Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-12-01 Planning Commission Agenda PacketCITY OF CORCORAN *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. Corcoran Planning Commission Agenda December 1, 2022 - 7:00 pm 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval 4.Open Forum 5.Minutes a.November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes* 6.New Business a.Public Hearing. Pioneer Trail Industrial Rezoning, Park Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Planned Unit Development plant (PIDs 32-119-23-43-0005; 32-119-23-34-0013; 32-119-23-43-0006) (City File No. 22-039) i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation b.Public Hearing. Gmach Accessory Dwelling Unit Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-071). i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation c.Public Hearing. Park Dedication Subdivision Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-065) i.Staff Report ii.Open Public Hearing iii.Close Hearing iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation 7.Reports/Information a.Planning Project Update* b.City Council Report* – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp c.Other Business – Draft 2022 Annual Report and 2023 Priorities* 8.Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 12/8/2022 12/21/2022 1/12/2023 1/26/2023 2/9/2023 2/23/2023 Van Den Einde Brummond Horn Lanterman Shoulak Van Den Einde 9. Adjournment HYBRID MEETING OPTION AVAILABLE The public is invited to attend the regular Council meetings at City Hall. Meeting Via Telephone/Other Electronic Means Call-in Instructions: +1 312 626 6799 US Enter Meeting ID: 867 4341 5663 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment sections in the meeting. Video Link and Instructions: https:// us02web.zoom.us/ j/86743415663 Or visit http:// www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 867 4341 5663 Participants can utilize the Raise Hand function to be recognized to speak during the Public Comment sections in the meeting. Participant video feeds will be muted. In-person comments will be received first, with the hybrid electronic means option following. www.corcoranmn.gov CITY OF CORCORAN *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. Corcoran Planning Commission Agenda November 3, 2022 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on November 3, 2022, in Corcoran, Minnesota. All Planning Commissioners were present in the Council Chambers, but members of the public were able to participate in-person as well as through electronic means using the audio and video conferencing platform Zoom. Present: Commissioners Lanterman, Brummond, Horn, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. Also present: City Planner Davis McKeown, City Planner Lindahl, and Council Liaison Vehrenkamp 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Commissioner Appointment – Jon Horn 4. Agenda Approval Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to continue Agenda Item 7b. Park Dedication Subdivision Ordinance Amendment to the December 3, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Horn, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 5:0) Motion made by Van Den Einde, seconded by Shoulak, to approve the agenda for the November 3, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Horn, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 5:0) 5. Open Forum 6. Minutes a. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes* Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Shoulak, to approve the October 6 meeting minutes. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Horn, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 5:0) 7. New Business - Public Comment Opportunity a. Public Hearing. Vollrath Agricultural Accessory Structure Conditional Use Permit (PID 20-119-23-22- 0003) (City File No. 22-038) i. Staff Report – Staff report presented by Planner Davis McKeown ii. Open Public Hearing 1. Dean Vehrenkamp, 9310 Bechtold Road, spoke about the applicants need for additional storage, the buildings function for the farmstead, and supporting the application as a neighbor. iii. Close Hearing Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Horn, to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Horn, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 5:0) iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation - Commission discussion included meeting the CUP requirement when there is no principal structure; section 1030.020 of city code; the large setbacks of the building to justify lack of screening or landscaping; the suitability of the building within the larger neighborhood context; the Hennepin County Natural Resources *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. Map; clarification of 100-year flood plain; clarification of principal structures; flexibility of the building location regarding the flood plain; and the possibility of mitigating the flood plain on the property. Gerald Vollrath, spoke about his family’s multigenerational history as farmers on the property. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Horn, to recommend the approval of the draft resolution approving a conditional use permit for the property adjacent to 22903 Strehler Road. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Horn, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 5:0) b. Public Hearing. Park Dedication Subdivision Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-065) i. Staff Report ii. Open Public Hearing iii. Close Hearing iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation 8. Reports/Information a. Planning Project Update* - The Commission discussed the anticipated December meeting agenda; clarification of a Building Rights Appeal request; status of Corcoran Farms Business Park; Preliminary Plat and Final Plat process. b. City Council Report* – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp suggested the Commission to provide suggestions to an applicant if they choose to recommend denial of a Planned Unit Development. c. Other Business – 2023 Priority Setting Discussion* - The Commission discussed their priorities for 2023 which included look at the ADU ordinance, administrative approvals for some legal nonconformities; looking at the farm/nontraditional animal ordinance; and annual training focused on Homeowner Associations. 9. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 11/10/2022 11/21/2022 (M) 12/8/2022 12/21/2022 1/12/2023 1/26/2023 Horn Shoulak Van Den Einde Brummond Horn Lanterman 10. Adjournment Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Shoulak, to adjourn the November 3, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Lanterman, Brummond, Horn, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde. (Motion passed 5:0) Meeting adjourned at 8:13 pm. Page 1 of 19 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 7a. Planning Commission Meeting: December 1, 2022 Prepared By: Nicholas Ouellette through Kendra Lindahl, AICP Topic: PUBLIC HEARING. Rezoning, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan and Preliminary Plat for “Pioneer Trail Industrial Park” (PIDs 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) Action Required: Approval Review Deadline: December 31, 2022 1. Request The applicant, Joseph Radach of Contour Development LLC, has submitted a request for review of a rezoning to planned unit development (PUD), preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat to develop a five- lot industrial park. Key application materials are attached as part of this packet; however, due to size limitations not every item is included. The complete application is available at city hall. 2.Background The City of Corcoran completed an AUAR for Southwest Corcoran in 2005. The AUAR included this site, but the AUAR was not updated as required and has since expired. On August 24, 2006, Council approved a preliminary plat, preliminary PUD development plan, rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment to allow development of approximately 545,000 square feet of industrial and commercial space on this approximately 55-acre site. This approval included construction of a traffic signal at Pioneer Trail and Highway 55 and included the extension of municipal sanitary sewer and water from the City of Medina. On April 12, 2007, Council approved a final plat and final PUD development plan for “Corcoran Business Park”. The project did not proceed and all approvals have expired. Figure A: Site Location Page 2 of 19 On November 22, 2021, Council reviewed a concept plan to develop a five-lot business park and indicated support for the project. The project at that time was intended to be developed consistent with the existing Light Industrial (I-1) zoning and would have required a variance to develop in advance of municipal water and sanitary sewer. On February 24, 2022, Council reviewed a PUD sketch plan to develop a five-lot business park and indicated support for the project. The current plan is consistent with the concept proposed at this meeting. The City completed an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the project. On May 26, 2022, Council issued a finding of “no need” for an environmental impact statement (EIS) based on the review of the EAW dated March 24, 2022. 3.Context Zoning and Land Use The 56.86-acre site is guided Light Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. Three parcels are zoned I-1 district and the northwest parcel is zoned Urban Reserve (UR) district. The land is vacant and the current use is agricultural. The site is located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and is part of the Future Study Area for sanitary sewer identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Surrounding Properties The site is bordered by Highway 55 and the City of Medina to the south. Surrounding properties located north, northeast and northwest of the site are guided Existing Residential and Low Density Residential. Properties to the east and west are guided Light Industrial. Natural Characteristics of the Site There are no natural resources identified on the site in the Natural Resource Inventory Areas (NRI) map. However, there are four wetlands on the site as identified by the wetland delineation report from January 6, 2020. 4. Analysis Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report; the detailed comments are included in the attached engineering memo and the approval conditions require compliance with the memo. Figure B: Zoning Map Page 3 of 19 A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning application. The proposed zoning for a property must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City must deny the rezoning application. The Zoning Ordinance and Map are the enforcement tools used to implement the goals and standards set in the Comprehensive Plan. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a PUD. A PUD must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community and surrounding area. The City’s discretion in approving a preliminary plat is limited to whether the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance and conditions of the preliminary plat approval. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the plat. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Rezoning to PUD District The Zoning Ordinance has established a PUD zoning district with the purpose of promoting a creative and efficient use of land by providing design flexibility in the development of residential neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas that would not be possible under a conventional zoning district. The intent of the district is to: A. Provide for the establishment of PUD districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. B. Allow for the mixing of land uses within a development when such mixing of land uses could not otherwise be accomplished under the existing zoning and subdivision regulations. C. Provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporating design elements, e.g. construction materials, landscaping, lighting, etc., that exceed the City’s standards to offset the effect of any variations. D. Promote more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City. E. Preserve and enhance natural features and open spaces. Page 4 of 19 F. Maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities. G. Ensure appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The applicant is requesting flexibility to allow: • Development in advance of City services (water and sanitary sewer) being available to serve the project. • Reduced parking setback of 70 feet from Highway 55 where 100 feet is required. • Reduced parking setback of 18 feet from Kimberly Lane where 50 feet is required for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. • Reduced parking and building setback of 36 feet from Kimberly Lane for the lots north of Kimberly Lane. • Wall signage on the north and south façade of buildings for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 where only one wall sign is allowed at the primary entrance of each tenant space, not to exceed 10% of the primary building face. The 10% wall sign area would be split between the north and south elevations. • Insulated metal panels as a primary building façade for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 north of Kimberly Lane. • Landscape tree requirement to be applied across the whole site. • Reduced number of landscape shrubs for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 north of Kimberly Lane. • Impervious area to be calculated on a project-wide basis not to exceed 80%. This will allow some lots as much 80% impervious area. • Creation of an outlot without frontage (Outlot A for the City well site). In exchange for this flexibility, the applicant has stated they will: • Bring commercial tax base and jobs to Corcoran ahead of city services. • Deed an outlot to the City for a future well site. • Preserve existing trees south of the lots along Wagon Wheel Lane which will provide additional screening in addition to proposed screening on plans. • Provide utility corridors to install future city services. • Provide an additional 24 feet of right-of-way (80 feet total) where a 66 foot right- of-way is required. There is no PUD benefit for the 80-foot right-of-way and utility corridors (the last two bullets above) which are required by the City Engineer for any project whether or not a PUD is requested. Staff consider the PUD benefits provided by this development to be the outlot for a future City well, tree preservation and commercial tax generation in advance of city service being available to the site. The PUD flexibility and detailed development plan are discussed in the PUD Plan section of this report. Page 5 of 19 The City must review this request for compliance with the PUD standards as follows: 1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The planned unit development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development is guided for industrial development as proposed. The plan develops the site in advance of municipal services being able to service the area; however, utility corridors for the future services will be dedicated to the City by the applicant. 2. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying zoning district. Three parcels are zoned I-1 district and the smallest parcel is zoned UR district. The proposed development is not in conflict with the intent of the zoning district. 3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, except that PUD flexibility is requested as noted in the staff report. The PUD allows the applicant to request flexibility from the performance standards in the ordinance in exchange for a high-quality development than might otherwise be expected. The Planning Commission could find that the PUD flexibility requested by the developer results in deviations from the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not offset by PUD benefits proposed by the applicant and, therefore, are in conflict with the applicable provisions of the ordinance. 4. The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and/or operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or phase. The planned development is feasible without dependence upon any other subsequent phase. The Pella and Park Place Storage projects will begin construction next year and the remaining three lots will be developed in future phases 5. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The developer is providing sidewalks consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The developer is also constructing a new street to provide access to the development as guided by the Southwest District Plan. Page 6 of 19 Municipal sanitary sewer and water are not available to serve the site. The applicant is proposing private well and septic to serve the site until municipal services are available. The applicant has provided utility corridors along Kimberly Lane to accommodate the future municipal services. 6. The planned development will not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The property is zoned Light Industrial. The development does comply with setback and landscape screening requirements from adjacent residential properties to the northeast and northwest. However, the Commission could find that the planned development will have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The property is zoned light industrial, but the developer has not provided adequate landscaping to buffer the development from the residential properties to the northwest, north and northeast. 7. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher standards, more efficient and effective uses of streets, utilities and public facilities, it shall maintain and enhance any natural resources within the development, and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations. Staff finds the developer meets the building and site standards in the ordinance except where PUD flexibility is requested. The Planning Commission (and ultimately the City Council) could find that the development of a 56.86 acre light industrial development can provide opportunities for new businesses, employment and increased taxbase are enough of a public benefit to off-set the flexibility requested. However, the Commission could find that the PUD flexibility requested by the applicant results in deviations from the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not offset by the PUD benefits proposed by the applicant and, therefore, are in conflict with the applicable PUD provisions of the ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance states that “the rezoning of the property defined in the development plan shall not become effective until such time as the City Council approves an ordinance reflecting said development, which shall take place at the time that the City Council approves the final development plan.” The Council would approve the rezoning to be effective at such time as the final PUD plan is approved. Preliminary PUD Plan The PUD offers enhanced flexibility to develop the site through the relaxation of most typical zoning district standards. The PUD allows for a greater variety of land uses, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this Page 7 of 19 flexibility, the City expects a higher level of design, more sensitive development or more significant infrastructure improvements than might otherwise be required. The applicant indicates the first phase of development in the industrial park will be Park Place Storage self-storage facility and an office/warehouse for the Pella Corporation. Proposed Uses The applicant is requesting that all permitted, accessory, administrative permit and conditional uses permitted for the I-1 district are allowed for this development, subject to the standards in Section 1040.125 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a motor fuel station (gas and convenience store) on Lot 1, Block 1. This use is not permitted in the I-1 district. The applicant must revise the narrative to request PUD flexibility to allow a motor fuel station on Lot 1, Block 1. The motor fuel station will be subject to the C-2 development standards in Section 1040.110, Subd. 4(K). Lot Standards The development is being reviewed against the I-1 district standards. I-1 District Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 Lot 3, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 2, Block 2 Outlot A Minimum lot area 1 acre 4.29 acres 10.46 acres 8.71 acres 16.83 acres 10.32 acres 0.39 acres Minimum lot width 100 ft. 580 ft. 427 ft. 1490 ft. 1676.5 ft. 648 ft. 0 Minimum lot depth 200 ft. 375 ft. 375 ft. 471 ft. 692 ft. 692 ft. N/A Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 100 ft 100 ft. 100 ft. 204 ft. N/A N/A N/A Front, From all other streets 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 89 ft. 36 ft. 36 ft. N/A Side/Rear 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 225.7 ft. 59 ft. 20 ft. N/A Adjacent to Residential 50 ft. N/A N/A N/A 515 ft. 50 ft. N/A Minimum Parking Setbacks: Front (Kimberly Lane) 50 ft. 18 feet 18 feet 18 feet 36 feet 36 feet N/A Page 8 of 19 I-1 District Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 Lot 3, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 2, Block 2 Outlot A Front (Highway 55) 100 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft. N/A N/A N/A Side/Rear 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 38.5 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. N/A Maximum Principal Building Height 45 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. 37 ft. 45 ft. 19.6 ft. N/A Maximum Impervious Surface 70% 50.1% 47.7% 61.2% 34.3% 77.7% 80% *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. The applicant’s narrative requests PUD flexibility for Block 1 lots to have a reduced 75- foot parking setback to Highway 55 and 18-foot parking setback from Kimberly Lane; however, parking setbacks on Highway 55 could be provided by right through additional landscaping as described in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(L). The applicant is choosing to apply for PUD flexibility rather than add the additional landscaping. For lots in Block 2, the applicant has requested PUD flexibility for a reduced building and parking setback of 36 feet from Kimberly Lane. Proposed lots for future development will be required to meet the I-1 district lot standards except where flexibility from these standards has been requested. The applicant is also requesting flexibility from frontage, lot width and depth requirements for Outlot A which will be deeded to the City for a future well site. The outlot is entirely surrounded by Lot 1, Block 2 and would be accessed via an easement over Lot 1, Block 2. Public Safety The Public Safety Committee reviewed the plans on October 5, 2022. The Public Safety memo provides comments on the self-storage facility on Lot 2, Block 2. The memo requires the applicant to provide a turning radius exhibit, information of fire suppression systems and adequate fire access to buildings throughout the lot. Staff has included a condition requiring the applicant to comply with Public Safety memo. This will likely require changes to the site plan. Parking Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the minimum number of parking spaces required based on the gross square footage of floor area for each land use. The ordinance does not provide specific standards for self-storage or gas station/convenience uses. In such cases, parking requirements may be derived from the American Planning Association Parking Standards manual. Page 9 of 19 The ordinance requires the following: • Office = 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area (minimum 8 spaces). • Warehouse = 5 spaces plus 1 space for each 2 employees on the largest shift. A minimum of 1 space per 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area is required. The following parking is required for lots for future development: • Self-storage = No off-street parking is required due to the nature of the business. • Gas Station/Convenience = 5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area, provided that the number of required spaces may be reduced by the number of fuel pumps that can be access at any one time, and provided that in no event the number of required spaces be less than 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The proposed uses on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 are conceptual at this time so the number of parking spaces required is not known. No PUD flexibility has been requested from the required parking standards. The parking required for these lots will be determined when they are developed in a future phase. The Pella Corporation office/warehouse building has approximately 57,855 square feet of warehouse and 24,880 square feet of office space. The Zoning Ordinance requires 168 parking stalls for the building. The applicant has provided a total of 172 parking stalls on the site. Forty-six stalls are proof-of-parking for a future expansion which allocates 126 parking stalls for the proposed building. The 126 parking stalls provided does not meet the required parking. The applicant could provide the required number of parking stalls if the 46 proof-of-parking stalls are constructed with the first phase of development; however, no flexibility from required parking has been requested and if proof-of-parking for a future phase is constructed to meet the current parking requirements, it may preclude the Pella Corporation from constructing the future phase for lack of required parking. • Staff supports the PUD flexibility to allow the 46 spaces to be proof of parking. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss. No parking has been proposed for the self-storage facility on Lot 2, Block 2. There is no on-site office proposed and parking areas for the self-storage facility will be used on a temporary basis by customers accessing their storage units during business hours. Plans show a minimum of 50 feet between the self-storage buildings which provides adequate space for parking in front of a unit while allowing traffic to pass unobstructed. Loading Areas Section 1060.060 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits loading areas within 300 feet of residential zoned or guided property unless completely screened by an intervening building. Loading areas not requiring screening by an intervening building shall be screened from adjacent residentially zoned properties by the use of berms, fences, or walls to provide 100% opacity to a height of at least 10 feet. Page 10 of 19 Loading areas are proposed for Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2; each proposed loading area is located more than 300 feet from any residentially zoned or guided properties. The loading areas for Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 face Highway 55 to the south. Lot 1, Block 2 abuts residentially zoned property to the north and west. While the proposed building and layout for Lot 1, Block 2 are conceptual at this time, a loading area located at the rear of the building would be situated over 300 feet from the adjacent residential properties. If a loading area is proposed within 300 feet of the residentially zoned properties it must be screened by an intervening building. Plans provide landscape screening along the west and north edge of the Lot 1, Block 2 development site which will screen the loading and outside storage areas proposed for this lot. Design Standards Section 1060.050 of the Zoning Ordinance provides building standards for industrial uses. However, it does not provide detailed specific design requirements like the residential districts. The proposed development is subject to the performance standards in Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the Southwest District Design Guidelines in Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance. The guidelines for commercial development in the Southwest District are minimal and call for high quality business parks with well-landscaped setbacks and buffers. The applicant has requested PUD flexibility from the architectural materials standards to allow insulated metal panels for the exterior of the future building and self-storage facility on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. This material is not an approved exterior finish listed in Section 1060.050, Subd 1(C), but the City Council indicated support for this material during the concept plan review. While the building on Lot 1, Block 2 is conceptual at this time, the applicant has indicated it will be of similar quality and materials as the self- storage buildings. The self-storage facility meets the guidelines for commercial development in the Southwest District. The orientation of the buildings and individual storage unit entrances generally face away from the residential properties located to the northeast. Architectural plans for the Pella Corporation site show a building with predominantly pre-cast concrete panels which are an approved exterior finish. Clerestory windows and colored pre-cast concrete add some visual interest to the building; however, the architectural plans indicate the yellow band is painted which could rapidly deteriorate or become unsightly. The applicant should clarify if the painted yellow pre-cast concrete is Figure C: Self-storage facility rendering. Page 11 of 19 integrally colored or not with the final PUD. The east and northeast elevation, where the office area is located, has additional windows and architectural features which add visual interest. Mechanical equipment must comply with screening standards in Section 1060.030: All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be designed (including exterior color) and located so to be aesthetically harmonious and compatible with the building. Screening of the equipment may be required where the design, color, and location of the equipment are found to not effectively buffer noise or provide aesthetic harmony and compatibility as observed by a 6-foot tall individual standing at ground level on the adjacent property or public right-of-way. Screening shall be constructed of durable materials which are aesthetically compatible with the structure and which may be an integral part of the structure. Applicable requirements for access to the equipment shall be observed in the design and construction of the screening. The Pella Corporation plans show ground mounted mechanical generator and transformer in the loading area south of the building. Staff has included a condition requiring the applicant to provide plans for screening for the mechanical equipment to ensure compliance. No mechanical equipment is provided for the self-storage facility. Trash and Recycling Plans for the Pella Corporation show a compactor in the loading area south of the building. Section 1060.02 of the Zoning Ordinance permits exterior storage of trash if it is stored within an accessory building or in closed containers within a totally screened area. The trash enclosure materials should be compatible with the design of the building. Staff has included a condition that enclosure details be provided to the City for review and approval to ensure that trash is adequately screened in the front yard. No trash enclosure is proposed for the self-storage facility where customers will be responsible to remove any trash. Utilities The City Engineer’s memo provides detailed utility comments. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility to allow new development in the I-1 district in advance of municipal services being available to service the site. The site is located in the 2030- 2035 stage of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Staging Plan, but the area is subject to a Metropolitan Council study which is not expected to be completed until the next Comprehensive Plan update. This study will determine the method and timing of regional wastewater services for area. It is not practical to delay the development of all property in the southwest district of Corcoran until that study is complete. The applicant Page 12 of 19 has provided private well and septic to service the site until such a time that municipal services are available. Proposed septic drainage fields are typically located on the lot they will serve; however, the septic fields for Lot 2, Block 1 are situated on the west side of the Pella Corporation site on Lot 3, Block 1. The applicant must provide detailed plans for how a connection from Lot 2, Block 1 will be made to the proposed septic fields. No well or septic are proposed for the self-storage facility on Lot 2, Block 2. The self-storage facility will not require an extended employee presence and does not necessitate the installation of on- site well and septic facilities. This will also ensure that units are strictly used for storage and will discourage extended customers visits. Without access to utilizes, the self-storage buildings will not be sprinkled. Architectural plans for the self-storage buildings indicate an automatic fire suppression system will be utilized. The applicant shall provide additional information on the proposed fire suppression for City review. The applicant is preserving a small utility corridor on either side of the Kimberly Lane within the expanded right-of-way. The small utility corridors will provide an area to install utilities in the future without having to redevelop the street. The utility corridor is located along the north side of Kimberly Lane from Pioneer Trail and switches to the south side of Kimberly Lane about halfway to the west property line. The larger sewer and water utilities are located on the opposite side of the small utility corridor. The City Engineer’s memo notes the utility corridor shall be relocated behind the sidewalk from the roadway along Lot 3, Block 2. This may require the applicant to adjust the location of proposed trees in this area. Another PUD benefit provided by the applicant is Outlot A, which will be deeded to the City for use as a future well site. Public Streets and Access The plans show construction of Kimberly Lane, a new public street, extending east through the site from Pioneer Trail. Each lot will have access from Kimberly Lane. Outlot A will be accessible by an access drive along the western edge of the stormwater basin in Lot 1, Block 2. The public street will be constructed 36 feet wide in an 80-foot wide right-of-way. The standard 80-foot right-of-way has been provided to accommodate the future utilities and also matches the existing width of the right-of-way on the west side of the Pioneer Trail intersection, which will ultimately connect to County Road 19. Kimberly Lane will ultimately extend further east and connect to Rolling Hills Road as shown on the Southwest District plan. Turn lanes on Pioneer Trail into the site are anticipated. The City will design, bid and manage the project and the developer will fund it. Page 13 of 19 Sidewalks A sidewalk is provided along the south side of Kimberly Lane. This will ultimately be extended to connect Rolling Hills Road to Pioneer Trail as the street is constructed. Grading and Stormwater The City Engineer’s memo provides detailed comments on stormwater. Two stormwater ponds are proposed with this project, one north and one south of Kimberly Lane. The City Engineer’s memo requires the applicant to revise the stormwater management plan to account for the added impervious surface from the Pioneer Trail turn lanes. The additional impervious surface from the turn lanes may require larger stormwater ponds than currently proposed. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility to allow impervious area of lots of up to 80% where the I-1 district allows imperious area up to 70%. Only the self-storage facility on Lot 2, Block 2 exceeds the allowable impervious area with a proposed 77.7% impervious area. The flexibility allows greater impervious area on Lot 2, Block 2, but the overall site is approximately 50% impervious area. Plans show grading on the Garages Too site east of the self-storage facility. An encroachment agreement will be required for the off-site grading. Easements An access easement to Outlot A shall also be provided by the applicant. New standard drainage and utility easements will be provided with the plat around the perimeter of the lots, over stormwater management ponds and over the wetlands (wetland and wetland buffer areas). A temporary cul-de-sac easement is provided on the east end of the new public street where the cul-de-sac extends outside of the dedicated right-of-way. There is an existing septic field and septic easement site immediately east of the temporary cul-de-sac for Kimberly Lane. This septic field is utilized by the Medina Electric building east of the site. The future extension for Kimberly Lane is routed through the septic field and easement. The applicant must provide proof the western half of the existing septic easement has been released by the easement holder to allow construction of the cul-de-sac in the proposed location as noted in the application materials. If the easement is unnecessary, the entire septic easement should be released so the roadway may extend to the eastern lot line. The applicant must provide additional information about the status of this easement with the final PUD application. Landscaping Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance provides landscape standards. The Applicant is requesting PUD flexibility from the landscaping requirements for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 north of Kimberly Lane. The applicant is requesting flexibility to reduce the Page 14 of 19 landscape shrub requirement for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 and to allow required landscape trees for Lot 2, Block 2 to be placed on Lot 1, Block 2. The following shows the required and proposed number of trees for each lot: Required Trees Proposed Trees Required Shrubs Proposed Shrubs Lot 1, Block 1 35 35 58 58 Lot 2, Block 1 94 94 313 313 Lot 3, Block 1 70 207 233 233 Lot 1, Block 2 80 197 132 132 Lot 2, Block 2 208 91 691 174 TOTAL 487 624 1427 910 The 117 trees that are not provided on Lot 2, Block 2 are provided on Lot 1, Block 2. However, it appears additional trees could be planted along the north and east property lines of Lot 2, Block 2 to better screen the self-storage facility from adjacent residential properties. This area could also be used to provide the required shrubs. Staff has included a condition requiring additional landscaping in the northwest portion of the lot, but supports the idea of shifting the other trees to the east near the Wagon Wheel neighborhood. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss. The applicant has provided 137 trees in addition to the required 70 overstory trees for the Pella Corporation site (Lot 3, Block 1). The additional overstory trees should be considered a PUD benefit. Plans also show tree preservation which is considered a PUD benefit; however, some areas of tree preservation appear to conflict with the small utility corridor north of Kimberly Lane. The applicant shall update tree preservation plans to show where trees will actually be preserved through construction. If trees marked for preservation on plans are removed during construction, the applicant shall be required to provide an equivalent caliper inch replacement for the lost trees. Figure D: Pioneer Trail Landscape Plan Figure E: Pella Corporation Landscape Plan Page 15 of 19 The additional trees on Lot 1, Block 2 provide ample screening from residential properties located to the north and west. The placement of shrubs will be shown with the final plat for the future development lots; however, staff recommends the location of shrubs be placed to further enhance the screening towards residential properties. Parking areas with 4 or more stalls should be screened from properties zone residential and from public streets. The proposed Pella Corporation site has a large parking area facing Kimberly Lane which must be screened. The applicant must provide screening to a height of at least three feet to screen vehicle headlights. Staff recommend relocating required shrubs or provide additional shrubs to provide the parking lot screening. It is anticipated that additional landscaping may be necessary on some of the lots. The City Engineer’s memo requires that additional landscaping be placed to avoid conflict with city infrastructure or future infrastructure corridors. Underground irrigation with rain sensors is required on all new non-residential development where municipal water is available. While municipal water is not available at this time, plans show compliance with the irrigation requirements. Wetlands A wetland delineation report was submitted and approved. Four wetlands are located within the project area covering a combined 3.15 acres. There are approximately 0.8 acres of wetland impacts for the buildings and new public street. The applicant is responsible for preparing a wetland mitigation plan and obtaining approval prior to submittal of a final plat application. Section 1050.010 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for the Wetland Overlay District. This includes the establishment of wetland buffer strips with an average width of 25 feet plus a 15-foot structure setback from the buffer edge. Wetland buffer signs are required to be installed at each lot/outlot line where it crosses a wetland buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of a buffer, with a maximum spacing of 200 feet along the buffer edge. The plans show correct placement of the wetland buffer monument signs. Wetland buffers that are disturbed must be seeded. Wetlands that have not been disturbed in 10 years and are not comprised of noxious weeds shall be left in their existing state if approved by the City wetland specialist. Plans show grading in the wetland buffer; however, no wetland buffer seeding or maintenance plan has been provided. Staff has included a condition the applicant provide a wetland buffer seeding and maintenance plan. Staff also recommends the applicant contract a native plant specialist to install and maintain the wetland buffers. The landscape plan shows proposed trees within the wetland buffer. Landscaped trees should be located outside the wetland buffer as much as possible to allow appropriate Page 16 of 19 species to grow and establish the buffers. The applicant shall specify the species of trees proposed within the wetland buffer to ensure their long-term viability. Signage The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility to allow wall signage on the north and south building frontages for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. This will allow tenants to install wall signs facing both Kimberly Lane and Highway 55. Chapter 84.04 of the City Code limits walls signs to one sign at the entrance of each tenant space, not to exceed 10% of the primary building face area for the related tenant. Ordinance also allows one freestanding sign per lot up to 64 square feet in area and up to 16 feet tall. The applicant is proposing to split the permitted wall sign area between the north and south facades so that tenants may have signage directing customers and deliveries along both street frontages. The applicant has provided a sign plan for the overall development. No signage is proposed for the self-storage facility on Lot 2, Block 2. Proposed signage for the Pella Corporation building complies with the sign standards, except where PUD flexibility is requested. Permitted wall sign area for the Pella Corporation building is 1,573 square feet (10% area of the south elevation). Two wall signs are proposed, a 124-square foot wall sign facing Highway 55 and a 45-square foot wall sign facing Kimberly Lane. Altogether, the wall signage proposed for the Pella Corporation building totals 293 square feet, well below the permitted 1,573 square feet. The signage proposed for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 are conceptual at this time and will be required to comply with the sign standards except where PUD flexibility has been requested for the wall signage. However, conceptual signage for the gas station/convenience store use on Lot 1, Block 1 exceeds the permitted number of freestanding signs and freestanding sign height for the I-1 district. One monument and one pylon sign exceeding 16 feet in height have been proposed. The applicant should revise the proposed signage for Lot 1, Block 1 to comply with the sign standards or request flexibility for the additional signage proposed. No parking signs shall be provided along Kimberly Lane and in the temporary cul-de- sac. The location of these signs will be coordinated at the time of final plat. Lighting The applicant has provided a lighting plan but has not provided light details. Staff has included a condition that the applicant provide details for the proposed lighting. Parks and Trails The Parks and Trails plan does not show any off-road trails through the site. An on-road trail is shown for Pioneer Trail and, once constructed, it will connect with the Kimberly Lane sidewalk. Page 17 of 19 Under the current ordinance (which is being updated), park dedication of land is required at 3% of the net-predevelopment area for commercial/industrial land. The ordinance would require 1.61 net acres of park dedication for the approximately 53.71 net acres (56.86 gross acres) being platted. No park land dedication is proposed with this project and park dedication shall be cash-in-lieu of land. The final dedication shall be determined with the final plat. Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat requests approval of five lots and one outlot. Outlot A would be deeded to the City for use as a future well site. The applicant has indicated that this project is phased, starting with the Pella Corporation development on Lot 3, Block 1 and the self-storage facility on Lot 2, Block 2. The remaining three lots will be developed when tenants are identified. Summary Staff finds the proposed plan is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The plan for the new industrial park on this site meets the economic competitiveness goals of the Comprehensive Plan: • Promote cooperative efforts and utilize existing resources for economic growth in the City. • Promote economic stability and diversity to provide job opportunities to residents. • Promote efficient, planned commercial and industrial development. • Enhance the character of the City’s commercial and industrial development. The applicant is requesting flexibility for: • Development in advance of City services (water and sanitary sewer) being available to serve the project. • Reduced parking setback of 70 feet from Highway 55 where 100 feet is required. • Reduced parking setback of 18 feet from Kimberly Lane where 50 feet is required for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. • Reduced parking and building setback of 36 feet from Kimberly Lane for the lots north of Kimberly Lane. • Wall signage on the north and south building elevations for lots south of Kimberly Lane where signage is only permitted on one wall. Figure F: Overall site layout Page 18 of 19 • Insulated metal panels as a primary building façade for lots north of Kimberly Lane. • Landscape tree requirement to be applied across the whole site. • Reduced number of landscape shrubs for lots north of Kimberly Lane. • Impervious area of up to 80% for all lots. • Creation of an outlot without frontage (Outlot A for the City well site). In exchange for this flexibility, the applicant will: • Provide commercial tax base and jobs to Corcoran ahead of city services. • Deed Outlot A to the City for a future well site. • Preserve existing trees which will provide additional screening. Staff has reviewed the plan for consistency with the applicable standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Staff noted in the staff report the outstanding issues that must be addressed and we have included conditions in the attached draft resolutions to address these issues. The Planning Commission may modify these conditions. However, the City has discretion when reviewing a PUD and the Planning Commission may find that: 1. Additional improvements are needed and make those conditions, or 2. The PUD standards have not been met and may recommend denial citing reasons for the denial. Options If the Planning Commission finds that the PUD standard have been met, they should recommend approval. Staff has prepared draft resolutions for approval as a starting point for discussion. If the Planning Commission finds that the PUD standards have not been met, but could be with changes, they could modify the draft PUD resolution. For example: • Does the plan provide adequate screening from residential properties? • Does bringing increased commercial tax base and jobs in advance of municipal services provide a PUD benefit? If the Planning Commission finds that the PUD standards have not been met, they should recommend denial. Page 19 of 19 5. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following: a. Draft ordinance approving rezoning b. Draft resolution with findings of fact for rezoning c. Draft resolution approving preliminary PUD d. Draft resolution approving preliminary plat However, the Planning Commission could find the PUD standards have not been met and recommend City Council adopt the draft resolution denying the request for rezoning, preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat. Attachments 1. Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning 2. Draft Ordinance with Findings of Fact for Rezoning 3. Draft Resolution Approving the Preliminary PUD Plan 4. Draft Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat 5. Draft Resolution Denying the Request 6. Site Location Map 7. City Engineer’s Memo dated November 21, 2022 8. Public Safety Memo dated October 5, 2022 9. Applicant Narrative dated November 1, 2022 10. Site Plans and Preliminary Plat dated November 1, 2022 11. Pella Corporation Site Plans dated November 1, 2022 12. Pella Corporation Architecture Plans dated September 20, 2022 13. Park Place Storage Architecture Plans dated September 20, 2022 14. Landscape Plan dated November 1, 2022 15. Sign Plan dated November 1, 2022 City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED AT 6210 PIONEER TRAIL (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) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment of the City Code. Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, is hereby amended by changing the classification of the City of Corcoran Zoning Map from Light Industrial (I-1) and Urban Reserve (UR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), legally described as follows: See Attachment A Section 2. This amendment shall take effect upon adoption of the resolution approving the final PUD plan for this project. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of December 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Parcel A: The West 561.81 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part taken for State Highway No. 55. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32 described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 455.00 feet South of the northwest corner thereof; thence East parallel with the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 240.00 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to said curve a distance of 173.04 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to said curve a distance of 265.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North parallel with said west line a distance of 30.00 feet; thence East parallel with said north line 253.04 feet, more or less, to a line drawn parallel with and distant 1155.00 feet East of said west line; thence North parallel with said west line 365.00 feet to said north line; thence East along said north line a distance of 172.55 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along the east line thereof to the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence West along the south line thereof to a line drawn parallel with said west line from the actual point of beginning; thence North parallel with said west line to the actual point of beginning. EXCEPT that part thereof lying within a radius of 60.00 feet of the actual point of beginning. Also EXCEPT that part taken for State Highway No. 55. Parcel B: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 455.0 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 240.0 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 173.04 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 131.21 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence continue East along last mentioned line a distance of 133.79 feet to a point hereafter known as Point A; thence South parallel with said West line a distance of 362.0 feet to a line City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX Page 3 of 3 drawn parallel with and 757.0 feet South of said North line; thence West parallel with said North line a distance of 133.79 feet to a line drawn parallel with said West line from the actual point of beginning; thence North along said parallel line to the actual point of beginning. Except the Northerly 30.0 feet thereof. Also except that part thereof lying within a radius of 60.0 feet of Point A, described above. Parcel C: That part of the West 901.96 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the centerline of Pioneer Trail. Except for the North 757.00 feet thereof. Also except the right of way for State Highway Number 55. And also except any part thereof contained within the description of the land in the Contract for Deed recorded November 6, 1996 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 6658801. Also that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the centerline of Pioneer Trail and lying South of the North 757.00 feet thereof. ABSTRACT PROPERTY City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR REZONONG FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 6210 PIONEER TRAIL (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) WHEREAS, Contour Development, LLC, (the “applicant”) has requested approval to rezone 56.86 acres legally described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance rezoning the affected parcels from Light Industrial (I-1) and Urban Reserve (UR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does support the request for reclassification of the property, based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. All four properties are guided Light Industrial, which is consistent with the development proposed by the applicant. The plan provides a street extension through the development as anticipated. The plan develops the site in advance of municipal services being able to service the area; however, utility corridors for the accommodation of future city services are provided. The proposed development supports the comprehensive plan land use goal to attract and encourage new light-industrial, office-industrial, high tech and professional services in Corcoran. 2. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying zoning district. Three parcels are zoned Light Industrial and the smallest parcel is zoned Urban Reserve. The proposed development is not in conflict with the intent of the zoning district. 3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. 4. The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and/or operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or phase. The planned development is feasible without dependents upon any other subsequent unit or phase. However, the project will be phased generally from east to west. 5. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX Page 2 of 4 planned development. The applicant is providing sidewalks consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is constructing a new street in the development. Municipal water and sanitary sewer are not available to serve the site; the applicant will provide private well and septic to serve the site until municipal services are available. Utility corridors along the new street will accommodate the installation of future municipal services. 6. The planned development will not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The property is zoned light industrial. The development does comply with setback and landscape screening requirements from adjacent residential properties to the northeast and northwest. 7. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher standards, more efficient and effective uses of streets, utilities and public facilities, it shall maintain and enhance any natural resources within the development, and create a public benefit that is greater than what would have been achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations. 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 December 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Parcel A: The West 561.81 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part taken for State Highway No. 55. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32 described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 455.00 feet South of the northwest corner thereof; thence East parallel with the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 240.00 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to said curve a distance of 173.04 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to said curve a distance of 265.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North parallel with said west line a distance of 30.00 feet; thence East parallel with said north line 253.04 feet, more or less, to a line drawn parallel with and distant 1155.00 feet East of said west line; thence North parallel with said west line 365.00 feet to said north line; thence East along said north line a distance of 172.55 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along the east line thereof to the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence West along the south line thereof to a line drawn parallel with said west line from the actual point of beginning; thence North parallel with said west line to the actual point of beginning. EXCEPT that part thereof lying within a radius of 60.00 feet of the actual point of beginning. Also EXCEPT that part taken for State Highway No. 55. Parcel B: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 455.0 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 240.0 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 173.04 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 131.21 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence continue East along last mentioned line a distance of 133.79 feet to a point hereafter known as Point A; thence South parallel with said West line a distance of 362.0 feet to a line City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX Page 4 of 4 drawn parallel with and 757.0 feet South of said North line; thence West parallel with said North line a distance of 133.79 feet to a line drawn parallel with said West line from the actual point of beginning; thence North along said parallel line to the actual point of beginning. Except the Northerly 30.0 feet thereof. Also except that part thereof lying within a radius of 60.0 feet of Point A, described above. Parcel C: That part of the West 901.96 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the centerline of Pioneer Trail. Except for the North 757.00 feet thereof. Also except the right of way for State Highway Number 55. And also except any part thereof contained within the description of the land in the Contract for Deed recorded November 6, 1996 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 6658801. Also that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the centerline of Pioneer Trail and lying South of the North 757.00 feet thereof. ABSTRACT PROPERTY City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 1 of 7 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR “PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK” LOCATED AT 6210 PIONEER TRAIL (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) WHEREAS, Contour Development, LLC, (the “applicant”) has requested approval of “Pioneer Trail Industrial Park” an industrial subdivision on property legally described as: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby approves the request for preliminary PUD plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan is approved for “Pioneer Trail Industrial Park”, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on June 21, 2022 and revisions received on June 23, 2022, September 20, 2022 and November 1, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The preliminary PUD plan is approved based on the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the PUD standards in the ordinance. 3. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the requested rezoning and preliminary plat (Ordinance 2022-XXX and Resolution 2022-XXX). 4. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Public Safety Memo dated October 5, 2022. 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo dated November 21, 2022. 6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the May 26, 2022 EAW Record of Decision. 7. The applicant is subject to review and approval by Hennepin County. The applicant is required to secure all permits and approvals from the County. 8. PUD flexibility is granted for the following: a. To allow development in advance of City services (municipal water and sanitary sewer) being available to serve the project. b. To allow a reduced parking setback of 70 feet from Highway 55 for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 where 100 feet is required. c. To allow a reduced parking setback of 18 feet from Kimberly Lane for all lots where 50 feet is required. City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 2 of 7 d. To allow a reduced building setback of 36 feet from Kimberly Lane for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 where 50 feet is required. e. To allow wall signage on the north and south façade of buildings for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The ordinance limits wall signs to one sign at the primary entrance of each tenant space, not to exceed 10% of the primary building face of the related tenant space. The buildings on Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be allowed to split the allowed wall sign area between their north and south elevations. No other flexibility is requested or approved for signage. f. To allow insulated metal panels as the primary building material for buildings on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. g. To allow the required landscaping to be installed on a project-wide basis rather than on individual lots. h. To allow the minimum number of landscape shrubs required for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 to be 306 where 823 are required. i. To allow impervious area to be calculated on a project-wide basis not to exceed 80%. This will allow some lots as much 80% impervious area. j. To allow the creation of an outlot without frontage (Outlot A). 9. All allowed uses in the I-1 zoning district shall be permitted in this PUD, subject to the standards in Section 1040.125 of the Zoning Ordinance. a. A motor fuel station use is permitted for Lot 1, Block 1 and shall be subject to the development standards for motor fuel stations in Section 1040.110, Subd. 4(K) 10. Park dedication shall be satisfied by cash-in-lieu of land for the industrial park. 11. Plans must be revised to show details for trash enclosures to ensure compliance with 1060.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. The trash enclosures must be clearly shown on the site plans. 12. Plans must show mechanical equipment screening in compliance with Section 1060.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. 13. Plans must be revised to show compliance with the off-street parking requirements for the Pella building on Lot 3, Block 1. 14. The landscape plan dated November 1, 2022 provides a total of 624 overstory trees and 910 shrubs. a. The code requires 487 overstory trees and the applicant has provided 624 overstory trees. The trees are planted across the site and not all lots comply with the minimum landscaping requirements on individual lots. b. Plans show and additional 137 trees on Lot 3, Block 1. This is a PUD benefit. c. PUD flexibility is shown on plans allowing 117 trees required for Lot 2, Block 2 located on Lot 1, Block 2. d. PUD flexibility is shown on plans allowing 173 shrubs for Lot 2, Block 2 where 691 shrubs are required. e. Landscaping three feet high shall be provided for parking areas with four or more stalls to screen vehicle headlights from adjacent residential and public streets. The City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 3 of 7 plans must be revised to provide shrubs for all parking along the new public street (Kimberly Lane). f. Trees are proposed within the wetland buffer areas. The applicant shall specify the tree species proposed for wetland buffer areas to ensure long-term viability. g. The final landscape details shall be provided with PUD final plan application. h. The applicant shall provide revised plans to show wetland buffer seeding. 15. A wetland buffer planting plan and maintenance plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City. 16. Snow storage areas must be clearly shown on plans. 17. A chloride management plan shall be provided. 18. The light pole height and fixture details must be provided for freestanding and building lighting in compliance with the standards in Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance. 19. The applicant shall provide plans showing the planned grading, utilities and landscaping to ensure no conflicts. a. The applicant shall provide plans showing how the proposed building on Lot 2, Block 1 will connect to the proposed septic drainage fields on Lot 3, Block 1. This septic connection must be protected throughout all phases of construction. 20. All permanent wetland buffer monuments must be erected along the wetland buffer line as required by Section 1050.010, Subd. 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. a. The applicant shall work with City staff to finalize the location of wetland buffer monuments. b. Wetland signs shall be purchased from the City. c. The final locations must be inspected and approved by City staff. d. Monument signs shall be installed prior to approval of the building permit. 21. The applicant shall provide a wetland buffer seeding and maintenance plan. 22. Drainage and utility easements must be provided over all wetlands, wetland buffers and ponds. 23. The small utility corridor between the sidewalk and roadway along the south side of Kimberly lane shall be relocated south of the sidewalk in front of Lot 3, Block 1. 24. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided along the perimeter of all lots. 25. The stormwater management plan shall be revised to account for the added impervious surface from the Pioneer Trail turn lanes. 26. The association of building owner is responsible for ensuring sidewalks in the development area and for maintenance of all common areas. Association documents must be provided for review and approval with the PUD final plan application. City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 4 of 7 27. All utility facilities shall be located underground. 28. A sign permit is required for any signage. All signage must comply with Chapter 84 of the City Code, except where PUD flexibility has been requested and granted for wall signage on Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. 29. The development shall comply with the City’s requirements regarding fire access, fire protection and fire flow calculations, the location of fire hydrant, fire department connections and fire lane signage. 30. Parking shall be reviewed with building permit and must comply with ordinance standards for the proposed use. 31. The applicant shall document that the existing septic field and easement for Medina Electric are necessary and that the easement holder does not want the easement released. a. If the easement can be released, Kimberly Lane should extend as far east as conditions allow. b. If the easement cannot be released, additional agreements will be required for roadway encroachment into the easement. 32. The applicant must provide a temporary cul-de-sac easement for the new public street. 33. An access easement shall be provided to Outlot A from Kimberly Lane. 34. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed within the City rights-of-way or easements. 35. The applicant must enter into a stormwater maintenance agreement prior to release of final plat. 36. The applicant shall deed Outlot A to the City. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 5 of 7 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of December 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 6 of 7 ATTACHMENT A Parcel A: The West 561.81 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part taken for State Highway No. 55. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32 described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 455.00 feet South of the northwest corner thereof; thence East parallel with the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 240.00 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to said curve a distance of 173.04 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to said curve a distance of 265.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North parallel with said west line a distance of 30.00 feet; thence East parallel with said north line 253.04 feet, more or less, to a line drawn parallel with and distant 1155.00 feet East of said west line; thence North parallel with said west line 365.00 feet to said north line; thence East along said north line a distance of 172.55 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along the east line thereof to the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence West along the south line thereof to a line drawn parallel with said west line from the actual point of beginning; thence North parallel with said west line to the actual point of beginning. EXCEPT that part thereof lying within a radius of 60.00 feet of the actual point of beginning. Also EXCEPT that part taken for State Highway No. 55. Parcel B: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 455.0 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 240.0 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 173.04 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 131.21 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence continue East along last mentioned line a distance of 133.79 feet to a point hereafter known as Point A; thence South parallel with said West line a distance of 362.0 feet to a line City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 7 of 7 drawn parallel with and 757.0 feet South of said North line; thence West parallel with said North line a distance of 133.79 feet to a line drawn parallel with said West line from the actual point of beginning; thence North along said parallel line to the actual point of beginning. Except the Northerly 30.0 feet thereof. Also except that part thereof lying within a radius of 60.0 feet of Point A, described above. Parcel C: That part of the West 901.96 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the centerline of Pioneer Trail. Except for the North 757.00 feet thereof. Also except the right of way for State Highway Number 55. And also except any part thereof contained within the description of the land in the Contract for Deed recorded November 6, 1996 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 6658801. Also that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the centerline of Pioneer Trail and lying South of the North 757.00 feet thereof. ABSTRACT PROPERTY City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMIINARY PLAT FOR “PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK” LOCATED AT 6210 PIONEER TRAIL (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) WHEREAS, Contour Development, LLC, (the “applicant”) has requested approval of “Pioneer Trail Industrial Park” an industrial subdivision on the property legally described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby approves the request for preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary plat is approved to create five lots and one outlot, “Pioneer Trail Industrial Park”, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on June 21, 2022 and revisions received on June 23, 2022, September 20, 2022 and November 1, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the preliminary PUD plan for “Pioneer Trail Industrial Park”. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the preliminary PUD plan approval (Resolution 2022-XXX). 3. Park dedication is due as required by the PUD approvals, prior to the release of final plat for recording. 4. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo, dated November 21, 2022. 5. The preliminary plat zoning table shall be updated to note the current zoning is Urban Reserve (UR) for the smallest parcel (22733 Wagon Wheel Lane). 6. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of the final plat. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 2 of 4 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of December 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Parcel A: The West 561.81 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part taken for State Highway No. 55. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32 described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 455.00 feet South of the northwest corner thereof; thence East parallel with the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 240.00 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to said curve a distance of 173.04 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to said curve a distance of 265.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North parallel with said west line a distance of 30.00 feet; thence East parallel with said north line 253.04 feet, more or less, to a line drawn parallel with and distant 1155.00 feet East of said west line; thence North parallel with said west line 365.00 feet to said north line; thence East along said north line a distance of 172.55 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along the east line thereof to the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence West along the south line thereof to a line drawn parallel with said west line from the actual point of beginning; thence North parallel with said west line to the actual point of beginning. EXCEPT that part thereof lying within a radius of 60.00 feet of the actual point of beginning. Also EXCEPT that part taken for State Highway No. 55. Parcel B: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 455.0 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 240.0 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 173.04 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 131.21 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence continue East along last mentioned line a distance of 133.79 feet to a point hereafter known as Point A; thence South parallel with said West line a distance of 362.0 feet to a line City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 4 of 4 drawn parallel with and 757.0 feet South of said North line; thence West parallel with said North line a distance of 133.79 feet to a line drawn parallel with said West line from the actual point of beginning; thence North along said parallel line to the actual point of beginning. Except the Northerly 30.0 feet thereof. Also except that part thereof lying within a radius of 60.0 feet of Point A, described above. Parcel C: That part of the West 901.96 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the centerline of Pioneer Trail. Except for the North 757.00 feet thereof. Also except the right of way for State Highway Number 55. And also except any part thereof contained within the description of the land in the Contract for Deed recorded November 6, 1996 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 6658801. Also that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the centerline of Pioneer Trail and lying South of the North 757.00 feet thereof. ABSTRACT PROPERTY City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: DENYING THE REQUEST FOR A REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR “PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK” ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6210 PIONEER TRAIL (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) WHEREAS, Contour Development, LLC, (the “applicant”) has requested approval of a rezoning, preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan for “Pioneer Trail Industrial Park” an industrial subdivision on the 56.86-acre property legally described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends denial, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby dies deny the request, based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The PUD flexibility requested by the applicant results in deviations from the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not off set by the PUD benefits proposed by the applicant and, therefore, are in conflict with the applicable PUD provisions of the ordinance. 2. The planned development will have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The property is zoned light industrial, but the developer has not provided adequate landscaping to buffer the development from the residential properties to the northwest, north and northeast. 3. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan does not substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, demonstrate higher standards, more efficient and effective uses of streets, utilities and public facilities and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 2 of 4 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of December 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Parcel A: The West 561.81 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part taken for State Highway No. 55. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32 described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 455.00 feet South of the northwest corner thereof; thence East parallel with the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 240.00 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to said curve a distance of 173.04 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 00 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to said curve a distance of 265.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North parallel with said west line a distance of 30.00 feet; thence East parallel with said north line 253.04 feet, more or less, to a line drawn parallel with and distant 1155.00 feet East of said west line; thence North parallel with said west line 365.00 feet to said north line; thence East along said north line a distance of 172.55 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along the east line thereof to the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence West along the south line thereof to a line drawn parallel with said west line from the actual point of beginning; thence North parallel with said west line to the actual point of beginning. EXCEPT that part thereof lying within a radius of 60.00 feet of the actual point of beginning. Also EXCEPT that part taken for State Highway No. 55. Parcel B: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 455.0 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 240.0 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 173.04 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 111.96 feet (delta angle of 30 degrees 30 minutes) a distance of 58.62 feet; thence East tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 131.21 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence continue East along last mentioned line a distance of 133.79 feet to a point hereafter known as Point A; thence South parallel with said West line a distance of 362.0 feet to a line City of Corcoran December 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX Page 4 of 4 drawn parallel with and 757.0 feet South of said North line; thence West parallel with said North line a distance of 133.79 feet to a line drawn parallel with said West line from the actual point of beginning; thence North along said parallel line to the actual point of beginning. Except the Northerly 30.0 feet thereof. Also except that part thereof lying within a radius of 60.0 feet of Point A, described above. Parcel C: That part of the West 901.96 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the centerline of Pioneer Trail. Except for the North 757.00 feet thereof. Also except the right of way for State Highway Number 55. And also except any part thereof contained within the description of the land in the Contract for Deed recorded November 6, 1996 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 6658801. Also that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the centerline of Pioneer Trail and lying South of the North 757.00 feet thereof. ABSTRACT PROPERTY Hennepin County Property Map Date: 11/16/2022 Comments: 1 inch = 800 feet PARCEL ID: 3211923340013 OWNER NAME: Landspec Fund 2 Llc PARCEL ADDRESS: 6210 Pioneer Tr,Corcoran MN 55357 PARCEL AREA: 9.81 acres, 427,195 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $814,780 SALE DATE: 01/2005 SALE CODE: Vacant Land ASSESSED 2021, PAYABLE 2022 PROPERTY TYPE: Farm HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $192,600 TAX TOTAL: $2,072.26 ASSESSED 2022, PAYABLE 2023 PROPERTY TYPE: Farm HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $229,600 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Date: 11/21/22 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Planned Unit Development Project Civil Plans, Prepared by Civil Engineering Site Design, Dated 11/02/22 2. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Drainage Analysis, Prepared by Civil Engineering Site Design, Signed and Dated 9/20/22 3. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Landscaping Plan, Prepared by Inside Outside Architecture Inc. Dated 11/0122 Comments: General: 1. Consistent with the review process, a comment response letter shall be provided in response to the following comments provided in this Memorandum in which the applicant provides a written response to each item. 2. In addition to engineering related comments per these plans, the proposed plans are subject to addition planning, zoning, land-use, and other applicable codes of the City of Corcoran. 3. Final approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission must be attained before any site grading or activity may commence. 4. For any site activity (demo, grading, utilities, etc.) no closures or restrictions of any kind shall be imposed upon the public use of Pioneer Trail without the City’s permission. Should any lane restrictions be necessary, the Contractor shall notify the City at least 48 hours in advance and provide a Traffic Control Plan. 5. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed within the City ROW or easements. 6. It is anticipated that additional landscaping will be necessary on some of the lots. Additional landscaping shall be placed to avoid conflict with city infrastructure or future infrastructure corridors. Plat: 1. The applicant shall have all drainage and utility easements provided and shown and all platting requirements met per the City Code. Drainage and utility easements (5’ – 10’) shall be provided along property lines, as standard per City requirements. 2. Where cul-de-sac leaves the ROW, an individual roadway easement shall be provided. 3. An access easement shall be provided to Outlot A. Erosion Control/SWPPP 1. Provide additional silt fencing in these areas to reduce off-site runoff: November 21, 2022 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 4 a. Extend silt fence west on the north side of Kimberly to Pioneer Trail on sheet C6.1 b. Close the gap between the silt fence on southeast corner of sheet C6.2 c. Extend silt fence east and include j-hooks along the swale on the north side of lot 2 block 2 on sheet C6.3 2. Provide inlet protection along the upstream side for the Pioneer Trail drainage ditch culvert. Transportation 1. All roads shall be signed for no parking with no parking signs including all cul-de-sacs. Final sign location to be coordinated at time of final plat. 2. The turn lanes into the project site are anticipated to be a City-led project. The developer shall establish an escrow prior to the turn lanes being designed and publicly bid. 3. All parking areas shall have concrete curbing and a paved surface. 4. The applicant shall document that the existing septic easement is necessary and that the easement holder does not want the easement vacated at this time. If easement can be vacated, the roadway should be extended east as far as conditions allow. If easement can not be vacated, additional agreements will be required for roadway encroachment into easement. 5. The Cul-de-sac shall have concrete curb and gutter. 6. The eastern cul-de-sac elevation may need to be lowered so when extended in the future it may be extended to adjacent property for entry. Additional coordination will be necessary with the city prior to construction drawings. Site Plans 1. Street lighting locations shall be reviewed by public safety and final lighting locations shall be determined at the time of final plat. 2. Sidewalk and trails shall be shown and labeled on road plans. 3. The applicant is proposing the small utility corridor between the sidewalk and roadway along the south side of Kimberly Lane in front of Lot 3. The utility corridor should be behind the sidewalk which may necessitate the trees being moved closer to the parking lot. 4. The small utility corridor between Sta 0+00 and 12+00 should be moved north of the right of way where space allows. This may cause some adjustments to the tree locations in this area. Grading /Stormwater 1. A stormwater management plan shall be in accordance with City of Corcoran and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission Standards. 2. All pedestrian ramps shall be ADA compliant and detailed designs shall be provided for all landings showing elevations in compliance with those requirements. 3. All slopes shall be a maximum of 4:1 in areas to be maintained. All drainage swales shall be a minimum of 2%. 4. Building elevations are only shown for Lot 3. All buildings shall meet City of Corcoran grading and separation standards at time of final construction documents. 5. The stormwater management plan shall account for the added impervious surface from the Pioneer Trail Turn Lanes. November 21, 2022 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Kevin Mattson Page 3 of 4 6. FES-B size should be the same as the storm sewer line it connects to. 7. Outlet of FES-F identifies a 20’x20’ plunge pool. show full impacts of this plunge pool to ensure to WCA impacts. 8. Several trees are shown within the footprint of the pond and below the HWL. These should be relocated. 9. A swale will be necessary on the north side of Kimberly Lane adjacent to the existing homes to ensure that runoff is not directed onto adjacent properties but is maintained on the site. 10. Sumps will be required in all storm structures with drops in of 18” or greater as well as the last accessible structures prior to stormwater basin. The 18’’ drop applies to: o CB-212 o CB-213 o CB-214 11. Provide rational calculations to confirm all pipe sizes and inlet capacity at the time of final plat. The calculations provided should adhere to the following: o Street drainage shall be sufficient to manage the 10-year event. o A typical CB inlet capacity is 2 to 2.5 CFS, and CBs shall be spaced accordingly. o If capacity is not limited to 2-2.5cfs, spread and inlet capacity calculations shall be required to ensure flooding. 12. Clarify how stormwater runoff will reach pond 10P for lot 2 on block 1 and 20P for lot 1 block 2. It is not clear if stubs will be provided or if they will drain directly into the pond. 13. All walls higher than 4’ shall be designed by a certified engineer and the design and certification of those walls shall be provided to the city. 14. Clarify filtration basin design: o Two filtration basin details (STO-20 and “Filtration Basin with Liner”) on C8.2 are shown with conflicting depths of media and material. It is assumed the clay liner detail will be used and may be beneficial to augment STO-20 to just show trench drain detail. o Filtration Basin with Clay Liner detail on C8.2:  Revise the invert depth note. Note states the Invert of the pipe to start 1.3’ below bottom, but the details show invert of pipe will be 2.5 from the bottom. o Revise invert elevations for draintile in basins. The current ending invert is 1006.6 for basin 20P at 0.5% slope the top of pipe would be 1008.6 or 1.4’ of cover which is less than cover required by design requirements for filter media plus rock cover. 15. Clarify the cross-section detail for the “pre-treatment basin detail” on sheet C8.2. Pre-treatment device does not appear on plans or match basin elevations. 16. Revise calculation summary table or drainage map subcatchment nomenclature to match. For example 1P in the calculation summary table corresponds to 1S on the drainage map. Discharge Points 1. Provide an analysis of the downstream/offsite drainage system to demonstrate the proposed project does not negatively impact downstream wetlands and provide NWL and HWL in proposed conditions. This will help resolve items below: o NW - Well placement. City well must be 65’ from HWL of wetland or ponds. The HWL of the NW wetland is unknown. o SW.- Impact of increased volume. Volume for 2-year event increased by 1.9 acre-feet from 1.0 acre-feet in existing to 2.9 acre-feet in proposed. November 21, 2022 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Kevin Mattson Page 4 of 4 o SE - Impact of volume reduction to the Medina wetland bank. Volume for 2-year event decreased by 0.7 acre-feet from 1.0 acre-feet in existing to 0.3 acre-feet in proposed.  May be beneficial to delineate the watershed to this wetland and involve WCA in this discussion as to the effect of the reduction in drainage area to the wetland hydrology.  Supplemental drainage from Pella roof runoff may be alternative source. During a 2- year event the 70,000 ft2 roof would supply an additional 0.4 acre-feet. 2. Provide 2008 Corrective/Drainage Rights agreement for City review as referenced in Note 13 of the ALTA Utilities/Watermain/Sanitary Sewer 1. Gas, electric, and other private and public utilities are located adjacent and/or on the property. Preservation of existing easements and coordination with all public and private utilities must be conducted prior to commencing any grading or construction. 2. It is assumed that from Sta 0+00 to Sta 9+00 that the small utilities will be on the northern side of the road. That area identifies a tree line to be preserved. Identify small utility corridor to update tree preservation to show what will actually be able to be saved through construction. 3. The watermain should not be on the opposite side of the roadway in front of Lots 1 and 2 Block 2. This would require both trees and small utilities to be impacted with future utility installation. 4. Landscaping plan shows no trees in front of Lot 1 Block 1. If this is updated in the future, utilities may need to be adjusted to accommodate future impacts. 5. The utility layout from Future MH 4 to the northern stub should be adjusted west to accommodate future well site and avoid impacts with pond. 6. The future sanitary sewer and watermain layouts are too close to the ponds in outlots A and B. The excavations and their sloping would be within the ponds and the normal bounce of the ponds. 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: October 5, 2022 Re: City File 22-039 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD, Rezoning A Public Safety plan review meeting was held on October 5, 2022. In attendance were: Lieutenant Ryan Burns, Police Chief Gottschalk, Planner Davis McKeown, Fire Chief Feist, Fire Chief Leuer, Fire Chief Malewicki, Building Official Geske, and Construction Services Specialist Pritchard. The comments below are based on the plans received by the City on September 21, 2022 and are intended as initial feedback as further plan review will need to be completed as construction plans and information regarding confirmed uses becomes available. 1. More information needs to be provided about the fire suppression system serving the storage units as well as the other lots. 2. A turn radius exhibit and drive aisle width dimension is required, particularly for the proposed storage units. The proposed 90-degree angles look like they may not accommodate emergency vehicles. 3. Fire access needs to be provided around the entirety of Building E on the proposed storage site. 4. There must be fire access on the east of the proposed storage buildings; the plans appear to indicate that the area east of the buildings will not be accessible. 1 September 20, 2022 Revised: November 1, 2022 Kendra Lindahl – City Planner Members of the City Council and Planning Commission City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Re: PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK Preliminary Plat, Rezone, PUD Preliminary Plan Ms. Lindahl and Members of the City Council/Planning Commission: Contour Development LLC is pleased to present this request for Preliminary Plat, Rezone, and PUD Preliminary Plan for a proposed five lot commercial/industrial development located northeast of the intersection of Highway 55 and Pioneer Trail. Overview  Land Area: 56.86 acres  Existing Zoning: I-1, Light Industrial  Proposed Zoning: PUD based on Light Industrial  Lots: 5 Lots, 1 Outlot  Access: New internal public street connecting to Pioneer Trail  Utilities: Well and Septic with corridors reserved for future city utilities  Purpose: Project will fulfil unmet demand for industrial lots along the Highway 55 corridor in southwest Corcoran Request Contour Development LLC is seeking approval for a Preliminary Plat, Rezone to PUD, and PUD Preliminary Plan for the entire site to develop commercial/industrial lots in southwest Corcoran. The project will consist of five commercial/industrial lots and one outlot. A public street, to be known as Kimberly Lane, is proposed for the development to provide access to the various lots and to meet the City’s long-term transportation plan for the area. Individual well and septic sites are proposed to serve the lots, however corridors are being reserved to serve the property with city sewer and water when those services are available to the area. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park – Corcoran, MN September 20, 2022 CONTOUR Development LLC 2 2 Lot Users Lot 1, Block 1: Conceptual lot reserved for future use Lot 2, Block 1: In negotiations for industrial user for office/warehouse as shown Lot 3, Block 1: Under contract with Pella for office/warehouse as shown Lot 1, Block 2: Conceptual lot reserved for future use Lot 2, Block 2: Under contract with Park Place Storage for storage condominiums PUD Discussion Based on several meetings with city staff and sketch plan reviews with City Council, it was determined that a PUD is required to meet the project needs. This is primarily due to the need for a public street to bisect the property while allowing adequate depth for industrial lots along Highway 55. Additionally, a PUD is required to allow for development of the property ahead of City sanitary sewer and water being available to the property. PUD flexibility is being requested for the following items:  Development ahead of City services (sanitary sewer and water)  Parking setback of 70 feet to Highway 55 right of way  Parking setback of 18 feet to Kimberly Lane (proposed internal public street)  Building/parking setback of 36 feet to Kimberly Lane for lots north of Kimberly Lane  Signage to be allowed on both sides of building for lots south of Kimberly Lane  Building materials consisting of insulated metal panels be allowed for lots north of Kimberly Lane  Landscape tree requirement to be spread throughout the site  Reduction in landscape shrub requirement for lots north of Kimberly Lane  Outside storage for Lot 1, Block 2  Allowable impervious area of lots of up to 80 percent  Allow creation of an outlot without frontage (Outlot A for city well site) Development Ahead of City Services (sanitary sewer and water) The Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) is not on the horizon for the subject site and may not be for 20 years or more. There are users in the marketplace today for lots along the Highway 55 corridor. The proposed development is being done creatively by using well and septic, while preserving corridors for future city services, to bring commercial tax base and jobs to the city of Corcoran ahead of city services. Parking and Building Setbacks For the lots south of Kimberly Lane, a reduced parking setback to Highway 55 and Kimberly Lane is needed to provide reasonably deep buildings to attract commercial and industrial users to the area. Building depths below 180 feet are difficult to lease/sell and would be detrimental to the project. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park – Corcoran, MN September 20, 2022 CONTOUR Development LLC 3 3 For the lots north of Kimberly Lane, a reduced parking and building setback of 36 feet is being requested to allow for the plan of development to be consistent with the concept plan previously reviewed by the city. Under the previous plan, 66 feet right of way was proposed for Kimberly Lane, which is required by code. However, the city is requesting that 80 feet of right of way be dedicated for Kimberly Lane. The storage condominiums being proposed on Lot 2, Block 2 need to meet certain depths to be marketable, and this reduced setback will allow for proper building depths and maneuverability through the site. Signage for Lot 1 – 3, Block 1 It is expected that each lot will have a free-standing sign as allowed by code. The lots south of Kimberly Lane have frontage on Highway 55 and Kimberly Lane. The frontage on Highway 55 is what makes this site attractive to prospective users, including Pella. Users will want to have building signage facing Highway 55 for marketing purposes but will also require building signage along Kimberly Lane to direct customers and deliveries to the appropriate space. The signage code allows signage on up to 10% of the building face along one side of the building. It is requested that the building signage be permitted to be split between the two sides of the building having frontage on Highway 55 and Kimberly Lane. This request is not for an increase in total signage area, but to have signage on both frontages. Building Materials for Lot 1 and 2, Block 2 Building materials consisting of insulated metal panels for the two lots north of Kimberly Lane are being requested based on the proposed use, and the ability of the insulated metal panels to provide a more attractive building than some of the materials otherwise allowed by code. These building materials were presented to city council during the sketch plan review process and were determined to be acceptable at that time. Architectural plans and a color rendering for the storage condominiums has been provided in the application materials. At this time, there is no user for Lot 1, Block 2, but it is expected that the building will be of similar quality and materials as the storage condominiums. Landscaping It is expected that the lots south of Kimberly Lane can and will meet all the landscape code requirements. However, the lots north of Kimberly Lane do not have adequate space for foundation plantings around all the buildings. This is due to the need for the storage buildings to have overhead doors on both sides of the buildings. Therefore, it is requested that the landscape shrub requirement for the lots north of Kimberly Lane be reduced to an amount that is feasible to fit within the green space provided. See landscape plan in application materials for further information. Additionally, it is requested that some of the required landscape trees for Lot 2, Block 2 be allowed to be shifted to Lot 1, Block 2 to provide more impactful screening along the western edge of the site. Placing trees in the pond area to the west of Lot 1, Block 2 will provide better screening to the Wagon Wheel neighborhood and will not require overcrowding of trees on the Lot 2, Block 1 site. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park – Corcoran, MN September 20, 2022 CONTOUR Development LLC 4 4 Outside Storage for Lot 1, Block 2 There is not a user identified for Lot 1, Block 2, however there has been interest in lots with outside storage. To meet this demand, it is proposed to have outside storage for Lot 1, Block 2. It is understood that outside storage is a Conditional Use in the Light Industrial (I-1) zoning district, and that any outside storage will be required to meet the code requirements, including screening from public streets and surrounding properties. Allowable Impervious Area Allowable impervious area of lots of up to 80 percent is being requested because shared stormwater basins are proposed for the site. Per the proposed site plan, only Lot 2, Block 2 exceeds the allowable 70 percent impervious. This is due to the storage condominiums requiring additional paved site areas so that customers can maneuver RVs and trailers through the site to access units. The total lot area (excluding the outlot) is 50.61 acres. Per the proposed site plan, the total measured impervious area for the lots is about 25.5 acres, which equates to about 50 percent impervious. Flexibility on the allowable imperviousness of the lots is warranted because the overall imperviousness of the project will not be greater than what is allowed by code. Creation of an Outlot without Frontage The city engineer has requested that an outlot be platted within the project for a future city well site. Discussions with the city engineer determined that the best location for the well site is in the northwest corner of the site. This portion of the site does not have frontage on a public street. Easement will be provided over Lot 1, Block 2 for access to the well site PUD Public Benefits The proposed development is being done creatively by using well and septic, while preserving corridors for future city services, to bring commercial tax base and jobs to the City of Corcoran ahead of city services. The proposed development provides an increased 80 foot right of way for Kimberly Lane to meet the City’s long-term transportation plan for the area, where only a 66 foot right of way is required by code. The proposed development provides an outlot to be deeded to the city for a future well location. The proposed development saves trees along the Wagon Wheel boundary line to the maximum extent practical to provide additional screening above the screening proposed on the plans. General Discussion As stated, there are users identified for Lot 3, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2. It is expected that the building materials and general architectural design for Lot 2, Block 1 will be consistent with Lot 3, Block 1 and that the building materials and general architectural design for Lot 1, Block 2 will be consistent with Lot 2, Block 2. It is expected that Lot 1, Block 1 will meet the I-1 zoning Pioneer Trail Industrial Park – Corcoran, MN September 20, 2022 CONTOUR Development LLC 5 5 requirements and all architectural design requirements. It is understood that each lot will require site lighting per code. No deviation from lighting requirements is being requested at this time. Both the Pella project and Park Place Storage condominiums are necessary to make this project financially viable. If flexibility is not granted to allow these first two uses, the project is not feasible, and these users will need to find alternative sites. It is unlikely that we will be able to secure two different users for these lots in the near term, meaning this site will continue to sit vacant for the foreseeable future. Schedule Grading is scheduled to commence in the spring of 2023. Street and utility construction is scheduled for Summer 2023. Pella and Park Place Storage both plan to begin building construction in Summer 2023. While still in negotiations, initial discussions would have the industrial user for Lot 2, Block 1 starting construction in Summer 2023. Closing We are excited to partner with the City of Corcoran to bring this development and these businesses to the community. Your guidance and feedback are welcomed. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at 612-730-2265 or via email at jradach@contourcd.com. Respectfully, Joseph Radach PE Contour Development LLC 8195 Vernon Street Rockford, MN 55373 PROJECT LOCATIONSITEMINNESOTAPIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARKPLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTCORCORAN, MNCITY OF CORCORAN, MNHENNEPIN COUNTYSITESITESITEINDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLC WLWLWL WLW L WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLC WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLPROJECT LOCATIONEXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONSSITE DATA: SETBACKS: MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTSPROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONINDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCLEGEND:WLMATCH LINE C1.1/C1.2 WL WL WL WLWLMATCH LINE C1.1/C1.2INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C1.2/C1.3LEGEND:WLMATCH LINE C1.2/C1.4 WLWL WLWL WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLINDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C1.2/C1.3LEGEND:WL INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C1.2/C1.4LEGEND:WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLLEGEND:INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C2.1/C2.2WL LWL WL WLWLINDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C2.1/C2.2MATCH LINE C2.2/C2.3LEGEND:WL WLWL WLWL WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLINDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C2.2 /C2.3LEGEND:WL MATCH LINE C3.1/C3.3LEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C3.1/C3 .2 LEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C3.1/C3 .2MATCH LINE C3.2/C3 .3 MATCH LINE C3.1/C3.3LEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C3.2/C3 .3 LEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C4.1/C4 .2 LEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C4.1/C4.2 LEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLC WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLPROJECT LOCATIONEXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONEROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION SCHEDULEEROSION CONTROL NOTESEROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE SCHEDULEVEGETATION GROUND COVER SCHEDULESWPP NARRATIVEPOLLUTION PREVENTION NOTESRESPONSIBLE PARTYDESIGN CALCULATIONSSWPPP Designer: Owner: LANDSPEC USAContractor: Manager: EROSION CONTROL QUANTITIES:TOTAL SITE DATA: LEGEND: FILTRATION BASIN NOTESINDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C5.1/C5 .2WL WL WL WL WLWLPROJECT LOCATIONEXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONLEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C5.1/C5.2WL WLWL WLWL WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLLEGEND: PROJECT LOCATIONEXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONINDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C6.2/C6.3WL DEMOLITION NOTES EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONINDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C7.1/C7.2 DEMOLITION NOTES EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONINDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C7.1/C7.2MATCH LINE C7.2/C7.3 DEMOLITION NOTES EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONINDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCMATCH LINE C7.2/C7.3 INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCLEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373Joe Radach612-730-2265jradach@contourcd.comCONTOURDEVELOPMENT, LLCLEGEND: TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55FUTURE ADDITION30,000 GSFBUILDING70,000 GSFCOMP.RAMPTRUCK COURTKIMBERLY LANENO PARKING NO PARKING>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO PARKING PROOF OF PARKING2010' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTPROOF OF PARKINGPROOF OF PARKING 13134646TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 126 STALLSTOTAL PROVIDED 126 STALLS151989'168'391.99'180'225.67'8'18.5'26'18.5'18'15'32'18.5'20'34'18.5'26'18.5'26'32'26'75'130'91.5'66'75'60'204.2' 224.2'MONUMENT SIGNVISITOR STALLSOUTDOORSEATING AREA5' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT 335.3'DIRECTIONAL SIGNSTOP SIGNSTOP SIGNRETAINING WALLTRANSFORMERGENERATOR127.15'ALTERNATE SUBSURFACEDISPERSAL FIELDSUBSURFACEDISPERSALFIELDSUBSURFACE DISPERSALFIELD FOR LOT TO WESTDELIVERY STALLSWELL50' MIN.9'9'9'R30'R30'R15'R10'R117'R85'R50'R20'R85'R117'R 5 'R5'R5'R5'R12.5 'R5'R5'R12.5'R15'R15'FUTURE SIDEWALKBY OTHERS10' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT9'9'9'9'9'9'9'9'TYPTYP9'SNOWSTORAGESNOWSTORAGE20' BUILDING SETBACK50' BUILDING SETBACK20' BUILDING SETBACK 20' BUILDING SETBACK 34.13'A1SITE PLAN1" = 50'15050SCALE IN FEET Know what's below. Call before you dig. RC-101SITE PLANDBC21001PROJECT NO.SHEETCERTIFICATIOND E S I G NC I V I L E NG I N E E R I N G | L A N D S C A PE A R CH I T EC T U R E310 4TH AVE SOUTH, SUITE 1006MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415www.elanlab.comp 612.260.7980f 612.260.7990123456EDCBA I hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me, or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineerunder the laws of the state of MINNESOTA.Stephen M. Johnston1891406/17/2022NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONREGISTRATION NO.DATERESPONSE TOCITY COMMENTS11/1/22PELLA NORTHLANDOFFICE/WAREHOUSECORCORAN,MINNESOTAISSUEDATESHEET INDEXPROJECT REQUIRED PROPOSEDFRONT BUILDING SETBACK50'89'FRONT MAJOR ROADWAY (HWY55)100'204'SIDE YARD20'85.5'REAR20'204'PARKING SUMMARYREQUIRED 126 STALLSPROVIDED 126 STALLS5 - 9' X 18.5' ACCESSIBLE STALLS3 - 9' X 18.5' VISITOR STALLS3 - 9' X 18.5' DELIVERY STALLS115 - 9' X 18.5' VISITOR STALLSPROOF OF PARKING46 STALLS1.DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE TO FACE OF CURB AND EXTERIOR FACE OFBUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.2.ON-SITE CURB TO BE B612 CURB & GUTTER AS NOTED.3.ALL CURBS TO HAVE 3/4" EXPANSION JOINTS AT A MAXIMUM OF 100'-0" AND CONTROLJOINTS AT A MAXIMUM OF 10'-0".4.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE PAINTED WITH A 4" WIDE WHITE STRIPING. ACCESSIBLESYMBOLS TO BE PAINTED IN WHITE AND ACCESSIBILITY ACCESS AISLES TO BEPAINTED WITH A 4" WIDE WHITE PAINTED STRIPE 18 INCHES ON CENTER AND AT 45DEGREE ANGLE TO STALL, WITH 'NO PARKING' MARKED NEAR THE DRIVE AISLE.REFLECTORIZED PAINT SHALL COMPLY WITH MNDOT 3592.SITE PLAN NOTESPROJECT SUMMARY TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55FFE 1043.5DOCK 1039.5FUTURE ADDITION30,000 GSFBUILDING70,000 GSFCOMP.RAMPTRUCK COURTKIMBERLY LANENO PARKING NO PARKING1039.51038.71038.71039.51038.71043.51043.51.0%8.0%1.3%1041.11038.21038.71038.71038.21038.21.0%1.0%1041.14.0%1041.13.3%1041.14.0%1041.13.3%3.3%1041.14.0%1041.13.3%1038.51045.0>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1043.51042.51042.51042.51042.451042.21041.51041.71042.51042.81041.21042.51041.21041.21040.51041.61040.51040.51041.21041.61040.41040.91042.11034.751035.01032.51032.01033.01033.51034.51035.31040.21042.11042.4 HP1043.0 HP1040.81041.351040.15>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1042.51042.01042.01042.8>>>>>>1043.71043.21042.51042.01042.51042.21042.21043.01042.61042.51041.91041.01041.8>>>>1042.71040.21042.51043.01041.110261028103010321034103610381040104210441046104810441042104010541052105010 4 8 1046 104410341044104210461040103910411039104010411042104310351036103710391040 1034 1033 103210381041 1035103610371038103910401041104210421041 10421036103810401041104110411043104210 4 2104210421042NO PARKINGA1GRADING PLAN1" = 50'15050SCALE IN FEET Know what's below. Call before you dig. RC-201GRADING PLANDBC21001PROJECT NO.SHEETCERTIFICATIOND E S I G NC I V I L E NG I N E E R I N G | L A N D S C A PE A R CH I T EC T U R E310 4TH AVE SOUTH, SUITE 1006MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415www.elanlab.comp 612.260.7980f 612.260.7990123456EDCBA I hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me, or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineerunder the laws of the state of MINNESOTA.Stephen M. Johnston1891406/17/2022NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONREGISTRATION NO.DATERESPONSE TOCITY COMMENTS11/1/22PELLA NORTHLANDOFFICE/WAREHOUSECORCORAN,MINNESOTAISSUEDATESHEET INDEXPROJECT TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55FFE 1043.5DOCK 1039.5FUTURE ADDITION30,000 GSFBUILDING70,000 GSFCOMP.RAMPTRUCK COURTNO PARKING NO PARKING10261028103010321034103610381040104210441046104810441042104010441042104610401039104110391040104110421043 10351036103710391040 10341038104110351036103710381039104010411042104210411042 104210 4 2104210421042NO PARKINGAA'BB'4'10' DOCKDOORWAREHOUSEFFE 1043.513.5'DOCKFFE 1039.5122'PROPOSED GRADECLHIGHWAY 55BERMROAD 1033.53.5'LINE OF SIGHT TO TOP OF DECIDUOUS TREEEYE LEVEL10' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTCONIFEROUS TREE6' HEIGHT AT INSTALLATIONDECIDUOUS TREE12' HEIGHT AT INSTALLATIONLINE OF SIGHT TO TOP OF BERMPROPERTY LINE ROADSIDE SWALEEXISTING GROUNDLINE OF SIGHT TO TOP OF CONIFEROUS TREE37'122'PROPOSED GRADECLHIGHWAY 55 BERMROAD 1030.03.5'EYE LEVELPROPERTY LINE 10' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT ROADSIDE SWALEEXISTING GROUNDCONIFEROUS TREE6' HEIGHT AT INSTALLATIONDECIDUOUS TREE12' HEIGHT AT INSTALLATION4'10' DOCKDOORWAREHOUSEFFE 1043.5RAMPLINE OF SIGHT TO TOP OF DECIDUOUS TREELINE OF SIGHT TO TOP OF BERMLINE OF SIGHT TO TOP OF CONIFEROUS TREE37'C1KEY PLAN1" = 60'18060SCALE IN FEETC-202SECTIONSDBC21001PROJECT NO.SHEETCERTIFICATIOND E S I G NC I V I L E NG I N E E R I N G | L A N D S C A PE A R CH I T EC T U R E310 4TH AVE SOUTH, SUITE 1006MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415www.elanlab.comp 612.260.7980f 612.260.7990123456EDCBA I hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me, or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineerunder the laws of the state of MINNESOTA.Stephen M. Johnston1891406/17/2022NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONREGISTRATION NO.DATERESPONSE TOCITY COMMENTS11/1/22PELLA NORTHLANDOFFICE/WAREHOUSECORCORAN,MINNESOTAISSUEDATESHEET INDEXPROJECTB1SECTION A-A'1" = 15'A1SECTION B-B'1" = 15' MONUMENT SIGNSUBSURFACEDISPERSAL FIELDLOADINGBERMPLANTING AREAFORFUTURE ADDITION4' MIN. BERM5' - 7' BERMLOBBYOUTDOORSEATING AREADIRECTIONAL SIGNSNOWSTORAGESNOWSTORAGETRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55FUTURE ADDITION30,000 GSFBUILDING70,000 GSFCOMP.RAMPTRUCK COURTKIMBERLY LANENO PARKING NO PARKINGNO PARKING 15050SCALE IN FEET Know what's below. Call before you dig. RL-101LANDSCAPE PLANLANDSCAPE SUMMARYDBC21001PROJECT NO.SHEETCERTIFICATIOND E S I G NC I V I L E NG I N E E R I N G | L A N D S C A PE A R CH I T EC T U R E310 4TH AVE SOUTH, SUITE 1006MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415www.elanlab.comp 612.260.7980f 612.260.7990123456EDCBA NOT FORCONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, orunder my direct supervision, and that I am a dulyLicensed Landscape Architect under the laws of thestate of MINNESOTA.Pilarsinee SaraithongREGISTRATION NO.06/16/2022DATE45059RESPONSE TOCITY COMMENTS11/1/22PELLA NORTHLANDOFFICE/WAREHOUSECORCORAN,MINNESOTAISSUEDATESHEET INDEXPROJECTLEGENDZONED: PUDLANDSCAPE SUMMARYSEC. 1060.70REQUIREDPROPOSEDTREESNON RESIDENTIAL USES1 TREE/ 1,000 GFA70,000 GFA = 70 TREES70 TREES (33% MAX SINGLE SPECIES)OR1 TREE/ 50 LF SITE PERIMETER3,020 LF = 60 TREES1 UNDERSTORY TREE/ 300 GFA70,000 GFA = 233 TREESEQUIVALENT 233 UNDERSTORY TREESOR(53 UNDERSTORY TREES + 60 SUBSTITUTED OVERSTORY TREES)1 TREE/ 30LF SITE PERIMETER3,020 LF = 101 TREESLANDSCAPE NOTES1.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINISHED GRADING AND POSITIVE SURFACE DRAINAGE IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS. LANDSCAPECONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE THAT THE FINAL GRADES ARE MET AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, IMMEDIATELYNOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR RESOLUTION.2.ALL PLANT MATERIALS ARE TO CONFORM WITH STATE & LOCAL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND THE CURRENT ADDITION OF THE AMERICANASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS. ALL PLANT MATERIALS ARE TO BE HEALTHY, HARDY STOCK, AND FREE FROM ANY DISEASES, DAMAGE,AND DISFIGURATION.3.QUANTITIES OF PLANTS LISTED ON THE PLAN ARE TO GOVERN ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANT SCHEDULE ANDPLAN. PLACE PLANTS IN PROPER SPACING FOLLOWING LAYOUT FIGURES.4.TOPSOIL TO BE MNDOT 3877.2B LOAM TOPSOIL BORROW FOR LANDSCAPED AREAS AND PLANTING BEDS. PROVIDE ROOTING TOPSOIL BORROW MNDOT3877.2E FOR PLANT RESTORATION, WATER QUALITY, AND FILTRATION PLANTING.5.PLANTING SOIL TO BE CONSISTED OF 50% SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW (MNDOT 3877) AND 50% GRADE 2 COMPOST (MNDOT 3890). PLANTING SOIL TOHAVE A PH BETWEEN 6.5-7.5, BE FREE OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS, DEBRIS, LARGE ROCKS GREATER THAN 1/ 2" DIAMETER, AND FRAGMENTS OFWOOD. SUBSOIL SHALL BE SCARIFIED TO A DEPTH OF 4" BEFORE PLANTING SOIL IS SPREAD.6.SPREAD PLANTING SOIL AT MINIMUM EIGHTEEN (18) INCH DEEP IN ALL PLANTING BEDS PRIOR TO PLANTING. THOROUGHLY WATER TWICE TO FACILITATECONSOLIDATION PRIOR TO PLANTING. DO NOT OVERLY COMPACT SOIL.7.MULCH TO BE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH (MNDOT 3882 TYPE 6), CONSISTED OF RAW WOOD MATERIAL FROM TIMBER AND BE A PRODUCT OF AMECHANICAL CHIPPER, HAMMER MILL, OR TUB GRINDER. THE MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBSTANTIALLY FREE OF MOLD, DIRT, SAWDUST, AND FOREIGNMATERIAL AND SHALL NOT BE IN AN ADVANCED STATE OF DECOMPOSITION. THE MATERIAL SHALL NOT CONTAIN CHIPPED UP MANUFACTURED BOARDSOR CHEMICALLY TREATED WOOD, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WATER BOARD, PARTICLE BOARD, AND CHROMATED COPPER ARSENATE (CCA) ORPENTA TREATED WOOD. THE MATERIAL SHALL BE TWICE-GROUND/ SHREDDED, SUCH THAT; NO INDIVIDUAL PIECE SHALL EXCEED 2 INCHES IN ANYDIMENSION.8.APPLY FOUR (4) INCH DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH IN FOUR (4) FOOT DIAMETER RING AROUND ALL TREES.9.EDGE ALL SHRUB BEDS WITH 3/16" X 5.5" MILL FINISHED ALUMINUM EDGING WITH STAKES. ALL EDGING TO BE COMMERCIAL GRADE.10.APPLY FOUR (4) INCH DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH IN ALL SHRUB AREAS AND APPLY THREE (3) INCH DEPTH OF SHREDDEDHARDWOOD BARK MULCH IN PERENNIAL AREAS. PRIOR TO MULCHING, APPLY PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE TO ALL PLANTING BEDS.11.APPLY PRE-EMERGENT TO MULCH IN PLANTING AREAS TO PROHIBIT WEED GROWTH. APPLICATION RATE TO BE PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS. IF WEEDS APPEAR IN TREATED AREAS DURING THE FIRST YEAR, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE ALL WEEDS AT NOADDITIONAL COST.12.ALL TREES ADJACENT TO VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SHALL HAVE LOWER BRANCH AT 6 FEET MINIMUM ABOVE PAVEMENT.13.THE ENTIRE LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. NO WATER IS ALLOWED ON ANY PAVEMENT,PARKING, WALKWAY, AND BUILDING. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR IS TO DESIGN AND SUBMIT SHOP DRAWING OF IRRIGATION DESIGN ANDCALCULATIONS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW 5 DAYS PRIOR TO PURCHASING AND INSTALLATION. IRRIGATION DESIGN IS TO MEET ALL CITYAND STATE PLUMBING CODES AND REQUIREMENTS.14.FOLLOW LANDSCAPE DETAILS FOR ALL INSTALLATION, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.15.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN PLANTS IN HEALTHY CONDITION THROUGHOUT WARRANTY PERIOD. THE WARRANTY PERIOD IS TWO FULLYEARS FROM DATE OF PROVISIONAL ACCEPTANCE UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE. WARRANTY PERIOD FOR PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLED AFTER JUNE 1STSHALL COMMENCE THE FOLLOWING YEAR.TURFNATIVE SEEDING1LANDSCAPE PLAN1" = 50'72 - DECIDUOUS TREES58 - CONIFEROUS TREES53 - UNDERSTORY TREESSHRUBS L-501LANDSCAPE DETAILSDBC21001PROJECT NO.SHEETCERTIFICATIOND E S I G NC I V I L E NG I N E E R I N G | L A N D S C A PE A R CH I T EC T U R E310 4TH AVE SOUTH, SUITE 1006MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415www.elanlab.comp 612.260.7980f 612.260.7990123456EDCBA NOT FORCONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, orunder my direct supervision, and that I am a dulyLicensed Landscape Architect under the laws of thestate of MINNESOTA.Pilarsinee SaraithongREGISTRATION NO.06/16/2022DATE45059RESPONSE TOCITY COMMENTS11/1/22PELLA NORTHLANDOFFICE/WAREHOUSECORCORAN,MINNESOTAISSUEDATESHEET INDEXPROJECTPLANTING SOIL(SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES)SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOMPRIOR TO PLANTINGMULCH(SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES)SET TOP OF ROOT 1" ABOVE GRADEMAKE SAUCER AROUND PLANTSEDGING(SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES)SEE PLAN AND PLANT SCHEDULE FOR SPACING12" MIN.6" MIN.PROVIDE PLANTING BED12" MIN. AROUND PLANTSHOLD SODDED AREA 1" BELOWPAVING SURFACEA4EDGING AT PLANTING BEDNO SCALEA1PERENNIAL PLANTINGNO SCALEA5SOD AT HARDSCAPE EDGENO SCALEBACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL(SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES)MULCH(SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES)INSTALL PLANTS ACCORDINGTO PLANTING DETAILSMOUND PLANTING AREA ABOVECURB LEVELA2PLANTING AT PARKING ISLANDNO SCALELOOSEN ROOTSPRIOR TO PLANTING18" MIN.TOPSOIL(SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES)PLANTING SOIL(SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES)MULCH(SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES)EDGING (SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES)TOP OF EDGING TO BE MAXIMUM1/2" ABOVE SURFACE MATERIAL12" MIN.PROVIDE PLANTING BED12" MIN. AROUND PLANTSINSTALL STAKES PERMANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATIONGUILDLINESTOP OF MULCH BELOW TOPOF PAVEMENT24" MIN. TO PAVEMENTTOP OF MULCH BELOWTOP OF CURBSCARIFY BOTTOMPRIOR TO PLANTINGPROVIDE MULCH POCKETALONG CURBC1DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGNO SCALEC2CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTINGNO SCALEC4DECIDUOUS SHRUB PLANTINGNO SCALEC5SOD PLACEMENTNO SCALE 54" Min.24" Min.UP A3011 A302 1 1 2 3 4 5 ABCDEFGH A301 2 A301 3 A302 2 A302 3 A3001 A300 2 A300 3 A300 4 P110 3 P1101 P110 2 P110 4 392' - 0"180' - 0"N DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. Suite 200 Wayzata MN 55391 Tel 952-426-7400 Fax 952-426-7440 DRAWING INFORMATIONPHASEISSUE RECORDREGISTRATIONARCHITECTPROJECT NAMETHE ARCHITECT SHALL BE DEEMED THE AUTHORS AND OWNERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHTS OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS. COMPUTER DIRECTORY:SHEET DESCRIPTIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Revit Projects\22135_PellaCorcoranDistributionCenter_nmissling@mohagenhansen.com.rvtP101 S. OLIVER N. MISSLING 09/20/2022 22135 K:\Jobs\PellaNorthland\22135_CorcoranDistributionCenter CITY SUBMITTAL PELLA CORCORAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER NEW CONSTRUCTION CORCORAN, MN 55357 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0"P101 1 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN NO. DESCRIPTION DATE DN 1 2 3 4 5 ABC DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. Suite 200 Wayzata MN 55391 Tel 952-426-7400 Fax 952-426-7440 DRAWING INFORMATIONPHASEISSUE RECORDREGISTRATIONARCHITECTPROJECT NAMETHE ARCHITECT SHALL BE DEEMED THE AUTHORS AND OWNERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHTS OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS. COMPUTER DIRECTORY:SHEET DESCRIPTIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Revit Projects\22135_PellaCorcoranDistributionCenter_nmissling@mohagenhansen.com.rvtP102 S. OLIVER N. MISSLING 09/20/2022 22135 K:\Jobs\PellaNorthland\22135_CorcoranDistributionCenter CITY SUBMITTAL PELLA CORCORAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER NEW CONSTRUCTION CORCORAN, MN 55357 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0"P102 1 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" ROOF 133' - 6" 2ND LEVEL 116' - 0" T.O. PARAPET 137' - 0" 12345 PC-2 PC-3 ACM-1 ACM-1 MTL-1 PC-3 PC-2 MTL-1 ACM-1 PC-1 PC-4 PC-2 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" ROOF 133' - 6" 2ND LEVEL 116' - 0" T.O. PARAPET 137' - 0" A B C D E F G HPC-3 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" ROOF 133' - 6" T.O. PARAPET 137' - 0" 1 2 3 4 5 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" ROOF 133' - 6" 2ND LEVEL 116' - 0" T.O. PARAPET 137' - 0" ABCDEFGH DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. Suite 200 Wayzata MN 55391 Tel 952-426-7400 Fax 952-426-7440 DRAWING INFORMATIONPHASEISSUE RECORDREGISTRATIONARCHITECTPROJECT NAMETHE ARCHITECT SHALL BE DEEMED THE AUTHORS AND OWNERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHTS OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS. COMPUTER DIRECTORY:SHEET DESCRIPTIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Revit Projects\22135_PellaCorcoranDistributionCenter_nmissling@mohagenhansen.com.rvtP110 S. OLIVER N. MISSLING 09/20/2022 22135 K:\Jobs\PellaNorthland\22135_CorcoranDistributionCenter CITY SUBMITTAL PELLA CORCORAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER NEW CONSTRUCTION CORCORAN, MN 55357 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/16" = 1'-0"P110 1 EAST ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"P110 2 NORTH ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"P110 3 WEST ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"P110 4 SOUTH ELEVATION NO. DESCRIPTION DATE EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE TAG NOTES SAMPLE Aluminum 6061 ACM-1 MANUFACTURER: - COLOR: BLACK SIZE: AS INDICATED ON ELEVATIONS PAINT EP-1 MANUFACTURER: - COLOR: T.B.D. PRECAST CONCRETE PC-1 COLOR: LIGHT GRAY FINISH: LIGHT SANDBLAST PC-2 COLOR: DARK GRAY FINISH: EXPOSED AGGREGATE PC-3 COLOR: MEDIUM GRAY FINISH: HEAVY SANDBLAST PC-4 COLOR: PAINTED YELLOW FINISH: SMOOTH BAND A1.11 3 2 1 A1 1 A1 4 20' -0" 1" / 12" Roo 000 0 7 8 X NAM 20' -0" 000 #O111 20'X 14' OHD WALL WALKDOOR WINDOW DOOR ROOM DEFINES SLOPE DEFINES SPOT WALL # DOOR WINDOW LETTER DOOR DOOR SIZE DOOR TYPE ROOM NAME ROOM NUMBER SLOPE SLOPE DIRECTIO N LOCATION/ NAME HEIGHT HEIGHT TAG TAG MARKERS CENTER LINE GRID STEEL LINE GRID INTERIOR ELEVATION MARKER SECTION CALLOUT/ DETAIL MARKER LEGEN RIGID INSULATION/ FOAM PANEL CONCRETE EARTH / FILL EXPANDED FOAM INSULATION SAND / GRANULAR FILL ROCK FILL FINISHED WALL / GYP MASONRY BLK OR BRICK STEEL EXTRUDED RIGID INSULATION GUARD RAIL BATT INSULATION GRID # OR LETTER GRID # OR LETTER DETAIL # PAGE # DETAIL # PAGE # DETAIL # PAGE # Scale Project # Date Kiehm Construction Inc. 8415 220th Street W Lakeville, MN 55044 Office:(952)469-5600 Fax(952)469-1240 www.kcibuilds.com All rights reserved. All plans and illustrations are the exclusive property of Kiehm Construction Inc. and are protected under copyright law. Reproduction and or Distribution of the illustrations or working drawings by any means is strictly prohibited. Although we make every effort to ensure the accuracy of our plan information, we reserve the right to make corrections on our plans if changes occur. PREVIOUS REVISION DATES: PLAN REVISIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" A0.1 Cover Page / Code ReviewProject NumberNike B7-24-19 P E R M IT S E T Minnetrista, MN• 6-18-19 Nike Building B Minnetrista, MN Sheet List Sheet Number Sheet Name A0.1 Cover Page / Code Review A1.1 Exterior Elevations A2.1 First Floor Plan A4.1 Building Sections S1 Foundation Plan S2 Foundation Details & Notes GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING (PRIMARY & SECONDARY FRAMING) IS DESIGNED BY METAL BUILDING MANUFACTURER (PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING OR "PEMB"). STRUCTURAL METAL FRAME SHOWN IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS IS FOR REPRESENTATION ONLY. VERIFY SIZE & LOCATION WITH PEMB DRAWINGS. 2. ALL NEW STEEL STUDS FOR PARTITION FRAMING SHALL BE MINIMUM 2'-0" O.C. 20 GAUGE. INCREASE GAUGE AS NECESSARY DUE TO HEIGHT, THICKNESS, BEARING, ETC., REFER TO STRUCTURAL. 3. CARPENTER TO PROVIDE BACKING FOR GRAB BARS, BATH ACCESSORIES, TOILET PARTITIONS, & MILLWORK. COORDINATE WITH MILLWORK CONTRACTOR FOR BACKING LOCATIONS. 4. CARPENTER TO INSTALL ALL DOORS WITH HARDWARE, BATH ACCESSORIES, TOILET PARTITIONS, & DOOR SIGNAGE. 5. FRAME/FURR OUT COLUMNS IN OFFICE AREA TO SMALLEST PROFILE. 6. ALL DIMENSIONS FOR INTERIOR PARTITION FRAMING IS TO CENTERLINE OF WALL UNLESS OTHER WISE NOTED. 7. ALL DIMENSIONS FROM THE EXTERIOR START / END ON "STEEL LINE" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. BOILER ROOM TO BE 1 HOUR FIRE RATED CONSTRUCTION IF BOILER IS GREATER THAN 400K BTU'S. 9. MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING TO BE DESIGN BUILD. 10. MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING DESIGN BY OTHERS. ALL WORK SHOWN ON ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS THAT IS M/E/P IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. SEE ALL NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL M/E/P INFORMATION 11. ROOF PENETRATIONS SHALL BE TO AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. IF POSSIBLE, KEEP ALL EQUIPMENT OFF OF ROOF. 12. VERIFY MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS WITH GENERAL AND/OR OWNER. 13. GRAB BARS TO BE SUPPLIED BY PLUMBER & INSTALLED BY CARPENTER. 14. BATH FANS, GAS PIPING, THERMOSTATS, MOTOR STARTERS, ALL CONTROLS & RELAYS TO BE SUPPLIED & INSTALLED BY MECHANICAL. 15. ALL CONTROL WIRING TO BE BY ELECTRICIAN. 16. VERIFY ALL EXTERIOR WALL PENETRATIONS LOCATIONS WITH GENERAL. 17. ELECTRICAL TO ENSURE PROPER LIFE SAFETY LIGHTING, EMERGENCY LIGHTING, AND EXIT SIGNAGE TO PROVIDE AS ACCESS TO EXIT(S). 18. ALL BATH MIRRIORS TO BE SUPPLIED BY GLASS CONTRACTOR. 19. ALL HANDRAILS, IF ANY, ARE TO BE INSTALLED AT BOTH SIDES OF STAIR AND/ OR RAMP. 20. ALL TRADES SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES 21. ALL TRADES TO CALL FOR THEIR OWN REQUIRED INSPECTIONS & MUST OBTAIN ANY REQUIRED PERMITS. 22. NOTIFY KCI OF ANY DISCREPANCIES ON THESE PLANS SITE & BUILDING CODE REVIEW: 1. THE BUILDING IS DESIGNED BASED ON: 2015 MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE 2015 MINNESOTA ACCESSIBILITY CODE 2015 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE (ANSI/ASHRAE/IES STANDARD 90.1-2010) 2015 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CODE 2015 MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE 2015 MINNESOTA MECHANICAL AND FUEL GAS CODE MINNESOTA ELECTRICAL CODE(2014 NEC) 2.AREA OF BUILDING: 42,480SF 3.AREA OF MEZZANINE: N/A 4.BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B 5.BUILDING OCCUPANCY GROUPS: S-1 6.AUTOMATIC FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM: YES 7.SEPARATION BASED ON OCCUPANCY GROUPS: N/A 8.ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 17,500 SF PER FLOOR, 2 STORIES 9.FRONTAGE INCREASE BASED ON PROPERTY SIZE AND LOT LINE LOCATIONS: N/A 10.INCREASE FOR AUTOMATIC FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM: 17,500 x 3 = 52,500 SF 11.TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 17,500 + 52,500 = 70,000 SF 12.OCCUPANT LOAD: 42,480/500 = 85 OCCUPANTS 13.PLUMBING FIXTURES PROVIDED: SOME UNITS PROVIDED WITH INDIVIDUAL TOILET ROOMS, PUBLIC RESTROOMS LOCATED IN BUILDING B. 1. STRUCTURE DESIGN SHALL COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODES REQUIRED BASED ON BUILDING LOCATION. 2. DESIGN WIND LOAD: BY METAL BUILDING MFR, REFER TO PEMB PLANS. 3. SNOW LOAD: BY METAL BUILDING MFR, REFER TO PEMB PLANS. 4. ROOF LIVE LOAD: BY METAL BUILDING MFR, REFER TO PEMB PLANS. 5. ROOF DEAD LOAD: 3 PSF (3/4" MTL LINER, 3" ISO RIGID, 3" EPS RIGID, & SSR PANEL) 6. COLLATERAL LOAD: 2 PSF 7. MEZZANINE LIVE LOAD FOR STORAGE: 125 PSF 8. MEZZANINE LIVE LOAD FOR OFFICE: 70 PSF 9. MEZZANINE DEAD LOAD BASED ON CONCRETE THICKNESS, REFER TO STRUCTURAL. DESIGN CRITERIA: Finished Floor 0' -0" Finished Floor 0' -0" High Eave Height 20' -2 1/2"Low Eave Height 18' -4" ACEBD 90' - 0" 22' - 6"22' - 6"22' - 6"22' - 6" 24 GA STANDING SEAM ROOF, 3" EPS INSULATION, 3" ISO INSULATION, & 3/4" LINER PANEL 123 122 2 1/2" COMPOSITE FOAM PANEL R=20 INSULATED HOLLOW METAL DOOR & FRAME Finished Floor 0' -0" Finished Floor 0' -0" Low Eave Height 18' -4" Low Eave Height 18' -4" 1 232345678910111213141516171819202122 143 142 140 139 138 136 134 133 131 129 128 127 125 124 24' - 0"30' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"24' - 0"14' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"24' - 0"14' - 0"22' - 0"30' - 0"24' - 0" 472' - 0" 24 GA STANDING SEAM ROOF, 3" EPS INSULATION, 3" ISO INSULATION, & 3/4" LINER PANEL INSULATED HOLLOW METAL DOOR & FRAME #O144 22'X 14' OHD #O143 24'X 14' OHD #O142 16'X 14' OHD #O141 12'X 14' OHD #O140 18'X 14' OHD #O139 14'X 14' OHD #O138 18'X 14' OHD #O137 12'X 14' OHD #O136 16'X 14' OHD #O135 16'X 14' OHD #O134 18'X 14' OHD #O133 18'X 14' OHD #O132 16'X 14' OHD #O131 16'X 14' OHD #O130 12'X 14' OHD #O129 18'X 14' OHD #O128 14'X 14' OHD #O127 18'X 14' OHD #O126 12'X 14' OHD #O125 16'X 14' OHD #O124 24'X 14' OHD #O123 22'X 14' OHD INSULATED OVERHEAD DOOR 2 1/2" COMPOSITE FOAM PANEL R=20 Finished Floor 0' -0" Finished Floor 0' -0" High Eave Height 20' -2 1/2"Low Eave Height 18' -4" A C EBD 24 GA STANDING SEAM ROOF, 3" EPS INSULATION, 3" ISO INSULATION, & 3/4" LINER PANEL 90' - 0" 22' - 6"22' - 6"22' - 6"22' - 6" INSULATED HOLLOW METAL DOOR & FRAME 144101 2 1/2" COMPOSITE FOAM PANEL R=20 01 Finished Floor 0' -0" Finished Floor 0' -0" High Eave Height 20' -2 1/2" High Eave Height 20' -2 1/2" 1232345678910111213141516171819202122 2 1/2" COMPOSITE FOAM PANEL R=20 #O122 22'X 14' OHD #O121 24'X 14' OHD #O120 16'X 14' OHD #O119 12'X 14' OHD #O118 18'X 14' OHD #O117 14'X 14' OHD #O116 18'X 14' OHD #O115 12'X 14' OHD #O114 16'X 14' OHD #O113 16'X 14' OHD #O112 18'X 14' OHD #O111 18'X 14' OHD #O110 16'X 14' OHD #O109 16'X 14' OHD #O108 12'X 14' OHD #O107 18'X 14' OHD #O106 14'X 14' OHD #O105 18'X 14' OHD #O104 12'X 14' OHD #O103 16'X 14' OHD #O102 24'X 14' OHD #O101 22'X 14' OHD 111112 109 107 106 105 103 102114116117118120121 472' - 0" 24' - 0"30' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"24' - 0"14' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"24' - 0"14' - 0"22' - 0"30' - 0"24' - 0" 24 GA STANDING SEAM ROOF, 3" EPS INSULATION, 3" ISO INSULATION, & 3/4" LINER PANEL INSULATED HOLLOW METAL DOOR & FRAME INSULATED OVERHEAD DOOR Scale Project # Date Kiehm Construction Inc. 8415 220th Street W Lakeville, MN 55044 Office:(952)469-5600 Fax(952)469-1240 www.kcibuilds.com All rights reserved. All plans and illustrations are the exclusive property of Kiehm Construction Inc. and are protected under copyright law. Reproduction and or Distribution of the illustrations or working drawings by any means is strictly prohibited. Although we make every effort to ensure the accuracy of our plan information, we reserve the right to make corrections on our plans if changes occur. PREVIOUS REVISION DATES: PLAN REVISIONS As indicated A1.1 Exterior ElevationsProject NumberNike B7-24-19 P E R M IT S E T Minnetrista, MN• 6-18-19 1/8" = 1'-0"A1.1 1 South Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"A1.1 2 West Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0"A1.1 3 North Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"A1.1 4 East Elevation 1 1 A A C C E E 23 23 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 472' - 0"90' - 0"24' - 0"30' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"24' - 0"14' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"24' - 0"14' - 0"22' - 0"30' - 0"24' - 0"22' - 6"22' - 6"22' - 6"22' - 6"472' - 0" 24' - 0"30' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"24' - 0"14' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 0"24' - 0"14' - 0"22' - 0"30' - 0"24' - 0"90' - 0"22' - 6"22' - 6"22' - 6"22' - 6"B B D D #O101 22'X 14' OHD #O102 24'X 14' OHD #O103 16'X 14' OHD #O104 12'X 14' OHD #O105 18'X 14' OHD #O106 14'X 14' OHD #O107 18'X 14' OHD #O108 12'X 14' OHD #O109 16'X 14' OHD #O110 16'X 14' OHD #O111 18'X 14' OHD #O112 18'X 14' OHD #O113 16'X 14' OHD #O114 16'X 14' OHD #O115 12'X 14' OHD #O116 18'X 14' OHD #O117 14'X 14' OHD #O118 18'X 14' OHD #O119 12'X 14' OHD #O120 16'X 14' OHD #O121 24'X 14' OHD #O122 22'X 14' OHD #O144 22'X 14' OHD #O143 24'X 14' OHD #O142 16'X 14' OHD #O141 12'X 14' OHD #O140 18'X 14' OHD #O139 14'X 14' OHD #O138 18'X 14' OHD #O137 12'X 14' OHD #O136 16'X 14' OHD #O135 16'X 14' OHD #O134 18'X 14' OHD #O133 18'X 14' OHD #O132 16'X 14' OHD #O131 16'X 14' OHD #O130 12'X 14' OHD #O129 18'X 14' OHD #O128 14'X 14' OHD #O127 18'X 14' OHD #O126 12'X 14' OHD #O125 16'X 14' OHD #O124 24'X 14' OHD #O123 22'X 14' OHD125124127128129131133134136138139140142143 102 103 105 106 107 109 111 112 114 116 117 118 120 121 122123144101Room 144 Room 143 Room 142 Room 141 Room 140 Room 139 Room 138 Room 137 Room 136 Room 135 Room 134 Room 133 Room 132 Room 131 Room 130 Room 129 Room 128 Room 127 Room 126 Room 125 Room 124 Room 123 Room 122 Room 121 Room 120 Room 119 Room 118 Room 117 Room 116 Room 115 Room 114 Room 113 Room 112 Room 111 Room 110 Room 109 Room 108 Room 107 Room 106 Room 105 Room 104 Room 103 Room 102 Room 101 13 A4.1 2 A2.1 3 A2.1 4 A2.1 14 A4.1 PUBLIC RESTROOM A2.1 8 Finished Floor 0' -0" 14 TYPICAL PARTITION WALL 6" METAL STUD LAYER 5/8" GYP ON BOTH SIDES 24 GA STANDING SEAM ROOF, 3" EPS INSULATION, 3" ISO INSULATION, & 3/4" LINER PANEL STEEL COLUMN AND RAFTER, REFER TO PEMB PLANS Finished Floor 0' -0" 1 24 GA STANDING SEAM ROOF, 3" EPS INSULATION, 3" ISO INSULATION, & 3/4" LINER PANEL STEEL COLUMN AND RAFTER, REFER TO PEMB PLANS STEEL PURLIN, TYP. STEEL COLUMN, REFER TO PEMB PLANS 2 1/2" COMPOSITE FOAM PANEL STEEL GRIT, REFER TO PEMB PLANS Finished Floor 0' -0" Low Eave Height 18' -4" E 24 GA STANDING SEAM ROOF, 3" EPS INSULATION, 3" ISO INSULATION, & 3/4" LINER PANEL STEEL COLUMN AND RAFTER, REFER TO PEMB PLANS STEEL PURLIN, TYP. 2 1/2" COMPOSITE FOAM PANEL STEEL GIRT, REFER TO PEMB PLANS 48"X30" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE (WALL HUNG HAND SINK)8' - 0"9' - 0"MIN.2"MIN.1' - 6"MIN. 2' - 0" MAX. 3' - 6" 1 1 C 9' - 8"8' - 0"78"X60" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE (WATER CLOSET)48"X30" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE (WALL HUNG HAND SINK) Scale Project # Date Kiehm Construction Inc. 8415 220th Street W Lakeville, MN 55044 Office:(952)469-5600 Fax(952)469-1240 www.kcibuilds.com All rights reserved. All plans and illustrations are the exclusive property of Kiehm Construction Inc. and are protected under copyright law. Reproduction and or Distribution of the illustrations or working drawings by any means is strictly prohibited. Although we make every effort to ensure the accuracy of our plan information, we reserve the right to make corrections on our plans if changes occur. PREVIOUS REVISION DATES: PLAN REVISIONS As indicated A2.1 First Floor PlanProject NumberNike B7-24-19 P E R M IT S E T Minnetrista, MN• 6-18-19 1/16" = 1'-0"A2.1 1 First Floor Plan 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.1 2 Wall Section at Typical Interior Partition 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.1 3 Wall Section at Side Wall 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.1 4 Typical Section at End Wall 1/2" = 1'-0"A2.1 5 Enlarged Typical Restroom 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.1 6 3D Restroom 1/2" = 1'-0"A2.1 7 Dispenser Location 1/2" = 1'-0"A2.1 8 Enlarged Public Restroom SL 24 GA GUTTER TYPICAL GUTTER HANGER STANDING SEAM ROOF 3" EPS RIGID INSULATION 3" ISO RIGID INSULATION 3/4" 29 GA LINER PANEL COMPOSITE FOAM WALL PANEL TYPICAL METAL BUILDING EAVE STRUT, REFER TO PEMB PLANS TYPICAL METAL BUILDING RIGID FRAME, REFER TO PEMB PLANS 24 GA GUTTER BACKER NOTE: FASTENERS SHOWN ARE 7/8" STITCH SCREWS TYPICAL GUTTER ANGLE TYPICAL METAL BUILDING PURLIN, REFER TO PEMB PLANS STANDING SEAM ROOF PANEL 3" EPS RIGID INSULATION 3" ISO RIGID INSULATION 3/4" 29 GA LINER PANEL COMPOSITE FOAM WALL PANEL 24 GA RAKE TRIM NOTE: FASTENERS SHOWN ARE 7/8" STITCH SCREWS IN T E R IO REXTE RIO R S T E E L L IN E NOTCH FOR FOAM PANEL E D G E O F C O N C R E TE O F W ALK D O O R JA M BS 40" FA C E T O FA C E 1/2" FLAT AT W ALK D O O R O PE NIN G 39" (FINIS H E D FLO O R H EIG HT) 1/2"1 1/2"3 1 /2 "6" JA M B T O JA M B S L O P E S 3 /4 " D O W N F R O M F IN IS H E D F L O O R 3 1/2" FLAT1 1/2" DOWN FROMFINISHED FLOORSTEEL LINES T E E L L IN E J A M B D E P T H N E E D S T O B E V E R IF IE D W IT H A N C H O R B O L T P L A N S OVERHEAD DOOR JAMB AT FINISHED FLOOR O R 1 7 1 /2 "1 ' -5 1 /2 "O R 2 1 "1 ' -9 "9 1 /2 "J A M B8"O R 1 7 1 /2 "1 ' -5 1 /2 "3 1 /2 "1 /2 " / 1 2 "O R 2 .4 5 ° NOTE: WALL PANEL OR DOOR BUCK IS NOT SHOWN IN THIS DETAIL FINIS H E D FLO O R EXTERIOR INTERIOR8"3 1/2"6"JAMB TO JAMB 6" LS EDGE OF CONCRETE BUCK (2X6)1 1/2" WOODJAMB8"3" WALL PANELNOTE: THIS DETAIL IS TYPICAL AT EVERY EXTERIOR OHD LOCATION WHERE NEW CONCRETE IS POURED VERIFY JAMB DEPTH!! 3" WALL PANEL WRAP, TYPICAL 1 1/2" DOWN FROM FINISHED FLOOR FLAT3 1/2"SLOPESSTEP, 3/4" DOWN FROM FINISHED FLOOR 9 1/2"JAMB TO JAMB + 12"SLOPES1' - 5 1/2"1' - 9"NOTE: REFER TO ANCHOR BOLT PLANS FOR JAMB LOCATIONS 6"9 1/2"JAMB TO JAMB + 12"9 1/2"6"8"JAMB TO JAMB 8"SEE ANCHOR BOLT PLAN SEE ANCHOR BOLT PLAN EDGE OF CONCRETESIMILAR DETAILNOT TO SCALE L FINISHED FLOOR 0' - 0" 1 1/2" WOOD BUCK MTL JAMB 8" 3" WALL PANEL NOTE: WOOD BUCK & MTL JAMB ARE SHOWN BEHIND WRAPPED WALL PANELOVERHEAD DOOR TRACK OVERHEAD DOOR WHEEL OVERHEAD DOOR OVERHEAD DOOR STRUT S 3/4"1 1/2"1' - 5 1/2"3 1/2" 1' - 9" "WRAPPED" FOAM WALL PANEL CONT. THICKENED EDGE, REFER TO STRUCTURAL PLAN FOR SIZE & REIN NOTE: FOUNDATION TYPE CAN VARY BETWEEN PROJECTS FINISHED MATERIAL GRADE EXTERIOR STEEL PIPE BOLLARD INTERIOR STEEL PIPE BOLLARD NOTE: THIS DETAIL IS TYPICAL AT EVERY EXTERIOR OHD LOCATION WHERE NEW CONCRETE IS POURED VERIFY JAMB DEPTH!! PERIMETER INSUL, MIN R-10 TYPICAL 3'-0" X 7'-0" HOLLOW METAL WALKDOOR & FRAME FOAM PANEL FOAM PANEL 1/2" FINISH FLR ELEV. 39" 1/2" EDGE OF CONCRETE 40" WALKDOOR JAMB TO JAMB 40" INSULATE JAMBS W/ BATT INSUL, TYP INSULATE JAMBS W/ BATT INSUL, TYP INSULATED HOLLOW METAL DOOR, TYP 2-1/2" COMPOSITE FOAM PANEL, TYP NOTE: COLORED COVER TRIM @ ALL JAMBS, TYP GRID GRID GRID 1'-0" 3'-4"8"INSULATED OVERHEAD DOOR 1'-0" FLANGE BRACING AS REQUIRED, BY PEMB MAIN FRAME RAFTER, BY PEMB ROOF PURLINS, BY PEMB STANDING SEAM ROOF SYSTEM, BY KCI STANDING SEAM ROOF SYSTEM 3" ISO RIGID INSULATION 3" EPS RIGID INSULATION 3/4" 29 GA DECK/LINER PANEL A 2 2 A BYPASS GIRT EXAMPLE INSET GIRT EXAMPLE GRIDLINE BUBBLE WITH "CROSSHAIRS" SHOWN REFERENCES "STEEL LINE" GRIDLINE BUBBLE WITHOUT "CROSSHAIRS" SHOWN REFERENCES "CENTER LINE" COMPOSITE FOAM WALL PANEL, BY KCI FLANGE BRACING AS REQUIRED, BY PEMB MAIN FRAME COLUMN, BY PEMB WALL GIRTS, BY PEMB COVERAGE 2' - 0" #12 X 1" TEK 5 FASTENER 12" O.C. & 6" AT LAP JOINTS Finished Floor 0' -0" Finished Floor 0' -0" Low Eave Height 18' -4" Low Eave Height 18' -4" 1 232345678910111213141516171819202122 80B O145 O147 O149 O151 O153 O155 O157 Room 144 Room 143 Room 142 Room 141 Room 140 Room 139 Room 138 Room 137 Room 136 Room 135 Room 134 Room 133 Room 132 Room 131 Room 130 Room 129 Room 128 Room 127 Room 126 Room 125 Room 124 Room 123 24 GA STANDING SEAM ROOF, 3" EPS INSULATION, 3" ISO INSULATION, & 3/4" LINER PANEL STEEL PURLIN, TYP. STEEL COLUMN AND RAFTER, REFER TO PEMB PLANS Finished Floor 0' -0" Finished Floor 0' -0" High Eave Height 20' -2 1/2"Low Eave Height 18' -4" A C EBD Room 118 Room 127 24 GA STANDING SEAM ROOF, 3" EPS INSULATION, 3" ISO INSULATION, & 3/4" LINER PANEL STEEL COLUMN AND RAFTER, REFER TO PEMB PLANS STEEL PURLIN, TYP. Scale Project # Date Kiehm Construction Inc. 8415 220th Street W Lakeville, MN 55044 Office:(952)469-5600 Fax(952)469-1240 www.kcibuilds.com All rights reserved. All plans and illustrations are the exclusive property of Kiehm Construction Inc. and are protected under copyright law. Reproduction and or Distribution of the illustrations or working drawings by any means is strictly prohibited. Although we make every effort to ensure the accuracy of our plan information, we reserve the right to make corrections on our plans if changes occur. PREVIOUS REVISION DATES: PLAN REVISIONS As indicated A4.1 Building SectionsProject NumberNike B7-24-19 P E R M IT S E T Minnetrista, MN• 6-18-19 3" = 1'-0"A4.1 1 Roof Detail - Gutter 3" = 1'-0"A4.1 2 Roof Detail - Rake Trim Detail 1" = 1'-0"A4.1 3 3D Concrete Detail at Walkdoor 1" = 1'-0"A4.1 4 3D Overhead Door Detail 1" = 1'-0"A4.1 5 Typical Bollard & Concrete Notch Locations At Overhead Door1 1/2" = 1'-0"A4.1 7 Typical Detail - Concrete Notch at Overhead Door 3/4" = 1'-0"A4.1 8 Typical Exterior Hollow Metal Door Concrete Detail 3/8" = 1'-0"A4.1 9 Typical Door Jamb Detail 1" = 1'-0"A4.1 10 Typical KCI Standing Seam Roof Section 1" = 1'-0"A4.1 11 Typical KCI Wall System 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A4.1 12 Non-Composite Metal Decking Attachment 1/16" = 1'-0"A4.1 13 Building Section 1" = 10'-0"A4.1 14 Building Section at Side Wall 20 x 20' CONCRETE PATIOWITH PICNIC TABLESFOR LOT 3 - BLOCK 1LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS SHOWN PERPLAN OFFERED BY ELAN DESIGN LABDATED 6/17/2022THE PROPOSED SITE & BUILDING PLANS FOR THESELOTS ARE CONCEPTUAL FOR PUD SUBMITTALPURPOSES. PROPOSED SHRUB PLANTINGS,MEETING THE QUANTITIES IDENTIFIED BELOW, WILLBE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL.SCREENING OF THE PARKING LOT, ANDFOUNDATION PLANTINGS, WILL BE ADDRESSED ASREQUIRED BY CORCORAN CITY ORDINANCE.DUE TO VERY LIMITED PLANTING SPACE AROUND EACHSTORAGE BUILDING, WE ARE REQUESTING A PUDDEVIATION FROM REQUIRED SHRUB PLANTINGS AS NOTEDIN THE CALCULATIONS BELOW. SHRUBS ARE PRIORITIZEDON THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE LOT TO ACCENT VIEWSFROM THE ROADWAY AND ON THE NORTHERN BUILDINGFACADE FACING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.TREE PLANTING NOTES:TREE SELECTIONS:SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF REQUESTED PRIOR TO BIDDING OF THEPROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AVAILABILITY OF THE SPECIFIEDMATERIALS AND INFORM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONCERNS PRIOR TOSUBMITTING A BID.STORAGE OF TREES ON CONSTRUCTION SITE:TREES SHALL NOT BE STORED ON SITE FOR EXTENDED TIME PERIODS. IF PLANTINGSCANNOT BE PLACED IN THE GROUND, AND WELL WATERED THAT SAME DAY, THEPLANTINGS SHALL HAVE MOIST MULCH COVERING THE ROOTS AT ALL TIMES.PLANTING INSTRUCTIONS:ALL PLANTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE PLANTING DETAILS AS SHOWN IN THESECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. PARTICULAR ATTENTION WILL BE PAID TO OVERSIZINGTHE PLANTING HOLE AND CREATION OF A WATERING WELL TO ALLOW SOAKING OF THEPLANTING BACKFILL FOR EACH PLANTING.STAKING:STAKING OF THE TREES IS OPTIONAL, BUT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELDRESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECTING ANY TREES THAT FALL OUT OF PLUMB DURING THEWARRANTY PERIOD.REMOVAL OF TAGGING:ALL TAGGING AND PLANT LABLES SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER PLANTING. BALLED ANDBURLAPPED PLANTINGS SHALL HAVE ANY ROPE REMOVED FROM THE TRUCK AND THETOP OF THE WIRE CAGE REMOVED FROM THE BALL AFTER PLACEMENT IN THEPLANTING PIT.WARRANTY PERIOD:ALL PLANTING SHALL BE COVERED BY A ONE YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD TO COVERREPLACEMENT OF ANY PLANTINGS THAT HAVE DIED OR ARE SHOWING OBVIOUS SIGNSOF STRESS AT THE WARRANTY INSPECTION. REPLACEMENT OF ANY FAILEDPLANTINGS INCLUDES RE-ESTABLISHING CLEAN MULCH AROUND ANY REMOVALS ANDOFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF ANY MATERIALS.LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS:050' 100'200'SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" NORTHLANDSCAPE PLAN:Registration #:Signature:I hereby certify that this plan was prepared byof the State of Minnesota.Drawn By:Checked By:Sheet Title:Date:Revision:Project #:Name:Paul Kangas2601714165 James Road - Suite 200ARogers, MN 55374Phone: 612-237-8355www.insideoutsidearchitecture.comSheet Number:COPYRIGHT 2022 ©This plan is copyrighted and shall be usedonly for the project shown andshall not be copied or reproduced without writtenpermission from Inside Outside Architecture, Inc.Project Name:PIONEER TRAILINDUSTRIAL PARKCorcoran, Minnesota22-00811-01-2022PKPKLANDSCAPE PLANL1-1nsideutsiderchitectureInc.PER THE CITY OF CORCORAN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, REQUIRED LANDSCAPEQUANTITIES ARE DETERMINED USING CALCULATIONS OF THE GROSS BUILDINGFLOOR AREA OR SITE PERIMETER AT THE FOLLOWING RATIOS:OVERSTORY TREES:GROSS BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED BY 1,000 OR SITE PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 50(WHICHEVER IS GREATER). FOR THIS LOT, BUILDING AREA IS BEING USED ASFOLLOWS:1. GROSS BUILDING AREA = 207,200 SF DIVIDED BY 100 = 208 OVERSTORY TREES2. TREES PROVIDED INCLUDING:35 DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY TREES56 OVERSTORY CONIFEROUS TREES00 DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREES (0 @ 3:1 RATIO)91TOTAL (-117 LESS THAN REQUIRED - SEE ABOVE)SHRUB PLANTINGS:GROSS BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED BY 300 OR SITE PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 30WHICHEVER IS GREATER. FOR THIS LOT, BUILDING AREA IS BEING USED ASFOLLOWS:1. GROSS BUILDING AREA = 207,200 SF DIVIDED BY 300 = 691 SHRUBS2. SHRUBS PROVIDED = 174 (AS SHOWN ON PLAN)3. REQUESTED DEVIATION 75% = MINUS 517 TOTALPER THE CITY OF CORCORAN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, REQUIRED LANDSCAPEQUANTITIES ARE DETERMINED USING CALCULATIONS OF THE GROSS BUILDINGFLOOR AREA OR SITE PERIMETER AT THE FOLLOWING RATIOS:OVERSTORY TREES:GROSS BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED BY 1,000 OR SITE PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 50(WHICHEVER IS GREATER). FOR THIS LOT, BUILDING AREA IS BEING USED ASFOLLOWS:1. GROSS BUILDING AREA = 70,000 SF DIVIDED BY 1,000 = 70 OVERSTORY TREES2. MORE THAN 70 TREES PROVIDED INCLUDING:72 DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY TREES58 OVERSTORY CONIFEROUS TREES53 DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREES (3:1 RATIO)207 TOTALSHRUB PLANTINGS:GROSS BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED BY 300 OR SITE PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 30WHICHEVER IS GREATER. FOR THIS LOT, BUILDING AREA IS BEING USED ASFOLLOWS:1. GROSS BUILDING AREA = 70,000 SF DIVIDED BY 300 = 233 SHRUBS2. SHRUBS PROVIDED = 233 (TO BE SHOWN AT FINAL SUBMITTAL)•NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSYMBOL PLANT TYPE / POTENTIAL SPECIES LISTDECIDUOUS SHADE TREES - 2.5" CAL.NORTHWOOD RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 'Northwood'LITTLELEAF LINDEN Tilia cordataREDMOND LINDEN Tilia americana 'Redmond'RED OAK Quercus rubraSWAMP WHITE OAK Quercus bicolorKENTUCKY COFFEETREE Gymnocladus dioicaIMPERIAL HONEYLOCUST Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 'Skyline'RIVER BIRCH Betula nigraHACKBERRY Celtis occidentalisCONIFEROUS TREES - 4-6' HEIGHTSCOTCH PINE Pinus sylvestrisCOLORADO SPRUCE Picea pungensBLACK HILLS SPRUCE Picea densataARBORVITAE Thuja spp.ORNAMENTAL TREES - 1.5" CAL.SERVICEBERRY Amelanchier laevisTHORNLESS HAWTHORN Crataegus crusgalli 'Inermis'AMUR CHOKECHERRY Prunus maackiiFLOWERING CRABAPPLE Malus spp.JAPANESE TREE LILAC Syringa reticulataMERRILL MAGNOLIA Magnolia x loebneri 'Merrill'PER THE CITY OF CORCORAN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, REQUIRED LANDSCAPEQUANTITIES ARE DETERMINED USING CALCULATIONS OF THE GROSS BUILDINGFLOOR AREA OR SITE PERIMETER AT THE FOLLOWING RATIOS:OVERSTORY TREES:GROSS BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED BY 1,000 OR SITE PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 50(WHICHEVER IS GREATER). FOR THIS LOT, BUILDING AREA IS BEING USED ASFOLLOWS:1. GROSS BUILDING AREA = 94,000 SF DIVIDED BY 1,000 = 94 OVERSTORY TREES2. 94 TREES PROVIDED INCLUDING:67 DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY TREES23 OVERSTORY CONIFEROUS TREES04 DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREES (12 @ A 3:1 RATIO)94 TOTALSHRUB PLANTINGS:GROSS BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED BY 300 OR SITE PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 30WHICHEVER IS GREATER. FOR THIS LOT, BUILDING AREA IS BEING USED ASFOLLOWS:1. GROSS BUILDING AREA = 94,000 SF DIVIDED BY 300 = 313 SHRUBS2. SHRUBS PROVIDED = 313 (TO BE SHOWN AT FINAL SUBMITTAL)PER THE CITY OF CORCORAN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, REQUIRED LANDSCAPEQUANTITIES ARE DETERMINED USING CALCULATIONS OF THE GROSS BUILDINGFLOOR AREA OR SITE PERIMETER AT THE FOLLOWING RATIOS:OVERSTORY TREES:GROSS BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED BY 1,000 OR SITE PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 50(WHICHEVER IS GREATER). FOR THIS LOT, SITE PERIMETER IS BEING USED ASFOLLOWS:1. SITE PERIMETER = 3,966 LF DIVIDED BY 50 = 80 OVERSTORY TREES2. TREES PROVIDED INCLUDING:99 DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY TREES95 OVERSTORY CONIFEROUS TREES03 DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREES (9 @ 3:1 RATIO)197 TOTAL (+117 MORE THAN REQUIRED - SEE ABOVE)SHRUB PLANTINGS:GROSS BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED BY 300 OR SITE PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 30WHICHEVER IS GREATER. FOR THIS LOT, BUILDING AREA IS BEING USED ASFOLLOWS:1. SITE PERIMETER = 3,966 LF DIVIDED BY 30 = 132 SHRUBS2. SHRUBS PROVIDED = 132 (TO BE SHOWN AT FINAL SUBMITTAL)TREE SELECTION PALETTE:Joseph RadachContour Development LLC8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373612-730-2265PER THE CITY OF CORCORAN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, REQUIRED LANDSCAPEQUANTITIES ARE DETERMINED USING CALCULATIONS OF THE GROSS BUILDINGFLOOR AREA OR SITE PERIMETER AT THE FOLLOWING RATIOS:OVERSTORY TREES:GROSS BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED BY 1,000 OR SITE PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 50(WHICHEVER IS GREATER). FOR THIS LOT, SITE PERIMETER IS BEING USED ASFOLLOWS:1. SITE PERIMETER = 1,742 LF DIVIDED BY 50 = 35 OVERSTORY TREES2. 35 TREES PROVIDED INCLUDING:20 DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY TREES15 OVERSTORY CONIFEROUS TREES00 DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREES (9 @ 3:1 RATIO)35 TOTALSHRUB PLANTINGS:GROSS BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED BY 300 OR SITE PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 30WHICHEVER IS GREATER. FOR THIS LOT, BUILDING AREA IS BEING USED ASFOLLOWS:1. SITE PERIMETER = 1,742 LF DIVIDED BY 30 = 58 SHRUBS2. SHRUBS PROVIDED = 58 (TO BE SHOWN AT FINAL SUBMITTAL)PER FLEXIBILITY ALLOWED VIA THE PUD APPROVAL PROCESS, WE ARE PROPOSING COMBINING THE TOTALTREE PLANTINGS REQUIRED ON LOTS NORTH OF THE PROPOSED EAST/WEST ROADWAY TO ALLOW GREATERSCREENING ON THE WESTERLY LOT WHERE GREEN SPACE IS MORE GENEROUS.LOT #1 - BLOCK #1LOT #2 - BLOCK #1LOT #3 - BLOCK #1LOT #1 - BLOCK #2LOT #2 - BLOCK #2TURF ESTABLISHMENT: .ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED OR SODDED WITH COMMERCIAL GRADEBLUEGRASS TURF MIXTURE (MnDOT #25-131 OR APPROVED EQUAL).IRRIGATION:ALL LANDSCAPED AND TURF AREAS SHALL BE COVERED BY UNDERGROUND, AUTOMATED IRRIGATIONSYSTEMS UNIQUE TO EACH PARCEL. SYSTEMS SHALL HAVE ELECTRONIC CONTROLLERS, RAIN SENSORS,EXTRA ZONES FOR FUTURE EXPANSION, AND APPROPRIATE BACKFLOW PREVENTERS PER CODE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL:VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID TO INSPECT INSPECT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIARWITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE SCOPE OF WORK.VERIFY THE LAYOUT AND ANY DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES THAT WOULD COMPROMISE THE DESIGN ORINTENT OF THE PROJECT LAYOUT.ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THEWORK OR MATERIALS SUPPLIED.PROTECT ALL EXISTING FEATURES FROM DAMAGE DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS. ANYDAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.CALL GOPHER-ONE TO VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND ANDABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTIONBEGINS.ESTABLISH TO THEIR SATISFACTION THAT SOIL AND COMPACTION CONDITIONS AREADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AT AND AROUND THE BUILDING SITE.UTILITIES, BACKGROUND INFORMATION, AND LAYOUT:ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE LAID SO THAT TRENCHES DO NOT CUT THROUGHROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. ADEQUATELY COMPACT ANYEXCAVATED AREAS TO AVOID FUTURE SETTLEMENT.EXISTING CONTOURS, TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURB/GUTTER AND OTHER EXISTING ELEMENTSBASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF DISCREPANCIES THAT WOULDCOMPROMISE THE DESIGN INTENT PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.THE ALIGNMENT AND GRADES OF THE PROPOSED WALKS, TRAILS AND/OR ROADWAYS ARESUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHICCONDITIONS AND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. ANY CHANGE IN ALIGNMENTMUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND PHASING:COORDINATE THE LANDSCAPING AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORSWORKING ON SITE.NO PLANTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEENCOMPLETED IN THE PLANTING AREAS.PLANT MATERIALS:ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE NURSERY STOCKSTANDARDS AS PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION(ANLA).PLANTS SHALL NOT BE STOCKPILED ON SITE ANY LONGER THAN NECESSARY AND SHALLHAVE ADEQUATE WATERING AT ALL TIMES PRIOR TO PLANTING. PLANTS THAT SHOWOBVIOUS SIGNS OF DISTRESS FROM HEAT, OR LACK OF WATER, SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED.ROOT BALLS FOR ALL TREES SHALL BE COVERED WITH MULCH WHILE AWAITING PLANTING.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES AT THESPECIFIED SHRUB HEIGHT. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO 'V' CROTCHES AND SHALLBEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' ABOVE THE ROOT FLARE. STREET AND BOULEVARDTREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6' ABOVE THE ROOT FLARE.ANY CONIFEROUS TREE PREVIOUSLY PRUNED FOR CHRISTMAS TREE SALES SHALL NOT BEUSED. ALL CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL HAVE A FULL, NATURAL FORM CONSISTENT WITHTHE SPECIES.THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE PLANT SCHEDULE IF ANYDISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES.ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ON PLAN. LANDSCAPEARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL STAKING PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING.NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTEDOF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION.ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS ARE OCCASIONALLY NEEDEDIN THE FIELD. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE REQUIRED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUSTBE NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE TO DISCUSS AN ACCEPTABLE MODIFICATION..ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH DRIED BONE MEAL,OTHER APPROVED FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PER THEMANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS OR MAY BE TREATED FOR SUMMER AND FALLINSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 0-20-20 OF 12 OZ PER 2.5" CALIPER PERTREE AND 6 OZ PER SHRUB WITH AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OF 10-10-10 THE FOLLOWINGSPRING IN THE TREE SAUCER.ALL PLANTING AREAS RECEIVING GROUND COVER, PERENNIALS, ANNUALS, AND/OR VINESSHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 8" DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL CONSISTING OF AT LEAST 45PARTS TOPSOIL, 45 PARTS PEA/COMPOST AND 10 PARTS SAND.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE PLANTING DETAILS.WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE CORRUGATED PVC PIPING 1" GREATER IN CALIPER THANTHE TREE BEING PROTECTED OR QUALITY, HEAVY, WATERPROOF CREPE PAPERMANUFACTURED FOR TTHEIR PURPOSE. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THEFALL PRIOR TO 12-1 AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER 5-1.IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS CONCERNED OR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THEPLANT SELECTIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS OR ANY OTHER SITE CONDITION WHICH MIGHTNEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR GUARANTEE, HE MUST BRINGTHESE DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TOPROCUREMENT AND/OR INSTALLATION.EDGING AND MAINTENANCE STRIPS:BLACK POWDER COATED STEEL EDGER TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS,AND ANNUALS WHERE BED MEETS SOD/SEED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.MAINTENANCE STRIPS SHALL HAVE EDGER AND MULCH AS SPECIFIED OR AS INDICATED ONDRAWINGS.MULCHING:ROCK MULCH OR COBBLE SHALL BE CLEAN AND FREE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT DIRT, SOIL, ORORGANIC MATTER THAT WILL PROMOTE WEED GROWTH. HIGH QUALITY GEOTEXTILEFABRIC, WITH EDGES OVERLAPPED AT LEAST 12", SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ALL ROCKMULCH.ALL SHRUB BED MASSES SHALL RECEIVE 3" COMPACTED DEPTH LAYER OF BROWNSHREDDED WOOD MULCH WITH A UNIFORM TREATMENT OF PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE(PREEN OR EQUAL) APPLIED PRIOR TO MULCHING.ALL PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS SHALL RECEIVE 3" COMPACTED DEPTH LAYER OF BROWNSHREDDED WOOD MULCH WITH A UNIFORM TREATMENT OF PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE(PREEN OR EQUAL) APPLIED PRIOR TO MULCHING.ALL TREES SHALL HAVE A MULCH RING (MINIMUM 48" DIAMETER) OF 4" DEEP SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCH WITH NONE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK.SPREAD GRANULAR PRE EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR EQUAL) PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDED RATES UNDER ALL MULCHED AREAS INCLUDING TREE MULCH RINGS.IRRIGATION:VERIFY EXISTING/PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT AND CONFIRM LIMITS OFIRRIGATION PRIOR TO SUPPLYING SHOP DRAWINGS.UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN AND SHOP DRAWING AS A PARTOF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THE IRRIGATION SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BEREVIEWED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIALS ORINSTALLATION.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ALL SODDED/SEEDED AND PLANTEDAREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND ANDABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION.TURF OR OTHER SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE ON DIFFERENT ZONES THAN PLANTING BEDS INORDER TO CONTROL WATER FLOW TO DIFFERING PLANT SPECIES.IRRIGATION TRENCHES SHALL BE ADEQUATELY COMPACTED TO AVOID SETTLEMENT IN THEFUTURE.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A WATERING/LAWNIRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANTMATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS.SEEDING AND SODDING:SEED ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING OTHER THAN THOSE AREAS NOTED TORECEIVE SOD. SEED SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MULCHED PER MNDOT SPECS UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.ALL SEEDED AREAS WITH SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4:1 SHALL HAVE STRAW MAT, OR OTHERSUITABLE EROSION CONTROL METHODS, IN PLACE IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING.WHERE SOD OR SEED ABUTS A PAVED SURFACE, FINISHED GRADE SHALL BE HELD 1"BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC.SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS.SOD MUST BE STAKED WITH WOOD LATH OR METAL STAKES ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES.CALENDAR OR CLIMATIC RESTRICTIONS:THE PREFERRED SODDING WINDOW IS FROM AUGUST 15th - OCTOBER 15th. HOWEVER, SODMAY BE INSTALLED AT ANY TIME PROVIDED ADEQUATE IRRIGATION COVERAGE ISAVAILABLE. IF NO IRRIGATION IS AVAILABLE, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FORSUPPLEMENTAL WATERING AS NEEDED FOR SOD ESTABLISHMENT.THE PREFERRED FALL SEEDING WINDOW, FOR SITES WITHOUT IRRIGATION, IS FROMAUGUST 15th - SEPTEMBER 15th.DORMANT SEEDING MAY OCCUR AFTER SOIL TEMPERATURES ARE CONSISTENTLY BELOW 45DEGREES AND SHOULD GENERALLY NOT OCCUR PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1st.LANDSCAPE PLANTING SHOULD GENERALLY OCCUR FROM MAY 1st - JUNE 15th OR FROMSEPTEMBER 1st - OCTOBER 15th. PLANTING OUTSIDE THESE DATES IS NOT RECOMMENDED,BUT CAN OCCUR WITH PROPER CARE OF NURSERY STOCK ON SITE AND WITH AMPLEWATERING.PLANTING SHALL NOT OCCUR IF TEMPERATURES ARE HIGHER THAN 85 F. DEGREES, OR IFWINDS EXCEED 15 MPH DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS.PROTECT ALL EXISTING OAKS ON SITE SCHEDULED TO REMAIN. IF EXISTING OAKS AREDAMAGED IN ANY MANOR, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND IN THE ROOT SYSTEM, AN ASPHALTICTREE PRUNING PAINT SHOULD BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WOUNDING. OAKS ARE NOTTO BE PRUNED, REMOVED OR TRANSPLANTED BETWEEN APRIL 15th AND JULY 1st.OWNER ACCEPTANCE AND WARRANTY REQUIREMENTSTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR OWNER ACCEPTANCEINSPECTION OF ALL LANDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF ALL NEWLYINSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM ORDAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A MAINTENANCE PROGRAMINCLUDING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO, PRUNING, FERTILIZATION ANDDISEASE/PEST CONTROL.AT A MINIMUM, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONECALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. THE WARRANTY (INCLUDINGTAT LEAST ONE FULL GROWING SEASON) FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BEGIN ON THEDATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AFTER THE COMPLETION OFPLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL NOT BECONSIDERED.REPRODUCIBLE AS-BUILT DRAWING(S) OF ALL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND SITEIMPROVEMENTS UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION AND PRIOR TOPROJECT ACCEPTANCE.PLANTING NOTES:•NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONRegistration #:Signature:I hereby certify that this plan was prepared byof the State of Minnesota.Drawn By:Checked By:Sheet Title:Date:Revision:Project #:Name:Paul Kangas2601714165 James Road - Suite 200ARogers, MN 55374Phone: 612-237-8355www.insideoutsidearchitecture.comSheet Number:COPYRIGHT 2022 ©This plan is copyrighted and shall be usedonly for the project shown andshall not be copied or reproduced without writtenpermission from Inside Outside Architecture, Inc.Project Name:PIONEER TRAILINDUSTRIAL PARKCorcoran, Minnesota22-00811-01-2022PKPKLANDSCAPE NOTESAND DETAILSL1-2nsideutsiderchitectureInc.PERENNIAL SPACING GUIDELINESSCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"2L1-2PERENNIAL PLANTINGJoseph RadachContour Development LLC8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373612-730-2265 DUE TO VERY LIMITED PLANTING SPACE AROUND EACHSTORAGE BUILDING, WE ARE REQUESTING A PUDDEVIATION FROM REQUIRED SHRUB PLANTINGS AS NOTEDIN THE CALCULATIONS BELOW. SHRUBS ARE PRIORITIZEDON THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE LOT TO ACCENT VIEWSFROM THE ROADWAY AND ON THE NORTHERN BUILDINGFACADE FACING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.13ANH7SGJ13TYE7TYE18MKL13SGJ12SGJ18RTD12SGJ18RTD12SGJ18MKL13TYEPLANTING SCHEDULE (THIS PAGE ONLY):COMMON NAMEQTYSYMCOMMENTSCONTSIZESCIENTIFIC NAMEDECIDUOUS SHRUBSPOTPOTPOTPOTPOT2 GAL1336-36-POT-MISS KIM LILACDWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLEANTHONY WATERER SPIREARED TWIGGED DOGWOODANNABELLE HYDRANGEAALFREDO VIBURNUMSpiraea x bumalda 'Anthony Waterer'Hydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle'Syringa patula 'Miss Kim'Cornus sericea 'Baileyi'Diervilla loniceraViburnum trilobum 'Alfredo'2 GAL2 GAL2 GAL2 GAL2 GALMKLDBHRTDANHAFVAWS5' O.C.CONIFEROUS SHRUBSPOTPOT5 GAL5633SEA GREEN JUNIPERTAUNTON YEWJuniperus chinensis 'Sea Green'Taunton x media 'Taunton'5 GALSGJTYE5' O.C.4' O.C.5' O.C.4' O.C.4' O.C.5' O.C.5' O.C.050' 100'200'SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" NORTHLOT 2 BLOCK 2 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN:Registration #:Signature:I hereby certify that this plan was prepared byof the State of Minnesota.Drawn By:Checked By:Sheet Title:Date:Revision:Project #:Name:Paul Kangas2601714165 James Road - Suite 200ARogers, MN 55374Phone: 612-237-8355www.insideoutsidearchitecture.comSheet Number:COPYRIGHT 2022 ©This plan is copyrighted and shall be usedonly for the project shown andshall not be copied or reproduced without writtenpermission from Inside Outside Architecture, Inc.Project Name:PIONEER TRAILINDUSTRIAL PARKCorcoran, Minnesota22-00811-01-2022PKPKSHRUB PLANTINGPLANLOT 2 - BLOCK 2L1-3nsideutsiderchitectureInc.•NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONJoseph RadachContour Development LLC8195 Vernon StreetRockford, MN 55373612-730-2265TURF ESTABLISHMENT: .ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED OR SODDED WITH COMMERCIAL GRADEBLUEGRASS TURF MIXTURE (MnDOT #25-131 OR APPROVED EQUAL). FUTURE CITY WELL LOCATION PROPOSEDBUILDINGFuture Sidewalk F u t u re S id e w a lk Future Sidewalk Future Sidewalk Future Sidewalk16' ACCESS DRIVE16' ACCESS DRIVE1 2 ' A C C E S S D R I V E 12' ACCESS D RIVE 12' ACCESS DRIVETW=1030.0 BW=1029.5 TW=1029.0 BW=1025.0 TW=1024.0 BW=1023.5 FUTURE BLDG A EXPANSION 16,200 SF P PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 1 A P PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 2 A P PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 3 A PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 1 PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 2 PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 3 P PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 1 A PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 1 4.29 AC. 16.44 AC. 10.32 AC. 0.39 AC.3752881 4 5 L=10 8 1818491692852 652 714158 5 0 L =6 6 843 471126 L=121 L=5 9 L=8 3 106 L =2 3 8 L =2 0 6 1333 L=9 2 65 49 L =2 4 2 L =2 0 2 L=12 1 L=142 106 393 1015 171 L=5 3 0 130 130130130 9 0 .0 1 246.40 1333.36 125.14 106.45 xxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 8" bw ash 6" ash ash 10" ash elm elm 30" ash 24" ash 12" ash 30" ash 14" cotton 20" cot 18" ash 14" spr 8" ash 8" ash 10" ash 20" cot 10" elm 10" bw 12" cot 16" cot 36" maple S89°51'03"W816.22 S0°20'16"W332.03S89°51'03"W201.88 N13°25'53"W396.54S0°20'16"W365.00S89°58'13"E 1331.10S89°51'03"W172.23 N0°18'58"E800.27N89°51'46"W220.00 N0°18'58"E400.00N89°51'46"W109.49 N39°42'56"E92.15S89°51'20"E 1129.10 N 5 1°5 0'5 2" W 1 4 5.4 4 S89°40'02"W 33.88 S89°51'03"W 82.08 L=4 5 0 .12 ,R=70111.48 L=18 8 .4 9 ,R =60.00L=5 29.85 ,R=58 0 4 .64 Septic Field PIONEER TRAILWAGON WHEEL LANE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55 K I M B E R L Y L A N E PIONEERTRAILTRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55 SCHNELLS HIGHLAND 2ND ADD.B L O C K 2LOT 7LOT 6HALES CORNER B L O C K 1 LOT 4 ESS ADDITIONOUTLOT BWAGON WHEEL LANE o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo 18" STM GUARD RAIL xxxxxxxxxxxEX. BUILDING T T CO W L =113 .5 9 ,R=4 9 0 .0 0 L=131.72,R=490.00 L =2 2 7 .9 8 ,R=4 9 1.3 1 L =2 15 .8 9 ,R =5 0 0 .0 0 L=100.02,R=490.00 L=97.61,R=490.00 BLOCK 2 LOT 2 FUTURE BUILDING E 34,800 SF FUTURE BUILDING D 45,000 SF FUTURE BUILDING C 50,000 SF FUTURE BUILDING B 45,000 SF FUTURE BUILDING A 16,200 SF FUTURE EXPANSION 16,200 SF BLOCK 2 LOT 1 FUTURE BUILDING 5 30,000 SF FUTURE BUILDING 4 70,000 SF FUTURE EXPANSION 30,000 SF BLOCK 1 LOT 3 FUTURE BUILDING 3 94,000 SF BLOCK 1 LOT 2 BLOCK 1 LOT 1 FUTURE BUILDING 1 10,200 SF KIMBERLY LANE KIMBERLY LANE PIONEER TRAILN PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CORCORAN, MN ISSUE DATE 1" = 80'-0"P001 1 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCALE:1" = 80' 80'160'40'0 Fu tu r e Si dew al k 12' ACCESS DRIVEP PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 1 A PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 1 4.29 AC.3752881 4 5 18181 5 8 5 0 L =6 6 126 L=121 L=5 9 L=14 2 393 9 0 .0 1 246.40 8" bw ash 6" ash ash 10" ash elm elm 30" ash 24" ash 12" ash 30" ash 14" cotton 20" cot 18" ash 14" spr 8" ash 8" ash S89°51'03"W816.22 N13°25'53"W396.54N 5 1 °5 0'5 2"W1 4 5.4 4 S89°40'02"W 33.88 L =4 5 0 .12 ,R= 7 0111.4 8PIONEER TRAILTRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55 o o o o ofofofo fo fo fo T L =113 .5 9 ,R=4 9 0 .0 0 L=131.72,R=490.00 BLOCK 1 LOT 1 FUTURE BUILDING 1 10,200 SF KIMBERLY LANE PIONEER TRAILWALL SIGN WALL SIGN PYLON SIGN CANOPY SIGN DYNAMIC DISPLAY BLOCK 1 - LOT 1 PROPOSED SIGNAGE PROPOSED 10,300 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS STATION PROPOSED BUILDING TO HAVE PYLON SIGN ON SW CORNER OF PROPERTY, VISIBLE FROM PIONEER TRAIL AND HIGHWAY 55. CANOPIES OVER FUELING AREAS TO HAVE BRANDING SIGANGE PER TENANT. CONVENIENCE STORE TO HAVE WALL SIGNS ON NORTH AND SOUTH FACADES. SIZE TO BE 10% OF FACADE AREA OR LESS. FINAL DESIGN AND LOCATIONS TO BE BY TENANT. PROPOSED BUILDING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL DYNAMIC DISPLAY PER CONCORAN CITY CODE 84.05.3.b. WALL SIGN WALL SIGN CANOPY SIGN CANOPY SIGN N PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK BLOCK 1 - LOT 1 - FUTURE BUILDING 1 CORCORAN, MN 11/01/2022 1" = 40'-0"P011 1 BLOCK 1 - LOT 1 1" = 30'-0"P011 2 SAMPLE BUILDING ELEVATIONS 1" = 30'-0"P011 3 SAMPLE CANOPY ELEVATIONS 1" = 30'-0"P011 4 SAMPLE PYLON ELEVATION 1" = 30'-0"P011 5 SAMPLE DYNAMIC DISPLAY F u t u r e S id e w a lk Future Sidewalk TW=1030.0 BW=1029.5 TW=1029.0 BW=1025.0 TW=1024.0 BW=1023.5 471L =2 0 6 L =2 4 2 1015 S89°51'20"E 1129.10oo o o o ofofofofofofofofo fo L =2 15 .8 9 ,R =5 0 0 .0 0 FUTURE BUILDING 3 94,000 SF P012 2 P012 3 P012 4 BLOCK 1 LOT 2 KIMBERLY LANE 34'522'TYP.5' - 6"TYP. 40' - 0"TYP.5' - 6"TYP. 40' - 0" BLOCK 1 - LOT 2 PROPOSED SIGNAGE PROPOSED 94,000 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING. WITH UP TO 4 TENANTS. 28' CLEAR HEIGHT, 34' BUILDING HEIGHT NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATION FACADE AREA 522' LONG X 34' HIGH = 17,748 SQ FT MAXIMUM SIGN AREA = 10% = 1,774.8 SQ FT 4 TENANTS WITH 2 SIGNS EACH = 220 SQ FT MAX AREA EACH SAMPLE PROPOSED SIGN - 5'-6" X 40'-0" = 220 SQ FT (MAX BUILDING SIGN AREA PER TENANT TO BE PRORATED BASED ON SIZE OF EACH TENANT'S RENTABLE SPACE IN BUILDING) MONUMENT SIGN TO HAVE MAX SIGN AREA OF 64 SQ FT, AND MAX HEIGHT OF 16' PER CORCORAN CITY CODE. (FINAL SIGN DESIGN TBD)8' - 0"24"24"24"24"8' - 0" N PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK BLOCK 1 - LOT 2 - FUTURE BUILDING 3 CORCORAN, MN 11/01/2022 1" = 40'-0"P012 1 BLOCK 1 - LOT 2 1" = 30'-0"P012 2 FUTURE BUILDING 3 - SOUTH ELEVATION 1" = 30'-0"P012 3 FUTURE BUILDING 3 - NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"P012 4 FUTURE BUILDING 3 - MONUMENT SIGN Future Sidewalk Future Sidewalk P PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 2 A P PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 3 A PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 2 PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 3 491843 4711333 171 L=5 3 0 1333.36 x xN0°18'58"E400.00N89°51'46"W109.49 N39°42'56"E92.15L=5 2 9.8 5 ,R=5 8 0 4 .64 o o o fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo fo 18" STM xxxW FUTURE BUILDING 4 70,000 SF FUTURE EXPANSION 30,000 SF BLOCK 1 LOT 3 P012 2 P0134 P013 2 P013 5 KIMBERLY LANE BLOCK 1 - LOT 3 PROPOSED SIGNAGE PROPOSED 70,00 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH WAREHOUSE AND 2-STORY OFFICE. PROPOSED BUILDING TO HAVE SINGLE TENANT WITH WALL SIGNAGE ON NORTH AND SOUTH FACADES, ENTRY SIGNAGE ON THE EAST FACADE, A MONUMENT SIGN AT THE DRIVE ENTRY FROM THE STREET, AND A DIRECTIONAL SIGN AT THE TRUCK ENTRY. SOUTH ELEVATION AREA = 15,734 SQ FT MAX WALL SIGN AREA = 10% = 1,573 SQ FT PROPOSED WALL SIGN AREA = 293 SQ FT TOTAL (124 SQ FT ON SOUTH ELEVATION, 124 SQ FT ON NORTH ELEVATION, AND 45 SQ FT ON EAST ELEVATION.) MONUMENT SIGN TO HAVE MAX SIGN AREA OF 64 SQ FT, AND MAX HEIGHT OF 16' PER CORCORAN CITY CODE. (FINAL SIGN DESIGN TBD) 116 SQ FT WALL SIGN 116 SQ FT WALL SIGN 45 SQ FT ENTRY WALL SIGN 9' - 0"7' - 0"< 16'-0"N PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK BLOCK 1 - LOT 3 - FUTURE BUILDING 4 CORCORAN, MN 11/01/2022 1" = 40'-0"P013 1 BLOCK 1 - LOT 3 1" = 30'-0"P013 3 BLOCK 1 - LOT 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1" = 30'-0"P013 2 BLOCK 1 - LOT 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1" = 30'-0"P013 4 BLOCK 1 - LOT 3 EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"P013 5 FUTURE BUILDING 4 - MONUMENT SIGN P PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 1 A PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 1 16.44 AC.692852 843 1333.36 xxxxxxxS89°58'13"E 1331.10 BLOCK 2 LOT 1 FUTURE BUILDING 5 30,000 SF P021 2 P021 3 KIMBERLY LANE BLOCK 2 - LOT 1 PROPOSED SIGNAGE PROPOSED 30,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE WITH SINGLE TENANT. 24' CLEAR HEIGHT, 30' BUILDING HEIGHT. PROPOSED BUILDING TO HAVE SINGLE WALL SIGN ON SOUTH FACADE AND MONUMENT SIGN AT ENTRY SOUTH ELEVATION FACADE AREA - 300' LONG X 30' HIGH = 9,000 SQ FT MAXIMUM SIGN AREA = 10% = 900 SQ FT SAMPLE PROPOSED SIGN - 65"-0" X 10'-0" = 650 SQ FT MONUMENT SIGN TO HAVE MAX SIGN AREA OF 64 SQ FT, AND MAX HEIGHT OF 16' PER CORCORAN CITY CODE. (FINAL SIGN DESIGN TBD) 300'30'10' - 0"65' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"< 16'-0"N PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK BLOCK 2 - LOT 1 - FUTURE BUILDING 5 CORCORAN, MN 11/01/2022 1" = 40'-0"P021 1 BLOCK 2 - LOT 1 1" = 20'-0"P021 2 FUTURE BUILDING 5 - SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"P021 3 FUTURE BUILDING 5 - MONUMENT SIGN PROPOSEDBUILDINGFuture Sidewalk Future Sidewalk FUTURE BLDG A EXPANSION 16,200 SF PROPOSED SEPTIC LOT 1 10.32 AC. L=10 8491692652 714L=9 2 49 125.14 x x x x x x x x x S89°58'13"E 1331.10 N0°18'58"E800.27Septic Field SCHNELLS HIGHLAND 2ND ADD.B L O C K 2LOT 7LOT 6xxxxxxxL=100.02,R=490.00 L=97.61,R=4 BLOCK 2 LOT 2 FUTURE BUILDING E 34,800 SF FUTURE BUILDING D 45,000 SF FUTURE BUILDING C 50,000 SF FUTURE BUILDING B 45,000 SF FUTURE BUILDING A 16,200 SF FUTURE EXPANSION 16,200 SF P013 5 KIMBERLY LANE BLOCK 2 - LOT 2 PROPOSED SIGNAGE PARK PLACE STORAGE - 207,200 SQ FT TOTAL AREA. THERE IS NO SIGNAGE PROPOSED FOR THIS LOT. N PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK BLOCK 2 - LOT 2 - FUTURE STORAGE BUILDINGS CORCORAN, MN 11/01/2022 1" = 40'-0"P022 1 BLOCK 2 - LOT 2 Page 1 of 13 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6b. Planning Commission Meeting: December 1, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Gmach ADU Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-071) Action Required: Recommendation 60-Day Review Deadline: January 3, 2023 1. Request: George Gmach, the applicant, submitted a Zoning Ordinance Amendment application requesting the City to review several aspects of the standards established for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) throughout the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to City Council on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. 2. Background: An ADU is defined in Section 1020.020 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: A self-contained dwelling unit having its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, and which is designed as a second separate dwelling unit that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of a lot. In order for an accessory dwelling unit to be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of determining development density, a kitchen must include a sink with piped water, a range, and refrigerator. There are a few types of ADUs typically seen (see depiction below), and they can be more commonly referred to as mother-in-law suites, backyard cottages, granny flats, accessory apartments, or secondary suites. Page 2 of 13 The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2005 to allow ADUs if approved with an Interim Use Permit (IUP) in the following zoning districts: - Rural Residential (RR) - Urban Reserve (UR) - Single Family Residential (RSF-1) - Single Family Residential (RSF-2) - Singe and Two-Family Residential (RSF-3) - Medium Density Residential (RMF-1) - Mixed Residential (RMF-2) - Transitional Rural Commercial (TCR) - Rural Commercial (CR) ADUs are subject to 11 standards outlined in code that are identical throughout the above zoning districts. The applicant submitted a building permit application for a structure that will meet the definition of an ADU. The applicant was made aware he would need to be granted an IUP before the building permit could be issued, but the submitted plans did not meet some of the AUD standards. In hoping to address some of the AUD limitations, the applicant requests the City to consider making the following changes to the ordinance: 1. An update to the ADU definition to remove a reference regarding density calculations. 2. Change use type and approval process from an IUP to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This would require removal of standard 10 which requires the IUP to expire if the principal use or the property owner changes. This would also remove standard 11 which requires a compliance review and administrative approval every 3 years. 3. Remove the requirement that an ADU must be located in an existing single-family home or above an attached/detached garage. 4. Change the maximum ADU size from 800 square feet to 75% of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit. 5. Remove the requirement that the exterior design of an ADU should incorporate similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal dwelling unit. 6. Allow existing parking spaces to count as dedicated parking spaces for ADU. 7. Remove the requirement to have a separate property address for the ADU if it is occupied by a family member or used as a guest house while requiring a separate property address in certain instances (such as renting to someone unrelated). 8. Add a standard to require demonstration that the property has septic capacity for an ADU. 3. Analysis: Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, other City Code requirements, as well as City policies. A. Level of City Discretion Page 3 of 13 The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying an ordinance amendment. The proposed zoning amendment must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the enforcement tools used to implement the goals and standards set in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Proposed Changes Definition The applicant proposes the following change to the ADU definition: DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY: A self-contained dwelling unit having its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, and which is designed as a second separate dwelling unit that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of a lot. In order for an accessory dwelling unit to be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of determining development density, a kitchen must include a sink with piped water, a range and a refrigerator. The applicant’s narrative does not explain why he proposes this specific change. Staff infers that this verbiage may seem unnecessary, and a unit without a kitchen that includes a sink with piped water, a range, and a refrigerator shouldn’t qualify as a dwelling unit (accessory or otherwise). Staff agrees that the definition can be clarified but proposes a few additional changes: DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY: A separate, self-contained dwelling unit having its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, and which is designed as a second separate dwelling unit that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of a lot. In order for an accessory dwelling unit to be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of determining development density, a kitchen must The unit must have bathroom facilities and kitchen facilities that include a sink with piped water, a range, and a refrigerator. The unit may take various forms: a detached unit; a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such as a detached garage; or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled dwelling. Staff’s recommended definition removes redundancies while clarifying the types of ADUs that are allowed (or will be allowed as a result of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment). Use Type and Review Process The applicant requests the City to reconsider the current process that requires an IUP in order to construct an ADU. He explains in his narrative (an attachment to this report) that the sunset clause inherent with IUPs creates uncertainty for property owners investing in their property as well as assessors, realtors, future buyers, and lenders. Additionally, his narrative poses the question of what exactly would be done if the IUP was revoked. Will the City require removal of the bathroom and kitchen facilities? Will the City require demolition of the structure? Will the City direct staff to regularly inspect the property to confirm the structure is no longer used as a dwelling? Does this open the City up to litigation? These are valid concerns and questions to raise to the Plann ing Commission and City Council. In fact, the Planning Commission raised similar questions regarding what happens to the unit if the IUP were revoked when the last ADU application for Jan Sease was reviewed earlier this year. Does the City truly intend to enforce the sunset clause when the property owner changes Page 4 of 13 knowing the new property owner probably purchased the property with their own plans for the ADU on the property? Or would the City be more inclined to let the structure and use stand? Does it make sense to require multiple public hearings and approvals for an established structure and use? The IUP may have been helpful as a way to control rental of the property without a rental dwelling ordinance in place, but the City is in the process of adopting such an ordinance that will include regular rental unit inspections. With this in mind, it seems to make sense to change the zoning process to provide more certainty for homeowners and instead rely on the rental dwelling ordinance should the ADU be rented out to an unrelated party. Staff is not opposed to updating the ordinance to require a CUP instead of an IUP as proposed by the applicant. In reviewing the ordinances of 18 MN cities, there are several examples of cities that require a CUP, but staff did not find an example of another City requiring an IUP. However, staff also thinks now is a good time to ask the Commission and Council if they feel that a CUP is necessary. If clear standards are established, ADUs could also be handled as an Administrative Permit process or be an allowed by-right use altogether that does not require a separate land use approval. The City does have less discretion with Administrative Permits and permitted uses (any conditions of approval for administrative permits must be directly tied to the established standards and evaluation criteria; conditions of approval cannot be added to permitted uses if the standards are met). However, there are several cities in MN that rely on an administrative or hybrid approach that may be worthwhile to consider. A few examples are highlighted below. - Golden Valley has an administrative review process for attached and internal ADUs as well as detached ADUs that meet the same setbacks as the principal dwelling. CUPs are reserved for detached ADUs that only meet the minimum accessory structure setbacks. o Please note, per the existing standards in Corcoran, an ADU must comply with the setbacks for principal structures. - Eagan requires administrative review of ADUs and has an annual registration process. - Lakeville approves ADUs through an Administrative Permit. - Roseville allows ADUs as a by-right use with established standards. - Blaine allows ADUs as a by-right use with established standards in some districts and requires CUPs in other districts that have smaller lot sizes. For now, staff’s recommendation matches the applicant’s proposal to change all ADUs from an IUP to a CUP. The applicant’s narrative notes that his proposal is to change the ADU standards and process across the board, but he would also be satisfied if the City would at least change the standards for properties within the lower density zoning districts (e.g., RR). At this time, staff proposes keeping the standards uniform throughout the various zoning districts for simplicity, but staff would like feedback from the Commission and Council as to whether there may be certain situations or districts where an administrative process would be sufficient in protecting the interests of the community. Garage Requirement Standard 2 of the existing Ordinance states the following: An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in an existing single-family home or above an attached or detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. Page 5 of 13 The applicant proposes removing the clause entirely. His narrative notes that this requirement may have the unintended consequence of requiring a bigger building than is actually desired or necessary. While allowing ADUs above garages is a reasonable option, he questions whether this should be one of the only options available to property owners. Staff’s perspective is that this clause has proven problematic. The way it is written, there was some debate over the Sease application because it could have been argued that the ADU did not meet this standard since it was attached to an attached garage rather than being located above the attached garage. Furthermore, the ADU applications reviewed in the last two years have been to accommodate aging parents and handicapped family members. In these instances, a unit that was only accessible via stairs did not satisfy their needs. This standard has already been loosely interpreted to allow ADUs that are attached to garages rather than above garages, and at the very least the language should be revised to clarify this interpretation. However, staff agrees with the applicant that a detached ADU without a garage should be an option available to property owners if there is adequate parking on the property. Staff does not see what the City is gaining or protecting by prohi biting smaller stand-alone ADUs and only allowing ADUs as a part of a larger building with a garage component. Staff agrees with the applicant that this entire clause can simply be removed, and staff’s proposed ADU definition clarifies the allowed types of ADUs. Maximum Size Standard 4 has the following size limitation for ADUs: An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not exceed the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or 800 square feet, whichever is less. The applicant asks the City to consider changing the ADU size limit to 75% of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit. The applicant believes that an ADU that is capped at 75% of the principal dwelling unit area will be noticeably smaller, particularly if the second building is set further back on the property. He argues that the existing accessory structure footprint is adequate to maintain the neighborhood character and minimize building density on a given property. His narrative argues that size limits in general may appear arbitrary, and an overly restrictive size limit can place an additional burden on property owners looking to convert an existing space. He provides that more recent ordinance approaches rely on percentages of the principal dwelling area which is less restrictive. The applicant’s proposal is based on an ordinance amendment that recently passed in St. Paul. However, the housing needs in St. Paul vary drastically from Corcoran. St. Paul is in the urban core and is entirely built out. The recent ordinance change for increased ADU flexibility helps the city reduce barriers to ADU construction and provides a tool to accomplish housing goals with infill development. While ADUs in Corcoran will serve a role in providing needed housing to the area, staff does not believe the same size standard makes sense for Corcoran as our development stage and pattern varies a great deal from St. Paul (and Minneapolis for that matter). Staff is concerned with the proposed size limit. In reviewing several cities ordinances, 75% of the principal dwelling without a flat cap (such as up to 800 sq. ft.) is not typical at this point. Staff is not against increasing the minimum size for ADUs; however, ADUs are meant to be smaller Page 6 of 13 units. ADUs are not intended to be a second single-family home, and this is what makes them different from duplex or twin-home units. The small size associated with ADUs is what allows the dwelling type to be inherently less impactful to neighborhoods, existing infrastructure, and the environment. The minimum residential size for a single-family home in Corcoran is 1,100 sq. ft. Additionally, the footprint of accessory structures in the non-residential and urban residential districts are limited to the lesser of 1,000 sq. ft. or 25% of the rear yard area , which would be applicable to detached ADUs per the existing ordinance. Staff believes it will create less conflicts if the maximum size is kept at a dimension smaller than the minimum size for a single - family home and doesn’t exceed 1,000 sq. ft. It also makes sense to consider dimensions that are divisible by 8 as lumber is typically available in 8’ increments. Staff reviewed the size limits of 18 MN cities, and findings are compiled in the table below (St. Paul is not included in the table). City Size Limit Golden Valley Lesser of 35% of principal dwelling unit’s (PDU) livable floor area* (LFA) or 950 sq. ft. Eagan Lesser of 33% of the PDU gross floor area** (GFA) or 960 sq. ft. 20% impervious surface limit for entire lot. Minneapolis 800 sq. ft. for internal and attached. 16% of lot area up to 1,600 sq. ft. for detached. Apple Valley 40% of PDU footprint. 35% impervious surface limit for entire lot. Lakeville 30% of PDU GFA excluding attached accessory floor area. Stillwater Varies depending on district. Some districts have no separate ADU size limit. The maximum size in other districts ranged from 500 – 800 sq. ft. Roseville Lesser of 75% of the PDU LFA or 650 sq. ft. Blaine Lesser of 50% of the PDU LFA up to 960 sq. ft. in most districts. A maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. allowed in lowest density district. Detached ADUs cannot exceed 25% of the rear yard. Shoreview Lesser of 30% of the PDU GFA or 800 sq. ft. Plymouth Lesser of the PDU GFA or 1,000 sq. ft. Long Lake 900 sq. ft. but more space can be approved through a CUP. St. Louis Park No more than 40% of the PDU GFA. Richfield Lesser of PDU GFA or 800 sq. ft. Burnsville ADU footprint and GFA shall be no more than 50% the PDU footprint or GFA. Bloomington Lesser of 33% of the PDU LFA or 960 sq. ft. (Common utility room exempt from ADU maximum.) Hopkins 800 sq. ft. Lot coverage limitations apply. Minnetonka Lesser of 35% of the PDU GFA or 1,000 sq. ft. *Livable floor area is the total horizontal floor area of habitable space. This typically includes finished floors and rooms but excludes attached accessory structure space and unfinished basements and attics. **Gross floor area is the total horizontal floor area of a structure including unfinished spaces and attached structures (e.g., enclosed three-season porch). Some definitions specifically exclude certain features from the calculation. For example, Corcoran’s definition of floor area excludes space devoted to mechanical equipment, stairwells, and parking (i.e., attached garage). Page 7 of 13 Staff recommends a flat maximum size limit of either 960 sq. ft. or 1,000 sq. ft., but the floor area of the ADU cannot exceed the floor area of the principal dwelling unit. If the Commission and Council prefer a percentage without a flat cap, staff recommends limiting the size of an ADU to 33% the gross floor area of the principal dwelling. Please note, even a 33% cap could mean a home with a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet could have an ADU of 1,650 sq. ft., and many of the surveyed cities that used a similar percentage still capped the ADU size to 1,000 sq. ft. or less. Additionally, staff recommends slightly revising standard 5 discussing the accessory structure regulations, including size and materials. Specifically, staff wants to clarify that the footprint of the ADU cannot exceed 1,000 sq. ft. or 25% of the rear yard as this is not clear in the accessory structure section (but accessory structures sizes in other districts are limited by the footprint). Staff believes it makes sense for the footprint of the ADU to be capped at 25% of the rear yard, but allow additional square footage to be made up in a loft or second level that does not exceed the height of the principal dwelling unit. Also related to this discussion, staff believes it makes sense to add a standard related to building height. It is typical for ADUs to be subject to the same height limitation as the principal structure, but be further limited so that the ADU does not exceed the existing height of the principal structure. Staff recommends incorporating this language as a new standard. For illustrative purposes, a single-family home of 1,500 sq. ft. on an urban lot would like to construct a detached ADU of 960 sq. ft., which is the new maximum size allowed. Their backyard is 3,000 sq. ft. which would limit the footprint of the ADU to 750 sq. ft., but the property owner could choose to include a 2nd level or loft space to incorporate the remaining square footage of 210 sq. ft. The property owner could also choose to reduce the footprint to include more floor space for the loft or second level just so long as the combined floor area does not exceed 960 sq. ft., the total footprint does not exceed 750 sq. ft., and the height of the ADU does not exceed the height of the principal dwelling. Staff’s proposed verbiage for the three size related standards (currently standards 4 and 5) is as follows: An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not exceed the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or 960 square feet, whichever is less. Unless otherwise specified in this Subdivision, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same regulations as provided for under Section 1030 of this Chapter. In evaluating how an accessory dwelling unit fits within the size limitations outlined in Section 1030, only the footprint of the accessory dwelling unit is subject to the accessory structure size limit provided for all zoning districts. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the same height restriction for principal structures as determined by the zoning district but must not exceed the existing height of the principal structure. Exterior Design Standards Standard 6 of the existing ordinance requires the following: Page 8 of 13 The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building on the lot. The applicant proposes removing this clause and relying on the material requirements outlined for accessory structures in Section 1030. He states that requiring additional design standards for ADUs seems unnecessary as the appearance to a neighboring property will be the same whether the building is for storage or an ADU. Staff does not agree with this analysis. Requiring a similar architectural style as the principal dwelling, both for detached and attached ADUs, helps to minimize the ADU’s impact to the existing neighborhood character. The ADU does not need to be identical, but it should fit with or be compatible with the existing home in order to provide continuity to the immediate area. Removing this clause could mean that ADUs will have drastically different materials than the principal dwelling that would not be allowed on a residence elsewhere unless the property is 2 - acres or less (as these lots are required to construct accessory structures using approved residential building materials). Staff does not recommend any changes to this clause. Owner Occupancy Requirement The applicant’s narrative discusses the owner occupancy requirement included in the ADU standards. He notes that some cities are moving away from this, but does not propose moving forward with such a change at this time. Staff will add that the surveyed cities in MN predominately required the property owner to live in either the principal or accessory dwelling unit. Staff does not propose any changes to this requirement at this time. Parking The applicant proposes the following changes to the parking standard outlined for ADUs: In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit on the lot, an identified location for up to 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit. Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal dwelling unit parking spaces and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. Such spaces shall not be required to be constructed if sufficient spaces for the residents of the principal dwelling and accessory dwelling are already present on the property. The applicant explains that in his case, a three-car garage attached to the principal dwelling already satisfies the needed parking for the property with additional space available for a carport or parking slab. He agrees that ADUs used as rentals should provide adequate parking space if they are not intended to have access to the existing garage. He argues that the parking concern is more applicable to urban neighborhoods where street parking may be limited. Staff believes an ADU should have a minimum of two dedicated parking spots to account for the possibility of a couple living in the ADU and provide guest parking that does not conflict with the parking for the principal dwelling. A minimum of 2 spaces is used by a majority of the surveyed cities. If dedicated parking spaces are not established and constructed as a condition of the ADU approval based on an understanding that the ADU will be used by a family member so a flexible parking arrangement is sufficient, the City will have little recourse in addressing this later when a subsequent property owner rents out the ADU to an unrelated couple with a conflicting Page 9 of 13 schedule. Steet parking in Corcoran is restricted in the winter months, so off-street parking spaces on an improved surface (e.g., gravel) are a necessity. Staff does not believe the original clause requires new parking spaces to be created if two parking spaces that can be dedicated to the ADU are already present on the property (and a covered garage parking space can certainly count towards this minimum). However, established parking spaces (not just proof of space availability) should be confirmed or addressed with the original approval to minimize conflicts later. Staff recommends no changes to the parking standard. Addressing The applicant proposes the following changes to how ADUs are addressed: An accessory dwelling unit using a separate driveway or being used as a rental unit shall have a separate address from the principal dwelling unit on the lot and shall be identified with address numbers or unit designation acceptable to postal services and emergency service providers. An accessory dwelling unit used as a guest house or occupied by a family member shall not require a separate address. The applicant’s narrative explains his perspective that the separate address requirement may not be necessary in certain situations. However, similar to the parking standard analysis above, staff has concerns with basing a standard on a specific situation when granting approval without a sunset clause means the situation could change without City review. Regardless of who is using the ADU or how the ADU is being used, it is important that an ADU is easily identifiable in an instance where emergency services are called to the property. Staff was recently made aware of concerns that have come up with the current strategy for ADU addressing. The two previously approved ADUs were assigned a separate street number. However, since the property was not subdivided, using the ADU address caused confusion for voting registration purposes. Additionally, Public Safety is concerned that a separate street number would be very confusing in the field, particularly if the ADU is behind the house without signage posted and/or any indication that they should be looking for an ADU on a property that does not match the address provided. This process must be corrected as soon as possible in a way that complies with Hennepin County and provides clear identification for Public Safety; staff will work with the impacted property owners for the already approved ADUs to reach a workable resolution. Staff discussed addressing with Public Safety, and they would like to see a unit or suite number assigned to the ADU when it is attached or a building number for a detached structure. They also asked for clear signage and an accessible route to the ADU. Unfortunately, a discussion with Hennepin County suggested Public Safety’s addressing strategy may not be doable on their end, and they have not yet followed-up with staff to discuss what addressing options are available for ADUs. Staff recommends the following language to allow for flexibility as staff works to finalize a best practice that satisfies multiple interests: An accessory dwelling unit shall use the same street number as the principal dwelling unit but must include a unique identifier that is consistent with the City’s Street Naming and Addressing Policy to ensure compatibility with Hennepin County, the U.S. Postal Service, and emergency service providers. The entryway to an accessory dwelling unit Page 10 of 13 shall include identifying signage and be connected to the driveway with an improved walkway. Adequate Septic Capacity The applicant proposes adding the following standard for ADUs: An accessory dwelling unit requires a demonstration of adequate septic capacity. The applicant explains that this clause will ensure that ADUs are planned to have sufficient utility access. However, staff does not see value in adding this clause. The septic system capacity is already considered while processing AUD applications from both a zoning perspective and as a part of the building permit review. Ultimately, Hennepin County is the authority for septic systems or approving alternatives, such as a holding tank. At the same time, staff does not have a hard objection to adding this standard if the Commission and Council find value in including adequate septic capacity as a standard, but flexibility for approved septic system alternatives should be incorporated. At this point, staff does not recommend adding this as a standard. Removal of IUP Specific Standards Standards 11 and 12 in the existing ordinance are proposed to be removed if ADUs become subject to a CUP or administrative process rather than the IUP. The verbiage to be removed is as follows: The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. Interim uses found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. 4. Summary The requested amendment and staff recommendation is summarized in the following table. The applicant and staff proposes the amendments to apply across all zoning districts where ADUs are currently listed an interim use. However, the applicant would be satisfied if the amendments were at least applied to lower density zoning districts, such as RR. - ADU Definition o The applicant proposed the following definition amendment: ▪ DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY: A self-contained dwelling unit having its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, and which is designed as a second separate dwelling unit that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of a lot. In order for an accessory dwelling unit to be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of determining development density, a kitchen must include a sink with piped water, a range and a refrigerator. o Staff recommends the following updates to the definition: Page 11 of 13 ▪ DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY: A separate, self-contained dwelling unit having its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, and which is designed as a second separate dwelling unit that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of a lot. In order for an accessory dwelling unit to be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of determining development density, a kitchen must The unit must have bathroom facilities and kitchen facilities that include a sink with piped water, a range, and a refrigerator. The unit may take various forms: a detached unit; a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such as a detached garage; or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled dwelling. - Use Type and Review Process o The applicant and staff propose that future ADUs are approved through the CUP process. However, staff also thinks the Commission and Council should take this opportunity to consider whether an administrative permit or allowing ADUs by- right with standards is appropriate in all or certain circumstances. - Garage Requirement o The applicant and staff recommend removing the following standard: ▪ An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in an existing single-family home or above an attached or detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. - Maximum Size Limit o The applicant proposes the following amendment: ▪ An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of the ADU which shall not exceed 75% of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit. or 800 square feet, whichever is less. o Staff proposes the following amendments: ▪ An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not exceed the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or 800 960 square feet, whichever is less. • Staff is also open to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. • If a percentage without a flat limit is desired, staff recommends lowering the percentage to 33% of the principal dwelling unit gross floor area rather than the proposed 75% limit. ▪ Unless otherwise specified in this Subdivision, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same regulations as provided for under Section 1030 of this Chapter. In evaluating how an accessory dwelling unit fits within the size limitations outlined in Section 1030, only the footprint of the accessory dwelling unit is subject to the accessory structure size limit provided for all zoning districts. ▪ Accessory dwelling units are subject to the same height restriction for principal structures as determined by the zoning district but must not exceed the existing height of the principal structure. Page 12 of 13 - Exterior Design Standards o The applicant proposes removing the following standard: ▪ The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building on the lot. o Staff recommends keeping the standard as-is. - Parking Standards o The applicant proposes the following changes to the minimum parking requirements: ▪ In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit on the lot, an identified location for up to 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit. Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal dwelling unit parking spaces and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. Such spaces shall not be required to be constructed if sufficient spaces for the residents of the principal dwelling and accessory dwelling are already present on the property. o Staff recommends keeping the parking standard as-is. - Addressing Standard o The applicant proposes the following changes to the addressing requirements: ▪ An accessory dwelling unit using a separate driveway or being used as a rental unit shall have a separate address from the principal dwelling unit on the lot and shall be identified with address numbers or unit designation acceptable to postal services and emergency service providers. An accessory dwelling unit used as a guest house or occupied by a family member shall not require a separate address. o Staff recommends the following amendments: ▪ An accessory dwelling unit shall use the same street number as the principal dwelling unit but must include a unique identifier that is consistent with the City’s Street Naming and Addressing Policy to ensure compatibility with Hennepin County, the U.S. Postal Service, and emergency service providers. The entryway to an accessory dwelling unit shall include identifying signage and be connected to the driveway with an improved walkway. - Septic System Capacity o The applicant proposes adding the following standard: ▪ An accessory dwelling unit requires a demonstration of adequate septic capacity. Page 13 of 13 o Staff does not recommend adding this as a standard. - IUP Specific Standards o The applicant proposes to remove the following clauses that would be no longer relevant if a CUP or administrative review process were implemented. Staff agrees these clauses should be removed if a different review process/use type is approved. ▪ The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. ▪ The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. Interim uses found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. 5. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached draft Ordinance based on the above-discussed staff recommendations. Feedback about the proposed verbiage and where the staff recommendation differs from the applicant’s proposed language will be particularly helpful. The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Recommend approving the draft ordinance as prepared by staff. 2. Recommend approving the draft ordinance as prepared by staff with modifications. 3. Recommend approving the applicant’s draft ordinance as written. 4. Recommend approving the applicant’s draft ordinance with modifications. 5. Recommend denial of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments. Attachments: 1. Staff Recommended Draft Ordinance 2. Applicant Narrative and Draft Ordinance 3. ADU Resources Submitted by Applicant 4. Additional ADU Resources Relied Upon by Staff 5. Public Comment Page 1 of 2 Staff Draft Ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units I. Definitions: DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY: A separate, self-contained dwelling unit having its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, and which is designed as a second separate dwelling unit that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of a lot. In order for an accessory dwelling unit to be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of determining development density, a kitchen must The unit must have bathroom facilities and kitchen facilities that include a sink with piped water, a range, and a refrigerator. The unit may take various forms: a detached unit; a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such as a detached garage; or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled dwelling. II. Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards for approval as a Conditional Use Permit in the following zoning districts: RR, UR, RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3, RMF-1, RMF-2, CR, and TCR. A. Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the following: 1. Not more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a single-family detached lot. 2. An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in an existing single family home or above an attached or detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. 3. An attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements as required for the living portion of the principal dwelling unit. 4. An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not exceed the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or 800 960 square feet, whichever is less. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Subdivision, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same regulations as provided for under Section 1030 of this Chapter. In evaluating how an accessory dwelling unit fits within the size limitations outlined in Section 1030, only the footprint of the accessory dwelling unit is subject to the accessory structure size limit provided for all zoning districts. 6. The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building on the lot. 7. The owner of the property shall reside in the principal dwelling unit or in the accessory dwelling unit. 8. There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit. Page 2 of 2 9. In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit on the lot, 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit. Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal dwelling unit parking spaces, and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. 10. An accessory dwelling unit shall use the same street number as the have a separate address from the principal dwelling unit on the lot, and shall be identified with address numbers but must include a unique identifier that is consistent with the City’s Street Naming and Addressing Policy to ensure compatibility with Hennepin County, the U.S. Postal Service, and emergency service providers. The entryway to an accessory dwelling unit shall include identifying signage and be connected to the driveway with an improved walkway. 11. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the same height restriction for principal structures as determined by the zoning district but must not exceed the existing height of the principal structure. 11. The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. 12. The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. Interim uses found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. 1 George Gmach 22600 Oakdale Drive Rogers, MN 55374 City of Corcoran 8200 CR 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 October 20, 2022 Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission, I am requesting changes in the ordinance regulating Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the City of Corcoran, Minnesota. The changes requested include changing the ADU from an interim use to a conditional use as well as several commonsense changes to the conditions. Currently the ordinance is similar for all single-family residential areas. My interest is in changing the ordinance either in all the currently allowed areas or at least in lower density zones. In my own case, my intent is to add a 16x24 single story addition to an existing 32x24 recreation building in my yard. The addition allows for a bathroom and small kitchen without significant modifications to the existing building which was constructed in 1996. We do not anticipate renting the ADU or adding to our three-person household. The ADU will be built to allow for handicapped accessibility should that become necessary in the future. We anticipate that a future owner might live in one unit and rent the other or use the ADU as a guesthouse. The existing home was built in 1976 as a three-bedroom rambler and an addition was built in 1992. Main floor square footage is 1,972 square feet. The walkout basement is 1152 square feet. There is a three-car attached garage. The recreation building is 768 square feet, and the addition will make it 1,152 square feet. The addition is screened from public view and the adjacent properties. A new septic system installed in 2021 was sized for a five-bedroom home with the longer-range objective of adding an ADU. The current ordinance presents some challenges in converting an existing building to an ADU. The original design of the accessory building was for energy efficiency, and it was built to above normal standards, including double rebar, poured frost footings and dual central frost footings with poured concrete I-beam support. The resulting concrete mass serves as a heat sink in the winter and a cooling factor in the summer. The floor should not be compromised by drilling holes for sewer and water access. The interior is lined with natural tongue and groove white pine, which we intend to preserve. Adding water to the building requires ventilation that is more efficiently managed with new construction. 2 Interim Use, Conditional Use or Allowed Use The current ordinance provides for an interim use for ADUs. The use requires a permit application, approval and then an administrative review and reapproval every three years. The permit ends with a change of ownership. Under this provision there is no guarantee of continued use as an ADU. There is no direction in the ordinance with respect to the disposition of a property if an interim use is not renewed. An interim use for an ADU creates a high degree of uncertainty in property valuation. Assessors, Realtors, buyers, and lenders may all have difficulty determining a fair market value. A change in the ordinance or the unfavorable interpretation of a zoning administrator could result in loss of a permit and consequently value. The question then is what is to be done with the property if it is no longer an ADU? Does the kitchen need to be removed? Will a city inspector periodically drop in to inspect the use of the property? Would the city want to prosecute violators? Would a lender be placed at risk due to loss of equity? Could there be litigation over loss of use or value? While control of use as “interim” sounds like a good idea, the practical result is that it is a “poison pill” for investment. I have not found interim uses for ADUs in other ordinances. In my research I found that the more regulation and process is imposed on ADU applications, the less they are requested. Cities that want ADUs to add to land use and affordable housing have tended to relax regulations to increase their creation. In cases where ADUs are used as rental properties some cities use periodic rental inspections to ensure code compliance. At least in those cases there is a defined purpose for the inspection and an expectation of continued use by the owner and residents if required corrections are made. The following is an excerpt from a publication of the League of Minnesota Cities published May 10, 2021: A conditional use is a land use the city permits in a zoning district only when the applicant meets certain standards. The zoning ordinance typically sets out: • General standards that apply to all conditional uses, and • Specific standards that apply to a particular conditional use in a given zoning district. A use is typically conditional because of: • Hazards inherent in the use itself, or • Special problems that its proposed location may present. For example, cities often designate uses that generate traffic (such as family childcare, service stations, convenience stores, or drive-thrus) as conditional uses. A conditional use permit (CUP) is a document. A city issues a permit to allow a conditional use when the applicant meets the general and specific ordinance standards. The permit allows the use only if the applicant addresses the standards set forth in the zoning ordinance. State law authorizes conditional use permits (Minn. Stat. § 462.3595). State statute says a CUP remains in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed (Minn. Stat. § 462.3595, subd. 3). The attorney general says time limits, such as sunset 3 provisions or automatic annual review, are not consistent with state law, explaining that cities may not enact or enforce provisions that allow a city to terminate CUPs without regard to whether the conditions agreed upon are observed (A.G. Op. 59-A-32 (February 27, 1990)). A conditional use addresses variation in circumstances of properties within a zoning district that make a use acceptable in cases that can meet the conditions, but not all cases. Since is a recorded document that runs with the property rather than the owner, valuation associated with an ADU can be determined. A conditional use may be the logical choice. Allowed uses set standards for a district that allow any property that can meet those standards to implement the use without the need for a formal zoning review and approval. In some states ADUs are by statute allowed uses in residential districts. Cities may in some cases modify the statutory building standards. An allowed use has the minimum amount of government oversight and the least barriers to construction and use. California has moved in this direction as a strategy to remove barriers to increasing affordable housing. Moving from Interim use to allowed use may be more than the City of Corcoran is prepared to do at this time. Size of ADUs Jurisdictions have used both percent of the main dwelling and square foot limits in their ordinances. Some combine the two measures. Saint Paul, Minnesota has recently updated its ordinance that was originally enacted in 2016. 2022 changes are: • Removing the lot size minimum for construction of a detached ADU; • Removing the owner-occupancy requirement; and • Changing the maximum size from 800 square feet to 75% of the floor area of the principal unit. There are some additional size provisions for multi-story homes built prior to the ordinance. The objective of a size limit appears to be twofold. One is to maintain the appearance of the community and the other may be to limit population density. Appearances can be addressed by limiting the size to something that is noticeably smaller than the main dwelling. Any percent chosen as well as any square footage chosen could be considered arbitrary. Some of the more recent approaches use percentages, since that is more directly linked to the size of the main house and is less restrictive. If the intent is to make the ADU a secondary use of the property, the noticeable difference is in relationship to the main residence. What is the percent of size difference that makes the ADU distinguishable as a secondary use and not a duplex? Answering this could lead down a path of psychophysics applying the concept of Weber’s Law. It is safe to say that most people would notice that a building next to another is smaller if it is 75% of the size of the main building. This becomes even more true if the second building is set back on the property. Where other limits are imposed, the percent of hard surface relative to the area of the lot is sometimes used. This standard relates to stormwater infiltration versus runoff. The City of 4 Corcoran already has a limit on accessory building size on lots in section 1030 of the zoning ordinance. There are also hard surface limits on small lots. In rural areas of Corcoran, a three-acre lot can have 1,813 square feet of accessory building according to the schedule found in the ordinance. Assuming a main house and garage combination of 4,000 square feet and 1,813 square feet of accessory building the coverage on three acres is less than 4.5%. Adding a 200’ x 12’ paved driveway would only increase the coverage to 6.3%. The total coverage would not approach the percentages used in typical surface area limitations in ordinances. Overly restrictive size limits can place an added burden on the conversion of existing space. For example, a free-standing accessory building may already exceed square foot limits and would require a variance or expensive and impractical modification to comply with the letter of the ordinance. ADUs as Rentals Builders and developers in some cities and states have pushed to allow investor ownership of ADUs and non-resident ownership. They have had some success in moving statutes and ordinances in that direction where the strategic goal of the government is to increase available housing. For the average homeowner the cost of construction or space conversion versus rental income makes creation of ADUs less attractive as investments. The greater attraction is accommodating family needs such as providing privacy for returning children or allowing seniors to remain in their community or close to family. Future owners are more likely to use properties with already built ADUs as a source of rental income if they do not have a similar family need. Preserving the owner occupancy requirement is likely to be more acceptable to communities in Corcoran. Other jurisdictions have tended to keep that provision under a theory that problems will be addressed by owners who are on site. Design The City of Corcoran already has design standards for accessory buildings, with stricter standards for lots 2 acres and smaller. Placing additional demands for ADUs, other than building code standards, do not seem to be necessary. The appearance to neighboring property would be the same whether a building is a storage unit or an ADU. Some accessory buildings would require significant modification to meet building codes needed to convert to an ADU. Bringing a non-conforming accessory building up to standard would be a reasonable expectation. Garage and Parking Requiring a detached accessory building to be part of an existing detached garage seems unreasonable. It would be reasonable to use a detached garage or carriage house as one type of detached ADU, but not the sole option. To comply with the ordinance a larger building than 5 is necessary would be required in situations like mine. The need for parking is already satisfied by a three-car garage attached to the main home. There is also significant space for carports or parking slabs. In the case of rental units that are not intended to have access to the garage on the main home, adequate parking space should be provided. This is mainly an issue in more urban situations to avoid street parking. For example, off street parking is a big concern in some college towns. In Corcoran, street parking could be an issue in newer higher-density developments. Some communities in urban situations consider public transit availability as a mitigating factor when considering parking space requirements for ADUs. Address Requirements In cases where the ADU is used as a guest house or for a family member, having a separate address may not be necessary. Where there is a separate driveway an argument can be made that emergency response needs an exact location. For rental units there is a privacy need for postal services. In common driveway situations a designation as “Apartment A” behind the street address may be sufficient. A separate mailbox can be used. For emergency services, signage on the building should be sufficient. Availability of Utilities Areas of Corcoran without city sewer and water need to have adequate capacity for an ADU. In my case both the well and septic are more than adequate to add an ADU. I am providing staff with additional reading material relating to ADUs. I ask that you give this request careful consideration and make the requested ordinance amendments. A marked-up copy is attached. Sincerely, George B. Gmach and Jean L. Gmach 6 Ordinance Markups Definition DWELLING UNIT, ACCESSORY: A self-contained dwelling unit having its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, and which is designed as a second separate dwelling unit that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of a lot. In order for an accessory dwelling unit to be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of determining development density, a kitchen must include a sink with piped water, a range and a refrigerator. Multiple residential district ordinance provision Subd. 5. Interim Uses. The following are interim uses, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1070.030 of this Ordinance and the specific standards and criteria that may be cited below for a specific use: Move Accessory Dwelling Unit to a Conditional Use rather than Interim Use. A. Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the following: 1. Not more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a single-family detached lot. 2. An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in an existing single family home or above an attached or detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. 32. An attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements as required for the living portion of the principal dwelling unit. 43. An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of the ADU which shall not exceed 75% of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit. or 800 square feet, whichever is less. 54. Unless otherwise specified in this Subdivision, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same regulations as provided for under Section 1030 of this Chapter. 6. The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building on the lot. 75. The owner of the property shall reside in the principal dwelling unit or in the accessory dwelling unit. 86. There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit. 97. In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit on the lot, an identified location for up to 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit. Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal dwelling unit parking spaces and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. Such 7 spaces shall not be required to be constructed if sufficient spaces for the residents of the main dwelling and accessory dwelling are already present on the property. 108. An accessory dwelling unit using a separate driveway or being used as a rental unit shall have a separate address from the principal dwelling unit on the lot and shall be identified with address numbers or unit designation acceptable to postal services and emergency service providers. An accessory dwelling used as a guest house or occupied by a family member shall not require a separate address. 9. An accessory dwelling unit requires demonstration of adequate septic capacity. 11. The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. 12. The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. Interim uses found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. Sec. 65.913. - Dwelling unit, accessory. SHARE LINK TO SECTIONPRINT SECTIONDOWNLOAD (DOCX) OF SECTIONSEMAIL SECTIONCOMPARE VERSIONS A secondary dwelling unit, subordinate to a principal one-family dwelling, within or attached to a one-family dwelling or in a detached accessory building on the same zoning lot. Standards and conditions: (a) Number of accessory units. There shall be no more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a zoning lot. (b) Compliance with other city, local, regional, state and federal regulations. Pursuant to section 60.109 of the Zoning Code, all accessory dwelling units must comply with city, local, regional, state and federal regulations. (c) Unit occupancy. The total occupancy of the principal dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the definition of Household in section 60.209. (d) Unit size. The floor area of the accessory unit shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent of the floor area of the principal dwelling unit. If the accessory unit is within the principal building, the principal building shall have a minimum floor area of one thousand (1,000) square feet. For multi-story principal buildings built prior to the enactment of this section, the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit may be equal to that of the first floor, but shall be less than or equal to fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the building. (e) Access and entrances. (1) A walkway shall be provided from an abutting public street to the primary entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. (2) Resources Submitted by Applicant St. Paul, MN Ordinance Upper floor units within the principal structure shall have interior stairway access to the primary entrance of the unit. Secondary stairways required for fire safety may be located on the exterior of the side or rear of the building, but shall not be allowed on the front of the building. (3) Exterior stairways shall be built of durable materials that match the finish of the principal structure or accessory building to which they are attached. Raw or unfinished lumber shall not be permitted. (f) Ownership. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the principal dwelling unit, and may not be a separate tax parcel. (Ord 16-13, § 3, 9-14-16; Ord 18-28, § 1, 10-17-18; Ord 21-4, § 2, 3-10-21; Ord 22-1, § 2, 1-19- 22) For reasonable accommodations or alternative formats please contact 311 at 612-673-3000. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can use a relay service to call 311 at 612-673-3000. TTY users call 612-673-2157 or 612-673-2626. Para asistencia 612-673-2700 - Rau kev pab 612-673-2800 - Hadii aad Caawimaad u baahantahay 612-673-3500. Revised September 2022 WHAT IS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)? In Minneapolis, an Accessory Dwelling Unit, or ADU, is defined as a room or set of rooms with its own cooking, sleeping, and sanitation facilities, and which is located on the same lot as a single- or two-family home. The ADU must be smaller in area compared to the main dwelling to which it is accessory. CAN I ESTABLISH AN ADU ON MY PROPERTY? ADUs are permitted on lots where single- and two-family homes are allowed as a permitted or conditional residential use throughout the City. For internal ADUs, the property owner must reside in one of the units as their primary residence and this restriction must be recorded on the deed. If your home is located in a Residence, Office Residence, Commercial, or Downtown zoning district, or is located within the Industrial Living Overlay District, you may be able to establish up to one ADU on your property. To verify the zoning of your property, please visit http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/propertyinfo/ or call 311. WHAT ARE THE THREE TYPES OF ADUS? There are three primary ADU types: internal, attached, and detached. An internal ADU is located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed home, while an attached ADU would be located in a separate addition to an existing home. An ADU can also take the form of a “detached” freestanding structure on the same lot as a principal dwelling unit. Image credit: Peter Crandall, City of Minneapolis 2 TABLE: SUMMARY OF ADU REGULATIONS INTERNAL ATTACHED DETACHED NUMBER OF ADUs PER LOT Only one ADU is allowed per lot. An ADU is allowed on the same lot as a single- or two-family home. OWNER-OCCUPANCY The property owner must reside in either the main house or in the ADU as their primary residence. This restriction must be recorded on the deed. Not applicable. Not applicable. FLOOR AREA Minimum 300 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft. Maximum (The ADU shall always be smaller in area than the main unit.) 800 sq. ft.; may exceed 800 sq. ft. if structure existed as of January 1, 2015. All internal ADUs must be located on one level and cannot exceed the area of the first floor. 800 sq. ft. 1,300 sq. ft. of habitable and parking areas on all levels, or 16% of the lot area, whichever is greater (not to exceed 1,600 sq. ft.). Footprint of detached ADU and any other parking areas on-site cannot exceed 676 sq. ft. or 10% of the lot area, whichever is greater. HEIGHT Governed by the height allowed for the principal structure. 21 ft. SETBACKS Front yard Zoning district setbacks apply ADU must be located to the rear of the main house. Interior side yard Zoning district setbacks apply. 3 ft. if located in rear 40 ft. of the lot, except where vehicle access doors face the interior side lot line, in which case no reduction of the required yard is permitted. Corner side yard Zoning district setbacks apply. Rear yard Zoning district setbacks apply. 6 ft. if the ADU is located in the R1 district. 5 ft. if the vehicle access doors face the rear lot line and/or if the rear lot line coincides with the side lot line of a property in a Residence or Office Residence district. 3 ft. if the vehicle access doors do not face the rear lot line and the rear yard does not abut a required yard. Reverse corner side yard Zoning district setbacks apply. 2/3 of the depth of the required front yard of the adjacent property to the rear based on its district setback requirements. Distance from house n/a 20 ft. from the habitable portion of the house. PARKING There is not a minimum or maximum parking requirement for the principal structure or for the accessory dwelling unit. DESIGN Entrances New entrances to the ADU may not face the public street. Entrances facing the public street or alley are encouraged. Windows n/a Minimum 5% of the entire elevation facing an alley or public street shall be windows. Exterior materials Must match the principal structure. Must be durable, including but not limited to masonry, brick, stone, wood, cement-based siding, or glass. Stairways Must be enclosed or located entirely to the rear of the main house. Allowed if the railing finish matches the trim of the detached ADU and is not raw or unfinished lumber. Balconies and decks Balconies and decks shall not face an interior side lot line. Rooftop decks are prohibited. This table provides a summary from Chapter 537 of some of the applicable standards for ADUs. Please refer to the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Title 20 for the complete requirements. All ADUs must meet current residential, building, mechanical, and electrical code standards. Please contact the City of Minneapolis if you have any questions. APPLICATION PROCESS This application packet is used to file an administrative application for zoning approval of a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The packet is a tool for gathering property-related information relevant to the application. It contains a checklist of materials required for an administrative application for an accessory dwelling unit application and a worksheet to be completed by the applicant. Applicants are encouraged to meet with Zoning and Plan Review staff to discuss the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance and building codes. http://www.minneapolismn.gov/mdr/index.htm To file the application, the applicant returns to the Development Services office and submits the required materials to the Development Coordinator. Only applications that include all of the required items as identified in this land use application form are accepted. If any items are missing at the time of submittal, the application is deemed incomplete and staff may not accept the application. Please note that proof of recording an owner occupancy covenant with Hennepin County’s Recorder’s Office is not required at the time of submitting the administrative review application for an accessory dwelling unit, but the proof of recording the document with Hennepin County is required prior to building permit issuance. Acceptance of an application for filing does not deem the application complete. The assigned planner will determine if the land use application is complete by conducting a thorough review of the application materials. The review may necessitate additional information, resulting in an incomplete application. In the case of an incomplete application, staff issues a letter within fifteen (15) business days of the filing date of the application. The letter details the deficiencies of the application. When the applicant remedies the deficiencies, staff makes a final decision on behalf of the zoning administrator. The planner will author the final decision, including the conditions, if any, associated with an approval. Land use applications that remain incomplete for thirty (30) days or more are deemed withdrawn and returned to the applicant. In such cases, the applicant who still wishes to proceed must refile the application. Any affected person can appeal the findings and decisions made by the zoning administrator. The appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the original decision or the decision is final. The Board of Adjustment hears each appeal of a zoning administrator decision. 4 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS - INITIAL CHECKLIST If any of the items are missing at the time of submittal, staff will not accept the application.1 Completed Application Worksheet. Correct fees paid (checks payable to Minneapolis Finance Department). A letter from the property owner, if other than the applicant, authorizing the application. Electronic copy of the application submittal. Verification of historic status of property and submission of any required HPC application(s).2 Photos of property and all sides of the existing structure(s). Two copies (plus one 8 ½ x 11) of a scaled and dimensioned site plan.3 Must include the following items:  All property lines.  Streets, sidewalks and alleys, existing and proposed curb cuts. Indicate if public areas are to be vacated.  Indicate traffic flow on streets, alleys and drives.  Adjacent uses (show location and identify).  Building footprints and square footages (include garages and other accessory structures).  Dimensioned parking, including electric vehicle spaces (all parking and loading areas serving the property). Indicate how the parking and loading areas will be designed (curbing, wheel stops, etc.).  Other impervious surfaces (walkways, decks, patios, etc.) and square footages.  Walls, screens and fences (show location, type and height).  Mechanical equipment (air conditioning units, electrical transformers, etc.)  Fire hydrants, transit stops, public plazas, trash enclosures, trees in the public right-of-way.  Landscaping plan showing existing and proposed shrubs and trees (location, type, number).  Natural features and topography.  Indicate the direction of water drainage from the site and building (downspouts, roof drains, etc.).  Indicate north arrow and date the plan was drawn.  Stormwater management plan for sites over one acre.  Erosion control plan for sites where more than 5,000 square feet of dirt is disturbed. Two copies (plus one 8 ½ x 11) of scaled and dimensioned elevations of each façade. One copy of scaled and dimensioned elevations showing the existing or proposed principal dwelling. (detached accessory dwelling units only). Two copies (plus one 8 ½ x 11) of scaled and dimensioned floor plans showing all floors.  If applicable, dimensioned parking, including electric vehicle spaces. For internal ADUs only: Recorded Covenant for Owner Occupancy with Hennepin County (required after it is determined that plans will receive Zoning and Plan Review approval, and prior to building permit issuance). Proof of recording shall be provided to the City. Proof of recording is the cover page supplied by Hennepin County when the document is recorded that shows a bar code and filing date and a copy of the document recorded. Covenant form here: http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@cped/documents/webcontent/wcms1p- 136455.pdf Annual rental license: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/inspections/rental/index.htm 1 City staff will review the initial application submission and will notify the applicant of what, if any, additional information must be submitted for staff to evaluate the application for approval or denial. Please be aware that supplemental information may be requested during the evaluation process. 2 Demolition of an existing structure requires review by CPED staff to determine if the property is an historic resource. 3 The site plan must be prepared by a certified architect, landscape architect, engineer, or land surveyor that is licensed in the State of Minnesota. A license stamp, or registration number, whichever is applicable, together with the signature, shall be provided on the face of the site plan. Site plan information may be combined with the survey of the property. The requirement that one of the above professionals prepare the site plan may be waived by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Director or their authorized representative where the application does not involve a new principal structure, provided the plan is accurately dimensioned and is drawn to an architectural or engineering scale. 5 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT APPLICATION WORKSHEET Property Owner/ Applicant Name Mailing Address Including City, State and Zip Code Phone Number Email Applicant’s Representative This person will be the primary contact for staff, and is the authorized agent in place of the property owner Name Mailing Address Including City, State and Zip Code Phone Number Email Property Information Address(es) Identification Number(s) Lot Area Building Data – Principal Structure Fill in existing & proposed even when no change is proposed Gross Floor Area (square feet) Existing: Proposed: Building footprint (square feet) Existing: Proposed: Floor area of primary unit to which the ADU is accessory Existing: Proposed: Building height of principal structure Proposed height (stories/feet): Proposed tallest point (feet): Number of Dwelling Units: Existing, not including ADU: Proposed, not including ADU: Primary exterior materials Building Data – ADU only Fill in applicable data Gross floor area (square feet) Building footprint – detached only (square feet) Building height Proposed height (stories/feet): Proposed tallest point (feet): HVAC/Mechanical Data Must be depicted on site plan Type of HVAC Proposed Dimensions of Exterior Unit Parking Data Total number of spaces Existing: Proposed: Electric vehicle spaces Existing: Proposed: 6 FEES APPLICATION TYPE FEE (DOLLARS) Administrative accessory dwelling unit 325 ACCURACY DECLARATION My signature attests to the fact that the attached application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the staff review of this application is dependent upon the accuracy of the information provided and that any inaccurate or inadequate information provided may delay review of my application or may result in denial of my request. Property owner’s signature (if different from applicant): _________________________________________________ Applicant’s name (please print): _________________________________________________ Applicant’s signature: _________________________________________________ Chapter 2: Code Analysis and Best Practices ORDINANCE AND CODE ANALYSIS BY JURISDICTION This analysis evaluates a wide variety of ordinances and codes for their focus on accessory dwelling units, small ),1!"3"),-*"+1Ą ,11$" ,2/1!"3"),-*"+1Ą+!#,/*Ě0"! ,!"0#,/0*))1,)/$"&+Õ))04"))0$/""+Õ")! development. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinances The consideration of ADUs has become a national trend in the last two decades as people moving back into cities have created more pressure on the demand for housing. Cities that never allowed ADUs are now looking to allow them, while other cities are updating their codes to be less restrictive. Some states, such as California, New Hampshire, and Oregon have introduced statutes allowing ADUs statewide by-right. ADUs tend to be the most politically palatable of the four code approaches studied in this section as they typically have the broadest public acceptance. This is understandable given that ADUs represent the least amount of change when compared to individual buildings. Portland, Ore.—Accessory Dwelling Units (Chapter 33.205) last Amendment on the existing zoning code about ADU regulations No. 187471, "ƛ" 1&3"ǕǖȡǕǖȡǗǕǖǛ Code Preparer: City of Portland Contact: Phil Nameny, City Planner, City of Portland Background and the reason the amendment was prepared Portland’s code has allowed ADUs in certain areas since the early 1900s. In an "##,/11,0-2/!"3"),-*"+1,#*,/"%,20&+$3/&"16+!##,/!&)&166"#Õ &"+1)6 capitalizing on existing infrastructure as housing demand became greater in the late 1900s, key amendments were passed in 1998, 2010 and 2016. In 1998, the amendment dropped owner occupancy and parking requirements and allowed ADUs to be developed citywide by-right. The size was capped at the lesser of 800 square feet or one-third of the main house size, along with limited design compatibility requirements. The 2010 amendment increased the allowable size relative to three-quarters of the primary residence and temporarily waived the system development charges (impact fees). The change in 2016 merged the development standards for accessory structures with the standards for detached ADUs. As a result, the accessory structure height was reduced and the ADU height increased. In 2018, the temporary waiver of system development charges was made permanent, if the property owner agreed to a recorded covenant that stated the unit would not be used as a short-term rental. In 2017, the state of Oregon passed a statute requiring jurisdictions to allow ADUs wherever a house is allowed. There was no impact to Portland’s existing code. What does the amendment allow? ⦁By-right, an accessory dwelling unit may be added to a house, attached house, or manufactured home in an ưģ"0&!"+1&)ĤĄģ,**"/ &)ĤĄ,/ģ"+1/)*-),6*"+1Ĥ7,+"Ą21*6+,1"!!"!1,11 %"!%,20"0,/ duplexes in the R20 through R5 (low-density to medium-density residential)zones that use a provision to gain an extra unit on a corner lot. 35 Chapter 2: Code Analysis and Best Practices ⦁The maximum size is limited to the lesser of 800 square feet or three-quarters of the living area of the main house size. ⦁2&)!&+$%"&$%1&01%"0*"0#,/ "00,/601/2 12/"0Ą4%& %40*,!&Õ"!&+ÛÙÚß1,)),4,+)62-1,ÛÙ#""1 as measured to the midpoint of the gable when located outside of the required setbacks. Prior to the most recent amendment, accessory structures had the same height limit, 30 to 35-feet (depending on the zone), as 1%"-/&*/601/2 12/"ă%"%"&$%1)&*&140/"!2 "!&+,/!"/1,)+ "1%" %/ 1"/,#&+Õ))!"3"),-*"+14&1% existing neighborhoods. By aligning the standards for accessory structures and accessory dwelling units, this reduced privacy concerns and the incentive to illegally construct ADUs within accessory structures. ⦁Setbacks for detached ADUs are 40 feet from the front. The remaining setbacks match those of the primary structure; however, one can build within the setback within additional height limitations to keep the building no higher than one story. ⦁Parking is not required for the ADU. If the construction of the ADU removes a required parking space for the primary building, then that space must be replaced onsite. However, the houses in areas of the city that are within 500 feet of frequent bus service (every 20 minutes during commute times) are not required to provide any parking. ⦁Owner occupancy is not required. ⦁Short-term rentals are allowed with the payment of development fees (these fees are waived for long-term rentals). ⦁The ADU code is administered by-right with no discretionary review, except that some design compatibility with the main house is required for two-story ADUs. The building must match the main house or comply with general design guidelines. There are no design requirements for a single-story ADU. ⦁Floor Area Ratio requirements were removed in 2002. Since then the building intensity is now regulated through lot coverage standards (45 percent total lot coverage, and the detached ADU cannot exceed the 15 percent of the lot). How was the code amendment adopted? The City initiated the code amendment in 1998 with several updates since then, the latest being in August 2016. In 1998 there was neighborhood opposition to the changes. Over time, the amount of resistance has reduced with each subsequent change and more built results. Most of the continued concern has been around short-term rentals and privacy. Built results Following the amendment in 1998, there was some uptick in development of ADUs, but they were still very limited citywide, at an increase of 10 - 15 units per year. The greater impact on development numbers occurred since the 2010 amendment, when the city decided to waive the impact fees in order to respond to the development viability during the economic downturn, increase the allowable size relative to the primary structure, and adjust the design guidelines to address recurring concerns about privacy. In speaking with city staff, based upon a review of the testimony received when the ADU regulations were expanded in 1998, there may have been some challenges in originally expanding the allowances. However, since 1%"0"/"$2)1&,+0!&!+,1/"02)1&+)/$"&+Ö25Ą+!1%"020".2"+1*"+!*"+10%3", 2//"!,3"/1&*"Ą1%&0 incremental series of changes appears to have allowed property owners, builders, and neighbors to adapt and get used to the idea of ADUs. There are some continued complaints about the proximity of ADUs to property lines, the potential for noise, and concern over short-term rentals. The code structure and communication with the public were vital for the success of the ADUs in Portland; as developer and builder, Eli Spevak mentioned, ‘’With a good code structure and education, people started accepting ADUs. The educational components include regular tours of ADUs done by ADU advocates, a dedicated website on the process, general word of mouth, and seeing neighbors’ homes in progress. All of these elements and the recent amendments have really spurred development, such that the number of permit approvals increased to around 500 a year in 2016 and 2017, up from just 80 plus in 2010. 36 Chapter 2: Code Analysis and Best Practices The people developing ADUs are primarily the homeowner and small-scale developers. According to Spevak, due to the high cost of building, ADU construction is mostly happening in the higher value parts of the city, concentrated &+0-" &Õ /"0ă 1&0*,/"-/,Õ1)"1%+2&)!&+$&+),43)2"/"04%"/"/"+1)/1"0/"),4"/ă +1%"),4"/)+! value areas, the choice to build an ADU is typically a lifestyle choice (needing room for family or caregiver) rather than an economic one. Over time, though, the ADU typically increases the value of the property. Incentives for building ADUs ⦁Portland has made it easier for homeowners to build with good guidance from the planning and development departments about the process. Website pages and walking tours help to inform and educate people about the process and importance of ADUs. ⦁Prior to the City’s 2010 removal of the requirement for System Development Charges on all ADUs, a payment ,#,21ƥÚÙĄÙÙÙĚƥÚÛĄÙÙÙ40/".2&/"!#,/" %ă×"/1%"/"*,3),#1%"#""0&+ÛÙÚÙĄ1%" &1604/,2+! a 10-fold increase in the number of ADU permits. However, now that this fee waiver is accompanied by a covenant restricting use as a short-term rental for 10 years, there is a question about whether that will affect ADU !"3"),-*"+1ă +&1&)"3&!"+ "#,/1%"Õ/01#"4*,+1%0&+!& 1"0+-"/*&10),4!,4+Ą21&1)0, ,//")1"0 with a general recent slowing of permits. ⦁"3"/) /"1&3"Õ++ &+$,-1&,+0%3",-"+"!2-1%1-/,3&!",--,/12+&1&"01,-6#,/0ă,*"-/,$/*0 propose a trade-off, such as in Multnomah County, where the county would pay for the ADU, but the property ,4+"/)),401%" ,2+161,%,01%,*")"00#*&)6&+1%"2+&1#,/Õ3"6"/0ă+,1%"/-/&31"-/,$/*ģ!4"))"/ă com) offers to obtain permits and build the ADU on the property in exchange for a portion of the rents over a period of time. At this time, these programs have resulted in only a handful ADUs out of the hundreds being built. ⦁Upcoming changes being considered include allowing two ADUs on a lot or 2 - 3 units per lot and modifying the allowed FAR in residential zones when adding an ADU. This is envisioned to be citywide. ⦁)),4+ " /"1"0)+!"#Õ &"+ &"0&+0&+$)"Ě#*&)67,+"01%/,2$%1%"0%/&+$,# ,**,+0- ",+1%"),1Ą such as driveways and yards. ⦁%"!"1 %"!0*))"/2&)!&+$0-/,3&!"Ö"5&&)&161,0&1"2&)!&+$01,Õ11%"1,-,$/-%6,#0&1"0ă Challenges in building ADUs ⦁04&1%*,01/"0Ą ,+01/2 1&,+ ,010%3"&+ /"0"!0&$+&Õ +1)6&+1%")0114,!" !"0Ą*(&+$&1 %))"+$" to balance rental income with construction cost. ⦁,+3"+1&,+)Õ++ &+$ +" %))"+$"4&1%,21 ,*-/)",/"5&01&+$/"+1)&+ ,*"1,02--,/11%"),+ --)& 1&,+ă,01/"Õ++ "!1%/,2$%%,*"".2&16)&+"0+! 0%ă3"/1&*"0*,/"0/" ,+01/2 1"!Ą more comparables will be available. ⦁Building code challenges may be an issue when converting existing spaces into ADUs that need to meet current codes. ⦁On smaller lots, lot coverage limits may constrain the capacity to build a unit. ⦁)1%,2$%/"$,+%0-/,-"/1615#/""7"*"02/"Ą-/,-"/1615"04"/""&+$/"00"00"!×"/!"3"),-*"+1,# an ADU because the county was seeing this change as a rezone, which therefore triggered a reappraisal of the entire property. In some cases this resulted in a 3- and 4-fold increase in property taxes. This was averted through a state determination that building an ADU does not constitute a rezone. ⦁Portland’s code ensures that accessory dwelling units are compatible with the desired character and livability of residential zones, which may help public support but is also creatively limiting, particularly for contemporary styles. Some professionals question why this is needed for structures that are relegated to the rear of the property. ⦁"1 (0#,/ ,/+"/),1ĸ0&!"01/""1 ,+!&1&,+0/"+,1011"!+!)"×1,&+1"/-/"11&,+ă #&+1"/-/"1"!0+""!&+$ 40 feet on both street faces, little to no developable area can be found for the ADU unless it is attached to the primary structure. 37 Chapter 2: Code Analysis and Best Practices New Hampshire—New Hampshire Accessory Dwelling Units statute (RSA 674:71-73) "ƛ" 1&3"ǕǛȡǕǖȡǗǕǖǜ Statute Sponsor: +&1&)!/×6"4 *-0%&/" ,*"2&)!"/000, &1&,+ sponsored in the state senate by David Boutin, rewritten by Ben Frost Contact: Ben Frost, Director, Legal and Public Affairs, New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority Background and the reason the statute was prepared New Hampshire’s state legislature recognized that there is a growing need for more diverse and affordable housing opportunities to accommodate independent living and family caregiving at home. The goal was to increase the supply of housing without having to further expand land development beyond existing infrastructure. When the bill was introduced in 2015, the supporting coalition included real estate professionals, AARP, disability rights advocates, young professionals, +!%,20&+$!3, 1"0ă%"6041%10,##"/"!$/"1"/Ö"5&&)&16+!##,/!&)&16&+%,20&+$,-1&,+0ă"6,+! the allowance of accessory dwelling units in single-family zones, the law largely establishes what local jurisdictions may or may not regulate as related to ADUs. What does the statute allow? ⦁Accessory dwelling units must be attached or within the single-family dwelling. A municipality may permit detached accessory dwelling units, but it’s not required. ⦁ADUs are allowed by-right, by conditional use, or by special exception in all zoning districts that permit single- family dwellings without additional requirements for lot size, frontage, space limitations, or other controls beyond what would be required for a single-family dwelling without an ADU. ⦁Any regulations applicable to single-family dwellings also apply to the accessory dwelling unit, including lot coverage standards and standards for maximum occupancy per bedroom. ⦁A municipality may regulate parking requirements to accommodate the ADU. ⦁Establishing design standards for the purpose of aesthetic compatibility with the principal dwelling unit as a single-family dwelling is allowable. ⦁Establishing minimum and maximum sizes for an ADU is allowed but it may not be restricted to less than 750 square feet and it cannot be limited to only one bedroom. ⦁Municipalities are allowed to require owner occupancy of one of the dwelling units, but it shall not specify which unit the owner must occupy. Familial relationships between the units may not be required. How was the statute adopted? The statute was introduced in 2015, passed in 2016 and went in effect 2017. Most towns held their town meetings with 02#Õ &"+11&*"1,/"3&"4&+!3+ ",#Õ+)--/,3)ă %*2+& &-)&16%!1%",-1&,+1,*"+!1%")4#,/1%"&/ '2/&0!& 1&,+ă,*"*!"/"Õ+"*"+100"!,+4%11%"01121"40)),4&+$1,"/"$2)1"!Ą+!,1%"/0 "-1"! 1%"01121"0&04&1%,21#2/1%"//"Õ+"*"+10#,/1%"&/*2+& &-)&16ă "+"/))60-"(&+$&1401,2$%-2)& -/, "00 to get it adopted, as the House has over 400 members with varying interests. Eventually through ongoing dialog the statute passed with a 2-to-1 margin. 38 Chapter 2: Code Analysis and Best Practices There were some minor amendments made in 2017 to the statute. One of them allowed municipalities to prohibit accessory dwelling units associated with multiple single-family dwellings attached to each other, such as townhouses, +!)0,1,-/,%&&10&+00, &1&,+4&1%*+2# 12/"!%,20&+$ă+,1%"/*,!&Õ 1&,+011"!1%10*6 not be sold as condominiums unless the municipality explicitly allows it; such sales may be allowed either through zoning or subdivision regulations. Built results Across the state, ADU development has been slow but incremental. In communities such as Portsmouth and Merrimack, about one ADU a month is being permitted. One of the biggest challenges is the need to communicate the issues and solutions to local decision makers as well as communicating to homeowners that this is available to them (homeowner’s guide to the website). Incentives for building ADUs ⦁One allowance that helps minimize construction costs is that water and sanitary disposal systems for the ADU may be shared by those of the principal dwelling unit. ⦁A new septic system does not need to be built unless the existing system is unlicensed or has failed. The applicant for a permit to construct an accessory dwelling unit shall make adequate provisions for water supply and sewage disposal for the accessory dwelling unit, but separate systems shall not be required for the principal and accessory dwelling units. ⦁If an ADU meets the rental price standards of the Workforce Housing Law, then the municipality may count the unit as part of its “fair share” calculation. ⦁++2)1,2/0,##"/ ,**2+&16*"*"/0+,--,/12+&161,3&"42&)1"5*-)"0Õ/01%+!Ą&+0-&/&+$ some to build their own structures and allowing others to see how they are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Challenges in building ADUs ⦁The state allows local municipalities to adopt discretionary review for design standards and permit process in the form of conditional use permits and special exceptions. Even if limited to prescriptive requirements rather than discretionary ones, having another layer of review extends the approval process timeline and, as a result, the overall project cost as compared to a by-right process. ⦁The majority of municipalities typically require owner occupancy. While this practice typically garners the most local public support, it also limits the amount of development of this building type. Owner-occupied properties tend to be more likely to be used as a short-term rental or guest house rather than long-term rentals that alleviate overall housing demand. ⦁The requirement for an interior door between the principal dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit can !! ,*-)& 1&,++! ,01#,/2&)!&+$1%&0Õ/"4))Ą"0-" &))64%"+!")&+$4&1%"5&01&+$ ,+!&1&,+0ă ⦁While permitting an ADU with an existing dwelling cannot require the construction of a new water system, the *,!&Õ 1&,+,#1%""5&01&+$,+"*6"+" "00/6ă ⦁ If a municipality requires impact fees, whether they will apply will depend on how the local municipality charges their fees (by unit or by bedroom). ⦁Education of and communication with local decision makers and the broader public needs to be carefully thought through to ensure a successful rate of development. ⦁Primary public concerns are related to short-term rentals, which the ADU law does not refer to or limit their use for this purpose. Some New Hampshire municipalities (e.g. Portsmouth) are moving ahead with regulations limiting short-term rentals, but this does not mean that an owner cannot create an ADU. There are various &+&1&1&3"0&+1%")"$&0)12/"1,012!6,//"$2)1"0%,/1Ě1"/*/"+1)0Ą211%"011",#1%"0""##,/10&0&+Ö25ă 39 Chapter 2: Code Analysis and Best Practices Austin, Texas—Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance, No. 20151119-080 approved 11/19/2015 Code Preparer: The City of Austin Contact: Greg Dutton, Principal Planner, City of Austin Planning and Zoning Department Background and the reason the ordinance was prepared Although ADUs were permitted in various forms prior to 2015, the 2015 ordinance expanded and relaxed regulations. In 2015, the minimum lot size requirement was reduced, and the development standards were amended. For example, previously a driveway was needed to go up to the ADU itself, but with the amendments, parking is allowed in the primary driveway. Also, in 2015 a reduction in the number of required parking spaces passed for areas close to transit corridors. The question of whether the short-term rentals should be allowed slowed down the public process; however, 1%"Õ+)02$$"01&,+#,/1%"ÜÙ!60*5&*2*,#0%,/1Ě/"+1)-00"!ă What does the ordinance allow? ⦁For a two-family residential lot, the secondary unit must: 1) be contained in a structure other than the principal structure (i.e. only detached structures); 2) be located (a) at least 10 feet to the rear or side of the principal structure or (b) above a detached garage; (3) may be connected to the principal structure by a covered walkway. ⦁One onsite parking spot is required for the ADU unless the property is within a quarter mile of an Imagine Austin corridor served by transit. ADU parking requirements are less stringent than single-family use, which requires two onsite parking spots per dwelling unit. ⦁Building height may not exceed 30 feet and is limited to two stories. ⦁+*6+,1"5 ""!ÚĄÚÙÙ1,1)0.2/"#""1,/Ö,,/Ě1,Ě/"/1&,,#ÙăÚÞĄ4%& %"3"/&00*))"/Ą4&1%ÞÞÙ square feet maximum on the second story. ⦁An ADU may not be used as a short-term rental for more than 30 days in a calendar year if the secondary -/1*"+140 ,+01/2 1"!×"/ 1,"/ÚĄÛÙÚÞă ,/0%,/1Ě1"/*/"+1)0Ą-"/*&1&0/".2&/"!ă ⦁Impervious cover for the site may not exceed 45 percent. ⦁Building cover for the site may not exceed 40 percent. How was the ordinance adopted? Council initiated the amendment process and asked staff to reduce regulatory barriers to building ADUs. Two public meetings were conducted and staff generated recommendations that were taken to Planning Commission and Council. Most of the discussion at Planning Commission and Council that had public input involved whether ADUs should be allowed in SF-2 zoning, which only allows a single dwelling (ultimately Council decided to not allow ADUs &+ ĚÛ7,+"0Ĥă)0,Ą)&*&11&,+,+0%,/1Ě1"/*/"+1)0400,2$%161%"-2)& +!&+ )2!"!&+1%"Õ+),/!&++ "ă In general the site-development changes got general support, but where ADUs could be built and how they could be used were the points of contention. 40 Chapter 2: Code Analysis and Best Practices Built results %"+2*"/,#0 ,+01/2 1"!&+ /"0"!×"/ the ordinance was passed but remains a small number compared to Austin’s overall housing needs. The ordinance has not necessarily yielded smaller and more affordable units, as ADUs are typically built to the maximum size the constraints allow. However, this will still yield a home at a lower price point than the typical primary single-family home that is newly built. Incentives for building ADUs ⦁Onsite parking is reduced for proximity to 1/+0&1ư)&+"0ă ⦁ADUs garnered political support from the public due to the lack of affordable housing options. ⦁%" ,!"&0!*&+&01"/"!6/&$%1Ą*(&+$#,/+"#Õ &"+1 and quick approval timeline. ⦁Owner-occupancy is not required. ⦁The property may be turned in two condos, which provides an affordable home ownership option. Challenges in building ADUs ⦁Financing is an issue for the same reasons discussed under the Portland section. ⦁Construction costs (including design, permitting and materials) can be prohibitive for individual homeowner at middle-income levels. ⦁Applicants may need to upgrade water/wastewater lines to accommodate ADU bathroom(s), which can add 0&$+&Õ +1 ,011, ,+01/2 1&,++!2)1&*1")6*&$%14,/(0//&"/1,1%"&/!"3"),-*"+1ă ⦁ADUs are allowed in two-family residential lots (in SF-3, SF-5 and SF-6 but not in SF-1 and SF-2 zones). SF-3 is the most applicable single-family zone, but it only allows two units max (house and ADU or a duplex but not both). In 1%1 0"Ą1%",4+"/,/2&)!"/&0*,/")&(")61,!"#2)11,!2-)"50*,/"-/,Õ1)"&+3"01*"+1Ą01%"Õ+) cost is probably lower than an ADU. ⦁--)& +104&1%0*))"/0&1"0ĸ),10*6%3"1/,2)"Õ11&+$,+0&1"-/(&+$+!ĸ,/2&)!&+$2+&1)/$""+,2$%1, be easily marketable (unit size is limited to 0.15 FAR). ⦁Limit of 550 square feet on the second level is a potentially a limiting factor. ⦁Minimum lot size requirement of 5,750 square feet also prohibits lots smaller than that from having an ADU. ⦁If the unit is above a garage, the unit is basically limited to one level because of the height restriction. ⦁Adding a unit will inevitably increase the appraised value and property tax. The property tax re-evaluation happens every year. 41 Chapter 2: Code Analysis and Best Practices Los Angeles, Calif.—Accessory Dwelling Units SB 1069 and AB 2939 Code Preparer: SB 1069: State Senator Bob Wieckowski; AB 2939: Assembly member Phil Ting Contact: Matthew Glesne, Planning Department, City of Los Angeles Background The 1985 citywide ordinance allowed ADUs with a discretionary conditional use permit (CUP). Upon passage of AB 1866 (2002), the discretionary component of the law was no longer enforceable. Later, in 2010, the City halted enforcing the 1985 ordinance altogether and relied solely on the standards in state law, combined with applicable existing local, objective zoning standards. A court decision in 2016 ruled the 2010 zoning interpretation invalid and put a halt on the permitting of any ADUs that relied upon the interpretations. Since 2017, upon adoption of SB 1069 and AB 2299, Los Angeles is operating under state laws that allow ADUs by right, provided they meet objective criteria. A local ADU ordinance has been proposed to take the place of state law and is currently pending before City Council. What does the ordinance allow? ⦁Parking: The state law allows local agencies to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling units located within its jurisdiction and states that parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway. Los Angeles requires one spot for ADUs unless the location meets one of the city’s four criteria, including proximity to public transit, then no space is required. Replacement parking is required if an existing garage is converted to an ADU; however, the parking may be located in the front-yard setback in an existing driveway. ⦁Height limits: The regulations default to the same requirements as for accessory buildings, which allows for two 01,/&"04&1%+,0-" &Õ"!+2*"/& *5&*2*ă ⦁Setbacks: Same as for an accessory structure, which includes an additional 5 feet from setback for second story. ⦁Size: Up to 1,200 square feet is allowed for a detached unit. Attached units are limited to no larger than 50 -"/ "+1,#1%"*&+2+&1ă*&+&*2*,#ÚÞÙ0.2/"#""1&0/".2&/"!#,/+"#Õ &"+ 62+&1ă ,20"0,+4%"")04&)) count as an ADU in proposed ordinance. ⦁FAR: Both units combined are limited to 0.45. How was the ordinance adopted? The City is currently operating under state law. In January of 2017, a California state law, SB 1069, took effect that allows homeowners to build an accessory dwelling by right. No local California ADU code can be more restrictive 1%+011")4,+ÚÙ0-" &Õ &1"*0ă+6), )"5&01&+$ ,!"0%3"+,16"1 2$%12-4&1%011"/"$2)1&,+ă Built results Since state law was adopted in 2017, approximately 6,500 permits have been issued for ADUs, with a current rate of about 350 per month. The number of ADU applications continues to increase, with about 5,400 applications submitted in 2018 alone. Approximately, 800 are in a holding pattern or have been effectively denied due to easement /".2&/"*"+1 ,+Ö& 104&1%-,4"/)&+"0ă,21ÝÞ-"/ "+1,#))-"/*&100&+ "ÛÙÚà%3"""+ ,+3"/0&,+04&1%&+ the existing space, either inside the primary structure or the garage. About 35 percent are attached additions and the remainder are detached new construction. 42 Chapter 2: Code Analysis and Best Practices Incentives for building ADUs ⦁Sprinklers are not required unless the main home required them when it was built. ⦁Fees overall are lower compared to the average municipality. The largest segment of the fees are LAUSD school development fees. However, school fees are waived if the conversion is less than 500 square feet or is a conversion of already habitable space. Therefore, total fees range from less than $850 for smaller conversions up to a maximum of about $6,400 for new construction. Fees also depend on project valuations, which keeps conversions and additions less expensive. For sewer, an extension line is typically needed, but there are no capacity connection charges if it is a conversion. ⦁Additional electric or water meters are not required. ⦁Owner occupancy is not required for either structure. ⦁If you are in a transit corridor, you do not have to provide a parking space, but you have to replace any being removed. The replacement spots are not required to be covered and can be tandem or located on any part of 1%"ư-/,-"/16ă ⦁%"/"&0%,20&+$0%,/1$"ă ,*",4+"/0/"0""&+$1%""+"Õ101,2&)!&+$0ă%" reduction in the regulatory barriers, partnered with clear process guidelines, educational materials, and nearby 2&)1"5*-)"0%3"0&$+&Õ +1&+Ö2"+ ",+1%"+2*"/,#01%1/" ,+01/2 1"!ă ⦁#Õ &"+1-"/*&11&+$0601"*ă ⦁Los Angeles has found success by having their staff be well versed on the state law as well as be strong advocates and facilitators who help applicants through the process, and by encouraging all departments to talk to each other. ⦁A guidebook developed in partnership with UCLA Citylab is provided to facilitate public education. Challenges in building ADUs ⦁Meeting California energy codes can be particularly challenging for conversion projects that have existing structures. The associated fees are high, as they are not proportionate to size and cost. ⦁Existing garages that fall within power line easements present hurdles for owners wanting to convert those garages into ADUs. Non-habitable spaces, such as a garages, are allowed within the easement, but habitable structures, such as an ADU, are not. ⦁%"/"/" ,+!&1&,+0,+0%,/1Ě1"/*/"+1)00-" &Õ"!&+1%" &16đ00%,/1Ě1"/*/"+1),/!&++ "ă0/"+,1 mean for short term; it needs to be a permanent residence. ⦁Financing is the biggest challenge. Most people have to take out home equity lines in order to cover the cost of construction. Banks have been unwilling to grant loans based on potential projected income, which is likely to change as more ADUs are constructed and rented to provide comps. trekandshoot / Shutterstock.com43 Chapter 3: Case Studies ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) CASE STUDIES Garage Conversion ADU Portland, Ore. ⦁Code type example: Accessory Dwelling Units ⦁Contact: Kol Peterson, Owner/Builder )&"+1ȡ"* ⦁Client: Kol Peterson (homeowner) ⦁Designer: Das Chapin ⦁Developer: Kol Peterson ⦁Builder: Adrian Hutapea Size and scale One ADU attached to a primary residence on a 50-foot x 100-foot lot in a single-family residential zone. Unit size range ⦁Primary Unit: 900 square feet ⦁ADU: 800 square feet Density 18 dwelling units per acre Project timeline %"-/,'" 101/1"!&+ÛÙÚá+!1,,(--/,5&*1")6,+"*,+1%1,!"0&$+Ą,+"!61,-"/*&1Ą+!Õ3"*,+1%01,2&)!ă The owner worked closely with a designer who has extensive construction experience. The owner did the permitting himself, served as the general contractor for this project, and did about 30 percent of the actual construction as well. Project costs ⦁,×,010ą $1,000 ⦁Construction Costs: $100,000 ($75,000 out of pocket, $25,000 sweat equity) ⦁Sale Price:,),2$%11%"%,20"#,/ƥÝÜÞĄÙÙÙă×"//"+,31&+$1%"2-01&/0+!2&)!&+$1%"0"*"+1 (totaling $175,000), the property is worth approximately $600,000. 75 Chapter 3: Case Studies Project description The owner built this ADU on a 5,000-square foot lot (50 feet x 100 feet) located near his primary residence by converting the attached garage on the split-level 1973 house into an ADU. It is an 800-square foot, two-bedroom unit with one bedroom that is fully accessible and a ,*#,/1)"Õ1#,/14,-",-)"ă%"-/&*/6!4"))&+$2+&1 is the upper level of the same structure and contains 900 square feet, with three bedrooms and one bathroom. Both are long- term residential rental units. One off-street parking spot was required for the primary unit. The spot is located in the front yard setback, which required a variance. Zoning and neighborhood description The property is located in a highly desirable neighborhood called the Alberta Arts District in inner northeast Portland, has a Walkscore ranking of 84, and is zoned R5, which is the standard, typical residential lot size and zoning type in Portland. The property is within walking distance of where the owner lives, so it was convenient to develop the property as well as manage it. The site is within one-quarter of a mile of a commercial corridor. Successes ⦁%""51/"*""#Õ &"+ 6,#1%",3"/))1&*")&+"Ą-/1& 2)/)6#,/1%"-"/*&11&+$ă ⦁Building a nice-looking unit for $100,000. ⦁+"/$6"#Õ &"+1+! "00&)"ă ⦁A good return on investment through the rental. Each unit rents for $1,850 per month. Collectively, they produce $1,000 more per month than the 30-year PITI payments. %))"+$"0ȡ"00,+0)"/+"! ⦁%"2--"/2+&1403 +1!2/&+$*,01,#1%" ,+01/2 1&,+,#1%"),4"/2+&1ă+,+"%+!1%&040"+"Õ &)Ą0 1%"4,/(40.2&1"+,&06))1%"461%/,2$%1%"Õ+&0%01$"0,# ,+01/2 1&,+Ą21&1)0,*"+1),00,#&+ ,*" for that unit. ⦁Despite using all of the best practices for mitigating noise between the two units, step noise was not eliminated. In hindsight, one solution would have been to carpet the upstairs unit &+01"!,#&+01))&+$3&+6)Ö,,/&+$ă 76 Chapter 3: Case Studies The Farmhouse, Attached ADU Portland, Ore. ⦁Code type example: Accessory Dwelling Units ⦁Contact: Lucas Gray, Propel Studio )&"+1ȡ"* ⦁Designers: Propel Studio ⦁Photos: Propel Studio Architecture Size and scale 50-foot wide per 100-foot deep lot, two dwelling units total Unit size range ⦁ADU: 800 square feet over two levels ⦁Primary unit: approximately 1,500 square feet Density 18 dwelling units per acre Project timeline ⦁Design: 3 months ⦁Permitting: 3 months ⦁Construction: 6 months ⦁Completed: 2017 Project costs ⦁,×,010ą ⦁Architecture: $15,000 ⦁Engineering: $2,500 ⦁Permitting Fees: $7,500 ⦁Construction Costs: $200,000 ⦁Sale Price: not applicable Project description This new construction, two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit is located in southeast Portland Woodstock Neighborhood. The ADU is attached to an existing traditional farmhouse via a covered breezeway. The design /"-/"0"+101%"1/!&1&,+)Ą/"$&,+)#/*3"/+ 2)/Ą&+ )2!&+$ "!/0&!&+$Ą0%&+$)"/,,Õ+$Ą+!$)"/,,##,/*0ă Passive solar design principles are incorporated to obtain maximum winter heat gain and summer cooling. A deep 0,#Õ1,3"/%+$01%"# !"Ą0%!&+$1%"4&+!,40+! /"+ %!,,/0#/,*%&$%Ě+$)"!02**"/02+Ą/"!2 &+$%"1 gain in the summer months. Operable windows allow for cross ventilation. (;,67,1*+286( 1(:$'8 50' - 0"100' - 0" 77 Chapter 3: Case Studies %")0,%0%&$%Ě"#Õ &"+ 62&)!&+$"+3"),-"Ą Ě "/1&Õ"!4,,!-/,!2 10Ą+"+"/$6Ě"#Õ &"+1Ą*&+&Ě0-)&1 *" %+& )0601"*Ą%&$%Ě"#Õ &"+ 6)&$%1&+$Ą, 2-+ 6Ě ,+1/,))"!3"+1&)1&,+Ą+!),4,/7"/,ĸ ,/*)!"%6!" products selected throughout. The open Living/Dining/ Kitchen “great room” faces west, with a window wall and full-glass French doors overlooking the patio and garden. The slab-on-grade construction offers barrier-free ADA accessibility throughout the unit. Considering the rapidly rising housing costs in Oregon, this project &0/")1&3")6##,/!)"ă 1&0"51/"*")6//"1,Õ+!!"1 %"!%,*"#,/ less than $350,000, even in farther out, or less desirable neighborhoods. In this case, the owners got to build a new unit close to house their mother, who has a disability, for a lot less than buying a new home. Zoning and neighborhood description The project is located in an older, established city neighborhood with a commercial corridor nearby and Missing Middle Housing throughout. The project was developed under the current code which waives the system development fees, saving about $13,000. Parking is not required for either the primary residence or the ADU due to the proximity to public transportation. Successes ⦁"0&$+"!#,/$&+$Ě&+Ě-) "4&1%//&"/Ě#/""$/,2+!Ö,,/+! "00&)"1%/,,*ă ⦁Upstairs offers a “bonus-room” or a potential bedroom for a future live-in caretaker. ⦁Built with sustainable building materials. ⦁Open living area that is spacious for a small dwelling. ⦁Strong connection to the interior and exterior. ⦁"0&$+"!1,Õ1&+4&1%1%"#/*%,20""01%"1& ,#1%"*&+%,20"ă %))"+$"0ȡ"00,+0)"/+"! ⦁Restrictive/unclear setback requirements made the site location challenging. The code indicates a 40-foot setback from the front but does not clarify how to address corner lots. For this particular site, the only way to locate the structure in a way that was code compliant was to attach the ADU to the main house with a breezeway. ⦁In certain conditions, the code requires design standards that are quite traditional, which is very limiting to !"0&$+ /"1&3&16ăư 1&0+,1 )"/4%61%&0&0/".2&/"! for a structure that is behind a primary residence. ⦁Cost of cedar is rapidly increasing due to 2//"+1ư1/&##0ă ⦁&1" ,+!&1&,+0,×"+*("&1!&#Õ 2)11,%3" easy accessibility all the way from the sidewalk and/or driveway to the ADU unit, even if the unit itself is fully accessible. 78 Chapter 3: Case Studies Duval, Detached ADU Austin, Texas ⦁Code type example: Accessory Dwelling Units ⦁Contact: Nicole Joslin, AIA, LEED AP, Executive Director, Austin Community Design and Development Center )&"+1ȡ"* ⦁Designer: ACDDC ⦁Interiors Designer: Annette Patterson ⦁Constructed: Z Works Design Build Size and scale 0.24-acre site, two dwelling units total Unit size range ⦁ADU: two-bedroom, 2.5 bath, two stories, 849 square feet. The unit size range for the Alley Flat Initiative in general is 400 to 1,100 square feet. Density 8.5 dwelling units per acre Project timeline ⦁Design began in July 2014 ⦁Construction began in September 2015 ⦁Completed May 2016 Project costs ⦁,×,010ą ⦁Architecture: $2,000 (Alley Flat Initiative offers reduced fees through grants for an affordable housing commitment by the owner) ⦁Engineering: $4,000 (includes both structural and civil engineering) ⦁Permitting Fees: $4,100 (only paid water tap fee, all other permit fees are waived through SMART Housing) ⦁Construction Costs: $163,000 ⦁Sale Price: not applicable The Duval project was developed through the Alley Flat Initiative, which began informally in 2003 with the idea that &+Õ))%,20&+$&+201&+đ0,$$6/""(41"/0%"! ,2)! ,+ 2//"+1)6/"0,)3"" ,),$& )+!0, &)".2&16-/,)"*0 as a form of “civic environmentalism”. That idea expanded in 2005, when a partnership formed between the UT Center for Sustainable Development, the Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation, and the Austin ,**2+&16"0&$++!"3"),-*"+1"+1"/ģĤă +ÛÙÚÝĄ1%"&16,#201&+#Õ ",#201&+&)&16',&+"!1%" 79 Chapter 3: Case Studies partnership to pursue the Green Alley Demonstration Project, which envisions affordable housing, alleys and small streets as ecological infrastructure. The collaboration continues to grow to tackle more barriers to affordable &+Õ))!"3"),-*"+1ă Alley Flats are distinct from other ADUs because they achieve at least a 3-star Austin Energy Green Building rating and participate in the City of Austin’s S.M.A.R.T. Housing program #,/1%"Õ/01Õ3"6"/0×"/1%"6/" constructed. Per the program, tenants are limited to households with income at or below 80 percent MFI (Median Family Income,) and rent may not be more than 30 percent of a tenant’s household monthly income. The ACDDC functions as a developer, offering services to the homeowner who is building the ADU from design through construction, plus additional educational materials and expertise. Project description This Alley Flat is occupied by a single father who is related to the property owner and whose extended family lives in the neighborhood. This two-bedroom ADU nestles neatly into a site that is constrained by setbacks and an existing %"/&1$"1/""ă%"#*&)6Ě#/&"+!)6Ö,,/-)+40!"3&0"!&+-/1+"/0%&-4&1%1%"#212/"/"0&!"+10&+,/!"/1,*5&*&7" privacy and functionality within the small footprint. Generous windows in the double-height living areas allow #,/Õ)1"/"!!6)&$%11%/,2$%1%"&3"(1/""1,Õ))1%"&+1"/&,/0- "0ă,1%1%"+!-/&*/6/"0&!"+ "/" occupied as long-term rentals. Zoning and neighborhood description The project is located in the Hyde Park neighborhood, which is located just north of the University of Texas campus. It is mostly comprised of single-family homes, and a section of the neighborhood has been designated as , ) &01,/& &01/& 1ă%&0!"0&$+1&,+!!00-" &Õ /"$2)1&,+0#,/!"0&$+01+!/!0+!,1%"/!"3"),-*"+1 requirements that might make it harder to develop a variety of housing options. Successes ⦁%&02+&1&0&+1%"Õ/016"/,#&10##,/!&)&16-"/&,!ă%"1"++10%3"%,20"%,)!&+ ,*""),4áÙ-"/ "+1  and their rent is no more than 28 percent of their income. Like many single parents, if it were not for the affordable rental amount, he would not otherwise be able to live near his family and the social networks he relies on. ⦁3-star Austin Energy Green Building rating %))"+$"0ȡ"00,+0)"/+"! ⦁Built a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable development model that preserves the diversity of our neighborhoods, provides new economic opportunity, and fosters social equity in rapidly changing neighborhoods. 80 This document is a portion of NAHB’s report Diversifying Housing Options with Smaller Lots and Smaller Homes Click here to view the full report. Page 1 of 2 Additional ADU Resources Relied Upon by Staff Staff completed extensive research into the impacts of ADUs as well as model and/or established ordinances for ADUs. In the interest of not overwhelming the Planning Commission with an unnecessarily large packet, the links to these resources are provided below for Commissioners to access as desired. Example Ordinances for Surveyed MN Cities (not provided by applicant): - Golden Valley o Accessory Dwelling Units | Golden Valley, MN (goldenvalleymn.gov) - Eagan o Accessory Dwelling Unit Registration (cityofeagan.com) - Apple Valley o § 155.382 ACCESSORY UNIT DWELLING. (amlegal.com) - Lakeville o 11-51-7: CONDITIONAL USES: (amlegal.com) - Stillwater o ARTICLE V. - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS | Code of Ordinances | Stillwater, MN | Municode Library - Roseville o http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/33685/Title-10-Zoning - Blaine o Chapter 33 - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS | Code of Ordinances | Blaine, MN | Municode Library - Shoreview o https://www.shoreviewmn.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/14/637680084624330 000 - Plymouth o SECTION 21190. - SPECIALIZED HOUSING | Code of Ordinances | Plymouth, MN | Municode Library - Long Lake o https://www.longlakemn.gov/vertical/Sites/%7BB1A99DAC-7328-47A4-8480- 36B234C436B1%7D/uploads/Section_19_General_Building_and_Performance_Require ments.pdf - St. Louis Park o Accessory Dwelling Units | St. Louis Park, MN (stlouispark.org) - Richfield o SECTION 518 - LOW-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-1) | Code of Ordinances | Richfield, MN | Municode Library - Burnsville o Burnsville : Municipal Code (municipalcodeonline.com) - Bloomington o § 21.302.03 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. (amlegal.com) - Hopkins o Zoning Regulations Update Project | Hopkins, MN (hopkinsmn.com) Page 2 of 2 - Minnetonka o SECTION 300.10. R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (amlegal.com) American Planning Association Resources: - Policy Guide and Model Ordinance o https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/housing/info-2021/adu-model-state-act- and-local-ordinance.html - Case Study o https://www.huduser.gov/Publications/PDF/adu.pdf News Articles - Accessory dwellings get another look in tight housing market | AP News - Golden Valley legalizes accessory dwelling units (startribune.com) - Rochester looks to ADUs to help address housing needs | Finance & Commerce (finance- commerce.com) Other Online Resources - Are ADUs green housing? | Accessory Dwellings - The environmental and social merits of ADU Bylaw 530 - Salt Spring Exchange - The Impact of ADUs on Your Neighborhood: Perceptions vs. Reality (purgula.com) Page 1 of 2 From: Phillip Christenson <phil.christenson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 12:28 PM To: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: Re: ADU - Can I Rent Hi Natalie, Below is my comments for the December Planning and Council meetings. Phillip Christenson - 20785 County Rd 30, Corcoran, MN 55374 Hello Mr. Mayor, Council Members and Planning Commission Members, I was recently viewing the video replay of one of your recent meetings, specifically the September 22nd work session, in which you discussed the rental policy in our city. As I recently made an inquiry with city staff, pertinent to this issue, I wanted to reach out providing you with my experience and the barriers to what I was hoping would be a simple and reasonable request. I have family, who frequently visit from other parts of the country at various times during the year. I have just over 10 acres of land at my home, much of which is open fields and young forest. So, rather than having them stay at a hotel or find other accommodations, my hope is to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on my property for them to stay in while in town. In this case, I would be planning on a small ~200 square foot building with a bed, bathroom, and heating/cooling source. Since, the nature of this building is temporary lodging, while not being used by family my plan would be to rent it out on a short-term basis, allowing me to defray some of the cost to build while utilizing a resource that would otherwise sit vacant for the remainder of the year, in addition to a few potential campouts with my children. After discussing this with city staff, who have been very helpful, I learned that the building, according to current standards, must be constructed in an oddly specific way, attached to a garage or the primary residence. 2. An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in an existing single-family home or above an attached or detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. Considering I have a large barn already on my property, I have no need of another garage, and yet given the age and condition of the barn it would not be feasible to use it as the ADU or as an attachment for an ADU. My property has ample parking for myself, family and potential guests. So, if there is no need for a garage, then why build a garage. If that’s was an odd sentence to read, it is, and yet given the current requirements it had to be written. Similarly confusing, is why the city wants to promote the construction of a garage space when it’s generally the least aesthetically pleasing part of any structure. I understand the need for some restrictions but in my case, the nearest neighbor is approx. 500 feet from the potential building area, almost 400 feet from the nearest road and 250 feet from the edge of the nearest wetland buffer. There is little to no impact on Page 2 of 2 the neighbors or the environment. As well, since this is an ADU built on the same land as my primary residence, would allow me to maintain the quality of the building and monitor any guests who might stay there. We are very blessed in Corcoran to have a rural setting which affords many its citizens a little more acreage than the average suburban lot and we should not deny them the right to use the land how they see fit, within reason. I ask you to review the city's ADU requirements, removing the requirement for an ADU to be attached to a garage or the primary home. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments and thank you for your service to our community. Take care, Phillip 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763-420-2288 email: general@corcoranmn.gov / website: www.corcoranmn.gov MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Jessica Beise, City Administrator Date: November 23, 2022 RE: Park Dedication Subdivision Ordinance Amendment (City File 22-065) __________________________________________________________________________ Application Request Review and comment on an update to the park dedication requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 9 of the City Code. Background Corcoran’s current park dedication standards were developed in 2011 based on the park and trail system needs identified by the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In December 2014, the City made several amendments to address specific concerns about the method for calculating density, how park dedication credit would be given for trails and what trail improvements developers must make. Language was also added to clarify that “park dedication is not due for parcels that have previously paid park dedication (land or cash-in-lieu)”. In April of 2016, more significant amendments were made to address concerns with the residential dedication formula and ensure that the cash dedications were adequate to meet the City’s needs. In April of 2020, a review of land and cash dedications took place and fees were amended to ensure the land and cash dedications met the needs outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive plan. Item 6c. Analysis MN Statute §462.358 requires that park dedication requirements be based on the adopted comprehensive plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan update was adopted by the City of Corcoran. The Comprehensive Plan provides the anticipated future parks and trails based on the growth forecast for the City. The parks and trails planned for in the Comprehensive Plan are different from the previous comprehensive plan. Park dedication is the City’s tool to fund the necessary park and trail improvements and is being updated to be consistent with the planned improvements from the updated comprehensive plan. Staff completed a review of the system outlined and confirmed that The fair market value of land is required to be based on the annual tax valuations or other relevant data determined annually by the municipality. We contacted the City Assessor to understand the valuations and sale data. The park dedication number is based on sales data. As part of the update the cost assumptions for land value, trail construction and park improvements were updated to the current values in the market. The table below shows the previous park dedication and updated park dedication. Park Dedication 2016 Park Dedication 2020 Park Dedication 2022 Park Dedication Single Family $3,970 $4,628 $5,954 Multi-Family $2,694 $3,141 $4,040 Commercial and Industrial $4,135 $4,498 $5,866 The fee increases would be amended by City Council meeting as part of the 2023 fee schedule. The increase is a result of several factors: • the land value has increased since the last update; • overall construction costs have increased significantly • a portion of boardwalk has been included for the total off road trail length increasing the overall cost; and • The planned overpass/underpass crossings have been added to the trail costs. Staff recommends regular review of the park dedication calculations to update the land values and construction costs and ensure that the park dedication fees keep pace with development costs. The fee schedule update does not require Planning Commission review but is provided for informational purposes. Ordinance Amendment In addition to the fee schedule updates, staff is recommending minor changes to the Subdivision Ordinance to implement these changes. The changes update the code to be consistent with the density for each land use identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and update the percentage of dedication to be consistent with the updated fees. The code revisions are shown below. Item 6c. Land Dedication Requirements: Land Use Category based on the Comprehensive Plan Units per acre (Density, Net –Pre-Development) Current Percentage of land Proposed Changes Rural/Ag Residential Less than 3 4% 5% Low Density Residential 3-5 15% 10% Medium-Density Residential 5-8 17% 19% Mixed Residential 8-10 28% 30% High-Density Residential 10-30 24% 21% Mixed-Use 8-30 19% 23% Commercial and Industrial N/A 3% 4% Recommendation Move to recommend approval of new park dedication fees and the ordinance modifying Section 955 of the City Code. Attachments 1 Draft Ordinance – The Text of Title IX of the Corcoran City Code Related to Park Dedication (City File 22-065) Item 6c. City of Corcoran December XX, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX Motion By: Seconded By: CITY OF CORCORAN AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF TITLE IX OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE RELATED TO PARK DEDICATION (CITY FILE 22-065) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Chapter 955.020 Subd. 6 “Required Dedication” (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by deleting the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: Land Dedication Requirements: Land Use Category based on the Comprehensive Plan Units per acre (Density, Net – Pre-Development) Percentage of land Rural/Ag Residential Less than 3 4%5% Low Density Residential 3-5 15% 10% Medium-Density Residential 5-8 17%19% Mixed Residential 8-10 28%30% High-Density Residential 10-30 22%21% Mixed-Use 8-30 19%23% Commercial and Industrial N/A 3%4% The City Council will identify a park dedication fee per residential unit to be paid in lieu of land dedication when the council determines that that land is not needed in the area of the proposed subdivision. If the council determines that land is needed in the subdivision, but in a lesser amount than the required percentage, the council will require payment of the per unit fee based on a pro-rata share of the land dedication that would otherwise be required. The City Council shall review park dedication fee requirements periodically, to ensure that the required fee remains consistent with park and trail system development costs. Commercial and industrial land uses: Dedication requirement is four percent (34%) of land or equivalent market value in cash. City of Corcoran City of Corcoran June 11, 2020 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2020-405 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. 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 December 2022. Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: City Seal Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk Agenda Item: 11a. 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: November 21, 2022 City Council Natalie Davis McKeown, Planner Active Corcoran Planning Applications Projects/comments in blue italics are new. The following is a status summary of active planning projects: 1. Transition/Buffer Zones ZOA (City File 22-034). At the July 14th meeting, City Council confirmed this item as a Top 4 priority for staff to focus efforts on in the remainder of 2022. Initial feedback was provided to staff at the May 12th work session to inform the first draft which was reviewed at the October 27th City Council work session. Staff is preparing a second draft to bring back to the Council for review on December 22nd. 2. 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 unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, and the Council is expected to take final action on the City Council agenda on November 21st. 3. 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 was deemed complete and is scheduled to be reviewed at the December Planning Commission and City Council meetings. 4. 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 an application for an industrial PUD near Larkin Rd and County Road 116. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 6th and recommended denial of the application. The item was initially reviewed at the City Council meeting on October 27th and was tabled for further review at the November 21st meeting. 5. PUD Standards Zoning Ordinance Amendment (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 prepared a first draft based on the feedback provided which was reviewed at the work session on October 27th. Page 2 of 4 Staff is working on testing the ordinance on a previous PUD application and further refining the draft to bring back to the Council on December 22nd. 6. Rental Ordinance (City File No. 22-046). At their July 14th meeting, the City Council identified establishing a rental ordinance as a Top 4 priority for staff to focus efforts on in the remainder of 2022. City Council reviewed a first draft of the rental ordinance at the September 22nd work session. Staff is currently refining the draft based on Council feedback, and a second draft is scheduled for review at the City Council work session on November 21st. 7. 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 was reviewed by Council at the August 25th Council meeting. The feasibility study for the project wrapped up in mid-October. The applicant is bringing the concept plan back to the Council for feedback based on the feasibility study at the November 21st meeting. 8. 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. Additionally, the changes request allowance of a pitched roof. The change involves less than 10% of the total existing site area and qualifies as a minor change that is approved administratively. The City Council reviewed the changes at the November 10th meeting and an administrative approval was sent to the applicant the following day. 9. 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 was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the October 6th meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The City Council approved this request at the October 27th meeting. 10. Tharp Accessory Structure CUP (PID 11-119-23-31-0011) (City File No. 22-055). Shawn Tharp applied to allow for 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 was reviewed at a public hearing held at the October 6th Planning Commission meeting. The CUP was recommended for approval unanimously with a condition for landscaping along Duffney Drive and a 3-year approval period. The City Council approved the CUP as recommended by the Planning Commission at the October 27th Council meeting. 11. Water Tower Preliminary Plat, Site Plan, Variance (PID 11-119-23-14-0004) (City File No. 22-057). An application to move forward with the water tower at 19951 Oswald Farm Road was submitted. Variances are required from the lot size standards as well as from screening requirements for the overhead door. This item was reviewed at a public hearing held by the Planning Commission on October 6th. The application was recommended for approval unanimously. The City Council approved the project at the October 27th meeting. 12. Kariniemi Meadows Final Plat (PID 18-119-23-11-0002) (City File No. 22-059). An application for the final plat of Kariniemi Meadows was received by the City. The application was approved by the City Council at the October 27th regular meeting. 13. Northeast District Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-060). Staff proposes a couple of verbiage changes to the screening and landscaping requirements in the NE District Plan and Design Guidelines. These changes will address logistics in applying the plan that became evident while reviewing the proposed water tower and water treatment plant sites. The proposed changes will still require a high standard for development in the NE District while Page 3 of 4 building in some flexibility to reduce reliance on variances and planned unit development (PUD) flexibility. The item was reviewed at a public hearing by the Planning Commission at the October 6th meeting. The proposed amendment was recommended for approval on a 2 -1 vote. The City Council approved the amendment with some verbiage changes at the October 27th meeting. 14. Keefe Minor Subdivision (PID 33-119-23-12-0007) (City File No. 22-063). An application for a two-lot subdivision at 6801 Willow Drive was submitted. The application was determined to be incomplete for City review and is not currently scheduled for review by the City Council. This type of application does not require review by the Planning Commission. 15. Liberty Dog Grooming Special Home Occupation Administrative Permit (PID 06-119-23- 13-0002) (City File No. 22-064). An application for a special home occupation was submitted by Michelle Borowicz to operate a small-scale dog grooming business at 23360 Oakdale Drive. Properties within 350 feet of the proposed home were notified of the application to allow submittal of written comments. The comment period was open through October 28th, and no comments were received. The application was administratively approved the week of November 7th. 16. Park Dedication Fees Update (City File No. 22-065). Staff and Council are evaluating park dedication fees which will require an update to the Subdivision Ordinance. A public hearing notice was published for the November 3rd Planning Commission meeting, and the item was continued to the December 1st Planning Commission meeting. The new fees are expected to be adopted at the December 22nd Council meeting. 17. Dish Tower Site Plan Amendment (PID 25-119-23-44-0005) (City File No. 22-066). A minor site plan amendment application was submitted for installation of new ground equipment at an existing telecommunications tower at 7205 County Road 101. This application is incomplete for review but will be approved administratively once all materials are submitted. 18. Paulsen Building Rights Appeal (PID 09-119-23-32-0002) (City File No. 22-067). Gerald Paulsen submitted a building rights appeal application for his property at 22101 County Road 30. Building right appeals are not reviewed by the Planning Commission. This application is complete and will be reviewed by the City Council at the November 21st meeting. 19. Tavera 5th Addition Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development Plan (PID 35-119-23- 43-0001) (City File No. 22-068). Lennar submitted an application this week for the final plat and final PUD plan for Tavera 5th Addition. This item is under review for completeness. The final plat will be reviewed by Council at the November 21st meeting. 20. Continental Properties Sketch Plan (PID 12-119-23-12-0007) (City File No. 22-070). Continental Properties submitted a Sketch Plan application to receive initial feedback from the City Council on a 300-unit market-rate suburban apartment community on a parcel that is zoned and guided for mixed use along County Road 30 near County Road 101. The item is scheduled for review at the November 21st meeting. 21. Gmach Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22- 071). George Gmach submitted a Zoning Ordinance Amendment application requesting changes to the standards for ADUs including changing it from an Interim Use to a Conditional Use and re-evaluating the size and garage requirements. The application was deemed complete and will be reviewed at the December Planning Commission and City Council meetings. 22. Walcott Glen Easement Vacation (PID 36-119-23-44-0014) (City File No. 22-072). Existing drainage and utility easements on Outlot C and Outlot E of Ravinia 11th Addition in addition to an easement for an old driveway access need to be vacated as part of the final plat for Walcott Page 4 of 4 Glen. New easements will be established based on the new lot boundaries. A public hearing notice was sent out for the November 21st Council meeting. 23. “3019 Addition” Preliminary Plat (PID 07-119-23-14-0003) (City File No. 22-073). Scherber and Associates applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat for a 66-acre property near County Road 30 and County Road 19. The land currently has split zoning between Transition Rural Commercial and Rural Residential. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment will shift the boundary location between the two land uses with the western portion being rezoned as Rural Commercial. The project proposes 15 Rural Commercial lots and 4 Rural Residential lots. The item is being reviewed for completeness. If complete, the proposal will be reviewed at the January Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Agenda Item: 7b. Page 1 of 2 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763-420-2288 email: general@corcoranmn.gov / website: www.corcoranmn.gov MEMO Meeting Date: To: From: Re: November 23, 2022 Planning Commission Jessica Beise, City Administrator City Council Report The Planning Commission last met on October 6, 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. November 11th Work Session • Storm Water Impact Fee – Heard and update on a feasibility study on options for a storm water impact fee and reviewed options for a fee structure. November 11th Council Meeting • St. Therese St. Plan Modification (City File 22-044) – Reviewed a site plan modification. • Scheduling Work Session – Buffer Yard Ordinance – Scheduled a work session on December 22nd for a work session to continue the discussion on the Buffer Yard Ordinance • Public Hearing – Delinquent Fees – Held the public hearing. Certified delinquent fees. • Public Hearing Conduit Bond Sale for St. Therese – Held the public hearing. Authorized the issuance of revenue bonds by St. Therese. Public Hearing Conduit Bond Host Approval - Held the public hearing. Authorized host approval for a portion of the financing for St. Therese. • Trail Haven Road Bridge Replacement – Accept Plans/Specs; Authorize Bids; Procurement of Materials; Interim Reopening Considerations – Accepted plans and specification; authorized buds; authorized the procurement of a box culvert; and proceeded with options to open Trail Haven Road prior to the bridge replacement project. • Administrative Services Director Appointment – Authorized a conditional offer of employment for the Administrative Services Director Appointment. • Request for 70% Design for City Park – Authorized the City to seek design services proposals for the City Park Remaster. • 2023 Strategic Planning/Goal Setting Session – Discussed options for 2023 Strategic Planning. Page 2 of 2 November 21st Work Session • Rental Ordinance – Reviewed a second draft of a rental ordinance and provided feedback to staff; another draft will be presented to the Council in early 2023. November 21st Council Meeting • Vollrath Ag Building CUP – Approved the CUP. • Tavera 5th Final Plat and PUD – Discussed future tree removal requirements; approved the plat and PUD. • Schedule Work Session – 2023 Fee Schedule – Schedule a work session to discuss the fee schedule. • Corcoran Farms Industrial Park Preliminary Plat – Tabled the Preliminary Plat to the December 8th City Council meeting. • Public Hearing – Vacations for D&U Easement – Walcott Glen – Held the public hearing; vacated the easements. • Paulsen Development Rights Appeal – Denied the development rights appeal. • O’Brien Concept Plan – Provided feedback on the concept plan. • Continental Properties Concept Plan – Provided feedback on the concept plan. • City Calendar 2022 Review – Discussed the final date for meeting in 2022. • Council Calendar 2023 – Provided feedback on the 2023 calendar; staff will bring back for further discussion on the December meetings. Agenda Item 7c. Page 1 of 1 8200 County Road 116  Corcoran, MN 55340 763-420-2288  www.corcoranmn.gov MEMO Meeting Date: December 1, 2022 To: Planning Commission From: Natalie Davis McKeown, Planner Re: Planning Commission 2023 Priority Setting ____________________________________________________________________ At the November 3rd meeting, staff and the Planning Commission discussed potential priorities for 2023. As promised, enclosed is a draft annual report for work completed in 2022 with the discussed priorities for 2023 to forward to the City Council in January (the exact date is to be determined). Staff asks the Commission to review the report. If commissioners would like to make any changes to the draft, please provide feedback to staff at the meeting on December 1, 2022. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. Attachments: 1.Draft 2022 Planning Commission Annual Report and 2023 Priorities Page 1 of 2 Item 6a. CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763.420.2288 – Office 763.420.6056 – Fax E-mail - general@ci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site - www.ci.corcoran.mn.us MEMO Meeting Date: January 12, 2023 To: City Council From: Planning Commission Re: Planning Commission 2022 Annual Report and 2023 Priorities ______________________________________________________________________ As requested by the City Council, the Planning Commission is to update the Council on activities of the previous year and propose priorities for 2023. 2022 Summary: The Planning Commission held 10 regular meetings, 1 special work session for training, and numerous public hearings. The following is a compilation of the land use applications reviewed in 2022: • Reviewed a Final Planned Unit Development Plan for Tavera 3rd Addition. • Reviewed a Final Planned Unit Development Plan for Bellwether 7th Addition. • Reviewed a landscaping variance for St. Therese. • Reviewed a Final Planned Unit Development Plan for Cook Lake Highlands. • Reviewed a Site Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Administrative Permit for the Corcoran II Substation. • Reviewed a Site Plan and Interim Use Permit for Westside Wholesale Tire. • Reviewed Final Planned Unit Developments for Amberly 2nd Addition, Bellwether 8th Addition, and Bellwether 9th Addition. • Reviewed Final Planned Unit Development for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition. • Reviewed Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for Walcott Glen. • Reviewed Preliminary Plat and Variance for Kariniemi Meadows. • Reviewed a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the Ditzer Garage. • Reviewed a Preliminary Plat and Variance for the Zewde Subdivision “FIRA”. • Reviewed an Interim Use Permit for the Sease Accessory Dwelling Unit. Page 2 of 2 • Reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for the Brown Riding Arena. • Reviewed a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance for Pro-Tech. • Reviewed a Site Plan and Variances for the City’s Water Treatment Plant. • Reviewed a Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for the Corcoran Farms Business Park proposal. • Reviewed the Slabaugh Variance request. • Reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for the Tharp Accessory Structure. • Reviewed a Site Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Variance for the City’s Water Tower site. • Reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for the Vollrath Ag Shop. • Reviewed a Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Planned Unit Development plan for the Pioneer Trail Industrial Park. • Reviewed proposed Ordinance Amendments for MS4; an urban conservation subdivision; ground mounted solar; the review process for Planned Unit Developments; the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines; lot width, fences, and walls; Accessory Dwelling Units; and park dedication fees. Totals: Preliminary Plats: 7 Preliminary Planned Unit Developments Plans: 3 Final Planned Unit Development Plans: 5 Site Plans: 5 Variances: 8 Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments: 9 Interim Use Permits: 2 Conditional Use Permits: 5 Rezoning: 3 2023 Priorities In addition to the Commission role to review land use application, the Planning Commission proposes the following priorities for 2023: • Review the Accessory Dwelling Unit standards and make amendments based on how applications have been approved (Sease). • Review the Nonconformities Section of the Zoning Ordinance to allow more administrative approvals of residential expansions in certain situations (Slabaugh). • Review the requirements for traditional and non-traditional farm animals within Chapter 82 under General Regulations. • Receive training to better understand the role of Homeowner Associations and their ability to place more restrictions on property than the City. The Planning Commission appreciates the support of the City Council and requests feedback on its proposed priorities for 2023.