Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-22 Council Agenda Packet Corcoran City Council Agenda September 22, 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. Years of Service Recognition – Kevin Mattson – 5 Years 7. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of the May 26, 2022 Council Meeting* b. Financial Claims* c. Blair Brown Riding Arena CUP* d. Accounting Clerk Hiring* e. Parks and Trails Commissioner – Residence Status Change* 8. Planning Business – Public Comment Opportunity a. Pro-tech Site Plan CUP and Variance* b. Water Treatment Final Plat, Site Plan and Variance* c. Fence Ordinance Amendment* 9. Unfinished Business – Public Comment Opportunity a. City Center Drive & 79th Place Mass Grading and Stormwater Improvements Cost Share Agreement* b. Request for Bond Conduit Financing or Host Approval* c. City Park Remaster Phase One* d. Cook Lake Highlands – Utility and Street Construction Status Update* 10. New Business – Public Comment Opportunity a. Schedule Work Sessions* b. Charter Commission Appointments* c. Holiday Food and Toy Drive* d. Canvassing General Election 2022* e. Request for Temporary Construction Access Change- Bellwether and Amberly* 11. Staff Reports a. Active Planning Projects Update* 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: 882 7003 2638 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment Sections in the meeting. Video Link and Instructions: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88270032638 visit http://www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 882 7003 2638 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: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Michelle Friedrich Topic: Commission Representatives Action Required: None – Informational Summary: The advisory commission representatives for the September 22nd Council meeting are as follows: • Planning Commission: Jay Van Den Einde • Parks and Trails Commission: Sharon Meister Financial/Budget: N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: N/A 1 CITY OF CORCORAN City Council Meeting Minutes May 26, 2022 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran City Council met on May 26, 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. Mayor McKee, Councilor Bottema, Councilor Nichols, Councilor Schultz, and Councilor Vehrenkamp were present. Councilor Bottema was excused. City Administrator Beise, Deputy Clerk Friedrich, Planner Davis McKeown, City Planner Lindahl, Public Works Director Mattson, and Director of Public Safety Gottschalk were present. 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Mayor McKee called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor McKee invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Agenda Approval City Administrator Beise noted addition of an email regarding Horseshoe Bend Feasibility Study, and a Public Comment email regarding Walcott Glen. City Administrator Beise noted no further changes were requested by staff. MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Vehrenkamp to approve the agenda as modified. Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) 4. Commission Representatives Mayor McKee noted Planning Commissioner Brummond and Parks and Trails Commissioner Anderson was present via electronic means. 5. Open Forum (Public Comment Opportunity) Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during Open Forum for items not included on the agenda. City Administrator Beise explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format and reviewed instructions for participation in the meeting through telephone or computer. No persons participated in the public comment opportunity. 6. Presentations/Recognitions 7. Consent Agenda a. Draft April 14, 2022, Work Session Council Minutes (removed from Consent Agenda items) b. Draft April 14, 2022, Council Minutes c. Financial Claims d. Accepting Donation for Parks and Recreation Programs e. City Center Drive and 79th Place – Accept Plans and Authorize Bid f. Ditzer CUP for Detached Garage g. Pioneer Trail (HWY 55) Business Park EAW Notice of Decision h. Kariniemi Meadows Preliminary Plat and Variance i. Corcoran Farms Business Park Order EAW Distribution Council requested further discussion on items 7d., and 7h. MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Nichols to approve agenda items 7a-c, e-g, and i., as presented. Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) Council noted an anonymous donation of eight 5-gallon buckets for the Parks and Recreation program on item 7d. 2 MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Vehrenkamp to approve agenda items 7d., as presented. Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) Council reviewed item 7h., Kariniemi Meadows Preliminary Plat and Variance, and noted suggestion of trail spur on northern edge of development to create a looped trail, versus an out and back trail along County Road 10. Council noted review of Parks and Trails Commission recommendation. Council noted future discussion when the commercial portion of the project is ripe for discussion. City Administrator Beise noted staff comment of creating an easement without knowing where it is, and limiting trail impacts to wetland areas, but noted Council has discretion. Council noted concern of the road on the east side of property and impacts and alignment of road to surrounding properties. City Administrator Beise noted the County has specific criteria regarding road locations. Council and staff discussed the direction and angle of the intersection road, safety, and concern of neighbors adjacent from the intersecting road. Nate Kariniemi, applicant, noted willingness to work with property owner on adjacent property from intersecting road. Council and applicant discussed possible landscaping options on adjacent property. Council and applicant discussed trail spur on northern edge of development to create a looped trail. Council noted connecting trail to County Road 19 on the northern end of the parcel and connecting a trail to the southern commercial edge boundary to create a loop. Council discussed taking the easement on the southern edge now versus later. City Administrator Beise noted the sketch plan included zoning for residential and commercial, however, the preliminary plat references rural residential only. Council and applicant discussed trail option discussions in the future after the commercial land portion is developed. MOTION: made by Vehrenkamp, seconded by Schultz to approve agenda items 7h., as presented. Voting Aye: McKee, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp Nay: Abstain: Nichols (Motion carried 3:0:1) 8. Planning Business (Public Comment Opportunity) Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during the public comment opportunity for Planning Business items 9a-c. City Administrator Beise explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format and reviewed instructions for participation in the meeting through telephone or computer. No persons participated in the public comment opportunity. a. Zewde Subdivision Preliminary Plat for FIRA and Variance Planner Davis McKeown outlined the FIRA three lot subdivision with the only change as a lot line change at 7320 Rolling Hills Road. Planner David McKeown noted the current plan either requires removal of structures or granting a variance for structures where they are located, with encroachments on setbacks and wetland buffers. Council discussed the staff recommendation and further discuss which buildings could be removed. Anteneh Zewde, applicant, noted property was an active farm with active-functioning accessory structures, and would like to keep as an existing farm with accessory structures, but understands City’s request to remove some of the accessory structures. Mr. Zewde noted two accessary structures on Plat B, and five on Plat A, with two of three on Plat B functional, with building F planned removal on Plat A, but hopes to keep the remaining structures on Plat A. Council reviewed staff recommendation of removing shed E and H on Lot 3, shed c on Lot 2, relocating shed a on Lot 2, and relocating playhouse and quonset hut. Planner Davis McKeown reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation 3 to 1 to recommend landowners to utilize sheds that are most usable. MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Schultz to approving Resolution 2022-59 Preliminary Plat for “FIRA” on the Property Located at 7320 Rolling Hills Road and 22105 County Road 50 and Partially Approving Variance for the Accessory Structure on Lot 3. (PID 28-119-23-23-0002; 28-119-23-21-0001) (City File 22-002) Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Schultz to approving Resolution 2022-69 Final Plat for “FIRA” on the Property Located at 7320 Rolling Hills Road and 22105 County Road 50. (PID 28-119-23-23-0002; 28- 119-23-21-0001) (City File 22-022) Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) b. Cook Lake Highlands – Breaking out SIPA or DA 3 City Planner Lindahl outlined the applicant request to change procedure in how the City obtains financial guarantees for a one phase development with multiple parcel owners. City Planner Lindahl noted Development contracts or site improvement performance agreement are issued to developer when the project begins. Applicant is acting as the master developer and is responsible for mass grading and infrastructure but asked that each lot provide financial guarantees for their parking lots, landscaping and individual utilities. City Planner Lindahl noted the revised development agreement contract reduces the financial guarantees for the developer, and notes fees will be collected prior to building permits for the three lots. City Planner Lindahl noted process may become a standard practice as multi-lot commercial developments occur in the northeast district. Council and staff discussed mass grading, site improvements, single family lots, and project timing for end users. Council discussed risks to City from mass grading and actual guarantees on individual pad sites. City Planner Lindahl noted the SIPA financial guarantees are for private improvements on site and occur at time of building permit. Beth Hustad, Track Development, noted all pads have dates and contracts, and phase one includes infrastructure, with private business completing their own private construction. Staff and Council discussed a minor potential language change in the development agreement to match the Resolution stating co-op rather than apartment within the development agreement. MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Vehrenkamp to revise the development agreement to reflect co- op, rather than apartment sites. Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) c. Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition PUD Amendment Setback City Planner Lindahl reviewed the twin home portion of Rush Creek Reserve Second Addition, and townhome portions, both have preliminary plat approval with 20 feet between buildings in 2014, when Peachtree was the developer and remained when M/I Homes became the developer. City Planner Lindahl noted applicant has built homes that do not meet the separation in phase 1 and flagged when phase 2 was beginning. City Planner Lindahl noted a townhome on the south side of Xyliod Ave is built it will not meet the setback and compliance in townhome setbacks in Phase 2. City Planner Lindahl noted when the project came in the RSF-3 zoning district allows twin homes and requires a 15-foot setback between building and is a variation from the PUD approval of 20-foot setback. City Planner Lindahl noted the townhome request is for two buildings that will not comply, but future buildings will comply. City Planner Lindahl noted only one building is out of compliance and is an existing condition. Council and staff discussed issue of setback mistake in phase 1, and measures are now in place to make sure it does not happen again. City Planner Lindahl and Council noted implications to units if Council decides not to approve, and current building permits and construction within the development. City Planner Lindahl noted the possibility of twin homes having a requirement for a 3-inch tree in each front yard, however townhomes have driveways in the front yard. Council noted importance of both developer and staff catching setback measurement issues. Council discussed setting precedence for after the fact requests once the error or mistake has been discovered. Council discussed drainage issue filling ditch due to blocking where water used to drain. Council discussed options available to compensate for the incorrect setback on the town home and making the unit into a three-unit rather than four-unit. City Planner Lindahl noted if amendment was denied the builder will redesign units to shrink the unit size, to meet the 20-foot separation. City Planner Lindahl also noted a three-unit building would require replating. Council discussed requiring 3-inch tree planting, or additional landscaping along County Road 10, if Council approves amended PUD on the units already built. Council discussed denying variance on any future phases that has not been issued a building permit, and after the fact approval for permits issued to include a requirement for 3-inch tree plantings, and/or additional landscaping along County Road 10. Representative from M/I homes, applicant spoke to Council regarding the setback error, Tyvek blowing from units, shortage of windows in industry, possibility of upgrading landscaping along County Road 10, and apologized for setback error. City Planner Lindahl clarified Council discussion of no flexibility in phase 2, therefore, removing item 2 in the draft resolution, and allowing some flexibility of separation of townhome units in phase 1, and modify draft resolution item 3 or 4, noting twin homes in phase 1 would be permitted to be less than 20 feet apart. MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Nichols approving Resolution 2022-41 removing item 2, and modifying item 3 adding separation modification of block 3 of twin homes within the language. 4 Voting Aye: Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp Nay: Abstain: McKee (Motion carried 3:0:1) Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during the public comment opportunity for Planning Business items 8d-e. City Administrator Beise explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format and reviewed instructions for participation in the meeting through telephone or computer. No persons participated in the public comment opportunity. d. Horseshoe Bend Feasibility Report Steve Heglund, Stantec Project Engineer, presented an update on the feasibility study with modeling stage review completed of drainage through Horseshoe Bend and Rolling Hills and includes culvert replacement, regarding of ditches, and driveway culvert replacements to convey 10-year event. Project Engineer Heglund reviewed initial project costs, with $10,000 of work improvements within plat limits of Garage Too project. Project Engineer Heglund noted verification of impacts to downstream wetland will be forthcoming, as well as appraisals to finalize report. Council noted specific resident properties included within the feasibility study to review drainage issues. Public Works Director Mattson noted public neighborhood meetings through the Garages Too platting process and understanding what the feasibility findings are before discussions with residents begin. Dean Schmidt, 6334 Rolling Hills Road, noted most of the water ends up in his front yard, and his driveway ends up under water. Mr. Schmidt water also flows from the east and the north and does not drain any further and ends up flooding his backyard. Public Works Director Mattson noted discussions with Hennepin County included Mr. Schmidt’s property. Council and staff reviewed options for improvements, appraisal numbers, and funding options. e. Garages Too Final Plat City Planner Lindahl noted the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat as approved. MOTION: made by Schultz, seconded by Vehrenkamp to approving Final plat for “Garages Too” at 22400 Highway 55 and 6135 Horseshoe Bend Drive as modified (PIDS 35-119-23-44-0004 and 35-119-23-41- 0002) (City File 2-016). Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) f. Pulte Walcott Glenn Preliminary Plat, PUD, Rezoning Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during the public comment opportunity for Planning Business items 8f. City Administrator Beise explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format and reviewed instructions for participation in the meeting through telephone or computer and noted the time limit per speaker. Nancy Gagliano, 19486 Meadow Rue Court, opined on density of the project, and is concerned about the intersection at Hackamore Road and County Road 101, and believes the intersection will not be able to accommodate the additional traffic density, and does not support the rezoning of the area. Srinivasa Narra, 6462 Larkspur Lane, concerned of density in the development, traffic, safety, and noise the additional traffic will create. Mr. Narra does not support rezoning of area. Joe Schammel, 6438 Larkspur Lane, speaking on behalf of his cul-de-sac in Ravinia. Mr. Schammel opined townhomes are not a good fit for the neighborhood when you consider the type of existing homes. Mr. Schammel noted townhomes turning into rental properties and does not support townhomes in the area and opined on traffic increase on Larkspur Lane. Stanislav Manchik, 6450 Larkspur Lane, opined on vision and mission of Corcoran in preserving its agricultural roots with allowing townhomes in an area zoned for low-density homes. Mr. Manchik noted townhome purchasers put less money down on properties, townhomes appreciate in value less than single-family homes, and noted townhomes turning into rental properties by the larger builders across the nation. Daniel Popa, 19327 Sorrel Court, opined in agreement with previous comments, and opined on parking and tree preservation. Ginger Anzalone, 340 Bergamot Drive, Medina, lives at higher elevations and agrees with all that has been commented on and opined on traffic issue created by higher-density project in already dense traffic flow from Ravinia, into intersection, and turn Bergamot into a cut through traffic road. Ms. Anzalone questioned feasibility studies on traffic regarding accuracy of study if completed during COVID pandemic when many people were working from home remotely. Ms. Anzalone also opined on impacts to surrounding property 5 values if the land is rezoned. Dean Vehrenkamp, 9310 Bechtold Road, reviewed prior development opportunities for the property, and density requirements equates to 3-5 single family homes per acre in Corcoran. Mr. Vehrenkamp reviewed site lines of parcel, and approximate cost of homes in the development. Mr. Vehrenkamp noted Pulte communicated with neighbors on concept of neighborhood over the course of the last few years. Kathleen Howlett, 19247 Bridle Path, opined on density factor, tree line preservation, and does not support rezoning of the area. Andy Rasmussen, 19225 Bridle Path, questioned on the south side of DNR pond, and mature trees currently in the area, and questioned if area will be protected and preserved. Mr. Rasmussen questioned why a property would be rezoned if the general resident comments were to leave area zoned as single- family. Lynn Waterhouse, 19327 Sorrel Court, added Ravinia was chosen by her family due to green space, low density, and expectation that area was not zoned higher density when they moved into Corcoran. Ms. Waterhouse opined on importance of trees to climate, and loss of trees and impact to migratory birds, and habitat loss for wildlife. Stanislav Manchik, 6450 Larkspur Lane, opined on being a good neighbor, 84 townhomes density change, and funds developer will contribute to improvement of intersection. Steve Arndt, 19448 Annabelle Lane, questioned why Lennar did not include this property within development, and what is the possibility if development is not approved, for a gas station to be constructed on the same area? MOTION: made by Schultz to close public comment. Motion failed for lack of second. Staff noted a motion is not necessary to close public comment. Council discussed leaving public comment open. Council noted public comment should conclude once item presentation commences, to allow for Council discussion of the item and for the sake of a timely meeting. Scott Bergman, 6775 Black Oak Court, opined on highway and infrastructure system in Corcoran, and opined on funding of $500,000 being inadequate. Mr. Bergman opined on wastewater treatment plant, and research road system improvement costs related to future traffic density. Council asked staff to address comment regarding tabling an item, and limitations by City not acting on items. City Planner Lindahl noted the request is consistent with history of surrounding properties and that the Ravinia neighborhood was rezoned from single-family homes to PUD in 2014. City Planner Lindahl noted the current application 60-review period ends on June 5, 2022. City Planner Lindahl reviewed planning applications and timelines under State Law, and laws Council must adhere to regarding 60-day review periods and 60-day extensions. City Planner Lindahl added if Council does extend an application, but not act, the application is automatically approved. City Planner Lindahl summarized a resident question regarding the density of the project and review the low-density definition under the comprehensive plan. City Planner Lindahl noted the comprehensive plan requires developers to develop at a minimum of 3, and maximum of 5 houses per acre, and for context, Ravinia 11th low-density total per acre was approximately 4.39, and Ravinia 5th total was 3.9 units per acre. City Planner Lindahl noted currently, the Pulte development low-density total per acre is approximately 3.9 units per acre. City Planner Lindahl noted the current Pulte project is consistent with the density requirements included in the City’s comprehensive plan. City Planner Lindahl reviewed land use definition relates to housing type, and noted the PUD is needed to allow for housing product type flexibility, lot size and width flexibility for the single-family home, and for townhome garage size flexibility. City Planner Lindahl noted a requirement for the developer for improvements to the Hackamore Road Project. Public Works Director Mattson noted the $500,000 in improvements funds mentioned by a public comment speaker was inaccurate information. Public Works Director Mattson noted for the road improvements, and developer would be responsible for certain improvements from the results of the impacts of the development. Public Works Director Mattson noted COVID aspects and consideration was included by the engineering professionals regarding the feasibility study, and reviewed other, possible funding sources being considered for the Hackamore Road Improvement Project. Public Works Director Mattson reviewed primary service points for City sewer, sewage treatment, and water all stubs exist at street connections. Public Works Director Mattson noted stormwater treatment is handled through City rules, and watershed rules, and noted low lying conditions within the site for handling stormwater treatment. City Planner Lindahl addressed the question regarding a gas station being placed on the property should development be denied, and the process the Council 6 would follow regarding rezoning. City Planner Lindahl reviewed Council discretion in components in the PUD proposal, conditions, compliance with City code, and policy issues Council can modify and recommend approval or denial, but land use designation is not a reason for denial. Paul Heuer, Pulte Homes, 7500 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, responded to a comment regarding a Maple Grove neighborhood and a defect within the neighborhood, and noted discussions with construction personnel did not indicate any defects, issues, dissatisfaction with the product. Mr. Heuer reviewed the balance of compliance with comp plan density, land use, wetlands, traffic, noting the borderline tree preservation, and utilizing the PUD option versus a straight zoning on the property. Mr. Heuer noted the effort by Pulte to locate homes in the center of the property to help preserve the borderline trees along County Road 101 and Hackamore Road. Mr. Heuer noted City Council feedback from meeting in November 2021, included moving townhomes away from Hackamore towards the center of parcel, move the northwest cul-de-sac further east, and verified existing trees to the northwest will remain as a buffer. Mr. Heuer discussed construction traffic onto Hackamore and evaluated architecture of existing homes in the northeast sac to match existing architecture. Mr. Heuer noted 28.9 percent space is provided as open space, tree preservation on the perimeter, extraordinary setbacks along County Road 101 at 220 feet on townhomes, and 170 feet on single family homes to tuck the neighborhood into the parcel. Mr. Heuer noted preserving trees on Hackamore Road with setbacks of townhomes and single-family homes setback at 238 feet. Mr. Heuer noted the preservation of buffering on west property line with purpose to tuck the neighborhood into the parcel through the PUD and would not be accomplished through straight zoning processes. Mr. Heuer noted 30 percent of buyers are empty nesters and some home prices exceed single- family home values and pricing will range between $450,000 to $650,000. Mr. Heuer noted the 3 to 5 units per acre density requirement, noting the density cannot be reached without townhomes. Mr. Heuer noted PUD benefits include preservation of trees, greater setbacks to create an attractive perimeter, exceeding code requirement of 25 percent, with 35 percent stone architectural element, open space, additional trees to support the buffers, and meeting the comp plan density requirement. Mr. Heuer noted other PUD benefits including granting an easement for trail at no cost if City so desires, and adding a monument sign on the corner of County Road 101 and Hackamore Road, and contribution for Hackamore Road reconstruction. Council and staff discussed density numbers, off-street parking, guest parking, and snow removal. City Planner Lindahl reviewed the 2014 staff report and noted for the Ravinia preliminary plat and pre- development net density was estimated a 2.85 units per acre, with all the phases completed at over 3 units per acre. Council and Heuer discussed straight zoning and PUD in terms of lot sizes, and density. Mr. Heuer clarified with straight zoning there would be less tree preservation then with the PUD. Planning Commission recommended denial of request 3-1 due to the extensive requests and rezoning were concerns. Commissioner Brummond noted the density requirement of 3.9 and housing style could be further reviewed to reduce density closer to 3 units per acre versus over 4 when the project is completed. Council discussed parking alongside City streets and changing parking to off-street parking. Council noted appreciation of tree preservation buffering, maintaining existing wetlands where they are currently located, and utilizing edges for stormwater ponds. Council discussed replacing townhomes with twin homes, to achieve the lower end of 3 units per acre versus, and noted townhomes require rezoning, where twin homes would fall under permitted use. Council discussed negotiating a different type of housing unit to better balance with mix of units within project. Mr. Heuer requested a brief 3-minute consultation with the landowners. Mayor McKee called for a brief 5-minute recess at 9:46 pm. Council reconvened at 9:51 pm. Mr. Heuer requested tabling item 8f., for further consideration of comments presented at the meeting tonight. Mr. Heuer noted Pulte Homes would grant the additional 60-day review and would also include the extension in writing to the City. Council requested further clarification of the 60-day review requirement. City Administrator Beise noted Council could extend the review another 60 days and staff would relay to applicant and Council when the item would be scheduled on a future Council agenda. MOTION: made by Vehrenkamp, seconded by Schultz to utilize the 60-day review extension of item 8f., and schedule at future Council meeting for full Council review and input. Council thanked applicant for the 60-day extension. 7 Greg Hoglund, Landowner, 19220 Hackamore Road, requested to move the next meeting within two weeks versus 60-days as allowed with the extension. Council noted staff would try to accommodate Mr. Hoglund’s request regarding item and Council schedule. Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) g. Pro-Tech Auto Sketch Plan Planner Davis McKeown reviewed sketch plan points, various flexibility in City Code, and summarized main issues include outdoor storage of vehicles and trailers, and vehicle storage past the 72-hour code requirement, and identification of area behind site for vehicles remaining longer then 72 hours. Planner Davis McKeown noted options for 80 percent fencing opacity, berming and buffer options, flexibility of parking lot and pavement curb cutting, and drive isle encroachment on adjacent property into drainage easement, and extension into adjacent property. Planner Davis McKeown noted parallel parking issue has been resolved, but noted the remaining variance items: drive isle between the 90 degree and parallel parking is only 19 feet where 26, curb cut variance, waiver of concrete drive aprons, and building standards waiver to allow currently painted concrete block which is not allowed material. Tom Gleason, 7591 Commerce Street, reviewed the proposed building material of colored block that closely matches the current-colored block, notes that there is no storage of vehicles, however there is an old vehicle used as a push vehicle, an S10 pickup used for moving tires to Westside Tire, a motorhome could be rehoused inside the building, and extension of building will allow for equipment storage currently outside on the property. Mr. Gleason reviewed screening, berming, and additional parking can be located as to what makes the most sense. Mr. Gleason noted building is at the 20-foot setback with the drive isle behind the building. Council and Mr. Gleason reviewed the drive isle at the back of the building and why it is necessary for day-to-day business. Mr. Gleason noted the 19-foot drive isle versus 26 feet, and responsibility and risk is on Pro-Tech. Council addressed the public safety issue regarding the 19-foot drive isle, and importance of emergency and safety vehicles needing to possibly access the drive isle. Council noted a variance could be included if public safety is not an issue. Mr. Gleason noted the separate drive isle where the encroachment exists could be moved 2 feet and is a result of nature and wash away from original drive isle. Staff also noted the requirement of 20-feet minimum width for the drive isle, and currently the drive isle does not meet this standard and conflicts with the drainage and utility easement. Council noted support for allowing gravel for identified storage areas, and pavement in other areas of the lot. Mr. Gleason noted paving entrance to property to avoid gravel spreading onto City roads and noted the driveway has always been what it is, may have widened when City sewer was implemented. Council and staff discussed drainage into City Park from stormwater drainage areas. Council and Mr. Gleason discussed property location, and why standard is as high for a business that is located on the main road and is a face of commercial area. Mr. Gleason discussed requirement to pave versus gravel and noted gravel is more impervious and causes less runoff. Council discussed if only area that is being improved would require pavement, while existing area could remain non-conforming. Council and staff discussed options for not paving dedicated storage area but paving the rest of parking area to adhere to standards set by City and treating all business uniformly the same regarding ordinances, finding areas where there is flexibility with outdoor storage. Council and staff reviewed curb cut compliance with recent business applications and discussed if this site request is different from other applicant requests to allow a variance from standards. Mr. Gleason noted the business is not a warehouse and warehouse definition triggers a different set of parking standards. Council noted sketch plan of 9 bays and expansion would require 23 parking spaces and discussed staff recommendation of 33 parking spaces, discussed auto repair versus auto service definitions, and how parking spaces are utilized. Mr. Gleason noted parking spaces are not set and may increase dependent on business needs as process moves forward. Council discussed adhering to City ordinance but helping business owner move forward as their business. Council and staff discussed types of materials accepted for concrete block, the 25 percent upgrade requirement, and restrictions in storage size and screening of storage on north side, snow removal, berming and landscaping in lieu of fencing and cost effectiveness of both options. Staff and council noted consideration of curb cut change and adhering to standards of concrete drive aprons. h. NE District Plan and Design Guidelines Update Standards Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during the public comment opportunity for Planning Business items 8h. City Administrator Beise explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format and reviewed instructions for participation in the 8 meeting through telephone or computer. Erin Shanahan 9425 County Road 101 and opined on concern on street connectivity with the ghost road that runs near her property. Ms. Shanahan noted mixed use indication on map, newly proposed road goes through neighbor’s house, and noted consideration by Planning Commission of current residents and how they would be affected by plan. Ms. Shanahan requested the ghost road be removed from plan. Council discussed concern and noted it is only road that runs parallel with an existing neighborhood, and options could include spurring the road north or completely remove it, as if it were on the map, it would likely happen at some point in future years once area begins to develop. Council noted it is difficult to determine at this time exactly where roads will end up and the plan includes design guidelines and possible locations for roads. Staff discussed County indicated spacing of roads and potential the road needs to line up with 95 th and cutting through property, noted the line is a thick line and is a reference only at this point in time, limitation of wetlands, and public safety connectivity are also considerations for where final road will be constructed. Council discussed indicating where County points for the roads would be and indicating a search area for connectivity on proposed plan. Council and staff discussed possible unknowns, limitations of wetlands, and County control of intersections. Council discussed current cul-de-sacs and residents not realizing the cul-de-sac is a throughfare at some point in time to connect to another road. Council and staff noted removing the blue road line, the red connectivity point, and a different symbol for the red connectivity point for anticipated County connection. Council noted 8-foot planting strips with a 2-foot public safety to street parking so off-street parking is more accessible to people parking vehicles. City discussed having the comment by Council be included as in engineering standard universally and not only in the Northeast District Plan. Council discussed materials used in commercial, industrial, and residential in number 6 of plan and design guidelines. Council discussed concept of tree list and limiting genus’ percentages. Staff noted tree verbiage is in zoning ordinance and would a universal change versus in the district and design guideline plan. Staff and Council discussed electric vehicle (EV) requirements and EV infrastructure will be a strength in the future and including in landscaping options and retitling to resiliency options. Council noted previous discussion of market-driven EV options rather than a requirement in code and developer can make the decision versus having the City require it. Council noted included EV as an option and not a requirement. Planner Davis McKeown clarified Council consensus regarding EV as including in landscaping options and retitling to resiliency options. MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Nichols to adopt Ordinance 2022-459 Amending the Text of Chapter 10 (The Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code as modified in discussion. (City File 21-050) Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Nichols approving Resolution 2022-61 Findings of Fact as modified by discussion. (City File 21-050) Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Nichols approving Summary Ordinance 2022-460 of Ordinance 2022-459 as modified by discussion. (City File 21-050) Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) 9. Unfinished Business Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during the public comment opportunity for Unfinished Business items 9a-b. City Administrator Beise explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format and reviewed instructions for participation in the meeting through telephone or computer. Council requested item 9b., be moved ahead of item 9a., on the agenda. b. Hackamore Road Project Update Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, opined on WSB report and noted process of Lennar proposed development was question of assessment on Hackamore Road, and records indicate residents would not be assessed on Hackamore Road. Mr. Hoglund referenced single-family assessments are not being proposed. Mr. Hoglund referenced current WSB report includes assessment of adjacent property owners with future property development potential and two names Gonyea and Hoglund were referenced in report as property owners. Mr. Hoglund noted references to Hoglund in the report, but no other property owners 9 were included in report, and specified again that property owners on Hackamore Road were not to be assessed. Mr. Hoglund asked for clarification on assessment potential for the property he owns. City Administrator Beise noted assessments for future development properties potential, and not envisioning special assessments for single-family homes. Public Works Director Mattson noted definition and discussion of how future development properties potential assessments. Staff noted WSB report reflected potential development and could not speak to why specific homeowner names were referenced and noted there is not an intent to assess a single-family property owner for development property potential. Council and staff discussed assessment deferrals on properties once development occurs and policy related to assessments. Council and staff reviewed framework of gap for road improvement expense on Hackamore Road, variances in funding, and begin conservations on how to negotiate the gap, and does Council view properties that are slated for multiple development applications differently than single-family home properties, what are parameters for determining a multiple development property. Council and staff discussed the impact of development on local road connections in relation to individual landowners, outside commuters, etc. Council inquired how policy deals with increase in value from project being done, and how is assessed differently for a developable versus a non-developable parcel. Staff noted an appraisal opinion would be necessary of what the value would be. City Administrator Beise noted projected costs of Hackamore Road could be different from original costs due to current conditions. Staff and Council reviewed what a fair cost share with Medina would look like and noted a 50/50 share cost agreement. Council and staff noted with the Plymouth County Road 47 project, and efficiencies in combining the entire project at one time, disturbances in the corridor if Council decides to piece meal the project as development occurs. Council noted gap costs, timing of potential funding, and load the City could end up carrying. Staff noted the Hackamore Project has been included in the 5-year Financial Management plan, and has been planned for, not including single-family properties in the assessment, but review of properties that have multiple development properties and owned by LLC, and the potential assessment. Council revisited the property on Corcoran Trail East deferral of assessment upon sale of property, and a sunset date for property for the assessment and if a similar process could be utilized in the discussion of multiple development property potential. a. NE Corcoran Water Supply Update Council discussed the variables in costs, funding with Federal grants, it makes sense to acquire an alternate bid for two-cell, three-cell, site, and tower volume size. City Administrator Beise noted clarification of utilizing alternate site 2 for the water tower. Public Works Director Mattson noted an $800,000 difference of tower site cost for Hope Community for infrastructure and site versus Bellwether site. Project Engineer Hammerback gave Council an update on status of project and wrapping up preliminary design, and on June 23 bring authorization for final project design, and thanked Council for input. Project Engineer Hammerback noted testing on project site 2 will begin soon and presented renderings of the treatment plant. Project Engineer Hammerback reviewed next steps of design documents with 2- and 3- cell options, and estimated costs. Project Engineer Hammerback noted future meetings would include targeted discussions on architectural elements. Council and staff discussed components of stairwells. Council gave staff direction on pursuing alternate site 2 location, TLAC fees and charges, and obtaining an estimate for both water treatment 2- and 3-cell facilities and obtaining an estimate for a 750K and 1M gallon water tower volume. Council and staff discussed when results of federal grant submitted would be received and support by Minnesota representatives of the project. 10. New Business Mayor McKee invited residents to communicate in-person or telephonically during the public comment opportunity for New Business. City Administrator Beise explained the instructions to participate in the meeting via the Zoom video format and reviewed instructions for participation in the meeting through telephone or computer. No residents participated in the public comment opportunity. a. Ravinia Encroachment Agreement City Administrator Beise reviewed with the parties involved, Tabors and Lennar, regarding screening options and noted Lennar has proposed providing screening from lights along Black Oak, and 6-foot fencing along right-of-way, gutters along the roofline, and noted discussions with city attorney indicate a PUD amendment would allow for the screening and would avoid the need for a variance. City Administrator Beise noted the PUD amendment would only impact the 13th addition of Ravinia. Staff and Council discussed the advantage of a PUD amendment versus a variance as a PUD does not create a precedence 10 and keeps the scope limited to only the 13th Addition, as code does not allow a 6-foot fence. MOTION: made by McKee, seconded by Schultz to authorize staff to execute an encroachment agreement for the construction of a fence as proposed upon passage of a PUD amendment. Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) b. Potential Sale of City Land Council noted City policy for sale of property and if it is handled through an auction, posted sale, etc. City Administrator Beise noted City has flexibility with sale of property and noted tax forfeited properties are limited and cannot be sold for profit. City Administrator Beise noted the expenses being incurred would be covered by the purchaser. Council and staff discussed process for sale of property and noted this parcel was issued to City when development was constructed. Council asked for definition of tax-forfeited land, and how it is determined. Council and staff discussed policy and process for non-real estate property such as old Public Works equipment. City Administrator Beise noted the City would retain an easement for stormwater. Council gave staff direction on proceeding with appraisal of property, legal costs for creating the easement, and moving forward with sale. 11. Staff Reports a. Active Corcoran Planning Applications; reports received. 12. Closed Session—Health and Medical Data “Under the authority of Minn. Stat. § 13D.05 subd. 3(b) the City is permitted to close a meeting for attorney- client privilege to discuss pending litigation. The city council is going into closed session for that purpose to discuss response to the action filed by Housing First Minnesota.” Mayor McKee recessed the Council meeting at 12:15 am on May 27, 2022. Mayor McKee reconvened the Council meeting at 12:25 am on May 27, 2022. “Council discussed non-public health and medical data which must be discussed in a closed session per Minn. Stat. § 13D.05 subd. 2(a)(3 and 4) and staff was provided direction”. 13. 2022 City Council Schedule Council received the 2022 schedule. 14. Adjournment MOTION: made by Nichols, seconded by Schultz to adjourn. Voting Aye: McKee, Nichols, Schultz, and Vehrenkamp (Motion carried 4:0) Meeting adjourned at 12:27 am on May 27, 2022. Michelle Friedrich – Deputy Clerk Agenda Item 7b. Council Meeting Date:9/22/2022 Prepared By:Maggie Ung Amount Project name $0.00 -$ $86,397.03 86,397.03$ 171,779.22$ 258,176.25$ Date Paid to Amount Description 9/1/2022 Health Partners 27,681.61$ Employee Health Insurance 9/7/2022 RevTrak 57.86$ Credit Card Fee 9/7/2022 InvoiceCloud 1,425.16$ Credit Card Fee 9/7/2022 Paymentech 14,852.06$ UB Return 9/8/2022 ADP 97,069.29$ Net Payroll and Taxes 9/13/2022 Sun Life 1,540.49$ Employee STD and LTD 9/13/2022 State of MN - Empower 5,131.58$ Employee Deferred Comp/Healthcare Savings 9/13/2022 Optum Bank 3,559.12$ Employee HSA 9/13/2022 MN PERA 20,364.29$ Employee Pension 9/14/2022 MN Dept of Revenue 97.76$ Fuel Tax Total 171,779.22$ 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 1/7Page: 09/15/2022 01:18 PM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 09/09/2022 - 09/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32722 32722600.00 09/22/2209152022REIMBURSEMENT FOR CIVIL SERVICEABIGAIL EDSTROM09/15/22100-00000-20205 600.00 Total For Check 32722 Check 32723 32723328.12 09/22/22614433644PAYROLL PERIOD #18ADP, LLC09/09/22100-41900-50300 328.12 Total For Check 32723 Check 32724 32724297.99 09/22/221QMP-HFPR-7JJHERGONOMIC RUG/DESK CONVERTERAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES09/03/22100-41900-50210 32724239.97 09/22/2216XQ-VW4V-FW9RSURGE PROTECTORSAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES09/01/22100-41920-50210 32724188.99 09/22/221R6R-41MW-NF49WIRELESS HEADSETAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES09/01/22100-41920-50210 32724260.05 09/22/2216H4-1JPT-KLT6SAFE LOCK KITAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES08/31/22100-42100-50210 987.00 Total For Check 32724 Check 32725 32725135.00 09/22/22INUS095881FOTOKITE IT LICENSEAXON ENTERPRISE, INC.09/01/22416-42100-50210 135.00 Total For Check 32725 Check 32726 327261,100.00 09/22/22192769FALL MAINTENANCEB & D PLUMBING HEATING & AC08/31/22100-43100-50401 1,100.00 Total For Check 32726 Check 32727 3272737.24 09/22/222130057UNLEADED 87 GASOLINEBEAUDRY OIL COMPANY09/01/22100-41900-50403 327271,638.60 09/22/222130057UNLEADED 87 GASOLINEBEAUDRY OIL COMPANY09/01/22100-42100-50212 327271,721.01 09/22/222114137PREMIUM GASOLINEBEAUDRY OIL COMPANY08/19/22100-43100-50212 32727186.21 09/22/222130057UNLEADED 87 GASOLINEBEAUDRY OIL COMPANY09/01/22100-43100-50212 3,583.06 Total For Check 32727 Check 32728 32728498.76 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-00000-22205 3272871.25 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-00000-22205-013 327281,574.64 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-00000-22205-017 32728220.88 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-00000-22205-056 3272871.25 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-00000-22205-057 32728149.63 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-00000-22205-087 32728213.75 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-00000-22205-098 3272835.63 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-00000-22205-111 327281,774.15 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-00000-22205-128 32728242.25 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-00000-22205-132 327283,834.42 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-41600-50300 327284,221.90 09/22/222298LEGAL SERVICESCARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER08/31/22100-42100-50304 12,908.51 Total For Check 32728 Check 32729 32729161.45 09/22/2208282022LAND LINE/FIRE MONITORING-9100 763CENTURY LINK08/28/22100-43100-50321 161.45 Total For Check 32729 Check 32730 32730109.21 09/22/224130570750CITY HALL MATSCINTAS - 47009/07/22100-41900-50400 3273074.73 09/22/224130570761CRT BLUE/CABINETCINTAS - 47009/07/22100-43100-50400 32730162.62 09/22/224129982778UNIFORMSCINTAS - 47008/31/22100-43100-50400 32730111.88 09/22/224129982654CRT BLUE/CABINETCINTAS - 47008/31/22100-43100-50400 3273081.77 09/22/224129982692BATH TOWELCINTAS - 47008/31/22100-43100-50400 3273015.10 09/22/224129982616MICROFIBER WIPECINTAS - 47008/31/22100-43100-50400 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 2/7Page: 09/15/2022 01:18 PM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 09/09/2022 - 09/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32730 32730162.62 09/22/224130570826UNIFORMSCINTAS - 47009/07/22100-43100-50417 717.93 Total For Check 32730 Check 32731 327311,600.00 09/22/220034551COUNTRY DAZE CITY OF ROGERS08/29/22100-42100-50103 1,600.00 Total For Check 32731 Check 32732 32732176.77 09/22/22334185VSPHERE HOSTCOMPUTER INTEGRATION TECH08/31/22100-41920-50210 327324,620.00 09/22/22334545IT SUPPORT SERVICESCOMPUTER INTEGRATION TECH08/31/22100-41920-50300 4,796.77 Total For Check 32732 Check 32733 32733215.98 09/22/2255009K9 VET CARECORCORAN PET CARE CENTER, LL09/01/22202-42100-50438 215.98 Total For Check 32733 Check 32734 32734129.03 09/22/2209082022STAFF RECOGNITION EVENTCREDIT CARD PURCHASES09/08/22100-41900-50210 32734257.93 09/22/222254606557ACROBAT PRO LICENSECREDIT CARD PURCHASES09/03/22100-41920-50210 32734125.00 09/22/2209092022TRAINING - EKENBERGMN BCA09/09/22100-42100-50207 3273442.00 09/22/22557372SHIFT SCHEDULINGFLEETIO09/09/22100-42100-50210 3273422.04 09/22/22571314TOW ROPECREDIT CARD PURCHASES08/18/22100-43100-50210 3273446.49 09/22/225868215798MAPLE GROVE TRIATHLON SUPPLIESHY-VEE 08/27/22201-42100-50210 3273417.97 09/22/2258684312625NIGHT TO UNITE - DONUTS WITH A COPHY-VEE 08/30/22202-42100-50210 640.46 Total For Check 32734 Check 32735 3273581.90 09/22/22114X67665200OFFICE WATERCULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER08/31/22100-41900-50210 3273582.20 09/22/22100X07440402PD OFFICE WATERCULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER08/31/22100-42100-50210 164.10 Total For Check 32735 Check 32736 32736229.22 09/22/2293548BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONEMPLOYEE RELATIONS08/31/22100-41400-50300 229.22 Total For Check 32736 Check 32737 32737306.30 09/22/220500726REPLACEMENT BATTERY/ANTENNAFERGUSON WATERWORKS #251808/29/22601-49400-50210 306.30 Total For Check 32737 Check 32738 32738128.85 09/22/22RI105465140QTRLY MAIL METERFP MAILING SOLUTIONS09/04/22100-41900-50322 128.85 Total For Check 32738 Check 32739 32739266.62 09/22/222080314SUPPORT SERVICESGOPHER STATE ONE CALL08/31/22601-49400-50380 32739266.63 09/22/222080314SUPPORT SERVICESGOPHER STATE ONE CALL08/31/22602-49450-50380 533.25 Total For Check 32739 Check 32740 32740228.28 09/22/2222-0621SQUAD 570 REPAIRGUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY09/08/22100-42100-50403 228.28 Total For Check 32740 Check 32741 32741150.00 09/22/221000191425JAIL CHARGES AUGUST 2022HENN CO SHERIFF08/31/22100-42100-50305 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 3/7Page: 09/15/2022 01:18 PM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 09/09/2022 - 09/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32741 150.00 Total For Check 32741 Check 32742 3274215.00 09/22/221000191700VIEW RECORDED DOCUMENTSHENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTS REC09/02/22100-43100-50300 15.00 Total For Check 32742 Check 32743 327431,514.26 09/22/221000191207PD RADIO LEASE AUGUST 2022HENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH08/31/22100-42100-50323 32743308.88 09/22/221000191274RADIO FLEET AUGUST 2022HENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH08/31/22100-43100-50323 1,823.14 Total For Check 32743 Check 32744 3274495.00 09/22/22003401092200PD CAR WASHHOLIDAY COMPANIES09/01/22100-42100-50403 95.00 Total For Check 32744 Check 32745 327451,655.07 09/22/22191384.PAY1OFFICE CHAIRS (2) - HALF PAYMENTINTEREUM09/15/22100-41900-50210 1,655.07 Total For Check 32745 Check 32746 3274628.88 09/22/2203-933878ENGINE OIL FILTERLANO EQUIPMENT08/19/22100-43100-50210 28.88 Total For Check 32746 Check 32747 327473,654.93 09/22/2209092022REFUND OF DUPLICATE PAYMENT INVOICLENNAR FAMILY BUILDERS09/09/22100-00000-20802 327471,706.67 09/22/2209092022REFUND OF DUPLICATE PAYMENT INVOICLENNAR FAMILY BUILDERS09/09/22100-00000-32210 3274775.00 09/22/2209092022REFUND OF DUPLICATE PAYMENT INVOICLENNAR FAMILY BUILDERS09/09/22100-00000-34103 327474,497.00 09/22/2209092022REFUND OF DUPLICATE PAYMENT INVOICLENNAR FAMILY BUILDERS09/09/22601-00000-37155 327472,485.00 09/22/2209092022REFUND OF DUPLICATE PAYMENT INVOICLENNAR FAMILY BUILDERS09/09/22602-00000-20800 327471,243.00 09/22/2209092022REFUND OF DUPLICATE PAYMENT INVOICLENNAR FAMILY BUILDERS09/09/22602-00000-37275 13,661.60 Total For Check 32747 Check 32748 327481,299.01 09/22/2268937CHEV TRAVERSE REPAIRLITHGOW AUTOMOTIVE09/02/22100-42100-50403 1,299.01 Total For Check 32748 Check 32749 32749115.00 09/22/221864MANDATORY CHECK-INMARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW, LLC09/01/22100-41900-50300 115.00 Total For Check 32749 Check 32750 32750769.24 09/22/2209142022DEPENDENT CARE REIMBURSEMENTMATT GOTTSCHALK09/14/22100-00000-21710 769.24 Total For Check 32750 Check 32751 3275111,642.72 09/22/220001145113WASTE WATER SERVICES 10/2022METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRO09/06/22602-49450-50312 11,642.72 Total For Check 32751 Check 32752 327522,750.00 09/22/2209012022LEGAL ADVOCACY PROGRAMMISSIONS INC09/01/22100-41900-50433 2,750.00 Total For Check 32752 Check 32753 327536.99 09/22/22429455FUEL LINE CLIPSNAPA AUTO PARTS - Corcoran08/31/22100-43100-50210 32753121.68 09/22/22429450MOBIL OILNAPA AUTO PARTS - Corcoran08/31/22100-43100-50210 32753104.72 09/22/22431175AEROSOLNAPA AUTO PARTS - Corcoran09/12/22100-43100-50210 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 4/7Page: 09/15/2022 01:18 PM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 09/09/2022 - 09/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32753 3275362.49 09/22/22431269TIRE HOISTNAPA AUTO PARTS - Corcoran09/12/22100-43100-50220 295.88 Total For Check 32753 Check 32754 32754203.89 09/22/2209132022DEPENDENT CARE REIMBURSEMENTNATALIE DAVIS MCKEOWN09/13/22100-00000-21710 203.89 Total For Check 32754 Check 32755 32755160.00 09/22/2208232022EMR REFRESHER-EDSTROMNORTH MEMORIAL08/31/22100-42100-50207 160.00 Total For Check 32755 Check 32756 327564,096.63 09/22/2225688DUST CONTROL CALCIUM CHLORIDENORTHERN SALT INC08/22/22100-43122-50400 4,096.63 Total For Check 32756 Check 32757 32757102.16 09/22/22262602818001OFFICE SUPPLIESODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC08/23/22100-41900-50200 32757(11.92)09/22/22263819204001OFFICE SUPPLY RETURNODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC08/25/22100-41900-50200 90.24 Total For Check 32757 Check 32758 327581,850.00 09/22/2209122022FALL/WINTER 2022 NEWSLETTERPOSTMASTER09/12/22100-41130-50350 1,850.00 Total For Check 32758 Check 32759 327591,051.16 09/22/22999757FILE DRAWERSPREVOLV08/31/22100-42100-50223 1,051.16 Total For Check 32759 Check 32760 32760411.42 09/22/220894-005891342CITY HALL GARBAGE AUGUST 2022REPUBLIC SERVICES08/31/22100-41900-50380 32760369.13 09/22/220894-005892300PUBLIC WORKS GARBAGEREPUBLIC SERVICES08/31/22100-43100-50380 32760848.52 09/22/220894-005888828CITY HALL RECYCLING AUGUST 2022REPUBLIC SERVICES08/31/22100-43201-50300 327601,384.10 09/22/220894-005890239LIONS PARK GARBAGE 3-0894-0108252REPUBLIC SERVICES08/31/22100-45200-50380 32760390.91 09/22/220894-005891165CITY PARK GARBAGE AUGUST 2022REPUBLIC SERVICES08/31/22100-45200-50380 32760104.32 09/22/220894-005893637WILDFLOWER PARK GARBAGE AUGUST 202REPUBLIC SERVICES08/31/22100-45200-50380 3,508.40 Total For Check 32760 Check 32761 3276166.00 09/22/2262175NIGHT TO UNITE THANK YOU CARDSROGERS PRINTING08/29/22202-42100-50210 66.00 Total For Check 32761 Check 32762 32762100.00 09/22/22I1587087AMMUNITIONSTREICHER'S POLICE EQUIPMENT08/29/22100-42100-50207 327622.18 09/22/22I1530518AMMUNITIONSTREICHER'S POLICE EQUIPMENT09/01/22100-42100-50207 3276212.42 09/22/22I1540412HANDCUFF CASESTREICHER'S POLICE EQUIPMENT01/01/22100-42100-50210 32762119.96 09/22/22I1562591TOURNIQUETSTREICHER'S POLICE EQUIPMENT04/13/22100-42100-50210 3276245.98 09/22/22I1566005HAND CUFF HOLDERSTREICHER'S POLICE EQUIPMENT05/02/22100-42100-50210 280.54 Total For Check 32762 Check 32763 32763457.92 09/22/2209012022UNION DUES/TLDFTEAMSTER LOCAL 32009/01/22100-00000-21707 457.92 Total For Check 32763 Check 32764 32764363.49 09/22/2208-2022AUGUST 2022 PD UNIFORM CLEANINGTIDE CLEANERS09/01/22100-42100-50417 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 5/7Page: 09/15/2022 01:18 PM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 09/09/2022 - 09/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32764 363.49 Total For Check 32764 Check 32765 3276575.00 09/22/22082022PD INVESTIGATIONS - AUGUST 2022TRANSUNION RISK & ALTERNATIV09/01/22100-42100-50300 75.00 Total For Check 32765 Check 32766 32766190.00 09/22/224503NARCAM NASAL SPRAYTRUAX PATIENT SERVICES08/22/22100-42100-50210 190.00 Total For Check 32766 Check 32767 32767117.80 09/22/2275455804PRIVACY MONITOR SCREENULINE09/01/22100-41900-50210 117.80 Total For Check 32767 Check 32768 327681,025.00 09/22/2222090100CITY HALL & PD CLEANINGULTIMATE CLEANERS LLC09/01/22100-41900-50401 1,025.00 Total For Check 32768 Check 32769 32769930.00 09/22/224274NIGHT TO UNITE RENTALUNTIEDT'S VEGETABLE FARM, IN09/01/22202-42100-50210 930.00 Total For Check 32769 Check 32770 32770247.71 09/22/229914399727PD/CH CELL PHONE VERIZON WIRELESS08/26/22100-41900-50321 327701,332.79 09/22/229914399727PD/CH CELL PHONE VERIZON WIRELESS08/26/22100-42100-50321 1,580.50 Total For Check 32770 Check 32771 32771155.18 09/22/22912872NEW TIREWESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE09/12/22100-42100-50403 155.18 Total For Check 32771 Check 32772 32772268.70 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22100-00000-22205-007 32772166.44 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22100-00000-22205-056 327721,058.20 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22100-00000-22205-065 32772215.32 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22100-00000-22205-087 32772209.28 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22100-00000-22205-098 327721,650.90 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22100-41900-50381 3277260.12 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22100-42151-50381 32772207.00 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22100-43100-50381 3277290.39 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22100-45200-50381 3277299.64 09/22/2235029844885UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT08/18/22408-48005-50430 32772156.56 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22601-49400-50380 32772232.61 09/22/2235029901718UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/12/22602-49450-50380 4,415.16 Total For Check 32772 Check 32773 3277315.26 09/22/2235029892881UTILITY SERVICESWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT09/06/22602-49450-50380 15.26 Total For Check 32773 Check 32774 327741,170.00 09/22/22R-020743-000-2HACKAMORE RD FINAL DESIGN & CONSTRWSB08/31/22419-43100-50300 1,170.00 Total For Check 32774 Check 32775 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 6/7Page: 09/15/2022 01:18 PM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 09/09/2022 - 09/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32775 3277520.52 09/22/227942414819820 CO RD 101 STREET LIGHTXCEL ENERGY08/30/22100-43100-50381 20.52 Total For Check 32775 Check 32776 3277628.37 09/22/22794821356STREET LIGHTSXCEL ENERGY09/02/22100-43100-50381 28.37 Total For Check 32776 Check 32777 32777160.65 09/22/22794931611STREET LIGHTSXCEL ENERGY09/06/22100-43100-50381 160.65 Total For Check 32777 Check 32778 32778720.50 09/22/2282880PHONE SUPPORTZ SYSTEMS, INC05/21/22100-41900-50300 720.50 Total For Check 32778 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 7/7Page: 09/15/2022 01:18 PM User: jpeterson DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 09/09/2022 - 09/22/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number 62,604.25 Fund 100 GENERAL FUND 46.49 Fund 201 RESERVES DONATION FUND 1,229.95 Fund 202 POLICE DONATION FUND 99.64 Fund 408 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 135.00 Fund 416 CAPITAL-EQUIPMENT CERTS 1,170.00 Fund 419 HACKAMORE UPGRADE (LENNAR) 5,226.48 Fund 601 WATER 15,885.22 Fund 602 SEWER Fund Totals: 86,397.03 Total For All Funds: Page 1 of 7 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 7c. City Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Brown Riding Arena CUP (City File. No. 22-047) 22640 Oakdale Drive (PID 05-119-23-13-0006) Action Required: Approval Review Deadline: October 10, 2022 1. Application Request Blair Brown requests a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow an indoor riding arena of 4,800 square feet with a sidewall height of 16’4” at 22640 Oakdale Drive. Parcels of 10 acres or more within the Rural Residential District are allowed to request an accessory structure footprint that exceeds 3,969 square feet via a CUP. Additionally, all properties can request a CUP to exceed the sidewall height limit of 13’6” in the rear yard. 2. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed this item at a public hearing on September 1, 2022. One public comment of support was received and is included as an attachment to this report. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. 3. Context Zoning and Land Use The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR), and the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural/Ag Residential. The property is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The present land use of the site includes a single-family residential home with one detached accessory structure of roughly 200 square feet. Surrounding Properties All surrounding properties are zoned RR, guided for Rural/Ag Residential, and located within the MUSA. Natural Characteristics of The Site Page 2 of 7 The Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) map does not identify natural plant communities within this property. A wetland delineation identified two wetland basins on the property. The proposed location of the accessory structure is more than 400’ from the nearest delineated wetland boundary. The expected impact to the wetland is minimal. 4. Analysis Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, and the Engineering Memo is attached. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving or denying a CUP is limited to whether the proposed plan is in substantial conformance with the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets those standards, the City must approve the CUP. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Location Section 1030.020, Subd. 3 provides the location requirements for accessory structures. The proposed building will be in the rear yard and exceeds the required building separation of 10’ from the principal building on the property. Additionally, the arena complies with the 50’ front setback, 20’ side setback, and the 15’ rear setback. The horse stable that is currently under construction meets the required front, side, and rear setbacks. The horse stable is considered a non-agricultural animal shelter and complies with the 75’ setback from neighboring residential structures required in paragraph 7 of Chapter 81.11 of the City Code. The existing shed on the site does not meet the side setback of 20’ for accessory structures. However, aerial views from Hennepin County indicate the shed was in this location prior to the adoption of the existing code requirements. The image to the right is a snapshot of the aerial view in 2002. Staff believes this structure to be legal nonconforming, and therefore the structure can remain in its current location. Size The submitted plans are consistent with size standards provided in Section 1030.020, Subd. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is 11.36 acres in size. Page 3 of 7 Parcels of 10 acres or more are allowed an accessory structure footprint of 3,696 square feet by right. Additionally, parcels of this size can request to exceed this footprint through a CUP. This parcel currently has one structure of roughly 200 square feet that is allowed without counting the structure towards the allowable footprint. Additionally, the property owner was recently issued a building permit for a horse stable of 2,208 square feet (the main portion of the structure is 1,728 square feet and then there is a lean-to of 480 square feet that also counts towards the accessory structure footprint). The CUP is to specifically allow an indoor riding arena of 4,800 square feet (shown below). In combination with the horse stable, the accumulative accessory structure footprint on the property will be 7,008 square feet, which exceeds the by-right footprint by 3,312 square feet. The CUP will be discussed in more detail on p. 4 of this report. Building Height The plans for the riding arena show a sidewall height of 16’4”. Accessory structures located in the rear yard are allowed a sidewall height of up to 13’6” by right. However, all properties can request to exceed this height through a CUP, so the height of the building is included as part of the CUP discussed further on p. 4. more detail below. Buildings with a sidewall height of more than 12’ require a minimum eave of 12” and minimum overhang of 24”. The applicant’s most recently submitted plans show eaves and overhangs of 24” to satisfy this requirement. Architectural Standards The proposed materials comply with the standards for accessory structures outlined in Section 1030.020, Subd. 6 and Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(D). The architectural plans show the use of metal sheeting and metal wainscot for the siding and metal sheeting for the roof. Metal siding and roofing is allowed via a certificate of Page 4 of 7 compliance if the materials meet the standards in the MN State Building Code and are treated with a factory applied color coating system to protect against fading. The applicant submitted color samples to show the metal will be coated with bright white and ash grey accents. The materials comply. The building includes large sliding doors on the east and south building facades and two overhead doors on the north and west facades. There are two windows on each of the east and west facades and one door on each of the front and rear elevations. There are minimal aesthetic features on the building to break up the mass of the structure, but it is unlikely the riding arena will be visible from the public view as it will be located behind the horse stable. Landscaping No landscape plan is required. There is an existing dense tree line along the western property line. The applicant does not indicate any additional trees or shrubs to be planted or removed. Grading The applicant submitted a grading plan as part of the application. The Engineering Memo confirms approval of the grading plan with no additional comments or conditions. Conditional Use Permit Separate CUP standards are not provided to exceed the accessory structure footprint, but specific standards are provided in Section 1030.020, Subd. 5(D) to exceed the sidewall height limit. This more restrictive framework will be used in evaluating both components of the CUP request. 1. The proposed use shall be in conformance with all City Regulations. Accessory structures are a permitted use in the RR district. As discussed previously in this report, the proposed plans comply with the accessory structure standards provided in Section 1030.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. The use and keeping of horses are allowed within the RR District. The structures will be able to serve up to 5 horses with immediate plans for 2 horses. An 11-acre parcel can have up to 10 horses per Chapter 81.11 of City Code. 2. A certificate of survey shall be required that identifies all existing structures on site, including buildings, septic sites, and wells. In addition, the survey shall include the proposed structure, flood plain, wetlands, and any recorded easements. Page 5 of 7 A wetland delineation was completed and approved by the City on June 16, 2022. A certificate of survey, dated March 18, 2022, was provided to the City with the remaining necessary information. 3. Applicable criteria as outlined in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance. A. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. The Future Land Use Map within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural/Ag Residential. This land use designation is defined by natural areas, planted fields, pastureland, hobby farms, and large residential lots. The proposed indoor riding arena is compatible with the hobby farms anticipated in this area of the City by the Comprehensive Plan. B. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the community. The excess size and height proposed with the CUP will allow for the property owner’s horses to utilize an appropriately sized indoor space for year-round exercise. The property owner states her intent to regularly utilize a manure haul-off service to manage the site. A condition of approval of the CUP includes that manure management on the site must meet the requirements provided in paragraph 8 of Chapter 81.11 in the City Code. C. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, not substantially diminish and impact property values within the neighborhood. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of nearby properties, nor substantially impact property values within the neighborhood. The existing vegetation bordering the property will provide screening to the surrounding properties. The riding arena will provide an indoor exercise space for the horses which will minimize the impact of the horses to the surrounding neighbors. The grading plan was reviewed by the City Engineer for potential conflicts with existing drainage patterns between this property and the property to the west and no concerns were noted. Page 6 of 7 D. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property uses permitted in the district. The establishment of the conditional use does not cause an impediment to development and improvement of surrounding properties for permitted uses within the RR. E. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. Municipal sewer and water are not available to the site and are not required to accommodate the proposed uses. Well and septic systems are available on the property. While there may be a need to expand on to the existing well for the property, this will not be necessary for the property owner’s immediate plans to house two horses. A condition of approval in the attached resolution includes the requirement to obtain necessary approvals should it be necessary to expand either the septic or well on the site to accommodate future horses. F. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The conditional use, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations within the RR district. G. The conditional use and site conform to the performance standards as specified by this Chapter. Staff analyzed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and found that all performance standards are satisfied. 5. The building material standards required by this Section have been met. The building materials standards will be met with the issuance of a certificate of compliance which is approved within the attached resolution. 6. The proposed building will be compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed building is compatible with surrounding RR homes and agricultural uses. 4. Conclusion Staff reviewed the plans with the applicable standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and finds that the standards for a CUP are satisfied. The proposed use is consistent with the type of use existing and Page 7 of 7 anticipated within the RR. Any issues that must be addressed are included as a condition of approval in the attached draft resolution. 5. Recommendation Move to approve Resolution 2022-110 approving the CUP for an accessory building with a sidewall height of 16’4” and an accessory structure footprint of 7,008 square feet on the property. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2022-110 2. Aerial Location Map 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Survey 5. Indoor Riding Arena Plans 6. Horse Stable/Hobby Barn Plans 7. Engineering Memo Dated 8/23/2022 8. Public Comment Email Dated 9/1/2022 City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22640 OAKDALE DRIVE (PID 05-119-23-13-0008) (CITY FILE NO. 22-047) WHEREAS, Blair Brown requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an accessory building on property legal described as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit at a duly called public hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request, subject to the following findings and conditions; 1. A conditional use permit is approved to allow for the construction of a building as shown on the application and plans dated July 19, 2022 and as amended in this Resolution. 2. A certificate of compliance to allow metal siding and a metal roof on this accessory building is also approved as part of the conditional use permit. a. The building materials must comply with Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(D)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A conditional use permit is approved to allow for an accessory structure footprint of 7,008 sq. ft. and an accessory building with sidewalls of 16 ft. where 13 ft. 6 in. is allowed, subject to the finding that applicable criteria as outlined in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance have been met. Specifically: a. The proposed use complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with the Rural/Ag Residential land use designation and maintains the desired rural character of the area. b. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare. Granting the conditional use permit for the new structure will allow for the horses on the property to utilize an appropriately sized indoor space for year-round exercise. c. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Existing vegetation on the site will provide screening. Conditions identified in the resolution will ensure compliance with City standards. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 2 of 4 d. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property uses permitted in the district. e. Municipal sewer and water are not available to the site and are not required to accommodate the proposed use. Well and septic systems are available on the property and are sufficient for the housing of two horses. f. The conditional use conforms to the applicable regulations of the Rural Residential district. g. Conditions in this resolution will ensure the conditional use and site conform to the accessory structure and animal keeping ordinances. Staff found that the building conforms to all other performance standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance and City Code as required by Chapter 1070.020. 4. The property cannot be used for commercial purposes unless a separate approval is requested and granted by the City. 5. Any changes to the septic systems and wells on the property must be approved by the County and State respectively. 6. A building permit is required prior to beginning construction. 7. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of building permits: a. Revised plans must be submitted to satisfy the overhang minimum of 24 in. b. The applicant must continuously comply with the manure management standard in paragraph 8 of Chapter 81.11 of the City Code. c. The applicant/landowner must record the approving resolution at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 8. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and the required improvements. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 3 of 4 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022- Page 4 of 4 Attachment A Lot 5 and the East 302.97 feet of Lot 3, Block 1, LOUKUSA FAMILY ACRES SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subject to any and all easements of record. He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Site Ma p of 226 40 O ak da le Dr ive Da te : 7/1 4/20 22 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 4 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 05 119 23 130 00 8 OWN ER N AME: Blair C Bro wn PAR CEL AD DRESS: 2 264 0 Oakda le D r, Co rc or an MN 553 74 PAR CEL AR EA: 11 .36 acr es , 49 4,73 3 s q ft A-T-B: Ab stra ct SAL E PR ICE: $67 9,00 0 SAL E D ATA: 0 9/20 21 SAL E C OD E: Wa rr anty D e ed ASSESSED 20 21 , PAYABLE 202 2 PROPERT Y TYPE: R es iden t ial H OM ESTEAD : H ome ste ad M AR KET VAL UE: $44 8,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $6 ,0 66.5 4 ASSESSED 20 22 , PAYABLE 202 3 PRO PER TY TYPE: R eside ntial HO MESTEAD: Ho meste ad MARKET VALU E: $5 38 ,0 00 This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not s uitable for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 2 2 CUP Written narrative: My request is to build a 36x48x12 (1,728 ft²) hobby barn and 60x80x16 (4,800 ft²) indoor arena and exercise space for my retired performance horses. The barn will be used to house several large, retired, performance horses, estimate is around 3-5, but starting immediately with 2 horses. Regulation size riding arenas start at 120x65x20 (7,800 ft²), but in consideration of the city’s limitations on square footage and impact to the property, I am proposing a significantly smaller indoor space (60x80x16 or 4,800 ft²). The additional square feet and height (16 ft) of the indoor arena space is extremely important to provide a safe, appropriately sized exercise space for the horses during the harsh winter and rainy spring days. No employees or specific days/times of operation as it will be a private hobby barn. I have purposefully designed the barn so that the side where the horses will be most active will face toward my own property. The property is bordered completely by trees, and I chose the build location to ensure it would not be near any residences. The location was also chosen to provide the least disruption to the appearance and function of the property, including the wetlands, current topography, elevations, and wildlife traffic. Ongoing manure management is important to ensure health and safety and minimize disruption to neighbors. The location of the manure management system was also part of the consideration when choosing the location of the buildings. I intend to use a haul off service to minimize the amount of manure accumulating on site and ensure a functional and contained system to limit impacting neighbors as well as the people and animals on my property between the haul off schedule. There will be no impact on local traffic outside the building process, regular vet or farrier visits, and manure haul off/removal. The location of the buildings was also chosen to minimize the expansion of the access road to just the front barn entrance, and the distance to hook up any utilities. I have spoken with the local Well and Septic authorities and will continue to engage them to ensure proper steps are taken, if necessary, to add on to the Well, or connect the barn to the Septic. From my discussions there may be a need in the future to expand the current well, but it is not an immediate need due to the current size and initial plan to only have 2 horses. I understand that permits will need to be pulled for any work on the Septic or Well. A certificate of compliance will be required for the metal roofs which I am in the process of submitting. I have submitted a Vacation Request to vacate the Easement that crosses my current lot. My site prep contractor will submit the Permit Grading or Fill Application. I have no additional property expansion plans. 12 4 Main Level Floor 0' - 4" Main Level Clg 16' - 4"16'-0"2'-0" METAL WAINSCOT METAL SHEETING 2'-0" METAL SHEETING 4" / 12"4" / 12"METAL SHEETING METAL SHEETING OVERHEAD DOOR 20'-0" 40 PSF 2'-0" UNBALANCED SNOW LOAD PER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2 SNOW LOAD IS REVERSIBLE ABOUT RIDGE 62 PSF 12 PSF 9'-0" Main Level Floor 0' - 4" Main Level Clg 16' - 4"16'-0"2'-0" 10'-0" METAL SHEETING METAL WAINSCOT3'-0"SLIDING DOOR 10'-0"SHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY: c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC.PROJECT #: BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED, LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKA1 Ext ElevationsBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 55374Peter K.9/12/202222-16SL 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 1RIGHT ELEVATION A1 2 FRONT 3D VIEW SHEET INDEX A1 - EXT ELEVATIONS A2 - EXT ELEVATION & SECTIONS A3 - FLOOR PLAN A. CONSTRUCTION GROUP - S-1 B. FLOOR AREA - 4800 S.F. C. CONSTRUCTION TYPE - V-N D. SNOW LOAD - 40 PSF BALANCED, UNBALANCED PER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2 E. WIND LOAD - 115 MPH EXP C. (90 MPH ASD) F. SOIL BEARING - ASSUMED 2000 PSF A. CONCRETE PIERS - 3000 PSI B. CONCRETE FLOOR - 4000 PSI, 6% AIR ENTR. C. POSTS - TRTD, 1200f MIN., dfl NO. 1 D. GIRTS & PURLINS - #2 HEM-FIR E. ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES - 10 PSF DL + 40 PSF S.L. BALANCED, UNBALANCED PER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2 TRUSS PER MANUFACTURER, TRUSS BOTTOM CHORD AND DIAGONAL BRACING BETWEEN TRUSSES PER MANUFACTURER THIS BUILDING MEETS OR EXCEEDS ALL CURRENT MINNESOTA BUILDING CODES CODE DATA STRUCTURAL DATA 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 3FRONT ELEVATION 12 4 Main Level Floor 0' - 4" Main Level Clg 16' - 4"16'-0"METAL SHEETING METAL WAINSCOT 2'-0"2'-0" METAL SHEETING METAL SHEETING METAL SHEETING SLIDING DOORS4" / 12"4" / 12"14'-0" TO FLOORVARIES12'-0" TO FLOORATTACH END WALL ROOF TRUSS TO POST w/ (6) 16d NAILS PER CHORD TRTD POST BEYOND SEE PLAN FOR SIZE BUILDING DIMENSION (OUTSIDE FACE OF WOOD) ROOF TRUSS (2) 13/4"x14"d LVL 3/4" PLYWOOD BOTTOM COVER NOTCH POST FOR 1 OF THE LVL HDR PLYS AND PROVIDE (2) ADDITIONAL 2X6 TREATED TRIMMERS BELOW HEADER NAILED TO POST FULL HEIGHT DOWN TO FOOTING. TYP. EA. SIDE OF OPENING 1'-0"5'-0"4"16'-0"6'-0" MINFROST FTG2'-0" 2x4 PURLINS @ 24" O.C. TWO SPAN CONTINUOUS ENGINEERED WOOD TRUSSES @ 48" O.C. TRUSS HANGERS @ EA. END SIMPSON MTS12 COLORED METAL SHEETING COMPACTED GRAVEL PIER SEE PLAN FOR FTG SIZE 12 4 2x4 GIRTS @ 24" O.C. TWO SPAN CONTINUOUS 6x6 TRTD POSTS, SEE PLAN FOR LAYOUT 2x6 BLOCKING 16" LONG, FRONT & BACK OF POSTS TYP. TRTD 2x6 BOTTOM PLATE (1) 13/4"x 117/8"d LVL NOTCH POST @ INTERIOR w/ 2x12 FASTENED ON EXTERIOR INTERIOR LVL IS GRADE 2.0E. FASTEN LVL & 2x12 TO POST WITH (4) 35/8" LedgerLOKs EACH MEMBER EA. END. PRE-DRILL AS REQUIRED TO AVOID SPLITTING Main Level Floor 0' - 4" Main Level Clg 16' - 4"16'-0"METAL SHEETING METAL WAINSCOT 2'-0"3'-0"METAL SHEETING OVERHEAD DOOR 10'-0"14'-0"2'-0" TOP PLATE (SEE TYPICAL SIDEWALL SECTION) 6x6 TRTD POST SEE SIDEWALL SECTION (2) PLY 14"d LVL DOOR HEADER ALIGN WITH BACK FACE OF POST/TRIMMER TOENAIL TO POST WITH (6) 4" RINGSHANK NAILS EA. END. FIR OUT FRONT FACE FOR PURLINS AS REQUIRED (3) 2x6 TREATED TRIMMERS NAILED TO POST AND EXTENDING DOWN TO FOOTING SIMPSON A23 EA. SIDE OF CRIPPLE 2 PLY 2x6 CRIPPLES AT EACH TRUSS BEARING LOCATION NOTCHED ON BACK FACE FOR TOP LVL 117/8" LVL BACK FACE & 2x12 FRONT FACE (SEE TYPICAL SIDEWALL SECTION. NO SPLICES FOR BOTH MEMBERS ACROSS 14FT OPENING) TRUSS BEARING LOCATION VARIES SEE PLAN. SIMPSON MTS12 PER TYPICAL SIDE WALL SECTION TOP PLATE (SEE TYPICAL SIDEWALL SECTION) 6x6 TRTD POST SEE SIDEWALL SECTION (2) PLY 14"d LVL DOOR HEADER ALIGN WITH BACK FACE OF POST/TRIMMER TOENAIL TO POST WITH (6) 4" RINGSHANK NAILS EA. END. FIR OUT FRONT FACE FOR PURLINS AS REQUIRED (3) 2x6 TREATED TRIMMERS NAILED TO POST AND EXTENDING DOWN TO FOOTING SIMPSON A23 EA. SIDE OF CRIPPLE 2 PLY 2x6 CRIPPLES AT EACH TRUSS BEARING LOCATION NOTCHED ON BACK FACE FOR TOP LVL 117/8" LVL BACK FACE & 2x12 FRONT FACE (SEE TYPICAL SIDEWALL SECTION. NO SPLICES FOR BOTH MEMBERS ACROSS 14FT OPENING) TRUSS BEARING LOCATION VARIES SEE PLAN. SIMPSON MTS12 PER TYPICAL SIDE WALL SECTION SHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY: c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC.PROJECT #: BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED, LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKA2 Ext Elevations & SectionsBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 55374Peter K.9/12/202222-16SL 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 1LEFT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 4 Gable End Door Section 3/8" = 1'-0"A2 5 Wall Section Post 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 2REAR ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 3Trimmer/Header Detail 60'-0"60'-0"4'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"7'-0"10'-0"7'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"4'-0"8'-0"8'-0"5'-0"4'-0"10'-0"4'-0"5'-0"8'-0"8'-0"6x6 TRTD POST AT WALL LOCATIONS TYP.10'-0"x10'-0"SLIDING DRCENTERLINE OF ROOF TRUSSES @ 4'-0" O.C., SEE TRUSS DRAWING FOR ADDITIONAL BRACING.(2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR)4 A2 30"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ SIDE WALLS 80'-0" 4'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"4'-0"8'-0"8'-0"5'-0"4'-0"10'-0"4'-0"5'-0"8'-0"8'-0"30"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ SIDE WALLS 18"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ END WALLS 6x6 TRTD POST AT WALL LOCATIONS TYP.10'-0"x14'-0" OVERHEAD DR(2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR)80'-0" 10'-0"x14'-0" OVERHEAD DR (2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR) 18"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ END WALLS 24"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ DOOR VERTICAL 2x6 BRACING TO TRUSS AT ENDWALL POST LOCATIONS TYP. 18"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ END WALLS 24"⌀ CONC PADS, TYP @ DOOR VERTICAL 2x6 BRACING TO TRUSS AT ENDWALL POST LOCATIONS TYP. 5 A2 3 A2 4'-0"x4'-0" (2) 2x10's (HDR) 4'-0"x4'-0" (2) 2x10's (HDR) 4'-0"x4'-0" (2) 2x10's (HDR) 4'-0"x4'-0" (2) 2x10's (HDR) 306815'-0"x 36'-0" BREEZWAY AND EXTRANCE TO BARNSHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY: c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC.PROJECT #: BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED, LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKA3 Main Floor PlanBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 55374Peter K.9/12/202222-16SL 1/4" = 1'-0"A3 1MAIN FLOOR PLAN ALL ROUGH FRAMING MEMBERS SHALL BE FRAMED, ANCHORED AND BRACED WITH NAILS AND FASTENERS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPE SPECIFIED SO AS TO DEVELOP THE STRENGTH AND RIGIDITY NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE USED 124Main Level Floor0' -4"Main Level Clg12' -4"12'-0"1'-0"METAL WAINSCOTMETAL SHEETING1'-0"METAL SHEETINGMETAL SHEETINGMETAL SHEETING6x6 POST4" / 12"4" / 12"Main Level Floor0' -4"Main Level Clg12' -4"12'-0"2'-0"10'-0"10'-0"METAL SHEETINGMETAL WAINSCOT3'-0"8'-4"12'-0"SLIDING DOORSOFFICE: (952) 746-7702 | FAX: (952) 746-7703CELL: (952) 994-6682 E-MAIL: mikeb@behrd-design.comSHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY:c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC. BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALSAND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED,LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.PROJECT #:SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKPeter K.6/22/2022A1Ext ElevationsBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 5537422-16SL1/4" = 1'-0"A11RIGHT ELEVATIONA13FRONT 3D VIEWSHEET INDEXA1 - EXT ELEVATIONSA2 -EXT ELEVATIONSA3 -FLOOR PLANA4 -SECTIONSA. CONSTRUCTION GROUP - S-1B. FLOOR AREA -1728 S.F.C. CONSTRUCTION TYPE - V-ND. SNOW LOAD -40 PSF BALANCED, UNBALANCED PER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2E. WIND LOAD -115 MPH EXP C. (90 MPH ASD)F. SOIL BEARING -ASSUMED 2000 PSFA. CONCRETE PIERS -3000 PSIB. CONCRETE FLOOR -4000 PSI, 6% AIR ENTR.C. POSTS -TRTD, 1200f MIN., dfl NO. 1D. GIRTS & PURLINS -#2 HEM-FIRE. ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES -10 PSF DL + 40 PSF S.L. BALANCED, UNBALANCED PER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2TRUSS PER MANUFACTURER, TRUSS BOTTOM CHORD AND DIAGONAL BRACING BETWEEN TRUSSES PER MANUFACTURERTHIS BUILDING MEETS OR EXCEEDS ALL CURRENT MINNESOTA BUILDING CODESCODE DATASTRUCTURAL DATA1/4" = 1'-0"A12FRONT ELEVATION 124Main Level Floor0' -4"Main Level Clg12' -4"12'-0"METAL SHEETINGMETAL WAINSCOT1'-0"1'-0"3'-0"METAL SHEETINGMETAL SHEETINGMETAL SHEETING4" / 12"4" / 12"Main Level Floor0' -4"Main Level Clg12' -4"12'-0"METAL SHEETINGMETAL WAINSCOT2'-0"12'-0"3'-0"METAL SHEETINGSLIDING DOORS10'-0"10'-0"6x6 POST20'-0"40 PSF2'-0"UNBALANCED SNOW LOADPER ASCE 7-16 FIGURE 7-6.2SNOW LOAD IS REVERSIBLE ABOUT RIDGE62 PSF12 PSF9'-0"OFFICE: (952) 746-7702 | FAX: (952) 746-7703CELL: (952) 994-6682 E-MAIL: mikeb@behrd-design.comSHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY:c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC. BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALSAND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED,LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.PROJECT #:SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKPeter K.6/22/2022A2Ext ElevationsBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 5537422-16SL1/4" = 1'-0"A21LEFT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"A22REAR ELEVATION 10'-0"36'-0"10'-0"36'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"5'-0"10'-0"5'-0"8'-0"6x6 TRTD POSTAT WALL LOCATIONS TYP.10'-0"x10'-0" SLIDING DRCENTERLINE OF ROOF TRUSSES @ 4'-0" O.C.,SEE TRUSS DRAWING FOR ADDITIONAL BRACING.4'-0"x4'-0"(2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR)2A41A4306830"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ SIDE WALLS24"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ DOOR48'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"5'-0"10'-0"5'-0"8'-0"24"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ DOOR18"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ END WALLS6x6 TRTD POSTAT WALL LOCATIONS TYP.VERTICAL 2x6 BRACING TO TRUSS AT ENDWALL POST LOCATIONS TYP.VERTICAL 2x6 BRACING TO TRUSS AT ENDWALL POST LOCATIONS TYP.(2) 2x10's (HDR)48'-0"3068DUTCH DR18"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ END WALLS8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"12'-0"4'-0"8'-0"46'-0"4'-0"x4'-0"(2) 2x10's (HDR)4'-0"x4'-0"(2) 2x10's (HDR)30"⌀CONC PADS, TYP @ SIDE WALLS10'-0"x10'-0" SLIDING DR(2) 13/4"x14"d LVL (HDR)(2) 2x12's (DR)30684'-0"x4'-0"(2) 2x10's (HDR)3068DUTCH DR3068DUTCH DR3068DUTCH DR3068DUTCH DR(2) 2x12's (DR)(2) 2x12's (DR)(2) 2x12's (DR)(2) 2x12's (DR)(2) 2x12's (DR)OFFICE: (952) 746-7702 | FAX: (952) 746-7703CELL: (952) 994-6682 E-MAIL: mikeb@behrd-design.comSHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY:c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC. BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALSAND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED,LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.PROJECT #:SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKPeter K.6/22/2022A3Main Floor PlanBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 5537422-16SL1/4" = 1'-0"A31MAIN FLOOR PLANALL ROUGH FRAMING MEMBERS SHALL BE FRAMED, ANCHORED AND BRACED WITH NAILS AND FASTENERS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPE SPECIFIED SO AS TO DEVELOP THE STRENGTH AND RIGIDITY NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE USED 12'-0" TO FLOORVARIES10'-0" TO FLOORATTACH END WALL ROOF TRUSSTO POST w/ (5) 16d NAILSTRTD POST AT JAMB ONLYBUILDING DIMENSION(OUTSIDE FACE OF WOOD)ROOF TRUSS(2) 13/4"x14"d LVL3/4" PLYWOOD BOTTOM COVER1'-0"5'-0"4"12'-0"6'-0" MINFROST FTG2'-0"2x4 PURLINS @ 24" O.C.TWO SPAN CONTINUOUSENGINEERED WOOD TRUSSES @ 48" O.C.TRUSS HANGERS @ EA. ENDSIMPSON MTS12COLORED METAL SHEETINGCOMPACTED GRAVEL PIERSEE PLAN FOR FTG SIZE1242x4 GIRTS @ 24" O.C. TWO SPAN CONTINUOUS6x6 TRTD POSTS, SEE PLAN FOR LAYOUT2x6 BLOCKING 16" LONG,FRONT & BACK OF POSTS TYP.TRTD 2x6 BOTTOM PLATE4" CONC. SLAB, REINF. w/ 6x6-W1.4xW1.4 WWM(1) 13/4"x 117/8"d LVL NOTCH POST @ INTERIORw/ 2x12 FASTENED ON EXTERIORINTERIOR LVL IS GRADE 2.0E. FASTEN LVL & 2x12 TO POSTWITH (4) 35/8" LedgerLOKs EACH MEMBER EA. END.PRE-DRILL AS REQUIRED TO AVOID SPLITTINGOFFICE: (952) 746-7702 | FAX: (952) 746-7703CELL: (952) 994-6682 E-MAIL: mikeb@behrd-design.comSHEET NO.DATE:DRAWN BY:c 2022 BEHR DESIGN, INC.THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN LAYOUT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM BEHR DESIGN, INC. BEHR DESIGN, INC. NOR ITS EMPLOYEES ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND/OR QUALITY OF MATERIALSAND WORKMANSHIP. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNERS OR DRAFTSPERSONS ARE NOT ENGINEERS. BEHR DESIGN, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT A QUALIFIED,LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BE RETAINED TO INSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ALL BUILDINGS. BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR BID PURPOSE ONLY AND SHOULD BE SIZED BY THE MANUFACTURERS ENGINEERING STAFF AND/OR A LICENSED ENGINEER. SIZES OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS REFLECT ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND IN NO WAY INDICATE A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT. IN THE CASE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS, GENERIC SIZES ARE SPECIFIED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SUPPLIER WILL BID AND USE THE CLOSEST SIZE AVAILABLE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR HOMEOWNER SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHECKING AND VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, AND NOTES, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, SPECIFICATIONS, STRUCTURAL AND/OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CONFORMITY TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, LAWS AND ORDINANCES. HOMES WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXTRAORDINARY SEISMIC, WIND, SNOWFALL, COLD OR FLOOD ISSUES SHOULD BE ENGINEERED AND INSPECTED BY A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THAT REGION. THESE PLANS SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF BEHR DESIGN, INC., SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BEHR DESIGN, INC. OR THE CLIENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED FOR.PROJECT #:SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORKPeter K.6/22/2022A4SectionsBlair Brown22640 Oakdale DriveRogers, Mn. 5537422-16SL1/4" = 1'-0"A41Gable End Door Section3/8" = 1'-0"A42Wall Section PostA43REAR 3D VIEW Memo To: Kevin Mattson, PE Public Works Director From: Kent Torve, PE City Engineer Project: Brown Riding Arena CUP Date: August 23, 2022 Summary • The grading shown on plan sheet dated 8-11-22 by Whitetail Land Surveying is approved for drainage and grading. -----Original Message----- From: george.gmach@icloud.com <george.gmach@icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 3:25 PM To: Jessica Beise <jbeise@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: Blair Brown Horse Barn Jessica, Jean and I are next door neighbors to Blair Brown on her east boundary. We support her application for a riding arena. George and Jean Gmach STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 7d. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Maggie Ung/Jessica Beise Topic: Job Offer – Accounting Clerk Action Required: Approval Summary: On July 28, Council approved Phase 2a of the administrative department reorganization, including approval of the job description changes to the City Clerk and Finance Manager positions, and authorized staff to hire the Accounting Clerk position. Applications were due on August 22, and 10 applications were received for the Accounting Clerk position. The City held first round interviews on August 31 and September 1, and second round interviews were conducted on September 9, and included a skills assessment. Following the final interview, staff selected a preferred candidate and is completing the necessary reference and background review. Upon successful completion of the background and reference check, staff will recommend hiring of the preferred candidate or consider another finalist. Financial/Budget: The 2022 budget included a part-time Utility Billing Clerk with start date of March 1, and a full-time Human Resources/Communications personnel with a start date of July 1, for a combined budget of approximately $70,000. Through the reorganization of the administrative department, the two positions have been retooled to a full-time Accounting Clerk and part-time Communications Assistant. The Accounting Clerk, with an anticipated start date in early October, would be a fraction of the budgeted cost, approximating $20,000 for the remainder of 2022. Options: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to issue a job offer to the preferred candidate. 2. Send back to staff for further review. Recommendation Authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to issue a job offer to the preferred candidate. Council Action: Authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to issue a job offer to the preferred candidate. Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 7e. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Christensen Buck Topic: Parks and Trails Commissioner – Residence Status Change Action Required: Approval Summary: Commissioner Lisa Wyffels is currently serving a term on the Parks and Trails Commission until 2025. Commissioner Wyffels informed staff that their family purchased new land in Corcoran and is building a new home, but they will have to reside outside of the City until the home is ready. Commissioner Wyffels would like to continue to serve on the Parks and Trails Commission during the build. City Code states “36.11: Composition D. The city council may appoint a non-resident to any of the city commissions so long as there is no more than (1) non-resident on a commission at any time and provided that the individuals non-residence status is determined to be temporary”. In order for Commissioner Wyffels to serve on the Commission, Council may approve her seat on the Commission while she resides outside the City. Commissioner Wyffels has stated that her family’s non-residence status is temporary and they plan to move back into the City upon completion of the home build. Financial/Budget: No financial impact is anticipated. Options: 1. Authorize Commissioner Wyffels’ continued seat on the Parks and Trails Commission. 2. Direct staff to accept applications to fill Commissioner Wyffels’ seat on the Commission. Recommendation Authorize Commissioner Wyffels’ continued seat on the Parks and Trails Commission. Council Action: Authorize Commissioner Wyffels’ continued seat on the Parks and Trails Commission. Attachments: N/A Page 1 of 26 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a. City Council Meeting: September 1, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Pro-Tech Auto Expansion Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance (PID 26-119-23-11-0020) (City File No. 22-048) Action Required: Approval Review Deadline: October 10, 2022 1. Application Request The applicants, Tom & Dan Gleason of Pro-Tech Auto Repair, request approval of a site plan, 2 conditional use permits, and 3 variances to allow an expansion of their existing building at 7591 Commerce Street. The expansion includes adding 3 repair bays, warehouse storage space, and upgrading the parking lot. 2. Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed this item at a public hearing on September 1, 2022. No public comments were received. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of all but the variance to the southern drive aisle width. The Commission stated that they believe the conditions for this particular variance were of the property owner’s own making, and do not meet the practical difficulties standard. 3. Background Pro-Tech Auto Repair is located on Commerce Street near County Road 10. The business has served the community of Corcoran since it opened in 1983. Staff located a site plan from 1987 as well as a site plan from 2000 for an expansion, both are attached to this report in addition to the Council minutes for the approval in 2000. The existing building is 3,917 square feet. The site includes 25,922 square feet of gravel which makes up the existing parking lot and drive aisles. The site also includes 5 concrete pads around the south, east, and north of the building totaling roughly 1500 square feet. Page 2 of 26 Pro-Tech is outgrowing their facility and hope to expand their space. The expansion will allow them to better service motorhomes, trailers, and medium duty trucks as well as store equipment and parts. The applicants submitted a sketch plan application which was reviewed by the City Council on May 26, 2022. The applicants revised their plans based on the feedback provided by Council. 3. Context Zoning and Land Use Pro-Tech is located within the Light Industrial (I-1) zoning district, and the Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Light Industrial as well. The property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Surrounding Properties The properties to the north of this site are located within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Zoning District and are designated for Commercial uses within the 2040 Land Use Map. The properties to the east, west and south are zoned I-1 and guided for Light Industrial. All surrounding properties are within the MUSA. The properties immediately north are City owned properties acquired for sewer and water infrastructure and are currently vacant. The other surrounding properties contain various industrial uses such as automotive repair, offices, warehouses, and manufacturing. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory map does not identify any natural resources on this site. The Hennepin County Natural Resources Map identifies probable (indicated with blue in the image to the left) and potential wetlands (indicated with yellow) on the site. The probable wetlands coincide with the stormwater drainage pond on the northern end of the site. 4. Analysis Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and City policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, the detailed comments are included in the attached engineering memo, and the approval conditions require compliance with the memo. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving a site plan and conditional use permit is limited to whether the plan meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the site plan and/or conditional use permit. The City has a higher discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the Page 3 of 26 applicant to show that the variance standards have been met. Conditions can be applied to mitigate the impact of granting the variance. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Site Plan The request is for approval of a site plan for the expansion of an existing auto and truck repair business in the I-1 district. The proposed expansion includes additional building space of 5,865 square feet which will house three repair bays and warehouse space for storage of equipment and materials. The site plan includes increased parking spaces and a gravel area for outdoor storage. Lot Analysis Lot standards for the I-1 district are as follows: Minimum Standard Minimum Lot Area 1 acre Minimum Lot Width 100 ft. Minimum Lot Depth 200 ft. Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks - Front, Major Roadways 100 ft. - Front, All Other Streets 50 ft. - Side and Rear 20 ft. - Adjacent to Residential 50 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 45 ft. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage 70% The existing lot, existing structure, and proposed expansion comply with the above district standards. The expanded building complies with the setbacks. The hardcover will increase to 45,485 square feet, which translates to an impervious surface coverage of 46%. Exterior Storage and Screening Exterior storage in the I-1 district is allowed as a conditional accessory use subject to performance standards. The plans from 1987 and 2000 do not reflect a space dedicated for outdoor storage. The proposed plans appear to meet the above standards based on the Council’s feedback that they were open to the use of gravel for the storage area surface. This part of the request is further evaluated in the CUP portion of the report. When screening is required, the Zoning Ordinance calls for the use of landscaping, fencing, and walls to provide a minimum opacity of 80% year-round. Berms can also be used if they do not exceed a 3:1 slope. The screening requirement protects adjacent property values as unscreened outdoor storage is known to have a negative impact. Page 4 of 26 Vehicles can be parked at the property for longer than 72 hours while waiting for parts, repairs, and owner retrieval. When a vehicle is parked for more than 72 hours, it is then considered exterior storage. Therefore, screening to an 80% opacity would be required in these instances. Based on the feedback from the Council, the applicants will pave their primary parking area to the south of the site entrance and will continue to use gravel on the rest of the site including a newly dedicated exterior storage area. While the site plan does not clearly identify exterior storage areas, it does identify bituminous areas and gravel areas. The gravel areas are primary located to the north of the site entrance and the paved parking is located on the southern portion of the site. The only exception is five employee parking stalls located on the north end of the proposed addition (circled in green in the diagram to the right). Based on the usage of gravel and the current usage of the site, staff marked up the space that can reasonably be used for exterior storage in red in the image to the right. This is the portion of the site that must be screened. The landscaping plan reflects the addition of a fence along a little over half of the northern property line (see below). Additional details about the type or height of the fence are not provided. No other screening measures appear to be proposed. Page 5 of 26 There is existing vegetation on the site and a berm along the eastern property line that can count towards the screening. However, little detail is provided on the existing vegetation. Staff is concerned that the amount of landscaping present does not provide 80% opacity year-round. Particularly along the west property line where there appears to be a single row of trees and the northeast corner which appears sparse (as shown in the below image). The screening in these areas must be addressed through landscaping, a fence, and/or a berm. A condition of approval for the site plan requires the applicant to provide more detailed information about the fence and existing vegetation being utilized for screening. Parking Parking and drive aisle setbacks for this property include a 50’ setback from the property line along Commerce Street and a 10’ setback from the side and rear property lines. With the combination of office space and auto service uses, 23 parking spaces are required based on the formulas provided in Section 1060.060, Subd. 8. The site plan shows 24 parking spaces. The parking spaces labeled 6-11 on the southeast portion of the site do not meet the required front parking setback (shown in the image to the right). A previously approved site plan from 2000 shows that this area was approved for four Page 6 of 26 parking spaces prior to the adoption of the current setback standard. During a site visit on May 17, 2022, staff noted 6 vehicles in this area. The addition of two more formal parking spaces in this area will require a variance from the front yard setback which is discussed further later in this report. The existing drive aisle on the western portion of the site (shown in the image to the left) does not meet the 10’ rear setback requirement. The drive aisle goes directly up to the west property line. In fact, the survey indicates that the edge of the gravel encroaches approximately 2 feet west of the property line for a portion of the drive aisle. A condition of approval for the site plan is for the encroachment into the neighboring property to be corrected. Based on feedback from Council, the applicants applied for a variance to allow the drive aisle to still encroach into the setback which will be discussed later in this report. The 90-degree angle parking on the site plan meets the minimum dimensional requirements except the drive aisle along the south end of the site is 23’ wide where a 26’ width is required. Additionally, there are five parallel parking spaces shown on the south end of the site. The City Code does not contemplate the use of parallel parking for off-street parking as dimensions are not provided for parking spaces of less than a 45-degree angle. Looking at standards developed by other cities, the size of the parallel parking spaces looks sufficient, but a 26’ drive aisle would still be ideal to accommodate two-way traffic. Based on the feedback provided by Council, the applicant applied for a variance to this standard which will be discussed later in this report. As previously stated, the plan shows five employee parking spots to the north of the expansion (labeled 20-24). Staff is concerned that parking spot #24 is too close to the building. From the plans, it looks like it would be difficult for employees in this spot to get out of their car as well as easily backout of the spot to leave. Staff added a condition of approval to the site plan that the plans be revised to shift the employee parking further north so that it is not directly against the building façade. The site plan indicates the parking areas will be upgraded with bituminous pavement, concrete curb, and gutter to be in compliance with Section 1060.060, Subd. 3(A) of the City Code. Parking areas with 4 or more stalls must be screened from public streets at a height of 3’ to screen vehicle headlights. This looks to be mostly accomplished with the current landscaping plan, but screening should be added to meet this requirement for parking spaces 11 and 12. Landscaping Page 7 of 26 The landscaping plan estimates 10 overstory trees and 33 understory shrubs are required. However, the formula used is incorrect as the planting should be based on the lineal feet of the site perimeter (as this will reach the greater number as required in the Zoning Ordinance). Staff calculates a required 25 overstory trees and 41 understory shrubs required. The provided landscaping plan provides 10 overstory trees and 35 understory shrubs. The plans should be increased by 15 overstory trees and 6 understory shrubs. Since this is an existing site, previously established landscaping can be considered towards the satisfaction of the landscaping requirement. It appears that some of the existing trees on the site are not included in the landscaping plan, so the applicant should submit a revised landscaping plans that reflects all existing overstory trees and understory shrubs. This may address the landscaping requirements in general as well as the 80% opacity screening requirement discussed earlier. Streets & Access The site fronts Commerce Street and has one access point. The site plan shows that the entrance to the site (i.e., curb cut) is less than the maximum width allowed of 32’. The Engineering Memo continues to strongly recommend the addition of concrete aprons at the entrance of the site per City Standard detail plate ST-13. Council feedback during the sketch plan suggested this recommendation may be waived. Therefore, this Engineering recommendation is not included as a condition of approval but should be a part of the discussion. This standard has been required for other sites when parking lots were upgraded. This is recommended because concrete aprons are more resilient and provide a clear delineation of the private space versus public road. It has been, and continues to be, City practice to require upgrades to meet existing City standards when site improvements are proposed. Utilities The site is already connected to City sewer and water. The septic system is no longer in use, and the area of the site where it was located has been filled in. The Engineering Memo requires the applicant to obtain a permit from Hennepin County for the abandonment of the septic system. A well is shown on the site just south of the building; it is unclear if the well is filled-in and sealed. Building Standards The existing building relies on painted concrete block which is not an approved building material in Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. This will be discussed further in the CUP section of this report. Approved materials include: a. Face brick b. Natural or cultured stone c. Decorative or integral colored concrete block d. Cast in place or pre-cast concrete panels e. Wood if the surface is finished and durable such as cedar, redwood, and cypress Page 8 of 26 f. Curtain wall panels of steel, fiberglass, and aluminum if factory fabricated and finished with a durable, non-face surface, and the fasteners are corrosion resistant g. Glass curtain wall panels h. Stucco or EIFS i. Fiber cement siding j. Other materials deemed appropriate and approved by the Zoning Administrator The building plans submitted for the sketch plan indicated the expansion would be completed with painted block. This is not allowed without a variance. Based on feedback from the Council, the applicant did not submit a variance request to allow for the expansion to be completed with this material. Conversations with the applicants indicated an intent to use integral colored concrete block for the expansion. However, updated building plans have not been submitted to the City. As a condition of approval, the building plans must be revised to indicate the use of an approved building material on the expansion. Grading Plan The Engineering Memo requires several revisions to the submitted grading plan. The total site disturbance for the improvements should be labeled to identify the exact boundaries of the disturbance area. The north side of the site reflects a silt fence and bioroll, but additional erosion control measures should be added along the other disturbance areas within the site. The plan reflects a proposed retaining wall alongside the western drive aisle. The plans should label the top and bottom of wall elevations. If the wall is 4’ or taller, the applicant must submit an engineered design to the City prior to construction for approval. Additionally, the plans must identify where the southwest corner of the parking lot will drain as the proposed curb line is at an elevation that may hold water. Engineering believes an Elm Creek Watershed Grading and Erosion Control Permit will likely be required due to the size of the proposed disturbance area. The applicant is required to confirm permitting needs with the Elm Creek Watershed. If the watershed requires the permit, it must be obtained before grading can begin on the site. Additionally, it appears the total limits of disturbance are over 1 acre. If the revised grading plan reflects a disturbance of over 1 acre, the applicant will need to obtain a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) construction permit and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The proposed retaining wall is within a drainage and utility easement. This can be approved by the City Engineer. The Engineering Memo indicates construction of the retaining wall will require the applicant to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. This agreement identifies responsibility for removing and replacing the retaining wall if the easement must be accessed. Conditional Use Permit to Waive Building Material Upgrade Page 9 of 26 The existing building consists of painted concrete block, which is not an allowed building material. Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(A)(2) of City Code provides that when there is an expansion of an existing structure, the existing façade must be upgraded so that 25% of the existing structure conforms to the exterior building material requirements. Unlike the building material for the expansion, the upgrade requirement for the existing building façade can be waived as part of a CUP. The applicant requests the City to grant a CUP that waives the building material upgrade requirement explaining that the pre-existing material will make a partial upgrade difficult and burdensome. They are not proposing any changes to the materials of the existing structure, but they previously stated they would use integral colored concrete block on the expansion which is an allowed building material. No specific standards are identified for this type of CUP, so the City should review this request using the following general evaluation criteria for CUPs outlined in Section 1070.020, Subd. 3: A. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. The building material waiver request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan references a desire to create policy that results in high-quality development through the use of building, signage, and landscape design guidelines, the overarching land use goal of this policy is to attract, retain, and expand businesses (see Goal 4 on p. 43 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan). Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan references the desire to establish policy that supports retention and facilitates expansion of existing businesses to achieve a larger economic goal of promoting economic stability and job opportunities (see Goal 2 on p. 65 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan). The applicant explains that upgrading a portion of the existing building material is not practical. Allowing the waiver will help to facilitate the expansion and retention of Pro-Tech’s business operations by removing a barrier created by the Zoning Ordinance. B. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare as it will help to facilitate the retention and expansion of Pro-Tech. The expansion is necessary to meet the high demand for auto repair within the immediate and surrounding community. The waiver will not be detrimental to or endanger the general public as the existing building material has not harmed public health, safety, morals, or comfort. C. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. Page 10 of 26 The existing building material has not proven injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. There is no clear evidence that suggests the continued use of painted concrete block will substantially diminish or impair property values of the surrounding area. Therefore, granting the waiver will likely not be injurious to nearby properties. D. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The establishment of the CUP will likely not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The continued use of painted concrete block will have no impact on surrounding development or improvement of nearby properties. E. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. Adequate public facilities and services are available. However, the building material upgrade waiver will have no impact on public facilities and services. F. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The granting of a CUP to waive the upgraded building material requirement is not in conflict with all other regulations within the I-1 district. G. The conditional use and site conform to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. The conditional use and site generally conform to performance standards within the Zoning Ordinance. Areas of the site that do not conform to required performance standards are either protected as a nonconformity or could be addressed with a variance. A condition of approval for the CUP is that the three proposed variances are either granted or plans must be revised to conform to the Ordinance as it is written. Conditional Use Permit to Allow Exterior Storage A designated area for exterior storage is a newly established use with this site plan. Exterior storage is a conditional accessory use in the I-1 district subject to the following standards: 1. Storage area is blacktop or concrete surfaced unless specifically approved by the City Council. The proposed exterior storage area heavily relies on the use of gravel. The feedback from City Council during the sketch plan review suggested a willingness to allow the applicants to use gravel for the area they designate as exterior storage. The Page 11 of 26 Engineering Memo confirmed this has been allowed in previous circumstances for areas not identified as primary parking. 2. The storage area does not take up parking space or loading space as required to conform to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed storage area does not conflict with the proposed parking or loading spaces shown on the site plan. 3. The storage area is screened from public streets and surrounding properties. The site plan does not provide enough information on the fence and existing vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed storage area to confirm the required screening of 80% opacity will be satisfied year-round. A condition of approval for this CUP is for revised plans to be submitted that provide more detail and meet this standard. Additionally, the request should be reviewed according to the following general criteria for CUPs: A. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. The conditional use is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The Light Industrial land use designation specifically allows for limited exterior storage. Additionally, delineating between parking and longer-term storage will allow Pro- Tech to expand their business operations which helps the City achieve its goals to facilitate the retention and expansion of existing businesses while promoting the economic stability (see Goal 4 on p. 43 and Goal 2 on p. 65 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan – attached to this report). B. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. The establishment of the conditional use for exterior storage will promote and enhance the general public welfare as it will provide order and screening from vehicles in need of repair that are stored long-term at the business. C. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The exterior storage area will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. The CUP requires that screening of the exterior storage space provides 80% opacity year-round. However, more information is needed to confirm the landscaping plan can achieve this target, so this is a condition of approval for the site plan and CUP. Page 12 of 26 D. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The establishment of the conditional use will likely not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The screened exterior storage will have no impact on surrounding development or improvement of surrounding properties. E. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. Adequate public facilities and services are available. However, the exterior storage will have no impact on public facilities and services. F. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The granting of a CUP for exterior storage is not in conflict with all other regulations within the I-1 district. G. The conditional use and site conform to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. The conditional use and site generally conform to performance standards within the Zoning Ordinance. Areas of the site that do not conform to required performance standards are either protected as a nonconformity or can be addressed with a variance. A condition of approval for the CUP is that the three proposed variances are either granted or plans must be revised to conform to the Ordinance as it is written. Variance for Southern Drive Aisle Width of 23’ The drive aisle between the 90-degree parking and parallel parking on the southern end of the site is 23’ wide where 26’ is required. The applicant requested a variance to allow for the 23’ width. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all variance standards from Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B) are met with their request. 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The League of MN Cities outlines the following three-factor test for the term “practical difficulties”: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise allowed by the Zoning Ordinance; b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Page 13 of 26 Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B) of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the last two factors as an individual standard. Therefore, this first standard can focus on evaluating the “reasonableness” of the request. Favorable Arguments The City Council could find that there are practical difficulties and that the variance request is reasonable based on the following findings: - The drive aisle width of 23’ is reasonable to support parking and circulation of vehicles on the site since the existing parking arrangement already accommodates parallel parking perpendicular to 90-degree parking with a drive aisle width of 19’. - The parallel parking spaces are primarily used for loaner vehicles which are typically parked by employees familiar with the constraints of the site reducing potential safety risks. - It is reasonable to allow the 23’ width as it will be an improvement of the existing parking lot while allowing the businessowners to maximize their site. - The 23’ width is reasonable since the site plan does not propose back-to-back 90-degree parking, and the City Code does not provide clear guidance for parallel parking or instances where different parking styles are perpendicular to each other. - The City Engineer is not concerned with a drive aisle width of 23’ and confirmed that this will accommodate two-way traffic. - A width of 23’ exceeds the 20’ drive aisle minimum required for fire lanes to accommodate emergency vehicles. Counterarguments On the other hand, the Council could determine that there are no practical difficulties and the variance request is unreasonable based on the following findings of fact: - It is unreasonable to allow a reduced drive aisle width based on the current usage of the site since parallel parking along the southern property line of the site was not shown in either of the prior site plans approved by the City. - While increasing the width from 19’ to 23’ would be an improvement from the existing drive aisle width, the approved site plan in 2000 reflected a drive aisle of a little over 26’. - There is not enough room for the use of parallel parking on this portion of the property. - The parallel parking spaces could be removed to allow a 26’ drive aisle width as there are other areas of the site that can reasonably accommodate more parking. - Deviation from the 26’ drive aisle width is not reasonable because the motivations for focusing parking on the south end of the site appear to be Page 14 of 26 primarily based on financial considerations, such as a desire to minimize the area of the site that is considered a parking lot to avoid required upgrades (i.e., paving and installation of curb and gutter). - Comparing the size of a parking lot drive aisle to the minimum width required for a fire lane is not reasonable. A fire lane can have a smaller width than typical streets and drive aisles as it is not necessarily intended for vehicular traffic other than a fire apparatus and does not contemplate safety of pedestrian circulation. - Regardless of the lack of problems reported to date, it is unreasonable to reduce the width of the drive aisle from 26’ since the drive aisle accommodates two-way traffic and two different styles of parking (90-degrees and parallel) that are perpendicular to each other. - A 23’ drive aisle is reasonable if the angle of parking is reduced to 75-degrees as allowed without a variance in Section 1060.060, Subd. 4(C)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. Favorable Arguments The City Council could conclude the variance is based on unique conditions of the site that were not created by the landowner based on the following findings: - The applicants provide that the current drive aisle has been in use since 1987, and the usable width was reduced in 2000 during an office addition to the building. - The existing physical conditions of the site create a unique circumstance where deviation from the 26’ drive aisle width is justified. o The placement of the existing building pre-dates the drive aisle requirements in the City Code and such changes would not have been foreseeable conditions for the property owner to include in their decision- making. o The existing parking lot is relatively close to the south property line leaving little room to further expand the drive aisle in addition to meeting the required 10’ setback. o The width of the drive aisle is further constrained by existing, mature landscaping including a crab apple tree and 6’ tall lilac bushes. o While there may be 1’-2’ more of space to expand the width of the drive aisle, it would come at the cost of removing the existing vegetation on the site. o Furthermore, to obtain the required 26’ width, a variance may still be needed to slightly encroach within the 10’ side setback. Page 15 of 26 Counterarguments The Council could find there are no unique conditions of the site based on the following findings: - The southern area of the site is not large enough to comfortably accommodate the type and amount of parking the applicant is proposing. - The reduction of the existing drive aisle width due to the expansion of office space in 2000 is indeed a condition created by the landowner. - The size constraint created by the building placement is not unique considering many properties in the existing downtown area are outgrowing their space. - The applicant has other options to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, specifically providing parking elsewhere on the site by reducing the amount of space designated as outdoor storage. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Granting a variance that will increase the existing 19’ drive aisle to 23’ is unlikely to alter the essential character of the existing downtown industrial neighborhood. Most businesses in the downtown industrial neighborhood struggle with parking, so it is common for employee and customer parking to overflow into the public street, which is less than ideal. Granting the variance arguably allows Pro-Tech to keep more vehicles within their site without depending on the street for overflow parking. The applicant will be required to add landscaping along Commerce Street to shield against vehicle headlights from the parking in this portion of the site. Since the parking lot is already being used similarly to what is shown on the proposed plans, the neighborhood is unlikely to be disturbed with continued usage. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. Favorable Arguments The Council could determine that granting the variance is in harmony with the general intent of the 26’ drive aisle width since the City Engineer confirmed a 23’ width is enough to safely support two-way traffic. Counterarguments The Council could reach the conclusion that granting the variance is not in harmony with the general intent of the Ordinance based on the following findings: Page 16 of 26 - The City intentionally created parking lot standards that surpass the bare minimum safety requirements so that site circulation is comfortable and forgiving. o The 26’ drive aisle width requirement for 90-degree parking is an intentional standard established to provide an additional safety buffer for cars and larger vehicles to comfortably pass each other while reducing the chance of conflict with pedestrians. o Allowing a 23’ drive aisle where 26’ is required does not provide the intended safety buffer factored into the existing Code. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the variance will allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. The variance is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and helps to diversify the tax base. Granting the variance will accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The variance is not in conflict with the Light Industrial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan which is “intended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” 6. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. Staff believes striping the parking lot will be essential to clearly define the spaces and drive aisle that will be allowed if this variance is approved. Variance to Allow Western Drive Aisle Within the Required 10’ Setback A 10’ wide drive aisle along the western side of the site was originally approved as part of the site plan from 2000 (attached to this report). The applicants state that the drive aisle existed on the property since 1983. The drive aisle was shown on the 2000 site plan as 10’ away from the property line. This would have aligned with the City’s current drive aisle setback of 10’ from rear lot lines. However, the drive aisle as it exists today goes all the way up to the property line and actually encroaches on to the neighboring property by roughly 2’ in some areas. The applicant requests a variance to allow the drive aisle to encroach as much as 5’ within the required 10’ rear setback and drainage and utility easement. Adhering to a 5’ setback will address the encroachment on to the neighboring property. The plans also show that the drive aisle width will be expanded from roughly 17’ to 20’. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all variance standards from Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B) are satisfied. 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Favorable Arguments Page 17 of 26 In evaluating the reasonableness of the request, the Council could determine there are practical difficulties based on the following findings: - Allowing the western drive aisle to be setback 5’ from the property line will facilitate safe circulation of vehicles around the lot, particularly oversized vehicles. - Without the variance to the setback, the western drive aisle would need to move much closer to the building (if not directly against the building), be reduced in width, or be removed entirely. - The 5’ setback will be an improvement compared to the present condition of the site, and the increased width of the drive aisle to 20’ is necessary as a turnaround for fire trucks. o Public Safety explained that removal of the drive aisle and/or a drive aisle of less than 20’ would require the installation of a hammerhead on the south end of the site. However, Planning staff determined there is not enough space to install a hammerhead that will accommodate a fire truck without drastic changes to the overall site design. - The request for a 5’ setback does not appear to be primarily motivated by financial considerations since the drive aisle is necessary for internal circulation of vehicles, particularly emergency vehicles. - A practical alternative to the western drive aisle does not exist, so it is reasonable to grant the variance. Counterarguments The Council could determine there are no practical difficulties and the request is unreasonable based on the following arguments: - The existing placement of the drive aisle was never approved as part of the submitted site plans to the City in 1987 or 2000. o The approved plan in 2000 shows a roughly 11’ wide drive aisle that is in close proximity to the building, but outside of the 10’ drainage and utility easement. o The incorrectly located drive aisle in its existing capacity does not imply that a 5’ setback is reasonable. Had the drive aisle been properly installed per the approved plan, it would meet the 10’ rear setback today. o If space is so limited that a 20’ drive aisle cannot comfortably fit between the property line and the building, then it may be reasonable to determine this space is not large enough for a drive aisle. o The setback variance is primarily motivated by financial considerations as the applicant could theoretically remodel the existing building to move it further away from the western property line, and the proposed expansion could be revised so that there is more space between the building and the property line. Page 18 of 26 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. Favorable Arguments The Council could decide that there are unique conditions to the land not created by the landowner based on the following arguments: - The 30’ distance between the building and the western property line is a unique physical constraint of the site. o A 10’ setback is required to comply with City Code and a 20’ drive aisle width is required to comply with Fire Code. o Without the variance, the drive aisle would go directly up to the building which creates a safety concern and a potential conflict with an existing service door on the western façade of the building. - The situation was not created by the property owner since the 20’ drive aisle width required to accommodate fire trucks was not established when the building placement was determined in the 1980s. - It would create a hardship to require the applicants to remodel and/or relocate the building further away from the western property line to accommodate both the Zoning Ordinance and Fire Code. Counterarguments The Council could find there are no unique conditions to the property based on the following findings: - The placement of the building 30’ from the property line is not a unique characteristic of the land. - The building placement and orientation is a condition created by the landowner. - The existing building could be remodeled and/or the proposed expansion revised so that the western side of the building is further away from the property line to accommodate both the Zoning Ordinance and Fire Code requirements. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. It is unlikely that the setback variance will alter the essential character of the downtown industrial neighborhood. The drive aisle is already in use today, and a 5’ drive aisle setback would improve existing negative effects on the neighboring property to the west. Additionally, the property to the west has an existing fence and mature landscaping that provides screening between the two properties. Page 19 of 26 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. Favorable Arguments The Council could find the setback variance is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance based on the following arguments: - In this instance, the 5’ setback will still accomplish the intent to keep vehicle traffic separated from the shared lot line. - The closest the proposed drive aisle would be to the neighboring building is roughly 26’ when a minimum separation of 30’ would otherwise be required. o A 26’ separation is sufficient in this instance to meet the City’s goals of providing separation between structures and moving vehicles. - A 5’ setback will still allow for sufficient drainage between the two sites. Counterarguments The Council could determine that the setback variance request is not in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance based on the following findings: - The setback variance conflicts with the purposes and intent of the drive aisle setback as a 5’ setback is half of what the Code determines to be an appropriate proximity of vehicular traffic in relation to a shared property line. - A 26’ separation between the neighboring building and Pro-Tech’s drive aisle does not meet the City’s goals to provide comfortable separation between structures and moving vehicles. - The variance has the potential to interfere with the intended use of the City’s drainage and utility easement. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the setback variance will allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. The variance is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and diversifies the tax base. Granting the variance will accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The variance is not in conflict with the Light Industrial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan which is “intended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” 6. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. If approved, staff recommends the property owners enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to offset the impact to access of the drainage and utility Page 20 of 26 easement. This agreement will identify responsibility for removing and replacing the drive aisle should access to the easement be required. While additional landscaping could theoretically help to mitigate the impact of the variance, this may not be an ideal requirement considering the limited space and the general recommendation to avoid landscaping within a drainage and utility easement (as it could be later removed/disturbed when the easement is accessed later). Furthermore, the City Council could require that the proposed expansion be revised to accommodate the full 10’ setback and 20’ drive aisle with a safe separation from the building. Variance to Allow Expansion of Nonconforming Parking Spaces During review of the application, staff determined the applicant proposes to expand a nonconforming use. On the southeast corner of the lot, six parking spaces are proposed with a setback of 20’ from the property line along Commerce Street. The 2000 site plan shows four parking spaces with an island in this same area. Since the 2000 site plan, the parking setback increased to 50’ making the 20’ setback for the four parking spaces a nonconformity. Parking lots do not meet the definition of a structure, so the nonconforming setback would be interpreted as a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses cannot be expanded per Section 1030.010, Subd. 2(C). A variance would be required to formalize 6 parking spots in this area. 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Favorable Arguments The Council could conclude that there are practical difficulties, and the request is reasonable based on the following findings: - It is reasonable to allow the variance as this area of the parking lot will be setback 20’ regardless of the number of striped parking stalls. o Even though increasing the number of official spaces from 4 to 6 is considered an expansion of a nonconforming use, the setback is not changing. Therefore, the degree of the nonconformity itself will not be further intensified. - Staff confirmed 6 vehicles parked comfortably in this area of the site earlier this year. - It makes sense for parking spots to be primarily located in this portion of the site as it provides proximity to the office for customers. Counterarguments The Council could determine there are no practical difficulties and expansion of the nonconforming parking area is not reasonable based on the following findings: Page 21 of 26 - A 20’ setback is unreasonable for newly approved parking spaces when 50’ is otherwise required. - The current use of this parking area to accommodate 6 vehicles does not imply that this use of the site should be protected in perpetuity. - The space designated for outdoor storage could reasonably fit in a few more parking spaces that meet the required setback. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. Favorable Arguments The Council could determine that there are unique conditions of the land that are not created by the landowner based on the following findings: - The location of the building and existing parking in relation to the front property line is a unique physical condition of the property. - The applicant is working to keep the parking lot contained on the southern portion of the site. Locating one or two more parking spots that meet the 50’ setback would likely not be possible without causing a conflict with other parking spots and the eastern drive aisle. - The site layout was determined decades before the 50’ parking setback was established by the City. o The eventual establishment of a 50’ setback was not reasonably foreseeable; therefore, the variance request is not a result of circumstances created by the landowner. Counterarguments The Council could determine that there are no unique physical characteristics of the land that justify the variance based on the following findings: - The parking area could be expanded northward on the site to add parking spaces that can meet the setback. - The desire to contain the parking lot on the southern portion of the site appear to be primarily motivated by a desire to reduce costs by minimizing the parking area subject to required paving and the installation of curb and gutter. - The building placement was a conscious decision of the landowner, and therefore the circumstances were created by the landowner. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. It is unlikely that granting the expansion of the 20’ parking setback will alter the essential character of the downtown industrial neighborhood. This area of the site Page 22 of 26 is not currently striped, so more than 4 vehicles regularly park in this space. The proposed parking will get no closer to the setback than what was approved in 2000, and there is existing vegetation near the front property line that successfully screens most of the parking and vehicle headlights from the surrounding neighborhood. New landscaping can be reasonably installed to further screen the two formalized parking spots. The Planning Commission could conclude that formally delineating 6 parking spaces does not disturb the surrounding properties. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. Favorable Arguments The Council could find that the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance based on the following findings: - The 50’ front setback in the industrial district was established and recently reaffirmed in 2021 as a strategy to retain visible green space and rural character. - Formalizing 2 more parking spots at a 20’ setback will not reduce green space as this area of the site is currently comprised of gravel and more vegetation will be added to meet the screening requirements for parking. - The increased number of nonconforming parking spots is not in conflict with the rural character of the City. Counterarguments The Council could find that the variance conflicts with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance based on the following findings: - Granting a 20’ setback for 2 more parking spots in perpetuity fails to meet the goals of the setback requirement as well as the nonconformity section. o The requested variance does not align with the City’s goal to retain and promote green space. o The variance conflicts with the City’s general goal to prevent expansion of nonconforming uses in order to encourage the eventual redevelopment of the nonconforming use and bring the site into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Favorable Arguments The Council could find the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: Page 23 of 26 - Granting the variance to expand the number of parking spaces at the 20’ setback will allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. - The variance is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro- Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and helps to diversify the tax base. - Granting the variance will accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. - The variance is not in conflict with the Light Industrial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan which is “intended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” Counterarguments The Council could make the argument that the variance conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: - Expanding the 20’ parking setback to allow 2 more parking spaces interferes with the goal to retain rural character as the City develops. o The relatively close proximity of the parking area in relation to Commerce Street could be found to conflict with large green view corridors that can be associated with rural character. 6. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. Staff believes it will be essential to require striping of the parking spaces to avoid further unapproved expansion of the parking area. 5. Summary of Discussion Items A. Site Plan The following items were identified as outstanding issues within the Site Plan. Unless otherwise noted, these are all addressed as conditions of approval in the attached resolutions. o Screening of the outdoor storage area  The applicant must provide information about the existing vegetation that is being relied upon for screening.  The applicant must provide more detail about the proposed fence.  The applicant must provide a landscaping plan that accomplishes screening of the outdoor storage area at an 80% opacity year- round. Page 24 of 26 o Parking  Approval of the parking and drive aisles within the site plan is subject to approval of the three variances.  If some or all of the variances are not approved, the site plan must be revised to meet the Zoning Ordinance as written.  The employee parking on the north side of the site (labeled as spaces 20-24) must be shifted north to provide separation from the building.  The encroachment of the western drive aisle on to the neighboring property must be addressed with approval of the site plan regardless of whether the 5’ setback variance is approved.  A revised plan must provide the required screening for parking spaces 11 and 12. o Landscaping  A revised landscaping plan needs to be submitted that reflects the proper calculations of overstory and understory shrubs as well as all existing significant trees. • Existing trees can count towards the landscaping requirements since this is an existing building. o Streets & Access  The Engineering Memo recommends installation of a concrete apron at the entrance of the site in accordance with City Standard Detail ST-13. • This is not a condition of approval in the draft resolution based on feedback provided from Council during the sketch plan. • The Planning Commission should offer feedback on whether they believe this item should be a condition of approval. o Utilities  The applicants must obtain a permit from Hennepin County for the abandonment of the septic system. o Building Materials  Revised plans must be submitted that indicate use of an allowed building material (e.g., integral colored block) for the facades of the expansion. o Grading Plan  A revised grading plan must be submitted showing the following: • Identified limits of the site disturbance for the improvements. • Erosion control measures along all areas of disturbance within the site. • Top and bottom of wall elevations for the proposed retaining wall. Page 25 of 26 o If the retaining wall is 4’ or taller, an engineered design must be submitted to the City prior to construction. • Identified location of where the southwest corner of the parking lot will drain.  If it is determined that the disturbance area of the site exceeds 1 acre, an MPCA construction permit must be obtained and a SWPPP shall be prepared.  If determined to be required, an Elm Creek Watershed Grading and Erosion Control Permit must be obtained prior to commencing grading on the site.  The site plan proposed a retaining wall near the western gravel drive aisle within the drainage and utility easement. The applicant will be required to enter into an encroachment agreement for the retaining wall. B. Conditional Use Permit to Waive Building Material Upgrade Staff believes the standards for the CUP are satisfied. The draft Resolution clarifies that the CUP is contingent upon approval of the three variances. If some or all of the variances are not approved, the site plan must be revised to be brought into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff does not have any additional conditions to add to this component of the proposal. C. Conditional Use Permit to Allow Exterior Storage Staff believes the standards for the CUP are satisfied. The draft Resolution clarifies revised plans that reflect screening with a year-round opacity of 80% are a condition of approval. Additionally, approval is contingent upon approval of the three variances. If some or all of the variances are not approved, the site plan must be revised to be brought into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff does not have any additional conditions to add to this component of the proposal. D. Variance to allow the southern 23’ wide drive aisle Staff believes the hardship standard for this variance is satisfied due to the constraints caused by the location of the pre-existing building and the many changes to City standards that were unforeseeable when the location of the building was determined. The parking lot should be required to be striped to mitigate potential impacts. E. Variance to allow the western drive aisle as close as 5’ to the property line Staff believes the hardship standard for this variance is satisfied based on the constraints caused by the location of the pre-existing building and the need for internal circulation of emergency and oversized vehicles. Staff recommends that Page 26 of 26 the applicants enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to address impacts of encroaching into the drainage and utility easement. The Planning Commission could also recommend that the proposed expansion be moved further east to accommodate the required setback and fire lane width while allowing for a safe separation from the building. F. Variance to allow expansion of the number of parking spaces subject to a 20’ setback where a 50’ setback is required Staff believes the hardship standard for this variance is satisfied based on the constraints cause by the layout of the site and pre-existing building, and the implementation of a 50’ parking setback was not foreseeable when the layout of the building and parking areas were established. As conditions of approval that address potential impacts of granting the variance, staff recommends requiring striping the parking lot and installation of additional parking screening to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Resolution approving the site plan and two CUPs. The Planning Commission recommends the Resolution approving two variances and denying one variance. This is included as the second attachment to this report. Staff recommends approval of the alternative Resolution included as the third attachment to this report. This resolution approves all three variances based on the conclusion that the pre-existing building location creates practical difficulties to comply with several areas of the Zoning Ordinance. Attachments: 1. Resolution Approving the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permits 2. Resolution Approving 2 Variances and Denying 1 Variance 3. Alternative Resolution Approving 3 Variances 4. Draft Site Improvement Performance Agreement 5. Applicant’s Narrative 6. Existing Conditions Survey Dated 6/2/2021 7. Proposed Site Plan 8. Proposed Landscaping Plan 9. Proposed Grading Plan 10. Proposed Building Plans 11. Approved Site Plan from 1987 12. Staff Report and Approved Site Plan from 2000 13. City Council Meeting Minutes from Site Plan Approval in 2000 14. City Engineer’s Memo dated 08/22/2022 15. Public Safety Memo dated 6/14/2022 16. Pages 43 and 65 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-111 Page 1 of 7 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND TWO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7591 COMMERCE STREET (PID 26-119-23-11-0020) (CITY FILE NO. 22-048) WHEREAS, Tom and Dan Gleason of Pro-Tech Auto Repair (“the applicant”) request approval of a site plan and two conditional use permits to allow for the expansion of their auto repair business on property legally described as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and conditional use permits at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request, subject to the following findings and conditions; 1. A site plan and two conditional use permits are approved to allow for the expansion of the existing building as shown on application and plans received by the City on August 2, 2022 with additional information received on August 11, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The applicant must comply with the City Engineer’s memo dated August 22, 2022. 3. A conditional use permit is approved to waive the requirement to upgrade 25% of the existing façade to an allowed material as permitted in Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(A)(2) (Building Standards) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance and subject to the finding that the applicable criteria in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied. Specifically: a. The proposed use is consistent with uses anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and does not impact the public facilities or capital improvement plans. Granting the waiver will facilitate the expansion and retention of an existing business while promoting economic stability and job opportunities. This satisfies Goal 4 in the Land Use chapter and Goal 2 of the Economic Competitiveness chapter within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. b. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort of the community. Granting the waiver will facilitate an expansion needed for the applicant to meet the demand for auto repair within the immediate and surrounding community. The waiver from an upgrade in building materials on the existing building will not be detrimental to or endanger the public as the existing building material has not harmed public health, safety, morals, or comfort. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-111 Page 2 of 7 c. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. There is no evidence to suggest that continued use of painted concrete block will be injurious to other properties or impair property values. d. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The continued use of painted concrete block will have no impact on the surrounding development or improvement of nearby properties. e. Adequate public facilities and services are available; however, waiver of the building material upgrade requirement will have no impact on public facilities and services. f. The conditional use, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations of the I-1 District in which it is located. g. The conditional use and site generally conform to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. Conditions of approval are included in this Resolution to ensure compliance with the performance standards. 4. A conditional use permit is approved to allow exterior storage as an accessory use, subject to finding that specific criteria outlined in Section 1040.125, Sub. 4(E) (I-1 Conditional Uses) and applicable criteria in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied. Specifically: a. The storage area is a gravel surface approved by the City Council. b. The storage area does not conflict with the proposed parking or loading spaces reflected on the site plan. c. The storage area must be screened from public streets and surrounding properties. Conditions of approval included in this Resolution ensure compliance with this standard. d. The proposed use is consistent with uses anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and does not impact the public facilities or capital improvement plans. Granting the CUP for exterior storage is in line with uses anticipated within the Light Industrial land use designation within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, granting the CUP to allow for designated exterior storage space will facilitate the expansion and retention of an existing business while promoting economic stability and job opportunities. This satisfies Goal 4 in the Land Use chapter and Goal 2 of the Economic Competitiveness chapter within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. e. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-111 Page 3 of 7 morals, or comfort of the community. Establishment of the exterior storage use will provide order and screening from vehicles in need of repair that are stored long-term at the business. f. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The exterior storage space is subject to a screening requirement of 80% opacity year- round. Conditions of approval included in this resolution ensure compliance with this standard. g. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The screened exterior storage will have no impact on surrounding development or improvement of surrounding properties. h. Adequate public facilities and services are available; however, the exterior storage will have no impact on public facilities and services. i. The conditional use, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations of the I-1 district in which it is located. j. The conditional use and site generally conform to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. Conditions of approval are included in this Resolution to ensure compliance with performance standards. 5. The approval of the conditional use permits is contingent upon approval of variances needed to bring the site into compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance. If some or all of the variances are not approved, the site plan must be revised to satisfy the Ordinance as written. 6. The exterior storage area must be screened from public streets and adjacent property with a minimum year-round opacity of 80% through landscaping, fencing, walls, or a combination thereof. a. The plans must be revised to show how this screening will be accomplished and submitted for City review and approval. b. The applicant shall provide additional fence details for review and approval by the City. i. Material and dimension details should be provided for any planned fencing. ii. Fencing over seven feet tall will require a building permit. c. The applicant shall provide additional information about existing vegetation on the site that may count towards the screening requirement. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-111 Page 4 of 7 7. Approval of the 23 ft. wide southern drive aisle is subject to approval of a variance. If a variance is not approved, the site plan must be revised to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Approval of the 5 ft. setback for the western drive aisle is subject to approval of a variance. If a variance is not approved, the site plan must be revised to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 9. Approval of the expansion from 4 to 6 parking spaces subject to a 20 ft. front setback in the southwest corner of the site is subject to approval of a variance. If a variance is not approved, the site plan must be revised to reflect no more than 4 parking spaces in this corner of the site and relocation of at least one parking space elsewhere on the site that complies with the Zoning Ordinance. 10. The location of parking spaces 20 – 24 must shift further north to provide separation from the building. 11. The existing encroachment of the western drive aisle onto the neighboring property must be corrected and the impacted land restored. 12. A revised plan must provide the required parking screening required for parking spaces 11 and 12. 13. A revised landscaping plan must be submitted that reflects either existing trees or the planting of new trees to meet the minimum requirement of 25 overstory trees and 41 understory trees based on the lineal feet of the site perimeter as required by Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. a. The plans must show an additional 15 overstory trees and 6 understory shrubs or an equivalent substitution in order to meet the minimum ordinance standards. 14. The applicant must obtain a permit from Hennepin County for the abandonment of the septic system. 15. Revised building plans must be submitted that indicate use of an allowed building material for the facades of the building expansion. 16. A revised grading plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer that reflects the following: a. Identified limits of the site disturbance for the improvements. b. Erosion control measures along all areas of disturbance within the site. c. Top and bottom of wall elevations for the proposed retaining wall. d. Identified location of where the southwest corner of the parking lot will drain. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-111 Page 5 of 7 17. If the confirmed disturbance area of the site exceeds 1 acre, an Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) construction permit must be obtained, and a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared. 18. The applicant shall confirm with the Elm Creek Watershed if a Grading and Erosion Control Permit is required. If required, said permit must be obtained prior to commencing grading on the site. 19. If the proposed retaining wall is 4’ or taller, an engineered design must be submitted to the City for approval prior to construction. 20. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the proposed retaining wall that is located within a drainage and utility easement. 21. The applicant shall enter into a site improvement performance agreement and submit a financial guarantee for the proposed work as outlined in Section 1070.050, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 22. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to beginning site work: a. The applicant shall submit any and all necessary permits to the watershed and receive approval and shall provide proof of permits to the City. b. Record the approving resolution at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 23. FURTHER, any request to inspect the required landscaping in order to reduce financial guarantees must be accompanied by recertification/verification of field inspection by the project landscape architect. A letter signed by the project landscape architect verifying plantings are correct and in compliance with the plans and specifications will suffice. 24. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and completes the required improvements. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-111 Page 6 of 7 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-111 Page 7 of 7 Attachment A Lot 2, Block 1, COUNTRYSIDE PLAZA, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 1 of 6 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING TWO VARIANCES AND DENYING ONE VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7591 COMMERCE STREET (PID 26-119-23-11-0020) (CITY FILE NO. 22-048) WHEREAS, Tom and Dan Gleason of Pro-Tech Auto Repair (“the applicant”) request approval of a site plan and conditional use permits to allow for the expansion of their auto repair business on property legally described as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A WHEREAS, the proposed site plan requires approval of the following three variances: 1. A 23 ft. wide drive aisle for the southern drive aisle where a width of 26 ft. would otherwise be required. 2. A 5 ft. setback for the western drive aisle where a setback of 10 ft. would otherwise be required. 3. Expansion of a nonconforming parking area to allow 6 spaces where 4 were approved previously. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan, conditional use permits, and variances at a duly called public hearing. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of all but the variance to allow a 23 ft. wide drive aisle along the southern end of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. Approvals are granted based on the application materials received by the City on August 2, 2022 and August 11, 2022 unless otherwise amended in this Resolution. 2. The requested variance to allow the southern drive aisle at a width of 23 ft. where 26 ft. is required is denied based on the following findings: a. There are no practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance standards. The site would be able to accommodate a 26 ft. wide drive aisle if the parallel parking near the southern property line is removed. The site is large enough to allow for parking spaces to be located elsewhere on the site. It appears the request for the variance is primarily motivated by financial considerations based on the landowner’s desire to minimize the amount of parking area on the site that needs to be paved; however, both MN Statute City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 2 of 6 462.357 and the Zoning Ordinance state that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. b. The conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are not unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were created by the landowner. The size of the property is a common constraint for several existing properties in the immediate vicinity of the downtown industrial district. Additionally, the size constraint of the southern drive aisle is a condition created by the landowner when the building was last expanded to include office space in 2000. c. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will increase the existing 19 ft. drive aisle to 23 ft. and will allow Pro-Tech to keep more vehicles on site rather than depending on the public street for overflow parking. d. The proposed variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The City’s standards of a 26 ft. drive aisle in areas with 90-degree parking was intentionally created to meet minimum safety standards as well as provide an additional buffer for cars and larger vehicles to comfortably pass each other while reducing the chance of conflict with pedestrians on a site. A drive aisle with a width of 23 ft. when 26 ft. is required does not provide the intended safety buffer factored into the existing Ordinance. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the variance would allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. This result aligns with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and diversifies the tax base. Granting the variance would accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The proposed variance does not conflict with the light industrial land use designation which is “intended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” 3. The requested variance to allow a 5 ft. setback for the western drive aisle where 10 ft. is required is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance standards. Allowing the western drive aisle to remain will facilitate safe circulation of oversized and emergency vehicles within the site. Without granting the variance, the utility of the drive aisle for internal vehicle circulation would be sacrificed due to a reduced width or removal of the drive aisle. Presently, the drive aisle is not setback from the property line, so a 5 ft. setback will reduce the nonconformity and bring the site closer into conformance with Ordinance standards. The 5 ft. setback will allow the drive aisle to be increased in width to 20 ft. to provide a necessary turnaround for emergency vehicles without placing the drive aisle too close to the building. The primary motivation for the variance appears to be based on the need for internal circulation of oversized and emergency vehicles City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 3 of 6 and does not appear to be primarily motivated by financial considerations. The requested variance is reasonable since a practical turn-around alternative for emergency vehicles does not exist. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. There is a 30 ft. distance between the western façade of the building and the western property line. A 10 ft. setback is required to comply with City Code and a 20 ft. drive aisle width is required to comply with the Fire Code. Without the variance, the drive aisle would go directly up to the building which creates a safety concern and a conflict with an existing service door on the western façade. The situation is not created by the landowner since the 20 ft. drive aisle width and 10 ft. setback were not foreseeable to the property owner when the original building placement was determined. It would create a hardship to require the applicants to move the existing building further away from the western property line in order to accommodate the Zoning Ordinance and Fire Code without a variance. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the downtown industrial district. The drive aisle is already in use today; implementing a 5 ft. setback would reduce the existing negative impact to the neighboring property to the west. Additionally, The property to the west has an existing fence and mature landscaping that provides screening between the two properties. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The setback is required to keep vehicle traffic separated from a shared lot and protect drainage patterns between neighboring properties. In this instance, both goals can be accomplished with a 5 ft. setback. The closest the proposed drive aisle would be to the neighboring building is roughly 26 ft. when a minimum separation of 30 ft would otherwise be required. A 26 ft. separation is sufficient in this instance to meet the City’s goals. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the setback variance will allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. The variance is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and diversifies the tax base. Granting the variance will accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The variance does not conflict with the light industrial land use designation in the Comprehensive plan which is “intended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” f. The City identifies the following conditions of approval to address the impact of granting the variance: i. The applicant must remove the portion of the western drive aisle that has encroached onto the neighboring property to the west. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 4 of 6 ii. The applicant must restore the portion of land that was impacted by the encroachment of the drive aisle. iii. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to allow the drive aisle to be located within the drainage and utility easement. 4. The requested variance to allow 6 nonconforming parking spaces with a setback of 20 ft. where 4 parking spaces were approved in the 2000 site plan prior to the City’s adoption of a 50 ft. setback is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow for the expansion of a nonconforming use. However, it is reasonable to allow the variance as this area of the parking lot is subject to a 20 ft. setback regardless of the number of striped parking stalls, and the area reasonably accommodates 6 vehicles presently. While increasing the number of approved spaces from 4 to 6 is technically an expansion of a nonconforming use, the setback in this area of the site is not changing; therefore, the nonconforming setback will not be further intensified. The motivation behind the requested variance seems to be primarily motivated by offering convenience for customers so that parking is near the office. The primary motivation of the variance does not appear to be financially based. b. The conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The previously established location of the building and parking areas in relation to the property line creates a physical condition unique to this property. Adding parking spaces near the office that meet a 50 ft. setback will cause a conflict with other established parking spots and the eastern drive aisle. The building and existing parking locations were determined long before a 50’ parking setback from the front property line was established, and the change in setback was not reasonably foreseeable to the property owner. Therefore, the constraining conditions were not created by the landowner. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Officially approving 2 more parking spaces subject to a 20 ft. setback within the same area originally approved for 4 spaces will not alter the essential character of the downtown industrial neighborhood. Since the parking area is not striped, the space accommodates 6 vehicles presently. There is existing vegetation along the front property line that successfully screens most of the parking and vehicle headlights from the surrounding locality. Formally delineating the 6 parking spaces is unlikely to disturb the surrounding properties if additional landscaping is installed to screen the 2 newly approved parking spaces. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The 50 ft. front setback was established to retain visible green space and rural character. Formalizing 2 more parking spots at a 20 ft. setback will not reduce green space in this portion of the site, particularly if more vegetation is added to meet the screening requirements for parking. Adding 2 City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 5 of 6 nonconforming parking spaces is not in conflict with the rural character of Corcoran. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting an expansion of the nonconforming parking area by 2 spaces will allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. The variance is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and diversifies the tax base. Granting the variance will accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The variance does not conflict with the light industrial land use designation in the Comprehensive plan which is “intended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” f. The City identifies the following conditions of approval to address the impact of the variance: i. The applicant must stripe the parking spaces to avoid further unapproved expansion of the parking area. ii. The applicant must install landscaping to accomplish the screening requirements in Section 1060.070 for parking areas with 4 or more spaces. 5. The approving resolution must be recorded with 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 Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 6 of 6 Attachment A Lot 2, Block 1, COUNTRYSIDE PLAZA, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 1 of 7 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THREE VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7591 COMMERCE STREET (PID 26-119-23-11-0020) (CITY FILE NO. 22-048) WHEREAS, Tom and Dan Gleason of Pro-Tech Auto Repair (“the applicant”) request approval of a site plan and conditional use permits to allow for the expansion of their auto repair business on property legally described as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A WHEREAS, the proposed site plan requires approval of the following three variances: 1. A 23 ft. wide drive aisle for the southern drive aisle where a width of 26 ft. would otherwise be required. 2. A 5 ft. setback for the western drive aisle where a setback of 10 ft. would otherwise be required. 3. Expansion of a non-conforming parking area to allow 6 spaces where 4 were approved previously. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan, conditional use permits, and variances at a duly called public hearing. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of all but the variance to allow a width of 23 ft. for the southern drive aisle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. Approvals are granted based on the application materials received by the City on August 2, 2022 and August 11, 2022 unless otherwise amended in this Resolution. 2. The requested variance to allow the southern drive aisle to have a width of 23 ft. where 26 ft. is required is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The 26 ft. drive aisle width standard was contemplated for back-to-back 90-degree parking, and the Ordinance does not contemplate the use of different styles of parking perpendicular to each other. A drive aisle width of 23 ft. is reasonable to support parking as well as circulation of vehicles and pedestrians on the site, especially since the 90-degree parking is perpendicular to parallel parking spots. It does not appear that the request is primarily economic based as this area of the site has limited options to expand the drive aisle width. Further, the effective drive aisle as the site is used today is 19 ft. Therefore, the proposed width of 23 ft. will reduce City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 2 of 7 the existing nonconformity and bring the site closer into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance’s standards. b. The conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The placement of the building and presence of mature landscaping near the south property line create physical conditions unique to the site that limit further expansion of the drive aisle width without needing a variance from the setback requirement. The drive aisle width standard was not adopted when the placement of the building was decided, and this change in City Code was not foreseeable to the property owner. Therefore, the need for a variance is not the result of circumstances created by the landowner. c. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will increase the existing 19 ft. drive aisle to 23 ft. and will allow Pro-Tech to keep more vehicles on site rather than depending on the public street for overflow parking. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The general intent of the 26 ft. drive aisle width is to safely accommodate two-way traffic and pedestrians. The City Engineer confirmed a 23 ft. drive aisle width is enough to safely support two-way vehicle traffic as well as provide safe passage for pedestrians on the site. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the variance allows Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. This result aligns with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and diversifies the tax base. Granting the variance accomplishes the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The proposed variance does not conflict with the light industrial land use designation which is “intended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” f. The City identifies the following condition of approval to address the impact of granting the variance: i. The applicant must stripe the parking lot to clearly define the parking spaces and drive aisle. 3. The requested variance to allow a 5 ft. setback for the western drive aisle where 10 ft. is required is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance standards. Allowing the western drive aisle to remain will facilitate safe circulation of oversized and emergency vehicles within the site. Without granting the variance, the drive aisle would need to be reduced in width or removed sacrificing its utility for internal vehicle circulation. Presently, the drive aisle is not setback from the property line, so a 5 ft. setback will reduce the nonconformity and bring the site City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 3 of 7 closer into conformance with Ordinance standards. The 5 ft. setback will allow the drive aisle to be increased in width to 20 ft. to provide a necessary turnaround for emergency vehicles without placing the drive aisle too close to the building. The primary motivation for the variance appears to be based on the need for internal circulation of oversized and emergency vehicles and does not appear to be primarily motivated by financial considerations. The requested variance is reasonable since a practical turn-around alternative for emergency vehicles does not exist. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. There is a 30 ft. distance between the western façade of the building and the western property line. A 10 ft. setback is required to comply with City Code and a 20 ft. drive aisle width is required to comply with Fire Code. Without the variance, the drive aisle would go directly up to the building which creates a safety concern and a conflict with an existing service door on the western façade. The situation is not created by the landowner since the 20 ft. drive aisle width and 10 ft. setback were not foreseeable to the property owner when the original building placement was determined. It would create a hardship to require the applicants to move the existing building further away from the western property line in order to accommodate the Zoning Ordinance and Fire Code without a variance. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the downtown industrial district. The drive aisle is already in use today and implementing a 5 ft. setback would reduce the existing effects on the neighboring property. The property to the west has an existing fence and mature landscaping that provides screening between the two properties. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The setback is required to keep vehicle traffic separated from a shared lot line and protect drainage patterns between neighboring properties. In this instance, both goals can be accomplished with a 5 ft. setback. The closest the proposed drive aisle would be to the neighboring building is roughly 26 ft. when a minimum separation of 30 ft would otherwise be required. A 26 ft. separation is sufficient in this instance to meet the City’s goals. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the setback variance will allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. The variance is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and diversifies the tax base. Granting the variance will accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The variance does not conflict with the light industrial land use designation in the Comprehensive plan which is “intended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 4 of 7 f. The City identifies the following conditions of approval to address the impact of granting the variance: i. The applicant must remove the portion of the western drive aisle that has encroached onto the neighboring property to the west. ii. The applicant must restore the portion of land that was impacted by the encroachment of the drive aisle. iii. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to allow the drive aisle to be located within the drainage and utility easement. 4. The requested variance to allow 6 nonconforming parking spaces with a setback of 20 ft. where 4 parking spaces were approved in the 2000 site plan prior to the City’s adoption of a 50 ft. setback is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow for the expansion of a nonconforming use. However, it is reasonable to allow the variance as this area of the parking lot is subject to a 20 ft. setback regardless of the number of striped parking stalls, and the area reasonably accommodates 6 vehicles presently. While increasing the number of approved spaces from 4 to 6 is technically an expansion of a nonconforming use, the setback in this area of the site is not changing; therefore, the nonconforming setback will not be further intensified. The motivation behind the requested variance seems to be primarily based in convenience for customers so that parking is near the office. The primary motivation of the variance does not appear to be financially based. b. The conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The previously established location of the building and parking areas in relation to the property line creates a physical condition unique to this property. Adding parking spaces near the office that meet a 50 ft. setback will cause a conflict with other established parking spots and the eastern drive aisle. The building and existing parking locations were determined long before a 50’ parking setback from the front property line was established and the change in setback was not reasonably foreseeable to the property owner. Therefore, the constraining conditions were not created by the landowner. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Officially approving 2 more parking spaces subject to a 20 ft. setback within the same area originally approved for 4 more spaces will not alter the essential character of the downtown industrial neighborhood. Since the parking area is not striped, the space regularly accommodates 6 vehicles presently. There is existing vegetation along the front property line that successfully screens most of the parking and vehicle headlights from the surrounding locality. Formally delineating the proposed 6 parking spaces is unlikely to disturb the surrounding properties if City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 5 of 7 additional landscaping is installed to screen the 2 newly approved parking spaces. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The 50 ft. front setback was established to retain visible green space and rural character. Formalizing 2 more parking spots at a 20 ft. setback will not reduce green space in this portion of the site, particularly if more vegetation is added to meet the screening requirements for parking. Adding 2 nonconforming parking spaces is not in conflict with the rural character of Corcoran. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting an expansion of the nonconforming parking area by 2 spaces will allow Pro-Tech to improve and expand their business within Corcoran. The variance is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as Pro-Tech’s presence in the community provides local employment and diversifies the tax base. Granting the variance will accomplish the City’s goal to support and promote existing, viable businesses that are responsive to the needs of the growing community. The variance does not conflict with the light industrial land use designation in the Comprehensive plan which is “intended to provide a full range of industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar uses with limited outside storage.” f. The City identifies the following conditions of approval to address the impact of the variance: i. The applicant must stripe the parking spaces to avoid further unapproved expansion of the parking area. ii. The applicant must install landscaping to accomplish the screening requirements in Section 1060.070 for parking areas with 4 or more spaces. 5. The approving resolution must be recorded with Hennepin County prior to release of the applicant’s escrow account with the City. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 6 of 7 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112 Page 7 of 7 Attachment A Lot 2, Block 1, COUNTRYSIDE PLAZA, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. (reserved for recording information) SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT PRO-TECH AUTO REPAIR (FILE NO. 22-048) This SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) dated _________________, 2022, is entered into by and between the CITY OF CORCORAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and GLEASON PROPERTIES, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION (the “Developer”), for Pro-Tech Auto Repair, and shall be effective upon full execution by the City and the Developer. The City and the Developer are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “parties” or each a “party”. 1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. The Developer has asked the City to approve a site development plan (referred to in this Agreement as the “site plan”). The site plan is for property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, addressed at: 7591 Commerce Street in Corcoran, MN, and legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, (the “Subject Property”). 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The City approved the site plan (under City Council Resolution 2022-111 dated September 22, 2022) on the condition that the Developer enter into this Agreement, furnish the security and escrow required by it, and comply with applicable ordinances, statutes, and regulations. 3. PLANS. The Subject Property shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement, but are on file in the office of the City Administrator at Corcoran City Hall. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms herein shall control. Plan A: Site Plan received__________. Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan received _________. Plan C: Landscape Plan received __________. 4. IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall install and fully pay for the following required site improvements: • Restoration of sewer and associated disturbance of public streets • Restoration of watermains and hydrants and disturbance of associated public streets • Surface water facilities and any associated public street restoration • Grading and Erosion Control • Landscaping Required by Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance • Miscellaneous Facilities Any public improvements shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specs, City Design Standards and Standard Details. For these improvements, the Developer shall submit plans and specifications that have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer to the City for approval by the City Engineer or the City Engineer’s designated representative. 5. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement and construction of all required site improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a financial guarantee (“security”) in the form of: 1) a letter of credit from a bank (pursuant to the form attached hereto as Exhibit B); or 2) a cash deposit; or 3) a combination thereof. The form of the security shall be determined by the City at its sole discretion, and shall be in the amount of $________________ (100% of the total cost of improvements, per Section 1070.050, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance). Any bank or financial institution providing a letter of credit or other surety shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator or his/her designated representative. 6. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS. All labor and work shall be performed and completed in the best and most workmanlike manner and in strict conformance with the approved plans and City Engineering Design Standards. No deviations from the approved plans will be permitted unless approved in writing by the Zoning Administrator or City Engineer or their designated representative. The Developer agrees to furnish to the City a list of contractors being considered for retention by the Developer for the performance of the work required by this Agreement. The Developer shall not do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans and special conditions of this Agreement, for which reimbursement is expected from the City, unless such work is first ordered in writing by the City Engineer or their designated representative, as provided in the specifications. 7. EROSION CONTROL. Prior to initiating site grading, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. Erosion control practices must comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements which the City determines would be beneficial. All erosion control shall comply with Section 950 (Erosion Control) of the Corcoran City Code and the Corcoran Engineering Design Standards. No development, utility or street construction will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the approved erosion control plan. Further, the City shall have the authority to stop work on the Subject Property and/or withhold additional building permits or certificates of occupancy in the event that the Developer fails to comply with the approved erosion control plan. 8. STREET MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until the streets affected by the project are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on the same and to direct attention to detours. If and when streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. In the event residences are occupied prior to completing streets, the Developer shall maintain a smooth surface and provide proper surface drainage to ensure that the streets are passable to traffic and emergency vehicles. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping streets within and around the subdivision swept clean of dirt and debris that may spill, track, or wash onto the street from Developer’s operation. 9. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall install all required site improvements by October 31, 2023. 10. LICENSE. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site development. 11. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the site, including but not limited to legal (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees), planning, permitting, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval of the site plan, the preparation of this Agreement, review of construction plans and documents. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site approval, development or noncompliance with this Agreement. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys’ fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorneys’ fees. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within 30 days after receipt. Bills not paid within 30 days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. Further, the City shall have the right to access Developer’s posted security to obtain reimbursement for unpaid invoiced amounts. Should Developer’s security be insufficient to cover any amounts owed to the City and unpaid after invoicing, the City may assess such amounts against the Subject Property. Developer, on behalf of itself and it successors and assigns, hereby waives any assessment notice requirements and any right to appeal such assessment pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429. 12. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. C. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties, and approved by the Zoning Administrator or City Engineer or their designated representative. The City’s failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer has unencumbered fee title to the Subject Property and/or has obtained consents to this Agreement, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the Subject Property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the Subject Property; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any failure to fulfill the foregoing covenants. E. Certain retaining walls will require a building permit. Retaining walls that require a building permit shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the building official evidencing that the retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls identified on the development plans shall be constructed before any other building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. F. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. G. Failure to fulfill the terms of this Agreement by the Developer, including nonpayment of billings from the City, shall be grounds for denial of building permits and certificates of occupancy, and the halting of all work on the Subject Property. H. The Developer represents to the City that the development complies with all city, county, metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision regulations, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the development does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the development until the Developer does comply. Upon the City’s demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. I. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligations hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells the project. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in conjunction with a sale of the entire land, the Developer may, without the consent of the City, assign this Contract to a limited liability company or other entity in which the Developer or an affiliate thereof has a controlling membership or other controlling ownership interest, provided that such assignee assumes in writing the obligations of Developer under this Contract and all posted security correspondingly secures the performance of the assignee. 13. DEVELOPER’S DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the Subject Property. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part to the Subject Property and the Developer, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby waives any right to appeal said assessment. 14. NOTICES. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: ______________________________. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to Corcoran City Hall, or mailed to the City by certified mail to the attention of the Corcoran City Administrator at the following address: Corcoran City Hall Attn: City Administrator 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 15. ESTIMATED COSTS . ITEM Total Sanitary Sewer System $0 Watermain System $0 Stormwater System $0 Street Construction $0 Street Lighting $0 Grading/Erosion Control Landscaping/Tree Preservation Setting Iron Monuments $0 Installing Wetland Buffer Monuments* $0 SUB-TOTAL: Design, Admin, Insp, As-Builts (8%) Total: This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. If the City approves use of a letter of credit for posting of any portion of the security, the bank or financial institution which provides the same shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of this Agreement or upon receipt of notice that the security will be cancelled or otherwise lapse prior to the end of the required term and no City-approved replacement security has been provided. If the required improvements are not completed at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the proceeds shall be used to cure the default. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory to the City Engineer or designee that work has been completed and financial obligations to the City have been satisfied, with City Engineer or designee approval the security may be reduced from time to time by 75% of the financial obligations that have been satisfied. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the public improvement and landscaping amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until: (1) all improvements have been completed; (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed; and (3) all financial obligations to the City, both actual and anticipated, have been satisfied. 16. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL SURETY. Security for Improvements (Paragraph 5): $________ Engineering Escrow (Cash) $________ 17. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Developer shall take out and maintain or cause to be taken out and maintained until after the City’s written acknowledgment of the Developer’s successful completion of the project in compliance with all plans referenced in Section 3 above: A. Commercial general liability insurance (including operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, competed operations and contractual liability insurance) together with an Owner’s Contractor’s Policy with limits against bodily injury, including death, and property damage (to include, but not be limited to damages caused by erosion or flooding) which may arise out of Developer’s work or the work of any of its subcontractors. B. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $750,000.00 for one person and $1,500,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $2,000,000.00 for each occurrence. C. Worker’s compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, if applicable. D. Developer shall file a Certificate of Insurance with the City Administrator prior to commencing site grading. The City and the City Engineer shall be named as Additional Insureds on a primary and non-contributory basis on the Certificate. The Certificate shall be modified to bear the following language: “Should any of the above policies be canceled, materially changed, or not renewed before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company shall give thirty (30) days written notice of the same to the Certificate Holder. In the event of cancellation due to non-payment, ten (10) day’s written notice shall be given to the Certificate Holder.” Developer shall be responsible for providing the above language to its insurer. The City does not warranty that these amounts will be sufficient to cover all Developer liability related to the work on the Subject Property and Developer shall be responsible for conducting its own analysis of the appropriate levels of coverage. CITY OF CORCORAN BY: Tom McKee, Mayor (SEAL) AND Jessica Beise, Interim City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of___________________, 20___, by Tom McKee and Jessica Beise, the Mayor and Interim City Administrator of the City of Corcoran, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DEVELOPER: By: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF _______________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of _________________, 20___, by __________________ the _________________ of _______________________, on behalf of the ______________________. NOTARY PUBLIC EXHIBIT A (the “Subject Property”) INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT B IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT TEMPLATE Letter of Credit No.: Date: TO: City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55430 RE: (*Insert project name/address) Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of _____________________________, and in your favor, our irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $_________________, for the purpose of _____________________ available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned financial institution. To draw on the Letter of Credit, the draft letter must: a. Bear the clause, “drawn under the Letter of Credit No. _____________, dated ___________, 2_____, of (Name of Bank); b. Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Corcoran. c. Be presented for payment at ___________________, on or before the expiration date of the letter of credit. d. List the reason for the draw and the cost to be drawn against the letter of credit. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT MUST BE INCLUDED ON ALL LETTERS OF CREDIT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CORCORAN: This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date the financial institution delivers written notice to the City of Corcoran City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this letter of credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: City of Corcoran, Attn: City Administrator, Corcoran City Hall, 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation of Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this letter of credit shall be duly honored upon presentation if presented for payment together with the documents required herein to _______________, phone ___________, if presented before 4:00 p.m. on or before the expiration date. Presentations may be made in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested or by federal express or any other nationally recognized courier company. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 590 ("ISP98").” We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. BY: _______________________________ Signature _______________________________ Its _______________________________ Printed Name of Signator Copy: City of Corcoran City Planner City of Corcoran City Engineer City of Corcoran City Administrator FEE OWNER CONSENT TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT _______________________________________________________, fee owners of all or part of the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Agreement, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the Subject Property owned by them. Fee Owners further consent to the recording of the Agreement against the Subject Property. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 20___. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 20___, by ______________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 MORTGAGEE CONSENT TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT _______________________________________________________, which holds a mortgage on the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Agreement, agrees that the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 20_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 20_____, by __________________________________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 CONTRACT PURCHASER CONSENT TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT _______________________________________________________________, which/who has a contract purchaser's interest in all or part of the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Agreement, hereby affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the Subject Property in which there is a contract purchaser's interest. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 20_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 20____, by ____________________________________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Page 3 of 4 August 10, 2000 Adoption Prepared By: Dave Gross, Planning Intern City of Corcoran Council Minutes – July 27, 2000 1. The property proposed for subdivision is part of an existing plat with a density of 1 unit per 10 acres. 2. A reasonable use of the property exists. 3. There is no hardship related to the property that is a basis for variance. Discussion: Councilor Gmach noted that he was not in favor of the variance due to the findings of fact and that the density regulations must be upheld in order to maintain consistency of rules. Councilor Lindsley also noted that denying the variance would ensure compliance with the ordinances. She also stated that she was glad that the church had found a suitable alternate site. Mayor Guenthner praised the church’s efforts in attempting to satisfy the community needs. Motion: RT/DL; (Favor: RT – Opposed: GG/DL/KG) – to adopt Resolution 2000-48 “A Resolution to approve a site for ProTech Auto located at 7591 West Commerce Street, PID #26-119-23-11-0020” subject to the following conditions. 1. The parking area south of the building and driveway shall be paved. 2. Verification that the septic system is adequate for the addition. 3. The exterior materials shall match the existing surface. Discussion: Councilor Gmach stated his concern for making pavement required as one of the conditions. “Is it reasonable to require paving for the entire lot?” He also noted that issues of consistency in this matter should be looked at closely and resolved as quickly as possible. He stated that he did not think it would be fair to require conditions such as these simply because the Council has the authority to. Councilor Thomas stated that the Council should reserve the option, as paving parking spaces will increase the overall appearance of the property, and add a lot a community value. Mayor Guenthner noted that condition such as these should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all the elements in support/opposition of the issue at hand. Councilor Lindsley stated the need for policy on these types of issues, but until a policy action is implemented, then the Council should follow the current ordinances. Council directed the Planning Commission “Design Standards” subcommittee to review the issue of commercial parking lot and drive area surface requirements. Motion: GG/DL; (Favor: GG/DL/KG – Opposed: RT) – to adopt Resolution 2000-48 “To approve a Site for ProTech Auto located at 7591 West Commerce Street, PID #26-119-23-11-0020”, as presented, with condition one stricken. Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, PE, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Pro-Tech Auto Repair – Site Plan Review Date: August 22, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents by Otto Associates: 1. Site Plan by Otto Associates Dated 8/10/22 2. Grading Plan by Otto Associates Dated 8/10/22 Comments: General: 1. In addition to engineering related comments per these plans, the proposed plans are subject to addition planning, zoning, land-use, and other applicable codes of the City of Corcoran. 2. An Elm Creek Watershed Grading and Erosion Control Permit will likely be required due to the size of the disturbance area. If required, this must be obtained before grading activities may commence. Site Plan 1. Applicant shall obtain a permit from Hennepin County for the abandonment of the septic system. 2. We would recommend a concrete apron be installed at the entrance in accordance with City Standard Detail ST-13. 3. The north of the building is identified as a gravel surface which we assume to be used for material storage. As this area is not identified for primary parking, this is considered in accordance with the city code and has previously been allowed in similar circumstances to not have perimeter curbing and a paved surface. 4. A retaining wall and gravel drive are proposed within the existing D&U Easement. An encroachment agreement should be required to identify responsibility for removing and replacing the infrastructure should access to the easement be necessary. Grading/Erosion Control/SWPPP 5. Label the total site disturbance for the improvements. The total limits of the site appear to be over 1-acre but the limits of disturbance are unclear. If for any reason site disturbance for the proposed improvements is greater than 1 acre, an MPCA construction permit shall be obtained and SWPPP shall be prepared for the site. August 22, 2022 Protech Auto Repair Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 2 6. Applicant shall be responsible for following all applicable Elm Creek Watershed regulations. Confirm with the Elm Creek Watershed, what if any permitting will be necessary for the project. 7. Silt fence and bioroll are identified on the north side of the site. Additional erosion controls measures should be added along the other portions of the site where disturbances will take place. 8. Top and bottom of wall elevations should be shown on the plan. If wall is 4’ or higher, an engineered design for the wall shall be submitted to the city prior to construction. 9. Identify where SW corner of the parking lot will drain. Proposed curb line is at 971 elevation and appears it may hold water. End of Comments Page 1 of 1 CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763.420.2288 E-mail - general@ci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site – www.corcoranmn.gov Memo To: Planning (Planners Lindahl and Davis McKeown) From: Lieutenant Burns Date: June 14, 2022 Re: City File 22-027 Pro-Tech Auto Expansion Sketch Plan A Public Safety plan review meeting was held on June 1, 2022. In attendance were: Lieutenant Ryan Burns, Police Chief Gottschalk, Planner Davis McKeown, Fire Chief Feist, Fire Chief Malewicki, Fire Chief Leuer, Building Official Geske, and Construction Services Specialist Pritchard. The comments below are based on the concept plans received by the City on April 19, 2022 and are intended as initial feedback as further plan review will need to be completed as construction plans are available. 1. The nearest fire hydrant will determine the necessary safety measures for the site. If a hydrant is within 300’, than a 150’ hose pull is required. If the hydrant is within 400’, than a 150’ hose pull is allowed if the building is fully sprinkled. The distance from the nearest hydrants to the building must be confirmed. 2. Fire truck circulation on the site will need to be addressed with a turn radius exhibit. The applicant should keep in mind that the 90-degree corners as depicted in the concept plan are very difficult for emergency vehicles to navigate and should be avoided. 3. It is recommended that an on-site hydrant be considered in the NE quadrant of the site based on the known locations of hydrants in the area. 4. The parking lot will need to be an improved surface that can pass a 9-ton roll test. 5. If the western drive aisle is not a 20’ width, a hammerhead is needed for fire trucks to be able to turn around on the south end of the site. Goal 2: Provide a variety of housing types, styles, densities, and choices to meet the housing needs of residents.Policy 1: Provide a mix of housing types to provide for a full continuum of housing opportunities, including continued single-family growth and new opportunities for multiple family and senior housing developments.Policy 2: Provide transitions or buffering from low density and rural residential areas to higher density uses.Policy 3: Ensure that all new housing adheres to the highest standards of planning, design and construction.Goal 3: Create new land use opportunities to expand and diversify the City’s tax base by encouraging new commercial development.Policy 1: Use the Mixed Use land use designation to develop a Town Center similar to that envisioned in the Corcoran Southeast District Plan and Design Guidelines adopted in 2016. These guidelines will be updated to reflect the new transportation policies in this plan.Policy 2: Create performance standards for all commercial areas, including building and signage design guidelines, streetscaping, and inclusion of green space, paths, and sidewalks to connect commercial areas to neighborhoods.Policy 3: Support and promote existing businesses and new businesses that are viable and responsive to the needs of the community.Goal 4: Attract and encourage new light industrial, office-industrial, high tech and professional services, and maintain and expand existing businesses in Corcoran.Policy 1: Encourage high-end business park development that attracts medical, technology, and similar industries that provide quality employment and wages.Policy 2: Develop a market plan and strategy aimed at creating an industrial and high-end business park identity that will help recruit business and industry to Corcoran.Policy 3: Create industrial and business park building, signage, and landscaping design guidelines that will result in high-quality building and site development.Policy 4: Encourage use of “green”, environmentally-friendly building and site development techniques in new developments through zoning requirements or incentives.Goal 5: Create a community with housing, employment and service uses that reinforce the City’s vision to allow development while working to retain key elements that define our rural character, such as wetlands, streams, wooded areas, natural topography and view corridors.Policy 1: Create a land use plan that provides housing development types and locations required to meet the community’s projected needs.Policy 2: Create a staging plan that supports infrastructure expansion and land use growth plans.Policy 3: Work with neighboring communities to ensure an integrated plan that is consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s requirements and compatible with adjacent jurisdictions.Policy 4: As development proceeds, protect the natural features, slopes, and sensitive areas that make Corcoran unique, such as streams, wetlands, lakes, woodlands, natural open space, and local parks.Policy 5: Prepare long-range transportation and infrastructure plans that will direct and support growth and allow the City to financially plan for such growth.Policy 6: Expand the level of community services to keep pace with orderly development.Goal 6: Ensure that zoning and subdivision ordinances are consistent with the intent and specific direction of the land use plan.Policy 1: Ensure that developers are aware of and perform according to the land use plan and all official controls.Policy 2: Encourage creative approaches to land development to support preservation of open space and natural resources.Policy 3: Coordinate plans for housing with plans for light industrial, office/industrial, and commercial areas to balance land uses, serve the qualty-of-life needs of the residential areas and foster a positive climate for business, jobs, and tax base growth.Policy 4: Ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses.Policy 5: Routinely update the zoning map to conform to the land use map.The 2040 Land Use Plan identifies the location and intensity of anticipated development within the City and establishes a framework in which that development may occur. The 2040 Land Use Plan was developed to support the community vision and guiding principles discussed in Chapter 1.The 2040 Land Use Plan generally retains the land use categories created under the 2030 Plan. The MUSA boundary remains the same except for a small expansion of MUSA on Old Settlers Road in the southeast portion of the city to include all of a landowner’s property east of the street. The plan also shows a future 932-acre expansion allowing Corcoran to continue to work with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), Loretto and Medina on the Maple Plain LS/RF Rehabilitation: Project 8081. This project would provide new facilities to serve Loretto, northwest Medina, and southwest Corcoran. This expansion is shown outside of the 2040 planning range. Corcoran will see an increased opportunity for development as the Twin Cities metropolitan area continues to grow and communities closer to the core fully develop. Corcoran’s scenic natural resource areas, proximity to rapidly growing neighboring communities, the development of the Highway 55 corridor, and the potential linking of County Road 30 with the future Highway 610 corridor all represent development assets, influences, and pressures.The 2040 Plan seeks to create the flexibility to respond to market conditions while guiding land uses that adhere to the community’s vision and guiding principles. The 2040 Land Use and Staging Plans meet the Metropolitan Council forecasts for potential development and provide methods through land use and density to meet the Metropolitan Council’s residential density guidance of 3.0 housing units per net developable acre. As a regional planning organization, the Metropolitan Council’s role is to ensure that regional infrastructure can accommodate Corcoran’s potential growth and growth within the region. Meeting this minimum density requirement ensures that regional infrastructure is used in a cost-effective and efficient manner.GOALS AND POLICIESThe community has established the following Goals and Policies to guide residential development in Corcoran.Goal 1: Ensure housing development is compatible with existing and adjacent land uses and has access to key community features, natural features, and views of open spaces.Policy 1: Establish development guidelines for appropriate amount of green spaces, viewshed analysis, paths, sidewalks, trails, and connections throughout the community.Policy 2: Link residential neighborhoods via trails to City parks, Town Center, and other public and commercial areas.Policy 3: Incorporate preservation of natural resources in residential developments.Policy 4: Encourage innovation in subdivision design, such as clustering techniques, to preserve open space or natural features.Policy 5: Undeveloped single-family residential land shall be developed with consideration for surrounding development and in a manner responsive to market needs.43 The Chapter identifies strategies to increase commercial and industrial development in the City of Corcoran. Economic health is an important component of a helathy and thriving community. A strong commercial and industrial base provides jobs to community residents, contributes to a community’s tax base, and can be a source of psychological strength to a community. Commercial and industrial development will provide additional revenue for the City, which currently relies largely on residential property taxes for revenue. Commercial and industrial tax base will fund increased City services prompted by City growth. The 2040 Plan recognizes the inherent link between commercial development and the availability of skilled an deducated workers, affordable housing, developable land and infrastructure.GOALS AND POLICIESThe City of Corcoran recognizes the importance of each component of the economic development cycle in the overall health and economic stability of the community. The City addresses economic development issues through the following goals and policies:Goal 1: Promote cooperative efforts and utilize existing resources for economic growth in the City.Policy 1: Continue to identify and tap into local, State and Federal resources to enhance economic development.Policy 2: Explore County-wide economic development coordination options.Policy 3: Promote coordination of the educational system and the business community to ensure the availability of qualified workers.Goal 2: Promote economic stability and diversity to provide job opportunities to residents.Policy 1: Support efforts to retain existing businesses and facilitate their expansion.Policy 2: Support efforts to recruit new businesses and industries in appropriate locations.Policy 3: Recognize the need to expand infrastructure in the City, including but not limited to roadways, parks/trails, utilities and telecommunications infrastructure, to support and promote continued economic development.Policy 4: Target financial resources and programs to attract businesses that have an emphasis on job creation and businesses that meet or exceed livable wage requirements.Policy 5: Encourage the availability of a range of housing types and values to accommodate an ample work force.Goal 3: Promote efficient, planned commercial and industrial development.Policy 1: Identify key commercial and industrial development opportunities in planned growth areas at locations with access to major transportation systems.Policy 2: Encourage and facilitate infill development on vacant parcels to ensure maximum efficiency of land use.Policy 3: Encourage compact commercial developments that will make efficient use of infrastructure and resources.Policy 4: Encourage industrial, office, business and commercial development to locate within master planned industrial parks, business parks, or in the Town Center area.Goal 4: Enhance the character of the City’s commercial and industrial development.Policy 1: Support the provision of open/green space within commercial and industrial development.Policy 2: Promote the rehabilitation and redevelopment of under utilized facilities by pursuing and making available various financial programs and assistance.ECONOMICASSESSMENTExpansion of the local economy is often tied to existing employers and industries. This section analyzes the existing types of industry concentrated in the City of Corcoran and the competitive environment defined by the presence of industry in surrounding communities.Corcoran’s existing employment base is dominated by small construction-related firms. This is in contrast to the metro area, which is much more diversified in its employment base. For example, approximately 41 percent of all jobs in Corcoran are construction-related, whereas approximately 5 percent of all metro area jobs are construction-related. (DEED Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Therefore, as Corcoran looks to expand its commercial and industrial tax base, it will need to consider ways to diversify its existing employment base. Although Corcoran’s employment base more than doubled between 1990 and 2010, it still remains well below neighboring communities, especially Rogers, Maple Grove, and Plymouth (Table 15). Because some of these communities will continue to develop in coming years, Corcoran’s employment base has been drawn back from the 4,000 job increase forcasted in the 2030 Comp Plan to approximatley 1,200 job increase in the 2040 forcasts per Metropolitan Council estimates.Most future employment locations will be in areas guided as Mixed Use and Business Park. The intensity levels of future commercial/industrial areas will include impervious coverage up to 70 percent based on City Code requirements. Additionally, buildings in these areas will continue to meet the City’s commitment to high quality site-planning, architectural design, and landscaping.    65 Page 1 of 2 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item ___. City Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Nicholas Ouellette through Kendra Lindahl, AICP Topic: Site Plan and Variance for “Corcoran Northeast Water Treatment Plant” Located at 10120 County Road 116 (PID 12-119-23-22-0010) (City File No. 22-052) Action Required: Approval Review Deadline: October 9, 2022 1. Request This is a City-initiated request for the approval of a site plan and variances to construct a water treatment plant on the property located at 10120 County Road 116. 2. Background Water is currently provided to the Northeast District from the City of Maple Grove. Developing a Corcoran water system has been a priority for the City. A well and treatment site has been identified on County Road 116 north of Hunter Road. On February 18, 2021, Council approved a preliminary and final plat for Hunters Place 2nd Addition. The subdivision created a 3.25-acre site for a new City well and water treatment plant and preserved a 9.88-acre site for the Lother home and accessory buildings. On February 2, 2022, City staff reviewed a concept plan for the water treatment plant for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. On May 26, 2022, the City Council adopted the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines to provide additional standards for this portion of the City. This is the first application reviewed under this new standards. On July 14, 2022, Council conducted a work session to provide input and direction based on the architectural renderings of the project in order to inform the final design. On August 11, 2022, Council reviewed architectural renderings and provided input that will inform the final design. Council discussed including an alternate bid for an architecturally enhanced roof. 3. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed this item on September 1, 2022. The Planning Commission voted 3-1 (Brummond nay) to recommend approval of the site plan, Page 2 of 3 variances for the overhead door and accessory structure, and denial of the variance for screening of mechanical equipment. The motion included an amendment to require the landscape plan to be revised to include more conifer trees. 4. Context Zoning and Land Use The site is guided Existing Residential and zoned Single Family Residential (RSF-1) district. The site is located within the 2040 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary and the Northeast District. Surrounding Properties Surrounding properties to the north, east and south are also guided Existing Residential. All surrounding properties are guided Rural/Ag Residential and zoned Rural Residential. The present use of the surrounding properties appears to be predominately residential. Natural Characteristics of the Site There are no natural resources on site that are identified in the Natural Resources Inventory Areas map from the Comprehensive Plan. There is a savanna/pasture upland area identified on the property directly north of the site and a medium quality wetland located on the property directly east of the site. 5. Analysis Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer is the applicant for this project and will ensure compliance with City engineering standards. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving a site plan is limited to whether or not the plans meet the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the site plan. The City has a higher level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that variance standards have been met. B. Consistency with the Ordinance Standards Site Plan The request is for approval of a site plan to allow a water treatment plant use in the RSF-1 district. A site plan must be submitted for review and approval for essential services with permanent structures. Page 3 of 4 The proposed development plan includes a three-cell water treatment plant. When the City bids the project, the plans will be bid with the two-cell option and the three-cell option will be a bid alternative to the water treatment project. The City Engineer’s preference is for the three-cell water treatment plan, as opposed to the two-cell plan which may require expansion to a three-cell at a future date. The City Council will make the decision based on the bid costs and this site plan approval would grant approval for either option. The water treatment plant will be approximately 22,419 sq. ft. in size on a 3.25-acre lot. The site plan has been reviewed for compliance with the larger proposed plan for a three-cell water treatment plant. A production well will be housed within an accessory structure is also located in the northwest corner of the site. Lot Standards and Setbacks Lot standards for the RSF-1 district are as follows: RSF-1 District Water Treatment Site Minimum Lot Area 20,000 sq. ft. 141,705 sq. ft. Minimum lot width 100 ft. 464 ft. Front, From Major Roadways* 100 ft. 92 ft. Front, From all other streets 40 ft. N/A Front Porch (≤ 120 square feet) 30 ft. N/A Side (living) 10 ft. 91 ft. Side (garage)** 5 ft. N/A Rear 30 ft. 130 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 35 ft. 33.3 ft. *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2040 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. **Minimum separation between structures on adjacent parcels shall be 15 feet. Plans show the proposed facility within the 100 ft. front setback from County Road 116, a minor expander. Building setback flexibility is provided for the facility structure to allow a 60-foot setback from County Road 116. Section 1060.070, Subd. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance allows a front setback to be reduced up to 40% (40 ft.) if a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, two ornamental trees and ten shrubs are provided for 100 ft. of length along the property line where flexibility is being Figure 1: Site Plan Page 4 of 5 requested. The applicant has provided five deciduous, five coniferous and 10 ornamental trees in addition to 50 shrubs for the 100 ft. of property length where building setback flexibility is being requested. This meets the ordinance standards. The accessory structure that will house the production well and controls is located in the front yard of the lot which is not permitted in urban residential districts such as the RSF- 1 district. A variance is required for the accessory structure in the front yard and is discussed further in this report. Access The water treatment plant will have access from County Road 116. Hennepin County will permit this access and has asked that the City plan for a future connection from a local street. A future roadway connection is planned to the southeast corner which will connect to Hunter’s Ridge when the adjacent property is redeveloped. Parking and Drive Aisles Ten parking stalls, including one accessible stall, are proposed for the water treatment plant. The parking is adequate to serve the site. The stalls are situated along the east and south sides of the proposed building. A drive aisle provides access to the production well and stormwater access bench in the north of the site. The drive aisle extends to a hammerhead turnaround in the southeast corner of the site. Proposed parking and drive aisles comply with the minimum 40- foot. front setback and 10-foot side yard setback. Landscaping is provided at the end of each parking bay as guided by the Northeast District plan. Landscaping The site complies with the minimum landscape standards required by Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires one overstory tree per 50 linear feet of site perimeter and one understory shrub per 30 linear feet of site perimeter. The landscape plan shows plantings at sizes and percentages that comply with the ordinance requirements. An additional 31 overstory trees and 52 understory shrubs have been provided in addition to the minimum landscaping materials required to allow building setback flexibility. The plans show 36 overstory deciduous trees, 5 overstory conifer trees, 10 ornamental trees, 104 deciduous shrubs and 21 conifer shrubs. Figure 2: Landscape Plan Page 5 of 6 Parking areas with four or more stalls shall be screened from residentially zoned properties and public streets. Landscaping provided for building setback flexibility provides adequate screening of the parking from the public street. Existing trees on adjacent properties to the south and east provide screening of the parking spaces from those properties. A native wet and dry-tolerant seed mix will be planted around the stormwater pond. The remaining areas of the site where soils are disturbed will be seeded with a low maintenance turf mix. The proposed landscaping complies with the Northeast District required plant materials list, utilizing a full complement of overstory, ornamental, and evergreen trees, shrubs and ground covers. The Northeast District also requires the use of three resiliency options in each development. The landscaping plans satisfy three required resiliency options through landscaping with native species, bioretention systems and xeriscaping. At least 50% of the plantings provided will be native species as specified in the Northeast District guidelines. The majority of species provided also qualify for xeriscaping, which utilizes plants that have lower water use requirements and are able to withstand periods of drought. The above ground perimeter of the stormwater pond seeded with a native wet and dry-tolerant seed mix serves as a bioretention system. Section 1060.070, Subd. 2.H. of the Zoning Ordinance requires underground irrigation is required for all new non-residential development where municipal water is available. However, the Northeast District guidelines impose greater restrictions on landscaping that abrogate the requirement for irrigation. Proposed plant materials are also more resilient and do not require regular watering. Buildings and Architecture The primary structure complies with the building standards in Section 1060.050 of the Zoning Ordinance and additional standards for buildings for the Northeast District. Current architecture plans show a predominantly brick building with both a flat roof and gabled roof. The structure complies with Zoning Ordinance standards for exterior building finishes. The gabled roof is metal with a factory applied color coating to reduce fading and degradation in compliance with standards for non-residential roof materials. Figure 3: Two-cell architecture. Figure 4: Three-cell architecture with an additional overhead door. Page 6 of 7 The City will bid three options for the water treatment plant. The first option will be for a two-cell facility and the second option for a three-cell facility. The three-cell facility includes an additional overhead door facing County Road 116. Council will have a third bid option that includes an architecturally enhanced roof that may be applied to either two- or three-cell design. The enhanced design is for a gabled roof with dormers as shown in Figure #5. The enhanced design would still comply with building standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The Northeast Guidelines require at least 60% of each building face visible from off- site must be of class I materials, such as brick, integral colored cast stone, glass, and architectural wall cladding. No more than 10% of each building face visible from off site may be of class III materials, such as unpainted or surface painted metal and concrete panels. Accents, wainscoting, awnings, translucent wall panels break up the water treatment building elevations. The water treatment building is predominantly comprised of face brick, a class I material. Secondary materials consist of manufactured stone and fiber cement board & batten, also class I materials. Building accents such as wainscoting, windows, awnings, translucent wall panels and stone accent bands break up the elevation of each façade. The building complies with these standards. Although not currently shown on the plans, an accessory building will house the production well structure and well control panel in the northeast corner of the site. The accessory structure complies with side and rear setbacks; however, the structure is located in the front yard which is not permitted in urban residential districts. A variance from this requirement is discussed further in this report. Staff has included a condition that the accessory structure must be built with similar materials and aesthetics to the water treatment plant building. Screening The Northeast District guidelines state that no loading docks or overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property. Plans show an overhead door on the west building elevation which faces County Road 116. The overhead door is required for the operation of the water treatment plant. A variance is requested for the overhead door and is discussed in further detail below. The Northeast District guidelines also require utility service structures to be screened from off-site views utilizing either a privacy fence that is at least six feet tall or enclosing the utility structure inside a building. However, these standards were intended for more obstructive utility equipment and structures, such as electrical substations. The Figure 5: Three-cell building with architecturally enhanced roof. Page 7 of 8 generator and transformers on the south side of the building are proposed to be screened by vegetation and are located in the side and rear yard. Typically, vegetative screening has been the preference of the City and staff find the proposed plantings will provide sufficient screening for the generator and transformer. A variance from the requirement that utility equipment be screened within a building or by a privacy fence is discussed further in this report. The production well structure and controls will be housed within the accessory building. If Council does not support approval of the variance from utility equipment screening, plans shall be revised to provide a six-foot privacy fence around the transformer and generator. The Planning Commission recommended an amendment to the approving resolution requiring the project to make use of more coniferous landscape materials for proposed screening. Coniferous landscape materials provide better screening year-round. Staff intends to propose that the Council consider amending the standard for screening of utility structures in the Northeast District to include vegetative screening. Stormwater A stormwater ponding area is proposed in the northeast corner of the site. As a City- owned and operated facility, additional easement or a stormwater maintenance agreement is not required. If the facility changed ownership at a future date, the City could establish additional easement and a maintenance agreement for the stormwater pond at that time. Parks and Trails The Northeast District guidelines and Comprehensive Plan show an off-road trail adjacent to County Road 116. The final alignment of the Diamond Lake trail was not known at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted; the off-road trail along County Road 116 was intended to be an option for the Diamond Lake Regional trail. The June 2022 Diamond Lake Regional Trail Draft Master Plan routes this off-road trail to the south and east of the development and does not cross the parcel. An on-road trail is also shown on the Comprehensive Plan Parks and Trails Plan Map. This on-road trail will be located within the County Road 116 right-of-way. Public Safety The Public Safety Committee reviewed the water treatment plant concept plan on February 2, 2022. The Committee recommended a consultant be hired to determine Figure 6: Diamond Lake Regional Trail route through Corcoran in blue. The site location is marked with a red dot. Page 8 of 9 maximum quantities for chemical storage, that fire hydrants be installed on-site and turnaround points meet the City’s minimum specifications. Utility Services Structure Screening Variance A variance from the Northeast District standards has been requested to allow plant material screening for the transformer and generator on the south side of the building. The Northeast District requires “Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers, aboveground tanks); refuse and recycling handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from off-site views utilizing a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height. A chain link fence with slats shall not be accepted as screening.” This is a new standard in the Northeast District standards, which has a higher screening threshold than Section 1060.030 of the Zoning Ordinance, which simply requires: A. All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be buffered so as to mitigate noise in compliance with Section 1060.090 of this Chapter. B. All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be designed (including exterior color) and located so to be aesthetically harmonious and compatible with the building. Screening of the equipment may be required where the design, color, and location of the equipment are found to not effectively buffer noise or provide aesthetic harmony and compatibility as observed by a 6-foot tall individual standing at ground level on the adjacent property or public right-of-way. Screening shall be constructed of durable materials which are aesthetically compatible with the structure and which may be an integral part of the structure. Applicable requirements for access to the equipment shall be observed in the design and construction of the screening. C. Rooftop mechanical equipment less than 3 feet in height shall be exempt from the screening requirements of this Chapter. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all of the following criteria have been met: 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Northeast District standard that utility service structures be screened within a building or by a six-foot tall privacy fence. Staff believes the requirement for utility service structures to be screened within a building or privacy fence was intended to apply to above grade lift stations, pump stations, substations and other obtrusive utility structures. Previously, the City has had a preference to provide screening with plant materials. The above ground structures for the generator and transformer are Page 9 of 10 minimal and do not require intensive screening measures. Shrubs surrounding the transformer and generator will provide adequate screening. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The conditions are unique to the parcel and were not created by the landowner. This is the first project to apply the Northeast District standards and staff believes this was an error. The generator and transformer are essential to the operation of the water treatment plant. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The generator and transformer are adequately screened by landscaping along the west property line and surrounding shrubs. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The visible portions of the transformer and generator are minimal and will be adequately screened by proposed landscaping. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance will enable the development of this facility which will support the existing and future development of the Northeast District. The Comprehensive Plan expects the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement projected future demands. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance from required screening of utility service structures. However, staff continues to recommend approval of this variance. Overhead Door Screening Variance A variance has been requested to allow an overhead door visible from County Road 116. The Northeast District guidelines require that no loading docks or overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all of the following criteria have been met: Page 10 of 11 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Northeast District standard that no overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property. The water treatment plant abuts residential property to the north, east and south and County Road 116 to the west. There is no side of the building from which the overhead door is not visible from either a residential property or the County road. The overhead door is necessary for the operation of the water treatment plant and will be least impactful on neighboring homes in the current location. It will be screened from the County Road by significant landscaping. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The conditions are unique to the parcel and were not created by the landowner. As noted above, the water treatment plant abuts residential properties on all sides and County Road 116 to the west. Abutting these properties effectively restricts the placement of an overhead door on any side of the structure. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The water treatment plant has a high level of architectural design that will enhance the property. The overhead door will face the least intrusive direction, towards the County Road, and also be screened by a higher level of landscaping provided along the west property line for a reduced building setback. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The water treatment plant is also necessary to provide water utilities to support current and future development in northeast Corcoran. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The overhead door is proposed to face west towards County Road 116. The overhead door placement corresponds with drive aisle access from the west. The door faces County Road 116 which is less intrusive for the adjacent residential properties. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance will enable the development of this facility which will support the existing and future development of the Northeast District. The Comprehensive Page 11 of 12 Plan expects the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement projected future demands. Accessory Structure Variance A variance has been requested to allow an accessory structure (the structure protecting the production well) in the front yard. The equipment in the building must either be placed in a building as proposed or screened with a fence. The requirement for accessory structures in urban residential districts restricts the placement of accessory structures to only the side and rear yards. While the argument could be made that this site has two principal buildings (this building protecting the production well and the treatment plant), staff is considering this building an accessory building. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all of the following criteria have been met: 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance standard that no accessory structures shall be located in the front yard. The location of the production well was planned prior to the building and was selected based on the efficacy of the site, which placed the well in the northwest corner of the lot. The Northeast District guidelines require utility structures to be screened within a building or by a privacy fence. Complying with the requirement for screening in the Northeast District will place the accessory structure in the front yard of the lot. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The conditions are unique to the parcel and were not created by the landowner. As noted above, the production well location was determined to provide the highest level of functionality for the water treatment plant. The location of the production well was also determined prior to adoption of the Northeast District guidelines. Complying with the Northeast District screening guidelines requires an accessory structure for the production well in the front yard. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Architecture for the accessory structure has not been provided; however, staff recommends that the architecture for the accessory structure be designed in a style similar to the water treatment plant building. The water treatment plant is also necessary to provide water utilities to support current and future development in northeast Corcoran. The size of the accessory structure will be Page 12 of 13 minimal and will also be screened by landscape vegetation along the west property line. 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The production well and controls will be housed within an accessory building, which will be further screened by landscaping along the west property line. It is not possible to locate the production well elsewhere on site. Aside from the location in the front yard, the accessory structure complies with all other standards and requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance will enable the development of this facility which will support the existing and future development of the Northeast District. The Comprehensive Plan expects the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement projected future demands. Conclusion Staff finds the proposed plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and finds that the standards for a site plan and variance have been met with conditions. The staff report notes outstanding issues that must be addressed and staff has included conditions in the attached resolutions to address these issues. However, the Council could find that the variance standards have not been met and recommend denial of one or more of the variances. Staff has prepared options for both approval and denial of the variances. Next Steps This facility is being designed with the intention of being bid on in the fall of 2022 and being operational by the end of 2024. Summary The Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend the following: • Approval of the site plan, • Approval of two variances for accessory structures in the front setback and screening of overhead doors from County Roads, • Denial of the variance from the requirement that utility service structures be screened within a building or by a six-foot privacy fence and • Amending plans to make use of more coniferous plant materials as opposed to deciduous plant materials. Page 13 of 13 Staff has prepared a resolution that reflects the Planning Commission recommendation, including condition #8 denying the variance for screening of utility structures and condition #13 requiring plans be revised to use more coniferous plant materials. Staff continues to recommend the City Council approve the three variances. Council should decide whether to approve the Planning Commission recommendation for more coniferous plant materials. Staff has not included this condition in their recommended resolution. 6. Recommendation The City Council should choose one of the following two options: a. Move to adopt Resolution 2022-114 approving the site plan and variances as recommended by staff (Option 1). b. Move to adopt the Resolution 2022-114 approving the site plan, two variances, denying one variance and amending landscape material requirements, as recommended by the Planning Commission (Option 2). Attachments 1. Resolution 2022-114 Approving the Site Plan and Variances (Option 1) 2. Resolution 2022-114 Approving the Site Plan and Two Variances, Denying One Variance and Amending Landscape Material Requirements (Option 2) 3. Site Location Map 4. Public Safety Comments dated February 4, 2022 5. Applicant’s Narrative dated July 29, 2022 6. Site Plans dated August 19, 2022 7. Landscape Plans dated August 23, 2022 8. Architectural Elevations dated August 11, 2022 9. Enhanced Architecture Elevations dated August 22, 2022 City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Option 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-114 Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES FOR THE “CORCORAN NORTHEAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT” LOCATED AT 10120 COUNTY ROAD 116 (PID 12-119-23- 22-0010) (CITY FILE NO. 22-052) WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran (the “applicant”) has requested approval of a site plan and variance to allow for the development of a water treatment plant on the property legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, HUNTERS PLACE 2ND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and variances at a public meeting, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for a site plan and variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. A site plan and variances are approved to allow for the construction of a water treatment plant as shown on the application and plans received by the City on July 29, 2022 and additional information received on August 10, 2022 August 19, 2022, August 22, 2022 and August 23, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The approvals are granted for either the two- or three-cell building option. 3. The approvals are granted for the enhanced architectural building option for a dormer roof. 4. The applicant must comply with the Public Safety Plan Review comments dated February 4, 2022. 5. Building setback flexibility is provided to allow a reduced 60 ft. building setback along County Road 116 through the additional 10 overstory trees, 10 ornamental trees and 50 shrubs provided by the applicant. 6. The applicant shall provide final architectural plans with building material percentages to ensure compliance with the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines. 7. The accessory structure housing the production well and controls shall be built with similar materials and aesthetics to the water treatment plant building. 8. The variance to allow the generator and transformer to be screened by landscaping is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties complying with the Northeast District standard that utility service structures be screened within a building or by a six-foot tall privacy City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Option 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-114 Page 2 of 4 fence. The above ground structures for the transformer and generator are minimal and do not require intensive screening measures. Shrubs surrounding the transformer and generator will provide adequate screening. b. The conditions are unique to the parcel and not created by the landowner. This is the first project to apply the Northeast District standards and staff believes this was an error. The generator and transformer are essential to the operation of the water treatment plant. c. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The generator and transformer are adequately screened by landscaping along the west property line and surrounding shrubs. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the Ordinance. The visible portions of the transformer and generator are minimal and will be adequately screened by proposed landscaping. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will enable the development of this facility which will support the existing and future development of the Northeast District. The Comprehensive Plan expects the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement projected future demands. 9. The variance to allow an overhead door visible from County Road 116 is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Northeast District standard that no overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property because the site abuts residential property to the north, east and south and County Road 116 to the west. There is no side of the building from which the overhead door is not visible from either a residential property or the County Road. The overhead door is necessary for the operation of the water treatment plant and will be least impactful on neighboring homes in the current location. b. The conditions are unique to the parcel and not created by the landowner. The water treatment plant abuts residential properties on all sides and County Road 116 to the west. Abutting these properties effectively restricts the placement of an overhead door on any side of the structure. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The water treatment plant has a high level of architectural design that will enhance the property. The overhead door will face the least intrusive direction, towards the County Road, and also be screened by a higher level of landscaping provided along the west property line for a reduced building setback. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. The overhead door is proposed to face west towards County Road 116. The overhead door placement corresponds with drive aisle access from the west. The door faces County Road 116 which is less intrusive for the adjacent residential properties. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Option 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-114 Page 3 of 4 e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will enable the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement future development demands. 10. The variance to allow an accessory structure in the front yard is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance standard that no accessory structures shall be located in the front yard. The location of the production well was planned prior to the building and was selected based on the efficacy of the site, which placed the well in the northwest corner of the lot. The Northeast District guidelines require utility structures to be screened within a building or by a privacy fence. Complying with the requirement for screening in the Northeast District will place the accessory structure in the front yard of the lot. b. The conditions are unique to the parcel. As noted above, the production well location was determined to provide the highest level of functionality for the water treatment plant. The location of the production well was also determined prior to adoption of the Northeast District guidelines. Complying with the Northeast District screening guidelines requires an accessory structure for the production well in the front yard. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff recommends that the architecture for the accessory structure be designed in a style similar to the water treatment plant building. The water treatment plant is also necessary to provide water utilities to support current and future development in northeast Corcoran. The size of the accessory structure will be minimal and will also be screened by landscape vegetation along the west property line. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The production well and controls will be housed within an accessory building, which will be further screened by landscaping along the west property line. It is not possible to locate the production well elsewhere on site. Aside from the location in the front yard, the accessory structure complies with all other standards and requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will enable the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement future development demands. 11. A building permit is required prior to beginning construction. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of building permits 12. Record the approving resolution and associated documents at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Option 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-114 Page 4 of 4 13. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and completes the required improvements. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September, 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Option 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-114 Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES AND DENYING A VARIANCE FOR THE “CORCORAN NORTHEAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT” LOCATED AT 10120 COUNTY ROAD 116 (PID 12-119-23-22-0010) (CITY FILE NO. 22-052) WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran (the “applicant”) has requested approval of a site plan and variance to allow for the development of a water treatment plant on the property legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, HUNTERS PLACE 2ND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and variances at a public meeting, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request, subject to the following conditions: 1. A site plan and variances are approved to allow for the construction of a water treatment plant as shown on the application and plans received by the City on July 29, 2022 and additional information received on August 10, 2022 August 19, 2022, August 22, 2022 and August 23, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The approvals are granted for either the two- or three-cell building option. 3. The approvals are granted for the enhanced architectural building option for a dormer roof. 4. The applicant must comply with the Public Safety Plan Review comments dated February 4, 2022. 5. Building setback flexibility is provided to allow a reduced 60 ft. building setback along County Road 116 through the additional 10 overstory trees, 10 ornamental trees and 50 shrubs provided by the applicant. 6. The applicant shall provide final architectural plans with building material percentages to ensure compliance with the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines. 7. The accessory structure housing the production well and controls shall be built with similar materials and aesthetics to the water treatment plant building. 8. The variance to allow the generator and transformer to be screened by landscaping is denied based on the following findings: a. There are no practical difficulties in complying with the Northeast District standard that utility service structures be screened within a building or by a six- City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Option 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-114 Page 2 of 4 foot tall privacy fence. The site can accommodate a privacy fence to screen the transformer and generator south of the building. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are not unique the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were created by the landowners. A privacy fence could be designed in compliance with the utility service structure screening standard. c. Granting the variance will alter the essential character of the locality. Allowing the generator and transformer to be screened by vegetative material rather than a fence is not consistent with the vision for the Northeast District. d. The proposed variance would not be in harmony with the Ordinance. The adopted standard that utility service structures be screened within a building or by a six-foot privacy fence ensures a common and high-quality architectural design of developments throughout the district. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but is not consistent with Northeast District standards. 9. The variance to allow an overhead door visible from County Road 116 is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Northeast District standard that no overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property because the site abuts residential property to the north, east and south and County Road 116 to the west. There is no side of the building from which the overhead door is not visible from either a residential property or the County road. The overhead door is necessary for the operation of the water treatment plant and will be least impactful on neighboring homes in the current location. b. The conditions are unique to the parcel and not created by the landowner. The water treatment plant abuts residential properties on all sides and County Road 116 to the west. Abutting these properties effectively restricts the placement of an overhead door on any side of the structure. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The water treatment plant has a high level of architectural design that will enhance the property. The overhead door will face the least intrusive direction, towards the County Road, and also be screened by a higher level of landscaping provided along the west property line for a reduced building setback. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. The overhead door is proposed to face west towards County Road 116. The overhead door placement corresponds with drive aisle access from the west. The door faces County Road 116 which is less intrusive for the adjacent residential properties. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Option 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-114 Page 3 of 4 e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will enable the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement future development demands. 10. The variance to allow an accessory structure in the front yard is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance standard that no accessory structures shall be located in the front yard. The location of the production well was planned prior to the building and was selected based on the efficacy of the site, which placed the well in the northwest corner of the lot. The Northeast District guidelines require utility structures to be screened within a building or by a privacy fence. Complying with the requirement for screening in the Northeast District will place the accessory structure in the front yard of the lot. b. The conditions are unique to the parcel. As noted above, the production well location was determined to provide the highest level of functionality for the water treatment plant. The location of the production well was also determined prior to adoption of the Northeast District guidelines. Complying with the Northeast District screening guidelines requires an accessory structure for the production well in the front yard. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff recommends that the architecture for the accessory structure be designed in a style similar to the water treatment plant building. The water treatment plant is also necessary to provide water utilities to support current and future development in northeast Corcoran. The size of the accessory structure will be minimal and will also be screened by landscape vegetation along the west property line. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The production well and controls will be housed within an accessory building, which will be further screened by landscaping along the west property line. It is not possible to locate the production well elsewhere on site. Aside from the location in the front yard, the accessory structure complies with all other standards and requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will enable the City to develop its own municipal water supply to supplement future development demands. 11. A building permit is required prior to beginning construction. 12. The transformer and generator shall be screened within a building or by a six-foot tall privacy fence. 13. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide additional coniferous trees. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Option 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-114 Page 4 of 4 FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of building permits 14. Record the approving resolution and associated documents at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 15. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and completes the required improvements. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September, 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator Hennepin County Property Map Date: 8/26/2022 Comments: 1 inch = 200 feet PARCEL ID: 1211923220010 OWNER NAME: City Of Corcoran PARCEL ADDRESS: 10120 Co Rd No 116,Corcoran MN 55374 PARCEL AREA: 3.25 acres, 141,705 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATE: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2021, PAYABLE 2022 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $34,000 TAX TOTAL: $448.61 ASSESSED 2022, PAYABLE 2023 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land-Residential HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $143,000 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763.420.2288 E-mail - general@ci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site – www.corcoranmn.gov Memo To: Planning (Planners Lindahl and Davis) From: Lieutenant Burns Date: February 4, 2022 Re: City File 22-010 City Water Treatment Facility A Public Safety plan review meeting was held on February 2, 2022. In attendance were: Lieutenant Ryan Burns, Planner Davis McKeown, Fire Chief Feist, Fire Chief Malewicki, Building Official Geske, and Construction Services Specialist Pritchard. The comments below are based on the concept plans received by the City on January 20, 2022 and the email from Ash Hammerbeck dated January 27, 2022. These comments are intended as initial feedback as further plan review will need to be completed as construction plans are available. 1. The Public Safety team recommends a fire consultant be hired to determine maximum quantities for chemical storage as well as life safety requirements. 2. Further recommendations are dependent on the size of the building, but the anticipated height of the building is unclear other than it is anticipated to exceed 35’. What is the anticipated height of the building at this time? 3. The Public Safety team highly recommends hydrants for the site. 4. The access and turnaround points throughout the site must meet the City’s minimum specifications. 60.00BUILDING SET BACKSTORMWATER PONDING AREA APPROX. 13,900 SF COUNTY ROAD NO. 116N89°58'44"W 362.55N1°09'23"E 161.92N89°59'50"W 320.83 WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWET WE T WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET5 5 . 0 0 30.0024.0018.00 20.009.00 24.00 48.0024.00 PROPOSED BUILDING PRODUCTION WELL 55' WELL BUFFER HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP.) CONNECT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT APPROXIMATE FUTURE ROADWAY CONNECTION PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE FUTURE BUILDING EXPANSION FOOTPRINT CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYP.) CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYP.) R2 5 . 0 0 R25.00R25.00R 2 5 . 0 0 R49.00 R25.00 R3.67R3. 6 7R3.67R25.0 0 R25.0 0 R3.674" SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT (TYP.) DOOR/ STOOP LOCATION (TYP.) SEE ARCHITECTURAL/ STRUCTURAL PLANS GENERATOR/ TRANSFORMER TEST WELL ZERO HEIGHT CURB B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (TYP.) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP.)12.00STORMWATER ACCESS SURMOUNTABLE CURB (TYP.) FUTURE EDGE OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT THREE-CELL DESIGN BUILDING FOOTPRINT 86.59' BUILDING SETBACK 40.00' DRIVE AISLE SETBACK 62.60' PARKING SETBACK 52.64'PARKING SETBACK27.80'DRIVE AISLE SETBACKZERO HEIGHT CURB CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER 87.08'BUILDING SETBACKSHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 08/18/2022 - 11:47amDrawing name: Z:\227704426\CAD\Dwg\Sheets\227704426_C101.dwgXrefs:, 227704426_XSXT, 227704426_PARCELS, 227704426_WETLANDS-GIS, 227704426_BORDER, 227704426_XSNO, 227704426_XSNV, Utility - BW VanTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.CITY OF CORCORAN, MNWATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comXX XX, XXXXCITY REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC101 SITE PLAN MDH MDHPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERMINNESOTA0 30 60 N STORMWATER PONDING AREA APPROX. 13,900 SF 923922921924 92592692792892993093193 4 93 2 93 0 9 2 8 9 2 6 9 3 6 9 3 8 9 4 0 925926 927 928COUNTY ROAD NO. 116N89°58'44"W 362.55N1°09'23"E 161.92N89°59'50"W 320.83 WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWET WE T WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MSMS MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS MS M S MS MS MS MS MS MS MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS MS MS MS MS MSMSMSMSMS MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS MSMSMSMSMSMSMS MS MS INSTALL CULVERT PROTECTION INSTALL MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE (TYP.) INSTALL MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE (TYP.) INSTALL INLET PROTECTION (TYP.) INSTALL INLET PROTECTION (TYP.) INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 07/28/2022 - 10:20pmDrawing name: Z:\227704426\CAD\Dwg\Sheets\227704426_C201.dwgXrefs:, 227704426_XSXT, 227704426_PARCELS, 227704426_WETLANDS-GIS, 227704426_BORDER, 227704426_XSNO, 227704426_XSNV, Utility - BW VanTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.CITY OF CORCORAN, MNWATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comXX XX, XXXXPLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC201 POST CONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL PLAN MDH MDHPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERMINNESOTA0 30 60 N MS CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE / EXIT MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION CULVERT / PIPE PROTECTION EROSION CONTROL LEGEND NOTE: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ON ALL SLOPES 4:1 OR GREATER. 2. CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE TO PROTECT DOWNSTREAM WATERS FROM CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF. COUNTY ROAD NO. 116N89°58'44"W 362.55N1°09'23"E 161.92N89°59'50"W 320.83 WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWET WE T WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWETlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STORMWATER PONDING AREA 923922921924 92592692792892993093193 4 93 2 93 0 9 2 8 9 2 6 9 3 6 9 3 8 94 0 926 927 928 925 921 922 923 92 4 926 92 7 92 8 9 2 9 925922923924930928929930 93092 9929 925923924926927928929929 925 923 926 9 2 8 930929931930931932930 930 927928929 PROPOSED BUILDING FFE: 930.00 3.75% 1 . 7 0% 2.95%1.74%1.34%2.27%1.32%1.25%1.56% 2. 7 6% 1. 0 4 % 1.4 3 % 20.0%20.0%5.6%2.6%3.2%20.0%20.0% 20.0%1.44%3.55%1.59%1.53%2.17%20.10%20.00%1.05%19.7% 920 921 922 923 924920 921 922 923 924 16.8%25.0% 25.0% 8.5% 7.7 % 2. 1 5 % 2.0%4.46%3.98%20.13%92792892992992925.0%925 926 927 928920921922923924925926927925926927 1.30%921922923924 25.0%20.05% SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 07/28/2022 - 4:36pmDrawing name: Z:\227704426\CAD\Dwg\Sheets\227704426_C301.dwgXrefs:, 227704426_XSXT, 227704426_PARCELS, 227704426_WETLANDS-GIS, 227704426_BORDER, 227704426_XSNO, 227704426_XSNV, Utility - BW VanTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.CITY OF CORCORAN, MNWATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comXX XX, XXXXPLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC301 GRADING PLAN MDH MDHPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERMINNESOTA0 30 60 N lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COUNTY ROAD NO. 116N89°58'44"W 362.55N1°09'23"E 161.92N89°59'50"W 320.83 WETWETWETWET WETWETWETWET WE T WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET923922921924 92592692792892993093193 4 93 2 93 0 9 2 8 9 2 6 9 3 6 9 3 8 9 4 0 926 927 928 925 921 922 92 3 92 4 926 92 7 92 8 9 2 9 925922923924930928929930 930929929929929925 923 926 9 2 8 930929931930931932930 927 STORMWATER PONDING AREA PROPOSED BUILDING FFE: 930.00 RAW WATER 30" PVC SANITARY SEWER 24" FINISHED WATER FINISHED WATER SANITARY MANHOLE MIN. CONNECTION INVERT = 904.44 SANITARY MANHOLE (TYP.) 24" BACKWASH OVERFLOW 24" DETENTION OVERFLOW 24" RAW WATER 4" SLUDGE DISCHARGE 4" DOMESTIC SANITARY SERVICE 4" FLOOR DRAIN SERVICE 921 922 923 924 HYDRANT HYDRANT GATE VALVE GATE VALVE 30" PVC SANITARY SEWER CATCH BASIN (TYP.) RCP STORM SEWER (TYP.) FLARED END SECTION (TYP.) 31.73 FLARED END SECTION (TYP.) OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE 920 921 921 922 922 923 923 924924920921922923924925926927 925 926 927 928 925923924926927928929926927928929CATCH BASIN (TYP.) STORM MANHOLE RCP STORM SEWER (TYP.) CLEARWELL OVERFLOW STUB AND CAP FINISHED WATER MAIN FOR FUTURE EXTENSION SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 07/28/2022 - 10:26pmDrawing name: Z:\227704426\CAD\Dwg\Sheets\227704426_C401.dwgXrefs:, 227704426_XSXT, 227704426_PARCELS, 227704426_WETLANDS-GIS, 227704426_BORDER, 227704426_XSNO, 227704426_XSNV, Utility - BW VanTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.CITY OF CORCORAN, MNWATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comXX XX, XXXXPLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC401 UTILITY PLANMDH MDHPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERMINNESOTA0 30 60 N COUNTY ROAD NO. 116N89°58'44"W 362.55N1°09'23"E 161.92N89°59'50"W 320.83 WETWETWETWETWET WE T WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWETllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CBMH 103 RIM=928.098 12" INV IN=923.40 (S) CBMH 104 RIM=929.102 12" INV OUT=923.78 (N) CBMH 102 RIM=927.641 12" INV IN=923.23 (S)>>>>>>>>125'-12" RCP @ 0.30%>>58'-12" RCP @ 0.30%FES 101 RIM=924.167 12" INV IN=923.00 (W) >>>> 77'-12" RCP @ 0.30% 12" INV IN=-3.21 (SW)19'-12" RCP @ 0.22%FES 107 RIM=-2.000 12" INV OUT=-3.17 (N)23'-12" RCP @ 0.22%CBMH 107 RIM=928.350 12" INV OUT=924.41 (W) CBMH 105 RIM=928.000 12" INV IN=923.99 (E)>>>>>>97'-12" RCP @ 0.30% >> 0+001+002+003+004+00 4+77 >>CBMH 106 RIM=928.206 12" INV IN=924.12 (E)>>>>70'-12" RCP @ 0.30%llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(3) CG (3) CC (2) MP (2) MP (4) AF (2) PG (3) TA (3) PR (2) CO (5) CS (3) QB (3) QB (3) TA (3) QM (3) CO (3) QB (4) QM (4) CR (5) CR (9) JC (5) JC (8) CR (4) AM(7) JC (17) DL (8) AM (33) DL (3) CR (6) DL (16) DL SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 08/22/2022 - 9:59amDrawing name: \\us0242-ppfss01\shared_projects\227704426\CAD\Dwg\Sheets\227704426_L101_recover.dwgXrefs:, 227704426_XSXT, 227704426_PARCELS, 227704426_WETLANDS-GIS, 227704426_BORDER, 227704426_XSNO, 227704426_XSNV, 227704426_XSNZ, 227704426 PARCEL EXHIBIT, 227704426_LANDSCAPE_recover, 227704426_XSNUTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.CITY OF CORCORAN, MNWATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comXX XX, XXXXCITY REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONL101 LANDSCAPE PLANRJB RJBPROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTMINNESOTA0 30 60 N LEGEND DECIDUOUS TREE SEED: MNDOT SEED MIX 25-131 LOW MAINTENANCE TURF SEED: MNDOT SEED MIX 33-261 STORMWATER SOUTH & WEST CONIFEROUS TREE SHRUBS & PERENNIALS DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH ORNAMENTAL TREE EASEMENT LINE SETBACK LINE RIGHT OF WAY LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY FIGUREDATE733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comPROJ. NO.C:\Users\public\Documents\Local_Revit_Files\227704426_AS_R20_ryan.mielke.rvtCITY OF CORCORAN, MNCORCORAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426EXTERIOR OPTION WITH DORMERS - TWO CELL PERSPECTIVESA11PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH EAST2PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTH EAST08/16/2022 FIGUREDATE733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comPROJ. NO.C:\Users\public\Documents\Local_Revit_Files\227704426_AS_R20_ryan.mielke.rvtCITY OF CORCORAN, MNCORCORAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426EXTERIOR OPTION WITH DORMERS - TWO CELL PERSPECTIVESA22PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTH WEST1PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH WEST08/16/2022 FIGUREDATE733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comPROJ. NO.C:\Users\public\Documents\Local_Revit_Files\227704426_AS_R20_ryan.mielke.rvtCITY OF CORCORAN, MNCORCORAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426EXTERIOR OPTION WITH DORMERS - TWO CELL ELEVATIONSA31WEST ELEVATION2SOUTH ELEVATION3NORTH ELEVATION4EAST ELEVATION04'8' 16'04'8' 16'04'8' 16'08/16/202204'8' 16' FIGUREDATE733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comPROJ. NO.C:\Users\public\Documents\Local_Revit_Files\227704426_AS_R20_ryan.mielke.rvtCITY OF CORCORAN, MNCORCORAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426EXTERIOR OPTION WITH DORMERS - THREE CELL PERSPECTIVESA1 Alt1PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH EAST2PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTH EAST08/16/2022 FIGUREDATE733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comPROJ. NO.C:\Users\public\Documents\Local_Revit_Files\227704426_AS_R20_ryan.mielke.rvtCITY OF CORCORAN, MNCORCORAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426EXTERIOR OPTION WITH DORMERS - THREE CELL PERSPECTIVESA2 Alt1PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH WEST2PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTH WEST08/16/2022 FIGUREDATE733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000Minneapolis, MN 55402www.stantec.comPROJ. NO.C:\Users\public\Documents\Local_Revit_Files\227704426_AS_R20_ryan.mielke.rvtCITY OF CORCORAN, MNCORCORAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT227704426EXTERIOR OPTION WITH DORMERS - THREE CELL ELEVATIONSA3 Alt1WEST ELEVATION3NORTH ELEVATION4EAST ELEVATION04'8' 16'04'8' 16'04'8' 16'07/08/20222SOUTH ELEVATION04'8' 16' Page 1 of 7 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8c. City Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Lot Definitions, Fences, and Walls Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-033) Action Required: Approval 60-Day Review Deadline: N/A 1. Request: The City Council is asked to take final action on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to an update within the fence performance standards. 2. Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission reviewed this item at a public hearing on September 1, 2022. No public comments were received. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment with the following changes: - Do not make changes to the existing lot width definition as proposed. - Remove the proposed addition of fences and barriers requirements for swimming pools. 3. Background: In January, the City Council discussed a Zoning Ordinance Amendment request by Larry Allar to allow a 7’ tall fence with nearly 100% opacity to remain at the front property line where a 50’ front yard setback is required for such a fence. The direction at the end of this meeting was for staff to look at amending the definition of “front yard” for corner lots. On June 9th, the City Council discussed options brought forward by staff and provided further direction to redefine front lot line and front yard so that property owners with multiple frontages only have one front yard. The consensus was to base the front lot line for lots with multiple frontages on the front lot line with the shortest width, property address, and primary driveway access. Additionally, staff was directed to amend the code so that fences over 4’ tall and 50% opacity are allowed at a 25’ setback along frontages. There was also discussion about preserving a 30’ traffic visibility triangle (aka clear-view triangle) from intersections and driveways. On August 11, 2022, the Council reviewed a draft ordinance and re-directed staff to continue treating all street frontages as a front lot line. Staff was asked to proceed with updating the performance standards for fences and bring the item to a public hearing with the Planning Commission. 4. Analysis: Page 2 of 7 I. Proposed Changes to Definitions As part of the larger discussion, several lot-related definitions were proposed. Staff believe there is merit in moving forward with the changes to the following three terms of art as part of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment: a. Add “Lot Frontage” as a term. We use the term frontage throughout the code already; however, we do not define frontage. While we can default to the dictionary’s definition, it is a best practice to clearly define how we use the term if we rely on it in our interpretation of Code. LOT FRONTAGE: A lot line abutting the right-of-way of a public street or property/easement line of a private street or private drive. b. Add “Interior Lot Line” as a term. The proposed updates to the fence standards will rely on this term when discussing side and rear lot lines that do not abut a street. The addition of this term simplifies the language in the code update. LOT LINE, INTERIOR: A lot line without frontage. c. Modify the “Lot Width” definition. Staff’s list of code updates includes modifying the definition of lot width to account for challenges in applying this standard along cul-de-sacs. Since a large part of previous discussion was focused on lot-related terms, an updated definition of lot width was presented in the first draft to Council discussed at the August 11th meeting. No concerns with this change in the definition were discussed at that meeting. The current definition means the minimum lot width is measured at the front property line. This makes things difficult for lots on a cul-de-sac, so we often see variances or requests for flexibility from this standard. It is the standard for our Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts to have lots on a cul-de-sac measured at the front setback. When the City finds it is granting variances and flexibility from a similar standard, it is best practice to re-evaluate the code as it applies to everyone. Staff is aware of at least two developers attempting to come in under a straight plat, but they will likely need to turn to a PUD if the lot width definition is not updated to account for lots along a cul-de-sac. The Council and Planning Commission have expressed a desire to see less PUDs, and this small change will help strengthen the underlying code to reduce reliance on PUDs. While the Planning Commission recommended for this definition to be removed from the amendment due to a lack of connection with the rest of the ordinance changes, staff thinks it should remain within the proposed update. All lot-related definitions were re-evaluated in detail and brought forward to the Council prior to the Planning Commission meeting, which explains the relation of the definition to the proposed amendments. Furthermore, the public hearing notice specifically called out changes to lot-related definitions and has already been held. If Council agrees with the updated definition in principle, it would be best to maximize staff resources to avoid holding an additional public hearing on just a definition change for lot width. If the Council does not want to move forward with the definition change, then a motion for Page 3 of 7 approval should include removal of Lot Width from the listed definitions in the amendment. Staff believes the following definition of lot width will help reduce the reliance on variances and PUD flexibility from the existing standard: LOT WIDTH: The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured at the front lot line or ordinary high-water level of the shoreline. For lots on a cul-de-sac, the lot width shall be measured at the required minimum front setback. II. Proposed Changes to Section 1060.080: Fence and Walls The existing performance standards in the “Fences and Walls” section require fences that exceed 4’ in height and 50% opacity to be placed no closer than the minimum required front setback. Privacy fences must meet the front setback on all lots regardless of how many frontages are present. Council’s primary direction at the last meeting was to change the setback for privacy fences along lot frontages to 25’ or the front setback of the zoning district, whichever is less. However, Council directed that privacy fences along county roads should still be measured at the primary structure setback. The Council asked for feedback from the Planning Commission as to whether the privacy fence setback of 100’ should be reduced to 60’ for properties along county roads if they comply with following standards in the “Building Setback Flexibility through Additional Landscaping” clause in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(K): A reduction in the required front setback adjacent to arterial streets may be approved by the City Council if the applicant provides landscaping beyond the minimum requirements or preserves significant landscaping in this area. The required setback may be reduced up to 40 percent if the applicant provides a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, 2 ornamental trees, and 10 understory shrubs per 100 feet of length of the property line where the flexibility is requested, or preserves the equivalent amount of existing trees and shrubs. These materials must be provided in addition to the minimum landscaping requirements. The Planning Commission agreed that it seemed fair to allow property owners along County Roads some relief to the setback standard for fences through the above clause. In addition to the direction from Council, staff had several discussions about the updates to the fence standards. Public Works came up with a few recommendations of their own that they would like considered as part of the discussion and proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. These recommendations primarily involve standards for swimming pool barriers and retaining walls. Planning staff proposes the following changes to meet the goals of the Council and Staff: a. Clarify when encroachment agreements are required in Subd.1(A). Public Works recommends the following language to clarify when encroachment agreements are required for fences and walls: No fences or walls should be placed on or extend into public rights-of-way, easements, or onto public property except by means of an encroachment Page 4 of 7 agreement or other mechanism approved by the City. The approval or denial of such an agreement shall be solely within the City’s discretion. b. Require adequate access for maintenance in Subd.1(C). Public Works recommends the following verbiage change to require adequate access for the maintenance of fences and walls as an attempt to minimize conflicts along shared property lines: Both sides of any fence or wall shall be constructed to allow for adequate access and maintenance and shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance by its owner and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. c. Change the threshold for a zoning permit review in Subd. 1(E). Right now, the Ordinance requires a zoning permit for all fences placed within 6’ of a property line. This allows for Planning, Public Works, and Engineering to review fences plans and require any changes to the plan when there are concerns (e.g., impacts of upcoming roadway improvement projects, utility installations, crucial drainage and utility (D&U) easements, and protection of drainage patterns and wetlands). However, staff believes the 6’ threshold was already arbitrary since it does not account for our standard D&U easement width of 10’ or the unstandardized location of wetlands in general. Since the proposed amendments will allow additional flexibility for privacy fences along frontages that were previously protected by a significant setback, staff believes it is crucial to increase the threshold for review. Although changes to the fence type or placement can be required or recommended through the zoning permit process, the goal is not to deny fences but to avoid the future removal of a fence at the property owner’s expense when an entity needs to access an easement or drainage patterns are disrupted. This is largely avoided by denying a permit for a fence that is proposed to block a crucial drainage corridor and/or access to an area that staff is certain we will need to access in the foreseeable future. We work with property owners to make adjustments with the ultimate goal of approval in mind. This process is also a chance to make sure property owners are aware that even if a fence is allowed within an easement now, there will always be a chance the fence will need to be taken down for access at a future date. They sign off on the permit that provides this disclosure which acts as a type of encroachment agreement that the City can keep on file as documentation if there is ever a misunderstanding in the future. Staff proposes the following threshold in Subd. 1(E): A permit is required for all fences (except hedges and plantings) or walls to be constructed on or within a drainage and utility or ponding easement, 25-feet from lot frontages, and 10 feet from interior lot lines, A certificate of survey may be required, unless corner stakes are in place and marked and a survey is filed with the City. Additionally, retaining walls shall not be placed within any drainage or ponding easement unless also reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. d. Modify the Specific Fence Standards in Subd. 1(G). The proposed changes below accomplish the 25’ setback from frontages for privacy fences unless along a County Page 5 of 7 Road, removes clauses that now appear redundant, and specifies the traffic visibility triangle standard from intersections and driveways. The Planning Commission confirmed a desire to allow for lots with frontages along a County Road to be able to reduce the setback for privacy fences from 100’ to 60’ with additional landscaping. 1. Fences constructed of materials with opacity of up to 100% and not exceeding 7 feet in height may be located no closer than 25 feet to lot frontages or the principal structure setback of the underlying zoning district, whichever is less, except when the lot frontage is along an arterial road. The setback along an arterial road is 100 feet but can be reduced to 60 feet with additional landscaping, as provided in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(K). 5. No fence shall interfere with a 30-foot sight visibility triangle, as defined by Section 1060.090, Subd. 2, from intersections and driveways on the property and adjacent properties. e. Consider adding performance standards for swimming pool fences and barriers as Subd. 1(H). Staff is regularly asked whether swimming pools and hot tubs/spas require a fence. The current code does not require pools or spas to have a security fence. Public Works believes now is a good opportunity to discuss performance standards for swimming pool barriers and add verbiage into the Zoning Ordinance if such standards are desired. The Planning Commission’s motion to remove this portion of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment was contingent on whether the proposed amendments were duplicate to what is required by state law. Since the meeting, staff confirmed that the MN Administrative Rule requiring fences around pools is only applicable to public pools. The exact verbiage is attached to this report. Additionally, the Minnesota Building Code excludes sections from the International Building Code related to swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs. This largely leaves it up to cities to decide how barriers for private/residential pools are regulated. The proposed amendment would apply to private and public pools and spas. Therefore, the attached ordinance still includes a newly added paragraph H for swimming pool fences. If the Council does not want to add this verbiage to the fence standards, then a motion to approve the ordinance should include removal of paragraph H regarding swimming pool fences and barriers. Below are the standards Public Works recommends for the Council’s consideration if fences/barriers for swimming pools and spas are desired: H. Swimming Pool Fences and Barriers 1. All fences and barriers for swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas, as defined by the Minnesota Building Code, shall comply with the following regulations: a. All permanent swimming pools, including inground pools and aboveground pools, shall be surrounded by a fence or wall not less than 4 feet in height, and with openings, holds, or gaps no greater than 4 inches in either vertical or horizontal direction. b. The fence shall be a type not readily climbed by children. c. A building or accessory building may be used as part of the enclosure. Page 6 of 7 d. All gates or doors to such enclosure shall be equipped with a self-closing and self-latching devise for keeping the gate or door securely closed at all times when not in actual use and shall be provided with hardware for permanent locking devises, except that the door of any dwelling which forms a part of the enclosure need not be so equipped. Pool gates shall be locked when the pool is not in use. 2. Exemptions a. Swimming pools or spas for which a building permit has been approved on or before the effective date of this Section. b. Swimming pools or spas secured with a code compliant safety cover as determined by the Building Official. c. An aboveground pool with a wall greater than 4 feet in height does not require a fence if the wall cannot be readily climbed by children and the pool can be secured while not in actual use. f. Add Specific Wall Standards as Subd. 1(I). With ongoing development activities, Public Works is regularly fielding requests for retaining walls placed along trails and sidewalks. Public Works would like to establish clear standards for review of retaining walls. There is a particular concern about the lack of standards for retaining walls where there is a drop-off of more than 2.5’ when it is located within the right-of-way or within five feet of paths accessible to the public. In such cases, Public Works would like the Zoning Ordinance to require a permanent barrier (such as a fence) on top of the retaining wall. Public Works proposes the following standards: I. Specific Wall Standards. Except as otherwise provided herein, walls may be allowed subject to the following specific standards: 1. All retaining walls shall comply with the regulations in the Minnesota State Building Code as amended. 2. All walls adjacent to wetlands shall be setback in accordance with Section 1050.010 of the City Code as well as State and Federal wetland buffer regulations as amended. 3. A permanent barrier shall be required at the top of retaining walls if the height of the drop-off is greater than 30 inches and the top edge of the drop-off is located in a right-of-way or within five feet of a public sidewalk, trail, or other public area deemed to pose a hazard. The barrier shall be included as part of the engineered design where applicable. 4. All walls shall be maintained in sound and good repair and free from loose boards/blocks/boulder, breaks, or gaps not otherwise intended in the original design of the wall. The wall shall be free from any defects or condition which makes the wall hazardous. 5. All wooden walls shall be made of treated or decay resistant wood. Page 7 of 7 6. All walls shall be accompanied with an appropriate drainage system to adequately relieve water pressure behind the wall and provide for property drainage. 5. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance, Summary Ordinance, and Resolution approving Findings of Fact. If Council agrees with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to remove the lot width definition change as well as the added provisions for swimming pool barriers, then the Council would make a motion to approve the ordinance with the following changes: 1. Under Section 1 of the proposed Ordinance, remove Lot Width from the listed definitions. 2. Under Section 2 of the proposed Ordinance, remove paragraph H in Subd. 1 regarding “Swimming Pool Fences and Barriers.” The Ordinance and Resolution with Findings of Fact require a 3/5 vote. The Summary Ordinance requires a 4/5 vote. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 2022-465 Amending Sections 1020.020 and 1060.080 of the Zoning Ordinance 2. Ordinance 2022-466 for Summary Ordinance for Publication 3. Resolution 2022-113 Approving Findings of Fact 4. Minnesota Administrative Rule 4717.1550 – 4717.1575 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota September 22, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-465 Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF SECTIONS 1020.020 AND 1060.080 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE RELATED TO LOT DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR FENCES AND WALLS (CITY FILE 22-033) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1020.020 of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by removing the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: 1020.020 – DEFINITIONS LOT, FRONTAGE: A lot line abutting the right-of-way of a public street or property/easement line of a private street or private drive. LOT LINE, INTERIOR: A lot line that does not qualify as a lot frontage. LOT WIDTH: The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured at the front lot line or ordinary high-water level of the shoreline. For lots on a cul-de-sac, the lot width shall be measured at the required minimum front setback. SECTION 2. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1060.080 of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by removing the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: 1060.080 - FENCES AND WALLS Subd. 1. General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided herein, all fences and walls within the City shall be subject to the following general provisions: A. No fences or walls shall be placed on or extend into public rights-of-way., easements, or onto public property except by means of an encroachment agreement or other mechanism approved by the City. The approval or denial of such an agreement shall be solely within the City’s discretion. B. That side of any fence or wall considered to be its “face” (i.e., the finished side having no structural supports) shall face abutting property or street right-of-way. C. Both sides of any fence or wall shall be constructed to allow for adequate access and maintenance and shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance by its owner and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. D. No physical damage of any kind shall occur to abutting property during installation unless it is allowed under agreement with the adjacent property owner. City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota September 22, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-465 Page 2 of 4 E. A permit is required for all fences (except hedges and plantings) or walls to be constructed on or within a drainage and utility or ponding easement, 25-feet from lot frontages, and 10 feet from interior lot lines. A certificate of survey may be required unless corner property stakes are in place and marked and a survey is filed with the City. Additionally, retaining walls shall not be placed within any drainage or ponding easement unless also reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. F. A building permit is required for the following: 1. Fences over 7 feet in height, measured from grade to the top of fence, shall require a building permit. 2. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height, measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, or 3. Retaining walls supporting a surcharge of impounding Class I, II, or III-A liquids. G. Specific Fence Standards. Except as otherwise provided herein, fences may be allowed subject to the following specific standards: 1. Fences constructed of materials with opacity of up to 100% and not exceeding 7 feet in height may be located no closer than 25 feet to lot frontages or the principal structure setback of the underlying zoning district, whichever is less, except when the lot frontage is along a County Road. The setback along a County Road is 100 feet but can be reduced to 60 feet with additional landscaping, as provided in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(K). at or behind the minimum front setback line, as required for the principal structure on the lot. 2. Fences with opacity of less than 50% (e.g., wrought iron, chain link, split rail) and not exceeding 4 feet in height may be located within a required front yard area. 3. Fences over 7 feet in height shall meet all building setback requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. 4. Fences not exceeding 7 feet in height, for uses other than one- and two-family dwellings, may be permitted in front of the front building line as established by the primary structure on the lot, when required for screening of adjacent property. In such cases, the required front setback for the fence shall be the same as for the use that it is intended to buffer. 5. On corner lots or lots adjacent to railroad rights-of-way, no No fence shall interfere with be located in a 30-foot sight visibility triangle, as defined by Section 1060.090, Subd. 2, from intersections and driveways on the property and adjacent properties. unless it is in compliance with the sight clearance requirements for such lots as set forth in this Chapter. 6. Fences which include a security gate at a point where access is provided to the property and principal building may be approved if necessary and appropriate as part of the site plan review. City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota September 22, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-465 Page 3 of 4 7. Fences for agricultural uses on properties at least 10 acres in size are not subject to the requirements of this Section. H. Swimming Pool Fences and Barriers 1. All fences and barriers for swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas, as defined by the Minnesota Building Code, shall comply with the following regulations: a. All permanent swimming pools, include inground pools and aboveground pools, shall be surrounded by a fence or wall not less than 4 feet in height, and with openings, holes, or gaps no greater than 4 inches in either vertical or horizontal direction. b. The fence shall be a type not readily climbed by children. c. A building or accessory building may be used as part of the enclosure. d. All gates or doors to such enclosure shall be equipped with a self-closing and self-latching devise for keeping the gate or door securely closed at all times when not in actual use and shall be provided with hardware for permanent locking devises, except that the door of any dwelling which forms a part of the enclosure need not be so equipped. Pool gates shall be locked when the pool is not in use. 2. Exemptions: a. Swimming pools or spas for which a building permit has been approved on or before the effective date of this Section. b. Swimming pools or spas secured with a code compliant safety cover as determined by the Building Official. c. An aboveground pool with a wall greater than 4 feet in height does not require a fence if the wall cannot be readily climbed by children and the pool can be secured while not in actual use. I. Specific Wall Standards. Except as otherwise provided herein, landscape and retaining walls may be allowed subject to the following specific standards: 1. All retaining walls shall comply with the regulations in the Minnesota State Building Code as amended. 2. All walls adjacent to wetlands shall be setback in accordance with Section 1050.010 of the City Code as well as State and Federal wetland buffer regulations as amended. 3. A permanent barrier shall be required at the top of retaining walls if the height of the drop-off is greater than 30 inches and the top edge of the drop-off is located in a right-of-way or within five feet of a public sidewalk, trail, or other public area deemed to pose a hazard. The barrier shall be included as part of the engineered design where applicable. 4. All walls shall be maintained in sound and good repair and free from loose boards/blocks/boulders, breaks, or gaps not otherwise intended in the original design of the wall. The wall shall be free from any defects or condition which makes the wall hazardous. 5. All wooden walls shall be made of treated or decay resistant wood. City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota September 22, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-465 Page 4 of 4 6. All walls shall be accompanied with an appropriate drainage system to adequately relieve water pressure behind the wall and provide for proper drainage. SECTION 3. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 22nd day of September 2022. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Page 1 of 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-466 Motion By: Seconded By: CITY OF CORCORAN SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2022-465 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE RELATED TO LOT DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR FENCES AND WALLS (CITY FILE 22-033) Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, is hereby amended to revise various lot-related definitions and performance standards for fences and walls within the Zoning Ordinance of the Corcoran City Code. A printed copy of the entire amendment is available for inspection by any person at City Hall during the City Clerk’s regular office hours. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-113 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1020.020 AND 1060.080 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE REALTED TO LOT DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR FENCES AND WALLS. (CITY FILE 22-033) WHEREAS, the City has an interest in regulating fences to reduce conflict with easements and the circulation of traffic, light, and air; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to decrease the front setback for fences that exceed 4’ in height and 50% opacity; and WHEREAS, the proposed definitions of “Lot Frontage” and “Interior Lot Line” added to Section 1020.020 of the City Code provide clarity as to the proper interpretation of the terms of art in Section 1060.080 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the amended definition of “Lot Width” will address difficulties in applying the pre- existing definition to lots along a cul-de-sac; and WHEREAS, City Staff recommends increasing the threshold of zoning review for fences to account for various easements, drainage patterns, and impending improvements projects; and WHEREAS, the existing performance standards did not include standards for swimming pool and spa barriers as well as landscape and retaining walls; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, that it does approve an amendment to Title X (Zoning Ordinance) of the City Code to amend the regulation of lots, fences, and walls, based on the following findings: 1. The amendments will provide more flexibility for property owners that would like to place a privacy fence in their front yard. 2. The amendments will provide more flexibility for property owners that have more than one lot frontage. 3. The amendments protect the character of streetscapes for residents within neighborhoods. 4. The amendments will reduce the number of variances and Planned Unit Development flexibility requests related to lot width and fence placement. City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-113 Page 2 of 2 5. The amendments will reduce the amount and extent of code violations related to privacy fences. 6. The amendments establish standards and provide guidance for swimming pool and spa barriers as well as walls. 7. The amendments remove an arbitrary standard for Zoning review of fences, and the new standard will better allow for staff to analyze proposed fence placements and educate property owners on conflicts with easements, drainage, and impending improvement projects. 8. The amendments are consistent with other City Code standards and City policies. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director 1 REVISOR 4717.1550 4717.1550 POOL ACCESS RESTRICTION;FENCING. Subpart 1.General.Access to a public pool must be controlled to effectively prevent the entrance of children. A.Where fencing is used to control access,it must comply with subparts 2 to 6 except as noted in item B,subitem (2). B.Access to a public pool within a building or enclosure must be controlled: (1)by locating the pool in a separate room with self-latching doors that restrict access to the room;or (2)with fencing or a comparable barrier which is at least four feet high and has self-closing,self-latching doors or gates. Exception:poolside guest rooms,corridors adjacent to poolside guest rooms,and poolside activity areas may be within the pool enclosure. Subp.2.Fencing.Fencing must: A.be at least five feet high; B.be equipped with self-closing,self-latching gates capable of being locked; C.not have any opening greater than four inches; D.not have any opening greater than two inches below the fence;and E.not be a readily climbable design. Subp.3.Existing four-foot fencing.Fencing in existence prior to January 4,1995, that is less than five feet high must: A.be no less than four feet high; B.be equipped with self-closing,self-latching gates capable of being locked; C.not have any opening greater than four inches;and D.not be a readily climbable design. Subp.4.Wading pools.Fencing for a wading pool enclosure must be at least 42 inches high for existing installations and 48 inches high for new installations. Subp.5.Chain link fencing.New chain link fencing must not exceed 1-1/2 inch mesh for fencing less than eight feet high.New chain link fencing eight foot high or higher must have mesh which does not exceed two inches. Subp.6.Latches.Latches for new installations must be four feet above the ground. Statutory Authority:MS s 144.05;144.12;144.123;145A.02;157.01 History:19 SR 1419;19 SR 1637 Copyright ©2009 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 2 REVISOR 4717.1550 Published Electronically:May 11,2009 Copyright ©2009 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 1 REVISOR 4717.1575 4717.1575 POOL COVERS. If a pool cover is used,any new cover must comply with ASTM Standard F1346-91. A.Pool covers must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition to preclude contamination of the pool water. B.If the deck area is accessible when the cover is in place,a fully secured safety cover must be used. C.A pool cover may not be used in lieu of a fence or other access restrictions required by part 4717.1550. Statutory Authority:MS s 144.05;144.12;144.123;145A.02;157.01 History:19 SR 1419;19 SR 1637 Published Electronically:May 11,2009 Copyright ©2009 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 9a. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: City Center Drive & 79th Place Mass Grading and Stormwater Improvements – Cost Share Agreement Action Required: Approval Summary: Staff has been working with St. Therese to look at the most efficient way to grade the City’s property and the St. Therese site for the required road and storm water improvements. Staff has worked with St. Therese to create a cost share agreement for the City Center Drive & 79th Place Mass Grading and Stormwater Improvements project. The agreements outline the costs of the grading and storm water improvements project and how they are split between costs between the City and St. Therese . In review of the grading and stormwater projects, the City would pay 45% of the costs and St. Therese would pay 55%. Over the last several weeks, the City Attorney has been working with St. Therese to finalize changes to accommodate requests due to financing constraints. The City attorney is reviewing the final draft with St. Therese and anticipates having drafts out before the meeting on Thursday. Financial/Budget: The cost estimate outlines the City portion of the costs would be approximately $865,000. The City received $670,500 for the sale of the City’s land. The gap of approximately $195,000. The gap in the project could be potentially funded as part of the City’s next bond issuance or from the Long-Range Planning Fund or out of reserves. The bond conduit administration fee could also go towards the gap. Options: 1. Approve the City Center Drive & 79th Place Mass Grading and Stormwater Improvements – Cost Share Agreement 2. Amend the City Center Drive & 79th Place Mass Grading and Stormwater Improvements – Cost Share Agreement 3. Send back to staff for further review. 4. Decline to approve the amendment. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the agreement. Council Action: Consider a motion to approve the agreement as presented. Attachments: 1. Cost Share Agreement – Final Version to Be Provided by the City Attorney STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 9b. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Request for Bond Conduit Financing or Host Approval Action Required: Direction Summary: The City of Corcoran approved a land purchase and final plat for St. Therese , a continuum of care facility which incorporates independent living and assisted living. St. Therese asked for formal consideration of serving as bond conduit for the project or if the City is not interested in serving as bond conduit to allow for host approval for the project. At the September 8th Council meeting Council discussed the options and suggested tabling the item to consider the item further. Staff was directed to prepare a resolution to prepare for an issuance and also a resolution authorizing host approval. Staff has worked with Bond Counsel to prepare options for a Bond Conduit Policy. Option 1 is the policy the City started drafting in 2016 but was not approved. Option 2 and Option 3 are paired down versions of a policy. As staff finalize the policy, there are a few policy options to consider: 1. What to charge for the administrative fee? a. Should this be a range or a set number? (.5%-1.25% of the cost of issuance) 2. Whether it will charge a fee for a refunding or refinancing ? a. Staff would encourage this because staff time would still be involved. 3. For publicly offered bonds, should there be a denomination requirement and/or a requirement that bonds have a specific credit rating? a. Some cities include rating requirements or denomination limits. 4. Should it charge an application fee for host approval? 5. What does the City want to require in an application? Bond Counsel is planning on attending the meeting for specific questions. Attached is also an IRS information document Councilor Bottema came across that outlines the role of municipalities in conduit financing. Financial/Budget: The $50,000 fee for this issuance is not budgeted. This revenue is not restricted and could be placed into the City’s general fund. Staff would recommend utilizing the fee in this instance to assist with the gap from the City Center Drive & 79th Place Mass Grading and Stormwater Improvements project. Options: Page 2 1. Adopt a Resolution 2022-115 Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on a Housing Program and the Issuance of Conduit Revenue Bonds and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of Public Hearing (Saint Therese of Corcoran Project); discuss the bond conduit policy and direct staff to bring a final version for adoption forward at the October 13, 2022 meeting. 2. Adopt Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing or the Purpose of Providing Host Approval for the Issuance of Conduit Revenue Bonds for the Benefit of Saint Therese of Corcoran, LLC and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of the Hearing (Saint Therese of Corcoran Project); discuss the bond conduit policy and direct staff to bring a final version for adoption forward at the October 13, 2022 meeting. 3. Decline to act, which would impact financing for the Saint Therese of Corcoran Project. Recommendation: Staff is comfortable moving forward with moving forward as a conduit or as a host. Staff recommends discussing the Bond Conduit Financing Policy option 2 with the following: • The administrative fee no less than .075% and no more than 1.25% of the cost of issuance. • The administrative fee for refinancing or refunding bonds • Add a requirement for an application and application fee to be submitted. Staff recommends incorporating the feedback from Council into a final version of the bond conduit policy for adoption at the October 13, 2022 meeting. Council Action: Consider at motion to approve Resolution 2022-115 – Option 1 or Option 2 as presented; discuss the bond conduit policy and direct staff to bring a final version for adoption forward at the October 13, 2022 meeting. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2022-115 Option 1 – Issuance of Conduit Revenue Bonds 2. Resolution 2022-115 Option 2 – Host Approval for the Issuance of Conduit Revenue Bonds 3. Bond Conduit Financing Policy – Option 1 4. Bond Conduit Financing Policy – Option 2 5. Bond Conduit Financing Policy – Option 3 6. IRS Information Sheet- Conduit Financing City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-115 OPTION 1 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A HOUSING PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF CONDUIT REVENUE BONDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (SAINT THERESE OF CORCORAN PROJECT) WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), municipalities are authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by providing for the issuance of revenue bonds to provide funds to finance multifamily housing developments (including facilities that are a combination of multifamily housing developments and health care facilities); and WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran, Minnesota (the “City”), has received from Saint Therese of Corcoran, LLC, a Minnesota nonprofit limited liability company, or an affiliate thereof or entity related thereto (the “Borrower”), whose sole member is Saint Therese Communities, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and tax exempt organization pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the “Corporation”), a proposal that the City undertake a program to assist in financing a Project hereinafter described, through the issuance of conduit revenue bonds or obligations, in one or more series as taxable or tax-exempt obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $50,000,000 (the “Bonds”) pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the City to the Borrower to (i) finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a senior living campus including approximately 99 independent living apartments, 34 assisted living apartments and 20 memory care apartments, and related common areas, facilities and amenities, to be located south of City Hall on approximately 13 acres located at 8200 County Road Number 116 near the intersection of County Road 10 and County Road 116 (Fletcher Lane) in the City (the “Project”); (ii) fund all or a portion of the capitalized interest for the Bonds, if necessary; (iii) fund a debt service reserve for the Bonds, if necessary; and (iv) pay the costs of issuance for the Bonds. The Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower; and WHEREAS, as a condition to the issuance of the Bonds, the City must adopt a housing program providing the information required by Section 462C.03, subdivision 1a of the Act (the “Housing Program”); and WHEREAS, under Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the City Council must conduct a public hearing after one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally in the City at least 7 days before the hearing. Under Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Act, a public hearing must be held on the Housing Program after one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally in the City at least 15 days before the hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Corcoran, as follows: 1. A public hearing on the proposal of the Borrower will be held at a time and place chosen by the City Administrator. Notice of such hearing (the “Public Notice”) will be published City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-115 OPTION 1 Page 2 of 2 and/or posted as required by Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Act and Section 147(f) of the Code. 2. Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as bond counsel to the City (“Bond Counsel”), is hereby authorized and directed to publish the Public Notice, in substantially the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT A with such changes as approved by city staff, in the official newspaper of the City and in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, at least 15 days before the meeting of the City Council at which the public hearing will take place. 3. Bond Counsel is authorized to prepare and draft a Housing Program to authorize the issuance by the City of the Bonds to provide financing for the Project by the Borrower. Bond Counsel is authorized and directed to submit the Housing Program to Metropolitan Council for review and comment pursuant to Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Housing Act 4. The Borrower will pay the administrative fee of the City at closing on the Bonds and pay, or, upon demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the proposed financing, whether or not the Bonds are issued. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF CORCORAN I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Corcoran, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to calling for a public hearing on a housing program and the issuance of the City’s revenue bonds for the benefit of Saint Therese of Corcoran, LLC, or an affiliate thereof. WITNESS my hand this ____ day of September, 2022. ______________________________________ City Clerk EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A HOUSING PROGRAM AND A PROPOSAL FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CONDUIT REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE A HOUSING PROJECT (SAINT THERESE OF CORCORAN PROJECT) Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota (the “City”), will meet in the City Council Chambers at the Corcoran City Hall, located at 8200 County Road 116, in the City, at 7:00 p.m. on [________], 2022, to consider the proposal of Saint Therese of Corcoran, LLC, a Minnesota nonprofit limited liability company (the “Borrower”), whose sole member is Saint Therese Communities, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and tax exempt organization pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or an affiliate thereof or entity related thereto (the “Corporation”), that the City issue tax exempt or taxable conduit revenue obligations in one or more series and adopt a housing program for such bonds for the Project hereinafter described all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C. The revenue bonds or other obligations (the “Bonds”) proposed to be issued would be used by the Borrower to (i) finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a senior living campus including approximately 99 independent living apartments, 34 assisted living apartments and 20 memory care apartments, and related common areas, facilities and amenities, to be located south of City Hall on approximately 13 acres located at 8200 County Road Number 116 near the intersection of County Road 10 and County Road 116 (Fletcher Lane) in the City (the “Project”); (ii) fund all or a portion of the capitalized interest for the Bonds, if necessary; (iii) fund a debt service reserve for the Bonds, if necessary; and (iv) pay the costs of issuance for the Bonds. The Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower. The maximum aggregate estimated principal amount of bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the Project will be $50,000,000. After the public hearing, the City will consider a resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds to finance the Project and the approval of the housing program. The Bonds, if and when issued, will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance upon any property of the City except its interest in the Project and revenues to be paid by the Borrower. Such Bonds will be special, limited revenue obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues expressly pledged to the payment thereof, will not constitute a general or moral obligation of the City, and will not be a charge against the City’s general credit or taxing powers, but will be payable solely from revenues or collateral to be paid or provided by the Borrower pursuant to a revenue agreement. A copy of the housing program will be on file at City Hall, 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, Minnesota 55340, Monday through Friday until the date of the public hearing. At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council of the City will give all persons who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal. Written comments will be considered if submitted at City Hall on or before the date of the hearing. [Publish ______, 2022] City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-115 OPTION 2 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing or the Purpose of Providing Host Approval for the Issuance of Conduit Revenue Bonds for the Benefit of Saint Therese of Corcoran, LLC and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of the Hearing (Saint Therese Of Corcoran Project) WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), municipalities are authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by providing for the issuance of revenue bonds to provide funds to finance multifamily housing developments (including facilities that are a combination of multifamily housing developments and health care facilities); and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, as amended, authorizes a municipality to issue obligations to finance the acquisition or improvement of property located outside of the corporate boundaries of such municipality if the obligations are issued under a joint powers agreement between the municipalities issuing the obligations and the municipality in which the property to be acquired or improved is located. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended, by the terms of a joint powers agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies, two or more municipalities may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar powers, including those which are the same except for the territorial limits within which they may be exercised and the joint powers agreement may provide for the exercise of such powers by one or more of the participating governmental units on behalf of the other participating units; and WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran, Minnesota (the “City”), has received from Saint Therese of Corcoran, LLC, a Minnesota nonprofit limited liability company, or an affiliate thereof or entity related thereto (the “Borrower”), whose sole member is Saint Therese Communities, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and tax exempt organization pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the “Corporation”), a proposal that the City provide host approval for the issuance of conduit revenue bonds (in one or more series) (the “Bonds”) by one or more cities, as defined by Section 462C.02, subdivision 6 of the Act, to be selected by the Borrower (the “Issuer”), pursuant to the Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 471.59 and 471.656, as amended (the “Joint Powers Act”), and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the Issuer to the Borrower to (i) finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a senior living campus including approximately 99 independent living apartments, 34 assisted living apartments and 20 memory care apartments, and related common areas, facilities and amenities, to be located south of City Hall on approximately 13 acres located at 8200 County Road Number 116 near the intersection of County Road 10 and County Road 116 (Fletcher Lane) in the City (the “Project”); (ii) fund all or a portion of the capitalized interest for the Bonds, if necessary; (iii) fund a debt service reserve for the Bonds, if necessary; and (iv) pay the costs of issuance for the Bonds. The Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower; and City of Corcoran September 22, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-115 OPTION 2 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, the City has been advised that a public hearing and City Council approval of the financing of the Project are needed under the Act, the Joint Powers Act and Section 147(f) of the Code because the facilities to be financed by the Bonds are located in the City: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, as follows: 1.A public hearing on the proposal of the Borrower will be held at the time and place selected by the City Administrator. Notice of such hearing (the “Public Notice”) will be published and/or posted as required by Section 147(f) of the Code. 2.Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as bond counsel to the City (“Bond Counsel”), is hereby authorized and directed to publish the Public Notice, in substantially the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT A with such changes as approved by city staff, in the official newspaper of the City and in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, at least 7 days before the meeting of the City Council at which the public hearing will take place. 3.The Borrower will pay, or, upon demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the proposed financing, whether or not the Bonds are issued. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of September 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTIES OF HENNEPIN ) SS. ) CITY OF CORCORAN ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”), do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council held on September 22, 2022 with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance of conduit revenue bonds for a project in the City. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk this ______ day of September, 2022. City Clerk EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE CITY OF CORCORAN WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF CONDUIT REVENUE OBLIGATIONS BY THE CITY OF _________ FOR THE BENEFIT OF SAINT THERESE OF CORCORAN, LLC Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota (the “City”) will hold a public hearing at the Corcoran City Hall, located at 8200 County Road 116 in the City, at 7:00 p.m. on [__________], 2022 to consider a proposal that the City grant host city approval to the issuance by the City of _______, Minnesota (the “Issuer”) of conduit revenue obligations, in one or more series (the “Bonds”), under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 471.59 and 471.656, as amended, (the “Act”), in order to finance the cost of a project located in the City. Saint Therese of Corcoran, LLC, a Minnesota nonprofit limited liability company (the “Borrower”), whose sole member is Saint Therese Communities, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and tax exempt organization pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or an affiliate thereof or entity related thereto (the “Corporation”) proposes to use the proceeds of the Bonds to (i) finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a senior living campus including approximately 99 independent living apartments, 34 assisted living apartments and 20 memory care apartments, and related common areas, facilities and amenities, to be located south of City Hall on approximately 13 acres located at 8200 County Road Number 116 near the intersection of County Road 10 and County Road 116 (Fletcher Lane) in the City (the “Project”); (ii) fund all or a portion of the capitalized interest for the Bonds, if necessary; (iii) fund a debt service reserve for the Bonds, if necessary; and (iv) pay the costs of issuance for the Bonds. The Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower. The maximum estimated principal amount of the Bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the Project is $50,000,000. The Bonds will be special, limited obligations of the Issuer, and the Bonds and interest thereon will be payable solely from the revenues and assets pledged to the payment thereof. No holder of any Bonds will ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of the City. The Bonds are to be payable solely from revenues and security provided by the Borrower and pledged to the payment of the Bonds. At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council will give all persons who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal. Written comments will be considered if submitted at City Hall on or before the date of the hearing. [Publish ______, 2022] DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATION TO CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BOND FINANCING Draft for City Council discussion Effective as of _____________, 20__ Model Policy 1 DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 1 PART I GENERAL Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.1651 (the “Industrial Development Act”), the City of Corcoran has authority to issue revenue bonds or notes to attract or promote economically sound industry and commerce to the City. Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the “Housing Act”), the City is authorized to issue housing revenue bonds to finance multi-family residential housing projects for low and moderate income persons and elderly persons. Projects must be embodied in a Housing Program as that term is defined in the Housing Act. The Council is aware that such financing for certain private activities may be of benefit to the City and will consider requests for tax-exempt financing subject to these Guidelines. The Council considers tax-exempt financing to be a privilege, not a right. It is the judgment of the Council that tax-exempt financing is to be used on a selective basis to encourage certain development that offers a benefit to the City as a whole, including significant employment and housing opportunities. It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the benefit to the City, both in writing and at the required public hearing. The applicant should understand that although approval may have been granted by the City for the issuance of financing for a similar project or a similar debt structure, that is not a basis upon which approval will be granted. Each application will be judged on the merits of the project as it relates to the public purposes of the Housing Act or the Industrial Development Act and the benefit to the City at the time the request for financing is being considered. DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 2 PART II GUIDELINES 1.The Council will consider tax-exempt financing for commercial, industrial, health care, and any other projects authorized to be financed under the Industrial Development Act (referred to as “non-housing projects”), and housing or combined healthcare and housing projects under the Housing Act. An applicant for tax-exempt financing for must submit to the City the application contained in Part IV of these Guidelines. 2.Projects must be compatible with the overall development plans and objectives of the City and comply with the zoning and land use regulations of the City. 3.An application will not be considered by the Council until tentative City Code findings and requirements have been made with respect to zoning, concept building plans, platting, streets, and utility services. The application must be accompanied by the addendum contained in Part V of these Guidelines and must provide information as to the project’s need for municipal services including, but not limited to, street improvements, water and sewer services, and police and fire protection. 4.The project must be a positive benefit to the City. The project must be of a nature that the City wishes to attract, or an existing business which the City wishes to have expand within the City, considering employment opportunities, incentive for further development, impact on City services, and support for the industrial, commercial or health care or educational facilities currently located in the City. A housing project must provide significant housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons or the elderly. 5.The City will, if requested, grant an applicant a pre-application review. The purpose of the pre-application review is to inform applicants of the possibility of rejection or the possible bases for such rejection. The fact that the project is not reject ed at the pre-application stage is not to be construed as approval of the project or as an indication that the project will be approved upon formal request to the Council. Requests for tax-exempt financing may be rejected by the City whether or not the project was submitted to a pre-application review and regardless of the outcome or recommendation of that pre-application review. A request for pre-application review must be in writing, addressed to the City Administrator, and set forth the name of the project, the type of project intended and the name, address and telephone number of the person who will be representing the applicant at the pre-application review, together with such additional information as the applicant desires to submit. 6.The applicant may select a qualified financial adviser or underwriter to assist the applicant in preparing all necessary application documents and materials. The financial adviser will submit a letter that establishes the financial feasibility of the project. Applications may, in the alternative, include a signed letter from a responsible financial institution that plans on purchasing the tax- exempt obligations indicating that the project is economically feasible and viable and stating that bonds can be successfully sold for the project or that an individual or institution intends to purchase all of the bonds. The City will appoint bond counsel for the bond issue, which will normally be the City’s regularly retained bond counsel. DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 3 7. Pursuant to the Industrial Development Act and the Housing Act, consideration of an application for tax-exempt financing must be done at a public hearing held by the Council unless federal and state law allow for the issuance of bonds without a public hearing. 8. The City is to be reimbursed and held harmless for and from any out-of-pocket expenses related to the tax-exempt financing including, but not limited to, legal fees, financial analyst fees, bond counsel fees, the City staff’s expenses in connection with the application, and any deposits or application fees required under state law in order to secure allocation of bonding authority. The applicant must execute a letter to the City undertaking to pay all such expenses. A form of the required letter is set forth as Part VI of these Guidelines. A non-refundable application fee in the amount [of $_________] must be included with the submission of the application. 9. The City charges an administrative fee for the issuance of tax-exempt obligations. TBD 10. Should the tax exempt financing request cause the City’s total bonding for the year to exceed $10,000,000 in a year that the City would otherwise be eligible to issue bank qualified bonds, (bonds with tax incentives to banks), any interest rate differential between bank qualified and non-bank qualified bonds shall be estimated and the difference paid by the borrower as calculated by the City’s municipal advisor. If the proposed conduit bonds would not impact the City’s bank qualified bonds or ability to issue future bank qualified bonds, no differential would be calculated or paid by the borrower. 11. Applications for financing must be made on the forms attached to these Guidelines. In addition, the applicant must furnish a description of the project, a brief description of applicant and the proposed financing in such form as required at the time of application. 12. The Council may, in its sole discretion, impose conditions exceeding those required under the City building code in respect to exterior building materials, lands caping, signage lighting, and such other aspects as the Council may consider appropriate on a case-by-case basis. DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 4 PART III MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS 1. Ratings. [The City will give its most favorable consideration to proposed tax-exempt bond issues that have the same rating as the City’s obligations by Moody’s Investment Service or Standard & Poor’s Corporation. Issues carrying lower ratings or non-rated issues will include (i) a requirement that all sales of the bonds are to be made in minimum denominations of $100,000; and (ii) a requirement that all initial sales of bonds are to be made to Qualified Institutional Buyers or Accredited Investors (as such terms are defined in federal securities regulations).] 2. Refundings. The Council will normally approve the refunding of a tax-exempt issue but only upon a showing by the applicant of (i) substantial debt service savings, (ii) the removal of bond covenants significantly impairing the financial feasibility of the project, or (iii) both (i) and (ii). In the case of refundings of bonds, the administrative fees listed in paragraph 9 of Part II must be paid. 3. Subsequent Proceedings. Where changes to the underlying documents or credit facilities of outstanding bond issues are to be made and require Council action (including changes that are a “deemed reissuance” under Internal Revenue Service regulations), no administrative fee is charged but a non-refundable fee as specified in the current fee schedule must be paid to the City to cover administrative costs. No formal application form is required. 4. Issue by Another Political Subdivision. The City will consider requests for tax-exempt financing of projects in the City by other political subdivisions. [In these cases the non-refundable application fee must be paid.] No administrative fee is charged, except actual costs incurred by the City must be reimbursed. 5. City Contact. Initial contacts about tax-exempt financing are made by contacting: By Mail: In Person: City Administrator City Administrator City of Corcoran City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340-2100 Corcoran, MN 55340 6. Deadlines. The Council conducts all tax-exempt financing matters at regularly scheduled Council meetings held on the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Documents for Council consideration must be at the City office 7 days before the Council meeting at which the matter is to be considered. In the case of a publicly offered bond issue, the documents, when submitted, may specify a maximum price and maximum effective interest rate if prices and rates have not yet been established. 7. Post-Issuance Compliance. The City will require that each borrower demonstrate to the City that the borrower will comply with substantially the same procedures for post-issuance compliance that apply to City governmental bonds under the City’s Post Issuance Debt Compliance Policy, approved September 13, 2012, as amended from time to time. The City may require that borrowers retain a trustee and/or an independent arbitrage consultant for the term of the bonds. DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 5 PART IV APPLICATION FOR TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING 1. APPLICANT a. Business Name: b. Business Address: c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.): d. Authorized Representative: e. Principal contact person and telephone number: 2. PURPOSE OF REQUESTED FINANCING: a. New Facility (describe): b. Expansion (describe): c. Refunding (attach explanatory letter) 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, ETC.: 4. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS: (Not required for refunding) Land $______________ Building ______________ Equipment ______________ Architectural, Engineering ______________ Costs of Issuance ______________ Capitalized Interest, including discount ______________ Other ______________ Total Financing Requested $______________ 5. AMOUNT OF FINANCING REQUESTED: $_____________ (___% of project costs) DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 6 6. TYPE OF FINANCING PROPOSED: Bonds ______ Expected Term of Financing ______ Years Security: Mortgage ________ Letter of Credit ________ Guaranty (third party) _______ Guaranty (personal) _______ Unsecured _______ Other (specify) _______ 7. BUSINESS PROFILE: (Not required for refunding) a. Is the business located in the City of Corcoran now? b. Number of employees in City: 1) Before this project: 2) After this project: c. Approximate annual sales: d. Length of time in business: Length of time in business in City: e. Do you have operations in other locations? If so, where? 8. NAMES OF: a. Underwriter (name and contact person) or Bank: b. Corporate Counsel: c. Underwriter’s or Lender’s Counsel: 9. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: a. Construction start: DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 7 b. Construction completion: 10. Attachments: a. Project description: b. Financial Feasibility Letter c. Initial application fee d. Indemnification Letter of Agreement I certify that the information provided above contains no misrepresentations, omissions or concealments of material facts and that the information given is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I have been furnished a copy of the Procedure for Application to the City of Corcoran for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing and am aware of its content and agree to be bound by its terms and the terms of the indemnification letter. ______________________________ ______________________________ Signature Date ______________________________ Title DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 8 PART V ADDENDUM TO APPLICATIONS The following items must be attached to each application: APPENDIX A A brief description of the organizational structure of Applicant, including parent subsidiary and affiliate organizations (if applicant is other than an individual). APPENDIX B Statement of Applicant’s business history, including any multi-family rental projects or operations in other municipalities. APPENDIX C The name, address, and telephone number of: 1. The Applicant’s accountant 2. The architect of the proposed Project 3. The engineer of the proposed Project 4. The general contractor of the proposed Project APPENDIX D 1. Present ownership of the proposed Project site and Applicant’s interest therein. 2. Present zoning of the Project site and a description of what city land use approvals are needed for this project. 3. The projected number of new employees to be added to the Applicant ’s permanent work force because of the Project (for Commercial, Industrial or Health Care only). 4. Other financing attempted or available to the Project including any interim financing. 5. Statement regarding whether or not this project has all required city approvals. If the project does not have all of the required approvals, list the approvals still needed and a tentative time schedule. APPENDIX E Indemnification Letter of Agreement. APPENDIX F Proforma Analysis of the Project DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 9 PART VI INDEMNIFICATION LETTER OF AGREEMENT The Mayor of the City of Corcoran and Members of the City Council City of Corcoran 255 Broadway Avenue Corcoran, MN 55321 RE: Application of _________________ for Tax-Exempt Revenue Bond Financing by the City of Corcoran Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter of agreement is given by _____________________, a _________________ under the laws of Minnesota (“Applicant”) as required by the City of Corcoran, Minnesota in connection with its consideration of an application for tax-exempt revenue bond financing for the project described in the application. Applicant agrees as follows: 1.Applicant agrees to pay or reimburse the City for any and all costs and expenses which the City may incur in connection with its consideration of the project and the granting of tax-exempt revenue bond financing therefor, whether or not the project is preliminarily approved by the City, whether or not the project is approved by the State of Minnesota, whether or not revenue bond financing is finally approved by the City, whether or not the bonds are issued and sold, and whether or not the project is carried to completion. 2.Applicant agrees to indemnify and hold the City, its officers, employees and agents harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages, expenses or liabilities, including attorneys fees incurred in their defense, to which the City, its officers, employees and agents may become subject in connection with the City’s consideration, issuance or sale of the bonds for Applicant’s project and the carrying out of the transactions contemplated by this agreement and any resolutions adopted, or agreements executed by the City in connection with the issuance of its bonds for this project. 3.Applicant hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claims, causes of action, losses, damages, or liabilities which it may have against the City, its officers, agents, and employees or which it may incur in connection with: the City’s consideration of the application for industrial development revenue bond financing for Applicant’s project; the failure of the City, in its discretion, to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds for Applicant’s project; the issuance and sale of the bonds; the construction of the project; or any other matter or thing of any type or nature whatsoever which may arise in connection with the foregoing. 4.Applicant is aware of the City’s application and administrative fee structure for tax-exempt financing and agrees and covenants that all such fees will be paid in the amount and at the times required. 5.Applicant understands and acknowledges that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Minnesota Government Data Practices Act) governs whether the information that you provide to the City is DOCSOPEN\CR100\4\471424.v2-9/15/22 10 public or private. If financial assistance is provided, the information submitted in connection with your application may become public, except for those items treated as private data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Dated: ____________ [APPLICANT NAME] By ___________________________ Its ____________________________ City of Corcoran, Minnesota Conduit Debt Policy Model Policy 2 DEBT Conduit Debt Policy – General The City of Corcoran is granted the power to issue conduit revenue bonds and other conduit revenue obligations under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.152-469.165, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Conduit Bonds Acts”). The Corcoran City Council, being aware that such financing may prevent the emergence of blighted land, excessive unemployment and the need for redevelopment financing from the State and Federal governments, has expressed its support for the use of such financing but has reserved the right to approve or reject projects on a case-by-case basis. The following criteria have, therefore, been developed as a guide for review of applications: Criteria a.The project is to be compatible with the overall development plans and objectives of the City and of the neighborhood in which the project is located. b.New businesses locating in _____________ must show relatively substantial new employment and tax base being generated by the project. c.Locating in areas of the City that the City wishes to develop, redevelop, or which in any way complements any development plans or policy of the City, will constitute a prime purpose under these guidelines. It is also the City’s intent to assist in business expansions or relocations within the City where it can be shown that such would have a substantial, favorable impact on employment or tax base, or both. d.It is the City’s intent to assist new or existing businesses in the acquisition of existing facilities, where such acquisition will maintain the stability of the tax base, or of employment, or both, and provided that not less than 15% of the portion of the cost of acquiring the existing facility financed with the net proceeds of the conduit bonds is to be used for rehabilitation of the existing facility. e.The project must not put a burden on existing City services or utilities beyond that which can be reasonably and economically accommodated. f.The applicant (and/or the lessee in the case of property to be leased) must have a good financial standing, show a substantial net worth, or equity in the project, or both, and have an acceptable earnings history or pro forma. Projects are to show in the application for financing an owner equity or other collateral (such as a bank Letter of Credit, a Bankers Acceptance, Pledge of a Certificate of Deposit, insurance company guarantee, or similar security) which will be satisfactory to the end-lender or rating agency, all determined with reference to total project costs, and applicant is to file with the City, if requested, a final statement of total costs and project equity, certified to by an authorized officer or partner, or the individual applicant, said statement to be filed at time of requesting the Final Resolution. g.The credit rating and method of offering conduit* bonds or notes of the City are important considerations. The City will not entertain applications for such financings unless (i) the debt is rated in the “A” category (or better) by a nationally recognized rating agency or (ii) the debt is sold in a private placement. Debt will be considered sold in a private placement (i) if no advertising or solicitation of the general public occurs, and (ii) if the bonds are initially sold to not more than ten purchasers (not including any underwriter or placement agent as a purchaser) and (iii) the City receives written certification from each initial purchaser (or each underwriter or placement agent based on its reasonable belief) that: (a) such purchaser has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that it is capable of evaluating the merits and the risks of the debt, and (b) such purchaser is not purchasing for more than one account or with a view to distributing the debt. In addition, for a private placement either (a) all bonds or notes (except for one bond or note) must always remain in minimum denominations of not less than $100,000, or (b) investment letters from not only each initial purchaser, but from any subsequent purchaser must be obtained which contains the above described certifications from the purchasers. Any offering material for a private placement must prominently state in effect that: “THE CITY OF CORCORAN HAS NOT ASSUMED ANY RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW THIS OFFERING MATERIAL AND HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS. THE CITY HAS NO FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OF ANY NATURE WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFERED BONDS.” Finally, to qualify as a private placement the financing documents must require annual financial statements from the benefited private party (or the ultimate provider of credit) to be delivered to each investor (or a trustee). *The term “conduit” refers to any type of City revenue obligation the proceeds of which are loaned to a private party and for which the City has no financial obligation. h.Applications for acquisition of or replacement of machinery and equipment will be discouraged unless in conjunction with a totally new business in _____________, a physical plant expansion of an existing business, or where it is shown that the equipment acquisition is essential to the continued operation of the business in _____________. Also, it is the City’s intent to assist where possible in the acquisition of pollution control equipment for any new or existing business being required to meet mandated standards. i. A further permitted use under these guidelines are projects, whether profit or nonprofit, engaged in providing health care services, including hospitals, nursing homes, and related medical facilities, but only when the following findings can be made: (1)Number of new jobs and related payroll is relatively significant. (2)The project would provide a facility or service, or expansion thereof considered desirable or necessary from a community services standpoint. (3)The project application also meets requirements of paragraph a, e, f and g of these guidelines. Procedures a.The applicant shall make an application for financing on forms available from the Finance Department of the City of _____________. The completed application is to be returned to the ___________, accompanied by the processing fee, whereupon the application will be forwarded to the City Council with a Staff recommendation. Specific findings shall be made and recited regarding the criteria as well as satisfaction of public purposes of the Conduit Bonds Acts. b.The application cannot be considered by the City until tentative City Code findings and requirements have been made with respect to zoning, building plans, platting, streets and utility services. c.The applicant shall submit a timetable for completion of the project as part of the application and any apparent major deviation from that timetable will automatically cause the application to be brought back to the City Council for review. This timetable must relate to the State timetable for entitlement and pool allocations. The financing must be completed within the calendar year for which application is made. d.The applicant is to select qualified financial consultants and/or underwriters, as well as legal counsel, to prepare all necessary documents and materials. The City may rely on the opinion of such experts and the application shall be accompanied by a financial analysis (pro forma income statement, debt service coverage, mortgage terms, etc.) by the underwriter as to the economic feasibility of the project and the underwriter’s ability to market the financing. Financial material submitted is to also include most recent fiscal year-end, audited, financial statements of the applicant and/or of any major lessee tenant, if readily available. e. Further, in the case of the tax exempt mortgage placements, the applicant will be required to furnish the City, before passage of the Final Resolution, a comfort letter (but not necessarily a letter of commitment) from the lending institution, to the affect that said lending institution has reviewed the economic feasibility of the project, including the financial responsibility of the guarantors and find that, in their professional judgment, it is an economically viable project. f. The applicant shall furnish along with the application, a description of the project, plat plan, rendering of proposed building, etc., and a brief description of the applicant company, all in such form as shall be required at the time of application. Such of this data as necessary may be furnished to members of the City Council for background information. g. If an allocation of bonding authority is required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as amended (“Chapter 474A”, the applicant shall be required to pay any required application fee and provide any required application deposit as specified in Chapter 474A, without regard to whether the application fee or application deposit will be refunded. h. The applicant shall covenant in the applicable conduit bond documents to comply with all applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and the applicable Treasury Regulations, including, but not limited to: (i) the arbitrage and rebate requirements of Section 148 of the Code; and (ii) the qualified bonds provisions of Sections 141(e), 142, 143, 144, and 145 of the Code. The applicant shall be the party responsible for monitoring the conduit bonds for compliance with such requirements and to remediate nonqualified bonds in accordance with the requirements of the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations. The applicant shall be the party responsible for monitoring compliance with the requirements of Section 148 of the Code. i. The applicant shall covenant in the applicable conduit bond documents to reimburse the City for all costs paid or incurred by the City (including the fees of attorneys, financial advisors, accountants, and other advisors) as a result of the City’s response to or compliance with an audit, inspection, or compliance check (random or otherwise), by the Internal Revenue Service, the Minnesota Department of Revenue, the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor, or any other governmental agency with respect to the conduit bonds or the project financed with the proceeds of the conduit bonds. Administrative a. The City Council reserves the right to deny any application for financing at any stage of the proceedings prior to adopting the final resolution authorizing issuance of the industrial development financing. The City Council may waive any provision of this Conduit Bonds Policy if the City Council determines that such waiver is in the best interests of the City. b. The City is to be reimbursed, and held harmless, for and from any out-of-pocket costs related to the actual or proposed issuance of conduit revenue bonds. In addition, a nonrefundable processing fee of $_________ must be submitted with the application. Upon closing, an administrative fee of ____________ is due and payable to the City. In the case of a refinancing, the fee shall be calculated at 50% of the above schedule. The City will be reimbursed for any technical changes to a bond issue previously issued to be calculated at 25% of the above schedule. c.All applications and supporting materials and documents shall remain the property of the City. Note that all such materials may be subject to disclosure and/or public review under applicable provisions of State law. d.The Finance Department shall, report all conduit debt issues in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and shall report any material events with regard to all conduit debt issued by the City, and still outstanding, to the City Council. CITY OF CORCORAN CONDUIT DEBT ISSUANCE POLICY CONDUIT DEBT PURPOSE Periodically, qualified organizations will approach the City to issue tax-exempt debt through the City for the purchase of qualified equipment or the development, construction, or remodeling of facilities. The City is able to issue this debt to qualified organizations as authorized by applicable Minnesota Statutes and Federal Income Tax Law. The debt is issued in the City’s name and reported within the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The City has a practice of charging a fee to qualified organizations who issue this type of debt through the City. FEE SCHEDULE New debt issuance fees: ___________________ Refinancing issuance fees (periodically, an organization that issued bonds previously may desire to refund the old bonds and issue new bonds in their place): _________________________ $_________ for those organizations that only are asking for the City to be a Host City. JOINT POWERS FEES An organization within _____________ may desire to finance projects at facilities it owns within _____________ by issuing bonds through another city. This requires the City Council to give host city approval and/or enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the other city. Under this circumstance, the City does not have the on-going disclosure requirement and therefore a one- time fee is to be assessed _____________. Model Policy 3 Tax Exempt & Government Entitites Your Responsibilities as a Conduit Issuer of Tax-Exempt Bonds Publication 5005 (Rev. 9-2019) Catalog Number 59471F Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service www.irs.gov Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 Background .............................................................................................................................1 Tax-Exempt Conduit Bonds ...................................................................................................1 Parties to Conduit Bond Issue ...............................................................................................2 Bonds Supported by Leases ..................................................................................................2 Examples of the Tax Compliance Responsibilities of Conduit Issuers ..............................2 Certain Procedural Considerations for Conduit Issuers .....................................................8 Certain Tax Credit Bonds .....................................................................................................10 More Information ...................................................................................................................11 Introduction Municipal bonds provide tax-exempt financing for certain qualified purposes including the construction of hospitals, residential rental housing, solid waste facilities, colleges and universities and cultural institutions. Tax-exempt financing also is available for the furtherance of governmental purposes. This publication provides an overview for state and local governments of the responsibilities of the conduit issuer on tax compliance in municipal financing arrangements commonly known as conduit financings. The term “conduit issuer” refers to an issuer of tax-exempt bonds in a conduit financing. A conduit financing is generally a situation where tax-exempt bonds are issued by a state or local government and the proceeds are used for a defined qualified purpose by an entity other than the government issuing the bonds (the conduit borrower). For tax-exempt bonds, all applicable federal tax law requirements must be met to ensure that interest earned by bondholders is exempt from taxation under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 103. For information about the more specific rules that apply to qualified 501(c)(3) bonds, other qualified private activity bonds and governmental bonds, see IRS Publications 4077, Tax-Exempt Bonds for 501(c)(3) Charitable Organizations, 4078, Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bonds, and 4079, Tax-Exempt Governmental Bonds. IRS provides additional information at irs.gov/bonds. Background Tax-exempt bonds are valid debt obligations of state and local governments, commonly referred to as “issuers”— the interest on which is tax-exempt. This means that the interest paid to bondholders is not includable in their gross income for federal income tax purposes. This tax- exempt status continues throughout the life of the bonds provided that all applicable federal tax laws are satisfied. Various requirements apply under the IRC and Income Tax Regulations (Treas. Reg.) including, but not limited to, information filing and other requirements related to issuance, the proper and timely use of bond-financed property, and arbitrage yield restriction and rebate requirements. The benefits of tax-exempt bond financing can apply to the many types of municipal debt financing arrangements through which government issuers obligate themselves, including notes, loans, lease purchase contracts, lines of credit and commercial paper. Tax-Exempt Conduit Bonds Bonds issued to make loans to entities other than state or local governments are known as “conduit bonds” or “conduit issues” and state or local governments that issue these bonds are known as “conduit issuers.” Generally, to be tax-exempt, bonds issued by conduit issuers must be either governmental bonds or qualified bonds defined in IRC section 141(e) (for example, exempt facility bonds, qualified small issue bonds or qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) that are not arbitrage bonds under IRC Section 148 and meet the requirements of IRC Section 149. The federal tax compliance rules covered in this publication are those that are the responsibility of the conduit issuer. To meet these requirements, conduit issuers must ensure that certain rules are met at the time the bonds are issued and throughout the term of the bonds. The IRS encourages conduit issuers and borrowers to implement written tax compliance procedures that will enable them to timely identify and correct violations that might result in the loss of the tax- exempt status of their bonds. 1 Parties to Conduit Bond Issue A conduit issuer in a conduit bond financing typically issues the bonds and loans the bond proceeds to a conduit borrower. A conduit borrower is generally responsible for the payment of debt service on the conduit bond issue and is usually contractually obligated to maintain the tax-exempt status of the bonds. The conduit issuer is treated as a “taxpayer” for federal tax purposes and is the party generally responsible for tax compliance. However, the bond documents usually provide for delegation of certain responsibilities to the conduit borrower. The bondholders rely on both the conduit issuer and the conduit borrower to maintain the tax- exempt status of the bonds. Bonds Supported by Leases Certain bonds issued by state or local governments are not used to make loans to other entities. Nevertheless, these issues (for example, certain airport bonds) may be used to finance facilities leased to another entity for the entire term of the bonds. While these issues are not conduit bonds, the lessee of the facilities often is primarily responsible for many of the compliance requirements and the bonds may be treated as conduit bonds for many purposes. Examples of the Tax Compliance Responsibilities of Conduit Issuers The following are examples of the tax compliance responsibilities of the conduit issuer in the financing of conduit bonds where conduit issuers must take specific actions. The responsibilities are not all inclusive and additional actions may be required for certain types of financings or in certain circumstances. Information Filing Requirements: Conduit issuers must file certain information returns under IRC Section 149(e). The information return that a conduit issuer must file is determined by the size and type of conduit issuance. However, most conduit issuers are required to file Form 8038, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues. 2 Information Return Due Date Where to File Form 8038, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues. Generally, this return must be filed by the 15th day of the second month following the quarter in which the bonds were issued. For example, the due date of the return for bonds issued on February 1 is May 15. File these returns with the IRS: Internal Revenue Service Center Ogden, UT 84201 Form 8038-G, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Bonds, for governmental bonds with an issue price of $100,000 or greater. Form 8038-GC, Information Return for Small Tax-Exempt Governmental Bond Issues, Leases, and Installment Sales, for governmental bonds with an issue price of less than $100,000. Generally, both these returns must to be filed by the 15th day of the second month following the quarter in which the bonds were issued. For example, the due date of the return for bonds issued on February 15 is May 15. Form 8038-GC may also be filed on a consolidated basis for bond issues of less than $100,000 each. Consolidated returns are due by February 15 following the calendar year in which the bonds were issued. Example: An issuer issues three governmental bond issues: Issue A on March 1, 2018, for $50,000; Issue B on June 15, 2018, for $75,000; and Issue C on October 5, 2018, for $30,000. The issuer can file one consolidated return by February 15, 2019, for all three bond issues. File these returns with the IRS: Internal Revenue Service Center Ogden, UT 8420 Late Filing of Information Returns: A conduit issuer may request an extension of time to file Forms 8038, 8038-G, or 8038-GC, so long as the failure to file the return on time was not due to willful neglect. To request an extension, the conduit issuer must follow the procedures outlined in Revenue Procedure 2002-48, 2002-37 I.R.B. 531. These procedures require the conduit issuer to: 1) attach a letter to the return filed (Form 8038, 8038-G, 8038-GC) explaining when the return was due, why it wasn’t filed timely, and whether the bond issue is under IRS examination; 2) enter on top of the return “Request for Relief under section 3 of Revenue Procedure 2002-48” and 3) file the letter and return with the IRS at the Ogden Submission Processing Center. Volume Cap Limit: The volume cap limit for certain qualified private activity bonds, under IRC Section 146, limits an issuer to a maximum amount of tax-exempt bonds that can be issued to finance a particular qualified purpose during a calendar year. If, during a given year, an issuing authority issues qualified private activity bonds in excess of its volume cap limit, the tax-exempt status of those bonds is jeopardized. A conduit issuer must monitor volume cap allocations to properly file information returns and make carryforward elections. Certain types of 3 qualified private activity bonds do not require volume cap allocations. In addition, certain current refunding bonds do not require volume cap allocations to the extent the amount of refunding bonds does not exceed the outstanding amount of the refunded bonds. Carryforward of Unused Volume Cap: A conduit issuer may elect to carry any unused volume cap of a calendar year forward for three years. This election can be made for each of the carryforward purposes described IRC Section 146. This generally includes qualified private activity bond purposes subject to volume cap except for the purpose of issuing qualified small issue bonds. This election is made by filing IRS Form 8328, Carryforward Election of Unused Private Activity Bond Volume Cap, by the earlier of February 15 following the year in which the unused amount arises or the date of issue of any bonds pursuant to the carryforward election. Once Form 8328 is filed, the issuer may not revoke the carryforward election or amend the carryforward amounts shown on the form. Errors on this form cannot be corrected through an amended filing. The conduit issuer may file a TEB Voluntary Closing Agreement Program request to correct mathematical, typographical and similar errors. See Notice 2008-31, 2008-11 I.R.B. 592, and Tax Exempt Bonds Voluntary Compliance. Public Approval Requirement: Generally, prior to issuance, qualified private activity bonds (including qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) must be approved by an elected representative for the governmental entity issuing the bonds and, in some cases, for each governmental entity having jurisdiction over the area in which the bond-financed facility is to be located. The public approval must occur after the holding of a public hearing following reasonable public notice before the public hearing and must be completed within a prescribed period. As such, the conduit issuer is involved in certain aspects of the public approval process. Public approval by a governmental unit may also be by voter referendum. IRC Section 147(f) and Treas. Reg. Section 1.147(f)-1 define the rules for this requirement. Limitations on Fees Charged by the Conduit Issuer: Conduit issuers may charge fees payable either out of the bond proceeds or by the conduit borrower. The conduit issuer may use these fees to offset all or part of the conduit issuer’s costs and may also be used to raise funds for governmental purposes of the conduit issuer. The fees may increase the effective yield of the conduit loan when viewed by the conduit issuer as a purpose investment. IRC Section 148 generally limits the yield on purpose investments to the yield on the bonds plus a spread. This limitation effectively limits the size of the fees that the conduit issuer may charge regardless of whether paid periodically or up front. Conduit issuers generally must ensure that the yield on the conduit loan does not exceed the yield on the bonds by more than the permitted spread to prevent the bonds from becoming arbitrage bonds. Certification on Expectations for Use and Investment of Proceeds: Treas. Reg. Section 1.148-2(b)(2)(i) provides that an officer of the issuer responsible for issuing the bonds must, in good faith, certify the issuer’s reasonable expectations as of the issue date. The certification must state the facts and estimates that form the basis of the issuer’s expectations. The certification is evidence of the issuer’s expectations, but does not establish any conclusions of law or any presumptions about either the issuer’s actual expectations or their reasonableness. This certification is not required if the conduit issuer reasonably expects, as of the issue date, that there will be no unspent gross proceeds after the issue date, other than gross proceeds in a bona fide debt service fund or the issue price of the bond issue does not exceed $1,000,000. 4 Reimbursement Declarations of Official Intent: Under Treas. Reg. Section 1.150-2, a conduit issuer or conduit borrower is permitted to use bond proceeds to reimburse certain expenditures paid before the date of issuance subject to certain requirements. One requirement is that the conduit issuer must adopt a declaration of official intent to reimburse expenditures not later than 60 days after the reimbursed expenditure is paid. In the case of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds only, a conduit borrower may also adopt a declaration of official intent. Accordingly, for all other types of qualified private activity bonds the conduit issuer must act to adopt declarations of official intent to permit reimbursement financing. Qualified Hedge: A conduit issuer pursuant to Treas. Reg. Section 1.148-4(h) must identify a qualified hedge on its books and records maintained for the hedged bonds not later than 15 calendar days after the date on which the conduit issuer (or conduit borrower) and the hedge provider enter into a hedge contract. Deliberate Actions: Bonds issued by a conduit issuer can lose their tax-exempt status if the conduit issuer or conduit borrower takes a deliberate action, after the issue date, that causes the issue to fail to meet the federal tax requirements for the bonds. A deliberate action is any action taken by the conduit issuer or conduit borrower that is within its control. Intent to violate the requirements of the IRC is not necessary for an action to be deliberate. Remedial Actions: A conduit issuer, often with the involvement of the conduit borrower, may take a remedial action under Treas. Reg. Section 1.141-12 and Revenue Procedure 2018-26, 2018-10 I.R.B. 546 to cure a deliberate action that would otherwise cause a governmental bond issue or qualified 501(c)(3) bond to become a nonqualified private activity bond issue. If the remedial action requires providing a notice of defeasance to the IRS, the conduit issuer must provide the notice. Remedial actions include redemption or defeasance of bonds, alternative use of disposition proceeds and alternative use of bond-financed facilities. Additionally, if the bonds are treated as “reissued” under the Treas. Reg., the conduit issuer must test the reissued bonds to determine if the interest on the bonds remains exempt from gross income for federal tax purposes (see Bond Modifications section below). Redemption or defeasance of bonds are remedial actions prescribed in Treas. Reg. Section 1.142-2 for certain failures to properly use the proceeds of exempt facility bonds. The conduit issuer in this case also must provide a notice of defeasance to the IRS. Similar rules apply to qualified small issue bonds and qualified redevelopment bonds. Bond Modifications: An agreement between a bondholder and a conduit issuer (or conduit borrower) to modify the terms of any bonds, whether direct or indirect, may cause the modified bonds to be treated as new bonds for federal income tax purposes (that is, to be “reissued”). If the conduit bond is considered reissued under IRC Section 1001, then the conduit bond must be tested to determine if the interest on the bonds remains exempt from gross income for federal tax purposes. Revenue Ruling 81-281, 1981-2 C.B. 18, provides that interest on tax- exempt conduit bonds is not excludable from gross income after the terms of the bonds are substantially altered without action by the state or local government issuer. A conduit issuer may generally meet this requirement to approve reissued bonds by adopting a formal resolution of the governing body of the conduit issuer approving the modification of the terms. In addition, the conduit issuer must satisfy all federal tax requirements including timely filing Form 8038, 8038-G or 8038-GC, treating the date of the modification as the date of issuance of the modified bonds. 5 Elections: The Treas. Reg. on private activity bonds generally require that the conduit issuer make elections in writing and retain them as part of the bond documents. Elections cannot be revoked without permission of the IRS Commissioner. Many elections have to be made on or before the issue date of the bonds. Examples of Elections Include the Election: „To waive the right to treat a purpose investment as a program investment; „To waive the right to invest in higher yielding investments during any temporary period; „Of the issuer of a pooled financing issue to apply rebate spending exceptions separately to each conduit loan; „For purposes of the two-year spending exception from rebate to apply certain provisions based on actual facts rather than reasonable expectations; „For purposes of the two-year spending exception from rebate to exclude from available construction proceeds the earnings on a reasonably required reserve fund; „For purposes of the two-year spending exception to treat a portion of an issue as a separate construction issue from rebate; „To pay 1.5% penalty in lieu of arbitrage rebate; and „ To treat portions of a bond issue as separate issues. Arbitrage Rebate Requirements/Yield Reduction Payments: In certain circumstances, Treas. Reg. Section 1.148-5(c) permits the conduit issuer to make payments to the U.S. Department of the Treasury in lieu of restricting the yield on investments made with bond proceeds at the end of a temporary period. Conduit issuers of tax-exempt bonds file Form 8038-T, Arbitrage Rebate, Yield Reduction and Penalty in Lieu of Arbitrage Rebate, to make: 1. Yield reduction payments; 2. Arbitrage rebate payments; 3. Penalty in lieu of rebate payments; 4. The termination of the election to pay a penalty in lieu of rebate; and 5. Payments for penalty for failure to pay arbitrage rebate on time. A yield reduction payment or arbitrage rebate installment payment must be paid by conduit issuers no later than 60 days after the end of every 5th bond year throughout the term of a bond issue. The payment must be equal to at least 90% of the amount due as of the end of that 5th bond year. Upon redemption or final maturity of a bond issue, a payment of 100% of the amount due must be paid no later than 60 days after the discharge date. A failure to timely pay arbitrage rebate will be treated as not having occurred if the failure is not due to willful neglect and the conduit issuer submits a Form 8038-T with a payment of the rebate amount owed, plus penalty and interest. The penalty may be waived under certain circumstances. For more information, see Treas. Reg. Section 1.148-3(h)(3) and Revenue Procedure 2005-40, 2005-28 I.R.B. 83. In general, a request for recovery of overpayment of arbitrage rebate can be made when the conduit issuer can establish that an overpayment occurred. An overpayment is the excess of 6 the amount paid to the U.S. Department of the Treasury for an issue under IRC Section 148 over the sum of the rebate amount for the issue as of the most recent computation date and all amounts that are otherwise required to be paid under Section 148 as of the date the recovery is requested. The request can be made by the conduit issuer completing and filing Form 8038-R, Request for Recovery of Overpayments Under Arbitrage Rebate Provisions, with the IRS. Record Retention Requirements: IRC Section 6001 and Treas. Reg. Section 1.6001-1(a) generally provide that any person subject to income tax, or any person required to file a return of information with respect to income, must keep books and records sufficient to establish the amount of gross income, deductions, credits or other matters that must be shown on a return. This includes Form 8038 series and other returns filed by the conduit issuer with respect to a bond issue. IRS Examination of Conduit Issues: The the conduit issuer, and not the conduit borrower, is treated as the “taxpayer” in IRS examinations of tax-exempt bonds, including conduit bonds. This means that the conduit issuer will receive the letter initiating the examination and must be a party to any closing agreement resolving an IRS examination. IRS procedures generally define the “issuer” as “the state or political subdivision or entity that issues bonds on behalf of a state or local government.” Requesting Voluntary Closing Agreements: The TEB Voluntary Closing Agreement Program (TEB VCAP) is described in Notice 2008-31, 2008-11 I.R.B. 592. This program provides remedies for issuers, including conduit issuers, who voluntarily come forward to resolve a violation that cannot be self-corrected under programs described in the Treas. Regs. or other published guidance. Closing agreement terms and amounts may vary according to the degree of violation as well as the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation. This notice and Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) Section 7.2.3 provide that the conduit issuer must request and execute a voluntary closing agreement. Requesting Private Letter Rulings: Revenue Procedure 2019-1 (updated annually) and Revenue Procedure 96-16 provide procedures under which an issuer of tax-exempt bonds can request a private letter ruling. Revenue Procedure 96-16 has procedures for “reviewable” private letter ruling requests that under IRC Section 7478 may be reviewed by the U.S. Tax Court and for “nonreviewable” private letter ruling requests that cannot be reviewed by the U.S. Tax Court. Under Section 7478, a conduit issuer may appeal the denial of a reviewable private letter ruling to the U.S. Tax Court. The revenue procedure generally requires that, in the case of a conduit issue, the private letter ruling request must be submitted by the conduit issuer, rather than the conduit borrower. 7 Certain Procedural Considerations for Conduit Issuers Conduit issuers may adopt procedures and other options for its conduit bond program to assist them in their tax compliance responsibilities. A “one size fits all” approach is not workable, due to the various organizational structures of conduit issuers as well as the unique features of different financings. The options below are meant to help conduit issuers develop adequate written procedures to assist them in fulfilling their tax responsibilities for their conduit financings. Procedures for Closing and Pre-Closing Matters: The chart below identifies certain types of monitoring procedures a conduit issuer may adopt to ensure compliance with the federal tax rules that must be satisfied at or prior to the closing of the bond transaction. Procedure Description of Proceduresfor Closing and Pre-ClosingMatters Responsibilities Described Above Volume Cap Procedures to monitor use of volume cap, including carryforward elections Volume Cap Limit Carryforward of Unused Volume Cap Public Approval Procedures on public hearings conducted by the issuer and any approvals by the issuer Public Approval Requirement Issuer Fees Procedures to ensure that issuer fees do not exceed IRC and Treas. Reg. limits Limitations on Fees Charged by the Conduit Issuer Closing Certifications Due diligence procedures to ensure that certifications are reasonable Certification on Expectations for Use and Investment of Proceeds Official Intent Procedures to ensure that reimbursement resolutions meet the Treas. Reg. requirements Reimbursement Declarations of Official Intent Qualified Hedge Procedures to timely identify qualified hedges Qualified Hedge Elections Procedures for federal income tax elections Elections Designation of Officials to Assist with Certain Actions: Other than the statutory requirement that an “applicable elected representative” must provide public approval, the provisions of the IRC, Treas. Reg. or other guidance do not specifically provide that particular officials of a conduit issuer have specific tax compliance responsibilities. However, as discussed in the first part of this publication, the Treas. Reg. and other guidance require that a conduit issuer must be involved in a number of different actions including: (1) responding to an IRS examination of the bond issue; (2) submitting a voluntary closing agreement request to the IRS; (3) implementing a “remedial action” upon the change of use of bond-financed property, including, where necessary, filing a Form 8038 and filing a notice of defeasance; and (4) executing a “hedge identification” permitting an interest rate swap or other interest rate hedge to be taken into account in determining bond yield. 8 A conduit issuer should consider whether to designate one or more officials, to be responsible for assisting in these actions. Conduit issuers may also consider requiring a conduit borrower to identify a particular official or officials to assist the conduit issuer in these actions. Post-Issuance Compliance Monitoring: A conduit issuer may adopt written post-issuance monitoring procedures to ensure the continuous compliance of its bond issues with federal tax requirements. In formulating its procedures a conduit issuer may consider: „Designating conduit issuer officials to assist in post-issuance compliance; „Requiring conduit borrowers to identify officials responsible for assisting the issuer with post- issuance compliance monitoring; „Providing training or other technical support to designated officials of the conduit issuer and the conduit borrower; „Requiring the conduit borrower to demonstrate that it has adopted written post-issuance compliance monitoring procedures before the approval of a bond issue; „Designating time intervals within which the conduit issuer and conduit borrower will complete compliance monitoring activities; „ Timely completing remedial actions to correct (including VCAP requests) or otherwise resolve identified noncompliance; and „Requiring conduit borrowers to notify the conduit issuer of the completion of post-issuance compliance monitoring activities. Record Retention: A conduit issuer may adopt written procedures to maintain adequate records to support the tax compliance of its bond issues. In formulating its procedures, a conduit issuer may consider: „Designating which types of records the conduit issuer must retain and which types of records, if any, the conduit borrower will retain; and „Designating the manner in which the records will be retained, including back-ups of any electronic records. Procedures for Post-Closing Matters: The chart below identifies certain types of compliance monitoring and record retention procedures a conduit issuer may adopt to ensure compliance with the federal tax rules required to be satisfied after the issuance of the bonds. 9 Procedure Description of Proceduresfor Closing and Post-Closing Matters Responsibilities Described Above Information Return Filing Procedures to ensure timely filing of information returns, including procedures for amended and late filed returns Information Filing Requirements Late Filing of Information Returns Change in Use of Proceeds or Financed Facilities Procedures to timely identify and remediate deliberate actions Deliberate Actions Remedial Actions Reissuance Procedures to satisfy tax requirements when a modification in terms results in a reissuance for federal income tax purposes Bond Modifications Elections Procedures for timely federal income tax elections Elections Arbitrage Compliance Procedures for the timely computation and payment of arbitrage rebate and yield reduction payments Arbitrage Rebate Requirements/ Yield Reduction Payments Record Retention Procedures for the maintenance of records. Record Retention Requirements IRS Contacts Procedures for compliance check questionnaires, examinations, VCAP and private letter rulings. IRS Examination of Conduit Issues Requesting Voluntary Closing Agreements Requesting Private Letter Rulings Designation of Officials to Assist with Certain Actions Certain Tax Credit Bonds The tax compliance responsibilities discussed above generally apply to conduit issuers of certain other types of tax-advantaged obligations including tax credit bonds issued under IRC Section 54A. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017) repealed the authority to issue tax-credit bonds. The repeal applies to the authority to issue new clean renewable energy bonds, qualified energy conservation bonds, qualified zone academy bonds and qualified school construction bonds after December 31, 2017. Conduit issuers of tax credit bonds issued prior to January 1, 2018, were required to file Form 8038-TC, Information Return for Tax Credit Bonds and Specified Tax Credit Bonds. As such, given the similarity of applicable tax requirements, conduit issuers of tax credit bonds should also consider adoption of written post-issuance monitoring procedures to assist them in their tax compliance responsibilities. 10 More Information You can find information about the tax laws that apply to municipal financing arrangements, including tax forms and instructions, revenue procedures and notices, and publications at www.irs.gov/bonds. If you have account-specific questions, you can call Customer Account Services toll-free at 877-829-5500. 11 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 9c. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Christensen Buck Topic: City Park Remaster Phase One Action Required: Approval Summary: In 2018, staff began acquiring feedback from the public on upd ates that they would like to see made to City Park as many of the amenities are aging out and will need to be replaced soon. Input was collected from the public at community events (i.e., Corcoran Country Daze, Night to Unite), online via a survey, email responses, and at an open house on Thursday, May 19, 2022, at City Hall. From those responses, staff worked with Stantec (formally Wenck) to put together a concept plan for City Park that incorporated as much of the feedback as possible, while keeping the park as user friendly at the same time. Within the last few months, the Parks and Trails Commission has been reviewing drafts of the concept plans and fine tuning them to be reflective of the community asks. During the Thursday, September 15, 2022, Parks and Trails Commission meeting, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the most recent concept plan. At this time, the cost of the project is proposed at $7,383,526.80 with 30% indirect costs (i.e., street/parking lot lighting, landscaping, irrigation, small park amenities) built into the number. Amenities included in the cost are 6 pickleball courts, a large playground, splashpad, volleyball court, 343 paved parking spots, basketball court, tennis court, open skating rink, hockey rink, and a building that consists of bathrooms, changing rooms, and picnic shelter. Many of these amenities are already at the park but are aging out and will likely need to be replaced in the near future. In addition to the amenities, much of the budget is due to grading, utilities, trails, and street. Staff is looking for the City Council to discuss if the plans that have been provided and recommended by the Parks and Trails Commission are reflective of the community needs that City Council has seen and heard. Staff is also looking for City Council approval to apply for the Hennepin County Youth Sports Facility Grant maximum request of $300,000 that would be applied to the project. The grant is due sometime in November, but the date has not been published at the time of this memo. Next steps in the process will focus primarily on funding options for the project. In a perfect world, bidding would take place during spring or summer of 2023. Financial/Budget: The City has acquired some funding for the project from local groups including $100,000 from the Northwest Area Jaycees that are specific to the splashpad and $45,000 from the Hamel Athletic Association. In addition, staff is looking for City Council approval to apply for a Hennepin County Youth Sports Facility Grant in hopes of being awarded up to $300,000 for the project. In staff discussions, other potential funding options have included bonds, gambling funds, ARPA funds, and park dedication funds. Options: 1. Accept the concept plans as presented. 2. Amend the concept plans. 3. Decline to take action at this time. Recommendation: Accept the concept plans as presented and direct staff to apply for the Hennepin County Youth Sports Facility Grant for $300,000. Council Action: Consider a motion to accept the concept plans as presented and direct staff to apply for the Hennepin County Youth Sports Facility Grant for $300,000. Attachments: 1. City Park Remaster Phase One – Concept Plan 2. City Park Remaster Phase One – Budget 3. Resolution 2022-116 Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant R20'R20'180'180'300'300'250'250'1406'1632'SPORTSDOME235'400'200'85'HOCKEY200'85'HOCKEY50'30'130'110'125'75'50'195'250'110'120.4'31 SPOTS130'107.9'290'205'TYPICALSOCCERYOUTHLEAGUE50'50'80'SENIORLEAGUEPONYLEAGUE290'205'TYPICALSOCCERLITTLE LEAGE/COACH PITCH/MACHINE PITCH48'204.2'204.2'L I T T L E L E AG E / CO A C H P I T C H /MA C H I N E P I T C H 48'204.2'204.2'70'4 0 ' 105'75'105'75'105'75'10 0 '160'290'205'TYPICALSOCCER 165'12 0 'YOUTHSOCCER165'12 0 'YOUTHSOCCERPLAYGROUND134.7'95.4'PLAY77 SPOTS70 '40'P L A Y 62 SPOTS 188 SPOTS250 SPOTS100'75'PLAYGROUNDSOPENSKATE120'85'BASKETBALL ANDTENNISVOLLEYBALLPONDLOCATIONPONDLOCATIONPONDLOCATIONPLAYGROUNDSPLASHPADBATHROOM/CHANGINGROOM/UTILITYROOM/PICNICSHELTERWETWETWETWETWETWET WET WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWET WETWETWET Drawn By:Issue Date:Project #:2294-0049NPWCOMMUNITY ATHLETIC PARK CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 COUNTY ROAD 116 U:\227702426\technical\Corcoran Athletic Park\drafting\CAD\EXHIBITS\Phase 1 Park Improvements.dwg Description:Date: CORCORAN, MN 55340Issue #:CITY OF CORCORAN 0Issue # Prepared For:Sheet #:Sheet Title:9/16/2022 8:18:47 AM 08/09/2019Date:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.License #:PRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFIGURE 1SITE PLANLEGENDFUTURE TRAILS AND WALKSPHASE 1 TRAILS AND WALKSPHASE 1 STREETS AND PARKINGPHASE 1 AMENITIESPHASE 1 PONDS ITEM NO ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED COSTS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED COSTS 1 Remove existing warming house/storage EACH 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 1 4,200.00$ 4,200.00$ 0.00 700.00$ 700.00$ 2 Remove existing septic EACH 1 1,900.00$ 1,900.00$ 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 0.00 600.00$ 600.00$ 5,400.00$ 6,700.00$ 0.00 -$ 1,300.00$ 3 Clear and Grub trees EACH 28 500.00$ 14,000.00$ 28 1,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 0.00 500.00$ 14,000.00$ price increase to recently obtained bid prices 4 Remove Pavilion LS 0 -$ -$ 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 1.00 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 5 Salvage and Reinstall Fence LF 0 20.00$ -$ 0 20.00$ -$ 0.00 -$ -$ 6 Protect watermain and drinking fountain service?LS 0 5,000.00$ -$ 0 5,000.00$ -$ 0.00 -$ -$ 7 Salvage and Reinstall Draintile LS 0 15,000.00$ -$ 0 15,000.00$ -$ 0.00 -$ -$ 8 Salvage and Respread infield Aggregate SQ YD 0 5.00$ -$ 0 5.00$ -$ 0.00 -$ -$ 9 Aglime for infleid TON 0 45.00$ -$ 0 45.00$ -$ 0.00 -$ -$ 10 CL 5 surface aggregate - frontage road - top dress 2" TON 0 25.00$ -$ 0 25.00$ -$ 0.00 -$ -$ 11 Ballfield Sod SQ FT 0 6.00$ -$ 0 6.00$ -$ 0.00 -$ -$ 14,000.00$ 35,500.00$ 0.00 -$ 21,500.00$ 12 Site Grading CU YD 32114 7.00$ 224,798.00$ 39823 7.00$ 278,761.00$ 7709.00 -$ 53,963.00$ 13 Common Excavation - Stockpile onsite (CV)CU YD 2480 5.00$ 12,400.00$ 7500 5.00$ 37,500.00$ 5020.00 -$ 25,100.00$ 237,198.00$ 316,261.00$ 0.00 -$ 79,063.00$ 14 Connect to existing sanitary EACH 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 0.00 -$ -$ 15 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer LF 1407 65.00$ 91,455.00$ 1165 75.00$ 87,375.00$ -242.00 10.00$ (4,080.00)$ Quantity decrease due to updated utility plans from new development, Price increase to 2022 costs 16 PVC Sanitary Sewer Service LF 45 45.00$ 2,025.00$ 45 45.00$ 2,025.00$ 0.00 -$ -$ 17 6" cleanout EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 1 650.00$ 650.00$ 0.00 150.00$ 150.00$ 18 PVC Service Wye EACH 1 175.00$ 175.00$ 1 600.00$ 600.00$ 0.00 425.00$ 425.00$ 19 4' Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manhole EACH 3 5,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 4 7,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 1.00 2,000.00$ 13,000.00$ 20 4' Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manhole (drop MH)EACH 1 6,500.00$ 6,500.00$ 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 0.00 8,500.00$ 8,500.00$ 21 Anti Seepage Collar EACH 4 500.00$ 2,000.00$ 0 750.00$ -$ -4.00 250.00$ (2,000.00)$ Quantity decrease due to updated utility plans from new development 22 overdepth LF 10 180.00$ 1,800.00$ 10 500.00$ 5,000.00$ 0.00 320.00$ 3,200.00$ Price increase to 2022 costs 123,455.00$ 142,650.00$ 0.00 -$ 19,195.00$ 23 connect to existing watermain - wet tap EACH 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 0 9,500.00$ -$ -1.00 7,000.00$ (2,500.00)$ Quantity decrease due to updated utility plans from new development 24 connect to existing watermain EACH 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2 3,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 1.00 500.00$ 3,500.00$ Price increase to 2022 costs 25 8" Watermain LF 2175 65.00$ 141,375.00$ 1820 80.00$ 145,600.00$ -355.00 15.00$ 4,225.00$ Quantity decrease due to updated utility plans from new development, Price increase to 2022 costs 26 8" Valve EACH 3 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$ 3 3,800.00$ 11,400.00$ 0.00 300.00$ 900.00$ 27 fire flow service LF 35 45.00$ 1,575.00$ 70 65.00$ 4,550.00$ 35.00 20.00$ 2,975.00$ 28 fire flow valve EACH 1 1,750.00$ 1,750.00$ 2 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 1.00 750.00$ 3,250.00$ 29 domestic service EACH 35 1,100.00$ 38,500.00$ 70 1,500.00$ 105,000.00$ 35.00 400.00$ 66,500.00$ 30 salvage and reinstall hydrant EACH 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 1.00 -$ 2,500.00$ 31 install hydrant EACH 3 6,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 3 9,500.00$ 28,500.00$ 0.00 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$ 219,200.00$ 311,050.00$ 0.00 -$ 91,850.00$ 32 Joint Trench - Drilled County Road LF 70 200.00$ 14,000.00$ 70 200.00$ 14,000.00$ 0.00 -$ -$ 33 Joint Trench LF 750 100.00$ 75,000.00$ 900 110.00$ 99,000.00$ 150.00 10.00$ 24,000.00$ Quantity increase due to additional street and parking request, Price increase to 2022 costs 34 Parking Lot Lights 0 0 -$ -$ 0 20,000.00$ -$ 0.00 20,000.00$ -$ 35 street lights EACH 0 10,000.00$ -$ 0 10,000.00$ -$ 0.00 -$ -$ 89,000.00$ 113,000.00$ 0.00 -$ 24,000.00$ Subtotal Private Utilities Subtotal Watermain Quantity decrease due to updated utility plans from new development Price increase to 2022 costs Price increase to 2022 costs Price increase to 2022 costs Private Utilities Watermain QUANTITY DIFFERENCE UNIT COST DIFFERENCE TOTAL COST DIFFERENCE Price increase to 2022 costs NOTES Subtotal Sanitary Sewer Subtotal Grading Subtotal Removals/Restoration for Utilities Construction Subtotal Warming House Removals Site Grading Sanitary Sewer Corcoran Athletic Park Opinion of Probable Cost Thursday, August 11, 2022 Warming House Removals Removals/Restoration for Utilities Construction 2022 Costs2021 Costs ITEM NO ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED COSTS 36 Storm Sewer LF 1120 80.00$ 89,600.00$ 1615 120.00$ 193,800.00$ 495 40.00$ 104,200.00$ 37 temporary storm sewer LF 0 5,000.00$ -$ 0 5,000.00$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 38 Storm Sewer Manhole EACH 5 3,500.00$ 17,500.00$ 9 5,300.00$ 47,700.00$ 4 1,800.00$ 30,200.00$ 39 2x3 catch basin EACH 3 3,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 3 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$ 0 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 40 27" catchbasin EACH 0 1,500.00$ -$ 0 3,500.00$ -$ 0 2,000.00$ -$ 41 flared end section EACH 2 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2 3,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 0 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 42 outlet control structure EACH 1 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$ 1 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 0 6,500.00$ 6,500.00$ 123,600.00$ 270,000.00$ 146,400.00$ 43 Pickleball Courts (6) (Concrete)EA 1 120,000.00$ 120,000.00$ 1 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 0 80,000.00$ 80,000.00$ Increase in pickleball courts due to additional request, Price increase to 2022 costs 44 Hockey Rink (200' x 85' )EA 1 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$ 1 120,000.00$ 120,000.00$ 0 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 45 Splash Pad LS 1 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$ 1 450,000.00$ 450,000.00$ 0 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 46 Volleyball EA 0 5,000.00$ -$ 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 1 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 47 Playgrounds EA 1 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 3 150,000.00$ 450,000.00$ 2 60,000.00$ 360,000.00$ additional quantity due to requests, Price increase to 2022 costs 48 Bathroom/changing Room/Splash Pad Utility Building LS 0 -$ -$ 1 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$ 1 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$ added bid item from requests 49 Basketball/Tennis Court EA 0 -$ -$ 1 160,000.00$ 160,000.00$ 1 160,000.00$ 160,000.00$ 560,000.00$ 2,890,000.00$ 0 -$ 2,330,000.00$ 50 Bituminous - Street TON 314 75.00$ 23,550.00$ 950 90.00$ 85,500.00$ 636 15.00$ 61,950.00$ 51 Bituminous - Parking Lot TON 2466 80.00$ 197,280.00$ 3940 100.00$ 394,000.00$ 1474 20.00$ 196,720.00$ 52 Bituminous - Trail TON 177 90.00$ 15,930.00$ 257 125.00$ 32,125.00$ 80 35.00$ 16,195.00$ 53 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 620 2.00$ 1,240.00$ 1050 3.00$ 3,150.00$ 430 1.00$ 1,910.00$ 54 6" Concrete Walk SF 0 6.00$ -$ 10500 7.00$ 73,500.00$ 10500 1.00$ 73,500.00$ 55 Class 5 aggregate TON 4160 20.00$ 83,200.00$ 13100 27.00$ 353,700.00$ 8940 7.00$ 270,500.00$ 56 Select Granular TON 940 25.00$ 23,500.00$ 2350 30.00$ 70,500.00$ 1410 5.00$ 47,000.00$ 57 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 1000 15.00$ 15,000.00$ 2400 30.00$ 72,000.00$ 1400 15.00$ 57,000.00$ 58 Draintile LF 1000 10.00$ 10,000.00$ 2400 25.00$ 60,000.00$ 1400 15.00$ 50,000.00$ 59 Woodchip Trail LF 0 -$ -$ 0 50.00$ -$ 0 50.00$ -$ 60 Turn Lane Improvements LS 0 -$ -$ 1 450,000.00$ 450,000.00$ 1 450,000.00$ 450,000.00$ 369,700.00$ 1,594,475.00$ 1,224,775.00$ Subtotal 5,679,636.00$ 283,724.00$ 30% Indirect Costs 1,703,890.80$ 85,117.20$ Total 7,383,526.80$ 368,841.20$ Subtotal Street Improvements Subtotal Amenities Subtotal Storm Sewer Street Improvements Amenities QUANTITY DIFFERENCE UNIT COST DIFFERENCEStorm Sewer TOTAL COST DIFFERENCE Price increase to 2022 costs Quantity increase due to additional street and parking request, Price increase to 2022 costs STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 9d. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Cook Lake Highlands – Utility and Street Construction Status Update Action Required: Information & Approval Summary: The City Council granted a request of Cook Lake Highlands to begin utility and street construction. The request was granted with these conditions being met: 1. The letter of credit required by the development contract is in place 2. The park dedication fees are paid 3. The preconstruction meeting is held 4. Compliance with City construction hours If the stormwater agreement is not fully executed within 7 days of authorization, the City will issue a stop work order. All other documents must be executed by September 30th, including the three Met Council documents or the City will issue a stop work order. At the September 8th meeting there was discussion of revisiting the request at the September 22nd meeting to see if additional flexibility would be warranted. Staff has been working with the applicant and will provide an update at the meeting. Financial/Budget: N/A Options: 1. Take action to amend the previous approval if the Council deems it necessary. 2. Decline to take further action. Recommendation: Take action to amend the previous approval if the Council deems it necessary. Council Action: Consider a motion amending the previous approval if the Council deems it necessary. Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10a. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Schedule Work Sessions Action Required: Schedule Work Sessions Summary: It is recommended that the Council schedule work session on October 27th to review drafts for the PUD ordinance and the transitional buffer ordinance, and on November 10th to discuss the creation and implementation of a stormwater area charge. Financial/Budget: N/A Options: 1. Schedule a work session for 5:30 pm on October 27, 2022, and a work session for 5:30 pm on November 10, 2022. 2. Schedule a work session for a different day and time. Recommendation: Schedule a work session for 5:30 pm on October 27, 2022, and a work session for 5:30 pm on November 10, 2022. Council Action: Mayor to schedule a work session for 5:30 pm on October 27, 2022, and a work session for 5:30 pm on November 10, 2022. Attachments: None STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10b. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Michelle Friedrich Topic: Charter Commission Appointments Action Required: Approval Summary: The Charter Commission meets annually and is currently comprised of nine members, with 13 members approved by the District Judge in 2021. In the past the Charter Commission has discussed size, but the Charter does not set a specific number of commissioners. The Charter Commission can have a maximum of 15 members per Minnesota Statute 410.05 Sudivision 1. The City has received Charter Commission applications for Council consideration for re- appoint of individuals whose Charter Commission terms expired on August 1, 2022. The City has received applications from Brian Lother and George Gmach for reappointment to the Charter Commission. Financial/Budget: Charter Commission members serve without compensation. Options: 1.Appointment of Brian Lother and George Gmach to the Charter Commission and provided feedback on accepting additional applications. 2.Decline the appointment and advertise for additional applicants. Recommendation: Recommend reappointment of Brian Lother and George Gmach to the Charter Commission. Council Action: Review Charter Commission applications and appoint Brian Lother and George Gmach to the Charter Commission for a four year term. Attachments: 1.Charter Commission Application – George Gmach 2.Charter Commission Application – Brian Lother STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10c. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Christensen Buck/Peter Ekenberg Topic: Holiday Toy and Food Drive Action Required: Approval Summary: In 2021, the City worked in partnership with the Loretto Fire Department and local organizations to coordinate a Holiday Toy and Food Drive. The purpose of the event would be to engage with community members, while simultaneously collecting food and toys for local organizations, CROSS Services and Toys for Tots respectively. Staff, local organization representatives, and Council members were going to participate in the event last year, but due to inclement weather, the event had to be canceled. Due to the limited time for planning in 2021, the route for the event was very limited, but if approved, staff would like to incorporate additional neighborhoods that express interest in having the event drive by their home by filling out an online form. Staff is looking for City Council approval to move forward with planning the 2022 Holiday Toy and Food Drive for the evening of Wednesday, December 7, 2022. If approved, City Council would be invited to attend and participate in the event. Financial/Budget: The planning and implementation of the Holiday Toy and Food Drive would have minimal impact on the 2022 budget. The main expenses would come from time staff spends planning the event as well as participation of additional staff and fleet during the event. Additional expenses would include minimal, smaller items (i.e., candy, candy canes, etc.) and would be taken from the police reserve donation fund with no impact on the general fund. Options: 1. Authorize staff proceed with planning the Holiday Toy and Food Drive for Wednesday, December 7, 2022. 2. Authorize staff proceed with planning the Holiday Toy and Food Drive for a different date. 3. Decline to authorize the Holiday Toy and Food Drive. Recommendation Authorize staff proceed with planning the Holiday Toy and Food Drive for Wednesday, December 7, 2022. Council Action: Authorize staff proceed with planning the Holiday Toy and Food Drive for Wednesday, December 7, 2022. Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10d. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Michelle Friedrich Topic: 2022 Election Results Canvassing Date Action Required: Approval Summary: Per Minnesota Statutes, election results must be canvassed no sooner than three days following the election and no later than ten days following the election. The 2022 General Election is held November 8th, 2022. Council is required to canvass the election results between November 11th and November 18th. As we currently do not have a regular meeting scheduled during this time, a special meeting of the City Council will need to be called. Staff is suggesting November 14th at 7:00pm to hold the canvassing meeting. Once approved staff will post the special meeting in the Crow River News and on the City’s website. Financial/Budget: NA Options: 1. Select a date between of November 14th and November 18th for canvassing the 2022 General Election Results and directing staff to post and publish notices accordingly. Recommendation: Select the date of November 14th at 7:00pm for canvassing the 2022 General Election Results. Council Action: Mayor to call a special meeting of the City Council on November ___, 2022 at 7:00pm for canvassing of the 2022 General Election. Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 10e. Council Meeting: September 22, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Request for Temporary Construction Access Change – Bellwether and Amberly Action Required: Direction Summary: The City has received a request from residents in Bellwether to consider a change to the current site access for the Amberly Development and later phases of Bellwether that have been approved. Concerns have been raised over the noise and the disruption of construction traffic which are prompting the request for a change in where vehicles access the projects. When Bellwether was platted the final phase which connected only to Huntersridg e. The City required and overlay be completed on Huntersridge if it was used for construction access. With the platting of VanBlaircom parcel, future phases of the Bellwether are being constructed and accessed through the existing Bellwether development. The original approval considerations were impacts of construction traffic on the existing residents on Huntersridge and increased wear of the road that the City maintains. Staff has met with two residents who requested a temporary construction access change be processed. Attached is the request and options for the City to cons ider for other access options. Financial/Budget: As the City’s development contract has been executed, it would require reopening the development agreement to ask for additional funds and would need to be agreed to by the developer. The City does not have funds budgeted for temporary roads. The city has been planning an overlay Huntersridge and is part of the City’s road maintenance program. Staff and consultant costs would be incurred if the City moves forward with a potential access change. Costs for obtaining easements and turn lanes and working with the County and landowners would need to be considered depending on which of the proposed options was selected. Options: 1. Amend the construction access for the Bellwether and Amberly developments. 2. Decline to amend the construction access for the Bellwether and Amberly developments. Recommendation: Staff recommends maintaining the construction access as currently proposed due to limited staff time and financial resources. Page 2 . Council Action: Consider whether to amend the City’s construction access for the Bellwether and Amberly developments. Attachments: 1. Request from Bellwether Resident 2. Presentation of Proposed Construction Access Sites 1 Jessica Beise From:Craig Espelien <cespelien@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2022 7:59 AM To:Natalie Davis; Jessica Beise Cc:Dave Reinsel Subject:Bellwether Construction - Temporary Road Options Attachments:corcoran city council_22.pptx Natalie & Jessica - per Natalies note summarizing our meeting (Point #2 - City Council Presentation - Temporary Roads), here is what you requested. Why Are We Seeking A Construction Traffic Change? Noise Reduction and achieving the quality of life we were promised by purchasing in Corcoran and in the Bellwether Development Disruption of daily life - including earthquake like impact on our homes. During the past week with so many trucks coming in a single entrance where we all live, residents are experiencing wall-rattling vibrations that are similar to the earthquakes we experienced while living in San Diego. This include pictures shifting, items shifting position on shelves and the danger of cracking (may not show up for a while - but it appears we have more damage to our home post-one-year repairs including nail pops, cracks, etc. due to the ongoing vibration. The four solutions proposed: o Option #1 - connect to Hunter’s Ridge and do a 50/50 split in traffic - enter off of Stieg and exit through Hunter’s Ridge to Hwy 116 o Option #2 - utilize the temporary road west of Amberley and extend it to connect into Bellwether o Option #3 - use the main entrance, turn left before entering the development (partial road exists) and build a temporary road through the farm land south of Bellwether o Option #4 - connect the partial roads already under construction in the SW corner of Bellwether to Highway 30 by building a temporary road at one of two locations (see attachment) Thanks for the opportunity!! Respectfully, Craig Espelien (612) 845-0064 cespelien@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/craigespelien Adversity does not build character. It reveals it. Current State All vehicles currently enter and exit at this pinch point This creates a safety hazard due to speed, lack of obeying the stop sign and traffic conflict #1 – Hunter’s Ridge (50/50 Split) #2 – Amberley Temporary Road (West) #3 – Behind Bellwether 1 st Addition #2 – Highway 30 Access Point 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: September 22, 2022 City Council Natalie Davis McKeown, Planner Active Corcoran Planning Applications The following is a status summary of active planning projects: 1. Lots, Fences, and Walls ZOA (City File No. 22-033). Staff received direction at the June 9th Council meeting on potential solutions for additional fence flexibility within front yards as well as identifying a primary front yard for lots with multiple frontages. The City Council reviewed a draft ordinance at the August 11th meeting and directed staff to limit the focus of the amendment to reduce the setback for fences to 25’. This item was identified as a Top 4 priority for staff to focus efforts in 2022 and was scheduled for a public hearing at the September 1st Planning Commission meeting. The Commission forwarded a recommendation to approve with some changes to the proposed amendment. The City Council is expected to make a final decision at the September 22nd meeting. 2. Transition/Buffer Zones ZOA (City File 22-034). At the July 14th City Council confirmed, this item was confirmed as a Top 4 priority for staff to focus efforts on in the remainder of 2022. Staff is working on preparing a draft based on feedback provided at the May 12th work session. The draft is tentatively scheduled to go back in front of City Council in October before being sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. 3. MS4 Update (City File 22-035). Public Works is working on a code update to incorporate new MS4 requirements. The proposed verbiage is tentatively scheduled for City Council review and action at the October 13th regular meeting. A public hearing is not required. 4. 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 City Council approved the final plat and PUD plan at the August 25th meeting. 5. Vollrath Ag Shop CUP (PID 20-119-23-22-0003) (City File No. 22-038). Trent Vollrath submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow an agricultural building as the primary structure on an otherwise vacant lot that is actively farmed. The application was deemed incomplete and is not currently scheduled for review by the Planning Commission or Page 2 of 3 City Council. 6. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat and PUD (PID 32-119-23-34- 0013, 32-119-23-34-0007, 32-119-23-43-0005 and 32-119-23-43-0006) (City File No. 22- 039). An application was submitted to move forward with the preliminary approvals for the Pioneer Trail Industrial Park off Highway 55. The item is still incomplete as of this memo, but their expected to finalize their submittal by August 1st. This item is still incomplete and is not yet scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. 7. Wright Hennepin Energy Final Plat (PID 25-119-23-23-0001) (City File No. 22-041). WHE submitted their final plat application. Final approvals were granted at the August 11th Council meeting. 8. Corcoran Farms Business Park Rezoning and Preliminary Plat and PUD at 20130 Larkin Road (PID 26-119-23-13-0006) (City File No. 22-044). The City received a second industrial PUD application. This item is scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission on October 6th. 9. PUD Standards ZOA (City File No. 22-045). At their July 14th meeting, the City Council identified updating the PUD ordinance as a Top 4 priority for staff to focus efforts on in the remainder of 2022. The Council held a work session on July 28th to establish further direction on the desired updates to the PUD ordinance. Staff will take this feedback to establish a first draft for further review by the Council at an upcoming meeting. Review of the first draft is tentatively scheduled for October 27th. 10. Rental Ordinance (City File No. 22-046). At their July 14th meeting, the City Council identified establishing a rental ordinance as a Top 4 priority for staff to focus efforts on in the remainder of 2022. Staff prepared a first draft of a rental ordinance to be discussed at the September 22nd work session. 11. Brown Riding Arena CUP (PID 05-119-23-13-0008) (City File No. 22-047). An application was submitted to allow a horse-riding arena on a ten-acre parcel as the structure, in conjunction with the necessary horse barn, will be in excess of the accessory structure footprint permitted by right. The public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 1st, and the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the CUP. Council is expected to take final action at the September 22nd meeting. 12. Pro-Tech Site Plan, CUP, and Variance (PID 26-119-23-11-0020) (City File No. 22-048). An application was submitted to move forward with the site plan, two CUPs, and three variances for an expansion of Pro-Tech Auto. The public hearing was held at the September 1st Planning Commission meeting, and all but one variance was recommended for approval. The Council is expected to make a final decision at the September 22nd meeting. 13. O’Brien Sketch Plan (PID 32-119-23-44-0003) (City File No. 22-049). A sketch plan application was submitted for corporate offices of Crystal Distribution Inc (CDI) spanning 15,000 square feet at 22320 Highway 55. The item was reviewed by Council at the August 25th Council meeting. 14. Water Treatment Plan Site Plan and Variances (PID 12-119-23-22-0010) (City File No. 22- 052). A site plan application was submitted by Stantec to move forward with the site for the City’s water treatment plant located at 10120 County Road 116 in the Northeast District. The submitted site plan would require three variances related to screening and an accessory structure within the front yard. The item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 1st with a recommendation to approve the application except for one of the proposed screening-related variances. The City Council is expected to take final action at the September 22nd meeting. Page 3 of 3 15. St. Therese Site Plan Amendment (PID 24-119-23-23-0001) (City File No. 22-053). St. Therese submitted a request to modify their building plan. These changes will allow for the Skilled Nursing portion of the project to be added as a future phase and will expand the Memory Care component from 17 units to 20 units. Additionally, the changes request allowance of a pitched roof. The change involves less than 10% of the total existing site area and qualifies as a minor change that will be approved administratively. Council will be provided the updated plans within an informational staff report anticipated for the October 27th meeting. 16. Slabaugh Variance (PID 10-119-23-21-0014) (City File No. 22-054). Gideon and Heather Slabaugh submitted a variance request to allow a covered porch to encroach within the front setback of their property at 9925 Ebert Road. This item is scheduled for Planning Commission review at the October 6th meeting and City Council review at the October 27th meeting. 17. Tharp Accessory Structure CUP (PID 11-119-23-31-0011) (City File No. 22-055). Shawn Tharp applied to allow for an accessory structure that will exceed a footprint of 3,969 square feet. The structure would be located at 20420 Duffney Circle which is over 10 acres in size, so the property owner can exceed the allowable footprint through a CUP. This item is scheduled for a public hearing at the October 6th Planning Commission meeting with a final decision expected at the October 27th Council meeting. 18. Bellwether Drainage and Utility Easement Vacations (City File No. 22-056). Pulte submitted a request to vacate several easements previously established over various outlots in Bellwether and Bellwether 6th. These outlots are being re-platted as a part of Amberly 2nd, Bellwether 8th, and Bellwether 9th. New easements are to be deeded with these new subdivisions. A public hearing was held at the September 8th City Council meeting, and the vacation requests were approved by Council. 19. Water Tower Preliminary Plat & Site Plan (PID 11-119-23-14-0004) (City File No. 22-057). An application to move forward with the water tower at 19951 Oswald Farm Road was submitted. Staff is reviewing the application, and it is likely a variance will be needed for the submitted plans. This item is scheduled for a public hearing at the October 6th Planning Commission meeting with Council review anticipated at the October 27th meeting. 20. Kariniemi Meadows Final Plat (PID 18-119-23-11-0002) (City File No. 22-059). An application for the final plat of Kariniemi Meadows was received by the City. The item is currently under review for completeness. If deemed complete, the earliest this item would be reviewed is the October 27th Council meeting. City of Corcoran 2022 City Council Schedule Agenda Item: 12. October 13, 2022 Work Session (Tentative) • Financial Management Plan October 13, 2022 • MS4 Ordinance Amendment • Fee Schedule Amendment Discussion • Gateway Sign Discussion • Park Dedication Update • Update - Hackamore October 27, 2022 Work Session (Tentative) • Code Ordinance Drafts October 27, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications • Financial Performance Report • Corcoran Farms Industrial Park Preliminary Plat (Tentative) • 2022 Transfers • Long Range Planning Fund Creation • Draft 2023 Water and Sewer Budget • 2022 Fee Schedule Amendment • 2023 Draft Fee Schedule • St. Therese Site Plan Amendment November 10, 2022 • Construction Hours Review – Annual After Change in 2021 • Park Signs Plan • Accept Feasibility Study and Call the Improvement Hearing November 14, 2022 • Special Meeting November 21, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications • Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Preliminary Plat (Tentative) December 8, 2022 • Public Hearing – 2023 Proposed Budget and Property Tax Levy Page 2 of 2 • 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 • Voting Precincts for 2023 • Council Calendar 2023 December 22, 2022 • Active Corcoran Planning Applications