Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-06-23 Council Agenda Packet
Corcoran City Council Agenda June 23, 2022 - 7:00 pm 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval 4.Commission Representatives* 5.Open Forum – Public Comment Opportunity 6.Presentations/Recognitions a.Three Rivers Park District – Diamond Lake Regional Trail* 7.Consent Agenda a.Draft Minutes of the April 28, 2022 Council Meeting* b.Financial Claims* c.Resolution 2022-74 Support of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail* d.Resolution 2022-75 Charitable Gambling Permits* e.Resolution 2022-76 Approving Jaycees Temporary Liquor License* f.Resolution 2022-77 Approving 2022-2023 Liquor Licenses* g.Resolution 2022-80 Approving 2022 Election Judge Appointments* h.Pay Request – Municipal Well 1* i.Pay Request – 66th Ave/Gleason Parkway Corridor Project* j.Sease Accessory Dwelling Unit* 8.Planning Business – Public Comment Opportunity a.Ditzer Variance* 9.Unfinished Business – Public Comment Opportunity a.Northeast District Water Supply – Final Design* b.SE Corcoran Water Supply Report* 10.New Business – Public Comment Opportunity a.2023 Budget Priorities* b.2023 Compensation* c.Resignation and Recruitment - Public Works Maintenance Workers* d.PUD Ordinance Amendment Discussion* 11.Staff Reports a.Active Planning Applications* 12.2022 City Council Schedule* 13.Adjournment *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the Council Chambers Agenda Packet book located by the entrance. The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the City website at www.corcoranmn.gov. 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: 879 5304 3264 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment Sections in the meeting. Video Link and Instructions: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87953043264 visit http://www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 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. For more information on options to provide public comment visit: www.corcoranmn.gov * STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 4. Council Meeting: June 23, 2022 Prepared By: Michelle Friedrich Topic: Commission Representatives Action Required: None – Informational Summary: The advisory commission rep resentatives for the June 23rd Council meet ing are as follows: • Planning Commission : Mark Lanterman • Parks and Trails Commission: Judy Strehler Financial/Budget: N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: N/A Diamond Lake Regional Trail Master Plan Draft Corcoran City Council June 23, 2022 Agenda Item 6a. DIAMOND LAKEREGIONAL TRAIL General Route •West Mississippi River Regional Trail to Dakota Rail Regional Trail. Project Goal •Destination Trail, park-like experience, connecting users to the area's natural resources and local amenities. Length •37.8 miles •25.9 miles of planned trails •11.9 miles of existing trails (Lake Independence RT & Luce Line) MASTER PLAN Purpose: •To document all the research, evaluations, collaborative work and public input that went into determining a preferred route. •The preferred route is identified so Three Rivers is prepared to work with local partners as opportunities arise. Planning Process: •Potential route identification and community engagement. •Corcoran approved the conceptual preferred route in 2021. •30-day Public Comment Period. •Draft Master Plan document review and approval. What does it mean for Corcoran? Indicates the City supports the regional trail and intends to work collaboratively with Three Rivers to achieve the regional trail through Corcoran. PREFERRED ROUTE No Change to the approved route in Corcoran •Trail in Dayton utilizes the trail along newly constructed Dayton Parkway and bridge over I-94. •Trail route travels through mostly currently developing and agricultural lands that are anticipated to be redeveloping over time. •Goal is to acquire enough right-of-way for a wide trail corridor in order to accommodate other uses and create a natural vegetated buffer to the surrounding community. PREFERRED ROUTE •Connection to planned City Hall and planned town center development. •Connection to the Corcoran City Park. •Connection to the future Weaver Lake Regional Trail. •Connection to local trail network. NEXT STEPS •Municipal Resolutions of Support (May –June, 2022) •Met Council approval (August –Sept, 2022) •Board adoption (Fall 2022) •Cooperative Agreement with the City •Land acquisition 1 CITY OF CORCORAN City Council Meeting Minutes April 28, 2022 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran City Council met on April 28, 2022, in Corcoran, Minnesota. The City Council meeting was held in person and the public was present in person and remotely through electronic means using the audio and video conferencing platform Zoom. Acting Mayor Bottema, Councilor Nichols, Councilor Schultz, and Councilor Vehrenkamp were present. Mayor McKee was excused. Interim City Administrator Beise, Deputy Clerk Friedrich, Public Works Director Mattson, Director of Public Safety Gottschalk, City Planner Shay and Finance Manager Ung were present. 1.Call to Order/Roll Call Mayor McKee called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2.Pledge of Allegiance Acting Mayor Bottema invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Agenda Approval City Administrator Beise noted additional document from Wright Hennepin Electric regarding land purchase in item 8a., revised resolutions for Amberley 2nd Addition and Bellwether 9th Addition regarding stormwater language in items 7e-g., additional claim for item 7c., job description for administrative assistant in item 10a., resident comments for Wright Hennepin Electric substation added in item 8a., Draft Council Minutes for March 24 in item 7a., removal of Draft Work Session Minutes for April 14 item 7b., sales summary of bond sale resolution in item 9a., purchase agreement extension for St. Therese in item 8c., item 10c., was added and then removed by The Stanchion for a noise waiver request, state aid request to allocate funds received added in 10d., addition of Acting City Administrator in 10e., all revisions and additions are included within the agenda packet. Council requested 9a., be moved to Consent Agenda item 7k. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Vehrenkamp to approve the agenda as modified. Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) 4.Commission Representatives Acting Mayor Bottema noted Planning Commissioner Shoulak and Parks and Trails Commissioner Strehler were present via electronic means. Acting Mayor Bottema requested bypassing individual item presentations where applicable if Council is prepared for discussion. 5.Open Forum (Public Comment Opportunity) Acting Mayor Bottema invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during Open Forum and explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format. City Administrator Beise noted one comment card was received. Jeremy Nichols, 6334 Steeple Chase Lane, opined on resident concerns of increasing property values and property tax statements of $100,000 or more in property statement values. Mr. Nichols noted a report by Minneapolis Fed referencing approximately 4 percent of homes in Minneapolis are rental properties, with increasing trends in this market, and currently 10 percent of homes in Minnesota are flipped by corporate investors and have become rental properties. Mr. Nichols reviewed a bill introduced by the League of Minnesota Cities that proposes provisions of a state level excise tax on investment properties that are run by corporations and referenced the bill as HF2880. Mr. Nichols noted residents concerned about housing affordability, and housing being driven up by this rental property trend, can act by advocating for yourself and contacting the Hennepin County Assessing office to request a review to decrease property valuation. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Vehrenkamp to close Open Forum. Agenda Item: 7a. 2 Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) 6. Presentations/Recognitions a. Year of Service Recognition i. Jesse Olson ii. Duane Hochstetler Acting Mayor Bottema introduced and recognized Officer Olson and Officer Hochstetler and thanked them for their 15 years of service to the City of Corcoran. Director of Public Safety Gottschalk noted years of service, involvement in community activities, and recognized Officer Jesse Olson with his 15-year award, and recognized Officer Duane Hochstetler with his 15-year award and thanked both officers for their service. 7. Consent Agenda a. Draft of March 24, 2022, Council Minutes b. Draft of April 14, 2022, Council Work Session Minutes c. Financial Claims d. CR 10 and Walnut Lane Turn Lane Improvements – Award Bid e. Bellwether 8th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD (City File 22-007) f. Amberly 2nd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD (City File 22-008) g. Bellwether 9th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD (City File 22-017) h. Wawra Ag Preserve (City File 22-021) i. PUD (Planned Unite development) Section 1040.140 Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File 22-022) j. 2022 Full-Time, Part-Time Seasonal Wage Schedule Amendment k. Awarding Sale of General Obligation Bonds – Series 2022A. Previously Item 9a., moved to Consent Agenda 7k., by Council. Council request 7e., and 7k., be pulled for further discussion. MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Nichols to approve agenda items 7a-d., and 7f-j, as presented. Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) Council reviewed 7e., and noted a concern by the Ravinia community of an area of trees cut down and believed to be slated for a future, nature area park and requested review of concern. Public Works Director Mattson responded early site grading permit referenced a cul-de-sac area with trees and included in original approval that addressed removal of marked tree line, and part of original approvals. Council referenced item 7k., and the final interest rate. Tammy Omdal, Northland Securities noted the true interest cost was 3.09 percent and noted par amount was $1.8 million because refunding bonds were pulled due to increase in rate. Ms. Omdal requested after item approval, approaching the dais for signatures on a time-sensitive document. Council and Ms. Omdal discussed current rate in relation to water system rates previously presented to Council and noted the current rate assumption holding for some time. MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Nichols to approve the consent agenda item 7e., and 7k. Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) Ms. Omdal approached the dais to obtain required signatures for time-sensitive document. 8. Planning Business (Public Comment Opportunity) Acting Mayor Bottema invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during the public comment opportunity and explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format. City Administrator Beise noted one comment card was received. Tim Sullivan, President/CEO Wright Hennepin Electric, reviewed number of times WH Electric Substation has been presented before the City Council, the Court Order indicating WH Electric took position of the property included within the application and supplied city staff and attorney confirmation of payment for the collection of property. Mr. Sullivan noted the current proposal includes extending the berm, more robust landscaping including double spaced trees, and larger trees, slating in fencing, and a monument sign among other items. Mr. Sullivan noted the substation is critical to service new residents in the City of Corcoran for developments already approved by Council. Mr. Sullivan asked for Council’s approval . Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, opined on comments made by Mr. Sullivan, delay in process of substation, eminent domain, and compensation to landowner for 5 acres of the existing parcel. Mr. 3 Hoglund supports the landowner and opposition of utility process of eminent domain. a. WH Electric Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Administrative Permit for “Corcoran II Substation” at Larkin Road and County Road 116 (City File 22-004) Council noted prior discussions of the Wright Hennepin Electric substation. Council discussed landscaping and sound issues surrounding the substation, slated fencing, berms, and trees as a landscaping barrier. Council discussed separating out landscaping requirements, screening the large structure, and security of the substation. Council noted the east side includes a single row of trees and is adjacent to a future residential area. Council noted flexibility in area surrounding substation regarding future zoning. Council noted discussions with property owner and working with staff regarding future zoning of remaining parcel. Council noted ghost plat includes a road along the row of single trees on the east side of the substation. Council discussed distance of tree spacing, maintaining area surrounding substation, linear park as focal point of the City with screening heavier on the linear park side of substation, and utilizing a higher discretion of landscaping. Council noted recommendation from Planning Commission to include larger trees, with staggered rows, and berming into linear park area. Council discussed utilizing larger trees rather than a monument sign, and security system importance. Council and staff discussed removing monument sign, including larger trees on east side, and increasing size of specific trees, and maximizing the size and screening coverage beyond deciduous trees to fill the space and screen the substation, include slates on fencing, and berming possibilities by runoff pond. Council discussed eliminating driveway and including access to substation only from Larkin Road. MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Schultz to approve Resolution 2022-24 Approving Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Administrative Permit for “Corcoran Substation II” at Larkin Road and County Road 116 as modified, and including berms and tree maturity sufficient to 80 percent opacity to fence in years 3 to 5, on north, east, and west sides and as high as the fence structure, and strike H4 from resolution. (PID 25-119-23-23-001) (City File 22-004) Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) b. Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition Final Plat and Development Agreement and Final PUD (City File 22-012) City Administrator Beise noted a requested PUD amendment related to the twin home setbacks based on size of original plans resulting in a difference in 1 foot in building plans. Council noted 15-foot separation request between buildings, noting additional 1,000 developer has placed into development, and discussed increasing the size of some of the trees within PUD amendment to include some larger trees for flexibility for narrower separation between twin homes. Council noted drainage issue on County Road 10 ditch and how drainage used to drain into the field that does not exist any longer, cleanliness of development, Tyvek and construction debris around the development. Public Works Director Mattson ponding concern gets addressed in 2nd addition with construction of turn lanes to the north, and effectively that is being addressed tonight. Adjacent stormwater element identified in the 1st addition that was advanced prior to 2nd addition within the stormwater improvement plan and is compliant. MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Bottema to approve Resolution 2022-41 Final Planned Unit Development Plan for “Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition” for M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul LLC. (PIDS 23-119-23-42-0022 and 23-119-23-41-032) (City File 22-012) Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp Motion carries (4:0) MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Bottema to approve Resolution 2022-42 Final Plat and Development Contract for “Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition” for M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul LLC. (PIDS 23-119-23-42-0022 and 23-119-23-41-032) (City File 22-012) Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp Motion carries (4:0) c. “Town Center Addition” Final Plat for Saint Therese Communities on the property located at 8200 County Road 116 (City File 22-023) City Administrator Beise outlined the final plat includes an agreement between St. Therese and M/I Homes Rush Creek Reserve for off-site improvements for Council review. City Administrator Beise noted there no major changes to the Final Plat and noted an extension for the St. Therese purchase agreement to June 17, 2022. 4 MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Nichols to approve Resolution 2022-45 Final Plat and Development Contract for Approving Preliminary Plat for “Town Center Addition” at 8200 County Road 116 (PID 24-119-23-23-0001) (City File 22-023) Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp Motion carries (4:0) MOTION: made Bottema, seconded by Vehrenkamp to execute third amendment to land purchase agreement for St. Therese extending closing date to June 17, 2022. Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp Motion carries (4:0) 9. Unfinished Business (Public Comment Opportunity) Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during the public comment opportunity for Unfinished Business item 9a. City Administrator Beise noted no public comment cards were received. City Administrator Beise explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format and reviewed instructions for participation in the meeting t hrough telephone or computer. No residents participated in the public comment opportunity. a. Awarding the Sale of General Obligation Bonds – Series 2022A Item moved to Consent Agenda item 7k. 10. New Business (Public Comment Opportunity) City Administrator Beise invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during the public comment opportunity and explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format. No residents participated in the public comment opportunity. Council requested staff to proceed with presentation. a. Administration Department Staffing Plan City Administrator Beise outlined the reorganization of the Administration Department and noted included in the 2022 budget where 1.5 positions and reviewed current structure of department, and future changes recommended to structure of department. City Administrator Beise noted key points in the restructuring, re- assignment of tasks within department and within positions. City Administrator Beise noted review of current job descriptions and grading of positions. Council noted more standard job descriptions to encompass a broader candidate pool. Council noted back-filling of positions and asked for clarification of deputy clerk to city clerk position. City Administrator Beise noted the administrative service dire ctor position is a backfilled position, administrative assistant position is a backfilled position, and reorganization of admin department includes current positions of the finance manager, deputy clerk, and accountant position, with the addition of the 2 positions, of which 1.5 FTE was budgeted for. Council requested an organizational chart for long- range staffing plan. City Administrator Beise responded staff currently has an organizational chart through 2025, and flexes with needs of the city. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Vehrenkamp to authorize staff to backfill and hire the administrative assistant position. Council discussed including a request to hire within a staff report and as a consent agenda item at the May 12 meeting for consistency with past hiring requests. Acting Mayor Bottema rescinded his Motion, Councilor Vehrenkamp rescinded his seconded Motion. Council provided staff direction regarding the administrative assistant position for the May 12 Council meeting. b. Bikes4Kids Program – Clean Up Day Acting Mayor Bottema outlined the Bikes4Kids Program. Council and staff discussed how residents could be involved in the program outside of Corcoran Clean Up day and noted the Bikes4Kids website as a resource. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Schultz to direct staff to proceed with providing any bikes received at Corcoran Clean Up Day to the Bikes4Kids Program. Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) c. The Stanchion Noise Waiver Request; applicant rescinded request. d. MNDot Grant City Administrator Beise reviewed the MNDot Grant funds available to the City through the COVID Relief and Supplemental Appropriations Act in the amount of $31,899, and for allocation towards a city fund. City Administrator Beise noted staff recommends allocation to City Center Drive and 79th Street project. Council and staff discussed reallocation if the project does not occur, documentation, and tracking of funds. 5 Council and staff reviewed the water project around Garages Too, and possibly offsetting project cost with the funding versus City Center Drive and 79th Street project. MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Nichols allocating funds to City Center Drive and 79th Street improvement project or another project as designated. Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) e. Acting City Administrator City Administrator Beise noted due to upcoming absence of City Administrator during April 30 through May 10, 2022. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Vehrenkamp authorizing Director of Public Safety Gottschalk to act as City Administrator during City Administrator Beise’s absence April 30 through May 10, 2022. Voting Aye: Bottema, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) 11. Staff Reports a. Active Corcoran Planning Applications; reports received. b. Financial Performance Report; reports received. City Administrator Beise noted audit of 2021 financials will be completed in the upcoming weeks. Council noted a forecast projection through yearend for Parks and Trails Commission’s ability to review and begin construction on the City Park project. Council and staff discussed future parking lot areas and lit fields in the proposed and future City Park. 12. 2022 City Council Schedule Council received 2022 schedule and noted work session titles and upcoming topics. Councilor Vehrenkamp noted his absence at the May 12 work session, but attendance at the regular meeting. City Administrator Beise noted early grading items, Westside Tire, water supply planning and initial discussion of Hackamore Road Design Project at the May 12 regular Council meeting. Council and staff discussed Hackamore Road Design Project timeline into 2023. 13. Adjournment MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Vehrenkamp to adjourn. Voting Aye: Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp Nay: Bottema (Motion carried 3:1) Meeting adjourned at 8:59 pm. Michelle Friedrich – Deputy Clerk Agenda Item 7b. Council Meeting Date:6/23/2022 Prepared By:Maggie Ung Amount Project name $0.00 -$ $785,922.24 785,922.24$ 31,504.87$ 817,427.11$ Date Paid to Amount Description 6/3/2022 MN PERA 20,934.63$ Pension Plan 6/3/2022 Optum Bank 3,878.34$ Employee HSA 6/6/2022 State of MN - Empower 5,168.67$ Employee Deferred Comp/Healthcare Savings 6/6/2022 RevTrak 481.44$ Credit Card Fee & Payment Refund 6/7/2022 INVOICE CLOUD 982.39$ Credit Card Fee 6/6/2022 Digital Inspiration 59.40$ Burn Permit Software Total 31,504.87$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR APPROVAL Auto Deductions / Electronic Fund Transfer / Other Disbursements ALL OTHER FINANCIAL CLAIMS Check Register (See attached Check Detail Registers) Total Checks Total of Auto Deductions Total Total Fund #500 = (See attached Payments Detail) FINANCIAL CLAIMS CHECK RANGE FUND #500 ESCROW CLAIMS Paid to SEE THE REGISTER FOR #500 CLAIMS CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 1/9Page: 06/17/2022 08:22 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 06/10/2022 - 06/23/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check #AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32314 3231413,000.00 06/23/224584022021 AUDIT SERVICESABDO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LLC05/31/22100-41500-50300 13,000.00 Total For Check 32314 Check 32315 32315118.70 06/23/223476631PW PREVENTION PLUS PEST CONTROLADAMS PEST CONTROL, INC.05/25/22100-43100-50401 118.70 Total For Check 32315 Check 32316 32316296.04 06/23/22606426208PAYROLL PERIOD #10ADP, LLC05/20/22100-41900-50300 296.04 Total For Check 32316 Check 32317 3231750.81 06/23/221NPX-L3VF-FYDPPD-REFLECTIVE TAPE/DESK CALENDARAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES06/08/22100-42100-50200 32317152.99 06/23/221YLD-WFXP-1TFKPD SQUAD GUN LOCKER X 2/FLASHLIGHTAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES06/09/22100-42100-50210 3231721.99 06/23/2211DN-JKFX-PDNVPD - USB PORTABLE CHARGERAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES06/09/22100-42100-50321 32317658.98 06/23/221YLD-WFXP-1TFKPD SQUAD GUN LOCKER X 2/FLASHLIGHTAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES06/09/22416-42100-50210 32317786.90 06/23/221HYY-NTDN-3JMNPD - THERMAL PRINTERAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES06/13/22416-42100-50210 1,671.67 Total For Check 32317 Check 32318 323185,175.00 06/23/22BT2121097BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT REVEIW/ANALYSISBAKER TILLY US LLP06/14/22100-42400-50300 5,175.00 Total For Check 32318 Check 32319 3231932,545.24 06/23/221547PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORATION SERVICESBEACH TRANSPORT INC05/26/22100-43122-50400 32,545.24 Total For Check 32319 Check 32320 323202,709.76 06/23/222072587ULS #2 DYED KODIAK B20BEAUDRY OIL COMPANY05/26/22100-43100-50212 2,709.76 Total For Check 32320 Check 32321 323213,125.48 06/23/22264912021 CHEV SILVERADO SQUAD 571 REPAIRBOB AND CARLS AUTO BODY INC06/03/22100-42100-50403 3,125.48 Total For Check 32321 Check 32322 32322332.03 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-00000-22205-013 323221,293.92 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-00000-22205-017 32322654.10 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-00000-22205-056 3232271.25 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-00000-22205-064 3232271.25 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-00000-22205-075 3232271.26 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-00000-22205-087 3232271.25 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-00000-22205-098 323221,436.44 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-00000-22205-117 3232271.25 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-00000-22205-127 32322189.54 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-00000-22205-128 323224,326.54 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-41900-50304 323225,295.80 06/23/221762LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER05/31/22100-42100-50304 13,884.63 Total For Check 32322 Check 32323 32323149.66 06/23/2205282022PW LAND LINECENTURY LINK05/28/22100-45200-50321 149.66 Total For Check 32323 Check 32324 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 2/9Page: 06/17/2022 08:22 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 06/10/2022 - 06/23/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check #AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32324 32324109.21 06/23/224121117244CITY HALL RUGSCINTAS - 47006/01/22100-41900-50400 3232474.73 06/23/224121117216PW-CRT BLUECINTAS - 47006/01/22100-43100-50400 32324111.88 06/23/224121823234PW-TOWELS/CRT CABINETCINTAS - 47006/08/22100-43100-50400 3232415.10 06/23/224121823266PW-MICROFIBER WIPECINTAS - 47006/08/22100-43100-50400 3232481.77 06/23/224121823304PW-LG BATH TOWELCINTAS - 47006/08/22100-43100-50400 32324187.15 06/23/224121823472PW UNIFORMSCINTAS - 47006/08/22100-43100-50417 32324187.15 06/23/224121117241PW UNIFORMSCINTAS - 47006/01/22100-43100-50417 766.99 Total For Check 32324 Check 32325 32325513.81 06/23/2280764523PD FUEL PURCHASECIRCLE K FLEET05/07/22100-42100-50212 513.81 Total For Check 32325 Check 32326 3232611,779.00 06/23/2221309ANNUAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CONNECTION CHARGECITY OF MAPLE GROVE06/01/22601-49400-50310 11,779.00 Total For Check 32326 Check 32327 3232719,702.00 06/23/2221308SEMI ANNUAL PAYMENTCITY OF MAPLE GROVE06/01/22601-49400-50310 19,702.00 Total For Check 32327 Check 32328 323282,310.00 06/23/22329165IT SUPPORT SERVICESCOMPUTER INTEGRATION TECH05/31/22100-41920-50300 2,310.00 Total For Check 32328 Check 32329 32329468.52 06/23/22041322BEST WESTERN-MCFOA CONFERENCE - FRIEDRICHCREDIT CARD PURCHASES04/13/22100-41400-50207 323298.03 06/23/220531022KEYME - BRASS KEY - PDCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/31/22100-42100-50200 3232937.82 06/23/2206082022-1MENARDS-PD SUPPLIESMENARDS MAPLE GROVE06/08/22100-42100-50200 3232984.30 06/23/2205312022MENARDS - OFFICE SUPPLIES - PDMENARDS MAPLE GROVE05/31/22100-42100-50200 32329830.40 06/23/2203.11.2022COMFORT SUITES_PD_ TRAININGCREDIT CARD PURCHASES04/11/22100-42100-50207 32329275.00 06/23/22060922MN BCA-CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE - FADDENMN BCA06/09/22100-42100-50207 32329275.00 06/23/2206.09.22MN BCA-CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE - STEELMANMN BCA06/09/22100-42100-50207 3232964.50 06/23/2206082022MENARDS - TRAILER HITCH - PDMENARDS MAPLE GROVE06/08/22100-42100-50210 3232921.47 06/23/2205252022MENARDS - PD - SUPPLIESMENARDS MAPLE GROVE05/25/22100-42100-50210 3232964.50 06/23/2206.08.22MENARDS-PW-TRAILER HITCHMENARDS MAPLE GROVE06/08/22100-42100-50220 3232980.00 06/23/22CD05172022NPCA K9 HANDLER MEMBERSHIPCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/17/22100-42100-50433 32329120.00 06/23/22CD051722NAT'L CANINE ASSOC CREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/11/22202-42100-50438 2,329.54 Total For Check 32329 Check 32330 3233082.20 06/23/22100X07348209PD OFFICE WATERCULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER05/31/22100-42100-50210 82.20 Total For Check 32330 Check 32331 323311,100.40 06/23/22E4-18758CITY HALL - LIFT STATION MAINTENANCECUMMINS POWER LLC05/24/22100-41900-50401 1,100.40 Total For Check 32331 Check 32332 3233268.11 06/23/22S101864181.001PW - RITCH 78060 GAS PRESS GA KITDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP05/31/22100-43100-50223 32332293.57 06/23/22S101898487.001PW - PIPE CU L SOFTDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP06/13/22100-43100-50223 361.68 Total For Check 32332 Check 32333 323331,464.26 06/23/2221631995PW-MASONRY REPAIREBERT CONSTRUCTION05/23/22416-41900-50520 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 3/9Page: 06/17/2022 08:22 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 06/10/2022 - 06/23/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check #AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32333 1,464.26 Total For Check 32333 Check 32334 3233439.57 06/23/22895563SHORT/LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE BID NOTICEECM PUBLISHERS INC06/02/22100-41130-50350 32334134.55 06/23/22895564MASS GRADING/STORMWATER DESIGN - CITY CENTER DRIVE PROJECTECM PUBLISHERS INC06/02/22408-48010-50300 174.12 Total For Check 32334 Check 32335 32335298.13 06/23/2292939BACKGROUND CHECKEMPLOYEE RELATIONS05/31/22100-42100-50300 32335254.77 06/23/2292939BACKGROUND CHECKEMPLOYEE RELATIONS05/31/22100-45100-50300 552.90 Total For Check 32335 Check 32336 3233632,353.23 06/23/2213423CLASS 5 MATERIAL GRAVEL (4,180 TONS)FEHN COMPANIES05/27/22100-43122-50224 32,353.23 Total For Check 32336 Check 32337 3233733,978.98 06/23/2213400CLASS 5 MATERIAL GRAVEL (4,390.1 TONS)FEHN COMPANIES05/26/22100-43122-50224 33,978.98 Total For Check 32337 Check 32338 323382,525.97 06/23/220493695WATER METERSFERGUSON WATERWORKS #251806/03/22601-49400-50227 32338238.50 06/23/220493697BRASS METER FLANGE KITFERGUSON WATERWORKS #251806/06/22601-49400-50227 3233872,000.00 06/23/220490132-1WATER METERSFERGUSON WATERWORKS #251806/02/22601-49400-50227 74,764.47 Total For Check 32338 Check 32339 32339172.12 06/23/222050311SUPPORT SERVICESGOPHER STATE ONE CALL05/31/22601-49400-50380 32339172.13 06/23/222050311SUPPORT SERVICESGOPHER STATE ONE CALL05/31/22602-49450-50380 344.25 Total For Check 32339 Check 32340 32340300.00 06/23/221000186960JAIL CHARGESHENN CO SHERIFF05/31/22100-42100-50305 300.00 Total For Check 32340 Check 32341 323411,464.26 06/23/221000186984PD RADIO LEASE MAY 2022HENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH06/01/22100-42100-50323 32341308.88 06/23/221000187051PW RADIO FEE MAY 2022HENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH06/02/22100-43100-50323 1,773.14 Total For Check 32341 Check 32342 3234290.00 06/23/2206012022PD CAR WASHHOLIDAY COMPANIES06/01/22100-42100-50403 90.00 Total For Check 32342 Check 32343 323436,500.00 06/23/2206022022SERIES 2022A ISSUANCE LEGAL FEEKENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED06/02/22416-47000-50611 6,500.00 Total For Check 32343 Check 32344 323444,606.63 06/23/2200062CLASS 5 DELIVERY FROM FEHNMACCOY SPECIALIZED CARRIERS06/02/22100-43122-50400 323444,913.30 06/23/2200061CLASS 5 DELIVERY FROM FEHNMACCOY SPECIALIZED CARRIERS06/02/22100-43122-50400 9,519.93 Total For Check 32344 Check 32345 32345160.00 06/23/221757THERAPY SESSIONMARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW, LLC05/30/22100-41900-50300 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 4/9Page: 06/17/2022 08:22 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 06/10/2022 - 06/23/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check #AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32345 160.00 Total For Check 32345 Check 32346 323461,407.45 06/23/2235571797CLASS 5 MATERIALMARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS05/24/22100-43122-50224 323461,408.92 06/23/2235585683CLASS 5 MATERIALMARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS05/25/22100-43122-50224 323461,414.14 06/23/2235612837CLASS 5 MATERIALMARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS05/27/22100-43122-50224 4,230.51 Total For Check 32346 Check 32347 32347600.00 06/23/2214622PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENTMARTIN-MCALLISTER05/31/22100-42100-50300 600.00 Total For Check 32347 Check 32348 32348122.50 06/23/22061422MN BOARD OF AELSLAGID MEMBERSHIP DUES REIMBURSEMENTMATTSON, KEVIN06/14/22100-43100-50433 122.50 Total For Check 32348 Check 32349 3234929.08 06/23/2299226PW - BLACK ST ELBOW/BRASS BUSH/ELBOW FLARE/YELLOW TFE TAPEMENARDS MAPLE GROVE05/25/22100-43100-50223 3234939.54 06/23/2299239PW - FORGED FLARE NUT/FLARE TO MPT/ELBOW FLAREMENARDS MAPLE GROVE05/25/22100-43100-50223 32349241.11 06/23/2299631PW SUPPLES-60' TYPE L COPPER/UNIVERSAL ADAPTER/GALV PIPE STRAPMENARDS MAPLE GROVE06/09/22100-43100-50223 3234915.19 06/23/2299685PARKS & REC - 8" WHITE CABLE TIEMENARDS MAPLE GROVE06/03/22100-45100-50210 324.92 Total For Check 32349 Check 32350 3235010.00 06/23/22INV2057477COPIER USEMETRO SALES INC06/01/22100-41920-50210 10.00 Total For Check 32350 Check 32351 3235150,950.91 06/23/223293PERMIT INSPECTIONS MAY 2022METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES06/06/22100-42400-50300 50,950.91 Total For Check 32351 Check 32352 3235244,730.00 06/23/2205312022MAY 2022 SAC CHARGESMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL05/31/22602-00000-20800 32352(447.30)06/23/2205312022MAY 2022 SAC CHARGESMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL05/31/22602-00000-36200 44,282.70 Total For Check 32352 Check 32353 3235311,642.72 06/23/220001141139WASTE WATER SERVICESMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRO06/07/22602-49450-50312 11,642.72 Total For Check 32353 Check 32354 323542,966.70 06/23/22P75188TIRE AND WHEELMINNESOTA EQUIPMENT06/09/22416-43100-50550 2,966.70 Total For Check 32354 Check 32355 323558.59 06/23/22413397PD VEHICLE REPAIR - LAMPNAPA AUTO PARTS - Corcoran06/07/22100-42100-50403 3235523.28 06/23/22408482V BELT & BELT-AIR PUMPNAPA AUTO PARTS - Corcoran05/03/22100-43100-50210 31.87 Total For Check 32355 Check 32356 32356(7,109.67)06/23/22PAY466TH AVE/GLEASON PKWY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT - PAY REQUEST 4NEW LOOK CONTRACTING06/15/22408-00000-20610 32356142,193.40 06/23/22PAY466TH AVE/GLEASON PKWY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT - PAY REQUEST 4NEW LOOK CONTRACTING06/15/22408-48005-50530 135,083.73 Total For Check 32356 Check 32357 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 5/9Page: 06/17/2022 08:22 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 06/10/2022 - 06/23/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check #AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32357 32357750.00 06/23/2205172022EQUIPMENT CERTIFCATES OF INDEBTEDNESSNORTHLAND TRUST SERVICES05/17/22416-47000-50611 750.00 Total For Check 32357 Check 32358 32358264.88 06/23/2215937PAVING - LV5 2350OMANN BROTHERS PAVING INC06/01/22100-43121-50224 32358221.76 06/23/2215949PAVING - LV5 2350OMANN BROTHERS PAVING INC06/02/22100-43121-50224 486.64 Total For Check 32358 Check 32359 323591,280.00 06/23/2222691PD TESTINGON-SITE MEDICAL SERVICES INC06/08/22100-42100-50300 1,280.00 Total For Check 32359 Check 32360 32360842.40 06/23/22INV841142PARKS AND REC 5 GALLON BRITE STRIPE PAINTPIONEER MANUFACTURING COMPANY06/10/22100-45100-50210 842.40 Total For Check 32360 Check 32361 3236129.80 06/23/220894-005736584CITY HALL RECYCLINGREPUBLIC SERVICES05/31/22100-41900-50380 32361410.10 06/23/220894-005756478CITY HALL GARBAGE - MAY 2022REPUBLIC SERVICES05/31/22100-41900-50380 32361289.75 06/23/220894-005757469PUBLIC WORKS GARBAGE MAY 2022REPUBLIC SERVICES05/31/22100-43100-50380 32361848.52 06/23/220894-005753353RECYCLING SERVICE-MAY 2022REPUBLIC SERVICES05/31/22100-43201-50300 32361103.99 06/23/220894-005758848WILDFLOWER PARK GARBAGE - MAY 2022REPUBLIC SERVICES05/31/22100-45200-50380 32361757.73 06/23/220894-005756294CITY PARK GARBAGE - MAY 2022REPUBLIC SERVICES05/31/22100-45200-50380 2,439.89 Total For Check 32361 Check 32362 32362170.20 06/23/221928684129PW TRI-BALL HITCHRIGID HITCH06/09/22100-43100-50220 170.20 Total For Check 32362 Check 32363 3236324,256.71 06/23/220030668GRAVELROCK ON TRUCKS, INC05/31/22100-43122-50400 323632,670.69 06/23/220030669GRAVELROCK ON TRUCKS, INC05/31/22100-43122-50400 26,927.40 Total For Check 32363 Check 32364 323642,577.00 06/23/22SOCCER22SOCCER T-SHIRTSSANDI'S SCREEN PRINTING06/01/22100-45100-50210 2,577.00 Total For Check 32364 Check 32365 3236520,640.14 06/23/2257829GRAVEL HAULING SERVICESHAW TRUCKING INC05/27/22100-43122-50400 20,640.14 Total For Check 32365 Check 32366 3236632.00 06/23/22119673659-001LIME GLO WITH STEEL STAFFSITE ONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY05/26/22100-45200-50210 32.00 Total For Check 32366 Check 32367 323676,580.50 06/23/2261860PW SUPPLIES -FOOT BLAST MACHINE/BL HOSE/DLX HELMET/COUPLING GASKETSPESCO, INC05/31/22100-43125-50210 32367422.40 06/23/2261905COAL SLAGSPESCO, INC06/07/22100-43125-50210 7,002.90 Total For Check 32367 Check 32368 3236817,727.00 06/23/221930072CORCORAN FARMS BUSINESS PARK EAWSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205 32368130.00 06/23/221930082ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205 323689,370.09 06/23/221930053PULTE DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURESTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 6/9Page: 06/17/2022 08:22 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 06/10/2022 - 06/23/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check #AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32368 32368435.94 06/23/221930082ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-008 32368909.21 06/23/221930082ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-010 32368740.00 06/23/221930082ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-013 323683,290.00 06/23/221930057COOK LANESTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-017 32368434.84 06/23/221930082ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-024 323683,745.00 06/23/221930082ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-044 32368486.29 06/23/221930082ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-045 323684,747.98 06/23/221930051LENNAR DEVELOPMENTSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-055 3236818,245.30 06/23/221930058TAVERA_LENNARSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-056 32368223.86 06/23/221930059NELSON TRUCKINGSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-076 323682,259.50 06/23/221930068PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARKSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-080 323686,074.25 06/23/221930071STIEG ROAD IMPROVEMENTSSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-087 323686,057.64 06/23/221930074AMBERLY 1,2/BELL 6,7,9STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-087 323687,208.46 06/23/221930061RUSH CREEK RESERVESTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-098 323681,518.00 06/23/221930082ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-111 323682,077.85 06/23/221930067ST THERESE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-117 32368138.00 06/23/221930082ESCROW PROJECTS - ENGINEERING FEESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-127 323684,479.00 06/23/221930070PULTE WALCOTT GLENNSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-129 323687,167.50 06/23/221930075CITY CENTER DRIVE & 79TH PLACE UTILITIES & ROADWAYSSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-130 323681,854.94 06/23/221930064RUSH CREEK RESERVE TURN LANESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-130 3236839.17 06/23/221930062NELSON TRUCKING CSAH 101 TURN LANESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-00000-22205-131 323683,026.00 06/23/221930060NEW CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-42400-50303 323681,943.00 06/23/221930086HORSESHOE BEND DRIVESTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-43170-50300 323681,518.00 06/23/221930054TRANSPORTATIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-43170-50300 323681,828.00 06/23/221930055STORMWATERSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-43170-50300 323682,532.00 06/23/221930063GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICESSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22100-43170-50300 323683,560.70 06/23/22193005266TH STREET DESIGN & CONSTRUCTIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22408-48005-50530 323682,339.00 06/23/221930065BRIDGE REPLACEMENT DESIGN - CITY OF CORCORANSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22408-48009-50303 3236812,678.25 06/23/221930069CITY CENTER DR & 79TH PLACESTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22408-48010-50300 3236839,835.25 06/23/221930066WATER SUPPLY, TREATMENT, AND STORAGE FACILITY PRELIMINARY DESIGNSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22601-00000-16500 323683,357.50 06/23/221930085SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSISSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22601-49400-50303 323683,493.50 06/23/221930073CORCORAN WELL #1STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22601-49400-50303 3236875.50 06/23/221930060NEW CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22601-49400-50303 32368209.50 06/23/221930060NEW CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22601-49400-50306 323681,542.50 06/23/221930056SEWER UTILITYSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22602-49450-50303 3236875.50 06/23/221930060NEW CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22602-49450-50303 32368209.50 06/23/221930060NEW CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES06/06/22602-49450-50306 177,583.52 Total For Check 32368 Check 32369 32369204.95 06/23/22I1572427PD TRAFFIC VESTSSTREICHER'S POLICE EQUIPMENT06/06/22100-42100-50209 204.95 Total For Check 32369 Check 32370 32370450.68 06/23/2206012022UNION DUES/TLDFTEAMSTER LOCAL 32006/01/22100-00000-21707 450.68 Total For Check 32370 Check 32371 32371271.50 06/23/2205-2022MAY 2022 PD UNIFORM CLEANINGTIDE CLEANERS06/01/22100-42100-50417 271.50 Total For Check 32371 Check 32372 3237271.85 06/23/2210462103PW SUPPLIES - OXYGENTOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY05/25/22100-43100-50210 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 7/9Page: 06/17/2022 08:22 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 06/10/2022 - 06/23/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check #AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32372 71.85 Total For Check 32372 Check 32373 3237380.60 06/23/2205012022PD INVESTIGATIONS - MAY 2022TRANSUNION RISK & ALTERNATIVE06/01/22100-42100-50300 80.60 Total For Check 32373 Check 32374 32374840.00 06/23/2222053100CITY HALL & PD CLEANINGULTIMATE CLEANERS LLC05/31/22100-41900-50401 840.00 Total For Check 32374 Check 32375 323751,385.00 06/23/22000597NIGHT TO UNITE - TABLE/CHAIR RENTALUNIQUE PARTY RENTALS06/08/22202-42100-50210 1,385.00 Total For Check 32375 Check 32376 32376247.41 06/23/229907434673PD/CH CELL PHONEVERIZON WIRELESS05/26/22100-41900-50321 323761,927.58 06/23/229907434673PD/CH CELL PHONEVERIZON WIRELESS05/26/22100-42100-50321 2,174.99 Total For Check 32376 Check 32377 3237710,314.15 06/23/22PAY 9REMODEL PAY REQUEST #9WEBER, INC.03/28/22400-41900-50520 10,314.15 Total For Check 32377 Check 32378 32378284.70 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22100-00000-22205-007 32378175.44 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22100-00000-22205-056 323781,109.06 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22100-00000-22205-065 32378229.32 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22100-00000-22205-087 32378222.28 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22100-00000-22205-098 323781,438.65 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22100-41900-50381 3237820.31 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22100-42100-50381 3237841.08 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22100-42151-50381 32378214.53 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22100-43100-50381 3237885.95 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22100-45200-50381 3237897.90 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22601-49400-50380 32378308.64 06/23/22062022UTILITY BILL JUNE 2022WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT06/06/22602-49450-50380 4,227.86 Total For Check 32378 Check 32379 3237943.50 06/23/22R-017789-000-5TAVERA PLAN REVIEW FOR HACKAMORE IMPACTWSB05/31/22419-43100-50300 43.50 Total For Check 32379 Check 32380 32380962.26 06/23/22780873419PW BUILDINGXCEL ENERGY05/23/22100-43100-50380 962.26 Total For Check 32380 Check 32381 32381148.78 06/23/22782436550STREET LIGHTSXCEL ENERGY06/03/22100-43100-50381 148.78 Total For Check 32381 Check 32382 3238222.39 06/23/22782090132STREET LIGHTSXCEL ENERGY06/01/22100-43100-50381 22.39 Total For Check 32382 Check 32383 32383148.00 06/23/220189536-INPARTS - PLASTIC SHIMZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC05/16/22100-45200-50210 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 8/9Page: 06/17/2022 08:22 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 06/10/2022 - 06/23/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check #AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32383 148.00 Total For Check 32383 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 9/9Page: 06/17/2022 08:22 AM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 06/10/2022 - 06/23/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check #AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number 395,416.09 Fund 100 GENERAL FUND 1,505.00 Fund 202 POLICE DONATION FUND 10,314.15 Fund 400 CITY HALL REMODEL 2020-2021 153,796.23 Fund 408 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 13,126.84 Fund 416 CAPITAL-EQUIPMENT CERTS 43.50 Fund 419 HACKAMORE UPGRADE (LENNAR) 153,486.74 Fund 601 WATER 58,233.69 Fund 602 SEWER Fund Totals: 785,922.24 Total For All Funds: STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 7c. Council Meeting: June 23, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Christensen Buck Topic: Diamond Lake Regional Trail Action Required: Approval Summary: Three Rivers Park District has completed a draft of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail master plan and is requesting a resolution of support from the City for the master plan and future regional trail through the City of Corcoran. The Diamond Lake Regional Trail search corridor extends through or adja cent to seven communities: Rogers, Dayton, Corcoran, Medina, Orono, Long Lake and Wayzata, and was envisioned to connect several existing and future regional trails, local amenities, and many of the region’s valuable natural resources. In the spring of 2020, Three Rivers identified several route alternatives through the 20 - plus mile corridor through seven cities, including the City of Corcoran. After engaging the public from the summer of 2020 through the summer of 2021, a preferred route for the trail has been approved by six of the seven cities. Since then, Three Rivers has been drafting the master plan document, which includes a summary of all the background, evaluations, public engagement, and route analysis for the trail. City staff provided the Parks and Trails Commission, as well as Council, with a link to review the master plan. The Diamond Lake Regional Trail is now envisioned to connect to the West Mississippi River Regional Trail in Dayton at its northern terminus and travel through Rogers and Corcoran to the Lake Independence Regional Trail and Baker Park Reserve in Medina at its southern terminus. As requested by the cities of Medina and Long Lake, the regional trail will avoid southeast Medina and the City of Long Lake. This planning effort also envisions a north-south trail connection in Wayzata and Orono linking the Dakota Rail Regional Trail and Luce Line State Trail. This connection has been designated a high priority by Three Rivers, many community members and regional trail users, and will be called the “Dakota Rail – Luce Line Connector.” This trail connection, along with the existing trail connections of the Luce Line State Trail and the Lake Independence Regional Trail, will provide the contiguous trail route that was originally envisione d for the Diamond Lake Regional Trail corridor. The total length of all segments of the trail corridor is 37.8 miles. The master plan preferred route for the regional trail through Corcoran has not changed since it was approved by the City in July 2021. Th ree Rivers has just concluded the 30- day public comment period and received four comments specifically directed towards the route in Corcoran. Three comments express strong support of the trail, two of which expressed support for a local trail connection a long 62nd Ave. N./Hackamore Road. Another had a question about the route along Hunter’s Ridge, which was responded to directly to the resident. This master plan positions Three Rivers to work towards securing federal and regional funds that are typically used to construct regional trails. Securing municipal support is a Page 2 critical step in obtaining Metropolitan Council approval for the master plan and subsequent partnering with local communities to construct the regional trail. Three Rivers staff will be available to give a brief presentation to update the Council on the master plan approval process and next steps . During the May 19, 2022 Parks and Trails Commission meeting, the Commission voted to unanimously recommend City Council approval of the master plan for the Diamond Lake Regional Trail. Financial/Budget: During a meeting with staff, Three Rivers Park District discussed establishing a cooperative agreement with the City. This would allow the City to acquire land on behalf of Three Rivers Park District and be reimbursed upon an appraisal of the land. This is planned to be brought forward during a future meeting once staff and the City Attorney review the documents. Options: 1. Approval of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail master plan. 2. Recommend adjustments to the Diamond Lake Regional Trail master plan and request Three Rivers Park District return with an updated plan for approval. 3. Denial of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail master plan. Recommendation: Move to approve resolution 2022 -74 approving the Diamond Lake Regional Trail master plan. Council Action: Approve Resolution 2022-74 Support for the Diamond Lake Regional Trail . Attachments: 1. Resolution 2022-74 Support for the Diamond Lake Regional Trail City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-74 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DIAMOND LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL WHEREAS, The City of Corcoran recognizes the Diamond Lake Regional Trail as an important component of the regional parks system providing a desirable recreational and non-motorized transportation amenity to the residents of the City and the region; and WHEREAS, The Diamond Lake Regional Trail will provide safe, off -street non-motorized access to existing regional and state recreation amenities including the Mississippi National River & Recreation Area, Lake Independence Regional Trail, Baker Park Reserve and the planned West Mississippi River and Rush Creek Regional Trails; and WHEREAS, The City of Corcoran recognizes that Three Rivers Park District and the directly affected cities, have gathered significant public input in the development of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail & Dakota Rail-Luce Line Connector Master Plan; and WHEREAS, The City of Corcoran recognizes that Three Rivers Park District has drafted the Diamond Lake Regional Trail & Dakota Rail-Luce Line Connector Master Plan and accepted and responded to public comments appropriately; and WHEREAS, The Diamond Lake Regional Trail & Dakota Rail-Luce Line Connector Master Plan is consistent with other approved local and regional plans; and WHEREAS, The City of Corcoran supports the acquisition, design, implementation, and operation of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail pursuant t o the Master Plan; and WHEREAS, The City of Corcoran intends to enter into a regional trail cooperative agreement, if warranted, with the Park District formally outlining the acquisition, design, implementation, and operation responsibilities of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Corcoran supports the Diamond Lake Regional Trail & Dakota Rail-Luce Line Connector Master Plan. 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 June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-74 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of June, 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee – Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jessica Beise – City Administrator City Seal City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-75 Page 1 of 1 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHARITABLE GAMBLING IN THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Corcoran that the following Charitable Gambling License is granted effective for t he dates as in dicated, to the following Licensee, which provided appropriate application. LICENSEE LICENSE LICENSE EFFECTIVE DATE Minnesota Special Events Organization located at 2104 East 43rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55407 Charitable Gambling (Raffle) July 9, 2022 (One day license) Event located at The Stanchion 20037 County Road 10 Corcoran, MN 55340 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 23rd day of June, 2022. Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator Agenda Item: 7d. City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-76 Page 1 of 1 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE IN THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Corcoran that the following Liquor License is granted effective for the dates as indicated, to the following Licensee, provided appropriate application and insurance documents are submitted and satisfactory background check completed by the Corcoran Police Department. LICENSEE LICENSE LICENSE EFFECTIVE DATE NW Area Jaycees Organization located at: 13570 Grove Drive, #267 Maple Grove, MN 55311 On-sale August 11-13, 2022 Corcoran Country Daze, Corcoran Lions Park 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 23rd day of June, 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator Agenda Item: 7e. City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-77 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING BEER AND LIQUOR LICENSES IN THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Corcoran that the following Liquo r and 3.2 Malt Liquor Licenses are granted a conditional license effective July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, to the following establishments and licensees provided the appropriate application and insurance documents are submitted and payment for the license is m ade, and background investigation and Fire Marshal inspection of liquor license establishments are completed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, if a licensee has provided payment for the license , appropriate paperwork, background investigation, and the Fire Marshal inspection is completed, the licensee application will be considered complete and granted fully with no conditional status required. ESTABLISHMENT LICENSEE LICENSES Stanchion Bar Stanchion Bar, Inc. On-Sale Liquor Off-Sale Liquor Special "On-Sale Sunday" 2:00 AM Liquor License Mama G’s Mama G’s Operations LLC On-Sale Liquor Off-Sale Liquor Special "On-Sale Sunday" Golden Acres Golf Course Pheasant Acres Golf Club On-Sale Liquor Special “On-Sale Sunday” Shamrock Golf Course Shamrock Golf Operations LLC On-Sale 3.2 Liquor On-Sale Wine Agenda Item: 7f. City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-77 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 23rd day of June, 2022. ___________________________ Tom McKee – Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-78 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE 2020 ELECTION CYCLE WHEREAS, a State Primary Election will be held on August 9, 2022, and a State General Election will be held on November 8, 2022; and WHEREAS, MN Statute 204B.21, subd.2, requires election judges for precincts in a municipality be appointed by the governing body of the municipality; and WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran has three voting precincts; and WHEREAS, the following Minnesota residents have agreed to serve as election judges and have met the qualifications established by the State of Minnesota, or will be receiving training prior to the elections and will be eligible to serve a fter meeting the qualifications established by the State of Minnes ota; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Corcoran hereby appoints the following persons to be eligible election judges for the 2022 State Primary, and General Election, with the understanding that amendments may be necessary to the appointments in order to fill vacancies and meet party splits; and approves payment of an hourly wage of $10.00 per hour for elections judges and, $10.50 per hour for head judges for election judge training, direct balloting assistance, and time served on election day. Gail Propson Shelia Schouviller Linda Hrdlicka Warren Nordstrom Diane Kohls Catherine Leuer Diane Entrinken Bonnie Maue Sharon Ratke Jan Stieg Arlene Evers Virginia Anderson David Dols Bonnie Aksteter Ray Kaiser Gerald Johnson Linda Faatz JoAnne Johnson Lori Kaiser Linda Benson Jane Heins Angeline Linquist Joseph Riehle Lillian Wawra Angie Laschinger Pat Tadych Elias Lemon Susan Prasch Gayle Southwell Linda Comb Heidi Quimby Agenda Item: 7g. City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-78 Page 2 of 2 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 23rd day of June 2022. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director Memo To: Kevin Mattson, Public Works Director From: Kent Torve, PE, City Engineer File: 227704919 Date: June 14, 2022 Reference: Corcoran Well #1 – Pay Application #1 BACKGROUND E.H. Renner & Sons (Renner) was awarded the contract for construction of Well #1 in April 14th, 2021. Renner has submitted Pay Application #1 for the work completed to date in the amount of $90,230.29. Attached is the payment request form. The requested payment has withheld 5% in retainage of the work completed to date. Renner has completed mobilization, drilling of the borehole, detonation, and well development. In the coming weeks Renner will complete the well development, test pumping, and monitoring, water quality sampling, gamma logging and televising, and installation of well accessories. BUDGET IMPACT The work completed is within the previously approved budget for the project. RECOMMENDATION We recommend payment for the work completed to date, less retainage in the amount of $90,230.29. ATTACHMENTS Payment Application #1 Agenda Item: 7h. Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, PE City Engineer Nick Wyers, PE File: 227701079 Date: June 15, 2022 Subject: 66th Avenue/Gleason Parkway Corridor Improvements – Pay Request #4 Reference: 66th Avenue/Gleason Parkway Corridor Improvements – Pay Request #4 Council Action Requested We recommend approval of the Payment Request #4 New Look Contracting in the amount of $135,083.73 on the 66th Avenue/Gleason Parkway Corridor Improvements Project. Project Update The amount brings the total approved to date 75% of the total project value before withholding the 5% retainage amount of $77,482.20 The requested amount is related to trail paving, pedestrian ramp construction, and boulder wall construction. Financing Financing is provided through developer escrow. Attachments Pay Request #4 Agenda Item: 7i. LINE NO.ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST 1 MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 1 75,000.00$ 1.0 75,000.00$ 0.0 -$ 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 6,300.00$ 6,300.00$ 0.9 5,670.00$ 0.9 5,670.00$ 0.0 -$ 3 PROVIDE ACCESS & MAINTENANCE LUMP SUM 1 1.00$ 1.00$ 1 1.00$ 0.8 0.80$ 0.2 0.20$ 4 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT 2711 1.50$ 4,066.50$ 2,684 4,026.00$ 2,684.0 4,026.00$ 0.0 -$ 5 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 1875 6.75$ 12,656.25$ 1900 12,825.00$ 1,900.0 12,825.00$ 0.0 -$ 6 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 1 7,600.00$ 7,600.00$ 1 7,600.00$ 1.0 7,600.00$ 0.0 -$ 7 CLEAR AND GRUB TREE TREE 17 200.00$ 3,400.00$ 17 3,400.00$ 17.0 3,400.00$ 0.0 -$ 8 REMOVE STORM SEWER PIPE LF 193 13.00$ 2,509.00$ 256 3,328.00$ 256.0 3,328.00$ 0.0 -$ 9 REMOVE CMP FLARED-END SECTION EACH 3 150.00$ 450.00$ 3 450.00$ 3.0 450.00$ 0.0 -$ 10 SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN EACH 1 333.00$ 333.00$ 1 333.00$ 1.0 333.00$ 0.0 -$ 11 REMOVE SIGN AND POST EACH 7 45.00$ 315.00$ 7 315.00$ 7.0 315.00$ 0.0 -$ 12 REMOVE FENCE LF 1092 3.00$ 3,276.00$ 2,551 7,653.00$ 2,551.0 7,653.00$ 0.0 -$ 13 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL LUMP SUM 1 5,700.00$ 5,700.00$ 0.5 2,850.00$ 0.5 2,850.00$ 0.0 -$ 14 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE EACH 1 2,576.00$ 2,576.00$ 1 2,576.00$ 1.0 2,576.00$ 0.0 -$ 15 12" PVC C-900 DR-18 SANITARY SEWER PIPE LF 330 107.00$ 35,310.00$ 330 35,310.00$ 330.0 35,310.00$ 0.0 -$ 16 12" PVC SDR 26 SANITARY SEWER PIPE LF 400 61.00$ 24,400.00$ 400 24,400.00$ 400.0 24,400.00$ 0.0 -$ 17 12" PVC SDR 35 SANITARY SEWER PIPE LF 1903 51.00$ 97,053.00$ 1903 97,053.00$ 1,903.0 97,053.00$ 0.0 -$ 18 12" PVC PLUG EACH 2 238.00$ 476.00$ 2 476.00$ 2.0 476.00$ 0.0 -$ 19 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION - 24" THICK LF 722 8.00$ 5,776.00$ 40 320.00$ 40.0 320.00$ 0.0 -$ 20 PIPE JACKING 36" STEEL CASING LF 140 856.00$ 119,840.00$ 140 119,840.00$ 140.0 119,840.00$ 0.0 -$ 21 4' DIA. SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE EACH 5 6,340.00$ 31,700.00$ 5 31,700.00$ 5.0 31,700.00$ 0.0 -$ 22 4' DIA SANITARY STRUCTURE OVERDEPTH (>12' DEPTH)LF 2 1,100.00$ 2,200.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 23 ANTI-SEEPAGE COLLAR EACH 5 275.00$ 1,375.00$ 4 1,100.00$ 4.0 1,100.00$ 0.0 -$ 24 INSTALL STRUCTURE SIGN POST AND MARKER EACH 9 167.00$ 1,503.00$ 5 835.00$ 5.0 835.00$ 0.0 -$ 25 CONNECT TO EXISTING 24" CMP EACH 1 490.00$ 490.00$ 1 490.00$ 1.0 490.00$ 0.0 -$ 26 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM STRUCTURE EACH 1 400.00$ 400.00$ 2 800.00$ 2.0 800.00$ 0.0 -$ 27 24" CMP STORM SEWER PIPE LF 7 77.00$ 539.00$ 7 539.00$ 7.0 539.00$ 0.0 -$ 28 24" CMP FLARED-END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD EACH 1 940.00$ 940.00$ 1 940.00$ 1.0 940.00$ 0.0 -$ 29 12" RCP SEWER CLASS V LF 330 57.00$ 18,810.00$ 332 18,924.00$ 332.0 18,924.00$ 0.0 -$ 30 15" RCP SEWER CLASS V LF 857 59.00$ 50,563.00$ 851 50,209.00$ 851.0 50,209.00$ 0.0 -$ 31 18" RCP SEWER CLASS V LF 110 63.00$ 6,930.00$ 110 6,930.00$ 110.0 6,930.00$ 0.0 -$ 32 21" RCP SEWER CLASS V LF 134 70.00$ 9,380.00$ 125 8,750.00$ 125.0 8,750.00$ 0.0 -$ 33 48" RCP SEWER CLASS V LF 122 306.00$ 37,332.00$ 124 37,944.00$ 124.0 37,944.00$ 0.0 -$ 34 21" RCP FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD EACH 4 2,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 4 8,000.00$ 4.0 8,000.00$ 0.0 -$ 35 48" RCP FLARED END SECTION EACH 2 5,550.00$ 11,100.00$ 2 11,100.00$ 2.0 11,100.00$ 0.0 -$ 36 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE - 4' DIA MH EACH 10 3,387.00$ 33,870.00$ 10 33,870.00$ 10.0 33,870.00$ 0.0 -$ 37 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE W/ STRUCTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICE - 6' DIA MH EACH 1 15,087.00$ 15,087.00$ 1 15,087.00$ 1.0 15,087.00$ 0.0 -$ 38 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE - 2'X3' CB EACH 6 2,130.00$ 12,780.00$ 6 12,780.00$ 6.0 12,780.00$ 0.0 -$ 39 CONSTRUCT OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE - 5' DIA MH EACH 1 8,568.00$ 8,568.00$ 1 8,568.00$ 1.0 8,568.00$ 0.0 -$ Pay Request #4 66th Avenue/Gleason Parkway Corridor Improvements Project Number: 227701079 6/14/2022 City of Corcoran COMPLETED TO DATE PAY REQUEST #4 June 2022 BASE BID: 66th Avenue/Gleason Parkway Corridor Improvements Less Previous Payments 40 4" PVC DRAINTILE PIPE LF 875 21.00$ 18,375.00$ 875 18,375.00$ 875.0 18,375.00$ 0.0 -$ 41 6" PVC DRIANTILE PIPE LF 235 27.00$ 6,345.00$ 235 6,345.00$ 235.0 6,345.00$ 0.0 -$ 42 4" PVC DRAINTILE CLEANOUT EACH 2 295.00$ 590.00$ 2 590.00$ 2.0 590.00$ 0.0 -$ 43 6" PVC DRAINTILE CLEANOUT EACH 2 430.00$ 860.00$ 2 860.00$ 2.0 860.00$ 0.0 -$ 44 FILTRATION BENCH SY 131 140.00$ 18,340.00$ 131 18,340.00$ 131.0 18,340.00$ 0.0 -$ 45 4" INSULATION SF 200 4.00$ 800.00$ 96 384.00$ 96.0 384.00$ 0.0 -$ 46 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III (GRANITE)TON 100 100.00$ 10,000.00$ 100 10,000.00$ 100.0 10,000.00$ 0.0 -$ 47 ADJUST EXISTING VALVE BOX EACH 6 480.00$ 2,880.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 48 ADJUST EXISTING CURB STOP & BOX EACH 1 235.00$ 235.00$ 1 235.00$ 1.0 235.00$ 0.0 -$ 49 HYDRANT EXTENSION EACH 2 1,240.00$ 2,480.00$ 1 1,240.00$ 1.0 1,240.00$ 0.0 -$ 50 INSTALL WATERMAIN OFFSET LUMP SUM 1 12,066.00$ 12,066.00$ 1 12,066.00$ 1.0 12,066.00$ 0.0 -$ 51 IRRIGATION SYSTEM & DESIGN LUMP SUM 1 33,250.00$ 33,250.00$ 0.5 16,625.00$ 0.5 16,625.00$ 0.0 -$ 52 IRRIGATION BOOSTER PUMP LUMP SUM 1 640.00$ 640.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 53 4" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT CROSSING (IRRIGATION)LIN FT 345 3.00$ 1,035.00$ 310 930.00$ 310.0 930.00$ 0.0 -$ 54 STRIP, STOCKPILE, AND RESPREAD TOPSOIL LUMP SUM 1 27,320.00$ 27,320.00$ 0.5 13,660.00$ 0.5 13,660.00$ 0.00 -$ 55 SALVAGE & RESPREAD EXISTING WETLAND SOILS (AS REQUIRED BY PERMIT)LUMP SUM 1 12,500.00$ 12,500.00$ 0.5 6,250.00$ 0.5 6,250.00$ 0.00 -$ 56 COMMON EXCAVATION - ONSITE (EV) (P)CU YD 10440 8.00$ 83,520.00$ 7995 63,960.00$ 7,995.0 63,960.00$ 0.0 -$ 57 COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (LV)CU YD 9700 13.00$ 126,100.00$ 192 2,496.00$ 192.0 2,496.00$ 0.0 -$ 58 COMMON BORROW (EV) (POND)CU YD 250 0.01$ 2.50$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 59 COMMON BORROW - IMPORT (LV)CU YD 250 0.01$ 2.50$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 60 LOAM TOPSOIL (LV)CU YD 50 0.01$ 0.50$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 61 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV)CU YD 3900 13.00$ 50,700.00$ 613 7,969.00$ 613.0 7,969.00$ 0.0 -$ 62 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE V NON-WOVEN SQ YD 11745 2.00$ 23,490.00$ 11,745 23,490.00$ 11,745.0 23,490.00$ 0.0 -$ 63 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW, 5% MOD TON 800 18.00$ 14,400.00$ 800 14,400.00$ 800.0 14,400.00$ 0.0 -$ 64 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5, 100% CRUSHED TON 9900 19.00$ 188,100.00$ 8165 155,135.00$ 8,165.0 155,135.00$ 0.0 -$ 65 AGGREGATE SURFACING CLASS 2, 100 % CRUSHED LIMESTONE TON 240 35.00$ 8,400.00$ 110 3,850.00$ 110.0 3,850.00$ 0.0 -$ 66 STABILIZING AGGREGATE, 3" MINUS TON 1500 0.01$ 15.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 67 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT MATERIAL GAL 515 3.50$ 1,802.50$ 230 805.00$ 230.0 805.00$ 0.0 -$ 68 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)TON 1830 80.00$ 146,400.00$ 576 46,080.00$ 576.0 46,080.00$ 0.0 -$ 69 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)TON 1830 78.00$ 142,740.00$ 1800 140,400.00$ 1,800.0 140,400.00$ 0.0 -$ 70 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B)TON 425 103.00$ 43,775.00$ 375 38,625.00$ 0.0 -$ 375.0 38,625.00$ 71 B618 CURB AND GUTTER LF 3181 14.50$ 46,124.50$ 3100 44,950.00$ 0.0 -$ 3,100.0 44,950.00$ 72 6" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 595 10.00$ 5,950.00$ 595 5,950.00$ 0.0 -$ 595.0 5,950.00$ 73 TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT 96 112.00$ 10,752.00$ 96 10,752.00$ 0.0 -$ 96.0 10,752.00$ 74 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT 93 38.00$ 3,534.00$ 59 2,242.00$ 59.0 2,242.00$ 0.0 -$ 75 INSTALL SIGN TYPE C AND POST EACH 14 5.50$ 77.00$ 6 33.00$ 6.0 33.00$ 0.0 -$ 76 INSTALL SIGN POST EACH 2 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 77 STREET NAME SIGN PLATE EACH 10 5.50$ 55.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 78 INSTALL STREET NAME SIGN PLATE AND POST EACH 2 450.00$ 900.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 79 INSTALL TYPE III BARRICADE EACH 2 450.00$ 900.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 80 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RT ARROW) THERMOPLASTIC (GROUND-IN)EACH 4 450.00$ 1,800.00$ 4 1,800.00$ 4.0 1,800.00$ 0.0 -$ 81 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) THERMOPLASTIC (GROUND-IN)EACH 4 450.00$ 1,800.00$ 4 1,800.00$ 4.0 1,800.00$ 0.0 -$ 82 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW - MULTI-COMPONENT (GROUND-IN)LIN FT 3241 2.00$ 6,482.00$ 3241 6,482.00$ 3,241.0 6,482.00$ 0.0 -$ 83 6" SOLID LINE WHITE - MULTI-COMPONENT (GROUND-IN)LIN FT 2882 2.00$ 5,764.00$ 2922 5,844.00$ 2,922.0 5,844.00$ 0.0 -$ 84 4" SOLID LINE WHITE - MULTI-COMPONENT (GROUND-IN)LIN FT 1200 1.00$ 1,200.00$ 1200 1,200.00$ 1,200.0 1,200.00$ 0.0 -$ 85 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE - MULTI-COMPONENT (GROUND- IN)LIN FT 495 1.00$ 495.00$ 430 430.00$ 430.0 430.00$ 0.0 -$ 86 24" SOLID LINE YELLOW - MULTI-COMPONENT (GROUND- IN)LIN FT 256 10.00$ 2,560.00$ 102 1,020.00$ 102.0 1,020.00$ 0.0 -$ 87 TEMPORARY MAILBOXES LUMP SUM 1 2,700.00$ 2,700.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 88 BOULDER RETAINING WALL LUMP SUM 1 12,500.00$ 12,500.00$ 1 12,500.00$ 0.0 -$ 1.0 12,500.00$ 89 3" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT CROSSING (SMALL UTILITIES)LIN FT 870 13.00$ 11,310.00$ 527 6,851.00$ 527.0 6,851.00$ 0.0 -$ 90 BARBWIRE FENCE LIN FT 965 5.50$ 5,307.50$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 91 SEED MIXTURE - 34-171 SQ YD 24005 0.20$ 4,801.00$ 1694 338.80$ 1,694.0 338.80$ 0.0 -$ 92 SEED MIXTURE - 25-131 SQ YD 6522 0.20$ 1,304.40$ 3006 601.20$ 3,006.0 601.20$ 0.0 -$ 93 SEED MIXTURE - 25-141 SQ YD 26325 0.15$ 3,948.75$ 11898 1,784.70$ 11,898.0 1,784.70$ 0.0 -$ 94 SEED MIXTURE - 33-261 SQ YD 1910 0.50$ 955.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 95 SODDING TYPE LAWN SQ YD 2350 12.00$ 28,200.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 96 PERENNIAL - #1 CONT EACH 226 20.00$ 4,520.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 97 DECIDUOUS SHRUB (#5 CONT.)EACH 68 81.00$ 5,508.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 98 DECIDUOUS TREE - 2.5" B&B EACH 24 667.00$ 16,008.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 99 DECIDUOUS TREE - 1.5" CAL B&B EACH 3 550.00$ 1,650.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 100 DECIDUOUS TREE - 6' HT. B&B CLUMP EACH 4 525.00$ 2,100.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 101 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT - MAINTAINED LUMP SUM 1 1.00$ 1.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 102 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS - MAINTAINED LIN FT 6465 1.50$ 9,697.50$ 16,141 24,211.50$ 16,141.0 24,211.50$ 0.0 -$ 103 BALE BARRIERS - MAINTAINED LIN FT 11320 3.50$ 39,620.00$ 3624.5 12,685.75$ 3,624.5 12,685.75$ 0.0 -$ 104 BIOLOG - MAINTAINED LIN FT 1200 2.75$ 3,300.00$ 336 924.00$ 336.0 924.00$ 0.0 -$ 105 INLET PROTECTION - MAINTAINED EACH 18 160.00$ 2,880.00$ 18 2,880.00$ 18.0 2,880.00$ 0.0 -$ 106 CULVERT PROTECTION - MAINTAINED EACH 2 225.00$ 450.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 107 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM)HOUR 50 0.01$ 0.50$ 6 0.06$ 6.0 0.06$ 0.0 -$ 108 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL MGAL 50 42.00$ 2,100.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 109 EROSION CONTROL MAT SQ YD 25 4.50$ 112.50$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 110 STRAW MULCH TYPE 3 SQ YD 45480 0.10$ 4,548.00$ 14588 1,458.80$ 14,588.0 1,458.80$ 0.0 -$ 111 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CATEGORY 3N STRAW 2S SQ YD 13282 1.50$ 19,923.00$ 10430.4 15,645.60$ 0.0 -$ 10,430.4 15,645.60$ TOTAL BASE BID:1,908,607.40$ 1,417,486.41$ 1,289,063.61$ 128,422.80$ TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT:1,908,607.40$ 1,417,486.41$ 1,289,063.61$ 128,422.80$ Change Order #1: Muck Excavation QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST C0 1.1 MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 1 3,000.00$ 1.0 3,000.00$ 0.0 -$ C0 1.2 SALVAGE 12" RCP LIN FT 205 27.00$ 5,535.00$ 205 5,535.00$ 205.0 5,535.00$ 0.0 -$ CO 1.3 SALVAGE 15" RCP LIN FT 88 27.00$ 2,376.00$ 88 2,376.00$ 88.0 2,376.00$ 0.0 -$ C0 1.4 SALVAGE 48" CBMH EACH 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1 1,000.00$ 1.0 1,000.00$ 0.0 -$ C0 1.5 SALVAGE 2'X3' CB EACH 2 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2 2,000.00$ 2.0 2,000.00$ 0.0 -$ CO 1.6 REINSTALL 12" RCP LIN FT 205 40.00$ 8,200.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ C0 1.7 REINSTALL 15" RCP LIN FT 88 40.00$ 3,520.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ C0 1.8 REINSTALL 48" CBMH EACH 1 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ C0 1.9 REINSTALL 2'X3' CB EACH 2 1,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 0 -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ C0 1.10 MUCK EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV)CU YD 4834 14.00$ 67,676.00$ 4834 67,676.00$ 4,834.0 67,676.00$ 0.0 -$ C0 1.11 COMMON BORROW - IMPORT (LV)CU YD 4600 8.00$ 36,800.00$ 4600 36,800.00$ 4,600.0 36,800.00$ 0.0 -$ TOTAL CHANGE ORDER #1:133,707.00$ 118,387.00$ 118,387.00$ -$ Change Order #2: 2022 Pricing QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 1,760.00$ 1,760.00$ 0.5 880.00$ 0.0 -$ 0.5 880.00$ 51 IRRIGATION SYSTEM & DESIGN LUMP SUM 1 3,217.50$ 3,217.50$ 0.5 1,608.75$ 0.0 -$ 0.5 1,608.75$ 67 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT MATERIAL GAL 285 0.25$ 71.25$ -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 68 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)TON 1254 18.95$ 23,763.30$ -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 69 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)TON 30 17.89$ 536.70$ -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ 70 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B)TON 425 20.71$ 8,801.75$ 375 7,766.25$ 0.0 -$ 375.0 7,766.25$ 71 B618 CURB AND GUTTER LF 3181 1.10$ 3,499.10$ 3100 3,410.00$ 0.0 -$ 3,100.0 3,410.00$ 73 TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT 96 1.10$ 105.60$ 96 105.60$ 0.0 -$ 96.0 105.60$ 96 PERENNIAL - #1 CONT EACH 226 4.13$ 933.38$ -$ 0.0 -$ 0.0 -$ TOTAL CHANGE ORDER #2:42,688.58$ 13,770.60$ -$ 13,770.60$ TOTAL REVISED CONTRACT:2,085,002.98$ 1,549,644.01$ 1,407,450.61$ 142,193.40$ ORIGINAL CONTRACT AWARD AMOUNT 1,908,607.40$ 1,549,644.01$ 1,407,450.61$ 142,193.40$ 77,482.20$ 70,372.53$ 7,109.67$ 1,472,161.81$ 1,337,078.08$ 135,083.73$ SUBTOTAL CURRENT RETAINAGE (5%) TOTAL CURRENT PAY REQUEST COMPLETE TO DATE PAY REQUEST #4 CONTRACT SUMMARY LESS PREVIOUS SECTION 00 62 76 APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT FORM OWNER: PROJECT: CONTRACTOR: 4 Original Contract Amount: Contract Changes approved to Date (List Change Order Numbers):CO #1 Revised Contract Price : Work Completed to Date (attached): Retainage to Date, 5%: Work Completed to Date Less Retainage to Date: Total Amount Previously Certified: Payment Request This Estimate: CONTRACTOR Application for Payment Form Project No. 227701079 00 62 76-1 City of Corcoran 66th Avenue/Gleason Parkway Corridor Improvements New Look Contracting, Inc. 77,482.20$ 1,472,161.81$ PAY ESTIMATE NO. I declare under penalty of perjury that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid. 1,908,607.40$ 133,707.00$ 2,085,002.98$ 1,549,644.01$ 1,337,078.08$ 135,083.73$ and New Look Contracting, Inc. (CONTRACTOR) and all authorized changes therto: By Title Approval: (CONTRACTOR)Date Date CITY OF CORCORAN Date Application for Payment Form Project No. 227701079 00 62 76-2 CERTIFICATE OF CONTRACTOR I hereby certify that the work and the materials supplied to date, as shown on the request for payment, represents the actual value of accomplishment under the terms of the contract dated 06/18/2021 between betweeen the City of Corcoran (OWNER) STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. END OF SECTION Director of Business Operations New Look Contracting 6/16/2022 6/15/2022 Page 1 of 8 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 7j. City Council Meeting: June 23, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Sease Accessory Dwelling Unit (PID 35-119-23-42-0022) (City File No. 22-026) Action Required: Approval Review Deadline: August 17, 2022 1. Request The applicants (Jan Sease, Laura Sease, and Luke Rudberg) request approval of an interim use permit (IUP) for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) addition to their single-family home at 6516 Valley View Road. The IUP will allow a 678 sq. ft. mother-in-law suite on the north side of the attached garage. The existing four-bedroom principal dwelling will be remodeled into a three- bedroom dwelling. 2. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed this item at a public hearing on June 2, 2022. No one spoke at the public hearing, but one public comment email was received (attached to this report). The Planning Commission noted that the verbiage in Standard 2 for ADUs needs to be simplified and clarified based on the documented intent of the ordinance (to prevent stand-alone ADUs but allow ADUs attached to either a single- family home or detached garage) and reflect how the ordinance has been applied in previous applications. This issue is discussed further in the report. Staff previously included this concern with the ADU ordinance on the “Staff Zoning Update Priorities” list shared with the Council earlier this year, but the Council would need to direct staff to prioritize a zoning ordinance amendment for this to be addressed in 2022. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the IUP. 3. Context Level of City Discretion The City’s discretion in approving or denying an IUP is based on whether the proposal meets the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the IUP. Page 2 of 8 Zoning and Land Use The property is in the Urban Reserve (UR) District and is guided Existing Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Surrounding Properties All surrounding properties are zoned UR and guided Existing Residential. Characteristics of the Site The site has an existing single-family home on the south side of the lot. The Hennepin County Natural Resources Map (pictured left) indicates probable and protentional wetlands on the north end of the property. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Natural Resource Inventory Map identifies disturbed woodland on this property (pictured below). 4. Analysis of Request Interim Use Permit The applicant requests approval to allow an ADU to be built on the north side of the existing attached garage at 6516 Valley View Road. The proposed addition is 678 sq. ft. The applicants intend for this to be the residence for Jan Sease, one of the three property owners. The other two property owners will take residence in the principal dwelling. The addition will contain a bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom, and an attached deck of 15 sq. ft. Page 3 of 8 ADU Standards The UR district permits ADUs as an IUP in Section 1040.020, Subd. 5. The IUP for an ADU is subject to the following conditions: 1. Not more than one accessory dwelling unit should be allowed on a single-family detached lot. This condition is satisfied as there is no other ADU on the single-family detached lot. 2. An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in an existing single-family home or above an attached or detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. The ADU is an attached addition to the existing single-family home. The verbiage in this standard is convoluted and leaves room open for confusion and interpretation. This standard has proven difficult to apply with this only being the third ADU application received since the adoption of the ADU ordinance in 2005. Simplifying and clarifying this standard is noted on staff’s priority list of City Code updates. Looking back at the intent of the Planning Commission and staff (see the Planning Commission minutes from 7/7/2005 and the Staff Report to City Council from 11/22/2005 attached to this report), this standard was meant to prevent stand-alone detached ADUs while allowing ADUs attached to single- family homes or garages. Page 4 of 8 For additional reference as to how this standard has been applied, an ADU IUP was approved in 2021 where the ADU was part of a new detached structure that included a garage (the staff report for this IUP is located in the February 25, 2021 City Council Agenda Packet for City File 20-045). The ADU was considered attached to the detached garage and was not located above the garage. With this context in mind, staff believes this proposed addition meets the intent of this standard. Furthermore, an addition to the northwest side of the existing home is impractical due to the existing location of the mound system (pictured right). Requiring the addition on the northwest side of the home will likely prevent direct access to the backyard for the principal portion of the dwelling. 3. An attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements for the living portion of the principal dwelling unit. This condition is satisfied in the proposed plans. The table below includes the required and proposed setbacks: Required Setback Proposed Setback Front yard setback (south and west lines) 50 feet 84.25 feet (south) 109.4 feet (west) Side yard (east line) 25 feet 60 feet Rear yard (north line) 30 feet 100 feet 4. An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not exceed the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or 800 square feet, whichever is less. The proposed addition is 678 sq. ft. The footprint of the house indicates approximately 1,200 square feet of gross floor area. The plans comply with this standard without needing to include the gross floor area of additional levels in the calculation. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Subdivision, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same regulations as provided under Section 1030 of this Chapter. Page 5 of 8 The ADU is an attached structure, so this standard arguably does not apply to this application. Regardless, the attached structure complies with requirements as outlined in Section 1030 of the Zoning Ordinance. A 1-acre parcel is allowed a footprint of up to 1,250 sq. ft. of accessory structure space. However, only attached accessory space in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. counts towards the maximum allowable footprint. There are currently no detached structures on the property. The attached garage is roughly 503 sq. ft., and the proposed addition is 678 sq. ft. for a total of 1,181 sq. ft. of attached accessory space. The proposed addition will exhaust 181 sq. ft. of the allowable accessory structure footprint. The plans are in compliance with this standard. 6. The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building in the lot. The ADU will have a gable roof with brown shingles similar to the principal dwelling. The ADU will use gray LP siding to emulate the style of the existing wood/cedar siding. This standard is satisfied. 7. The owner of the property shall reside in the principal dwelling unit or in the accessory dwelling unit. There are three property owners. Two of the property owners will live in the principal dwelling. The third property owner will live in the ADU. The plans are in compliance with this requirement. 8. There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit. There is no separate ownership. All three property owners have an interest in the entirety of the property. This standard is met. 9. In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit on the lot, two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit. Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal dwelling unit parking spaces and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. There will be two parking spaces added to the existing driveway to satisfy this standard. The additional parking spaces meet the required 10’ side setback (pictured at the top of p. 6). Page 6 of 8 10. An accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate address from the principal dwelling unit on the lot and shall be identified with address numbers. This will be addressed at building permit and is provided as a condition of approval in the resolution. 11. The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. This is included as a condition for approval in the resolution for the IUP. 12. The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. Interim uses found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. This is included as a condition for approval in the resolution for the IUP. Additional Considerations Utilities The ADU is proposed to be served by the same well and septic as the primary residence. The primary residence is being remodeled from a four-bedroom home into a three-bedroom home (with a large master closet), so the existing septic system designed to serve a four-bedroom home will still be sufficient after the remodel and addition. The applicant indicated that the HVAC, plumbing, and electrical for the attached ADU will all be connected from the main portion of the house. Page 7 of 8 Wetlands Hennepin County’s Natural Resource Map (pictured right) indicates a probable wetland along the north lot line. Public Works and Engineering reviewed the proposed addition in relation to the suspected wetland, and minimal impact (if any) is expected based on the location of the addition and the topography of the site. Per the Engineering Memo dated 5/25/2022, a grading plan for the improvements will be required in review of the building permit, which is typical. Public Works reserves the right to require a wetland delineation at that time should impacts be identified in the site grading plan. Tree Preservation and Landscape No trees will be impacted by the construction as there are no trees in the way of the addition. No additional landscaping is needed to meet the minimum for residential development. 5. Decision-Making Outstanding Issue for Discussion As discussed above, the verbiage for standard #2 lacks clarity. While staff, including the City Attorney, believes that an ADU attached to an attached garage satisfies the requirement that an ADU be in an existing single-family home, it is acknowledged that the City Council could disagree with this finding. The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve Resolution 2022-80 approving the ADU IUP as requested. 2. Approve Resolution 2022-80 approving the ADU IUP with a condition of approval that the plans be updated so the ADU is attached, at least partially, to the principal living space or above the attached garage, or a variance must be granted to allow an ADU attached to an attached garage. a. Staff believes it is less than ideal to require a variance that would grant a permanent deviation for a permit that is temporary in nature. 3. If the Council chooses to deny the ADU IUP application, the Council should table the item, direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial, and providing findings of fact. The Council should also provide direction to the applicant if they are open to a variance or a zoning ordinance amendment. Page 8 of 8 a. Staff believes it is an unfair burden on the applicants for the City to require either of these options when the applicant in 2021 was not required to complete either of these land use applications for approval of their project. If Council agrees with the Planning Commission that it should be a priority to address the Standard 2 of the ADU ordinance for future applications, the Council should direct staff to add this as a 2022 priority. 6. Recommendation Move to approve Resolution 2022-80 approving the IUP for an ADU at 6516 Valley View Road based on the current plans submitted by the applicant. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2022-80 Approving the Interim Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit 2. Site Location Map 3. Hennepin County Natural Resources Map 4. Applicant’s Narrative Received 4/18/2022 5. Certificate of Survey Dated 4/16/2022 6. Site Plan Received 5/16/2022 7. Rendering Received 5/16/2022 8. Photo of Property Dated 5/23/2022 9. Planning Commission Minutes from 7/7/2005 Meeting 10. City Council Staff Report from 11/25/2005 Meeting 11. Engineering Memo Dated 5/25/2022 12. Public Comment Email City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-80 Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR JAN SEASE, LAURA SEASE, AND LUKE RUDBERG AT 6516 VALLEY VIEW ROAD (PID 35-119-23-42-0022) (CITY FILE NO. 22-026) WHEREAS, Jan Sease, Laura Sease, and Luke Rudberg (“the applicants”) requested approval of an interim use permit to construct an accessory dwelling unit on an existing 1.01-acre parcel legally described as: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for an interim use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. An interim use permit is approved to allow construction of an accessory dwelling unit, in accordance with the application materials and plans received by the City on May 16, 2022 except as amended by this resolution. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions in the City Engineer’s Memo dated May 25, 2022. 3. A grading plan for the improvements must be submitted for review and approval by Public Works and Engineering. 4. A separate address shall be established for the accessory dwelling unit. 5. The accessory dwelling unit is subject to these specific standards: a. No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a single-family detached lot. b. An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in the detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. c. The accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements as required for the living portion of the principal dwelling unit. d. The accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 800 square feet. e. The exterior design of the accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal dwelling building on the lot. City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-80 Page 2 of 3 f. There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit. g. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit. Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal dwelling unit parking spaces and shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. h. The accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate address from the principal dwelling unit on the lot, and shall be identified with address numbers. i. The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. j. The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units, interim use permits found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. 6. The applicants must record the approving resolution at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of June 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-80 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Lot 1, Block 3, SNYDER’S ROLLING HILLS THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Se as e AD U I UP 22 -02 6 Da te : 5/2 7/20 22 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 1 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 35 119 23 420 02 2 OWN ER N AME: L Ru db er g/L Se as e/J Sea se PAR CEL AD DRESS: 6 516 Va lle y View Rd , Corc o ran MN 55 34 0 PAR CEL AR EA: 1.0 1 ac re s, 44,0 47 sq ft A-T-B: To rr ens SAL E PR ICE: $24 7,00 0 SAL E D ATA: 0 2/20 21 SAL E C OD E: Exclu de d Fro m Ra tio Stud ies ASSESSED 20 21 , PAYABLE 202 2 PROPERT Y TYPE: R es iden t ial H OM ESTEAD : H ome ste ad M AR KET VAL UE: $28 7,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $3 ,9 82.5 8 ASSESSED 20 22 , PAYABLE 202 3 PRO PER TY TYPE: R eside ntial HO MESTEAD: No n-H om es te ad MARKET VALU E: $3 98 ,0 00 This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not s uitable for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 2 2 Hennepin County N atural Resources Map Wetlands and 2-Ft Topographic Data Date: 5/27/2022 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 1 inch = 50 feet Legend Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI 2 Foot Elevation Contours Index Intermediate PID: 3511923420022Address: 6516 Valley View Rd, Corcoran 55340 Owner: L Rudberg/L Sease/J Sease Acres: 1.01 ¯ ’ 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 SB40SB36B24R B22R B52B24R B24R SB40SB36B24R B22R B52B24R B24R 2840DH2840DH2840DH2840DH 3068 2840DH 2840DH2840DH 3068 2840DH 14080 2840DH2840DH2840DH 2840DH 2840DH 2840DH 2840DH 1840FX 2840DH 2840DH 1840FX 2840DH 2840DH 1840FX 2840DH 3068 2840DH 30682616AW2616AW30682640AW50683068 2668256825685468 DN DN DN EP 34'-6 1/8"13'-8 3/8"22'-1 5/8" 70'-4 1/8"24'-4 1/16"6'-10"24'-9 1/8"26'-6 1/2"25'-6 1/2"229'-1 3/8"125'-2"61'-3"209'-0 1/16"59'-6"221'58'-7"100'-0 1/2"60' 112'-4 7/8" 17'-8" 16' 67'-9 3/8" 7'-0" X 5'-1" 5'-3" X 3'-5" 21'-2" X 23'-9" 4'-6" X 9'-0" DECK GARAGE DECK DECK Electrical Box (30 slot?) New Parking spot Well Orange walls = New Addition Estimated distance from property lineGravel ParkingAsphalt Driveway 2840DH 2840DH2840DH 3068 2840DH 14080 2840DH2840DH3068DN EP 13'-8 3/8"22'-1 5/8" 70'-4 1/8"24'-4 1/16"6'-10"58'-7" 60' 17'-8" 16' 21'-2" X 23'-9" GARAGE Electrical Box (30 slot?) New Parking spot Well Orange walls = New Addition Estimated distance from property lineGravel ParkingAsphalt Driveway CITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 2005 Chair Kohnen called the regular planning commission meeting of July 7, 2005, to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Ebert, Hank, Kohnen, Spaeth, Alternate Gleason, and Alternate Faue. Also present were Planner Lindahl, Clerk Lindberg and Council Liaison Jacobs. Commissioner Bucher arrived at 7:30 p.m. and remained in the audience. Absent was Commissioner Stieg (excused). The pledge of allegiance was said. Open Forum Commissioner Faue suggested the Planning Commission should discuss start and quit times for construction. Staff was directed to add the item to the next meeting’s agenda. Agenda MOTION by Ebert, seconded by Faue, and carried unanimously, to approve the agenda as presented. Minutes Ebert stated that he attended the June 9, 2005, Council meeting. Ebert commented that the Planning Commission should not have sent the Hudok proposal, nor should any other proposal ever go to the City Council with 24 conditions and suggested that the Planning Commission should not allow this to happen again. MOTION by Ebert, seconded by Faue, to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2005, with changing Gleason from absent to being an attendee in the audience. Motion carried 5:0 with Spaeth abstaining. Public Hearing – Hales Corner Preliminary Plat (Replat of Doboszenski Addition) Chair Kohnen opened the public hearing. Planner Lindahl provided an overview of the request by Ken Doboszenski for a replat of four (4) lots. The lots are currently metes and bounds parcels that would now be platted. Lindahl stated this request was approved in 2004, but the plat was never filed and there are now some minor changes to the area of the large parcel. Lindahl recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the 12 conditions in the resolution. No public comments were received. Chair Kohnen closed the public hearing. MOTION by Spaeth, seconded by Ebert, and approved unanimously, to recommend approval of the Hales Corner Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. A preliminary plat is approved to allow the creation of four lots in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on May 23, 2005, except as amended by this resolution. 2. A waiver from the requirement for a topographic survey for Lots 1 and 2 is granted based on the finding that the lots are developed and no new development is proposed. Call to Order Roll call Pledge of Allegiance Open Forum Agenda Approval Minutes Approved 6/9/05 Public Hearing – Hales Corner Preliminary Plat (Replat of Doboszenski Addition) Recommended Approval of Hales Corner Preliminary Plat Page -1- CITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 2005 3. A waiver from the wetland delineation, buffer and setback requirements is granted. However, the landowner shall be required to provide a delineation and comply with all wetland buffer and setback requirements when subdivision is proposed. 4. A 10-foot drainage and utility easement must be provided adjacent to Pioneer Trail. 5. A 10-foot wide trail easement adjacent to Pioneer Trail (over the drainage and utility easement) must be dedicated to the City and the documents must be filed with the final plat. 6. Easement documents must be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to filing. 7. The septic sites must be individually fenced with steel posts and snow fencing, which must be left in place until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. The gravel parking surface for Lot 2 should not encroach onto Lot 3 as shown. The encroachment should be removed or an easement should be obtained to continue the encroachment. 9. A driveway connects Lots 2 and 3 in the rear of the lots. The driveway should be removed or a cross easement for the benefit of both lots provided for review and approval by the City Attorney. 10. The gravel surface for Lot 3 should not encroach onto Lot 4. Lot 3 and Lot 4 are under separate ownership and this encroachment could create title issues in the future. The encroachment should be removed or an easement should be obtained from the owner of Lot 4 to continue the encroachment. 11. The applicant must submit all access/encroachment easements for review and approval by the City Attorney. The applicant must file easements at Hennepin County. 12. The final plat must be filed by the applicant at Hennepin County. Public Hearing – Park Ordinance Amendment (Subdivision Ordinance) Chair Kohnen opened the public hearing. Planner Lindahl stated the Park Ordinance Amendment clarifies the language and intent of the park dedication ordinance. The changes clarify that land divisions require park dedication fees, that the City will give credit for the 20-foot trail easements shown on the Parks and Trails plan, and that park dedication fees for 6 or more units per acre will be 12% plus 1% for each additional dwelling unit/acre over 6 dwelling units/acre. The terminology related to “Park Fund” was also clarified. Lindahl recommended approving the ordinance amendments, as recommended by the Park Commission. No public comments were received. There was some concern from the Commissioners regarding the change to the park dedications fees for the higher density developments. Lindahl explained the change as recommended by the Parks Commission and suggested the Commissioners may request a copy of the park plan from the City Administrator. Lindahl stated the costs justifying the park dedication fees are explained in the park plan. Chair Kohnen closed the public hearing. MOTION by Spaeth, seconded by Ebert, and approved unanimously, to recommend approval of the Parks Ordinance Amendment as presented. Public Hearing – Park Ordinance Amendment (Subdivision Ordinance) Recommended Approval of Amendment To The Page -2- CITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 2005 Unfinished Business Accessory Living Space Planner Lindahl asked the Commissioners to discuss whether the Planning Commission would be interested in allowing accessory living spaces in commercial and/or single family residential areas and, if so, what kind of standards should be used. The Commissioners decided to discuss the commercial/industrial areas first. Spaeth said if the living quarters met the fire codes, he would not be opposed to allowing accessory living spaces in the commercial district. Hank was previously opposed to allowing accessory living spaces in commercial areas, but heard some good reasons for it at the last Planning meeting, but was still hesitant. Faue suggested limiting the occupancy of the living spaces in the commercial area to one or two adults. He had issues with children and their safety in the commercial areas. Ebert had no problem with living spaces in commercial areas. He did not think children should be excluded from the living quarters, but thought there should be a relationship with someone living there, such as, an employee or family member. Gleason did not have a problem with the commercial living quarters either and felt that families would be okay. Kohnen agreed with Faue and thought that children should not be allowed. Kohnen also suggested the use of an interim or conditional use permit to allow such uses in commercial districts. Faue suggested allowing one unit per property with limiting the size of the unit, restricting the occupancy to a maximum of two adults, showing the need for a caretaker, meeting building codes, and using an IUP. Ebert wanted children allowed. Lindahl will use the Commission’s comments to draft an Ordinance Amendment to include accessory living in commercial/industrial areas with options to be discussed at the Planning Commission’s next meeting. Lindahl reviewed the use of accessory living spaces for single family homes. Some of the issues to be discussed were minimum/maximum sizes, architecture, attached or detached, above the garage (whether the garage is attached or detached), and the method conveyance to be used to allow accessory living spaces. The first issue to be discussed was whether an accessory living space should be in the main house, separate dwelling, or either. Spaeth, Hank, Ebert, Gleason were in favor of either attached or detached from the principal home. Faue favored either, but was concerned that restricting the living quarters to above the garage would not accommodate the handicapped. Kohnen favored the living spaces being attached to the principal home only and not above a detached garage. The only detached quarters should not be a separate building. Ebert suggested limiting the size of the living quarters to 800 – 1000 sq. ft. or a percentage of the footprint of the garage to deter renting of the property. The Commissioners voted as follows on the issues: Allowing attached or detached: 5:1 for either. If detached, allow above garage only: 5:1 Allow only one accessory living space per property: 6:0 Will the standards apply to existing and new homes: 6:0 Yes to both The owner must live on the property or the property must be homesteaded: 6:0 Allowed on both city sewered/watered and septic properties: 6:0 The property must look as though there is only one single family home: 6:0 Allow by CUP or IUP only: 6:0 Lindahl will use the Commission’s comments to draft an Ordinance Amendment to include accessory living in residential areas with options to be discussed at the Parks Ordinance Accessory Living Space Page -3- CITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 2005 Planning Commission’s next meeting. Lindahl was also directed to consider lot size and structure heights in the standards. Open Space Preservation Plats Workshop Follow-up Lindahl reviewed the draft changes to the OSP Plats Ordinance. Lindahl highlighted the change on page 6 that requires a centralized wastewater treatment system and smaller individual lots be part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD), on page 7 the new requirement of a 100 foot buffer zone at the perimeter of the site abutting public streets, and the density changes on page 11. Lindahl stated the Council will be asked to schedule an August 4th public hearing on the changes. New Business None. Reports Lindahl asked the Commissioners to be in attendance at the next meeting; there will be a lot of business on the agenda. Adjournment MOTION by Gleason, seconded by Ebert, and approved unanimously to adjourn, 8:52 p.m. ______________________________ Bea Lindberg, City Clerk Open Space Preservation Plats Workshop Follow- up Adjournment Page -4- Agenda No. 5.f. PLANNING REPORT TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: November 4, 2005 for the November 22, 2005 City Council Meeting RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (City File No. 05-016) 1. Background The Planning Commission has considered options to allow accessory dwelling units in commercial/industrial areas and in residential areas. After discussing the options in several meetings the Planning Commission recommended a change to allow accessory dwelling units. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation on September 22, 2005 and directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to consider the proposed changes. 2. Planning Commission Public Hearing The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their November 3, 2005 meeting. There was one resident to speak at the public hearing. One of the Commissioners questioned how these accessory dwelling units would be taxed and whether these accessory dwelling units could be homesteaded. Staff conferred with the City Assessor. The accessory dwelling units may be homesteaded in commercial areas or residential areas. In commercial areas, the units would be separated for purposes of valuing and taxing the property (e.g. the commercial portion would be valued and taxed at commercial rates and the accessory dwelling unit in the commercial building would be valued and taxed at residential rates.) The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. 3. Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory living units (“caretaker apartments”, “mother-in-law apartments” or “nanny flats”) are allowed under the existing Zoning Ordinance, but only as part of a mixed-use PUD (planned unit development). These types of accessory dwelling units would not be permitted in any other residential or commercial zoning districts. Any existing living spaces in commercial areas are legal, non-conforming uses if they were legal uses at the time they were established and may continue in like fashion. However, new uses of this type are not currently allowed. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 2 The underlined language is the new proposed language. The text in italics is staff comments. Definition Accessory Dwelling Units are not currently allowed; therefore, they are not defined in the ordinance. Staff recommends the following definition: Dwelling Unit, Accessory: A self-contained dwelling unit having its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, and which is designed as a second separate dwelling unit that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of a lot. Accessory Dwelling Units for Single Family Homes Accessory dwelling units for single family homes are gaining popularity in Minnesota and across the country. Staff has provided sample language that could be used to allow accessory dwelling units for single family homes in the A, RR, R-1, R-2, MF-1 and TCR districts. If the City chooses to allow accessory dwelling units, staff recommends the interim use permit (IUP) rather than the conditional use permit because the interim use permit will have sunset clauses or “triggers” that would cause the use terminate with changes to the conditions. The underlined language is the new proposed language. The text in italics is staff comments. Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the following: (a) Not more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a single- family detached lot. This condition is intended to preserve the neighborhood character by limiting the amount of change on any given lot, even in instances where a lot may exceed the minimum lot area requirement. More than one accessory dwelling unit per lot would not be appropriate and may result in an unusual amount of off-street parking spaces for a single-family home. This condition also specifies that the use applies only to single-family detached lots. (b) An accessory dwelling unit shall be located in an existing single family home or above an attached or detached garage that is accessory to a single-family detached home. This condition would allow accessory units to be located in the principal building or above garages. It would not allow detached accessory structures to be constructed simply for use as an accessory dwelling unit. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 3 (c) An attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements as required for the living portion of the principal dwelling unit. This condition would provide consistency in the setback requirements for both the principal and accessory dwelling unit. This condition helps to clarify that, although a garage area may be located closer to a lot line than a living area, an accessory dwelling unit above a garage is considered to be a living area, and therefore, must meet the minimum setbacks specified for the living portion of the home. (d) An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not exceed the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or 800 square feet, whichever is less. This condition limits the size of an accessory dwelling unit to ensure that the accessory dwelling unit remains a subordinate and secondary use, and to ensure that the existing character of the property and neighborhood is maintained. (e) Unless otherwise specified in this Subdivision, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same regulations as provided for under Section 1030 of this Chapter. Section 1030 contains the general regulations for detached accessory buildings. This condition was included to ensure that the neighborhood character is maintained. For example, one provision of Section 1030 states that no detached accessory building may be located within a front yard. (f) The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building on the lot. This condition was included to address architectural compatibility and neighborhood character. (g) The owner of the property shall reside in the principal dwelling unit or in the accessory dwelling unit. This condition would help to preserve the neighborhood character by limiting the change in tenure within the neighborhood. (h) There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit. This condition would require both the principal unit and accessory unit to remain under one ownership, and not become separated from one another by subdivision or condominium platting. The ordinance is not intended to provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 4 indirect means of allowing two ownership units on an existing single-family lot, but rather is intended to allow a subordinate rental unit on the same lot. Separate ownership of the units would alter the single-family character of the property and neighborhood. (i) In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit on the lot, 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit. Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal dwelling unit parking spaces, and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. This condition would ensure that sufficient off-street parking is available on the site. (j) An accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate address from the principal dwelling unit on the lot, and shall be identified with address numbers. This condition would ensure the safety of the residents by assisting emergency response personnel in identifying the proper unit. (k) The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. This condition is included because this interim use is intended for use by the property owner and/or caretaker and if the use or ownership changes, the IUP should expire. New owners could reapply for a new IUP and the City could examine the changed characteristics. (l) The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. Interim uses found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. This condition would ensure that the City has the ability to review the IUP for compliance with the conditions of approval. Accessory Dwelling Units In Non-Residential Districts The following language would be added to the commercial (CR, C-1, C-2 and BP) zoning districts as an interim use permit. If the City chooses to allow accessory dwelling units in the commercial districts, staff recommends the interim use permit rather than the conditional use permit because the interim use permit will have sunset clauses or Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 5 “triggers” that would cause the use terminate with changes to the conditions. Staff recommends the following language: Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the following: (a) Not more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a lot. For the reasons listed above. (b) An accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements as required for the principal structure and shall be attached to the principal structure. For the reasons listed above. (c) An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not exceed the gross floor area of the principal use or 800 square feet, whichever is less. For the reasons listed above. (d) The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building on the lot, For the reasons listed above. (e) The owner of the property or the property caretaker shall reside in the principal dwelling unit or in the accessory dwelling unit. For the reasons listed above. (f) There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit. For the reasons listed above. (g) Rental of the accessory dwelling unit separate from the principal use is prohibited. The unit shall be used only by the property owner or caretaker. The accessory dwelling unit is intended to be accessory to the business use and is not intended to meet the housing needs of the community. The character of standard commercial districts is not generally appropriate for general residential use. (h) In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal use on the lot, 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 6 Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal use parking spaces, and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. For the reasons listed above. (i) An accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate address from the principal use on the lot, and shall be identified with address numbers. For the reasons listed above. (j) No more than 2 persons, neither of whom may be under 18 years of age, shall occupy the accessory dwelling unit. This condition is included because these units are not intended to be family dwelling units as commercial areas do not have recreational spaces that are required in residential areas for child play areas. In particular, the existing commercial areas were not designed with green space or pedestrian connections to allow convenient access to recreational areas. (k) The interim use permit shall expire if the principal use of the property changes or the ownership of either the property or the principal use changes. This condition is included because this interim use is intended for use by the property owner and/or caretaker and if the use or ownership changes, the IUP should expire. New owners could reapply for a new IUP and the City could examine the changed characteristics. (l) The interim use permit shall be issued for 3 years in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 1070.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such permits will be administratively reviewed every 3 years to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and ordinance requirements for accessory dwelling units. Interim uses found to be in compliance may be extended by the Zoning Administrator for periods of up to 3 years each. This condition would ensure that the City has the ability to review the IUP for compliance with the conditions of approval. Accessory Dwelling Units in a PUD Again, it is important to note that as part of a PUD, the City would allow apartments or condos above retail. The issue of caretaker apartments is different as it would only allow one living unit, which would be accessory to (related to) the principal use. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendments Page 7 Summary State law requires that ordinances be published in the City’s official newspaper. However, in the case of lengthy ordinances, the law allows publication of a summary of ordinance to fulfill this requirement. The summary publication would result in substantial savings to the City because of reduced publication costs. 4. Requested Action Move to adopt the following: a. Ordinance amendment approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment b. Resolution approving Summary Publication of the Ordinance Amendment Attachments 1. Ordinance Amendment for Accessory Dwelling Units 2. Resolution Approving Summary Publication of the Ordinance Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Sease IUP Date: 5/25/2025 Comments: General: 1. We would recommend that a site grading plan be provided at the time of building permit application which is standards for all residential new construction projects and permitted remodels. At that time, the city would reserve the right to require wetland delineations to be completed based on the impacts as identified in the site grading plan. End of Comments From: denniseneu <denniseneu@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 3:54 PM To: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: Interim Use Permit. 6516 valley view road Thank you again for assisting me with my concerns. As you requested I am Dennis Neu 6508 Valley View Road As I stated before, my concerns rest in what direction the City is creating with this type of approval. You stated that this is a very limited request, yet this is the second request in less than two years within 1000 feet of my home. Regardless, if the City allows it for one it must allow it for everyone. So the City should look at what the maximum potential could be with these approvals In your previous response, you stated that the Zoning ordinance Subd 5 A 2 did not intend to eliminate the construction of new detached or attached secondary dwelling unit. However, I believe the actual words do not say that. It states that it should be "located in an existing single family home or above an attached or detached garage " My concerns are in two major areas. First. By allowing attached or detached seperate dwelling units in any or all lots you are changing the character of the development. This means all lots could have a second home or duplex. This looks like multi family development. Second. How is the City going to direct the second use of this space after the 'mother in law" leaves? Allowing the future use to become a third party rental should not be permitted. This could be a roundabout way to create a rental property on your own lot. Having multiple rental units in a development will degrade and devalue the individual property value. Based on the above concerns I am asking the City to put a moratorium on any new request for this type of permitting until the City can answer the long term effects it will create in an existing single family neighborhood. Page 1 of 5 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a. City Council Meeting: June 23, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Ditzer Garage Variance (City File. No. 22-020) 9320 Cherry La (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) Action Required: Approval or Denial Review Deadline: July 15, 2022 1. Application Request Benjamin Ditzer, the applicant, requests a variance to allow an accessory structure to encroach within the required side yard setback and drainage & utility (D&U) easement at 9320 Cherry Lane (pictured right). 2. Planning Commission and City Council Review The Planning Commission reviewed a conditional use permit for a detached garage (pictured below) at a public hearing on May 5, 2022. No comments were received. The applicant asked the Commission to reconsider the requirement to relocate an existing accessory structure to meet the 20-foot setback from a side property line. The Planning Commission moved to change verbiage in the resolution to indicate the applicant should request a variance if they choose to not comply with the setback. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. A variance application was submitted in mid-May. City Council approved the conditional use permit with the recommended verbiage on May 26, 2022 as part of the consent agenda. The variance application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the June 2nd public meeting. No comments have been received as of June 16th. The Commission unanimously recommended denial of the request. 3. Context Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is based on whether the proposed project meets the standards for a variance in the Zoning Ordinance. The City Page 2 of 5 has a relatively higher level of discretion with a variance request because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the variance standards are met. Zoning and Land Use The property is zoned Urban Reserve (UR), and the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Existing Residential. The property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The present land use of the site includes a single-family residential home with one detached accessory structure under 200 square feet. Surrounding Properties All surrounding properties are zoned UR, guided for Existing Residential, and located within the MUSA. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) map (pictured right) identifies a shrub wetland throughout the property. A wetland delineation identified two wetland basins on the property. The proposed location of the accessory structure is near the delineated wetland boundary for Wetland Basin 2. The expected impact to the wetland is minimal. 4. Analysis Variance Along the northwest property line, there is an accessory structure of less than 200 sq. ft. near a series of garden planters. The provided survey indicates this structure as a “canopy” as shown on p. 1 of this report. The accessory structure is located in the side yard, which is subject to a 20-foot setback. The structure is 1.8 feet away from the property line. Additionally, the structure is placed within the 10-foot D&U easement that runs along the property line. The City does not generally allow structures to be built within D&U easements apart from fences which can be approved within D&U easements through an administrative zoning permit when no concerns are found. Aerial photos from Hennepin County’s website confirms the structure does not pre-date the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant states that a previous owner constructed the structure, and it is utilized primarily for gardening purposes. The canopy structure allows him to clean the vegetables grown on his property. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all the variance standards from Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B) are met with their request: 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Page 3 of 5 The League of MN Cities defines a three-factor test for the term “practical difficulties”: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise allowed by the zoning ordinance; b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B) of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the last two factors as an individual standard. Therefore, this first standard can focus on evaluating the “reasonableness” of the request. The applicant explains the canopy structure in its current location makes sense due to the proximity to the garden on the property. The applicant states that Corcoran is a “country” community and having a setup to clean home-grown vegetables is a reasonable use of his property. The City Council could find that the encroachment into the side setback and D&U easement is reasonable to support the adjacent garden on the property. Requiring the structure to be moved to meet the setback would put the structure into the existing driveway. Relocating the structure to another area of the property where it is no longer near the garden will negatively impact the functionality of the structure. On the other hand, the Council could find that the request is unreasonable as there does appear to be alternative locations for the structure that would meet the setbacks, including an area of the front yard across the driveway as well as in the backyard behind the house. The Council could find that it appears the reasoning for the variance is based on primarily financial considerations as the structure could be relocated to meet the district setback requirements. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is south and were not created by the landowner. The applicant’s narrative explains the existing forest, wetlands, and home placement on the site makes alternative locations for the structure impractical. Additionally, the lot shape is irregular (pictured right). Relocating the canopy just enough to meet the 20-foot setback places the structure within the driveway, and relocating the driveway is not possible. Relocating the structure east of the driveway would involve grading and would reduce the Page 4 of 5 functionality of the canopy. The area west of Wetland Basin 1 is regularly wet throughout the year, and again would reduce the functionality of the canopy structure. Furthermore, the existing landowner did not construct the structure. The Council could find the applicant’s arguments sufficient. However, the Council could also find that there is some room in the back yard for the structure, and/or the need to grade the area east of the driveway is not seen as a unique condition as it is common for properties to complete grading when constructing an accessory structure. Additionally, a strict interpretation of the term “landowner” could be said to include all previous landowners; therefore, construction of the garden canopy in its existing location could be argued to be a condition created by the landowner. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant’s narrative explains that the canopy structure is not visible to the surrounding neighborhood in its current location. Allowing the structure to remain in its current location is unlikely to alter the essential character of the locality. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The applicant argues that the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance as it does not increase density, increase the proximity to the neighbor’s primary and accessory structures, reduce visibility, nor impact D&U easements. The Council could agree with this statement. The Council could also find that a structure within 2’ of a shared property line does increase the proximity to neighboring structures. Additionally, the Council could find that the D&U does have the potential to be impacted by the structure. The Engineering Memo dated May 18, 2022 states that it is not recommended for structures to be constructed within D&U easements as this does have the potential to interfere with the intended use of these easements. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant explains that the garden canopy compliments their raised garden beds which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s visions statement stressing the importance of (and the desire to) protect the rural environment and rural character of Corcoran. Staff notes that this property is guided as “Existing Residential” in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which accounts for existing residential development in the City of Corcoran at very low densities. The density for this area is roughly 1 residential unit per 2 acres. The presence of this structure within 2’ of the property line does not interfere with the intent of this land use designation. Therefore, granting the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At the same time, it can be argued that the variance is not consistent with the guiding principle of the Page 5 of 5 Comprehensive Plan to provide protection of open space, another defining feature of Corcoran’s qualify of life. 6. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. If the Council is compelled by the applicant’s narrative, then conditions of approval can be stipulated to address the identified impacts of the request. In this instance, staff recommends that the applicant enter into a formal encroachment agreement with the City for the structure to remain within the D&U easement. As provided in the Engineering Memo, this agreement must specifically state the City may remove the structure if needed for the purposes of the easement with no reimbursement to the landowner, and the landowner is responsible for any relocation costs of the canopy structure. An alternative option is to allow for the canopy structure to encroach within the 20’ setback, but still require that it be relocated outside of the 10’ D&U easement. 5. Conclusion & Recommendation Under a strict interpretation of the variance standards, staff finds that the variance standards have not been satisfied. Convenience and a desire to avoid grading is not a practical difficulty. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with staff’s recommendation. If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission, they should move to approve Resolution 2022-79 enclosed as Attachment 1 in this report. The applicant will then be required to relocate their structure to comply with district standards before issuance of the building permit for the detached garage approved on May 26th. However, there may be merit to the arguments that the structure is not visible to the neighborhood and the natural characteristics and shape of the lot limit the viability and functionality of alternative locations. With this in mind, an alternative resolution approving the variance is enclosed as Attachment 2 of this report for the Council’s consideration. The alternative resolution includes a condition of approval requiring the landowner to enter into a formal encroachment agreement with the City as outlined in the Engineering Memo. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2022-79 Denying the Variance 2. Alternative Resolution 2022-79 Approving the Variance 3. Applicant’s Narrative received 5/16/2022 4. Property Survey dated 2/18/2022 5. Engineering Memo Dated 5/18/2022 City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-79 Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ENCROACHING WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 9320 CHERRY LANE (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) (CITY FILE NO. 22-020) WHEREAS, Benjamin Ditzer (“the applicant”) requested approval of a variance to allow an accessory structure to encroach within the required side yard setback on property described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly called Public Meeting and recommends denial of the variance, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a variance subject to the following findings: 1. The applicant requested a variance for an accessory structure to encroach 18.2 feet into the side yard setback and 8.2 feet into the City’s Drainage and Utility easement as shown on the application materials received on March 10, 2022 and May 16, 2022. 2. The City Council finds the variance standards are not satisfied for the variance as requested, based on the following findings: a. There are no practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards. The landowner could remove or relocate the existing accessory structures to comply with the Ordinance. It is unreasonable for a structure to be placed within less than 2 feet from a lot line. It appears that the request for the variance is primarily economic based on the landowner’s desire to avoid demolition, grading, and/or relocation costs; however, both the MN Statute §462.357 and the Ordinance state that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. b. The conditions upon which the variance is requested are not unique to the parcel and were created by the previous landowners. There are no physical constraints that prevent relocation of the structure to the backyard or to the east of the existing driveway. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The structures are rural in nature. d. The variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. A structure within 2 feet of the property line increases the proximity of structures to the neighboring properties and the primary home structures, and other structures throughout the neighborhood must meet the setback. The drainage and utility easement does have the potential to be City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-79 Page 2 of 3 impacted by the location of the structure. The proposed encroachment into a required side setback is not in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance’s general purpose to conserve the natural, scenic beauty, rural character, and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside. e. The variance to allow an accessory structure to encroach within the side setback is not consistent with the guiding principle of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to provide protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcoran’s quality of life. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of June 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-79 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Lot 5, Block 3, Brandywine Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-79 Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ENCROACHING WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 9320 CHERRY LANE (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) (CITY FILE NO. 22-020) WHEREAS, Benjamin Ditzer (“the applicant”) requested approval of a variance to allow an accessory structure to encroach within the required side yard setback on property described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly called Public Meeting and recommends approval of the variance, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a variance subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The applicant requested a variance for an accessory structure to encroach 18.2 feet into the side yard setback and 8.2 feet into the City’s Drainage and Utility easement as shown on the application materials received on March 10, 2022 and May 16, 2022. 2. The City Council finds the variance standards are met for the variance as requested, based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance that makes relocation of the accessory structure to meet the 20-foot side yard setback unreasonable. It does not appear that the request for the variance is primarily economic based on the landowner’s desire to avoid relocation costs. b. The conditions upon which the variance is requested are unique to the parcel and are not caused by the landowner. There are several existing physical conditions to justify why the accessory structure cannot be relocated. The lot has an odd shape, there is a prevalence of forest and wetlands on the property, and the existing location of the home and driveway hinders the viability of an alternative location. The accessory structure was constructed by a previous landowner and not the existing landowner requesting the variance. c. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The structure is rural in nature and is not visible to the surrounding properties and neighborhood. d. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. Granting the variance would not increase the structure density in the immediate area nor would it increase the proximity to neighboring structures, including homes. Granting the variance will not reduce visibility in the area, and the impact to the drainage and utility easement can be mitigated. The variance is City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-79 Page 2 of 3 in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance’s general purpose to conserve the natural, scenic beauty, rural character, and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside. e. The variance to allow the accessory structure is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the variance aligns with the guiding principle of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to protect the rural environment and rural character of Corcoran that define Corcoran’s quality of life. The property is guided as “Existing Residential” in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which accounts for existing residential development at very low densities. Granting the variance will not interfere the density requirements of the area. f. The City identifies the following condition of approval to address the impact of the variance: i. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the structure to remain within the drainage and utility easement. The agreement will specifically state that the City may remove the structure if needed for the purposes of the drainage and utility easement with no reimbursement to the landowner, and the landowner is responsible for any relocation costs of the structure. 3. The approving resolution must be filed at Hennepin County prior to release of the applicant’s escrow account with the City. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of June 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran June 23, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-79 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Lot 5, Block 3, Brandywine Addition, According to the recorded plat thereof, And situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Ditzer Garage Conditional Use Permit Date: May 18, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Permit Application Ditzer Garage, Dated March 10, 2022, 2. Conditional Use Permit App, Dated March 10, 2022 Comments: General: 1. The grades in the southeast corner of the proposed garage are steeper than the 4:1 that is allowed by City standards. The grading must avoid the designated wetland area shown on the plans so, the garage must be moved or a retaining wall would be an alternative. Note, any wall 4’ or taller shall be designed by Professional Engineer. 2. If a wall is the selected alternative, coordinate with the building permit department for submittal requirements. 3. The site plans show an existing canopy structure that is located within the existing drainage and utility easement along the west side of the house. Engineering does not recommend any structures be constructed within the Drainage and Utility easements as they could interfere with the intended use of these easements. The canopy (since existing) could remain if landowner enters into an encroachment agreement with the City. This agreement will specifically state the City may remove the structure if needed for the purposes of the easement with no reimbursement to the landowner, and landowner is responsible for any relocation costs of the canopy. End of Comments STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 9a. Council Meeting: June 23, 2022 Prepared By: Kevin Mattson Topic: NE Corcoran Water Supply – Final Design Action Required: Approval Summary: On September 9th, 2021, the Council approved the preliminary design of the NE Corcoran Water Supply project including treatment options, storage alternatives, updated financial planning incorporating service area demand projections and market volatility, and architectural considerations. On April 14th, the Council reviewed an updated 2022 Financial Management Plan which included budget and other financial projections for the NE Corcoran Water Supply project. The attached document is a proposal to advance the NE Corcoran Water Supply project to final design and bidding services for council’s review and consideration. Financial/Budget: Costs for the proposed water infrastructure projects have been included in the City’s financial management plan which shows the project being financially feasible. The water fund has a current balance of approximately $3,150,000 which would support costs until bonding would take place in 2022/2023. Options: 1. Approve the final design and bidding services for the NE Corcoran Water Supply project in the amount of $638,579 as outlined in the proposal from Stantec. 2. Request staff prepare Request for Proposals (RFP’s) to receive proposals from additional engineering firms. 3. Decline to take action. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the final design and bidding services for the NE Corcoran Water Supply project in the amount of $638,579 as outlined in the proposal from Stantec. The familiarity with the City’s project and experience with initial water supply planning is valuable in proceeding forward. Council Action: Consider a motion to approve the final design and bidding services for the NE Corcoran Water Supply project in the amount of $638,579 as outlined in the proposal from Stantec. Page 2 Attachments: 1. Proposal for Final Design and Bidding Services for the NE Corcoran Water Supply Project 2. Project Schedule Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000 Minneapolis MN 55402-2314 June 17, 2022 Project: 227704426 Kevin Mattson Public Works Director 9100 County Road 19 Corcoran, MN 55340 Dear Kevin, Reference: Water Supply, Treatment, and Storage Final Design & Bidding Authorization Stantec is nearing the end of the preliminary design phase for the water treatment plant, water tower, and trunk infrastructure for Northeast Corcoran and has also begun incorporating the design decisions made by the City Council on May 26th, 2022. At this time, Stantec is requesting final design and bidding authorization to continue the project and meet the overall goal of bidding the water treatment plant and water tower packages in Fall 2022 and the trunk infrastructure work in 2023 with the potential to expedite to the Fall of 2022. The summary below updates the scope provided in the original proposal for preliminary design services and provides a fee summary for upcoming tasks. WATER TREATMENT FACILITY – Final Design Stantec will finalize the water treatment facility design and will complete the creation of the bid package for construction of the plant. We will also work with the City to apply for agency approvals during this task. The final design and bid packages will include a base bid design for a 2-filter cell facility and a 3-filter cell facility alternate. This package will also include the pump, equipment, and controls for the municipal well and communications package for the water tower. Stantec will continue to engage the project stakeholders through additional Council Work Sessions, Public Works reviews, and Design Workshops to specify the features of both facility designs, architectural features, and ensure the facilities meet all state and local requirements. Stantec will provide 90% documents for City review and comment, as well as the certified contract documents. Specific design services include: a. Develop final design documents (plans and specifications) for City review and approval at 90%. b. Develop front-end contract documents. c. Provide a complete Design Basis Report. d. Provide certified contract documents (plans, specifications, front-ends). e. Submit contract documents to MDH for plan review and approval. f. Assist the City in applying for permits, including MDH. All permit fees shall be paid for by the City. g. Assist City in consultation with other government agencies and permitting requirements. h. Coordinate with utility companies (gas, electric, internet) for service requirements. All fees for service delivery shall be the responsibility of the City. June 17, 2022 Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 5 Reference: Water Supply, Treatment, and Storage Final Design & Bidding Authorization - DRAFT TRUNK INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS – Final Design Stantec will assist in preparing the final design of the Utility Improvements as an individual project. This includes all necessary plan production, project permitting and regulatory requirements for this project. We will assist in preparing easement documents for the proposed corridors and will assist the city in coordinating with existing property owners. This scope will include the necessary, MPCA, MDH, WCA and other regulatory permitting of the project as well as coordination with Hennepin County for any utility crossings. All permit fees will be paid for by the City. This scope of work will also include the trunk infrastructure (sanitary sewer, watermain, trunk watermain) extending west from the Bellwether development to the proposed water treatment plant as well as the finished watermain extension to the new tower location near Hope Community Church. WATER TOWER – Final Design Stantec will prepare draft plans and specifications at the 60% and 95% percent complete level for City review and comment. The project documents will be based on a composite tower design and will include a base bid for a 750,000 gallon tower and a bid alternate for a 1,000,000 gallon tower. Our design effort will entail detailed discussions with City Staff regarding the full range of potential accessories and configurations associated with a composite tower. This scope of work will also explore the option of including a bulk water dispensing system near the tower, which may or may not be included in the bidding documents as well as lighting options and cellular antenna hosting options. The final bidding documents will consist of technical specifications, drawings, and front-end contract documents. BIDDING – All Projects Each component of the project will be bid as separate packages given the varied nature of the work and associated construction timelines. In general, this phase brings the final contract documents to the public for bidding and will establish contract arrangements between the awarded contractor and the City. Bidding phase scope of services for each component of the project include: a. Advertise the project for bidding. b. Conduct a pre-bid meeting. c. Answer bidding questions and issue addenda, as necessary. d. Attend the bid opening and prepare the bid tabulation. e. Evaluate bid results and provide recommendations for contract award. FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK Beyond final design and bidding, Stantec will provide construction related services that include construction administration, project management, on-site construction observation, special inspections, shop drawing June 17, 2022 Kevin Mattson Page 3 of 5 Reference: Water Supply, Treatment, and Storage Final Design & Bidding Authorization - DRAFT review, change order preparation, and review of contractor pay requests. The scope of work for this phase will be better defined once the final design is completed and bid alternates are selected by the City. Stantec will also provide startup and training services for the operation of the new facilities and conduct post-construction services including as-built drawings, operational troubleshooting, and warranty inspections. SCHEDULE The overall project schedule is largely unchanged from previous updates. The goal is to bid the water treatment plant and water tower projects in Fall 2022 in order to begin construction in Spring 2023. The trunk infrastructure project will be bid in 2023 but may be bid earlier if land acquisition for the utility corridors will allow. The project schedule including design, bidding, and construction phases is included as Attachment 1. COMPENSATION Stantec will complete this scope of work according to the agreement established for preliminary design services which include providing engineering services on an hourly basis within the approved budget. Any changes to the project scope or estimated hours to complete the work will be communicated to the City in a timely fashion. Stantec will not proceed with additional services or services outside of the scope of work contained in this letter without approval from the City. The City of Corcoran has individual rates for key City support staff. The specialty services provided by Stantec by employees without previously defined rates will be provided in accordance with Stantec’s Standard Rate Table 0 which is discounted below our standard rates. Rates for hourly staff may be adjusted on a yearly basis in accordance with our yearly rate review. SUMMARY OF FEE PROJECT COMPONENT FINAL DESIGN BIDDING COMPONENT TOTAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT $354,525 $24,654 $379,179 TRUNK INFRASTURCTURE SYSTEM $111,296 $17,078 $128,374 WATER TOWER $120,178 $10,848 $131,026 PHASE TOTAL, GRAND TOTAL $585,999 $52,580 $638,579 June 17, 2022 Kevin Mattson Page 4 of 5 Reference: Water Supply, Treatment, and Storage Final Design & Bidding Authorization - DRAFT CLOSING We hope this letter defines the scope of work, the proposed schedule, and the estimated fee of services to your satisfaction. If you have any questions about the proposed scope, schedule or estimated fee we will be happy to review with you. Our team is prepared to move forward with assisting the City upon receiving your authorization. On behalf of our Stantec team, we thank you for this opportunity to be of service to your community. We have enjoyed working with you and your staff through the design development process and we look forward to partnering with the City of Corcoran on delivering safe, reliable, and compliant water to your community. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Steven Hegland PE (MN) Project Manager Mobile: 763.479.4237 steven.hegland@stantec.com Kent Torve PE (MN) Principal Phone: 612.209.7919 kent.torve@stantec.com Attachment: Project Schedule June 17, 2022 Kevin Mattson Page 5 of 5 Reference: Water Supply, Treatment, and Storage Final Design & Bidding Authorization - DRAFT By signing this proposal, City of Corcoran authorizes Stantec to proceed with the services herein described and the work will be completed in accordance with the existing Master Service Agreement. This proposal is accepted and agreed on the ___________ day of _________,_________ . Per: __________________________ _____________________________ __________________________ Print Name & Title Signature Corcoran Water Supply, Treatment & Storage Project Proposed Project Schedule Updated: June 17, 2022 S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Preliminary Design Final Design Bidding Construction Post Construction Preliminary Design Final Design Bidding Construction Preliminary Design Final Design Bidding Construction 2023 2024 Water Treatment Plant Water Tower Project PhaseProject Element 2021 2022 Trunk Main STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 9b. Council Meeting: June 23, 2022 Prepared By: Kevin Mattson Topic: Southeast Water Supply Planning Study Action Required: Approval Summary: On January 27th, the Council approved a Southeast Water Supply Planning Study to evaluate the following items. • Municipal Wells and Raw Water Piping Options • Water Storage and Modeling • Water Treatment and Phasing • Trunk Watermains for Distribution • Maple Grove Coordination – Joint System The city has a water supply agreement with Maple Grove for approximately 5 million gallons per day (MGD) allocated to the southeast portion of the community that runs through 2042. At some point, a future council will have to decide to extend, modify, or end that agreement. Outcomes of the study include identification of potential water supply facilities and utility corridor land preservation needs as well as information that was used to reevaluate water utility area charges. Attached is the draft Southeast Water Supply Planning Study for council’s review and consideration. Financial/Budget: Costs for the water supply planning study were allocated from the water fund and came in approximately $1,000 or 5% under budget. Options: 1. Accept the Southeast Water Supply Planning Study and direct staff to use the document to help guide future water infrastructure recommendations. 2. Direct staff to make changes to the document or evaluate additional information. Recommendation: Staff recommends accepting the Southeast Water Supply Planning Study and direct staff to use the document to help guide future water infrastructure recommendations. Council Action: Consider a motion to accept the Southeast Water Supply Planning Study and direct staff to use the document to help guide future water in frastructure recommendations. Page 2 Attachments: 1. Draft Southeast Water Supply Planning Study Southeast Water System Analysis June 2022 Prepared for: City of Corcoran Project Reference: 227704830 SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS i Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1.1 WATER DEMAND........................................................................................................ 2.1 EXISTING DEMAND .................................................................................................... 2.1 FUTURE DEMAND ...................................................................................................... 2.2 MUNICIPAL WELLS AND RAW WATER PIPING ....................................................... 3.1 WELL PLANNING ........................................................................................................ 3.1 TOTAL WELL CAPACITY VERSUS DEMAND ............................................................. 3.2 RAW WATERMAIN ...................................................................................................... 3.3 WATER TREATMENT ................................................................................................. 4.1 TARGET AREA FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITING ...................................... 4.1 PARCEL SIZE FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT ..................................................... 4.2 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODELING AND WATER STORAGE ............................... 5.1 WATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND ASSUMPTIONS ............................................ 5.1 Model Description ....................................................................................... 5.1 Maple Grove Supply .................................................................................... 5.1 TRUNK WATER MAINS ............................................................................................... 5.2 WATER STORAGE AND TIMING ANALYSIS .............................................................. 5.2 Required Water Storage Capacity ............................................................... 5.2 Tower 1 Location and Timing ...................................................................... 5.3 Tower 2 Location and Timing ...................................................................... 5.4 WATER TREATMENT PLANT TIMING ........................................................................ 5.6 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 6.1 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Existing Residential Demand................................................................................... 2.1 Table 2-2. Residential Land Use-Net Area Demand Rates ...................................................... 2.2 Table 2-3. Average Day and Maximum Day Demand Rates .................................................... 2.3 Table 2-4. Net Area, Average Day and Maximum Day Demand by Node.................... Appendix A Table 5-1. Southwest and Tower 2 Modeling Results .............................................................. 5.5 SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS ii LIST OF FIGURES – APPENDIX B Figure 1: SE Water System Node Boundaries Figure 2: Geologic Map with Concept Well Locations Figure 3: Concept Well Locations and Raw Water Piping Figure 4: Target Area for SE Water Treatment Plant Figure 5: SE Trunk Water System Layout Figure 6: Pre-Tower 1 Fire Flow Figure 7: Pre-Tower 1 Pressure Figure 8: WTP & Tower 1 Fire Flow Figure 9: WTP & Tower 1 Pressure Figure 10: Pre-Tower 2 Fire Flow Figure 11: Pre-Tower 2 Pressure Figure 12: Tower 2 Fire Flow Figure 13: Tower 2 Pressure Figure 14: Blended Supply Fire Flow Figure 15: Blended Supply Pressure SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION Stantec conducted a preliminary planning analysis for the future Southeast Corcoran water system. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan included a Master Water Plan and Future Land Use and Staging figures, which were used as the starting point for storage, distribution, and demand. The analysis focused on the Southeast system within the 2040 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), which represents the area that the Metropolitan Councils deems likely to develop within the year 2040. However, water systems serve topography, so areas beyond the 2040 MUSA may ultimately be incorporated into this system. This report describes the work conducted as part of this analysis, and includes the evaluation of potential timing, locations, and conceptual sizing for: · Municipal water supply wells · Raw water and trunk water corridors · Water storage facilities · Water treatment plant (WTP) Identifying conceptual locations and layout for facilities and supporting infrastructure is intended to help the City identify parcels or “search areas” ahead of development activity which is important at the current pace of development within Corcoran. Water demand is related to sewer availability and the current wastewater capacity for SE Corcoran is being provided in a separate analysis. An existing water distribution system has already developed in Southeast Corcoran to serve several single family home residential developments and the downtown core, which includes light industrial and commercial users. The system is currently supplied through a connection with Maple Grove, with which Corcoran has an agreement for up to 5 MGD peak supply. As part of this analysis, Stantec reviewed the suitability of this supply for serving the areas within the 2040 MUSA and coordinated a review of the Maple Grove water supply model to understand the constraints and needs of that system as it relates to supplying water to Corcoran. SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS WATER DEMAND 2.1 WATER DEMAND EXISTING DEMAND Because of the rapidly developing nature of Southeast Corcoran, it is difficult to assess existing demand within the system. However, monthly utility billing records for April 2019 – March 2020 were reviewed. Table 2-1 shows a summary of active residential users and water usage during this period. Table 2-1. Existing Residential Demand, May 2019 – March 2020 Month Month Total (MG) Month Daily Average (gal/day) Active Addresses1 Month Average Demand (gal/address/day) Apr-19 0.89 29,799 201 148 May-19 1.91 61,460 203 303 Jun-19 3.60 120,166 213 564 Jul-19 4.08 131,618 217 607 Aug-19 4.08 131,543 226 582 Sep-19 2.54 84,701 240 353 Oct-19 1.49 47,994 250 192 Nov-19 1.23 40,944 252 162 Dec-19 1.20 38,809 262 148 Jan-20 1.05 33,761 266 127 Feb-20 1.00 34,629 275 126 Mar-20 1.30 41,914 291 144 12-Month Total 24.4 Average 66,445 288 1. Active addresses assumed to be those addresses that were billed greater than 1,000 gallons for that month. Based on this analysis of utility billing records, existing residential average day demand (ADD) in Southeast Corcoran is approximately 288 gallons per day (gpd) per household. Because only monthly data was available, it was not possible to analyze the existing maximum day demand (MDD). Assuming a typical 3.0 ratio of MDD:ADD, the existing MDD in Southeast Corcoran can be approximated as 864 gpd per household. Note that the existing demand (288 gpd per household) is likely impacted by the outsized contribution of new homes to total demand within Corcoran. It is typical for newer single-family homes to demand more water on average due to watering of new lawns; however, this impact typically diminishes over time as neighborhoods become established and shade trees mature. The following section presents assumed SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS WATER DEMAND 2.2 future demands that could be expected once the contribution of newer homes is at a lower percentage of total demand. Actual per capita/per home usage should be tracked as Corcoran continues to develop. FUTURE DEMAND The assumed boundaries of the southeast water system within the 2040 MUSA are shown on Figure 1. It is anticipated that as the MUSA expands, additional areas to the west and north of the 2040 MUSA boundary will be added to the Southeast water supply system; however, only areas within the 2040 MUSA were considered for this analysis. Table 2-2 shows how residential area-based demands were derived for the existing and future land uses identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Note that the Comprehensive Plan land use descriptions (in units per acre) are net densities (net area is defined as gross land area minus wetlands and land below the 100-year OHWL). Table 2-2. Residential Land Use-Net Area Demand Rates 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Households per acre1 People per Household2 Avg Day Demand (gpcd)3 Gal per household per day Population per acre Avg Day Demand (gpad) Existing Residential 0.5 2.5 90 225 1.25 113 Low Density Residential 3 2.5 90 225 7.5 675 Medium Density Residential 6.5 2.5 80 200 16.25 1,300 Mixed Residential 9 2.5 75 187.5 22.5 1,688 Mixed Use 10 2.5 70 175 25 1,750 High Density Residential 10 2.5 70 175 25 1,750 1. Land use descriptions from Comprehensive Plan: Existing Residential: These areas developed at approximately 1 unit per 2 acres and not intended to be redeveloped. Low Density Residential: 3 to 5 units per acre. Medium Density Residential: 5 to 8 units per acre. Mixed Residential: 8 to 10 units per acre. Mixed Use: Mix of residential, retail, and office uses within 1 building or 1 development, residential at 8 to 30 units per acre. High Density Residential: 10 to 30 units per acre. 2. Per Comprehensive Plan, 2020 value is 2.68 and projected value for 2040 is 2.4. Comprehensive Plan Water Supply Chapter uses typical value of 2.5 people per household. 3. 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) is stated in the Comprehensive Plan; however, that represents water uses for residential, commercial, public, and industrial combined. 100 gpcd is a typical maximum for residential only, and 90 gpcd is more in-line with existing residential water use in Maple Grove. Note that this analysis assumed the Mixed Use and High-Density Residential areas to be developed on the lower end of their respective land use descriptions. A density of 10 households per acre was assumed for both, although the land use descriptions include a large range of possible densities (8-30 units/acre and 10-30 units/acre, respectively). The same is true of Low Density Residential, where 3 units per acre was assumed while the land use description ranges from 3-5 units/acre. The lower end of the ranges may SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS WATER DEMAND 2.3 be more realistic when considering that some developable land will need to be set aside for right-of-way and incidental green spaces and has been more typical of the actual low-density developments to date. Table 2-3 shows the assumed maximum demand to average demand ratios and maximum day demand rates for residential and non-residential areas. Note that non-residential water demands are dependent on the nature of the users and tend to have a higher base demand variance than residential demands. For example, a warehouse user may demand less than 1,500 gal/day on average while a water-intensive manufacturer may demand much more water on average. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that these are planning assumptions only and that actual water usage should be verified as industrial and commercial areas develop. Table 2-3. Average Day and Maximum Day Demand Rates 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Avg Day Demand (gpad) Max: Avg Ratio Max Day Demand (gpad) Existing Residential 113 3.0 338 Agricultural Preserve 675 3.0 2,025 Low Density Residential 675 3.0 2,025 Med Density Residential 1,300 3.0 3,900 High Density Residential 1,750 3.0 5,250 Mixed Residential 1,688 3.0 5,063 Light Industrial 1,500 1.5 2,250 Business Park 1,500 1.5 2,250 Commercial 1,500 1.5 2,250 Mixed Use 1,750 2.5 4,375 Public 500 2.0 1,000 For modeling purposes, the Southeast system was subdivided into 44 water supply nodes, representing the spatial distribution of water demand throughout the system. Figure 1 shows the location and boundaries of the water supply nodes, overlaid with the future land use map. Table 2-4 (included in Appendix A) shows the measured net acres assigned to each water supply node. The average day and maximum day demand for each node were calculated based off the buildable future land use areas within each node. The estimated residential population for each node was also calculated based on net future land use areas. The approximate year of development for each node is shown, based on the staging map from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS MUNICIPAL WELLS AND RAW WATER PIPING 3.1 MUNICIPAL WELLS AND RAW WATER PIPING In order to transition away from utilizing the Maple Grove water supply, the City will need to develop its own groundwater supply from within Corcoran. This section includes analysis of the anticipated aquifer, target areas for municipal well installation, anticipated well yields, preliminary raw water piping routes, and future test wells. Section 4.0 will discuss the recommended water treatment plant (WTP) location relative to the municipal well target areas. WELL PLANNING For planning purposes, the wells are assumed to all be completed in the Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer, the same bedrock aquifer that is planned for Municipal Well No. 1 in Northeast Corcoran. Targeting municipal well locations in the areas where the Jordan aquifer is present (the gold-colored areas of the geologic map shown on Figure 2) will ensure that a full thickness of the Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer is present, which maximizes the potential well capacity. As can be seen on this figure, a significant southwest to northeast trending bedrock valley is present towards the central area of Corcoran. The bedrock valley is an area where the full thickness of the target aquifer is likely not present, which could possibly reduce the capacity of municipal wells completed in those areas. A conceptual municipal well layout within the current Southeast Corcoran MUSA boundary is shown on the geologic map (Figure 2) and also on a focused view of the parcel map (Figure 3). Figure 2 also shows a more general “target area” for locating additional municipal wells as the Southeast/Southwest Corcoran MUSA lines expand west/north over time. Specific municipal well locations within this target area were not selected with this study, given the more distant timeframe for MUSA expansion into these areas. Although the Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer is anticipated to be the most likely aquifer for a viable water supply, the Jordan aquifer could also be considered for water supply at a given well location if a full or nearly-full thickness of the Jordan was found to be present. Jordan aquifer municipal wells would not be viable at many locations due to substantial erosion of the Jordan aquifer thickness or even just due to a naturally thinner (uneroded) area of the Jordan aquifer. This is particularly true for the 15 well locations shown on Figure 3. The Jordan aquifer is also somewhat less desirable due to potential increased vulnerability to surface contamination events (i.e., the St. Lawrence confining unit lies between the Jordan and Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifers) and also due to possible increased variability in WTP operation due to the more-varied raw water composition when multiple aquifers are involved, though this effect may or may not be all that significant. Hence, the Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer remains the “first choice” target aquifer for well field planning purposes, and the Jordan aquifer is only noted as a possible secondary choice, should the Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer prove inadequate at a given location. The minimum well spacing for the specific municipal wells shown on Figures 2 and 3 was 2,000 feet. Municipal wells need to be located a reasonable distance apart to prevent any significant overlap in the drawdown zones, which would reduce the capacities of the two wells when they need to be pumped at SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS MUNICIPAL WELLS AND RAW WATER PIPING 3.2 the same time. Two primary reference points were utilized in selecting this spacing. The City of Rogers is the closest adjacent city that has multiple wells (seven) completed in the Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer. Within the two distinct well groupings, the well spacings are generally 1,200 or 1,500 feet. Since Corcoran has not yet installed its first municipal well or two to allow detailed testing and analysis of the actual well interference potential in the Corcoran well field area, a slightly more conservative spacing of 2,000 feet was selected. Another reference is the pump testing of Dayton Municipal Well No. 3, in which drawdown was measured at approximately 20 feet in a monitoring well located 1,000 feet away. It is likely that the potential drawdown at 2,000 feet would be around 10 feet or less, which would be a tolerable amount. Municipal well locations shown on Figure 3 were selected to be within the previously described geologic target area and to be on larger undeveloped parcels, which should give greater flexibility for siting exact well locations and for routing raw water piping. These well locations are only approximate and can certainly be adjusted as development progresses and as aquifer knowledge improves with actual municipal well installation (particularly with regard to well spacing, as discussed previously). Test wells are recommended in the relatively near future to verify that the Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer will provide an adequate water supply for Southeast Corcoran. Test wells (typically 6-inch diameter wells that fully penetrate the target aquifer) are used to verify adequate capacity via test pumping and acceptable water quality via sampling and laboratory analysis. Test wells are often installed in a sequential manner coincident with each new municipal well that is added to an existing, established water system. However, in this case, where there are no existing wells and high-level decisions are being made regarding use of the Maple Grove supply versus installing the City’s own water supply, an initial installation of three test wells is recommended to get good indication of aquifer viability across the well field shown on Figure 3. In the proposed Larkin Road Industrial Park, the City is requesting that the developer provide a parcel to the City for locating a future municipal well. Hence, this may be a good location for one of the three initial test wells. Since this well location is in the north central part of the well field, it would be beneficial to spread the other two test well location out across the larger well field area, i.e., locating one test well on the east/southeast edge (across County Road 116) and another test well toward the southwest corner of the well field would be a good strategy. TOTAL WELL CAPACITY VERSUS DEMAND There are 15 wells shown on Figure 4, and thus the firm capacity would be determined with 14 of the 15 wells pumping (the largest well is assumed to be offline for determining firm capacity). If well capacities were ultimately determined to average approximately 500 gpm, total well production capacity would be 7,000 gpm (14 x 500 gpm), or 10.1 MGD. However, well capacities could ultimately prove to be somewhat higher, as the average well capacity in Rogers is over 750 gpm. At a higher average rate of 750 gpm, total well production capacity would be 10,500 gpm (14 x 750 gpm), or approximately 15 MGD. Compared to the estimated total maximum day demand of 8.7 MGD for Southeast plus Southwest Corcoran (using the current MUSA lines), the conceptual wellfield shown on Figure 3 is anticipated to provide a firm capacity that ranges from 10.1 to 15 MGD, which is 16% to 72% above the estimated SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS MUNICIPAL WELLS AND RAW WATER PIPING 3.3 demand. Hence the conceptual well field appears to be an adequate size, with some conservatism, for the corresponding service area that is currently being evaluated. Should the well field end up on the smaller end of the capacity range, a “shortage” would not be expected given that MUSA lines will be expanding north and west during the same time that demand is gradually increasing to 8.7 MGD, and any gap in supply could be filled by starting to install municipal wells near the eastern edges of the “western” wellfield area (the target area shown on Figure 2). RAW WATERMAIN In conjunction with conceptual well locations, a conceptual layout was developed for raw water (untreated groundwater) piping, which would deliver raw water from the network of wells to the centralized WTP. The conceptual layout for raw watermain is shown on Figure 3, utilizing pipe sizes of 8- to 30-inch diameter. Sizing was based on 750 gpm per well and a target velocity of 4 to 5 fps. In some cases, the raw water piping was placed along county or city roads (e.g., County Road 116, Larkin Road, Blue Bonnet Drive). For county roads, the piping would likely be placed just outside the road right-of-way in City drainage and utility easement. For city roads, the piping could also be placed in such easements, or could be placed directly in the streets, whichever is preferred. In other cases, where wells are dispersed among large undeveloped parcels/areas, raw water piping is shown routing through the undeveloped parcels. In these cases, routing is strictly conceptual, and actual routing would be adjusted to follow the alignment of the newly established streets in each development, or possibly inside/back lot drainage and utility easements in some piping areas. In areas where a development occurs ahead of well placement (and therefore ahead of the need for raw water piping construction), the City will need to decide whether to install raw water segments ahead of the need (when it can be installed more easily and at lower costs via open trenching methods), versus directional drilling at a later time. If installation is delayed in order to be coincident with well installation, directional drilling is more expensive, especially in the larger pipe sizes. However, it may still be more attractive when facing the alternative of open trenching along the streets of newer developments, where streets are too new to need replacement and where other utility lines and service lines are much more difficult to work around. Final decisions regarding the timing and installation methods for raw water piping can be made as each new development is approved by the City. As well capacities are better defined through test wells and actual municipal well installation and testing, and if well locations and/or spacing is significantly altered, the conceptual locations and sizing of raw water lines may need to be adjusted in some areas. However, pipe size adjustments are expected to be relatively limited, most likely just one pipe size different in some of the segments. SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS WATER TREATMENT 4.1 WATER TREATMENT The type of water treatment is not being studied with this analysis; rather, this report is focused on the general skeletonization of a Southeast Water System. Given this purpose, the focus of this report is WTP sizing (based on the water demands developed herein), general water treatment plant location, and the approximate parcel size that is needed for the WTP. However, for reference, the Northeast Corcoran WTP that is currently being designed is a gravity filtration plant for iron and manganese removal. Given that the same aquifer will be utilized in Southeast Corcoran, similar water quality is anticipated and hence the baseline assumption for the water treatment method in Southeast Corcoran is a gravity filtration plant for iron and manganese removal. The feasibility study (and supplements) that were prepared for the Northeast Water System provided detailed information on gravity versus pressure filtration for iron and manganese removal, and also provided information on higher-level treatment options for water softening (lime softening, ion exchange, and nanofiltration), and these documents can be referenced for general information on potential water treatment methods. TARGET AREA FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITING The target area for the Southeast Water System was selected with the idea that one WTP would serve all of Southeast/Southwest Corcoran, though multiple WTP expansions would likely occur over time to reach the ultimate, full-development capacity. It was also assumed that Northeast Corcoran would be served by the Northeast Water System that is currently being design (plus future expansions). When fully expanded, the Northeast and Southeast (with Southwest) Systems would be separated by the approximate dividing line shown on Figure 4. This line is topography-based, i.e., the Northeast System has slightly lower ground elevations, and will therefore have a lower hydraulic grade line to achieve similar target operating pressures within each of the two pressure zones. The operating water level for water towers in Northeast will thus be at a lower elevation than the Southeast/Southwest by about 50 feet. This means that any desired water transfer from the Northeast to the Southeast/Southwest systems would need to be done via pumping (i.e., a booster station), and any water transfer in the reverse direction would need to be done through pressure reducing stations (i.e., pressure reducing valves). Evaluation of water supply transfer between pressure zones, potentially affecting future WTP sizing in one or both zones, is beyond the scope of this study but could be the subject of future studies. With the idea of one WTP serving all of Southeast/Southwest Corcoran, the selected target area is an area approximately 2 miles (east-west) by 1.5 miles (north-south), as shown on Figure 4. The more central area of the entire Southeast Water System pressure zone was selected as the recommended area. With one WTP in mind, this is preferable over locating the WTP nearer to a Corcoran municipal boundary. The hydraulic constraints that would come into play with an “edge of Corcoran” location would require larger distribution system water lines to be installed over longer distances, increasing distribution system costs. A more centrally located WTP would minimize such costs. If a specific parcel is identified SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS WATER TREATMENT 4.2 outside the existing MUSA line, then prior to acquisition, the location should be discussed with the Metropolitan Council, as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would likely be required. Lastly, although the target area was identified with one WTP in mind for the Southeast pressure zone, this would not preclude a later decision to locate two WTPs within the Southeast pressure zone, perhaps one near the eastern edge of the target zone and one located somewhat northwest of the target area. At a time when the City is nearing its WTP parcel acquisition and/or its initial “phase one” WTP construction, additional studies could be conducted to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of a one versus two WTP approach, and the skeletonization that is being done in this study does not commit the City to either approach at this early stage of conceptual planning. In general, the selected target area is located between the two wellfield areas shown on Figure 2. In essence, the WTP will be sited over or near the bedrock valley (where municipal wells are less likely to be installed), and hence the raw water from each wellfield will be brought to the central WTP from “both sides” in the more fully-developed state. A number of larger parcels are located within the target area, from which a smaller WTP-size parcel could be obtained. A few smaller parcels (in whole) might also be options within this target area. There are some larger areas designated as 100-year floodplain within the target area, and these areas would need to be avoided. In fact, when considering a specific WTP parcel, the fact that a municipal water ground storage tank (GST) might be located at the WTP location should be kept in mind. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) requires that the floor of a GST be located above the 100-year floodplain elevation, which means that topography should be considered more closely at a prospective site. Parcels that are generally “flatter/lower” sites bordering these floodplain areas may limit the possibilities for siting GSTs, versus sites that provide greater elevation differences from the floodplain elevation. PARCEL SIZE FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT The exact parcel size that is needed would be difficult to determine, given the number of variables involved. These include the treatment plant capacity (which would be affected by the one versus two WTP approach as discussed in the prior section), water treatment method, presence or absence of a treated water GST (and size), etc. However, for planning purposes, if we assume one WTP in the Southeast pressure zone (the most conservative approach for parcel sizing), which would be on the order of 25 MGD, and assume that space for several million gallons of treated water ground storage will be needed, a parcel size of approximately 10 to 15 acres would likely be appropriate. However, this parcel size assumes 10 to 15 acres of strictly upland area. Importantly, a larger parcel would be needed if any wetland or floodplain areas are located directly within the parcel, or if nearby (off-parcel) floodplain potentially limits GST placement on the parcel due to flatter/lower topography. This parcel size is reasonable compared to other water treatment facilities that Stantec is or has been involved with. Also, as a general approach, it would be better to err on the side of a larger parcel for the long-term viability and flexibility of the WTP site. Ending up with a site that is too small can present significant problems, while a SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS WATER TREATMENT 4.3 site that is too big can be easily remedied by siting other City facilities (future maintenance facilities, storage facilities, public-use facilities, etc.), or by simply selling the excess land. Future studies will be needed to refine the one versus two WTP approach, the exact water treatment method, exact GST sizing, etc., which will also include cost analyses that are beyond the scope of this report. Timing for water treatment plant construction is discussed in Section 5.4. SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODELING AND WATER STORAGE 5.1 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODELING AND WATER STORAGE WATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND ASSUMPTIONS Model Description Hydraulic analysis of the Southeast Corcoran water system was conducted using the computer modeling software WaterCAD, which simulates the water system’s response to various demand, supply, and firefighting scenarios. Each condition creates different responses in the water system. The modeling results help to identify and evaluate the various options for providing future water system infrastructure in Southeast Corcoran, including pipe sizing, supply locations, and water tower location and estimated timing. The model developed for this analysis consisted of a “skeletonized” concept network of trunk water mains to supply water throughout the Southeast Corcoran system within the 2040 MUSA boundaries. Generally, the trunk distribution system consists of large diameter trunk mains, typically sized from 12 to 24 inches. As neighborhoods develop, smaller diameter lines would be looped to connect to this trunk system, but these smaller lines were not included at this concept stage of modeling. Similarly, municipal wells and raw water piping were not included in the model as they are not necessary to be modeled at this stage of planning. Supply was instead modeled as negative demand nodes, in the case of the future WTP and boosted supply from Maple Grove, and as a fixed-hydraulic grade reservoir in the case of supply from Maple Grove prior to the construction of the first water tower. The hydraulic grade of the Maple Grove supply was confirmed through a review of the Maple Grove WaterCAD model. By modeling the future WTP and booster station as negative demand nodes, it is assumed that those facilities will be appropriately sized (as part of future detailed design) to supply the required flows at the requisite pressures experienced by the system under typical conditions. The water demands placed on the pipe network totaled approximately 8.7 MGD (MDD) and were distributed as shown in Table 2-2 in Section 2.2 of this report. For various scenarios where interim stages of development were analyzed, the active pipes and demand were scaled back to meet the overall system demand as noted in the discussion of those scenarios. For fire flow analysis, a minimum residual system pressure of 20 psi was used. Maple Grove Supply Under a contract to provide water service, Maple Grove will continue to supply Southeast Corcoran with up to a peak capacity of 5 MGD. This allows Corcoran some flexibility as to the timing of construction of its own supply facilities in the Southeast (wells and WTP). Currently, some of this allocation is being SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODELING AND WATER STORAGE 5.2 supplied to Northeast Corcoran, but with the development of supply facilities in the Northeast, all of this allocation will be shifted to Southeast Corcoran. Maple Grove staff will review its system and advise Corcoran of the timing of any significant investments to serve the 5 MGD. The existing Maple Grove contract also offers Corcoran the option for a staged approach to its water supply, i.e. blending supply from a combination of Maple Grove and Corcoran’s own supply facilities. This alternative was also modeled for this analysis. A blended supply would be most feasible if Corcoran ultimately implements treatment for iron and manganese removal, which would then match Maple Grove’s treatment method. If higher-level treatment (water softening) were to be pursued in Corcoran, then a blended option may not be viable. TRUNK WATER MAINS To provide potable water to users and provide for adequate fire protection, the distribution system needs to be sized adequately within the planning area. Refer to Figure 5 which shows the proposed trunk water main locations and diameters within the Southeast Corcoran 2040 MUSA. The trunk distribution system would consist of large diameter trunk mains, typically sized from 16 to 24 inches, from the WTP to the storage facilities. Large diameter trunk mains would also convey water throughout planning area. Smaller diameter (typically 8-inch) branch lines would be looped from the trunk lines into residential areas to serve users and provide adequate fire flow at those locations. The size and location of these non-trunk lines would be provided as necessary based on the nature of each development and reviewed individually, and thus are not included in this analysis. Another consideration for trunk main sizing was to balance the expected head loss between the source(s) of supply and each water tower. This ensures that both towers could be filled by the system under normal operating conditions and thus provide maximum storage benefit. With full buildout of the trunk system within the 2040 MUSA boundary as shown on Figure 5 and assuming supply from the WTP, modeling indicated a difference of approximately 2 ft of hydraulic grade between the first and second towers, which is a minimal and acceptable amount. WATER STORAGE AND TIMING ANALYSIS Required Water Storage Capacity To equalize demands on supply sources and treatment facilities, adequate water storage is required. Water is typically stored in ground reservoirs or water towers. These facilities are designed to provide adequate pressures and flows for both fire flows in emergencies and the connected users. By operating off of a water tower by gravity, fire flow pressures and demands can be maintained without the need of high-capacity fire pumps, providing a buffer against total loss of water system pressure. For this reason, SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODELING AND WATER STORAGE 5.3 water towers are particularly useful as the first type of water storage constructed. Whereas additional storage structures can utilize more ground storage components, if desired. A system’s total storage volume must meet the larger of average day demand volume or fire flow volume. For residential areas, a target fire flow of 1,500 gpm (2-hour duration) is assumed. For commercial/industrial areas, a higher target fire flow of 3,000 gpm (3-hour duration) is typical. New commercial/industrial buildings will be sprinklered and, as such, most of these buildings will ultimately have a lower acceptable target. However, 3,000 gpm is deemed a reasonable overall target, and allows for some conservatism in this safety-driven parameter. Using the Ten States design standards, the required storage volume for ultimate development of Southeast Corcoran within the 2040 MUSA is calculated below: Average Day Demand: 3,400,000 gallons Fire Flow Demand: 3,000 gallons/minute x 3 hours x 60 minutes/hour = 540,000 gallons As Corcoran develops, daily demand will quickly exceed fire flow demand and therefore dictate storage capacity. Based on tank size availability and phasing of development, two 1.0 million-gallon towers plus additional ground storage of up to 1.5 million gallons is anticipated for Southeast Corcoran through 2040. The ground storage would be constructed at the WTP and could be progressively expanded as demands increase within the system. However, sizing of storage tanks (both ground and elevated) should be finalized with additional study. The storage height of the water towers would be based on providing a range of ideal static pressures throughout the system of 40-90 psi. Based on the predominant ground elevations throughout Southeast Corcoran, a tank high water level of 1156 ft MSL is assumed. Note that when modeling steady-state scenarios in WaterCAD, tanks are set to be three-quarters full, with a water level of 1146 ft MSL. Tower 1 Location and Timing Per a prior Wenck Technical Memo dated May 2017, the first water tower would be constructed near the point at which maximum day demand (MDD) reaches 1.75 MGD. The water tower was assumed to be constructed just east of the downtown area near the intersection of CR116 and CR10, and the booster station would be constructed concurrently with the water tower at a location just inside Corcoran at the Maple Grove feed point (J-03). The booster station would need to be constructed concurrently with the water tower due to the lower hydraulic grade line in Maple Grove. For this analysis, the skeletonized model was run for three primary conditions to confirm the prior conclusions for timing of the first tower. First, the model was run with a supply from Maple Grove at a hydraulic grade (HGL) of 1098 (confirmed by a review of the latest Maple grove model) but assuming the tower and booster station not yet constructed. Second, the model was run with the tower and booster added in. Lastly, the model was run with the tower and WTP added in and the Maple Grove connection SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODELING AND WATER STORAGE 5.4 closed. All three scenarios assumed that the trunk water main extended out only to the nodes required for a total MDD of 1.8 MGD. Some active nodes required for proper pipe routing were left on but had their demands turned off. Figures 6 and 7 show the fire flow and pressure results within the system under the first scenario described above – prior to construction of the first water tower, booster station, and/or WTP. As confirmed in previous analyses, several areas of the system begin to experience marginal fire flows (1,659 gpm and 1,715 gpm at nodes J-12 and J-S02, respectively) and pressures (32.2 psi and 37.5 psi at nodes J-12 and J-S02, respectively). Note that it is likely that some small diameter lines, which were not modeled, would likely experience even lower fire flow and pressures than those indicated above. Figures 8 and 9 show the fire flow and pressure results within the system under the third scenario described above, with the first tower and WTP constructed in the locations shown on the figures. Note that both the second and third scenarios showed similar improvement in fire flow and pressure results, indicating that the timing of the WTP does not necessarily need to match that of the first tower; however, a booster station at the Maple Grove connection point would be required in this case to raise the hydraulic grade such that the tower could be filled. These scenarios confirm that the timing of construction of the first water tower should be at or prior to a total system MDD of approximately 1.8 MGD. As the system approaches this threshold, continued conversations should be had with Maple Grove to ensure the improvements are coordinated with additional infrastructure projects they may be planning related to storage and pressure systems. On the other hand, if the WTP is not constructed with the first water tower, it would need to be constructed relatively soon thereafter unless improvements in the Maple Grove system are undertaken before this time. This may make concurrent construction and implementation of the WTP and Tower 1 attractive. Tower 2 Location and Timing The topography in the southwest corner of Corcoran rises steeply to an elevated plateau (1050-1070 ft MSL), bounded roughly by Pioneer Trail which cuts diagonally across that corner of Corcoran. Due largely to this difference in elevation from the rest of Southeast Corcoran (970-1020 ft MSL), modeling indicates marginal pressures and fire flows in this area. This corner of Corcoran is also zoned light industrial and commercial, so fire flows in the range of 3,000 gpm are desired. Staging maps as well as the MUSA boundary show that this area is likely to develop on the later end of the 2040 planning period. By the time utilities are extended, this area will be relatively isolated from the rest of Southeast Corcoran’s infrastructure. Total system demands will also likely require that additional storage be constructed for the system around this time, and possibly sooner. However, the second type of storage constructed in Corcoran (after Tower 1) is likely to be ground storage at the WTP. Given the previously cited 3.4 MG of total storage needed at full development of the current MUSA boundary, approximately 1 to 1.5 MG of ground storage is likely needed at the WTP, given that Towers 1 and 2 are SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODELING AND WATER STORAGE 5.5 initially sized at 1 MG each (further studies will eventually be needed to fine tune these sizes and the timing thereof). Based on these factors, the southwest corner of Corcoran appears to be an attractive location for a second tower for the Southeast system. An additional factor that makes this location ideal for a tower is that the predominant land uses in the area are light industrial and commercial. Modeling was performed assuming a second tower located between nodes J-41 and J-43. For this analysis, the skeletonized model was run for four primary conditions to confirm that siting a tower in this area would indeed be the best approach for improving pressure and fire flow in this area (short of implementing a boosted pressure zone). First, the model was run with a 16-inch trunk line along Horseshoe Trail without the second water tower. Second, the model was run with the tower added in. Third, the model was run without the second tower but with a 24-inch trunk line along Horseshoe Trail instead of the 16-inch. Lastly, the model was run without the second tower but with a second trunk line (24-inch) extending west from the WTP, then south (16-inch) to connect to the northern edge of the southwest corner. This last scenario represented an ultimate future loop to be constructed beyond the year 2040. All three scenarios assumed full development of the trunk water main network within the 2040 MUSA boundary, and supply from the WTP. For the first three scenarios, a total MDD of 8.7 MGD was assumed. For the fourth scenario, additional demand was assigned along the 24-inch loop outside the 2040 MUSA (with a corresponding increase to supply at the WTP), to represent post-2040 development likely to occur along that corridor. Table 5-2 shows modeling results for the key nodes in the southwest for each of these scenarios. Table 5-1. Southwest and Tower 2 Modeling Results Node Elevation (ft MSL) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) J-39 1017 931 54.9 5,000 56.4 3,773 60.5 2,806 59.5 J-40 1057 725 36.5 3,672 38.3 2,648 42.9 2,267 42.0 J-41 1060 757 35.5 5,000 37.2 3,294 41.8 2,519 40.9 J-42 1058 707 36.1 3,372 37.8 2,452 42.4 2,105 41.6 J-43 1070 692 31.0 3,814 32.7 2,345 37.3 1,967 36.5 J-S04 1059 732 35.8 5,000 37.6 3,180 42.2 2,474 41.5 The results indicate that while a 24-inch line along Horseshoe Trail (Scenario 3) may help to boost pressures in the southwest, crucially, fire flows are not improved to meet or exceed the desired 3,000 gpm fire flow for this industrial and commercial area. Similarly, the future trunk loop beyond the 2040 MUSA boundary (Scenario 4) cannot be depended on to provide adequate fire flow in this area, though it too would eventually provide slight improvement of pressures. Short of implementing a boosted pressure SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODELING AND WATER STORAGE 5.6 zone, locating the second water tower in this area (Scenario 2) is the best option for meeting fire flow targets. Figures 10 and 11 show the fire flow and pressure results within the entire system under Scenario 1 described above (before Tower 2) and Figures 12 and 13 show fire flow and pressure results for Scenario 2 (after Tower 2). Each of these scenarios assumed a total system MDD of 8.7 MGD and a 16-inch trunk line along Horseshoe Trail. WATER TREATMENT PLANT TIMING As discussed in the Tower 1 Timing section, construction of the WTP is relatively more flexible due to the existing Maple Grove supply and is not exclusively driven by the same factors (i.e., marginal system fire flows and pressures). As the system develops, the thresholds for constructing the water treatment plant should be revisited as infrastructure improvements are implemented. In addition to considering a WTP with the initial tower storage, the system should be revised once half of the allowable capacity is accounted for at 2.5 MGD. Therefore, the 2.5 MGD threshold represents an important milestone at which Corcoran may decide to invest in its own supply infrastructure for the future. At the 2.5 MDG threshold, the City of Corcoran could continue to receive water from Maple Grove up to the 5 MGD threshold or could consider beginning to build its water system to begin supplementing the capacity not provided by Maple Grove. Southeast Corcoran has the option to continue receiving water from Maple Grove while simultaneously expanding its own supply infrastructure to meet additional demand. This was modeled in a “blended supply” scenario which assumed this arrangement up to a total MDD of 5.0 MGD, with 2.5 MGD being supplied by Maple Grove (via a booster station) and the remaining 2.5 MGD supplied by the initial WTP. Beyond this point, Corcoran may decide to make additional upgrades to its WTP so that it is able to independently meet demand going forward. Figures 14 and 15 show the fire flow and pressure results within the system under the scenario described above, with a total system MDD of 5.0 MGD, at which point it is expected the first tower and sufficient ground storage at the WTP are available (at least 1.75 MG combined total). SOUTHEAST WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS 6.1 CONCLUSIONS Below is a list of key conclusions from this analysis of Corcoran’s Southeast Water System: · Timing of the first elevated water storage tank was confirmed, based on previous analyses, to be needed at approximately 1.8 MGD maximum day demand, at the latest. The City could pursue the first tower sooner if desired for economic or other reasons. It is assumed this tower will be located just east of downtown Corcoran (Figure 5) and will be 1.0 MG. · Timing of municipal supply wells and water treatment plant (WTP) is more flexible given the existing supply connection with Maple Gove. If construction of the WTP is not concurrent with the first tower, a booster station would be required at the Maple Grove connection. · Timing of WTP construction may be driven based on needed improvements within Maple Grove’s water system. · The WTP is assumed to be located centrally (Figures 4 and 5) to ultimately supply all of Southeast/Southwest Corcoran and would likely be expanded in stages. The staging of WTP expansions also depends on how quickly it is desired to transition away from Maple Grove’s supply. · Ground storage will likely be needed at the WTP between construction of Tower 1 and Tower 2, likely on the order of 1 to 1.5 MG (further analysis will be needed to fine tune all storage sizes and the timing thereof). · For planning purposes, municipal supply wells are assumed to all be completed in the Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer within the conceptual eastern wellfield area (Figures 2 and 3). Up to 15 wells (14 wells firm capacity at a conservative 500-750 gpm each) are assumed for development within the 2040 MUSA boundary. · Test wells are recommended in the relatively near future to verify that the Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer will provide an adequate water supply for Southeast Corcoran. · The timing and location of the second elevated water storage tank may be driven by topographic and geographic challenges with providing adequate fire flow and pressure to the far southwest corner of Corcoran, which is at a higher elevation than other areas within the Southeast MUSA boundary. The southwest corner seems a likely location for the second tower (Figure 5). · Sewer availability is related to water demand and that analysis is also being prepared in 2022. APPENDIX A – TABLES Avg Day Demand Max Day Demand (MGD) (MGD) J-01 167 0.11 0.34 1,221 2020-25 J-02 24 0.01 0.02 61 2020-25 J-03 19 0.03 0.07 334 2020-25 J-04 68 0.07 0.21 876 2020-25 J-05 31 0.02 0.06 223 2020-25 J-06 85 0.04 0.07 26 2030-35 J-07 58 0.04 0.13 470 2025-30 J-08 78 0.13 0.39 1,749 2025-30 J-09 14 0.02 0.07 291 2020-25 J-10 167 0.22 0.59 2,939 2020-25 J-11 56 0.04 0.12 451 2030-35 J-12 53 0.01 0.02 66 2035-40 J-13 56 0.04 0.11 420 2020-25 J-14 30 0.02 0.06 228 2020-25 J-15 78 0.01 0.04 144 2035-40 J-16 77 0.09 0.28 1,184 2025-30 J-17 50 0.08 0.2 798 2020-25 J-18 60 0.11 0.26 1,496 2020-25 J-19 34 0.06 0.15 840 2020-25 J-20 133 0.09 0.27 997 2020-25 J-21 71 0.03 0.06 196 2035-40 J-22 77 0.1 0.15 0 2020-25 J-23 17 0.02 0.07 280 2020-25 J-24 94 0.06 0.19 703 2020-25 J-25 54 0.08 0.25 1,137 2025-30 J-26 122 0.04 0.11 417 2035-40 J-27 50 0.03 0.1 376 2035-40 J-28 48 0.01 0.04 164 2035-40 J-29 87 0.12 0.2 131 2020-25 J-30 25 0.02 0.03 18 2020-25 J-31 62 0.04 0.08 128 2030-35 J-32 172 0.19 0.58 2,413 2030-35 J-33 125 0.08 0.25 939 2035-40 J-34 233 0.16 0.47 1,736 2035-40 J-35 319 0.18 0.53 1,969 2035-40 J-36 203 0.14 0.43 1,602 2035-40 J-37 101 0.05 0.15 543 2035-40 J-38 135 0.09 0.26 961 2035-40 J-39 216 0.06 0.19 699 2035-40 J-40 133 0.18 0.31 303 2030-35 J-41 174 0.12 0.3 867 2035-40 J-42 124 0.19 0.28 0 2030-35 J-43 73 0.11 0.16 0 2035-40 Total (Inside 2040 MUSA)4,055 3.4 8.7 30,398 2020-40 J-44 (Outside 2040 MUSA)1 8,292 5.8 16.7 60,682 2040+ Water Supply Node Net Area (acres) Ultimate Population Staging Years 1. Because the 2040 Comprehensive Plan does not include future land use designations outside the 2040 MUSA, for ultimate projections it was assumed that Rural/Agricultural Residential areas are equivalent to Low Density Residential Table 2-4. Net Area, Average Day and Maximum Day Demand, Population, Staging by Node APPENDIX B – FIGURES Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County 44 42 43 40 41 39 38 37 26 27 20 14 15 12 1 13 3 2 16 34 7 8 4 5 9 17 1018 6192324 3236 35 31 30 22 29 28 33 21 1125 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-01 By: kjmuellerLegend Municipal Boundary MUSA 2040 Water Node Boundaries Parcels Unbuildable Future Land Use 2040 Rural/Ag Residential Existing Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Residential High Density Residential Rural Service/Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Business Park Light Industrial Public/Semi-Public Parks/Open Space Agricultural Preserve (Date of Expiration) Open Water Developed/Developing Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County, MNDNR (At original document size of 11x17) 1:42,000 0 1,750 3,500 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-01 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran Buildable Acres Analysis SE Water System Node Boundaries 1 Anoka County Carver County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Stearns County Wright County #* !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Os CsCw Cs Cj Os Cs Ctm Ctm Os Cj Cj Cj Cj Ctm Os CjCj CsCs Cj Ctm Cj Cj Os Cj Cj Cj Cj Cs Cs Ctl Cs Cs Ctm Ctm Ctl Cw Os Os Cj Cj Cs Ctl Cj Ctm Os Ctl Ctl Ctl Ctl Ctl Cj Cj Ctl Ctm Cj Cj Cj Cj Cj Cj Cj Cs Cs Cs Ctm Ctm Ctl Ctl Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-20 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary !(Potential Municipal Well Locations in SE Corcoran Target Area for Locating Additional Municipal Wells as SE Corcoran Expands Westward #*Planned Municipal Well #1 and Water Treatment Plant Site for NE Corcoran Bedrock Geology Od, Decorah Shale Opg, Platteville Fm & Glenwood Fm Os, St. Peter Sandstone Ops, Prairie du Chein Grp, Shakopee Fm Opo, Prairie du Chein, Grp, Oneota Dolomite Cj, Jordan Sandstone Cs, St. Lawrence Fm Ctm, Tunnel City Grp, Mazomanie Fm Ctl, Tunnel City Grp, Lone Rock Fm Cw, Tunnel City Grp, Wonewoc Sandstone Ce, Eau Claire Fm Cm, Mt. Simon Sandstone Bedrock Cross Section Locations Faults Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 15N 2. Data Sources: University of Minnesota/Minnesota Geologic Society 3. Background: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (At original document size of 11x17) 1:42,000 0 1,750 3,500 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-20 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Geologic Map with Potential Municipal Well Locations 2 Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( City of Medina City of Maple GroveTo WTP $456710 456747 4567101 4567116 456750 4567116 456710 HunterRdSnyder RdCSAH 101Old S e t t lers RdMohawk DrAbilene L a Willow Dr CSAH 10WCorcoranTrECorcoran TrTrail Haven RdOld Settlers RdWillow DrHackamore Rd Brockton La NGleason RdBlue Bonnet DrCR-116CSAH 50 Larkin Rd MapleHillRdCR-116Horseshoe Tr KalkRdLarkin Rd C S A H 1 0 12" 14" 8'' 14'' 14'' 8'' 8''30'' 8'' 12'' 24'' 8'' 8" 8'' 12'' 8'' 20'' 12" Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Target Area for Siting Future SE Corcoran WTP !(Potential Municipal Well Locations Potential Raw Water Piping Locations Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 15N 2. Data Sources: University of Minnesota/Minnesota Geologic Society 3. Background: 2020 Hennepin Co. Aerial (At original document size of 11x17) 1:18,000 0 750 1,500 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Potential Municipal Well and Raw Water Piping Locations 3 Anoka County Carver County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Stearns County Wright County !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 456730 456719 456750 456730 4567116 456710 456719 456750 456710 Willow DrMeister Rd 109t h A ve N Homestead Tr Maple Hill RdBechtold RdS chu t t e Rd 97th Ave N Kalk RdLarkin Rd Horseshoe TrRolling HillsRdOl dSet tlers R d Stie g R d Pio n eer T r Cain RdO a k d a le Dr Trail Haven Rd97th Ave N 93rd Ave N CR-116CSAH 10 CSAH 19CSAH 50 Strehler Rd CSAH 10 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-20 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary MUSA 2040 Parcels Target Area for Siting Future SE Corcoran WTP Approximate Boundary between NE and SE Pressure zones !(Potential Municipal Well Locations 100 Year Floodplain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 15N 2. Data Sources: University of Minnesota/Minnesota Geologic Society 3. Background: 2020 Hennepin Co. Aerial (At original document size of 11x17) 1:42,000 0 1,750 3,500 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-20 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Target Area for Siting Future SE Corcoran Water Treatment Plant 4 Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( NE Water District SE Water District 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 456710 T-1 T-2 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) J-03 J-05 J-18J-30 J-17 J-S01 J-29 J-02 J-16 J-14J-33 J-34 J-35 J-36 J-25 J-08J-28 J-12J-20 J-27 J-SO2 J-26 J-15 J-04 J-10 J-24 J-31 J-11 J-19J-23 J-37J-38J-39 J-40J-42 J-43 J-41 J-01 J-13 J-06 J-09 J-32 J-07 J-21 J-S03 J-S04 Water Treatment Plant Proposed Booster Station Proposed Water Storage Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Water Treatment Plant !(Water Tower !(Water Nodes Existing 12'' Watermain Existing 16'' Watermain Existing 20'' Watermain Existing 24'' Watermain Proposed 8'' Watermain Proposed 12'' Watermain Proposed 16'' Watermain Proposed 20'' Watermain Proposed 24'' Watermain MUSA 2040 Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones Parcels Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,350 2,700 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System SE Trunk Water System Layout 5 Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( NE Water District SE Water District 456710 4567116 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 Maple Grove Supply=1098 HGL Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones MUSA 2040 Available Fire Flow !(<500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(>3,500 gpm Existing Watermain Proposed Watermain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,350 2,700 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Pre-Tower 1 - Fire Flow 6 System Max Day Demand = 1.78 MGD Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( NE Water District SE Water District 4567116 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 456710 Maple Grove Supply=1098 HGL Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones MUSA 2040 Pressure !(<30 psi !(30-45 psi !(45-65 psi !(65-85 psi !(>85 psi Existing Watermain Proposed Watermain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,350 2,700 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Pre-Tower 1 - Pressure 7 System Max Day Demand = 1.78 MGD Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( NE Water District SE Water District 456710 4567116 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 T-1 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) Water Treatement Plant 1.78 MGD Supply Maple Grove Connection as Emergency Only Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones MUSA 2040 Water Treatment Plant !(Water Tower Available Fire Flow !(<500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(>3,500 gpm Existing Watermain Proposed Watermain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,300 2,600 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System WTP & Tower 1 - Fire Flow 8 System Max Day Demand = 1.78 MGD Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( NE Water District SE Water District 4567116 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 456710 T-1 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) Water Treatement Plant 1.78 MGD Supply Maple Grove Connection as Emergency Only Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones MUSA 2040 Water Treatment Plant !(Water Tower Pressure !(<30 psi !(30-45 psi !(45-65 psi !(65-85 psi !(>85 psi Existing Watermain Proposed Watermain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,300 2,600 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System WTP & Tower 1 - Pressure 9 System Max Day Demand = 1.78 MGD Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Wright County !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( Results shown are for 16'' along Horshoe Tr Results shown are for 16'' along Horshoe Tr NE Water District SE Water District 456710 4567116 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 T-1 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) Water Treatement Plant 8.7 MGD Supply Maple Grove Connection as Emergency Only Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones MUSA 2040 Water Treatment Plant !(Water Tower Available Fire Flow !(<500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(>3,500 gpm Existing Watermain Proposed Watermain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,350 2,700 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Pre-Tower 2 - Fire Flow 10 System Max Day Demand = 8.7 MGD Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Wright County !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( NE Water District SE Water District 4567116 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 456710 T-1 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) Water Treatement Plant 8.7 MGD Supply Maple Grove Connection as Emergency Only Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones MUSA 2040 Water Treatment Plant !(Water Tower Pressure !(<30 psi !(30-45 psi !(45-65 psi !(65-85 psi !(>85 psi Existing Watermain Proposed Watermain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,300 2,600 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Pre-Tower 2 - Pressure 11 System Max Day Demand = 8.7 MGD Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Wright County !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Results shown are for 16'' along Horshoe Tr Results shown are for 16'' along Horshoe Tr NE Water District SE Water District 456710 4567116 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 T-1 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) T-2 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) Water Treatement Plant 8.7 MGD Supply Maple Grove Connection as Emergency Only Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones MUSA 2040 Water Treatment Plant !(Water Tower Available Fire Flow !(<500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(>3,500 gpm Existing Watermain Proposed Watermain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,350 2,700 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Tower 2 - Fire Flow 12 System Max Day Demand = 8.7 MGD Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Wright County !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Results shown are for 16'' along Horshoe Tr Results shown are for 16'' along Horshoe Tr NE Water District SE Water District 456710 4567116 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 T-1 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) T-2 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) Water Treatement Plant 8.7 MGD Supply Maple Grove Connection as Emergency Only Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones MUSA 2040 Water Treatment Plant !(Water Tower Pressure !(<30 psi !(30-45 psi !(45-65 psi !(65-85 psi !(>85 psi Existing Watermain Proposed Watermain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,300 2,600 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Tower 2 - Pressure 13 System Max Day Demand = 8.7 MGD Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Wright County!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( NE Water District SE Water District 456710 4567116 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 T-1 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) Water Treatement Plant 2.5 MGD Supply Maple Grove Boosted Supply (2.5 MGD) Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones MUSA 2040 Water Treatment Plant !(Water Tower Available Fire Flow !(<500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(>3,500 gpm Existing Watermain Proposed Watermain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,350 2,700 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Blended Supply - Fire Flow 14 System Max Day Demand = 5.0 MGD Anoka County Carver County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( NE Water District SE Water District 456710 4567116 4567116 456750 456719 456719 456710 456750 T-1 1 MG Tower (3/4 Full = 1146 HGL) Water Treatement Plant 2.5 MGD Supply Maple Grove Boosted Supply (2.5 MGD) Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704423\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\buildable_acres\buildable_acres.aprx Revised: 2022-04-21 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Parcels Approximate Boundary Between NE and SE Zones MUSA 2040 Water Treatment Plant !(Water Tower Pressure !(<30 psi !(30-45 psi !(45-65 psi !(65-85 psi !(>85 psi Existing Watermain Proposed Watermain Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:32,400 0 1,350 2,700 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-04-21 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704423 City of Corcoran SE Water System Blended Supply - Pressure 15 System Max Day Demand = 5.0 MGD STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10a. Council Meeting: June 23, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: 2023 Budget Priorities Action Required: Direction Summary: Staff will soon begin drafting the 2023 budget. In advance of doing so, it is requested to receive expectations from the City Council on expectations. Direction is requested specifically on the following items: • Overall budget target • Previous guidance from Council has been to continue to find ways to lower the overall tax rate of the city, while investing as necessary to manage the continued growth. Staff would like to understand whether this guidance continues or differs for 2023. • Services provided • Due to the significant growth, managing basic services can be a challenge. Staff would like to understand whether additional service expectations are expected. • Other priorities • Staff would like to understand if additional priorities exist for the Council that should be incorporated into the first draft of the budget. Staff will be seeking feedback on compensation under the next agenda discussion topic. Financial/Budget: Direction from the Council will be used to create the first draft of the 2023 budget. Staff will present the draft budget with anticipated tax impacts at a future Council meeting. Options: 1. Provide staff direction on 2023 budget expectations. Recommendation: Provide staff direction on 2023 budget expectations. Council Action: Provide staff direction on 2023 budget expectations. Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10b. Council Meeting: June 23, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: 2023 Compensation Action Required: Approval Summary: In 2021, a compensation study was completed which showed that overall that the market was outpacing the City’s wages. In late 2021, Council made changes to change the City’s pay scale at the top where it had been truncated when it was created but decided not to make major changes to compensation until the city had retained a new City Administrator. The City Administrator position has been filled and staff believes that a review of compensation and other recruitment items are imperative as we face a tight labor market. We are seeing smaller numbers of applications for positions. In a recent hiring the preferred candidate, exceeded 15% more than the top end of our range. Staff is interested in getting feedback on items specifically related to compensation to inform staff as we draft the budget. We are open to ideas but want to understand if there are items that are of no interest to the Council. Potential Items to Explore: Market Adjustment - Implementing a market adjustment to catch up to the market. Staff would aim to complete much of the adjustment within two years. Longevity Pay - Review options for longevity pay. Pay would impact employees at certain milestones. Secondary Pay Scale - Review options for a secondary pay scale that pays staff for meeting the preferred qualifications of the job descriptions. Pay for Additional Qualifications - Similar to the secondary pay scale, it allows for the City to pay for additional qualifications that the City is in need of. Benefits Review – In the comparison of the benefits in the compensation study, benefits below the average of other Cities. A review of benefits maybe an area to review. Combination of Items – A combination of the compensation/benefits tools discussed above, may provide flexibility. Staff will be proposing changes to the City’s compensation and benefits program as part of the 2023 budget with the feedback from the Council. Staff would appreciate a discussion on a compensation philosophy to guide our work. Financial/Budget: Page 2 The 2023 budget will be drafted to include options to modify the City’s current compensation and benefits program. Options: 1. Provide feedback on the 2023 compensation and benefits program. Recommendation: Provide feedback on the 2023 compensation and benefits program. Council Action: Provide feedback on the 2023 compensation and benefits program. Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10c. Council Meeting: June 23, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Resignation and Recruitment – Public Works Maintenance Workers Action Required: Approval Summary: Staff has received a resignation notice from Cole Lenneman, Public Works Maintenance Worker in the Public Works Department. The Council should accept the resignation. Additionally, staff is requesting approval to begin the recruitment process to fill two vacancies in the maintenance worker crew. The resignation of Cole creates one vacancy and there was another position that had not been filled. Following the Phase 1 of the Public Works reorganization, staff was authorized to hire a maintenance worker. The City was unable to fill the position with the candidate pool and we were hoping to readvertise in July. With the resignation, we are recommending hiring for both positions. Financial/Budget: It is likely that new employees will not begin until late August. This will likely result in an overall budget savings for 2022. Council Action: Accept the resignation of Cole Lenneman; authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the vacancies. Attachments: 1. Resignation Notice 1 Jessica Beise From:Kevin Mattson Sent:Thursday, June 16, 2022 4:36 PM To:Jessica Beise Subject:FW: Resignation FYI Kevin Mattson, PE Public Works Director City of Corcoran 763-400-7028 www.ci.corcoran.mn.us From: Cole Lenneman <clenneman1486@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 6:27 PM To: Kevin Mattson <kmattson@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: Resignation Hi Kevin, per our conversation earlier I am accepting the other job offer and would like to put in my two weeks notice on Thursday June 2nd . I will write a formal letter on Monday June 6th. Thanks STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10d. Council Meeting: June 23, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Discussion of PUD Ordinance Amendment Action Required: Direction Summary: Councilor Nichols has requested the Council discuss a potential amend ment to the PUD Ordinance and the urban conservation ordinance. Financial/Budget: There would be planning costs in staff time and notices as well as legal costs associated with the ordinance amendment . The City does budget for ordinance review in the City’s legal budget. Options: 1. Direct staff to review the proposed ordinance change. 2. Decline to have staff review the or dinance. Recommendation: Provide direction on a potential amendment to the PUD Ordinance and the urban conservation ordinance. Council Action: Provide direction on a potential amendment to the PUD Ordinance and the urban conservation ordinance. Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment Agenda Item: 11a. Page 1 of 3 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763-420-2288 email: general@corcoranmn.gov / website: www.corcoranmn.gov MEMO Meeting Date: To: From: Re: June 23, 2022 City Council Natalie Davis McKeown, Planner Active Corcoran Planning Applications The following is a status summary of active planning projects: 1. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park (formerly Highway 55 Business Park) (PID 32-119-23-34- 0013, 32-119-23-34-0007, 32-119-23-43-0005 and 32-119-23-43-0006) (City File No. 21- 047). The City Council reviewed a concept plan on November 22, 2021 and indicated support. Staff prepared an EAW for the site. The City Council reviewed and provided comment on a second concept plan on February 24th. The City Council reviewed the EAW and made a notice of decision at the May 26th meeting. The applicant is expected to move forward with a preliminary plat and PUD application. 2. NE District Plan and Design Guidelines (City File No. 21-050). The City received a planning grant from Hennepin County. Staff held two open houses for public information. The draft was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their April 7th meeting. The public hearing was held May 5th at the Planning Commission, and the City Council approved the plan with a few modifications on May 26th. The development moratorium in the Northeast District expired on June 10th. 3. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Sketch Plan and EAW for “Corcoran Farms Business Park” at 20130 Larkin Road (PID 26-119-23-13-0006) (City File No. 22-006). The applicant submitted a sketch plan for five industrial buildings totaling 726,396 sq. ft. They are requesting a PUD to allow reduced setbacks. The City Council reviewed and provided comment on February 24th. Staff drafted the EAW, and the City Council ordered distribution of the draft EAW for review and comment at the May 26th Council meeting. 4. PUD Final Plan and Final Plat for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition (City File No. 22-012). The applicant submitted an application for 106 units (29 single-family detached homes, 16 twin-homes, 24 villa homes, and 27 townhomes). The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and City Council approved the application on April 28th. 5. Preliminary Plat and Variance for “Kariniemi Meadows” at 23185 CR 10 (PID 18-119-23- 11-0002) (City File No. 22-013). The applicant submitted a request for approval of a 10-lot residential subdivision. The item was reviewed at the March 17th Parks and Trails Commission, Page 2 of 3 a public hearing was held at the May 5th Planning Commission meeting, and City Council approved the application on May 26th. 6. Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary PUD for “Walcott Glen” by Pulte (PIDs 36- 119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36-119-23-44- 0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033, and 36-119-23-44-0030) (City File No. 22-015). The plans include 44 single-family homes and 85 townhomes. The item was reviewed by the Parks and Trails Commission on April 21st, a public hearing was held at the May 5th Planning Commission, City Council reviewed and discussed on May 26th, and approval was granted by Council on June 9th in a 3-2 vote. 7. Final Plat for “Garages Too” (PIDs 35-119-23-44-0004 and 35-119-23-41-0002) (City File No. 22-016). The final plat was approved at the May 26th Council meeting. 8. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variance for Ditzer Garage at 9320 Cherry Lane (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) (City File 22-020). The CUP application was reviewed at a public hearing at the May 5th Planning Commission and approved at the May 26th Council meeting. The application requested a setback variance for an existing structure at the May Planning Commission meeting. The variance application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 2nd with final action expected at the June 23rd Council meeting. 9. PUD Amendment for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition (City File No. 22-025). The applicant submitted a request for a PUD amendment for the side yard setback for twin-homes and townhomes. The Council reviewed the item at the May 26th meeting. Council granted after- the-fact setback flexibility for the existing buildings constructed in error. Council denied the setback request for construction going forward. The applicant is revising their products to meet the setbacks as shown in the previously approved final plat for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd. 10. Interim Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 6516 Valley View Road (PID 35- 119-23-42-0022) (City File 22-026). The item was reviewed at a public hearing held at the June 2nd Planning Commission meeting. City Council action is expected on June 23rd. 11. Sketch Plan for ProTech Auto at 7591 Commerce Street (PID 26-119-23-11-0020) (City File 22-027). The Council provided feedback on this item at the May 26th meeting. 12. Final Plat and Final PUD for “Tavera 4th Addition” (City File No. 22-028). The final plat is for 80 single-family homes and 42 twin-homes located north of the main entrance at Horseshoe Trail. This item was reviewed at the June 16th Parks and Trails Commission meeting, and final action is expected at the July 28th City Council meeting. 13. Sketch Plan for Lee Open Space & Preservation (OS&P) Plat (PIDs 05-119-23-31-0001, 05-119-23-32-0001, 08-119-23-22-0011) (City File No. 22-029). A sketch plan application was received for a potential OS&P on roughly 88 acres just south of Oakdale Drive and west of Hage Drive. The sketch plan is tentatively schedule for Council review on July 14th. 14. Azalea Farms Event Center IUP (PID 16-119-23-23-0001) (City File No. 22-030). An application was submitted for an Event Center at 22165 County Road 10. The applicant anticipates hosting weddings once a week throughout the summer months. The application was determined to be incomplete for review and is not yet scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. 15. Brown Easement Vacation (PID 05-119-23-13-0008) (City File No. 22-032). Blair Brown submitted an application for an easement vacation to address a drainage and utility easement through the middle of her property that was established based on a previous lot line that was later removed as part of a lot consolidation. This request is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council on July 28th. Page 3 of 3 16. Corner Lot Frontage and Fences ZOA (City File No. 22-033). Staff received direction at the June 9th Council meeting on potential solutions for additional fence flexibility within front yards as well as identifying a primary front yard for lots with multiple frontages. Staff will prepare a draft ordinance for additional Council feedback at the August 11th meeting. 17. Walcott Glen Final Plat and PUD (PIDs 36-119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23- 44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36-119-23-44-0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033, and 36-119-23-c44-0030) (City File No. 22-036). Pulte submitted an application for the final plat and PUD plan for Walcott Glen. The application is currently under review for completeness and is not yet scheduled for Council review. City of Corcoran 2022 City Council Schedule Agenda Item: 12. July 14, 2022 • Watershed Commissioner Guenthner – Presentation • Boardwalk at Bellwether RFP • 2021 Audit • Administrative Department Phase 2 July 28, 2022 • Financial Management Plan Update • Memorial Bench Program • Active Corcoran Planning Applications • Financial Performance Report • Draft 2023 Budget August 11, 2022 • Comp Plan Amendment Discussion • Draft 2023 Budget August 25, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications September 8, 2022 • 2023 Preliminary Levy • Levy Insert Document September 22, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications October 13, 2022 October 27, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications • Financial Performance Report November 10, 2022 • Construction Hours Review – Annual After Change in 2021 • Park Signs Plan November 24, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications Page 2 of 2 December 8, 2022 • Public Hearing – 2023 Proposed Budget and Property Tax Levy • 2023 Full-time, Part-time, and Seasonal Wage Schedule • 2023 General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy • 2023 Fee Schedule • 2023 Water and Sanitary Sewer Budget • 2023 Goal Setting Date December 22, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications