HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-06 Planning Commission Agenda PacketCITY OF CORCORAN
*Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by
Door.
Corcoran Planning
Commission Agenda
April 6, 2023 - 7:00 pm
1.Call to Order / Roll Call
2.Pledge of Allegiance
3.Commissioner Appointment – Lindsay Jacobs
4.Agenda Approval
5.Open Forum
6.Minutes
a. December 1, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes*
7.New Business – Public Comment Opportunity
a.Public Hearing. Gmach Accessory Dwelling Unit
Conditional Use Permit (PID 05-119-23-13-0011) (City File
No. 23-002)
i.Staff Report
ii.Open Public Hearing
iii.Close Hearing
iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation
b.Public Hearing. Transition/Buffer Ordinance (Citywide) (City File No. 22-034)
i.Staff Report
ii.Open Public Hearing
iii.Close Hearing
iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation
c.Scherber Roll Off Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan 1-year extension (City File No. 21-007)
i.Staff Report
ii.Commission Discussion & Recommendation
8.Reports/Information
a.Other Business
b.Planning Project Update*
c.City Council Report* – Council Liaison Schultz
9.Commissioner Liaison Calendar
City Council Meetings
4/13/2023 4/27/2023 5/11/2023 5/25/2023 6/8/2023 6/23/2023
Lanterman Van Den Einde Brummond Horn Jacobs Lanterman
10. Adjournment
HYBRID MEETING OPTION AVAILABLE
The public is invited to attend the regular Council
meetings at City Hall.
Meeting Via Telephone/Other Electronic Means
Call-in Instructions:
+1 305 224 1968 US
Enter Meeting ID: 825 6403 2239
Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment
Sections in the meeting.
Video Link and Instructions:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82564032239
visit http://www.zoom.us and enter
Meeting ID: 825 6403 2239
Participants can utilize the Raise Hand function
to be recognized to speak during the Public
Comment sections in the meeting. Participant
video feeds will be muted. In-person comments
will be received first, with the hybrid electronic
means option following. For more information on options to provide
www.corcoranmn.gov
CITY OF CORCORAN
*Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by
Door.
Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes
December 1, 2022 - 7:00 pm
The Corcoran Planning Commission met on November 3, 2022, in Corcoran, Minnesota. All Planning
Commissioners were present in the Council Chambers, but members of the public were able to participate
in-person as well as through electronic means using the audio and video conferencing platform Zoom.
Present: Commissioners Brummond, Horn, Shoulak, and Van Den Einde.
Absent: Commissioner Lanterman.
Also present: City Planner Davis McKeown, City Planner Lindahl, and Council Liaison Vehrenkamp.
Present Via Zoom: City Administrator Jessica Beise.
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Agenda Approval
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde to approve the agenda for the December 1, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting.
Voting Aye: Shoulak, Brummond, Horn, and Van Den Einde.
(Motion passed 4:0)
4. Open Forum
Commissioner Brummond acknowledged the retirement of Joe and Marry of Rolling Hills Ranch and wished
them well.
5. Minutes
a. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes*
Motion made by Van Den Einde, seconded by Horn, to approve the November 3, 2022 Meeting Minutes.
Voting Aye: Shoulak, Brummond, Horn, and Van Den Einde.
(Motion passed 4:0)
6. New Business
a. Public Hearing. Pioneer Trail Industrial Rezoning, Park Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Planned
Unit Development plant (PIDs 32-119-23-43-0005; 32-119-23-34-0013; 32-119-23-43-0006) (City File
No. 22-039)
i. Staff Report – Staff Report presented by Planner Lindahl.
ii. Open Public Hearing
1. Todd Albers, 4800 Covey Trail, Medina, had concerns about the drainage and
potential impact to the wetland on his property, building setbacks, the viewshed, and
noise generated from this development.
2. Sarah Lehtola, 6230 Rolling Hills Road, had concerns about Kimberly Lane and its
future connection onto Rolling Hills Road, potential conflicts with the values of the
city, and expressed frustration with the communication of proposed development in
the area.
3. Lee Roering, 22803 Wagon Wheel Lane, had concerns about losing rural-feel, the
installation of a gas station, light and traffic impacts, having 2 street frontages on his
property, impact of enjoyment of the property, drainage and septic, and screening
from light pollution.
4. Robert Gaston, 22741 Wagon Wheel Lane, had concerns about Kimberly Lane only
having one point of access, the hours of operation, traffic generation, enjoyment of
*Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by
Door.
the neighborhood, proximity of the road to the house, noise pollution, and industrial
use near residential districts.
5. Jenifer Gaston, 22741 Wagon Wheel Lane, had concerns about losing rural-
experience, increased traffic near property, impact onto the intersection of Pioneer
Trail and Highway 55, increased foot traffic, safety of the neighborhood, drainage,
and property values.
6. Deb Janiak, 6300 Pioneer Trail, expressed her enjoyment of the rural feel of the
neighborhood, and had concerns of traffic on Pioneer Trail, congestion around
Kimberly Lane, and noise/light pollution from development.
7. Karen Ess, 6225 Pioneer Trail, had concerns about existing traffic on Pioneer Trail,
traffic impact from a gas station, dumping onto her property, and taking existing
resident’s opinions into account.
8. Jim Reader, 6200 Rolling Hills Road, was concerned about developing this property
prior to sewer/water installation and road construction, the existing self-storage
facility on Rolling Hills Road, the difficulty of turning onto Highway 55 from Rolling
Hills Road, and safety history of Rolling Hills Road.
iii. Close Hearing
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Horn, to close the public hearing.
Voting Aye: Shoulak, Brummond, Horn, and Van Den Einde.
(Motion passed 4:0)
Commission Discussion & Recommendation: Commission discussion and recommendation
included a question of city owned well sites throughout the city; fire access throughout the
development and its implications on the landscaping plan; the history of proposed
developments on the site; clarification of the water drainage and stormwater runoff; sign
standards; noise standards; clarification of future connection of Kimberly Lane and Rolling
Hills Road; clarifying the existing Light-Industrial zoning and Planned Unit Development
zoning; the lack of benefit to residents from commercial developments; clarification of
operations on the site; traffic generation from each lot; possible outcomes of approving PUD
with stipulations on gas station; alternative landscaping ideas such as native plantings and
limiting turf grasses; benefit of well-sites and search locations; Municipal Services extension;
noise compliance concerns and preserving part of the natural habitat.
The Commission allowed the applicant to speak and answer questions during their
discussion. Joe Radach, representing applicant, spoke about the users of the development;
answered a question about the screening flexibility request on the Highway 55 frontage;
having visibility on Highway 55, and the request for parking set-back flexibility.
Motion made by Bummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to recommend approval of the
ordinance amending Title X of the City Code rezoning the property to a Planned Unit
Development and the findings of fact.
Voting Aye: Brummond, Horn, and Ven Den Einde.
Voting Nay: Shoulak.
(Motion passed 3:1)
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Horn, to recommend approval of the Preliminary
PUD with an emphasis on Minnesota Native Landscaping and provide screening information
for residents affected by Kimberly Lane.
Voting Aye: Brummond and Horn
Voing Nay: Shoulak and Van Den Einde.
(Motion failed 2:2)
Motion made by Van Den Einde, seconded by Shoulak, to recommend approval of the PUD
flexibility with an emphasis on Minnesota Native Landscaping, provide screening information
for residents affected by Kimberly Lane, and not allow the construction of a convenience
store.
Voting Aye: Shoulak, Brummond, and Van Den Einde.
Voting Nay: Horn
*Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by
Door.
(Motion passed 3:1)
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Horn, to recommend approval of the Preliminary
Plat.
Voting Aye: Brummond, Horn, and Ven Den Einde.
Voting Nay: Shoulak.
(Motion passed 3:1)
b. Public Hearing. Gmach Accessory Dwelling Unit Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-
071).
i. Staff Report – Staff Report presented by Planner McKeown
ii. Open Public Hearing
1. George Gmach, 22600 Oakdale Drive, spoke about his current accessory buildings,
his planned addition, sewer connection, size limitations of ADUs around the country,
accommodating the rural developments, and including ADUs as a Conditional Use.
iii. Close Hearing
Motion made by Van Den Einde, seconded by Horn, to close the public hearing.
Voting Aye: Shoulak, Brummond, Horn, and Van Den Einde.
(Motion passed 4:0)
iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission discussion included a
Commissioner Van Den Einde discussing his accessory building; flaws of current code in
relation to rural residential districts; clarification of what’s considered an ADU; addressing and
public safety concerns; parking requirements; allowable sizes of ADUs; removing roof pitch
requirements; determining allowable size by percentage of principle structure or a cap;
inspection logistics; clarification of style requirements; and approving ADUs through an
administrative approval.
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to recommend approval of the
ordinance allowing administrative approval of Accessory Dwelling Units up to 960 square feet
in all districts and 1200 square feet in Rural Residential districts.
Voting Aye: Shoulak, Brummond, Horn, and Van Den Einde.
(Motion passed 4:0)
c. Public Hearing. Park Dedication Subdivision Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-065)
i. Staff Report – Staff Report presented by Administrator Beise
ii. Public Hearing -
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Shoulak, to close the public hearing.
iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission discussion included clarification
of when park dedication is paid and a question about the Bellwether boardwalk.
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Van Den Einde, to recommend approval of the
Subdivision Ordinance Amendment relating to Park Dedication.
Voting Aye: Shoulak, Brummond, Horn, and Van Den Einde.
(Motion passed 4:0)
7. Reports/Information
a. Planning Project Update*
b. City Council Report* – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp – City Council report included a question about the
Truth and Taxation meeting, property taxes, and the desire to expand the Green Acres Program for local
farmers.
c. Other Business – Draft 2022 Annual Report and 2023 Priorities*
8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar
*Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by
Door.
City Council Meetings
12/8/2022 12/21/2022 1/12/2023 1/26/2023 2/9/2023 2/23/2023
Van Den Einde Brummond Horn Lanterman Shoulak Van Den Einde
9. Adjournment
Page 1 of 10
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 7a.
Planning Commission Meeting:
April 6, 2023
Prepared By:
Natalie Davis McKeown
Topic:
Gmach Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
(PID 05-119-23-13-0011)
(City File No. 23-002)
Action Required:
Recommendation
Review Deadline: June 1, 2023
1. Request
The applicant, George Gmach,
requests approval of a conditional
use permit (CUP) for a detached
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) of
1,152 square feet at 22600
Oakdale Drive.
2.Context
Level of City Discretion
The City’s discretion in approving
or denying a CUP is based on
whether the proposal meets the
standards outlined in the City
Code. If it meets these standards,
the City should approve the CUP.
Zoning and Land Use
The property is in the Rural
Residential (RR) District and is
guided Rural/Ag Residential on the
2040 Future Land Use Map. This
property is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary. All
surrounding properties are zoned RR, guided Rural/Ag Residential, and outside of the
MUSA.
Characteristics of the Site
The site has an existing single-family home in the front center of the lot in addition to
two existing detached accessory structures. The Hennepin County Natural Resources
Figure 1 Location Map
Page 2 of 10
Map does not reflect wetlands within the property lines. The 2040 Comprehensive
Plan’s Natural Resource Inventory Map does not identify known natural communities on
the property.
3. Analysis of Request
Conditional Use Permit
The City approved a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (also requested by Mr. Gmach) in
December 2022 which updated the ADU standards to allow for ADUs of up to 960
square feet to be approved through an administrative permit throughout the City and
ADUs of up to 1,200 square feet to be approved through a CUP within the RR district.
The applicant requests CUP approval to allow the conversion and expansion of an
existing accessory structure located to the northwest of the principal home into an ADU
of 1,152 square feet. The addition will include a bathroom and small kitchen that will be
designed for handicap accessibility. The applicant intends to use the ADU for personal
and family use and does not intend to rent out the ADU while it is under his ownership.
Figure 2 ADU Floor Plan
Page 3 of 10
ADU Specific CUP Standards
The RR district permits ADUs of up to 1,200 square feet under a CUP in Section
1040.030, Subd. 4. The CUP for an ADU is subject to the following conditions:
1. Not more than one accessory dwelling unit is allowed on a single-family detached
lot.
This condition is satisfied as there is no other ADU on the lot occupied by the
existing single-family detached home.
2. An attached or detached unit shall comply with the same minimum building
setback requirements as required for the living portion of the principal dwelling
unit.
This condition is satisfied in the
proposed plans. The table below
includes the required setbacks:
Property Line Required
Setback
Front
(south)
50 feet
Side
(west & east)
25 feet
Rear
(north)
25 feet
The applicant’s site plan confirms that
the existing accessory structure has a
setback of at least 37’ from the closest
property line. Based on this
measurement, the addition and ADU will
comply with the required setbacks.
3. An accessory dwelling unit shall be a
clearly incidental and subordinate use, the gross floor area of which shall not
exceed the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit or 1,200 square feet,
whichever is less. Accessory dwelling units that do not exceed 960 square feet
can be approved through an Administrative Permit as detailed in Section
1040.030, Subd. 6(A).
The proposed addition is 1,152 sq. ft. The applicant’s narrative provides that the
main floor square footage of the principal dwelling is 1,972 square feet. The
submitted plat drawing (attached to this report) showing the footprint of the house
confirms a square footage of at least this amount. The plans comply with this
Figure 3 Site Plan
Page 4 of 10
standard without needing to consider the gross floor area of additional levels in
the calculation.
4. Unless otherwise specified in this Subdivision, a detached accessory dwelling
unit shall be subject to the same regulations as provided under Section 1030 of
this Chapter. In evaluating how a detached accessory dwelling unit fits within the
size limitations outlined in Section 1030, only the footprint of the accessory
dwelling unit is subject to the accessory structure size limit provided for all zoning
districts.
The ADU is located in the rear yard. The submitted site plans confirm a building
separation of at least 10 feet. This property is 2.97 acres. Historically, properties
have been allowed to round up to the nearest tenth of an acre, which would allow
the applicant an accessory structure footprint of 1,813 square feet. The footprint
of the proposed ADU is 1,152 square feet. There is one other accessory
structure reflected on the aerial view of the property. Based on the building
permit on file with the City, the smaller accessory structure to the northeast has a
footprint of 264 square feet. The ADU and site comply with the accessory
structure footprint limit.
The sidewall height is roughly 9’, but the actual height of an ADU is subject to the
same height standards for the principal dwelling, which will be discussed later in
this report. However, the eaves
and overhangs standard (based
on the sidewall height) for
accessory structures still apply
to ADUs. For a sidewall height
of less than 10’, the eaves and
overhangs must be a minimum
of 12”. Staff interprets eaves to
mean the underside or the
soffits on the side of a building.
The overhang is the edge of the
roof over the front/rear
elevations. Under this
interpretation, the eave is 24”
but the overhang is 10”. The
applicant provided that the
existing structure is legal non-
conforming with this standard as it
was constructed in 1996 prior to the adoption of the current standard. However,
the plans for the addition should be revised to reflect an overhang of 12”.
Figure 4 Elevation with Overhang Measurement
Page 5 of 10
5. The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar
architectural style, colors, and materials as the principal building in the lot.
The applicant provided photos of the principal dwelling as well as the existing
accessory structure that will be converted into an ADU.
Figure 5 Principal Dwelling
Figure 6 Accessory Structure
Page 6 of 10
The architectural style, colors, and materials for the ADU look to be similar to the
principal structure. The ADU plans show a metal roof, but the applicant’s
narrative explains they intend to have a bid completed for both a metal roof and
architectural asphalt. If the asphalt is chosen, this will match with the principal
dwelling. If the metal is selected, the applicant commits to reroofing the principal
residence to match the ADU. This is currently included as a condition of approval
in the draft resolution. However, the Planning Commission and City Council could
decide that the intent of this standard is satisfied without an identical roof
material, and remove this as a condition of approval.
If the applicant proceeds with a metal roof covering, a Certificate of Compliance
will be required. Since there is a chance the applicant may proceed with an
asphalt roof, staff believes it would be best to handle a Certificate of Compliance
for a metal roof with a building permit if it becomes necessary. Residential
dwellings with metal roof coverings must satisfy the following requirements for
the Certificate of Compliance:
a. Meet the standards adopted by the Minnesota State Building Code.
b. Have concealed fasteners.
c. Are high quality commercial thickness/weight.
d. Have been treated with factory applied color coating system against any
fading or degradation.
6. The owner of the property shall reside in the principal dwelling unit or in the
accessory dwelling unit.
The applicant’s narrative confirms their intent to use the ADU for their personal
use and will continue to live either in the principal dwelling or the ADU. This
standard is included as a condition in the draft resolution to ensure current and
future property owners continue to comply with this standard.
7. There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit.
There is no separate ownership proposed. This standard is met and is provided
as a condition of approval in the draft resolution for the CUP to ensure ongoing
compliance.
8. In addition to the parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit on the lot,
two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit.
Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal
dwelling unit parking spaces and shall comply with the requirements of this
Chapter.
Page 7 of 10
The applicant’s plans show a parking area of roughly 25’ by 25’ off the existing
driveway area that exceeds the 10’ setback requirement from the side property
line. The proposed parking will comfortably accommodate two vehicles and will
not create a conflict with parking for the principal dwelling. This standard is
satisfied.
9. An accessory dwelling unit shall use the same street number as the principal
dwelling unit but must include a unique identifier that is consistent with the City’s
Street Naming and Addressing Policy to ensure compatibility with Hennepin
County, the U.S. Postal Service, and emergency service providers. The entryway
to an accessory dwelling unit shall include identifying signage and be connected
to the driveway with an improved walkway.
The address and identifying signage will be finalized at building permit. Per
Public Safety’s recommendation, staff anticipates an address of 22600 Oakdale
Dr, Building (Bldg.) 1 for the principal dwelling and 22600 Oakdale Dr, Bldg. 2 for
the detached ADU. The applicant’s plans show an improved walkway to be
added from the driveway to an existing walkway in the backyard that connects to
the accessory structure. This standard is satisfied with a condition of approval to
finalize addressing and signage at building permit.
Figure 7 Grading and Site Plan Showing Parking
Figure 8 Grading & Site Plan Showing Walkway
Page 8 of 10
10. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the same height restriction for principal
structures as determined by the zoning district but must not exceed the existing
height of the principal structure.
Maximum principal building height in RR district is 35 feet. Building height for a
pitched or hip roof is defined as the vertical distance to be measured from the
grade of a building line to the mean distance of the highest gable. Based on the
submitted elevations, the ADU height measures at roughly 15.6’. This
measurement is an estimate, and staff recommends that the plans be revised to
clearly dimension the height of the structure per the City Code definition.
Regardless, the structure complies with the district limit of 35’. Additionally, ADUs
cannot exceed the height of the principal structure. The house was built in the
1970s, and the City does not appear to have a record of the original building
permit and building plans from this time. The applicant submitted rough
dimensions to staff in March taken from the interior of the building. After taking
into account the grade of the building, staff is comfortable concluding that the
height of the ADU does not exceed the height of the principal dwelling.
Figure 9 Elevation with Estimated Building Height
Page 9 of 10
General CUP Evaluation Criteria
Section 1070.020, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance provides 7 general factors to
consider in the review of a CUP request.
A. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public
facilities and capital improvements plans.
The proposed ADU is compatible with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Rural/Ag
Residential land use category is intended to include natural areas, planted fields,
pastureland, hobby farms, and large residential lots. Since the ADU cannot be
separated from the principal dwelling, the density of the area will remain roughly 1
unit for every 10 acres as anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Engineering
Memo (attached to this report) notes there are no concerns with infrastructure or
drainage. The proposed ADU does not impact capital improvement plans.
B. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will promote
and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort.
The establishment and ongoing use of the ADU will promote the general public
welfare as it will allow for the current homeowners to age in place and future
homeowners to have options for their own family or economic opportunities. There is
no evidence to suggest an ADU that complies with the standards established by the
City will be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort.
C. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor
substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood.
The ADU will be housed in an accessory structure that exists today. The applicant’s
narrative explains the addition will be screened from public view and adjacent
properties by mature trees on all sides. Minimal impact, if any, to the existing trees is
expected as a result of this project. It is unlikely that the surrounding residents and
property will be negatively affected by the addition of a bathroom and kitchen and
ongoing residential use of the accessory structure.
D. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the
district.
There is no evidence to suggest that the ADU will impede normal and orderly
development of the surrounding properties.
E. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably
provided to accommodate the proposed use.
Page 10 of 10
This property is served by private septic and well. The ADU is proposed to be served
by a septic system installed in 2021 for a five-bedroom home that was installed with
the objective of an eventual ADU in mind. The private well for the property will be
shared with the ADU and the casing is tapped for an additional service line per the
applicant’s narrative. Staff has no concerns with the ability of the applicant to provide
utilities to the ADU.
F. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable
regulations of the district in which it is located.
The ADU conforms to all applicable regulations of the RR district as discussed
throughout this report.
G. The conditional use and site conform to performance standards as specified by
this Chapter.
The ADU and site conform to the applicable performance standards as discussed
throughout this report. No concerns or nonconformities were noted in the analysis of
the applicant’s plans.
4. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the draft Resolution approving the CUP for an ADU of
1,152 square feet at 22600 Oakdale Drive with a few conditions.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution 2023- Approving the Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit
2. Applicant’s Narrative
3. Engineering Memo
4. Aerial Photo Mark-up
5. Site Plan
6. Grading Plan
7. Building Plans
8. Preliminary Plat Gmach Farm Subdivision
City of Corcoran April 13, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Page 1 of 4
Motion By:
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT FOR GEORGE GMACH AT 22600 OAKDALE DRIVE (PID 05-119-23-13-
0011) (CITY FILE NO. 23-002)
WHEREAS, George Gmach (“the applicant”) requested approval of a conditional use permit to
construct an accessory dwelling unit on an existing 2.97-acre parcel legally described as:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and
recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a
conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. A conditional use permit is approved to allow construction of an accessory dwelling unit,
in accordance with the application materials and plans received by the City on January
6, 2023, February 1, 2023 and February 3, 2023 except as amended by this resolution.
2. The applicant shall comply with the City Engineer’s Memo dated February 21, 2023.
3. A conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit of 1,152 square feet is
approved, subject to the following findings that specific criteria as outlined in Section
1040.030, Subd. 4 are satisfied:
a. No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on the property.
b. The accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building
setback requirements as required for the living portion of the principal dwelling
unit.
c. The accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
d. The detached accessory dwelling unit complies with applicable regulations under
Section 1030 of the Zoning Ordinance.
e. The exterior design of the accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar
architectural style, colors, and materials as the principal dwelling on the lot.
f. The owner of the property shall reside in the principal dwelling unit or in the
accessory dwelling unit.
g. There shall be no separate ownership of the accessory dwelling unit.
City of Corcoran April 13, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Page 2 of 4
h. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit.
Such accessory dwelling unit parking spaces shall not conflict with the principal
dwelling unit parking spaces and shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
i. The accessory dwelling unit shall use the same street number as the principal
dwelling unit but must include a unique identifier that is consistent with the City’s
Street Naming and Addressing Policy to ensure compatibility with Hennepin
County, the U.S. Postal Service, and emergency service providers. The entryway
to an accessory dwelling unit shall include identifying signage and be connected
to the driveway with an improved walkway.
j. The accessory dwelling unit is subject to the same height restriction for principal
structures in the Rural Residential district but must not exceed the height of the
principal dwelling.
4. A conditional use permit is approved to allow for an accessory dwelling unit of 1,152
square feet subject to the findings that applicable criteria as outlined in Section 1070.020
(Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. Specifically:
a. The accessory dwelling unit complies with the Comprehensive Plan, including
public facilities and capital improvement plans. The project is consistent with the
Rural/Ag Residential land use designation and maintains the density and desired
rural character of the area.
b. The establishment and ongoing use of the accessory dwelling unit will promote
the general public welfare by allowing for additional housing and economic
opportunities for the existing and future property owners. There is no evidence to
suggest an accessory dwelling unit that complies with the standards established
by the City will be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or
comfort.
c. The accessory dwelling unit will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor
substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The
accessory dwelling unit will be an addition to an existing accessory structure that
is screened by mature trees on all sides and is unlikely to negatively affect
adjacent properties.
d. The establishment of the accessory dwelling unit will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted
in the district.
e. Adequate facilities can be reasonably provided to accommodate the accessory
dwelling unit.
f. The accessory dwelling unit conforms in all other respects to the applicable
regulations of the Rural Residential district.
City of Corcoran April 13, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Page 3 of 4
g. The accessory dwelling unit and site conform to performance standards in the
Zoning Ordinance.
5. A building permit is required prior to beginning construciton.
6. A unit address will be assigned at building permit and City-approved identifying signage
will be required for the principal and accessory dwelling units.
7. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of a building
permit:
a. The building plans must be revised to show the following:
i. An overhang on the addition portion of the building of at least 12 inches.
ii. Dimension the building height as defined in Section 1020 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
iii. Confirm the final roof covering to be used on the accessory dwelling unit.
1. If metal roofing is selected, a Certificate of Compliance will be
required.
2. If metal roofing is selected, the principal dwelling must also be
updated with a matching metal roof.
b. The applicant must record the approving resolution at Hennepin County and
provide proof of recording to the City.
8. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant
commences the authorized use.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 13th day of April 2023.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran April 13, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
Lot 4, Block 1, Gmach Farm Subdivision, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
1
George Gmach
22600 Oakdale Drive
Rogers, MN 55374
City of Corcoran
8200 CR 116
Corcoran, MN 55340
January 6, 2023
Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission,
We are owners of Lot 4, Block 1, Gmach Farm Subdivision (PID: 05-119-23-13-0011). We built
the home on a corner of the family farm in 1976. The original lot was reconfigured and
additional ROW was dedicated with a replat in 2017. The current lot is 3.0 acres after the road
ROW is excluded (rounded to the nearest tenth).
We are requesting a conditional use permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) that exceeds
the 960 square foot limit for administrative approval but is under the 1,200 square foot
conditional use limit in the rural residential zone. The proposed ADU requires a 16’ long
addition to the north side of an existing building. The principal dwelling unit main floor square
footage is 1,972 square feet. The recreation building is 768 square feet, and the addition will
make it 1,152 square feet. We will be under the 1,813 allowed accessory size for the lot.
The addition is screened from public view and the adjacent properties. The addition will not be
visible from the road and is screened by mature trees on all sides. There is no impact on
drainage for adjacent lots.
View from road – ADU is to the left and behind the house and trees.
2
View from the north end of the lot near the border of the family farm – ADU is on the right.
The structure on the left is an 11x20 shelter for a maple syrup evaporator.
Interior finish of existing building. The intent is to preserve the naturally oxidized white pine
interior. The interior height is 9’ at sidewalls and 15’ at center.
3
View of the existing building looking NW from the principal dwelling. The roof peak is 20’ high.
The SW corner is 37’ from the side lot line. The remaining building is slightly angled away from
the lot line.
The addition allows for a bathroom and small kitchen without significant modifications to the
existing building which was constructed in 1996. The roofline it intended to match the existing
10:12 pitch. The plan shows a metal roof. Our intent is to get alternate bids for metal or
architectural asphalt. If metal is selected the plan is to reroof the principal dwelling unit to
match. If asphalt is chosen it will match the existing principal dwelling unit.
We do not anticipate renting the ADU. The ADU will be built to allow for handicapped
accessibility should that become necessary in the future. A future owner could be expected to
either continue the current use or comply with the rental ordinance. The unit is not a
commercial enterprise and is to be continuously used as an ADU.
The unit is not intended to house employees.
There are no animals.
There is no added traffic. Space for parking two cars will be improved as required.
A new septic system installed in 2021 was sized for a five-bedroom home with the longer-range
objective of adding an ADU. The well is 214 feet deep in bedrock and the casing is tapped for an
additional service line. The pressure tank and controls will remain in the principal dwelling unit.
4
There is no environmental impact of any significance. The building is screened from adjacent
uses by mature trees. There are no expansion plans.
Adjacent uses north and south are agricultural. Adjacent uses east and west are large lot
residential.
A preliminary plat map shows location of buildings and the well. The septic has been replaced
as previously noted. The property was delineated for wetlands at the time of the re-plat. There
are no wetland impacts.
All property taxes are paid. The records can be viewed on the Hennepin County website.
Sincerely,
George B. Gmach and Jean L. Gmach
Enclosures: Plans
Photo of surrounding area
2017 survey
Application for CUP
Memo
To: Natalie Davis McKeown
Planner
From: Kent Torve, PE
City Engineer
Project: Gmach ADU CUP Date: February 21, 2023
Summary:
• The parking pad grading (2 stalls), walkway extension and building addition reviewed for the
Gmach ADU do not affect City infrastructure or drainage.
• Building permit will still be required to show drainage and land disturbance areas.
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED FOR:
George & Jean Gmach
Date Drawn:
04/11/2022
Revised:
06/03/2022
07/24/2022
A
GG eeoorr gg ee && JJ eeaann GG mm aacc hh AA DDUU AA dd dd ii tt ii oo nn
A-1
CO
VER PAGE
WH
CN3644
RO-37" X 43-5/8"
CN3644
RO-37" X 43-5/8"
4070
4070
2868 Pocket Dr
E9
A-3
E9
A-3
E10E10
E11
A-3
E11
A-3
E13E13
E14
A-6
E14
A-6
E15
A-7
E15
A-7
E16E16
E17E17
E18E18
15'-11 9/16"
48'
3'-11 13/16"
4'-8 3/8"
4'-0 1/16"
3'-3 9/16"
4'-8 3/8"
3'-3 13/16"
12'-8 1/4"
11'-3 3/4"
24'
6'-3 1/2"
8'-8"
5'-1"
3'-6"
1'-6"
3'-0 1/16"
5'-10"
31'-0" X 23'-0"
15'-5" X 10'-4"
15'-5" X 12'-2"
6'-4" X 3'-11"
BATH
KITCHEN
EXISTING
STORAGE
UTILITY
DW
Barn Door w/ track to
fit existing opening
ZERO ENTRY
SHOWER/CUSTOM
TILE WALLS
ADA TOILET
HAND FRAMED
BOX BAYS W/
MARVIN
ULTIMATE
CASEMENTS
Remove Existing
Windows,
Use Existing Headers
for Doorways
No Work in
Hatched Area
In Floor Heat
Controls
Dryer Washer
Sink
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED FOR:
PAGE TITLE
George & Jean Gmach
Date Drawn:
04/11/2022
Revised:
06/03/2022
07/24/2022
MAIN FLOOR
A-2
3/8"= 1'-0"
E9E9
15'-11 9/16"
48'
15'-11 9/16"
48'
24'
5'-3 1/4"
3'-6"
Recess shower floor to
accommodate curbless
shower according to
manufacturer specifications
IInn--FFlloooorr HHeeaattiinngg SSyysstteemm
TTBBDD
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED FOR:
George & Jean Gmach
Date Drawn:
04/11/2022
Revised:
06/03/2022
07/24/2022
FOUNDATION PLAN
EXISTING
A-4
EXTERIOR FINISH NOTES:
Exterior finish to be Board & Batten siding over
23/32" sheathing/house wrap.
Gable end to be lap siding to match existing
Window trim to match existing
MATERIALS AND COLOR BY OWNER.
Roofing TO BE Standing Seam Metal Roof (
Color TBD)
FINISH GRADE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM
STRUCTURE MIN. 1/2" PER FOOT OF RUN
FOR 4' MIL
INTERIOR FINISH NOTES:
Walls & Ceilings to be Pine T&G siding to match
existing
Windows to be Marvin Ultimate Casements w/
Wash Mode-Color to match existing
Utility Room-Pocket Door, style to be determined
Bathroom-Barn Door with track, style to be
determined
ADA Toilet with 18" clearance on wall side,
minimum 36" clearance on cabinet side
Addition to have in-floor heating w/ heater unit in
Utility Room
Concrete floor in shower area to be recessed to
allow for zero entry shower floor
Shower walls & floor to be large format tile, Color
TBD
Include sink in laundry area w/ removable
counter
3/8"= 1'-0"
Exterior Elevation Back
Exterior Elevation Left
Exterior Elevation Right
Exterior Elevation Front
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED FOR:
George & Jean Gmach
Date Drawn:
04/11/2022
Revised:
06/03/2022
07/24/2022
E9E9 E10E10
E11E11 E12E12 A-3
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/4"= 1'-0"
TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5
10
12
4" Concrete Floor
2" Rigid Foam
11 //22 ""==11 ''--00 ""S1S1
15/32" OSB
Self Adhered
Membrane
Standing Seam Metal
Roof ( Color TBD)
Ice & Water
Per Code
Cedar Soffit/Fascia
to Match Existing
3/8" Cedar Ply W/ 1"x 2"
Battens 16" OC
23/32" Sheathing W/
House Wrap
2x6 Wall
R19 Insulation W/
Vapor Barrier
1/2" Drywall
6" Sill Seal
2x6 Treated Plate
8"x 16" Footings8" Concrete Stem Wall
To Match Existing
6" Concrete Curb To Match Existing Height
4" Stone Base
Energy Heel to Match Existing
TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5TR-5
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED FOR:
George & Jean Gmach
Date Drawn:
04/11/2022
Revised:
06/03/2022
07/24/2022
A-5
Wall/Roof Section
1/4"= 1'-0"
E14E14 Exterior Story Pole Elevation
Bottom of Footing
-52.0"
Grade Level
-4.0"
Top of Slab
0.0"
Top of Foundation
4.0"
Highest Rough Ceiling
108.6"
Highest Ridge
241.7"
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED FOR:
George & Jean Gmach
Date Drawn:
04/11/2022
Revised:
06/03/2022
07/24/2022
A-6
EXTERIOR STORYPOLE
1/4"= 1'-0"
Elevation 15
Elevation 17 Elevation 18
Elevation 16
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED FOR:
George & Jean Gmach
Date Drawn:
04/11/2022
Revised:
06/03/2022
07/24/2022
INTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A-7
2868 Pocket
Door
4070 Barn Door
Style TBD
Marvin Ultimate
CN3644
Marvin Ultimate
CN3644
Large Format
Tile Walls
Zero Entry
Shower Floor
ADA Toilet
T&G Pine Walls & Ceilings
To Match Existing
1/4"= 1'-0"
Page 1 of 5
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item ___.
Planning Commission Meeting:
April 6, 2023
Prepared By:
Chris Hong through
Kendra Lindahl, AICP
Topic:
PUBLIC HEARING. Buffer Yard Ordinance (City file 22-
034)
Action Required:
Recommendation
1. Description of request
City staff recommends approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 1060.070
regarding landscaping to include requirements for buffer yards.
2. Background
The Council held a work session on May 12, 2022 to review the 2022 Council work plan
and priorities related to natural resource ordinance updates. They discussed how buffer
yard requirements would be applied, what the standards would be and how to equitably
apply it as land develops and redevelops. The Council directed staff to bring back buffer
yard requirements from other municipalities to see what options are available.
Staff reviewed buffer yard ordinances from six cities: Maple Grove, Medina, Plymouth,
Ramsey, Rochester and Rogers as well as landscaped buffer best practices from the
American Planning Association. In order to compare specific standards and
requirements, staff chose to look at the ordinances that were the most clear-cut:
Medina, Ramsey and Rochester.
The Council held a work session on October 27, 2022 to discuss the pertinent questions
that arose from staff’s research. These included how the buffer yard requirements would
be determined, what the standards of the buffer yards would be and who would own
and manage them. Staff prepared a revised ordinance to reflect the Council direction.
The Council held a work session on January 26, 2023 to review the draft buffer
ordinance written by staff. The council suggested changes to the draft ordinance and
requested that staff conduct additional research on how other municipalities implement
and enforce buffer yard requirements.
The Council held a work session on February 23, 2023 to review the revised draft buffer
ordinance written by staff. The council requested some final changes and directed staff
to schedule a public hearing at the April 6th Planning Commission meeting.
3. Analysis
Buffer yards are a landscaped area along lot lines provided to separate or buffer
adjacent land uses. In addition to plantings, a buffer yard can also include berms and/or
Page 2 of 5
fencing depending on the requirement by the City. Depending on the intent behind a
municipality’s buffer yard ordinance, its purpose can be to create a visual obstruction, a
physical barrier from negative externalities or a natural transition between land uses.
Section 1060.070 describes the existing landscape standards, including screening and
buffering. Staff recommends adding the new buffer standards to this section as Section
1060.070, Subd. 2.J.1.
The key issues of discussion at Council work sessions were:
• Ownership of the buffer yard (landowner vs. third part ownership)
• Basis for the buffer yard requirements (land use vs. zoning)
• Buffer yard standards
• Permitted uses within the buffer yard
• Implementation and enforcement of the requirements
Ownership
There are three main options for the ownership of the buffer zone:
1. ownership by the landowner with the buffer zone,
2. joint ownership with between the landowner and the adjacent landowner or
3. ownership through a third party such as a Homeowners Association (HOA).
All three options create challenges that the City must consider when creating the
ordinance. The option of leaving ownership in the hands of the landowner is seemingly
the simplest approach, but over time the owner of the newly created lot may wish to
remove trees in the buffer area and it would be the responsibility of the City to require
restoration or maintenance of trees on private property. Staff at the City of Ramsey has
indicated that they have been challenged by residents asserting their property rights on
the single family home lots.
Joint ownership would require the developer and the adjacent existing landowner(s) to
ensure maintenance together. Staff believes that could be challenging to set up the
initial agreement and more challenging to handle maintenance and potential disputes
over time. Staff did not recommend approval of this option.
Transferring buffer yard ownership to a third party works well for multi-family or
commercial/industrial developments where an association is typically created to
maintain common areas. The buffer would be located in a common area (an outlot or
common lot) that would be association maintained. This, however, is much more
challenging in a single family neighborhood. Many new single family neighborhoods are
developed without Homeowners Associations. Therefore, this would necessitate the
creation of an association to maintain the buffer and the buffer does not benefit all
homeowners in the development but rather benefits adjacent property owners. The
Page 3 of 5
HOA could choose not to maintain the area and the City would need to come in and do
maintenance and then assess it back to the HOA. The HOA could allow the property to
go tax forfeit if there is no benefit to the larger association and the City could choose to
acquire and maintain the property.
Moving the buffer yard into separate ownership may also mean allowing for smaller lot
sizes to accommodate them or increasing the amount of land that is required to be
undeveloped on a residential lot, which would require a larger lot adjacent to the buffer.
In either scenario, the overall residential density (number of dwelling units per gross
acre) is reduced. The low density residential land use category requires 3-5 units per
net acre. It is theoretically possible to meet the minimum density goals under the
existing RSF-2 zoning district standards. However, if lots are required to be larger to
accommodate the buffer yard and retain a usable back yard, the lot sizes in the
remainder of the neighborhood will likely need to be reduced. That could be
accommodated through a PUD or by modifying the zoning district standards to allow
compliance with a standard plat.
The Council decided that they prefer flexibility in the ownership of the buffer yard. The
ordinance allows the ownership to stay in the hands of the original developer or be
transferred to a third party as long as maintenance of the buffer yard is maintained by a
restrictive easement and covenants. The draft ordinance would allow the buffer to be a
separate outlot or an easement over the affected parcels.
Basis for Buffer Yard Requirements
When deciding when to require buffer yards, we must decide whether to categorize
future developments by the land on which they are zoned or by the proposed land use.
In Medina and Ramsey, proposed development in a district that is zoned “more
intensive” than the adjacent zoning district of an established development will require a
buffer yard. In the City of Rochester, the intensity of the proposed and the existing
adjacent development are categorized in 11 “buffer yard indicators”. The indicators take
into account both the land use and the zoning district of the development.
The Council directed staff to use zoning districts rather than the land use designation to
determine the buffer yard requirements. A “Determination of Buffering Level” table was
created in the ordinance, which pairs the zoning of the proposed development with the
zoning of the existing adjacent neighborhood to determine the buffer yard requirement.
It also identifies the level of buffering required, which is classified into four buffer yard
classes. The buffer yard ordinances in our research had similar tables to illustrate the
requirements.
Buffer Yard Standards
The City must also consider how complicated they wish to make the buffer yard
standards. Medina has five options defined by their opacity level. The required opacity
level can be achieved through a combination of yard width, planting “points,” and
Page 4 of 5
structures (such as a berm of fence). When proposed residential developments are
adjacent to residential zoned land, the City of Ramsey defines buffer yard requirements
with four transition levels that are achieved with a vegetative buffer. A less dense
vegetative buffer can be used if a berm is also built. The vegetative buffer requires
overstory, understory and evergreen plantings and a minimum buffer width. When the
proposed development is not residential, the buffer yard requirement is defined by the
minimum width and the percentage of the total required site landscaping. This must be
in addition to the required plantings for the zoning district. The City of Rochester has 11
buffer yard classes, the requirements of which must be met through a combination of
yard width, canopy plantings, understory plantings, shrubs, and structures. This feels
overly complicated for a city the size of Corcoran.
The Council expressed a desire to provide options for developers to use to meet the
intended buffer in each class. Developers are allowed different combinations of buffer
yard width, overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs and a berm or fence. The “Buffer
Yard Options” table in the ordinance provides the permitted combinations.
Developers are also given the option to use natural features such as existing
topographical features, water bodies and roadways in place of some of the buffer yard
requirements. The ordinance gives the City Council discretion on whether or not these
features will qualify.
Furthermore, the Council added language to exempt existing development from these
standards as long as there is no change in use or building expansion.
Permitted Uses
In order to achieve the desired effect of the buffers, Council had to consider what uses
would be permitted within them. If the purpose of the buffer yard is to lessen the impact
of incompatible land uses, it follows that permitted uses should include those that create
no negative outside impact. This might include seating, paved and unpaved paths,
stormwater facilities and utility boxes. If, instead, the purpose is to create an
aesthetically pleasing visual screen, stormwater facilities, utilities and other such
structures can be restricted. If the purpose is to create a natural-looking space, uses
can include stormwater facilities but not include utilities, paved surfaces or structures.
To maintain a natural aesthetic to the buffer yards, the Council recommended that the
permitted uses be restricted to temporary structures such as benches. Recreational
structures, raised bed gardens and storage sheds are not permitted. Up to ten feet of
the length of a stormwater pond may encroach in a buffer yard but are otherwise not
permitted.
Implementation and Enforcement
In Medina and Ramsey, there is inconsistency between implementation and
enforcement requirements as stated in the Code and what occurs in practice. Medina’s
Page 5 of 5
City Code does not explicitly state that the buffer yard is required to be managed by a
homeowner’s association. Ramsey’s Code only states that the buffer yard be in
“common ownership” without stating how that occurs. Planners in both cities remarked
that enforcement is an ongoing challenge. The planner in Rochester could not recall a
time when a buffer yard was impacted but noted that it would be treated as a zoning
violation if that happened.
The ordinance requires an easement to protect the buffer to be drafted and recorded
against the property. The attached easement example from Ramsey could serve as a
model for a Corcoran template. If the ordinance is adopted by the Council, staff will work
with the City attorney to create a template.
Example
To demonstrate what the application of the draft ordinance may look like, we have
included an exhibit (Attachment 4). This illustrates how the Hope Community Church
development concept plan would need to be revised to allow for the required buffer
yards along the north and west edges of the development (the east and west perimeter
abuts major roadways and is exempt from the buffer ordinance, but subject to the larger
major roadway setbacks). The existing cemetery is exempt from the buffer ordinance by
Section 1060.070 J.1.b.iii.
4. Requested Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to recommend approval of the
following:
a. Ordinance approving an Amendment to Section 1060.070
b. Resolution approving Findings of Fact
Attachments
1. Ordinance approving Amendment to Section 1060.070
2. Resolution approving Findings of Fact
3. City of Ramsey Buffer Yard Easement
4. Hope Community Church concept plan with required buffer yards.
City of Corcoran April xx, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX
Motion By:
Seconded By:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF SECTION 1060.070 OF TITLE 10 OF THE
CORCORAN CITY CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) (CITY FILE 22-034)
THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Chapter 1060.070 Subd. 2 D. of the
Zoning Ordinance of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined
material as follows:
D. Minimum Size Requirements. All plants must at least equal the following minimum size:
Table 1 – Minimum Plant Size Requirements
Potted/Bare Root or Balled and Burlapped
Shade Trees (overstory) 2.5-inch diameter
Ornamental Trees (understory) 1.5-inch diameter
Evergreen Trees (overstory) 4-6 feet high
Tall Shrubs and Hedge Material (deciduous
or coniferous)
3-4 feet high
Low Shrubs (deciduous) 5 gallon
SECTION 2. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Chapter 1060.070 Subd. 2 G. of the
Zoning Ordinance of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by deleting the stricken
material and adding the underlined material as follows:
G. Number of TreesPlantings. The minimum number of trees plantings on any given site
shall be as follows:
SECTION 3. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Chapter 1060.070 Subd. 2 J. of the
Zoning Ordinance of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by deleting the stricken
material and adding the underlined material as follows:
J. Required Screening and Buffering.
1. Buffer Yards.
a. Definition. For the purpose of this Section, a buffer yard shall be a
land area containing landscaping, berms, fences, or some
combination thereof used to promote orderly transition between
developments and to minimize the adverse impacts of differing
land uses. Buffer yards shall be preserved in perpetuity by an
easement or an outlot.
City of Corcoran April xx, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX
b. Required Buffer Yard. A buffer yard shall be required when a
developing property is adjacent to or across a local street from
property in a less intensive zoning district.
i. The buffer yard standards only apply to the parcels abutting
the conflicting zoning district.
ii. Parcels within the same development are not required to
adhere to the buffer yard requirements. The buffer yard
requirement applies only to the perimeter of the development.
iii. A buffer yard shall not be required for new developments
adjacent to or across a local street from a permanently
undevelopable parcel, such as an outlot for stormwater ponds,
but shall be required adjacent to outlots that may be developed
in the future.
iv. A buffer yard shall not be required for existing developed
parcels if they are replatted as long as there is no change in use
or building expansion.
c. Responsibility. Provision of buffer yards shall be the responsibility
of the more intensive use and shall be required at the time of
development.
d. Location of Buffer Yard. Buffer yards, when required, shall be
located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel, extending to the
lot or parcel boundary line.
i. Buffer yards shall not be located on any portion of an existing
or dedicated public right-of-way or private street easement,
unless otherwise specified by this ordinance.
ii. Buffer yards may be located within required yard setbacks.
Structures must comply with both the setbacks in the zoning
district and the buffer yard requirements.
e. Determination of Buffering Level. This subsection applies to
proposed developments that are adjacent to an existing residential
neighborhood. Matching the development to the adjacent existing
neighborhood in the following chart determines the level of
buffering required.
i. If the proposed development is in a PUD zoning district, the
underlying zoning district used to establish the PUD shall be
used to determine the buffering level.
City of Corcoran April xx, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX
ii. A buffer level of “X” denotes a buffer yard is not required.
iii. Perimeter Setback. For a buffer yard requirement noted with
an asterisk (*) in Table 2, the development is required to
maintain side and rear setbacks equivalent to the rear
setback requirement. No additional buffer plantings are
required in the setback.
Table 2 – Determination of Buffering Level
Proposed Development Zoning District
UR RR RSF-1 RSF-2 RSF-3 RMF1 MP TCR PI C2 BP, I-1
Zo
n
i
n
g
o
f
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
UR * X A A B C C D D D D
RR X * A A B C C D D D D
RSF-1 X X * A A B B C C C D
RSF-2 X X X * A B B C C C D
RSF-3 X X X X * A B B B B C
RMF1 X X X X X * A B B B C
MP X X X X X X * B B B B
1 Zoning district RMF includes RMF-1, RMF-2, and RMF-3
2 Zoning district C includes DMU, GMU, CR, C-1, and C-2
f. Options for Buffer Yard Classes. The following table is used to list
appropriate landscape buffer options to fulfill the requirements of
the buffer yard classes in Table 2 of this Section. Proposed
alternatives must be approved by City Council.
Table 3 – Buffer Yard Options
Buffer Yard
Class Width Overstory
Plantings1
Understory
Plantings1 Shrubs1 Structures2
A3
10 feet 1 2 0 None
15 feet 1 1.5 0 None
20 feet 0.5 1.25 0 None
B
10 feet 1 4 6 Minimum 4-foot fence
20 feet 3 6 9 None
20 feet 1 2 3 Minimum 4-foot fence
30 feet 2 4 12 None
30 feet 1 2 4 Minimum 4-foot berm
C
20 feet 3 3 12 Minimum 4-foot fence
30 feet 2 2 9 Minimum 4-foot fence
30 feet 4 6 24 None
40 feet 3 4 18 None
40 feet 2 2 12 Minimum 4-foot berm
D 30 feet 6 9 36 Minimum 6-foot fence
40 feet 4 6 24 Minimum 6-foot fence
City of Corcoran April xx, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX
40 feet 8 12 24 None
50 feet 6 9 18 None
50 feet 3 4 9 Minimum 6-foot berm
1 per 100 feet of distance
2 Fences are subject to requirements in Section 1060.080
3 A local road fulfills the Buffer Yard Class A requirement
g. Planting Requirements. All plantings shall be subject to the size
and spacing requirements in Subd. 2(D) and 2(E) of this Section.
h. Natural Buffers. Any of the following buffers may qualify as an
acceptable method of attainment for transitioning (in whole or in
part) if deemed acceptable by City Council:
i. Existing topographical features on vacant lands such as hills
and swales.
ii. Wetlands, lakes, rivers and streams.
iii. Major Roadways. Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A
Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector
Roadways as shown on the 2040 Roadway Functional
Classification map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
iv. Local Roads as shown on the as shown on the 2040 Roadway
Functional Classification map in the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan may fulfill the Buffer Yard Class A requirement.
v. Existing wooded areas.
i. Use of buffer yards. Buffer yards shall be left in a predominantly
undeveloped state.
i. Plantings in addition to those required by this ordinance are
permitted.
ii. No passive recreation, paths, storage containers, lighting
fixtures, raised planting beds or any permanent structures
shall be allowed.
iii. Temporary structures such as benches shall be allowed.
iv. Paving shall be limited to areas necessary to provide access to
the subject property.
City of Corcoran April xx, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX
v. Stormwater ponds and bio-retention ponds are allowed in
perimeter setbacks. They are allowed to encroach a maximum
of 10 feet into required buffer yards.
j. Ownership of Buffer Yards. Ownership of the buffer yard will vary
depending on whether it is an outlot or an easement.
i. Buffer yards shall remain in the ownership of the original
developer, or they shall be transferred to any consenting
grantees, such as adjoining landowners, a homeowners
association, or an open-space or conservation group, subject
to City approval.
ii. Any such conveyance must adequately guarantee the
protection and maintenance of the buffer yard for its intended
purpose in perpetuity.
iii. Easements protecting the buffer shall be recorded against the
property and filed at Hennepin County.
k. Enforcement. Any person, firm, or corporation who violates any
provision of this code for which another penalty is not specifically
provided, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor. The
penalty for any crime that is a misdemeanor under this code,
including Minnesota Statutes specifically adopted by reference,
shall be identical to the penalty enumerated in MN Stat. §609.02,
Subd. 3, as amended from time to time.
SECTION 4. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Chapter 1060.070 Subd. 2. J. 2. b.of the
Zoning Ordinance of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined
material as follows:
b. Fences or walls may be used in conjunction with landscaping to provide screening. When
required for screening, a minimum of 80 percent opacity shall be provided. No landscaping
or screening shall interfere with driver or pedestrian visibility for vehicles entering or
exiting the premises.
Section 5. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption.
City of Corcoran April xx, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX
ADOPTED by the City Council on the xxth day of April 2023.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xx day of April 2023.
___________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Jessica Beise – City Administrator
City of Corcoran April xx, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX
Page 1 of 1
Motion By:
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
TEXT OF SECTION 1060.070 OF TITLE 10 OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE (ZONING
ORDINANCE) (CITY FILE 22-034)
WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran has proposed an amendment to the landscaping standards
related to buffer yard requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed text amendment at a duly
called Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the amendment based
upon the finding that:
1. The proposed amendment would be consistent with State law and the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and compatible with other provisions of the City Code.
2. The proposed amendment provides landscaping options to separate or buffer land uses
while maintaining the rural character of the City.
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the screening standards in other sections
of the City Code, which require a landscaping zone in certain zoning districts.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xx day of April 2023.
___________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Jessica Beise – City Administrator
URBAN RESER
V
E
URBAN RESERVE
UR
B
A
N
RE
S
E
R
V
E
BU
S
I
N
E
S
S
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
GENERAL MIXED USE
RS
F
-
1
UR
B
A
N
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
UR
B
A
N
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
RM
F
-
2
PO
N
D
FILTRATION POND
BU
F
F
E
R
C
L
A
S
S
C
:
20
-
T
O
4
0
-
F
O
O
T
B
U
F
F
E
R
sh
o
w
n
h
e
r
e
a
s
3
0
f
e
e
t
BU
F
F
E
R
C
L
A
S
S
D
:
30
-
T
O
5
0
-
F
O
O
T
B
U
F
F
E
R
sh
o
w
n
h
e
r
e
a
s
4
0
f
e
e
t
GM
U
GM
U
PI
FU
T
U
R
E
CE
M
E
T
E
R
Y
FILTRATION
POND
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
WE
T
L
A
N
D
14
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 7c.
Planning Commission Meeting:
April 6, 2023
Prepared By:
Nicholas Ouellette
through Kendra Lindahl,
AICP
Topic:
Time Extension for Scherber Roll Off Conditional Use
Permit and Site Plan Approval at 23240 County Road 30
(city file 21-007)
Action Required:
Recommendation
Review Deadline: N/A
1. Request
The applicant, Trevor Scherber, has requested a second one-year time extension to the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Plan approvals granted for T Scherber
Demolition and Excavation by Resolution 2021-50 for the property located at 23240
County Road 20 (PID 07-119-23-13-0003).
2.Background
On May 27, 2021, City Council approved the conditional use permit and site plan to
allow a contractor’s operation with outside storage.
On June 1, 2022, City staff administratively approved a one-year extension, pursuant to
Section 1070.020, Subd. 7 of the City Code. The one year extension expires on May 27,
2023.
3. Analysis
The Zoning Ordinance has standards for the extensions of conditional use permits
(Section 1070.020 Subd. 7) and site plans (Section 1070.050, Subd. 8) which allow a
request for an extension not exceeding one year subject to the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator. Should a second extension of time be requested, it shall be
presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council for a
decision. The request for extension must be received at least 30 days before the
expiration of said approvals.
In making the determination for an extension, the applicant must demonstrate a good
faith attempt to utilize the site plan approval. The Planning Commission and City
Council may consider such factors as the type and design of the proposed construction,
applicable restrictions to financing or special circumstances beyond the control of the
applicant which may have caused the delay.
The applicant has been working with staff to revise plans in compliance with the
conditions of Resolution 2021-50 approving the CUP and site plan.
Page 2 of 2
4. Recommendation
Move to recommend approval of the draft resolution approving a the one-year extension
for the approvals granted in Resolution 2021-50.
Attachments
1. Draft Resolution 2023-XX Approving a One-Year Extension
2. Resolution 2021-50 dated May 27, 2021
3. Time Extension Request dated March 8, 2023
4. Site Plan dated February 25, 2023
City of Corcoran April xx, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX
Page 1 of 2
Motion By:
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SECOND ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23240
COUNTY ROAD 30 (PID 07-119-23-13-0003) (CITY FILE NO. 21-007)
WHEREAS, the Corcoran City Council adopted Resolution 2021-50 approving a conditional use
permit and site plan for T Scherber Demolition and Excavation (the “applicant”) on May 27, 2021;
WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran Zoning Administrator administratively approved a one-year
extension for the approvals in Resolution 2021-50 on June 1, 2022 pursuant to Section 1070.020,
Subd. 7 and Section 1070.050, Subd. 8 of the City Code and the extension expires May 27, 2023;
WHEREAS, Section 1070.020, Subd. 7 and Section 1070.050, Subd. 8 of the Corcoran City Code
state that should a second extension be requested it shall be presented to the Planning
Commission for a recommendation to the City Council for a decision;
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a written request for an extension on March 8, 2023;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the one-year extension for the conditional use
permit and site plan approvals on April 6, 2023 and recommends approval;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the applicant is making good faith efforts to complete the
site improvements, revise plans to resolve outstanding conditions of approval and that granting the
time extension request does not damage the City of Corcoran and is in the best interest of the
applicant;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for an extension
of the conditional use permit and site plan approvals until May 31, 2024, subject to the following:
1. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of this extension unless the applicant
comments the authorized use and completes the required improvements.
2. The applicant must record this resolution and all associated documents at Hennepin
County prior to May 31, 2024.
3. The applicant shall provide proof of recording to the City prior to release of any remaining
escrow.
4. No business operations, including storage of equipment, is permitted on site until all
conditions of approval have been met and commercial use of the site is authorized by City
staff.
City of Corcoran April xx, 2023
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX
Page 2 of 2
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xxth day of April 2023.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
EXISTING ZONING
PROJECT LOCATION
T. Scherber
Demolition &
Excavating
CI
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
SI
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
11415 Vally Drive
Rogers, MN 55374
Trevor Scherber
trevor@tscherber.com
952-292-9633
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
SURVEY DATA
SITE PLAN NOTES
GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND:
SITE DATA:
EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
KEY NOTES:
Agenda Item: 8b.
Page 1 of 2
8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340
763-420-2288
email: general@corcoranmn.gov / website: www.corcoranmn.gov
MEMO
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Re:
March 23, 2023
City Council
Dwight Klingbeil, Planning Technician
Active Corcoran Planning Applications
The following is a status summary of active planning projects:
1.Transition/Buffer Zones ZOA (City File 22-034). After multiple discussions on this
topic in 2022, the City Council reviewed a draft of a Buffer Yard Ordinance at the January 26th
work session. Remaining questions and discussion regarding enforcement was discussed
further at the February 23rd regular Council meeting. The public hearing for this item is
scheduled for the April 6th Planning Commission meeting and will return to the City Council at
the April 27th Meeting.
2.Pioneer Trail Industrial Park, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat and PUD (PID 32-119-
23-34-0013, 32-119-23-34-0007, 32-119-23-43-0005 and 32-119-23-43-0006) (City File No.
22-039). An application was submitted to move forward with the preliminary approvals for the
Pioneer Trail Industrial Park off Highway 55. The item was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a Public Hearing on December 1st and was recommended for approval on a 3-1
vote. The City Council reviewed this item at the January 12th meeting, and the application was
approved at the January 26th regular meeting.
3.PUD Standards Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File No. 22-045). After various
discussions on planned unit development standards in 2022, staff and City Council continued
to discuss verbiage changes in the working draft of the new PUD district standards at the
January 26th City Council Work Session as well as a joint Work Session with the Planning
Commission and Parks and Trails Commission on February 9th. The Council asked the
Planning Commission to continue discussion of the point categories. This item is scheduled for
further discussion at the March 23rd Council Meeting. This is expected to go to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing in the first half of 2023.
4.Rental Ordinance (City File No. 22-046). Staff and City Council continue to work
through the draft ordinance and planning for administrative implementation. This item will go to
another Council work session on April 13th before proceeding with Council approval. Since the
Rental Ordinance will not be contained within the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinances of City
Code, a public hearing is not required.
Page 2 of 2
5. Keefe Minor Subdivision (PID 33-119-23-12-0007) (City File No. 22-063). An
application for a two-lot subdivision at 6801 Willow Drive was submitted. The application has
been determined to be complete for review. This type of application does not require review by
the Planning Commission and is tentatively scheduled for the April 27th City Council meeting.
6. Dish Tower Site Plan Amendment (PID 25-119-23-44-0005) (City File No. 22-066). A
minor site plan amendment application was submitted for installation of new ground equipment
at an existing telecommunications tower at 7205 County Road 101. The applicant provided all
the materials necessary, and staff approved this application administratively.
7. “Vollrath Compost Site Sketch Plan” (PID 19-119-23-12-0002) (City File No. 22-078).
Trent Vollrath submitted an application to ask the Council for feedback on allowing a
commercial compost site within the Rural Residential district. The application was determined
to be incomplete at this time.
8. “MS4 Updates” (Citywide) (City File No. 23-001). Staff anticipates needing to process
further changes to MS4-related regulations to comply with the City’s MS4 permit. Currently,
Public Works and Engineering are focusing efforts on establishing new requirements for salt
storage. The salt storage ordinance amendments are tentatively scheduled for Council review
on March 9th. The salt storage ordinance was approved by City Council at the March 9th
meeting.
9. “Gmach Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP” (PID 05-119-23-13-0011) (City File No. 23-
002). George Gmach submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow an
accessory dwelling unit over 960 square feet at 22600 Oakdale Drive. This item was intended
to be discussed at the March Planning Commission meeting. Due to a lack of quorum, the
public hearing was rescheduled to the April 6th Planning Commission Meeting with City Council
Review on April 13th.
10. “Amira Village” (PID 25-119-23-12-0002) (City File No. 23-003). Hempel Acquisition
Company submitted a sketch plat application for a 141-unit development consisting of single-
family homes for a senior living rental community at the Chastek property on Maple Hill Rd.
This item was pulled from the City Council meeting on February 23rd and is scheduled to return
to the Council at the March 23rd meeting.
11. “Kariniemi/Wicht Sketch Plat” (PID 18-119-23-11-0002; 18-119-23-42-0001) (City
File No. 23-004). Nathan Kariniemi of Willow1 LLC submitted a sketch plat application for an
Open Space & Preservation plat near Kariniemi Meadows on County Road 19 and County
Road 10. The plan includes three commercial lots that wrap around the existing Public Works
building in addition to 8 small residential lots off Larsen Road. The plat includes a 40-acre
outlot to be preserved as open space. The Council provided the applicant informal feedback on
their concept plan and is not scheduled for another meeting at this time.
12. “Kwik Trip CUP, Lot Line Adjustment, and Site Plan” (PID 12-119-23-14-0006; 12-
119-23-14-0004) (City File No. 23-005). Kwik Trip Inc. submitted a Site Plan, Lot Line
Adjustment and CUP application for the two parcels north of Mama G’s. The application was
determined to be incomplete for City review and is not currently scheduled for review by the
City Council.