhomes) Minimum lot area 8,717 sq. ft. 5,400 sq. ft. per unit Minimum lot width 24 ft. None Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 100 ft. 100 ft. Front, From all other streets 25 ft. 25 ft. Side** 10 ft. 10 ft. Rear 40 ft. rear to rear 25 ft. rear to side 25 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 35 ft. 35 ft. *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. **Internal: 20 feet between attached or multi-family principal structures separated by common area. The intent of the per unit sq. ft. requirement is intended to be an average based on the townhome area (a sum of the unit footprints plus the common areas divided by the number of units). Staff provided an approximate calculation for the proposed minimum lot area for townhomes; however, the applicant is required to provide a minimum lot area calculation using this formula to confirm compliance. Design Standards The City has adopted design standards as part of the Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines as part of the Southeast District Plan and Design Guidelines. Plans appear to be compliant with the guidelines outlined in the Southeast District Plan. Since products may change in the course of the build-out, additional home plans may be considered. Any changes or updates to the architectural elevations or plans provided to the City must be approved by City staff to ensure compliance with PUD approvals. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 8 May 5, 2022 Single family homes are also required to comply with the standards listed in Section 1040.040, Subd. 8. The applicant has provided 14 different architectural elevations of the single family homes and have additional elevations they wish to provide. The applicant is not requesting any flexibility from the single family design standards. Plans for single family homes appear to comply with the required standards. The applicant should provide updated plans that delineate the garage area to ensure compliance with the requirement that the garage shall not comprise more than 55% of the viewable ground floor street- facing building frontage. Equal architecture treatment is also required on all sides of a single family home that faces a public right-of-way or park, which includes Lots 24-31, 37 and 38. Staff has attached an exhibit to this report that illustrates lots subject to this requirement. Townhomes must comply with the architectural standards in Section 1040.060, Subd. 9. Townhome elevations have been provided and a color palette has also been provided. Plans for the townhomes appear to comply with the required standards, except where PUD flexibility is being requested. The amount of stone material provided on the townhome facades exceeds the minimum percentage required. The applicant is only requesting PUD flexibility from garage standards for the townhomes as noted below. Section 1040.060, Subd. 9(B.7) Garages: The Ordinance specifies that for townhome dwellings with basements, 440 sq. ft. garages are required and for dwellings without basements, 540 sq. ft. garages are required. Garages shall also be a minimum of 20 ft. wide. The townhomes in this project are proposed without basements. The applicant is requesting flexibility from the minimum garage standards to allow 419 sq. ft. garages with a minimum width of 19 ft. 3 in. This is similar to the Tavera townhome development where PUD flexibility was provided to allow 420 sq. ft. garages with a minimum width of 19 ft. The HOA is responsible for exterior maintenance which reduces the amount of storage space necessary for yard maintenance tools and devices in the townhome garages. Storage space is still at the back of the garage and the applicant has provided 50 sq. ft. of shelving for storage. Utilities The City Engineer’s memo provides detailed utility comments. Sewer and water are available through the Ravinia neighborhood. The Feasibility Study indicates that looping will be required for the watermain with the location to be determined during construction plan review. There are existing well and septic systems in existing single family lots. Well and septic system abandonment shall be completed as noted in the City Engineer’s memo. Public Streets and Access The public streets are 30 ft. wide with 50 ft. wide rights-of-way. This complies with City standards and Southeast District guidelines. Access to the development will be provided from Hackamore Road via Walcott Glen – (22-015) 9 May 5, 2022 Goldenrod Trail. The project also provides new access to the Ravinia neighborhood from Goldenrod Trail and Larkspur Lane. Lots on the 63rd Avenue N cul-de-sac will be accessed through the existing Ravinia 11th Addition. The Feasibility Study indicates that Hackamore Road is planned to be improved to a two lane roadway with both right and left turns into the main access. If this reconstruction is undertaken as part of a larger project for Hackamore Road, the applicant shall share in those costs for the portion in front of the plat boundary. The City of Corcoran continues to coordinate with the City of Medina and is pursuing additional sources of funding for this project. Plans show a west-bound right turn lane from Hackamore Road into the development; however, the City Engineer’s memo requires that plans shall be revised to show the 75% Hackamore improvement plan set. Proposed improvements to Hackamore Road shall be coordinated at final plat to ensure they can be constructed with the development. No access from County Road 101 is proposed. Private Drives Townhomes that do not front onto Larkspur Lane or Goldenrod Trail have access from private drives. A maintenance and easement agreement is required for the private drives. Private drives must comply with the standards in Section 945.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Plans comply with the requirements that driveways with access from private drives be a minimum of 22 ft. in length. The Ordinance requires a 75 ft. concrete apron at the access to private drives from public streets which is not shown on plans. The concrete apron standard was intended for the rural area and different standards for the urban area were never adopted. The townhomes in Tavera have a 20 ft. concrete apron and a 3 ft. concrete valley gutter was discussed as an option for Tavera but not approved. While no flexibility has been requested by the applicant, staff has no objection if the Council wishes to approve a 3 ft. concrete valley gutter at the entrance to private drives. A decorative sign stating “private drive” shall be located near each entrance to a private drive. Each sign shall also provide the range of addresses served by the private drive. The Public Safety Memo notes the private drive hammerhead must meet city specifications and post no parking fire lane signs. Parking Section 1060.060 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for each use. Townhomes are required to provide two spaces per unit, plus one space for each five units. The applicant is showing 11 parking stalls off the private drives in Outlot C and 18 parking stalls on Larkspur Lane. The City generally requires on-street parking on public streets to be on the same side of the street as the sidewalk. However, the parking on Larkspur Lane is on the east side of the street not the sidewalk side. Staff would support this to meet the guest parking requirement if the parking is in a bump out to keep the travel lane clear. We have included this as a condition of approval in the draft resolution. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 10 May 5, 2022 Parking areas with four or more stalls must be screened from residential properties and streets with landscaping at least 3 ft. high to screen vehicle headlights. One guest parking area has five stalls and the applicant shall provide the required screening from the adjacent townhome and public street. Staff has included a condition that plans show the required screening for the five-stall parking area along the private drive. Staff encourage the applicant to provide this landscaping for the other off street parking areas as well. Grading and Stormwater The City Engineer’s memo provides detailed comments on stormwater. Two stormwater ponds and two filtration ponds are proposed with this project. The City Engineer’s memo requires plans be revised to show all contributing areas for the drainage network to better understand the site will connect with the overall drainage network for the area. The applicant also proposed expanding an existing stormwater filtration basin in Ravinia to the northeast of the site. This filtration basin is currently managed by the Ravinia HOA. The applicant shall be required to provide documentation to the City indicating how maintenance of the expanded portion of the filtration basin will be handled by the two different HOAs. Retaining walls are proposed with this development. Retaining walls higher than four feet shall be designed by a certified engineer and plans for any retaining walls higher than four feet shall be submitted to the building permit department for permitting prior to construction. Plans show retaining walls situated within the wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback. Section 1050.010 requires that the wetland structure setback shall apply to all structures, except that structures setback shall be reduced to 5 ft. for roadways, trails, and parking lots and their related walls and fences. The proposed retaining walls do not qualify for a setback reduction. Plans must be revised to locate retaining walls outside the wetland buffer building setback. The proposed location of retaining walls in Lots 7, 8, 9 and 38 create unusable portions of the yard that are difficult to access for lawnmowing and maintenance. Those areas between the retaining wall and the buffer will be difficult to maintain. Staff recommends that area be planted with native plants to reduce the level of maintenance required or consider relocating the retaining walls. An existing overland emergency overflow (EOF) is present between wetland #4 and Wetland #H3 and grading for Larkspur Lane will impact the EOF. The City Engineer has noted the EOF may need to be located underground or the road grading shall be lowered to maintain the EOF. Staff has included this as a condition. Easements An access easement exists along the south side of the Ravinia 11th Addition and along the north property line of the proposed side adjacent to Ravinia 11th Addition. This is a private easement between landowners. A release from this easement is required prior to final plat application and will be recorded with the final plat. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 11 May 5, 2022 New standard drainage and utility easements will be provided with the plat around the perimeter of the lots, over stormwater management ponds and over the wetlands (wetland and wetland buffer areas). Drainage and utility easements will be required over the common space parcels for the townhomes, otherwise additional drainage and utility easements for the storm sewer and utilities will be necessary. Gas, electric and other private and public utilities are located adjacent and/or on the property. Preservation of existing easements and coordination with all public and private utilities must be conducted prior to commencing any grading or construction. Homeowners Association The existing Ravinia lots are subject to the Ravinia Homeowners Association. These lots must be transferred to the homeowners association established for this project. The transfer to the new homeowners association will be addressed as part of the final plat. Landscaping and Tree Preservation A minimum of one overstory tree is required for each dwelling unit. The Landscape Plan indicates the applicant is providing 162 overstory trees for 128 residential units and landscape buffers. Landscape Plans show one tree in front of each single family house. Space in front of townhomes is limited and trees have been provided in front of townhomes where feasible. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan showing utility connections to ensure no conflicts between trees and utilities. As a PUD benefit, the applicant has provided 33 conifer trees along the west property line of the site to buffer views of the townhomes from the existing Ravinia neighborhood. The layout of the proposed development is intended to utilize existing and proposed tree locations to screen the neighborhood from County Road 101 and Hackamore Road. The applicant has also provided a tree preservation plan. A retaining wall proposed south of the 63rd Avenue N cul-de-sac will impact three trees that were marked as preserved. The City Engineer’s memo provides detailed comments on trees marked as preserved but do not appear practical to preserve based on the grading plan. Staff has included a condition that the applicant submit a revised tree preservation plan. Staff has attached a marked up tree preservation plan. As noted in the parking section above, if the applicant provides parking lots with four or more stalls, 3 ft. high landscaping will be required to screen vehicle headlights from residential and public streets. Wetlands The wetland delineation report provided by the applicant shows four wetlands on the site. Section 1050.010 establishes standards for the Wetland Overlay District. This includes the establishment of wetland buffer strips with an average width of 25 ft. plus a 15 ft. structure setback from the buffer. Wetland buffer signs are required to be installed at each lot/outlot line where it crosses a wetland Walcott Glen – (22-015) 12 May 5, 2022 buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of a buffer, with a maximum spacing of 200 ft. along the buffer edge. Staff notes a few sections of wetland buffer require additional buffer monument signs and will work with the applicant to revise plans to accurately place buffer monuments. Building setback lines must also be revised to comply with the 15 ft. structure setback around Wetland #4. Staff also notes a retaining wall adjacent to Wetland #4 and #H3 conflicts with the location of the wetland buffer edge. Staff has included a condition the location of the wetland buffer or retaining wall be revised. Plans show patios/decks/porches encroaching into the required structure setback area on Lot 9. Patios and decks may encroach up to a maximum of 6 ft. into the required structure setback area and porches may not encroach into the required structure setback area. Because single family home buyers will select their individual home for each lot, staff will review setbacks for compliance with these standards as part of the building permit application. Signage No development signage is proposed at this time. As noted in the private drive section above, “private drive” signs are required at the entrance to each private drive. No parking signs shall be required on one side of the public streets and required within all cul-de-sacs. The City Engineer’s memo includes requirements for roadway and no parking signs. Lighting The applicant has not provided a lighting plan or street light details. Staff has included a condition the applicant provide proposed street lighting locations on revised plans. The final location of streetlights will be coordinated with the City and field located during construction. Sidewalks, Trails and Parks The Parks and Trails map in the Comprehensive Plan shows on-road trails along County Road 101 and Hackamore Road. Normally, on road trails are located in the public right-of-way and are very lineal. The applicant is providing space on their property outside of the right-of-way for the Hackamore Road trail as a PUD benefit. Permanent trail easements will be required for the portion of trail within the site boundary and no park dedication credit will be granted for this trail. The final alignment of the Hackamore Road trail will be determined during the design process for road improvements. The final trail alignment will be determined by the City and may result in additional tree loss along the south property line. The applicant shall provide revised plans that delineate the future County Road 101 trail; however, the alignment of this trail will likely be impacted by the presence of wetlands. Sidewalks are shown along public streets and they connect to existing sidewalks within the Ravinia development to the west and north. The sidewalk along Goldenrod Trail connects with the on-road trail along Hackamore Road. No sidewalks are provided on the private drives. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 13 May 5, 2022 The applicant has proposed a 0.46 acre park in Outlot E. The Parks and Trails Commission recommended not to accept the park for park land dedication. The applicant indicates that they will retain this area as a private amenity for neighborhood residents as a benefit of the PUD. The Parks and Trails Commission recommended accepting cash-in-lieu of land for required park dedication. The full cash-in-lieu of land required for this project is as follows: 44 single family units = $203,632 (44 x $4,628) 85 multi-family units = $266,985 (85 x $3,141) TOTAL = $470,617 Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat requests approval of 129 lots and five outlots. The applicant has requested flexibility from minimum lot size, width and setback requirements for single family lots and from lot size and setback requirements for townhomes. The approval conditions noted in this staff report may result in changes to the lot layout and may also affect the unit count. The applicant has indicated this project will be completed in a single phase. Summary Staff finds that the proposed plan is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The plan for single family homes provides many of the essential public components of the Comprehensive Plan, including: • Ensuring housing development is compatible with existing and adjacent land uses and has access to key community features, natural features and views of open spaces. • Providing a variety of housing types, styles, densities and choices to meet the housing needs of residents. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility for: • Garage width requirements for townhomes. • Garage size requirements for townhomes. • Lot size and width standards for single family homes. In exchange for this flexibility, the applicant has stated that they will: • Preserve wetlands. • Preserve existing trees along County Road 101 and Hackamore Road to buffer the development. • Create a landscaped buffer between the development and existing homes in the Ravinia neighborhood to the west. • Add 12 trees on the south property line to buffer the development from Hackamore Road. • Provide an additional 55 ft. of building setback from County Road 101 for the homes on 62nd Avenue N. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 14 May 5, 2022 •Provide a small private park. •Project will result in a financial contribution towards the Hackamore Road Improvement Project. •Accommodation of the Hackamore Road on-road trail within the project rather than within the right-of-way. Staff has reviewed the plan for consistency with the applicant standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Staff noted in the staff report the outstanding issues that must be addressed and we have included conditions in the attached draft resolutions to address these issues. The Planning Commission may modify these conditions. However, the City has discretion when reviewing a PUD and the Planning Commission may find that PUD standards have not been met and may recommend denial citing reasons for the denial. 6.Recommendation Move to recommend approval of the following: a.Ordinance 2022-XX Rezoning to PUD b.Resolution 2022-XX Approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning c.Resolution 2022-XX Approving Preliminary PUD Plan d.Resolution 2022-XX Approving Preliminary Plat Attachments 1.Ordinance 2022-XX Rezoning to PUD 2.Resolution 2022-XX Approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning 3.Resolution 2022-XX Approving Preliminary PUD Plan 4.Resolution 2022-XX Approving Preliminary Plat 5.Site Location Map 6.City Engineer’s Memo dated April 24, 2022 7.Feasibility Study dated April 6, 2022 8.Public Safety Memo dated April 12, 2022 9.Applicant’s Narrative dated April 26, 2022 10.Preliminary PUD Site Plan dated April 26, 2022 11.Preliminary PUD Plans dated March 11, 2022 12.Preliminary Plat dated March 11, 2022 13.Parking Exhibit dated April 26, 2022 14.Site Plan Rendering dated April 27, 2022 15.Architectural Elevations dated April 26, 2022 16.Architectural Upgrades Exhibit dated April 28, 2022 17.Tree Preservation Plan Review dated March 22, 2022 18.Public Comments Received on City File 22-015 19.Public Comments Received on City File 21-048 City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACKAMORE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 36-119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23- 44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010 AND 36-119-23-44-0014) (CITY FILE NO. 22-015) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment of the City Code. Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, is hereby amended by changing the classification of the City of Corcoran Zoning Map from Single Family Residential 2 (RSF-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), legal described as follows: See Attachment A Section 2. This amendment shall take effect upon adoption of the resolution approving the final PUD development plan for this project. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this XXth day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT A Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANC That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANC The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANC The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR REZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACKAMORE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 36- 119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010 AND 36-119-23- 44-0014) (CITY FILE NO. 22-015) WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (the “applicant”) has requested approval to rezone 34.59 acres legally described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance rezoning the affected parcels from Single Family Residential 2 (RSF-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does support the request for the reclassification of the property, based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed pre-development density of 3.97 units per acre is expected to be within the 3-5 units per acre required in the Low Density Residential land use classification when calculated with post-development numbers at final plat. The plan incorporates the on-road trail and street connections anticipated within the site. 2. The planned development of 44 single family is consistent with the intent of the RSF-2 zoning district, which allows single family homes. The applicant is requesting approval of PUD zoning to allow the development of 85 townhomes. The purpose of the PUD district is to allow for mixing of land uses that could not otherwise be accomplished through standard zoning regulations. The applicant is also requesting approval of PUD zoning for design flexibility for modification of townhome architecture and building standards for this development. 3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, except that PUD flexibility is requested as noted in the staff report. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer indicates they will preserve wetlands, preserve existing trees to buffer the development, establish buffers and screening between the existing development and the townhomes, provide a small private park and provide an additional 55 ft. setback from County Road 101 for the lots on 62nd Avenue N. 4. The planned development is feasibly without dependence upon any other subsequent phase. The project will be completed in a single phase and integrate into the existing Ravinia neighborhood. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 2 of 3 5. With the improvements required by the feasibility study, the development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The developer is providing public trails and sidewalks consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The private park will serve neighborhood residents in addition to the existing public parks in the surrounding area. 6. The planned development is a residential neighborhood developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The development is estimated to be 3.97 units per acre where 3-5 units per acre are required for this property. 7. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher standards, more efficient and effective uses of streets, utilities and public facilities, it shall maintain and enhance any natural resources within the development, and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations. Staff finds the developer meets this standard. The development will meet the City’s density goals while providing land for land for a private park, trails and quality architecture. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this XXth day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANC That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANC The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANC The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 1 of 9 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR “WALCOTT GLEN” LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACKAMORE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 36-119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44- 0010, 36-119-23-44-0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033 AND 36-119-23-44-0030) (CITY FILE NO. 22-015) WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (the “applicant”) has requested approval of “Walcott Glen” a residential subdivision on property legal described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby approves the request for preliminary PUD plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary PUD plan is approved to create 129 lots and five outlots for “Walcott Glen”, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on February 15, 2022, February 24, 2022, March 11, 2022, March 30, 2022, April 6, 2022, April 26, 2022 and April 27, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the requested rezoning and preliminary plat (Ordinance 2022-XX and Resolution 2022-XX). 3. PUD flexibility is granted for the following: a. Townhome garage width and size requirements. Townhome Garages shall be a minimum 19’-3” wide and 419 sq. ft. in area. b. Lot width and area standards for the single family homes. The following standards shall apply to single family homes: Single Family Units Minimum lot area 6,926 sq. ft. Minimum lot width 50 ft. Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 80 ft. Front, From all other streets 25 ft. home/20 ft. porch Side 7.5 ft (15 ft. between homes) Rear 30 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 35 ft. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 2 of 9 *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2040 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 4. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Public Safety Memo dated April 12, 2022. 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo, dated April 24, 2022. 6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Feasibility Study dated April 6, 2022. 7. The preliminary plat shall be revised to list all nine parcels included in the development. 8. The applicant is subject to review and approval by Hennepin County. The applicant is required to secure all permits and approvals from the County. 9. The preliminary PUD plan is approved based on the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 10. Park dedication shall be satisfied by acceptance of cash-in-lieu of land for the 44 single family homes and 85 townhomes. a. Park dedication shall be subject to park dedication fees in place when the final plat is released for recording. b. A 20 ft. wide trail easement must be deeded to the City for the Hackamore Road trail. Final alignment will be determined by the City Engineer. No park dedication will be granted. c. The future County Road 101 trail shall be shown on the plans. 11. The townhomes shall comply with the RMF-1 townhome standards in Section 1040.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. 12. Minimum lot area calculations for the townhomes shall be provided with the application for final plat (sum of the unit footprints plus the common areas divided by the number of townhome units). 13. Plans shall be revised to show compliance with the 30 ft. rear yard setback for single family lots. 14. Plans shall be revised to show building setback flexibility for Lot 38 as 60 ft. from County Road 101. Building setback flexibility is permitted to reduce the required setback up to 40% of the required 100 ft. setback if the applicant provides: a. One overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, two ornamental trees and ten understory shrubs for 100 ft. along the property line where flexibility is requested, or preserve the equivalent number of existing trees and shrubs. b. Plans shall show the required landscaping for the reduced setback. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 3 of 9 15. Building setback flexibility is provided for Lot 38 for a 50 ft. front setback from major roadways. In exchange, the applicant shall provide a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, two ornamental trees and ten understory shrubs for 100 ft. of length along the property line where flexibility is requested, or preserve the equivalent number of existing trees and shrubs. 16. All driveways must have a minimum 22 ft. wide parking area between the garage and right-of-way that does not overlap into sidewalks, drives or streets. 17. Mechanical equipment (including air conditioning units) must be located in the side or rear yard. 18. Driveways may not encroach in the drainage and utility easements on the side yards. 19. The developer shall provide centralized mailbox locations. A mailbox plan shall be provided for City review and approval. Mailbox locations shall be approved by the US Postal Service and proof of the approved locations shall be provided to the City prior to release of final plat. 20. The applicant shall provide details of the driveway, house pads, and setbacks as part of the final PUD plan applicant that demonstrate compliance with the approved PUD standards. Architecture and Design Standards 21. Single family homes shall comply with all design requirements for the RSF-2 district described in Section 1040.040. a. Provide updated architectural plans delineating the garage area to ensure compliance with the requirement that the garage shall not comprise more than 55% of the viewable ground floor street-facing building frontage. 22. Townhomes shall comply with all design requirements for the RMF-1 district described in Section 1040.060, Subd. 9, except that PUD flexibility is provided for garage size and width. The plans submitted do comply with all architectural standards for building materials. 23. Any changes or updates to the architectural elevations or plans provided to the City must be approved by City staff to ensure compliance with PUD approvals. 24. The applicant shall provide copies of the final HOA documents/covenants for City review as part of the final plat application. 25. Porches, patios and/or decks must comply with the 30 ft. rear yard setback. Landscaping and Lighting 26. Lawn sprinklers/irrigation systems (if provided) shall all have rain sensors to limit unnecessary watering. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 4 of 9 27. Plans shall be revised to show proposed location of streetlights and street light details shall also be provided. 28. The Tree Preservation Plan shall be revised to show additional trees for removal adjacent to the retaining wall north of Wetland #H3. 29. Landscaping 3 ft. high shall be provided for parking areas with four or more stalls to screen vehicle headlights from adjacent residential and public streets. 30. The applicant shall provide plans showing the proposed location of required trees and utility connections to ensure no conflicts between the two. 31. Trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the single family homes. 32. Any request to for the City to inspect the required landscaping in order to reduce financial guarantees must be accompanied by recertification/verification of field inspection by the project Landscape Architect. A letter signed by the project Landscape Architect verifying plantings (including wetland and pond buffers) have been correctly installed in compliance with the plans and specifications will suffice. Wetlands 33. A wetland buffer planting plan and maintenance plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City. 34. Well and septic system abandonment shall be completed as noted in the City Engineer’s memo. 35. The Site Plan must be revised to relocated retaining walls outside of the wetland buffer a. A retaining wall is situated within the buffer for Wetland #H3 and must be relocated. b. A retaining wall is situated within the buffer for Wetland #4 and must be relocated. 36. Section 1050.010 requires a 15 ft. structure setback, but allows patios and decks to encroach a maximum of 6 ft. into the required structure setback. Porches may not encroach into the required structure setback area. Staff will review setbacks for compliance with these standards as part of the building permit application. 37. All permanent wetland buffer monument signs must be erected along the wetland buffer line as required by Section 1050.010, Subd. 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. a. The applicant shall work with City staff to finalize the location of wetland buffer monuments. b. Wetland signs shall be purchased from the City. c. The final locations must be inspected and approved by City staff. d. Monument signs shall be installed prior to approval of the building permit. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 5 of 9 Grading, Drainage and Stormwater Management 38. Drainage and utility easements must be provided over all wetlands, wetland buffers and ponds. 39. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided along the perimeter of all lots. 40. The applicant must enter into a stormwater maintenance agreement prior to release of final plat. 41. The applicant shall provide documentation to the City indicating how maintenance of the expanded portion of the filtration basin in the northeast corner of the site will be handled by the two different HOAs. 42. The applicant shall maintain the existing EOF between Wetland #H3 and Wetland #4. 43. The applicant shall maintain the expanded portion of the filtration basin located on the east side of Ravinia 11th Addition. 44. Plans must be revised to locate retaining walls outside the wetland buffers and wetland buffer setback. Parks, Sidewalks and Trails 45. The HOA is responsible for ensuring sidewalks in the townhome development area are shoveled. 46. The final alignment of the Hackamore Road on-road trail will be determined during the design process for road improvements. a. The applicant shall be required to provide permanent trail easements for any portion of the trail located within the site boundary. 47. Plans shall be revised to show the County Road 101 on-road trail. 48. The HOA is responsible for the maintenance of the open space in the development, including any private park space. Final details of the private park area shall be provided with the final PUD application. Streets, Parking and Utilities 49. All utility facilities shall be located underground. 50. Plans shall be revised to show the 75% Hackamore improvement plan set. 51. The development shall comply with the City’s requirements regarding fire access, fire protection and fire flow calculations, the location of fire hydrants, fire department connections and fire lane signage. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 6 of 9 52. Parking shall be permitted on one side of the local streets and shall be signed in accordance with City standards. 53. The hammerhead on the private drive must meet city specifications and post no parking fire lane signs. 54. Private drives shall be allowed for the townhome development shown on plans. a. Plans must be revised to show the required 75 ft. concrete apron at the entrance to private drives from public streets. b. Individual unit driveways that gain access from any such private drive shall be a minimum of 22 ft. in length. c. A decorative sign stating “Private Drive” shall be located near each entrance to a private drive. Such sign shall also provide the range of addresses served by the private drive. d. No parking shall be allowed on the private drive but guest parking will be required adjacent to the private drive. e. The HOA documents shall provide a mechanism for the maintenance of the private drive in perpetuity. f. The private drive shall not be placed in an outlot. g. The private drive shall have a width no greater than 24 ft. h. Snow storage locations must be shown on plans. 55. One guest parking stall must be provided for each five townhome units. A minimum of 17 off-street parking stalls are required for the 85 townhomes: a. Eleven (11) off-street parking stalls are provided adjacent to the private drives. i. The HOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of these parking stalls. b. Eighteen (18) on-street parking stalls are permitted along Larkspur Lane to fulfill the remaining six off-street parking stalls required by Code. i. On-street parking along Larkspur Lane shall be located in a bump out along the east edge of the right-of-way. No on-street parking along Larkspur Lane shall be located within the drive lane. ii. Final design of the on-street parking bump out shall be coordinated with City staff prior to final PUD. Miscellaneous 56. The applicant must provide documentation that Ravinia lots that are being incorporated into this project (Lot 1, Block 3, Outlot B, Outlot C and Outlot E) have been released from the Ravinia HOA and will be incorporated into the Walcott Glen HOA. 57. A release from the existing access easement along on both sides of the property line between the Ravinia 11th Addition and the site shall be required and recorded with the final plat. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 7 of 9 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this XXth day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 8 of 9 ATTACHMENT A Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANC That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANC The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANC The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 6: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Lot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 9 of 9 Parcel 7: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 8: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 9: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot B, RAVINIA 11th ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “WALCOTT GLEN” LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACKAMORE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 36-119- 23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36-119-23-44-0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033 AND 36-119-23-44-0030) (CITY FILE NO. 22-015) WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (the “applicant”) has requested approval of “Walcott Glen” a residential subdivision on property legal described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby approves the request for preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary plat is approved to create 129 lots and five outlots for “Walcott Glen”, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on February 15, 2022, February 24, 2022, March 11, 2022, March 30, 2022, April 6, 2022, April 26, 2022 and April 27, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the preliminary PUD plan for “Walcott Glen”. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the preliminary PUD plan approval (Resolution 2022-XX). 3. Park dedication is due as required by the PUD approvals, prior to the release of final plat for recording. 4. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo, dated April 24, 2022. 5. The preliminary plat shall be revised to list all nine parcels included in the development. 6. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of the final plat. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 2 of 3 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this XXth day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Outlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Outlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Outlot B, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Hennepin County Property Map Date: 4/14/2022 Comments: 1 inch = 400 feet PARCEL ID: 3611923440010 OWNER NAME: R C Schnell & B S Schnell PARCEL ADDRESS: 6235 Co Rd No 101, Corcoran MN 55340 PARCEL AREA: 5.68 acres, 247,354 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $1,200,000 SALE DATA: 05/2021 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies ASSESSED 2021, PAYABLE 2022 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $866,000 TAX TOTAL: $12,914.40 ASSESSED 2022, PAYABLE 2023 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,123,000 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Walcott Glen – Preliminary Plat Review Date: April 24, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Walcott Glen Preliminary Plans, prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc,. dated February 14th, 2022. 2. Walcott Glen ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey (Draft), Prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc,. dated October 21st, 2021 3. Walcott Glen Preliminary Plat, Prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc,. dated March 8th, 2022 4. Hackamore Road Development Stormwater Management Plan, Prepared by AE2S, dated February 15th, 2022. Comments: General: 1. The City process requires the applicant to submit a written response to this memorandum. Submit the written response with revised plans. 2. In addition to engineering related comments per these plans, the proposed plans are subject to addition planning, zoning, land-use, and other applicable codes of the City of Corcoran. 3. Final approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission must be attained before any site grading or activity may commence. 4. For any site activity (demo, grading, utilities, etc.) no closures or restrictions of any kind shall be imposed upon the public use of Hackamore Road/CSAH 101 without the City’s/County’s permission. Should any lane restrictions be necessary, the Contractor shall notify the City/County at least 48 hours in advance and provide a Traffic Control Plan. 5. Construction access to 63rd Ave and Lupine Lane shall be achieved through the existing development for grading and utilities to the extend practical. During street and home construction, accommodations and signage may be necessary to limit impacts on existing residents and roadways. 6. Well and septic system abandonment shall be completed by a licensed contractor and abandonment shall be permitted with final documentation provided to the City. 7. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed within the City ROW or easements. This includes but is not limited to retaining walls and irrigation systems. April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 7 8. The final plat plans shall clearly identify the existing turnarounds, retaining walls and features adjacent to the proposed development that will need to be removed or modified to accommodate the improvements. 9. There is existing storm sewer and structures within Larkspur Lane that need to be identified on final plat plans. 10. A feasibility study was completed by Stantec Dated April 2022. Developer shall be responsible for the conditions and offsite improvements as outlined in the feasibility study. Plat: 1. The applicant shall have all drainage and utility easements provided and shown and all platting requirements met per the City Code. Drainage and utility easements (5’ – 10’) shall be provided along property lines, as standard per City requirements. 2. Blanket drainage and utility easement required over all outlots shown on preliminary plat. 3. Provide separate trail easement for all trails/sidewalks located outside of the ROW 4. Provide additional easement for storm sewer C3 to C5 5. Existing easement along north property line to be vacated. 6. 40’ half Right of Way required on Hackamore Road. 7. If Hackamore trail is located within the proposed development, trail easements will be required over final alignment. 8. It is assumed that D&U easements will be provided over the common space parcels for the townhomes. If not, additional D&U easements for the storm sewer and utilities will be necessary. Erosion Control/SWPPP 1. Preparation of and compliance with a SWPPP shall be required for construction. Transportation 1. All 28’ roads shall be signed no parking on one side of the roadway with no parking signs required within all cul-de-sacs. Final sign location to be coordinated at time of final plat. 2. The turn lanes into the project site are anticipated to be a City-led project. If so, the developer shall establish an escrow prior to the turn lanes being designed and publicly bid. 3. All parking areas shall have concrete curbing and a paved surface. 4. Southern edge of emergency turnaround on private drive to be shifted 15’ north of property line to provide adequate space for snow storage. If trail is routed through this corridor, additional space will be necessary for snow storage and buffer from property lines. April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 3 of 7 Site Plans 1. The existing and proposed drainage and utility easements shown shall be clearly labeled on all plan drawings. The wetland buffer zones shall also be clearly identified and labeled. 2. Street lighting locations shall be reviewed by public safety and final lighting locations shall be determined at the time of final plat. 3. The plan is not showing the 75% Hackamore improvement plan set. At final plat, the entrance to this development shall be coordinated with those proposed improvements to ensure they can be constructed with one another. 4. Trail alignment along Hackamore Road to be coordinated with City Staff at time of final plat. Grading /Stormwater 1. Reference the City of Corcoran Stormwater Guidelines for Development Review for standards for stormwater systems and modeling. 2. The development model was submitted in HydroCad, however further reviews as the project moves forward will need to incorporate and be consistent with the Ravinia LOMR XPSWMM model, submitted to FEMA in February 2022. Ravinia 5th Addition is located immediately west and upstream of the proposed Walcott Glen site and Ravinia 11th Addition is to the northwest, with a few homes adjacent to Wetland H3 of Walcott Glen. 3. Any wetland impacts must be permitted by appropriate agencies and mitigated for. 4. All pedestrian ramps shall be ADA compliant and detailed designs shall be provided for all landings showing elevations in compliance with those requirements. 5. Drainage easements shall be provided over all storm sewer pipes and ponding. Easements shall be shown on the utility plan to ensure they are adequate. o The storm sewer routed between lots 89 and 92 shown below does not have the required easements for access. 6. Plans should incorporate pond to accommodate the adjacent Hackamore Road Improvements. Clarify if that is the purpose of Pond 130. 7. Sumps are required in all storm structures with drops in of 18” or greater as well as the last accessible structures prior to stormwater basins. April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 4 of 7 8. Rational method calculations shall be provided to confirm design is in conformance with City standards at the time of final plat. 9. Provide 12’ pond maintenance access around all proposed ponding areas and encompass by drainage and utility easements. 10. Clearly identify EOF locations, elevations and routes for all areas where water will be collected, including all low areas in roadways and greenspaces. 11. All drainage swales shall maintain a minimum of 2% slope and all slopes shall be 4:1 or flatter unless approved by the city engineer. 12. All walls higher than 4’ shall be designed by a certified engineer and the design and certification of those walls shall be provided to the city. Prior to construction retaining wall designs shall be submitted to the building permit department for construction permit. 13. Along the western property line, provide existing ground elevations along trees to be preserved to verify no conflict with proposed grading. 14. The backyard grading for Lots 3-5 appear like they may trap water to the west. Additional spot elevations are necessary to ensure drainage is maintained. 15. The sideyard grading for lot 19 to the west looks flat. Additional spot elevations are necessary to confirm area drains. A small swale may be necessary on the west of lot 18 to maintain water onsite. 16. The City prefers that the development runoff to Filtration Basin 21 is maintained separate from the runoff from the Ravinia development. If they are combined, a shared maintenance agreement will be necessary to address how the stormwater BMP will be maintained between the two HOA’s. Additionally, the existing pipes, infrastructure and outlets shall be further reviewed to ensure that the existing system can handle to proposed additional runoff. 17. There are several existing driveways and culverts that currently exist within this development. grading plan shall clearly show how driveways and culverts will be removed and how conveyance will be maintained through these areas. 18. During the Ravinia 11th Development, an overland EOF elevation was determined and shown that conveys runoff from Wetland 4 to Wetland 3. Those plans identified that if Lakespur Lane was extended in the future, that the overland EOF be maintained or a piped EOF would be necessary. This development appears to have impacted the overland EOF and therefore a separate piped EOF will be necessary from Wetland 4 to Wetland 3. 19. In the Ravinia 11th Addition plans the HWL of Wetland 4 (wetland 16 of the Ravinia plans) was identified at 984.9 and is now identified as 984.5. Clarify the change. 20. In addition to the piped EOF Comment, the piped outlet from Wetland 4 to Wetland 3 that was installed is not shown on these plans and shall be added. 21. Drainage maps in the SWMP should include labels for all contributing areas (i.e. flow locations). For example, Wild Meadows (1S) and ‘new pond’ (130P) are not shown. This is needed for completeness and to understand the overall drainage network for the area and how it connects in to the proposed Walcott Glen site. Currently the model shows April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 5 of 7 that Basin 2 discharges to Wetland H1 which flows through Wild Meadows Channel to 130P, however the drainage map does not provide detail consistent with this, see below. Also, wetland H1 appears to have a pipe/berm between the two separate storage areas, yet these are not included in the model and the direct drainage areas are not defined. 22. Related to the comment above, existing and proposed conditions show that pond 130P (not shown in report) backs up into Wild Meadows Channel approximately 5 feet during a 100-year storm event. Check for accuracy and consider modifications if necessary. Work with City to address if needed. 23. Correct or explain error and warning messages reported in the HydroCAD models, specifically for the 100 year storm. Currently there are several locations which are flagged, typically due to backwater impacts. 24. Multiple existing storm sewer runs on Parcels 3 and 4 appear to be missing from the survey. Verify and show remaining existing storm sewer. o Wetland #3 o Discharge across CSAH 101 o Existing driveways from Wetland 9 to Hackamore Road. 25. Per the Feasibility Study, replacement/modification of the existing plastic weir to the north is required. Provide a concept plan in next submittal. 26. Site shall incorporate adjacent roadway water quality and drainage within the site BMPs. 27. The City strongly prefers the use of NURP Ponds with filtration components vs the filtration basins provided unless NURP Ponds are shown to be infeasible. 28. The NRCS web soil survey shows dual classification HSG ratings of C/D. All existing conditions should use the higher value HSG Rating value of the dual classification. Additionally, HSG Rating shall be downgraded one level in proposed conditions according to City of Corcoran Stormwater Guidelines. This suggests a C soil in existing and D classification for proposed conditions for this site. 29. Time of concentration sheet flow lengths should have a maximum value of 100 feet. Provide all assumptions used for time of concentration calculations . 30. Model OCS slanted grates as custom orifices. The current model includes horizontal orifices which overestimate flows at the invert elevation set. City can provide information upon request. 31. Match the labeling of the back yard catch basin names with the HydroCAD model. April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 6 of 7 32. Provide filtration basin drain tile invert elevations, slopes, and size on plans. Additionally, provide documentation that the drain tile has capacity to handle the required infiltrated runoff. 33. Provide storm sewer plan and profile sheets for the final plan set. 34. The following should be provided for Basins 2 and 21 if it remains a filtration basin: o OCS detail o Forebay and pond grading o Difference in North and South Basin 21 HWL elevations 35. Filtration Basin #1 needs an outlet structure. 36. Filtration Basin #2 does not have a piped outlet. Therefor the hydraulic model would need to be started at the lip of the OCS if not regular outlet is provided. 37. Outlet device from existing conditions Wetland H4 changes by .05. in proposed. The starting elevation was not changed in the Wetland H4 proposed model. Normal water level should be adjusted to match the controlling outlet device invert. Check that all normal water levels are consistent with plans. 38. Wetland H2 shows the NWL outlet pipe at 962.8. Table 5.1 in the stormwater report shows it as a 962.1. Update report to match the model. Check that all normal water levels are consistent with plans. 39. Current Basin 2 EOF is shown as directed over the entrance road. Grading should show that EOF flows up through the 100 year storm event will stay in the ditch which flows to the wetland. Confirm all EOF routes in the model are consistent with what is shown in the proposed grading. 40. If possible, show existing stormsewer infrastructure of adjacent communities where existing and proposed drainage ties in. This includes, as mentioned previously, detail for the ‘new pond’ at 130P. This pond shows a 30” culvert and EOF, without any information shown in the plans or drainage maps. 41. Provide and operation and maintenance plan for all proposed stormwater BMPs. MPCA stormwater manual is recommended as a reference. 42. There are existing culverts located on the very west side of Wetland H1 for an existing driveway and walking bridge. These culverts should be removed if possible and modeling should verify if any additional accommodations are necessary due to their removal. 43. Wetland H3 is routed Pond 1. Currently it appears that wetlands H3 and H2 are connected via driveway culvert. Stormwater model shall confirm that pipes and ponds can accommodate Wetland H3 discharging directly into Pond 1 or whether it should be routed around to H2 as it drains today. 44. There are several trees shown to be preserved that do not appear practical to preserve based on the grading plan. Several areas are noted below. o North of Pond 3 south of Wetland #4. o In the rear yards of lots 38-40 April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 7 of 7 Watermain/Sanitary Sewer 1. Gas, electric, and other private and public utilities are located adjacent and/or on the property. Preservation of existing easements and coordination with all public and private utilities must be conducted prior to commencing any grading or construction. 2. Plan and profiles for all utilities shall be provided at the time of final plat submittals. 3. Valve locations to be reviewed at time of final plat. Generally, valves shall be located at all intersection as one less valve than the number of legs. Valves should typically be located out from the end radius points unless specific circumstances don’t allow. 4. Hydrant spacing to be reviewed by public safety at time of final plat. 5. Watermain on private drive dead end to be looped to 62nd Ave N watermain. 6. Services to lot 44 to be installed as part of this development. No services exist currently. 7. The water and sewer under the private roads are assumed to be city utilities. The HOA documents shall identify repair and replacement responsibilities for the private roadways in the event the utilities need to be repaired/replaced or a separate encroachment agreement will be necessary. End of Comments Walcott Glenn Pulte Infrastructure Feasibility Study April 2022 Prepared for: City of Corcoran, MN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Project Number: 227704829 WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Table of Contents April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1.1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................................2.1 2.1 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................2.1 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS....................................................2.1 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................2.1 2.4 TRAFFIC FORECASTS .................................................................................................2.1 2.5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS......................................................................................................2.3 2.6 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................2.5 3.0 SEWER AND WATER....................................................................................................3.6 3.1 WASTEWATER..............................................................................................................3.6 3.2 WATER...........................................................................................................................3.6 4.0 WATER RESOURCES...................................................................................................4.6 4.1 REGULATORY OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................4.6 4.2 WATERSHED SETTING AND LAND USE ....................................................................4.7 4.3 WETLANDS....................................................................................................................4.7 4.4 ROADWAY DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................4.7 4.5 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................4.8 5.0 FINANCING....................................................................................................................5.1 5.1 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................5.1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................6.1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project...........................................................2.2 Table 2: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................2.2 Table 3: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................2.3 Table 4: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results ....................................................2.4 Table 5: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results ....................................................2.4 WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Table of Contents April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 FIGURES Figure 1 Preliminary Plat Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A Stormwater Modeling Guidelines WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Introduction April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 1.0 Introduction Pulte Homes is proposing to construct a residential development at the NW corner of Hackamore Road and County State Aid Highway 101 (CSAH 101) in southeast Corcoran. The area is currently large lot (rural) residential homes and is being proposed as a residential development with a mix of single-family homes and attached townhomes. The Feasibility Study is the basis for understanding the impacts on public infrastructure by the proposed development. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 2.0 Transportation 2.1 Background This study examined weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: CSAH 101/Hackamore Road Hackamore Road/Goldenrod Trail (future) 2.2 Proposed Development Characteristics For purpose of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed development is assumed to consist of the following uses: 47 single family dwelling units 82 townhouse dwelling units 2.3 Existing Conditions The proposed site consists of existing large lot single family homes that will be removed as part of the project. The project site is bounded by CSAH 101 on the east, Hackamore Road on the south, and Ravinia single family homes to the west and north. Near the site location, CSAH 101 is a two-lane undivided roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. Hackamore Road is a two-lane undivided roadway near the site location. Existing conditions near the proposed project location are described below. CSAH 101/Hackamore Road - This signalized intersection provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane on the northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches consist of one lane shared by all movements. Turn movement data was recorded at the existing intersection during the a.m. (6:00 – 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (3:00 – 6:00 p.m.) peak periods in February, 2022. These volumes were used in the development of traffic forecasts for the project. 2.4 Traffic Forecasts To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2027. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: 2022 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the CSAH 101/Hackamore Road intersection. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 2027 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2027 No-Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on historic traffic volume growth in the project area. 2027 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2027 No-Build volumes to determine 2027 Build volumes. The expected new development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Single Family 47 DU 9 24 33 28 16 44 443 Townhouses 82 DU 12 27 39 27 20 47 590 Totals 21 51 72 55 36 91 1033 Note: DU=dwelling units Trip distribution percentages for the Pulte development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are described below: 15 percent to/from the north on CSAH 101 45 percent to/from the east on Hackamore Road 15 percent to/from the south on CSAH 101 20 percent to/from the west on Hackamore Road 5 percent to/from the north on Goldenrod Trail/Larkspur Lane Development trips from Table 1 were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant peak hour volumes are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes CSAH 101/ Hackamore Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 13 143 29 138 43 32 11 151 130 83 299 16 2027 No-Build 22 229 45 62 34 16 159 137 87 314 27 7 2027 Build 26 251 53 145 71 34 18 159 137 87 314 29 Hackamore Rd/ Goldenrod Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 185 70 2027 No-Build 2 276 100 5 ---20 5 2027 Build 7 276 100 18 54 16 WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 Table 3: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes CSAH 101/ Hackamore Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 19 74 22 126 81 64 30 379 136 68 300 20 2027 No-Build 31 119 29 132 158 67 61 398 143 71 315 29 2027 Build 34 135 35 132 183 67 70 398 143 71 315 33 Hackamore Rd/ Goldenrod Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 115 131 2027 No-Build 5 174 228 20 5 2 2027 Build 16 174 228 58 30 10 2.5 Traffic Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. The LOS results for the study intersections are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results CSAH 101/ Hackamore Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection 2022 Existing B A A C A A A A A A A A B 2027 No-Build C A A C A A B B B A B A B 2027 Build C A A C A A B B B B B B B Hackamore Rd/ Goldenrod Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing A A A 2027 No-Build A A A A B B A 2027 Build A A A A B B A Table 5: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results CSAH 101/ Hackamore Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection 2022 Existing B A A C A A A B A A A A B 2027 No-Build B A A C A A A B A A B A B 2027 Build B A A C A A A B B A B B B Hackamore Rd/ Goldenrod Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing A A A 2027 No-Build A A A A B B A 2027 Build A A A A B B A As shown in Tables 4 and 5, all movements and intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under all scenarios. Vehicle queue length impacts at the CSAH 101/Hackamore Road intersection were reviewed using SimTraffic software. The SimTraffic simulations were reviewed for all scenarios to determine if any vehicle queues on Hackamore Road would impede traffic operations at the Hackamore Road/Goldenrod Trail intersection. Based on the current site plan, this intersection is located approximately 600 feet west of CSAH 101. Under all scenarios, the longest queue length was 177 feet on the eastbound approach at CSAH 101 during the weekday a.m. peak hour. All other eastbound queue lengths were shorter than 177 feet. Therefore, vehicle queues from the CSAH 101/Hackamore Road intersection are not expected to impact the proposed access locations on Hackamore Road with a right turn in place. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 2.6 Findings The following mitigation measures are recommended at each intersection: CSAH 101/Hackamore Road No improvements for the traffic flow are needed. Hackamore Road/Goldenrod Trail Hackamore Road should be reconstructed in front of the development limits as has been required per City practice for new development projects. Hackamore Road is planned to be improved to a two lane roadway with both right and left turns into the main access. If the reconstruction project is undertaken as part of a larger project of Hackamore Road, the developer shall share in those costs for the portion in front of the plat boundary. Corcoran has been coordinating with Medina and will continue to pursue other funds available. Approximately 5% of the trips from this project are expected to travel north and west through the existing residential area. This equates to approximately 50 trips per day. This level of increase will not impact traffic operations on the surrounding roadways. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Sewer and Water April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 3.0 Sewer and Water The development has laterals available from Ravinia and the existing water model was previously executed for pressure and fire flow. Corcoran will eventually have a tower and booster station so the analysis was provided for both (No Tower and With Tower). Secondly, the conditions represent that the 2020 Trunk Water Main is installed and operating along CR 116 west of Ravinia which provides “looping” for the SE corner of Corcoran. 3.1 Wastewater The development can be serviced by the laterals installed with Ravinia as follows: Through Lupine Lane for the proposed northwest cul-de-sac Through Goldenrod Trail for the remainder of the development. These sewer stubs are adequate to service the proposed development. It should be noted that this development drains to the L-80 lift station which has a limited capacity. This development is within the current staging plan and would not cause the lift station capacity to be exceeded based on currently approved development applications. 3.2 Water The water supply to this area were previously reviewed by the city to determine if there would by any benefit to the City system by increasing the size of the watermain loop through this parcel vs the long term benefits of the booster station to be provide adjacent to the Maple Grove border within the Cook Lake Development. In that exercise upgrading the line from the existing 8-inch loop to a 12-inch loop provided almost no benefit from either fire flow or pressure in the system. Because of this outcome, the 8-inch loop is adequate to provide water supply and pressure to the proposed development. There are several dead end stubs shown on the proposed development plans. As part of the plan review process, those shall be revied for compliance with City standards and looping can be assumed to be required. 4.0 Water Resources 4.1 Regulatory Overview Stormwater management regulations in the proposed project area would be guided or directed by Corcoran’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (Local Plan) the City’s Guidelines, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and MS4 requirements. Each of these documents has a larger regulatory context: WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Water Resources April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 The Local Plan reflects the goals, policies and rules of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission’s Third Generation Watershed Management Plan (Commission’s WMP). The SWPPP is a requirement of the City’s stormwater permit, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The MS4 permit is issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) which was reissued in October of 2021. Among other goals, both documents include plans to meet pollutant load reductions calculated in the Elm Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. TMDL studies are required for surface waters that are designated as impaired – in other words, those that do not meet one or more State water quality standards. City guidelines lay out the required modeling parameters, preferred BMPs and some construction materials. City approval is required prior to application for the WMO approval process. Further City review occurs with construction plan approval process. 4.2 Watershed Setting and Land Use Stormwater is manageable for the site and will be subject to City stormwater guidelines, wetland regulations and Elm Creek Watershed approval. Site drainage is to the southeast and it can be estimated from other developments in the west metro with heavy soils, that 3% to 5% of the buildable parcel area would be utilized for stormwater management (outside wetland boundaries). This site has elevation “drop” which will allow for higher pond storage and result in the lower end of the range (3% of buildable area) for an estimate of pond footprint area. Drainage to southeast enters a culvert under Hackamore Road, then is channeled back under Hackamore Road from Medina near CR 101, eventually discharging into Plymouth. FEMA LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) process is being conducted for Ravinia drainage to the west, therefore upstream floodplain elevation will be established, however that process is not foreseen to affect this building site. One unique site feature is a heavy duty plastic weir for a pond that drains onto the property. The weir was reviewed during Ravinia 11th and determined that repair/replacement would occur during redevelopment of these residential properties. Grading may be feasible to eliminate the weir, however a permanent weir (steel sheet pile) could be necessary. 4.3 Wetlands Significant wetlands exist and the formal process will need to be followed. It can be noted that Corcoran is the LGU for the Wetland Conservation Act and obtained this authority in 2019. 4.4 Roadway Drainage Improvements The adjacent Hackamore roadway is anticipated to be improved in the future to help support the amount of development within the area. As part of the improvements, a stormwater BMP system will be incorporated to manage runoff from the development. As part of the preliminary planning completed by the city on the project, there is proposed ponding for the improvements which are identified on this parcel. The stormwater management system shall be designed to accommodate the runoff from the roadway improvements. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Water Resources April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 Incorporating the stormwater management system after the corridor is developed will make installing the necessary ponds and infrastructure for the system extremely difficult if not impossible. Because of this, planning for this stormwater system will be required with each development to ensure the roadway which is being improved to support development can be constructed. 4.5 Findings The stormwater shown on the concept plan will be modified during design and approval process. City stormwater guidelines will be utilized (see Attachment A) that cover modeling and drainage items. This may be updated by final plat approval. An emergency overflow or diversion culvert conveying stormwater under the development’s main entrance may be required to protect Hackamore Road during extreme events. Replacement / modification of the existing plastic weir is required. Drainage coordination with Hackamore Road project will be required, this site shall incorporate adjacent roadway water quality and drainage within the site BMPs. FEMA LOMR process is underway for upstream Ravinia and FEMA floodplain may include the Walcott Glenn drainageway. Stormwater fee may be adopted by the City and this development may incur those costs. Hackamore Road treatment costs would be eligible for credits (if a stormwater fee is in place). WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Financing April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 5.0 Financing 5.1 Summary Financing options of the development necessary for infrastructure and to mitigate impacts typically follow the approach of: On-site infrastructure is managed by the developer All trunk sewer, water fees (TLAC), will be due at the time of platting. Stormwater fee may be implemented by City prior to final platting. Off-site projects are managed by the by City (engineering, bidding and construction management) through an escrow. The financial package will be further detailed and negotiated as the project moves forward and culminates in the Developer Agreement with the overall preliminary plat approval which is updated for each phase of the development WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Conclusions and Recommendations April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The following infrastructure improvements are feasible and necessary to manage the development. These improvements are consistent with similar requirements for other developments in Corcoran, and have shown to be necessary for managing the additional population: Sewer Sewer is available through Ravinia. Locations to be formalized with development construction plans. Water Previous application for this development show that supply and fire flow are adequate through Ravinia. Looping will be required and determined during construction plan review process. Water Resources Replacement / modification of the existing plastic weir is required. Coordination with Hackamore reconstruction project (currently at a 75% design plan stage) will be required, this site may provide combined benefit for treatment or wetland mitigation. A formal FEMA LOMR process is underway for Ravinia and FEMA floodplain may include the Walcott Glenn drainageway. Stormwater fee may be adopted by the City and this development may incur those costs. Credit would be provided for Hackamore Road treatment, if the City fee is in place. Stormwater treatment for the trail shall be provided by the development and credits towards any City fee (if in place) will be provided. Transportation CSAH 101/Hackamore Road No improvements for traffic flow are needed. Hackamore Road/Goldenrod Trail Hackamore Road should be reconstructed in front of the development limits as has been required per City practice for new development projects. Hackamore Road is planned to be improved to a two lane roadway with both right and left turns into the main access. If the reconstruction project is undertaken as part of a larger project of Hackamore Road, the developer shall share in those costs for the portion in front of the plat boundary. Corcoran has been coordinating with Medina and will continue to pursue other funds available. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Conclusions and Recommendations April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 Trail along Hackamore Road The development shall incorporate the Hackamore Road trail alignment on the final plans. Responsibility for grading/paving will be according to typical City policy. FIGURES Figure 1 Site Plan APPENDIX A Stormwater Modeling Guidelines Stormwater Guidelines for Development March 2019 Issue Cities changing from rural to urban development are challenged by the additional stormwater generated due to construction of impervious surfaces, along with the offsite infrastructure, or lack thereof, to manage effectively. To standardize the modeling and review process, the guidelines below were created for efficiency. Note: A watershed approval is required per Elm Creek WMO rules, which also reviews flow rates, water quality and volume management. Modeling Watershed Information · Provide an aerial photo of the development that includes the overall watershed and subwatershed boundaries · Provide a summary of the acreage to each discharge point leaving the site. Any increase (or decrease) shall be identified. · Show any floodplain adjacent to project or within the project · Show downstream water bodies and flow paths o Downstream flow paths and water bodies typically need to have elevations, inverts, and condition identified. Subwatersheds A HydroCAD model (typically used) has inputs that can vary by user. To minimize resubmittals, review time and effort, the following data shall be utilized. · Electronic model shall be submitted · Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) shall be lowered one category due to the mass grading and compaction of the soils. For example, an existing B soil, shall be modeled as a proposed C soil (unless it remains undisturbed) · Wetlands, filtration basins, and ponds shall be modeled at CN of 98 · Identify peak rates for storm events and proposed shall be equal or less than existing rates. o Note: There are certain conditions where at City’s discretion the off-site conditions require a reduction in flow rate from existing rates. · SWMM (i.e. EPA-, XP-, or PC-) models can be submitted for review, however these increase review time. Model Setup for Outlet Control Structures, NWLs and Infiltration · The model’s flow control structures (OCS, culverts, etc.) shall match the construction plan information. During the plan and model review both may be modified and revised · Individual detail plates are required for each OCS, and individual plates shall have inverts identified · A pond or wetland NWL (and model starting elevation) shall be set at the constructed outlet control elevation. o No live storage shall be utilized below the controlling OCS elevation. o No live storage shall be used for filtration shelves on ponds below controlling OCS elevation · If a pond or wetland has an NWL (wet surface), infiltration shall not be used in flood routing. · If a pond has filtration BMP causing drawdown below the NWL, this drawdown elevation shall not be used as the NWL for flood routing. (Filtration has a slower release time and during wet periods is not available as live storage). Construction Plans Catch Basins · Street drainage shall be sufficient to manage the 10-year event · Typical a CB inlet capacity is 2 to 2.5 CFS, and CBs shall be spaced accordingly · Three inches (0.25 feet) of head on a CB will inundate a street centerline (2% slope). · Spacing is 200 to 250 feet using longitudinal street dimensions of 40 feet from road centerline to half the house footprint (assumes rear half of house drains to rear yard). Dimensions equal 10,000 SF. · CBs may be required on both sides of ped ramps to capture flows Natural Drainage Features · Waterbodies receiving urban drainage (wetlands, ditches, gullies) may need to have OCS installed, erosion protection, or reduced flow rates to allow the feature to function over the long term due to more consistent flows from increased impervious via development · Offsite work may be necessary and City will assist with coordination, easements, etc. HWLs and EOFs · The freeboard requirements are: o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the HWL o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the EOF · EOFs shall be accurately shown and as builts are required. The highest point shall be the EOF (for example top of curb) since this is the controlling elevation o In certain instances, channel calculations of the swale may be required to show the EOF has capacity to manage estimated flow · Overland EOFs are preferred, however if a second pipe serves as an EOF then modeling will include a 100-year event using the second pipe (EOF) as the only outlet (primary outlet plugged). Rear Yards · Rear yards or swales less than 2% shall have draintile. Typically, every two to three lots will require rear yard CBs. Sump Connections · Houses adjoining a wetland or pond do not need individual sump connection · Others will have access to rear yard stormsewer. Offsite Impacts Adjacent Parcels · City will review adjacent parcels (downstream and upstream) for impacts from volume, point discharge, etc. and may require off site improvements. City will assist in coordination of any off site work. · Off site water quality improvement projects may be determined by the City for assistance with compliance with City’s TMDL approach of implementing improvements upon development. · FEMA modifications may be necessary due to development and implemented by City. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763.420.2288 E-mail - general@ci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site – www.corcoranmn.gov Memo To: Planning (Planners Lindahl and Davis) From: Lieutenant Burns Date: April 21st, 2022 Re: City File 22-015 Walcott Glen A Public Safety plan review meeting was held on April 12th, 2022. In attendance were Director of Public Safety Gottschalk, Lieutenant Ryan Burns, Fire Chief Feist, Fire Chief Leuer, Fire Chief Malewicki, and Construction Services Specialist Pritchard. The comments below are based on the concept plans received by the City on April 21st, 2022 and are intended as initial feedback as further plan review will need to be completed as construction plans are available. 1. Private streets may be posted no parking, fire lane 2. Fire hydrant locations need to be approved by the Fire Chief. 3. Private street hammer head to meet city specifications, posted no parking fire lane. Prefer the road to connect or a cul-de-sac. 4. Provide visitation parking spaces for the townhomes. 5. Private Streets to be marked with Blue Street signs. 1 “Building Incredible Places Where People Can Live Their Dreams.” Walcott Glen APPLICATION FOR: Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, PUD Preliminary Plan CORCORAN, MINNESOTA April 27, 2022 Introduction Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (“Pulte”) is pleased to be submitting this application. Our company mission statement is “Building Incredible Places Where People Can Live Their Dreams.” We currently operate under three distinct brands of homebuilding throughout the country: Pulte Homes, Centex Homes, and Del Webb. The office for Pulte’s Minnesota Division is in Eden Prairie. We will sell and build approximately 900 homes in the Twin Cities in 2022 under the Pulte Homes and Del Webb brands. Pulte will act as both developer of the property and builder of the homes. The primary contact for Pulte is Paul Heuer, Director of Land Planning & Entitlement. Paul’s contact information has been provided to City staff. The owners of the properties are: Robert and Beth Schnell 11907 Wayzata Boulevard Suite 300 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 669-7159 Email: bschnell@centeragency.com JTC, LLC 8401 Xene Lane North Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 Attn: James Casey Phone: 612-247-9888 Email: suecasey@comcast.net Homeland Investments LLC 19220 Hackamore Road Corcoran, Minnesota 55340 Phone: 612-388-8753 Email: jackieh30@msn.com Gregory and Jackie Hoglund 19220 Hackamore Road Corcoran, MN 55340 2 Phone: 612-388-8753 Email: jackieh30@msn.com The civil engineer and surveyor are: Sathre-Bergquist Attn: Bob Molstad & Eric Johnson 150 South Broadway Wayzata, MN 55391 (952) 476-6000 molstad@sathre.com The Property Addresses 19200, 19210, and 19220 Hackamore Road 6235 and 6301 County Road 101 N Legal Descriptions County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is described as follows: The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is described as follows: The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is described as follows: The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is described as follows: That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is described as follows: The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 3 Property Identification Numbers 36-119-23-44-0013 36-119-23-44-0009 36-119-23-44-0008 36-119-23-44-0010 36-119-23-44-0014 Neighborhood Driving Forces Development applications must find a way to “thread the needle” by satisfying market demand, City requirements, and Metropolitan Council density requirements. From the standpoint of market demand, the location of a property and it’s characteristics drive what each property “wants to be.” Two primary property characteristics determine the market demand for this property: 1. Wayzata Public Schools – This is a highly sought-after school district. The reputation of this district has pushed land and home prices within the district to higher levels than found in other school districts. Even in the last few years, home prices have increased significantly and it has become increasingly difficult for young families to afford a new home in the school district. 2. 101/Hackamore intersection – CSAH 101 currently carries around 10,000 vehicles per day at this location. In 2040, it is estimated that this section of road will carry 16,200 vehicles per day. In 2040, it is estimated that Hackamore will carry 4,700 vehicles per day. High traffic intersections such as this one tends to guide adjacent used to be of higher intensity for many reasons. For instance, the buyers of large luxury single family homes are less tolerant of living next to noisy, high traffic intersections. Original Site Plan Design The above characteristics guided the preparation of the site plan that was submitted for Site Plan Review in October. The existing single-family homes in the NE corner (on 63rd Avenue N) have two-car garages. The new single-family homes will also have two-car garages and the values of these homes will be comparable to the existing adjacent homes. Along the west boundary of the subject property, existing single-family homes have three-car garages. We have closely studied this housing transition and have devised an extraordinary buffer between the existing homes and the new homes consisting of: 1. Additional buffer space - We have purposely left an unusually wide gap between existing homes and new homes. 2. Preservation of existing trees - An existing buffer of mature trees runs along a portion of the west property line. Many of these trees are conifers which provide a strong year- round visual buffer. We inventoried the trees on the property and determined that we can feasibly preserve most trees along this boundary. 3. Planting of additional trees - In some areas, the existing buffer of trees is not strong. In these areas, we plan to plant conifer trees to strengthen this visual buffer. 4 Combined, this approach will result in a very strong visual buffer between homes in the existing neighborhood and the new homes. We have heard comments that perhaps the existing public park in the adjacent Ravinia neighborhood (Wildflower Park) may be undersized. This park is approximately ½ mile away from the subject property. If the City determines that a small additional public tot lot and/or park is desirable in the subject property, we have determined that it could be accommodated. Our site plan shows this option for your consideration. We are also showing a conceptual trail routing along the north side of Hackamore for when this road is reconstructed. We are willing to accommodate the trail drifting onto the neighborhood property to create a more varied and attractive route. The City may choose to either obtain an easement from us for a future trail improvement or have us provide the easement and construct this section of trail with credit for park dedication. It should also be noted that this property represents an entry point into the City of Corcoran. It is our understanding that there has been some interest in keeping the public view of this corner attractive and/or rural looking. We have worked hard to keep strong visual buffers in place throughout the perimeter of the new neighborhood. For instance, there is a strong existing tree buffer all along CSAH 101 which will substantially be preserved. We have also set back the townhomes from 101 at a highly unusual 223 feet (requirement is 100 feet w/o buffer and 50 feet with buffer). Similarly, along Hackamore homes in the western half are set back over 235 feet (requirement is 25 feet). In total, these design strategies will result in the presentation of an unusually hidden neighborhood from the perimeter. Revised Site Plan The City Council provided a variety of comments at the City Council meeting of November 22, 2021. Since then we have worked very hard to address those comments. Below is a list of the comments that we addressed: 1. Wide wooded buffers – We heard positive feedback regarding the very wide wooded buffers that we retained, particularly along the west and east boundaries. We have continued to retain these buffers. 2. Views from Hackamore – We heard a request to hide the townhomes further into the neighborhood so that perimeter traffic on Hackamore would see primarily single family homes instead of all townhomes. In response to this comment, we worked through a variety of variations, finalizing settling on a version that added a cul-de-sac of single family homes near Hackamore. We believe this accomplishes the goal that was stated. 3. Buffer from the west – We were asked if there was anything else we could do to improve the buffer from the west. In working with our civil engineer, we found that we could move the NW cul-de-sac some feet to the east to provide a slightly greater buffer than shown earlier. 4. Trees to the north – We heard a question about whether or not any trees would remain south of the large existing pond that is just to the north of the subject property. Although the grades in the area prevent us from preserving trees on the subject site, we determined that there are existing significant trees just north of the subject property that will remain in place. It appears that there are also smaller trees and brush that exist in this area but were too small to be inventoried. 5. Construction traffic – We were questioned about our ability to phase construction work to enable all construction traffic to come from Hackamore and therefore not travel through 5 the existing Ravinia neighborhood. We have evaluated potential phasing and have concluded that we can accomplish this goal. 6. Architecture of homes in the NE cul-de-sac – We heard a question about how our architecture will compare with the architecture of existing homes on the same cul-de- sac. We will commit to evaluating the architecture of the existing homes and to offer new homes having similar architectural features and styles. This may include eliminating some architectural elevations for these six lots or adding specific visual exterior options, if necessary. To summarize our general approach in creating this neighborhood, the primary goals of the site plan were to preserve perimeter buffer trees, preserve wetlands, present a hidden view from the perimeter, provide new and different types of housing that are needed, and to appropriately transition the intensity of the uses from the busy intersection to the existing homes nearby. We appreciate the comments heard from the City Council. We have worked extraordinarily hard to make changes to address those comments and still try to satisfy market demand, City requirements, and Metropolitan Council density requirements. We believe that the revised site plan is a practical approach to the competing forces involved with this property. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan guides these properties as Low Density Residential. Low Density Residential is guided in the Comp Plan as having a density of 3 to 5 units per acre (see below). However, it does not allow townhomes or narrower single-family lots, which are needed to meet a density of 3 to 5 units per acre. With new Comprehensive Plans, it is not uncommon for cities’ zoning ordinances to sometimes not perfectly correlate with their Comprehensive Plan. This application results in a net density of 4 units per acre, which complies with and is in the center of the range for Low Density Residential per the Comprehensive Plan. Key Facts Current Zone RSF-2 Proposed zoning PUD Proposed use 85 townhomes 44 single family homes* Gross area 35.063 acres Net area 32.38 acres Net density 3.98 units/acre * Ravinia left a couple of small outlots that could be combined with outlots within the proposed application to become lots. This will depend on an agreement to purchase these outlots. The total number of units included in this application relies upon Pulte purchasing these outlots and one previously platted lots from Lennar. If not, then the unit count is lower, but still meets the Met Council required density. 6 The Homes Pulte Homes is known for the extraordinary steps that we take to ensure that we are designing and building homes that meet the needs and desires of home buyers. You can click on this link to learn more about Pulte’s homebuilding process https://www.pulte.com/design/life-tested. We continually reach out to home buyers and Pulte homeowners to get feedback to improve our home designs. It is what we call Life Tested®. Through this intensive process, we have conceived of and incorporated innovative features such as the Pulte Planning Center, the Everyday Entry, Super Laundry, Oversized Pantry, and the Owner’s Retreat. This exhaustive process has played a major part in Pulte’s success in “Building Incredible Places Where People Can Live Their Dreams.” In striving to continually be in lock step with the home buying public, we update the design of our homes frequently. These changes are driven by the desires and tastes of the home buying public through the process described above. Single Family Homes The single-family homes in this location are very attractive two-car garage homes. Below is a listing of the various floor plans and the associated base square footage. It is a fairly new design for the Twin Cities market area. Fifth Avenue 2,426 sf excluding options and basements Boardwalk 2,709 sf excluding options and basements Park Place 2,756 sf excluding options and basements Woodward 2,993 sf excluding options and basements The homes are 35 feet wide, and we have designed the lots to accommodate 10/5 or 7.5/7.5 foot side setbacks. The selling prices of these homes are anticipated to be from $500k to $600k. We believe that this type of single-family home has not been sold in the City of Corcoran. In fact, we believe that the nearest similar homes are in Woodbury and Apple Valley. We have provided graphics and elevations illustrating the attractiveness of these homes. They will comply with architectural standards such as the percentage of each material used and the maximum percentage of garage on the front elevation (55%). Primary materials to be used include vinyl lap siding, vinyl narrow lap siding, vinyl shake siding, vinyl board and batten siding, and cultured stone. Townhomes Previous generations of townhomes offered little variety in both floor plans and exterior variety. We find that this modern and versatile two-story townhome provides much more versatility for our buyers than the previous generation of townhomes. As a comparably affordable home, it appeals to young first-time homebuyers, young families, and singles of all ages. Because a professionally managed homeowner’s association will maintain the yard, remove snow, and maintain the exterior of the buildings, these townhomes also attract empty nest buyers. The below range of options for this townhome were not typically seen in previous generations of townhome floor plans: • 3 bedrooms with options for a 4th • Sunroom with additional upstairs bathroom expansion 7 • Loft Attached you will find photos, elevations, and color palettes of the townhomes. Our overall approach in designing these two-story townhomes was to “individualize and stylize” each unit. The result is individual units which differ in architecture from all other units within the same building and which vary in color scheme. Each home will have a different color palette chosen from those attached to this narrative. The result is that each unit will appear unique and distinct within each building and to a substantial degree within the new community regarding color palette. The townhomes will comply with architectural standards such as 25% of the exterior materials consisting of cultured stone, no individual facades having more than 75% of one material, no buildings having more than 60% of one material. Primary materials to be used include vinyl lap siding, vinyl shake siding, and cultured stone. We believe that this type of versatile townhome is not available to buyers of homes in Corcoran. The homes will range from 1,800 to 2,400 square feet depending on the chosen options. We anticipate these townhomes will sell in the range of the low $400k to $650k with most homes selling in the range of $410k to $470k. Energy Efficiency The homes that Pulte will be constructing will have extremely high energy efficiency. Each home is tested using the Home Energy Rating System (HERS) index, which is the industry standard for measuring energy efficiency. Heating, cooling, and water heating constitute the largest cost of homeownership outside of the mortgage. The U.S. Department of Energy has determined that a typical resale home scores 130 on the HERS Index while a home built to the 2004 International Energy Conservation Code is awarded a rating of 100 (lower is more energy efficient). Pulte Homes measures the HERS score of every new home constructed. The average HERS score for our single-family homes runs in the range of 47 to 53. We are building extremely energy efficient homes that dramatically exceed the International Energy Conservation Code threshold. Deviation From Code Our single family homes will meet all architectural and building requirements. With regard to townhomes we are requesting PUD flexibility only on the garage width and area. City code calls for townhomes to have a minimum garage size of 540 square feet and a minimum garage width of 20 feet. 540 square feet is an extraordinarily large requirement for townhomes or single family homes. We have found over time that our 19’-3” wide, 404 square foot garages are adequate for our home buyers. There are multiple reasons for this: 1. With homeowner association maintained grounds, there is no need for homeowners to own and store a lawn mower, snow blower, “weedwacker,” and many other yard tools and devices. 2. Many townhome buyers are single people with one car. 3. Many townhome buyers are 55+ and are attracted to the homeowners association maintenance. These buyers typically do not have children living with them and therefore have no need for storing bicycles, skateboards, strollers, and many other objects. 8 Our standard design for this townhome is a garage that is 19’-3” wide and 21’-6” deep for a total of 404 square feet. This townhome has been built in many communities across the Twin Cities metropolitan area and experience has shown that it is adequate for this type of home buyer. However, we have made additional efforts to maximize garage space in Walcott Glen. We had our structural engineer evaluate our ability to extend the depth of the garages. We found that we can extend the depth of the garage by one additional foot (22’-6”). This application incorporates the extended garages. In addition, we added shelving to every garage as a standard feature. In total, this brings the garage (419 sf) and garage storage (50 sf) to 469 square feet. This is 65 more square footage than is typically seen for this townhome design. It should be noted that we are exceeding the requirement for the percentage of cultured stone on the exterior of the townhome buildings. The requirement is a minimum of 25%. We will exceed 30% on 6-unit buildings. The percentage will be even higher for 5-unit buildings. Decreasing Housing Affordability Historical Context In recent decades, the Country has experienced a trend of narrower lot widths, deeper homes, and decreased side setbacks. The causes of this long-term trend are complex. A summary of the causes and implications of this trend may be of interest. It was common in the 1950’s to have zoning codes requiring 80-foot-wide lots. Land was cheap. Regulations were minimal. Even modest priced homes could efficiently be placed on such lots. This is no longer true. The primary cause of reduced lot widths and side setbacks is a dramatic and steady increase in development costs and building costs which has made it increasingly difficult to provide homes that are affordable. Simply put, for multiple consecutive decades, housing costs have risen faster than family incomes. Many negative ramifications accompany this trend, such as less access to building wealth, increased societal inequity, decreased job mobility, and other social issues that lie outside the scope of this narrative. There are a variety of complex causes of this trend. There has been a steady increase in society’s expectation for their standard of living. We’ve seen the addition of more generous employment benefits in lieu of increased wages. The Metropolitan Council urban growth boundary has artificially constrained the supply of land available for development. State building code revisions have increases housing costs. And we have experience thousands of small additions to various governmental policies which all add costs to development and housing. We believe that some of the most expensive regulations would be commonly viewed by the public as very valuable and worth the high cost: 1. Storm Water - Since the early to mid-1980’s, we have learned a great deal about how to minimize flooding and to protect the water quality of our lakes and rivers. Many cumulative regulations have arisen to better deal with storm water flooding, water treatment, and sediment control. These regulations continue to evolve and expand. One of the largest increases in housing costs corresponds to the large percentage of land in our new neighborhoods that is now allocated for ponds and storm water treatment (5% to 15%). 9 2. Wetlands - The 1991 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act has resulted in the protection of a valuable natural resource. Although these regulations have been very effective, we must recognize that it has removed a great deal of developable land from our neighborhoods, thereby adding a significant amount of additional costs to homes. 3. Energy Efficiency - Another recent and expensive regulation was implemented state- wide in 2015. This legislation dramatically increased the energy efficiency of new homes. Combined, it could be argued that the above regulations have had a very positive impact on the environment but have also significantly increased the cost of development and home building. There are also many regulations that do not deliver value to the home buyer. And there are many regulations for which it would be productive to have an open discussion about whether they could be altered to make homes affordable to more people yet continue to meet the goals of the various regulators. Every regulation has a cost. A thorough discussion is urgently needed about the relative cost and value of each regulation as we have reached the point of crisis. In response to this steady decrease in housing affordability, our customers have told us that they would prefer to sacrifice some yard space instead of home space. Pulte Homes and other builders across the country have responded to the priorities expressed by the public by creating narrower lots, deeper homes, and oftentimes lesser side setbacks. Zoning codes are being revised to reflect these market realities. There is certainly still a place for 80-foot-wide lots in today’s spectrum of homes, but today they only serve the luxury home sector. We have all observed these corresponding trends over years: smaller lots and less housing affordability. It is not a trend that any of us like to see, and it is a complex issue to fully understand. Another tool to help us more fully understand this issue is the use of data. Measuring Housing Affordability The most accurate measure of housing affordability would account for the different costs of living in various metropolitan areas. A ratio of home price/average household income does just that, and therefore is the most accurate measure of affordability. A ratio of 3.0 or less has historically been considered affordable (http://demographia.com/db-dhi-index.htm). In 1970, all states had a ratio less than 2.5 except Hawaii. As recently as the late 1980’s, the national average was 2.75. In 2019, our national average is 3.9 and our state ratio was 3.4 and has been steadily climbing. Unfortunately, the data also suggests that this trend will continue in the Twin Cities. This assumes that what has been occurring in U.S. coastal metropolitan areas will continue to be a bellwether for the rest of the Country. Housing affordability has steadily gotten worse in coastal areas. The response by the home buying public in coastal areas has been to demand very narrow homes and lots to partially offset the increasing price/income trend and to retain homeownership opportunities for as many people as possible. It is within this broader context that we submit this application. The homes to be built on these lots are not small or inexpensive. The floor plans are tried and true and are popular among the buying public. The trends we are all experiencing related to housing affordability has reached a state of crisis and we are adapting to the changing environment. 10 PUD Zoning PUD Background We recognize that one of the tools used by the City in the past to address the issues described above is PUD zoning. We understand that some Planning Commissioners and some City Councilmembers may not be excited about using PUD’s as a zoning tool. We are not excited about PUD’s either. Ideally, other ordinances would provide the flexibility needed to meet the demands of the market and PUD’s could be eliminated. This would remove a great deal of uncertainty, ambiguity, and frustration from the process. PUD’s began to be commonly used in the Twin Cities in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The most common justification for using PUD zoning was to “cluster” the homes and infrastructure into a smaller area to preserve natural resources such as wetlands, woods/buffers, etc. The primary tool to accomplish this was the use of smaller lots. There were also peripheral benefits such as reduced public infrastructure for cities to perpetually maintain since the infrastructure wasn’t spread out over a larger area. (Incidentally, the three most expensive regulations described in an earlier section of this narrative were all enacted after PUD’s were originated. The original purpose of PUD’s has gradually been diluted.) This particular property requires a PUD due in part to the City’s zoning for this site and the comp plan guidance for this site are for two different densities. If we follow, the City’s zoning code it is impossible to meet the guided densities. If we follow the City’s comp plan, we don’t comply with the zoning code. This discussion ties directly to the earlier discussion regarding decreasing housing affordability and the trend toward smaller lots. PUD Benefits for this Application It can be difficult to balance the goals of a Comprehensive Plan with ordinances and other policies. We have worked hard to create a neighborhood which balances these factors with the market and the property characteristics. The uniqueness of this property lends itself to a PUD approach. Consider the below list of community benefits: 1. Preservation of wetlands 2. Preservation of strategically located tree buffers along CSAH 101 and the west property line. 3. Creation of a wide buffer between homes to the west and the new homes. 4. Planting of conifer buffer trees along the west property line and along Hackamore to buffer views of the townhomes and preserve the “rural” entrance into the City from this intersection. 5. Extraordinarily large home setbacks from CSAH 101, Hackamore, and the west property line. We have set back the townhomes from 101 at a highly unusual 223 feet (requirement is 100 feet w/o buffer and 50 feet with buffer). Similarly, along Hackamore, homes on the west half of the site are set back over 235 feet (requirement is 25 feet). 6. Accommodation of a small public park, if desired and chosen by the City. 7. Strategic design of the entire neighborhood for the expressed purpose of “hiding” the neighborhood from the perimeter, particularly from CSAH 101 and Hackamore. 8. Providing two new types of housing that are in demand. 11 9. Accommodation and potential concurrent construction of a trail along the north side of Hackamore. 10. Development of this property will result in a reasonable financial contribution toward the reconstruction of a regional transportation improvement project (Hackamore). 11. Compliance with the Metropolitan Council density requirements. PUD Benefits to Applicant 1. Deviation from code on issue of garage width and area. Phasing & Schedule Preliminary plat approval Spring 2022 Site development Summer 2022 Model home opens Late 2022 or early 2023 Full build out of homes Late 2025 or early 2026 This submittal includes: • Application • This narrative • Revised survey, site plan, civil engineering, landscape architecture plans • Home elevations, photos, color palettes, etc. • Check for $15,810 o Preliminary Plat - Base Regular/ OSP $400 fee $5,000 escrow o Preliminary Plat – Per Lot Regular/OSP $15 per lot (128 units) $1,920 o PUD Preliminary Development Plan $575 fee $5,000 escrow o 2 Development signs $215 o Zoning and Subdivision Code Amendment $700 fee and $2,000 escrow • Lennar authorization to submit application • Drainage calculations • Draft HOA documents VICINITYMAPNOSCALESRRGNNE E N IG EDESIEN N SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000SUSSYRS OER EVRPLAALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYPREPARED FOR:PULTE HOMESNO.BYDATEREVISIONFIELD CREWALLDRAWNCMTCHECKEDDLSDATE9/23/2021USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/ORCONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT ISSTRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'sEXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAIDAUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE ANDSHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OFALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVESTHE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTYLEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSESRESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE.To: Pulte Homes of Minnesoata LLC, and First American Title Insurance Company:This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum Standard DetailRequirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1 - 5, 7a, 8, 11 and 20of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on 9/14/2021.Date of Plat or Map: 10/21/2021________________________________________________________Daniel L. Schmidt, PLS Minnesota License No. 26147WWW.SATHRE.COMHennepin CountyFILE NO.372905-639CORCORAN,MINNESOTATWP:119-RGE.23-SEC.36DRAFT1DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED(Per Schedule A of the herein referenced Title Commitments)Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANCThat part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of theSouth 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota.Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23.Abstract Property.Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANCThe South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof,Hennepin County, Minnesota.Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANCThe East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S.Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Abstract Property.Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANCThe East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23.Abstract Property.Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANCThe North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Abstract Property.Parcel 6: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeLot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.Parcel 7: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeOutlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.Parcel 8: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeOutlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.Parcel 9: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeOutlot B, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.ALTA/NSPS OPTIONAL TABLE A NOTES(The following items reference Table A optional survey responsibilities and specifications)2)Site Address: Parcel 119210 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 219220 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 319200 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 46325 County Road 101, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 519220 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 66345 Larkspur Lane, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 7Address Unassigned, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 8Address Unassigned, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 9Address Unassigned, Corcoran, MN 553403)Flood Zone Information: This property appears to lie in Zone X (area determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, CommunityPanel No. 27053C0159F, effective date of 11/4/2016.4)Parcel Area Information:Gross AreaR/W Area:Wet Area:Net Area:Parcel 1: 340,265 s.f. ~ 7.811 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 16,871 s.f. ~ 0.387 acres 323,394 s.f ~ 7.424 acresParcel 2: 312,397 s.f. ~ 7.172 acres 14,647 s.f. ~ 0.336 acres 22,779 s.f. ~ 0.523 acres 274,971 s.f. ~ 6.312 acresParcel 3: 349,806 s.f. ~ 8.030 acres 47,522 s.f. ~ 1.091 acres 9,304 s.f. ~ 0.214 acres 292,980 s.f. ~ 6.726 acresParcel 4: 262,355 s.f. ~ 6.023 acres 15,000 s.f. ~ 0.344 acres 23,934 s.f. ~ 0.549 acres 223,421 s.f. ~ 5.129 acresParcel 5: 241,805 s.f. ~ 5.551 acres 15,500 s.f. ~ 0.356 acres 38,697 s.f. ~ 0.888 acres 187,608 s.f. ~ 4.307 acresParcel 6: 14,466 s.f. ~ 0.332 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 1,067 s.f. ~ 0.024 acres 13,399 s.f. ~ 0.308 acresParcel 7: 1,790 s.f. ~ 0.041 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 1,790 s.f. ~ 0.041 acresParcel 8: 4,460 s.f. ~ 0.102 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 4,460 s.f. ~ 0.102 acresParcel 9: 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres` 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acresTotal 1,527,344 s.f. ~ 35.063 acres 92,669 s.f. ~ 2.127 acres 112,652 s.f. ~ 2.586 acres1,322,023 s.f. ~ 30.349 acres*We do not affirmatively insure the quantity of acreage set forth in the description5)Benchmark: Elevations are based on Hennepin County Geodetic Station Name: HACK which has an elevation of: 970.69 feet (NAVD88).6)Zoning Information: The current Zoning for the subject property is RSF-2 (Single Family Residential 2) per the City of Corcoran's zoning map dated September 2020. Thesetback, height, and floor space area restrictions for said zoning designation are as follows:Principal Structure Setbacks - Front (County Road 101): 100 feetFront (Hackamore Road): 20 feet Side (Living):10 feet Side (Garage):5 feetRear: 30 feet Height: 35 feetPlease note that the zoning information shown hereon may have been amended through a city process. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the ZoningAdministrator for the current restrictions for this site. All setback information and hardcover data for planning and design must be verified by all parties involved in the designand planning process.We have not received the current zoning classification and building setback requirements from the insurer.11)Utilities: We have shown the location of utilities to the best of our ability based on observed evidence together with evidence from the following sources: plans obtained from utilitycompanies, plans provided by client, markings by utility companies and other appropriate sources. We have used this information to develop a view of the underground utilities forthis site. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailedinformation is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilitieslocated on the subject property. A Gopher State One Call was submitted for this survey. Please reference Ticket No. 212504938 for a list of utility operators in this area.20) Wetland Delineation: The wetland delineation was performed by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company and was flagged summer 2021. Sathre-Bergquist located the wetlandflags on 9/13/2021. Wetland No. 1 has not been field verified.SURVEY REPORTParcel 1:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235472-ANC, dated August 2,2021.1) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c) Item no. 10 - Easement for ingress, egress and driveway purposes found in the Warranty Deed recorded August 4, 1992, as Document No. 5950714. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 11-14 are not survey related.Parcel 2:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235496-ANC, dated August 2,2021.2) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 10 - Terms and conditions of that certain Easement recorded September 27, 1999, as Document No. 7187066. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 11-14 are not survey related.Parcel 3:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235501-ANC, dated August 2,2021.3) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-7 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 8 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Highway, Drainage and Utility Easement in favor of the County of Hennepin recorded November 5, 2004, as Document No. 8470913.Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 10-15 are not survey related.Parcel 4:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235481-ANC, dated August 2,2021.4) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 10 - Easement found in that certain Quit Claim Deed recorded March 27, 1990, as Document No. 5642600. Shown hereon.d) Item no. 11 - Easement for ingress, egress and driveway purposes found in that certain Quit Claim Deed recorded August 4, 1992, as Document No. 5950714. Shown hereon.e)Item no. 12 - Terms, conditions and easement of that certain Easement recorded September 27, 1999, as Document No. 7187067. Shown hereon.f)Item no. 13 - Terms and Conditions of that certain Highway Easement recorded December 18, 2002, as Document No. 7892153. Shown hereon.g) Item no.'s 14-17 are not survey related.Parcel 5:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235483-ANC, dated August 2,2021.5) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-7 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 8 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Highway easement recorded December 30, 2002 as Document No. 7901480. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 10-15 are not survey related.6) Observations/Comments noted hereon per field survey such as (but not limited to): access, occupation, and easements and/or servitudes:a) We have shown the right-of-way of Hackamore Road across the South part of the site. We have surveyed it as a right-of-way that extends 33 feet north and south from thecenterline of the traveled road. This is per the historic practice of providing 66 feet of right-of-way on the roads that develop via prescriptive rights. Based upon contemporarycase law this right-of-way could be construed to be more or less width based upon a determination of what area is actually being utilized for highway purposes includingdrainage and possibly slopes.AAAAABBCDFGHE Wetland #9HWL-981.4Pond 14NWL 980.0HWL 981.8FILTRATIONBASIN 21FOREBAYWetland 16NWL~983.5HWL~985.6Wetland 17NWL~973.0HWL~975.8Wetland 18NWL~970.6HWL~972.9Wetland 15NWL~986.0HWL~986.6FILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2NWL 975.2HWL 979.8STORM D & USTORM D & U12345623132OUTLOT A51OUTLOT C123OUTLOT BOUTLOT E4OUTLOT D251341234476543213PARCEL 1PARCEL 2PARCEL 3PARCEL 4PARCEL 5COUNTY ROAD 101HACKAMORE ROADHACKAMORE ROADCOUNTY ROAD 101 AAHGDDDEBFC63RD AVE N.LARKSPURLNLUPINE LNGOLDENROD TRLBearings are based on the Hennepin CountyCoordinate System (NAD 83 - 1986 adj.)VICINITYMAPNOSCALENORTH0SCALE IN FEET80 4040 80160SURVEY LEGENDXXWBSRRGNNE E N IG EDESIEN N SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000SUSSYRS OER EVRPLAALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYPREPARED FOR:PULTE HOMESNO. BYDATEREVISIONFIELD CREWALLDRAWNCMTCHECKEDDLSDATE9/23/2021USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/ORCONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT ISSTRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'sEXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAIDAUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE ANDSHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OFALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVESTHE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTYLEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSESRESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE.To: Pulte Homes of Minnesoata LLC, and First American Title Insurance Company:This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum Standard DetailRequirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1 - 5, 7a, 8, 11 and 20of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on 9/14/2021.Date of Plat or Map: 10/21/2021________________________________________________________Daniel L. Schmidt, PLS Minnesota License No. 26147WWW.SATHRE.COMHennepin CountyFILE NO.372905-639CORCORAN,MINNESOTATWP:119-RGE.23-SEC.36DRAFT2 VICINITYMAPNOSCALESRRGNNE E N IG EDESIEN N SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000SUSSYRS OER EVRPLAPRELIMINARY PLATWALCOTT GLENPREPARED FOR:PULTE HOMESNO.BYDATEREVISION1 EMW 1/31/2022 PRELIMINARY PLAT2EMW 3/8/2022 ADDED OUTLOT E FOR TOT LOTFIELD CREWALLDRAWNCMTCHECKEDDLSDATE9/23/2021USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/ORCONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT ISSTRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'sEXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAIDAUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE ANDSHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OFALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVESTHE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTYLEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSESRESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE.I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Dated this 31st day of January, 2022.________________________________________________________Daniel L. Schmidt, PLS Minnesota License No. 26147schmidt@sathre.comWWW.SATHRE.COMHennepin CountyFILE NO.272905-639CORCORAN,MINNESOTATWP:119-RGE.23-SEC.36DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED(Per Schedule A of the herein referenced Title Commitments)Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANCThat part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of theSouth 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota.Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23.Abstract Property.Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANCThe South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof,Hennepin County, Minnesota.Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANCThe East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S.Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Abstract Property.Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANCThe East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23.Abstract Property.Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANCThe North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Abstract Property.Parcel 6: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeLot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.Parcel 7: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeOutlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.Parcel 8: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeOutlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.ALTA/NSPS OPTIONAL TABLE A NOTES(The following items reference Table A optional survey responsibilities and specifications)2)Site Address: Parcel 119210 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 219220 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 319200 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 46325 County Road 101, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 519220 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 66345 Larkspur Lane, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 7Address Unassigned, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 8Address Unassigned, Corcoran, MN 553403)Flood Zone Information: This property appears to lie in Zone X (area determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, CommunityPanel No. 27053C0159F, effective date of 11/4/2016.4)Parcel Area Information:Gross AreaR/W Area:Wet Area:Net Area:Parcel 1: 340,265 s.f. ~ 7.811 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 16,871 s.f. ~ 0.387 acres 323,394 s.f ~ 7.424 acresParcel 2: 312,397 s.f. ~ 7.172 acres 14,647 s.f. ~ 0.336 acres 22,779 s.f. ~ 0.523 acres 274,971 s.f. ~ 6.312 acresParcel 3: 349,806 s.f. ~ 8.030 acres 47,522 s.f. ~ 1.091 acres 9,304 s.f. ~ 0.214 acres 292,980 s.f. ~ 6.726 acresParcel 4: 262,355 s.f. ~ 6.023 acres 15,000 s.f. ~ 0.344 acres 23,934 s.f. ~ 0.549 acres 223,421 s.f. ~ 5.129 acresParcel 5: 241,805 s.f. ~ 5.551 acres 15,500 s.f. ~ 0.356 acres 38,697 s.f. ~ 0.888 acres 187,608 s.f. ~ 4.307 acresParcel 6: 14,466 s.f. ~ 0.332 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 1,067 s.f. ~ 0.024 acres 13,399 s.f. ~ 0.308 acresParcel 7: 1,790 s.f. ~ 0.041 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 1,790 s.f. ~ 0.041 acresParcel 8: 4,460 s.f. ~ 0.102 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 4,460 s.f. ~ 0.102 acresTotal 1,527,344 s.f. ~ 35.063 acres 92,669 s.f. ~ 2.127 acres 112,652 s.f. ~ 2.586 acres1,322,023 s.f. ~ 30.349 acres*We do not affirmatively insure the quantity of acreage set forth in the description5)Benchmark: Elevations are based on Hennepin County Geodetic Station Name: HACK which has an elevation of: 970.69 feet (NAVD88).6)Zoning Information: The current Zoning for the subject property is RSF-2 (Single Family Residential 2) per the City of Corcoran's zoning map dated September 2020. Thesetback, height, and floor space area restrictions for said zoning designation are as follows:Principal Structure Setbacks - Front (County Road 101): 100 feetFront (Hackamore Road): 20 feet Side (Living):10 feet Side (Garage):5 feetRear: 30 feet Height: 35 feetPlease note that the zoning information shown hereon may have been amended through a city process. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the ZoningAdministrator for the current restrictions for this site. All setback information and hardcover data for planning and design must be verified by all parties involved in the designand planning process.We have not received the current zoning classification and building setback requirements from the insurer.11)Utilities: We have shown the location of utilities to the best of our ability based on observed evidence together with evidence from the following sources: plans obtained from utilitycompanies, plans provided by client, markings by utility companies and other appropriate sources. We have used this information to develop a view of the underground utilities forthis site. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailedinformation is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilitieslocated on the subject property. A Gopher State One Call was submitted for this survey. Please reference Ticket No. 212504938 for a list of utility operators in this area.20) Wetland Delineation: The wetland delineation was performed by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company and was flagged summer 2021. Sathre-Bergquist located the wetlandflags on 9/13/2021. Wetland No. 1 has not been field verified.SURVEY REPORTParcel 1:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235472-ANC, dated August 2,2021.1) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c) Item no. 10 - Easement for ingress, egress and driveway purposes found in the Warranty Deed recorded August 4, 1992, as Document No. 5950714. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 11-14 are not survey related.Parcel 2:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235496-ANC, dated August 2,2021.2) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 10 - Terms and conditions of that certain Easement recorded September 27, 1999, as Document No. 7187066. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 11-14 are not survey related.Parcel 3:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235501-ANC, dated August 2,2021.3) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-7 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 8 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Highway, Drainage and Utility Easement in favor of the County of Hennepin recorded November 5, 2004, as Document No. 8470913.Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 10-15 are not survey related.Parcel 4:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235481-ANC, dated August 2,2021.4) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 10 - Easement found in that certain Quit Claim Deed recorded March 27, 1990, as Document No. 5642600. Shown hereon.d) Item no. 11 - Easement for ingress, egress and driveway purposes found in that certain Quit Claim Deed recorded August 4, 1992, as Document No. 5950714. Shown hereon.e)Item no. 12 - Terms, conditions and easement of that certain Easement recorded September 27, 1999, as Document No. 7187067. Shown hereon.f)Item no. 13 - Terms and Conditions of that certain Highway Easement recorded December 18, 2002, as Document No. 7892153. Shown hereon.g) Item no.'s 14-17 are not survey related.Parcel 5:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235483-ANC, dated August 2,2021.5) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-7 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 8 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Highway easement recorded December 30, 2002 as Document No. 7901480. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 10-15 are not survey related.6) Observations/Comments noted hereon per field survey such as (but not limited to): access, occupation, and easements and/or servitudes:a) We have shown the right-of-way of Hackamore Road across the South part of the site. We have surveyed it as a right-of-way that extends 33 feet north and south from thecenterline of the traveled road. This is per the historic practice of providing 66 feet of right-of-way on the roads that develop via prescriptive rights. Based upon contemporarycase law this right-of-way could be construed to be more or less width based upon a determination of what area is actually being utilized for highway purposes includingdrainage and possibly slopes.AAAAABBCDFGHE1PREPARED BY PREPARED FORENGINEERSATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.150 SOUTH BROADWAYWAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391PHONE: (952) 476-6000FAX: (952) 476-0104CONTACT : ROBERT S. MOLSTAD, P.E.EMAIL: MOLSTAD@SATHRE.COMDEVELOPERPULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA7500 FLYING CLOUD DRIVEEDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344CONTACT:CHAD ONSGARDPHONE: (952) 229-0723EMAIL: CHAD.ONSGARD@PULTEGROUP.COMDEVELOPMENT DATASingle Family: 50' Lots - 42-43SETBACKSFrontyard Setback: 25'Corner Setback: 25'Sideyard Setback: 5' min/ 15' TotalRearyard Setback: 25'Townhome Units: 83-85 LotsSETBACKSFrontyard Setback: 25'Corner Setback: 25'Sideyard Setback: 20' between unitsRear to side: 25'Rear to rear: 40'Density: 128/32.38 = 3.95 U/ACNote* - 1 single family lot is located inOutlot E & 2 townhome units arelocated in Outlot C of Ravinia 11th Add 52.0091.0074.54104.6455.0055.0086.3050.5052.0052.0052.0052.00100.7182.02BASIN ACCESSFILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2NWL 975.2HWL 979.8FILTRATIONBASIN 21FOREBAYPond #1NWL-971HWL-974.5FILTRATION BASIN #2Top Sand-976HWL-980.5Pond #3NWL-983HWL-985.5HACKAMORE ROADCR 101 (BROCKTON LANE)63RD AVE NLAR K S P U R L A N E NLUPINE LANEGOLDENROD TRAIL47.5061.6589.7084.7552.9231.73Basin #1Top Sand-969HWL-971.02' Sand -200 cyFILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2HWL 978.462' Sand- xx cy50.5050.50 50.50 50.50 50.50 53.00 53.00 50.50 50.5051.0051.0051.0052.1751.0051.00 75.4350.5550.5350.1750.5057.0656.9660.19 58 . 7 761.4452.0052.0075.8252.00GOLDENROD TRAILLARKSPUR LANEPRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVELUPINE LANE 63RD AVE N62ND AVE N52.0091.0074.54104.6455.0055.0086.3050.5052.0052.0052.0052.00100.7182.02BASIN ACCESSFILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2NWL 975.2HWL 979.8FILTRATIONBASIN 21FOREBAYPond #1NWL-971HWL-974.5FILTRATION BASIN #2Top Sand-976HWL-980.5Pond #3NWL-983HWL-985.5HACKAMORE ROADCR 101 (BROCKTON LANE)63RD AVE NLAR K S P U R L A N E NLUPINE LANEGOLDENROD TRAIL47.5061.6589.7084.7552.9231.73Basin #1Top Sand-969HWL-971.02' Sand -200 cyFILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2HWL 978.462' Sand- xx cy50.5050.50 50.50 50.50 50.50 53.00 53.00 50.50 50.5051.0051.0051.0052.1751.0051.00 75.4350.5550.5350.1750.5057.0656.9660.19 58 . 7 761.4452.0052.0075.8252.00GOLDENROD TRAILLARKSPUR LANEPRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVELUPINE LANE 63RD AVE N62ND AVE N0+001+002+003+004+005+005+840+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0012+534+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0015+99-0+-001+002+003+004+005+006+006+370+001+002+003+003+326+050+001+002+003+004+005+000+001+002+003+004+004+17LPLPHPLPHPLPLPLP LP LP HP LPMH EX17RIM: 1009.0BLD: 14.9'INV: 994.10MH EX16RIM: 990.5BLD: 20.0'INV: 970.49MH EXRIM: 988.8BLD: 8.9'INV: 979.86LPHP LPINV-65INV-65.5INV-66INV- 6 7 INV-67245 LF-6" PERF DTILE6- CO3- 6X6 WYEGOLDENROD TRAILLARKSPUR LANEPRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVELUPINE LANE 63RD AVE N62ND AVE NINV-74.0CB E 4RIM: 988.4BLD: 13.6'INV: 976.88CBMH E 3RIM: 988.4BLD: 13.7'INV: 976.74FES E 1INV: 976.1STMH E 2RIM: 988.9BLD: 14.5'INV: 976.4592'-18"RCPCL.5 @ 0.37%28'-18 "RCPCL.5 @ 0 .46%WBWBWBWBWBWBPond 14NWL 980.0HWL 981.8FILTRATIONBASIN 21FOREBAYFILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2NWL 975.2HWL 979.812345623132OUTLOT A51OUTLOT C123OUTLOT BOUTLOT E4OUTLOT D251341234476543213108104.OUTLOT C7670.OUTLOT D1211274953.OUTLOT A.OUTLOT B.366710011912012312212412512912812658505152555456576059616869727173747578777986454748466263646566.26.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.371141101091111129810210199.44107105103106113117115116118.22.21.10.9.4.3.5.6.7.8.19.23.16.15.14.13.12.11.2.17.1.18.28.27.24.25.41.40.39.38.43.42.20PARCEL 1PARCEL 2PARCEL 3PARCEL 4PARCEL 58092919089888785848382819793949596.OUTLOT EBearings are based on the Hennepin CountyCoordinate System (NAD 83 - 1986 adj.)VICINITYMAPNOSCALENORTH0SCALE IN FEET80 4040 80160SURVEY LEGENDXXWBSRRGNNE E N IG EDESIEN N SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000SUSSYRS OER EVRPLAPRELIMINARY PLATWALCOTT GLENPREPARED FOR:PULTE HOMESNO. BYDATEREVISION1 EMW 1/31/2022 PRELIMINARY PLAT2EMW 3/8/2022 ADDED OUTLOT E FOR TOT LOTFIELD CREWALLDRAWNCMTCHECKEDDLSDATE9/23/2021USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/ORCONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT ISSTRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'sEXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAIDAUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE ANDSHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OFALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVESTHE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTYLEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSESRESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE.I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Dated this 31st day of January, 2022.________________________________________________________Daniel L. Schmidt, PLS Minnesota License No. 26147schmidt@sathre.comWWW.SATHRE.COMHennepin CountyFILE NO.272905-639CORCORAN,MINNESOTATWP:119-RGE.23-SEC.3625 UNIT TOWN HOME LOT AREA6 UNIT TOWN HOME LOT AREATOWN HOME PARCEL AREA EXCEPTIONSParcel 61: 3,179 S.F.Parcel 62: 3,189 S.F.Parcel 102: 3,207 S.F.Parcel 103: 3,223 S.F.DEVELOPMENT DATASingle Family: 50' Lots - 42-43SETBACKSFrontyard Setback: 25'Corner Setback: 25'Sideyard Setback: 5' min/ 15' TotalRearyard Setback: 25'Townhome Units: 83-85 LotsSETBACKSFrontyard Setback: 25'Corner Setback: 25'Sideyard Setback: 20' between unitsRear to side: 25'Rear to rear: 40'Density: 128/32.38 = 3.95 U/ACNote* - 1 single family lot is located inOutlot E & 2 townhome units arelocated in Outlot C of Ravinia 11th Add HACKAMORE ROAD BROCKTON LANE (CSAH 101)LUPINE LAN E G O L D E N R O D T R A I L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161718 19 20 21 22 23 HACK AMORE ROAD SITE Corcoran, Minnesota 52’ from proposed porch to property line 43’ from proposed foundation to property line 62’ from proposed foundation to property line 43 42 41 40 39 38 100’ 50’ from proposed foundation to property line 63RD A V E N U E LARKSPUR LANETotal Units: 129 Single Family: 44 Townhome: 85 Removed Tree Saved Trees Proposed Trees Wetland Wetland Wetland Stormwater Basin Stormwater Basin 37 27 28 29 30 31 3233343536 24 25 26 44 Stormwater Basin Stormwater Basin 62ND AVENUE GOLDEN R O D T R A I L Color Palette Key 1216 sf477 sf stone (39.2%)500 horizontal siding (41.1%)239 sf shake (19.7%)1212 sf477 sf stone (39.4%)496 horizontal siding (40.9%)239 sf shake (19.7%)2282 sf280 sf stone (12.3%)1634 horizontal siding (71.6%)368 sf shake (16.1%)1613 sf687 sf stone (42.6%)926 horizontal siding (57.4%)0 sf shake (0%)Total Building6323 sf1921 sf stone (30.4%)3556 horizontal siding (56.2%)846 sf shake (13.4%) 533 sq ft47 sq ft stone 9%86 sq ft board and batten 16%400 sq ft horz. lap 75% 479 sq ft156 sq ft stone 33%119 sq ft shake 24%204 sq ft horz. lap 43% 1 Kendra Lindahl, AICP Subject:FW: Feedback on Pulte Walcot Glen Development   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Scott Elmgren <scottelmgren@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 4:59 PM  To: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov>  Cc: Amanda Elmgren <amandaelmgren@outlook.com>  Subject: Feedback on Pulte Walcot Glen Development    Hi Natalie,    We wanted to submit our feedback/concerns for the proposed development plans Pulte has presented for Walcott Glen  as we will not be able to make the meeting next week.     Our main concern is the addition of townhomes to an area zoned for single family homes. Besides seeming out of place  aesthetically nestled in a neighborhood of single family homes (Ravinia), we are concerned for the increased traffic on  that would come along with a more densely populated space vs if the plan was for all single family homes.     We’re also concerned for the wetland health as more people means more garbage and pollution for the wetlands in our  area. I already clean up garbage weekly that blows into our yard and wetland. Having even more people packed in will  just create more pollution and disrupt the eco system more.     We acknowledge that this development is going to look out of place no matter what as Pulte is a different builder than  Lennar, but the addition of townhomes in the plan amplifies the issue. But if the plan were just for single family homes,  it would look less odd and would also cut back on traffic and environmental impacts from being more densely  populated.     Thanks in advance for taking our concerns into consideration as the city makes its decision.     Scott and Amanda Elmgren  6381 Larkspur Ln  Corcoran, MN 55340      1 Natalie Davis From:Nancy Galgano <nancy.brown.galgano@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 28, 2022 10:59 PM To:Natalie Davis Subject:Proposed Walcott Glen development Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hello Natalie,    We are residents of Corcoran and live near the area of Hackamore Rd and Cty. Rd. 101. Although we are more recent  residents (2020), we are grateful for the work that has been done to keep Corcoran a lovely place to live and raise  families.    We are writing to express our concerns about the proposal for residential housing near the intersection of Hackamore  and 101. First, we support the development of residential housing in that space. The Pulte company has a good  reputation as builders in this area and we would be happy to welcome neighbors in a development there.    Our main concerns as the proposal is considered are these:    1. The proposed density is too much for the area in which the homes are located. We understand that the zoning  requires detached single family homes only and that Pulte is requesting re‐zoning the area in order to construct 85  townhomes. We have seen the Pulte townhomes on Bass Lake Road and 101 and understand that these homes would  be similar. The area of Bass Lake Road and 101 is a much larger intersection and thoroughfare, able to accommodate the  traffic of a large number of townhomes. The three other corners of Medina, Plymouth, and Maple Grove include only  single family homes, which is reasonable for the area. Our focus is on density.  Adding 85 units in that space seems  excessive in the creation of traffic, possibly through the neighborhood and at the adjacent intersection.    2. Direct access to 101 from the new development would be essential. Traffic for up to an additional 120+ homes  running through a residential street that was not proposed nor built with a plan to have that many additional cars daily  would be an undue burden on the homes on Steeple Chase Lane. It would ruin the character of the southeast section of  the Ravinia neighborhood, and make it difficult for children to play/ride bicycles, etc. near their homes along that street.  As well, leading all traffic from the proposed development of so many homes directly onto Hackamore only without an  outlet to 101 would cause heavier usage than the road can sustain.    To sum up our thoughts, we are not opposed to residential home development in the Hackamore/101 area, but we  strongly urge the city to enforce the current zoning. We ask you to consider the effects of the proposed density and also  ask the city to give consideration to the existing Corcoran residents whose homes and lives would be impacted by the  additional traffic.     Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns.    Kind regards,  Al and Nancy Galgano  19486 Meadow Rue Court  1 Natalie Davis From:Jessica Beise Sent:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 10:55 AM To:Kendra Lindahl Forwarding; Natalie Davis Subject:FW: New development proposal by Pulte Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged     From: Kumar Kurra <kvdrkumar@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 4:47 PM  To: Jeremy Nichols <jnichols@corcoranmn.gov>; Tom McKee <tmckee@corcoranmn.gov>; Jonathan Bottema  <jbottema@corcoranmn.gov>; Alan Schultz <ASchultz@corcoranmn.gov>; Dean Vehrenkamp  <dvehrenkamp@corcoranmn.gov>; Jessica Beise <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov>  Subject: New development proposal by Pulte    Good Afternoon team,    I am a Corcoran resident from 2016 and I am happy to know about a new development proposal (SE to Ravinia) by Pulte.  I am happy because this development provides additional access to Hackamore Rd and we will have more neighbors in  the neighborhood.      However, I am concerned about a higher density proposal by Pulte.  My understanding is that this land is currently zoned  as a low density (i.e single family home district), but Pulte seems to be requesting you guys to change it to high density. I  would request you all not to rezone it as a high density and limit the land to Single Family homes.    High density neighborhoods may bring down the property value of existing homes, the feel of existing neighborhoods  will be impacted, increased traffic and the city will need to provide additional infrastructure to meet high density  demand (if any)..etc.  City should not be re‐zoning this land to high density just because one builder will financially  benefit from it (and many current residents around the development area will see a negative impact).    Appreciate your review and consideration.    ‐‐   Thanks and Regards,  Kumar Kurra  19213 Paddock Ln, Corcoran  1 Natalie Davis From:Jessica Beise Sent:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 10:58 AM To:Kendra Lindahl Forwarding; Natalie Davis Subject:FW: Opposed to proposed zoning change for Pulte at Hackamore & 101 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged     From: Daron Meyer <daron_me@msn.com>   Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 7:05 PM  To: Jessica Beise <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov>  Subject: Fw: Opposed to proposed zoning change for Pulte at Hackamore & 101    Hello..  Forwarding my note below with comments on the proposed zoning changes.  Could you please include  my message as part of the packet?     From: Tom McKee <tmckee@corcoranmn.gov>  Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 6:06 PM  To: Daron Meyer <DARON_ME@msn.com>  Subject: Re: Opposed to proposed zoning change for Pulte at Hackamore & 101      Hey Daron,    Thanks for the email ‐ I appreciate the feedback.  We will be reviewing a concept plan for this site on Monday (11/22) at  7:00 if you would like to attend and/or speak on the proposal. Additionally, if you’d like your email to be part of the  record and in the packet for all the council and commissioners to see, please send it to Jessica Beise  (jbeise@corcoranmn.gov) and ask her to include it in the packet.     Let me know if there’s anything I can help with in the time being,    Thanks,    Tom McKee   Mayor  City of Corcoran   612‐803‐8101  From: Daron Meyer <DARON_ME@msn.com>  Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 5:59 PM  To: Jeremy Nichols <jnichols@corcoranmn.gov>; Tom McKee <tmckee@corcoranmn.gov>  Subject: Opposed to proposed zoning change for Pulte at Hackamore & 101      Hello,  2   I am a homeowner in the Ravinia neighborhood.  We recently learned about a proposed new development by  Pulte that is requesting smaller lots and higher density that will be connected to the neighborhood.  We are  very much opposed to this change.      It is entirely acceptable and understandable that this parcel eventually be developed for single family homes  and we fully support doing this.  However, we are strongly opposed to changing the zoning from RSF‐2.  Any  development should remain with the current zoning in place.       The argument by the developer that this is necessary to make the homes more affordable is not sufficient  reason for the change.  There are many other options for higher density nearby, including townhomes and  apartments on the east side of 101 and just north on 101 near HyVee.      Allowing higher density housing closer to the Ravinia neighborhood will negatively impact property values, will  increase traffic and goes against the zoning we were led to believe would continue for that parcel when we  chose to move here recently.    Thank you for considering our opinions in this matter.  Please let me know if any questions or concerns to  discuss further.     THANKS,  Daron Meyer  6224 Snowberry Ct  Corcoran, MN 55340  952‐451‐1565    From:Jessica Beise To:Michelle Friedrich Subject:Fwd: Concern with Pulte New Development in Ravinia Date:Monday, November 22, 2021 12:56:20 PM Attachments:Pulte_Praposed.pdf Get Outlook for iOS From: Sweta Prasad <sweetap175@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 2:35:03 PM To: Jeremy Nichols <jnichols@corcoranmn.gov>; Tom McKee <tmckee@corcoranmn.gov>; Jonathan Bottema <jbottema@corcoranmn.gov>; Alan Schultz <ASchultz@corcoranmn.gov>; Dean Vehrenkamp <dvehrenkamp@corcoranmn.gov>; Jessica Beise <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov> Cc: SATYANARAYAN PRASAD <snprasad2005@gmail.com> Subject: Concern with Pulte New Development in Ravinia Dear Council Members, I and Satya Prasad, are the residents of Ravinia Community at 63rd Ave N. Our home is highlighted in red (please refer to the attachment). We are glad that our city has very transparent council members to whom we can always reach out and express our any concern. We are excited that Corcoran is growing but at the same time we are concerned by the rezoning and increase in traffic due to Pulte's new proposed construction plan. As you might be aware , the construction work in our area finally completed last spring, giving our kids and neighbors relief so they could step outside safely. Based on the attached Pulte construction plan, Pulte would be extendending and using the 63rd Ave N road for new homes construction, which will increase traffic for the existing neighborhood. This would push us to stay inside until new constructions are complete as a huge number of construction vehicles will be on the 63rd Ave N road. During such times, construction workers would usually block our driveways and it would be hard for us to complain as it's not a Lennar project. Hence , requesting you to make arrangements to use alternative routes for construction vehicles (parallel highlighted red arrow is an existing road that might be used). Since it's not a Lennar project , shouldn't Pulte have a separate entry and exit road? We hope our concerns are valid and considered, and have separate entry/ exit roads for Pulte residents. Please reach out if you would like to talk more on this. Thank you ! Sweta Prasad Satya Prasad 19127 63rd Ave N , Corcoran. 612-597-4944. From:Jessica Beise To:Michelle Friedrich Subject:Fwd: Nearby Development Proposal - Concerns Date:Monday, November 22, 2021 12:57:03 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Rohit Tripathi <rohit.tripathi239@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 2:27:54 PM To: Jeremy Nichols <jnichols@corcoranmn.gov>; Tom McKee <tmckee@corcoranmn.gov>; Jonathan Bottema <jbottema@corcoranmn.gov>; Alan Schultz <ASchultz@corcoranmn.gov>; Dean Vehrenkamp <dvehrenkamp@corcoranmn.gov>; Jessica Beise <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: Nearby Development Proposal - Concerns Hi Jeremy/Tom, My name is Rohit Tripathi and I am writing this email on behalf of myself and my wife - Chitranshi Mishra. We both live at 6357 Larkspur Ln, Corcoran, MN 55340. I recently came to know about a nearby development proposal and I have few concerns regarding the same. My concerns are : 1) Since the proposal includes a mix of townhomes and single family homes and smaller lot sizes, this will create high density in the area, including increased traffic and possible rezoning. Rezoning might also affect the real estate prices in the area. 2) There will also be high construction traffic for well over a year which will disturb our commute to and from Ravinia. I propose these suggestions regarding my concerns : 1) Proposal should only include single family homes and land should remain zoned as RSF-2, a low density, single family home district. 2) Provide separate entry/exit for all construction traffic and avoid using 63rd and Larkspur. We are writing this email with hope that these concerns will be discussed in the council meeting on 11/22. Thanks Rohit From:Jessica Beise To:Michelle Friedrich Subject:Fwd: Initial Comments: Proposed Pulte Development Date:Monday, November 22, 2021 12:57:21 PM Attachments:image002.png Get Outlook for iOS From: Jessica Beise <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 6:19:04 AM To: kahowlett2@gmail.com <kahowlett2@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Initial Comments: Proposed Pulte Development Kathy, Thank you for your email and comments. Comments provided will be included in the materials Council reviews regarding the project. I’d note that the electronic packet has been posted but these will be added to the City’s record for meeting material. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Jessica Beise Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran 763-400-7029 Get Outlook for iOS From: kahowlett2@gmail.com <kahowlett2@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 12:38:10 PM To: Jeremy Nichols <jnichols@corcoranmn.gov>; Tom McKee <tmckee@corcoranmn.gov>; Jonathan Bottema <jbottema@corcoranmn.gov>; Alan Schultz <ASchultz@corcoranmn.gov>; Dean Vehrenkamp <dvehrenkamp@corcoranmn.gov>; Jessica Beise <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: Initial Comments: Proposed Pulte Development Hi, I am a resident of the Ravinia development and my home backs up to the large pond and tree line that separates the proposed development from Ravinia, specifically the northwest corner of the proposed Pulte development. I have a few comments / concerns that I would like to share. I would like to see any future development to remain single family homes. I don’t support rezoning the land to allow for the building of the townhomes. I am concerned about the potential negative impact they would have on property values. I noticed that there are comments in the proposal to keep most of the trees to the west, but I also noticed that there are plans to remove many of the trees to the north. Why is that? Will there be plans to replace the trees? In the summer, those trees completely hide the existing home from my home. In the fall, they put on a beautiful show of colors! (I’ve included a picture with the area I am concerned about highlighted in the red box.) I believe the proposal also included planting some evergreens on the western edge, is it possible to ask that the developer also plant evergreens on the northern edge? I am concerned about the increased traffic on both 101 and Hackamore. But, I also know it is inevitable that the land will be developed. Thank you, Kathy Howlett 19247 Bridle Path Corcoran, MN 55340 From:Jessica Beise To:Michelle Friedrich Subject:Fwd: Concerns regarding proposed Pulte project Date:Monday, November 22, 2021 12:57:57 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: meenakshi jakhar <meenakshi.jakhar@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 9:54:35 AM To: Tom McKee <tmckee@corcoranmn.gov>; Jonathan Bottema <jbottema@corcoranmn.gov>; Jeremy Nichols <jnichols@corcoranmn.gov>; Alan Schultz <ASchultz@corcoranmn.gov>; Dean Vehrenkamp <dvehrenkamp@corcoranmn.gov>; Jessica Beise <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: Concerns regarding proposed Pulte project Dear Council Members, I am a resident of 19139, 63rd Ave N (Ravinia), Corcoran. It has come to my knowledge that Pulte is proposing a development plan at SE corner of Ravinia. I am currently located at this corner and hence this new development directly impacts my home (it directly faces my backyard). I want to register my strong disagreement with the proposal of rezoning the land. My disagreement is based on below pointers: 1) The rezoning to smaller lot sizes and townhomes will add significantly to the traffic and population density of the area. 2) When we made a decision to buy our house here, we took under consideration all the factors including the zoning and prospective development towards our backyard. We were informed to expect only single family housing in future. This rezoning makes us feel deceited. 3) The townhomes will also impact the property prospects in future. Hoping the council members will keep the resident concerns in mind while making a decision. Best regards, Meenakshi 19139, 63rd Ave N Ravinia, Corcoran From:Jessica Beise To:Michelle Friedrich Subject:Fwd: Pulte development proposal on SE corner of Ravinia Date:Monday, November 22, 2021 12:58:18 PM Get Outlook for iOS From: Cynthia Wilson <wilsonc54@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 9:01:16 PM To: Jeremy Nichols <jnichols@corcoranmn.gov>; Tom McKee <tmckee@corcoranmn.gov>; Jonathan Bottema <jbottema@corcoranmn.gov>; Alan Schultz <ASchultz@corcoranmn.gov>; dvenhrenkamp@corcoranmn.gov <dvenhrenkamp@corcoranmn.gov>; Jessica Beise <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov>; Mike Wilson <mlwilson004@gmail.com> Subject: Pulte development proposal on SE corner of Ravinia We are new home owners in the Ravinia neighborhood. We chose this location due to the wetlands, ponds, hills and trees. I just read about the Pulte proposal asking for rezoning of the SE corner of Ravinia to accommodate townhomes as well as single family homes. We would not be in support of changing the zoning as I am concerned about the density of homes and increased traffic. I have observed the increase in traffic and noise as a result of the large number of townhomes and apartments on Bass Lake Road and Hwy 101. We would definitely be opposed to changing the zoning to allow townhomes in this parcel on land. Thank you for your time and thoughtful planning of development for the residents in the Corcoran community. Sincerely. Cynthia & Michael Wilson 6759 Black Oak Lane Corcoran, MN 55340 From:Jessica Beise To:Michelle Friedrich Subject:Fwd: Concerns with new Pulte development on Hackamore Date:Monday, November 22, 2021 12:58:30 PM Attachments:image.png Get Outlook for iOS From: Divya Singh <er.divyasingh.mech@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 5:18:47 PM To: Jeremy Nichols <jnichols@corcoranmn.gov>; Tom McKee <tmckee@corcoranmn.gov>; Jonathan Bottema <jbottema@corcoranmn.gov>; Alan Schultz <ASchultz@corcoranmn.gov>; Dean Vehrenkamp <dvehrenkamp@corcoranmn.gov> Cc: Jessica Beise <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov>; Gaurav Singh <gauravmca2007@gmail.com> Subject: Concerns with new Pulte development on Hackamore Hello Council Members, We (Gaurav and I) are the residents of Ravinia Community and are on 63rd & Larkspur, hence directly impacted by the new Pulte construction that is being proposed to the city. We are excited that Corcoran is growing but equally concerned by the rezoning request by Pulte. We are glad that our city has transparent council members to whom we can reach out and express our concerns. Please see them listed below and excuse my layman language: 1. We made Corcoran our home to live near beautiful landscape, bigger lots and bounty of wetlands. Since Pulte would be using the existing roads on 63rd Ave and Larkspur, rezoning the land to town-homes would create quite a dense backyard and would not blend well with the existing neighborhood. We welcome the idea of single-family homes as that would keep the original feel and look of the neighborhood alive even though the lot sizes are much smaller. Increasing the density of the city needs better infra (traffic control and better roads). We request you to deny the rezoning plan. 2. The construction work in our lane finally completed last spring, giving our kids and neighborhood kids relief so they could step outside safely. If you look at the map, our home is circled RED. Since they are extending 63rd Ave with 6 new homes and Larkspur on the other side, we would be bound to stay home until construction is done which could be more than a year(see blue lines). There is always an influx of huge construction vehicles on the road. During such instances, construction workers usually block our driveways and it would be difficult for us to complain as it's not a Lennar project. Our request is to use alternative routes for construction vehicles (black arrow is an existing road that might be used). 3. Being a separate builder, shouldn't Pulte plan a separate entry and exit for their lots (6 new homes on 63rd Ave are very weird as they dont have any other entry/exit)? It feels like having uninvited/unplanned guests over. If this could be addressed then concern #2 would be automatically resolved. I hope our concerns are valid and considered upon. Please reach out if you would like to talk more on this. Thanks, Divya and Gaurav Singh 19151 63rd Ave N 612-254-3499 1 Natalie Davis From:Jessica Stults <jess.stults@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 9:27 PM To:Tom McKee Cc:Jonathan Bottema; Jeremy Nichols; Alan Schultz; Dean Vehrenkamp; Brad Martens; Joel Stults Subject:Pulte Development Opposition Good evening City Council Members and Mayor,     We are writing this email and requesting it be made a part of the packet for the public record in regards to the Pulte  Development Plan. We oppose Pulte being given any permissions on re‐zoning that would allow the construction of  townhomes within their development. We want Pulte to remove any townhomes from their development plan entirely.  We ask that Pulte only build single family residences and respectfully request that Corcoran City Council members reject  any plans from Pulte that include townhomes within the development. Townhomes will cause increased traffic and  congestion to the area, decrease home values in the surrounding area and deter from the overall appeal of Corcoran  and the quality lots that other single family homes enjoy. We do not want townhomes down the street from us on the  Larkspur Lane extension, which would pose a safety risk to the dozens of children that enjoy less frequently traveled  roads right now. It would decrease our quality of life and make our neighborhood more dangerous and less enjoyable.     Respectfully submitted,  Joel and Jessica Stuls        105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 6.c TO: Corcoran Planning Commission FROM: Kevin Shay through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: April 28, 2022 for the May 5, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting RE: Public Hearing – Preliminary Plat and Variance for Kariniemi Meadows at 23185 County Road 10 (city file 22-013) 1. Description of Request The applicant, Nate Kariniemi, is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to create 9 rural residential lots on the 124.5-acre property. Lot 10 is the remaining area west of the rural residential lots and it does not show a home site. Lot 10 should be platted as Outlot A. Outlot A will retain three development rights and may be platted in the future. 2. Context The site is an existing 124.5-acre lot with a single-family residential structure on the northeast corner of the site. There are 13 development rights on the property. Zoning and Land Use The site is guided Rural/Ag Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RR (Rural Residential). A shoreland overlay district runs through the center of the property for Rush Creek. Surrounding Properties The properties to the east, south and west are guided Rural/Ag Residential and zoned RR (Rural Residential). The properties to the north are guided Rural Service/Commercial and zoned CR (Rural Commercial). The public works facility is surrounded by this property on the western portion of the site. Natural Characteristics of the Site Rush Creek runs through the center of the site and creates a larger floodplain area. There are natural plant communities on the site identified as a high-quality maple/basswood area on the Natural Resource Inventory Areas Map in the Comprehensive Plan. Multiple wetlands are shown on Hennepin County’s Natural Resources mapping software as shown on the Site Location map. Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 2 May 5, 2022 3. ANALYSIS: Preliminary Plat Development Rights The site has 13 development rights. The applicant’s proposal shows 9 residential lots with the four remaining development rights being assigned to Lot 10, which is to be renamed to Outlot A, for future development. Lot Standards The plat shows compliance with the RR for all lots except Lot 1, which requires the following minimum standards: RR (Rural Residential) Lot Area 2 acres Minimum Lot Width 200 feet Minimum Lot Depth 300 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 100 feet Front, From all other streets 50 feet Front Porch (≤ 120 square feet) 40 feet Side 25 feet Rear 25 feet Adjacent to Residential n/a Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. **Minimum separation between structures on adjacent parcels shall be 15 feet. The applicant has requested a variance from the lot depth requirement for Lot 1 which is discussed later in the report. Lot 2 does not meet the lot width standard of 200 feet and a revised plat showing 200 feet of lot width must be submitted. Shoreland The shoreland overlay district for Rush Creek applies to the area within 300 feet of the ordinary high- water level of Rush Creek or the landward extent of floodplain of the river, whichever is greater. The boundary of the shoreland overlay is indicated on the plans. The boundary of the shoreland may change if the floodplain associated with Rush Creek is revised. This is included in the engineer’s memo. The standards for setbacks, structure height and impervious effect the rear portion of Lots 3-9. The applicant complies with these shoreland requirements in Section 1050.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 3 May 5, 2022 Floodplain The site includes a large area of floodplain and the plans indicate the boundary of the 100-year flood area. The applicant will need to revise the plans to indicate the areas that are considered floodway, flood fringe and general floodplain as defined in Section 1050.030 Subd. 3. Based on the revised boundaries of the districts covering the property, the corresponding standards from Section 1050.030 shall apply. All areas within the floodplain boundary shall be covered with a drainage and utility easement. Transportation/Access The applicant is proposing a single public street access to serve the residential lots. The street serving the residential lots should be renamed to Ellery Lane to be consistent with the City’s street naming policy. All access locations and required improvements (including potential turn lanes) are subject to Hennepin County review and approval. A comment letter is attached from Hennepin County which requires dedication of the 50-foot half right of way and a right turn lane. Hennepin County notes that a left turn lane would be necessary when the property to the east develops but that would be done by the developer of the property to the east. Trails and Sidewalks There is an existing on-road trail in the County Road 19 right-of-way and this trail is separated from the street by a landscaped boulevard. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan has a proposed on-road trail shown along the northern boundary of this property on the south side of County Road 10. The County has requested a 10-foot trail easement beyond the right-of-way be included for the on-road trail. The Parks and Trails Plan map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies a proposed off-road trail that runs along the Rush Creek corridor. A proposed off-road trail is shown along the western side of Rush Creek. Staff is recommending the trail connection be extended along the south side of the property from Rush Creek out to County Road 19. City policy is to require an 8-ft. wide trail in a 20-ft wide easement for off-road trails and give credit for the net area (gross area minus wetlands and areas below the 100-year ordinary high water elevation) of off- road trails shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The trail easement is located almost entirely within the floodplain and the majority of the current easement location will not qualify for park dedication. Furthermore, the location of the trail in the floodplain means it will be susceptible to flooding. The Parks Commission recommended that the trail be a wood chip or mown trail that can flood. This type of trail would limit accessibility to residents with physical challenges and is more challenging for bicyclists and people with strollers to navigate, but allows better access to the creek as an amenity. The Parks Commission also recommended that the trail make a connection to County Road 19 along the southern boundary of the property and an additional trail connection to County Road 19 along the northern most portion of the property abutting County Road 19. This would create a looped trail utilizing the on-road trail along County Road 19. Staff recommends that the southern extension be provided with this plat and the northern loop be deferred until Lot 10 (to be platted as Outlot A) is subdivided in the future. Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 4 May 5, 2022 Park Dedication Calculation Under the current ordinance, park dedication of land is required at 4% of the net pre-development area for Rural/Ag Residential land. Park dedication is only taken for newly created lots (9 new lots). The ordinance would require 1.98 net acres of park dedication for the 49.5 net acres (124.54 gross acres) being platted. The applicant would need to provide the final acreage as part of the final plat application. As requested through the sketch plan, the applicant provided a trail easement along the western side of Rush Creek. This easement measures approximately 3,107 ft. long and 20 ft. wide. The applicant’s proposed trail easement is 1.43 (gross) acres in size. A large portion, approximately 1.3 acres, of this trail easement is located within the floodplain and will not receive park dedication credit. Staff and Parks Commission are recommending additional areas for trail as noted above and the applicant will need to provide revised plans and calculations for the trail easement and the portion of the trail easement located within the floodplain as part of the final plat application. The developer would pay park dedication as cash-in-lieu for the remaining value of park dedication required. For residential developments, the current cash-in-lieu of land fee has been calculated on the per capita share of park system costs at $4,628 per single family unit. This calculation is shown below. The proposed trail easement provides a connection between the existing trail easement and the proposed public right of way. The calculations below outline the park dedication fees for each use based on the current plan and the staff recommended plan. Staff recommends the City accept the amended trail easement and the remainder of the park dedication be cash-in-lieu of land. If the City followed the adopted policy to only give credit for net trail area and pay the remaining as cash-in lieu of the park dedication fee would be as follows: 9 Single Family Units x $4,628 = $41,652 Dedicated Park Land Credit = To be calculated TOTAL = $41,652 or less The final park dedication calculation will be based on final land area calculations and the fee schedule in place at the time of release of the final plat. Staff will continue to work with the applicant between the preliminary and final plat to update plans to appropriately accommodate the proposed off-road trail. Utilities The entire site is located outside the MUSA and will be served with well and septic. Ponding Stormwater ponding can be provided on site in compliance with local and state requirements. Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 5 May 5, 2022 Wetlands There are a number of wetlands on site. The applicant shows the wetland buffer and setback requirements in compliance with Section 1050.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additional wetland buffer areas are noted on the plans. Wetland buffer monument signs are shown on the plans and some sign adjustments are required to meet the City Code. The applicant shall submit a buffer restoration planting plan consistent with the requirements in Section 1050.010 Subd. 8 with the application for final plat for review and approval. Variance The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum 300 foot lot depth for Lot 1 required by Section 1040.030 Subd. 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Lot depth is defined as, “The mean horizontal distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line of a lot.” The definition of lot depth means that while a lot may meet the minimum lot depth at one point on the lot it is measured over the entire lot and averaged. Given the unique shape of Lot 1 this makes it very difficult to meet the minimum lot depth without substantial changes to the road alignment that are limited by the proximity to Rush Creek. Staff would like to note that the variance was not identified and discussed with the concept plan due to the applicant’s consideration of an OS&P plat which does not have a minimum lot width or depth standard. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all of the following criteria from Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B), have been met and the applicant’s responses to the variance criteria are included in quotes below: A. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. “There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance other than economic as the stormwater pond on the west side of the lot can be shifted but not moved. At the point of shifting the pond (and the road) it would create an awkward, longer road with a sharp 90 degree bend. Even if these changes were accomplished the future driveway would still come from the North.” Staff believes there is a practical difficulty in complying with the definition of lot depth. Lot 1 meets the minimum lot depth requirement when measured at the deepest part of the lot. B. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. “The conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The stormwater is an existing condition. The engineering standard requires the water be ponded somewhere in the vicinity.” Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 6 May 5, 2022 The definition for lot depth was not created by the applicant and the characteristics of the site with the Rush Creek and the wetland and floodplain restrictions it creates were not created by the applicant. C. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. “The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character is unaffected. The essential nature of the lot is that the “front” (as determined by where the future driveway will come in not the technical definition) will be 200+ ft wide with a 300+ feet deep back yard – i.e. a driveway cannot be built through a stormwater pond so the driveway must come through the northern boundary. Yes the variance requested swaps the width and depth dimensions but that is because the front yard is to the north along the road – not to the west where the stormwater ponds.” The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The lot size meets the minimum standards and will be used for single family home similar to the other lots. D. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. “The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance because the Rural Residential district enjoys backyards of a 300 foot depth and for all visual, noise, setback and layout purposes this will be accomplished with the entrance to the home from the North.” Staff believes the request to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance as it was meant to establish minimum standards for buildable lots and the “mean” language does not function as intended in this case. E. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. “The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the lot will still meet the minimum size and other requirements. For the most part this variance does not seem to have any effect on future comp planning.” The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Rural/Ag Residential future land use guidance for the property. F. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. Staff has not included any conditions on the variance. With the findings given above, staff believes the variance criteria has been met. Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 7 May 5, 2022 4. RECOMMENDATION: Move to recommend approval of the Resolution approving the preliminary plat and variance for “Kariniemi Meadows” Attachments 1. Resolution approving the preliminary plat and variance for “Kariniemi Meadows” 2. Site Location Map 3. City Engineer’s Memo dated April 22, 2022 4. Hennepin County memo dated March 21, 2022 5. Preliminary Plat dated February 24, 2022 6. Landscape Plan dated February 24, 2022 7. Ghost Plat dated February 24, 2022 City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR “KARINIEMI MEADOWS” AT 23185 COUNTY ROAD 10 (PID 18-119-23-11-0002) (CITY FILE NO. 22-013) WHEREAS, Nate Kariniemi (“the applicant”) has requested approval of “Kariniemi Meadows” a rural residential plat and variance on property legally described as follows: Outlot A, Roehlke Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a preliminary plat and variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary plat is approved to create nine lots and one outlot for “Kariniemi Meadows”, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on February 4, 2022 and revisions received on February 24, 2022, March 23, 2022 and April 5, 2022 and except as amended by this resolution. 2. Lot 10 shall be platted as Outlot A as no development is proposed at this time. 3. Outlot A shall contain the remaining 4 development rights. 4. Park dedication is due and shall be cash-in-lieu of land, prior to release of the final plat for recording. Final park dedication amounts will be based on the fee schedule in place at the time the final plat is released for filing. a. The applicant shall provide final alignment and net area calculations for the off- road trail and shall receive park dedication credit for the net area of the trail. 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo, dated April 22, 2022. 6. The applicant must comply with Hennepin County comments dated March 21, 2022. 7. The plat shall be revised to show a minimum of 200 feet of lot width on Lot 2 8. The applicant shall revise plans to show the different floodplain classifications. 9. The street shall be renamed to Ellery Lane. 10. The applicant shall revise plans to show the off-road trail connecting to County Road 19 along the south side of the property. City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx Page 2 of 3 11. The applicant shall include additional wetland buffer monument signs to indicate the boundary of the wetland buffer for review and approval by city staff. 12. The applicant shall submit a wetland buffer restoration plan with the final plat application for review and approval by city staff. 13. The variance to allow a reduced lot depth for Lot 1 as shown on the plans is approved, based on the following conditions: a. There is a practical difficulty in complying with the definition of lot depth. Lot 1 meets the minimum lot depth requirement when measured at the deepest part of the lot. b. The definition for lot depth was not created by the applicant and the characteristics of the site with the Rush Creek and the wetland and floodplain restrictions it creates were not created by the applicant. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The lot size meets the minimum standards and will be used for single family home similar to the other lots. d. The variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance as it was meant to establish minimum standards for buildable lots and the “mean” language does not function as intended in this case. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Rural/Ag Residential future land use guidance for the property. 14. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of a final plat. 15. The final plat application shall included a revised preliminary plat addressing all conditions of preliminary plat approval. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran May xx, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx Page 3 of 3 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xx day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director Hennepin County N atural Resources Map Date: 9/14/2021 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2021 1 inch = 800 feet Legend Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI PID: 1811923110002Address: 23185 Co Rd No 10, Corcoran 55374 Owner: Willow 1 Llc Acres: 124.54 ¯ Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Kariniemi Meadows – Preliminary Plat Review Date: April 22nd, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Landscape Plan Kariniemi Meadows, Dated February 24, 2022, 2. Preliminary Plat Kariniemi Meadows, Dated February 24, 2022 3. Ghost Plat Lot 10 Kariniemi Meadows, Dated February 24, 2022 4. Stormwater Report Kariniemi Meadows, Dated February 24, 2022 Comments: General: 1. The City process requires the applicant to submit a written response to this memorandum. Submit the written response with revised plans. 2. In addition to engineering related comments per these plans, the proposed plans are subject to additional planning, zoning, land-use, and other applicable codes of the City. 3. For any site activity (demo, grading, utilities, etc.) no closures or restrictions of any kind shall be imposed upon the public use of County Road 10 without Hennepin County’s permission. Should any lane restrictions be necessary, the Contractor shall notify Hennepin County at least 48 hours in advance and provide a Traffic Control Plan. 4. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed within the City or County ROW or easements. 5. Individual grading plans need to be shown for each lot to ensure that the grading is possible and that grading will not impact adjacent lots. 6. When accommodating plan comments, septic areas shall not be located in D&U easements. 7. Septic plans shall be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. 8. The septic sites for Lot 3 are separated from the build site by a low wetland. Verify piping routes and cover based on home location and elevations. Plat: 1. Drainage and Utility easements shall encompass the 100-year floodplain. Please expand D&U easement as necessary, notably in Lot 3. 2. Conservation easements are necessary over the wetland buffers where the buffers are used as watershed BMPs. Provide copies of conservation easement documents. 3. Wetland buffer sign locations will be reviewed by Planning. 4. Much of the area designated as wetland buffers proposed are currently agricultural cropland. All wetland buffer areas will be required to remain vegetated and will require a restoration planting plan. April 22, 2022 Kariniemi Meadows Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 3 Erosion Control/SWPPP 1. Preparation of and compliance with a SWPPP in accordance with MPCA requirements shall be required for construction. Transportation 1. Hennepin County should review and approve the proposed 8’ wide widening of County Road 10 and any other work in their right-of way. Submit copy of County permit to City. 2. Hennepin County shall review and approve of the extension of the existing culvert underneath County Road 10 and the methods in which that connection will be made. Site Plans 1. Easements shall be provided over all wetlands, floodplain, storm sewer pipes/ponding. Easements shall be shown on all plan sheets to ensure they are adequate. Grading /Stormwater 1. No wetland impacts are shown on the proposed plan. If wetlands are impacted with future submittals, they shall be reviewed and approved through the appropriate WCA permitting process. 2. Elm Creek will review and approve if the additional wetland buffer will be acceptable as the stormwater treatment BMP for the site. If filtration or biofiltration is required, the City requires that NURP ponds with filtration benches or shelfs be used. 3. Additionally, if permanent sedimentation and water quality ponds are used they shall be designed to the Wet Pond Design Standards set forth on Appendix A of the Elm Creek Rules and provide: (1) Water quality features consistent with NURP criteria and best management practices. (2) A permanent wet pool with dead storage of at least the runoff from a 2.5‐inch storm event. 4. The current MIDs version is 4.0. Please use the most current version of MIDs. Additionally, the values used in existing conditions are not appropriate. The MN stormwater manual indicates that their review was not adequate to recommend an EMC for cropland TSS or TP. How were these values selected? Open space shall be 21 mg/L for TSS and 0.19 mg/L for TP. Residential areas EMC shall be 73mg/L for TSS and 0.325 mg/L for TP. Forest areas shall be 72 mg/L for TSS and 0.090 mg/L for TP. 5. Existing conditions CN value ¼ Acre lots assume 38 percent impervious. Current impervious measurement shows the farmstead to be 30 percent impervious over the 2-acre lot. Modeled impervious should be measured based off take off areas. 6. Proposed conditions impervious lot area should be measured based off proposed house footprint and driveway projection with length from the garage to the proposed road connection. House lot impervious varies too much per lot to accurately estimate impervious using TR-55 CN default impervious percentages based off lot size. As an example, Lot 8 has an approximately 3,000 square foot building pad and a 20-foot driveway would have an estimated impervious of .35 acres. While Lot 1 would estimate approximately 0.11 acres. 7. Modeling shows Subcatchment E2 impervious area as .92 Acres while Subcatchment P7 shows an increase to 2.29 acres. This also applies to P10. 8. Explain the use of ”Fair Condition” for Woods Land use. Most land uses are considered to be in good condition unless ground cover can be proven otherwise. April 22, 2022 Kariniemi Meadows Kevin Mattson Page 3 of 3 9. Modelled CN value for Meadow (71) should be changed to Open Space – Good Conditions HSG D (74). 10. Provide County Road 10 overtopping elevation for the culvert discharging to the north. 11. Model OCS slanted grates as custom orifices. Current model shows horizontal orifices which overestimate flows around the invert elevation set. City can provide more information upon request. 12. Update runoff table to match the HydroCAD flow rates. Example - Existing North shows 9.02 cfs while the model shows 9.57 cfs. 13. Match the P4 culvert inverts between the plans and the model. 14. Update model for Pond 4. Current plans for the outlet device shows a 15” RCP while the model uses a 12” RCP as the outlet. 15. Update Pond 2 plans to match the modeled 100-year HWL. Elevations of Lots 7 and 8 should be updated to meet separation requirements. 16. Pond EOF’s need to be set 1.0’ above the HWL. Example - Stormwater Pond 1 has a HWL of 998.5 and an EOF of 998.5. 17. EOF grading shall be reflected on contour grading plan. 18. The following freeboard requirements are: o WMO rules require Low floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100-yr HWL. Example - Lots 1 and 4 do not meet the separation requirements. o Low Opening is a minimum of one foot above the EOF o Top of Berm/Pond is a minimum of one foot above the EOF. Example Pond 3 shows top of berm at 996 and an EOF at 995.5. Top of berm elevations shall be clearly identified around the entire perimeter of the ponds. 19. Show maintenance access routes to ponds on plans. Routes shall be 12’ wide and sloped to accommodate maintenance vehicles. This route shall also be encompassed within an easement. 20. Provide a minimum of 2 feet of cover for Chapparal Lane culvert crossings. Current culvert crossing under Chapparal Lane at 6+00 has only 1.16 ft of cover. 21. Storm sewer plan and profile must be provided for final plat review. 22. Show mapped floodway within the plans. 23. The proposed 20’ wide trail needs to be outside of the mapped floodway. 24. Provide 2% slope in all swales. Example: The swale at Sta 7+00 to Sta 8+00 east of Chaparral Lane is only at 1.74% 25. Show elevations more clearly east of stormwater Pond 4 in lot 1. 26. City requires that all structures, including accessory structures, additions to existing structures, and manufactured homes, shall be constructed so that the basement floor, or first floor if there is no basement, is at least 2 feet above the regional flood elevation. 27. If any grading is proposed in the floodplain or below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE - which ranges from 994.0-992.0 from south to north on the property) this triggers a separate floodplain process involving compensatory storage and City/WMO approvals. 28. Elm Creek HUC-8 DNR Study is in progress. This study will have updated floodplain modeling and mapping which will eventually replace the current effective model and mapping. City provides this information as a courtesy to Kariniemi development to consider in their development process. End of Comments Hennepin County Transportation Project Delivery Public Works Facility, 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN 55340 612-596-0300 | hennepin.us March 21, 2022 Ms. Kendra Lindahl, AICP Principal Consultant City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Re: Preliminary Plat Review – Kariniemi Meadows (Received 2/28/22) County State Aid Highways (CSAH) 10 and 19 Hennepin County Plat Review ID #3922B (Reviewed 3/08/22) Ms. Lindahl: Please consider the following comments of this preliminary plat to develop 124 acres into nine single-family homes along CSAH 10, preserving wetlands, and potential future phase(s) of development along CSAH 19. Access: County staff support the proposed access to CSAH 10 on Chaparral Lane. For safety and operations purposes, a full eastbound right-turn lane will be required at this access. County staff will need to approve a complete turn lane plan set prior to permitting. Chaparral Lane will also need to provide access for future development to the east, which may require a westbound left-turn lane on CSAH 10. Right-of-way: We support the proposed 50-foot half right-of-way dedication along CSAH 10. A 10-foot trail easement is recommended to be included with the drainage and utility easement to provide space for maintenance access to the Rush Creek culvert under CSAH 10 and a potential future trail connection to the regional trailhead ½-mile to the west. Please ensure the existing trail remains entirely within public right-of-way or trail easement(s) along CSAH 19. Storm Water/Drainage: Please ensure stormwater discharge rates remain less than existing flow rates. The county storm water system will not take water from new drainage areas. Additional treatments may be necessary if flow rates cannot match existing. Contact: Eric Vogel at 612-596-0316 or eric.vogel2@hennepin.us Permits: Please inform the developer that all construction within county right-of-way requires an approved county permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Please ensure the applicant coordinates with the county for the right-turn lane and any utility work. Contact: Michael Olmstead, Permits Coordinator at 612-596-0336 or michael.olmstead@hennepin.us Please contact Jason Gottfried at 612-596-0394, jason.gottfried@hennepin.us for any further discussion. Sincerely, Carla Stueve, PE County Highway Engineer He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Da te : 3/3 /2 02 2 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 8 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 18 119 23 110 00 2 OWN ER N AME: W illow 1 Llc PAR CEL AD DRESS: 2 318 5 Co R d N o 10 , C or co ran MN 55 37 4 PAR CEL AR EA: 12 4.54 a c res , 5 ,424 ,987 sq ft A-T-B: Ab stra ct SAL E PR ICE: $1,20 0,00 0 SAL E D ATA: 0 5/20 21 SAL E C OD E: Wa rr anty D e ed ASSESSED 20 20 , PAYABLE 202 1 PROPERT Y TYPE: R es iden t ial H OM ESTEAD : N on -H ome stea d M AR KET VAL UE: $94 0,40 0 TAX TO TAL: $1 0,867 .94 ASSESSED 20 21 , PAYABLE 202 2 PRO PER TY TYPE: R eside ntial HO MESTEAD: No n-H om es te ad MARKET VALU E: $1 ,2 35 ,6 00 This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not s uitable for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 2 2 CREEK 34567821019COUNTY ROAD NO. 10CHAPARRAL LANEBLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 DITCH RUSHCOUNTY ROAD NO. 19 2-18-22PRELIMINARY PLAT - OVERVIEWKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN19PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KARINIEMI MEADOWSNVicinity MapFeet0200400I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ 45678109COUNTY ROAD NO. 10CHAPARRAL LANEBLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 RUS H CREEK 2-18-22PRELIMINARY PLAT - NORTHKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comNFEET010020029PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KARINIEMI MEADOWSI hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ CREEK 34567821019COUNTY ROAD NO. 10CHAPARRAL LANEBLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 DITCH RUSHCOUNTY ROAD NO. 19 2-18-22PRELIMINARY PLAT - OVERVIEWKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN19PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KARINIEMI MEADOWSNVicinity MapFeet0200400I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ 45678109COUNTY ROAD NO. 10CHAPARRAL LANEBLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 RUS H CREEK 2-18-22PRELIMINARY PLAT - NORTHKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comNFEET010020029PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KARINIEMI MEADOWSI hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ RUSH CREE K 3452101BLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 DITCH COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 2-18-22PRELIMINARY PLAT - SOUTHKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN2001000FEET39PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KARINIEMI MEADOWSI hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ COUNTY ROAD NO. 10CHAPARRAL LANE COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 45678109BLOCK 1RUS H CREEK 2-18-22KARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.com49PRELIMINARY WETLAND BUFFER &TREE PRESERVATION PLAN - NORTHNFeet0100200I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ COUNTY ROAD N CHAPARRAL LAN E COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 RUSH CREE K 34562101BLOCK 1DITCH 2-18-22KARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.com59PRELIMINARY WETLAND BUFFER &TREE PRESERVATION PLAN - SOUTHNFeet0100200I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ CHAPARRAL LANESTA 0+00 TO STA 11+004 5 6 7 8 9 CHAPARRAL LANECOUNTY ROAD 10 2-18-22PRELIMINARY STREET & STORM SEWER PLANCHAPARRAL LANE STA 0+00 TO STA 11+00KARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.com69N Feet050100I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ CHAPARRAL LANESTA 11+00 TO STA 19+563 45 2 1CHAPARRAL LANE2-18-22PRELIMINARY STREET & STORM SEWER PLANCHAPARRAL LANE STA 11+00 TO STA 19+56KARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.com79N Feet050100I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ 45678109BLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 10COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 CHAPARRAL LANE CREE K RU S H CREEK 2-18-22PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSIONCONTROL PLAN - NORTHKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN89SILT FENCE DETAILFeet0100200I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ 34562101BLOCK 1COUNTY RO CHAPARRAL LANE RUSH CREE K COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 DITCH 2-18-22KARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN99PRELIMINARY GRADING &EROSION CONTROL PLAN - SOUTHSILT FENCE DETAILFeet0100200I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ Page 1 of 5 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6d. Planning Commission Meeting: May 5, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Ditzer Garage CUP (City File. No. 22-020) 9320 Cherry La (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) Action Required: Recommendation Review Deadline: July 14, 2022 1. Application Request The applicant requests a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a detached garage at 9320 Cherry Lane. A CUP is required to allow a maximum sidewall height of 12’ for an accessory structure placed in the side yard where a 10’ sidewall height is permitted. 2. Context Zoning and Land Use The property is zoned Urban Reserve (UR), and the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Existing Residential. The property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The present land use of the site includes a single-family residential home with one detached accessory structure under 200 square feet. Surrounding Properties All surrounding properties are zoned UR, guided for Existing Residential, and located within the MUSA. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) map identifies a shrub wetland throughout the property. A wetland delineation identified two wetland basins on the property. The proposed location of the accessory structure is near the delineated wetland boundary for Wetland Basin 2. The expected impact to the wetland is minimal. 3. Analysis Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, and the Engineering Memo is attached. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving or denying a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is limited to whether the proposed plan is in substantial conformance with the Page 2 of 5 standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets those standards, the City must approve the CUP. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Architectural/Building Standards The submitted plans are consistent with ordinance standards in Section 1030.020, Subd. 4. The maximum allowable accumulated footprint for accessory buildings on this 3.68-acre parcel within the UR is 2,031 square feet. Additionally, one structure under 200 square feet is allowed without counting towards the allowable footprint. The new garage is within the maximum allowable footprint at 1,014 square feet. There is only one other accessory structure on the property noted as a canopy on the survey (along the northwest border, near the planters) that is approximately 195 square feet. The proposed materials comply with the standards for accessory structures outlined in Section 1030.020, Subd. 6 and Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(D). The conceptual design submitted for the garage shows gray and tan colored LP lap siding, LP soffit, and LP fascia. The building includes three bays with windows above each garage door which breaks up the mass of the front facade. There are minimal aesthetic features on the rest of the building to break up the mass of the structure, but it is unlikely the garage will be visible from the public view. Metal roofing is allowed via a certificate of compliance if the materials meet the standards in the MN State Building Code and are treated with a factory applied color coating system to protect against facing. The materials comply. The plans indicate the detached garage has a maximum sidewall height of 12’. This exceeds the maximum sidewall height of 10’ for accessory structures placed in the front and side yard provided in Section 1030.020, Subd. 5(C). Section 1030.020, Subd. 5(D) allows landowners to request sidewall heights that exceed this limit with a CUP, which is discussed later in this report. The dimensions of the proposed eaves and overhang are not clear within the submitted plans to confirm consistency with Section 1030.020, Subd. 5(B). A condition of approval is provided to ensure this information is submitted for review as part of the typical building permit process. The eaves and overhang must meet the minimums for a 12’ sidewall height, which is 12” for eaves and 18” for the overhang. The grades in the southeast corner of the proposed garage are steeper than the 4:1 ratio that is allowed by City standards. The grading must also stay outside of the designated wetland area reflected on the plans. The garage placement must be moved farther away from the wetland, or a retaining wall must be proposed. If the applicant chooses to proceed with a retaining wall, this will be further coordinated with the building permit. Landscaping Page 3 of 5 No landscape plan is required. The applicant does not indicate any additional trees or shrubs to be planted or removed on their application. Setbacks Section 1030.020, Subd. 3 provides the location requirements for accessory structures. The proposed building will be in the side yard and exceeds the required building separation of 10’ from the principal building on the property. Additionally, the detached garage complies with the 50’ front setback, 20’ side setback, and the 15’ rear setback. The existing accessory structure on the site does not meet setbacks for accessory structures. As a condition of approval, the structure must be moved to meet the 20’ side yard setback. This will bring the site into compliance. Conditional Use Permit 1. The proposed use shall be in conformance with all City Regulations. Accessory structures are a permitted use in the UR district. There are limitations on the maximum accumulated footprint for accessory structures in the UR district. The property currently has one accessory structures under 200 square feet, and an additional accumulated footprint of 2,031 square feet is allowed. The proposed structure will have a footprint of 1,014 square feet. The maximum sidewall height of the proposed building reaches 12’, and the garage will be placed in the side yard. The permitted sidewall height in the side yard is 10’ unless approved by a CUP. 2. A certificate of survey shall be required that identifies all existing structures on site, including buildings, septic sites and wells. In addition, the survey shall include the proposed structure, flood plain, wetlands, and any recorded easements. A wetland delineation was completed and approved by the City on January 24, 2022. A certificate of survey, dated February 18, 2022, was provided to the City with the remaining necessary information. 3. Applicable criteria as outlined in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance. A. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. The proposed use is consistent with the residential use anticipated on this site by the Comprehensive Plan. The use is also consistent with the Existing Page 4 of 5 Residential land use designation as the property will maintain the existing density of the area of roughly 1 living unit per 2 acres. B. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the community. The establishment of the use will allow for indoor storage of personal vehicles on the site. The use is allowed within the UR District. C. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, not substantially diminish and impact property values within the neighborhood. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of nearby properties, nor substantially impact property values within the neighborhood. The existing vegetation on the property will provide some screening to the surrounding properties. Compliance with the Engineering Memo will address potential grading issues. D. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property uses permitted in the district. The establishment of the conditional use does not cause an impediment to development and improvement of surrounding properties for permitted uses within the UR. E. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. Municipal sewer and water are not available to the site and are not required to accommodate the proposed uses. Well and septic systems are available on the property. F. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The conditional use, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations within the UR district. G. The conditional use and site conform to the performance standards as specified by this Chapter. Page 5 of 5 Staff analyzed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and included conditions to ensure compliance with the performance standards. 4. Conclusion Staff reviewed the plans with the applicable standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and finds that the standards for a CUP are satisfied. The proposed use is consistent with the type of use existing and projected for the UR district area of the City. Any outstanding issues that must be addressed are included as a condition of approval in the attached draft resolution. 5. Recommendation Move to recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the CUP for an accessory building exceeding 10’ sidewall height on the property. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2022- 2. Aerial Location Map 3. 2040 Land Use Map 4. Survey and Plans 5. Engineering Memo Dated 4/18/2022 City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9320 CHERRY LANE (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) (CITY FILE NO. 22-020) WHEREAS, Benjamin Ditzer requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an accessory building on property legal described as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit at a duly called public hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request, subject to the following findings and conditions; 1. A conditional use permit is approved to allow for the construction of a building as shown on the application and plans received by the City on March 10, 2022. 2. The applicant must comply with all conditions in the City Engineer’s Memo dated April 18, 2022. 3. A certificate of compliance to allow metal roof on this accessory building is also approved as part of the conditional use permit. a. The building materials must comply with Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(D)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. A conditional use permit is approved to allow for an accessory building with sidewalls of 12 ft. where 10 ft. is allowed, subject to the finding that applicable criteria as outlined in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance have been met. Specifically: a. The proposed use complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with the Existing Residential land use designation and maintains the defined density of the area of one living unit per two acres. b. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare. The conditional use for the new structure will allow for indoor storage of personal vehicles on the site. c. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Existing vegetation on the site will provide screening. Conditions identified in the resolution will ensure compliance with City engineering standards. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 2 of 4 d. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property uses permitted in the district. e. Municipal sewer and water are not available to the site and are not required to accommodate the proposed use. Well and septic systems are available on the property. f. The conditional use conforms to the applicable regulations of the Urban Reserve district. g. Conditions in this resolution will ensure the conditional use and site conform to the accessory structure ordinances. Staff found that the building conforms to all other performance standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance as required by Chapter 1070.020. 5. The property cannot be used for commercial purposes unless a separate approval is requested and granted by the City. 6. A building permit is required prior to beginning construction. 7. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of building permits: a. Revised plans must be submitted to confirm the dimensions of the eaves and overhang satisfy the following minimums: i. 12 in. eaves ii. 18 in. overhang b. The existing accessory structure on the site must be moved to meet the 20 ft. side setback. c. The placement of the garage must either be moved for grading to stay out of Wetland Basin 2, or plans must be submitted for a retaining wall. d. The applicant/landowner must record the approving resolution at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 8. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and the required improvements. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 3 of 4 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 4 of 4 Attachment A Lot 5, Block 3, Brandywine Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Ditze r Ga ra ge C UP(C ity File 22 -02 0) Da te : 4/2 8/20 22 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 2 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 12 119 23 430 01 3 OWN ER N AME: B J D itze r & A D itze r PAR CEL AD DRESS: 9 320 C he rr y La , C or co ran MN 55 34 0 PAR CEL AR EA: 3.6 8 ac re s, 160 ,193 sq ft A-T-B: Ab stra ct SAL E PR ICE: $61 7,85 5 SAL E D ATA: 0 7/20 20 SAL E C OD E: Exclu de d Fro m Ra tio Stud ies ASSESSED 20 21 , PAYABLE 202 2 PROPERT Y TYPE: R es iden t ial H OM ESTEAD : H ome ste ad M AR KET VAL UE: $59 7,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $8 ,1 45.6 6 ASSESSED 20 22 , PAYABLE 202 3 PRO PER TY TYPE: R eside ntial HO MESTEAD: Ho meste ad MARKET VALU E: $6 85 ,0 00 This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not s uitable for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 2 2 Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Ditzer Garage Conditional Use Permit Date: April 18, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Permit Application Ditzer Garage, Dated March 10, 2022, 2. Conditional Use Permit App, Dated March 10, 2022 Comments: General: 1. The grades in the southeast corner of the proposed garage are steeper than the 4:1 that is allowed by city standards. The grading must also stay outside of the designated wetland area shown on the plans so, the garage must be moved or a retaining wall must be proposed. Note, any wall 4’ or taller shall be designed by Professional Engineer. 2. If a wall is included, coordinate with the building permit department for any submittal requirements with garage plan. End of Comments Page 1 of 12 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6e. Planning Commission Meeting: May 5, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Zewde Subdivision “FIRA” (PID 28-119-23-23-0002; 28-119-23-21-0001) (City File No. 22-002) Action Required: Recommendation Review Deadline: August 2, 2022 1. Application Request The applicant, Anteneh Zewde, requests approval of the preliminary plat called “FIRA,” which creates three lots where there are currently two lots at 7320 Rolling Hills Road and 22105 County Road 50. The request also includes a variance to allow accessory structures on Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the proposed plat that exceed the accessory structure footprint and encroach into setbacks and wetland buffers. 2. Background The applicant owns 7320 Rolling Hills Road, a 9.86-acre parcel formally part of a 60- acre farmstead. As a part of the farmstead, several accessory agricultural buildings were constructed in addition to a second house used as living quarters for a farmhand. In 2018, the original parcel was subdivided into six lots as a part of Rush Creek Run. This property became Lot 4, Block 2 of Rush Creek Run. At the time of the preliminary approvals of the subdivision, Lot 4 was allowed to retain the two homes as well as all of the accessory structures as legal, non-conforming buildings. The reasoning behind this allowance was that this property, initially shown as a 10-acre parcel, would be allowed to surpass the 3,969 square foot accessory structure footprint with a conditional use permit and agricultural buildings exceeding 3,969 square feet can be approved through a certificate of compliance. However, these buildings predate the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 2004, and the non-conformity section of the City Code in 2018 provided the following: Any established building, structure, use or lot legally existing prior to March 23, 2004, and which is classified by this Zoning Ordinance as requiring a conditional use permit or interim use permit may be continued in like fashion and activity and shall be automatically considered as having received a conditional use permit or interim use permit approval. Therefore, as legal, nonconforming buildings, the approvals through a conditional use permit process were automatically assumed. The following statement was included in the preliminary approvals of Rush Creek Run: Page 2 of 12 The existing farmstead contains various structures and will be located on a 10- acre lot. A lot of this size would allow 3,969 sq. ft. of accessory structures, but the existing structures exceed this allowance. They become legal non-conforming structures that may be continued but shall not be enlarged or increased. MN state statutes do not protect expansion of nonconformities. Expansion is not a clearly defined term within the statutes, and cities are allowed some flexibility in how they define this term. Last year, the City updated the Zoning Ordinance to include the following definition: EXPANSION, ENLARGEMENT, OR INTENSIFICATION: Any increase in a dimension, size, area, volume, or height; any increase in the area of use; any placement of a structure or part thereof where none existed before; any addition of a site feature such as a deck, patio, fence, driveway, parking area or swimming pool; any improvement that would allow the land to be more intensely developed; any move of operations to a new location on the property; any increase in intensity of use based on a review of the original nature, function, or purpose of the nonconforming use, such as the hours of operation, traffic, parking, noise, exterior storage, signs, exterior lighting, types of operations, types of goods or services offered, odors, area of operation, number of employees, and other factors deemed relevant by the city. In consultation with the City Attorney, staff finds the intensity of the nonconformities on the site are increased with the proposed lot division. While the expansions of a nonconforming accessory structure can now be approved by an administrative approval under Section 1030.010, Subd. 3(D)(1), this is not allowed when the structural nonconformity is increased and when the expansion does not otherwise comply with the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The impacted buildings will be discussed in detail in the analysis of the preliminary plat and variance. At the time of the Rush Creek Run subdivision, the watershed did note three accessory structures on Lot 4 located within the floodplain and requested these buildings be removed. The City did not include this as a requirement of approval for the subdivision since the structures were considered legal nonconforming buildings. Currently, 7320 Rolling Hills Road does not have a development right to allow for further subdivision of the parcel as all rights assigned to the original parcel were exhausted with the platting of Rush Creek Run. However, the applicant worked with the property owner of the parcel immediately east, 22105 County Road 50, to re-assign a development right that will allow for the subdivision of 7320 Rolling Hills Rd. The preliminary plat for FIRA will result in two lots at the parcel currently known as 7320 Rolling Hills Rd. No changes are proposed on 22105 County Road 50, and 11 development rights will remain on this property after FIRA is finalized. No new development is anticipated to occur within the area of the plat since the process will simply result in one new lot line that will officially separate the two existing houses on Page 3 of 12 the premises. Because no new development is proposed on 22105 County Road 50, the City Council granted a request to waive the wetland delineation requirement on December 22, 2021. 3. Context Zoning and Land Use The two existing parcels are located in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district, and the Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Rural/Ag Residential. The delineated wetland on 7320 Rolling Hills Road is subject to the Wetland Overlay district regulations. The properties are not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Surrounding Properties All surrounding properties are located within the RR district, designated as Rural/Ag Residential, and outside of the MUSA. The present land uses on all surrounding properties include single-family residential and agricultural uses. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory map identifies shrub and wet prairie wetlands throughout 22105 County Road 50 in addition to the south bend of Rush Creek, which cuts through the southern portion of the parcel. The wet prairie wetland touches on the eastern portion of 7320 Rolling Hills Road. Hennepin County Natural Resources Map identifies probable and potential wetlands on both 7320 Rolling Hills Road and 22105 County Road 50. The wetland delineation completed on the Rolling Hills property in 2018 confirmed a medium quality wetland along the eastern portion of the site. 4. Analysis Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, the detailed comments are included in the attached Engineering Memo and the approval conditions require compliance with the memo. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving a preliminary plat is limited to whether the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance. If the proposed subdivision meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission may choose to discuss whether they agree with staff’s analysis that the preliminary plat is consistent with Ordinance standards. Should the Commission find that the preliminary plat does not comply with the City’s Ordinance standards, conditions for preliminary approval can be recommended by the Page 4 of 12 Commission. If the Commission recommends denial, findings of fact should be provided. The City has a higher discretion in approving or denying a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the variance standards are met. Conditions can be applied to mitigate the impact of granting the variance. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Preliminary Plat The applicant’s proposal will subdivide two parcels into three properties. All resulting lots comply with the RR district standards. A comparison of the RR district standards and the proposed lots is reflected in the table below: RR District Standard Lot 1 (22105 CR 50) Lot 2 Lot 3 Minimum lot area 2 acres 118.66 acres 5.12 acres 4.74 acres Minimum lot width 200 feet 386.06 feet 362.9 feet 352.65 feet Minimum lot depth 300 feet 2,587.45 feet 618.73 feet 582.3 feet Setbacks The minimum setbacks for the RR district are detailed in the table below: Minimum Principal Structure Setback Minimum Accessory Structure Setback Front (County Roads) 100 feet 100 feet Front (All Other Roads) 50 feet 50 feet Side 25 feet 20 feet Rear 25 feet 15 feet The existing homes on all three lots exceed the required front, side, and rear setbacks. There are several existing accessory buildings on Lot 1 including 5 sheds, 2 barns, and 1 corn crib. There are 2 sheds that don’t meet the front setback of 100’ from County Road 50. However, aerial views of the property on Hennepin County confirm these structures predate the Zoning Ordinance established in 2004. Since no physical changes are proposed to this lot, staff believes the location of these structures is protected as a legal nonconformity. The remaining structures meet the required setbacks. There are 5 accessory structures on Lot 2. All structures meet the required setbacks except for a playhouse that is within the side setback. Since the playhouse did conform to all setbacks prior to the proposed lot division, the structure’s placement within the newly established side setback is not protected as a legal nonconformity. The playhouse will either need to be moved to meet the 20’ side setback for accessory Page 5 of 12 structures or the encroachment will need to be granted through the variance request to be discussed later in this report. There are 7 accessory structures on Lot 3. All structures meet the required setbacks except for Shed F which is within the side setback of the southern lot line. The placement of Shed F within the side setback predates the Zoning Code. Since there are no proposed changes to the southern lot line, staff believes the placement of Shed F within the side setback is protected as a legal nonconformity. Accessory Structure Accumulated Footprint Section 1030.020, Subd. 4 limits accessory structures based on the total accumulated footprint of structures and the acreage of the site. Additionally, properties are allowed one structure not exceeding 200 square feet to be considered exempt from the footprint calculation. Lot 1 is allowed 3,969 square feet of accessory structure space by right. However, lots of at least 10 acres can request an increased footprint with a conditional use permit for non-agricultural accessory structures or by a certificate of compliance for agricultural buildings. Dimensions are not provided for the accessory structures on Lot 1. At the same time, the parcel is over 118 acres in size, actively farmed, and the lot lines are not proposed to change with this plat. Furthermore, since the buildings appear to pre-date the Zoning Ordinance, this lot is considered compliant regardless of the square footage for these structures with any variations from the Ordinance protected as a legal nonconformity. Proposed Lot 2 is allowed 2,469 square feet of accessory structure space. The proposed accumulated footprint is 6,030 square feet with an 83 square foot playhouse exempted from the calculation. This does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance without a variance and will be further addressed in the variance portion of the report. Proposed Lot 3 is allowed 2,344 square feet of accessory structure space. The proposed accumulated footprint is 16,841 square feet. There are no existing structures on Lot 3 under 200 square feet that qualify for the calculation exemption. The footprint does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance without a variance as will be further discussed later in this report. Streets/Access Access will remain the same for all existing homes. 22105 County Road 50 has direct access on to County Road 50. There are already two driveways on 7320 Rolling Hills Rd. The preliminary plat reflects that Lot 2 and Lot 3 will retain their existing driveways on to Rolling Hills Rd. Well and Septic All three lots have an existing septic system. Typically, septic systems must be approved by the Hennepin County Public Health Department as a condition of approval Page 6 of 12 for preliminary plats. That will not be necessary with this subdivision since each lot already has an existing septic system, with the systems on Lots 2 and 3 last reviewed in 2018. A well is shown on Lots 1 and 3. A well is not shown on Lot 2. Currently, the well on 7320 Rolling Hills Rd serves both houses. However, the lot division triggers a need for the MN Department of Health to review the new conditions and confirm approval of a shared well. If approved by the state, a formal shared well agreement will be required. If a shared well is determined to be unacceptable, the applicant will need to work with the state to establish a new well on Lot 2. Wetlands Since no development or lot line changes are proposed for Lot 1, the City Council granted a wetland waiver in December of 2021. A wetland delineation on proposed Lots 2 and 3 was previously completed as a part of the plat for Rush Creek Run in 2018. Wetland delineations are valid for 5 years, so a new wetland delineation is not required with this platting process. A medium quality wetland was identified along the eastern portion of Lots 2 and 3. The preliminary plat reflects a delineated wetland on the eastern portion of both Lots 2 and 3. There are three structures shown to be within the area that was to be established as a wetland buffer when Rush Creek Run was platted: Shed A and Shed C on Lot 2 and the Quonset on Lot 3. Structures are not allowed within wetland buffers and must be setback 15’ from established wetland buffers. Staff did not enforce this requirement when Rush Creek Run was platted since the structures were believed to be legal nonconforming buildings. The watershed did request for the buildings be removed from the floodplain when they reviewed the Rush Creek Run plat, but this was not enforced. Due to the increased intensity of nonconformities that will result from the lot split, staff (including the City Attorney) do not believe the same protections for legal nonconforming buildings applied at the time of the Rush Creek Run plat apply with the proposed FIRA plat. While keeping the structures in their current location can be a part of the variance request to be discussed later in this report, the Engineering Memo identifies options to bring these structures into compliance with the Wetland Overlay district standards in Section 1050.010, Subd. 5. The first option is to adjust the wetland buffer averages by decreasing the buffer around the buildings to the allowed minimum while increasing the buffer elsewhere to maintain the required average. However, even if the buffer is reduced to the minimum 20’ required for medium quality wetlands, there is still a 15’ setback from the buffer. Planning staff does not believe this will be a viable option for the applicant to satisfy the district requirements without a variance. The second option identified by Engineering is to relocate the buildings outside of the wetland buffer. This will be discussed further in the variance section of this report. Park Dedication Page 7 of 12 Section 955.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance states, “Park Dedication is only due in cases where additional new parcels are created.” The preliminary plat for FIRA proposes to create one additional parcel. Park dedication will be required. For residential developments, the cash-in-lieu of land fees are calculated on the per capita share of park system costs, which is currently $4,628 per single family unit in the 2022 Fee Schedule. The applicant will be required to pay cash in lieu of land dedication based on the adopted fee schedule at the time of final plat recording. Landscaping The applicants’ plan indicates that no significant trees will be removed as no further development is anticipated. A landscape plan is not required since this plat involves less than 4 residential units. Residential uses shall provide a minimum of one overstory tree per dwelling unit. No additional landscaping is required to meet this requirement. Drainage and Utility Easements Proposed Lot 1 shows new drainage and utility (D&U) easements of 15’ along County Road 50 and 10’ along the remaining interior property lines. There are existing D&U easements on 7320 Rolling Hills Rd that completely cover the wetland and wetland buffers in addition to an established 15’ easement along Rolling Hills Rd and a 10’ D&U easement along the interior lot lines to the north and south. These easements will remain, and Lot 2 and Lot 3 will each have a new 10’ D&U easement along the shared lot line. Variance The applicant requests a variance to allow for the existing structures on 7320 Rolling Hills Rd to remain as they are after the lot division in both size and location. This is essentially 5 variance requests, which would allow: 1. An accessory structure footprint on Lot 2 of 6,030 square feet where 2,469 square feet is allowed. 2. An accessory structure footprint on Lot 3 of 16,841 square feet where 2,344 square feet is allowed. a. The applicant expressed a willingness to remove Shed E, Shed H, and the Quonset on Lot 3 if deemed necessary by the City. This would reduce the footprint to 9,604 square feet. 3. An accessory structure encroachment within the wetland setback and buffer for Shed A and Shed C on Lot 2. 4. An accessory structure encroachment of the 20’ side setback for the Playhouse on Lot 2. 5. An accessory structure encroachment within the wetland setback and buffer for the Quonset on Lot 3. Page 8 of 12 a. The applicant has expressed a willingness to remove the Quonset if deemed necessary by the City which would make this portion of the variance request irrelevant. In order to approve the variances, the applicant must provide proof to the City that the following variance criteria have been met: 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The League of MN Cities defines a three-factor test for the term “practical difficulties”: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise allowed by the zoning ordinance. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B) of the Zoning Ordinance specifically calls out the last two factors as their own standards and will be discussed individually. Therefore, this first standard can focus on evaluating the “reasonableness” of the request. The variances will allow the applicant to subdivide a parcel currently functioning as two properties while retaining the existing accessory structures that would otherwise remain as legal nonconforming structures if not for the desire to delineate the lot boundary. There is an intention by the current occupants to continue utilizing the accessory structures, primarily for hobby farming purposes. Removing the buildings to comply with the limited footprints permitted in City Code will inhibit the ability for the current occupants of the property to continue their respective hobby farms as-is. The Planning Commission could find that the encroachment into setbacks and the existing footprint is reasonable to support the existing hobby farms and utilization of the site. It can be argued that splitting the lot is a technicality considering there are no physical changes proposed to the site, and enforcement of the setbacks and footprint limit for accessory structures creates an unnecessary burden for the property owner when applied to established and functional buildings. The applicant indicated that Shed B on proposed Lot 2 is used for garden tool storage while Sheds A and C is used for feed storage, livestock, and farm equipment. The applicant provided that Shed D on proposed Lot 3 is used as a family gathering and party room (which will need to be reviewed by the Building Official for compliance with the MN State Building Code if the building is retained); Shed F is used as a garage and workshop; and the remaining sheds and Quonset are either used or planned for equipment storage, livestock, and feed storage. The garages on both lots will be used as intended. On the other hand, the Planning Commission could find that the request is based on primarily financial considerations as the structures can be removed and/or relocated to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. It could be argued that it is unreasonable for the smaller lots to continue with the same amount of accessory structure space established Page 9 of 12 when the property was originally a 60-acre farmstead. While both properties are permitted to keep farm animals, the amount of animals (i.e., animal units) will be more limited than what was allowed when the structures were created. Per Chapter 81.11 of the City Code, proposed Lot 2 will be permitted 4 animal units, while proposed Lot 3 will be permitted 3 animal units. Every other parcel of similar size within Corcoran is allowed to keep the same amount of animals as well as equipment to maintain their property, but must do so within the accessory structure square footage allotted per the City Code. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The applicant asks that the Planning Commission consider the uniqueness of the history of the parcel in its long-standing use as a farmstead that included two homes (one for the property owner and one for a farmhand) and structures previously deemed allowable as legal nonconforming buildings. The applicant points out that the property is unique in that it already functions as two separate lots with a separate mailing address for each home and separate utilities. As the current landowner, he did not construct the accessory structures. He was also not involved in the prior subdivision for Rush Creek Run. The Planning Commission could find these arguments sufficient. However, the Planning Commission could argue that there are no physical characteristics of the site that can serve as a reason that the structures must remain in totality. Additionally, in discussions with the City Attorney, the MN state statute is unclear on whether “landowner” includes all predecessors or just the current landowner. The City Code does not explicitly define the use of this term in this context either (see Section 1070.040, Subd. 2 (B)). The Commission could apply a strict interpretation of “landowner” which includes all previous landowners. Under this interpretation, the situation is a making of the previous landowners who constructed the second home and accessory structures and made a conscious choice to not subdivide the two homes at the time Rush Creek Run was platted. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variance will not alter the essential character of the locality as no changes are proposed to the existing structures. Allowing the accessory buildings to remain for hobby farming keeps with the rural character of Corcoran 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The applicant points to Section 1010.020 which outlines the “Purpose and Intent” of the Zoning Ordinance. He argues that retaining the structures in their current placement and size specifically accomplishes #9: Page 10 of 12 Conserving the natural, scenic beauty, rural character, and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside. On the other hand, it could be argued that continued placement of the structures within the wetland buffer and wetland setback is not in harmony with #8: Conserving the natural resources and maintaining a high standard of environmental quality. Additionally, the general reasoning behind a maximum footprint for accessory structures is to limit impervious surface. The Planning Commission could find that allowing the accumulated footprint to exceed the permitted amount by thousands of square feet is not in the general harmony of the purpose and intent for this specific standard. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant explains that retaining the buildings will allow for continued hobby farming of the site which is in accordance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan’s guiding principal to provide “protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcoran’s quality of life.” Additionally, the Rural/Ag Residential land use designation applies to this property. It is intended for this area to remain rural, which includes hobby farms. The Planning Commission could agree that the variance is in harmony with the City’s goal to maintain rural character as well as the land use designation envisioned for the property. The Planning Commission could also find that the encroachments within setbacks and the wetland buffer in addition to exceeding the allowable footprint for accessory structures do not protect natural resources or open spaces. 6. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. If the Planning Commission is compelled by the applicant’s narrative, then the Commission can negotiate conditions of approval that are in direct relation to the identified impacts of the request. Staff recommends the following compromise in this instance: a. Removal of Shed E, Shed H, and the Quonset on Lot 3 as offered by the applicant. This will reduce the footprint to 9,604 square feet and removes the need for a variance to the wetland buffer and setback on Lot 3. b. Removal of Shed C on Lot 2. The removal of this shed would bring the accessory structure footprint for Lot 2 into compliance at 2,177 square feet. a. If the Planning Commission chooses to grant the size variance to allow Shed C, staff recommends that it be relocated outside of the wetland buffer and setback. c. Relocate Shed A on Lot 2 outside of the wetland buffer and wetland setback. d. Relocate the Playhouse on Lot 2 to comply with the 20’ side setback. Page 11 of 12 e. Require an inspection by the City’s Building Official of Shed D, previously an agricultural building, to ensure compliance with the MN State Building Code as a gathering space. f. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend that some, or all, of the structures remain in the wetland buffer and setback, staff recommends increasing the buffer elsewhere on the site as suggested in the Engineering Memo. Summary Staff finds that the proposed preliminary plat is generally consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance. However, several variances will be required for the existing accessory structures to remain as-is on the property. If the variances are not granted as requested, several buildings will need to be removed and/or moved as a condition of approval for the preliminary plat. If the Planning Commission finds the applicant has satisfied the burden of proof for all or some of the requested variances, staff recommends several conditions to mitigate the impact of permanently allowing excessive footprints and/or setback encroachments on the proposed parcels. The only other point of concern is the shared well which is addressed as a condition of approval in the draft resolution. 5. Recommendation Staff finds that under a strict interpretation of the variance standards, the practical difficulties standards are not met. The buildings can be removed and/or relocated in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance standards that would be applied to similarly sized lots in the City. However, staff believes there may be some merit to the argument that the property already functions as two parcels. Therefore, it may be unreasonable to require the removal of all of the existing accessory structures if they would otherwise be allowed to stay in perpetuity if the two homes remain on a single parcel. With this in mind, staff prepared two draft resolutions for the Planning Commission to consider. Draft Resolution 2022-A applies a strict interpretation of the variance standards, and denies the variances requested while approving the preliminary plat with conditions. Draft Resolution 2022-B approves the compromise approach as outlined by staff approving the size variance for a footprint of 9,604 square feet on Lot 3 and approving the preliminary plat with conditions of approval. The Planning Commission must determine if the variance standards have been met. - If the Planning Commission finds the variances standards have not been met, they should recommend Resolution 2022-A denying the variance. Page 12 of 12 - If the Commission finds that the variance standards could be met for some or all of the variances requested, they should recommend Resolution 2022-B. o After selecting 2022-B, the Commission can recommend potential changes to the conditions outlined and/or granting the applicant some or all of the additional variances requested. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2022-A Approving the Preliminary Plat and Denying the Variances 2. Resolution 2022-B Approving the Preliminary Plat and Approving a Variance 3. Site Location Map 4. 2040 Land Use Map 5. Natural Resources Inventory Map 6. Hennepin County Natural Resources Map 7. Applicant’s Narrative dated 04/12/2022 8. City Engineer’s Memo dated 04/22/2022 9. Preliminary Plat and Survey dated 04/04/2022 City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-A Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “FIRA” ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7320 ROLLING HILLS ROAD AND 22105 COUNTY ROAD 50 (PID 28-119-23- 23-0002; 28-119-23-21-0001) (CITY FILE NO. 22-002) WHEREAS, Anteneh Zewde (“the applicant”) requested approval of a preliminary plat to allow for a three lot subdivision on property described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the applicant also requested approval of variances from the accessory structure size and location requirements, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the submitted preliminary plat and variances at a duly called Public Hearing, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a preliminary plat subject to the following findings and conditions; 1. A preliminary plat is approved, in accordance with the plans received by the City on April 4, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The requested variances from the accessory structure size and location requirements is denied based on the following findings: a. That there are no practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards. The landowner could remove or relocate the existing accessory structures in order to comply with the Ordinance. It is unreasonable for newly established smaller lots to maintain the same accessory structure space established for a farmstead of 60-acres. Other properties of similar size in the Rural Residential district are allowed to keep livestock and equipment to maintain their land and are required to do so within the square footage allotted by the Ordinance. It appears that the request for the variance is primarily economic based on the landowner’s desire to avoid demolition and relocation costs; however, both the MN Statute §462.357 and the Ordinance state that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. b. The conditions upon which the variance is requested are not unique to the parcel and were created by the previous landowners. There is no physical reason why the structures cannot be removed or relocated. The structures were created by previous landowners, and the current parcel with two homes was a conscious decision made by the previous landowner when the 60-acre farmstead was subdivided. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The structures are rural in nature. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-A Page 2 of 4 d. The variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The limited footprint for accessory structures is based on the size of the parcel and is meant to control impervious surface coverage on a lot. The wetland buffer and setback requirements are established to maintain water quality and the health of wetlands. Bypassing these standards fails to uphold the Zoning Ordinance’s general purpose to conserve natural resources and maintain a high standard of environmental quality. Lot setbacks for accessory structures are meant to protect visual appeal of the area. The proposed encroachment into a required side setback is not in garmmony with the Zoning Ordinance’s general purpose to conserve the natural, scenic beauty, rural character, and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside. e. The variance to allow structures to encroach within setbacks and the wetland buffer in addition to exceeding the allowable footprint for accessory structures is not consistent with the guiding principal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to provide protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcroan's quality of life. 3. There are 11 development rights remaining on Lot 1, Block 1 after the land is platted. 4. The applicant shall comply with comments in the City Engineer’s memo dated April 22, 2022. 5. As referenced on the preliminary plat, the following structures must be removed: a. Shed C on Lot 2. b. Shed D, Shed E, Shed G, and the Quonset on Lot 3. c. The applicant will need to decide whether to keep Shed F or Shed H on Lot 3. 6. As referenced on the preliminary plat, Shed A must be relocated to satisfy the wetland buffer strips and wetland setbacks outlined in Section 1050.010, Subd. 5(C). 7. As referenced on the preliminary plat, the Playhouse on Lot 2 must be relocated to meet accessory structure location and setback requirements in Section 1030.020, Subd. 3. 8. The approval is subject to the review and approval of the shared well between Lot 2 and Lot 3 by the Minnesota Department of Health. If the shared well is not approved, an approved location for a well on Lot 2 is required. 9. Prior to release of the final plat for recording, the applicant must: a. Provide proof of approval of the shared well by the MN Department of Health. i. If approved, a shared well agreement must be provided for review and approval by the City Attorney. ii. If not approved, the preliminary plat must be revised to reflect an approved well location on Lot 2. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-A Page 3 of 4 b. Provide a contract for work to be completed on the demolition and relocation of the accessory structures identified in paragraphs 5-7 of this resolution. c. Park dedication shall be due for the one new lot and shall be cash-in-lieu of land, subject to the park dedication fees adopted at the time of the final plat is released for filing. 10. Prior to release of escrow: a. The identified accessory structures in paragraphs 5-7 of this resolution must be removed or relocated. A $5,000 escrow balance must be maintained until proof of compliance is received. b. Record the approving resolutions, mylar and all related documents at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 11. Approval of the preliminary plat shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of a final plat. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-A Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A The East Three Fourths of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of County Road Number 50. AND Lot 4, Block 2, RUSH CREEK RUN, Hennpin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-B Page 1 of 5 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “FIRA” ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7320 ROLLING HILLS ROAD AND 22105 COUNTY ROAD 50 (PID 28-119-23- 23-0002; 28-119-23-21-0001) (CITY FILE NO. 22-002) WHEREAS, Anteneh Zewde (“the applicant”) requested approval of a preliminary pat to allow for a three lot subdivision on property described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the applicant also requested approval of variances from the accessory structure size and location requirements, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the submitted preliminary plat and variances at a duly called Public Hearing, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a preliminary plat subject to the following findings and conditions; 1. A preliminary plat is approved, in accordance with the plans received by the City on April 4, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The requested variances from the accessory structure and wetland setback requirements are denied based on the following findings: a. That there are no practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards. The landowner could relocate the existing accessory structures in order to comply with the Ordinance. It appears that the request for the variance is primarily economic based on the landowner’s desire to avoid relocation costs; however, both the MN Statute §462.357 and the Ordinance state that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. b. The conditions upon which the variance is requested are not unique to the parcel and are caused by the landowner. There is no physical reason why the structures cannot be relocated to meet the setback requirements. The proposed encroachment of the side setback for the Playhouse on Lot 2 is a result of the proposed lot line requested by the landowner. c. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The structures are rural in nature. d. The variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The wetland buffer and setback are established to maintain water quality and the health of wetlands. Bypassing these requirements fails to uphold the Zoning Ordinance’s general purpose to conserve natural resources and City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-B Page 2 of 5 maintain a high standard of environmental quality. Lot setbacks for accessory structures are meant to protect visual appeal of the area. Bypassing this requirement is not in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance’s general purpose to conserve the natural, scenic beauty, rural character, and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside. e. The variance to allow structures to encroach within setbacks and the wetland buffer is not consistent with the guiding principal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to provide protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcroan's quality of life. 3. A variance allowing an accumulated footprint of accessory structures up to 9,604 square feet is approved on Lot 3 based on the following findings: a. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant intends to continue utilizing the existing structures to support hobby farming, which is a reasonable use. Removing all of the otherwise functional buildings to comply with the limited footprint permitted in City Code will inhibit the landowner’s ability to maintain the existing hobby farming operations on the site. b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The property is unique in that a second house was previously built as a part of the original 60-acre farmstead. The two homes were retained on a single parcel platted as a part of Rush Creek Run. However, the property truly functions as two parcels with two separate households, separate driveways, separate mailing addresses, and most of the utilities separated besides a shared well. These conditions were not created by the current landowner as these structures and lot lines were established by a previous landowner. c. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are no physical changes proposed to the structures. The use of the structures for primarily hobby farming is consistent with the rural character of the locality. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance to conserve the rural character and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside. e. The variance is consistent with one of the guiding principals in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to protect the rural character that defines Corcoran’s quality of life. The variance is in harmony with the Rural/Ag Residential land use designation intended to allow uses such as hobby farms. f. The City identifies the following conditions of approval to address the impact of the variance: i. Removal of Shed E and Shed H on Lot 3. This will reduce the degree of nonconformity to a reasonable amount of accessory structure space to be permanently protected by the variance. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-B Page 3 of 5 ii. Removal of the Quonset on Lot 3. This reduces the degree of nonconformity in the size of the accessory structure footprint granted by the variance. Additionally, removal of the Quonset from the wetland buffer will reduce negative impacts to the wetland and water quality. iii. Removal of Shed C on Lot 2. This will bring the lot into compliance for size requirements while reducing negative impacts to the wetland and water quality. iv. Relocation of Shed A outside of the wetland buffer and setback. This will reduce negative impacts to the wetland and water quality. v. An inspection by the City’s Building Official will be required for Shed D on Lot 3 to address compliance concerns about its use as a gathering space when it was previously considered an agricultural building. 4. There are 11 development rights remaining on Lot 1, Block 1 after the land is platted. 5. The applicant shall comply with comments in the City Engineer’s memo dated April 22, 2022. 6. As referenced on the preliminary plat, the Playhouse on Lot 2 must be relocated to meet accessory structure location and setback requirements in Section 1030.020, Subd. 3. 7. The approval is subject to the review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Health of the shared well between Lot 2 and Lot 3. If the shared well is not approved, an approved location for a well on Lot 2 is required. 8. Prior to release of the final plat for recording, the applicant must: a. Provide proof of approval of the shared well by the MN Department of Health. i. If approved, a shared well agreement must be provided for review and approval by the City Attorney. ii. If not approved, the preliminary plat must be revised to reflect an approved well location on Lot 2. b. Provide a contract for work to be completed on the demolition and relocation of the accessory structures identified in paragraphs 3f and 6 of this resolution. c. Park dedication shall be due for the one new lot and shall be cash-in-lieu of land, subject to the park dedication fees adopted at the time of the final plat is released for filing. d. Confirmation from the City’s Building Official that Shed D on Lot 3 is compliant with MN State Buidling Code for the applicant’s intended use. 9. Prior to release of escrow: a. The identified accessory structures in paragraphs 3f and 6 of this resolution must be removed or relocated. A $5,000 escrow balance must be maintained until proof of compliance is received. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-B Page 4 of 5 b. The approving resolutions, mylar and all related documents must be recorded at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 10. Approval of the preliminary plat shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of a final plat. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-B Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT A The East Three Fourths of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of County Road Number 50. AND Lot 4, Block 2, RUSH CREEK RUN, Hennpin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. He nn epin Co u n ty L oc ate & N o tify Map Zew de S u bdi vis ion Lo cation M ap7320 R o ll ing Hi ll s R oa d22105 C ounty R oa d 5 0 0 410 820205 Feet Da te : 4/2 9/20 22 Buffer Size:Map Co mm e nts : Th is d ata (i) is furn ish ed 'AS IS' with no represen ta tion as tocompleteness or accuracy; (ii) is fu rn ish ed with n o warra nty of anykind; an d (iii) is n ot suitable for le ga l, eng ineerin g or surve yingpurposes. Hennepin County shall not b e liab le for a ny da ma ge , in ju ryor loss resu lting from this dat a. Fo r mo re inf ormation , co nta ct Hen ne pin Co un ty GI S Off ice300 6th S tree t So uth , Minn ea polis, MN 5 5487 / gis.in fo@h en ne pin.us Hennepin County N atural Resources Map Date: 4/26/2022 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 1 inch = 200 feet Legend Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI FEMA Floodplains - 100 Year A AE FLOODPLAIN AH AO AE FLOODWAY PID: 2811923230002Address: 7320 Rolling H ills Rd, Corcoran 55340 Owner: Anteneh Zewde Acres: 9.86 ¯ Hennepin County N atural Resources Map Date: 4/26/2022 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 1 inch = 800 feet Legend Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI FEMA Floodplains - 100 Year A AE FLOODPLAIN AH AO AE FLOODWAY PID: 2811923210001Address: 22105 Co Rd No 50, Corcoran 55340 Owner: Gene H Kissner Etal Acres: 118.6 ¯ Date 4/12/2022 Variance Narrative This variance application seeks to divide 7320 rolling hills into two Rural/Ag residential properties which will be in line with the 2040 future land use plan. This property has accessory structures which pre-date the zoning ordinance and would otherwise be protected as legal non-conforming structures if not for the intent to subdivide the parcel. This Application does not include any expansion of structures. Rather mere subdivision of property which already has two separate addresses and utilities, namely 7320 and 7310 rolling hills. The variance is required as there are buildings with charter and function that I would like to keep with the farm which is in accordance with the 2040 plan which at the core is the Protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcoran’s quality of life. It is also in harmony with the city ordinance Adopted on September 22, 2011. “Conserving the natural, scenic beauty, rural character, and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside” All existing trees will be preserved and no tree is on the lot line. As can be seen on the plat parcel 2 will have 5.12 acres and 3 sheds Shade A: Feed storage Shade B: Is a small caboose used for garden tool storage Shade C: livestock and farm equipment Parcel 3 will have 4.74 acres and 6 sheds Shade D: Family gathering and party room Shade E: Equipment storage. Shade F: workshop and garage Shade G: Is a barn. Plan for life stock. Shade H: Feed storage Quonset: Feed storage I am open to removing shade E, Shade H, and the Quonset if Necessary. Sincerely Anteneh Zewde Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, PE, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Zewde Preliminary Plat Date: 4/22/2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Preliminary Plat of FIRA – for Tony Zewde by Otto Associates dated 3/30/2022 2. Certificate of Survey – for Tony Zewde by Otto Associates dated 10/7/2021 3. FIRA – Final Plat by Otto Associates, no date Comments: General: 1. The City process requires the applicant to submit a written response to this memorandum. Submit the written response with revised plans. 2. In addition to engineering related comments per these plans, the proposed plans are subject to additional planning, zoning, land-use, and other applicable codes of the City. 3. The applicant is splitting the proposed lot and no additional improvements are shown on the preliminary plat documents. 4. The plat shows the 100-year floodplain limits. The preliminary plat figure should be updated to show the FEMA floodway through this area as well. 5. It appears that some existing buildings are shown within the floodplain but do not appear to be constructed within the regulatory floodway. 6. Wetland delineations were performed for the site. As part of the preliminary plat process, wetland buffers are required for the site, and portions of the existing buildings are shown within the proposed wetland buffers. The wetland buffers should be adjusted to be in compliance with City code requirements or the existing buildings may need to be adjusted or moved to be in compliance. End of Comments Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 1 MEMORANDUM 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net DATE April 20, 2022 TO Jessica Beise, Natalie Davis McKeown CC City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Trails Commission FROM Kendra Lindahl, City Planner RE Active Corcoran Planning Applications Projects/Comments in blue italics are new The following is a summary of project status for current, active projects: 1.Pioneer Trail Industrial Park (formerly Highway 55 Business Park) (PID 32-119-23-34-0013, 32- 119-23-34-0007, 32-119-23-43-0005 and 32-119-23-43-0006) (city file no. 21-047). The City Council reviewed a concept plan on November 22, 2021 and indicated support. Staff has been preparing an EAW for the site. The City Council reviewed and provided comment on a second concept on February 24th. The City Council ordered distribution of the draft EAW for review and comment at the March 24th Council meeting. 2.NE District Plan and Design Guidelines (City file 21-050). The City received a planning grant from Hennepin County. Staff held a second open house on March 15th for public information. The draft was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their April 7th meeting. The public hearing is scheduled for May 5th at the Planning Commission for City Council action on May 26th. The moratorium is set to expire on June 10, 2022. 3.Wright Hennepin Electric Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Administrative Permit at 7400 CR 116 (PID 25-119-23-23-0001) (city file 22-004). The applicant has submitted an application for a new electric substation. The application is scheduled for the February 17th Parks and Trails Commission, a public hearing at the March 3rd Planning Commission and the City reviewed on March 24th and sent it back to the Planning Commission to discuss screening. The item was brought back to the April 14th City Council meeting and tabled to April 28th. 4.PUD Sketch Plan for “Corcoran Farms Business Park” at 20130 Larkin Road (PID 26-119-23-13- 0006) (city file no. 22-006). The applicant has submitted a sketch plan for five industrial buildings totally 726,396 sq. ft. They are requesting a PUD to allow reduced setbacks. The City Council reviewed and provided comment on February 24th. Staff is drafting the EAW and the City Council is expected to order distribution of the draft EAW for review and comment at the May 26th Council meeting. 5.Final Plat and PUD Final Plan for “Bellwether 8th Addition” (PID 12-119-23-21-0001) (city file no. 22-007). Pulte has requested approval of 95 lots in the southwest corner of the project. This phase will also include dedication of public park. The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and City Council action is expected on April 28th. 6.Final Plat and PUD Final Plan for “Amberly 2nd Addition” (PID 01-119-23-34-0002) (city file no. 22-008). Pulte has requested approval of 51 lots in the northwest corner to complete the Amberly subdivision. The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and City Council action is expected on April 28th. Agenda Item 7a. MEMORANDUM 2 7.Site Plan, Interim Use Permit and Variance for “Westside Wholesale Tire” at 19950 75th Ave (PID 26-119-23-14-0018) (city file no. 22-011). Westside Tire has submitted the application for development of the lot to resolve a code compliance issue. The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and City Council action is expected on April 28th. 8.PUD Final Plan and Final Plat for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition (city file no. 22-012). The applicant has submitted an application for 106 units (29 single family detached homes, 16 twin homes, 24 villa homes and 27 townhomes). The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and City Council action is expected on April 28th. 9.Preliminary Plat and Variance for “Kariniemi Meadows” at 23185 CR 10 (PID 18-119-23-11- 0002) (city file no. 22-013). The applicant has submitted an application for approval of a 10 lot residential subdivision. The item was reviewed at the March 17th Parks and Trails Commission and is scheduled for a public hearing at the May 5th Planning Commission and May 26th City Council action. 10.Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for Pulte for “Walcott Glenn” (PIDs 36-119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36- 119-23-44-0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033 and 36-119-23-44- 0030) (City file no. 22-015). The plans include 44 single family homes, 85 townhomes and a public park. The item is tentatively scheduled for Parks and Trails Commission review on April 21st, a public hearing at the May 5th Planning Commission and action at the May 26th City Council meeting. 11.Final Plat for “Garages Too” (PID’s 35-119-23-44-0004 and 35-119-23-41-0002) (city file no. 22- 016). The final plat for the mini-storage/self-storage facility is currently incomplete, but will be scheduled for City Council review when the missing items are received. 12.Final Plat and PUD Final Plan for “Bellwether 9th Addition” (PID 01-119-23-34-0002) (city file no. 22-017). The final plat is for 37 lots. The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and City Council action is expected on April 28th. 13.Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Ditzer Garage at 9320 Cherry Lane (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) (city file 22-020). The application is scheduled for a public hearing at the May 5th Planning Commission and May 26th City Council action. 14.Wawra Ag Preserve at 21401 Larkin Road (city file 22-021). The application is c scheduled for City Council action in April 28th. 15.PUD ordinance amendment (city file 22-022). This is a city-initiated ordinance to amend the final PUD development plan process. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 7th Planning Commission meeting and City Council action is expected on April 28th. 16.Final Plat for “Town Center Addition” at 8200 CR 116 for St. Therese Communities (city file 22-023). St. Therese Communities has applied for approval of the final plat to create two lots (one for city hall and one for St. Therese) and an outlot for City’s lineal park. This item is scheduled for City Council approval on April 28th. 17.Final Plat and Vacation for “Bechtold Farms at Rush Creek” on the property located at 10165 Bechtold Road (PIDs 05-119-23-44-0001 and 08-119-23-11-0007) (city file 22-024). This item is scheduled for Council action on May 12th. 18.PUD Amendment for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition (city file no. 22-025). The applicant has submitted the application for a PUD amendment for the side yard setback for twinhomes. This item is being reviewed for completeness and then will be scheduled for Council action. 19.Interim Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 6516 Valley View Road (city file 22-026). This item is being reviewed for completeness and then will be scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council action. MEMORANDUM 3 20. Site Plan and Interim Use Permit for ProTech Auto at 7591 Commerce St. (PID: 2611923110020) (city file 22-027). This item is being reviewed for completeness and then will be scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council action. 21. Final Plat and PUD Final Plan for “Tavera 4th Addition” (city file no. 22-028). The final plat is for 80 single family homes and 42 twinhomes located north of the main entrance at Horseshoe Trail. This item is being reviewed for completeness and then will be scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council action. The following projects were recently acted upon and will be closed out: 1. Final Plat and Final PUD Development Plan for “Cook Lake Highlands” at 19220 CR 10 (PID 25- 119-23-14-0002) (City file 21-057). The item was reviewed at the March 3rd Planning Commission and the City Council approved at the March 24th meeting. 2. City wide Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Ground Mounted Solar (City file 22-005). On behalf of Barry Swanson and Linda Lohn-Swanson, Cedar Creek Energy has submitted a request for an amendment to allow larger footprint ground mounted solar on residential parcels. This item was reviewed at the March 3rd Planning Commission and approved at the March 24th City Council meeting. Agenda Item: 7b. Page 1 of 2 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763-420-2288 email: general@corcoranmn.gov / website: www.corcoranmn.gov MEMO Meeting Date: To: From: Re: April 28, 2022 Planning Commission Jessica Beise, City Administrator City Council Report April 14, 2022, Council Work Session • Code Enforcement Review and Priorities for 2022 o Discussed and directed a continued complaint-based code enforcement program with some targeted areas of limited proactive enforcement. April 14, 2022, Council Meeting • Department Annual Report o Heard from the City’s three fire departments. • Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Administrative Permit for “Corcoran II Substation” at Larkin Road and County Road 116 (City File – 22-004) o Tabled the approvals for the project. • Water Supply Planning – Financial Analysis o Reviewed the financial analysis for the water supply system. • Municipal Well #1 - Award Bid o Awarded the bid. • Park Trail Feasibility Study o Received the study and no further action was taken. • Solicitors, Peddlers, Transient Merchant Ordinance o Provided feedback on a draft ordinance. • Permit Technician Appointment o Appointed Shawna Zuther to the Permit Technician position. • Public Works Maintenance Worker Appointment o Authorized the City Administrator and Mayor to finalize an offer with a preferred candidate. Page 2 of 2 • City Administrator Appointment o Appointed Jessica Beise to the City Administrator position. • Police Office, Radio Audio Solution o Approved a radio project for extending radio coverage in the police department. • Hackamore Road Improvements – CR 47 Cost Share Agreement & Funding Request o Approved a cost share agreement for a signal at County Road 47/Hackamore and County Road 101 and funding request for exploring cost sharing at Hackamore and County Road 116 . • City Logo Update o Directed staff to review options to update the city logo. • Labor Negotiations Team o Appointed Mayor McKee and Councilor Bottema to a sub-committee. April 28, 2022 Council Meeting • WH Electric Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Administrative Permit for “Corcoran II Substation at Larkin Road County Road 116 o Approved the preliminary plat, site plan, and administrative permit with a landscape amendment. • Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition Final Plat and Development Agreement and Final PUD o Approved Final Plat and Development Agreement and Final PUD. • “Town Center Addition” Final Plat for St. Therese Communities on the property located at 8200 County Road 116 o Approved Final Plat. • Sale of General Obligation Bonds – Series 2022A o Awarded Bonds. • Administration Department Staffing Plan o Discussed Admin Department re-organization plan and requested job description review at the May 12, 2022, Council meeting. • Bikes for Kids o Approved Bikes4Kids Program at Corcoran Clean Up Day. • Staff Reports o Received Active Corcoran Applications. o Received Financial Performance Report. • 2022 City Council Schedule o Reviewed upcoming Council work sessions and meetings.