Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-02 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 June 2, 2022 - 7:00 pm 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval 4.Open Forum 5. Minutes a. Minutes – May 5, 2022* 6.New Business - Public Comment Opportunity a.Ditzer variance request for an accessory structure within the side yard setback (city file 22-020) i.Staff Report ii.Commission Discussion & Recommendation b.Public Hearing. Sease Interim Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (city file no. 22-026) i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation 7. Reports/Information a.Planning Project Update* b.City Council Report* – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp c.Other Business i.Planning Packet Timeline 8.Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 06/09/22 06/23/22 07/14/22 07/21/22 08/11/22 08/25/22 Lanterman Lanterman Shoulak Van Den Einde Brummond Lanterman 9. Adjournment 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: 850 4695 7270 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment sections in the meeting. Video Link and Instructions: https://us02web.zoom.us/ j/85046957270 Or visit http://www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 850 4695 7270 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 CITY OF CORCORAN Page 1 of 6 Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 2022 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on May 5, 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, and Van Den Einde. Absent: Commissioner Shoulak. Also present: City Planner Davis McKeown, City Planner Shay, and Council Liaison Vehrenkamp. 1.Call to Order / Roll Call Commissioner Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Brummond to approve the May 5, 2022 agenda. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). 4.Open Forum Commissioner Lanterman spoke about the length of previous meetings and proposed forgoing staff reports to keep the meetings shorter. He requested more turnaround time between receiving the packet and the meeting. 5.Minutes a.Minutes – April 7, 2022 Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Brummond to approve the April 7, 2022 minutes. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). 6.New Business - Public Comment Opportunity a.Public Hearing. Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (city file 21-050) i.Staff Report – Staff report presented by Kevin Shay ii.Public Hearing – Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Van Den Einde to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). Item 5a. Page 2 of 6 iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Discussion included the Hennepin County grant contract; the complexities of the city code; spelling errors; intent to preserve current plant life; the existing design guidelines from 2004; clarification of requirements versus recommendations; the practicality of installing and maintaining the proposed landscape requirements; the necessity of electric charging stations; greenspaces and preserving a rural- character for the city; setback requirements for the district; the City’s vision statement; minimizing the impact development has on current residents including traffic; not allowing flexibility from the 100’ county road setback; removing chain restaurants and fast foods restaurants as an allowable use; signage in the district; upgrades along County Road 30; and preventing street connections with existing neighborhoods. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde to recommend approval of the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines amendment to Title X with the addition of stringent setbacks with no exceptions on county roads, exclusion of fast-food chains, and no through-streets in existing residential neighborhoods. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, and Van Den Einde. Voting Nay: Lanterman (Motion carried 3:1) b. Public Hearing. Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Application for “Walcott Glen” (city file no. 22-015) i. Staff Report – Staff Report presented by Kevin Shay ii. Public Hearing – • Dean Varenkamp, 9310 Bechtold Road, spoke about the feedback of residents of the Ravinia development, and the screening provided by the existing trees to be preserved. • Paul Heuer, the applicant representative, gave a presentation. • Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, spoke about the changes in the city, and his experience living close to construction projects, such as Ravinia. He spoke about traffic increases along Hackamore Road from different areas, townhomes, the need for affordable housing in the Wayzeta School District, and trails down Hackamore and County Road 101. Item 5a. Page 3 of 6 • Tiffany Chicketts, 6310 Steeple Chase Lane, spoke about concerns of proposed minimum lot sizes impacting her property values as well as absorption rate concerns. • Ginger Anzalone, 340 Bergamot Drive, Medina MN, spoke about traffic concerns, the health of the preserved trees, replacing trees that die off, stormwater drainage and water runoff accommodations, and the effect townhomes would have on property value. • Stan Manchik, 6450 Larkspur Lane, spoke about fixing the potholes on Hackamore, the affordability of the townhomes, complaints from residents in a similar development and preserving Corcoran’s natural features. • Nara, 6462 Larkspur Lane, spoke about preserving the natural features of the city, safety concerns caused by increased traffic, noise pollution and concerns of property value in the neighborhood. • Nancy Abramson, 160 Bergamot Drive, Medina MN, had concerns of safety, traffic, property values, stormwater runoff, and compared the house design and tree preservation in the proposal to the Greenway Crossing development. • Jim Shoulak, 20475 County Road 10, had concerns that the developer was trying to fill too many homes in one space and was frustrated with the negotiations for PUDs. • Steve Bartz, 130 Bergamot Drive, Medina MN, had concerns about the density of the proposal, how the townhomes would fit in the surrounding neighborhood and traffic impacts. Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Brummond to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation - Commission discussion included concerns over abuse of PUD flexibility; the benefits listed from the applicant; clarification of density requirements; questions to the developer about reducing the density of the proposal; frustrations with Met Council; the progress of the plan from November 2021; precedence set by previous PUDs; comparisons to the Eagle Brook proposal; the Wild Item 5a. Page 4 of 6 Meadows neighborhood; traffic concerns; the landscape plan between the single family homes and the townhomes; clarification of the actual wetlands benefit and stormwater basins; monument signs; clarification of wetland replacement process; the traffic forecast from the Infrastructure Feasibility Study; limiting the number of units in a single building; questions about the park; the trees along the trail on Hackamore Road; the Homeowners Association in the proposal and siding materials. Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Van Den Einde to recommend denial of the ordinance amending Title X of the City Code to rezone the northwest corner of Hackamore Road and County Road 101 to a Planned Unit Development. Voting Aye: Brummond, Lanterman and Van Den Einde. Voting Nay: Jacobs (Motion carried 3:1) c. Public Hearing. Preliminary Plat and Variance for Kariniemi Meadows at 23185 County Road 10 (city file 22-013) i. Staff Report – Staff Report presented by Planner Kevin Shay. ii. Public Hearing – Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. • Deb Weinand, 22945 County Road 10, had concerns about the removal of a row of trees, a question about elevations of lots 1 and 2, and access onto county road 10. • Nate Kariniemi, discussed his decision to shift the road to avoid removing the tree line previously mentioned, reasoning for lot 1 falling short of all requirements, lot measurements and surveyors, stormwater maintenance and drainage of lots 1 and 2, re-staking the property boundaries and road entrance, access onto County Road 10 and the location chosen in the proposal. Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Van Den Einde to close the Public Hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0) iii. Commission Discussion – Commission discussion included practical difficulties for lot 1; enhanced wetland buffer setback; the remaining development rights on the property, and clarification of lot 2’s compliance with Rural Residential standards. Item 5a. Page 5 of 6 Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Brummond to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and variance for Kariniemi Meadows. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). d. Public Hearing. Ditzer Garage Conditional Use Permit at 9320 Cherry Lane. i. Staff Report- Commission agreed to forego the Staff Report. ii. Public Hearing- • Ben Ditzer, 9320 Cherry Lane, spoke about the canopy structure on the property and asked for the structure to remain in its current position. He stated he is open to moving the proposed detached garage or building a retaining wall. Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Van Den Einde to close the Public Hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0) iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation- Commission discussion included the conditions of approval and granting a variance for the existing canopy structure. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the Ditzer Garage. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0) e. Public Hearing. Preliminary Plat and Variance at 7310 Rolling Hills Road. i. Staff Report- Commission agreed to forgo the staff report. ii. Public Hearing- • Paul Hughes, 7435 Rolling Hills Road, had a question about the development rights for the lot split. Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Van Den Einde to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman and Van Den Einde. Item 5a. Page 6 of 6 (Motion carried 4:0) iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation- Commission discussion included the reassignment of development rights; the accessory structure footprint; the variance standards; the reasoning behind the desire to divide the property and the condition to removal some of the existing accessory structures. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde to recommend approval of preliminary plat for FIRA and approval of the variance for some of the accessory structures. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, and Van Den Einde. Voting Nay: Lanterman (Motion carried 3:1) 7. Reports/Information a. Planning Project Update (none). b. City Council Report – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp provided an update on the status of a protesting ordinance and a gun ordinance and spoke about comments made during the public hearing for Walcott Glen. c. Other Business (none). 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 Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Brummond to close the May 5, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Brummond, Lanterman and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0) Meeting adjourned at 11:36 pm. Item 5a. Page 1 of 6    STAFF REPORT       Agenda Item 6a.  Planning Commission Meeting: June 2, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Ditzer Garage Variance (City File. No. 22-020) 9320 Cherry La (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) Action Required: Recommendation   Review Deadline: July 15, 2022 1. Application Request Benjamin Ditzer, the applicant, requests a variance to allow an accessory structure to encroach within the required side yard setback and drainage & utility (D&U) easement at 9320 Cherry Lane. 2. Planning Commission and City Council Review The Planning Commission reviewed a conditional use permit for a detached garage at a public hearing on May 5, 2022. No comments were received. The applicant asked the Commission to reconsider the requirement to relocate an existing accessory structure to meet the 20-foot setback from a side property line. The Planning Commission moved to change verbiage in the resolution to indicate the applicant should request a variance if they choose to not comply with the setback. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. A variance application was submitted in mid-May. City Council approved the conditional use permit with the recommended verbiage on May 26, 2022 as part of the consent agenda. 3. Context Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is based on whether the proposed project meets the standards for a variance in the Zoning Ordinance. The City has a relatively higher level of discretion with a variance request because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the variance standards are met. Zoning and Land Use Page 2 of 6    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. 4. Analysis Variance Along the northwest property line, there is an accessory structure of less than 200 sq. ft. near a series of garden planters. The provided survey indicates this structure as a “canopy” as shown on p. 1 of this report. The accessory structure is located in the side yard, which is subject to a 20-foot setback. The structure is 1.8 feet away from the property line. Additionally, the structure is placed within the 10-foot D&U easement that runs along the property line. The City does not generally allow structures to be built within D&U easements apart from fences which can be approved within D&U easements through an administrative zoning permit when no concerns are found. Aerial photos from Hennepin County’s website confirms the structure does not pre-date the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant states that a previous owner constructed the structure, and it is utilized primarily for gardening purposes. The canopy structure allows him to clean the vegetables grown on his property. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all the variance standards from Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B) are met with their request: 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; Page 3 of 6    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 specifies the last two factors as an individual standard. Therefore, this first standard can focus on evaluating the “reasonableness” of the request. The applicant explains the canopy structure in its current location makes sense due to the proximity to the garden on the property. The applicant states that Corcoran is a “country” community and having a setup to clean home-grown vegetables is a reasonable use of his property. The Planning Commission could find that the encroachment into the side setback and D&U easement is reasonable to support the adjacent garden on the property. Requiring the structure to be moved to meet the setback would put the structure into the existing driveway. Relocating the structure to another area of the property where it is no longer near the garden will negatively impact the usefulness of the structure. On the other hand, the Planning Commission could find that the request is unreasonable as there does appear to be alternative locations for the structure that would meet the setbacks, including an area of the front yard across the driveway as well as in the backyard behind the house. The Commission could find that it appears the reasoning for the variance is based on primarily financial considerations as the structure could be relocated to meet the setback and D&U easement requirements that apply to the rest of the district. 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 south and were not created by the landowner. The applicant’s narrative explains the existing forest, wetlands, and home placement on the site makes alternative locations for the structure impractical. Additionally, the lot shape is irregular. Relocating the canopy just enough to meet the 20-foot setback places the structure within the driveway, and relocating the driveway is not possible. Relocating the structure east of the driveway would involve grading and would reduce the functionality of the canopy. The area west of Wetland Basin 1 is regularly wet throughout the year, and again would reduce the functionality of the canopy structure. Furthermore, the existing landowner did not construct the structure. Page 4 of 6    The Planning Commission could find the applicant’s arguments sufficient. However, the Commission could also find that there is some room in the back yard for the structure, and/or the need to grade the area east of the driveway is not seen as a unique condition as it is common for properties to complete grading when constructing an accessory structure. Additionally, a strict interpretation of the term “landowner” could be said to include all previous landowners; therefore, construction of the garden canopy in its existing location could be argued to be a condition created by the landowner. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant’s narrative explains that the canopy structure is not visible to the surrounding neighborhood in its current location. Allowing the structure to remain in its current location is unlikely to alter the essential character of the locality. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The applicant argues that the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance as it does not increase density, increase the proximity to the neighbor’s primary and accessory structures, reduce visibility, nor impact D&U easements. The Planning Commission could agree with this statement. The Planning Commission could also find that a structure within 2’ of a shared property line does increase the proximity to neighboring structures while other structures throughout the neighborhood must meet the setback. Additionally, the Planning Commission could find that the D&U does have the potential to be impacted by the structure. The Engineering Memo dated May 18, 2022 states that it is not recommended for structures to be constructed within D&U easements as this does have the potential to interfere with the intended use of these easements. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant explains that the garden canopy compliments their raised garden beds which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s visions statement stressing the importance of (and the desire to) protect the rural environment and rural character of Corcoran. Staff notes that this property is guided as “Existing Residential” in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which accounts for existing residential development in the City of Corcoran at very low densities. The density for this area is roughly 1 residential unit per 2 acres. The presence of this structure within 2’ of the property line does not interfere with the intent of this land use designation. Therefore, granting the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At the same time, it can be argued that the variance is not consistent with the guiding principle of the Comprehensive Plan to provide protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcoran’s qualify of life. Page 5 of 6    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 this request. In this instance, staff recommends that the applicant enter into a formal encroachment agreement with the City for the structure to remain within the D&U easement. As provided in the Engineering Memo, this agreement must specifically state the City may remove the structure if needed for the purposes of the easement with no reimbursement to the landowner, and the landowner is responsible for any relocation costs of the canopy structure. An alternative option is to allow for the canopy structure to encroach within the 20’ setback, but still require that it be relocated out of the 10’ D&U easement. 5. Conclusion & Recommendation Under a strict interpretation of the variance standards, staff finds that the variance standards have not been met. Convenience and a desire to avoid grading is not a practical difficulty. However, there may be merit to the arguments that the structure is not visible to the neighborhood and the natural characteristics and shape of the lot limit the viability and functionality of alternative locations. 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 variance request. - Draft Resolution 2022-B approves the variance with the condition that the landowner must enter into a formal encroachment agreement with the City as outlined in the Engineering Memo. The Planning Commission must determine if they believe the variance standards have been satisfied. - If the Planning Commission finds the variance standards have not been met, they should recommend Resolution 2022-A denying the variance. - If the Planning Commission finds the variance standards have been met, they should recommend Resolution 2022-B. o After selecting 2022-B, the Commission can recommend additional conditions to mitigate impacts of granting the variance that have a direct connection with the impact of granting the variance. Page 6 of 6    Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2022-A Denying the Variance 2. Draft Resolution 2022-B Approving the Variance 3. Applicant’s Narrative received 5/16/2022 4. Property Survey dated 2/18/2022 5. Engineering Memo Dated 5/18/2022   City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-A Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ENCROACHING WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 9320 CHERRY LANE (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) (CITY FILE NO. 22-020) WHEREAS, Benjamin Ditzer (“the applicant”) requested approval of a variance to allow an accessory structure to encroach within the required side yard setback on property described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly called Public Meeting and recommends denial of the variance, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a variance subject to the following findings: 1. The applicant requested a variance for an accessory structure to encroach 18.2 feet into the side yard setback and 8.2 feet into the City’s Drainage and Utility easement as shown on the application materials received on March 10, 2022 and May 16, 2022. 2. The City Council finds the variance standards are not satisfied for the variance as requested, based on the following findings: a. There are no practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards. The landowner could remove or relocate the existing accessory structures to comply with the Ordinance. It is unreasonable for a structure to be placed within less than 2 feet from a lot line. It appears that the request for the variance is primarily economic based on the landowner’s desire to avoid demolition, grading, and/or 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 are no physical constraints that prevent relocation of the structure to the backyard or to the east of the existing driveway. c. Granting the variation 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. A structure within 2 feet of the property line increases the proximity of structures to the neighboring properties and the primary home structures, and other structures throughout the neighborhood must meet the setback. The drainage and utility easement does have the potential to be City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-A Page 2 of 3 impacted by the location of the structure. The proposed encroachment into a required side setback 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 an accessory structure to encroach within the side setback is not consistent with the guiding principle of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to provide protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcoran’s quality of life. 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 23rd day of June 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-A Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Lot 5, Block 3, Brandywine Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-B Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ENCROACHING WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 9320 CHERRY LANE (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) (CITY FILE NO. 22-020) WHEREAS, Benjamin Ditzer (“the applicant”) requested approval of a variance to allow an accessory structure to encroach within the required side yard setback on property described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly called Public Meeting and recommends approval of the variance, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a variance subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The applicant requested a variance for an accessory structure to encroach 18.2 feet into the side yard setback and 8.2 feet into the City’s Drainage and Utility easement as shown on the application materials received on March 10, 2022 and May 16, 2022. 2. The City Council finds the variance standards are met for the variance as requested, based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance that makes relocation of the accessory structure to meet the 20-foot side yard setback unreasonable. It does not appear that the request for the variance is primarily economic based on the landowner’s desire to avoid relocation costs. b. The conditions upon which the variance is requested are unique to the parcel and are not caused by the landowner. There are several existing physical conditions to justify why the accessory structure cannot be relocated. The lot has an odd shape, there is a prevalence of forest and wetlands on the property, and the existing location of the home and driveway hinders the viability of an alternative location. The accessory structure was constructed by a previous landowner and not the existing landowner requesting the variance. c. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The structure is rural in nature and is not visible to the surrounding properties and neighborhood. d. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. Granting the variance would not increase the structure density in the immediate area nor would it increase the proximity to neighboring structures, including homes. Granting the variance will not reduce visibility in the area, and the impact to the drainage and utility easement can be mitigated. The variance is City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-B Page 2 of 3 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 the accessory structure is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the variance aligns with the guiding principle of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to protect the rural environment and rural character of Corcoran that define Corcoran’s quality of life. The property is guided as “Existing Residential” in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which accounts for existing residential development at very low densities. Granting the variance will not interfere the density requirements of the area. f. The City identifies the following condition of approval to address the impact of the variance: i. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the structure to remain within the drainage and utility easement. The agreement will specifically state that the City may remove the structure if needed for the purposes of the drainage and utility easement with no reimbursement to the landowner, and the landowner is responsible for any relocation costs of the structure. 3. The approving resolution must be filed at Hennepin County prior to release of the applicant’s escrow account with the City. 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 23rd day of June 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-B Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Lot 5, Block 3, Brandywine Addition, According to the recorded plat thereof, And situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Ditzer Garage Conditional Use Permit Date: May 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 avoid the designated wetland area shown on the plans so, the garage must be moved or a retaining wall would be an alternative. Note, any wall 4’ or taller shall be designed by Professional Engineer. 2. If a wall is the selected alternative, coordinate with the building permit department for submittal requirements. 3. The site plans show an existing canopy structure that is located within the existing drainage and utility easement along the west side of the house. Engineering does not recommend any structures be constructed within the Drainage and Utility easements as they could interfere with the intended use of these easements. The canopy (since existing) could remain if landowner enters into an encroachment agreement with the City. This agreement will specifically state the City may remove the structure if needed for the purposes of the easement with no reimbursement to the landowner, and landowner is responsible for any relocation costs of the canopy. End of Comments Page 1 of 7 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6b. Planning Commission Meeting: June 2, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Sease Accessory Dwelling Unit (PID 35-119-23-42-0022) (City File No. 22-026) Action Required: Recommendation Review Deadline: August 17, 2022 1. Request The applicants (Jan Sease, Laura Sease, and Luke Rudberg) request approval of an interim use permit (IUP) for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) addition to their single-family home at 6516 Valley View Road. The IUP will allow a 678 sq. ft. mother-in-law suite on the north side of the attached garage. The existing four-bedroom principal dwelling will be remodeled into a three- bedroom dwelling. 2. Context Level of City Discretion The City’s discretion in approving or denying an IUP is based on whether the proposal meets the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the IUP. Zoning and Land Use The property is in the Urban Reserve (UR) District and is guided Existing Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Surrounding Properties All surrounding properties are zoned UR and guided Existing Residential. Characteristics of the Site The site has an existing single-family home on the south side of the lot. The Hennepin County Natural Resources Map indicates probable and protentional wetlands on the north end of the property. The Page 2 of 7 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Natural Resource Inventory Map identifies disturbed woodland on this property. 3. Analysis of Request Interim Use Permit The applicant requests approval to allow an ADU to be built on the north side of the existing attached garage at 6516 Valley View Road. The proposed addition is 678 sq. ft. The applicants intend for this to be the residence for Jan Sease, one of the three property owners. The other two property owners will take residence in the principal dwelling. The addition will contain a bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom, and an attached deck of 15 sq. ft. Page 3 of 7 ADU Standards The UR district permits ADUs as an IUP in Section 1040.020, Subd. 5. The IUP for an ADU is subject to the following conditions: 1. Not more than one accessory dwelling unit should be allowed on a single-family detached lot. This condition is satisfied as there is no other ADU on the single-family detached lot. 2. An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in an existing single-family home or above an attached or detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. The ADU is an attached addition to the existing single-family home. The verbiage in this standard is convoluted and leaves room open for confusion and interpretation. This standard has proven difficult to apply with this only being the third ADU application received since the adoption of the ADU ordinance in 2005. Simplifying and clarifying this standard is noted on staff’s list of City Code updates. Looking back at the intent of the Planning Commission and staff (see the Planning Commission minutes from 7/7/2005 and the Staff Report to City Council from 11/22/2005 attached to this report), this standard was meant to prevent stand-alone detached ADUs while allowing ADUs attached to single- family homes or garages. For additional reference as to how this standard has been applied, an ADU IUP was approved in 2021 where the ADU was part of a new detached structure that included a garage (the staff report for this IUP is located in the February 25, 2021 City Council Agenda Packet for City File 20-045). The ADU was considered attached to the detached garage and was not located above the garage. With this context in mind, staff believes this proposed addition meets the intent of this standard. Furthermore, an addition to the northwest side of the existing home is impractical due to the existing location of the mound system. Requiring the addition on the northwest side of the home will likely prevent the main portion of the dwelling from having direct access to the backyard. Page 4 of 7 3. An attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements for the living portion of the principal dwelling unit. This condition is satisfied in the proposed plans. The table below includes the required and proposed setbacks: Required Setback Proposed Setback Front yard setback (south and west lines) 50 feet 84.25 feet (south) 109.4 feet (west) Side yard (east line) 25 feet 60 feet Rear yard (north line) 30 feet 100 feet 4. An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not exceed the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or 800 square feet, whichever is less. The proposed addition is 678 sq. ft. The footprint of the house indicates approximately 1,200 square feet of gross floor area. The plans comply with this standard without needing to include the gross floor area of additional levels in the calculation. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Subdivision, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same regulations as provided under Section 1030 of this Chapter. The ADU is an attached structure, so this standard arguably does not apply to this application. Regardless, the attached structure complies with requirements as outlined in Section 1030 of the Zoning Ordinance. A 1-acre parcel is allowed a footprint of up to 1,250 sq. ft. of accessory structure space. However, only attached accessory space in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. counts towards the maximum allowable footprint. There are currently no detached structures on the property. The attached garage is roughly 503 sq. ft., and the proposed addition is 678 sq. ft. for a total of 1,181 sq. ft. of attached accessory space. The proposed addition will exhaust 181 sq. ft. of the allowable accessory structure footprint. The plans are in compliance with this standard. 6. The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building in the lot. Page 5 of 7 The ADU will have a gable roof with brown shingles similar to the principal dwelling. The ADU will use gray LP siding to emulate the style of the existing wood/cedar siding. This standard is satisfied. 7. The owner of the property shall reside in the principal dwelling unit or in the accessory dwelling unit. There are three property owners. Two of the property owners will live in the principal dwelling. The third property owner will live in the ADU. The plans are in compliance with this requirement. 8. There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit. There is no separate ownership. All three property owners have an interest in the entirety of the property. This standard is met. 9. In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit on the lot, two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit. Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal dwelling unit parking spaces and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. There will be two parking spaces added to the existing driveway to satisfy this standard. The additional parking spaces meet the required 10’ side setback. 10. An accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate address from the principal dwelling unit on the lot and shall be identified with address numbers. This will be addressed at building permit and is provided as a condition of approval in the draft resolution. 11. The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. Page 6 of 7 This is included as a condition for approval in the draft resolution for the IUP. 12. The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. Interim uses found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. This is included as a condition for approval in the draft resolution for the IUP. Additional Considerations Utilities The ADU is proposed to be served by the same well and septic as the primary residence. The primary residence is being remodeled from a four-bedroom home into a three-bedroom home (with a large master closet), so the existing septic system designed to serve a four-bedroom home will still be sufficient after the remodel and addition. The applicant indicated that the HVAC, plumbing, and electrical for the attached ADU will all be connected from the main portion of the house. Wetlands Hennepin County’s Natural Resource Map indicates a probable wetland along the north lot line. Public Works and Engineering reviewed the proposed addition in relation to the suspected wetland, and minimal impact (if any) is expected based on the location of the addition and the topography of the site. Per the Engineering Memo dated 5/25/2022, a grading plan for the improvements will be required in review of the building permit, which is typical. Public Works reserves the right to require a wetland delineation at that time should impacts be identified in the site grading plan. Tree Preservation and Landscape No trees will be impacted by the construction as there are no trees in the way of the addition. No additional landscaping is needed to meet the minimum for residential development. 4. Decision-Making Outstanding Issue for Discussion As discussed above, the verbiage for standard #2 lacks clarity. While staff, including the City Attorney, believes that an ADU attached to an attached garage satisfies the requirement that an ADU be in an existing single-family home, it is acknowledged that the Planning Commission and/or City Council could disagree with this finding. The Planning Commission has the following options: Page 7 of 7 1. Recommend approval of the ADU IUP as requested. 2. Recommend approval of the ADU IUP with a condition of approval that the plans be updated so the ADU is attached to the northwest side of the house or above the attached garage or a variance must be granted to allow an ADU attached to an attached garage. a. Staff believes it is less than ideal to require a variance that would grant a permanent deviation for a permit that is temporary in nature. 3. Recommend denial of the ADU IUP with direction for the applicant to either apply for a variance or a zoning ordinance amendment. a. Ultimately, staff believes it is an unfair burden on the applicants for the City to require either of these options when the applicant in 2021 was not required to complete either of these land use applications for approval. b. If Council agrees, staff is open to adding clarification of standard 2 in the ADU ordinance as a 2022 priority so that this is addressed for future applications. 5. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the draft resolution approving the IUP for an ADU at 6516 Valley View Road based on the current plans submitted by the applicant. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution Approving the Interim Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit 2. Site Location Map 3. Hennepin County Natural Resources Map 4. Applicant’s Narrative Received 4/18/2022 5. Certificate of Survey Dated 4/16/2022 6. Site Plan Received 5/16/2022 7. Rendering Received 5/16/2022 8. Photo of Property Dated 5/23/2022 9. Planning Commission Minutes from 7/7/2005 Meeting 10. City Council Staff Report from 11/25/2005 Meeting 11. Engineering Memo Dated 5/25/2022 12. Public Comment Email City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR JAN SEASE, LAURA SEASE, AND LUKE RUDBERG AT 6516 VALLEY VIEW ROAD (PID 35-119-23-42-0022) (CITY FILE NO. 22-026) WHEREAS, Jan Sease, Laura Sease, and Luke Rudberg (“the applicants”) requested approval of an interim use permit to construct an accessory dwelling unit on an existing 1.01-acre parcel legally described as: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for an interim use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. An interim use permit is approved to allow construction of an accessory dwelling unit, in accordance with the application materials and plans received by the City on May 16, 2022 except as amended by this resolution. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions in the City Engineer’s Memo dated May 25, 2022. 3. A grading plan for the improvements must be submitted for review and approval by Public Works and Engineering. 4. A separate address shall be established for the accessory dwelling unit. 5. The accessory dwelling unit is subject to these specific standards: a. No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a single-family detached lot. b. An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in the detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. c. The accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements as required for the living portion of the principal dwelling unit. d. The accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 800 square feet. e. The exterior design of the accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal dwelling building on the lot. City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 2 of 3 f. There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit. g. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit. Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal dwelling unit parking spaces and shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. h. The accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate address from the principal dwelling unit on the lot, and shall be identified with address numbers. i. The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. j. The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units, interim use permits found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. 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 23rd day of June 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Lot 1, Block 3, SNYDER’S ROLLING HILLS THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Se as e AD U I UP 22 -02 6 Da te : 5/2 7/20 22 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 1 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 35 119 23 420 02 2 OWN ER N AME: L Ru db er g/L Se as e/J Sea se PAR CEL AD DRESS: 6 516 Va lle y View Rd , Corc o ran MN 55 34 0 PAR CEL AR EA: 1.0 1 ac re s, 44,0 47 sq ft A-T-B: To rr ens SAL E PR ICE: $24 7,00 0 SAL E D ATA: 0 2/20 21 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: $28 7,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $3 ,9 82.5 8 ASSESSED 20 22 , PAYABLE 202 3 PRO PER TY TYPE: R eside ntial HO MESTEAD: No n-H om es te ad MARKET VALU E: $3 98 ,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 Hennepin County N atural Resources Map Wetlands and 2-Ft Topographic Data Date: 5/27/2022 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 = 50 feet Legend Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI 2 Foot Elevation Contours Index Intermediate PID: 3511923420022Address: 6516 Valley View Rd, Corcoran 55340 Owner: L Rudberg/L Sease/J Sease Acres: 1.01 ¯ ’ 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 SB40SB36B24R B22R B52B24R B24R SB40SB36B24R B22R B52B24R B24R 2840DH2840DH2840DH2840DH 3068 2840DH 2840DH2840DH 3068 2840DH 14080 2840DH2840DH2840DH 2840DH 2840DH 2840DH 2840DH 1840FX 2840DH 2840DH 1840FX 2840DH 2840DH 1840FX 2840DH 3068 2840DH 30682616AW2616AW30682640AW50683068 2668256825685468 DN DN DN EP 34'-6 1/8"13'-8 3/8"22'-1 5/8" 70'-4 1/8"24'-4 1/16"6'-10"24'-9 1/8"26'-6 1/2"25'-6 1/2"229'-1 3/8"125'-2"61'-3"209'-0 1/16"59'-6"221'58'-7"100'-0 1/2"60' 112'-4 7/8" 17'-8" 16' 67'-9 3/8" 7'-0" X 5'-1" 5'-3" X 3'-5" 21'-2" X 23'-9" 4'-6" X 9'-0" DECK GARAGE DECK DECK Electrical Box (30 slot?) New Parking spot Well Orange walls = New Addition Estimated distance from property lineGravel ParkingAsphalt Driveway 2840DH 2840DH2840DH 3068 2840DH 14080 2840DH2840DH3068DN EP 13'-8 3/8"22'-1 5/8" 70'-4 1/8"24'-4 1/16"6'-10"58'-7" 60' 17'-8" 16' 21'-2" X 23'-9" GARAGE Electrical Box (30 slot?) New Parking spot Well Orange walls = New Addition Estimated distance from property lineGravel ParkingAsphalt Driveway CITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 2005 Chair Kohnen called the regular planning commission meeting of July 7, 2005, to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Ebert, Hank, Kohnen, Spaeth, Alternate Gleason, and Alternate Faue. Also present were Planner Lindahl, Clerk Lindberg and Council Liaison Jacobs. Commissioner Bucher arrived at 7:30 p.m. and remained in the audience. Absent was Commissioner Stieg (excused). The pledge of allegiance was said. Open Forum Commissioner Faue suggested the Planning Commission should discuss start and quit times for construction. Staff was directed to add the item to the next meeting’s agenda. Agenda MOTION by Ebert, seconded by Faue, and carried unanimously, to approve the agenda as presented. Minutes Ebert stated that he attended the June 9, 2005, Council meeting. Ebert commented that the Planning Commission should not have sent the Hudok proposal, nor should any other proposal ever go to the City Council with 24 conditions and suggested that the Planning Commission should not allow this to happen again. MOTION by Ebert, seconded by Faue, to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2005, with changing Gleason from absent to being an attendee in the audience. Motion carried 5:0 with Spaeth abstaining. Public Hearing – Hales Corner Preliminary Plat (Replat of Doboszenski Addition) Chair Kohnen opened the public hearing. Planner Lindahl provided an overview of the request by Ken Doboszenski for a replat of four (4) lots. The lots are currently metes and bounds parcels that would now be platted. Lindahl stated this request was approved in 2004, but the plat was never filed and there are now some minor changes to the area of the large parcel. Lindahl recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the 12 conditions in the resolution. No public comments were received. Chair Kohnen closed the public hearing. MOTION by Spaeth, seconded by Ebert, and approved unanimously, to recommend approval of the Hales Corner Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. A preliminary plat is approved to allow the creation of four lots in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on May 23, 2005, except as amended by this resolution. 2. A waiver from the requirement for a topographic survey for Lots 1 and 2 is granted based on the finding that the lots are developed and no new development is proposed. Call to Order Roll call Pledge of Allegiance Open Forum Agenda Approval Minutes Approved 6/9/05 Public Hearing – Hales Corner Preliminary Plat (Replat of Doboszenski Addition) Recommended Approval of Hales Corner Preliminary Plat Page -1- CITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 2005 3. A waiver from the wetland delineation, buffer and setback requirements is granted. However, the landowner shall be required to provide a delineation and comply with all wetland buffer and setback requirements when subdivision is proposed. 4. A 10-foot drainage and utility easement must be provided adjacent to Pioneer Trail. 5. A 10-foot wide trail easement adjacent to Pioneer Trail (over the drainage and utility easement) must be dedicated to the City and the documents must be filed with the final plat. 6. Easement documents must be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to filing. 7. The septic sites must be individually fenced with steel posts and snow fencing, which must be left in place until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. The gravel parking surface for Lot 2 should not encroach onto Lot 3 as shown. The encroachment should be removed or an easement should be obtained to continue the encroachment. 9. A driveway connects Lots 2 and 3 in the rear of the lots. The driveway should be removed or a cross easement for the benefit of both lots provided for review and approval by the City Attorney. 10. The gravel surface for Lot 3 should not encroach onto Lot 4. Lot 3 and Lot 4 are under separate ownership and this encroachment could create title issues in the future. The encroachment should be removed or an easement should be obtained from the owner of Lot 4 to continue the encroachment. 11. The applicant must submit all access/encroachment easements for review and approval by the City Attorney. The applicant must file easements at Hennepin County. 12. The final plat must be filed by the applicant at Hennepin County. Public Hearing – Park Ordinance Amendment (Subdivision Ordinance) Chair Kohnen opened the public hearing. Planner Lindahl stated the Park Ordinance Amendment clarifies the language and intent of the park dedication ordinance. The changes clarify that land divisions require park dedication fees, that the City will give credit for the 20-foot trail easements shown on the Parks and Trails plan, and that park dedication fees for 6 or more units per acre will be 12% plus 1% for each additional dwelling unit/acre over 6 dwelling units/acre. The terminology related to “Park Fund” was also clarified. Lindahl recommended approving the ordinance amendments, as recommended by the Park Commission. No public comments were received. There was some concern from the Commissioners regarding the change to the park dedications fees for the higher density developments. Lindahl explained the change as recommended by the Parks Commission and suggested the Commissioners may request a copy of the park plan from the City Administrator. Lindahl stated the costs justifying the park dedication fees are explained in the park plan. Chair Kohnen closed the public hearing. MOTION by Spaeth, seconded by Ebert, and approved unanimously, to recommend approval of the Parks Ordinance Amendment as presented. Public Hearing – Park Ordinance Amendment (Subdivision Ordinance) Recommended Approval of Amendment To The Page -2- CITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 2005 Unfinished Business Accessory Living Space Planner Lindahl asked the Commissioners to discuss whether the Planning Commission would be interested in allowing accessory living spaces in commercial and/or single family residential areas and, if so, what kind of standards should be used. The Commissioners decided to discuss the commercial/industrial areas first. Spaeth said if the living quarters met the fire codes, he would not be opposed to allowing accessory living spaces in the commercial district. Hank was previously opposed to allowing accessory living spaces in commercial areas, but heard some good reasons for it at the last Planning meeting, but was still hesitant. Faue suggested limiting the occupancy of the living spaces in the commercial area to one or two adults. He had issues with children and their safety in the commercial areas. Ebert had no problem with living spaces in commercial areas. He did not think children should be excluded from the living quarters, but thought there should be a relationship with someone living there, such as, an employee or family member. Gleason did not have a problem with the commercial living quarters either and felt that families would be okay. Kohnen agreed with Faue and thought that children should not be allowed. Kohnen also suggested the use of an interim or conditional use permit to allow such uses in commercial districts. Faue suggested allowing one unit per property with limiting the size of the unit, restricting the occupancy to a maximum of two adults, showing the need for a caretaker, meeting building codes, and using an IUP. Ebert wanted children allowed. Lindahl will use the Commission’s comments to draft an Ordinance Amendment to include accessory living in commercial/industrial areas with options to be discussed at the Planning Commission’s next meeting. Lindahl reviewed the use of accessory living spaces for single family homes. Some of the issues to be discussed were minimum/maximum sizes, architecture, attached or detached, above the garage (whether the garage is attached or detached), and the method conveyance to be used to allow accessory living spaces. The first issue to be discussed was whether an accessory living space should be in the main house, separate dwelling, or either. Spaeth, Hank, Ebert, Gleason were in favor of either attached or detached from the principal home. Faue favored either, but was concerned that restricting the living quarters to above the garage would not accommodate the handicapped. Kohnen favored the living spaces being attached to the principal home only and not above a detached garage. The only detached quarters should not be a separate building. Ebert suggested limiting the size of the living quarters to 800 – 1000 sq. ft. or a percentage of the footprint of the garage to deter renting of the property. The Commissioners voted as follows on the issues: Allowing attached or detached: 5:1 for either. If detached, allow above garage only: 5:1 Allow only one accessory living space per property: 6:0 Will the standards apply to existing and new homes: 6:0 Yes to both The owner must live on the property or the property must be homesteaded: 6:0 Allowed on both city sewered/watered and septic properties: 6:0 The property must look as though there is only one single family home: 6:0 Allow by CUP or IUP only: 6:0 Lindahl will use the Commission’s comments to draft an Ordinance Amendment to include accessory living in residential areas with options to be discussed at the Parks Ordinance Accessory Living Space Page -3- CITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 2005 Planning Commission’s next meeting. Lindahl was also directed to consider lot size and structure heights in the standards. Open Space Preservation Plats Workshop Follow-up Lindahl reviewed the draft changes to the OSP Plats Ordinance. Lindahl highlighted the change on page 6 that requires a centralized wastewater treatment system and smaller individual lots be part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD), on page 7 the new requirement of a 100 foot buffer zone at the perimeter of the site abutting public streets, and the density changes on page 11. Lindahl stated the Council will be asked to schedule an August 4th public hearing on the changes. New Business None. Reports Lindahl asked the Commissioners to be in attendance at the next meeting; there will be a lot of business on the agenda. Adjournment MOTION by Gleason, seconded by Ebert, and approved unanimously to adjourn, 8:52 p.m. ______________________________ Bea Lindberg, City Clerk Open Space Preservation Plats Workshop Follow- up Adjournment Page -4- Agenda No. 5.f. PLANNING REPORT TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: November 4, 2005 for the November 22, 2005 City Council Meeting RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (City File No. 05-016) 1. Background The Planning Commission has considered options to allow accessory dwelling units in commercial/industrial areas and in residential areas. After discussing the options in several meetings the Planning Commission recommended a change to allow accessory dwelling units. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation on September 22, 2005 and directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to consider the proposed changes. 2. Planning Commission Public Hearing The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their November 3, 2005 meeting. There was one resident to speak at the public hearing. One of the Commissioners questioned how these accessory dwelling units would be taxed and whether these accessory dwelling units could be homesteaded. Staff conferred with the City Assessor. The accessory dwelling units may be homesteaded in commercial areas or residential areas. In commercial areas, the units would be separated for purposes of valuing and taxing the property (e.g. the commercial portion would be valued and taxed at commercial rates and the accessory dwelling unit in the commercial building would be valued and taxed at residential rates.) The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. 3. Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory living units (“caretaker apartments”, “mother-in-law apartments” or “nanny flats”) are allowed under the existing Zoning Ordinance, but only as part of a mixed-use PUD (planned unit development). These types of accessory dwelling units would not be permitted in any other residential or commercial zoning districts. Any existing living spaces in commercial areas are legal, non-conforming uses if they were legal uses at the time they were established and may continue in like fashion. However, new uses of this type are not currently allowed. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 2 The underlined language is the new proposed language. The text in italics is staff comments. Definition Accessory Dwelling Units are not currently allowed; therefore, they are not defined in the ordinance. Staff recommends the following definition: Dwelling Unit, Accessory: A self-contained dwelling unit having its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, and which is designed as a second separate dwelling unit that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of a lot. Accessory Dwelling Units for Single Family Homes Accessory dwelling units for single family homes are gaining popularity in Minnesota and across the country. Staff has provided sample language that could be used to allow accessory dwelling units for single family homes in the A, RR, R-1, R-2, MF-1 and TCR districts. If the City chooses to allow accessory dwelling units, staff recommends the interim use permit (IUP) rather than the conditional use permit because the interim use permit will have sunset clauses or “triggers” that would cause the use terminate with changes to the conditions. The underlined language is the new proposed language. The text in italics is staff comments. Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the following: (a) Not more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a single- family detached lot. This condition is intended to preserve the neighborhood character by limiting the amount of change on any given lot, even in instances where a lot may exceed the minimum lot area requirement. More than one accessory dwelling unit per lot would not be appropriate and may result in an unusual amount of off-street parking spaces for a single-family home. This condition also specifies that the use applies only to single-family detached lots. (b) An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in an existing single family home or above an attached or detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. This condition would allow accessory units to be located in the principal building or above garages. It would not allow detached accessory structures to be constructed simply for use as an accessory dwelling unit. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 3 (c) An attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements as required for the living portion of the principal dwelling unit. This condition would provide consistency in the setback requirements for both the principal and accessory dwelling unit. This condition helps to clarify that, although a garage area may be located closer to a lot line than a living area, an accessory dwelling unit above a garage is considered to be a living area, and therefore, must meet the minimum setbacks specified for the living portion of the home. (d) An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not exceed the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or 800 square feet, whichever is less. This condition limits the size of an accessory dwelling unit to ensure that the accessory dwelling unit remains a subordinate and secondary use, and to ensure that the existing character of the property and neighborhood is maintained. (e) Unless otherwise specified in this Subdivision, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same regulations as provided for under Section 1030 of this Chapter. Section 1030 contains the general regulations for detached accessory buildings. This condition was included to ensure that the neighborhood character is maintained. For example, one provision of Section 1030 states that no detached accessory building may be located within a front yard. (f) The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building on the lot. This condition was included to address architectural compatibility and neighborhood character. (g) The owner of the property shall reside in the principal dwelling unit or in the accessory dwelling unit. This condition would help to preserve the neighborhood character by limiting the change in tenure within the neighborhood. (h) There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit. This condition would require both the principal unit and accessory unit to remain under one ownership, and not become separated from one another by subdivision or condominium platting. The ordinance is not intended to provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 4 indirect means of allowing two ownership units on an existing single-family lot, but rather is intended to allow a subordinate rental unit on the same lot. Separate ownership of the units would alter the single-family character of the property and neighborhood. (i) In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit on the lot, 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit. Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal dwelling unit parking spaces, and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. This condition would ensure that sufficient off-street parking is available on the site. (j) An accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate address from the principal dwelling unit on the lot, and shall be identified with address numbers. This condition would ensure the safety of the residents by assisting emergency response personnel in identifying the proper unit. (k) The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. This condition is included because this interim use is intended for use by the property owner and/or caretaker and if the use or ownership changes, the IUP should expire. New owners could reapply for a new IUP and the City could examine the changed characteristics. (l) The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. Interim uses found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. This condition would ensure that the City has the ability to review the IUP for compliance with the conditions of approval. Accessory Dwelling Units In Non-Residential Districts The following language would be added to the commercial (CR, C-1, C-2 and BP) zoning districts as an interim use permit. If the City chooses to allow accessory dwelling units in the commercial districts, staff recommends the interim use permit rather than the conditional use permit because the interim use permit will have sunset clauses or Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 5 “triggers” that would cause the use terminate with changes to the conditions. Staff recommends the following language: Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the following: (a) Not more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a lot. For the reasons listed above. (b) An accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements as required for the principal structure and shall be attached to the principal structure. For the reasons listed above. (c) An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not exceed the gross floor area of the principal use or 800 square feet, whichever is less. For the reasons listed above. (d) The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building on the lot, For the reasons listed above. (e) The owner of the property or the property caretaker shall reside in the principal dwelling unit or in the accessory dwelling unit. For the reasons listed above. (f) There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit. For the reasons listed above. (g) Rental of the accessory dwelling unit separate from the principal use is prohibited. The unit shall be used only by the property owner or caretaker. The accessory dwelling unit is intended to be accessory to the business use and is not intended to meet the housing needs of the community. The character of standard commercial districts is not generally appropriate for general residential use. (h) In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal use on the lot, 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 6 Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal use parking spaces, and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. For the reasons listed above. (i) An accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate address from the principal use on the lot, and shall be identified with address numbers. For the reasons listed above. (j) No more than 2 persons, neither of whom may be under 18 years of age, shall occupy the accessory dwelling unit. This condition is included because these units are not intended to be family dwelling units as commercial areas do not have recreational spaces that are required in residential areas for child play areas. In particular, the existing commercial areas were not designed with green space or pedestrian connections to allow convenient access to recreational areas. (k) The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. This condition is included because this interim use is intended for use by the property owner and/or caretaker and if the use or ownership changes, the IUP should expire. New owners could reapply for a new IUP and the City could examine the changed characteristics. (l) The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. Interim uses found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. This condition would ensure that the City has the ability to review the IUP for compliance with the conditions of approval. Accessory Dwelling Units in a PUD Again, it is important to note that as part of a PUD, the City would allow apartments or condos above retail. The issue of caretaker apartments is different as it would only allow one living unit, which would be accessory to (related to) the principal use. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 7 Summary State law requires that ordinances be published in the City’s official newspaper. However, in the case of lengthy ordinances, the law allows publication of a summary of ordinance to fulfill this requirement. The summary publication would result in substantial savings to the City because of reduced publication costs. 4. Requested Action Move to adopt the following: a. Ordinance amendment approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment b. Resolution approving Summary Publication of the Ordinance Amendment Attachments 1. Ordinance Amendment for Accessory Dwelling Units 2. Resolution Approving Summary Publication of the Ordinance Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Sease IUP Date: 5/25/2025 Comments: General: 1. We would recommend that a site grading plan be provided at the time of building permit application which is standards for all residential new construction projects and permitted remodels. At that time, the city would reserve the right to require wetland delineations to be completed based on the impacts as identified in the site grading plan. End of Comments From: denniseneu <denniseneu@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 3:54 PM To: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: Interim Use Permit. 6516 valley view road Thank you again for assisting me with my concerns. As you requested I am Dennis Neu 6508 Valley View Road As I stated before, my concerns rest in what direction the City is creating with this type of approval. You stated that this is a very limited request, yet this is the second request in less than two years within 1000 feet of my home. Regardless, if the City allows it for one it must allow it for everyone. So the City should look at what the maximum potential could be with these approvals In your previous response, you stated that the Zoning ordinance Subd 5 A 2 did not intend to eliminate the construction of new detached or attached secondary dwelling unit. However, I believe the actual words do not say that. It states that it should be "located in an existing single family home or above an attached or detached garage " My concerns are in two major areas. First. By allowing attached or detached seperate dwelling units in any or all lots you are changing the character of the development. This means all lots could have a second home or duplex. This looks like multi family development. Second. How is the City going to direct the second use of this space after the 'mother in law" leaves? Allowing the future use to become a third party rental should not be permitted. This could be a roundabout way to create a rental property on your own lot. Having multiple rental units in a development will degrade and devalue the individual property value. Based on the above concerns I am asking the City to put a moratorium on any new request for this type of permitting until the City can answer the long term effects it will create in an existing single family neighborhood. 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 May 17, 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 will review the EAW and make a notice of decision at the May 26th meeting. 2.NE District Plan and Design Guidelines (City file 21-050). The City received a planning grant from Hennepin County. Staff held a two open houses for public information. The draft was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their April 7th meeting. The public hearing was held May 5th at the Planning Commission and is scheduled for City Council action on May 26th. The moratorium is set to expire on June 10, 2022. 3.PUD Sketch Plan and EAW 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. 4.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 approved the application on April 28th. 5.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, a public hearing was held at the May 5th Planning Commission and City Council action is expected on May 26th. 6.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 and 85 townhomes. The item was reviewed by the Parks and Trails Commission on April 21st, a public hearing was held at the May 5th Planning Commission and action is expected at the May 26th City Council meeting. Agenda Item 7a. MEMORANDUM 2 7. 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 is scheduled for Council action on May 26th. 8. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Ditzer Garage at 9320 Cherry Lane (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) (city file 22-020). The application was reviewed at a public hearing at the May 5th Planning Commission and Council action is expected on May 26th. Additionally, the applicant has requested a setback variance for an existing structure and that item is tentatively scheduled for the June Planning Commission and Council meetings. 9. 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 and townhomes. This item is scheduled for Council action on May 26th. 10. Interim Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 6516 Valley View Road (city file 22-026). This item is scheduled for a public hearing at the June 2nd Planning Commission and City Council action is expected on June 23rd. 11. 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. However, after submittal of the application, the applicant submitted a sketch plan application and that will be reviewed at the May 26th Council meeting. 12. 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. 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. The Council approved the application on April 28th. 2. 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 approved the application on April 28th. 3. 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 approved the application on April 28th. 4. 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 the City Council approved the request on May 12th. 5. 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 approved the application on April 28th. 6. Wawra Ag Preserve at 21401 Larkin Road (city file 22-021). The application was approved by City Council on April 28th. Agenda Item 7a. MEMORANDUM 3 7. 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 approved on April 28th. 8. 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 was approved by the City Council on April 28th. 9. 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 was approved by the City Council on May 12th. Agenda Item 7a. Agenda Item: 7b. Page 1 of 3 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 The Planning Commission last met on May 5, 2022. The following is a recap of some of the items discussed at City Council meetings since that time. A full recap can be found by reviewing the approved City Council minutes on the website. May 12, 2022 Council Work Session • City Code Updates – Natural Resources Topics o Discussed code updates and provided direction to staff. May 12, 2022 Council Meeting • Westside Tire Variance, SP and IUP o Approved the variance site plan and interim use permit. • Bechtold Farm Final Plat and DA o Approved the final plat and development agreement. • Bechtold Farm Easement Vacation o Vacated the easement located on the property. • Ebert Road Right of Way o Discussed options for a potential development project. • Solid Waste Hauler Ordinance Change Request o Did not recommend an ordinance change. • Dust Control Program o Approved moving forward with the 2021 plan. • Facilities Sub-Committee o Appointed Councilmembers Nichols and Vehrenkamp to the facilities sub- committee. • Sandblaster Purchase Page 2 of 3 o Approved a purchase of a new sandblaster. May 26, 2022, Council Work Session • City Code Updates – Residential Design Standards o Discussed code updates and provided direction to staff. May 26, 2022 Council Meeting • City Center Drive and 79th Place – Accept Plans and Authorize Bid o Authorized biding on the project. • Ditzer CUP for Detached Garage o Approved the CUP for the garage. • Pioneer Trail (HWY 55) Business Park EAW Notice of Decision o Accepted the EAW notice of decision. • Kariniemi Meadows Preliminary Plat and Variance o Discussed the project and approved the preliminary plat and variance. • Corcoran Farms Business Park Order EAW Distribution o Ordered the distribution of the EAW. • Zewde Subdivision Preliminary Plat for FIRA and Variance o Approved the Preliminary and Final Plat. • Cook Lake Highlands – Breaking out SIPA or DA o Approved the modification to the development agreement. • Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition PUD Amendment Setback o Approved an after the fact change for existing buildings but no changes to other buildings. • Horseshoe Bend Feasibility Report o Heard and update on the feasibility report and discussed storm water improvements on Garages Too. • Garages Too Final Plat o Approved the project. • Pulte Walcott Glenn Preliminary Plat, PUD, Rezoning o Reviewed the project and tabled the review to a future meeting. • Protech Auto Sketch Plan o Provided feedback on the sketch plan. • NE District Plan and Design Guidelines Update Standards o Adopted the plan with modifications to the map, electric vehicle infrastructure and building materials. • NE Corcoran Water Supply Update o Provided feedback to staff as final design documents are being drafted. • Hackamore Road Project Update o Discussed the project and per consensus discussed assessments and other funding sources. • Ravinia Encroachment Agreement o Approved an encroachment agreement for a fence along the property line into Page 3 of 3 the right of way. • Potential Sale of City Land o Discussed selling land and provided feedback to staff.