HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-03 - Planning Commission Agenda PacketCITY OF CORCORAN
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 3, 2011
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Open Forum
4. Approval of
a. Agenda
b. *October 6, 2011 Planning Commission meeting minutes
5. New Business
a. *Public Hearing. "Highland Subdivision" Preliminary Plat (city file 11 -010)
i. Staff Report
ii. Open Public Hearing
iii. Public Comment
iv. Close Hearing
v. Commission Discussion & Recommendation
6. Unfinished Business
a. *Park Dedication Ordinance Update (Subdivision Ordinance Section 955)
vi. Staff Report
vii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation
7. Reports
a. Liaison Report (Cossette)
b. *Project Status Memo (information only)
c. 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 Community Room Meeting Area.
This page has been intentionally left blank
City of Corcoran
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, October 6, 2011
.m
Commissioners Present: Chair Hank, Jacobs, Kadlec, and Krueger. Alternate Commissioner
Kohnen
Absent: Laddusaw, Ravnholdt
Others present for the meeting: Council Liaison Guenthner, City Administrator Donahue, and
Planner Kendra Lindahl.
1. Call to Order. Chair Hank called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Open Forum -None
4. Approval of:
a. Agenda. MOTION by Kohnen /Jacobs to approve the agenda with proposed change. All
voted aye. (Motion carried 5:0)
b. Minutes of July 7, 2011. MOTION by Krueger / Kadlec to approve minutes as presented.
All voted aye. (Motion carried 5:0) noted
5. Unfinished Business -None
6. New Business. Public Hearing on Park Dedication Ordinance (Subdivision Ordinance
Section 955)
a. Planner Lindahl reviewed the memo from TKDA Consultant Sherri Buss dated
September 26, 2011 on the Park dedication Ordinance. Several questions were
asked by the Commissioners on the final copy vs. the redlined copy of the
ordinance. There were found to be differences in the two with the redlined
version the latest and the one that should be the subject of the public hearing.
b. Chair Hank opened the public hearing. No members of the public came forward
to speak.
c. MOTION by Kohnen /Krueger to close the public hearing. All voted aye. (Motion
carried 5:0)
d. Questions asked from the dias:
i. Were the per acre property values of $20,000 an acre for land outside the
MUSA (Municipal urban Service Area) and $80,000 an acre for land
inside the MUSA line accurate. Mayor Guenthner pointed out that a
recent appraisal obtained by the city for property at County Road 10 and
Bechtold (outside the MUSA line) was valued at $20,000.
ii. Can Park dedication funds be used for any park development outside the
city? Planner said no.
iii. Mayor Guenthner in response to a question about The Three Rivers Park
District talked about the recent meeting with the Board Chair, our
Commissioner, and the Executive Director of the district and how they
wish to have a better working relationship and more collaborative efforts
in the future. Guenthner also said that the district will also attempt to co-
locate a passive park in the vicinity of the Hassan Park in Hanover and he
City of Corcoran
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, October 6, 2011
4b.
pushed them to look along County Road 19 as there was plenty of open
land.
iv. How the Park Dedication formula actually works
v. What the state law actually says regarding the city's discretion at setting
fees
e. The Commission decided to not make a recommendation to the City Council on
the Park dedication Ordinance at this meeting but to await the council's decision
on holding more inclusive discussions with the Council and the Parks and Trails
Commission on the ordinance. The Commission also asked if it were possible to
have Consultant Buss come to a future meeting to discuss the proposed
ordinance.
7. Reports:
a. Liaison Report. Mayor Guenthner discussed that he liked the idea to have a more
open discussion on the Park dedication Ordinance. He also reviewed the 2012
Budget process, the Highway 55 repaving project set for 2012 and the impact it
will have on Corcoran, and he discussed the upcoming sewer and Water
projects.
b. Other. None
8. Adjournment: MOTION by Krueger /Kohnen to adjourn. All voted aye. (Motion carried 5:0)
Adjourned at 8:25 pm
L A N D F 0 R M
From Site to Finish
800c Butler Square Tel: 612 - 252 -9070
100 North Sixth Street Fax: 612 - 252 -9077
Minneapolis, MN 55403 www.landform.net
Planning Commission Report
TO: Corcoran Planning Commission
FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform
DATE: October 25, 2011 for the November 3, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting
RE: Preliminary Plat for "Highland Subdivision" for property located at 10435 County Road
19 (PID 06- 119 -23 -31 -0001 and 06- 119 -23 -32 -0001) (City File 11 -010)
120 -DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: January 18, 2012
1. Application Request
Highland Bank is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide the existing 60.56 -acre
parcel into one 5 -acre lot with the existing home and one 54.19 -acre outlot. The property is located
west of County Road 19, north of Meadow Creek Drive and south of the Hanover municipal
boundary. The applicant is not proposing any new development on the site at this time.
2. Context
Background
In 2007, the City Council approved a final plat for a 13 -lot open space preservation development
called Prairie Creek Estates (the preliminary plat was approved under the name Meadow View
Estates). The developer did not proceed with the development and the approvals for that project
have expired.
Zoning and Land Use
The subject property is guided Rural /Ag Residential and zoned Rural Residential (RR). The
property to the east and south is guided Rural /Ag Residential and zoned Rural Residential (RR).
The property to the north is in the City of Hanover. The property to the west is in the City of
Greenfield.
3. October 18, 2011 Parks & Trails Commission Meeting
The Parks & Trails Commission reviewed this item at their October 18th meeting. They noted that
dedication is not required at this time, but dedication of the horse trail easement will be required
when Outlot A is platted in the future.
Landform5m, Sens iblyGreen M and Site to Fin ish'm are service marks of Landform Engineering Company.
•
4. ANALYSIS:
•
i
Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
Subdivision Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies.
A. Level of City Discretion in Decision - Making
The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets these standards, the City
must approve the preliminary plat.
B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards
The applicant has indicated that the plat is proposed to be able to sell of the existing home and plat
the outlot for future development. There are zero (0) development rights remaining on the proposed
Lot 1 and six (6) development rights remaining on the proposed Outlot A.
Lot Size
The plan shows a 5.004 -acre lot (Lot 1, Block 1) and a 54.19 -acre outlot for future development.
This exceeds the RR district minimum lot size of 2 acres. The home and accessory buildings would
be located on the new lot. The existing home is a legal, non - conforming structure due to setbacks.
The home is 38.3 feet from County Road 19 right -of -way where a 100 -foot setback is required. The
plat does not change this home's legal, non - conforming status.
The existing 1,809- square foot pole barn is within the maximum 2,438 square feet of accessory
building allowed by ordinance. The building is a minimum of 100 feet from all lot lines, which is the
minimum setback for agricultural use of the building.
The applicant has prepared a "ghost plat" to show how Outlot A could be developed in the future.
Any future development would require City approval of a preliminary plat and final plat. The concept
shows access to the future lots on Outlot A via Meadow Creek Drive. This is consistent with City
and County policies to limit new access onto County Road 19. Furthermore, Hennepin County
recommends that the plat include a condition that development of Outlot A and /or redevelopment of
Lot 1 include an elimination of the existing drive onto County Road 19 and a new access onto
Meadow Creek Drive.
Well and Septic
No septic system or well is shown the plans. The plans should be revised to show the location of
the existing septic system and well on Lot 1 to ensure that setbacks are met.
Furthermore, the plans show soil borings on the southern portion of Lot 1 for a future septic location.
That location is at the inlet of a drain tile that receives water from the south. Staff has concerns
about the proposed location of this future septic system and recommends that the applicant show
the area of the proposed septic system on the plans to ensure that the future system would not
impact the drain tile.
Highland Subdivision (city file 11 -010)
November 3, 2011 meeting
•
Drainage
•
•
There are a number of drain tiles identified on site. Care must be taken that future development
does not affect drainage or water quality in the drain tiles.
Streets
No new streets are proposed. The existing home has a driveway on County Road 19, which will
remain. Future development of any and all lots from Outlot A would access off Meadow Creek
Drive.
Wetlands
A wetland delineation was done on this property as part of the previous development application.
And the delineation was approved by ECWMC on February 8, 2005. A different plan was submitted
and approved by ECWMC in 2007. No new delineation is required for this plat.
All wetlands must be blanketed by a drainage and utility easement. Additionally, wetland buffers,
setbacks and wetland buffer monuments are required in compliance with Section 1050.010, Subd. 5
of the Zoning Ordinance when the property is platted. There are no wetlands on Lot 1, but there are
a number of wetlands on Outlot A. Easements and buffers will be required when Outlot A is platted.
Parks and Trails
The applicant is not proposing any private or public park land with this plat. The Parks & Trails Plan
in the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan does not show any park land in this area, but does show a
future horseback trail along the north property line and a trail on CR 19 (existing on the east side).
Section 955.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance states "Park Dedication is only due in cases where
additional new parcels are created." The subdivision will create one lot for the existing home and
one outlot. No additional lots are being created; therefore, no park dedication is due at this time.
However, the landowner should expect that park dedication will be due with any future development
and that dedication will likely include dedication of the horseback trail easement.
Under the current ordinance, park dedication is required at 10% of the net land area. The City may
accept cash -in -lieu of land at 10% of the value of the land with a maximum rate of $6,000 per unit for
each new unit. Cash in lieu of land would be $6,000 at the current rates (1 x $6,000 per unit).
C. Conclusions
Staff has reviewed the plan for consistency with the applicable standards outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Staff noted in the staff report
the outstanding that must be addressed and we have included conditions in the attached draft
resolutions to address these issues.
Highland Subdivision (city file 11 -010)
November 3, 2011 meeting
•
•
i
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat, subject to the
findings and conditions in the attached resolution.
Attachments
a. Draft Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat
b. Engineer's Memo dated October 25, 2011
c. Hennepin County comments dated October 3, 2011
d. ECWMC comments dated September 28, 2011
e. Plan graphics dated September 20, 2011
Highland Subdivision (city file 11 -010)
November 3, 2011 meeting
•
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -xxx
Motion By:
Seconded By:
November xxx, 2011
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR "HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION" ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD
19 AND MEADOW CREEK DRIVE
WHEREAS, Highland Bank, a Minnesota Banking Corporation, has requested approval of a
preliminary plat to allow subdivision of the existing 60.556 -acre parcel into one lot and one outlot
on property legally described as:
That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 119, Range
23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the North line of the plat of Meadow
Creek Estates, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the preliminary plat 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 by for a
preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions:
1. A preliminary plat is approved, in accordance with the plans received by the City on
September 20, 2011, except as amended by this resolution.
2. There are zero (0) development rights remaining on Lot 1, Block 1.
3. There are six (6) development rights remaining on Outlot A.
4. The applicant must revise the plans to show the location of the existing well and septic on
Lot 1, Block 1.
5. Outlot A will not be developed at this time and, therefore, shall be exempt from wetland
buffer, wetland setback and wetland monument signage requirements. When the property
is platted, the site shall be subject to the wetland buffer, setback and monument signage
requirements in place at that time.
6. Lot monuments shall be installed as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. A financial
guarantee shall be required to ensure installation per city requirements.
7. Any future development of Outlot A shall comply with the following requirements:
a. Access shall be via Meadow Creek Drive, not County Road 19.
b. All future subdivisions shall meet the City's minimum lot standards in place at that
time.
Page 1 of 2
City of Corcoran November xxx, 2011
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -xxx
c. All future subdivisions shall meet the City's wetland setback and buffer requirements
in place at that time.
d. When either Outlot A develops or Lot 1 redevelops, the landowners should work
together to try to eliminate the existing drive on County Road 19 and provide a new
access onto Meadow Creek Drive.
8. Park dedication requirements for Lot 1, Block 1 has been previously satisfied. No park
dedication is due at this time. However, future subdivision of Outlot A shall be subject to the
park dedication policy in effect at the time.
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 xxx.
ATTEST:
Jeanie Heinecke — Clerk
Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor
Page 2 of 2
City Seal
Wenck
TO: Kendra Lindahl, City Planner
FROM: Kent Torve, P.E.
DATE: October 25th, 2011
SUBJECT: Highland Subdivision
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
The plat was reviewed along with the Hennepin County comments dated 10/4/2011 and
the Watershed comments dated 9/28/2011.
There are no additional comments from the City Engineer's perspective.
Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.358, Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county review of
preliminary plats abutting county roads. We received your transmittal of the Preliminary & Final Plat on
September 22, 2011.
Right-of- Way /Easement Dedication — No additional dedications are needed. The half right-of-way is 60-feet
along the frontage of the property in this segment of County Road 19. All right-of-way necessary for the long-
term future was obtained as part of the recent county reconstruction project for C SAH- 19 (CP-922 5).
Permits - Please inform the developer(s) that any proposed construction within county right of way requires an
approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to driveway
and street access (for the joint driveway), drainage and utility construction, sidewalk / trail construction, and
landscaping. The permit applications are processed through our epermitting system at:
https.ollroa c erinits.co.hennepin.mn.us. Permit questions can be directed to Carolyn Fackler at (612) 596-0336.
Please contact Bob Byers (612) 596-0354 or rob err bveLsLa�)go.heling.p in. nin.us for any further discussion of these
items.
Sincerely,
James N. Grube, P.E.
Director of Transportation and County Engineer
JNG/rqb
cc: Plat Review Committee — Benicke / Byers / Dauer / Drager / Fackler / Holtz / Hooper / Lowry / Witt
Mark Larson, Hennepin County Survey Office
An Eq, uol Opportunity Employer Re cycled Pop er
Kendra Lindahl
From: Ali .Durgunoglu @co.hennepin.mn.us
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 20115:13 PM
To: Kendra Lindahl
Cc: judie @jass.biz; James.Kujawa @co.hennepin.mn.us
Subject: Highland Subdivision - City File No. # 11 -010
Hello Kendra,
On February 8, 2005, Elm Creek WMC approved the boundary and type of wetlands on this property (ECWMC # 2005-
001, Tessmer /Kalk Properties; PID
06- 11923 -31 -001 & PID 06- 11923 -32 -001).
A new development proposal was submitted in 2007 (ECWMC # 2007 -010; Meadow View Estates), and subsequently
was approved by the Commission. A WCA Exemption was issued for this development on May 29, 2007.
This latest submittal is proposing to divide the subject property into two parcels. One parcel, Lot 1, Block 1 containing
5.004 acres (including an existing house, garage and a pole barn), as a single residential parcel, and a second parcel,
Outlot A containing 54.190 acres of vacant land will be available for future development. This layout is significantly
different form the plan approved in 2007.
The Commission does not need to review this subdivision.
However, staff would like to bring to your attention that there is an existing drain tile running south to north between
the house and the pole barn (Lot 1, Block 1). The inlet of this drain tile is located almost on the edge of the proposed
septic field. This drain tile receives water from an area south of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1. This could be problematic
when Outlot A develops in the future. The proximity of an existing drain tile to a septic field is also detrimental to water
quality.
Any future subdivision of Outlot A may need to be reviewed by the Commission.
Sincerely,
Ali Durgunoglu, Ph.D., P.E.
Hennepin County Dept. of Environmental Services
417 N. 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55401 -3206
Ali .Durgunoglu @co.hennepin.mn.us
PHONE: (612) 596 -1171
FAX: (612) 348 -8532
www.hennepin.us
Disclaimer: Information in this message or an attachment may be government data and thereby subject to the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may be subject to attorney - client or work
product privilege, may be confidential, privileged, proprietary, or otherwise protected, and the unauthorized review,
copying, retransmission, or other use or disclosure of the information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this
message from your computer system.
Llpr0l 0�� li
"MA mmm.,,,
MR
N
109TH Ave N N TOWNSHIP OF HASSAN .
�P j'`a
o'
suNSET
MAPLE
o
De
MANE E
°o_ a
RUSH
�A tiNZJ
OAKRA7,E DR
$>
y ..
MEApO}yNEW
OW CREEN D VE
DRIVE•,
ry
ihw
Q
S
0 ,�
o
TESSMER RA
°
J
ELI
�
QVOI
ELI
Wi
i`tY r
ZW;
�
0
�✓ DO
RD NO 50 CT
vii
LOCATION MAP
NO SCALE
SHEET INDEX
SHEET DESCRIPTION
1. COvER SHEET / SHEET INDEX
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN / CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
3, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN / PRELIMhNARY PLAT
4. GHOST PLAT / FUTURE SUBDIVISION PLAN
SURVEYOR / LAND..PLANNE
ACRE LAND SURVEONO, INC.
9140 BALTIMORE STREET NE
SUITE 100
ELAINE, MN 55449
(763) 783 -1880
JOSHUA P. SCHNETER, PLS (763) 238 -6278 CELL
APPLICANT
HIGHLAND RANK
2100 FORD PARKWAY
ST. PAUL, MN 55116
MIKE ANDERSON (952) 658-4768
LAND OWNER
HIGHLAND SANK
2100 FORD PARKWAY
ST. PAUL, MN 55116
MIKE ANDERSON (952) 858 -4768
Me a.a�. a(wmxxnia,n �,rE�um� -Fs
i
w •I
Is
xswm
aulw
3E9
�$
o9 z
�8`a
_CVi$
Z `t
O H-
(D
GO (n
?w
— Z
O Z
M
LW X
W GO
W Z
n Z Q
cj�
O
F-
J
U
7 W =
O = C? O
C) DO =U
9/19/2011
.7N0.
11329
n M,
1/4
FFF
°§E ^� CITY OF HANOVER, MINNESOTA;,, .I' ..._. ,;, ,' ,'.,, "'
k Jomw F PNmndl I ,lone F P t W „ \' I „ Ame C. @ SYlrley T. Rlw
2' .m F G the IeTmtl RW Fuel, hale , LLC S ) • VI, (RA) ... .. .. i T. k LRADwno-y , I IRA)
o Ebb" so" 1/4 r tt I Sec. 6, Top- 1,9, Re, 23 (RA) lI ,,th I'n. °I th, N/ 9 �' a sec_ E, ,Twp. n9 9 y ( ) - v 6 a v
BaNne� re �, � • � • i i __ •,
'.! % c - 'cPpn'c,
- _ wE-r LAND � ��- � / ;/; " i " -
N
w
Z
z
sg w
o�
W Yw
an
w�4D a
4
(7 y
WET fkND
0
WET LAND
C,
Wit.
\ 1�' Jane 0. Until A, R. R. UaMI_,
�h..l (w)
In
n s ca= a N m l c>
u13 w.a. Ca r a15.[. fi, iwp. ly ➢Rile w2:
GENERAL NOTES
WET in.Ret.
o: D I of
n.,]p n°.e, or ere 11/2 of e sw1 A � n)9 >j
LAND .
ere save a �'• _ _� - aT - � y�
o
Fn T
i _ hCi a`t.ltlo.cc -
WET LAND
e _
/ c e s '
__
-N 986. 6.
<'
_ \ i' mTEc,mtE ARU (lneeany nwM n+�wjl ip
5,83],810 pWl4
1. N D' • /,( 80.6 _
�..-wr %' �' �A� •• P• I �
DI.;, Ter. s
CD
1���ae g 996 61
r� INV 9L00
/ •f
/ fip / Mob R. Munson
L Fee awnerehip is rooted in. Highland Bahl, a Mitausoto Banking Comomtia Ile Nol with Hennepin County under Parcel ID
Number: a6 -119- 23-31 -0001 and 06- 119 -23 -32 -0001.
Z Ad& .. of the surveyed meNuo: 10435 County Road No 19, Co moron. MN 55374.
3. Bearings shown hereon ore based on the Hannah County Coordinate System.
4. Bcundmy area of the surveyed premiere: *2,63),010 sq, ft. (60.556 attes).
5. The City of Cameron has Indicated that the surveyed premises shown on this survey Is currently zoned RR (Rural Roskimtloi).
6. Surveyed lonfoues are mown to Its wltNl Flood Zone 'X' according to One Flood Ineumnce Rate Map Community Pend N.
27053C- 0019 -E by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, affhoI date September 2nd. 2004.
7. The aM,d premise. has ...a to Meadow Creek Drive and County Road No. 19, public abeets.
& Utilities shown hereon are based An o topographical surrey by quality Sit. Design, LLC dated May 1, 2007. The location of
some underground utilities related to storm drainage were verified as part of this survey. The location of uodagrand utllitle.
and /a structured may vary from locations shown hereon and additional underground utilities and /or structures may be
encountered. Contact Gopher State One Call Notification Cats, at (651) 454 -0002 for veri9calice of utility type and field
location, prior to esonatI..
9. The field wrvey of this slid was completed on September 2nd, 2011.
10. The legal dmailtion shown on flue survey la based on Court no No.: 27 -CV -06 -1623 Dated and Fled October 28. 2009.
11. The lonotles. of the wetlands sheen on tMe surrey ere based on a topogmptdcai survey by quality Site Design, LLC dated May
1, x007.
12 All commonly owed crnfig... and le Included in in. plat
[ -C6.. 993.32 „N. 1" f al .I�MEPpO
c 1....: .
'V 994. i n n ri
Jame; D. Unell 6 R R. UaYI G ` •• `•
(RR)
Ci i"N V. =1apU.e�.
- - Jmnee M Teener 8 Rachael A Teener
(Poi)
:. OT ' e
ppF
L Ifun,ses k W NoUI n Rn e
mR) II
e AI
SL
aIV =I6U -c
1tlCt )6
14 5
1�z+a
N ` 8
>N 3k
a�
zlo �
.i
` IL
_ CES%k9 fc,
oanTp
I
I
.nuN un. ov fl. L. /a 0 s.c. A. 1 nv. ttyi 21 .;.nm Lw 1y 11 ", 0_""' vn a1 ms
N89'4612 fI utn 1/4 L of fi- 6' .wp. III R9. 23
LEGEND
—s. -- DENOTES PROPOSED SMACKS
a DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LIBELED
0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET
DENOTES HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT
6 DENOTES CATCH BASIN
A
^^- -� DENOTES POWER POLE AND OVERHEAD MIRES
— DENOTES SIGN
,A
§
- -• —• DENOTES FENCE
y,
�so
DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE
I
I
.nuN un. ov fl. L. /a 0 s.c. A. 1 nv. ttyi 21 .;.nm Lw 1y 11 ", 0_""' vn a1 ms
N89'4612 fI utn 1/4 L of fi- 6' .wp. III R9. 23
LEGEND
—s. -- DENOTES PROPOSED SMACKS
a DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LIBELED
0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET
DENOTES HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT
6 DENOTES CATCH BASIN
^^- -� DENOTES POWER POLE AND OVERHEAD MIRES
— DENOTES SIGN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
- -• —• DENOTES FENCE
DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE
That Dort of the North Half of the Sathweat Ouarter of Section 6, Town.hip 119, Range 23, Hannep(n
Canty Minnewto, INng northerly of the Nail line of the plat of MEADOW CREEK ESTATES, a file ontl of
'! DENOTES GRAVEL
record in the otfl.. of the Canty Recorder. Hennepin County. Minnesota.
j DENOTES BITUMINOUS
-- -�_ i DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
GRAPHIC SCALE
DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATOR
BENCHMARK
--e DENOTES UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
--•— DENOTES UNDERGROUNO TELEPHONE
RAILROAD SPIKE IN NORTH FACE OF 6TH POKER POLE WEST OF
COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 ON NORTH SIDE OF MEADOW CREEX DRIVE:
1 in INO I
— — DENOTES UNDERGROUND GAS
EIEVATON - 100575
I mch = 1DD H.
DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE
DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE
- - =Y— DENOTES STORM SEWER
v` DENOTES SOIL BORINGS BY MARK TRADEWELL
0 DENOTES WELL
k�A
R'E9
Ts'
saa�
Z
Q
Z
Q
d > O ~
� En O
Z :D w
0 in _ Z
F — L, m Z
Z0 D�
O W
U F__ p Z
Q
U' U Q CK
_Z L� J 0
F— ~ _ x
(10� 00
W U = U
9/19/201
11329
2/4
s
a&i
i
De
i
CITY OF HANOVER. MINNESOTA
I Jas, F. PWmNW I JmnmF Petemmi: , ••• •• •'
m : •`:•• ;;•:••• ,•
(RA) (R0.) „„ i T k L Flmmery
2 cn P:p^ t 1; a LmfIPJ Raul Pelota .G rte (�)
wear 1/a Co,— Pr sec s T— 110, Rg,. 11 (RA) 0. r Ina ,f trt< sw7Fn or sac 6 ,Y.p s Rs 3 - - _
S89-49'14"W
202.97
WET LAND �
YFT LANG _, (� 7 _ -, r r`ic"•°A`}')/ p j i , , %/
�T LA14uN ne 9ti ,'S <. r r I
WET LAND
f"
V 997 '9
Do
D. Uoull & R. R. Items\ � /.
D-11 sl LCa, tY f 77 s t $ ,rcar I Arniwupm. 119 a[ 7Fe
Rgc
GENERAI.NOTES
1. Fee dwmhip b weted IN: Highland Bonk Parch ID Number. 06 -119 -23-31 -0001 and
06- 11ne9- 23-32 -0001
2 Address of the surveyed premises: 10435 County Road No. 19, Corcoran, MN %374.
S Bearings shown h. are based on HennepM County Coordinate System.
4. Boundary arse of the surNeyed premises: *2,637,810 sq. k. (60.556 acres).
S. The City of Corcande has indicated Nat the wrwyed premises shown on Nk survey is cumentiy
owed RR (Rurd RwMential).
8. Surw)ed Dremieee are ia! 2 to Ile wlNin Flood Zomc "X' according to the Flood ineun mce Rate
Map Canmunity Panel No. D053C- 0019 -E by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Hwllw date September 2nd. 2004,
7. The w.rd pramrees has access to Meadow Creek OHw and County Road N. 19, public Mrist.
B. Ut'I Us shown hereon are based an a tWagraphkd surrey by QudHy Site Design, LLC dated May
1, 2007, The location of some underground unifies related to starm drainage were veHOe l as
pmt of this survey. The location of undmgreaml utllltite and /err structures may vary from
locations shown hereon and additional underground vUlKlos and/or etructurw may be encountered.
Contact CoPher State One Call Notilkambn Center at (651) 454 -0002 fIr WNINtatlon of utility
ITT and fldd location, prior to exwwtlon.
9. The Odd wrwy of this site was D.enantod on September 2nd, 2011.
10. Legd deecAption Is based upon Court File No.: 27 -CV -0e -1623 Dated and Rod OMOba 2B,
2009,
11. Wetlands shown an the survey are bawd on a topographical survey by Cuddly Site Design, DEC
dated May 1, 2007.
12. AddlBaml title work wdi need to be .,lead to use U any easements or encumbrances we
located wIMIn subject proporty.
13. All commonly owned oontiguous land Is Included in Has plat
14. No grading, tree remewl m ohm site modiflca lan will debar as part of We pmMat
0
XULOT A
2}111-7 z9gI
fi .7e —
aiI ``1 at�
Made R. me. Jynm D. Vasil & R R. Ua•JI '•• •"
RR)
S iM 4 ...
b 5W7/ 1 41_ 6 T Y'. 119, All 23
!i69'6A 12 E
MINIMUM LOT MOTH -jQDYT.1-1t
—•—
DENOTES UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
LEGEND
WET LAN
's — DENOTES PROPOSED SETBACKS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
9 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED
That Part of the North Half of the Southweet Quarter of
601
V 997 '9
Do
D. Uoull & R. R. Items\ � /.
D-11 sl LCa, tY f 77 s t $ ,rcar I Arniwupm. 119 a[ 7Fe
Rgc
GENERAI.NOTES
1. Fee dwmhip b weted IN: Highland Bonk Parch ID Number. 06 -119 -23-31 -0001 and
06- 11ne9- 23-32 -0001
2 Address of the surveyed premises: 10435 County Road No. 19, Corcoran, MN %374.
S Bearings shown h. are based on HennepM County Coordinate System.
4. Boundary arse of the surNeyed premises: *2,637,810 sq. k. (60.556 acres).
S. The City of Corcande has indicated Nat the wrwyed premises shown on Nk survey is cumentiy
owed RR (Rurd RwMential).
8. Surw)ed Dremieee are ia! 2 to Ile wlNin Flood Zomc "X' according to the Flood ineun mce Rate
Map Canmunity Panel No. D053C- 0019 -E by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Hwllw date September 2nd. 2004,
7. The w.rd pramrees has access to Meadow Creek OHw and County Road N. 19, public Mrist.
B. Ut'I Us shown hereon are based an a tWagraphkd surrey by QudHy Site Design, LLC dated May
1, 2007, The location of some underground unifies related to starm drainage were veHOe l as
pmt of this survey. The location of undmgreaml utllltite and /err structures may vary from
locations shown hereon and additional underground vUlKlos and/or etructurw may be encountered.
Contact CoPher State One Call Notilkambn Center at (651) 454 -0002 fIr WNINtatlon of utility
ITT and fldd location, prior to exwwtlon.
9. The Odd wrwy of this site was D.enantod on September 2nd, 2011.
10. Legd deecAption Is based upon Court File No.: 27 -CV -0e -1623 Dated and Rod OMOba 2B,
2009,
11. Wetlands shown an the survey are bawd on a topographical survey by Cuddly Site Design, DEC
dated May 1, 2007.
12. AddlBaml title work wdi need to be .,lead to use U any easements or encumbrances we
located wIMIn subject proporty.
13. All commonly owned oontiguous land Is Included in Has plat
14. No grading, tree remewl m ohm site modiflca lan will debar as part of We pmMat
0
XULOT A
2}111-7 z9gI
fi .7e —
aiI ``1 at�
Made R. me. Jynm D. Vasil & R R. Ua•JI '•• •"
RR)
S iM 4 ...
b 5W7/ 1 41_ 6 T Y'. 119, All 23
!i69'6A 12 E
MINIMUM LOT MOTH -jQDYT.1-1t
—•—
DENOTES UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
LEGEND
—
's — DENOTES PROPOSED SETBACKS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
9 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED
That Part of the North Half of the Southweet Quarter of
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET
Section 6, TOwnsblp 119. Range 23, Hennepin County
DENOTES HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT
hly of the North, 9ne Of Me plot of
Minnesota, lying norter
MEADOW GREEK ESTATES, w Ole and of record In Ns of6w
® DENOTES CATCH BASIN
of the County Retarder, Honesdale County, Minnesota.
fL STREET
—
m «1 DENOTES POWER POLE AND OVERHEAD WIRES
— DENOTES SIGN
--'---
DENOTES FENCE
®
DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE
DENOTES GRAVEL
DENOTES BITUMINOUS
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
F 1 da
NT
( I
C1 T '
Non 0. k Sidney T Rion ( { ••i,C Ca'( .') t V
6
(RA) l i 1 �ihwnae Rhode
K & NdNLem
.... r 00 APP (RR) it
fit { —a` �— as 8
nb �� INV. - 996.]4
N LOTS 1, r
> r.,
b IoM 5rD -_ _I DOD .26
BLi�K 1 4
b a'yrr - y( t if
V. )OCl ]S
N
' ` —sr -------- rs
W4 �OOp11-w 211* cy,
-
Vim•
I � � Z � II
LOT 3-P- I4
LOT 1 F mI LQT 2 F` �I zo se' .', aR sLM
BOCK 2 1
1.
WP
=;s
- Ep
. k
o p,
? '€
a`
mob_ 20P* 2 8k zees* a °ate
�i `WV..�iG1a.8q
Wan. M Tmunar le RWAdW A Teeanw
(RR)
BENCHMARK
RAILROAD SPIKE IN NORTH FACE OF 6TH POWER PORE WEST OF
COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 ON NORTH SIDE OF MEADOW GREEK DRIVE:
ELEVATION = 1005.75
LOT DATA
MINIMUM LOT DEPTH 30�T.
REpR YARD
SETBACK = y";I,jT.
M
. s.x.v
DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
MINIMUM LOT MOTH -jQDYT.1-1t
—•—
DENOTES UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
—
DENOTES UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
DENOTES UNDERGROUND GAS
-
DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE
DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE
fL STREET
-- r—
DENOTES STORM SEWER
DENOTES SOIL BORINGS BY MARK TRADEWEIL.
®
DENOTES WELL
,DI
To
50
Henrep ++ Cwnky Cost Irrn Aranum¢n_ Pt Ua
.119. Rqx =2�
h
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET )
1 u„h s Wu [t.
UM LOT AREA 2.5 ACRES
YARD SETBACK 25 T.
AS BUILDING SETBACKS
ORNNAGE AND UbUTy FASFMOITS SHOYM TRUS
NO 9AUE
BENG 10 FEET IN MOTH AND AOJUNWO MIGHT-OF -WAY
LINES AND ADJOINING ALL LOT UNCS, UNIESS OTH RMSE
SHOWS ON THE PLAN.
z
Q
J
d Z
O0
O (n (n
w
co Z
Z cz
0 :M:) C
Q M
J Q Z
n' z Q
LJ 0
— 21,
Q U
0 D = U
cD
� O
9/19/201
11329
4/4
9 /19/2'H1 11:47an
1 �1
p n Caunl, C M m nt et 1'.,
Nc t. 1/9 Co+n,- of Sec 6 iwp vlt9, Py¢e
e.,..e .• i,r.�'.e ieiiil V. ^ „�. n. ,.r.v i,ii,n.r �.c,il 15041 v11
ty.f t 4 menl ad �e vih me o, l.,e '.WI/ ( fr. twp, Ii R, Pye 2J
S C - ,., - 8 I., 119, Rge. 2J Nfl9 oZ E
KNOW 1 IRhi0N5 81 11CUE PRESENTS: That Hlehmal Bmly a WMnmto Seeking Caponflon, M owner of Me folloxN9 Eeoalmid W r' STARE OF WNSMIA Hal of the of Saelca a, Tasmania Ill "el mpe CWNtt OF _ None CFEt1(1( fSTAlE3. m A. e d of braved N lM oMOe of Me f tY .aowEe . .,,ryM Go-m[% MN cps, C t% ��4 1*9 m rtheny of Me amn, IMe of Me plat N gE%llpp Thle ha4umml weer ocknoMetlgetl ba /cn my bas _
Haw .sued do same to be mineral ad pMKed as HIYNNOD SWOOTRON Me as homey dwole "d dedicate to Me public far WMk use brays Me Padd xY bad dedow" and
babby be= , as Noxn m We Out
M eft mom Mneo1 wk HlghWnd Bank, a Mhnewlo IneWag Comenava, has oeurod them peeenb to be 4saw by as props efflar MN � day of
r HIGHLAND BANK:
SrAtE W AIMWESOTA
1 MINT' GF _
j Mfavgo8 kMMeWmanf we auYnowNCad beM me Me day a
g desperation, be bdMf of the Capaatbn-
H P fY Cml I M nt et Ih
YO_ by b a P. CoM1nNM.
vey Ceun % Mnm o
My Gram eNm axp'vV
I.UT t
S89'a9':e'W
—V
viepin Ca�n9y Co, le n
Mom,mepi c
vl ` /'. Cwner of iee a.
iw0. If B. Rge^23
The Weet line of the N1 /2 of the SWI /4, Sec. 6,
T, 118, R. 23, Is .esumed to hover a bearing of
South 00 degrees 10 minutee 37 second. Went.
My Cammo' My of Deems, MFnwota
toesi M. dram. ab Thla plot of HIOHI D SOBWN9IX1 was, asprowtl wd am:W by the City Comal of the My of CacaM, isammo a al o fepdw mealMg Mrmf held Me day d —_ a— . —v. -�+
20� If vpplWde, Me wMW aafntnento mtl reeammmeolimo of fha GNnmNdmer of Trwga'idfvn ontl Me Cwn[y Hld•wy FnBYIm haw bra rd, S' Me My m one pwvv,uw
XI day Po'lod here elgraW NIhaN reaeMt oe attb canmenG brad raarnmande0ona as poWEM by MMnmta Sodetes, lisamn, '05.03. SMd. 2 e Denotel monument found 1/2 inch Iron pipe, unless
My C000d. My of Crvaron, MNnevob otherebte shown.
M_, by Dead W Anderson, as Sew Nee President of Highland Bed a a Denote. 1/2 Inch by 14 inch Iron monument at
and marked by LS. No. 44655.
By MaIsr By wok —.a-- Denoted, approximate edge of wetland as defined by
TWAT Iopfi B DEPARn T, HennapM Count% IfmmG Mlnne9ota Slatutee, Chapter 505.01, tuba. 3.
L� 1 M1atly ami that lax" papble In 20_ vM qla pwa hew bwn pad for ea Imtl tlmrPoW an ML plat, ddM _ day of
®RT�x'E MY annaimlm alp raTi wn y, m
C OCA1E 1DC M L Nwrwru Marty Mahar By ob"Ay
L d"hua P. B-0 der handy eMHy I, b as Rat woe Met sl by me a untlr my and l es, —co; Mat 1 am a duly l W, p d, t al mr , Me s dep at d an In Mat
Mle plat e a . com npmntetbn a Me o, Not o wavy. Mal W s a.d s to duty and Gbde n U caablas em, .Gtl vo Mb Pbt: Met dl be 0 in. ebe 0 t m Mle q t me
Mm, m wd be meetly sat fNhN me y� that dl rata bwndmW and xt fandq " deM,ed M MNnmota 5<WUMe, Sae4on 9CSM. Sub.. 3, m of Me tloG of Mb mt'MCVte me 91HbEY DINSIDi. NmnWM Camty. MNmmb
( IN FEET) ,oen and INNW m MN plat and ad p.him pays are Maven wtl tabMed an Mla plot
Pursuant to HN. SAT. Sao. 3.ES5 (t.9, Mb pb has bra dammed bob _ day a mom
Do ed b tloy a 20_
Jesse. P. t mk Numbs M833 "Jam P. Bmyn, Carat, Seney, BY
ACFE LAND pp,[�p =Nm RIKKAM. Hen"pM M is Mammals I h«my salty Can Me arch, der of HIMI s MON w" r aarded m MIe arse. thm
-h 2O_� at _ o dove _,m.
5 n m n MIdwN H. CwmM, Cacmd, NmcrMr By DepulY
WAINACE AND 11mv fA¢A a%StpW NM
I I
iD
AND ALE
BEND Mid A M AWNING lLO AUleoi, O dl]fT -Cf -WAY
Pct, � QOM Au Gor uNEB. VMFSS o¶tEIYMR
FILED
STATE OF MINNESOTA
e j c
IN DISTRICT COURT
- - - - - - - - -- 2009 CC-T-2-8-AM -8, -4 7 -- -
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN HY orPUTYFOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Michael J. Leuer,
Plaintiff,
VS.
Charles Bursch and Louisa Burseh
and /or their unknown successors and /or
assigns, and Highland Sank and all other
persons unknown claiming any right,
title, estate, interest, or lien in the real estate
described in the complaint herein,
Defendants.
Case Type: Other Civil
Court File No.: 27 -CV -08 -1623
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND ORDER FOR XUDGMENT
This matter came before the Court, the Honorable John Q. McShane presiding
upon the motion of Plaintiff for entry of judgment by default against all Defendants,
except Highland Bank. It was made to appear that each of the Defendants was duly
served, either personally or by publication in accordance with Minn. Stat. Sec. 559.02
and Minn. R. Civ, P. 4.04 and 4.041. The steps required for service by publication were
duly performed in that: prior to commencement of service by publication, Plaintiff duly
recorded a notice of lis pendens herein in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder
and duly filed with the Court Administrator the complaint herein, together with an
affidavit of Plaintiff's attorney stating all facts required by law as prerequisites for
service by publication; and the summons herein was then duly published as provided by
law. All steps required by law to obtain jurisdiction of the parties to and subject matter of
this action have been duly taken, and the Court therefore has jurisdiction.
63823690
It was further made to appear that more than twenty days have elapsed since the
completed service of the summons herein upon the Defendants; that no answer or other
pleading has been filed or served upon or received by Plaintiffs attorney; that no
Defendant, except for Defendant Highland Bank, has in any manner appeared herein; and
that all Defendants, except for Defendant Highland Bank, are totally in default.
Upon the entire file and record herein, the Court being duly advised in the
premises, makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The real property that is the subject of this action has been historically
described as follows:
The South 40 rods of the North 60 rods of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6,
Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Mmnesota (PiDr'#06 -1 I9- 23 -32-
0001).
And
The North 20 acres of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6,
Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota (PID406- 119- 23 -31-
0001).
2. The legal description for the real property that is the subject of this action and
that is described in Paragraph 1 should be revised to read:
That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 119,
Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the North line of the
plat of MEADOW CREEK ESTATES, on file and of record in the office of the
County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property ").
3. Michael J. Leuer is the owner in fee of the Property.
4. Plaintiff and his predecessors in the chain of title are in actual, open,
notorious, continuous, hostile, exclusive, and adverse possession under color
of and claiming title in fee simple to said Property.
63823690 2
5. Charles Bursch and Louisa Bursch and/or their successor or assigns did not
interpose an answer in this proceeding.
6. Highland Bank holds a first mortgage lien on the Property by virtue of that
certain Mortgage dated January 17, 2005, which was recorded with the
Hennepin County Recorder's Office on May 26, 3005, as Document No.
85989153, and later modified by (i) a Modification of Mortgage dated
February 17, 2006, which was recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder's
Office on May 23, 2006, as Document No. 8801584; (ii) a Modification of
Mortgage dated May 31, 2006, which was recorded on August 9, 2006, as
Document No. 8847177; (iii) a Modification of Mortgage dated August 1,
2006, which was recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on
October 27, 2006, as Document No. 8884770; and (iv) a Modification of
Mortgage dated September 29, 2007, which was recorded with the Hennepin
County Recorder's Office on February 6, 3008, as Document No. 9094657.
The Mortgage held by Highland Bank, as modified, is referred to as the
"Highland Bank Mortgage."
7. The Highland Bank Mortgage shall be amended by revising the legal
description for the Property set forth in and secured by the Highland Bank
Mortgage to read as follows:
That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township
119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the North line
of the plat of MEADOW CREEK ESTATES, on file and of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
8. The amendment to the .highland Bank Mortgage shall relate back to the
original date the Highland Bank Mortgage was recorded.
63823690 3
9. Except for Defendant Highland Bank, none of the Defendants, known or
unknown, has any right, title, interest, estate or lien in or upon the real estate
hereinbefore described and the claims of said defendants are null and void.
From the foregoing, the Court makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR JTJDGMMi NT
The real property that is the subject of this action has been historically
described as follows:
The South 40 rods of the North 60 rods of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6,
Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota (PID #06 -I 19- 23 -32-
0001).
And
The North 20 acres of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6,
Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota (PID#06- 119- 23 -31-
0001).
2. The legal description for the real property that is the subject of this action
and that is described in Paragraph 1 should be revised to read:
That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 119,
Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the North line of the
plat of MEADOW CREED ESTATES, on file and of record in the office of the
County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property ").
3. Plaintiff is the owner in fee of the Property, subject to the Highland Bank
Mortgage.
4. The Highland Bank Mortgage shall be amended by revising the legal
description for the Property set forth in and secured by the Highland Bank
Mortgage to read as follows:
That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 119,
Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the North line of the
6382369v3 4
plat of MEADOW CREEK ESTATES, on file and of record in the office of the
-- -- — County Recorder, Hennepin County; Minnesota.
5. The amendment to the Highland Bank Mortgage shall relate back to the
original date the Highland Bank Mortgage was recorded.
6. Except for the interest of Highland Bank, none of the Defendants, known
or unknown, has any right, title interest, estate, or lien in or upon the Property, or
any part of it.
7. Title to all of the Property shall be quieted in fee simple in Plaintiff,
Michael J. Leucr, subject to the Highland Bank Mortgage.
8. The Hennepin County Recorder's Office shall accept and record this
Findings of Fact and Order for Judgment and revise the legal description for the
Property as provided herein.
9_ Defendant Highland Bank may record this Findings of Fact and Order for
Judgment against the real property and the recording of the Findings of Fact and
Order for Judgment shall amend the Highland Bank Mortgage as provided for
herein.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:
*t=d V �C
hane
6362369v3 5
com loo 00 00
C a > 0 0 CO co: N (6 O O
� c�
� W J
y L
Ol0 O'O O O1 OHO
'o OO I 001 IO O1 OiO
'G O L IO O,. O O� CD:
0, O,O
°� m (D (01 0 O� lobo' oIo
m co 1
N m m ojO
V� (n V (D 0c)
01 �
a) W
U
Q lO Oi MGM O O O
O
CL
C >_ iOiOi (Dl
ry N�N
L
� il � � �O N �N
p �0�01 (o ol oho 010
to o. 0 0 OlO 010
0 01 1C 0l 010 ono
N @ J U@ O O� 1 N C0 1 � T C,4 m ;T
COIVI t ,rr 010! iVq iN
O N C M,`_ m = iV -N
3 Y
m � 010 � r N 00 Iq —
� o
p @ 4' N i r N N� LO N.
o
G
U z MI
.— O
oQ
�1,0 O�C) OO'OO C) oo�l i°o'oo
i
{ o �C , -, �o o X010, 10 O
N N) C,4 co W m m _a lco
.��
CL�
d it .�. l
O 0
O �oi OO
C V, .NjO iV(N Oio
O� �C141, VIN
L _ 1
O O O
' C z 'TIN V I N 1 d' N
i
C _
itO
O O
@ ICI N li C'. C a)
U
N Ili U Q
a m
ii p J', ='I
U
o, o 0 0l
IW Iv vi v Iv
STAFF REPORT
Document No. 6A
Planning Commission Meeting:
November 3, 2011
Prepared By:
Dan Donahue
Topic:
Park Dedication Ordinance
Action Required:
None
Summary:
The Planning Commission held the formal Public Hearing on the
amendments to the city's Park Dedication Ordinance on October 6, 2011.
The Commission closed the public hearing but took no action to pass the
ordinance along to the city council. The Commissioners had a number of
questions about the amendments to the existing ordinance and how they
were developed. The consensus was to have continuing discussion at the
November Planning Commission meeting. They also recommended that
the Park Planning Consultant Sherri Buss (who assisted the Parks and
Trails Commission in developing the amendments) be present to
participate in the discussions. Ms. Buss will be present at this meeting.
At the urging of the Planning Commission, the City Council and the Parks
and Trails Commission are invited to this Planning Commission meeting to
continuing the discussion of the amended ordinance. Notice has been
posted that a quorum of the members to the City Council and the Parks
and Trails Commission may be present during the meeting.
The right time. The rightpeaple. The right emnpagg
MEMORANDUM
M
To: Corcoran Planning Commission
Copies To: Dan Donohue, City Administrator
Kendra Lindahl , City Planner
From: Sherri Buss, R.L.A., TKDA
Date: October 24, 2011
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
Saint Paul, MN 55101
(651) 292 -4400
(651) 292 -0083 Fax
w Jkda.com
Reference: Park Dedication Ordinance
Proj. No.
Routing:
Response to Public Hearing
Questions
14855.000
The final section of this memo includes responses to questions asked at the October 6 Planning
Commission Public Hearing on the proposed updates to the Park Dedication Ordinance, for discussion
at the Planning Commission meeting on November 3. The first three sections have not been changed.
Background
The Corcoran Parks and Trails Commission identified a need to update the City's park dedication ordinance
and fee requirements, based on the updates that were made to the Parks and Trails chapter of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2011.
The Parks and Trails Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes the City's proposed plan for a community-
wide park and trail system. This proposed system is the basis for establishing the park dedication fees that
are required for all new development in Corcoran. The Minnesota Statutes that govern park dedication allow
cities to require that a portion of land in each development, or an equivalent amount of cash in lieu of the
land, be dedicated as parks, trails or open space. In order to require the dedication of land or cash, the
Statute requires that there be an essential nexus (a nexus means a "substantial connection ") between the
dedication requirements and the municipal purpose for dedication. The proposed fee must be related to the
expected demand for parks and trails that will be created by new development. The adoption of a proposed
park and trail system in the Comprehensive Plan provides the nexus that connects the fee to the City's
purpose.
The Commission's proposed updated ordinance is attached, along with a table that indicates the estimated
costs of the proposed park and trail system, and a memo that describes the proposed fee formula and how it
was developed.
Process
The process for developing the proposed park dedication fee and updated ordinance included the following:
• The Park and Trail Commission reviewed the proposed park system plan, and determined which
elements of the plan will be developed through 2030.
• Consultants developed the table that shows the proposed park facilities through 2030, and estimated
costs for the facilities (attached). The proposed system is estimated to cost approximately
$42,475,000.
An Employee Owned Company PromolingAffirmatroe Action and Equal Opportunity
City of Corcoran Planning Commission Page 2 October 24, 2011
Park Dedication Fee and Ordinance Update
• The Park and Trail Commission reviewed the current fee dedication requirements and ordinance, and
identification of issues related to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission noted that the current
fee structure was not related to the land use categories used in the Comprehensive Plan, and that the
"per unit" fee was outdated, due to changes in estimated land costs in recent years.
• The Commission also asked the City Planner for recommendations for updates to the current park
dedication ordinance.
• The Commission review other community's fee dedication schedules and approaches. They noted
that most growing communities have graduated fee schedules that are related to the land use
categories and densities used in their comprehensive plans.
• Consultants developed several options for a new fee schedule, and calculated the fees that would be
generated for each schedule based on the amount of development expected in Corcoran each in land
use category through 2030.
• The Commission recommended a proposed fee structure that is described in the attached memo. The
fee structure is based on the land use and density classifications included in the Comprehensive Plan.
• The Commission reviewed the park dedication ordinance, and recommended updates to the fee
schedule section and to Subdivision 7 Item B to clarify the language related to installation of
improvements. The proposed ordinance is attached.
Next Steps
Next steps in adoption of the ordinance and fee include the following:
• The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the changes recommended by the Parks and
Trails Commission. The Planning Commission will review and comment on the proposed ordinance
changes, and recommend a proposed ordinance to the City Council.
• The City Council shall review and adopt the updated ordinance and fee.
October 6t" Plannine Commission Public Hearine
Questions asked at the Public Hearing on October 6 are identified in italics below, followed by responses.
1. Is the red -lined version of the updated ordinance the correct version?
Response: Yes
2. Is the maximum proposed fee ($4, 000 per unit) applicable both inside and outside the MUSA? Is
there a maximum fee per acre proposed for commercial development?
Response: The Parks and Trails Commission intended the fee for both inside and outside the MUSA. The
Commission discussed having a different fee outside the MUSA, but ultimately suggested one fee, since they
think that those developing outside the MUSA should be contributing to the trail system, Open Space parks
and the Community -level parks, but may not need to contribute to the neighborhood parks. The $4,000
amount was based on a contribution to those portions of the system. Neighboring communities (see
examples below) also do not differentiate between areas inside and outside the MUSA.
City of Corcoran Planning Commission Page 3 October 24, 2011
Park Dedication Fee and Ordinance Update
No maximum fee was discussed for commercial development.
3. Subdivision 6A says the subdivider may chose to use the per unit fee rather than the equivalent cash
market value. Are you trying to retain the concept of the current ordinance that in no event shall the
cash in lieu of land payment exceed the maximum per unit fee?
Response: the wording of the ordinance is the same as the current ordinance, and indicates that at a minimum
subdividers shall be required to dedicate a percentage of land or the equivalent market value in cash
identified on the table in the ordinance. The per unit fee is a maximum alternative that the subdivider may
chose to pay rather than the cash in lieu dedication.
4. The Commission asked for examples using 3 scenarios:
a. 40 acres in rural area if I unit per 10 based on land value
b. 40 acres in the rural area if 1 unit per 10 using the maximum fee
c. Same examples for each of density steps in cash dedication table
Response:
The Commission needs to understand the difference between the "big picture" calculations that went into
developing the proposed land dedication and fees, vs. the calculations for each proposed subdivision. The
"big picture" calculations, presented in the memo, take a 10,000 -foot view of all the land that is expected to
develop in the city, by density category, and calculates potential land dedication and fees based on assumed
"average" land values. It is a best guestimate of the land and/or fees that could be generated by
development, and seeks to relate the fees to expected use of park and trail facilities, using the development
densities included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Fees for individual subdivisions will be influenced by a variety of factors —net developable acres, number
and density of units proposed, actual land values, etc.
For a rural example, let's suppose that the 40 acre plat with 4 units has a "net" developable area of 25
acres. Then the land dedication would be 2.5 acres. Cash in lieu would be $50,000, if the land value
were $20,000 per acre. If the land value were $10,000 per acre, the cash in lieu would be $25,000.
Obviously, it would be to the advantage of the subdivider to use the per unit fee of $4,000 in this
case —with four units, the dedication requirement would be $16,000. And that is whimper unit fee
is included in the ordinance. This is no different than maximum fee that was included in the previous
ordinance (except that the Planning Commission recommended that the maximum be reduced to
$4,000 from $6,000, largely based on the decline in land values). Corcoran and many neighboring
communities created the fee maximum to address concerns about non -MUSA and large -lot areas.
For a non -rural example, let's assume the 40 acres again has 25 "net" acres. The dedication
requirement would be 2.75 acres, if we assume $80,000 per acre, the cash in lieu would be $220,000.
If they proposed 3 units /acre (120 units),at $4,000 per acre, the maximum fee would be it would be
$480,000. So the developer would probably opt for the "per acre" fee. If there are more "net" acres
in the development, the picture would be quite different. Or if the land value were higher or lower,
the fee would be different.)
City of Corcoran Planning Commission Page 4 October 24, 2011
Park Dedication Fee and Ordinance Update
Generally, in the rural area, it will be to the subdividers advantage to use the maximum per unit fee.
In the "urban" area, in many cases, it will be to the developer's advantage to use the cash in lieu
amount. But this could vary based on the numbers of units, actual land value, developable acres, etc.
Some developers may chose to use the per unit amount even if it might be higher so that they know
the fee at the outset of the development process, and don't need to go through the appraisal process.
We could do calculations for each level -- obviously each example would be different based on actual
net acres, numbers of units proposed, and land values, but it is not very helpful at this point, since the
actual numbers for each development are likely to vary from the formulas used to identify the park
dedication fee. We really can't predict the amount of land or cash that may be dedicated on each
property at this point the assumption is that overall, the amount of land or cash in lieu fees will add
up to a number that is similar to the land and facility needs for the system. The general formula is
our best guestimate of the amount of area that might develop, and the land dedication and/or fees
needed to develop the proposed system.
As development occurs, if the actual land values are significantly different from those used to
calculate the fee, the City should recalculate the dedication requirements based on actual values. We
did the best estimate we could based on the minimal information on land values in Corcoran at this
time.
What if we took land value for every plat? Would it exceed the land dedication needs identified in the
2030 Comp Plan? Are the percentages too high or too low?
Response: Yes, if we took the land for every plat it would exceed the amount needed, because the value of
what we take needs to include the cost of facilities as well as the land. The total area of land that would be
generated if we tools land for every acre developed would be 601 acres. We need about 430 acres to develop
all of the parks and trails proposed through 2030. The difference reflects the cost of developing the park and
trail facilities.
6 Should the City establish a maximum acreage per unit? In the rural area, are land dedication
expectations too high?
Response: You could do this, but you would need to have a rationale for the maximum number that is related
to use, per the statutory requirements. Medina has something like this for residential subdivisions (below).
7. Could the City establish a minimum and maximum park dedication fee?
Response: yes, there are communities that do this. An example from Medina is included below.
8. Please compare proposed fee in Corcoran to other cities.
Response: City Planners from neighboring communities provided the following information regarding park
dedication requirements (April, 2011):
City of Medina
0 Park dedication for any residential subdivision will not exceed 10 percent of buildable land
City of Corcoran Planning Commission Page 5
Park Dedication Fee and Ordinance Update
October 24, 2011
• The minimum cash contribution is $3,500 per dwelling unit, and the maximum is $8,000 per dwelling
unit. (This maximum value was included to allow the city to cap the contribution for larger, rural
lots)
• For non - residential land uses, the cash in lieu contribution required is 8 percent of the value of the
land
Maple Grove
• Land dedication requirement
o Less than 9 units per gross acre -10% of subdivision acres
0 9 or more units per gross acre -11 % of subdivision area plus an additional 1 percent for
each additional dwelling unit per acre over 9
o Developments that have affordable units (as determined by the city), some types of higher
density units, and memory care and assisted living units have some reduction in the required
dedication (20 -25 %)
Commercial /industrial dedication requirement is 7.5 percent of the subdivision or development.
Minnetrista
• Land dedication requirement
o Residential: 10 -13% of gross acreage, with higher density developments paying the higher
rate
• Commercial: 5% of gross acreage
• Maximum per residential unit: $25,000 (While high, this maybe less than 10% of the value of
residential lots near Lake Minnetonka.)
Dayton
• Residential land dedication requirement:
o 0 -2.5 units /acre: 11%
• 2.6 -5.0 units /acre: 12%
• 5.1 -7.5 units /acre: 13%
• 7.6 -10.0 units /acre: 14%
• 10.1 -12.5 units /acre: 15%
• 12.6 -16.0 units /acre: 16%
• For each additional 2.5 units over 16 /acre, add 0.25%
• Industrial and commercial land dedication requirement: 5%
• Cash in lieu based on value of land dedication
• No maximum or minimum land dedication or cash in lieu fee for "rural' lots or subdivisions
Agenda 6a
SECTION 955 — PARK DEDICATION
955.010 - Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact and Statement of Purpose
Subd. 1. Statutory Authorization. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358.Subd.2b
provides that municipal subdivision regulations may require that a
reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public
or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks,
playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space, and that the municipality may
alternatively accept an equivalent amount in cash based upon the
undeveloped land value.
Subd. 2. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that:
A. The preservation and development of parks, playgrounds, trails and
open space areas within the City are essential to maintaining a healthy
and desirable environment for residents and persons employed within
the City. The presence of parks, trails and open space amenities also
enhances the value and attractiveness of residential and
commercial /industrial developments to landowners, developers,
purchasers, employers, and employees. The City must not only
provide for its present citizens, but it must also provide for the future.
B. New developments place a burden upon the City's parks and open
space system. New facilities must be developed concurrently with
development in order to provide the desired level of service and the
quality of the environment for all. Therefore, new developments shall
be required to contribute toward the City's park system in rough
proportion to the relative burden they will place upon the park system.
C. The City Council recognizes that the need for such parks, trails, and
public open spaces is directly related to the density and intensity of
population and development permitted and allowed in the City. Urban
development results in increased population, increased intensity of use
and greater demands for such public areas and facilities.
D. Development of land for schools, religious institutions or other non-
profit organizations may create additional demand on the City's park
and recreational land and facilities. The City may create partnerships
with these organizations that foster cooperative use of school, non-
profit and park properties for recreational activities.
Agenda 6a
955.020 - Required Dedication
Subd. 1. Dedication of Land or Cash
A. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358, Subd. 2b, the City
requires all subdividers as a prerequisite to approval of a final
subdivision plat, land division, or development of any land previously
divided by plat, metes or bounds or any other means, which has not
provided park dedication, to convey to the city or dedicate to the
public use for park, playground, open space, or trail a reasonable
portion of the land being platted, divided, or developed as hereinafter
specified. The portions to be dedicated will be approved by the City;
or in lieu thereof the subdivider shall at the option of the city pay to
the city, for use in the acquisition or development of public parks,
playgrounds, or in debt retirement in connection with land previously
acquired for such public purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based
upon the undeveloped land value. Park Dedication is only due in cases
where additional new parcels are created. Park dedication would not
be due in situations where a replat or lot line adjustment is required to
modify lot boundaries without creating any additional lots.
B. The form of contribution (cash, land, or any combination thereof) shall
be decided by the City Council based upon need and conformance
with the comprehensive plan.
Subd. 2. Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall establish such
administrative procedures as they may deem necessary and required to
implement the provisions of this chapter.
Subd. 3. Parks and Trails Commission Recommendation.
A. The Parks and Trails Commission shall, in each case, recommend to
the City Council the total area and location of such land that the Parks
and Trails Commission feels should be so conveyed or dedicated
within the development for the above public purposes. These
recommendations shall be based on the recommendations included in
the City parks and trails plan.
B. The Parks and Trails Commission shall review the preliminary plat
and recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council the
total area and location of the land the Park and Trails Commission
determines should be dedicated for park use. The Park and Trails
Commission shall provide its recommendation prior to the time that
the Planning Commission completes its public hearings on the
Agenda 6a
preliminary plat�.
Tnr Mw.
C. In those instances where the Parks and Trails Commission concludes
that a cash equivalency payment should be made by the applicant or
owner in lieu of dedication of land, the Parks and Recreation
Commission shall recommend to the Planning Commission the
percentage of the total park dedication requirement to be paid to the
City in cash.
&.D. In the event that review at a regular meeting of the Parks and Trails
Commission would result in a delay in the review and approval
process so that the time limitations of Minnesota Statutes Section
462.358 may not be met, the requirement of review by the Parks and
Trails Commission may be waived by either the applicant or by the
City Council at the time of its review of the application.
Subd. 4. Standards for Determination.
A. The Parks and Trails Commission shall develop and recommend to the
City Council for adoption standards and guidelines for determining
which portion of each such development should reasonably be
required to be conveyed or dedicated. Such standards and guidelines
may take into consideration the zoning classification to be assigned to
the land to be developed, the particular use proposed for such land,
amenities to be provided, and factors of density and site development
as proposed by the subdivider. The Parks and Trails Commission shall
further recommend changes and amendments from time to time to
such standards and guidelines to reflect changes in the usage of land
which may occur, changes in zoning classification and concepts and
changes in planning and development concepts that relate to the
development and usages to which land may be put.
B. The Parks and Trails Commission shall develop and recommend
standards for design and construction of public parks, trails, and open
space areas in the city. These standards shall be included in the parks
and trails plan.
Subd.5. Dedicated Land Requirements. Any land to be dedicated as a
requirement of this chapter shall be reasonably adapted for the above
public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed
dedication areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology,
Agenda 6a
tree cover, rare species and other significant wildlife habitats, access, and
location.
Subd. 6. Minimum Area of Dedicated Land. At a minimum, subdividers shall
be required to dedicate to the city for park, trail, and open
space and other- ,.,,blie „ m that the percentage of net
land area or equivalent market value in cash set -ut ,.. identified
below:
Residential land uses dedication requirements:
Land Use Category based on
Units
per acre
Percentage of land or
equivalent market value in
cash
the Comprehensive Plan
Rural /Ag Residential
Less
than 3
10%
Low Density Residential
3 -5
11%
Medium - Density Residential
6 -8
12%
Mixed Residential
8 -10
13%
High- Density Residential and
10+
14%
Mixed -Use
Commercial and Industrial
N/A
5%
*F..,- e f ...,.-1. .70.7:,...♦:,., density x1...77 be, naoa ,7,....« to o.,* whale
0 0 Far- example a development a4 9.5 tmits per- aer-e wetild be requir-ed to pay 14
%
a,,. ,70,7:,.a4iaa
A.- In no event shall the eash in liett of land pa��en4 exeeed $6,004fw
fesidential „r: +. The City Council may identify a maximum park
dedication fee per residential unit. The subdivider may chose to pay
the per unit fee for a residential subdivision rather than the equivalent
cash market value calculated usinL the table above for residential land
use dedication requirements.
B. The City Council shall review the park dedication fee requirements
periodically
yes, to ensure that the required fee4t remains consistent with park and
trail system development costs.
G. Commercial and industrial land uses: Dedication requirement is five
percent (5 %) of land or equivalent market value in cash. in no event shat
the eash in liett ef land payment exeeed $4,500 per- affe of land pfopesed
QA.
E. Developments that include memory care and assisted living units shall apply the
commercial rate to the percentage of memory care and/or assisted living units that are in
the project, multiplied by the project net acres.
Agenda 6a
D. Schools, religious institutions and other non -profit organizations:
Dedication requirement shall be determined by the City Council
based on discussion with the School District or non - profit agency.
Recommendations will be based on anticipated use of City park
facilities by the school or organization, and shall consider
agreements for cooperative use of school recreational facilities.
E. Determination of Fair Market Value. To determine the fair market
value of the undeveloped land, the Developer shall submit an
appraisal at the time of preliminary plat application. The city will
then obtain a review appraisal as a validation of the Developer's
appraisal. If staff and the Developer are unable to agree on fair
market value, the City Council will make the determination of
fair market value.
F. Lands Designated On Official Map or Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. Where a proposed park, playground, trail or open space
area indicated in the city park and trail plan or comprehensive
plan is located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision, all or
part of the proposed public site shall be designated as such and
should be dedicated to the city, based on the area of land dedication
required by this ordinance.
G. Deviation from Required Dedication. The dedication requirements
based on the development's proportional share of the City park system are
presumptively appropriate.
H. Wetlands and Ponding Areas. Existing wetlands drainage ways
accepted by the city shall not be considered in the parkland and/or cash
contribution to the city.
Subd. 7. Land Dedication /Payment of Fees
Land Dedication. When land is to be dedicated to satisfy the park
dedication requirement, separate lots or outlots shall be indicated on
the plat drawings for the area(s) to be dedicated. Permanent trail
easements may be allowed for dedication of trail corridors shown on
the Parks and Trails Plan. Such lots, outlots or easements shall be
deeded to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits within
the plat.
gratifid eover and „st,-,,etio,, of't -ails in all lands to be dedieated to
this wefk, exeept that eredit fiqr- the land area within trail easements for-
tf:ails ineluded in the City's adopted tfail plan will be given.
Agenda 6a
A. Installation of Improvements. As part of their development contract or
site plan approval responsibilities, owners and developers shall be
responsible for making certain improvements to the developments for
park, playground, trail and public open space purposes, including, but
not limited to, finished rg ading and ground cover for all park,
playground, trail and public open spaces within their developments.
No credit toward the reauired dedication shall be given for this work.
A-.B. Cash fee. When a cash fee is to be paid in lieu of land dedication,
the payment of such fee shall be required as follows:
1. For residential developments, the fee shall be paid prior to the
City's release of the signed final plat mylars for recording with
Hennepin County.
2. For commercial and industrial developments the fee shall be paid
prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision.
3. Park dedication is required for all newly created lots or parcels.
4. In plats that include outlots for future development, the subdivider
may pay to the City 1) the development's proportional share for
the entire subdivision, including the outlots, or 2) the
development's proportional share excluding such outlots,
providing that the park dedication requirement shall be satisfied
when such outlots are replatted.
Subd. 8. Credit for Private Parks
A. Standards for Credit. At the City Council's discretion, Park dedication
credit may be given where private parks and facilities are provided in a
proposed subdivision, and such space is to be privately owned and
maintained by the future residents of the subdivision. Credit maybe
considered when the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do so, and
that the following standards are met:
1. Such credit maybe given only for park areas within the proposed
subdivision that are designated on the Parks and Trails Map as
Neighborhood Parks.
2. The facilities proposed for the private parks and facilities shall be
in substantial accordance with the provisions of the Parks and Trails
Plan, and approved by the City Council.
Agenda 6a
3. In no circumstances shall such credit for private facilities exceed
20 percent of the amount required to be dedicated to the public
under this chapter. The council and Parks Commission will consider
the proportion of neighborhood park needs provided by the proposed
facility, and the proportion of new neighborhood residents to be served
by the facility in determining the credit to be given for private park
facilities.
4. Yards, court areas, setbacks and other open space required to be
maintained by the zoning ordinance shall not be included in the
computation of such private open space.
5. The private ownership and maintenance of the parks is
adequately provided for by written agreement.
6. The private parks are restricted for park and recreation purposes
by recorded covenants that run with the land in favor of the future
owners of property within the subdivision and which cannot be modified
without the written consent of the City Council.
7. The proposed private parks are reasonably adaptable for use for
park or recreation purposes, taking into consideration such factors
as size, shape, topography, geology, drainage, access, and location
of the proposed facilities.
Agenda 6a
Subd. 9. Park Fund.
A. Purpose of Park Fund. Cash payments shall be placed by the City in a
special park fund and used only for the acquisition and development of
land for parks, trails, playgrounds, public open space; development of
existing park and playground sites, public open space; and debt
retirement in connection with land previously acquired for park
purposes.
B. Annual Financial Report. Each year, the Parks and Trails Commission
shall present to the council, in such detail as the council shall require,
its estimate of the financial needs of the Parks and Trails Commission
for the ensuing fiscal year.
C. Gifts and Donations. The Parks and Trails Commission is authorized
to receive gifts, devises, bequests, endowments, or other donations of
money and property on behalf of the City. All moneys received shall
be deposited in the Park Fund.
(Ord. 196, passed 06- 24 -04, Ord. 223, passed 08- 11 -05)
2030 Park Facility Needs
2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs
Existing
Parks
Future Parks
Additonal Needs
202012030 Distribution
Parks
Total # of
Existing Park
Facilities
Total # of
Existing Park
Acres
Total # of
Future (2 030)
Park Facilities
Approx, acres
per park
Total # of
Future (2030)
Park Acres
Total # of
Additional
Parks
Total # of
Additional
Acres
2020 Parks to
develop
2030 Parks
to develop
Neighborhood Parks
0
0
6
7
42
6
42
4
2
Community Parks
2
23
4
25
73
2
50
2
1
Athletic Complex
0
0
1
120
120
1
120
1
0
Community Pla fields
1
40
2
15
70
1
30
1
0
Open Space Park
0
0
1
20
60
1
60
1
2
Totals
$7,000,000
3
365
On Road Trail (LF)
302
$13
Notes:
1. Approximate acres per park are based on park classification range of acres.
2. This estimate is based on a forecast population of 17, 600 by the year 2030.
3. The Rockford School District currently owns the existing Community Playfield
Notes:
1. Land costs: $80,000 1acre (MUSA) and $20,000 (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each land parcel will vary depending on location, size and site features.
2. Neighborhood Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilities, picnic shelter, benches, playground, play court, a special amenity such as a mini splash pad, and design The
3. Community Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilites, picnic shelter, benches, trails, Ig. playground, restroom building, and a special amenity such as a hockey rink/performance area and design fee
4. Athletic Complex Park Cost Estimate would account for 3 full size soccer fields, 4 adult softball fields, youth playfields, tennis court, parking, lighting, fencing, utilities /irrigation, trails, picnic shelter /mstrooms /concessions, and design fee
5. Community Play Fields Cost Estimate would account for a combination of play fields and courts of softball /soccer /basketball /tennis /volleyball, parking, lighting, restrooms, picnic area, and design fee
6. Open Space Park Cost Estimate would account for trails, signage, parking, and natural resource enhancements
7. Cost Estimates are based on current rates as of 2010.
2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs
Trails
2020 Park Facility + Land Costs
Land Cost
2030 Park Development Costs
Inside MUSA
Qty
Unit Cost
2030 Park Facility
+ Land Costs
Unit Cost
Parks
Land +
Facility Cost
Facility Costs
167,000
Land Cost
Land + Facility
Cost
$0
Facility Costs
Off Road Trail (LF)
132,000
Land Cost
Land + Facility
Cost
Inside MUSA
# of Parks to
develop
Unit Cost
Facility Cost
Approx. acres
per park
Acres
Required
Unit Cost
Land Cost
# of Parks
to develop
Unit Cost
Facility Cost
Approx.
acres per
park
Acres
Required
Unit Cost
Land Cost
Neighborhood Parks
4
$400,000
$1,600,000
7
28
$80,000
$2,240,000
$3,840,000
2
$400,000
$800,000
7
14
$80,000
$1,120,0001
$1,920,000
Community Parks
2
$1,500,000
$3,000,000
25
50
County Bike Trail (LF)
$80,000
$4,000,000
$7,000,000
$253,500
On Road Trail (LF)
82,000
$13
Athletic Complex
1
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
120
120
116,000
$80,000
$9,600,000
$12,100,000
0
$20,000
$1,060,000
$3,960,000
Off Road Trail - Gasline (LF)
15,500
$25
$387,500
Community Pla fields
1
$500,000
$500,000
15
15
$8
$80,000
$1,200,000
$1,700,000
0
$112,000
Signs (Each)
15
$50
$750
Open Space Park
0
Road Crossings (Each)
1
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
0
Total Trail Development Costs to Year 20301 $15,024,75 0
Outside MUSA
Open Space Park
1
1 $40,0001
$40,0001 20
1 20 1 $20,0001 $400,0001
$440,000
Total Park Development Costs to Year 2020
4, ,000
Total Park Development Costs to Year 2035T
$2,360,000
Notes:
1. Land costs: $80,000 1acre (MUSA) and $20,000 (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each land parcel will vary depending on location, size and site features.
2. Neighborhood Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilities, picnic shelter, benches, playground, play court, a special amenity such as a mini splash pad, and design The
3. Community Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilites, picnic shelter, benches, trails, Ig. playground, restroom building, and a special amenity such as a hockey rink/performance area and design fee
4. Athletic Complex Park Cost Estimate would account for 3 full size soccer fields, 4 adult softball fields, youth playfields, tennis court, parking, lighting, fencing, utilities /irrigation, trails, picnic shelter /mstrooms /concessions, and design fee
5. Community Play Fields Cost Estimate would account for a combination of play fields and courts of softball /soccer /basketball /tennis /volleyball, parking, lighting, restrooms, picnic area, and design fee
6. Open Space Park Cost Estimate would account for trails, signage, parking, and natural resource enhancements
7. Cost Estimates are based on current rates as of 2010.
Notes:
1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $20,000 1acre (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs
of each parcel may vary depending on location, size and site features.
2. Trail Costs are based on a 10' bituminous trail with a 20' wide easement
3. On Road & County Bike Trail Costs assume a 50% cost share with County, State Aid, or other participant funding.
4. Above costs are based on purchased easements. Opportunities may exist to obtain less expensive or donated easements.
5. On -road trails assume no acquisition of additional land or easements.
Grand Total Park +Trail Facility Costs through 2030
2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs
Trails
Facility Costs
Land Cost
2030 Park Development Costs
Inside MUSA
Qty
Unit Cost
Facility Cost
Acres
Required
Unit Cost
Land Cost
Land +
Facility Cost
On Road Trail (LF)
167,000
$0
$0
Off Road Trail (LF)
132,000
$25
$3,300,000
61
$80,000
$4,880,000
$8,180,000
Off Road Trail - Gasline (LF)
8,000
$25
$200,000
4
$80,000
$320,000
$520,000
Signs (Each)
50
$100
$5,000
$5,000
Road Crossings (Each)
3
$100,000
300,000
300,000
Outside MUSA
County Bike Trail (LF)
19,500
$13
$253,500
$253,500
On Road Trail (LF)
82,000
$13
$1,066,000
$1,066,000
Off Road Trail (LF)
116,000
$25
$2,900,000
53
$20,000
$1,060,000
$3,960,000
Off Road Trail - Gasline (LF)
15,500
$25
$387,500
7
$20,000
$140,000
$527,500
Horseback Trail (LF)
14,000
$8
$112,000
$0
$112,000
Signs (Each)
15
$50
$750
$750
Road Crossings (Each)
1
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Total Trail Development Costs to Year 20301 $15,024,75 0
Notes:
1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $20,000 1acre (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs
of each parcel may vary depending on location, size and site features.
2. Trail Costs are based on a 10' bituminous trail with a 20' wide easement
3. On Road & County Bike Trail Costs assume a 50% cost share with County, State Aid, or other participant funding.
4. Above costs are based on purchased easements. Opportunities may exist to obtain less expensive or donated easements.
5. On -road trails assume no acquisition of additional land or easements.
Grand Total Park +Trail Facility Costs through 2030
System Item
Cost
2020 Park Development Costs
$24,640,000
2030 Park Development Costs
$2,360,000
2030 Trail Development Costs
$15,024,750
Grand Total Costs $42,024,750
5a.
Agenda Item
• !
L A N D F 0 R M
From Site to Finish •
105 South Fifth Street,
MEMORANDUM Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
DATE October 17, 2011
TO Dan Donahue
cc City Council, Planninq Commission
FROM Kendra y
, Lindahl City Planner
..................................................._.................................. ...............................
RE Active Corcoran Planning Applications
The following is a summary of project status for current, active projects:
r
• •
Tel: 612 - 252 -9070
Fax: 612 - 252 -9077
www.landform.net
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 development /subdivision.
2. Ordinance Updates. The City is in the process of updating the subdivision ordinance, zoning
ordinance and zoning map to implement the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
a. The zoning ordinance and zoning map updates were approved by the City Council on
September 22nd
b. The subdivision ordinance updates will be considered on October 27`n
c. The park dedication ordinance update was considered by the Planning Commission at a
public hearing on October 6`n and tabled until November 3rd to allow the parks planner time to
respond to questions.
3. Daryl and Lori Patnode Accessory Building Contract (city file no. 11 -006). The Patnodes
requested that the City allow them to construct an addition onto an existing barn without approval of a
CUP or Certificate of Compliance due the close of the construction season and need for the barn
addition. The City and the Patnodes that allowed the Patnodes to begin construction on the barn with
the condition that they submit a Certificate of Compliance for City approval upon adoption of the new
Zoning Ordinance that will create the new process.
4. Custom Filtration Inc. Preliminary and Final Plat (city file no. 11 -008). The city received an
application to combine the existing Custom Filtration lot with the outlot to the west. The plat is
tentatively scheduled for Parks & Trails Commission review on November 15`n, a rublic hearing at the
Planning Commission on December 1 St and City Council review on December 19` .
5. Highland Bank Preliminary and Final Plat approval for "Highland Subdivision" at 10435 CR 19
(city file no. 11 -010). Highland Bank is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat to subdivide
the existing 60.56 -acre parcel into one 5 -acre lot with the existing home and one 54.19 -acre outlot.
The applicant is not proposing any new development on the site at this time. The application is
scheduled for Parks & Trails Commission review on October 18`n, a public hearing at the Planning
Commission on November 3rd and City Council review on November 21 S`
6. Anderson Ag Preserve Enrollment at 22090 Strehler Road (city file no. 11 -012). Sara Ann
Anderson (Ridesport) has requested that the above - referenced property be enrolled in the Ag
Preserve program. The subject property is currently enrolled in the Ag Preserve program but that
Landform -, SensiblyGreen` and Site to Finish'" are service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
1
designation will expire on November 26th. The application is currently incomplete, but we expect that
the item will likely be placed on the November 21' Council agenda.
7. Schwab Certificate of Compliance for an Ag Building at 6255 Mohawk (city file 11 -013). A
certificate of compliance has been submitted for an Ag Building on this property. If the application
complies with the ordinance requirements in Section 1030 and Section 1070.065 of the Zoning
Ordinance, the permit will be signed and issued to the applicant.
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.
3. Savoie Fields Final Plat (city file no. 07 -011). This two -lot subdivision was approved and received
one extension that expired on January 28, 2011. The landowner has applied for an after - the -fact
extension of the plat approvals. This item was approved by the City Council on July 28, 2011. The
final plat approvals now expire on January 28, 2012.
4. 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.
5. 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.
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. The approvals expired
on September 23, 2011.
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. Staff inspected the site on October 12th and found that the major
site improvements had been made, but there are several items that still have to be addressed. We
MEMORANDUM
have discussed these items with the landowner. 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 2 years to address
all conditions of approval and record the final plat. The final plat approvals will expire on
September 23, 2012 unless the applicant requests and is granted an extension.
9. 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 was approved by the
City Council on June 23rd. This was approved as a way to correct a code enforcement issue. No work
has been done on site to correct the code violations. The City Administrator sent a letter to the
applicant on October 14th regarding the required code violation corrections.
10. 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 was
approved by the City Council on June 23rd
11. 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
City Council approved the request on July 28, 2011. The landowner has submitted a building permit
and will be starting construction this fall.
12. Steffan Svard Administrative Permit for expansion of a legal, non - conforming structure at
19604 Country Circle East (city file no. 11 -009). Mr. Svard submitted an application for approval of
an administrative permit for expansion of a legal, non - conforming structure. The Administrative Permit
was approved on September 26th and a building permit was issued.
13. City of Corcoran Site Plan Modification for Corcoran Shooting Range at 8200 County Road 116
(city file no. 11 -011). The Corcoran Police Department submitted a site plan modification for the
shooting range. The site plan modification was administratively approved on October 17, 2011.
MEMORANDUM