HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-07 - Planning Commission Agenda PacketCITY OF CORCORAN
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
7:00 PM — Thursday, July 7, 2011
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Open Forum
4. Approval of:
a. Agenda
b. *June 2, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Unfinished Business:
a. Update on Zoning Ordinance /Map update process
b. Update on Subdivision Ordinance update process
6. New Business
a. *Public Hearing. Public Hearing - Custom Filtration Rezoning, Conditional Use
Permit Amendment and Site Plan Amendment at 7219 CR 116 (26- 119- 23 -41-
0004) (city file 11 -005)
i. Staff Report
ii. Open Public Hearing
iii. Public Comment
iv. Close Hearing
v. Commission Discussion & Recommendation
7. Reports:
a. Liaison Report (Gmach)
b. *League of Minnesota Cities Variance Information (information only)
c. *Planning Project update (information only)
d. Other Business
8. Adjournment
*Literature to review
Material relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet,
located near the entrance to the Council Chambers Meeting Area.
City of Corcoran
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 2, 2011
4b.
Chair Hank called the Planning Commission meeting of June 2, 2011 to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present were Commissioners, Krueger, Hank, Jacobs, Laddusaw, Ravnholdt, and Kadlec.
Others present for the meeting: Council Liaison, Councilor Cossette, Councilor Asleson,
Alternate Commissioners Kohnen and Wu, Planner Kendra Lindahl, and City Clerk Heinecke.
Chair Hank asked 1 st Alternate Kohnen to join the Commissioners as Commissioner Jacobs had
not yet arrived.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Open Forum
3. Approval of:
a. Agenda
MOTION made by Kohnen, second by Ravnholdt to approve the agenda as presented. All
voted aye. (Motion carried 6:0)
b. May 5, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes
MOTION made by Kadlec, second by Krueger to approve the May 5, 2011 minutes as
presented. All voted ave. (Motion carried 6:0)
4. New Business
50
a. Blocks N Rocks Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage at 20010 75th
Ave (26- 119 -23 -14 -0024) (City file 10 -012)
Planner Lindahl presented a report to the commission on the history of the CUP request.
Chair Hank opened the Public Hearing at 7:10
Dean Jacobs, 20415 Duffney Circle — Questioned item 6 of attached resolution related to
gravel requirements.
Greg Ebert, 20604 Co Rd 10 - Encouraged the commissioners to be consistent in
approving CUP requests in the district.
Lee Sunram, 20010 75th, and Lance Elliot (engineer) — Questioned the requirement of
fencing around septic area, and 10 f.t setback on the east side of the property.
MOTION made by Kohnen, second by Kadlec to close the Public Hearing. All voted aye.
(Motion carried 6:0)
Commissioners discussed:
1. Stormwater management and water run off
2. Green space requirements
3. Septic system protection
4. Landscaping
5. Gravel storage area rather than paved
6. Fence height
7. Fence setback
MOTION made by Kadlec, second by Kohnen to approve the resolution as presented with
amendments to sections 1, 6, 8b., and add trees along 75th,
(Motion carried 5:1) Ravnholdt voting nay
b. Patnode Conditional Use Permit for Living Quarters Accessory to Agricultural Use at
23240 CR 30 (City file 11 -004)
Planner Lindahl presented a report to the commission on the history of the CUP request.
Chair Hank opened the Public Hearing at 8:37
Brian & Christina Patnode, 23240 Co Rd 50 — Applicant spoke to his lifelong history in
Corcoran and active involvement in farming in Corcoran.
City of Corcoran
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 2, 2011
4b.
Tom Cossette, 9200 Shannon Lane — Questioned the AG Preserve interpretation of what
is an 80 acre plot.
MOTION made by Kohnen, second by Ravnholdt to close the Public Hearing. All voted aye.
(Motion carried 6:0)
Commissioners discussed:
1. Timing of plating process
2. AG Preserve requirements
3. Setbacks
4. Ownership of existing home
5. Intent to place remaining 68 acres in AG Preserve
6. Ordinance allowing accessory living quarters
7. Drain Tile location
8. Financial guarantee from applicant to ensure the parcel is platted
MOTION made by Ravnholdt, second by Laddusaw to approve the resolution as presented.
(Motion carried 5:0) Kohnen abstained
c. Subdivision Ordinance Amendments
Planner Lindahl presented a report to the commission on changes to the subdivision
ordinance.
Chair Hank opened the Public Hearing at 9:05
Dean Jacobs, 20415 Duffney Circle - Will the variances authority change again?
MOTION made by Kohnen, second by Krueger to close the Public Hearing. All voted aye.
(Motion carried 6:0)
Commissioners discussed:
1. OS &P language regarding minimum project area, minimum lot size, PUD
requirement, elimination of the perimeter buffer requirement, underlying zoning
district application and setbacks.
2. Need for definition of minimum tree size required for tree inventory.
MOTION made by Kruger, second by Ravnholdt to approve the resolution as presented with
amendments regarding OS &P underlying zoning districts and minimum 100' setback on
arterial roads.
(Motion carried 6:0)
d. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Planner Lindahl presented a report to the commission on history of requirements for the
zoning ordinance amendment.
Chair Hank opened the Public Hearing at 9:40
Mike Brady 12638 45th Ave Plymouth — Representing Hope Church property and his
personal property spoke to arterial street setback requirements along Co Rd 116 and Co
Rd 30 and asked for clarification on the setback flexibility through landscaping.
MOTION made by Ravnholdt, second by Krueger to close the Public Hearing. All voted aye.
(Motion carried 6:0)
Commissioners discussed:
Home Occupation requirements
Re- zoning process
RMF3 arterial setback
Motor vehicle sales
Definition of a department /grocery store
MOTION made by Ravnholdt, second by Kohnen to approve the resolution as presented
with amendments to RMF -3.
City of Corcoran
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 2, 2011
4b.
(Motion carried 6:0)
e. Zoning Map Amendment
Planner Lindahl presented a report on need to update zoning map to correspond with
2030 land use plan.
Chair Hank opened the Public Hearing at 10:05
Mike Schommer - Property owner across from Lions Park — Questioned the path of the
proposed Sewer and Water lines being considered as part of the TIF project.
MOTION made by Ravnholdt, second by Kohnen to close the Public Hearing. All voted aye.
(Motion carried 6:0) ��
Commissioners discussed:
Color coding on the map and asked for better distinction between RSF -3 and TCR
district colors.
Sewer and Water options and timing in the southwest Corcoran area
MOTION made by Ravnholdt, second by Kohnen to approve the resolution as presented.
(Motion carried 6:0)
5. Reports:
a. Councilor Asleson updated the commissioners on the
Sewer and water project
Public works facility project
MOTION by Laddusaw, seconded by Ravnholdt to adjour
Adjourned at 10:37 pm =,
n. All voted aye. (Motion carried 6:0)
Agenda Item 6_a.
L A N D F O R M
From Site to Finish •
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
TO: Corcoran Planning Commission
FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform
DATE: June 28, 2011 for the July 7, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting
•
Tel: 612 - 252 -9070
Fax: 612 - 252 -9077
www.landform.net
RE: Dan Hamman (Custom Filtration, Inc.). Rezoning, Conditional Use Amendment
and Site Plan Amendment for a building and parking lot expansion at 7219 County
Road 116 (PID 26- 119 -23 -41 -0004)
City File No. 11 -005
60 -DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: August 2, 2011
Application Request
The applicant has requested approval of an amendment to the existing site plan approvals to allow a
4,013- square foot addition to the west side of the building and a 13 -stall parking lot addition.
When the applicant met with staff this spring, we notified them that the City was in the process of
updating the zoning ordinance. At the time that they met with staff, we recommended that they
apply for both the site plan amendment and a conditional use permit amendment because we did
not yet know how the ordinance updates would affect this property. The applicant did submit those
applications and City staff published a public hearing notice for the conditional use permit
amendment. However, because the City Council has not yet adopted the zoning map update
recommended by the Planning Commission, we are recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council adopt the zoning map update for this parcel only as part of this
application.
2. Context
Background
The conditional use permit for the existing building was approved in 1998 (Resolution 1998 -13). As
part of the original approvals, the landowner provided a 115' x 128' easement in the northeast corner
of the lot for use and maintenance and reconstruction of a drainfield that served the property to the
north. This easement was required to protect this septic area from impacts from Custom Filtration.
Zoning and Land Use
The property is classified as Light Industrial on the 2030 Future Land Use Plan. The property is
currently located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Boundary (MUSA) and zoned Agriculture (it
is shown as Light Industrial on the Draft Zoning Map). This property is in the 2025 -2030 phase of
the 2030 Sanitary Sewer Service Staging Plan.
Landforms ", San sib lyGrecn "and Site to Finish'" are service marks of Lan dform Engineering Company.
•
•
•
The business is a legal non - conforming use in the Agriculture zoning district. In accordance with
State Statutes, Section 1030.010, Subd. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits expansion of non-
conforming uses. However, staff recommends that the property be rezoned to Light Industrial to
allow the proposed use. This issue is discussed in more detail in the Rezoning section of this report.
Surrounding Properties
The properties to the north are guided Light Industrial on the 2030 Future Land Use Plan, the
properties to the west and south are guided Existing Residential and the properties to the east
(across CR 116) are guided Mixed Residential. All of the surrounding properties are zoned
Agriculture, which is a holding zone in the current zoning until municipal sewer and water are
provided.
Natural Characteristics of the Site
There are no trees or significant natural resources in the area of the proposed building addition.
3. Analysis of Request
Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and
City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer's comments are incorporated
into this staff report.
A. Level of City Discretion in Decision - Making
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning application. The
proposed zoning for a property must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the
proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City must deny the rezoning
application. The Zoning Ordinance and Map are the enforcement tools used to implement the goals
and standards set in the Comprehensive Plan.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a conditional use permit amendment and site plan
amendment is limited to whether or not the proposed request meets the standards outlined in the
City Code. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the conditional use permit and site
plan.
B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards
Rezoning
When the applicant submitted this application, both staff and the applicant believed that the new
zoning map and zoning ordinance would be adopted. One of the proposed changes in the zoning
map was to rezone this property from Agriculture to Light Industrial.
When this property received approval in 1998, the subject property was zoned C -2, which allowed
the existing office, warehouse and manufacturing uses. During the last zoning ordinance update,
Custom Filtration, Inc. (11 -005)
July 7, 2011
•
•
E
•
this existing commercial /industrial property was placed in the Agriculture zoning district until
municipal sewer and water became available. Unfortunately, one of the unintended consequences
of that zoning district is that it limits landowner's ability to expand without a rezoning. The draft
zoning map is intended to correct that situation by zoning existing businesses with the zoning that
corresponds to the underlying land use. Unfortunately, this landowner is caught by a delay in the
adoption of the new zoning ordinance and zoning map.
The City Attorney has opined that the rezoning from Agriculture to Light Industrial can occur
because the public hearing has already been held on the proposed map amendment. Furthermore,
while the Light Industrial district standards have not yet been adopted, they will be very similar to the
existing Business Park standards. After discussion with the City Attorney, we recommend that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning from Agriculture to Light Industrial with
the condition that the parcel is subject to the standards in the existing Business Park zoning district
until such time as the new Light Industrial zoning district standards are adopted and would become
applicable to this parcel. This would allow the existing business to continue to operate as it has for
nearly 12 years and expand the operation to add new jobs in Corcoran.
Site Plan
The applicant is requesting approval to allow expansion of the building and parking lot.
Access
Access is currently provided via one curb cut on County Road 116, which will remain. Hennepin
County Transportation Department reviewed the applicant's plans and finds no significant impact
from the proposal.
Setbacks
The building and parking meet all setback requirements. However, the plan includes parking in a
septic easement, which would require some setback flexibility through additional landscaping. Staff
recommends that the landscaping and parking in septic easement be eliminated.
The property includes an easement for the septic drainfield of the adjacent property to the north.
When this project was originally approved in 1998, the approvals were conditioned upon the
dedication of a private easement agreement between this property owner and the property owner to
the north. The intention was to provide an easement to protect this septic system until such time as
sewer and water become available.
The proposed site plan includes new parking spaces in this easement. Staff finds that grading and
construction of 10 new parking stalls in this easement would be inconsistent with the purpose and
intent of the easement. We recommend that the plans be revised to eliminate the parking in this
area.
Custom Filtration, Inc. (11 -005)
July 7, 2011
•
Parking
C
•
The site currently has 25 parking stalls. The current plan shows 38 stalls where 30 stalls are
required by ordinance. There is some inconsistency on the applicant's plan regarding the exact
number of parking stalls. Sheet A1.0 and Sheet C1.0 shall be revised for consistency and the plans
shall be revised to eliminate the parking in septic easement and provide a minimum of 30 parking
stalls. It appears that these new stalls could be added on the west end of the parking lot.
Screening /Landscaping
Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance provides standards for landscaping. Section 1060.070,
Subd. 2(G) of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the landscaping requirements for all new construction
and additions. The ordinance requires 4 overstory trees and 13 understory shrubs for this building
addition. Not more than 33 percent of the required number of trees shall be of one species. The
landscape plan includes 2 overstory trees, 3 understory trees and 61 shrubs. This would not comply
with ordinance requirements. The landscape plans shall be revised to comply with the minimum
landscape requirements by adding one additional overstory tree and eliminate plantings in the septic
easement area.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting parking setback flexibility as allowed by Section 1060.070,
Subd. 2(L) of the Zoning Ordinance. This section allows the parking setback to be reduced from 100
feet adjacent to County Road 116 (an arterial road) to 50 feet (the required setback from all non -
arterial streets in this zoning district). The setback may be granted 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 the 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 landscape requirements.
As noted previously, the proposed parking that would require the setback flexibility is located in the
existing easement area and should be eliminated from the plans, therefore, the setback flexibility is
no longer required.
Utilities
The property is currently serviced by well and septic. The septic /drainfield location for this building is
shown on the plans in the southern portion of the site. The subject property also includes an
easement in the northeast corner of the lot for use and maintenance of the septic site for the
property to the north.
The primary and secondary septic sites must be protected from impact during construction. Prior to
issuance of building permit, the applicant must provide proof of Hennepin County review of the
existing septic system to ensure that is in compliance and adequate to support the proposed
addition.
Wetlands
There are no wetlands on site.
Custom Filtration, Inc. (11 -005)
July 7, 2011
•
Stormwater Management
•
L'
•
The City Engineer has prepared a memo regarding the stormwater management and identifying
several items that must be addressed. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission also noted
items that must be addressed.
The existing swale along the north property line is not functioning as shown on the approved 1998
plans. The proposed site improvements must improve this drainage swale to comply with the
original approvals and address the new improvements.
Both the City Engineer and the watershed identified concerns with the proposed stormwater
management pond. Additional information must be submitted for review and approval by both the
City and the watershed and this has been included as a condition of approval.
Site Lighting
No new lighting is proposed. If the applicant chooses to provide additional site lighting (either on the
building or freestanding), they must submit a lighting plan to the city for review and approval, subject
to Section 1060.040 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Signage
The applicant has an existing monument sign north of the site entrance. No additional signage is
proposed.
Conditional Use Permit
Staff noticed this application as a conditional use permit amendment because this project originally
required a conditional use permit in 1998 (when it was zoned C -2) and we wanted to protect the
applicant against any potential ordinance changes that were being considered at the time of their
application. This business is a permitted use in the existing Business Park zoning district and the
proposed Light Industrial district. Due the unique zoning district situation discussed above, staff
recommends that existing conditional use permit be amended to allow the proposed use and provide
clarity to the applicant. We have discussed this approach with the City Attorney, who concurs with
this approach.
4. Conclusions
Staff finds that the standards for a rezoning, conditional use permit amendment and site plan
amendment have been met or can be addressed with the changes discussed in the staff report. We
have included conditions in the draft resolution to address these issues.
Custom Filtration, Inc. (11 -005)
July 7, 2011
•
5. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following:
a. Draft ordinance approving Rezoning from Agriculture to Light Industrial
b. Draft resolution approving findings of fact for Rezoning
c. Draft resolution approving the site plan amendment and conditional use permit
amendment
Attachments
1. Ordinance approving Rezoning
2. Resolution Approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning
3. Resolution approving Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment
4. Site Aerial Location Map
5. City Engineer's letter dated June 28, 2011
6. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission letter dated May 31, 2011
7. Applicant's letter dated June 3, 2011
8. Preliminary Plans dated May 17, 2011
9. Preliminary Plans dated June 3, 2011
Custom Filtration, Inc. (11 -005)
July 7, 2011
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-
Motion By:
Seconded By:
July xxx, 2011
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE TO
RECLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED AT 7219 COUNTY ROAD 19 (PID 26- 119- 23 -41-
0004)
THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Amendment of the City Code. Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran,
Minnesota, is hereby amended by changing the classification on the City of Corcoran Zoning
Map from Agriculture (A) to Light Industrial (1 -1) with respect to the property legally described as
follows:
Insert legal
Section 2. Effective Date. This amendment shall take effect upon its passage.
VOTING AYE
❑ Guenthner, Ken
❑ Asleson, Rich
❑ Cossette, Tom
❑ Gmach, George
❑ Milbrandt, Rosalyn
VOTING NAY
❑ Guenthner, Ken
❑ Asleson, Rich
❑ Cossette, Tom
❑ Gmach, George
❑ Milbrandt, Rosalyn
Whereupon, said Ordinance is hereby declared adopted on this xxx day of July 2011.
ATTEST:
Jeanie Heinecke — Clerk
Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor
Page 1 of 1
City Seal
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
Motion By:
Seconded By:
July xxx, 2011
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR REZONING FOR CUSTOM
FILTRATION, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7219 COUNTY ROAD 19 (PID 26- 119 -23-
41 -0004)
WHEREAS, the Custom Filtration, Inc. has requested reclassification of the zoning from
Agriculture (A) to Light Industrial (1 -1) to allow expansion of the existing building on property
legally described as follows:
INSERTLEGAL
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing
and recommends approval, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance rezoning the affected parcel from A and
1 -1;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does support the request by the Custom
Filtration, Inc. for the reclassification of the zoning from A and 1 -1, based on the following
findings:
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan,
including public facilities and capital improvement plans.
2. The proposed action meets the purpose and intent of the proposed Light Industrial
zoning district. The property shall be subject to the Business Park zoning district
standards until such time as the Light Industrial district standards are adopted.
1 There is adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed action. The existing
business and the proposed expansion would be consistent with the Business Park
zoning district and the proposed Light Industrial zoning district and would continue to be
served by existing public streets and private well and septic. The property will connect
to municipal sewer and water as required by the City policies in place at the time such
services become available.
4. There is an adequate buffer or transition provided between potentially incompatible
districts. The rezoning will allow expansion of an existing business, which will meet
setback requirements and it is screened from adjacent properties by trees.
5. Approval of the rezoning to L -1 is contingent upon approval of the site plan amendment
and conditional use permit amendment.
Page 1 of 2
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
VOTING AYE
❑ Guenthner, Ken
❑ Asleson, Rich
❑ Cossette, Tom
❑ Gmach, George
❑ Milbrandt, Rosalyn
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
VOTING NAY
❑ Guenthner, Ken
❑ Asleson, Rich
❑ Cossette, Tom
❑ Gmach, George
❑ Milbrandt, Rosalyn
July xxx, 2011
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xxx day of July 2011.
ATTEST:
Jeanie Heinecke — Clerk
Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor
Page 2 of 2
City Seal
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
Motion By:
Seconded By:
July xxx, 2011
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR CUSTOM FILTRATION, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7219 COUNTY ROAD 19
(PID 26- 119 -23 -41 -0004)
WHEREAS, the Custom Filtration, Inc. has requested approval of a site plan amendment and
conditional use permit amendment to allow expansion of the existing building on property legally
described as follows:
INSERTLEGAL
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the conditional use permit amendment and
site plan amendment at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for a
conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment, subject to the following conditions:
1. A conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment is approved to allow a 4,013 -
square foot building addition and a parking lot expansion at 7219 County Road 19, in
accordance with the application received by the City on May 16, 2011 and revisions
received on June 3, 2011, except as amended by this resolution.
2. No outside storage is allowed.
3. Employee and customer parking must be on paved, striped parking areas.
4. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant /landowner must:
a. Record the approving resolution at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to
the City.
b. Revise the landscape plan to remove all proposed landscaping from the septic
easement.
c. Revise the landscape plan to comply with the minimum landscape requirements by
adding one additional overstory tree.
d. Revise the plans to make the Sheet A1.0 and Sheet C1.0 site plans and parking plans
consistent.
e. Revise the parking plan and submit for city staff approval to address the following:
i. Remove 10 parking stalls on the east side of the lot to remove them from the septic
easement area.
Page 1 of 2
City of Corcoran July xxx, 2011
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -
ii. Provide a minimum of 30 stalls.
iii. Show parking stall and drive aisle dimensions in compliance with Section
1060.060, Subd. 4(C) of the Zoning Ordinance.
f. Revise the plans to address the conditions in the City Engineer's memo dated June 28,
2011.
g. The stormwater management plan must be approved by Elm Creek Watershed
Management Commission as noted in the May 31, 2011 letter.
h. The applicant shall obtain septic approval from Hennepin County and provide a copy of
the approval to the City to ensure that the existing system is adequate to support the
proposed expansion.
i. The septic system (primary and secondary) must be protected by fencing during
construction.
j. Electronic files of the plans shall be submitted to the City in AutoCAD format.
k. Submit a financial guarantee for the proposed work as outlined in Section 1070.050,
Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
I. Submit a landscape guarantee to ensure the 2 year landscape survivability as required
by Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(I) of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. 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
❑ Guenthner, Ken
❑ Asleson, Rich
❑ Cossette, Tom
❑ Gmach, George
❑ Milbrandt, Rosalyn
VOTING NAY
❑ Guenthner, Ken
❑ Asleson, Rich
❑ Cossette, Tom
❑ Gmach, George
❑ Milbrandt, Rosalyn
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xxx day of June 2011.
ATTEST:
Jeanie Heinecke — Clerk
Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor
Page 2 of 2
City Seal
Hennepin County Property Map Print
Page 1 of 1
Hennepin County Property Map - Tax Year: 2011
Wkh# kdw d0# rgwd1dhg *q#,dcI,*djha7thuyhg#ksp#d#frp skdwlrq*i#hfrugv#dggip dsvWgg{ pdI# frgwdkI #Ahvfuhsdq£Rvl�kdWdggrgc *hthf vhg*l#3g#3ffx dvhjJ,xyh 14jghuirip hg* l WOi Yhgvhg#
cdgg#xuyh rWWkh#khudp huhi# dqg# duhd# 4vtxduh 4irrwijh#dgg#dfuhv,#duhWssvr {7p dvhvWggkp dlgrgwd4#jh�£uhsdgfEavWkhtOgirLp dwh q* q#W ch> ,flsdjh #vkrxT*h#ycvhgtrt*hjliingfh*s rvhv*gd
Khgghs4W =gwltrhv#IrAxdudgohh#4ch#dffxdf #ki#p dvhutddkhuh3q4# rgwd4hg #dgg#kgq,,4Uh- rgv3edi#irWiWgI#p kxvhffi -* knhsuhvhq%dwhgflr**hr#Ydircp dwhq##'v##iv#jhudydwIyhvl
Selected Parcel Data
Parcel ID: 26- 119 -23 -41 -0004
F 11 Owner Name: HKH DEVELOPMENT LLC
Parcel Address: 7219 CO RD NO 116, CORCORAN , MN 55340
Property Type: INDUSTRIAL -PREF
Homestead: NON - HOMESTEAD
Area (sqft): 108583
Area (acres): 2.49
A -T -B: ABSTRACT
Market Total: $871,000.00
Tax Total: $30,486.22
Date Printed: 6/29/2011 9:48:32 AM
Current Parcel Date: 6/7/2011
Sale Price: $85,000.00
Sale Date: 08/1998
Sale Code:
http: / /gis.co. hennepin. mn .us /HCPropertyMap /Locator.aspx 6/29/2011
Wenck
TO: Kendra Lindahl, City Planner
FROM: Kent Torve, P.E.
DATE: June 28, 2011
SUBJECT: Custom Filtration Stormwater Review
The following items were reviewed for the Custom Filtration expansion:
• File Documents
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Ctr.
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359 -0249
(763) 479 -4200
Fax (763) 479 -4242
E -mail: wenckmp @wenck.com
• Plan Set (5/16/2011)
• Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission letter (May 31, 2011).
• Site visit on June 28, 2011
• Stormwater Analysis, Design and Report (May 2011), and
File Documents
The file shows an approved plan set (May 1998) and subsequent letter documenting a
field visit in August 1999 regarding drainage concerns. The drainage issue was a revised
pond "footprint" and slightly adjusted outlet structure location. No issues needed
additional investigation.
Plan Set
The submitted plan set reflects the following stormwater concerns:
• Pond "footprint" will be reduced, reducing the ability to provide discharge rate
control,
o A water quality benefit will be provided due to excavation of the pond
below the normal water level (NWL),
• A culvert near the building entrance (east) drains onto adjacent property to the
north. The original plan set shows a swale graded to the west providing drainage.
Elm Creek Watershed
The letter documents a reduced pond size and depth from approve plans. I concur with
the comments including:
• Reduction in pond size reduces rate control,
• The stormwater model needs revision,
• Resubmitted stormwater calculations need review.
Site Visit
A site visit showed the swale along the north property line is not functioning per plan.
Therefore any site improvements should improve this situation, whereas the addition of
impervious draining to the north would degrade the current condition.
Options to more directly convey this drainage to the westerly pond include; re-
excavating the swale or installation of stormsewer. These options may not be financially
feasible, so a cooperative arrangement with the north property owner may be the most
viable option.
Stormwater Analysis Design and Report
The report and model need revisions such as:
Gravel curve number (CN) should be raised from 85 to reflect impervious
characteristics (98),
Revising the model to show pond discharge at the 2.33 inch storm (no
discharge occurs in model), and
Water quality calculations should be submitted showing NURP water quality
volume,
End of Memo
elm creek
Watershed Management Commission
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TECHNICAL OFFICE
3235 Fernbrook Lane Hennepin County, DES
Plymouth, MN 55447 417 North 5t" Street
PH: 763.553.1144 Minneapolis, MN 55401 -1397
FAX: 763.553.9326 PH: 612.596.1171
E -mail: Judie @lass.biz FAX: 612.348.8532
E -mail: Ali .Durgunoglu @co.hennepin.mn.us
From: Ali Durgunoglu, P.E., Ph.D.
Technical Advisor to the Commission �C
To: Kendra Lindahl, City Planner, City of Corcoran
Judie Anderson, Administrative Secretary
James Kujawa
Date: May 31, 2011
Subject: Custom Filtration Expansion, Corcoran (City File No. # 11 -005).
Ms. Lindahl,
I have received your request for comments regarding this project. The original development plan
for this site (ECWMC # 98 -050) was reviewed and approved by the Commission's letter dated May
13, 1999.
According to the Commission's rules, this project would not need a review, because it does not
exceed the land disturbance and new impervious cover thresholds. However, I noticed that the
project is proposing to alter the existing stormwater pond. This could require a review of the
stormwater management plan.
Based on the narrative submitted to the City by the applicant, it appears that the existing pond was
either not built according to the design specifications approved in 1999, or the pond has
accumulated unusual amount of sediment volume since then. That must be rectified.
The Commission may need to review the stormwater computations carefully because the proposed
pond with a smaller footprint cannot provide a better rate control than the existing pond, while
keeping the same outlet structure, as claimed in the stormwater analysis. Furthermore, the proposed
excavation of the pond should have no effect on the outflow discharge rates, while it may improve
the water quality treatment. I speculate that there is an error in the pond HydroCad model.
A Commission review could be avoided if the pond footprint is not altered and the pond depth is
brought to the 1999 specifications approved by the Commission. However, if the pond footprint is
altered, then a review could be required. In that case, the proposed pond must be compared to the
pond configuration approved by the Commission in 1999 for stormwater rate and quality control
standards.
The Commission considers this project application incomplete. My comments should be considered
informal, only to help you in your planning process.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely.
Incomplete Application (Custom Filtration Expansion).DOC
CHAMPLIN • CORCORAN • DAYTON • HASSAN • MAPLE GROVE • MEDINA • PLYMOUTH • ROGERS
CUSTOM
FILTRATION
t.
t. INC.
June 3, 2011
Planning Department
City of Corcoran
9525 Cain Road
Corcoran, MN 55340
7299 County Road 116 Tel j783),4, 4
Corcoran, MN 55340 {763) 479 46 `
iaww ci7� }b'!Tifdil�Y }on �orrr
RE: Narrative for Site Plan Review Application
Custom Filtration Building Addition
7219 County Road 116
Corcoran, MN
Custom Filtration Inc is located south of City Hall on County Road 116, Custom Filtration built
a new 12,000 square foot facility at this site in 1999. The building is a one story structure
constructed of painted smooth & rock -face concrete block. At this time, Custom Filtration is
requesting approval from the city to place a 4000 square foot addition onto the west side of the
existing facility. The building materials will match the existing building. The exterior will be
painted to match the existing exterior.
Custom Filtration is a manufacturer of wire cloth products that produces parts for many
industries including floor maintenance, irrigation and all terrain vehicles.
The typical work day hours range from 6am to 5pm, Monday through Friday.
The addition will be utilized for inventory storage space. This will free up current floor space in
the existing building to make more production possible. Along with more production comes the
requirement for more employees. Currently there are 20 full time employees. With the
addition, Custom Filtration will be able to add around 5 -10 more full time jobs.
The adjoining properties are a commercial business to the north and residential neighborhood
to the south. There is currently a tree buffer on the south side of the building towards the
residential area. There will be no openings towards the south except what is required for
emergency exit/fire fighting access. The existing truck access to the building is from County
Road 116 on the east side of the building. Parking and truck access is between the two
commercial properties and not visible from the residential side. There should be no impact on
adjoining properties as the existing truck access will have no changes made to it. There will be
additional vehicular parking that faces towards the County Road, but will have no impact to the
neighbors.
This addition to the building will maximize the building foot -print on the site. The site maintains
the required amount of parking required for this building usage. The site meets all required set-
backs except for the front parking which faces County Road 116. We are also requesting the
parking set -back from the County Road be reduced from 100' to 85'. This will provide parking
for additional employees and ease truck access to the loading dock.
V. I -, GlcC l abriC,Ft'on `ervicc
The existing septic system's primary field is designed for 30 occupants in the building. This will
allow up to ten additional employees once the addition has been completed.
The well is down 216 feet. The facility requires little water for the manufacturing process.
There are 3 stools and 3 sinks in the toilet rooms as well as a kitchen sink for the break room.
The water consumption for this facility is less than a typical three bathroom home.
In conclusion, Custom Filtration is excited to be in a position for expansion with the current
economic conditions. We look forward to working with and staying in the City of Corcoran for a
long time to come.
Sincer y,
Dan Ha an, Custom Filtration Inc
EXI5TIN6
STORM
WATER
POND
G
r_. EXISTING
NORTH - - - . . . . . . . . . .DRIVEWAY
Filtration
Inc.
7219 COuntY ROad 116
SCOPE OF PROJECT:
BUILDING ADDITION ON WEST SIDE - APPROXIMATELY 4000 S.F
REGRADE WEST SIDE I STORM WATER POND
ADD ASPHALT b PARKING ON FRONT / EAST 51DE OF BUILDING
SHEET ]r EX'.
SITE PLAN
SUBMITTAL
5 -I6 -2011
ARCHITECTURAL:
51TE PLAN / PROJEGT INFO
AI.O
FLOOR PLAN
A2.0
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A3.0
CIVIL ENGINEERING:
STARK ENGINEERING - SAUK kAPIDS, MN 1 320 - 2442611
EXI5TIN6 51TE SURVEY/PLAN I GI.O
&RADIN6 PLAN G2.0
EROSION GONTROL PLAN G3.0
LAN05GAPIN6 PLAN LI.1
SUE INFORMATION:
LOT AREA:
118275 S.F.
BUILDING AREA:
EXISTING BUILDIN6 - 12,905 S.F.
PROPOSED ADDITION - 4.013 S.F.
BUILDING TOTAL - 16,918 S.F.
SITE REQUIIiF1yWNTS:
PARKING:
MANUFAGIURIN6 FACILITY - 8 5PAGE5 f ONE SPACE FOR EACH
2 EMPLOYEES ON THE LAROE5T SHIF "- - MAXIMUM 20 EMPLOYEES
5 + 10 = IH REQUIRED PARKIN& STALLS
WAREHOUSE - I SPACE / 1500 5.F. - ADDITION WILL BE WAREHOUSE SPACE
4000 S.F. / 1500 = 3 REQUIRED PARKIN& STALLS
PROJECT REOUIRE5 A TOTAL OF 21 SPACES - 32 PARKING STALLS SHOWN
VARIANCE FOR PARKING SET -BACK Al EAST SIDE -
VARIANGE REQUESTED FROM 100' SETBACK TO 65' 5ETBAGK
VARIANCE REOUIRE5 ADDITIONAL LAND5GAPING ALON& EA5T51DE PARKIN6
Q
z
F �I
BUILDING ADDITION
NORTH
ADDITION FLOOR PLAN
GENERAL NOTES: -ALE: va^ = I' -o^
PAINTED ROGKFAGE CONCRETE BLOGK
PAINTED ROCKFACE GONGRETE BLOCK
NORTH SIDE - ADDITION ELEVATION
�0 SGALE: 1 /5" = 1' -0"
GORNER5 OUOINED
WITH PAINTED
ROGKFAGE
GONGRETE BLOGK
EXISTING BUILDING BUILDING ADDITION
PREFINI5HED METAL GAP
ONTO TOP OF WALL
PAINTED ROGKFAGE
CONCRETE BLOCK
TO MATGH EXI5TINO
PAINTED STEEL DOOR
$ FRAME W/ PAINTED
STEEL STAIR
II II
II
z WEST S DE - ADDITION ELEVATION
na0 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' -0"
THRU WALL ROOF
EDGE SGUPPER
V4/DOWNSPOUT
QUOIN GORNERS
WITH PAINTED
ROGKFAGE
GONGRETE BLOGK
MATCH ROOF HEIGHTS
FOR START OF ADDITION
PREFINISHED METAL GAP
ONTO TOP OF WALL
PAINTED ROGKFAGE GONGRETE BLOGK
TO MATGH EX15TINO
QUOIN GORNERS
PAINTED STEEL DOOR 'WITH PAINTED
RO
$ FRAME W/ PAINTED
STEEL STAIR CONNCRETE GRETE
BLOCK
ADDITION WALL HEIGHT APPROX.
26 TALL ABOVE FLOOR -
20' GLEAR INSIDE
BUILDING ADDITION EXISTING BUILDING �J
PREFINISHED METAL GAP
ONTO TOP OF HALL
u
(a )SOUTH SIDE - ADDITION ELEVATION
A o 5--ALE: W/ " = ,' -0"
Ci
co
L
3(L
co
2 Handicapped
36 Standard
38 Total
=
F; '1(j
.1'
I
1
CV ':
106.1
I
i
I iNV 8 51
—TOC-
N V N'
�J
I�
I I
I�
�I
II
I PON
�1
_
11
11
�11
S
t
2 Handicapped
36 Standard
38 Total
� T O
01
1 1 —__
,
w
S K!MM _ R —
ifiV
;
c
NV N
r.
065
_
7;Tt
-
-
•
10:1 SAFETY BENCH
�`
.
-
I
r
I
',
0
_
{
BOTTOM= 1055.0
NWL= 1058.75
r
POND
HWL= 1060.83
�,, �
DRAINAGE
'
67.50
SWALE
t
83 28( M)
A
_ 82.65
'r
�= r
�
f
��.
63.25
8770
-
O
1t9l
T
-_
\
-
''..
.
: -
BUILDING ADDITION
4,013 SF
FFE= 1067.0
/
1
95 25N
_
-
` :
.... -
8825
DRAINAGE
SWALE
" #
r-
INLET PROTECTION
Ii F
F. BACKFILL ADJACENT TO PAVEMENT THEN SOD REMAINING DISTURBED AREA.
G. ONCE TURF IS ESTABLISHED, SILT FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL ADJACENT STREETS; KEEPING THEM CLEAN
AND SWEPT OF ALL DIRT AND DEBRIS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EXISTING STORMWATER POND OUTLET STRUCTURE
AND PIPE; NO SEDIMENT OR CONSTRUCTION WATER SHALL BE ALLOWED INTO IT.
SILT FENCE
SPOT ELEVATION
'BUILDING ADDITION
aI
4,013 SF P INSTALL
0 6
BIQ—ROLLS
F 1 7. 0
FOR 5EDIMEN
�CONTROL F E
T N \0
SILT FENCE
A
i.
—000
'w
:-000p�
40 065
1000, -
"06,
EROSION
CONTROL
INLET PROTECTION
BLANKET
L-
- - - - -
'BUILDING ADDITION
aI
4,013 SF P INSTALL
0 6
BIQ—ROLLS
F 1 7. 0
FOR 5EDIMEN
�CONTROL F E
T N \0
SILT FENCE
A
i.
—000
'w
EXISTING ACCESS�ROAD /PARKING TO REMAIN
2 B G 2
I _i
OO° ` DR
STORM POND PER
CIVIL PLANS
1
�w 2
...... .... x G
5 --
�+�Lt�rn�rnit�rn
MAIN ENTRANC
FINISHED Y
FLOOR= 1066.96
1 F ; EXISTING BUILDING
I �
1 � 1
G " I H SERVICE DOOR
R
f�
FINISHED
-d FLOOR= 1067.05
BUILDING ADDITION
OVERHEAD DOOR
4,01 3 SF OVERHEAD DOOR
FFE= 1067.0
T1VE
F
c
LOT PER
PLANS
5 ,4
i TO REM41N, T,YP. SEE rTES.
31
I
f _
': rs :: ':. / / / ' f_ /t J-vr �r�r -=�ar '�t�r,�v.r f�. j�r:.r �l -:.r/ ♦r �..1r� `.
�.
Scientific Name
xU
_.'
I ROM
Notes
I
A
Acer X (reemamii'Jef(ersred'
Autumn Blaze ]Ma le
2.5" Cal.
B&B
Healthy/Full___d
]CT
B
Males X'Spdng Snow'
Spring Snow Crabapple
1.5" Cal.
-.. � -• ...,
ROCK MUL ±ID LI`rtflGER. "-`- - -
�.
-
C
Quarto rubm
Northam Red Oak
2.5" C.I.
BkB
{
+
I �
�
5�
f
L1.1 nor TO sceiE
by the city based on applicant infomnetien, public input, council decisions, etc.
15. The land cepe contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any permits and coordinating Inapectlona as require throughout the work process.
F
c
LOT PER
PLANS
5 ,4
i TO REM41N, T,YP. SEE rTES.
31
I
f _
': rs :: ':. / / / ' f_ /t J-vr �r�r -=�ar '�t�r,�v.r f�. j�r:.r �l -:.r/ ♦r �..1r� `.
G
Scientific Name
Common Name
_.'
I ROM
Notes
I
A
Acer X (reemamii'Jef(ersred'
Autumn Blaze ]Ma le
2.5" Cal.
B&B
Healthy/Full___d
]CT
B
Males X'Spdng Snow'
Spring Snow Crabapple
1.5" Cal.
-.. � -• ...,
ROCK MUL ±ID LI`rtflGER. "-`- - -
�.
-
C
Quarto rubm
Northam Red Oak
2.5" C.I.
BkB
roO Dug
protection measures for the plantings during tow warranty, period.
I �
�
5�
f
L1.1 nor TO sceiE
by the city based on applicant infomnetien, public input, council decisions, etc.
15. The land cepe contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any permits and coordinating Inapectlona as require throughout the work process.
16. Plant size & species substihibona met be approved In ending prior to acceptance In the field.
17. The landscape contractor extend the misting irrigation system to cover new plantings proposed, M applicable.
18. AN edger:haft be Professional grade black polyethylene, 5" (min) tell with a 1 "dia. rose. Anchor every 18" on -center (minimum). Submit sample.
Do not Inatal edger between the turf end native and areas union directed to do so by the Owner.
oxcT:xusavacwsa srsrmon n w
19. Landscape Contractor Is responsible for coordination with the General Contractor, to protect the new, Improvements cn and oftsifte, during landscape
v 11=mmaa vw ore
work activitlsa. Report any damage to the General Contractor Immediately.
I SEPTIC SYSTEM
II PER RECORD
1 �� /A
-�
/ - -_. - "r +. V
�EXISTINGEVERGREEl0T8EE !�
1_ Y.
\ EX. DRIVEWAY
m
'
\ DRAWINGS
%
TO REMAIN, TYP SEE NOTES
At
-- .� srsalrvae"sro
L
)taming wells shown shell be 8" pnwat segmental units, straight- laced, gray in color with matching cap units. Wall engines" by wall
wxw
,. ,curer. Submit wall plans and color chart for approval prior to installation. Boukbr (gravity) walks are rat acceptable.
l
Q
22. All ceed /sad Braes shell be prepared odor to planting with a honey power box rake of equal to provide a fin planting bed Rae of stones. sticks.
: � vwnsccomwc,owvnnc onus user sarrrn
"- .uxmw cou *oas vnTMrre rxcerrwr. a asvrtso
construction debris, etc. Any alternate Bead mixture, rate, s application method noted shall be sumbised W the landscape architect for approval.
T :a"
,. -, xaEwom
•
ALP. SHRUB PLANTING - SECTION
L1.1 NOT TOs E
I DETAILS, NOTES, AND SCHEDULES:
R
D
Q
O
z
O
U
4.. ".
1
�1
r � ;
f ..
FENCE
WOOD
II
SCALE:1 " =2(l NORTH
1L LANDSCAPE PLAN
G
Landscape Notes: 7
1. Tree sauceoutside r mulch to be four inches (4 ") depth natural sirgle-ahred hardwood mulch for tress of a plant bed. Install per tree planting could. 23. Native Seed Ares Mix: Planting ll lg Palette: TREES:
Northam Upland Meadow Gresa Mix N0 am Upland Meadow W iMfiowar Mix
2. Rater to civil plan sheets for grading, drainage, site dimensions, survey, tore removal, proposed ueities 8 erosion control. EJ Rate: 40 lbs. par acre Rate: 10 lbs, per acre
Application: Hydroseed and Hydromulch Application: Hydroseed 8 Hydrgmuwh
3. All plant material shell comply with the latest edition of the American Standard for Nursery, American Association of Nurserymen. Unless rated Vendor. Prelris Restorations, Inc. Vendor: Prairie Restorations, Inc.
otherwise, deciduous shrubs shall have at least 5 canes at the specified shrub taught. Plant materiel shall be delivered in specified.
Pralte seeding contractor shall provide the Owner with a pmpoael for (2) additional years of prairie maintenance, in addition to the (1) year womanly. It
4. Plan taken precedence over plant schedule if distrepenaes in quantities exist shall be the seeding option to continue maintenance of the native prairie areas. Maintain under warranty per MnDOT Seeding Manual, 2007 edition.
Qty.
Key
Scientific Name
Common Name
Size
I ROM
Notes
I
A
Acer X (reemamii'Jef(ersred'
Autumn Blaze ]Ma le
2.5" Cal.
B&B
Healthy/Full___d
3
B
Males X'Spdng Snow'
Spring Snow Crabapple
1.5" Cal.
B&B
Healthy/FZ
1
C
Quarto rubm
Northam Red Oak
2.5" C.I.
BkB
roO Dug
5. Al proposed plants shall be located and Installed nearest to the location shown on the layout plan. 24. The landscape contractor shall conasct Gopher State One Cell no less man 48 hours before digging for field utility kxations. r� 1srr.rnurxo
g na SHRUBS:
6. Adjustment In bcati n of proposed plant r untedal may be needed In field. Should an adjustment be required, the diem will provide flew approval. 25. Refer to the civil engineers plane for erosion control measures on graded slopes. Coordinate seeding actties with the erosion control installer. - _
Significant charges may require city review and approval. co., mo
26. The landscape contractor shall be maponslble for the removal of erosion control measures once vegetation has been established to the satisfaction of
7. The project landscape contmcror shall be held responsible for watering and property handling all plant materials brought on th- site both before and the building inspector /govemirg agency. Tin includes sift curtain fencing and sediment loge placed In the landscape.
after Inata116tlon. Schedule plant deliveries to coincide with expected install time within 36 hours. 1sTM rvo
27. The landscape contractor shall be responsible for visiting the ate to become familiar with the oorddon , prior to Jwding and installation. Coodinate
8. All plant materials shall be fertilized upon instslksllon as specified. with ft general comractore on matters such as fine grading, landscaped area condiftionil staging areas, irrigation connection to building, etc.
9. The landscape contractor shall provide the Owner with a watering schedule Bpproffil the project sits contlPoons and to plant mmenel growth 28. All planting areas directly adjacent to the building are to receive rock mulch shall have 4" depth of l ".11,2" local grmnds rock Over weed mat, tamed up X°^" "M°s.ewsrw easrcnswe.
Q[y.
Key
,Socrifi&Name
Common Name
Size
Root
IJotea
17
F
Syringemeyeri7dit n'
Dwarf Korean Lilac
- --
43
1 POT
Heelthy/Full
10
3
G
H
Diervdle lon-
Thulaomdentahs'Rushmom'
Dwarf 5ush Honeysuckle
Rushmore Arbm il-
12
45
ZT
1'OT
Healmy/Full
r- lealmy/Fdt
37
1
comas sari _ _ _
Cardinal Red-0sier Dogwood
P2
A7T
Healthy/Full_ J
requirements. at edges. Submit sample for approval. All other planting areas to receive 4" aklglaehred natural hardwood mulch over weed mat.
ermrwm art
10. If the landscape contractor is concemed 0, penceives any deficiencies in the plant selections, soil conditions, drainage or any amer site condition that 29. Repair turf areas disturbed during construction activities to Original candaiols.
might negatively affect plant establishment, survival or guarentes, they must bring these deficie ices to the attention of Ina landscape architect! &.Bent prior
°1"NXC MUNICIPAL LANDaCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
to bid submission
m
4 "
l l con Tn"�l000sr ru. sue
11. Contractor shall establish W his/ her satisfaction that soil and compaction conditions are adequate to allow for proper drainage at and around the
-Ii ux,H U.xvassoxosoox
1r -` ,,..� �rtmsor.,,rg'aees°w.npe
1r con sxxewssnsr x.. axe.
building site
xmeun..=
12. Contractor Is responsible for ongoing maintenance of all newly Installed material until time of owner acceptance. Any acts of vandalism or damage
xww ascrsa+o ra000wxex iao
which may occur prior to owner acceptance shell be the responsibility of me conbactor. Conlracfar shall provide the Owner with a maintenance, program
including, butnot limited to, pruning, fertilization and dieease)pest control.
xmrs axorcavou,swoaorlrsa
13. The comradorshallguamntee newly planted material through one calendar year from to mate of written owner acoeplence. Plants that exhibit more
mrssuaraomxr wwrsruouss xor s,ar
man 10% die -back damage shall be replaced at no additional coal to the Owner. The contractor shell also provide adequate tree wrap and doer/rodent
protection measures for the plantings during tow warranty, period.
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING - SECTION
14. This layout plan constitute: our understanding of the landscape requirements lietstl in the ordinance. Changes and modifications may be mounted
L1.1 nor TO sceiE
by the city based on applicant infomnetien, public input, council decisions, etc.
15. The land cepe contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any permits and coordinating Inapectlona as require throughout the work process.
16. Plant size & species substihibona met be approved In ending prior to acceptance In the field.
17. The landscape contractor extend the misting irrigation system to cover new plantings proposed, M applicable.
18. AN edger:haft be Professional grade black polyethylene, 5" (min) tell with a 1 "dia. rose. Anchor every 18" on -center (minimum). Submit sample.
Do not Inatal edger between the turf end native and areas union directed to do so by the Owner.
oxcT:xusavacwsa srsrmon n w
19. Landscape Contractor Is responsible for coordination with the General Contractor, to protect the new, Improvements cn and oftsifte, during landscape
v 11=mmaa vw ore
work activitlsa. Report any damage to the General Contractor Immediately.
'~
/%�
20. Tracts noted to remain are assumed to be In good oDni ition prior to the start of general construction. Should "_Yeas meals) become damaged the
��1 Ps nAwrrm so,aor xw. vca riarr_s.
1
ge- - r contractor shall be responsible for removal and m Insist e landscape contractor shall Il 2.5" caliper replacement bee(s) of srmller species.
-- .� srsalrvae"sro
L
)taming wells shown shell be 8" pnwat segmental units, straight- laced, gray in color with matching cap units. Wall engines" by wall
wxw
,. ,curer. Submit wall plans and color chart for approval prior to installation. Boukbr (gravity) walks are rat acceptable.
l
Q
22. All ceed /sad Braes shell be prepared odor to planting with a honey power box rake of equal to provide a fin planting bed Rae of stones. sticks.
: � vwnsccomwc,owvnnc onus user sarrrn
"- .uxmw cou *oas vnTMrre rxcerrwr. a asvrtso
construction debris, etc. Any alternate Bead mixture, rate, s application method noted shall be sumbised W the landscape architect for approval.
T :a"
,. -, xaEwom
•
ALP. SHRUB PLANTING - SECTION
L1.1 NOT TOs E
I DETAILS, NOTES, AND SCHEDULES:
7219 l
Cl
I Certification:
I hereby certify 111
or report was Pr o
direct supervisior ds <
Licensed Lan:
laws of the Stabs
Prim Name:
Signature:
Dale: 05/16111
SCALE:
DATE:
REVISION'S:
LAN
L
N 89'54'52" W
4825.37
,' C� - - - - -� LAR KIN '2 ROAD
1 - - - -- N89 °54'52 "W 500.01 - - - - -- - EAST QUARTER CORNER
CIM I '� CIM 2 SEC. 26, TWP. 119, RNG. 23
CID
N 890 54'52" W 21.00
N00 °14'53 "W 40.00-=
` / -- -I ---- ---
'Eczl JUN ..If
WEST QUARTER CORNER 40 40 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
SEC. 26, TWP. 119, RNG. 23 o
In Section 26, Twp. 119, Rng. 23
Hennepin County, Minnesota
I
ED
ED I
N -x. N 479.00 _-'_`__"'-
21.00 F_______ _____ ______________ _ _ __
• (D 1/1 "PIPE W/CRP A -
'VOTATPROPERTY CORNER) m� W
2 N E.J
J 12 -SPIT =vim
I vaDPERTrcogy�R �` } S 89° 54' 5Z' 'OE 0 439.01 LEGEND
4J _ .11,11,
IV TOO - -`'+06141', `
i INV= 435548 SHIMMER _. .. •" - «" 24 O x
TOP 1WD58 `I .. r, RFLs9p5350 I �� - V1 VAN CLE M
C INV NlM1t 1055 ]4 ,, " " CAiIN BASIN
O .... , • _L �N 'I NEL, QNELL
24 , � e �$ ,y
LIGHT / LIGHT POLE y;,r
J D2pt 4
' 'T I,� BENCHMARK TOP OF WELL UTILITY POLE
�y� - _
ELEVATION I06761 (WIVE P9) N'lN p I 115 �rA 2'\
� _ _ _ PIPE CONVERT _ ..--.� > R CULVERT APRON Q
III I_rt pP1` _ III Go I t BURIED ELECTRIC LINE rew-
P
O BVRIEBeURIEaH.1 LINE -1
EASEMENTPER °
1 . ; D09 NO 6948355 `. _,i g? N avEaxEAO POWER LINE
I MAIN ENTRANCE / 2 I' < CD EXISTING CONTOURS —
POND \ SERVICE DOOR °�
FINISHED °� 1 N v PROPERTY LINE
I' `III •/ FLOOIY -1585 I I� C RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARY -
11
INV=
;l 15 ,�
CONIFEROUS TREE Q
BLOCK BUILD
3 O OECIDODUS TREE p yy" _ co /V
Q
\ �r se tiP yF'c i'?`i °a ssaww DODR �'J L,:_. > _._`Y _.
0
p A _ —� ,f iti FINISHED a ' V+ _ z'
111 Ty FLOOR -106]05
' O O 0 DENOTES: SET IRON PIPE
o ?
OVERHEAD DOOR Z WITH CAP STAMPED "DE1E0 90341"
OVERHEAD DOOR Irvp_
• DENOTES: FOUND IRON MONUMENT
V DENOTES: FOUND GOVERNMENT SECTION
FENCE - CORNER MONUMENT
I
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
Thee South 225 feet Of the North 600 feet of the 500 feet of Quarter
__SC
— =—
iISTEMI
�, ^ I
119, West of the
of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 119, Range 23 West of the F�itihT
N
Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
ORIENTATON OF THIS BEARING
{.2
SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM,
_ 1 _
— — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ —
Together with the West 21 feet of the East 599 feet Of the North 275 fact Of the
NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1883,
0
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Toorehip 119, Range 23
tee6 ADJUSTMENT.
No
O I ,.
I
West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Le
I
Subject to the public roadwayB across the northerly and easterly portions thereof.
54' 52” E 460.01
DO FENCE
¢¢¢
o
Q
I
_
And subject to an eeeement for maintenance and reconstruction FELL drain
\
5
S 00° 14'53" E
._. .... ...
feet feet
and the East 166 feet North 128 feet
over, under and across the Weer
.., . .,.
I
North feet the Northeast of the
of the South 225 feet the North 500 feet Quarter
40
0
,
I xEREST GENT n THAT 1x36 PLAN SURVEY. OR AUPLRT
�
ec t f t
30utheast Quarter of Section 26, TOwnship ll9, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal
9,
I ,
: p
,.
Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
• (D 1/1 "PIPE W/CRP A -
'VOTATPROPERTY CORNER) m� W
2 N E.J
J 12 -SPIT =vim
I vaDPERTrcogy�R �` } S 89° 54' 5Z' 'OE 0 439.01 LEGEND
4J _ .11,11,
IV TOO - -`'+06141', `
i INV= 435548 SHIMMER _. .. •" - «" 24 O x
TOP 1WD58 `I .. r, RFLs9p5350 I �� - V1 VAN CLE M
C INV NlM1t 1055 ]4 ,, " " CAiIN BASIN
O .... , • _L �N 'I NEL, QNELL
24 , � e �$ ,y
LIGHT / LIGHT POLE y;,r
J D2pt 4
' 'T I,� BENCHMARK TOP OF WELL UTILITY POLE
�y� - _
ELEVATION I06761 (WIVE P9) N'lN p I 115 �rA 2'\
� _ _ _ PIPE CONVERT _ ..--.� > R CULVERT APRON Q
III I_rt pP1` _ III Go I t BURIED ELECTRIC LINE rew-
P
O BVRIEBeURIEaH.1 LINE -1
EASEMENTPER °
1 . ; D09 NO 6948355 `. _,i g? N avEaxEAO POWER LINE
I MAIN ENTRANCE / 2 I' < CD EXISTING CONTOURS —
POND \ SERVICE DOOR °�
FINISHED °� 1 N v PROPERTY LINE
I' `III •/ FLOOIY -1585 I I� C RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARY -
11
INV=
;l 15 ,�
CONIFEROUS TREE Q
BLOCK BUILD
3 O OECIDODUS TREE p yy" _ co /V
Q
\ �r se tiP yF'c i'?`i °a ssaww DODR �'J L,:_. > _._`Y _.
0
p A _ —� ,f iti FINISHED a ' V+ _ z'
111 Ty FLOOR -106]05
' O O 0 DENOTES: SET IRON PIPE
o ?
OVERHEAD DOOR Z WITH CAP STAMPED "DE1E0 90341"
OVERHEAD DOOR Irvp_
• DENOTES: FOUND IRON MONUMENT
V DENOTES: FOUND GOVERNMENT SECTION
FENCE - CORNER MONUMENT
Survey for Custom Filtration
and Stark Engineering
__SC
— =—
iISTEMI
``.... . „.
WOODED
- -..
S 89°
54' 52” E 460.01
DO FENCE
¢¢¢
I
\
S 00° 14'53" E
._. .... ...
..
.., . .,.
I
.- 40
40
' 2151.56
No. O °te REnsl G. PH sD
I xEREST GENT n THAT 1x36 PLAN SURVEY. OR AUPLRT
,j
4
,.
o.oPx eY
.AS PHEPARED Br A RR OMER W R NEn SUPERVIS1
Arm TBAT I AM A DHLY NICI III TI LAND S.RVE'Do
UMIT THE LAWS OF III STATE OF NU HMESITA.
11. ,...
.1m
SY C1maj MN SB3ai
_.I .. ;� `: �.
N 89° 54' 52" W
40.00 t •
E
A
%.:...�J'�L• °Oa, vcarzcll
_
szo-2sslzss
0 3D• 60
SOUTHEAST CORNER
Amu
SEC. 26, TWP. 119, RNG, 23
N R A M E R LEAS DELEC)
SCALE w FEET
CIM
PROJECT
NO. STARE1101
Survey for Custom Filtration
and Stark Engineering
�1
I�
�I
i
�1
II
1
I POND
I�1
� 1
I�
I�
I
I�
BUILDING ADDI1
4,013 SF
FEE= 106?.0
NOTES:
1. BASE PLAN USED IS A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY
KRAMER LEAS DELEO (KLO).
2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE
APPROXIMATE ONLY, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ALL LOCATORS
AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL
CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL
3. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF THE
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN AND THE LATEST
EDITION OF THE MNDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION.
4. PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.
5. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 31%
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 39%
EX. PARKING STALLS
1 Handicapped
24 Standard
25 Total
PROP. PARKING STALLS
2 Handicapped
36 Standard
38 Total
9' 1
LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED
UNDERGROUND (U /G) GAS UNE
U/G TELEPHONE LINE —��-
U/G FIBER OPTICS CABLE
U/G ELECTRIC CABLE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC CABLE
UTIUTY POLE w
ELECTRICAL BOX °"❑
CABLE BOX °T'D
TELEPHONE BOX
STREET LIGHT X+
SIGN POST T
EASEMENT
TREES �� - --
5 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
1 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
SIDEWALK
DRAINAGE MANHOLE ..
CATCH BASIN
FLARED END SECTION G.
STORM SEWER --
SANITARY SEWER —�-
SANITARY MANHOLE O
WELL
RECEIVED JUN - 3 2011 o
C
y m C
C N �
mI
K m
a d
x N
I 'a
m o
✓ N (C
n
GRAPHIC SCALE *1 r;-,,
(w FcBT)
a
zi
O
Q
O
z
O
O
H
C
C
J �
LL
C
u
A
v
E
3�
O 4
s '
.t
3
� c
0
wAx':
NOTES:
1. BASE PLAN USED IS A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY
KRAMER LEAS DELEO (KLO).
2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE
APPROXIMATE ONLY, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ALL LOCATORS
AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL
CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL
3. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF THE
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN AND THE LATEST
EDITION OF THE MNDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION.
4. PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.
5. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 31%
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 39%
EX. PARKING STALLS
1 Handicapped
24 Standard
25 Total
PROP. PARKING STALLS
2 Handicapped
36 Standard
38 Total
9' 1
LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED
UNDERGROUND (U /G) GAS UNE
U/G TELEPHONE LINE —��-
U/G FIBER OPTICS CABLE
U/G ELECTRIC CABLE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC CABLE
UTIUTY POLE w
ELECTRICAL BOX °"❑
CABLE BOX °T'D
TELEPHONE BOX
STREET LIGHT X+
SIGN POST T
EASEMENT
TREES �� - --
5 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
1 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
SIDEWALK
DRAINAGE MANHOLE ..
CATCH BASIN
FLARED END SECTION G.
STORM SEWER --
SANITARY SEWER —�-
SANITARY MANHOLE O
WELL
RECEIVED JUN - 3 2011 o
C
y m C
C N �
mI
K m
a d
x N
I 'a
m o
✓ N (C
n
GRAPHIC SCALE *1 r;-,,
(w FcBT)
a
zi
O
Q
O
z
O
O
H
C
C
J �
LL
C
u
A
v
E
3�
O 4
s '
.t
3
� c
0
o�
LEAGUE OF
MINNESOTA
CITIES
What is a variance?
CONNECTING & INNOVATING
SINCE 1913
VARIANCES
Frequently Asked Questions
(Reflects 2011 law change)
A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a
permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of
property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A
variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply.
Who grants a variance?
Minnesota law provides that requests for variances are heard by a body called the board of
adjustment and appeals; in many smaller communities, the planning commission or even the city
council may serve that function. A variance decision is generally appealable to the city council.
For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
When can a variance be granted?
A variance may be granted if enforcement of a zoning ordinance provision as applied to a
particular piece of property would cause the landowner "practical difficulties." For the variance to
be granted, the applicant must satisfy the statutory three- factor test for practical difficulties. If the
applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted.
Also, variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
For more information, see Minn. Stat. & 462.357.
What kind of authority is the city exercising?
A city exercises so- called "quasi-judicial" authority when considering a variance application. This
means that the city's role is limited to applying the legal standard of practical difficulties to the
facts presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the
legal standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance may be granted. In contrast,
when the city writes the rules in zoning ordinance, the city is exercising "legislative" authority and
has much broader discretion.
What is practical difficulties?
Practical difficulties is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply the when considering
applications for variances. It is a three- factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To
constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. For more information,
see Minn. Stat. 6 462.357.
This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice.
Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281 -1200 FAx: (651) 281 -1298
INSURANCE TRUST ST. PAUL, MN 55103 -2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925 -1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG
What are the practical difficulties factors?
The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way
but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to
any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is
for a building too close to a lot line, or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first
factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable.
The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property
not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of
the particular piece of property, that is, to the land, and not personal characteristics or preferences
of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a
setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular
piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees.
The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Under this factor consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or
otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance
for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot
line and if that fits in with the character of the area.
Are there are other factors a city should consider?
Yes. State statute provides variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent
with the comprehensive plan. So, in addition to the three - factor practical difficulties test, a city
evaluating a variance application should make findings as to (1) whether or not the variance is in
harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, and (2) whether or not the variance is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
What about economic considerations?
Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have already incurred
substantial costs or argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State
statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties.
Rather, practical difficulties exists only when the three statutory factors are met.
What about undue hardship?
"Undue hardship" was the name of the three - factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law.
Effective May 6, 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amended Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 to
restore municipal variance authority in response to Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783
N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted
the statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue
hardship" test was not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a
reasonable use in the absence of the variance.
2
What did the 2011 law change?
The 2011 law changed the first factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding that had
been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. The 2011 law renamed the
municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise
retained the familiar three- factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential
character. The 2011 law also provides that: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance
are consistent with the comprehensive plan."
Can a city grant a use variance?
Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to allow a particular use of their property that would
otherwise not be permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed "use
variances" as opposed to "area variances" from dimensional standards. Use variances are not
generally allowed in Minnesota —state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use
that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. For
more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
Is a public hearing required?
Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied,
but many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all
variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help
determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors.
What is the role of neighborhood opinion?
Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While
city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in
considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the
statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help
the city in addressing these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not
form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. If neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for
the variance decision, the decision could be overturned by a court.
What is the role of past practice?
While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the
practical difficulties factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request,
cities are not generally bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds that it
is issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider the possibility of
amending the ordinance to change the standard.
When should a variance decision be made?
A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota's 60 -day rule and must be approved or
denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for
an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60 -day period.
Under the 60 -day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is
deemed an approval. For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 15.99.
3
How should a city document a variance decision?
Whatever the decision, a city should create a record that will support it. In the case of a variance
denial, the 60 -day rule requires that the reasons for the denial be put in writing. Even when the
variance is approved, the city should consider a written statement explaining the decision. The
written statement should explain the variance decision, address each of the three practical
difficulties factors and list the relevant facts and conclusions as to each factor.
Can meeting minutes adequately document a variance decision?
If a variance is denied, the 60 -day rule requires a written statement of the reasons for denial be
provided to the applicant within the statutory time period. While meeting minutes may document
the reasons for denial, usually a separate written statement will need to be provided to the
applicant in order to meet the statutory deadline. A separate written statement is advisable even
for a variance approval, although meeting minutes could serve as adequate documentation,
provided they include detail about the decision factors and not just a record indicating an approval
motion passed.
Can a city attach conditions to a variance?
By law, a city may impose a condition when it grants a variance so long as the condition is
directly related and bears a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For
instance, if a variance is granted to exceed an otherwise applicable height limit, any
conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the affect of excess height. For
more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
What happens to the variance once granted?
A variance once issued is a property right that "runs with the land" so it attaches to and benefits
the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. A variance is typically filed with the county
recorder. Even if the property is sold to another person, the variance applies.
Jed Burkett 2011/06
11
Agenda Item
• •
• •
L A N D F O R M
From Site to Finish •
105 South Fifth Street,
MEMORANDUM Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
DATE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
June 13, 2011
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dan Donahue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.C.-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FROM
Kendra Lindahl City Planner
RE
Active Corcoran Planninq Applications
The following is a summary of project status for current, active projects:
Tel: 612 - 252 -9070
Fax: 612 - 252 -9077
www.landform.net
1. Armbruster Topography and Wetland Waiver (city file no. 09 -011). An application has been
received for a waiver from the topography and wetland requirements and was reviewed by the City
Council on November 23, 2009. The City Council expressed concerns about the concept and directed
the applicant to revise the concept plan. The applicant submitted a letter extending the review period
until January 2012. This will allow the city time to complete the ordinance updates and allow the
applicant additional time to explore their options for developmentisubdivision.
2. Rocks N Blocks Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit (city file no. 10 -012). An
application was received for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Amendment to continue operation
of a business with outside storage at 20010 75th Avenue North. The application is scheduled for City
Council review on June 23 rd
3. Patnode Conditional Use Permit (city file no. 11 -004). An application was received for a
Conditional Use Permit for living quarters accessory to an Agricultural use. This is the follow up to the
wetland and topography waiver granted on January 27th (city file 11 -001). The application is scheduled
for City Council review on June 23fd
4. Ordinance Updates. The City is in the process of updating the subdivision ordinance, zoning
ordinance and zoning map to implement the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. These items are scheduled
for City Council review on June 23fd
5. Custom Filtration Inc. Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment (city file
no. 11 -005). An application received for a site plan amendment and conditional use permit
amendment for a building and parking lot expansion for the existing business at 7219 CR 116. The
application is schedule for a public hearing at the Planning Commission on July 7th
Also, there are a number of projects that have been approved, but are still not filed and closed out:
1. Corcoran Business Park (city file 06 -005). The City Council granted a one year extension to the
final plat approval, which expired on April 12, 2011. Staff has spoken to the applicant and will be
working to close out this project.
2. Kellys West Oaks (city file 07 -003). On August 9, 2007, the preliminary plat was approved by Res.
2007 -54. Res. 2008 -06 granted final plat approval with 7 findings and conditions on January 24, 2008,
including a condition requiring vacation of an existing easement. The applicant requested and was
granted a one year extension to the approvals. On February 10, 2011, the City Council approved an
after - the -fact plat extension. The approvals now expire on November 1, 2011 unless the applicant
has complied with all conditions of approval and recorded the final plat at Hennepin County.
Landforms ", SensiblyGreen " and Site to Finishs" are service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
1
3. Lions Park (city file 09 -001). The rezoning to PUD, PUD general plan and PUD final plan to
formalize the existing land uses and allow seasonal outside motor vehicle storage was approved by
the Council on August 27, 2009. The rezoning was effective on the date of approval. However, the
applicant must initiate construction of the improvements PUD within one year after the effective date of
the PUD rezoning by the City Council. Upon good cause shown, the City Council may extend the time
for one additional year. If construction is not commenced within these time periods, any building
permits issued for the PUD shall be void and the Planning Commission may initiate proceeding to
rezone the subject property. The one year period ended on August 27, 2010. Staff visited the site on
November 1St and noted that while some improvements have taken place, including permits along CR
101, the outside storage of vehicles was not initiated within the one year period and the approvals
have expired for that portion of the project. Any work on site requires submittal of plans to the city
for review and approval.
4. Northern Natural Gas Administrative Permit (city file 09 -009). An administrative permit for a meter
station was approved and is under construction. The city will retain the escrow account until the
project is completed to ensure that the project is completed according to the plans. The majority of the
improvements and conditions of approval have been met. However, the landscaping has not yet been
installed. Northern Natural Gas indicates that there are still connections that need to be made on site
and landscaping cannot be installed until completed. City staff was notified that the landscaping was
installed on site and conducted an inspection June 3, 2011. The landscaping and all other
improvements were installed per City requirements. Staff will begin the project closeout process.
5. Gleason Administrative Permit (city file 10 -004). An administrative permit for replacement of a
legal, non - conforming structure at 7105 CR 19 was administratively approved. The building is under
construction. The city will retain the escrow account until the project is completed.
6. Park Place Storage Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site Plan Amendment (city file 10-
006). On September 23rd the City Council approved Resolution 2010 -36 approving the request with a
number of conditions. The applicant is working to address those conditions.
7. Satellite Industries Site Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Lot
Consolidation and Easement Vacation (city file 10 -007). On September 23rd the City Council
approved Resolutions 2010 -37, 2010 -38 and 2010 -39 approving the request with a number of
conditions. The applicant has addressed those conditions and has submitted a building permit
application and has begun site work. The city has a financial guarantee in place to ensure completion.
8. Corcoran Wildlife Preserve (city file 10 -009). Preliminary plat (city file 06 -004) was approved on
September 27, 2007 (Res. 2007 -72) with 8 findings and conditions. On September 23, 2010, the city
council approved Resolution 2010 -40 approving the final plat. The applicant has 1 year to address all
conditions of approval and record the final plat.
9. AT &T Antenna Replacement at Lions Park, 7205 CR 101 (City file 11 -002). An administrative
permit was granted to remove and replace several antennas on this existing tower. No structural
changes were proposed and there were no changes to the approved site plan.
10. AT &T Antenna Replacement at 23240 CR 50 (City file 11 -003). An administrative permit was
granted to remove and replace several antennas on this existing tower. No structural changes were
proposed and there were no changes to the approved site plan.
MEMORANDUM