Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-09-01 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
CITY OF CORCORAN *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. Corcoran Planning Commission Agenda September 1, 2022 - 7:00 pm c.Public Hearing. Protech Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, & Variance at 7591 Commerce Street (city file 22-048) 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval 4.Appoint Commission Chair and Vice-Chair 5.Open Forum 6.Minutes a.Minutes – June 2, 2022, Regular Meeting* 7.New Business - Public Comment Opportunity a.Public Hearing. Ordinance amendment for corner lot frontage and fences (city file 22-033) i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation b.Public Hearing. Blair Brown Riding Arena Conditional Use Permit at 22640 Oakdale Drive (city file 22-047) i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation v.Staff Report vi.Open Public Hearing vii.Close Hearing viii.Commission Discussion & Recommendation c.Northeast Water Treatment Plant Site Plan and Variance (city file 22-052) i.Staff Report ii.Commission Discussion & Recommendation 8.Reports/Information a.Planning Project Update* b.City Council Report* – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp c.Other Business City Council Meetings 9/8/22 9/22/22 10/13/22 10/27/22 11/10/22 11/21/22 Lanterman Shoulak Van Den Einde Brummond Lanterman Shoulak 10. 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: 895 4801 7104 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment sections in the meeting. Video Link and Instructions: https:// us02web.zoom.us/ j/89548017104 Or visit http:// www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 895 4801 7104 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 9. Commissioner Liaison Calendar CITY OF CORCORAN Page 1 of 3 Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 2022 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on June 2, 2022, in Corcoran, Minnesota. Commissioner Jacobs was the only commissioner absent, all other 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 Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. Absent: Commissioner Jacobs. Also present: City Planners Davis McKeown and Lindahl. Also present: Council Liaison Vehrenkamp. 1.Call to Order / Roll Call Commissioner Shoulak called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Pledge of Allegiance 2.Agenda Approval Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Brummond, to approve the June 2, 2022 agenda. Voting Aye: Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). 3.Open Forum 4.Minutes a. Minutes – May 5, 2022 Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Van Den Einde, to approve the May 5, 2022 minutes. Voting Aye: Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). 5.New Business - Public Comment Opportunity a.Ditzer Variance (City File 22-020) i.Staff Report – The staff report was presented by Planner Davis McKeown. ii. Commission Discussion and Recommendation – Discussion included the lack of impact on functionality if canopy were relocated; financial hardship versus land hardship; the permanence of granting variances; the Drainage and Utility easement; hypothetical impact of a neighbor’s opinion on variance requests; clarification on the draft resolutions; question about the survey and D&U easement; definition of a structure versus a raised garden; Item 6a. Page 2 of 3 hardship caused by a previous landowner; and consistent application of code as is written. Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Brummond, to recommend approval of draft Resolution 2022-A, denying a variance for an accessory structure encroaching within the side yard setback. Voting Aye: Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). b. Public Hearing. Sease Interim Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (City File 22-026). i. Staff Report – The staff report was presented by Planner Davis McKeown. ii. Public Hearing • Jan Sease, 6516 Valley View Road, spoke about the well head preventing the ADU from being located on the west side of the garage; landscaping and mitigation of interference; the driveway; and conversations she’s had about the ADU with the neighbors. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Lanterman, to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission discussion included clarification of consequences if the structure is found to be noncompliant; inclusion of language that would rescind the IUP if found noncompliant in resolution; critique of the second standard of Accessory Dwelling Units within section 1040.020, Subd. 5; discussion of interpreting code based on intent; and clarification of an Accessory Dwelling Unit versus an addition. Motion made by Van Den Einde, seconded by Brummond, to recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the IUP for an ADU request at 6516 Valley View Road. Voting Aye: Brummond, Lanterman, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0) 6. Reports/Information Item 6a. Page 3 of 3 a. Planning Project Update – Commissioner Lanterman had a question about Pulte’s Walcott Glen Preliminary Plat, and Commissioner Shoulak had a question about white Telecom flags along County Road 10. b. City Council Report – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp spoke about the Council’s decisions on Pulte’s Walcott Glen Preliminary Plat, Rush Creek Reserve, and the Northeast District Corridor Plan. c. Other Business i. Planning Packet Timeline – Discussion included the planning packet timeline and potentially giving the commission more time to review materials prior to meetings as well as shortening staff report time. Commission and staff came to the compromise of commissioners receiving a summary of the draft agenda two weeks in advance to the meeting and staff to try to keep presentations under 10 minutes. 7. 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 Shoulak Van Den Einde Brummond Lanterman Shoulak 8. Adjournment Motion made by Lanterman, seconded by Van Den Einde, to adjourn the June 2, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Shoulak, Brummond, Lanterman, and Van Den Einde. (Motion carried 4:0). Meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM. Item 6a. Page 1 of 6 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 7a. Planning Commission Meeting: September 1, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Lot Definitions, Fences, and Walls Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-033) Action Required: Recommendation 60-Day Review Deadline: N/A 1. Request: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to City Council on a proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment related to an update within the fence performance standards. 2. Background: In January, the City Council discussed a Zoning Ordinance Amendment request by Larry Allar to allow a 7’ tall fence with nearly 100% opacity to remain at the front property line where a 50’ front yard setback is required for such a fence. The direction at the end of this meeting was for staff to look at amending the definition of “front yard” for corner lots. On June 9th, the City Council discussed options brought forward by staff and provided further direction to redefine front lot line and front yard so that property owners with multiple frontages only have one front yard. The consensus was to base the front lot line for lots with multiple frontages on the front lot line with the shortest width, property address, and primary driveway access. Additionally, staff was directed to amend the code so that fences over 4’ tall and 50% opacity are allowed at a 25’ setback along frontages. There was also discussion about preserving a 30’ traffic visibility triangle (aka clear-view triangle) from intersections and driveways. On August 11, 2022, the Council reviewed a draft ordinance and re-directed staff to continue treating all street frontages as a front lot line. Staff was asked to proceed with updating the performance standards for fences and bring the item to a public hearing with the Planning Commission. 3. Analysis: I. Proposed Changes to Definitions As part of the larger discussion, several lot-related definitions were proposed. Staff believe there is merit in adding the following three terms of art as part of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment: a. Add “Lot Frontage” as a term. We use the term frontage throughout the code already; however, we do not define frontage. While we can default to the dictionary’s Page 2 of 6 definition, it is a best practice to clearly define how we use the term if we rely on it in our interpretation of Code. LOT FRONTAGE: A lot line abutting the right-of-way of a public street or property/easement line of a private street or private drive. b. Add “Interior Lot Line” as a term. The proposed updates to the fence standards will rely on this term when discussing side and rear lot lines that do not abut a street. The addition of this term simplifies the language in the code update. LOT LINE, INTERIOR: A lot line without frontage. c. Modify the “Lot Width” definition. Staff’s list of code updates includes modifying the definition of lot width to account for challenges in applying this standard along cul-de-sacs. Since a large part of the discussion was focused on lot-related terms, an updated definition of lot width was presented in the first draft to Council discussed at the August 11th meeting. The current definition means the minimum lot width is measured at the front property line. This makes things difficult for lots on a cul-de-sac, so we often see variances or requests for flexibility from this standard. Within a Planned Unit Development (PUD), district standards establish that lots along a cul-de-sac are measured at the minimum required front setback. It is a best practice to re-evaluate the Zoning Ordinance when the City finds it is often granting flexibility from a specific standard. Staff believes the following definition will reduce the need for variances and PUD flexibility from this standard: LOT WIDTH: The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured at the front lot line or ordinary high-water level of the shoreline. For lots on a cul-de-sac, the lot width shall be measured at the required minimum front setback. II. Proposed Changes to Section 1060.080: Fence and Walls The existing performance standards in the “Fences and Walls” section require fences that exceed 4’ in height and 50% opacity to be placed no closer than the minimum required front setback. Privacy fences must meet the front setback on all lots regardless of how many frontages are present. Council’s primary direction at the last meeting was to change the setback for privacy fences along lot frontages to 25’ or the front setback of the zoning district, whichever is less. However, Council directed that privacy fences along county roads should still be measured at the primary structure setback. The Council asked for feedback from the Planning Commission as to whether the privacy fence setback of 100’ should be reduced to 60’ for properties along county roads if they comply with following standards in the “Building Setback Flexibility through Additional Landscaping” clause in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(K): A reduction in the required front setback adjacent to arterial streets may be approved by the City Council if the applicant provides landscaping beyond the minimum requirements or preserves significant landscaping in this area. The required setback may be reduced up to 40 percent if the applicant provides a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, 2 ornamental trees, and 10 understory shrubs per 100 Page 3 of 6 feet of length of the property line where the flexibility is requested, or preserves the equivalent amount of existing trees and shrubs. These materials must be provided in addition to the minimum landscaping requirements. In addition to the direction from Council, staff had several discussions about the updates to the fence standards. Public Works came up with a few recommendations of their own that they would like considered as part of the discussion and proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Particularly involving standards for fences that enclose pools and hot tubs/spas and retaining wall standards. Planning staff proposes the following changes to meet the goals of the Council and Staff: a. Clarify when encroachment agreements are required in Subd.1(A). Public Works recommends the following language to clarify when encroachment agreements are required for fences and walls: No fences or walls should be placed on or extend into public rights-of-way, easements, or onto public property except by means of an encroachment agreement or other mechanism approved by the City. The approval or denial of such an agreement shall be solely within the City’s discretion. b. Require adequate access for maintenance in Subd.1(C). Public Works recommends the following verbiage change to require adequate access for the maintenance of fences and walls as an attempt to minimize neighborhood conflicts: Both sides of any fence or wall shall be constructed to allow for adequate access and maintenance and shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance by its owner and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. c. Change the threshold for a zoning permit review in Subd. 1(E). Right now, the Ordinance requires a zoning permit for all fences placed within 6’ of a property line. This allows for review by Planning, Public Works, and Engineering and require changes to the fence plan when there are concerns (e.g., impacts of upcoming roadway improvement projects, utility installations, crucial drainage and utility (D&U) easements, and protection of drainage patterns and wetlands). However, staff believes the 6’ threshold was already arbitrary since it does not account for our standard D&U easement width of 10’ or the unstandardized location of wetlands in general. Since the proposed amendments will allow additional flexibility for privacy fences along frontages that were previously protected by a significant setback, staff believes it is crucial to increase the threshold for review. Although changes to the fence type or placement can be required or recommended through the zoning permit process, the goal is not to deny fences but to avoid the future removal of a fence at the property owner’s expense when an entity needs to access an easement or drainage patterns are disrupted. This is largely avoided by denying a permit for a fence that is proposed to block a crucial drainage corridor and/or access to an area that staff is certain we will need to access in the foreseeable future. We work with property owners to make adjustments with the ultimate goal of approval in mind. This process is also a chance to Page 4 of 6 make sure property owners are aware that even if a fence is allowed within an easement now, there will always be a chance the fence will need to be taken down for access at a future date. They sign off on the permit that provides this disclosure which basically acts as a type of encroachment agreement that the City can keep on file as documentation if there is ever a misunderstanding in the future. Staff proposes the following threshold in Subs. 1(E): A permit is required for all fences (except hedges and plantings) or walls to be constructed on or within a drainage and utility or ponding easement, 25-feet from lot frontages, and 10 feet from interior lot lines, A certificate of survey may be required, unless corner stakes are in place and marked and a survey is filed with the City. Additionally, retaining walls shall not be placed within any drainage or ponding easement unless also reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. d. Modify the Specific Fence Standards in Subd. 1(G). The proposed changes below accomplish the 25’ setback from frontages for privacy fences unless along a County Road, removes clauses that now appear redundant, and specifies the traffic visibility triangle standard from intersections and driveways. 1. Fences constructed of materials with opacity of up to 100% and not exceeding 7 feet in height may be located no closer than 25 feet to lot frontages or the principal structure setback of the underlying zoning district, whichever is less, except when the lot frontage is along an arterial road. The setback along an arterial road is 100 feet but can be reduced to 60 feet with additional landscaping, as provided in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(K). 5. Fences over 4 feet tall and 50% opacity cannot interfere with a 30-foot sight visibility triangle, as defined by Section 1060.090, Subd. 2, from intersections and driveways on the property and adjacent properties. e. Consider adding performance standards for swimming pool fences and barriers as Subd. 1(H). Staff is regularly asked whether swimming pools and hot tubs/spas require a fence. The current code does not require pools or spas to have a security fence. From conversations with Public Works, staff is ambivalent about adding this require to the Code but thought now was a good opportunity for discussion. Below are the standards Public Works would recommend for the Commission and Council to consider if such a change is desired: H. Swimming Pool Fences and Barriers 1. All fences and barriers for swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas shall comply with the regulations stated in the Minnesota State Building Code as amended, including the following: a. All permanent swimming pools, including inground pools and aboveground pools, shall be surrounded by a fence or wall not less than 4 feet in height, and with openings, holds, or gaps no greater than 4 inches in either vertical or horizontal direction. Page 5 of 6 b. The fence shall be a type not readily climbed by children. c. A building or accessory building may be used as part of the enclosure. d. All gates or doors to such enclosure shall be equipped with a self-closing and self-latching devise for keeping the gate or door securely closed at all times when not in actual use and shall be provided with hardware for permanent locking devises, except that the door of any dwelling which forms a part of the enclosure need not be so equipped. Pool gates shall be locked when the pool is not in use. 2. Exemptions a. Swimming pools or spas for which a building permit has been approved on or before the effective date of this Section. b. Swimming pools or spas secured with a code compliant safety cover as determined by the Building Official. c. An aboveground pool with a wall greater than 4 feet in height does not require a fence if the wall cannot be readily climbed by children and the pool can be secured while not in actual use. f. Add Specific Wall Standards as Subd. 1(I). With ongoing development activities, Public Works is regularly fielding requests for and reviewing retaining walls placed along trails and sidewalks. Public Works would like to establish clear standards for review of retaining walls. There is a particular concern about the lack of standards for retaining walls where there is a drop-off of more than 2.5’ when it is located within the right-of-way or within five feet of paths accessible to the public. In such a case, Public Works would like the Zoning Ordinance to require a permanent barrier (such as a fence) on top of the retaining wall. Public Works proposes the following standards: I. Specific Wall Standards. Except as otherwise provided herein, walls may be allowed subject to the following specific standards: 1. All retaining walls shall comply with the regulations in the Minnesota State Building Code as amended. 2. All walls adjacent to wetlands shall be setback in accordance with Section 1050.010 of the City Code as well as State and Federal wetland buffer regulations as amended. 3. A permanent barrier shall be required at the top of retaining walls if the height of the drop-off is greater than 30 inches and the top edge of the drop-off is located in a right-of-way or within five feet of a public sidewalk, trail, or other public area deemed to pose a hazard. The barrier shall be included as part of the engineered design where applicable. 4. All walls shall be maintained in sound and good repair and free from loose boards/blocks/boulder, breaks, or gaps not otherwise intended in the original design of the wall. The wall shall be free from any defects or condition which makes the wall hazardous. Page 6 of 6 5.All wooden walls shall be made of treated or decay resistant wood. 6.All walls shall be accompanied with an appropriate drainage system to adequately relieve water pressure behind the wall and provide for property drainage. 4. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached draft Ordinance and Resolution Approving Findings of Fact. Feedback about the proposed setbacks and application of the landscaping flexibility along arterial roads (i.e., county roads) and on the new provisions brought forward in coordination with Public Works would be particularly helpful. Attachments: 1.Draft Ordinance 2.Draft Resolution Approving Findings of Fact City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota September 22, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 2022- Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF SECTIONS 1020.020 AND 1060.080 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE RELATED TO LOT DEFINITIONS, FENCES, AND WALLS (CITY FILE 22-033) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1020.020 of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by removing the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: 1020.020 – DEFINITIONS LOT, FRONTAGE: A lot line abutting the right-of-way of a public street or property/easement line of a private street or private drive. LOT LINE, INTERIOR: A lot line that does not qualify as a lot frontage. LOT WIDTH: The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured at the front lot line or ordinary high-water level of the shoreline. For lots on a cul-de-sac, the lot width shall be measured at the required minimum front setback. SECTION 2. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1060.080 of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by removing the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: 1060.080 - FENCES AND WALLS Subd. 1. General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided herein, all fences and walls within the City shall be subject to the following general provisions: A. No fences or walls shall be placed on or extend into public rights-of-way., easements, or onto public property except by means of an encroachment agreement or other mechanism approved by the City. The approval or denial of such an agreement shall be solely within the City’s discretion. B. That side of any fence or wall considered to be its “face” (i.e., the finished side having no structural supports) shall face abutting property or street right-of-way. C. Both sides of any fence or wall shall be constructed to allow for adequate access and maintenance and shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance by its owner and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. D. No physical damage of any kind shall occur to abutting property during installation unless it is allowed under agreement with the adjacent property owner. City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota September 22, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 2022- Page 2 of 4 E. A permit is required for all fences (except hedges and plantings) or walls to be constructed on or within a drainage and utility or ponding easement, 25-feet from lot frontages, and 10 feet from interior lot lines. A certificate of survey may be required unless corner property stakes are in place and marked and a survey is filed with the City. Additionally, retaining walls shall not be placed within any drainage or ponding easement unless also reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. F. A building permit is required for the following: 1. Fences over 7 feet in height, measured from grade to the top of fence, shall require a building permit. 2. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height, measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, or 3. Retaining walls supporting a surcharge of impounding Class I, II, or III-A liquids. G. Specific Fence Standards. Except as otherwise provided herein, fences may be allowed subject to the following specific standards: 1. Fences constructed of materials with opacity of up to 100% and not exceeding 7 feet in height may be located no closer than 25 feet to lot frontages or the principal structure setback of the underlying zoning district, whichever is less, except when the lot frontage is along a County Road. The setback along a County Road is 100 feet but can be reduced to 60 feet with additional landscaping, as provided in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(K). at or behind the minimum front setback line, as required for the principal structure on the lot. 2. Fences with opacity of less than 50% (e.g., wrought iron, chain link, split rail) and not exceeding 4 feet in height may be located within a required front yard area. 3. Fences over 7 feet in height shall meet all building setback requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. 4. Fences not exceeding 7 feet in height, for uses other than one- and two-family dwellings, may be permitted in front of the front building line as established by the primary structure on the lot, when required for screening of adjacent property. In such cases, the required front setback for the fence shall be the same as for the use that it is intended to buffer. 5. On corner lots or lots adjacent to railroad rights-of-way, no f Fences over 4 feet tall and 50% opacity cannot interfere with shall be located in a 30-foot sight visibility triangle, as defined by Section 1060.090, Subd. 2, from intersections and driveways on the property and adjacent properties. unless it is in compliance with the sight clearance requirements for such lots as set forth in this Chapter. 6. Fences which include a security gate at a point where access is provided to the property and principal building may be approved if necessary and appropriate as part of the site plan review. City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota September 22, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 2022- Page 3 of 4 7. Fences for agricultural uses on properties at least 10 acres in size are not subject to the requirements of this Section. H. Swimming Pool Fences and Barriers 1. All fences and barriers for swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas shall comply with the regulations stated in the Minnesota State Building Code as amended, including the following: a. All permanent swimming pools, include inground pools and aboveground pools, shall be surrounded by a fence or wall not less than 4 feet in height, and with openings, holes, or gaps no greater than 4 inches in either vertical or horizontal direction. b. The fence shall be a type not readily climbed by children. c. A building or accessory building may be used as part of the enclosure. d. All gates or doors to such enclosure shall be equipped with a self-closing and self-latching devise for keeping the gate or door securely closed at all times when not in actual use and shall be provided with hardware for permanent locking devises, except that the door of any dwelling which forms a part of the enclosure need not be so equipped. Pool gates shall be locked when the pool is not in use. 2. Exemptions: a. Swimming pools or spas for which a building permit has been approved on or before the effective date of this Section. b. Swimming pools or spas secured with a code compliant safety cover as determined by the Building Official. c. An aboveground pool with a wall greater than 4 feet in height does not require a fence if the wall cannot be readily climbed by children and the pool can be secured while not in actual use. I. Specific Wall Standards. Except as otherwise provided herein, landscape and retaining walls may be allowed subject to the following specific standards: 1. All retaining walls shall comply with the regulations in the Minnesota State Building Code as amended. 2. All walls adjacent to wetlands shall be setback in accordance with Section 1050.010 of the City Code as well as State and Federal wetland buffer regulations as amended. 3. A permanent barrier shall be required at the top of retaining walls if the height of the drop-off is greater than 30 inches and the top edge of the drop-off is located in a right-of-way or within five feet of a public sidewalk, trail, or other public area deemed to pose a hazard. The barrier shall be included as part of the engineered design where applicable. 4. All walls shall be maintained in sound and good repair and free from loose boards/blocks/boulders, breaks, or gaps not otherwise intended in the original design of the wall. The wall shall be free from any defects or condition which makes the wall hazardous. 5. All wooden walls shall be made of treated or decay resistant wood. City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota September 22, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 2022- Page 4 of 4 6. All walls shall be accompanied with an appropriate drainage system to adequately relieve water pressure behind the wall and provide for proper drainage. SECTION 3. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 22nd day of September 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 September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1020.020 AND 1060.080 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE REALTED TO LOT DEFINITIONS, FENCES, AND WALLS. (CITY FILE 22-033) WHEREAS, the City has an interest in regulating fences to reduce conflict with easements and the circulation of traffic, light, and air; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to decrease the front setback for fences that exceed 4’ in height and 50% opacity; and WHEREAS, the proposed definitions of “Lot Frontage” and “Interior Lot Line” added to Section 1020.020 of the City Code provide clarity as to the proper interpretation of the terms of art in Section 1060.080 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the amended definition of “Lot Width” will address difficulties in applying the pre- existing definition to lots along a cul-de-sac; and WHEREAS, City Staff recommends increasing the threshold of zoning review for fences to account for various easements, drainage patterns, and impending improvements projects; and WHEREAS, the existing verbiage did not include standards for swimming pool and spa fences as well as landscape and retaining walls; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, that it does approve an amendment to Title X (Zoning Ordinance) of the City Code to amend the regulation of lots, fences, and walls, based on the following findings: 1. The amendments will provide more flexibility for property owners that would like to place a privacy fence in their front yard. 2. The amendments will provide more flexibility for property owners that have more than one lot frontage. 3. The amendments protect the character of streetscapes for residents within neighborhoods. 4. The amendments will reduce the number of variances and Planned Unit Development flexibility related to lot width and fence placement. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 2 of 2 5. The amendments will reduce the amount and extent of code violations related to privacy fences. 6. The amendments establish standards and provide guidance for swimming pool and spa fences as well as walls. 7. The amendments remove an arbitrary standard for Zoning review of fences, and the new standard will better allow for staff to analyze proposed fence placements and educate property owners on conflicts with easements, drainage, and impending improvement projects. 8. The amendments are consistent with other City Code standards and City policies. 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 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director Page 1 of 7 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 7b. Planning Commission Meeting: September 1, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Brown Riding Arena CUP (City File. No. 22-047) 22640 Oakdale Drive (PID 05-119-23-13-0006) Action Required: Recommendation Review Deadline: October 10, 2022 1. Application Request Blair Brown requests a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow an indoor riding arena of 4,800 square feet with a sidewall height of 16’4” at 22640 Oakdale Drive. Parcels of 10-acres or more within the Rural Residential District are allowed to request an accessory structure footprint that exceeds 3,969 square feet via a CUP. Additionally, all properties can request a CUP to exceed the sidewall height limit of 13’6” in the rear yard. 2. Context Zoning and Land Use The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR), and the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural/Ag Residential. The property is not 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 of roughly 200 square feet. Surrounding Properties All surrounding properties are zoned RR, guided for Rural/Ag Residential, and located within the MUSA. Natural Characteristics of The Site The Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) map does not identify natural plant communities within this property. A wetland delineation identified two wetland basins on the property. The proposed location of the accessory structure is more than 400’ from the nearest delineated wetland boundary. The expected impact to the wetland is minimal. Page 2 of 7 3. Analysis Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, 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 CUP is limited to whether the proposed plan is in substantial conformance with the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets those standards, the City must approve the CUP. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Location Section 1030.020, Subd. 3 provides the location requirements for accessory structures. The proposed building will be in the rear yard and exceeds the required building separation of 10’ from the principal building on the property. Additionally, the arena complies with the 50’ front setback, 20’ side setback, and the 15’ rear setback. The horse stable that is currently under construction meets the required front, side, and rear setbacks. The horse stable is considered a non-agricultural animal shelter and complies with the 75’ setback from neighboring residential structures required in paragraph 7 of Chapter 81.11 of the City Code. The existing shed on the site does not meet the side setback of 20’ for accessory structures. However, aerial views from Hennepin County indicate the shed was in this location prior to the adoption of the existing code requirements. The image to the right is a snapshot of the aerial view in 2002. Staff believes this structure to be legal nonconforming, and therefore the structure can remain in its current location. Size The submitted plans are consistent with size standards provided in Section 1030.020, Subd. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is 11.36 acres in size. Parcels of 10 acres or more are allowed an accessory structure footprint of 3,696 square feet by right. Additionally, parcels of this size can request to exceed this footprint through a CUP. This parcel currently has one structure of roughly 200 square feet that is allowed without counting the structure towards the allowable footprint. Additionally, the property owner was recently issued a building permit for a Page 3 of 7 horse stable of 2,208 square feet (the main portion of the structure is 1,728 square feet and then there is a lean-to of 480 square feet that also counts towards the accessory structure footprint). The CUP is to specifically allow an indoor riding arena of 4,800 square feet (shown below). In combination with the horse stable, the accumulative accessory structure footprint on the property will be 7,008 square feet, which exceeds the by-right footprint by 3,312 square feet. The CUP will be discussed in more detail later in this report. Building Height The plans for the riding arena show a sidewall height of 16’4”. Accessory structures located in the rear yard are allowed a sidewall height of up to 13’6” by right. However, all properties can request to exceed this height through a CUP, so the height of the building has been added as part of the CUP request which is discussed in more detail below. Buildings with a sidewall height of more than 12’ require a minimum eave of 12” and minimum overhang of 24”. Unfortunately, the City Code does not specifically define eaves or overhang, and often these terms are used interchangeably. Historically, staff interpreted eaves to mean the underside or soffit of the roof along the side of the building. Overhangs have been interpreted to mean the edge of the roof overhanging the front and rear elevations. Under these interpretations, the plans show a 1’ overhang and eaves of 2’. For the sake of consistency in how previous plans have been approved, the plans should be revised so that the overhang meets Page 4 of 7 the 2’ minimum. This has been added as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Architectural Standards 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 architectural plans show the use of metal sheeting and metal wainscot for the siding and metal sheeting for the roof. Metal siding and 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 fading. The applicant submitted color samples to show the metal will be coated with bright white and ash grey accents. The materials comply. The building includes large sliding doors on all four sides with two windows on each of the front and rear elevations and one door on each of the side elevations. There are minimal aesthetic features on the building to break up the mass of the structure, but it is unlikely the riding arena will be visible from the public view as it will be located behind the horse stable. Landscaping No landscape plan is required. There is an existing dense tree line along the western property line. The applicant does not indicate any additional trees or shrubs to be planted or removed. Grading The applicant submitted a grading plan as part of the application. The Engineering Memo confirms approval of the grading plan with no additional comments or conditions. Conditional Use Permit Separate CUP standards are not provided to exceed the accessory structure footprint, but specific standards are provided in Section 1030.020, Subd. 5(D) to exceed the sidewall height limit. This more restrictive framework will be used in evaluating both components of the CUP request. 1. The proposed use shall be in conformance with all City Regulations. Accessory structures are a permitted use in the RR district. As discussed previously in this report, the proposed plans significantly comply with the accessory structure standards provided in Section 1030.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. The outstanding concern regarding the size of the overhang can be addressed with a condition of approval that has been added to the enclosed draft Resolution. The use and keeping of horses are allowed within the RR District. The structures will be able to serve up to 5 horses with immediate plans for 2 Page 5 of 7 horses. An 11-acre parcel can have up to 10 horses per Chapter 81.11 of City Code. 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 June 16, 2022. A certificate of survey, dated March 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 Future Land Use Map within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural/Ag Residential. This land use designation is defined by natural areas, planted fields, pastureland, hobby farms, and large residential lots. The proposed indoor riding arena is compatible with the hobby farms anticipated in this area of the City by the Comprehensive Plan. 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 excess size and height that will be approved with the CUP will allow for the property owner’s horses to utilize an appropriately sized indoor space for year-round exercise. The property owner states her intent to regularly utilize a manure haul-off service. A condition of approval of the CUP includes that manure management on the site must meet the requirements provided in paragraph 8 of Chapter 81.11 in the City Code. 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 bordering the property will provide screening to the Page 6 of 7 surrounding properties. The riding arena will provide an indoor exercise space for the horses which will minimize the impact of the horses to the surrounding neighbors. The grading plan was reviewed by the City Engineer for potential conflicts with existing drainage patterns between this property and the property to the west and no concerns were noted. 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 RR. 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. While there may be a need to expand on to the existing well for the property, this will not be necessary for the property owner’s immediate plans to house two horses. A condition of approval in the attached resolution includes the requirement to obtain necessary approvals should it be necessary to expand either the septic or well on the site to accommodate future horses. 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 RR district. G. The conditional use and site conform to the performance standards as specified by this Chapter. Staff analyzed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and included conditions to ensure compliance with the performance standards. 4. The building material standards required by this Section have been met. The building materials standards will be met with the issuance of a certificate of compliance which is approved within the attached draft Resolution. 5. The proposed building will be compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed building is compatible with surrounding rural residential homes and agricultural uses. Page 7 of 7 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 anticipated within the RR. 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 13’6” sidewall height and an accessory structure footprint of 7,008 square feet on the property. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2022- 2. Aerial Location Map 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Survey 5. Indoor Riding Arena Plans 6. Horse Stable/Hobby Barn Plans 7. Engineering Memo Dated 8/23/2022 City of Corcoran September 22, 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 22640 OAKDALE DRIVE (PID 05-119-23-13-0008) (CITY FILE NO. 22-047) WHEREAS, Blair Brown 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 dated July 19, 2022 and as amended in this Resolution. 2. A certificate of compliance to allow metal siding and a 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. 3. A conditional use permit is approved to allow for an accessory structure footprint of 7,008 sq. ft. and an accessory building with sidewalls of 16 ft. where 13 ft. 6 in. 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 Rural/Ag Residential land use designation and maintains the desired rural character of the area. b. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare. Granting the conditional use permit for the new structure will allow for the horses on the property to utilize an appropriately sized indoor space for year-round exercise. 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 standards. City of Corcoran September 22, 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 and are sufficient for the housing of two horses. f. The conditional use conforms to the applicable regulations of the Rural Residential district. g. Conditions in this resolution will ensure the conditional use and site conform to the accessory structure and animal keeping ordinances. Staff found that the building conforms to all other performance standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance and City Code as required by Chapter 1070.020. 4. The property cannot be used for commercial purposes unless a separate approval is requested and granted by the City. 5. Any changes to the septic systems and wells on the property must be approved by the County and State respectively. 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 satisfy the overhang minimum of 24 in. b. The applicant must continuously comply with the manure management standard in paragraph 8 of Chapter 81.11 of the City Code. c. 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 September 22, 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 Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Site Ma p of 226 40 O ak da le Dr ive Da te : 7/1 4/20 22 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 4 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 05 119 23 130 00 8 OWN ER N AME: Blair C Bro wn PAR CEL AD DRESS: 2 264 0 Oakda le D r, Co rc or an MN 553 74 PAR CEL AR EA: 11 .36 acr es , 49 4,73 3 s q ft A-T-B: Ab stra ct SAL E PR ICE: $67 9,00 0 SAL E D ATA: 0 9/20 21 SAL E C OD E: Wa rr anty D e ed 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: $44 8,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $6 ,0 66.5 4 ASSESSED 20 22 , PAYABLE 202 3 PRO PER TY TYPE: R eside ntial HO MESTEAD: Ho meste ad MARKET VALU E: $5 38 ,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 CUP Written narrative: My request is to build a 36x48x12 (1,728 ft²) hobby barn and 60x80x16 (4,800 ft²) indoor arena and exercise space for my retired performance horses. The barn will be used to house several large, retired, performance horses, estimate is around 3-5, but starting immediately with 2 horses. Regulation size riding arenas start at 120x65x20 (7,800 ft²), but in consideration of the city’s limitations on square footage and impact to the property, I am proposing a significantly smaller indoor space (60x80x16 or 4,800 ft²). The additional square feet and height (16 ft) of the indoor arena space is extremely important to provide a safe, appropriately sized exercise space for the horses during the harsh winter and rainy spring days. No employees or specific days/times of operation as it will be a private hobby barn. I have purposefully designed the barn so that the side where the horses will be most active will face toward my own property. The property is bordered completely by trees, and I chose the build location to ensure it would not be near any residences. The location was also chosen to provide the least disruption to the appearance and function of the property, including the wetlands, current topography, elevations, and wildlife traffic. Ongoing manure management is important to ensure health and safety and minimize disruption to neighbors. The location of the manure management system was also part of the consideration when choosing the location of the buildings. I intend to use a haul off service to minimize the amount of manure accumulating on site and ensure a functional and contained system to limit impacting neighbors as well as the people and animals on my property between the haul off schedule. There will be no impact on local traffic outside the building process, regular vet or farrier visits, and manure haul off/removal. The location of the buildings was also chosen to minimize the expansion of the access road to just the front barn entrance, and the distance to hook up any utilities. I have spoken with the local Well and Septic authorities and will continue to engage them to ensure proper steps are taken, if necessary, to add on to the Well, or connect the barn to the Septic. From my discussions there may be a need in the future to expand the current well, but it is not an immediate need due to the current size and initial plan to only have 2 horses. I understand that permits will need to be pulled for any work on the Septic or Well. A certificate of compliance will be required for the metal roofs which I am in the process of submitting. I have submitted a Vacation Request to vacate the Easement that crosses my current lot. My site prep contractor will submit the Permit Grading or Fill Application. I have no additional property expansion plans. 12 4 Main Level Floor 0' - 4" Main Level Clg 16' - 4"16'-0"1'-0" METAL WAINSCOT METAL SHEETING 1'-0" METAL SHEETING 4" / 12"4" / 12"METAL SHEETING METAL SHEETING SLIDING DOORS 20'-0" 40 PSF 2'-0" UNBALANCED SNOW LOAD PER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2 SNOW LOAD IS REVERSIBLE ABOUT RIDGE 62 PSF 12 PSF 9'-0" Main Level Floor 0' - 4" Main Level Clg 16' - 4"16'-0"2'-0" 12'-0" METAL SHEETING METAL WAINSCOT3'-0"SLIDING DOOR 12'-0"SHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY: c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC.PROJECT #: BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED, LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKA1 Ext ElevationsBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 55374Peter K.7/19/202222-16SL 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 1RIGHT ELEVATION A1 2 FRONT 3D VIEW SHEET INDEX A1 - EXT ELEVATIONS A2 - EXT ELEVATION & SECTIONS A3 - FLOOR PLAN A. CONSTRUCTION GROUP - S-1 B. FLOOR AREA - 4800 S.F. C. CONSTRUCTION TYPE - V-N D. SNOW LOAD - 40 PSF BALANCED, UNBALANCED PER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2 E. WIND LOAD - 115 MPH EXP C. (90 MPH ASD) F. SOIL BEARING - ASSUMED 2000 PSF A. CONCRETE PIERS - 3000 PSI B. CONCRETE FLOOR - 4000 PSI, 6% AIR ENTR. C. POSTS - TRTD, 1200f MIN., dfl NO. 1 D. GIRTS & PURLINS - #2 HEM-FIR E. ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES - 10 PSF DL + 40 PSF S.L. BALANCED, UNBALANCED PER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2 TRUSS PER MANUFACTURER, TRUSS BOTTOM CHORD AND DIAGONAL BRACING BETWEEN TRUSSES PER MANUFACTURER THIS BUILDING MEETS OR EXCEEDS ALL CURRENT MINNESOTA BUILDING CODES CODE DATA STRUCTURAL DATA 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 3FRONT ELEVATION 12 4 Main Level Floor 0' - 4" Main Level Clg 16' - 4"16'-0"METAL SHEETING METAL WAINSCOT 1'-0"1'-0"3'-0"METAL SHEETING METAL SHEETING METAL SHEETING SLIDING DOORS4" / 12"4" / 12"14'-0" TO FLOORVARIES12'-0" TO FLOORATTACH END WALL ROOF TRUSS TO POST w/ (6) 16d NAILS PER CHORD TRTD POST BEYOND SEE PLAN FOR SIZE BUILDING DIMENSION (OUTSIDE FACE OF WOOD) ROOF TRUSS (2) 13/4"x14"d LVL 3/4" PLYWOOD BOTTOM COVER NOTCH POST FOR 1 OF THE LVL HDR PLYS AND PROVIDE (2) ADDITIONAL 2X6 TREATED TRIMMERS BELOW HEADER NAILED TO POST FULL HEIGHT DOWN TO FOOTING. TYP. EA. SIDE OF OPENING 1'-0"5'-0"4"16'-0"6'-0" MINFROST FTG2'-0" 2x4 PURLINS @ 24" O.C. TWO SPAN CONTINUOUS ENGINEERED WOOD TRUSSES @ 48" O.C. TRUSS HANGERS @ EA. END SIMPSON MTS12 COLORED METAL SHEETING COMPACTED GRAVEL PIER SEE PLAN FOR FTG SIZE 12 4 2x4 GIRTS @ 24" O.C. TWO SPAN CONTINUOUS 6x6 TRTD POSTS, SEE PLAN FOR LAYOUT 2x6 BLOCKING 16" LONG, FRONT & BACK OF POSTS TYP. TRTD 2x6 BOTTOM PLATE (1) 13/4"x 117/8"d LVL NOTCH POST @ INTERIOR w/ 2x12 FASTENED ON EXTERIOR INTERIOR LVL IS GRADE 2.0E. FASTEN LVL & 2x12 TO POST WITH (4) 35/8" LedgerLOKs EACH MEMBER EA. END. PRE-DRILL AS REQUIRED TO AVOID SPLITTING Main Level Floor 0' - 4" Main Level Clg 16' - 4"16'-0"METAL SHEETING METAL WAINSCOT 2'-0"3'-0"METAL SHEETING SLIDING DOORS 12'-0"12'-0"2'-0" TOP PLATE (SEE TYPICAL SIDEWALL SECTION) 6x6 TRTD POST SEE SIDEWALL SECTION (2) PLY 14"d LVL DOOR HEADER ALIGN WITH BACK FACE OF POST/TRIMMER TOENAIL TO POST WITH (6) 4" RINGSHANK NAILS EA. END. FIR OUT FRONT FACE FOR PURLINS AS REQUIRED (3) 2x6 TREATED TRIMMERS NAILED TO POST AND EXTENDING DOWN TO FOOTING SIMPSON A23 EA. SIDE OF CRIPPLE 2 PLY 2x6 CRIPPLES AT EACH TRUSS BEARING LOCATION NOTCHED ON BACK FACE FOR TOP LVL 117/8" LVL BACK FACE & 2x12 FRONT FACE (SEE TYPICAL SIDEWALL SECTION. NO SPLICES FOR BOTH MEMBERS ACROSS 14FT OPENING) TRUSS BEARING LOCATION VARIES SEE PLAN. SIMPSON MTS12 PER TYPICAL SIDE WALL SECTION TOP PLATE (SEE TYPICAL SIDEWALL SECTION) 6x6 TRTD POST SEE SIDEWALL SECTION (2) PLY 14"d LVL DOOR HEADER ALIGN WITH BACK FACE OF POST/TRIMMER TOENAIL TO POST WITH (6) 4" RINGSHANK NAILS EA. END. FIR OUT FRONT FACE FOR PURLINS AS REQUIRED (3) 2x6 TREATED TRIMMERS NAILED TO POST AND EXTENDING DOWN TO FOOTING SIMPSON A23 EA. SIDE OF CRIPPLE 2 PLY 2x6 CRIPPLES AT EACH TRUSS BEARING LOCATION NOTCHED ON BACK FACE FOR TOP LVL 117/8" LVL BACK FACE & 2x12 FRONT FACE (SEE TYPICAL SIDEWALL SECTION. NO SPLICES FOR BOTH MEMBERS ACROSS 14FT OPENING) TRUSS BEARING LOCATION VARIES SEE PLAN. SIMPSON MTS12 PER TYPICAL SIDE WALL SECTION SHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY: c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC.PROJECT #: BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED, LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKA2 Ext Elevations & SectionsBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 55374Peter K.7/19/202222-16SL 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 1LEFT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 4 Gable End Door Section 3/8" = 1'-0"A2 5 Wall Section Post 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 2REAR ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 3Trimmer/Header Detail 60'-0"60'-0"4'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"5'-0"14'-0"5'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"4'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"12'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"6x6 TRTD POST AT WALL LOCATIONS TYP.12'-0"x12'-0"SLIDING DRCENTERLINE OF ROOF TRUSSES @ 4'-0" O.C., SEE TRUSS DRAWING FOR ADDITIONAL BRACING.(2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR)4 A2 306830"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ SIDE WALLS 80'-0" 4'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"6'-0"12'-0"6'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"4'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"12'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"30"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ SIDE WALLS 18"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ END WALLS 6x6 TRTD POST AT WALL LOCATIONS TYP.12'-0"x12'-0" SLIDING DR(2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR)80'-0" 14'-0"x14'-0" SLIDING DR (2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR) 18"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ END WALLS 24"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ DOOR VERTICAL 2x6 BRACING TO TRUSS AT ENDWALL POST LOCATIONS TYP. 18"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ END WALLS 306812'-0"x12'-0" SLIDING DR (2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR) 24"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ DOOR VERTICAL 2x6 BRACING TO TRUSS AT ENDWALL POST LOCATIONS TYP.4'-0"x4'-0"(2) 2x10's (HDR)5 A2 4'-0"x4'-0"(2) 2x10's (HDR)4'-0"x4'-0"(2) 2x10's (HDR)4'-0"x4'-0"(2) 2x10's (HDR)3 A2 SHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY: c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC.PROJECT #: BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED, LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKA3 Main Floor PlanBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 55374Peter K.7/19/202222-16SL 1/4" = 1'-0"A3 1MAIN FLOOR PLAN ALL ROUGH FRAMING MEMBERS SHALL BE FRAMED, ANCHORED AND BRACED WITH NAILS AND FASTENERS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPE SPECIFIED SO AS TO DEVELOP THE STRENGTH AND RIGIDITY NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE USED 124Main Level Floor0' -4"Main Level Clg12' -4"12'-0"1'-0"METAL WAINSCOTMETAL SHEETING1'-0"METAL SHEETINGMETAL SHEETINGMETAL SHEETING6x6 POST4" / 12"4" / 12"Main Level Floor0' -4"Main Level Clg12' -4"12'-0"2'-0"10'-0"10'-0"METAL SHEETINGMETAL WAINSCOT3'-0"8'-4"12'-0"SLIDING DOORSOFFICE: (952) 746-7702 | FAX: (952) 746-7703CELL: (952) 994-6682 E-MAIL: mikeb@behrd-design.comSHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY:c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC. BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALSAND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED,LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.PROJECT #:SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKPeter K.6/22/2022A1Ext ElevationsBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 5537422-16SL1/4" = 1'-0"A11RIGHT ELEVATIONA13FRONT 3D VIEWSHEET INDEXA1 - EXT ELEVATIONSA2 -EXT ELEVATIONSA3 -FLOOR PLANA4 -SECTIONSA. CONSTRUCTION GROUP - S-1B. FLOOR AREA -1728 S.F.C. CONSTRUCTION TYPE - V-ND. SNOW LOAD -40 PSF BALANCED, UNBALANCED PER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2E. WIND LOAD -115 MPH EXP C. (90 MPH ASD)F. SOIL BEARING -ASSUMED 2000 PSFA. CONCRETE PIERS -3000 PSIB. CONCRETE FLOOR -4000 PSI, 6% AIR ENTR.C. POSTS -TRTD, 1200f MIN., dfl NO. 1D. GIRTS & PURLINS -#2 HEM-FIRE. ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES -10 PSF DL + 40 PSF S.L. BALANCED, UNBALANCED PER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2TRUSS PER MANUFACTURER, TRUSS BOTTOM CHORD AND DIAGONAL BRACING BETWEEN TRUSSES PER MANUFACTURERTHIS BUILDING MEETS OR EXCEEDS ALL CURRENT MINNESOTA BUILDING CODESCODE DATASTRUCTURAL DATA1/4" = 1'-0"A12FRONT ELEVATION 124Main Level Floor0' -4"Main Level Clg12' -4"12'-0"METAL SHEETINGMETAL WAINSCOT1'-0"1'-0"3'-0"METAL SHEETINGMETAL SHEETINGMETAL SHEETING4" / 12"4" / 12"Main Level Floor0' -4"Main Level Clg12' -4"12'-0"METAL SHEETINGMETAL WAINSCOT2'-0"12'-0"3'-0"METAL SHEETINGSLIDING DOORS10'-0"10'-0"6x6 POST20'-0"40 PSF2'-0"UNBALANCED SNOW LOADPER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2SNOW LOAD IS REVERSIBLE ABOUT RIDGE62 PSF12 PSF9'-0"OFFICE: (952) 746-7702 | FAX: (952) 746-7703CELL: (952) 994-6682 E-MAIL: mikeb@behrd-design.comSHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY:c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC. BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALSAND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED,LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.PROJECT #:SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKPeter K.6/22/2022A2Ext ElevationsBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 5537422-16SL1/4" = 1'-0"A21LEFT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"A22REAR ELEVATION 10'-0"36'-0"10'-0"36'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"5'-0"10'-0"5'-0"8'-0"6x6 TRTD POSTAT WALL LOCATIONS TYP.10'-0"x10'-0" SLIDING DRCENTERLINE OF ROOF TRUSSES @ 4'-0" O.C.,SEE TRUSS DRAWING FOR ADDITIONAL BRACING.4'-0"x4'-0"(2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR)2A41A4306830"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ SIDE WALLS24"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ DOOR48'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"5'-0"10'-0"5'-0"8'-0"24"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ DOOR18"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ END WALLS6x6 TRTD POSTAT WALL LOCATIONS TYP.VERTICAL 2x6 BRACING TO TRUSS AT ENDWALL POST LOCATIONS TYP.VERTICAL 2x6 BRACING TO TRUSS AT ENDWALL POST LOCATIONS TYP.(2) 2x10's (HDR)48'-0"3068DUTCH DR18"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ END WALLS8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"12'-0"4'-0"8'-0"46'-0"4'-0"x4'-0"(2) 2x10's (HDR)4'-0"x4'-0"(2) 2x10's (HDR)30"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ SIDE WALLS10'-0"x10'-0" SLIDING DR(2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR)(2) 2x12's (DR)30684'-0"x4'-0"(2) 2x10's (HDR)3068DUTCH DR3068DUTCH DR3068DUTCH DR3068DUTCH DR(2) 2x12's (DR)(2) 2x12's (DR)(2) 2x12's (DR)(2) 2x12's (DR)(2) 2x12's (DR)OFFICE: (952) 746-7702 | FAX: (952) 746-7703CELL: (952) 994-6682 E-MAIL: mikeb@behrd-design.comSHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY:c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC. BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALSAND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED,LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.PROJECT #:SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKPeter K.6/22/2022A3Main Floor PlanBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 5537422-16SL1/4" = 1'-0"A31MAIN FLOOR PLANALL ROUGH FRAMING MEMBERS SHALL BE FRAMED, ANCHORED AND BRACED WITH NAILS AND FASTENERS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPE SPECIFIED SO AS TO DEVELOP THE STRENGTH AND RIGIDITY NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE USED 12'-0" TO FLOORVARIES10'-0" TO FLOORATTACH END WALL ROOF TRUSSTO POST w/ (5) 16d NAILSTRTD POST AT JAMB ONLYBUILDING DIMENSION(OUTSIDE FACE OF WOOD)ROOF TRUSS(2) 13/4"x14"d LVL3/4" PLYWOOD BOTTOM COVER1'-0"5'-0"4"12'-0"6'-0" MINFROST FTG2'-0"2x4 PURLINS @ 24" O.C.TWO SPAN CONTINUOUSENGINEERED WOOD TRUSSES @ 48" O.C.TRUSS HANGERS @ EA. ENDSIMPSON MTS12COLORED METAL SHEETINGCOMPACTED GRAVEL PIERSEE PLAN FOR FTG SIZE1242x4 GIRTS @ 24" O.C. TWO SPAN CONTINUOUS6x6 TRTD POSTS, SEE PLAN FOR LAYOUT2x6 BLOCKING 16" LONG,FRONT & BACK OF POSTS TYP.TRTD 2x6 BOTTOM PLATE4" CONC. SLAB, REINF. w/ 6x6-W1.4xW1.4 WWM(1) 13/4"x 117/8"d LVL NOTCH POST @ INTERIORw/ 2x12 FASTENED ON EXTERIORINTERIOR LVL IS GRADE 2.0E. FASTEN LVL & 2x12 TO POSTWITH (4) 35/8" LedgerLOKs EACH MEMBER EA. END.PRE-DRILL AS REQUIRED TO AVOID SPLITTINGOFFICE: (952) 746-7702 | FAX: (952) 746-7703CELL: (952) 994-6682 E-MAIL: mikeb@behrd-design.comSHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY:c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC. BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALSAND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED,LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.PROJECT #:SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKPeter K.6/22/2022A4SectionsBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 5537422-16SL1/4" = 1'-0"A41Gable End Door Section3/8" = 1'-0"A42Wall Section PostA43REAR 3D VIEW Memo To: Kevin Mattson, PE Public Works Director From: Kent Torve, PE City Engineer Project: Brown Riding Arena CUP Date: August 23, 2022 Summary • The grading shown on plan sheet dated 8-11-22 by Whitetail Land Surveying is approved for drainage and grading. Page 1 of 25 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 7c. Planning Commission Meeting: September 1, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Pro-Tech Auto Expansion Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance (PID 26-119-23-11-0020) (City File No. 22-048) Action Required: Recommendation Review Deadline: October 10, 2022 1. Application Request The applicants, Tom & Dan Gleason of Pro-Tech Auto Repair, request approval of a site plan, 2 conditional use permits, and 3 variances to allow an expansion of their existing building at 7591 Commerce Street. The expansion includes adding 3 repair bays, warehouse storage space, and upgrading the parking lot. 2. Background Pro-Tech Auto Repair is located on Commerce Street near County Road 10. The business has served the community of Corcoran since it opened in 1983. Staff located a site plan from 1987 as well as a site plan for an expansion from 2000, both are attached to this report in addition to the Council minutes for the approval in 2000. The existing building is 3,917 square feet. The site includes 25,922 square feet of gravel which makes up the existing parking lot and drive aisles. The site also includes 5 concrete pads around the south, east, and north of the building totaling roughly 1500 square feet. As a second-generation business, the applicants are outgrowing their facility and hope to expand their space. This will allow them to better service motorhomes, trailers, and medium duty trucks as well as store equipment and parts. The applicants submitted a sketch plan application which was reviewed by the City Council on May 26, 2022. The applicants revised their plans based on the feedback provided by Council. 3. Context Zoning and Land Use Page 2 of 25 Pro-Tech is located within the Light Industrial (I-1) zoning district, and the Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Light Industrial as well. The property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Surrounding Properties The properties to the north of this site are located within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Zoning District and are designated for Commercial uses within the 2040 Land Use Map. The properties to the east, west and south are zoned I-1 and guided for Light Industrial. All surrounding properties are within the MUSA. The properties immediately north are City owned properties acquired for sewer and water infrastructure and are current vacant. The other surrounding properties contain various industrial uses such as automotive repair, offices, warehouses, and manufacturing. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory map does not identify any natural resources on this site. The Hennepin County Natural Resources Map identifies probable (indicated in the image to the left image as blue) and potential wetlands (indicated as yellow) on the site. The probable wetlands coincide with the stormwater drainage pond on the northern end of the site. 4. Analysis Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and 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 site plan and conditional use permit is limited to whether the plan meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the site plan and/or conditional use permit. The City has a higher discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the variance standards have been met. Conditions can be applied to mitigate the impact of granting the variance. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Site Plan The request is for approval of a site plan for the expansion of an existing auto and truck repair business in the I-1 district. The proposed expansion includes additional building space of 5,865 square feet which will house three repair bays and warehouse space for Page 3 of 25 storage of equipment and materials. The site plan includes increased parking spaces and a gravel area for outdoor storage. Lot Analysis Lot standards for the I-1 district are as follows: Minimum Standard Minimum Lot Area 1 acre Minimum Lot Width 100 ft. Minimum Lot Depth 200 ft. Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks - Front, Major Roadways 100 ft. - Front, All Other Streets 50 ft. - Side and Rear 20 ft. - Adjacent to Residential 50 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 45 ft. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage 70% The existing lot, existing structure, and proposed expansion comply with the above district standards. The expanded building complies with the setbacks. The hardcover will increase to 45,485 square feet, which translates to an impervious surface coverage of 46%. Exterior Storage and Screening Exterior storage in the I-1 district is an allowed as a conditional accessory use subject to performance standards. The plans from 1987 and 2000 do not reflect a space dedicated for outdoor storage. The proposed plans appear to meet the above standards based on the Council’s feedback that they were open to the use of gravel for the storage area surface. This part of the request is further evaluated in the CUP portion of the report. When screening is required, the Zoning Ordinance calls for the use of landscaping, fencing, and walls to provide a minimum opacity of 80% year-round. Berms can also be used if they do not exceed a 3:1 slope. The screening requirement protects adjacent property values as unscreened outdoor storage is known to have a negative impact. Vehicles can be parked at the property for longer than 72 hours while waiting for parts, repairs, and owner retrieval. When a vehicle is parked for more than 72 hours, it is then considered exterior storage. Therefore, screening to an 80% opacity would be required Page 4 of 25 in these instances. Based on the feedback from the Council, the applicants will pave their primary parking area to the south of the site entrance and will continue to use gravel on the rest of the site including a newly dedicated exterior storage area. While the site plan does not clearly identify exterior storage areas, it does identify bituminous areas and gravel areas. The gravel areas are primary located to the right of the site entrance and the paved parking is located on the southern portion of the site. The only exception is five employee parking stalls located on the north end of the proposed addition (circled in green in the diagram to the right). Based on the usage of gravel and the current usage of the site, staff marked up the space that can reasonably be used for exterior storage in red in the image to the right. This is the portion of the site that must be screened. The landscaping plan reflects the addition of a fence along a little over half of the northern property line (see below). Additional details about the type or height of the fence are not provided. No other screening measures appear to be proposed. Page 5 of 25 There is existing vegetation on the site and a berm along the eastern property line that can count towards the screening. However, not a lot of detail is provided on the existing vegetation. Staff is concerned that the amount of landscaping present does not provide 80% opacity year-round. Particularly along the west property line where there appears to be a single row of trees and the northeast corner which appears sparse (as shown in the below image). The screening in these areas must be addressed through landscaping, a fence, and/or a berm. A condition of approval for the site plan requires the applicant to provide more detailed information about the fence and existing vegetation being utilized for screening. Parking Parking and drive aisle setbacks for this property include a 50’ setback from the property line along Commerce Street and a 10’ setback from the side and rear property lines. With the combination of office space and auto service uses, 23 parking spaces are required based on the formulas provided in Section 1060.060, Subd. 8. The site plan shows 24 parking spaces. The parking spaces labeled 6-11 on the southeast portion of the site do not meet the required front parking setback (shown in the image to the right). A previously approved site plan from 2000 shows that this area was approved for four Page 6 of 25 parking spaces prior to the adoption of the current setback standard. During a site visit on May 17, 2022, staff noted 6 vehicles in this area. The addition of two more formal parking spaces in this area will require a variance from the front yard setback which is discussed further later in this report. The existing drive aisle on the western portion of the site (shown in the image to the left) does not meet the 10’ rear setback requirement. The drive aisle goes directly up to the west property line. In fact, the survey indicates that the edge of the gravel encroaches approximately 2 feet west of the property line for a portion of the drive aisle. A condition of approval for the site plan is for the encroachment into the neighboring property to be corrected. Based on feedback from Council, the applicants applied for a variance to allow the drive aisle to still encroach into the setback which will be discussed later in this report. The 90-degree angle parking on the site plan meets the minimum dimensional requirements except the drive aisle along the south end of the site is 23’ wide where a 26’ width is required. Additionally, there are five parallel parking spaces shown on the south end of the site. The City Code does not contemplate the use of parallel parking for off-street parking as dimensions are not provided for parking spaces of less than a 45-degree angle. Looking at standards developed by other cities, the size of the parallel parking spaces looks sufficient, but a 26’ drive aisle would still be ideal to accommodate two-way traffic. Based on the feedback provided by Council, the applicant applied for a variance to this standard which will be discussed later in this report. As previously stated, the plan shows five employee parking spots to the north of the expansion (labeled 20-24). Staff is concerned that parking spot #24 is too close to the building. From the plans, it looks like it would be difficult for employees in this spot to get out of their car as well as easily backout of the spot to leave. Staff added a condition of approval to the site plan that the plans be revised to shift the employee parking a bit further north so that it is not directly against the building façade. The site plan indicates the parking areas will be upgraded with bituminous pavement, concrete curb, and gutter to be in compliance with Section 1060.060, Subd. 3(A) of the City Code. Parking areas with 4 or more stalls must be screened from public streets at a height of 3’ to screen vehicle headlights. This looks to be mostly accomplished with the current landscaping plan, but screening should be added to meet this requirement for parking spaces 11 and 12. Landscaping Page 7 of 25 The landscaping plan estimates 10 overstory trees and 33 understory shrubs are required. However, the formula used is incorrect as the planting should be based on the lineal feet of the site perimeter (as this will reach the greater number as required in the Zoning Ordinance). Staff calculates a required 25 overstory trees and 41 understory shrubs required. The provided landscaping plan provides 10 overstory trees and 35 understory shrubs. The plans should be increased by 15 overstory trees and 6 understory shrubs. Since this is an existing site, previously established landscaping can be considered towards the satisfaction of the landscaping requirement. It appears that some of the existing trees on the site are not included in the landscaping plan, so the applicant should submit a revised landscaping plans that reflects all existing overstory trees and understory shrubs. This may address the landscaping requirements in general as week as the 80% opacity screening requirement discussed earlier. Streets & Access The site fronts Commerce Street and has one access point. The site plans shows that the entrance to the site (i.e., curb cut) is less than the maximum width allowed of 32’. The Engineering Memo strongly recommends for concrete aprons to be added to the entrance of the site per City Standard detail plate ST-13. Council feedback during the sketch plan suggested this recommendation may be waived. Therefore, this Engineering recommendation is not included as a condition of approval but should be a part of the discussion. This standard has been required for other sites when parking lots were upgraded. This is recommended because concrete aprons are more resilient and provide a clear delineation of the private space versus public road. It has been, and continues to be, City practice to require upgrades to meet existing City standards when site improvements are proposed. Utilities The site is already connected to City sewer and water. The septic system is no longer in use, and the area of the site where it was located has been filled in. The Engineering memo does require the applicant to obtain a permit from Hennepin County for the abandonment of the septic system. A well is shown on the site just south of the building; it is unclear if the well is filled-in and sealed. Building Standards The existing building relies on painted concrete block which is not an approved building material in Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. This will be discussed further in the CUP section of this report. Approved materials include: a. Face brick b. Natural or cultured stone c. Decorative or integral colored concrete block d. Cast in place or pre-cast concrete panels e. Wood if the surface is finished and durable such as cedar, redwood, and cypress Page 8 of 25 f. Curtain wall panels of steel, fiberglass, and aluminum if factory fabricated and finished with a durable, non-face surface, and the fasteners are corrosion resistant g. Glass curtain wall panels h. Stucco or EIFS i. Fiber cement siding j. Other materials deemed appropriate and approved by the Zoning Administrator The building plans submitted for the sketch plan indicated the expansion would be completed with painted block. This is not allowed without a variance. Based on feedback from the Council, the applicant did not submit a variance request to allow for the expansion to be completed with this material. Conversations with the applicants indicated an intent to use integral colored concrete block for the expansion. However, updated building plans have not been submitted to the City. A condition of approval is that the building plans be revised to indicate the use of an approved building material on the expansion. Grading Plan The Engineering Memo requires several revisions to the submitted grading plan. The total site disturbance for the improvements should be labeled to identify the exact boundaries of the disturbance area. The north side of the site reflects a silt fence and bioroll, but additional erosion control measures should be added along the other disturbance areas within the site. The plan reflects a proposed retaining wall alongside the western drive aisle. The plans should label the top and bottom of wall elevations. If the wall is 4’ or taller, the applicant must submit an engineered design to the City prior to construction. Additionally, the plans must identify where the southwest corner of the parking lot will drain as the proposed curb line is at an elevation that may hold water. Engineering believes an Elm Creek Watershed Grading and Erosion Control Permit will likely be required due to the size of the proposed disturbance area. The applicant is required to confirm permitting needs with the Elm Creek Watershed. If the watershed requires the permit, it must be obtained before grading can begin on the site. Additionally, it appears the total limits of disturbance are over 1-acre. If the revised grading plan reflects a disturbance of over 1-acre, the application will need to obtain a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) construction permit and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The proposed retaining wall is within a drainage and utility easement. This can be approved by the City Engineer. The Engineering Memo indicates construction of the retaining wall will require the applicant to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. This agreement identifies responsibility for removing and replacing the retaining wall if the easement must be accessed. Conditional Use Permit to Waive Building Material Upgrade Page 9 of 25 The existing building consists of painted concrete block, which is not an allowed building material. Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(A)(2) of City Code provides that when there is an expansion of an existing structure, the existing façade must be upgraded so that 25% of the existing structure conforms to the exterior building material requirements. Unlike the building material for the expansion, the upgrade requirement for the existing building façade can be waived as part of a CUP. The applicant requests the City to grant a CUP that waives the building material upgrade requirement explaining that the pre-existing material will make a partial upgrade difficult and burdensome. They are not proposing any changes to the materials of the existing structure, but they previously stated they would use integral colored concrete block on the expansion which is an allowed building material. No specific standards are identified for this type of CUP, so the City should review this request using the general evaluation criteria for CUPs outlined in Section 1070.020, Subd. 3. A. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. The building material waiver request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan references a desire to create policy that results in high-quality development through the use of building, signage, and landscape design guidelines, the overarching land use goal of this policy is to attract, retain, and expand businesses (see Goal 4 on p. 43 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan). Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan references the desire to establish policy that supports retention and facilitates expansion of existing businesses to achieve a larger economic goal of promoting economic stability and job opportunities (see Goal 2 on p. 65 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan). The applicant explains that upgrading a portion of the existing building material is not practical. Allowing the waiver will help to facilitate the expansion and retention of Pro-Tech’s business operations by removing a barrier created by the Zoning Ordinance. 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 as it will help to facilitate the retention and expansion of Pro-Tech. The expansion is necessary to meet the high demand for auto repair within the immediate and surrounding community. The waiver will not be detrimental to or endanger the general public as the existing building material has not harmed public health, safety, morals, or comfort. C. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. Page 10 of 25 The existing building material has not proven injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. There is no clear evidence that suggests the continued use of painted concrete block will substantially diminish or impair property values of the surrounding area. Therefore, granting the waiver will likely not be injurious to nearby properties. D. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The establishment of the CUP will likely not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The continued use of painted concrete block will have no impact on surrounding development or improvement of nearby properties. E. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. Adequate public facilities and services are available. However, the building material upgrade waiver will have no impact on public facilities and services. F. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The granting of a CUP to waive the upgraded building material requirement is not in conflict with all other regulations within the I-1 district. G. The conditional use and site conform to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. The conditional use and site generally conform to performance standards within the Zoning Ordinance. Areas of the site that do not conform to required performance standards are either protected as a nonconformity or could be addressed with a variance. A condition of approval for the CUP is that the three proposed variances are either granted or plans must be revised to conform to the Ordinance as it is written. Conditional Use Permit to Allow Exterior Storage A designated area for exterior storage is a newly established use with this site plan. Exterior storage is a conditional accessory use in the I-1 district subject to the following standards: 1. Storage area is blacktop or concrete surfaced unless specifically approved by the City Council. The proposed exterior storage area heavily relies on the use of gravel. The feedback from City Council during the sketch plan review suggested a willingness to allow the applicants to use gravel for the area they designate as exterior storage. The Page 11 of 25 Engineering Memo confirmed this has been allowed in previous circumstances for areas not identified as primary parking. 2. The storage area does not take up parking space or loading space as required for conform to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed storage area does not conflict with the proposed parking or loading spaces shown on the site plan. 3. The storage area is screened from public streets and surrounding properties. The site plan does not provide enough information on the fence and existing vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed storage area to confirm the required screening of 80% opacity year-round has been satisfied. A condition of approval for this CUP is for revised plans to be submitted that provide more detail and meet this standard. Additionally, the request should be reviewed according to the following established criteria for CUPs: A. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. The conditional use is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The Light Industrial land use designation specifically allows for limited exterior storage. Additionally, delineating between parking and longer-term storage will allow Pro- Tech to expand their business operations which helps the City achieve its goals to facilitate the retention and expansion of existing businesses while promoting the economic stability (see Goal 4 on p. 43 and Goal 2 on p. 65 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan). 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 for exterior storage will promote and enhance the general public welfare as it will provide order and screening from vehicles in need of repair that are stored long-term at the business. C. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The exterior storage area will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. The conditional use permit requires that screening of the exterior storage space provides 80% opacity year-round. However, more information is needed to confirm the landscaping plan can achieve this target, so this is a condition of approval for the Site Plan and CUP. Page 12 of 25 D. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The establishment of the conditional use will likely not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The screened exterior storage will have no impact on surrounding development or improvement of surrounding properties. E. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. Adequate public facilities and services are available. However, the exterior storage will have no impact on public facilities and services. F. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The granting of a CUP for exterior storage is not in conflict with all other regulations within the I-1 district. G. The conditional use and site conform to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. The conditional use and site generally conform to performance standards within the Zoning Ordinance. Areas of the site that do not conform to required performance standards are either protected as a nonconformity or can be addressed with a variance. A condition of approval for the CUP is that the three proposed variances are either granted or plans must be revised to conform to the Ordinance as it is written. Variance for Southern Drive Aisle Width of 23’ The drive aisle between the 90-degree parking and parallel parking on the southern end of the site is 23’ wide where 26’ is required. The applicant has requested a variance to allow for the 23’ width. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all 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 outlines the following 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. Page 13 of 25 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. Favorable Arguments The Planning Commission could find that the drive aisle width of 23’ is reasonable to support parking and circulation of vehicles on the site since the existing parking arrangement already accommodates parallel parking perpendicular to 90-degree parking with a drive aisle width of 19’. The parallel parking spaces are primarily used for loaner vehicles which are typically parked by employees. It could be argued that it is reasonable to allow the 23’ width as it will be an improvement of the existing parking lot while allowing the businessowners to maximize their site. The Commission could find the 23’ width is reasonable since the site plan does not propose back-to-back 90-degree parking, and the City Code does not provide clear drive aisle width standards for parallel parking or in instances where different parking styles are perpendicular to each other. The City Engineer is not concerned with a drive aisle width of 23’ and confirmed that this will accommodate two-way traffic. Furthermore, a width of 23’ exceeds the 20’ drive aisle minimum required for fire lanes to accommodate emergency vehicles. Counterarguments On the other hand, the Planning Commission could find that it is unreasonable to allow for a reduced drive aisle width based on the current usage of the site since parallel parking along the southern property line of the site was not shown in either of the site plans approved by the City. While increasing the width from 19’ to 23’ would be an improvement from the existing drive aisle width, the approved site plan in 2000 reflected a drive aisle of a little over 26’. It could be argued that there is not enough room for the use of parallel parking on this portion of the property considering there are other areas of the site that can accommodate more parking. The Commission could find that the deviation from the 26’ drive aisle width is not reasonable should it appear the motivations for focusing parking on the south end of the site are primarily based on financial considerations, such as a desire to minimize the area of the site that is considered a parking lot that requires upgrades (i.e., paving and installation of curb and gutter). It could be argued that comparing the size of a parking lot drive aisle to the minimum width required for a fire lane is not reasonable. A fire lane can have a smaller width than typical streets and drive aisles as it is not necessarily intended for vehicular traffic other than a fire apparatus and does not contemplate safety of pedestrians that must also walk through the drive aisle. Additionally, the Planning Commission could find that regardless of the lack of problems reported to-date, it is unreasonable to reduce the width of the drive aisle from 26’ since the drive aisle accommodates two-way traffic and two different styles of parking (90- Page 14 of 25 degrees and parallel) that are perpendicular to each other. The Planning Commission could find that a 23’ drive aisle is reasonable if the angle of parking is reduced to 75-degrees as allowed in Section 1060.060, Subd. 4(C)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Favorable Arguments The applicants provide that the current drive aisle has been in use since 1987, and the usable width was reduced in 2000 during an office addition to the building. The Planning Commission could find that the existing physical conditions of the site create a unique circumstance where deviation from the 26’ drive aisle width is justified. The placement of the existing building pre-dates the current ownership and established drive aisle requirements. The location is relatively close to the south property line leaving little room to further expand the drive aisle in addition to meeting the 10’ setback. It could be argued that the width of the drive aisle is further constrained by existing, mature landscaping including a crab apple tree and 6’ tall lilac bushes (that again pre-dates the current ownership). While there may be 1’-2’ more of space to expand the width of the drive aisle, it would come at the cost of removing the existing vegetation on the site. Furthermore, to obtain the required 26’ width, a variance would likely be needed to slightly encroach within the 10’ side setback. Counterarguments The Commission could argue that this southern area of the site is not large enough to comfortably accommodate the type and amount of parking the applicant is proposing. The Commission could find that the reduction of the existing drive aisle width due to the expansion of office space in 2000 was indeed a condition created by the landowner at that time. An argument could be made that the size constraint is not unique considering many properties in the existing downtown area are outgrowing their space. Additionally, it could be found that the applicant has other options to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, specifically providing parking elsewhere on the site by reducing the amount of space designated as outdoor storage. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Granting a variance that will increase the existing 19’ drive aisle to 23’ is unlikely to alter the essential character of the existing downtown industrial neighborhood. Most businesses in the downtown industrial neighborhood struggle with parking, and the variance arguably allows Pro-Tech to keep more vehicles within their site Page 15 of 25 without overflow going on to the street, which is an ongoing problem within this overall area. The vehicle headlights from the parallel parking can be screened from the property to the south by existing vegetation, and the applicant will be required to add landscaping along Commerce Street to shield against vehicle headlights. Since the parking lot is already being used similarly to what is shown on the proposed plans, the neighborhood will not be disturbed with continued usage. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. Favorable Arguments The Commission could determine that granting the variance is in harmony with the general intent of the 26’ drive aisle width since the City Engineer confirmed a 23’ width is enough to safely support two-way traffic. Counterarguments The Commission could reach the conclusion that the City intentionally created parking lot standards that surpass the bare minimum safety requirements so that site circulation is comfortable and forgiving. It could be interpreted that the 26’ drive aisle width requirement for 90-degree parking is an intentional standard established to provide an additional safety buffer for cars and larger vehicles to comfortably pass each other while reducing the chance of conflict with pedestrians. The Commission could find that allowing a 23’ drive aisle where 26’ is required does not provide the intended safety buffer factored into the existing Code. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the variance will allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. The variance is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and helps to diversify the tax base. Granting the variance will accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The variance is not in conflict with the light industrial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan which is “[i]ntended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” 6. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. Staff believes striping the parking lot will be essential to clearly define the spaces and drive aisle that will be allowed if this variance is approved. Variance to Allow Western Drive Aisle Within the Required 10’ Setback Page 16 of 25 A 10’ wide drive aisle along the western side of the site was originally approved as part of the site plan from 2000 (attached to this report). The applicants state that the drive aisle has existed on the property since 1983. The drive aisle was shown on the 2000 site plan as 10’ away from the property line. This is in line with the City’s current setback for drive aisles from rear lot lines. However, the drive aisle as it exists today goes all the way up to the property line and actually encroaches on to the neighboring property by roughly 2’ in some areas. The applicant requests a variance to allow the drive aisle to encroach as much as 5’ within the required 10’ rear setback and the City’s drainage and utility easement. They state they will address the encroachment on to the neighboring property as well as widen the drive aisle from roughly 17’ to 20’. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all variance standards from Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B) are satisfied. 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Favorable Arguments As stated previously, staff uses this standard to evaluate the reasonableness of the request. Allowing the western drive aisle to be setback 5’ from the property line will facilitate safe circulation of vehicles around the lot, particularly oversized vehicles. Without the variance to the setback, the western drive aisle would either move much closer to the building (if not directly against the building), be reduced in width, or be removed entirely. The 5’ setback will be an improvement compared to the present condition of the site, and the increased width of the drive aisle to 20’ will be necessary as a turnaround for fire trucks. Public Safety explained that removal of the drive aisle and/or a drive aisle of less than 20’ would require the installation of a hammerhead on the south end of the site. However, Planning staff determined there is not enough space to install a hammerhead that will accommodate a fire truck without drastic changes to the overall site design. Additionally, the variance request for a 5’ setback does not appear to be primarily motivated by financial considerations since the drive aisle serves a clear purpose for internal circulation of vehicles. The Planning Commission could find that it is reasonable to grant the variance as a practical alternative to the western drive aisle does not exist, and the drive aisle is necessary for circulation of emergency vehicles on the site (as well as other vehicles). Counterarguments The Commission could point to the fact that the existing placement of the drive aisle was never approved as part of the submitted site plans to the City in 1987 or 2000. The approved plan in 2000 shows a roughly 11’ wide drive aisle that is in close proximity to the building, but outside of the 10’ drainage and utility easement. It could be argued that just because the drive aisle has existed in its current capacity for decades does not mean a 5’ setback from the shared Page 17 of 25 property line is reasonable. Had the drive aisle been properly installed per the approved plan, it would meet the 10’ rear setback today. If space is so limited that a 20’ drive aisle cannot comfortably fit between the property line and the building, then it may be reasonable to determine this space is not large enough for a drive aisle. The Commission could find that the setback variance is primarily motivated by financial considerations as the applicant could theoretically remodel the existing building to move it further away from the western property line, and the proposed expansion could be revised so that more space between the building and the property line. 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. Favorable Arguments The Planning Commission can point to the 30’ distance between the building and the western property line as the unique physical condition that justifies the variance. A 10’ setback is required to comply with City Code and a 20’ drive aisle width is required to comply with Fire Code. Without the variance, the drive aisle would go directly up to the building which creates a safety concern and a potential conflict with an existing service door on the western façade of the building. The Commission could find that the situation was not created by previous or current property owners since the 20’ drive aisle width required to accommodate fire trucks was not established when the building placement was determined in the 1980s. It could be argued that it would be a hardship to require the applicants to adjust/move the building further away from the western property line to accommodate both the Zoning Ordinance and Fire Code. Counterarguments The Planning Commission could find that the placement of the building 30’ from the property line is not a unique characteristic of the land. It could be argued that the building placement is a condition created by a previous landowner. Furthermore, the Commission could argue for the existing building to be remodeled and/or the proposed expansion revised so that the western side of the building is further away from the property line to accommodate both the Zoning Ordinance and Fire Code requirements. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. It is unlikely for the setback variance to alter the essential character of the downtown industrial neighborhood. The drive aisle is already in use today and a 5’ drive aisle setback would improve any existing effects on the neighboring Page 18 of 25 property to the west. Additionally, the property to the west has an existing fence and mature landscaping that provides screening between the two properties. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. Favorable Arguments The Planning Commission could find that the setback variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance as it will still keep vehicle traffic separated from the shared lot line. The closest the proposed drive aisle would be to the neighboring building is roughly 26’ when a minimum separation of 30’ would otherwise be required; the Commission could determine this separation is sufficient to meet the City’s goals. It can also be argued that a 5’ setback will allow for drainage between the two sites. Counterarguments The Commission could determine that the setback variance conflicts with the purposes and intent of the drive aisle setback as a 5’ setback is half of what the Code determines to be an appropriate proximity of vehicular traffic in relation to a shared property line. The Commission could conclude that a 26’ separation between the neighboring building and Pro-Tech’s drive aisle does not meet the City’s goals to provide separation between structures and moving vehicles. It can also be argued that the variance has the potential to interfere with the intended use of the City’s drainage and utility easement. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the setback variance will allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. The variance is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and helps to diversify the tax base. Granting the variance will accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The variance is not in conflict with the light industrial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan which is “[i]ntended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” 6. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. If approved, staff recommends the property owners enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to offset the access impact to the drainage and utility easement. This agreement will identify responsibility for removing and replacing the drive aisle should access to the easement be required. While additional landscaping could theoretically help to mitigate the impact of the variance, this Page 19 of 25 may not be an ideal requirement considering the limited space and the general recommendation to not place landscaping within a drainage and utility easement (as it could be later removed/disturbed when the easement is accessed later). Furthermore, the Planning Commission could recommend that the proposed expansion be revised to accommodate the full 10’ setback and 20’ drive aisle with a safe separation from the building. Variance to Allow Expansion of Nonconforming Parking Spaces During review of the application, staff determined the applicant proposes to expand a nonconformity. On the southeast corner of the lot, six parking spaces are proposed with a setback of 20’ from the property line along Commerce Street. The 2000 site plan shows four parking spaces with an island. Since the 2000 site plan, the parking setback increased to 50’ making the 20’ setback for the four parking spaces a nonconformity. Parking lots do not meet the definition of a structure, so the nonconforming setback would be interpreted as a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses cannot be expanded per Section 1030.010, Subd. 2(C). A variance would be required to formalize 6 parking spots in this area. 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Favorable Arguments Staff recommends considering the reasonableness of the request to allow for 6 parking spots to have a 20’ setback where 4 parking spots were approved. The Planning Commission could find that it is reasonable to allow the variance as this area of the parking lot will be setback 20’ regardless of the number of striped parking stalls. Staff can confirm that this area reasonably parks 6 vehicles as was the case during a site visit this past spring. Additionally, it makes sense for parking spots to be located in this portion of the site as it provides proximity to the office for customers. While increasing the number of spaces from 4 to 6 is considered an expansion, the Commission can find that the setback is not changing, therefore the degree of the nonconformity itself will not be further intensified. Counterarguments The Planning Commission could find that allowing 2 more parking spaces in the area of the site that has a nonconforming 20’ setback is unreasonable when 50’ would otherwise be required. It can be argued that just because the space is used for up to 6 vehicles today does not mean this practice should be protected in perpetuity. The Commission may find the request unreasonable considering the space designated for outdoor storage could reasonably fit in a few more parking spaces that meet the required setback. Page 20 of 25 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. Favorable Arguments The Planning Commission can again point towards the location of the building in relation to the front property line as the unique physical condition of the property. The applicant is working to keep the parking lot contained on the southern portion of the site, and fitting in one to two more spots that meet the 50’ setback would likely not be possible without causing a conflict with other parking spots and the eastern drive aisle. It could be argued that the previous property owner determined the building location decades before the 50’ parking setback was required. Since the larger setback was not reasonably foreseeable, it can be argued that the request to for a 20’ setback to be applied to 6 parking spots does not stem from a situation created by the landowner. Counterarguments The Planning Commission could determine that there are no unique physical characteristics of the land that justify the variance. The parking area could be expanded northward on the site to add parking spaces that can meet the setback. The desire to contain the parking lot on the southern portion of the site may be found to be a primarily financial motivation as it could be argued this is an attempt to minimize paving and the installation of curb and gutter. Furthermore, the Commission could argue that the building placement was a conscious decision of the previous landowner, and therefore this may be seen as a situation created by the landowner. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. It is unlikely that granting the expansion of the 20’ parking setback will alter the essential character of the downtown industrial neighborhood. This area of the site is not currently striped, so more than 4 vehicles regularly park in this space. The proposed parking will get no closer to the setback than what was approved in 2000, and there is existing vegetation along this property line that successfully screens most of the parking and vehicle headlights from the surrounding neighborhood. New landscaping can be reasonably installed to further screen the two formalized parking spots. The Planning Commission could conclude that formally delineating the proposed 6 parking spaces does not disturb the surrounding properties. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. Favorable Arguments Page 21 of 25 The 50’ front setback in the industrial district was established and recently reaffirmed in 2021 as a strategy to retain visible green space and rural character. The Planning Commission could argue that formalizing 2 more parking spots at a 20’ setback will not reduce green space as this area of the site is currently comprised of gravel and more vegetation will likely be added to meet the screening requirements for parking. Additionally, the Planning Commission could find that the increased number of parking spots is not in conflict with the rural character of the City. Counterarguments The Planning Commission could find that the desire for green space is not in harmony with the requested variance. In general, the City does not want to see the expansion of nonconforming uses in the hopes the use will eventually sunset and the site will be redeveloped based on the current Zoning Ordinance. The Commission could argue that granting a 20’ setback for 2 more parking spots in perpetuity fails to meet the goals of the setback requirement as well as the nonconformity section. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Favorable Arguments Granting the variance to expand the number of parking spaces at the 20’ setback will allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. The variance is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and helps to diversify the tax base. Granting the variance will accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The variance is not in conflict with the light industrial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan which is “[i]ntended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” Counterarguments The Planning Commission could make the argument that expanding the 20’ parking setback to allow 2 more parking spaces interferes with the goal to retain rural character as the City develops. The relatively proximity of the parking area to Commerce Street could be found to conflict with large green view corridors that can be associated with rural character. 6. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. Staff believes it will be essential to require the parking spaces be striped to avoid further unapproved expansion of the parking area. Page 22 of 25 5. Summary of Discussion Items A. Site Plan The following items were identified as outstanding issues within the Site Plan. Unless otherwise noted, these are all addressed as conditions of approval in the draft resolution for the site plan and CUPs. o Screening of the outdoor storage area The applicant must provide information about the existing vegetation that is being relied upon for screening. The applicant must provide more detail about the proposed fence. The applicant must provide a landscaping plan that accomplishes screening of the outdoor storage area at an 80% opacity year- round. o Parking Approval of the parking and drive aisles within the site plan is subject to approval of the three variances. If some or all of the variances are not approved, the site plan must be revised to meet the Zoning Ordinance as written. The employee parking on the north side of the site (labeled as spaces 20-24) must be shifted north to provide separation from the building. The encroachment of the western drive aisle on to the neighboring property must be addressed with approval of the site plan regardless of whether the 5’ setback variance is approved. A revised plan must provide the required screening for parking spaces 11 and 12. o Landscaping A revised landscaping plan needs to be submitted that reflects the proper calculations of overstory and understory shrubs as well as all existing significant trees. • Existing trees can count towards the landscaping requirements since this is an existing building. o Streets & Access The Engineering Memo recommends installation of a concrete apron at the entrance of the site in accordance with City Standard Detail ST-13. • This is not a condition of approval in the draft resolution based on feedback provided from Council during the sketch plan. • The Planning Commission should offer feedback on whether they believe this item should be a condition of approval. o Utilities Page 23 of 25 The applicants must obtain a permit from Hennepin County for the abandonment of the septic system. o Building Materials Revised plans must be submitted that indicate use of an allowed building material (e.g., integral colored block) for the facades of the expansion. o Grading Plan A revised grading plan must be submitted showing the following: • Identified limits of the site disturbance for the improvements. • Erosion control measures along all areas of disturbance within the site. • Top and bottom of wall elevations for the proposed retaining wall. o If the retaining wall is 4’ or taller, an engineered design must be submitted to the City prior to construction. • Identified location of where the southwest corner of the parking lot will drain. If it is determined that the disturbance area of the site exceeds 1 acre, an MPCA construction permit must be obtained and a SWPPP shall be prepared. If determined to be required, an Elm Creek Watershed Grading and Erosion Control Permit must be obtained prior to commencing grading on the site. The site plan proposed a retaining wall near the western gravel drive aisle within the drainage and utility easement. The applicant will be required to enter into an encroachment agreement for the retaining wall. B. Conditional Use Permit to Waive Building Material Upgrade Staff believes the standards for the CUP are satisfied. The draft Resolution clarifies that the CUP is contingent upon approval of the three variances. If some or all of the variances are not approved, the site plan must be revised to be brought into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff does not have any additional conditions to add to this component of the proposal. C. Conditional Use Permit to Allow Exterior Storage Staff believes the standards for the CUP are satisfied. The draft Resolution clarifies revised plans that reflect screening with a year-round opacity of 80% are a condition of approval. Additionally, approval is contingent upon approval of the three variances. If some or all of the variances are not approved, the site plan Page 24 of 25 must be revised to be brought into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff does not have any additional conditions to add to this component of the proposal. D. Variance to allow a 23’ wide drive aisle Staff believes the hardship standard for this variance is satisfied due to the constraints caused by the location of the pre-existing building and the many changes to City standards that were unforeseeable when the location of the building was determined. The parking lot should be required to be striped to mitigate potential impacts. E. Variance to allow a drive aisle as close as 5’ to the property line Staff believes the hardship standard for this variance is satisfied based on the constraints caused by the location of the pre-existing building and the need for internal circulation of emergency and oversized vehicles. Staff recommends that the applicants enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to address impacts of encroaching into the drainage and utility easement. The Planning Commission could also recommend that the proposed expansion be moved further east to accommodate the required setback and fire land width while allowing for a safe separation from the building. F. Variance to allow expansion of the number of parking spaces subject to a 20’ setback where a 50’ setback is now required Staff believes the hardship standard for this variance is satisfied based on the constraints cause by the layout of the site and pre-existing building, and the implementation of a 50’ parking setback was not foreseeable when the layout of the building and parking areas were established. As conditions of approval that address potential impacts of granting the variance, staff recommends requiring striping the parking lot and installation of additional parking screening to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Recommendation First, staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to recommend the draft Resolution approving the site plan and CUPs with conditions. Then, the Planning Commission should provide direction as to the recommendation they want to forward to the Council for the three variances. Due to the many different combinations of what could be recommended for approval or denial, staff did not prepare a draft Resolution for each potential outcome. However, the staff report provides findings that would support either outcome for each variance. The Planning Commission is asked to decide whether to recommend approval or denial to the Council, and this will confirm the findings of fact that will be forwarded to Council. Please note, based on the sketch plan feedback, staff intends to also forward a draft Page 25 of 25 resolution approving all the variances as an alternative alongside the resolutions drafted to satisfy the Planning Commission recommendation. The procedure for this will be as follows: 1. Make a motion to recommend approval or denial of the variance request for a 23’ wide drive aisle. a. Discuss any findings of fact found particularly convincing. b. Discuss any findings of fact not contemplated by staff. c. Discuss any conditions that should be added to mitigate the effect of the variance (if recommending approval). 2. Make a motion to recommend approval or denial of the variance request for a 5’ setback for a drive aisle along the western property line. a. Discuss any findings of fact found particularly convincing. b. Discuss any findings of fact not contemplated by staff. c. Discuss any conditions that should be added to mitigate the effect of the variance (if recommending approval). 3. Make a motion to recommend approval of denial of the variance. a. Discuss any findings of fact found particularly convincing. b. Discuss any findings of fact not contemplated by staff. c. Discuss any conditions that should be added to mitigate the effect of the variance (if recommending approval). Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution Approving the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permits 2. Applicant’s Narrative 3. Existing Conditions Survey Dated 6/2/2021 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Proposed Landscaping Plan 6. Proposed Grading Plan 7. Proposed Building Plans 8. Approved Site Plan from 1987 9. Staff Report and Approved Site Plan from 2000 10. City Council Meeting Minutes from Site Plan Approval in 2000 11. City Engineer’s Memo dated 08/22/2022 12. Public Safety Memo dated 6/14/2022 13. Pages 43 and 65 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 1 of 7 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND TWO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7591 COMMERCE STREET (PID 26-119-23-11-0020) (CITY FILE NO. 22-048) WHEREAS, Tom and Dan Gleason of Pro-Tech Auto Repair (“the applicant”) request approval of a site plan and two conditional use permits to allow for the expansion of their auto repair business on property legally described as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and conditional use permit at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval. 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 site plan and two conditional use permits are approved to allow for the expansion of the existing building as shown on application and plans received by the City on August 2, 2022 with additional information received on August 11, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The applicant must comply with the City Engineer’s memo dated August 22, 2022. 3. A conditional use permit is approved to waive the requirement to upgrade 25% of the existing façade to an allowed material as permitted in Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(A)(2) (Building Standards) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance and subject to the finding that the applicable criteria in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied. Specifically: a. The proposed use is consistent with uses anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and does not impact the public facilities or capital improvement plans. Granting the waiver will facilitate the expansion and retention of an existing business while promoting economic stability and job opportunities. This satisfies Goal 4 in the Land Use chapter and Goal 2 of the Economic Competitiveness chapter within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. b. The establishment 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 of the community. Granting the waiver will facilitate an expansion needed for the applicant to meet the demand for auto repair within the immediate and surrounding community. The waiver from an upgrade in building materials on the existing building will not be detrimental to or endanger the public as the existing building material has not harmed public health, safety, morals, or comfort. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 2 of 7 c. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. There is no evidence to suggest that continued use of painted concrete block will be injurious to other properties or impair property values. d. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The continued use of painted concrete block will have no impact on the surrounding development or improvement of nearby properties. e. Adequate public facilities and services are available; however, waiver of the building material upgrade requirement will have no impact on public facilities and services. f. The conditional use, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations of the I-1 District in which it is located. g. The conditional use and site generally conform to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. Conditions of approval are included in this Resolution to ensure compliance with the performance standards. 4. A conditional use permit is approved to allow exterior storage as an accessory use, subject to finding that specific criteria outlined in Section 1040.125, Sub. 4(E) (I-1 Conditional Uses) and applicable criteria in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied. Specifically: a. The storage area is a gravel surface approved by the City Council. b. The storage area does not conflict with the proposed parking or loading spaces reflected on the site plan. c. The storage area must be screened from public streets and surrounding properties. Conditions of approval included in this resolution ensures compliance with this standard. d. The proposed use is consistent with uses anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and does not impact the public facilities or capital improvement plans. Granting the CUP for exterior storage is in line with uses anticipated within the Light Industrial land use designation within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, granting the CUP to allow for designated exterior storage space will facilitate the expansion and retention of an existing business while promoting economic stability and job opportunities. This satisfies Goal 4 in the Land Use chapter and Goal 2 of the Economic Competitiveness chapter within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. e. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 3 of 7 morals, or comfort of the community. Establishment of the exterior storage use will provide order and screening from vehicles in need of repair that are stored long-term at the business. f. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The exterior storage space is subject to a screening requirement of 80% opacity year- round. Conditions of approval included in this resolution ensure compliance with this standard. g. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The screened exterior storage will have no impact on surrounding development or improvement of surrounding properties. h. Adequate public facilities and services are available; however, the exterior storage will have no impact on public facilities and services. i. The conditional use, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations of the I-1 district in which it is located. j. The conditional use and site generally conform to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. Conditions of approval are included in this Resolution to ensure compliance with the performance standards. 5. The approval of the conditional use permits is contingent upon approval of variances needed to bring the site into compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance. If some or all of the variances are not approved, the site plan must be revised to satisfy the Ordinance as written. 6. The exterior storage area must be screened from public streets and adjacent property with a minimum year-round opacity of 80% through landscaping, fencing, walls, or a combination thereof. a. The plans must be revised to show how this screening will be accomplished and submitted for City review and approval. b. The applicant shall provide additional fence details for review and approval by the City. i. Material and dimension details should be provided for any planned fencing. ii. Fencing over seven feet tall will require a building permit. c. The applicant shall provide additional information about existing vegetation on the site that may count towards the screening requirement. 7. Approval of the 23’ wide drive aisle on the southern portion of the site is subject to approval of a variance. If a variance is not approved, the site plan must be revised to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 4 of 7 8. Approval of the 5’ setback for the drive aisle along the western property line is subject to approval of a variance. If a variance is not approved, the site plan must be revised to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 9. Approval of the expansion from 4 to 6 parking spaces subject to a 20’ front setback in the southwest corner of the site is subject to approval of a variance. If a variance is not approved, the site plan must be revised to reflect no more than 4 parking spaces in this corner of the site and relocation of at least one parking space elsewhere on the site that complies with the Zoning Ordinance. 10. The location of parking spaces 20 – 24 must shift further north to provide separation from the building. 11. The existing encroachment of the western drive aisle onto the neighboring property must be corrected. 12. A revised plan must provide the required parking screening required for parking spaces 11 and 12. 13. A revised landscaping plan must be submitted that reflects either existing trees or the planting of new trees to meet the minimum requirement of 25 overstory trees and 41 understory trees based on the lineal feet of the site perimeter as required by Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. a. The plans must show an additional 15 overstory trees and 6 understory shrubs or an equivalent substitution in order to meet the minimum ordinance standards. 14. The applicant must obtain a permit from Hennepin County for the abandonment of the septic system. 15. Revised building plans must be submitted that indicate use of an allowed building material for the facades of the building expansion. 16. A revised grading plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer that reflects the following: a. Identified limits of the site disturbance for the improvements. b. Erosion control measures along all areas of disturbance within the site. c. Top and bottom of wall elevations for the proposed retaining wall. d. Identified location of where the southwest corner of the parking lot will drain. 17. If the confirmed disturbance area of the site exceeds 1 acre, an Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) construction permit must be obtained, and a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared. 18. The applicant shall confirm with the Elm Creek Watershed if a Grading and Erosion Control Permit is required. If required, said permit must be obtained prior to commencing grading on the site. 19. If the proposed retaining wall is 4’ or taller, an engineered design must be submitted to the City prior to construction. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 5 of 7 20. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the proposed retaining wall that is located within a drainage and utility easement. 21. The applicant shall enter into a site improvement performance agreement and submit a financial guarantee for the proposed work as outlined in Section 1070.050, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 22. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to beginning site work: a. The applicant shall submit any and all necessary permits to the watershed and receive approval and shall provide proof of permits to the City. b. Record the approving resolution at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 23. FURTHER, any request 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 have been corrected and is in compliance with the plans and specifications will suffice. 24. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and completes the required improvements. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 6 of 7 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 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 7 of 7 Attachment A Lot 2, Block 1, COUNTRYSIDE PLAZA, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. Page 3 of 4 August 10, 2000 Adoption Prepared By: Dave Gross, Planning Intern City of Corcoran Council Minutes – July 27, 2000 1. The property proposed for subdivision is part of an existing plat with a density of 1 unit per 10 acres. 2. A reasonable use of the property exists. 3. There is no hardship related to the property that is a basis for variance. Discussion: Councilor Gmach noted that he was not in favor of the variance due to the findings of fact and that the density regulations must be upheld in order to maintain consistency of rules. Councilor Lindsley also noted that denying the variance would ensure compliance with the ordinances. She also stated that she was glad that the church had found a suitable alternate site. Mayor Guenthner praised the church’s efforts in attempting to satisfy the community needs. Motion: RT/DL; (Favor: RT – Opposed: GG/DL/KG) – to adopt Resolution 2000-48 “A Resolution to approve a site for ProTech Auto located at 7591 West Commerce Street, PID #26-119-23-11-0020” subject to the following conditions. 1. The parking area south of the building and driveway shall be paved. 2. Verification that the septic system is adequate for the addition. 3. The exterior materials shall match the existing surface. Discussion: Councilor Gmach stated his concern for making pavement required as one of the conditions. “Is it reasonable to require paving for the entire lot?” He also noted that issues of consistency in this matter should be looked at closely and resolved as quickly as possible. He stated that he did not think it would be fair to require conditions such as these simply because the Council has the authority to. Councilor Thomas stated that the Council should reserve the option, as paving parking spaces will increase the overall appearance of the property, and add a lot a community value. Mayor Guenthner noted that condition such as these should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all the elements in support/opposition of the issue at hand. Councilor Lindsley stated the need for policy on these types of issues, but until a policy action is implemented, then the Council should follow the current ordinances. Council directed the Planning Commission “Design Standards” subcommittee to review the issue of commercial parking lot and drive area surface requirements. Motion: GG/DL; (Favor: GG/DL/KG – Opposed: RT) – to adopt Resolution 2000-48 “To approve a Site for ProTech Auto located at 7591 West Commerce Street, PID #26-119-23-11-0020”, as presented, with condition one stricken. Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, PE, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Pro-Tech Auto Repair – Site Plan Review Date: August 22, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents by Otto Associates: 1. Site Plan by Otto Associates Dated 8/10/22 2. Grading Plan by Otto Associates Dated 8/10/22 Comments: General: 1. 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. 2. An Elm Creek Watershed Grading and Erosion Control Permit will likely be required due to the size of the disturbance area. If required, this must be obtained before grading activities may commence. Site Plan 1. Applicant shall obtain a permit from Hennepin County for the abandonment of the septic system. 2. We would recommend a concrete apron be installed at the entrance in accordance with City Standard Detail ST-13. 3. The north of the building is identified as a gravel surface which we assume to be used for material storage. As this area is not identified for primary parking, this is considered in accordance with the city code and has previously been allowed in similar circumstances to not have perimeter curbing and a paved surface. 4. A retaining wall and gravel drive are proposed within the existing D&U Easement. An encroachment agreement should be required to identify responsibility for removing and replacing the infrastructure should access to the easement be necessary. Grading/Erosion Control/SWPPP 5. Label the total site disturbance for the improvements. The total limits of the site appear to be over 1-acre but the limits of disturbance are unclear. If for any reason site disturbance for the proposed improvements is greater than 1 acre, an MPCA construction permit shall be obtained and SWPPP shall be prepared for the site. August 22, 2022 Protech Auto Repair Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 2 6. Applicant shall be responsible for following all applicable Elm Creek Watershed regulations. Confirm with the Elm Creek Watershed, what if any permitting will be necessary for the project. 7. Silt fence and bioroll are identified on the north side of the site. Additional erosion controls measures should be added along the other portions of the site where disturbances will take place. 8. Top and bottom of wall elevations should be shown on the plan. If wall is 4’ or higher, an engineered design for the wall shall be submitted to the city prior to construction. 9. Identify where SW corner of the parking lot will drain. Proposed curb line is at 971 elevation and appears it may hold water. End of Comments 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 McKeown) From: Lieutenant Burns Date: June 14, 2022 Re: City File 22-027 Pro-Tech Auto Expansion Sketch Plan A Public Safety plan review meeting was held on June 1, 2022. In attendance were: Lieutenant Ryan Burns, Police Chief Gottschalk, Planner Davis McKeown, Fire Chief Feist, Fire Chief Malewicki, Fire Chief Leuer, Building Official Geske, and Construction Services Specialist Pritchard. The comments below are based on the concept plans received by the City on April 19, 2022 and are intended as initial feedback as further plan review will need to be completed as construction plans are available. 1. The nearest fire hydrant will determine the necessary safety measures for the site. If a hydrant is within 300’, than a 150’ hose pull is required. If the hydrant is within 400’, than a 150’ hose pull is allowed if the building is fully sprinkled. The distance from the nearest hydrants to the building must be confirmed. 2. Fire truck circulation on the site will need to be addressed with a turn radius exhibit. The applicant should keep in mind that the 90-degree corners as depicted in the concept plan are very difficult for emergency vehicles to navigate and should be avoided. 3. It is recommended that an on-site hydrant be considered in the NE quadrant of the site based on the known locations of hydrants in the area. 4. The parking lot will need to be an improved surface that can pass a 9-ton roll test. 5. If the western drive aisle is not a 20’ width, a hammerhead is needed for fire trucks to be able to turn around on the south end of the site. Goal 2: Provide a variety of housing types, styles, densities, and choices to meet the housing needs of residents.Policy 1: Provide a mix of housing types to provide for a full continuum of housing opportunities, including continued single-family growth and new opportunities for multiple family and senior housing developments.Policy 2: Provide transitions or buffering from low density and rural residential areas to higher density uses.Policy 3: Ensure that all new housing adheres to the highest standards of planning, design and construction.Goal 3: Create new land use opportunities to expand and diversify the City’s tax base by encouraging new commercial development.Policy 1: Use the Mixed Use land use designation to develop a Town Center similar to that envisioned in the Corcoran Southeast District Plan and Design Guidelines adopted in 2016. These guidelines will be updated to reflect the new transportation policies in this plan.Policy 2: Create performance standards for all commercial areas, including building and signage design guidelines, streetscaping, and inclusion of green space, paths, and sidewalks to connect commercial areas to neighborhoods.Policy 3: Support and promote existing businesses and new businesses that are viable and responsive to the needs of the community.Goal 4: Attract and encourage new light industrial, office-industrial, high tech and professional services, and maintain and expand existing businesses in Corcoran.Policy 1: Encourage high-end business park development that attracts medical, technology, and similar industries that provide quality employment and wages.Policy 2: Develop a market plan and strategy aimed at creating an industrial and high-end business park identity that will help recruit business and industry to Corcoran.Policy 3: Create industrial and business park building, signage, and landscaping design guidelines that will result in high-quality building and site development.Policy 4: Encourage use of “green”, environmentally-friendly building and site development techniques in new developments through zoning requirements or incentives.Goal 5: Create a community with housing, employment and service uses that reinforce the City’s vision to allow development while working to retain key elements that define our rural character, such as wetlands, streams, wooded areas, natural topography and view corridors.Policy 1: Create a land use plan that provides housing development types and locations required to meet the community’s projected needs.Policy 2: Create a staging plan that supports infrastructure expansion and land use growth plans.Policy 3: Work with neighboring communities to ensure an integrated plan that is consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s requirements and compatible with adjacent jurisdictions.Policy 4: As development proceeds, protect the natural features, slopes, and sensitive areas that make Corcoran unique, such as streams, wetlands, lakes, woodlands, natural open space, and local parks.Policy 5: Prepare long-range transportation and infrastructure plans that will direct and support growth and allow the City to financially plan for such growth.Policy 6: Expand the level of community services to keep pace with orderly development.Goal 6: Ensure that zoning and subdivision ordinances are consistent with the intent and specific direction of the land use plan.Policy 1: Ensure that developers are aware of and perform according to the land use plan and all official controls.Policy 2: Encourage creative approaches to land development to support preservation of open space and natural resources.Policy 3: Coordinate plans for housing with plans for light industrial, office/industrial, and commercial areas to balance land uses, serve the qualty-of-life needs of the residential areas and foster a positive climate for business, jobs, and tax base growth.Policy 4: Ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses.Policy 5: Routinely update the zoning map to conform to the land use map.The 2040 Land Use Plan identifies the location and intensity of anticipated development within the City and establishes a framework in which that development may occur. The 2040 Land Use Plan was developed to support the community vision and guiding principles discussed in Chapter 1.The 2040 Land Use Plan generally retains the land use categories created under the 2030 Plan. The MUSA boundary remains the same except for a small expansion of MUSA on Old Settlers Road in the southeast portion of the city to include all of a landowner’s property east of the street. The plan also shows a future 932-acre expansion allowing Corcoran to continue to work with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), Loretto and Medina on the Maple Plain LS/RF Rehabilitation: Project 8081. This project would provide new facilities to serve Loretto, northwest Medina, and southwest Corcoran. This expansion is shown outside of the 2040 planning range. Corcoran will see an increased opportunity for development as the Twin Cities metropolitan area continues to grow and communities closer to the core fully develop. Corcoran’s scenic natural resource areas, proximity to rapidly growing neighboring communities, the development of the Highway 55 corridor, and the potential linking of County Road 30 with the future Highway 610 corridor all represent development assets, influences, and pressures.The 2040 Plan seeks to create the flexibility to respond to market conditions while guiding land uses that adhere to the community’s vision and guiding principles. The 2040 Land Use and Staging Plans meet the Metropolitan Council forecasts for potential development and provide methods through land use and density to meet the Metropolitan Council’s residential density guidance of 3.0 housing units per net developable acre. As a regional planning organization, the Metropolitan Council’s role is to ensure that regional infrastructure can accommodate Corcoran’s potential growth and growth within the region. Meeting this minimum density requirement ensures that regional infrastructure is used in a cost-effective and efficient manner.GOALS AND POLICIESThe community has established the following Goals and Policies to guide residential development in Corcoran.Goal 1: Ensure housing development is compatible with existing and adjacent land uses and has access to key community features, natural features, and views of open spaces.Policy 1: Establish development guidelines for appropriate amount of green spaces, viewshed analysis, paths, sidewalks, trails, and connections throughout the community.Policy 2: Link residential neighborhoods via trails to City parks, Town Center, and other public and commercial areas.Policy 3: Incorporate preservation of natural resources in residential developments.Policy 4: Encourage innovation in subdivision design, such as clustering techniques, to preserve open space or natural features.Policy 5: Undeveloped single-family residential land shall be developed with consideration for surrounding development and in a manner responsive to market needs.43 The Chapter identifies strategies to increase commercial and industrial development in the City of Corcoran. Economic health is an important component of a helathy and thriving community. A strong commercial and industrial base provides jobs to community residents, contributes to a community’s tax base, and can be a source of psychological strength to a community. Commercial and industrial development will provide additional revenue for the City, which currently relies largely on residential property taxes for revenue. Commercial and industrial tax base will fund increased City services prompted by City growth. The 2040 Plan recognizes the inherent link between commercial development and the availability of skilled an deducated workers, affordable housing, developable land and infrastructure.GOALS AND POLICIESThe City of Corcoran recognizes the importance of each component of the economic development cycle in the overall health and economic stability of the community. The City addresses economic development issues through the following goals and policies:Goal 1: Promote cooperative efforts and utilize existing resources for economic growth in the City.Policy 1: Continue to identify and tap into local, State and Federal resources to enhance economic development.Policy 2: Explore County-wide economic development coordination options.Policy 3: Promote coordination of the educational system and the business community to ensure the availability of qualified workers.Goal 2: Promote economic stability and diversity to provide job opportunities to residents.Policy 1: Support efforts to retain existing businesses and facilitate their expansion.Policy 2: Support efforts to recruit new businesses and industries in appropriate locations.Policy 3: Recognize the need to expand infrastructure in the City, including but not limited to roadways, parks/trails, utilities and telecommunications infrastructure, to support and promote continued economic development.Policy 4: Target financial resources and programs to attract businesses that have an emphasis on job creation and businesses that meet or exceed livable wage requirements.Policy 5: Encourage the availability of a range of housing types and values to accommodate an ample work force.Goal 3: Promote efficient, planned commercial and industrial development.Policy 1: Identify key commercial and industrial development opportunities in planned growth areas at locations with access to major transportation systems.Policy 2: Encourage and facilitate infill development on vacant parcels to ensure maximum efficiency of land use.Policy 3: Encourage compact commercial developments that will make efficient use of infrastructure and resources.Policy 4: Encourage industrial, office, business and commercial development to locate within master planned industrial parks, business parks, or in the Town Center area.Goal 4: Enhance the character of the City’s commercial and industrial development.Policy 1: Support the provision of open/green space within commercial and industrial development.Policy 2: Promote the rehabilitation and redevelopment of under utilized facilities by pursuing and making available various financial programs and assistance.ECONOMICASSESSMENTExpansion of the local economy is often tied to existing employers and industries. This section analyzes the existing types of industry concentrated in the City of Corcoran and the competitive environment defined by the presence of industry in surrounding communities.Corcoran’s existing employment base is dominated by small construction-related firms. This is in contrast to the metro area, which is much more diversified in its employment base. For example, approximately 41 percent of all jobs in Corcoran are construction-related, whereas approximately 5 percent of all metro area jobs are construction-related. (DEED Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Therefore, as Corcoran looks to expand its commercial and industrial tax base, it will need to consider ways to diversify its existing employment base. Although Corcoran’s employment base more than doubled between 1990 and 2010, it still remains well below neighboring communities, especially Rogers, Maple Grove, and Plymouth (Table 15). Because some of these communities will continue to develop in coming years, Corcoran’s employment base has been drawn back from the 4,000 job increase forcasted in the 2030 Comp Plan to approximatley 1,200 job increase in the 2040 forcasts per Metropolitan Council estimates.Most future employment locations will be in areas guided as Mixed Use and Business Park. The intensity levels of future commercial/industrial areas will include impervious coverage up to 70 percent based on City Code requirements. Additionally, buildings in these areas will continue to meet the City’s commitment to high quality site-planning, architectural design, and landscaping. 65 Page 1 of 11 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a. Planning Commission Meeting: September 1, 2022 Prepared By: Nicholas Ouellette through Kendra Lindahl, AICP Topic: Site Plan and Variance for “Corcoran Northeast Water Treatment Plant” Located at 10120 County Road 116 (PID 12-119-23-22-0010) (City File No. 22-052) Action Required: Approval Review Deadline: October 9, 2022 1. Request This is a City-initiated request for the approval of a site plan and variances to construct a water treatment plant on the property located at 10120 County Road 116. 2. Background Water is currently provided to the Northeast District from the City of Maple Grove. Developing a Corcoran water system has been a priority for the City. A well and treatment site has been identified on County Road 116 north of Hunter Road. On February 18, 2021, Council approved a preliminary and final plat for Hunters Place 2nd Addition. The subdivision created a 3.25-acre site for a new City well and water treatment plant and preserved a 9.88-acre site for the Lother home and accessory buildings. On February 2, 2022, City staff reviewed a concept plan for the water treatment plant for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. On May 26, 2022, the City Council adopted the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines to provide additional standards for this portion of the City. This is the first application reviewed under this new standards. On July 14, 2022, Council conducted a work session to provide input and direction based on the architectural renderings of the project in order to inform the final design. On August 11, 2022, Council reviewed architectural renderings and provided input that will inform the final design. Council discussed including an alternate bid for an architecturally enhanced roof. Page 2 of 11 3. Context Zoning and Land Use The site is guided Existing Residential and zoned Single Family Residential (RSF-1) district. The site is located within the 2040 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary and the Northeast District. Surrounding Properties Surrounding properties to the north, east and south are also guided Existing Residential. All surrounding properties are guided Rural/Ag Residential and zoned Rural Residential. The present use of the surrounding properties appears to be predominately residential. Natural Characteristics of the Site There are no natural resources on site that are identified in the Natural Resources Inventory Areas map from the Comprehensive Plan. There is a savanna/pasture upland area identified on the property directly north of the site and a medium quality wetland located on the property directly east of the site. 4. Analysis Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer is the applicant for this project and will ensure compliance with City engineering standards. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving a site plan is limited to whether or not the plans meet the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the site plan. The City has a higher level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that variance standards have been met. B. Consistency with the Ordinance Standards Site Plan The request is for approval of a site plan to allow a water treatment plant use in the RSF-1 district. A site plan must be submitted for review and approval for essential services with permanent structures. The proposed development plan includes a three-cell water treatment plant. When the City bids the project, the plans will be bid with the two-cell option and the third option will be a bid alternative to the water treatment project. The City Engineer’s preference is for the three-cell water treatment plan, as opposed to the two-cell plan which may require Page 3 of 11 expansion to a three-cell at a future date. The City Council will make the decision based on the bid costs and this site plan approval would grant approval for either option. The water treatment plant will be approximately 22,419 sq. ft. in size on a 3.25-acre lot. The site plan has been reviewed for compliance with the larger proposed plan for a three-cell water treatment plant. A production well will be housed within an accessory structure is also located in the northwest corner of the site. Lot Standards and Setbacks Lot standards for the RSF-1 district are as follows: RSF-1 District Water Treatment Site Minimum Lot Area 20,000 sq. ft. 141,705 sq. ft. Minimum lot width 100 ft. 464 ft. Front, From Major Roadways* 100 ft. 92 ft. Front, From all other streets 40 ft. N/A Front Porch (≤ 120 square feet) 30 ft. N/A Side (living) 10 ft. 91 ft. Side (garage)** 5 ft. N/A Rear 30 ft. 130 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 35 ft. 33.3 ft. *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. **Minimum separation between structures on adjacent parcels shall be 15 feet. Plans show the proposed facility within the 100 ft. front setback from County Road 101, a minor expander. Building setback flexibility is provided for the facility structure to allow a 60-foot setback from County Road 101. Section 1060.070, Subd. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance allows a front setback to be reduced up to 40% (40 ft.) if a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, two ornamental trees and ten shrubs are provided for 100 ft. of length along the property line where flexibility is being requested. The applicant has provided five deciduous, five coniferous and 10 ornamental trees in addition to 50 shrubs for the 100 ft. of property length where building setback flexibility is being requested. This meets the ordinance standards. The accessory structure that will house the production well and controls is located in the front yard of the lot which is not permitted in urban residential districts such as the RSF- Figure 1: Site Plan Page 4 of 11 1 district. A variance is required for the accessory structure in the front yard and is discussed further in this report. Access The water treatment plant will have access from County Road 101. Hennepin County will permit this access and has asked that the City plan for a future connection from a local street. A future roadway connection is planned to the southeast corner which will connect to Hunter’s Ridge when the adjacent property is redeveloped. Parking and Drive Aisles Ten parking stalls, including one accessible stall, are proposed for the water treatment plant. The parking is adequate to serve the site. The stalls are situated along the east and south sides of the proposed building. A drive aisle provides access to the production well and stormwater access bench in the north of the site. The drive aisle extends to a hammerhead turnaround in the southeast corner of the site. Proposed parking and drive aisles comply with the minimum 40-foot. front setback and 10-foot side yard setback. Landscaping is provided at the end of each parking bay as guided by the Northeast District plan. Landscaping The site complies with the minimum landscape standards required by Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires one overstory tree per 50 linear feet of site perimeter and one understory shrub per 30 linear feet of site perimeter. The landscape plan shows plantings at sizes and percentages that comply with the ordinance requirements. 31 overstory trees and 52 understory shrubs have been provided in addition to the minimum landscaping materials required to allow building setback flexibility. Parking areas with four or more stalls shall be screened from residentially zoned properties and public streets. Landscaping provided for building setback flexibility provides adequate screening of the parking from the public street. Existing trees on adjacent properties to the south and east provide screening of the parking spaces from those properties. Figure 2: Landscape Plan Page 5 of 11 A native wet and dry-tolerant seed mix will be planted around the stormwater pond. The remaining areas of the site where soils are disturbed will be seeded with a low maintenance turf mix. The proposed landscaping complies with the Northeast District required plant materials list, utilizing a full complement of overstory, ornamental, and evergreen trees, shrubs and ground covers. The Northeast District also requires the use of three resiliency options in each development. The landscaping plans satisfy three required resiliency options through landscaping with native species, bioretention systems and xeriscaping. At least 50% of the plantings provided will be native species as specified in the Northeast District guidelines. The majority of species provided also qualify for xeriscaping, which utilizes plants that have lower water use requirements and are able to withstand periods of drought. The above ground perimeter of the stormwater pond seeded with a native wet and dry-tolerant seed mix serves as a bioretention system. Section 1060.070, Subd. 2.H. of the Zoning Ordinance requires underground irrigation is required for all new non-residential development where municipal water is available. However, the Northeast District guidelines impose greater restrictions on landscaping that abrogate the requirement for irrigation. Proposed plant materials are also more resilient and do not require regular watering. Buildings and Architecture The primary structure complies with the building standards in Section 1060.050 of the Zoning Ordinance and additional standards for buildings for the Northeast District. Current architecture plans show a predominantly brick building with both a flat roof and gabled roof. The structure complies with Zoning Ordinance standards for exterior building finishes. The gabled roof is metal with a factory applied color coating to reduce fading and degradation in compliance with standards for non-residential roof materials. The Northeast Guidelines require at least 60% of each building face visible from off-site must be of class I materials, such as brick, integral colored cast stone, glass, and architectural wall cladding. No more than 10% of each building face visible from off site may be of class III materials, such as unpainted or surface painted metal and concrete Figure 3: Three-cell Elevations Page 6 of 11 panels. Accents, wainscoting, awnings, translucent wall panels break up the water treatment building elevations. The water treatment building is predominantly comprised of face brick, a class I material. Secondary materials consist of manufactured stone and fiber cement board & batten, also class I materials. Building accents such as wainscoting, windows, awnings, translucent wall panels and stone accent bands break up the elevation of each façade. The building complies with these standards. Although not currently shown on the plans, an accessory building will house the production well structure and well control panel in the northeast corner of the site. The accessory structure complies with side and rear setbacks; however, the structure is located in the front yard which is not permitted in urban residential districts. A variance from this requirement is discussed further in this report. Staff has included a condition that the accessory structure must be built with similar materials and aesthetics to the water treatment plant building. Screening The Northeast District states that no loading docks or overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property. Plans show an overhead door on the west building elevation which faces County Road 116. The overhead door is required for the operation of the water treatment plant. A variance is requested for the overhead door and is discussed in further detail below. The Northeast District guidelines also require utility service structures to be screened from off-site views utilizing either a privacy fence that is at least six feet tall or enclosing the utility structure inside a building. However, these standards were intended for more obstructive utility equipment and structures, such as electrical substations. The generator and transformers on the south side of the building are proposed to be screened by vegetation and are located in the side and rear yard. Typically, vegetative screening has been the preference of the City and staff find the proposed plantings will provide sufficient screening for the generator and transformer. A variance from the requirement that utility equipment be screened within a building or by a privacy fence is discussed further in this report. The production well structure and controls will be housed within the accessory building. Staff intends to propose that the Council consider amending the standard for screening of utility structures in the Northeast District to include vegetative screening. Stormwater A stormwater ponding area is proposed in the northeast corner of the site. As a City- owned and operated facility, additional easement or a stormwater maintenance agreement is not required. If the facility changed ownership at a future date, the City could establish additional easement and a maintenance agreement for the stormwater pond at that time. Page 7 of 11 Parks and Trails The Northeast District guidelines and Comprehensive Plan show an off-road trail adjacent to County Road 116. The final alignment of the Diamond Lake trail was not known at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted; the off-road trail along County Road 116 was intended to be an option for the Diamond Lake Regional trail. The June 2022 Diamond Lake Regional Trail Draft Master Plan routes this off-road trail to the south and east of the development and does not cross the parcel. An on-road trail is also shown on the Comprehensive Plan Parks and Trails Plan Map. This on-road trail will be located within the County Road 116 right-of-way. Public Safety The Public Safety Committee reviewed the water treatment plant concept plan on February 2, 2022. The Committee recommended a consultant be hired to determine maximum quantities for chemical storage, that fire hydrants be installed on-site and turnaround points meet the City’s minimum specifications. Utility Services Structure Screening Variance A variance from the Northeast District standards has been requested to allow plant material screening for the transformer and generator on the south side of the building. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all of the following criteria have been met: 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Northeast District standard that utility service structures be screened within a building or by a six-foot tall privacy fence. Staff believes the requirement for utility service structures to be screened within a building or privacy fence was intended to apply to above grade lift stations, pump stations, substations and other obtrusive utility structures. Previously, the City has had a preference to provide screening with plant materials. The above ground structures for the generator and transformer are minimal and do not require intensive screening measures. Shrubs surrounding the transformer and generator will provide adequate screening. Figure 4: Diamond Lake Regional Trail route through Corcoran in blue. The site location is marked with a red dot. Page 8 of 11 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 conditions are unique to the parcel and were not created by the landowner. This is the first project to apply the Northeast District standards and staff believes this was an error. The generator and transformer are essential to the operation of the water treatment plant. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The generator and transformer are adequately screened by landscaping along the west property line and surrounding shrubs. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The visible portions of the transformer and generator are minimal and will be adequately screened by proposed landscaping. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance will enable the development of this facility which will support the existing and future development of the Northeast District. The Comprehensive Plan expects the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement projected future demands. Overhead Door Screening Variance A variance has been requested to allow an overhead door visible from County Road 116. The Northeast District guidelines require that no loading docks or overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all of the following criteria have been met: 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Northeast District standard that no overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property. The water treatment plant abuts residential property to the north, east and south and County Road 116 to the west. There is no side of the building from Page 9 of 11 which the overhead door is not visible from either a residential property or the County road. The overhead door is necessary for the operation of the water treatment plant and will be least impactful on neighboring homes in the current location. It will be screened from the County Road by significant landscaping. 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 conditions are unique to the parcel and were not created by the landowner. As noted above, the water treatment plant abuts residential properties on all sides and County Road 116 to the west. Abutting these properties effectively restricts the placement of an overhead door on any side of the structure. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The water treatment plant has a high level of architectural design that will enhance the property. The overhead door will face the least intrusive direction, towards the County Road, and also be screened by a higher level of landscaping provided along the west property line for a reduced building setback. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The water treatment plant is also necessary to provide water utilities to support current and future development in northeast Corcoran. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The overhead door is proposed to face west towards County Road 116. The overhead door placement corresponds with drive aisle access from the west. The door faces County Road 116 which is less intrusive for the adjacent residential properties. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance will enable the development of this facility which will support the existing and future development of the Northeast District. The Comprehensive Plan expects the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement projected future demands. Accessory Structure Variance A variance has been requested to allow an accessory structure (the structure protecting the production well) in the front yard. The requirement for accessory structures in urban Page 10 of 11 residential districts restricts the placement of accessory structures to only the side and rear yards. While the argument could be made that this site has two principal buildings (this building protecting the production well and the treatment plant), staff is considering this building an accessory building. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all of the following criteria have been met: 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance standard that no accessory structures shall be located in the front yard. The location of the production well was planned prior to the building and was selected based on the efficacy of the site, which placed the well in the northwest corner of the lot. The Northeast District guidelines require utility structures to be screened within a building or by a privacy fence. Complying with the requirement for screening in the Northeast District will place the accessory structure in the front yard of the lot. 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 conditions are unique to the parcel and were not created by the landowner. As noted above, the production well location was determined to provide the highest level of functionality for the water treatment plant. The location of the production well was also determined prior to adoption of the Northeast District guidelines. Complying with the Northeast District screening guidelines requires an accessory structure for the production well in the front yard. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Architecture for the accessory structure has not been provided; however, staff recommends that the architecture for the accessory structure be designed in a style similar to the water treatment plant building. The water treatment plant is also necessary to provide water utilities to support current and future development in northeast Corcoran. The size of the accessory structure will be minimal and will also be screened by landscape vegetation along the west property line. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The production well and controls will be housed within an accessory Page 11 of 11 building, which will be further screened by landscaping along the west property line. It is not possible to locate the production well elsewhere on site. Aside from the location in the front yard, the accessory structure complies with all other standards and requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance will enable the development of this facility which will support the existing and future development of the Northeast District. The Comprehensive Plan expects the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement projected future demands. Conclusion Staff finds the proposed plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and finds that the standards for a site plan and variance have been met with conditions. The staff report notes outstanding issues that must be addressed and staff has included conditions in the attached resolutions to address these issues. However, the Council could find that the variance standards have not been met and recommend denial of one or both of the variances. Staff has prepared options for both approval and denial of the variances. Next Steps This facility is being designed with the intention of being bid on in the fall of 2022 and being operational by the end of 2024. 5. Recommendation Move to recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the site plan and variances. Attachments 1. Draft resolution Approving the Site Plan and Variances 2. Site Location Map 3. Public Safety Comments dated February 4, 2022 4. Applicant’s Narrative dated July 29, 2022 5. Site Plans dated August 19, 2022 6. Landscape Plans dated August 23, 2022 7. Architectural Elevations dated August 10, 2022 City of Corcoran September __, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES FOR THE “CORCORAN NORTHEAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT” LOCATED AT 10120 County Road 116 (PID 12-119-23-22- 0010) (CITY FILE NO. 22-052) WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran (the “applicant”) has requested approval of a site plan and variance to allow for the development of a water treatment plant on the property legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, HUNTERS PLACE 2ND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and variances at a public meeting and recommends approval, 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 for a site plan and variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. A site plan and variances are approved to allow for the construction of a water treatment plant as shown on the application and plans received by the City on July 29, 2022 and additional information received on August 10, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The approvals are granted for either the two- or three-cell building option. 3. The applicant must comply with the Public Safety Plan Review comments dated February 4, 2022. 4. Building setback flexibility is provided to allow a reduced 60 ft. building setback along County Road 116 through the additional 10 overstory trees, 10 ornamental trees and 50 shrubs provided by the applicant. 5. The applicant shall provide final architectural plans with building material percentages to ensure compliance with the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines. 6. The accessory structure housing the production well and controls shall be built with similar materials and aesthetics to the water treatment plant building. 7. The variance to allow the generator and transformer to be screened by landscaping is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties complying with the Northeast District standard that utility service structures be screened within a building or by a six-foot tall privacy fence. The above ground structures for the transformer and generator are minimal and do not require intensive screening measures. Shrubs surrounding the transformer and generator will provide adequate screening. City of Corcoran September __, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 2 of 4 b. The conditions are unique to the parcel and not created by the landowner. This is the first project to apply the Northeast District standards and staff believes this was an error. The generator and transformer are essential to the operation of the water treatment plant. c. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The generator and transformer are adequately screened by landscaping along the west property line and surrounding shrubs. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the Ordinance. The visible portions of the transformer and generator are minimal and will be adequately screened by proposed landscaping. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will enable the development of this facility which will support the existing and future development of the Northeast District. The Comprehensive Plan expects the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement projected future demands. 8. The variance to allow an overhead door visible from County Road 116 is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Northeast District standard that no overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property because the site abuts residential property to the north, east and south and County Road 116 to the west. There is no side of the building from which the overhead door is not visible from either a residential property or the County road. The overhead door is necessary for the operation of the water treatment plant and will be least impactful on neighboring homes in the current location. b. The conditions are unique to the parcel and not created by the landowner. The water treatment plant abuts residential properties on all sides and County Road 116 to the west. Abutting these properties effectively restricts the placement of an overhead door on any side of the structure. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The water treatment plant has a high level of architectural design that will enhance the property. The overhead door will face the least intrusive direction, towards the County Road, and also be screened by a higher level of landscaping provided along the west property line for a reduced building setback. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. The overhead door is proposed to face west towards County Road 116. The overhead door placement corresponds with drive aisle access from the west. The door faces County Road 116 which is less intrusive for the adjacent residential properties. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will enable the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement future development demands. City of Corcoran September __, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 3 of 4 9. The variance to allow an accessory structure in the front yard is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance standard that no accessory structures shall be located in the front yard. The location of the production well was planned prior to the building and was selected based on the efficacy of the site, which placed the well in the northwest corner of the lot. The Northeast District guidelines require utility structures to be screened within a building or by a privacy fence. Complying with the requirement for screening in the Northeast District will place the accessory structure in the front yard of the lot. b. The conditions are unique to the parcel. As noted above, the production well location was determined to provide the highest level of functionality for the water treatment plant. The location of the production well was also determined prior to adoption of the Northeast District guidelines. Complying with the Northeast District screening guidelines requires an accessory structure for the production well in the front yard. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff recommends that the architecture for the accessory structure be designed in a style similar to the water treatment plant building. The water treatment plant is also necessary to provide water utilities to support current and future development in northeast Corcoran. The size of the accessory structure will be minimal and will also be screened by landscape vegetation along the west property line. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The production well and controls will be housed within an accessory building, which will be further screened by landscaping along the west property line. It is not possible to locate the production well elsewhere on site. Aside from the location in the front yard, the accessory structure complies with all other standards and requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will enable the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement future development demands. 10. A building permit is required prior to beginning construction. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of building permits 11. Record the approving resolution and associated documents at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 12. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and completes the required improvements. City of Corcoran September __, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX Page 4 of 4 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 __ day of September, 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator Hennepin County Property Map Date: 8/26/2022 Comments: 1 inch = 200 feet PARCEL ID: 1211 92322 0010 OWNER NAME: City Of Corcora n PARCEL ADDRESS: 1 0120 C o Rd No 116,Corcoran MN 55374 PARCEL AREA: 3 .25 acres, 14 1,7 05 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATE: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2021, PAYABLE 2022 PRO PERTY TYPE: Reside ntial H OMESTEAD: Ho me stead MARKET VALU E: $34,000 TAX TOTAL: $448 .61 ASSESSED 2022, PAYABLE 2023 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant L and-Residential HOMESTEAD: Non-Ho mestead MARKET VALUE: $143 ,00 0 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 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: February 4, 2022 Re: City File 22-010 City Water Treatment Facility A Public Safety plan review meeting was held on February 2, 2022. In attendance were: Lieutenant Ryan Burns, Planner Davis McKeown, Fire Chief Feist, Fire Chief Malewicki, Building Official Geske, and Construction Services Specialist Pritchard. The comments below are based on the concept plans received by the City on January 20, 2022 and the email from Ash Hammerbeck dated January 27, 2022. These comments are intended as initial feedback as further plan review will need to be completed as construction plans are available. 1. The Public Safety team recommends a fire consultant be hired to determine maximum quantities for chemical storage as well as life safety requirements. 2. Further recommendations are dependent on the size of the building, but the anticipated height of the building is unclear other than it is anticipated to exceed 35’. What is the anticipated height of the building at this time? 3. The Public Safety team highly recommends hydrants for the site. 4. The access and turnaround points throughout the site must meet the City’s minimum specifications. 60.00BUILDING SET BACKSTORMWATER PONDING AREA APPROX. 13,900 SF COUNTY ROAD NO. 116N89°58'44"W 362.55N1°09'23"E 161.92N89°59'50"W 320.83 WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET5 5 . 0 0 30.0024.0018.00 20.009.00 24.00 48.0024.00 PROPOSED BUILDING PRODUCTION WELL 55' WELL BUFFER HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP.) CONNECT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT APPROXIMATE FUTURE ROADWAY CONNECTION PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE FUTURE BUILDING EXPANSION FOOTPRINT CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYP.) CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYP.) R 2 5 . 0 0 R25.00R25.00R25 . 00 R49.00 R25.00 R3.67R3 . 6 7 R3.6 7 R25. 0 0 R25. 0 0 R3.674" SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT (TYP.) DOOR/ STOOP LOCATION (TYP.) SEE ARCHITECTURAL/ STRUCTURAL PLANS GENERATOR/ TRANSFORMER TEST WELL ZERO HEIGHT CURB B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (TYP.) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP.)12.00STORMWATER ACCESS SURMOUNTABLE CURB (TYP.) FUTURE EDGE OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT THREE-CELL DESIGN BUILDING FOOTPRINT 86.59' BUILDING SETBACK 40.00' DRIVE AISLE SETBACK 62.60' PARKING SETBACK 52.64'PARKING SETBACK27.80'DRIVE AISLE SETBACKZERO HEIGHT CURB CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER 87.08'BUILDING SETBACKSHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 08/18/2022 - 11:47amDrawing name: Z:\227704426\CAD\Dwg\Sheets\227704426_C101.dwgXrefs:, 227704426_XSXT, 227704426_PARCELS, 227704426_WETLANDS-GIS, 227704426_BORDER, 227704426_XSNO, 227704426_XSNV, Utility - BW VanTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.CITY OF CORCORAN, MNWATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comXX XX, XXXXCITY REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC101 SITE PLAN MDH MDHPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERMINNESOTA0 30 60 N STORMWATER PONDING AREA APPROX. 13,900 SF 923922921924 9259269279289299309319 3 4 9 3 2 93 0 9 2 8 9 2 6 9 3 6 9 3 8 9 4 0 925 926 927 928COUNTY ROAD NO. 116N89°58'44"W 362.55N1°09'23"E 161.92N89°59'50"W 320.83 WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MSMS MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS M S M S MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MSMSMSM SMSMSMSMSMS MSMSMS MS MS MS MS MSMSMSMSMS MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS MSMSMS MSMSMSMS MS MS INSTALL CULVERT PROTECTION INSTALL MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE (TYP.) INSTALL MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE (TYP.) INSTALL INLET PROTECTION (TYP.) INSTALL INLET PROTECTION (TYP.) INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 07/28/2022 - 10:20pmDrawing name: Z:\227704426\CAD\Dwg\Sheets\227704426_C201.dwgXrefs:, 227704426_XSXT, 227704426_PARCELS, 227704426_WETLANDS-GIS, 227704426_BORDER, 227704426_XSNO, 227704426_XSNV, Utility - BW VanTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.CITY OF CORCORAN, MNWATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comXX XX, XXXXPLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC201 POST CONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL PLAN MDH MDHPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERMINNESOTA0 30 60 N MS CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE / EXIT MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION CULVERT / PIPE PROTECTION EROSION CONTROL LEGEND NOTE: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ON ALL SLOPES 4:1 OR GREATER. 2. CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE TO PROTECT DOWNSTREAM WATERS FROM CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF. COUNTY ROAD NO. 116N89°58'44"W 362.55N1°09'23"E 161.92N89°59'50"W 320.83 WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWETlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STORMWATER PONDING AREA 923922921924 9259269279289299309319 3 4 9 3 2 93 0 9 2 8 9 2 6 9 3 6 9 3 8 9 4 0 926 927 928 925 921 922 92 3 92 4 92 6 92 7 9 2 8 929925922923924930928929930 93092 9929 925923924926927928929929 925 923 926 9 2 8 930929931930931932930 930 927 928 929 PROPOSED BUILDING FFE: 930.00 3.75%1.70% 2.95%1.74%1.34%2.27%1.32%1.25% 1.56% 2 . 7 6% 1 . 0 4% 1.4 3 % 20.0%20.0%5.6%2.6%3.2%20.0%20.0% 20.0%1.44%3.55%1.59%1.53%2.17%20.10%20.00%1.05%19.7% 920 921 922 923 924 920 921 922 923 924 16.8%25.0% 25.0% 8.5% 7. 7 % 2. 1 5% 2.0%4.46%3.98%20.13%92792892992992925.0%925 926 927 928920921922923924925926927925926927 1.30% 921922923 924 25.0%20.05% SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 07/28/2022 - 4:36pmDrawing name: Z:\227704426\CAD\Dwg\Sheets\227704426_C301.dwgXrefs:, 227704426_XSXT, 227704426_PARCELS, 227704426_WETLANDS-GIS, 227704426_BORDER, 227704426_XSNO, 227704426_XSNV, Utility - BW VanTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.CITY OF CORCORAN, MNWATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comXX XX, XXXXPLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC301 GRADING PLAN MDH MDHPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERMINNESOTA0 30 60 N lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COUNTY ROAD NO. 116N89°58'44"W 362.55N1°09'23"E 161.92N89°59'50"W 320.83 WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET923922921924 9259269279289299309319 3 4 9 3 2 93 0 9 2 8 9 2 6 9 3 6 9 3 8 9 4 0 926 927 928 925 921 922 92 3 92 4 92 6 92 7 9 2 8 929925922923924930928929930 930929929929929925 923 926 9 2 8 930929931930931932930 927 STORMWATER PONDING AREA PROPOSED BUILDING FFE: 930.00 RAW WATER 30" PVC SANITARY SEWER 24" FINISHED WATER FINISHED WATER SANITARY MANHOLE MIN. CONNECTION INVERT = 904.44 SANITARY MANHOLE (TYP.) 24" BACKWASH OVERFLOW 24" DETENTION OVERFLOW 24" RAW WATER 4" SLUDGE DISCHARGE 4" DOMESTIC SANITARY SERVICE 4" FLOOR DRAIN SERVICE 921 922 923 924 HYDRANT HYDRANT GATE VALVE GATE VALVE 30" PVC SANITARY SEWER CATCH BASIN (TYP.) RCP STORM SEWER (TYP.) FLARED END SECTION (TYP.) 31.73 FLARED END SECTION (TYP.) OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE 920 921 921 922 922 923 923 924 924920921922923924925926927 925 926 927 928 925923924926927928929926927928929CATCH BASIN (TYP.) STORM MANHOLE RCP STORM SEWER (TYP.) CLEARWELL OVERFLOW STUB AND CAP FINISHED WATER MAIN FOR FUTURE EXTENSION SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 07/28/2022 - 10:26pmDrawing name: Z:\227704426\CAD\Dwg\Sheets\227704426_C401.dwgXrefs:, 227704426_XSXT, 227704426_PARCELS, 227704426_WETLANDS-GIS, 227704426_BORDER, 227704426_XSNO, 227704426_XSNV, Utility - BW VanTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.CITY OF CORCORAN, MNWATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comXX XX, XXXXPLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC401 UTILITY PLANMDH MDHPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERMINNESOTA0 30 60 N COUNTY ROAD NO. 116N89°58'44"W 362.55N1°09'23"E 161.92N89°59'50"W 320.83 WETWETWETWETWET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWETllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CBMH 103 RIM=928.098 12" INV IN=923.40 (S) CBMH 104 RIM=929.102 12" INV OUT=923.78 (N) CBMH 102 RIM=927.641 12" INV IN=923.23 (S)>>>>>>>>125'-12" RCP @ 0.30%>>58'-12" RCP @ 0.30%FES 101 RIM=924.167 12" INV IN=923.00 (W) >>>> 77'-12" RCP @ 0.30% 12" INV IN=-3.21 (SW)19'-12" RCP @ 0.22%FES 107 RIM=-2.000 12" INV OUT=-3.17 (N)23'-12" RCP @ 0.22%CBMH 107 RIM=928.350 12" INV OUT=924.41 (W) CBMH 105 RIM=928.000 12" INV IN=923.99 (E)>>>>>>97'-12" RCP @ 0.30% >> 0+001+002+003+004+00 4+77 >>CBMH 106 RIM=928.206 12" INV IN=924.12 (E)>>>>70'-12" RCP @ 0.30%llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(3) CG (3) CC (2) MP (2) MP (4) AF (2) PG (3) TA (3) PR (2) CO (5) CS (3) QB (3) QB (3) TA (3) QM (3) CO (3) QB (4) QM (4) CR (5) CR (9) JC (5) JC (8) CR (4) AM (7) JC (17) DL (8) AM (33) DL (3) CR (6) DL (16) DL SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 08/22/2022 - 9:59amDrawing name: \\us0242-ppfss01\shared_projects\227704426\CAD\Dwg\Sheets\227704426_L101_recover.dwgXrefs:, 227704426_XSXT, 227704426_PARCELS, 227704426_WETLANDS-GIS, 227704426_BORDER, 227704426_XSNO, 227704426_XSNV, 227704426_XSNZ, 227704426 PARCEL EXHIBIT, 227704426_LANDSCAPE_recover, 227704426_XSNUTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.CITY OF CORCORAN, MNWATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comXX XX, XXXXCITY REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONL101 LANDSCAPE PLANRJB RJBPROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTMINNESOTA0 30 60 N LEGEND DECIDUOUS TREE SEED: MNDOT SEED MIX 25-131 LOW MAINTENANCE TURF SEED: MNDOT SEED MIX 33-261 STORMWATER SOUTH & WEST CONIFEROUS TREE SHRUBS & PERENNIALS DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH ORNAMENTAL TREE EASEMENT LINE SETBACK LINE RIGHT OF WAY LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY CLEARWELLEL 906.17PUMP CHAMBERSUMPEL 904.171A303MAIN LEVELEL 930.00LOWER LEVELEL 918.00PRECASTBEARINGEL 940.00BACKWASH TANKEL 909.501A305PRECASTBEARING 3EL 963.33PRECASTBEARING 2EL 956.331A3041A306BACKWASH PITEL 904.001A305CLEARWELLEL 906.17PUMP CHAMBERSUMPEL 904.171A3041A306MAIN LEVELEL 930.00LOWER LEVELEL 918.00PRECASTBEARINGEL 940.00BACKWASH TANKEL 909.50AERATOR BASEEL 947.001A303PRECASTBEARING 3EL 963.33PRECASTBEARING 2EL 956.33FILTERMEZZANINEEL 943.0016' - 0"3'-4"36'-8"PREFIN-MET STANDING SEAM ROOF PANELS AND FLASHINGFBR-18" HT CMSU-2 COURSE8" HT CMSU-2 COURSEFBR-1CMSU-1CMSU-1BACKWASH PITEL 904.00SHEET NUMBERARCHITECTPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.SURVEYDRAWNDESIGNEDAPPROVEDPROJ. NO.733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMinneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comCHECKED-Plot Date:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWING. ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY. THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTION OR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.File Path:CITY OF CORCORAN, MN WATER TREATMENT PLANT - THREE CELLMINNESOTA227704426XX XX, XXXXXX6/23/2022 5:13:59 PMC:\Users\public\Documents\Local_Revit_Files\227704426_AS_R20_ryan.mielke.rvtA201 AltEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSAuthorDesignerApproverCheckerNO. REVISION DATE4EAST ELEVATION Alt3NORTH ELEVATION Alt2SOUTH ELEVATION Alt1WEST ELEVATION Alt04'8'16'04'8' 16'04'8' 16'04'8' 16' MAIN LEVELEL 930.00LOWER LEVELEL 918.00PRECASTBEARINGEL 940.00BACKWASH TANKEL 909.501A303PRECASTBEARING 3EL 963.33PRECASTBEARING 2EL 956.3316' - 0"16' - 4"10' - 0"12' - 8"3'-4"36'-8"PREFIN-MET STANDING SEAM ROOF PANELS AND FLASHINGFBR-18" HT CMSU-2 COURSE8" HT CMSU-2 COURSEFBR-1CMSU-1CMSU-1BACKWASH PITEL 904.00MAIN LEVELEL 930.00LOWER LEVELEL 918.00PRECASTBEARINGEL 940.001A305CLEARWELLEL 906.17PUMP CHAMBERSUMPEL 904.17PRECASTBEARING 3EL 963.331A3041A306MAIN LEVELEL 930.00LOWER LEVELEL 918.00PRECASTBEARINGEL 940.00CLEARWELLEL 906.17PUMP CHAMBERSUMPEL 904.171A303PRECASTBEARING 2EL 956.33MAIN LEVELEL 930.00LOWER LEVELEL 918.00PRECASTBEARINGEL 940.00BACKWASH TANKEL 909.501A305PRECASTBEARING 3EL 963.33PRECASTBEARING 2EL 956.331A3041A306BACKWASH PITEL 904.00SHEET NUMBERARCHITECTPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.SURVEYDRAWNDESIGNEDAPPROVEDPROJ. NO.733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMinneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comCHECKED-Plot Date:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWING. ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY. THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTION OR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.File Path:CITY OF CORCORAN, MN WATER TREATMENT PLANT - TWO CELLMINNESOTA227704426XX XX, XXXXXX6/23/2022 5:04:59 PMC:\Users\public\Documents\Local_Revit_Files\227704426_AS_R20_ryan.mielke.rvtA201EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSAuthorDesignerApproverChecker1WEST ELEVATION2SOUTH ELEVATION3EAST ELEVATION4NORTH ELEVATION04'8'16'04'8' 16'04'8' 16'04'8' 16'NO. REVISION DATE Agenda Item: 11a. 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: August 25, 2022 City Council Natalie Davis McKeown, Planner Active Corcoran Planning Applications The following is a status summary of active planning projects: 1. Planned Unit Development (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 submitted a sketch plan for five industrial buildings totaling 726,396 sq. ft. They are requesting a PUD to allow reduced setbacks. The City Council reviewed and provided comment on February 24th. Staff drafted the EAW, and the City Council ordered distribution of the draft EAW for review and comment at the May 26th Council meeting. The Council is anticipated to finalize the Notice of Decision for the EAW at their August 11th meeting. 2. Final Plat and Final PUD for “Tavera 4th Addition” (City File No. 22-028). The final plat is for 80 single-family homes and 42 twin-homes located north of the main entrance at Horseshoe Trail. This item was reviewed at the June 16th Parks and Trails Commission meeting. The Final Plat and Final PUD was approved at the July 28th City Council meeting. 3. Azalea Farms Event Center IUP (PID 16-119-23-23-0001) (City File No. 22-030). An application was submitted for an Event Center at 22165 County Road 10. The applicant anticipates hosting weddings once a week throughout the summer months. The application was determined to be incomplete for review and is not yet scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. 4. Brown Easement Vacation (PID 05-119-23-13-0008) (City File No. 22-032). Blair Brown submitted an application for an easement vacation to address a drainage and utility easement through the middle of her property that was established based on a previous lot line that was later removed as part of a lot consolidation. A public hearing for this item was held at the City Council meeting on July 28th, and the request was approved at the same meeting. 5. Corner Lot Frontage and Fences ZOA (City File No. 22-033). Staff received direction at the June 9th Council meeting on potential solutions for additional fence flexibility within front yards as well as identifying a primary front yard for lots with multiple frontages. The City Council reviewed a draft ordinance at the August 11th meeting and directed staff to limit the focus of the amendment to reduce the setback for fences to 25’. This item was identified as a Top 4 priority Page 2 of 3 for staff to focus efforts in 2022 and is scheduled for a public hearing at the September 1st Planning Commission meeting. 6. Transition/Buffer Zones ZOA (City File 22-034). At the July 14th City Council confirmed, this item was confirmed as a Top 4 priority for staff to focus efforts on in the remainder of 2022. Staff is working on preparing a draft based on feedback provided at the May 12th work session. The draft is tentatively scheduled to go back in front of City Council in October before being sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. 7. MS4 Update (City File 22-035). Public Works is working on a code update to incorporate new MS4 requirements. The proposed verbiage is tentatively scheduled for City Council review and action at the October 13th regular meeting. A public hearing is not required. 8. Walcott Glen Final Plat and PUD (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-c44-0030) (City File No. 22-036). Pulte submitted an application for the final plat and PUD plan for Walcott Glen. The item is scheduled for final action at the City Council meeting on August 25th. 9. Ravinia 13th PUD Amendment – Tabor Fence (PID 36-119-23-21-0012) (City File No. 22- 037). Lennar submitted a request for PUD flexibility to allow for a screening fence between a Ravinia lot and larger residential lot that pre-dates Ravinia. The 6’ fence will encroach into the required front setback and into the City’s dedicated road right-of-way at the end of Black Oak Lane. If granted, the flexibility would be allowed until which time the larger lot re-develops and/or Black Oak Lane right-of-way is improved. City Council is approved this request at the July 28th meeting. 10. Vollrath Ag Shop CUP (PID 20-119-23-22-0003) (City File No. 22-038). Trent Vollrath submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow an agricultural building as the primary structure on an otherwise vacant lot that is actively farmed. The application was deemed incomplete and is not currently scheduled for review by the Planning Commission or City Council. 11. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat and PUD (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. 22- 039). An application was submitted to move forward with the preliminary approvals for the Pioneer Trail Industrial Park off Highway 55. The item is still incomplete as of this memo, but their expected to finalize their submittal by August 1st. This item is tentatively scheduled for the October 6th public hearing with the Planning Commission. 12. Wright Hennepin Energy Final Plat (PID 25-119-23-23-0001) (City File No. 22-041). WHE submitted their final plat application. The item is scheduled for final action at the August 11th Council meeting. 13. Corcoran Farms Business Park Rezoning and Preliminary Plat and PUD at 20130 Larkin Road (PID 26-119-23-13-0006) (City File No. 22-044). The City received a second industrial PUD application. This item was deemed incomplete pending the final decision for the EAW. The item could be scheduled for a public hearing as soon as the October Planning Commission meeting. 14. PUD Standards ZOA (City File No. 22-045). At their July 14th meeting, the City Council identified updating the PUD ordinance as a Top 4 priority for staff to focus efforts on in the remainder of 2022. The Council held a work session on July 28th to establish further direction on the desired updates to the PUD ordinance. Staff will take this feedback to establish a first draft for further review by the Council at an upcoming meeting. 15. Rental Ordinance (City File No. 22-046). At their July 14th meeting, the City Council identified Page 3 of 3 establishing a rental ordinance as a Top 4 priority for staff to focus efforts on in the remainder of 2022. Staff is currently completing research with tentative plans to present findings to Council and obtain further direction at the September 22nd work session. 16. Brown Riding Arena CUP (PID 05-119-23-13-0008) (City File No. 22-047). An application was submitted to allow a horse-riding arena on a ten-acre parcel as the structure, in conjunction with the necessary horse barn, will be in excess of the accessory structure footprint permitted by right. This item is scheduled for a public hearing at the September 1st Planning Commission meeting and will be reviewed by Council on September 22nd. 17. Pro-Tech Site Plan, CUP, and Variance (PID 26-119-23-11-0020) (City File No. 22-048). An application was submitted to move forward with the site plan, CUP, and variance for an expansion of Pro-Tech Auto. This item is scheduled for a public hearing at the September 1st Planning Commission meeting and will be reviewed by Council on September 22nd. 18. O’Brien Sketch Plan (PID 32-119-23-44-0003) (City File No. 22-049). A sketch plan application was submitted for corporate offices of Crystal Distribution Inc (CDI) spanning 15,000 square feet at 22320 Highway 55. The item will be reviewed by Council at the August 25th Council meeting. 19. Water Treatment Plan Site Plan (PID 12-119-23-22-0010) (City File No. 22-052). A site plan application was submitted by Stantec to move forward with the site for the City’s water treatment plant located at 10120 County Road 116 in the Northeast District. The item is scheduled for review at the September 1st Planning Commission meeting and September 22nd City Council meeting. 20. St. Therese Site Plan Amendment (PID 24-119-23-23-0001) (City File No. 22-053). St. Therese submitted a request to modify their building plan. These changes will allow for the Skilled Nursing portion of the project to be added as a future phase and will expand the Memory Care component from 17 units to 20 units. The change involves less than 10% of the total existing site area and qualifies as a minor change that will be reviewed administratively. 21. Slabaugh Variance (PID 10-119-23-21-0014) (City File No. 22-054). Gideon and Heather Slabaugh submitted a variance request to allow a covered porch to encroach within the front setback of their property at 9925 Ebert Road. This item is currently under review for completeness. If deemed complete, this would be scheduled for Planning Commission and City Council meetings in October. 22. Tharp Accessory Structure CUP (PID 11-119-23-31-0011) (City File No. 22-055). Shawn Tharp submitted an application to allow for future expansions of an accessory structure that will exceed a footprint of 3,969 square feet. The structure would be located at 20420 Duffney Circle which is over 10 acres in size, so the property owner can exceed the allowable footprint through a CUP. This item is currently under review for completeness. If deemed complete, this would be scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council review in October. 23. Bellwether Drainage and Utility Easement Vacations (City File No. 22-056). Pulte submitted a request to vacate several easements previously established over various outlots in Bellwether and Bellwether 6th. These outlots are being re-platted as a part of Amberly 2nd, Bellwether 8th, and Bellwether 9th. New easements are to be deeded with these new subdivisions. This item is scheduled for a public hearing at the September 8th City Council meeting. Agenda Item: 8b. Page 1 of 4 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763-420-2288 email: general@corcoranmn.gov / website: www.corcoranmn.gov MEMO Meeting Date: To: From: Re: September 1, 2022 Planning Commission Jessica Beise, City Administrator City Council Report The Planning Commission last met on June 2, 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. June 9, 2022, Council Meeting • Pulte Walcott Glenn Preliminary Plat, PUD, Rezoning o Approved the preliminary plat, PUD, and rezoning with additional screening on a northern section of townhomes. • Front Lot/Corner Lot Description o Provided feedback to staff on the description or front and corner lots and directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment for review. • Hackamore Road Project – Final Design o Approved the final design. • Discussion of Rental Ordinance o Discussed options for a rental ordinance and directed staff to look at priorities. • Schedule Work Sessions o Scheduled work sessions. • Lease Termination Agreements o Executed lease termination agreements for the sale of City property related to the St. Therese development. June 23, 2022, Council Work Session • Police Officer Recruitment and Retention o Discussed ideas for recruitment and retention for the Police Department and if and how some of those ideas translate to recruitment and retention for the City. Page 2 of 4 June 23, 2022, Council Meeting • Three Rivers Park District – Diamond Lake Regional Trail o Heard the presentation on the master plan for the trail; approved a resolution of support for the master plan. • Ditzer Variance o Approved the variance. • Northeast District Water Supply – Final Design o Approved the final design. • SE Corcoran Water Supply Report o Reviewed the water supply report. • 2023 Budget Priorities o Provided direction to staff on budget priorities. • 2023 Compensation o Provided direction to staff on compensation. • Resignation and Recruitment – Public Works Maintenance Workers o Accepted the resignation and authorized recruitment. • PUD Ordinance Amendment Discussion o Discuss the PUD ordinance. • Right of Entry o Approved a right of entry agreement for a culvert extension with the County Road 10 project this year. • Reciprocal Easement Agreement o Discussed the staging and construction site for St. Therese. July 14, 2022, Work Session Meeting • Water Supply – Architecture o No formal meeting was held as there was not a quorum. July 14, 2022, Council Meeting • Lee OS & P Sketch Plan o Provided advisory feedback to the applicant. • Administration Department Staffing Phase 2 o Directed staff to move forward with a slightly modified staffing plan. • Ordinance Priority Discussion o Provided feedback to staff on the priorities for code amendments • Scheduled Work Sessions o Scheduled work sessions for July 28th and August 11th for discussions of the PUD Ordinance and the 2023 budget. • Broadband Discussion o Reviewed options for partners for expanding broadband within Corcoran and recommended moving forward with a grant application with Comcast. July 28, 2022, Work Session Meeting • City Code Updates – Planned Unit Development o Discussed Planned Unit Developments and provided feedback to staff to start drafting changes to the City Code. July 28, 2022, Council Meeting • Elm Creek Watershed Commissioner Presentation Page 3 of 4 o Commissioner Guenthner presented on the Watershed budget and opportunities for the City to participate in grants. • Blair Brown Easement Vacation o Held a public hearing and authorized the easement vacation • Tavera 4th Addition o Approved the Final Plat and PUD. • Ravinia 13th Addition PUD Amendment o Approved a PUD Amendment to allow for a fence for screening of existing residential and Ravinia property. • Parks Master Planning – Request for Additional Funding o Authorized funding to complete the plans for phase 1 of City Park. • Economic Development Authority Meeting o Called an EDA meeting for August 11 at 5:15pm. • Administrative Assistant Hiring o Authorized the City Administrator and Mayor to extend a job offer to the preferred candidate following the completion of the background and reference check. August 11, 2022, Economic Development Authority Meeting • Lease Termination o Approved lease termination agreement. August 11, 2022, Work Session Meeting • 2023 Draft Budget o Reviewed draft budget and staff was provided direction to update the budget with Council feedback. August 11, 2022, Council Meeting • Frontages and Fences Ordinance Amendment o Council provided direction to staff to amend the fence setbacks and did not recommend changes to the front lot definition. • Water Supply – Architecture for the Water Treatment o Provided feedback and selected option 3a as the preferred architecture design with additional review of decorative features. • St. Therese/City Center Drive Mass Grading Bid Award o Awarded bid. • THC Regulation Discussion o Directed staff to bring a moratorium and additional information to the August 25 Council meeting. August 25, 2022, Work Session Meeting • 2023 Draft Budget o Reviewed the second draft of the 2023 budget and staff will update the budget with Council feedback. August 25, 2022, Council Meeting • 2021 Audit o The Council heard a video recording from the audit team and accepted the 2021 audit. • Interim Ordinance – Prohibiting the Sale of Edible Cannabinoid Products o Adopted a moratorium on the sale of cannabinoid products. Page 4 of 4 • Walcott Glen Final Plat and PUD o Approved the final plat and PUD for Walcott Glen with the addition a modification to how landscaping changes are processed. • Cook Lake Highland PUD Amendment Request o Denied a request for PUD Amendment related to Park Dedication • O’Brien Concept Plan o Reviewed the concept and provided feedback on the industrial lot near Pioneer Trail. • Night to Unite Recap o Officer Ekenberg and Rec Supervisor Christensen Buck provided a recap of Night to Unite and adopted a resolution accepting the donations. • 2023-2025 Labor Agreement o Adopted a three-year labor agreement for Police Officers and recognized the negotiation efforts. • Work Session Request o Declined to host a work session on bond conduit financing. • Sign Ordinance Amendment Request o Authorized staff to being a sign ordinance amendment related to special event signage and permitting.