HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-02 Planning Commission Agenda PacketCorcoran Planning Commission Agenda
April 4, 2024 - 7:00 pm
1.Call to Order / Roll Call
2.Pledge of Allegiance
3.Agenda Approval
4. Minutes
a. Minutes – April 4, 2024, Meeting*
5.Open Forum – Public Comment Opportunity
6.New Business
a.Public Hearing. Heather Meadows 3rd Addition(City File 24-
002).
i.Staff Report
ii.Open Public Hearing
iii.Close Public Hearing
iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation
b.Public Hearing. Chastek Farm Preliminary Plat, Preliminary
PUD, Rezone (City File 23-034).
i.Staff Report
ii.Open Public Hearing
iii.Close Public Hearing
iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation
c.Public Hearing. Fairway Shores Villas Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Preliminary Plat &
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (City File 24-006).
i.Staff Report
ii.Open Public Hearing
iii.Close Public Hearing
iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation
7. Reports/Information
a.Other Business
i.Commercial and Industrial Update (page 1 of use table)*
b.Planning Project Update*
c.City Council Report* – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp
8.Commissioner Liaison Calendar
City Council Meetings
5/9/2024 5/23/2024 6/13/2024 6/27/2024 7/11/2024 7/25/2024
Lind Brummond Hargreaves Kozicky Lanterman Lind
9. Adjournment
HYBRID MEETING OPTION AVAILABLE
The public is invited to attend the regular Planning
Commission meetings at City Hall.
Meeting Via Telephone/Other Electronic
Means
Call-in Instructions:
+1 305 224 1968 US
Enter Meeting ID: 813 2340 0618
Video Link and Instructions:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81323400618
visit http://www.zoom.us and enter
Meeting ID: 813 2340 0618
*Please note in-person comments will be taken
at the scheduled meeting where noted.
Comments received via email to the Planning
Technician (dklingbeil@corcoranmn.gov) or via
public comment cards will also be accepted. All
email and public comment cards must be
received by the 4PM of the day before the
meeting. For more information on options to provide
public comment visit:
www.corcoranmn.gov
Item 5a.
Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes
May 2, 2024 - 7:00 pm
The Corcoran Planning Commission met on April 4, 2024, in Corcoran, Minnesota. Three Planning
Commissioners were present in the Council Chambers. Members of the public were able to
participate in-person and monitor the meeting through electronic means using the audio and video
conferencing platform Zoom.
Present: Commissioners Brummond, Hargreaves, and Kozicky.
Also present: Planner Davis McKeown, Planning Technician Klingbeil, Planner Lindahl, and Council
Liaison Vehrenkamp.
Absent: Commissioners Lanterman and Lind.
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Agenda Approval
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Kozicky, to approve the agenda for the April 4,
2024, Planning Commission Meeting.
Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, and Kozicky.
(Motion passed 3:0).
4. Open Forum (none)
5. Minutes
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Hargreaves, to approve the March 12, 2024,
Planning Commission Minutes.
Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, and Kozicky.
(Motion passed 3:0).
6. New Business – Public Comment Opportunity
a. Continue Public Hearing to May 6, 2024. Chastek Farm Preliminary Plat,
Preliminary PUD, Rezone. (City File No. 23-034)
i. Planner Davis McKeown explained that the applicant requested a 60-day
extension to the land use application.
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Kozicky, to continue the public
hearing for Chastek Farm Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD, and Rezoning to
the May 6, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting.
Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, and Kozicky.
(Motion passed 3:0).
b. Public Hearing. Scharber Garage CUP (City File No. 24-005)
i. Staff Report – Staff Report was presented by Planning Technician Klingbeil.
ii. Public Hearing
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Kozicky, to close the Public
Hearing.
Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, and Kozicky.
(Motion passed 3:0).
iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission discussion
included a suggestion that the City may want to consider re-examining the
process for allowing accessory structures to exceed the allowable sidewall
height.
Motion made by Hargreaves, seconded by Kozicky, to recommend approval
of the Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory structure with sidewalls
to exceed 10’ in height at 6650 Pioneer Trail.
Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, and Kozicky.
(Motion passed 3:0).
c. Red Barn Pet Retreat Variance (City File No. 24-007)
i. Staff Report – Staff Report was presented by Planner Lindahl.
ii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission Discussion
included a summary of the Commission’s previous discussions regarding Ret
Barn Pet Retreat; the zoning east of the property and clarification that the
area in question is in Maple Grove; future development plans on the site;
clarification of the lighting and animal waste disposal plans were approved in
the preliminary application.
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Kozicky, to recommend approval of
the variance request to allow development of Red Barn Pet Retreat prior to
municipal sewer and water availability.
Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, and Kozicky.
(Motion passed 3:0)
7. Reports/Information
a. Other Business –
i. The Commercial & Industrial Update Discussion.
1. Staff Report – Presented by Planner Davis McKeown.
2. Discussion – The commission discussion was broken into three
categories: Development Rights in Rural Commercial (CR) &
Transitional Rural Commercial (TCR) zoning districts; Mini-
Storage/Self-Storage; and a comprehensive review of the Commercial
and Industrial District.
The commission began their discussion with the topic of Development
Rights in CR & TCR districts, which included: a question regarding the
minimum lot size requirements for the CR district; reason for having
2.5-acre lot minimum areas in the CR and TCR areas; clarification of
current Development Rights allocation; impact to master planning of
the city; potential of other parcels requesting to be rezoned to CR or
TCR; access requirements potentially limiting future rezoning requests;
development rights being the foundation for all areas outside of the
MUSA; avoid setting a presentence of development rights deviation for
other zoning districts; discussing with neighboring municipalities prior
to making changes; examining in the 2050 Comprehensive Plan; the
reasonableness of the current requirements; the clear distinction
provided by the MUSA line; intensifying commercial areas worsening
the rapid change in Corcoran; potential impact to local farmer’s
property taxes; promoting agricultural business; a question of whether
there has been any issues with 2.5-acre lots in existing commercial
areas; compatible land-uses with 2.5-acre lots and requiring larger lots
for certain uses; a question on parking standards; clarification on the
public comment opportunities as this update moves forward; access
requirements; clarification of the City’s process to coordinate with
Hennepin County regarding access; question of the County’s impact
on a deviation from Development Rights; consideration of future
access needs; difficulties of rezoning Strehler Road; clarification of
impervious surface classification; clarification of the areas that are
currently zoned CR and TCR; a recent request to rezone the property
surrounding the Public Works building; allowing farmers markets within
rural commercial areas; the broad amount of uses within the CR
district; creating a minimum lot size for each use if the City deviated
away from development rights; clarification on next steps in the update
process; feedback on reassigning development rights, and public
perception in the engagement process.
The Commission discussion continued with a focus on the allowance
of Mini-Storage and Self-Storage facilities, this discussion included a
distinction between mini-storage and self-storage; existing accessible
storage in the city; the process to allow storage facilities in the future;
avoiding oversaturation of land uses; public safety concerns;
incompatibility to be converted into other uses; informal housing within
storage units; lack of employment opportunities created with this land-
use; reference to a self-storage facility in St. Michael; not allowing
parking in these types of facilities; clarification of impervious surface
limits and landscape buffering; better uses for the land; and
clarification of areas that mini-storage/self-storage were previously
allowed.
The Commission discussion concluded with a discussion regarding a
comprehensive review of the Commercial and Industrial districts, which
included a brief overview of the allowed use table; identifying areas
that could be simplified; differentiating between C-1 and C-2 districts;
simplifying the standards to be user-friendly; form-based codes easing
the development process for business owners; clarification that form-
based codes don’t address uses; purpose of TCR district; including
butcher shops as an allowed use; the need for continual reviewal of the
table; animal keeping as an accessory use; the need for a legend
within the table; building height transitions; impervious surface
calculations on a per-lot basis vs. a per-plat basis; and specific
architectural features on the façade of warehouse buildings.
b. Planning Project Update* -
c. City Council Report* – Councilor Vehrenkamp discussed the status of the Khacholing
Center application and the next steps to the Commercial and Industrial updates.
8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar
City Council Meetings
4/11/2024 4/25/2024 5/9/2024 5/23/2024 6/13/2024 6/27/2024
Kozicky Lind Lind Brummond Hargreaves Kozicky
9. Adjournment
Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Kozicky, to adjourn the April 4, 2024, Planning
Commission meeting.
Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, and Kozicky.
(Motion passed 3:0).
The meeting adjourned at 8:54 pm.
Page 1 of 24
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6a.
Planning Commission Meeting:
May 2, 2024
Prepared By:
Natalie Davis McKeown
Topic:
Heather Meadows 3rd Addition
Open Space & Preservation Plat (OS&P), Conditional Use
Permit (CUP), and Variance
(PIDs 05-119-23-31-0001; 05-119-23-32-0001; 08-119-23-
22-0011)
(City File No. 24-002)
Action Required:
Recommendation
Review Deadline: August 1, 2024
1. Request
The applicants, Mark and
Markus Lee, propose an
OS&P plat on 88.22 acres
near Oakdale Drive and
Heather Lane. The plat will
result in 12 buildable lots
ranging from 2.3 – 4 acres in
size and 44.8 acres of open
space to be preserved as
farmland in two outlots. The
request includes a CUP to
allow for agriculture buildings
on a lot of less than 10 acres
that exceed the allowed
footprint as well as thee
variances from OS&P design
standards and a setback
requirement of 100’ for an
agricultural structure.
2. Background
The plat consists of three
existing properties. A
residential parcel of 0.39-
acres, an original farmstead of
52.06 acres, and a 35.04-acre parcel that was platted as Outlot A of Heather Meadows
2nd Addition in 1999. The farmstead has 5 development rights, and the existing
Figure 1 Site Location
Page 2 of 24
residential parcel of 0.39-acres has 1 implied development right. The City’s OS&P Plat
allows for development rights to be increased (up to 200%) in exchange for half the
acreage set aside as open space as well as other design standards, such as a paved
public street with curb and gutter to serve the development.
The original farmstead and Outlot A are both actively
used for agricultural purposes, specifically tree and
crop production. The farmstead includes a rural
home in good condition with an attached garage and
several outbuildings. A second dwelling built in the
late 1800’s in need of restoration was demolished in
2022. The City Council reviewed a concept plan of
this OS&P plat at their regular meeting on 7/14/2022.
3. Context
Zoning and Land Use
All three properties are guided Rural/Ag Residential
and zoned Rural Residential (RR) with the
Shoreland Overlay District touching the southeast
portions of the existing Outlot A and 52-acre
farmstead. The site is located outside of the 2040
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary.
Surrounding Properties
All surrounding properties are guided Rural/Ag
Residential and zoned Rural Residential. The present
use of the surrounding properties appears to be
predominately residential.
Natural Characteristics of the Site
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources Inventory Areas Map does not
identify any significant natural plant communities within the proposed site.
A wetland delineation for the site was completed in September 2023. Seven wetlands
were found on the site (see page 3).
Rush Creek is nearby to the east of the existing farmstead and just south of existing
Outlot A. The proximity to the creek is the reason why the shoreland overlay briefly
touches both properties. It is also possible that there is floodplain on the site.
Figure 2 Zoning Map
Page 3 of 24
Prior Review
The City Council reviewed a concept plan for this project (previously known as “Lee
OS&P Sketch Plan” – City File No. 22-030) at their regular meeting on July 14, 2022.
Discussion points on the concept plan included keeping two homes on a single lot (this
resolved with demolition of one of said homes), an accessory structure footprint on one
Figure 3 Wetland Delineation
Page 4 of 24
lot that includes all the agricultural structures that will continue to be needed to farm the
outlot, and the existing homes requiring a variance from a buffer requirement of the
OS&P as well as from the standard that all lots shall front a paved street, internal to the
site.
The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed this item at their meeting on April 18, 2024.
They recommended accepting park dedication per the staff recommendation: cash-in-
lieu of land.
4. Analysis
Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision
Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, City Code requirements, and City policies. The City
Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, the detailed comments are
included in the attached Engineering Memo. Approval conditions require compliance
with the Memo. Public Safety reviewed the plat but did not have any comments.
A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the City’s Subdivision and Zoning
ordinance. If the proposal meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary
plat.
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a CUP is limited to whether the proposed
plan is in substantial conformance with standards outlined in the City Code. If the
proposal meets those standards, or can reasonably meet those standards with
conditions, the City must approve the CUP.
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a variance. The
burden of proof is on the applicant to show the variance standards are satisfied.
B. Preliminary Plat
Development Rights
The applicant proposes 12 lots where 6 development rights exist. In exchange for
substantial preservation of open space, OS&P plats are allowed to develop in the RR
district at 150% of the development rights if the development is served by a public street
constructed per the rural street section. OS&P developments can access 200% of the
available development rights if the subdivision is developed with the urban street
section. The street plan indicates compliance with the City’s urban street section (paved
with curb and gutter).
Lot Size and Standards
The subdivision will create 12 lots for single-family homes as well as two outlots that will
continue to be farmed as part of the applicant’s tree farm. There is an existing house, 9
accessory buildings totaling a footprint of over 8,000 square feet on proposed Lot 1,
Page 5 of 24
Block 4. These accessory buildings
will be discussed further in the CUP
portion of this analysis. There is an
existing house on Lot 1, Block 5.
The lot size is determined by the
OS&P plat standards. There is no
flat minimum lot size, but each
single-family lot must be able to
accommodate a primary and
secondary septic site. There is a
maximum lot size of 4 acres (twice
the minimum lot area in the RR
district). The plat shows that the lot
sizes ranges from 2.2-acres to 4-
acres.
A primary and secondary septic site
is shown for the 10 lots located in
the southwest portion of the site but
not for Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1,
Block 5. Since there are existing
residences on these lots, it is
assumed there are existing septic
sites in working condition. However,
the existing septic sites must be
confirmed, and an alternative site
must also be approved through
Hennepin County. This requirement
is included as a condition of approval
which is included in the draft resolution. Otherwise, the proposed lot sizes appear to
comply with this standard.
Open Space
OS&P plats require a minimum of 50% of the gross land area to be dedicated in no
more than 2 non-contiguous pieces to be preserved as open space. Of the required
land preserved as open space, 50% must consist of upland. The entire site is 88.22
acres which would require at least 44.11 acres to be set aside as open space. Outlot A
is 40.8 acres and Outlot B is 4 acres for a total of 44.8 acres of open space that will
continue to be used for agricultural purposes. A total of 22.06 acres of this open space
must be upland. As of City Ordinance No. 2023-510 adopted on October 26, 2023,
upland is defined as follows:
Figure 4 Preliminary Plat
Page 6 of 24
Upland: land not classified as a wetland, a floodplain, below the 100-year
ordinary high-water level, or a water body and is generally dry.
The exact amount of upland is not indicated on the plan set; however, it appears more
than half of the open space is upland. A condition of approval is for the applicant to
confirm the upland acreage of the open space meets or exceeds 22.06 acres.
Ownership of Open Space
Section 940.060, Subd. 1 list that the operations and maintenance must be handled
through covenants to ensure continued operation at a reasonable standard. This section
allows that the ownership of the common open space can be owned by one of the
following:
A. Dedicated to the public where a community-wide use would be anticipated;
B. Subdivider’s ownership and control; or
C. Homeowners Association (HOA)
The subdivider plans to retain ownership of the common outlots. The open space shall
be protected by a deed restriction in favor of the City over the open space that will
remain in place until municipal sewer and water are available to serve the site. At such
time, the open space may be developed in accordance with the urban regulations in
place at that time. Until then, the restrictive covenant will prevent the outlots from being
sold to someone without an interest in the neighborhood or further developed. The
covenant will outline the following options regarding how the open space can be
handled:
1. The open space outlots can be dedicated to the City (if the City accepts).
2. The open space outlots can be sold to the owner of Lot 1, Block 4.
3. The open space outlots can be dedicated to a HOA that comprises a majority
of the homes within this development.
4. The open space outlots can be sold to a developer once municipal sewer and
water is available.
The restrictive covenant does not prevent the subdivider from renting the outlots to
another farmer. However, if the agricultural structures on Lot 1, Block 4 are no longer
being used in the operations of farming the outlots, then the footprint must be reduced
to what is allowed by-right on the lot as they will no longer be able to satisfy the
conditions of approval for the CUP. Staff notes that it would be very difficult for a HOA to
be established years down the road and recommends that the applicant consider
establishing an HOA prior to selling lots if there is a chance they will want to divest their
rights in the land after ceasing agricultural operations in the future.
Setbacks
The following setbacks apply for this OS&P in the RR district:
Page 7 of 24
Setback Minimum
Front (Other Roadway) 25’
Side 10’
Rear 25’
* Major roadways are identified as Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander Roadway, and A
Minor Connecter in the Roadway Functional Classification map in the Comprehensive Plan.
All lots will be able to comply with the minimum required setbacks.
The applicant confirmed all accessory structures on Lot 1, Block 4 are used for
agricultural purposes. Agricultural structures have a 100’ setback from all property lines.
Most of the structures will continue to be able to comply with this standard. However,
there are two small structures on the east side of the property that are closer to a 50’
setback. Staff finds that these structures are legal, nonconforming as they pre-date the
current Zoning Ordinance, and the east lot line is not changing as a result of this plat.
Additionally, the northern most accessory structure had been setback at roughly 100’.
However, with the plat, the half right-of-way (ROW) requirement for Oakdale is 40’. This
will result in a setback for the structure of roughly 91’. Sine the setback is changing as a
result of the plat, this will need to be approved through a variance.
Buffer Zone
A buffer zone of at least 100’ shall be provided at the perimeter of the developed area of
the site abutting public streets. The buffer zone shall be thickly planted with native
grasses, shrubs, and trees to minimize land use conflicts. This buffer would apply to Lot
1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5. However, the existing homes on these lots prevent a 100’
buffer from being planted. The applicant requested a variance from this standard which
is discussed in the Variance portion of this analysis.
Figure 5 Zoom-in of Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5
Page 8 of 24
Well and Septic
As previously discussed, 10 of the 12 lots show a primary and alterative septic site for
each lot. The septic sites for the two lots with existing homes and systems must be
confirmed as a condition of approval. All lots show a well location. The City did receive
confirmation of preliminary approval of the septic sites from Hennepin County.
The plat shows that each site will be served by a private well. These are subject to
approval by the MN State Department of Health.
OS&P Design Guidelines
There are four design guidelines that are applicable to all OS&P developments:
1. All lots shall be clustered in a manner to create temporary open space that
will be held in a covenant for future development at the time sewer is
extended.
Staff believes the proposed lot layout complies with this guideline.
2. The temporary open space shall be contiguous land, or adjacent to a similar
classified property, in order to facilitate future development.
The plan complies with this guideline. It appears it would be difficult to further
develop Outlot B in the future at an urban density. However, Outlot B may be
able to accommodate a single-family home in the future.
Figure 6 Zoom-in Outlot B
Page 9 of 24
3. A ghost plat shall be designed for all temporary open space areas at the
same time as the Preliminary and Final plat is reviewed and approved. The
ghost plats shall indicate future access, internal street network and
connections, and future lot layout.
A ghost plat was submitted for Outlot A. During the Engineering review, it was
noted that the ghost plat shows future access from Oakdale Drive over the
top of a ditch and wetlands. A condition of approval is for the eastern lot line
of Lot 1, Block 5 to be moved at least 15’ west to allow for a permittable road
in the future. The ghost plat should also be revised.
Figure 7 Ghost Plat
Page 10 of 24
4. All lots shall front a paved street, internal to the site.
Most of the lots are able to satisfy this design guideline with the extension of
Heather Lane into the project site. However, the two existing homes on Lot 1,
Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 will not front a street internal to the site since these
lots have existing driveway access directly on to Oakdale Drive. This will be
discussed further in the variance portion of this analysis.
OS&P Design Objectives
In addition to the design guidelines above, residential lots should be designed to
achieve as many of the following objectives as possible:
1. Arrange lots around a central focal point, such as:
a. A central green, boulevard, or square.
b. A physical amenity, such as a meadow, a stand of trees, a stream or
water body, or some other natural feature.
Six of the lots abut Outlot A and Outlot B which will be part of the tree farm. The
tree farm will serve as the central focal point of the OS&P.
2. Locate lots such that at least 50 percent of the lots within a neighborhood abut
open space, or other amenity, on at least one side. A local street may separate
lots from open space.
Six of the lots (50%) within the development will abut the farmed open space
outlots on at least one side.
3. Preserve views from each building unit and from off-site vantage points to the
maximum possible.
The narrative notes that the internal street follows a ridge such that the proposed
homes will overlook wetlands and perimeter tree stands. The open space is
viewable from Oakdale Drive because the open space outlot abuts the street.
Additionally, half of the lots directly abut the open space.
4. Locate neighborhood recreational open spaces such that they are an integral
part of the neighborhood, are suitable for the projected demographic makeup of
residents, are at an elevation appropriate to their intended recreational use, have
boundaries that are clearly defined and are accessible to all neighborhood
residents from a public street or trail. Connect individual home sites with
pedestrian corridors or sidewalks to larger open spaces and places of destination
on-site and off-site. Open spaces should be accessible to pedestrians at roughly
Page 11 of 24
1,200-foot intervals along public roadways. Pedestrian corridoes between lots
shall be at least 50 feet in width and buffered from view of adjacent properties.
The open space in intended to remain privately owned and utilized for agricultural
purposes. It will not serve as a recreational space, and no other recreational
spaces are proposed on- or off-site. This design objective does not appear to
apply to this proposal.
5. Locate lots to preserve woodlands, farmland, or other natural features or
character, including places of historic, archeological, or cultural value. Preserve
natural resources as identified in the Comprehensive Plan to the maximum
extent possible in a contiguous, connected configuration. Natural open spaces
may include, but are not limited to, fields, wetlands, slopes, bluffs, woods, lakes,
ponds, streams, shorelands, and other environmentally sensitive areas.
Lots are located to preserve farmland to the maximum extent possible. No
buildings are proposed within the shoreland area that touches Lots 3, 4, and 5 of
Block 2 or Outlot A. The Comprehensive Plan does not identify any significant
Figure 8 Natural Resource Inventory
Page 12 of 24
natural plant communities within the proposed site. According to the Natural
Resource Inventory provided by the applicant, the limits of tree clearage will be
minimal, and will be limited to what is required for the extension of Heather Lane.
There are 7 wetlands on the property, and it does not appear any of these
wetlands are proposed to be impacted by this development. The wetlands on the
residential lots will be maintained with the required wetland buffers.
6. Providing covenants to create an architectural theme to include items such as
landscaping, porches, side, or rear loaded or detached garages. A written
narrative describing the architectural theme shall be provided with the preliminary
plat.
The proposal does not include an architectural theme.
7. Locates houses and garages such that the garages do not dominate the
streetscape.
The applicant has not provided any information about the homes. Staff
encourage the applicant to keep this objective in mind as they finalize builders
and building plans. Snout houses would not meet this object. The plat shows the
house pad. The house pads and lots seem big enough to be able to
accommodate a garage without these garages dominating the streetscape.
8. Locate septic systems on the most suitable soils for subsurface septic disposal
and in such manner as to provide for cost effective and least disruptive future
connection of the wastewater treatment system(s) to urban service.
Hennepin County preliminary confirmed the proposed septic sites meets their
standards. A condition of approval is to have the primary septic sites confirmed
for Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5. An alternative site must also be approved
by Hennepin County as a condition of approval.
9. Landscape common areas and street rights-of-way with native vegetation with
high wildlife conservation value.
The open space will be used primarily as a tree farm, so this standard does not
seem to apply to the outlots in this proposal. The applicant shared their intention
to seed ROW. However, additional detail has not been provided to ensure that
they will be using a seed mix for native vegetation with high wildlife conservation
value. This could be addressed as a condition of approval, and the Planning
Commission should discuss if they feel this should be added to the proposal.
The Planning Commission should review and discuss whether the proposal sufficiently
meets the design objectives.
Page 13 of 24
Streets
The applicant will dedicate additional ROW for Oakdale Drive. Two lots will be served
by Oakdale Drive. The remaining 10 lots will be served by an extension of Heather
Lane. A temporary cul-de-sac is required at the end of the proposed extension which
will require a temporary cul-de-sac easement. The plans must be revised to show a
minimum roadway width of 28’ face to face for the Heather Lane extension. This will
allow for one-sided parking. The Engineering Memo explains the existing cul-de-sac on
Heather Lane should be removed, and the roadway should be extended through with
the proposed development. The existing driveways and culverts should then be
modified and extended as necessary.
The ghost plat for Outlot A shows that an additional north/south street can be
accommodated to provide a connection to the east as well as connect to Heather Lane
to the west. As stated previously, the eastern lot line for Lot 1, Block 5 must be shifted
at least 15’ east to allow for a permittable road access in the future similar to what is
shown in the ghost plat. This is a condition of approval for the development.
Heather Lane is an existing roadway that is aging but should be able to support
construction access. The Engineering Memo explains the City should document the
condition of the roadway with high-definition video and photos prior to construction. Any
localized damage attributed to the construction project should be corrected by the
development.
Wetlands
A wetland delineation was completed in September 2023 which confirmed 7 wetlands
within the project boundary. The plat does not propose filling any of these wetlands.
These wetlands are subject to the Wetland Overlay District (Section 1050.010), which
includes wetland buffers, wetland buffer monument signs, and an additional 15’
structure setback from the edge of the buffer. The size of the buffer is dependent on the
quality of the wetland. The City’s Natural Resources Community Quality Ranking map is
based on the City’s quality assessment of known wetlands within the City. Wetlands not
shown on this map are assumed to be of medium quality; however, there is a process to
confirm wetland quality through Minnesota Rapid Assessment (MNRAM) methodology
should the applicant decide wetland quality on the site needs to be re-evaluated. None
of the wetlands within the project are shown on the City’s map, so all of the wetlands will
be treated as medium quality.
Medium quality wetlands have the following buffer requirements:
Wetland Buffer Average Width 25’
Wetland Buffer Width (Min.) 20’
Wetland Buffer Width (Max.) 40’
Structure Setback From Buffer 15’
Total Buffer and Setback (Average) 40’
Page 14 of 24
The preliminary wetland buffer
plan shows wetland buffer
widths that do not meet the
minimum requirement of 20’ for
the purposes of calculating the
average buffer width. The
minimum and maximum widths
of each wetland buffer must be
confirmed as a condition of
approval.
Wetland buffers are shown on
the wetlands located within the
two outlots. However, City
practice allows outlots used for
farming to defer the wetland
buffers and monument signs
until future development. In this
instance, staff believe it makes
sense to also require wetland
buffers and monument signs be
established if the farmed space
is no longer used for agricultural
purposes.
A permanent wetland buffer
monument shall be installed at
each lot line where it crosses a
wetland buffer, and where to
indicate the contour of the buffer,
with a maximum spacing of 200’
of wetland edge. The preliminary
plat mostly complies with this standard except two additional signs are needed on the
shared lot line between Lot 4 and 5 of Block 2. Additionally, there are areas if Wetland 7
on Outlot A that exceed the 200’ maximum between signs (the correct spacing should
still be shown even with the signs being deferred so that there is a clear plan
established for if the agricultural use of Outlot A ceases).
The preliminary wetland buffer plan indicates areas of undisturbed buffers as well as
buffers that will need to be established. The areas marked as undisturbed are subject to
an inspection by the City’s wetland specialist. If these areas do not meet the vegetation
requirements for buffer strips, the plan will need to be updated accordingly. Further,
additional detail is needed regarding the proposed vegetation/seeding to establish new
wetland buffers, subject to approval by the wetland specialist.
Figure 9 Wetland Buffer Plan
Page 15 of 24
Shoreland Overlay District
There is a small portion of the project that falls within the Shoreland Overlay district on
Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Block 2 and Outlot A from a nearby stream. Since only a portion of
these lots are subject to the Shoreland Overlay, the only standard that applies is the
impervious surface maximum of 25% within the overlay. No structures are proposed
within this area. These properties are not close enough to the 100-year ordinary high-
water level to require shoreland buffers. These lots comply with the Shoreland Overlay
district.
Landscaping
A landscaping plan was provided by the applicant which indicates 10 new trees will be
planted on the 10 new lots. The landscaping plan must be revised to confirm
compliance with Section 1060.070. This includes compliance with the minimum size
requirements at the time of planting and confirmation that no more than 33% of any one
tree species will be utilized. Finally, if a variance does not get approved to exempt the
application from the 100’ buffer yard requirement for the OS&P, the landscaping plan
must be revised to comply with this standard. The Engineering Memo requires a tree
removal plan with the areas of trees to be removed clearly hatched.
Lighting
As part of the final plat, Public Safety will review the plat to determine if an overhead
light at Heather Lane and Oakdale Drive is appropriate, as has been done with recent
Figure 10 Shoreland Overlay District
Page 16 of 24
rural developments. Lighting must comply with Section 1060.040 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Drainage and Utility (D&U Easements)
There is an existing perimeter D&U on Outlot A of Heather Meadows 2nd Addition. There
are at least portions of this existing perimeter that will conflict with the new lot lines
established for Lot 1, Block 3, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. An easement vacation with the
final plat will correct this.
Blanket D&U easements are required over Outlot A and Outlot B. The plans indicate
perimeter D&U easements on the lots and D&U easements over wetlands as possible.
Additional D&U easements over stormwater ponding will be required per the
Engineering Memo.
Grading and Stormwater
A number of detailed comments regarding grading and stormwater are provided in the
Engineering Memo. The applicant is responsible for reviewing and complying with these
comments.
Parks and Trails
The 2040 Parks and Trails Map provides guidance to the City for acquiring land for
parks and trails. No parks or off-road trails are shown within the project boundaries. A
proposed on-road trail is shown on Heather Lane and along Oakdale Drive.
Figure 11 2040 Parks and Trails Map
No sidewalks are proposed or required for this rural development. The applicant will not
be responsible for providing an on-road trail for Heather Lane and Oakdale Drive. A
Page 17 of 24
painted shoulder may be provided in the future as part of a larger road improvement
project with the City.
Park Dedication Estimation
Park dedication will be handled entirely as cash-in-lieu of land. There are two existing
lots/single-family homes today where 12 are now proposed. Each new lot (a total of 10
lots) will be required to pay park dedication fees per the fee schedule adopted at the
time of final plat approval.
The 2024 fee schedule provides the park dedication fee for single-family units is $5,954.
The estimated park dedication due with the final plat is as follows:
- 10 new single-family units x $5,954 = $59,540
C. Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Staff estimates that Lot 1, Block 4 has an accessory structure footprint exceeding 8,000
square feet. However, the applicant’s narrative notes two structures will be removed
and provided that the remaining footprint will be 7,428 square feet.
Figure 12 Accessory Structure Exhibit
One structure of less than 200 square feet is exempt from the footprint calculation, so
one of the smaller sheds on the east side of the property of 192 square feet can be
removed from the application. Therefore, the CUP would approve a total footprint of
Page 18 of 24
7,236 square feet. While this footprint is allowed for agricultural uses, with the OS&P,
these buildings will be split from the farmed land to remain with the house on a 4-acre
parcel. Parcels of this size typically have an accessory structure footprint limit of 2,125
square feet. The applicant would like to keep 7 of the 9 structures on the property which
are utilized for their ongoing agricultural operations and to maintain Outlot A and Outlot
B.
Section 1030.020, Subd. 4 (I) provides the following:
Agricultural buildings in excess of the size limitations allowed by Subd. 4 (E) of
this Section shall be allowed by conditional use permit on parcels that are located
in the UR and RR district and are less than 10 acres in size, but are adjacent to
actively farmed land under the same ownership or ownership by the landowner in
a recognized legal relationship, shall be allowed subject to the following criteria:
1. The proposed use shall be in conformance with all City regulations.
The proposed use is in conformance with all City regulations. Most of the structures on
this property that will remain either meet a 100’ setback required for agricultural uses, or
the proposed plat does not change the lot line where the structure is closer than 100’
(and is considered a legal, nonconforming use). A condition of approval of the CUP
includes that the northern most structure must be granted a variance for a 91’ setback
where 100’ is required in order for the structure to remain. If the variance is not granted,
the structure must be moved to meet setbacks or removed altogether.
The sidewall height of these structures is unclear, but these structures predate the
current zoning ordinance requiring specific sidewall heights in the front, side, and rear
yards. Since the change in lot lines for Lot 4, Block 1 does not change what is
considered front yard, side yard, or rear yard, staff finds that sidewall heights in excess
of 10’ in the side yard and 13’6” in the rear yard would also qualify as a legal,
nonconformity and is permitted. The building materials of these buildings also pre-date
the current zoning ordinance, and any materials that would not comply with the Zoning
Ordinance are protected as a legal, non-conformity.
This property is located in the RR district and will be adjacent to actively farmed land
that will remain under the same ownership. This property is eligible for the requested
CUP. A condition of approval in the draft resolution for the CUP is that Outlot A and
Outlot B must continue to be farmed and the accessory structures on Lot 1, Block 4
must continue to be used for agricultural purposes in the maintenance of Outlot A in
order for the CUP approvals to remain valid. Should the agricultural use of Outlot A
and/or the structures change, the structures in excess of the by-right footprint must be
removed.
2. A certificate of survey shall be required that identifies all existing structures on
site, including buildings, septic sites, and wells. In addition, the survey shall
Page 19 of 24
include the proposed structure, flood plain, wetlands, and any recorded
easements.
The application includes a certificate of survey.
3. The building material standards required by this Section have been met.
Since these are pre-existing structures that pre-date the Zoning Ordinance, the building
materials used would be protected as a legal, nonconformity and continue to remain.
4. The applicant provides proof of ownership as required above.
Hennepin County confirms this property is owned by the applicant. The applicant
confirms their intent for the Outlot to remain under their ownership as will Lot 1, Block 4.
A condition of approval is for the owner of Lot 1, Block 4 to remain under the same
ownership as Outlot A and Outlot B.
5. The agricultural building is used for agricultural purposes only.
The applicant confirmed the agricultural buildings are used for agricultural purposes
only. A condition of approval requires the applicant to sign an affidavit to certify this
requirement as well.
In addition to the CUP standards outlined specifically for this use in Section 1030.020,
all CUPs are subject to the following review criteria outlined in Section 1070.020:
A. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public
facilities and capital improvement plans.
This CUP will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and there is not a
negative effect upon the Comprehensive Plan including public facilities and capital
improvement plans. This land is guided for Rural/Ag, and the proposed agricultural
structures in conjunction with an adjacent farmed outlot complies with the uses
envisioned for this area.
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.
Approving the requested CUP will enable the property owner to continue their tree farm
operation which will preserve agricultural land in the Rual Residential area. This use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare. Staff do not find reason to believe
there will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort
of the surrounding area.
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 or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Page 20 of 24
Granting the CUP will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of surrounding
property, nor negatively impact property values within the neighborhood, as these
structures exist and are used regularly today. Additionally, two structures that are not
currently utilized are proposed to be removed as a way to reduce potential impact in the
future.
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.
Granting the CUP will not impede the development of surrounding properties.
E. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably
provided to accommodate the proposed use.
Public facilities are not required for the proposed conditional use.
F. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable
regulations of the district in which it is located.
With the proposed conditions of approval, the use conforms with applicable regulations
in the district. The portions of the structures that do not comply with the prevailing
standards are protected as legal, nonconformities.
G. The conditional use and site conform to performance standards as specified
by this Chapter.
With the proposed conditions of approval, the use and site conform with the applicable
performance standards as required.
D. Variance
The application requires a variance from the following three variances:
1. An exemption from the OS&P requirement for a 100’ perimeter buffer zone for
portions of the site abutting a public street.
2. An exemption from the OS&P requirement that all lots must front a paved,
internal street.
3. A 91’ setback for an agricultural structure where 100’ is required.
Section 1070.040 provides the following standards to review variance requests.
1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance.
The League of MN Cities defines a three-factor test for the term “practical
difficulties”:
- The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
otherwise allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
Page 21 of 24
- The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and
not created by the landowner; and
- The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B) of the Zoning Ordinance specifically calls out the
last two factors as their own standards and will be discussed individually.
Therefore, the City typically uses this first standard to focus on evaluating the
“reasonableness” of the request.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to
the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the
landowner.
3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the ordinance.
5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
6. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of
granting the variance.
The applicant must show that these standards are satisfied with their request.
The applicant’s narrative explains Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 are existing
residences along Oakdale Drive, and they request the structures on these lots be
allowed to remain. Staff believes it is helpful to keep in mind that the subdivider’s family
lives in what will become Lot 1, Block 4, and they will continue to utilize the outlots for
their tree farming operations. Further Lot 1, Block 5 will be taking a property that is only
0.39-acre today (which did not meet the minimum lot standards for the RR district) and
will be adding land to that residence to make it a 3-acre lot.
Staff Analysis on Variance #1: OS&P Buffer Zone of 100’:
Staff agrees there is a practical difficulty for the existing residences to comply with this
buffer requirement. If the variance were to be denied, this would force the subdivider’s
family to demolish/move a fairly new house on their homestead as well as
remove/relocate an existing agricultural structure by 9’ that is relied upon in the
operations of their tree farm. This would also require the well and house for Lot 1, Block
5 to be removed/relocated. Staff agree it is reasonable for existing residences to
remain. The structures are pre-existing conditions of the site are fairly unique and were
not created by the current landowner. Since the lots and structures exist today in their
current capacity, granting a variance from the buffer requirement will not alter the
essential character of the locality. Arguably, the visibility of the agricultural structures is
part of the rural character expected in this area. It is unclear why this requirement was
adopted; however, it can be speculated this standard was adopted to provide screening
from a denser development in the rural area. However, there will only be two residential
lots visible from Oakdale Drive which are already visible today. The majority of the
Page 22 of 24
subdivision will not be visible from Oakdale Drive. Granting the variance would not
conflict with the goal of the Comprehensive Plan for this area to remain rural with
natural areas, planted fields, hobby farms, and large residential lots. While staff believe
it makes sense to grant this variance, staff also recommend minimizing the extent of the
variance granted. There are areas on both lots that would be able to accommodate a
100’ buffer yard as required by the OS&P. Staff recommends that the applicant be
required to plant the buffer yard where it will not conflict with existing structures as a
condition of granting the variance. This will require the landscaping plan to be updated.
Staff Analysis on Variance 2: OS&P Requirement for All Lots to Front a Paved Street,
Internal to The Site
Again, the reasonableness of this request stems from the fact that these two lots have
direct access onto Oakdale Drive today, and that access is requested to remain. The
current residence on Lot 1, Block 4 cannot be easily served by the creation of a paved
street internal to these two lots. The driveway for Lot 1, Block 5 is on the west side of
the house, so it would
also have practical
difficulty in flipping the
orientation of the
driveway towards an
internal street to the
east. The lot access on
Oakdale Drive are pre-
existing conditions of
the site that are unique
and were not created
by the current
landowner. Since
access for these lots to
Oakdale exists today,
granting a variance
from the buffer
requirement will not alter
the essential character of the locality. It is speculated this standard was adopted so that
denser development was served by an internal roadway rather than having multiple
driveways access a road designed for lots with a minimum requirement of 200’ of road
frontage (this reduces the spacing of driveways). The existing driveway from Lot 1,
Block 5 is more than 200’ away from the western most driveway on Lot 1, Block 4.
Granting the variance would not conflict with the goal of the Comprehensive Plan for
this area to remain rural with natural areas, planted fields, hobby farms, and large
residential lots. The City could condition granting the variance on removal of one of the
two driveways that serve Lot 1, Block 4 as a way to minimize the impact of granting the
variance and reducing the number of driveways with direct access to Oakdale Drive.
Figure 13 Aerial Image Showing Driveways
Page 23 of 24
Staff Analysis on Variance 3: A 91’ setback for an agricultural structure where 100’ is
required.
The reasonableness of this request again relies on the argument that the northern most
agricultural structure exists today and is relied upon by the subdivider in the operations
of his tree farm. Moving the structure 9’ to comply with a 100’ setback creates a burden
on the landowner when the location of the structure is not changing (it is just the amount
of public ROW that will be changing with the plat). The pre-existing nature of the
structure is unique, and the dedication of additional ROW is a requirement of the City on
collector roads. While the applicant is pursuing this plat, the applicant would gladly keep
their northern lot line the same if it were allowed by the City in order to comply with the
structure setback. Since the agricultural structure exists today, granting a variance for a
91’ setback will not alter the essential character of the locality. It is speculated this
standard was adopted to provide a buffer between residential lots and agricultural uses.
A 91’ setback from the property line will still provide a majority of the required setback to
provide separation from nearby residential uses north of Oakdale Drive. Granting the
variance would not conflict with the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to keep this area
rural with agricultural uses as it will allow an existing farm to continue with minimal
disruption. The City could condition granting the variance on planting the 91’ setback
with the required buffer yard for OS&Ps as a way to further screen the structure from
Oakdale Drive.
E. Summary of Discussion Items
1. Preliminary Plat
a. OS&P Design Objectives
i. The Planning Commission should review and discuss whether the
proposal sufficiently meets the design objectives of the OS&P.
ii. Should a requirement be added that the public ROW be seeded
with a native mix with a high wildlife conservation value?
b. Defer wetland buffer plantings and monuments on Outlot A and Outlot B
until it is no longer farmed or further developed, whichever comes first.
i. What are the Planning Commission’s thoughts on this?
2. Conditional Use Permit
a. Does the Planning Commission have questions or concerns on the CUP
standards outlined to allow agricultural structures in excess of the by-right
footprint of a parcel less than 10 acres when it is adjacent to an actively
farmed parcel under the same ownership?
3. Variances
a. An exemption from the OS&P requirement for a 100’ perimeter buffer zone
for portions of the site abutting a public street.
i. Does the Planning Commission find the practical difficulties
standard is satisfied?
Page 24 of 24
ii. Does the Planning Commission agree with the proposed condition
of approval suggested by staff?
iii. Does the Planning Commission have other conditions of approval
to mitigate the impact of granting the variance?
b. An exemption from the OS&P requirement that all lots must front a paved,
internal street.
i. Does the Planning Commission find the practical difficulties
standard is satisfied?
ii. Does the Planning Commission agree with the proposed condition
of approval suggested by staff?
iii. Does the Planning Commission have other conditions of approval
to mitigate the impact of granting the variance?
c. A 91’ setback for an agricultural structure where 100’ is required.
i. Does the Planning Commission find the practical difficulties
standard is satisfied?
ii. Does the Planning Commission agree with the proposed condition
of approval suggested by staff?
iii. Does the Planning Commission have other conditions of approval
to mitigate the impact of granting the variance?
5. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the following:
1. Draft Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat
2. Draft Resolution Approving the Conditional Use Permit
3. Draft Resolution Approving the Variances
Attachments
1. Draft Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat
2. Draft Resolution Approving the Conditional Use Permit
3. Draft Resolution Approving the Variances
4. Engineering Memo
5. Applicant Narrative
6. Plans
7. Public Comment
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 6
Motion By:
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “HEATHER MEADOWS 3RD
ADDITION” ON THE PROPERTIES LOCATED NEAR OAKDALE DRIVE AND HEATHER
LANE (PID 05-119-23-31-0001; 05-119-23-32-001; 08-119-23-22-0011)
(CITY FILE NO. 24-002)
WHEREAS, Mark and Markus Lee (“the applicant”) request approval of a preliminary plat to create
12 single-family lots and 2 outlots from three properties described as follows:
See Attachment A.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat at a duly called public hearing
and recommended approval, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a
preliminary and variance subject to the following findings and conditions:
1. A preliminary plat is approved, in accordance with the plans received by the City on
January 22, 2024, with additional material received as of April 2, 2024, April 3, 2024, April
11, 2024, April 12, 2024, and April 22, 2024, except as amended by this resolution.
2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the variance for Lot 1, Block 4 and
Lot 1, Block 5 to not front a paved street, internal to the site. The applicant shall comply
with all conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall comply with all requirements in the City Engineer Memo dated April
23, 2024.
4. Final approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission must be attained
before any site grading or activity may commence. The applicant is responsible for
obtaining all required permits and approvals.
5. All permanent wetland buffer monument signs must be erected along the wetland buffer
line as required by Section 1050.010, Subd. 7 of the Zoning Ordinance.
a. Wetland signs must be purchased from the City.
b. Wetland signs must be installed on treated 4x4 wooden posts.
c. Wetland buffer signs must be installed prior to issuance of building permits.
d. The installation of the wetland monument buffer signs according the approved plan
must be certified by a registered land surveyor.
e. Wetland buffers must be planted and inspected by the City prior to issuance of
building permits unless an alternative timeline is approved by the City.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 6
f. Where buffer areas are not vegetated or have been disturbed within the last 10
years, such buffer areas shall be replanted and maintained according to the
standards in Section 1050.010, Subd. 8(C) of the Zoning Ordinance.
i. If existing wetland buffers are proposed to remain, the City’s wetland buffer
specialist must inspect and confirm existing buffers are undisturbed and in
an acceptable condition prior to submittal of the final plat application.
g. The minimum and maximum dimensions of all wetland buffers must be confirmed.
h. Spacing between wetland buffer monument signs cannot exceed 200’. Wetland 7
must be revised accordingly.
i. Two additional wetland buffer monument signs are needed on Wetland 3 where
the buffer crosses the shared lot line of Lot 4 and Lot 4 of Block 2.
j. Wetland buffer plantings and wetland buffer monument signs are deferred on
Outlot A and Outlot B until the property is no longer farmed or is further developed,
whichever comes first.
6. Park dedication shall be satisfied by cash-in-lieu of land. Park dedication will be based on
the park dedication ordinance in place at the time the final plat is approved.
a. Park dedication is required based on the finding that the development will add 10
new single-family homes to the City.
b. Residents of the development will need access to nearby existing and future trails
and parks that do not exist today as guided by the Comprehensive Plan.
c. Cash-in-lieu of land will be used only for the acquisition and development of parks
recreational facilities, playground, trails, wetlands, or open space based on the
approved park plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
d. Park dedication funds will be collected at the time of final plat in accordance with
the City Code requirements. The code stipulates a dedication requirement of 5%
of land for land guided at a density of less than 3 units an acre or equivalent market
value in cash, resulting in estimated park dedication fees of $59,540.
7. All homes must meet the minimum residential building standards outlined in Section
1030.030 and 1060.050, Subd. 1(B) of the Zoning Ordinance.
8. All residential lots must have a minimum of 2 parking spaces.
9. If a conditional use permit for Lot 1, Block 4 is not granted to allow an agricultural
accessory structure footprint of 7,428 square feet, the plans must be revised to reduce the
footprint to the square footage allowed for accessory structures on a 4-acre lot.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 3 of 6
10. If a variance is not granted to waive the planted buffer requirement of 100’ on Lot 1, Block
4 and Lot 1, Block 5, the landscaping plan must be revised to show a buffer yard that
complies with this requirement as outlined in Section 940.050, Subd. 1(D)(7).
11. If a variance is not granted for a 91’ setback for an existing agricultural structure on Lot 1,
Block 4, then the plans must be revised to indicate the building will be removed or
relocated.
12. The previous perimeter drainage and utility easement on Outlot A of Heather Meadows
2nd Addition must be vacated with the final plat to allow for new perimeter drainage and
utility easements to be established based on the proposed lot lines.
13. Well locations are subject to approval by the Minnesota Department of Health.
14. A preservation, restoration, and management plan for the open space shall be submitted
with the final plat.
15. Outlot A and Outlot B will be protected by a restrictive covenant in favor of the City that
will remain in place until municipal sewer and water are available to serve the site. The
covenant will outline the following options in how the open space can be handled until
municipal services are available:
a. The open space outlots can be dedicated to the City if accepted by the City.
b. The open space outlots can be sold to the owner of Lot 1, Block 4.
c. The open space outlots can be dedicated to a Homeowners Association that
comprises a majority of the homes within this development.
d. The open space outlots can be sold to a developer once municipal sewer and
water is available.
16. Prior to submittal of the final plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a. Revise the preliminary plat to show the following:
i. The eastern lot line of Lot 1, Block 5 shall be moved at least 15’ to the west
to allow for a future permittable road connection from Oakdale.
1. The ghost plat shall also be revised accordingly.
ii. Existing septic sites must be shown and an alterative septic site must be
shown and approved by Hennepin County for Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1,
Block 5.
iii. The upland acreage of the open space outlots (defined as gross acres
minus wetlands, floodplains, land below the 100-year ordinary high-water
level, and any water bodies) must be confirmed to meet or exceed 22.05
acres.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 4 of 6
b. Revise the preliminary plans to satisfy the Engineering Memo.
c. Revise the preliminary landscaping plan to confirm compliance with Section
1060.070.
i. Minimum size at the time of planting.
ii. Indicate tree species. No more than 33% of the planted trees can be of the
same species.
17. The final locations for street lighting will be approved by Public Safety and the City
Engineer.
a. If required, the applicant shall provide specifications that demonstrate compliance
with Section 1060.040 (Lighting) of the Zoning Ordinance.
18. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all wetlands, wetland buffers,
stormwater ponds, floodplain, and outlots.
19. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided along the perimeter of all units.
20. All utility facilities, including but not limited to telephone, CATV, natural gas, and electric
power, shall be located underground. Underground service connections to the street
property line of each platted lot shall be installed at the subdivider’s expense.
21. Mechanical equipment (including air conditioning units) must be located in the side or rear
yard and must be located a minimum of 5’ from the property line.
22. The development shall comply with the City’s requirements regarding fire access, fire
protection, and fire flow calculations, the location of fire hydrants, fire department
connections, and fire lane signage.
23. If a Homeowners Association is to be created, the applicant shall provide copies of the
Homeowner’s Association Documents/Covenants for City review as part of the final plat
application.
24. Lawn sprinklers/irrigation systems (if provided) shall all have rain sensors to limit
unnecessary watering.
25. All landscaping in rear yards and common areas shall be planted and inspected by the
City within one year of issuance of a building permit unless an alternative timeline is
approved by the City.
26. Trees in the front yard shall be planted prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy unless
an alternative timeline is approved.
27. Parking shall be permitted on one side of local streets and shall be signed in accordance
with City standards.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 5 of 6
28. Sign permits will be required prior to construction of any signs.
29. The final plat shall address all conditions of approval.
30. Prior to release of final plat for recording, the applicant shall enter into the following:
a. A Site Improvement Performance Agreement to provide a financial guarantee to
protect the work.
b. A stormwater maintenance agreement.
31. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed
a complete application for approval of the final plat.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
Outlot A, HEATHER MEADOWS, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat
thereof.
AND
The East Half of the West Two-Thirds of the Southwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 119,
Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
AND
The North 143 Feet of the East 142 Feet of the West 337 Feet of the East Half of the West Two-
Thirds of the Southwest Quarter Except the Road of Section 5, Township 119, Range 23,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 4
Motion By:
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AGRICULTURAL
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT ON A 4-ACRE PARCEL NEAR OAKDALE DRIVE
AND HEATHER LANE
(PID 05-119-23-31-0001)
(CITY FILE 24-002)
WHEREAS, Mark and Markus Lee (“the applicant”) request approval of a preliminary plat for 12
residential lots and 2 outlots on property described as follows:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, the applicant also requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory
structure footprint of 7,248 square feet on a 4-acre property to be subdivided into Lot 1, Block 4
of Heather Meadows 3rd Addition;
WHEREAS, the 4-acre parcel will be directly adjacent to an actively farmed outlot under the same
ownership;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit request 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, subject to the
following findings and conditions:
1. A conditional permit is approved, in accordance with the application materials received by the
City on January 22, 2024, with additional materials received as of April 2, 2024, April 3, 2024,
April 11, 2024, April 12, 2024, and April 22, 2024, except as amended by this resolution.
2. A conditional use permit is approved to allow an agricultural structure footprint of 7,248 square
feet to facilitate the farming operations of Outlot A and Outlot B of Heather Meadows 3rd
Addition based on the finding that the following conditional use permit standards in Section
1030.020, Subd. 4(I) have been satisfied.
a. The proposed use shall be in conformance with all City regulations. If a variance
is not granted to allow a 91’ setback for the northern most agricultural structure on
Lot 1, Block 4, the structure must be removed or relocated to meet the required
setback. The setback from the east property line and sidewall height of the
structures are accepted as legal nonconformities.
b. A certificate of survey was submitted that identifies all existing structures on the
site.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 4
c. The building material standards required by the Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Where building materials do not satisfy the Zoning Ordinance, these are accepted
as legal nonconformities.
d. The applicant shall provide proof that ownership of Lot 1, Block 4 and Outlot A and
Outlot B of the Heather Meadows 3rd Addition plat continue to remain under the
same ownership. A restrictive covenant required as part of the plat will restrict sale
of the farmed outlots.
e. All accessory structures are used for agricultural purposes only.
3. Additionally, the following conditional use permit standards in Section 1070.020 are satisfied:
a. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public
facilities and capital improvement plans. The land is guided for Rural/Ag
Residential, and the proposed agricultural structures to serve an adjacent farmed
outlot complies with the uses envisioned in this area.
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. Granting the conditional use will
enable the property owner to continue their tree farm operation which will preserve
agricultural land in the Rural Residential area.
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 or impair property values within the neighborhood. These structures exist
and are used regularly today. Two structures that are not currently utilities are
proposed to be removed to reduce potential impact in the future.
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.
e. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable
regulations of the district in which it is located. Conditions of approval will ensure
compliance with this standard. Portions of the structures that do not comply with
the prevailing standards are protected as legal nonconformities.
f. The conditional use and site conform to performance standards of the Zoning
Ordinance. Conditions of approval will ensure compliance with this standard.
4. The agricultural structures must continue to be used for agricultural purposes only in
conjunction with agricultural operations on Outlot A and Outlot B of Heather Meadows 3rd
Addition.
a. Should the agricultural use of the buildings and/or Outlot A and Outlot B of Heather
Meadows 3rd Addition cease, the accessory structure footprint must be reduced to
what is allowed by-right at that time for a 4-acre parcel.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 3 of 4
5. The two existing structures identified by the applicant for removal shall be removed.
6. Outlot A and Outlot B of Heather Meadows 3rd Addition shall remain under the same
ownership of Lot 1, Block 4 of Heather Meadows 3rd Addition.
7. A certificate of compliance to allow a metal roof and metal siding on this accessory building is
approved as part of the conditional use permit.
8. The applicant must sign an affidavit that states all structures are used for agricultural purposes
only.
9. None of the structures can be used for commercial purposes unless the applicant applies for
City approval of a home occupation and such approval is granted.
10. The structures cannot be used as an Accessory Dwelling Unit unless the applicant applies for
an Administrative Permit and such approval is granted.
11. Prior to release and close out of the escrow account, the applicant must complete the
following:
a. The approving resolution must be recorded at Hennepin County.
b. The applicant must provide proof of recording to the City.
c. The applicant must remove the two buildings identified for removal.
i. A final inspection must be completed by the City to confirm removal and
stabilization of the land.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHEMENT A
Outlot A, HEATHER MEADOWS, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat
thereof.
AND
The East Half of the West Two-Thirds of the Southwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 119,
Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
AND
The North 143 Feet of the East 142 Feet of the West 337 Feet of the East Half of the West Two-
Thirds of the Southwest Quarter Except the Road of Section 5, Township 119, Range 23,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 4
Motion By:
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THREE VARIANCES FOR “HEATHER MEADOWS 3RD
ADDITION” ON THE PROPERTIES LOCATED NEAR OAKDALE DRIVE AND HEATHER
LANE (PID 05-119-23-31-0001; 05-119-23-32-001; 08-119-23-22-0011)
(CITY FILE NO. 24-002)
WHEREAS, Mark and Markus Lee (“the applicant”) request approval of a preliminary plat for 12
residential lots and 2 outlots on property described as follows:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, the applicant also requested approval of three variances from a setback requirement
and underlying open space and preservation plat standards;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing and
recommended approval, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for
three variances subject to the following findings and conditions;
1. The requested variance from Section 940.050, Subd. 1(D)(7) to exempt Lot 1, Block 4
and Lot 1, Block 5 from the 100’ buffer requirement along Oakdale Drive is approved
based on the following findings:
a. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Subdivision Ordinance.
Both lots have existing structures within the required 100’ buffer yard. It is
reasonable for the existing structures to remain in their current location.
b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the
parcels of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the
landowners.
c. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The structures exist today in their current capacity. The visibility of agricultural
structures is part of the rural character expected in this area.
d. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the ordinance. This standard was adopted to provide screening from denser
development within the rural area. There will only be two residential lots visible
from Oakdale Drive, and these lots are visible today. The majority of the
subdivision will not be visible from Oakdale Drive.
e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance does not
conflict with the intent for this area to remain rural with natural areas, planted fields,
hobby farms, and large residential lots.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 4
f. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact on the
variance.
i. The applicant must revise the landscaping plan to plant the required buffer
on Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5, where such buffer will not conflict with
existing structures.
2. The requested variance from Section 940.050, Subd. 1(E)(4) to allow Lot 1, Block 4 and
Lot 1, Block 5 to front a paved street that is not internal to the development is approved
based on the following findings
a. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Subdivision Ordinance
standard. Both lots have existing direct access to Oakdale Drive. The existing
driveways and house locations were constructed based on this access. It is
reasonable to request direct access remains.
b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to
the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not a condition
created by the existing landowner. The established access is a pre-exiting
condition unique to the site.
c. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the
locality. The access on to Oakdale Drive for these lots exists today.
d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
ordinance. It is speculated this standard was adopted so that denser
development was served by an internal roadway rather than having multiple
driveways access a road designed for lots with a minimum requirement of 200’ of
road frontage to reduce the spacing of driveways. The existing driveway from Lot
1, Block 5 is more than 200’ away from the western most driveway on Lot 1,
Block 4.
e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a deviation does not
conflict with the goal for this are to remain rural with natural areas, planted fields,
hobby farms, and large residential lots.
f. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact on the
variance.
i. The applicant shall submit a plan to show the removal of one of the
driveway accesses for Lot 1, Block 4.
2. The requested variance for flexibility from Section 1030.020, Subd. 3(E)(1)(d) to allow a
91’ setback for an agricultural structure is approved based on the following findings:
a. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. The
northern most agricultural structure on the property exists today and is not
proposed to be moved. Moving the structure 9’ to comply with a 100’ setback
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 3 of 4
creates an unnecessary burden on the landowner when the change in setback is
the result of additional right-of-way provided to the City for Oakdale Drive.
b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to
the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and was not created by the
landowner. The pre-existing nature of the structure is unique, and the additional
right-of-way requirement is not the fault of the landowner.
c. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the
locality. The agricultural structure exists today and is an expected use that fits
with the character of the locality.
d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
ordinance. It is speculated the large setback was established to provide
separation from residential and agricultural uses. A 91’ setback is still a large
separation to meet the intent of the ordinance.
e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a setback of 91’ does
not interfere with the desire to encourage rural/agricultural uses in this area.
Granting the variance will allow an existing farm to continue operations with
minimal disruptions.
f. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact on the
variance.
i. Where it will not create a conflict with the building, the 91’ setback should
be planted with the required buffer yard required for the open space and
preservation plat to screen the structure from Oakdale Drive.
3. The applicant is required to record this resolution with the Hennepin County’s Recorder’s
Office and provide proof of recording to the City.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
Outlot A, HEATHER MEADOWS, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat
thereof.
AND
The East Half of the West Two-Thirds of the Southwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 119,
Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
AND
The North 143 Feet of the East 142 Feet of the West 337 Feet of the East Half of the West Two-
Thirds of the Southwest Quarter Except the Road of Section 5, Township 119, Range 23,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Memo
To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer
Steve Hegland, PE
Project: Heather Meadows 3rd Addition Date: April 23, 2024
Exhibits:
This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents:
1. Preliminary Plans – Heather Meadows 3rd dated 04/02/2024.
Comments:
General:
1. Consistent with the review process, a comment response letter shall be provided in which the
applicant provides a written response to each of the items below.
2. In addition to engineering comments, the proposed plans are subject to review by planning, zoning,
and land-use and shall meet other applicable codes of the City of Corcoran.
3. Final approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission must be attained before any
site grading or activity may commence.
4. For any site activity (demo, grading, utilities, etc.) no closures or restrictions of any kind shall be
imposed upon the public use of Oakdale Drive or Heather Lane without the City’s permission. Should
any lane restrictions be necessary, the Contractor shall notify the City at least 7 days in advance and
provide a Traffic Control Plan.
5. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed within the
City ROW or easements.
6. Review missing icons and hatches in Sheet 3 Legend.
7. Incorporate 2024 Corcoran standard detail plates in construction plan set.
Plat:
1. Clarify easement linework on back half of Lot 4 Block 2.
2. ROW dedication along Oakdale shown as a 50’ half ROW. ROW dedication for collector street is
typically 40’ half ROW with 10’ of D&U easement.
3. 66’ stub for ROW connection to Oakdale is shown directly over wetland and drainage ditch. Wetland
permitting will require avoidance which will likely obstruct permitting this access location. Shift ROW
location and access to it can be permitted and constructed at future date.
4. Label ROW on sheet 4 as 66’ ROW.
5. Drainage and utility easement required over entirety of all outlots and Pond HWL; Show line on plans
identifying the limits of the HWL. Easement should be far enough from the HWL to allow for
construction tolerances so constructed HWL does not end up outside of easement.
April 23, 2024
Heather Meadows 3rd
Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran
Page 2 of 4
Erosion Control/SWPPP
1. Preparation of and compliance with a SWPPP shall be required for construction.
2. Provide erosion control plan and restoration plan for review with final plat.
Transportation
1. The proposed development is adding an additional 9 residential homes by the extension of an
existing rural residential roadway.
2. The existing intersection of Heather Lane and Oakdale Drive operates adequately today with clear
and safe sightlines in either direction. The addition of 9 residential homes on this rural roadway would
not require turn lane improvements on Oakdale Drive as the City has typically required 20-new
homes, or the equivalent there of, to require turn lane improvements of the development.
3. Heather Lane is approximately 25 years old and was constructed at the time of the Heather Meadows
2nd addition. The roadway is showing signs of aging with some transverse and longitudinal cracking,
however appears to be in an adequate structural condition for its age. The roadway should be able to
structurally support being used as the access to the construction project, with construction vehicles
abiding by 10-ton weight restrictions. The City should document the condition of the roadway with
high-definition video and photos prior to construction which can be reviewed post construction. Any
localized damage attributed to the construction project should be corrected by the development.
4. Update roadway width to be a minimum of 28’ face to face to allow for one sided parking.
5. Reference Corcoran standard detail for temporary cul-de-sac radius and remove the bituminous
wings.
6. Existing cul-de-sac should be removed, and roadway extended through with proposed development.
Existing driveways and culverts should be modified and extended as necessary.
7. The proposed roadway will operate as a significantly long cul-de-sac under the current condition. The
roadway is being extended to the property line so it can be looped when future development occurs to
the west. As this area is not in the MUSA the timing of that is unknown.
8. Public safety should review to determine if an overhead light at Heather Lane and Oakdale Drive is
appropriate, as has been done with recent rural developments.
9. Include line work for street drain tile clean-out locations on storm sewer plans for final plat review.
Site Plans
1. The existing and proposed drainage and utility easements shown shall be clearly labeled on all plan
drawings. The wetland buffer zones shall also be clearly identified and labeled.
2. Include 12’ pond access route for Dry Pond on Block 1 Lot 2.
3. Provide a tree removal plan with the areas of trees to be removed clearly hatched.
4. A small, farmed upland piece is located to the northwest of the plat. Confirm if farmed land will be
accessible through Outlot B.
Grading /Stormwater
1. The Construction Plans shall identify if any existing vegetation is planned to be utilized with the buffer
so they can be reviewed by the City for approval.
o It is assumed that all wetland buffers will be established with the project.
April 23, 2024
Heather Meadows 3rd
Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran
Page 3 of 4
o A buffer establishment plan shall be provided noting the details on how and when the buffer
will be planted as well as a plan and schedule for the maintenance to ensure they are
properly established. The establishment plan shall identify specific seed mixes with the type
and rates at which the mixes shall be applied.
2. Any retaining walls higher than 4’ shall be designed by a certified engineer and the design and
certification of those walls shall be provided to the City.
3. All drainage swales shall maintain a minimum of 2% slope and all slope should be 4:1 or flatter unless
approved by the City Engineer.
4. Individual lot exhibits showing grading, driveway slopes, house elevations, and culverts within the
ditch meeting Corcoran standard detail STO-15 shall be submitted at final plat.
5. A mapped FEMA floodplain is just adjacent to the southern edge of the development. The grading
plans shall identify the floodplain elevations and any low areas which are below the adjacent flood
elevation. The plans should then show any proposed mitigation of floodplain volume within the site.
Stormwater
1. Reference the City of Corcoran Stormwater Guidelines for Development Review for standards for
stormwater systems and modeling.
2. Provide MIDS or a similar calculation to demonstrate that the site meets the total phosphorous and
total suspended solids reduction standards for all treatment practices.
3. Rational calculations shall be provided to confirm all pipe sizes and inlet capacity at the time of final
plat.
4. Provide rational method drainage map for individual inlets.
5. Show NWL and HWL level for all wetlands on all plan sheets.
6. Model Wetland 5 and Wetland 6 in HydroCAD to establish low floor elevation.
7. Sumps will be required in all storm structures with drops in of 18” or greater as well as the last
accessible structures prior to stormwater basins.
8. Provide profile views for all storm sewer to be installed for final plat review.
9. The wetland buffer signage shall also be clearly identified and labeled. There appear to be missing
signs around Wetland 5 and Weland 6.
10. Provide scale bar and north arrow on existing and proposed drainage figures.
11. Label clearly on plans EOF’s for all areas where water will be collected including all low areas in
roadways and greenspaces including wetlands if water is collected.
12. All stormwater ponds require a 10:1 safety bench.
13. Show labels and details for trash guards and rip rap on construction plans for final plat review.
14. Provide a minimum of 0.5’ of drop between the incoming tile line and the outlet pipe within the OCS.
15. Correct STO-17 detail Section A-A elevations to match the elevations shown in the model.
16. Starting water surface elevation of Pond 2 in the model must start at the constructed weir wall
elevation of 970.
17. Show the primary 15” outlet for Pry Pond on construction plans.
18. Provide NWL, EOF elevation and EOF flow path for dry pond located in Block 2.
19. Provide a minimum separation of 1’ from the HWL to the EOF and an additional 1’ from the EOF to
top of berm. Plans show stormwater pond 2 and dry basin do not meet these requirements.
April 23, 2024
Heather Meadows 3rd
Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran
Page 4 of 4
Watermain/Sanitary Sewer
1. Hennepin County shall review and approve of all septic locations. At time of grading, septic sites shall
be clearly marked to ensure septic sites are kept viable.
2. Wells to be reviewed and approved by MDH at time of well permitting.
End of Comments
NARRATIVE
HEATHER MEADOWS 3RD ADDITION
LOCATION:
22901 Oakdale Drive, Corcoran, MN 55374
PID 05-119-23-33-0001
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Owner: Markus Lee, Mark Lee
22901 Oakdale Drive
Corcoran, MN 55374
763-350-3290 (Markus)
612-599-9294 (Mark)
markus@leestreefarm.com
Leebluewater@yahoo.com
Engineer & Land Surveyor: Otto Associates, Inc.
Paul Otto
9 West Division Street
Buffalo, MN 55313
(763)682-4727
paul@ottoassoicates.com
SITE DATA:
Area: 88.22 acres
Number of Lots: 12
Development Type: Open Space & Preservation
Construction: Summer 2024 – Fall 2024 (wear course in 2025)
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION:
The development proposes to preserve two large outlots for farming activities that will be owned
by the current owner. It is anticipated that these will be future residential lots.
Six of the twelve proposed lots are adjacent to the outlots. Only one lot is proposed adjacent to
the existing Heather Meadows development in order to provide buffer from the new homes. The
nearest proposed home is approximately 400’ away from the existing home.
The street follows a ridge such that the proposed homes overlook wetlands and perimeter tree
stands. It will be constructed as a single phase.
Two existing homesteads are being platted into lots along Oakdale Drive. The existing
outbuildings will be preserved with the exception of 2 buildings to be removed within Lot 1 Block
4. Buildings have been identified by Markus and city representatives during an onsite visit.
UTILITIES:
Individual septic systems and wells are proposed.
LOT 1, BLOCK 4:
This lot will remain under the same ownership as the actively farmed outlot. The Accessory
Structures will remain with the exception of two buildings to be removed that have been
specified during an onsite visit with city representatives and Markus Lee.
Variance:
Since the lots platted along Oakdale Drive aren’t new but rather the existing homesteads are
being preserved, we are requesting a variance from the buffer standard.
Conditional Use Permit:
We are requesting a conditional use permit to continue to operate Lot 1 Block 4 under current
Ag status. Lee’s Tree Farm (owned by Markus and Mark Lee) currently uses Lot 1 Block 4 and
outlots as a staging area to grow, maintain and harvest trees. We are currently a tree farm and
plan to continue growing trees in both out lots. Areas of the out lots that are not planted into
trees will be planted into some sort of Ag crop. If Farming stops outbuildings on Lot 1 Block 4 will
be removed and Lot 1 Block 4 will conform to current rural residential standards. There will be
no impact to adjoining properties. We have been using this property to Farm trees for 3 years
and plan to continue normal operations. There will be very little or no change to how it is
currently being used. Under current Ag status we are able to successfully operate our farm and
wish to keep current Ag status inclusive with the CUP.
Tree Preservation Plan:
There will be very minimal tree removal during this project. There is a current row of trees (wind
break) running east and west that the road will have to go through. Very few trees will need to
be removed during construction.
Landscape Plan:
Each Lot will have a minimum of one tree planted. Tree will be at least 2’’ caliper.
HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCATION (HOA): There will be no HOA unless required by city.
Covenants:
We will not have any covenants that exceed current city requirements.
Oa
k
d
a
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
RU
S
H
C
R
E
E
K
L
A
HEATHER LANE
N
Fe
e
t
0
10
0
20
0
Project No.
Revised:Checked By:
Requested By:
Date:Drawn By:Scale:
Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.
9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313
(763)682-4727
Fax: (763)682-3522
www.ottoassociates.com denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe set
and marked by License #40062
denotes iron monument found
11-16-23
Mark Lee
B.M.H.1"=100'P.E.O.
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
S
u
r
v
e
y
&
T
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
S
u
r
v
e
y
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or
report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
_______________________________
Paul E. Otto
License #40062 Date:_____________
Ou
t
l
o
t
B
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ou
t
l
o
t
A
1
4
2
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
L
a
n
e
Oa
k
d
a
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
7
1
3
1
5
Heather Ln
RU
S
H
C
R
E
E
K
L
A
Oa
k
d
a
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
RU
S
H
C
R
E
E
K
L
A
N
N
Vicinity Map
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS
REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN
CHECKED
DATE:
PROJECT NO:
Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.
SSOCIATES
9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313
(763)682-4727
Fax: (763)682-3522
www.ottoassociates.comHEATHER MEADOWS THIRD ADDITION
Mark Lee
Corcoran, MN
PRELIMINARY PLAT
22-0177
01-16-2415
Feet
0 100 200
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
HEATHER MEADOWS
THIRD ADDITION
Ou
t
l
o
t
B
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ou
t
l
o
t
A
1
4
2
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
L
a
n
e
Oa
k
d
a
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
7
1
3
1
5
Heather Ln
RU
S
H
C
R
E
E
K
L
A
N
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS
REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN
CHECKED
DATE:
PROJECT NO:
Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.
SSOCIATES
9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313
(763)682-4727
Fax: (763)682-3522
www.ottoassociates.comHEATHER MEADOWS THIRD ADDITION
Mark Lee
Corcoran, MN
PRELIMINARY WETLAND
BUFFER PLAN 22-0177
01-16-2425
Feet
0 60 120
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
L
a
n
e
Heather Ln
Outlot B
1
2
1 2 3
4
5
6
1
2
7
1
3
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS
REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN
CHECKED
DATE:
PROJECT NO:
Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.
SSOCIATES
9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313
(763)682-4727
Fax: (763)682-3522
www.ottoassociates.com
N
22-0177
01-16-2435
PRELIMINARY STREET GRADING
& EROSION CONTROL PLAN
HEATHER MEADOWS THIRD ADDITION
Mark Lee
Corcoran, MN
Feet
0 60 120
HEATHER LANE
Outlot
B
1
2
1 2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
3
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
L
a
n
e
Heather Ln
01-16-24
PRELIMINARY STREET PLAN HEATHER LANE
STA 0+00 TO STA 10+00
HEATHER MEADOWS THIRD ADDITION
Mark Lee
Corcoran, MN
22-0177
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS
REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN
CHECKED
DATE:
PROJECT NO:
Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.
SSOCIATES
9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313
(763)682-4727
Fax: (763)682-3522
www.ottoassociates.com
4 5
N
Feet
0 50 100
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Paul E. Otto
License # 40062 Date:
HEATHER LANE
1
21
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
7
Heather Lane
01-16-24
PRELIMINARY STREET PLAN HEATHER LANE
STA 10+00 TO STA 16+18
HEATHER MEADOWS THIRD ADDITION
Mark Lee
Corcoran, MN
22-0177
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS
REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN
CHECKED
DATE:
PROJECT NO:
Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.
SSOCIATES
9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313
(763)682-4727
Fax: (763)682-3522
www.ottoassociates.com
5 5
N
Feet
0 50 100
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Paul E. Otto
License # 40062 Date:
Oa
k
d
a
l
e
D
r
i
v
e
RU
S
H
C
R
E
E
K
L
A
N
Feet
0 100 200
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS
REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN
CHECKED
DATE:
PROJECT NO:
Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.
SSOCIATES
9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313
(763)682-4727
Fax: (763)682-3522
www.ottoassociates.comHEATHER MEADOWS THIRD ADDITION
Mark Lee
Corcoran, MN
RESOURCE INVENTORY
22-0177
01-16-2411
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
L
n
Heather
La
n
e
Oakdale Drive
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21222324
25
26
27
28
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
23
2
3
4
5
29
891011
Project No.
Revised:Checked By:
Requested By:
Date:Drawn By:Scale:
Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.
9 West Division Street
Buffalo, MN 55313
(763)682-4727
Fax: (763)682-3522
www.ottoassociates.comdenotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe
set and marked by License #40062
denotes iron monument found
4-19-22
Mark Lee
T.R.K.1"=150'P.E.O.
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or
report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
_______________________________
Paul E. Otto
License #40062 Date:_____________
Ghost Plat
N
N
Vicinity Map
Feet
0 150 300
This message was sent from outside of the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
From:Daniel Buchholtz
To:Natalie Davis
Subject:Heather Meadows 3rd Addition
Date:Tuesday, April 23, 2024 12:18:31 PM
Natalie,
My name is Daniel Buchholtz and I live at 23153 Meadowview Dr. I received the public
hearing notice for Heather Meadows 3rd Addition and I have some questions.
1. What landscaping is being proposed for Outlot B. Will there be trees planted along the
west property line of Outlot B to screen the new development?
2. There is open space being preserved, presumably Outlot A, that will provide a density
bonus for this development. Is that open space secured by a permanent easement? Who holds
the easement?
3. This field currently drains into a wetland that is on my property. What steps will be taken
to protect water quality in this wetland?
4. Will the City trim the arborvitae that is located within the site triangle at the intersection of
Heather Lane/Meadowview Drive? With only three houses currently, this isn't a big deal, but
if there are going to be twelve additional homes, this intersection could become more
dangerous should that arborvitae remain at its current size.
5. What tree preservation will be required. WIll the existing tree line remain (minus the road
going through)?
I would appreciate your answers to these questions, as well as a copy of the development
applications. I would also appreciate a copy of your planning report when completed.
Thanks!
Dan
Page 1 of 25
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6b.
Planning Commission Meeting:
May 2, 2024
Prepared By:
Natalie Davis McKeown
Topic:
“Chastek Family Farm”
Rezoning, Preliminary Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Preliminary Plat
(PID 21-119-23-12-0002)
(City File No. 23-034)
Action Required:
Recommendation
Review Deadline: July 30, 2024
1. Request
The applicant, Trek Real Estate
and Development and Hempel
Real Estate DBA Emerald Rose,
LLC, requests approval of a land
use application that includes a
preliminary plat to create 116
single-family residential lots and 7
outlots at 7600 Maple Hill Road.
The subject property is located
northeast of the County Road 10
and Maple Hill Road intersection,
south of Maple Hill Estates and
north of Bass Lake Crossing.
2. Context
Background
The Chastek property previously housed a wholesale greenhouse business known as
“Chastek Greenhouses, Inc.”. The property was previously platted in 1992 under the
name “Chastek Farm” to carve off a 1.5-acre parcel for a single-family home. That
single-family home is not part of the proposed development action. A concept plan
submitted by the applicant for this site titled “Amira Village” was reviewed by Council in
March 2023. Changes were made to the plan to incorporate City Council feedback.
Zoning and Land Use
The subject property is guided for low density residential and currently zoned RSF-2
(Single-Family Residential 2). There is a small portion of the property in the southeast
corner that is suspected to be located within the Shoreland Overlay District. The
Figure 1 Project Site 7600 Maple Hill Road
Page 2 of 25
property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Phase 1 of the 2040
Staging Plan.
Surrounding Properties
The existing land use, guiding, and zoning of the surrounding properties are provided in
the table below:
Direction Existing Land Use Guided Land Use
in 2040 Comp
Plan
Zoning District
North Maple Hill Estates Medium Density
Residential
Manufactured
Home Park
East Agriculture Low Density
Residential
RSF-2
Shoreland
Overlay
South Bass Lake Crossing Low Density
Residential
Planned Unit
Development
(PUD)
West
- Adjacent/enclosed
homestead
Residential Low Density
Residential
RSF-2
West
- Across Maple Hill
Rd
- Agriculture
- Good Shepard
Lutheran Church
- Residential
- Mixed Use
- Public/Semi-
Public
- Downtown
Mixed Use
(DMU)
- Public /
Institutional
Natural Characteristics of The Site
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Natural
Resource Inventory Areas map does not
reflect any natural communities of note on
the subject property. A wetland delineation
was completed on this property and
finalized in January 2023. This process
confirmed five relatively small wetlands
throughout the property as shown in the
image to the right.
3. Analysis
A. Level of Discretion Making
The City has a relatively high level of
discretion in approving or denying a Figure 2 Wetland Delineation
Page 3 of 25
rezoning application. The proposed zoning for a property must be consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed zoning is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the City must deny the rezoning application. The Zoning
Ordinance and Map are the enforcement tools used to implement the goals and
standards set in the Comprehensive Plan.
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving PUDs. A PUD must be
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City may impose reasonable
requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote
the general health, safety, and welfare of the community and surrounding area.
The City’s discretion in approving a preliminary plat is limited to whether the proposed
plat meets the standards outlined in the City’s subdivision and zoning ordinance and the
conditions of the preliminary PUD approval. If it meets these standards, the City must
approve the preliminary plat.
B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards
Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, other City Code requirements, as well as City
policies. The City’s Engineer’s and Public Safety’s comments are incorporated into this
staff report, and the detailed memos are attached to this report. The approval conditions
require compliance with all requirements of the memos.
C. Rezoning (Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Map)
The subject property is currently zoned RSF-2. The applicant requests to rezone the
property to PUD. The pre-development density for the project is estimated by the
applicant at 3.45 units per acre. The rezoning would be consistent with the underlying
Low Density Residential land use designation, which requires single-family home
developments at 3-5 units per net acre.
The Zoning Ordinance establishes a PUD zoning district with the purpose of granting
flexibility from site design requirements in return for creative community designs of
exceptional quality with a combination of public benefits. The PUD ordinance clarifies
that PUDs for land guided as low density residential is limited to the listed allowed uses
(permitted, accessory, conditional, etc.) as contemplated within the single-family zoning
districts: RSF-1, RSF-2, and RSF-3. The presumptive performance standards for this
PUD default to the district regulations of the most closely related underlying zoning
district. In this case, the proposed minimum lot standards are closest to the standards
outlined for RSF-3. The RSF-3 district standards will prevail unless deviation from these
standards is specifically approved as part of the PUD.
The project requests PUD flexibility for the following:
-Minimum lot width of 55’
-Minimum lot area of 6,875 square feet
Page 4 of 25
- A side setback of 7.5’
- A rear setback of 20’
- 60% maximum garage frontage
The concept plan for this development proposal was initially reviewed prior to the
adoption of the City’s PUD Public Benefit Policy on 5/23/2023. Therefore, the proposal
will not be reviewed against the policy. However, a combination of public benefits is still
expected. In exchange for the requested flexibility, the applicant proposes the following
public benefits:
- Stormwater management design that includes off-site drainage
- A variety of home exterior designs (more than 5 styles).
- An internal private trail/sidewalk system that provides view sheds of a hydraulic
corridor.
- Improvement of Maple Hill Road / County Road 10 intersection to the benefit of
existing and future developments.
- A 60’ setback from Maple Hill Road.
Additionally, staff finds this application also includes the following public benefits within
the City’s PUD Public Benefit Policy, even though the application is exempt from the
specifics of this policy:
- Collaboration with adjoining landowners.
- Lot size variety.
- Extensive internal landscaping
- Use of native plants in landscaping
- Use of preferred trees in landscaping
The PUD flexibilities and public benefits are discussed in more detail in the PUD
development plan section of this report.
The City must review this request for compliance with the PUD standards as follows:
1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
The low-density residential land use designation expects single-family home
development at a density of 3-5 units per acre. The proposal is for 116 single-family
homes with a pre-development density estimated at 3.45 units per acre. A City off-road
trail is shown along the northern boundary of this site on the Parks and Trails plan. A
similar trail alignment is shown on the applicant’s plan. The proposed PUD request
complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying
zoning district and is compatible with surrounding land uses.
The underlying zoning district would become RSF-3 based on the proposed lot
dimensions. The intent of the RSF-3 district is as follows (Section 1040.050):
Page 5 of 25
Purpose. The RSF-3 district is intended to provide for new single-family
neighborhoods with a lot area that is smaller than the City’s traditional single-
family lot as well as directly related, complementary uses. This zoning district is
intended to be the primary single-family zoning district for future residential
developments. The smaller lot area will make efficient use of the City’s land
supply and investment in public utilities and allow the City to efficiently protect
and preserve its natural resources such as wetlands and woodlands. In addition,
the smaller lot area will help the City meet its density goal for new single-family
homes. Single family homes, as well as two-family dwellings, are allowed n this
district. New development within this district will be allowed only when a full
range of municipal serves and facilities are available to serve the area. Areas
zones RSF-3 are guided Low Density or Conservation Residential on the City’s
2040 Comprehensive Plan. Development within this district is required based on
the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff notes that the above sited paragraph includes a zoning ordinance amendment
approved with the Woodland Hills application on 3/28/2024.
The proposed PUD allows for urban sized lots of a variety of sizes ranging from 6,875
square feet to 14,953 square feet. The PUD will meet the City’s density requirements for
low density residential. Additionally, the proposed development will provide efficient use
of the City’s land supply and investment in public utilities while preserving wetlands.
Municipal services are available to the site. The proposal is consistent with the intent of
the RSF-3.
3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable revisions of
the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
The proposal is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance,
except that PUD flexibility is requested as noted in the staff report. In exchange for this
flexibility, the applicant will provide the above-noted public benefits.
4. The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition,
and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and/or operation is feasible
as a complete unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or
phase.
The planned development is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any
other subsequent unit or phase. There are design components of this development that
are reliant on the adjacent development to the west (Fairway Shores Villas at Cook
Lake) moving forward. These design components are encouraged for efficiency and as
part of efforts to have the two developments collaborate. With this being said, it is
possible for the plans to be revised if necessary for these components to be
accommodated on site should the adjacent development not move forward. A condition
of approval in the draft resolution includes that should the adjacent development not
Page 6 of 25
move forward in a shared timeline, the plans for this development are subject to
modifications approved by the City Engineer.
The PUD is anticipated to be completed in two phases. Development is contingent on
the following off-site roadway improvements:
-County Road 10/Maple Hill Road
o Construct a dedicated westbound right lane and an eastbound left turn
lane on County Road 10 each 300 feet in length to accommodate
additional turning movement traffic.
o Constructed a dedicated southbound left turn and right turn lanes each
300 feet in length.
o At the time of construction, the alignment of the Maple Hill Road and
County Road 10 shall be reviewed to ensure the property intersection
alignment.
-Maple Hill Road
o The roadway shall be improved to provide services to this additional traffic
from the northern property line of the development to County Road 10.
Trunk sewer is available on site, water pressure and supply are adequate, and looping
and stubs will be required typical of City policies.
5.The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks,
streets, and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to
serve the planned development.
The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and
other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned
development. The proposed PUD is coming in at the density expected for this area.
Maple Hill Road and County Road 10 will be improved to handle the increased traffic as
a result of this development. The developer is responsible for all public infrastructure
needed to serve the site at their expense.
6.The planned development will not have an undue and adverse impact on the
reasonable enjoyment of the neighboring property.
The planned development will provide a compatible use to the existing and proposed
residential uses to the north, east, and south. The proposed design of the neighborhood
is meant to improve pre-existing stormwater management conditions. Staff does not find
that the development will create an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable
enjoyment of the neighboring properties.
7.The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall
substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher
standards, more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public
facilities, it shall maintain and enhance any natural resources within the
Page 7 of 25
development, and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be
achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations.
The PUD will provide quality building and site design; install and provide streets,
utilities, and public facilities more efficiently; and create public benefit that is greater
than may otherwise be achieved. The development will meet the City’s density goals,
address pre-existing stormwater drainage concerns in the vicinity of the project,
enhance the natural features of the site with a hydraulic greenway corridor and
intentional view corridors of the open space; and provide internal pedestrian routes
beyond what is required by code and maintained privately.
D. Preliminary PUD Development Plan
The PUD zoning district offers greater flexibility in site design requirements in exchange
for creative community designs of exceptional quality. This may be accomplished
through preservation, restoration, and/or enhancement of natural systems; above-
average open space amenities; creative design in the layout of buildings, open space,
and circulation; compatibility with surrounding land uses and neighborhood character;
and provide greater efficiency in the layout and provision of roads, utilities, and other
infrastructure.
Uses
Per the PUD ordinance, low density residential PUDs are presumed to include all listed
uses within RSF-1, RSF-2, and RSF-3. The proposal includes 116 single-family
dwellings. Single-family dwellings are a permitted use in these districts. There are no
other buildings or facilities proposed.
Lot Standards
Per the PUD ordinance, the district regulations of the most closely related underlying
zoning district are presumed to apply to the development but may be departed from as
deemed appropriate to accomplish the purpose and intent of a PUD.
The dimensional standards of RSF-3 are provided in the table below. The requested
flexibilities from RSF-3 standards are shown in red.
Dimensional Standard Proposed RSF-3 (Single-Family)
Minimum Lot Area 6,875 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width 55 feet 65 feet
Minimum Principal
Structure Setbacks:
-Front 20’ 20’
-Front (porch less
than 120 sq. ft.)
15’ 15’
-Side 7.5 feet 10 feet (living)
5 feet (garage)
-Rear 20 feet 30 feet
Page 8 of 25
Maximum Principal
Building Height
35 feet 35 feet
Additionally, the application will require flexibility to measure the lot width for the
following lots (not on a cul-de-sac) at the minimum front setback: Lots 15-19, 28, 30, 31,
44, 81-87, and 111-114.
The applicant submitted an exhibit confirming that the Shoreland Overlay district of
Cook Lake touches on a few lots in the southeast corner of the development: Lots 1, 56,
57, 58, and 59. However, none of these lots are entirely within the district. This means
that just the impervious surface coverage limit of 25% and structure height limit of 25’
will apply for the areas of each lot that fall within the overlay district. It appears the
project will be able to comply with these standards.
PUD Design Standards
The application must satisfy the following PUD standards:
A. Appropriate Integration. PUDs shall be appropriately integrated into existing
and proposed surrounding development. This does not mean the PUD
reflects the specific standards of the surrounding area, such as lot size,
density, setbacks, or design. While integration may be achieved through such
standards, it may also be achieved through continuation of existing land use
types, architectural transitions, landscaping buffering, or other means.
The proposed subdivision will provide similar sized lots near Bass Lake Crossing to the
south and Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake (“Fairway Shores”) to the east. The
development will continue the trail from Fairway Shores out to Maple Hill Road. This trail
system will connect this development to Bass Lake Crossing. The development consists
of single-family homes which are compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff finds this
standard is satisfied.
B. Variety and
Enhanced Design.
Since PUDs are
expected to
exceed standards,
most residential
PUDs should
include a wide
variety of styles.
Style refers to the
exterior image
and footprint, not
the floor plan.
Figure 3 Example Elevation
Page 9 of 25
Where a wide variety of styles does not make sense, the PUD should include
enhanced building design that exceeds underlying standards.
I. PUDs with detached homes must provide house elevations for
approval. There should be no less than 5 styles of detached homes.
The applicant submitted five different floor plans with 12 different styles of elevations.
These elevations comply with this standard. Additional analysis on how these elevations
comply with Section 1040.040, Subd. 8 (which details architectural requirements for
single-family homes within the MUSA) is discussed under the “Single-Family Design
Standards” section of this report.
C. Open Space. A low-density residential PUD shall provide a percentage of the
project area as open space based on the requested lot width minimum as
shown in the subsequent table:
Proposed Lot Width Required Open Space
72’ or more 0%
Less than 72’ – 65’ 7%
Less than 65’ – 55’ 12%
Less than 55’ 15%
The application proposes a minimum lot width of 55’ which has an open space
requirement of 12%. Open space is a vegetated area or areas available for the common
use of and is accessible by all residents or occupants of the buildings within the PUD.
Open space shall consist of upland and be calculated on a net basis which excludes
private yards, private streets, ROW, or any other non-recreational impervious surface
area. Areas within easements shall be used in calculating open space unless the
easement is over an inaccessible and/or unusable space, such as wetlands or
stormwater ponds. The calculation is based off the net pre-development area.
Dedicated parkland or trails shall not be used in calculating open space for a
development if it is anticipated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The net pre-development area of the development is 33.58 acres. This means a total of
4.03 acres of open space is required. The applicant submitted an open space plan
showing 5.86 acres of open space proposed. However, the applicant’s density exhibits
show that a large portion of Outlot C and Outlot G is under the 100-year ordinary high-
water level (OHWL) which does not qualify as upland. Engineering review explained
that the open space identified as part of the Hydraulic Green Corridor in the center of
the site will not be accessible or usable as the area will serve as a conveyance ditch for
stormwater. The applicant may be able to make more portions of Outlot C higher to
serve as usable open space that is considered upland, but this would involve changing
their stormwater design to utilize a pipe rather than a ditch for conveyance.
Page 10 of 25
Figure 4 Open Space Plan
Alternatively, the applicant would like the Hydraulic Green Corridor, which will double as
a prairie channel, to be considered in the open space calculations as it will serve as a
wildlife green corridor. The storm ponds within the space are not calculated in the open
space calculation. The view areas will provide open space views of a grassy, wildflower
setting to add visual interest for pedestrians and homes.
Staff do not believe the 12% open space requirement is currently satisfied without
considering the space in Outlot C and Outlot G that are not wetlands or stormwater
ponds. Based on a rough estimation, staff believes the qualifying open space is about
4.5% of the net pre-development area. The City Council can waive or reduce the open
Page 11 of 25
space requirement at their discretion when an applicant shows that the open space
cannot be accommodated with other City requirements (including a minimum density
requirement and/or proposed public benefits. The project site is relatively low compared
to the surrounding properties. The Engineering Memo confirms this site is challenging
due to pass through drainage from the west (future Downtown) and south (Bass Lake
Crossing) along with Maple Hill Estates to the north. The Hydraulic Green Corridor was
the strategy proposed to handle the stormwater coming to the site. The Planning
Commission should discuss whether the site constraints and proposed public benefits
justify a deviation from the 12% open space requirement and to what extent.
D. Perimeter Buffer. PUDs shall provide a landscaping buffer to screen homes
from arterial and major collector roads.
This standard is not applicable to this application.
E. Public Accessibility. When a PUD includes natural features such as creeks,
streams, ponds, and lakes, the PUD shall provide public access to these
features.
This standard is not applicable to this application.
F. Discretionary Standards. In addition to the above standards, the City Council
may impose such other standards for a PUD project as are reasonable and
as the Council deems are necessary to protect and promote the general
health, safety, and welfare of the community and surrounding areas.
The Planning Commission should discus if there are additional standards that should be
considered that would be necessary to protect and promote the general health, safety,
and welfare of the community.
G. Prohibited Features and Modifications.
I. The City will not grant side setbacks that result in less than a 15-foot
minimum required separation between two detached dwellings.
The requested flexibility in the side setback standard will result in a 15’ minimum
separation between detached dwellings.
II. PUDs with detached homes shall be designed to avoid interior
perimeter roads that are parallel to arterial roadways. Roadways
should be curvilinear wherever feasible with a variety of building
orientation along arterial roadways.
This feature is not present in this subdivision.
III. PUDs cannot request flexibility from meeting the minimum required
screening and/or buffering standards otherwise required in the Zoning
Ordinance unless the applicant can show there is a site constraint out
Page 12 of 25
of their control that justifies a deviation from these requirements,
proposes an alternative screening method that will meet the intent of
the requirements, and/or proposes relocating screening methods to a
more beneficial location within the development.
The applicant does not request flexibility from the minimum buffering requirements for
this application.
PUD Benefits
The initial concept plan for this project was reviewed by the City Council prior to the
adoption of the new PUD ordinance and PUD Public Benefit Policy on 5/25/2023. This
application will not be reviewed against the PUD Public Benefit Policy. Regardless,
proposed PUDs are expected to provide a combination of public benefits in exchange
for flexibility from the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The size of the PUD, constraints
of the site, and flexibility requested will be considerations for the City in determining
whether an appropriate amount of public benefits are proposed to justify granting the
PUD district.
The applicant requests deviation from minimum lot dimensions as well as a 60%
maximum garage frontage requirement (instead of 55%). Additionally, the application
will require flexibility to measure the lot width for 20 lots not on a cul-de-sac.
In exchange the following PUD benefits are proposed:
- Stormwater management design that includes off-site drainage.
- A variety of home exterior designs (more than 5 styles).
o 12 different styles in exterior designs submitted.
- An internal private trail/sidewalk system that provides view sheds of a hydraulic
corridor.
- Improvement of Maple Hill Road in addition to the Maple Hill Road / County Road
10 intersection to the benefit of existing and future developments as well as this
development.
- A 60’ setback from Maple Hill Road.
Additionally, staff finds this application also includes the following public benefits within
the City’s PUD Public Benefit Policy, even though the application is exempt from the
specifics of this policy:
- Collaboration with adjoining landowners.
o The applicant team worked with the development team for Fairway Shores
to coordinate the shared boundary between the projects to create a more
unified plan for the larger neighborhood. This involved coordinating the
trail connection, the road connections, as well as other design
components, such as stormwater management.
- Lot size variety.
o A total of 60 lots (53%) are proposed with a lot area that exceeds 7,500
square feet.
-Extensive internal landscaping
o The landscaping plan proposes nearly 200% the required amount of
overstory trees and nearly 300% the required amount of understory trees
required by the underlying landscaping standards, including the buffer
yard requirement.
-Use of native plants in landscaping
o Most of the overstory coniferous trees are a native species as listed in the
City’s Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (NE District Plan).
-Use of preferred trees in landscaping
o Most of the tree species (all but 1) are from the preferred trees list in the
NE District Plan.
The Planning Commission should discuss and consider the proposed PUD public
benefits in exchange for the requested flexibilities.
Neighborhood Meeting
Applicants are required to host a neighborhood meeting with notice provided to property
owners within 500’ of the proposed development. The applicant held an open house at
City Hall on November 2, 2023. Approximately 25 people attended to learn about the
project. The Bass Lake Crossing neighbors expressed concern about construction
traffic on Fir Lane, however, Fir Lane does not connect to this site. The neighbor living
on the exception parcel is concerned about existing and future drainage, existing trees,
and property lines. The construction of the conveyance basin as described in the
stormwater management plan below will reduce the discharge rate from the Chastek
property.
Single-Family Design Standards
All homes within this development will be expected to meet the architectural design
requirements of both Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(B) as well as Section 1040.040, Subd
8. This includes design requirements regarding the front elevation, materials,
architectural elements, non-monotony requirements, garage door requirements, and
treatment of elevations other than the front. The applicant does not request any
flexibility from these standards and is responsible for reading through the requirements
of these sections.
Front elevations, for the purpose of these design standards, is the elevation facing the
front lot line on the street of the mailing address for the property. This front elevation
must include brick, stone, stucco, fiber cement board, redwood, cedar, or other similar
materials. A minimum of two different materials is required unless a house is entirely
made of brick. Additionally, no more than 75% of one type of exterior finish can be
utilized on the front elevation. The concept elevations do not provide a breakdown of the
Page 13 of 25
Page 14 of 25
building materials, but they appear to be able to comply with this standard. This will be
further confirmed with the building permit.
The front elevation must consist of doors, windows, and variations of the wall face with
the use of pilasters or columns, wainscots, canopies, or other architectural elements.
Most of the example elevations comply with this standard. The exteriors for the
Waterford floor plan will need to add an additional architectural element to comply with
this standard.
This Section of the Zoning Ordinance provides that the garage shall not comprise more
than 55% of the viewable ground floor street-facing linear building frontage. However,
the applicant requests this be increased to 60% as part of the PUD. This standard is
based on the measurement of the entire garage structure and on a measurement of the
garage door or doors only. Corner lots are exempt from this requirement on one street
elevation. The concept elevations do not provide dimensions to be able to confirm the
60% maximum requested is satisfied. The applicant must provide this information with
each building permit for confirmation.
Garage doors must be architecturally styled to match the exterior design of the home.
This includes details such as raised panels, accent color, windows, etc. The concept
elevations appear to comply with this standard.
Allowable roofing materials include asphalt shingles, wood shingles (including shake),
concrete, clay, ceramic tile roofs, or residential steel roofing material with hidden
fasteners. Additionally, the roof overhangs must meet a minimum of 12 inches. This
cannot be confirmed with the concept elevations and will be a requirement confirmed
during the building permit review.
Finally, each elevation facing a street must use a minimum of 2 different materials
and/or styles compatible with the front elevation. The following lots appear to have
multiple facades that are oriented to a public street: 1, 24, 25, 28, 36, 44, 45, 59, 60, 81,
87, 93, 94, 99, and 116. These lots will also be required to meet the requirement for
equal architectural treatment as the front elevation.
All other elevations shall make a good faith effort to demonstrate that elements of the
front elevation have been considered for incorporation on those elevations. Each side
elevation will have at least one window or door opening. Finally, a maximum of 18
inches of the foundation wall may be exposed on any elevation. Compliance with these
standards will be confirmed with each building permit.
Wetlands
A wetland delineation for this site was completed in January 2023. Five wetlands were
confirmed on the site. Two wetlands are proposed to be impacted as part of this
development. The remaining wetlands will be subject to the Wetland Overlay district
(Section 1050.010). This includes wetland buffers, wetland buffer monument signs, and
Page 15 of 25
an additional 15’ structure setback from the edge of the buffer (a 5’ setback is applied
for roads and parking lots).
The size of the buffer is dependent on the quality of the wetland. The City’s Natural
Resources Community Quality Ranking map is based on the City’s quality assessment
of known wetlands within the City. Wetlands not shown on this map are assumed to be
of medium quality; however, there is a process to confirm wetland quality through
Minnesota Rapid Assessment (MNRAM) methodology should the applicant decide
wetland quality on the site needs to be re-evaluated. None of the delineated wetlands
are shown on the City’s map and are assumed to be medium quality wetlands.
Figure 5 Wetland Delineation
Page 16 of 25
The following buffer requirements will be applied:
Requirement Medium Quality
Wetland Buffer Average Width 25 feet
Wetland Buffer Width (Min.) 20 feet
Wetland Buffer Width (Max.) 40 feet
Structure Setback from Buffer 15 feet
Total Buffer and Structure
Setback (Average)
40 feet
In addition to buffer widths, a permanent wetland buffer monument is required at each
lot line that crosses a wetland buffer and where needed to indicate the contour of the
buffer. The maximum spacing between signs is 200 feet of wetland edge.
The Wetland Buffer Plan provides the minimum and maximum buffer widths on Wetland
4, but this information must also be provided to Wetland 1 and Wetland 3 to confirm
compliance with the City’s averaging requirements. It appears the plans will be able to
comply with this standard although some modifications may be required. This is handled
as a condition of approval.
The location of wetland buffer monument signs must also be further reviewed. These
signs are required wherever a buffer crosses a property line or where a change in
contour must be shown (with a maximum spacing of 200’ between signs), and the
proposed sign locations do not meet these requirements. Additionally, some wetland
buffer signs appear to be located on the wetland setback when the sign should be
located at the edge of the buffer. Revisions confirming compliance with the wetland
buffer monument requirements is a condition of approval in the draft resolution.
Figure 6 Natural Resources Community Quality Ranking Map
Page 17 of 25
The seeding plan does not indicate a separate seed mix to be utilized for wetland
buffers. As a condition of approval in the draft resolution, the City’s wetland specialist
will provide final approval on the seeding mix to establish wetland buffers. A plan
identifying the establishment and maintenance procedures shall be provided at the time
of the final plat.
Landscaping
Per Section 1060.070, dwelling units shall provide a minimum of 1 overstory tree. This
means 116 overstory trees must be planted within the new development. Additionally, a
buffer yard class A is required around the perimeter of the exception piece that fronts
Maple Hill Road in the northeast corner of the project boundary. Staff estimates the
boundary around the exception piece is 900’ (rounded up to the nearest hundred) which
requires 9 overstory trees and 18 understory trees. In total, 125 overstory trees and 18
understory trees are required. A total of 237 overstory trees and 52 understory trees are
proposed. This far exceeds the minimum quantities required by Code. However, staff
notes that the 1 additional overstory tree and 6 additional understory trees need to be
planted along the perimeter of the exception piece to fully satisfy the buffer yard
requirement based on the formula used in the landscaping plan. The buffer yard could
be increased to 15 feet or 20 feet to reduce the planting requirements around the
perimeter of this adjacent property. However, this buffer yard will be subject to a
permanent conservation easement. A condition of approval is for the preliminary plat to
be revised to indicate the area proposed to be kept in a conservation easement to
satisfy the buffer yard requirements and update the landscaping plan as necessary.
Figure 7 Landscaping Plan Around Exception Parcel
Page 18 of 25
The planting schedule confirms the landscaping plan complies with the minimum size
requirements for trees at the time of planting. Additionally, a variety of tree species are
proposed and complies with the standard that no more than 33% of the proposed trees
can be of a single species.
The buffer yard ordinance also will apply to the east and south property lines. A PUD
district is established on both of the neighboring developments. The underlying zoning
district for these PUDs is RSF-3. This means that a planted buffer yard is not required
along these boundaries, but the side and rear setbacks must be maintained equivalent
to the rear setback requirement. The RSF-3 district has an underlying rear setback
standard of 30’. However, the PUD for Bass Lake Crossing was approved with a rear
setback of 25’, and the Fairway Shores PUD requests a rear setback of 25’. The
Chastek Family Farm PUD requests a rear setback of 20’. Staff believes it makes sense
for the rear setback of the adjacent PUD developments (25’) to apply along the shared
boundaries. The Planning Commission should provide feedback on this.
Since there is no vegetation in this area, staff believe it makes sense for the PUD
approval resolution to limit the use of these areas instead of a conservation easement.
Staff provides a condition that Lots 1-16 and 45-59 are subject to a 25’ rear setback (as
no side lot lines abut the neighboring developments) that must comply with the use
provisions of buffer yards as outlined in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(J)(i). Within this
area, plantings are allowed. However, no passive recreation, paths, storage containers,
lighting fixtures, raised planting beds, or any permanent structures are allowed.
Temporary structures, such as benches. Stormwater and bio-retention ponds are also
allowed to encroach up to a maximum of 10’ of the required buffer yard.
Streets/Access
The primary access into the development will be provided from Maple Hill Road. The
main entrance is currently proposed 80’ north of the access road shown on the
Southeast District Plan. The plans must be revised to shift the main entrance south by
roughly 1 lot. The drive lanes at the entrance of the site shall be a minimum width of 20’.
As discussed previously, off-site improvements of Maple Hill Road and the intersection
of Maple Hill Road and County Road 10 will be a requirement of this development to
support the increased traffic to this site. The northeast and southeast portions of the
development provide additional connections to the property to the east with access to
Fir Lane. These additional connections were deemed necessary by Public Safety for
long-term emergency planning.
Roadways are terminated at the shared property boundary with the proposed Fairway
Shores development. If the Fairway Shores development does not occur on a shared
timeline, temporary turnarounds will be required.
Access to the exception piece surrounded by this development (in the northwest corner
of the site) shall be provided via the local street within this development as required by
the feasibility study. The plans must be revised to satisfy this requirement.
Page 19 of 25
Sidewalks
The plans show a sidewalk on one side of the internal streets as required. Additionally,
the plans indicate a private trail on the perimeter of the interior block of homes that
circle the Hydraulic Natural Corridor. Staff recommend that the required sidewalk simply
be moved to the perimeter of the entire interior block of homes to minimize the required
pavement and provide a continuous path that minimizes the necessary street crossings.
This is a condition of approval in the draft resolution.
Parking
Section 1060.060, Subd. 9 requires 2 parking spaces for a single-family home. The
plans submitted indicate a 20’ driveway in addition to garages for each lot. This means
that all homes must have a minimum of a 2-car garage to provide the required parking.
The applicant’s narrative confirms 2- and 3-car garages are proposed. Per the
Engineering Memo, all 28’ roads shall be signed “no parking” on one side, and no
parking signs are also required within all cul-de-sacs.
Utilities
The Engineering Memo provides detailed utility comments. Trunk sewer is available to
the site. Water pressure and supply are adequate to serve the site. The applicant is
required to comply with the requirements outlined in the Engineering Memo.
Easements
Drainage and utility (D&U) easements are required over all outlots, wetlands, wetland
buffers, the 100-year floodplain, and at the perimeter of lot lines. Additional D&U
easements may be required per the Engineering Memo. Easements must be provided
over all storm sewer pipes that are not located in the ROW. These easements must be
shown on the plat as well as the utility plan to ensure they are of adequate size.
Easements are also required over all maintenance routes to ponds, inlets, and outlets.
The plan set must be revised so that all existing and proposed D&U easements and
wetland buffer zones are shown and clearly identified on all plan drawings. Site
improvements or items placed within the City ROW or easements will require an
encroachment agreement.
There is an existing access easement granted in favor of the Leuer property to the east
(Fairway Shores). This easement shall be removed or vacated to accommodate the
proposed development in this area of the site.
Grading and Stormwater
The Engineering Memo provides a number of additional items related to grading and
stormwater that must be addressed with the final plat submittal. The project will require
preparation and compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plant (SWPPP),
and an erosion control plan will be reviewed during the final plat review. The grading to
Page 20 of 25
the east property line must be coordinated with Fairway Shores to tie into their grading
plan. If Fairway Shores does not proceed on a shared construction timeline, then the
applicant must obtain an easement or other landowner permission to install the property
line drainage for this development. The current stormwater conveyance must be revised
per the Engineering Memo to minimize impacts on Maple Hill Estates and the existing
residence in the exception piece in the northwest area of this site. Where runoff did not
previously go, it must be captured and managed on site. This could impact the viability
of the current lot count and layout near Lots 28-30.
Lighting
Street lighting locations are not currently shown on the development plans. Final
location will be reviewed and determined with the small utility permit, per the
Engineering Memo. Per staff’s most recent understanding of the electrical company
boundaries, Wright Hennepin will provide the street lighting for this development.
Lighting must comply with the lighting requirements of Section 1060.040 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Fence
Figure 8 Fence Exhibit
Page 21 of 25
After working with a potential builder, the applicant expressed a desire to place a berm
and fence along the north boundary to provide screening from the neighboring property
to the north. The desired area is highlighted yellow in the provided exhibit above. Staff is
concerned about the location of the trail as it will make maintenance of Outlot A, reduce
a sense of open space in Outlot A, and could make the appearance of closing off a
public trail. Staff highly recommends that the applicant consider vegetation to provide
natural screening from the surrounding area. If the applicant proceeds with a fence, staff
recommends a condition of approval that the fence be located along the north boundary
but be no closer to Maple Hill Road than the west lot line of Lot 35 (shown in light blue).
This would minimize concerns with the current proposed location.
Off-Road Trail
The 2040 Parks and Trails Map provides guidance to the City for acquiring land for
parks and trails. No parks are shown within the vicinity of this project. A proposed off-
road trail is shown along the northern property line.
The applicant’s plans show the off-road trail along the northern portion of the
development. For off-road trails, the City policy is to require an 8’ wide trail in a 20’
easement. A proposed trail alignment that meets these specifications is shown. A
portion of the trail is woven between a stormwater basin and Wetland #3. After
additional review of this location, staff concluded that a trail cannot be located in this
area as it conflicts with the required wetland buffer. The trail location must be revised to
wrap around Lot 44 before going east to tie into the trail corridor to be provided by
Fairway Shores.
The developer is responsible for “making certain improvements to the developments for
park, playground, trail, and public open space purposes, including, but not limited to,
finished grading and ground cover for all park, playground, trail, and public open spaces
within their developments. No credit towards the required dedication shall be given for
Figure 9 2040 Parks and Trails Map
Page 22 of 25
this work. The City reserves the right to pave the trails or require the developer to pave
these off-road trails. Should the City require the developer to pave the trails, the City
shall reimburse the Developer for the costs for paving the trail.”
Park Dedication
The applicant’s plans show a trail easement of approximately 0.80 acres to be
dedicated to the City. This is a preliminary estimate. The exact dimensions of the trail
easement area may be adjusted as the net acreage of the easement is confirmed and
the alignment is finalized. The preliminary plat indicates a total site area of 38.16 acres.
However, park dedication is based on the net land area which is calculated at 33.58
acres.
The current park dedication ordinance requires 10% of the land area (or the market
value of that land) for a low-density residential development. In this case, the developer
would be required to dedicate the following:
- 10% of 33.58 acres = 3.36 acres
Assuming the provided trail easement area of 0.80 acres does not include wetlands or
floodplain, this would provide roughly 23.8% of the required park dedication. The final
park dedication calculation will be based on the final land area calculations. The
remaining portion of park dedication would be cash-in-lieu of land.
The 2023 fee schedule provides that the park dedication fee for single-family units is
$5,954. Park dedication is based on the adopted fee schedule in place at the time of
the final plat, but for discussion purposes, the anticipated formula is as follows:
- 117 single-family units x $5,954 = $690,664
- Less 23.8% = $164,378.03
- Remaining Estimated Cash Due = $526,285.97
E. Preliminary Plat
Figure 10 Proposed Trail
Page 23 of 25
The preliminary plat requests approval of 116 lots and 7 outlots to be built over two
phases. The City does not typically allow the creation of unbuildable outlots unless there
is an open space, stormwater, or wetland component to the outlot. This applies to this
plat. Outlot D is not ideal as the road network in this area makes the outlot an odd
shape and size. However, this Outlot may need to be revised to provide and plan for an
internal connection to the abutting exception piece in this area as required by the
feasibility study. Ensured ongoing maintenance of all outlots will be the responsibility of
a Homeowners Association. If the preliminary PUD development plan is approved, then
the preliminary plat will comply with the City’s standards. The approval conditions noted
in the staff report and Engineering Memo may result in changes to the lot layout.
F. Summary of Discussion Items
1. Rezoning from RSF-2 to PUD.
a. This is a policy choice where the City has a high degree of discretion. What is
the Planning Commission’s feedback?
2. Preliminary PUD Plan
a. Proposed lot standards that deviate from minimum dimensions of RSF-3.
b. Measure the lot width for 20 lots not on a cul-de-sac at the required front
setback.
c. 60% garage frontage maximum.
d. Open space requirement.
i. Does the Planning Commission believe the Hydraulic Green Corridor
should count towards the open space requirement?
ii. Or are their site constraints and public benefits provided that justify
deviating from the 12% open space requirement?
e. Discretionary standards.
i. Are there additional standards that the Planning Commission would
like to be considered to protect and promote the general health, safety,
and welfare of the community?
f. PUD benefits.
i. Stormwater management design to include off-site drainage.
ii. A variety of home exterior designs (12 styles submitted).
iii. An internal private trail/sidewalk system that provides view sheds of a
Hydraulic Green Corridor.
iv. Improvement of Maple Hill Road in addition to the Maple Hill Road /
County Road 10 intersection to the benefit of existing and future
developments as well as this development.
v. A 60’ setback from Maple Hill Road.
vi. Collaboration with adjoining landowners.
vii. Lot size variety.
viii. Extensive internal landscaping.
ix. Use of native plants in landscaping.
x. Use of preferred trees in landscaping.
Page 24 of 25
xi. What are the Planning Commission’s thoughts on the proposed PUD
flexibilities in exchange for the proposed public benefits?
g. Landscaping
i. Buffer yard ordinance
ii. PUDs are considered RSF-3 districts for the purposes of the Buffer
Yard table. The table indicates RSF-3 districts must maintain a
perimeter equivalent to the rear setback when abutting other RSF-3
districts. No plantings are required within this setback area.
iii. The rear setback in the RSF-3 is typically 30’, but Bass Lake Crossing
has a rear setback of 25’, which is also proposed by the Fairway Shore
development.
iv. Does a 25’ setback for the buffer yard meet the intent of the buffer yard
ordinance?
v. Instead of preserving the space under a conservation easement where
there are no plants, staff believe the PUD approvals can clarify this
area is subject to the buffer yard requirements.
h. Sidewalks
i. What are the Planning Commission’s thoughts on staff’s
recommendation for the sidewalk to wrap around the internal block of
homes to provide a continuous path and minimize street crossings?
i. Fence
i. What are the Planning Commission’s thoughts on staff’s
recommendation on the proposed fence for screening from the
property to the north?
3. Preliminary Plat
a. If all other requests are approved, the preliminary plat complies with the
applicable ordinances and requirements. The requirements of the staff
report and engineering memo may result in some changes to the lot
layout, but a significant departure is not anticipated.
G. Conclusion
Staff reviewed the plan for consistency with the application standards outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance (as well as other
City Code provisions). The staff report discusses the outstanding issues that must be
addressed, and conditions are included in the enclosed resolutions to address these
issues. The Planning Commission may recommend modification of these conditions.
The City has discretion when reviewing a PUD. The Planning Commission may find that
the standards for one or more components of the application have not been met and
may vote to recommend denial of the project. Should the project be recommended for
denial, findings of fact should be provided to staff to forward to the City Council.
4. Recommendation
Page 25 of 25
Move to recommend approval of the following:
a. Draft Ordinance 2024-xxx Rezoning to PUD
b. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning
c. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Preliminary PUD Development Plan
d. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Preliminary Plat
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance 2024-xxx Rezoning to PUD
2. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning
3. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Preliminary PUD Development Plan
4. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Preliminary Plat
5. City Engineer’s Memo – Civil Review
6. City Engineer’s Memo – Stormwater Review
7. Public Safety Memo
8. Applicant’s Narrative
9. Plans dated 4/9/2024.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 2
Motion By:
Seconded By:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE TO
CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED NORTHEAST OF MAPLE HILL ROAD AND COUNTY
ROAD 10 (PID 25-119-23-12-0002)
(CITY FILE NO. 23-034)
THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Amendment of the City Code. Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran,
Minnesota, is hereby amended by changing the classification of the City of Corcoran Zoning Map
from Single-Family Residential (RSF-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), on property legally
described as follows:
See Attachment A
Section 2. This amendment shall take effect upon adoption of the resolution approving the
final PUD plan for this project.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Ordinance is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
Lot 1, Block 1, CHASTEK FARM according to the plat thereof recorded by Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 3
Motion By:
Seconded By:
APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR REZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
NORTHEAST OF MAPLE HILL ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 10 (PID 25-119-23-12-0002)
(CITY FILE NO. 23-034)
WHEREAS, Trek Real Estate and Development and Hempel Real Estate, DBA Emerald Rose LLC
(the “applicant”) requests approval to rezone 38.16 acres legally described as follows:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing and
recommends approval, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an ordinance rezoning the affected parcel from Single-
Family Residential (RSF-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does support the request for reclassification
of the property, based on the following findings and conditions:
1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The land is
guided for Low-Density Residential which allows for single-family development at a
density of 3 to 5 units per acre. The planned development is consistent with the land use
guidance.
2. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying zoning
district. The underlying zoning district will revert to Single-Family Residential (RSF-3)
with the rezoning request to Planned Unit Development. The planned development,
consisting entirely of single-family homes, is consistent with the purpose and intent of
the RSF-3 district.
3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance. The PUD allows the applicant to request flexibility from the
performance standards in the ordinance in exchange for a high-quality development than
might otherwise be expected.
4. The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition, and
arrangement that its construction, marketing, and/or operation is feasible as a complete
unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or phase. There are design
components of this development that are reliant on an adjacent development that is
proposed. However, the plans can be revised as necessary should the adjacent
development not move forward on a shared timeline.
5. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets and
other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned
development. The proposed PUD is coming in at a density that was expected for this
area when the City last updated the Parks and Trails plan in the 2040 Comprehensive
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 3
Plan. The development is contingent on the completion of all off-site improvements
required to support the development as identified in the infrastructure feasibility study.
Trunk sewer is available on site. Water pressure and supply are adequate to serve the
site.
6. The planned development will not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment
of the neighboring property. The planned development will provide a compatible use to
the existing and proposed residential uses to the north, east, and south.
7. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall substantially
enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher standards, more efficient
and effective uses of streets, utilities, and public facilities. It shall maintain and enhance
natural resources within the development and create a public benefit that is greater than
what would have been achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning
regulations.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
Lot 1, Block 1, CHASTEK FARM according to the plat thereof recorded by Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 7
Motion By:
Seconded By:
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR “CHASTEK
FAMILY FARM” LOCATED NORTHEAST OF MAPLE HILL ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 10
(PID 25-119-23-12-0002)
(CITY FILE NO. 23-034)
WHEREAS, Trek Real Estate and Development and Hempel Real Estate, DBA Emerald Rose LLC
(the “applicant”) requests approval of “Chastek Family Farm” a single-family residential subdivision
on the property legally described as follows:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and
recommends approval, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby approves the request for
preliminary PUD plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. A preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan is approved for “Chastek Family Farm”,
in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on December 19, 2023,
January 15, 2024, January 18, 2024, March 20, 2024, April 9, 2024, April 10, 2024, April
11, 2024, and April 24, 2024, except as amended by this resolution.
1. The preliminary PUD plan is approved based on the finding that the proposed project is
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the PUD standards in the ordinance.
2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the requested rezoning and
preliminary plat (Ordinance 2024- and Resolution 2024- ).
2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Public Safety memo dated
February 7, 2024.
3. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo for civil
review dated April 24, 2024.
4. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo for
stormwater review dated April 24, 2024.
5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Infrastructure Feasibility Study dated
December 2023.
6. The development is subject to review and approval by the Elm Creet Watershed. The
applicant is required to secure all permits and approvals from the watershed.
7. Should the adjacent development not move forward on a shared timeline, the plans
for this development are subject to modifications as approved by the City Engineer.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 7
This may include temporary turnarounds, easements, and other modifications to
drainage.
8. All uses (allowed, accessory, conditional, interim, or administrative permit) identified in the
single-family residential zoning districts (RSF-1, RSF-2, and RSF-3) are permitted uses
within this PUD, subject to the standards in Section 1040.040, 1040.045, and 1040.050.
9. PUD flexibility is granted for the following:
a. The following lot standards will prevail over the RSF-3 district standards:
Minimum Lot Area 6,875 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 55 feet
Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks
- Front 20 feet
- Front (porch less than 120 sq. ft.) 15 feet
- Side 7.5 feet
- Rear 20 feet
Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet
Impervious Surface Coverage 45%
b. The required lot width will be measured at the minimum front lot setback for the
following lots as indicated on the preliminary plat: Lots 15-19, 28, 30, 31, 44, 81-87,
and 111-114.
c. A maximum garage frontage of 60%.
10. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer will:
a. Stormwater management design that includes off-site drainage.
b. A variety of home exterior designs.
i. A minimum of 12 different styles are required.
c. An internal private trail/sidewalk system that provides view sheds of a hydraulic
corridor.
d. Improvements of Maple Hill Road in addition to the Maple Hill Road / County Road
10 intersection to the benefit of existing and future development in addition to this
development.
e. A 60’ setback from Maple Hill Road.
f. Collaboration with adjoining landowners.
g. Lot size variety.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 3 of 7
i. Fifty-three percent of the proposed lots will exceed a lot area of 7,500
square feet.
h. Extensive internal landscaping that exceeds 120% of the required landscaping
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
i. Reliance on native plants in landscaping for a majority of the proposed landscaping.
j. Reliance on the preferred tree list in the Northeast District Plan (Appendix C) for a
majority of the proposed tree species.
11. A fence on the north property line of Outlot A is allowed but must be placed as close to the
northern property line as possible and can be located no further west than the west
property line of Lot 35.
12. Access to the exception piece must be provided via a local street within this development
as required by the feasibility study.
13. A 25-foot rear setback must be applied to Lots 1-16 and 45-59 to comply with the City’s
buffer yard ordinance in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(J) of the Zoning Ordinance. This
setback is subject to the use limitations outlined in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(J)(1)(i) and
applies to accessory structures as well as the principal dwelling.
14. Park dedication shall be satisfied by a combination of land and cash-in-lieu of land for the
PUD. Park dedication will be based on the park dedication ordinance in place at the time
the final plat is approved.
a. Park dedication is required based on the finding that the development will add 116
new single-family homes to the City.
b. Residents of the development will need access to nearby existing and future trails
that do not exist today as guided by the Comprehensive Plan.
c. The developer will receive park dedication credit for the portion of the trail easement
that is not located in a wetland, wetland buffer, or the public right-of-way.
d. Cash-in-lieu of land will be used only for the acquisition and development of parks
recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open spaces based on the
approved park plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. Park dedication funds will be collected at the time of the final plat in accordance with
the City Code requirements adopted at the time the final plat is approved.
15. A Homeowners Association will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of all outlots,
common areas, and sidewalks in the development.
a. Association documents must be provided for review and approval with the final
PUD application.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 4 of 7
16. All permanent wetland buffer monument signs must be erected along wetland buffer lines
as required by Section 1050.010, Subd. 7 of the Zoning Ordinance.
a. Wetland buffer signs must be purchased from the City.
b. Wetland buffer signs must be installed on treated 4x4 wooden posts.
c. Wetland buffer signs must be installed prior to issuance of building permits.
d. Wetland buffer sign locations must be revised as wetland buffer widths are finalized.
e. The installation of the wetland monument buffer signs according to the approved
plan must be certified by a registered land surveyor.
f. Wetland buffers must be planted and inspected by the City prior to issuance of
building permits unless an alternative timeline is approved by the City.
g. For buffers to be established, a plan identifying the establishment and maintenance
procedures shall be provided at the time of Final Plat. The City’s Wetland Specialist
will provide final approval for the seeding mix to be utilized in the wetland buffer.
17. A permanent sign permit is required for the proposed entrance monument.
a. The entrance monument must comply with Chapter 82 of the City Code.
18. All house elevations must be submitted with building permits with dimensions and building
material percentages to confirm compliance with Section 1040.040, Subd. 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
19. Prior to submittal of the PUD final plan and final plat, revised preliminary plans must
address the following:
a. Minimum and maximum wetland buffer widths on all wetlands must be provided.
b. Wetland buffer monument sign locations must be revised to show where buffers
cross property lines or have a change in contour with a maximum spacing of 200’.
c. The plans must be revised to confirm the standard of 12% open space is satisfied
based on the pre-development net acres.
d. The trail easement must be revised to wrap around Lot 44 before going to the east
property line to align with the trail easement to be dedicated by Fairway Shores
Villas at Cook Lake.
i. The trail must be located at least 5’ outside of any required wetland buffers.
e. Drainage and utility easements are required as outlined in the Engineering Memo.
f. The preliminary plat must show the buffer yard area to be placed in a conservation
easement around the perimeter of the exception piece zoned RSF-2.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 5 of 7
i. The required buffer plantings based on the width of the buffer yard must be
placed within this conserved buffer area.
ii. A conservation easement and maintenance agreement must be recorded
with the final plat.
g. Streetlighting must be shown on the development plans.
i. Final locations will be approved with the final plat.
ii. Lighting must comply with Section 1060.040 of the Zoning Ordinance.
h. Access to the exception parcel via an internal street must be shown.
i. The development entrance shall be moved south by 1 lot to align with the access
road shown in the Southeast District Plan (Appendix B).
i. The drive lanes at the entrance of the site shall be a minimum width of 20’
unless otherwise approved by Public Safety.
j. A sidewalk shall be provided around the internal block of lots.
20. The development shall comply with the City’s requirements regarding fire access, fire
protection and fire flow calculations, the location of fire hydrant, fire department connections
and fire lane signage.
21. The new public streets shall follow the City’s street naming policy.
22. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed
within the City rights-of-way or easements.
23. All utility facilities, including but not limited to telephone, CATV, natural gas, and electric
power, shall be located underground. Underground service connections to the street
property line of each platted lot shall be installed at the subdivider’s expense.
24. Mechanical equipment (including air conditioning units) must be located in the side or rear
yard and must be located a minimum of 5’ from the property line.
25. Lawn sprinklers/irrigation systems (if provided) shall all have rain sensors to limit
unnecessary watering.
26. All landscaping in rear yards and common areas shall be planted and inspected by the City
within one year of issuance of a building permit.
27. Trees in the front yard shall be planted prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for
single-family homes unless an alternative timeline is approved by the City.
28. Sign permits will be required prior to construction of any signs.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 6 of 7
29. The plans must show centralized mailbox locations. These mailbox locations shall be
approved by the US Postal Service and proof of approved locations provided to the City.
30. Prior to release of final plat for recording, the applicant must enter into the following:
a. A Development Agreement, including a financial guarantee to protect the work.
b. A stormwater maintenance agreement.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT A
Lot 1, Block 1, CHASTEK FARM according to the plat thereof recorded by Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 3
Motion By:
Seconded By:
APPROVING PRELIMIINARY PLAT FOR “CHASTEK FAMILY FARM” LOCATED
NORTHEAST OF MAPLE HILL ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 10 (PID 25-119-23-12-0002)
(CITY FILE NO. 23-034)
WHEREAS, Trek Real Estate and Development and Hempel Real Estate, DBA Emerald Rose LLC
(the “applicant”) requests approval of “Chastek Family Farm” a single-family residential subdivision
on the property legally described as follows:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and
recommends approval, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby approves the request for
preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions:
1. A preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan is approved for “Chastek Family Farm”,
in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on December 19, 2023,
January 15, 2024, January 18, 2024, March 20, 2024, April 9, 2024, April 10, 2024, April
11, 2024, and April 24, 2024, except as amended by this resolution.
2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the preliminary PUD plan for
“Chastek Family Farm”. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the preliminary
PUD plan approval (Resolution 2024-).
3. The preliminary plat must be revised per the requirements as noted in Resolution 2024-.
4. Park dedication is due as required by the PUD approvals, prior to the release of the final
plat for recording.
5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo for Civil
Review, dated April 24, 2024.
6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo for
stormwater, dated April 24, 2024.
7. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has
filed a complete application for approval of the final plat.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 3
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
Lot 1, Block 1, CHASTEK FARM according to the plat thereof recorded by Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Memo
To: Kevin Mattson, Public Works Director From: Kent Torve, City Engineer
Steve Hegland, PE
Project: Preliminary Plat Review Chastek Farm
Development
Date: April 24, 2024
Exhibits:
This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents:
1. Pre-Plat Pre-PUD Plans Rev 03 – Chastek Farm PUD dated 04/09/2024
Comments:
General:
1. Consistent with the review process, a comment response letter shall be provided in which the
applicant provides a written response to each of the items below.
2. In addition to engineering comments, the proposed plans are subject to review by planning, zoning,
and land-use and shall meet other applicable codes of the City of Corcoran.
3. Final approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission must be attained before any
site grading or activity may commence.
4. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed within the
City ROW or easements.
5. Provide to the City copies of the well abandonment and septic system removal when they are
completed.
6. The development shall comply with the conditions and requirements as outlined in the Infrastructure
Feasibility Study for the development.
7. The development shall be responsible for constructing all improvements in accordance with the
Engineering Design Standards and City of Corcoran Standard Details.
Plat:
1. The entirety of Outlot D shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easement.
2. Show limits of HWL for wetland along south property boundary. Drainage and utility easement shall
fully encompass the areas within the HWL.
3. Access easement over south of parcel shall be removed or vacated.
4. Expand easements behind lots 54 & 55 to ensure 1:1 slope for access to pipe invert.
5. Adjust building pads for lots 12-17 to be out of easements.
6. Easement for lot 44 does not provide 10’ of easement on the west side of watermain.
7. Provide adequate easement along storm sewer pipe between STMH 123 and STMH 122
April 24, 2024
Chastek Farm
Kevin Mattson, Public Works Director
Page 2 of 4
Erosion Control/SWPPP
1. Include proposed surface contour labels on erosion control sheets.
2. Erosion control plan will be reviewed further at time of final plat.
3. Provide completed SWPPP for final plat review.
Transportation
1. All 28’ roads shall be signed no parking on one side of the roadway with no parking signs required
within all cul-de-sacs. Final sign location to be coordinated at time of final plat.
2. Improvements to Maple Hill Road and the intersection of Maple Hill Road and County Road 10 were
identified as being necessary to support the development with the Infrastructure Feasibility Study.
Development shall be responsible for all of the necessary improvements as outlined in the
Infrastructure Feasibility Study.
3. All pedestrian ramps shall be ADA compliant and detailed designs shall be provided for all landings
showing elevations in compliance with those requirements.
4. B618 curb and gutter should be used in areas adjacent to greenspace as well as around intersection
radii.
5. Typical section for streets, sidewalk, and trails to reference Corcoran standard detail typical sections.
6. Horizontal and vertical alignments will be reviewed at time of final plat for compliance with grade,
curve, and design speed requirements.
7. Roadways are terminated at shared property boundary with proposed development to the east. If
development does not occur, temporary turnarounds would need to be incorporated into
development. Continue to coordinate street connections to Fairway Shores development to the east.
8. For final plat, construction plans to include sheets with locations for all no parking, stop and street
signage.
9. Drive lanes at entrance to be 20’ in width, or other as approved by emergency management.
10. Maximize radius as possible where Street A is adjacent to Outlot D.
11. Provide radius’ on trails where allowable to avoid jogs in trail, especially as it is through greenspace.
12. Trail along south side of Street A should be extended to eastern intersection and crossing to sidewalk
at Lot 45. Trail crossing should also be incorporated at Private Street C and Lot 87. Once Trail
locations are finalized with crossings, it will be reviewed with the pedestrian crosswalk polity. Curb
extensions should be incorporated where possible with crossing locations.
13. Trail crossing shall be provided at intersection of Street A and Entrance Road.
14. Main Entrance to Maple Hill Road appears to be approximately 80’ north of the access road shown in
the SE District Plan. Access road should be adjusted south one lot.
15. The private trail along the internal looped section of the development should be concrete and not
bituminous.
16. The bituminous trail adjacent to Private Street C should be separate from the roadway by at least 5’
to allow for the private road and public trail to be maintained separate from one another.
Site Plans
1. The existing and proposed drainage and utility easements shown shall be clearly labeled on all plan
drawings. The wetland buffer zones shall also be clearly identified and labeled.
April 24, 2024
Chastek Farm
Kevin Mattson, Public Works Director
Page 3 of 4
2. Proposed wetland buffer signs to be shown at all angle points and property corners on wetland buffer
boundary.
3. Street lighting locations shall be reviewed by public safety and final lighting locations shall be
determined at the time of final plat.
4. An access easement shall be provided over Outlot D to allow for future roadway access for exception
parcel should it be developed in future.
Grading /Stormwater
1. The grading plans shall clearly identify whether designated wetland buffers within the site are to
utilize existing vegetation or if new vegetation will be established for the buffers. If existing vegetation
is to be utilized, the vegetation shall be approved by the City Wetland specialist. For buffers to be
established, a plan identifying the establishment and maintenance procedures shall be provided at
the time of Final Plat. The establishment plan shall identify specific seed mixes with the type and
rates at which the mixes shall be applied.
2. Include contour labels on existing and proposed contours for grading plan and existing conditions
sheets.
3. Display NWL for wetlands on storm sewer and grading plans.
4. Pond accesses to be 12’ minimum.
5. Area is rear of lots 77-79 is flat and at the HWL of the adjacent drainage ditch. This area should be
raised and sloped to ensure it drains adequately and is usable space.
6. Add storm sewer behind lots 40 and 41 to collect water from rear yard swales vs draining it across the
trail.
7. Sumps will be required in all storm structures with drops in of 18” or greater as well as the last
accessible structures prior to stormwater basins.
8. All drainage swales shall be fully encompassed by D&U easements.
9. Sump pump connections will be required for all lots with a basement which don’t abut a wetland or
stormwater BMP.
10. Rational calculations shall be provided to confirm all pipe sizes and inlet capacity at the time of final
plat. This could impact the location and quantity of storm structures.
11. Label clearly on plans EOF’s for all areas where water will be collected including all low areas in
roadways and greenspaces on both grading and storm sewer sheets.
12. All drainage swales shall maintain a minimum of 2% slope and all slope should be 4:1 or flatter unless
approved by the city engineer.
13. All walls higher than 4’ shall be designed by a certified engineer and the design and certification of
those walls shall be provided to the city.
14. Review conflicts between watermain and storm sewer and areas where storm sewer crosses
watermain. All utility crossings shall be shown on profiles.
15. For final plat, include note on plans pertaining to use of trash guards as specified by the Corcoran
standard detail.
16. Include drain tile inverts on OCS 300 detail.
17. Model localized ponding around catch basin inlets where EOF freeboard requirements are on the
verge of not being met.
18. Coordinate grading at east property boundary to tie into grading for Fairway Shores development.
19. Adjust road so that FES 701-702 will be able to be installed below road section.
April 24, 2024
Chastek Farm
Kevin Mattson, Public Works Director
Page 4 of 4
Watermain/Sanitary Sewer
1. Plan and profiles for all utilities shall be provided at the time of final plat submittals.
2. Valve locations to be reviewed at time of final plat. Generally, valves shall be located at all
intersection as one less valve than the number of legs. Valves should typically be located out from the
end radius points unless specific circumstances don’t allow.
3. Hydrant spacing to be reviewed by public safety at time of final plat.
4. Invert at trunk sanitary connections shall be at spring line of trunk sewer or higher.
5. Ensure all watermain tees, bends and fittings are labeled and drawn correctly on plans.
6. Fence along Lot 44 shall not be over watermain.
7. Extend watermain adjacent to entrance road so that it can be looped to the west in the future.
8. Sanitary sewer connection to existing manhole to be core drilled with a water-tight boot.
9. For final plat, note locations on utility plan where insulation will be required for watermain-storm
crossings.
10. Coordinate utility connections to Fairway Shores development to the east.
11. Include plan for installing watermain around box culvert crossings.
End of Comments
Memo
To: Kevin Mattson, Public Works Director From: Kent Torve, City Engineer
Steve Hegland, PE
Project: Preliminary Plat Stormwater Review
Chastek Farm Development
Date: April 24, 2024
Exhibits:
This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents:
· Preliminary Plans - Chastek Pre-Plat, Pre-PUD revised 4/8/2024.
· Narrative-Chastek Farm Pre-Plat dated 4/9/2024.
Comments:
0.0 General:
· Consistent with the review process, a comment response letter shall be provided in response to the
following comments provided in this Memorandum in which the applicant provides a written response
to each item.
· Final approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission must be attained before any
site grading or activity may commence.
o Watershed process will first involve receiving City authorization to submit to ECWMC.
1.0 Adjacent Development
· If the adjacent development to the east (Fairway Shores) does not proceed or does not have the
same construction timing, then Trek must obtain an easement or other landowner permission to
install the property line drainage with this development.
2.0 Site System Modifications
As first mentioned in the feasibility study, urbanization into rural conveyances may have offsite impacts from
additional volume and also the change in land cover and hydrologic response to rain events. This parcel is
challenging due to pass through drainage from the west (future Downtown) and south (Bass Lake Crossings),
along with urbanization of the site itself and existing Maple Hill Estates to the north. Further analysis is
warranted but a summary is provided below of the most recent plans submitted.
Hydraulic Green Corridor/Central Channel
· The central channel/ditch/green corridor shall be modified to provide more gradient at 1.5% or 2%).
Current design shows 1 foot difference that is non-standard according to Corcoran standards for
swales and the flat profile would be problematic for maintenance. Potentially a filtration draintile could
also be incorporated into the design.
Main Discharge--Northeast
April 2024
Chastek Farm
Kevin Mattson, Public Works Director
Page 2 of 3
· The current design and model output appears to show that offsite conveyance improvements are
warranted discharge. The 42-inch by 96-inch box culvert discharges are significant such as;
o Flow rate of 95 Cubic Feet Per Second (CFS) in the 10 year event with a velocity of 6 feet per
second (FPS), and
o Flow rate of 152 CFS for the 100-year event at 7 FPS.
o The immediate downstream conveyance is grass/natural rear yard swale of Maple Hill
Estates.
o The City will provide engineering requirements for the necessary offsite analysis and if
requested can help coordinate with the adjacent property owner for access to verify existing
infrastructure to be analyzed.
Wetland Discharge—North Central
This wetland receives drainage from west of Maple Hill Road and currently flows into the agricultural land and
eventually conveyed by swale to a north wetland that is shared with rear yards of Maple Hill Estates.
· The current design shows the drainage blocked and diverted directly to the north central wetland. The
grading plan would affect the neighboring property including an existing garage with this change in
flow direction. The engineering review (at preliminary plan stage) suggests the development shall
convey this flow directly to the east into the central channel and will involve WCA approval. The
modification (if approved by WCA) will lessen impacts on Maple Hill Estate and will be reviewed for
potential impacts to the existing resident/garage. At a minimum, conveying the runoff along the
shared lot line, where it did no previously go, is not allowed. This runoff must be captured and
managed which could impact lot layout and counts near lots 28-30.
Internal Low Floors
· The low floor elevation for the internal channel and ponds appears to be a minimum of 965.8 with
street EOF labeled at 963.8. A few changes to individual lot types (WO/LO/SOG) would be
necessary. This may change with a modified design.
Alternative Designs
· It appears in concept that the northeast configuration could be modified for Ponds 200P, 300P and
filtration may be incorporated into a larger BMP with a perimeter filtration shelf.
o WMO coordination and approval would be required.
3.0 Plan and Modeling Comments
Erosion Control/SWPPP
1. Include proposed surface contour labels on erosion control sheets.
2. Erosion control plan will be reviewed further at time of final plat.
3. Provide TRM from the EOF to the downstream toe of slope or NWL.
Modeling
April 2024
Chastek Farm
Kevin Mattson, Public Works Director
Page 3 of 3
1. Submit electronic HydroCAD models for review.
2. Include sub catchment areas and impervious percentage on drainage figures.
3. Show all pond node labels on the existing and proposed drainage figure.
Plans
1. Label upstream HWLs for all culvert crossings.
2. Show the scaled width of box culverts on plan sheets to allow review of other utility conflicts.
3. Provide drain tile slopes and inverts elevations.
4. Provide a minimum of 1’ of separation from the HWL to the EOF and an additional 1’ from EOF to top
of berm.
5. Label NWL for wetlands on storm sewer and grading plans
6. Provide Corcoran standard detail plates for EOF, Basin, and OCS structure.
Stormsewer
1. Provide rational method calculation spreadsheet.
2. Final plans to include profile sheets for all pipe runs.
3. Sumps will be required in all storm structures with drops in of 18” or greater as well as the last
accessible structures prior to stormwater basins.
End of Comments
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF CORCORAN
8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340
763.420.2288
E-mail - general@corcoranmn.gov / Web Site – www.corcoranmn.gov
Memo
To: Planning (Planners Lindahl and Davis McKeown)
From: Lieutenant Burns
Date: February 7, 2024
Re: City File 23-034 Chastek Farms Preliminary Plat and PUD
A Public Safety plan review meeting was held on February 7, 2024, to review the submitted industrial
concept plans for the Oswald Farm site. The following were in attendance: Lieutenant Burns, Fire
Chief Leuer, Fire Chief Farrens, Fire Chief Malewicki, Assistant Fire Chief Kodet, Building Official
Geske, Planner Davis McKeown, and Construction Services Supervisor Pritchard. The comments
below are based on the preliminary review of the plans and are intended as initial feedback; further
plan review will need to be completed as construction plans are finalized.
1. Due to the number of lots anticipated, two east-west connections between this and the
property to the east are necessary for emergency services. A second connection should
be located mid-block or further north.
2. A turning radius/exhibit must be submitted, specifically for the northwest cul-de-sac. The
minimum cul-de-sac dimensions are as follows:
• 20’ inside
• 40’ outside curb
3. Hydrant locations are subject to approval by Public Works and the Fire Chief.
Chastek Family Farm
Narrative
1/16/2024
Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Review, Rezoning & Preliminary Plat
Application
Dear City of Corcoran Staff, Commissioners and Council Members.
Trek Real Estate and Development and Hempel Real Estate, doing business as Emerald Gardens, LLC are
pleased to propose The Chastek Farm development project for your review and consideration for
approval. This project proposal is designed to be developed as a low-density, single family detached
residential neighborhood.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 1, Block 1, Chastek Farm, Hennepin County, Minnesota- Torrens Property.
EXISTING LAND USE:
The property consists of 38.16 acres, is the former site of the Chastek Greenhouse business. The
property is located north of the Bass Lake Crossing neighborhood and immediately west of the Guers
Family Farm. Maple Hill Road borders the west property line and Maple Hill Estate mobile home
neighborhood borders this site on the north property boundary. There is a single-family home adjacent
located northwest of the property that is separately owned which will remain.
The Property is subject to
• Drainage and Utility easements as shown on the recorded plat of Chastek Farm dated
September 10, 1992 (attached)
• An Easement for ingress and egress purposes dated October 27, 1976 Filed November 9, as
Document Number T1197751 and conveyed in Warranty Deed Filed November 9, 1976 as
Document Number T1197752. Subject to the right to maintain drain tiles over portions of the
subject property as stated in Quit Claim Deed dated October 27, 1976, files November 9, 1976
as Document Number T1197751 (attached)
• A Resolution approving a conditional Use permit Filed September 3,1993 as Document Number
T2418224
• An Easement for utility purposes in favor of the City of Corcoran, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, dated August 21,2012, filed September 19, 2012 as Document Number T4995104.
ZONING, GUIDING STANDARDS AND PROPOSED LAND USE
The Property is zoned Agricultural/Rural and is guided according to the Corcoran 2040 Comprehensive
Guide Plan as Low Density Residential which allows for a density of 3-5 units per acre.
PROPOSED UNITS: 117
• 55’ WIDTH SINGLE FAMILY- 101
• 65’ WIDTH SINGLE FAMILY- 16
• OUTLOTS – 7 (9.97 ACRES)
• 4.15 UNITS/ACRE
RSF-2 STANDARDS:
• AREA 11,000 SF
• 80’ WIDTH
• FRONT SETBACK: 20’ TO THE GARAGE AND 15’ TO THE FRONT PORCH
• SIDE SETBACK: 10’ TO LIVING SPACE, 5’ TO GARAGE, MINIMUM STRUCTURE SEPARATION 15’
• REAR SETBACK: 30’
PROPOSED PUD STANDARDS:
• WIDTH 55’ AND 65’
• FRONT SETBACK: TO ROW 20’
• FRONT SETBACK: TO PRIVATE STREET 25’
• SIDE SETBACK: 7.5’
• REAR SETBACK: 20’
• SIDE SETBACK TO ROW 20’
• SIDE SETBACK TO PRIVATE STREET: 25’
• MAPLE HILL ROAD SETBACK 60’
• 12% OPEN SPACE (NEEDS TO BE UPLAND)
WETLAND BUFFERS:
• AVERAGE: 25’
• MINIMUM: 20’
• MAXIMUM 40’
WETLAND SETBACKS:
• STRUCTURES: 15’
• ROADS/TRAILS/SIDEWALKS: 5’
PRODUCT AND MARKET:
Our development is designed to provide housing for homeowners seeking an opportunity to live in a
single-family neighborhood. Our 55’ lot will accommodate a villa product like existing products currently
within the city of Corcoran. Our product will have increased setbacks of 15 total between structures. Our
65’ lots will allow for a larger home and a three-car garage option. Our site plan provides options for
slab on grade, full basements including both look out and walkout lots.
Each of the five floor plans will have two and three exterior elevations, two and three car garage options
available for each plan and a variety of color palettes required to create an anti-monotony streetscape
and provide multiple options for the homebuyer.
55% is not possible on a 3 car-the garage, as it would be too narrow (3 car plan is 50’ wide, if 55% is the
rule, the garage can only be 27.5’ which is not possible for 3 stalls). The home ends up being a 2 car with
storage space instead, not always what homebuyers want. Most of these home’s garages have storage
against the house side already. The garages on the 3 car homes (total width of 50’) are 30 feet wide
from outside wall to outside wall, which is 60% of the total frontage. We are asking for 60% as a part of
the PUD for this reason.
OPEN SPACE:
The homesites are designed adjacent to open space and existing wetlands, giving the lot/homeowner an
amenity view, additional privacy, while providing an appropriate transition/buffer from existing
roadways, and existing and proposed neighboring properties.
The open space located in the central portion of the project provides upland which serves as a hydraulic
prairie channel and a wildlife green corridor. The storm ponds are located adjacent and add to the
amenity space but are not included in the open space calculation. The proposed trail runs alongside the
prairie channel, wildlife greenway, providing open space views of a grassy, wildflower setting and an
amenity for both pedestrians and homes.
The other open space outlots are located as planted or fenced green transitions, to provide a space
amenity and an additional element of privacy to and from roadways and neighboring properties.
On November 2, 2023, we held a neighborhood meeting at the Corcoran City Hall. Approximately 25
people attended to learn about the project, ask a variety of questions, and share their thoughts and
concerns. The Bass Lake Crossing neighbors expressed concern about construction traffic on Fir Lane,
however, Fir Lane does not connect to this site. The neighbor living on the exception parcel is
concerned about existing and future drainage, existing trees and property lines. The construction of the
conveyance basin as described in the stormwater management plan below will reduce the discharge
rate from the Chastek property.
We reached out to the proposed buyer/developer of the Geurs Family Farm next door and confirmed
that our 55’ proposed product would be an appropriate transition to their 55’ proposed product.
TRAILS:
The trails and sidewalks throughout the project are designed to connect with neighboring walkway
systems. An off-road trail meanders through the site, within the open space area of the project and will
connect with the neighboring projects off-road trail.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
The Chastek parcel development is proposing to address stormwater management to the requirements
of the City, Watershed, and State standards. The Chastek parcel has an existing condition that it receives
offsite drainage on both the Southerly and Westerly boundaries that passes through the parcel.
Our project proposes to construct a centrally located hydraulic greenway corridor that will serve as an
open space basin designed to handle possible transitions from the offsite drainage. This greenway
corridor will be landscaped as a hydraulic prairie with plantings and wildflowers throughout. The
proposed stormwater treatment system isolates the offsite drainage and onsite drainage as much as
possible. This isolation allows the improved development to meet the required Best Management
Practices without overly burdening the proposed system with offsite flows.
The downstream receiving waters will find that the modeled peak flow rates coming off the Chastek
Farm project are reduced in all events, from Existing to Proposed conditions. The lowering of proposed
post development Chastek discharge rates is a benefit to downstream conditions.
PHASE DEVELOPMENT:
We are proposing the project be developed in two phases as the north phase and south phase. Please
see provided phase plan.
PUD BENEFITS:
• Storm Water Management design that includes off site drainage
• Homes with variety and enhanced design- Exterior image (More than 5-Styles)
• Off Road Trail system - connectivity to adjacent projects, natural features, and future parks
trail plan.
• Open Space is 15% which exceeds the PUD requirement of 12%
• Improve Public Streets (if necessary) depending upon Maple Hill Road Feasibility Study
SUMMARY: We are requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Review, Rezoning &
Preliminary Plat approval consistent with the City of Corcoran’s 2040 Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Our proposed housing product and lot sizes are compatible with existing and adjacent land uses. We are
providing access to natural features by connecting trails that are adjacent to wetlands and open space
which will connect to trails that meander along adjacent projects.
The 15% open space, sidewalks and trails establish an additional and appropriate amount of green space
and create connectivity that will meet the community established guidelines.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Beth Hustad President I Trek Real Estate & Development, Inc. C - 612.840.5233 I O - 952.914.9610 beth@trek-development.com
LOCATION MAP
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-COVR
1.10
CHASTEK
PRELIMINARY PLAT & P.U.D. PLAN
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
COVER
R
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
SHEET INDEX
COVER 1.10
LEGEND 1.20
PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN
5.10-5.11
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN L1
PRELIMINARY REMOVAL PLAN 2.20
EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.10
PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN PLAN 4.10
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 3.20
PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN 4.20
PRELIMINARY PLAT 3.10
PRELIMINARY GRADING DETAILS
5.30
EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP S4
PROPOSED HYDROLOGY MAP S5
PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN T1
PRELIMINARY WETLAND IMPACT PLAN
5.40-5.42
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
PRELIMINARY WETLAND BUFFER PLAN 6.20
PRELIMINARY SEEDING PLAN
5.20
MPCA MAP S3
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN S1-S2
6.10
PRELIMINARY OPEN SPACE PLAN 7.10
PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN 3.21
PRELIMINARY TURNING PLAN 3.22
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-LGND
1.20LEGEND
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
12-04-2023 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Surveyor
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 42299
Peter J. Hawkinson
EX-SURV-123152-BASE.DWG
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.10
PRELIMINARY PLAT
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change 3.10
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-DEMO
2.20PRELIMINARY REMOVAL PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-SITE
3.20PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
SOUTH
PHASE
NORTH
PHASE
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-PHASE
3.21PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-VEHC-TRAC
3.22VEHICLE TRACKING PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-SSWR
4.10PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER &
WATERMAIN PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-STRM
4.20PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-GRAD
5.10PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-GRAD
5.10PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
LEGEND
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-EROS
5.20PRELIMINARY
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-SEED
5.30PRELIMINARY
SEEDING PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-GRAD-DTLS
5.40PRELIMINARY GRADING DETAILS
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
·
·
·
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-GRAD-DTLS
5.41PRELIMINARY GRADING DETAILS
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-GRAD-DTLS
5.42PRELIMINARY GRADING DETAILS
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-WETL
6.10PRELIMINARY
WETLAND IMPACT PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-WETL
6.20PRELIMINARY
WETLAND BUFFER PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-OPEN
7.10PRELIMINARY
OPEN SPACE PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-SWPPP
S1STORM WATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-SHEET-SWPPP
S2STORM WATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
00-ENG-123152-HYDR-MPCA
S3MPCA MAP
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
LEGEND
00-ENG-123152-HYDR-EXIS
S4EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
LEGEND
00-ENG-123152-HYDR-PROP
S5PROPOSED HYDROLOGY MAP
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
c
25OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23
JMM
MSN/PDS
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
45831 12-04-2023
John M. Molinaro
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
1JLT
JLT
Date
Designed
Drawn
L1LANDSCAPE PLAN
c
OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson 2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change4-8-2024
1JLT
JLT
Name
Reg. No.Date
Date
Designed
Drawn4-8-2024
T1TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
c
OFCHASTEK
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA
HEMPEL ACQ. CO., LLC
10050 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE STE. 600
12-04-23Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions
1. 1-16-2024 City Comments Date
Designed
Drawn
2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson 2. 3-29-2024 NE Roadway Change3. 4-8-2024 Roadway Change
TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL
TREE PROTECTION DETAIL
TREE PRESERVATION NOTES
JPB
LAND LLC.
P R O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N S
J A N U A R Y 1 5 , 2 0 2 4
The Lakewood
2
B e d r o o m s : 2 - 3
B a t h r o o m s : 2
G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 - 3
S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,7 9 4 - 1 ,8 3 0
O V E R V I E W
V I L L A F L O O R P L A N
The Waterford
3
B e d r o o m s : 2 - 3
B a t h r o o m s : 2
G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 - 3
S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,9 4 8 - 2 ,0 6 8
O V E R V I E W
V I L L A F L O O R P L A N
The Madison
4
B e d r o o m s : 3 - 5
B a t h r o o m s : 2 - 3
G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 - 4
S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,5 9 6 - 2 ,9 1 9
O V E R V I E W
R A M B L E R F L O O R P L A N
The Somerset
5
B e d r o o m s : 2 - 5
B a t h r o o m s : 2 - 3
G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 - 4
S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,8 4 6 - 3 ,0 2 5
O V E R V I E W
R A M B L E R F L O O R P L A N
The Augusta
6
B e d r o o m s : 2 - 4
B a t h r o o m s : 2 - 3
G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 - 4
S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,3 5 5 - 2 ,5 3 4
O V E R V I E W
R A M B L E R F L O O R P L A N
Page 1 of 37
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6c.
Planning Commission Meeting:
May 2, 2024
Prepared By:
Natalie Davis McKeown
Topic:
Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan,
and Preliminary Plat
(PID 25-119-23-11-0001)
(City File No. 24-006)
Action Required:
Recommendation
Review Deadline: July 9, 2024
1. Application Request
Mike Bergeron of Bergeron
Development, the applicant, requests
approval of a land use application to
create 75 single-family residential lots
and 5 oulots. The proposed
subdivision is located directly east of
7600 Maple Hill Rd, west of Cook
Lake, and northeast of the County
Road 10 (Bass Lake Road) and
Maple Hill Road intersection. The
subject property is roughly 40 acres.
The land use application includes the
following requests: comprehensive
plan amendment, rezoning,
preliminary Planned Unit
Development (PUD) plan, and a
preliminary plat.
2. Context
Background
The subject property is an undeveloped parcel of land used for agriculture. There is an
adjacent property of roughly 16.5 acres to the east under the same ownership, but this
property is located within Maple Grove. Utilities are available at the site, and there is a
pre-existing 65’ wide easement along the north and east portions of the site for utilities.
Historically, this site was accessed through a private easement agreement with the
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Page 2 of 37
Chastek property to the west. The Bass Lake Crossing Development stubbed Fir Lane
to the southwest property line of this property.
Zoning and Land Use
The proposed property is guided for low density residential and zoned RSF-2 (Single
Family Residential 2). The application includes a request to rezone the property to a
PUD. A large majority of the property appears to be within the Shoreland Overlay
District. There are no structures on the site. The property is within the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Phase 1 of the 2040 Staging Plan.
Surrounding Properties
The guiding, zoning, and existing use of the surrounding properties are detailed in the
table below. All surrounding properties are within the MUSA.
Direction Guided Zoning District Use Staging
Phase
North
Public / Semi-Public Public / Institutional Golf Course Phase 3
2030-2035
East
Maple Grove Maple Grove Agriculture N/A
South - Low Density
Residential
- Mixed
Residential
Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
- Bass Lake
Crossing
- Cook Lake
Highlands
- Residential
- Daycare (under
construction)
- Memory Care
(approval
granted)
Phase 1
2020-2025
West
Low Density
Residential
RSF-2 Agriculture
(“Chastek property”)
Phase 1
Figure 2 Zoning Map
Page 3 of 37
Natural Characteristics of the Site
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Natural Resource Inventory Areas map shows a high-
quality Maple/Basswood natural community on the subject property. The applicant’s
plans preserve this area. A wetland delineation was completed on this property and
finalized in January 2023. This process confirmed five wetlands throughout the property.
Prior Review
The City Council reviewed a concept plan for this application at their regular meeting on
June 22, 2023 (“Leuer Sketch Plat” – City File No. 23-013). Flexibilities requested at
that time included:
- A minimum lot area of 6,690 square feet.
- A minimum lot width of 55’.
- Minimum side setback of 7.5’.
- Minimum rear setback of 25’.
- Impervious surface limit of 50% in the Shoreland Overlay district.
- Approval of a subdivision with a post-development density between 2.5 – 3 units an
acre.
The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed this item at their meeting on April 18, 2024.
They recommended taking an off-road trail based on the applicant’s plan with the
remainder of park dedication handled as cash-in-lieu of land (7-0 vote). Just prior to this
meeting, the City of Maple Grove requested the City consider extending a trail
easement off the cul-de-sac of Street C to the property line which is also the shared
border of Maple Grove and Corcoran. The Commission recommended taking this
additional easement as requested as part of the park dedication requirements for the
plat (6-1 vote; Commissioner Friedrich nay). There was also some discussion about
additional landscaping where the trail is near the golf course to provide a measure of
protection from stray golf balls. An official recommendation was not made on this point.
3. Analysis
Figure 3 Natural Resource Inventory Areas Map
Page 4 of 37
Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, other City Code requirements, and City
policies. A review of the plans was coordinated with the City Engineer and Public Safety
team, and their comments are incorporated into this staff report. Detailed comments are
attached in the City Engineer’s Memo and Public Safety Memo. The approval conditions
require compliance with these memos.
A. Level of Discretion in Decision-Making
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a
comprehensive plan amendment. The comprehensive use plan is the City’s long-range
planning tool that indicates what type of development should occur on all land within the
City. It is the City’s plan for directing future development and growth. The City Council
may guide property as it deems necessary to protect and promote the general health,
safety, and welfare of the community.
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a Rezoning
request (also referred to as a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Zoning Map). The
proposed zoning for a property must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
If the proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City must
deny the rezoning application. The Zoning Ordinance and Map are the enforcement
tools used to implement the goals and standards set in the Comprehensive Plan.
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a Planned Unit
Development (PUD). A PUD must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The City may impose requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it
necessary to promote the general health, safety, and welfare of the community and
surrounding area.
The City’s discretion in approving a preliminary plat is limited to whether the proposed
plat meets the standards outlined in the City’s subdivision and zoning ordinances. If it
meets the standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat.
B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA)
For this application to proceed as proposed, a CPA will be required to address the
density of the project. The application submitted a preliminary plat that includes 75
residential lots on 40.56 gross acres. The City uses pre-development density to
estimate a project’s ability to meet the density requirement to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. After netting out the wetlands on the project, the estimated net
acreage is 30.9 acres. Therefore, the estimated pre-development density is 2.43 units
an acre. This number can increase between the preliminary and final plat; however, it is
unlikely the density will increase to 3 units an acre. The applicant estimates that the
density will increase to 2.74 units an acre under the Metropolitan Council’s density
calculation used for final plats.
Page 5 of 37
Recently, the City adopted a new land use designation within the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan called “Conservation Residential”. The adopted category description is as follows:
This land use designation identifies areas for residential development at an
average density of 2 to 3 units per acre. It is expected to primarily accommodate
single-family homes, but twin-homes would also be allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance. This land use category will be used sparingly for sites within the 2040
MUSA boundary where a lower density is desirable due to the extent of natural
resource preservation within a development site.
This proposal includes a request to re-guide the underlying land use category from Low
Density Residential to the new land use category. A development within this density
range appears to fit at this location as most of this property is within the Shoreland
Overlay district for Cook Lake.
The Comprehensive Plan is a living document. When the City finds evidence to support
a change to the plan, the City Council has the discretion to make a change. The City
should consider the following issues when reviewing a CPA request:
• Evidence submitted by the applicant demonstrating the reason(s) that the
plan should be changed, including, but not limited to, whether new information
has become available since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted that
supports re-examination of the plan, or that existing or proposed development
offers new opportunities or constraints that were not previously considered by
the plan.
• Whether or not the change is needed to allow reasonable development of the
site.
• The relationship of the proposed amendment to the supply and demand for
particular land uses within the City and the immediate vicinity of the site.
• A demonstration by the applicant that the proposed amendment has merit
beyond the interests of the proponent.
• The possible impacts of the amendment on all specific elements of the
Comprehensive Plan as may be applicable, including but not limited to:
o Transportation;
o Sanitary sewer, including existing and proposed sanitary sewer
flows as compared to the adopted plan;
o Housing, including the extent to which the proposal contributes to
the City’s adopted housing goals;
o Surface water, including compliance with the City’s goals for water
quality as well as water quantity management;
o Water supply;
o Parks and open space; and
Page 6 of 37
• Consideration of the impact of the proposed amendment upon current and
future special assessments and utility area charges, future property tax
assessments or other fiscal impacts upon the City.
This is a policy decision for the City. The City should evaluate all these issues when
considering the decision. Staff recommends approval of the CPA as it will allow
reasonable development of a site located within the Shoreland Overlay district and the
amendment will cater to supply and demand for a variety of lot sizes.
The net density within the overall Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) was
calculated at 3.11 units per acre in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Woodland Hills
CPA approved by the City on March 28, 2024 (and currently being reviewed by the
Metropolitan Council), re-guided 36.74 gross acres (29.86 net acres) to Conservation
Residential. With the proposed CPA, an additional 40.56 gross acres (30.9 net acres)
will be moved from Low Density Residential to Conservation Residential. The revised
estimated net density for the City is 3.09 units an acre, which is still above the minimum
of 3 units an acre required within the MUSA.
2040 Future
Land Use
Gross
Acres
Net
Acres
Minimum
Density
Range
Maximum
Density
Range
Minimum
Units
Maximum
Units
Existing
Residential
1,586.74 1153.7 0.5 1 577 1154
Conservation
Residential
77.3 60.76 2 3 122 182
Low Density
Residential
3,617.42 2595.8 3 5 7787 12,979
Medium
Density
Residential
84.74 66.04 5 8 330 528
Mixed
Residential
522.43 449.88 8 10 3599 4499
High Density
Residential
128.75 80.32 10 30 803 2410
Mixed Use 532.42 459.08 8 30 1836 6886
Grand Total 4865.58 15054
Net Density
Units Per
Acre
3.09
C. Rezoning (Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Map)
The subject property is currently zoned RSF-2. The applicant requests to rezone the
property to PUD. The Zoning Ordinance establishes a PUD zoning district with the
purpose of granting flexibility from site design requirements in return for creative
community designs of exceptional quality with a combination of public benefits. The
PUD ordinance clarifies that PUDs for land guided as low density residential are limited
Page 7 of 37
to the listed allowed uses (permitted, accessory, conditional, etc.) as contemplated
within the single-family zoning districts: RSF-1, RSF-2, and RSF-3. The presumptive
performance standards for this PUD default to the district regulations of the most closely
related underlying zoning district. In this case, the proposed minimum lot standards are
closest to the standards outlined for RSF-3. The RSF-3 district standards will prevail
unless deviation from these standards is specifically approved as part of the PUD.
The applicant’s narrative requests PUD flexibility for the following:
- Minimum lot width of 55’
- Minimum lot area of 6,875 square feet
- A side setback of 7.5’
- A rear setback of 25’
Additionally, staff determined the proposed plans would need a 45% impervious surface
coverage maximum within the Shoreland Overlay District.
The concept plan for this development proposal was initially reviewed after the adoption
of the City’s PUD Public Benefit Policy on 5/23/2023. Therefore, the proposal will be
reviewed against the policy. In exchange for the requested flexibility, the applicant
proposes the following public benefits from the City’s policy:
- Internal trail connections (#11).
- Natural resources preservation (#16).
- Use of preferred trees in landscaping (#19).
- Higher architectural standards (#21).
- Lot size variety (#22).
- Larger tree sizes (#23).
Staff found the following PUD public benefits may also be applicable to the proposed
development:
- Collaboration with adjoining landowner(s) (#2).
- Visual termini (#7)
- Extraordinary environmental protection (#25)
o This will be discussed further in the report and would not apply if the City
directs the applicant to reduce the proposed wetland buffer widths (in
excess of the minimum required in the Zoning Ordinance) in favor of more
open space outside of a wetland buffer.
The applicant’s narrative also indicates a proposed 25’ front setback and a
commitment that the HOA will utilize one company for land or snow removal and one
company for sanitation in order to minimize traffic in the long-term. The City may
choose to see these as public benefits as well.
Page 8 of 37
The PUD flexibility and public benefits are discussed in more detail in the PUD
development plan section of this report. The City must review this request for
compliance with the PUD standards as follows:
1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff finds that should the proposed CPA be approved; the rezoning request follows the
City’s Comprehensive plan. The Conservation Residential land use designation expects
single-family home development at a density of 2-3 units per acre. The proposal is for
75 single-family homes with a pre-development density estimated at 2.43 units per acre.
A City off-road trail is shown through the property. The applicant’s proposal locates the
off-road trail along the northern boundary before moving to the south loosely following
Cook Lake to the east. While the trail alignment is a little different than what is shown in
2040 Comprehensive plan, it is still overall consistent and will provide more access to
the scenic features of Cook Lake and the surrounding wetland complex.
2. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying
zoning district and is compatible with surrounding land uses.
The underlying zoning district would become RSF-3 based on the proposed lot
dimensions. The intent of the RSF-3 district is as follows (Section 1040.050):
Purpose. The RSF-3 district is intended to provide for new single-family
neighborhoods with a lot area that is smaller than the City’s traditional single-
family lot as well as directly related, complementary uses. This zoning district is
intended to be the primary single-family zoning district for future residential
developments. The smaller lot area will make efficient use of the City’s land
supply and investment in public utilities and allow the City to efficiently protect
and preserve its natural resources such as wetlands and woodlands. In addition,
the smaller lot area will help the City meet its density goal for new single-family
homes. Single family homes, as well as two-family dwellings, are allowed in this
district. New development within this district will be allowed only when a full
range of municipal serves and facilities are available to serve the area. Areas
zones RSF-3 are guided Low Density or Conservation Residential on the City’s
2040 Comprehensive Plan. Development within this district is required based on
the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
Please note, the above sited paragraph includes a zoning ordinance amendment
approved with the Woodland Hills application on 3/28/2024.
The proposed PUD allows for urban sized lots of a variety of sizes ranging from 6,875
square feet to 13,454 square feet. The PUD will meet the City’s density requirements for
Conservation Residential. Additionally, the proposed development will provide efficient
use of the City’s land supply and investment in public utilities while preserving wetlands
and shoreland. Municipal services are available to the site. The proposal is consistent
with the intent of the RSF-3.
Page 9 of 37
3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable revisions of
the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
The proposal is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance,
except that PUD flexibility is requested as noted in the staff report. In exchange for this
flexibility, the applicant will provide the above-noted public benefits.
4. The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition,
and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and/or operation is feasible
as a complete unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or
phase.
The planned development is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any
other subsequent unit or phase. There are design components of this development that
are reliant on the adjacent development to the west (Chastek Family Farms) moving
forward. These design components are encouraged for efficiency and as part of efforts
to have the two developments collaborate. With this being said, it is possible for the
plans to be revised if necessary for these components to be accommodated on site
should the adjacent development not move forward. A condition of approval in the draft
resolution includes that should the adjacent development not move forward on a shared
timeline, the plans for this development are subject to modifications approved by the
City Engineer.
5. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks,
streets, and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to
serve the planned development.
The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and
other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned
development. The proposed PUD is coming in at a density less than what was initially
expected for this area when the City last updated its Parks and Trails plan in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
No off-site improvements are required as a result of this project. The infrastructure
feasibility study confirmed that there are no improvements needed at the County Road
10 and Fir Lane intersection as a result of this development. Fir Lane will provide the
required access to this development, and City staff worked with the applicant to ensure
additional access to the west for access on Maple Hill Road when the adjacent property
develops. This was based on a strong recommendation from public safety for
emergency planning. This development does not trigger the need for improvements on
Maple Hill Road and the County Road 10/Maple Hill Road intersection since it can
operate with a single access point on Fir Lane N until the property to the west develops.
Trunk sewer is available on site. Water pressure and supply are adequate to serve the
site. Looping and stubs per City policy are a requirement of the development.
Page 10 of 37
6. The planned development will not have an undue and adverse impact on the
reasonable enjoyment of the neighboring property.
The planned development will provide a compatible use to the existing and proposed
residential uses to the north, west, and south. The proposed design of the neighborhood
is meant to improve public access in the vicinity of Cook Lake. Staff does not find
reasoning to suggest this planned development will have an undue or adverse impact
on the reasonable enjoyment of neighboring properties.
7. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall
substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher
standards, more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public
facilities, it shall maintain and enhance any natural resources within the
development, and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be
achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations.
The PUD will provide quality building and site design; install and provide streets,
utilities, and public facilities more efficiently; and create public benefit that is greater
than may otherwise be achieved. The applicant worked with staff to add additional
access to the west to provide connections and improve circulation between adjacent
developments. The proposed design allows for responsible development within the
Shoreland Overlay while still meeting the City’s density requirements. Further, the
development will provide a unique public trail experience along the wetland complex of
Cook Lake whereas the Parks and Trails map did not show the trail following the lake.
D. Preliminary PUD
Development Plan
The PUD zoning district offers
greater flexibility in site design
requirements in exchange for
creative community designs of
exceptional quality. This may be
accomplished through
preservation, restoration, and/or
enhancement of natural systems;
above-average open space
amenities; creative design in the
layout of buildings, open space,
and circulation; compatibility with
surrounding land uses and
neighborhood character; and
provide greater efficiency in the
layout and provision of roads, utilities, and other infrastructure.
Figure 4 Phasing Plan
Page 11 of 37
The proposed subdivision is for 75 single-family, one-story villas. The phasing plan
anticipates three phases. The first phase starts with 26 lots in the southwest corner. The
second phase moves north and west with 35 lots. The third phase then moves south
with the final 14 lots. Grading for the site is planned to be completed in a single phase.
Uses
Per the PUD ordinance, low density residential PUDs are presumed to include all listed
uses within RSF-1, RSF-2, and RSF-3. The proposal includes 75 single-family
dwellings. Single-family dwellings are a permitted use in these districts. There are no
other buildings or facilities proposed.
Lot Standards
Per the PUD ordinance, the district regulations of the most closely related underlying
zoning district are presumed to apply to the development but may be departed from as
deemed appropriate to accomplish the purpose and intent of a PUD. The dimensional
standards of RSF-3 are provided in the table below as these are the most similar to the
proposed PUD. The requested flexibilities from RSF-3 standards are shown in red and
green indicates where the proposal exceeds the RSF-3 standards:
Dimensional Standard Proposed RSF-3 (Single-Family)
Minimum Lot Area 6,875 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width 55 feet 65 feet
Minimum Principal
Structure Setbacks:
- Front 25 feet 20 feet
- Front (porch less
than 120 sq. ft.)
15 feet 15 feet
- Side 7.5 feet
10 feet (living)
5 feet (garage)
15 feet minimum separation required
- Rear 25 feet 30 feet
Maximum Principal
Building Height
35 feet 35 feet
Additionally, most of this property is subject to the Shoreland Overlay district for Cook
Lake. The district extends 1,000’ from the ordinary high-water level (OHWL) of Cook
Lake. The proposed plat requests the following flexibilities from the Shoreland Overlay
district standards:
Dimensional Standard Proposed Shoreland Overlay (Non-
riparian Lots)
Minimum Lot Area 6,875 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width 55 feet 125 feet
Page 12 of 37
Impervious Surface
Coverage
45% 25%
Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet
PUD Design Standards
The application must satisfy the following PUD standards:
A. Appropriate Integration. PUDs shall be appropriately integrated into existing
and proposed surrounding development. This does not mean the PUD
reflects the specific standards of the surrounding area, such as lot size,
density, setbacks, or design. While integration may be achieved through such
standards, it may also be achieved through continuation of existing land use
types, architectural transitions, landscaping buffering, or other means.
The proposed subdivision will provide similar sized, if not larger, lots near Bass Lake
Crossing to the south and the proposed Chastek Family Farm development to the west.
The development will continue the trail system at Bass Lake Crossing and provide a
connection point to Chastek Family Farm. The development consists of single-family
villas which are compatible with Bass Lake Crossing as well as the Chastek Family
Farm. Staff finds this standard is satisfied.
B. Variety and Enhanced Design. Since PUDs are expected to exceed
standards, most residential PUDs should include a wide variety of styles.
Style refers to the exterior image and footprint, not the floor plan. Where a
wide variety of styles does not make sense, the PUD should include
enhanced building design that exceeds underlying standards.
I. PUDs with detached homes must provide house elevations for
approval. There should be no less than 5 styles of detached homes.
The applicant submitted 6 concept elevations within their narrative. These elevations
comply with this standard. Additional analysis on how these elevations comply with
Section 1040.040, Subd. 8 (which details architectural requirements for single-family
homes within the MUSA) is discussed under the “Single-Family Design Standards”
section of this report.
C. Open Space. A low-density residential PUD shall provide a percentage of the
project area as open space based on the requested lot width minimum as
shown in the subsequent table:
Proposed Lot Width Required Open Space
72’ or more 0%
Less than 72’ – 65’ 7%
Less than 65’ – 55’ 12%
Page 13 of 37
Less than 55’ 15%
The applicant proposes a minimum lot width of 55’ which has an open space
requirement of 12%. Open space is a vegetated area or areas available for the common
use of and is accessible by all residents or occupants of the buildings within the PUD.
Open space shall consist of upland and be calculated on a net basis which excludes
private yards, private
streets, ROW, or any
other non-recreational
impervious surface
area. Areas within
easements shall be
used in calculating
open space unless the
easement is over an
inaccessible and/or
unusable space, such
as wetlands or
stormwater ponds.
The calculation is
based off the net pre-
development area.
Dedicated parkland or
trails shall not be used
in calculating open
space for a
development if it is
anticipated in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
The net pre-
development area is 30.90 acres. This means a total of 3.71 acres of open space must
be provided. The applicant provided an open space exhibit to evaluate the amount of
proposed open space. However, the calculation for net area used the post-development
area instead of the pre-development area. Additionally, the wetland area differs from the
wetland area noted on other density exhibits. The applicant will need to revise all
exhibits to provide consistent land areas. The open space exhibit provided by the
applicant proposes 3.29 acres of open space. This provides roughly 10.6% open space
based on the pre-development area. A different seeding mix is noted for the open space
in order to delineate the common open space areas from the wetland buffers and
private residential lots.
Figure 5 Open Space Plan
Page 14 of 37
As will be discussed in the “Wetlands” section of this report, there are areas where the
wetland buffer widths and averages exceed the minimum requirements. Reducing these
buffers could potentially provide the required amount of open space. It could also be
argued that the wetland buffers count towards the open space requirement as this is a
vegetated area that is not technically a wetland. The Planning Commission should
discuss if they would prefer to see the wetland buffers decreased to provide more open
space outside of wetland buffers, or if they prefer to see enhanced wetland buffers.
Additionally, the 2040 Parks and Trails map
shows a trail that bisects the site at a
diagonal in a more direct path. However, the
design of the PUD aimed to bring the public
trail along the wetland complex of Cook
Lake. Staff estimates the route proposed by
the applicant provides a little over a ¼ acre
more trail than what is shown in the City’s
comprehensive plan. The Planning
Commission discussion should provide
feedback on whether they believe the
expanded trail corridor should be considered
and factored into the open space requirement for the PUD.
The City Council can waive or reduce the open space requirement at their discretion
when an applicant shows that the open space cannot be accommodated with other City
requirements (including a minimum density requirement and/or proposed public
benefits). Staff believes the open space requirement can be met with plan revisions. A
condition of approval is that the applicant must revise the plans to confirm a minimum of
12% open space based on the pre-development net acres. However, the City can also
accept the proposed open space plan as is with the added public benefit of expanded
wetland buffers and/or an expanded trail corridor as justification for the deviation from
the minimum 12%. The Planning Commission should provide their feedback on this
idea.
D. Perimeter Buffer. PUDs shall provide a landscaping buffer to screen homes
from arterial and major collector roads.
This standard is not applicable to this application.
E. Public Accessibility. When a PUD includes natural features such as creeks,
streams, ponds, and lakes, the PUD shall provide public access to these
features.
This standard is satisfied with the proposed public trail alignment running along the
Cook Lake wetland complex.
Figure 6 2040 Parks and Trails Plan
Page 15 of 37
F. Discretionary Standards. In addition to the above standards, the City Council
may impose such other standards for a PUD project as are reasonable and
as the Council deems are necessary to protect and promote the general
health, safety, and welfare of the community and surrounding areas.
The Planning Commission should discuss if there are additional standards that should
be considered that would be necessary to protect and promote the general health,
safety, and welfare of the community.
G. Prohibited Features and Modifications.
I. The City will not grant side setbacks that result in less than a 15-foot
minimum required separation between two detached dwellings.
The requested flexibility in the side setback standard will result in a 15’ minimum
separation between detached dwellings.
II. PUDs with detached homes shall be designed to avoid interior
perimeter roads that are parallel to arterial roadways. Roadways
should be curvilinear wherever feasible with a variety of building
orientation along arterial roadways.
This feature is not present in this subdivision.
III. PUDs cannot request flexibility from meeting the minimum required
screening and/or buffering standards otherwise required in the Zoning
Ordinance unless the applicant can show there is a site constraint out
of their control that justifies a deviation from these requirements,
proposes an alternative screening method that will meet the intent of
the requirements, and/or proposes relocating screening methods to a
more beneficial location within the development.
The applicant does not request flexibility from the minimum buffering requirements for
this application.
PUD Benefits
All new PUDs that started the City review process (i.e., concept plan) as of 5/25/2023
are subject to the City’s adopted PUD Public Benefit Policy which provides a list of 27
qualities desired within developments. PUD applications should propose a combination
of public benefits in exchange for the flexibility in Zoning Ordinance requirements. The
size of the PUD, constraints of the site, and degree of flexibility requested are to be
considered in determining whether an appropriate amount of public benefits are
proposed to justify granting the PUD district.
As previously noted, the proposed PUD requests the following flexibilities:
Requested Standard City Code Standard
Page 16 of 37
Minimum Lot Width:
- 55’
RSF-3:
- 65’
Shoreland Overlay:
- 125’
Minimum Lot Area:
- 6,875 sq. ft.
RSF-3:
- 7,500 sq. ft.
Shoreland Overlay:
- 20,000 sq. ft.
Side Setback:
- 7.5 feet
RSF-3:
- 10 feet (living)
- 5 feet (garage)
- 15 feet minimum separation required
Rear Setback:
- 25 feet
RSF-3:
30 feet
Impervious Surface Coverage:
- 45%
Shoreland Overlay District:
- 25%
In exchange for the requested flexibility, the applicant proposes the following public
benefits from the City’s policy:
- Internal trail connections (#11).
o Purpose:
Encourage the creation of off-road trails within a neighborhood.
o Criteria:
The benefit may be met by the creation of internal trails to provide
pedestrian and/or bicycle movement within a development.
o Applicant narrative:
The trail connection for the development connects to the existing
trail, south of the property. It will run all the way to the north end of
the development, turn to the west, and stub into the Chastek land
for a future connection. When the trail runs to the north end of the
development, it connects to the sidewalk proposed in the interior of
the development, making a full loop around the neighborhood, and
providing scenic views of Cook Lake to the east of the trail.
o Staff analysis:
Staff agrees the sidewalks and trail network within the development
provide internal connections. However, the purpose of this criteria
is for the creation of off-road trails. Staff do not believe this PUD
benefit is currently satisfied with the proposed plans.
- Natural resources and features are retained (#16).
o Purpose:
Encourage the preservation of significant or unique natural
resources and/or topographic features if they exist.
Page 17 of 37
o Criteria:
This public benefit may be satisfied when a developer retains high-
value and/or unique natural features of a site where possible.
Examples of desirable features include high quality natural
communities as identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Natural
Resources Inventory Areas map, trees, ravines, and hilltops.
A PUD is not expected to retain all identified natural resources or
features, particularly on sites comprised of large areas of high-
quality natural communities. However, an applicant must provide a
detailed narrative explaining their efforts to minimize the removal
and/or alteration of natural features while achieving their own vision
for the site. If multiple natural plant communities are identified on
the site, the applicant should attempt to retain areas of each type of
community.
o Applicant’s narrative:
The proposed development was designed around the natural
resources that were existing in, and around wetland #2, including
the trees around it.
o Staff’s analysis:
A high-quality
Maple/Basswood
community is found on the
City’s Natural Resources
Inventory Areas map that
follows the Cook Lake
wetland complex and the
wetland lobe that goes into
the center of the site.
The Tree Preservation plan
submitted by the applicant
provides a tree inventory which indicates 206 significant trees were
identified on this site as well as the Maple Grove piece under the
same ownership. The inventory indicates 194 trees are meant to be
saved with only 12 trees to be removed (dead trees identified on
the survey are exempt). It appears 77 significant trees were located
on the Maple Grove property, and none are proposed to be
removed. On the Corcoran property, staff inferred there are roughly
117 trees that are proposed to be preserved on the Tree
Preservation plan. This would suggest just over 90% of the
significant trees on the Corcoran property are proposed to be
preserved.
However, Engineering noted that there is concern that the current
stormwater design will conflict with the tree preservation goals.
Figure 7 Natural Resources Inventory Areas
Map
Page 18 of 37
Everything circled in orange in Figure 8 is very likely to be
impacted.
• Of these trees, 6 were proposed to be removed in the Tree
Preservation plan.
Figure 8 Tree Preservation Plan.
• There are 26 other trees that are proposed to be preserved
that will likely be impacted with the current stormwater
design.
o If these trees are removed from the preservation
requirement, the proposal would still be preserving
roughly 68% of the significant trees on the site.
• The stormwater design could be revised to step down the
stormwater in a different location, but this would involve
likely locating the stormwater within backyards. Either the
Page 19 of 37
applicant will need to redesign the system around these
trees, or the City should accept that the trees will likely not
be preserved.
• The applicant needs to be aware that per the updated PUD
ordinance, a PUD that offers tree preservation as a public
benefit will be required to replace any removed trees that
were intended for preservation on a 1:1 caliper inch basis.
Proposed species of saved trees between the two sites include
Cottonwood, Elm, Willow, Box Elder, Green Ash, Basswood, Black
Cherry, Cherry, Sugar Maple, Red Oak, White Oak, Bur Oak, and
Silver Maple.
On a scale of 0 – 3 (0 indicating a dead tree), very few significant
trees proposed to be preserved, one tree is proposed to remain
with a condition of 1, and two trees did not have a condition
recorded on the inventory. Most of the trees were rated at a 2 or 3
on the condition scale.
• All dead trees are to be removed.
The Planning Commission should provide feedback on the amount
of tree preservation the applicant proposes as well as how to
proceed with the preservation area identified by staff as a concern.
- Use of preferred trees in landscaping (#19).
o Purpose:
Encourage incorporation of tree species identified by the City as a
preferred species.
o Criteria:
This benefit may be satisfied if proposed landscaping is primarily
comprised of tree species identified as preferred in the Northeast
District Plan and Design Guidelines (NE District Plan).
o Applicant Narrative:
The landscaping plan was changed to include trees and shrubs
from the NE District Plan.
o Staff Analysis
This project is located in the Southeast District and is not required
to use species from the preferred tree list for the Town Center or
the NE District Plan. The applicant proposes compliance with the
NE District Plan as a public benefit. All trees and shrubs are from
the preferred trees list or closely related, except for 10 Goldflame
Spirea shrubs. This species looks to be of a similar quality to other
shrubs on the NE District Plan.
Staff finds that the proposed plan primarily complies with the NE
District Plan and meets the intent of this public benefit.
Page 20 of 37
- Higher architectural standards (#21).
o Purpose:
Encourage a higher architectural standard within PUD proposals.
o Criteria:
This public benefit is met when a developer goes above and
beyond the architectural standards required in code.
o Applicant Narrative:
All homes in the proposed development will have the entire exterior
siding with either James Hardie or LP SmartSide. Each siding
company offers 20+ prefinished colors. The majority, if not all, of
the homes will include a stamped concrete front porch. The homes
will use real stone accents, 30-year Architectural shingles, and
designer embellishments. On homes with corner lots, those homes
will have added interest from all viewable sides.
o Staff analysis:
The applicant submitted 6 example elevations within their narrative
where 5 are required. Additional information is needed to confirm
compliance with the underlying design standards regarding building
material and garage percentages. However, the proposed mix of
colors, materials, and architectural features suggest a wide variety
of options will be available throughout the neighborhood, more so
than what is required by code. Staff believes this benefit can be met
with minor revisions (see “Single-Family Design Standards”).
- Lot size variety (#22).
o Purpose:
Encourage larger lot sizes.
o Criteria:
This public benefit may be met if at least 10% of the lots within the
development exceed a lot width of 65’ or exceed a lot area of 7,500
square feet.
o Applicant Narrative:
Over 10% of the lots are 65’ wide or larger, and 52 out of 75 lots
are over 7,500 square feet.
o Staff Analysis:
Thirty-six of 75 lots (48%) have a lot width of 75’.
Staff counted 54 lots (72%) that exceed a lot area of 7,500 square
feet.
Seventeen lots (roughly 23%) exceed a lot area of 11,000 square
feet.
Staff find that this PUD public benefit has been satisfied.
- Larger Tree Sizes (#23).
Page 21 of 37
o Purpose:
Encourage developments to provide more effective screening and
mature landscaping within the first few years of construction.
o Criteria:
It may be considered a public benefit for developers to commit to
planting at least 25% of the required overstory trees at the following
sizes:
Potted/Bare Root or Balled and Burlapped
Shade Trees 4” diameter
Evergreen Trees 10’
o Applicant Narrative:
We have made tree size changes to go from 2.5” overstory trees to
3” or larger trees depending on availability. 3” are available
currently but over that is tough to find in our market. We would like
to use 4”, if possible, at the time of planting. We also increased our
6’ Evergreen trees to 6-8’, depending on the availability at the time
of planting.
The City also received an email from Dan Sanford at Grove
Nursery which explains the applicant’s attempt to find trees shade
trees with a 4” diameter. This email is enclosed with the applicant’s
narrative. There are two concerns with planting 4” caliper trees.
• The majority of tree growers in Minnesota do not offer a 4”
caliper tree. Typically, the largest offered is 3”.
• Transplant success – It has been our experience that the
larger the tree transplanted the higher the risk of transplant
failure. The maximum size recommended is 3” caliper for the
best expectation of long-term tree viability.
o Staff Analysis:
The planting schedule in the proposed landscaping plan confirms
the applicant’s intent to plant all shade trees at a size of 3”-4”
caliper at the time of planting.
Staff believes it makes sense to depart from (and update) the policy
to account for market realities and best practice methods that may
not have been fully considered when the policy was adopted.
3” caliper is still greater than the 2.5” caliper required by the
underlying landscaping standards. The applicant still intends to use
greater than 3” when availability allows, but he is concerned about
making promises he can’t keep.
The Planning Commission should discuss if they find the request
for 3” caliper tree reasonable and whether this PUD public benefit
will be satisfied with the proposed plan.
Page 22 of 37
In addition to the PUD public benefits identified by the applicant, staff found the
following benefits were also applicable to this development proposal:
- Collaboration with adjoining landowners (#2)
o Purpose:
To encourage an open dialogue between many landowners.
o Criteria:
This public benefit may be accomplished when a developer
demonstrates collaboration with property owners and residents
within the surrounding neighborhood.
Applicants must host a neighborhood meeting early in the process
as a required component of the PUD process. It may be seen as a
public benefit when applicants demonstrate that they incorporated
meaningful feedback and continued ongoing discussions in an
effort to work with neighboring property owners to create a more
unified plan for the larger neighborhood.
o Staff Analysis:
The applicant team collaborated with the applicant team for
Chastek Family Farm to the west to create a more unified plan for
the larger neighborhood. This involved coordinating the trail
connection, the road connections, as well as other design
components, such as stormwater management.
- Visual Termini (#7)
o Purpose:
Encourage the placement of monuments, statutes, gazebos, or
other landmarks at the end of streets.
o Criteria:
This public benefit may be satisfied with the incorporation of a
visual termini. An entrance monument providing neighborhood
identity may quality to satisfy this public benefit. Other termini
examples (such as statutes or gazebos) that are less common may
be considered more of a public benefit than an entrance monument
sign for the development.
o Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes an entrance monument as residents enter
the development along Fir Lane N. A high degree of landscaping is
proposed around the entrance monument.
It seems this would provide neighborhood identity and serve as a
visual terminus, even if it is not located at the end of the street.
The Planning Commission should provide feedback on whether
they agree with this finding.
Page 23 of 37
Finally, additional public benefits not fully captured in the PUD public benefit policy:
- The applicant commits to the HOA using a single law or snow company as well as a
single company for sanitation in the interest of cutting down traffic resulting from the
development.
- The site plan reflects a 25’ front setback where 20’ is required in the RSF-3.
- The plans currently show wetland buffer widths in excess of what the City requires.
Some revisions will be required as the trail must be located outside of the wetland
buffers for Wetland 1 and Wetland 3. Additionally, retaining wall #3 must also be
located outside of the buffer for Wetland 1. The City can either request the
additional buffer width in other areas be set aside as open space or continue to be
set aside as wetland buffer which may qualify as extraordinary environmental
protection (public benefit #25 in the policy).
Neighborhood Meeting
Applicants are required to host a neighborhood meeting with notice provided to property
owners within 500’ of the proposed development. The applicant held an open house at
one of their model homes in Plymouth at the “Villas at Timbers Edge” neighborhood on
November 2nd. They hoped showing the neighbors their style of homes and the look of
Figure 9 Entrance Monument in Landscaping Plan
Page 24 of 37
their current development would be helpful. Three attendees from the Bass Lake
Crossing neighborhood attended and provided positive feedback on the project.
Single-Family Design Standards
The applicant submitted 6 concept elevations as examples. The height is provided for
each elevation showing the ability for the examples to comply with the 25’ height
maximum of the Shoreland Overlay district. The applicant’s narrative indicates the
exteriors will be fully sided with James Hardie siding or LP SmartSide. Each type of
siding offers more than 20 colors. Additionally, texture will be added with the use of
shakes, board and batten, lap siding, and real stone accents. A majority of the
properties will have stamped concrete porches, and all homes will be constructed with
30-year architectural shingles. A variety of colors, textures, lines, and other designer
embellishments will be used throughout the development to make each home look a
little different. Homes on corner lots will have added interest from all viewable sides.
All homes within this development will be expected to meet the architectural design
requirements of both Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(B) as well as Section 1040.040, Subd
8. This includes design requirements regarding the front elevation, materials,
architectural elements, non-monotony requirements, garage door requirements, and
treatment of elevations other than the front. The applicant does not request any
flexibility from these standards and is responsible for reading through the requirements
of these sections.
Front elevations, for the purpose of these design standards, is the elevation facing the
front lot lint on the street of the mailing address for the property. This front elevation
must include brick, stone, stucco, fiber cement board, redwood, cedar, or other similar
materials. A minimum of two different materials is required unless a house is entirely
made of brick. Additionally, no more than 75% of one type of exterior finish can be
utilized on the front elevation.
The use of James Hardie siding (i.e., fiber cement board) and LP SmartSide (i.e.,
engineered wood) are allowable building materials to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance
requirements. The concept elevations do not provide a breakdown of the percentage of
each exterior finish. This will be reviewed with each building permit. Staff is not
concerned with the relatively small degree of modification required for the concept
elevations to be considered compliant with this standard.
The front elevation must consist of doors, windows, and variations of the wall face with
the use of pilasters or columns, wainscots, canopies, or other architectural elements. All
the example elevations comply with this standard.
A minimum of five different styles of front elevations are required. The applicant
submitted six example elevations. Homes in proximity to each other shall not look alike
in terms of the combination of color of siding, accent, and roofing materials. This will be
confirmed with the building permit review, and the home under construction will be
Page 25 of 37
compared to the two homes on each side and the three homes directly facing the
subject property. The narrative explains that there will be several combinations of
materials, colors, and design embellishments used throughout the development to
provide interest and prevent monotony.
The garage shall not comprise more than 55% of the viewable ground floor street-facing
linear building frontage. This standard is based on the measurement of the entire
garage structure and on a measurement of the garage door or doors only. Corner lots
are exempt from this requirement on one street elevation. The concept elevations do
not provide dimensions to be able to confirm the 55% maximum is satisfied. The
applicant must provide this information with each building permit for confirmation.
Garage doors must be architecturally styled to match the exterior design of the home.
This includes details such as raised panels, accent color, windows, etc. The concept
elevations appear to comply with this standard.
Allowable roofing materials include asphalt shingles, wood shingles (including shake),
concrete, clay, ceramic tile roofs, or residential steel roofing material with hidden
fasteners. The applicant proposes 30-year architectural shingles (i.e., asphalt shingles)
satisfy this requirement. Additionally, the roof overhangs must meet a minimum of 12
inches. This cannot be confirmed with the concept elevations and will be a requirement
confirmed during the building permit review.
Finally, each elevation facing a street must use a minimum of 2 different materials
and/or styles compatible with the front elevation. The following lots appear to have
multiple facades that are oriented or visible to a public street:
- Block 1: Lots 1 and 14
- Block 2: Lots 1 and 13
- Block 3: Lot 1
- Block 4: Lots 1, 14, 15, 20, 21, 29
- Block 5: Lots 1 and 15
Most of the above listed lots are corner lots. The applicant’s narrative confirms they will
provide this enhanced architectural standard on all corner lots. There are a few lots
indicated above where a side will be more visible than typical due to spacing between
lots (e.g., lots separated by a trail). These lots will also be required to meet the
requirement for equal architectural treatment as the front elevation.
All other elevations shall make a good faith effort to demonstrate that elements of the
front elevation have been considered for incorporation on those elevations. Each side
elevation will have at least one window or door opening. Finally, a maximum of 18
inches of the foundation wall may be exposed on any elevation. Compliance with these
standards will be confirmed with each building permit.
Wetlands
Page 26 of 37
A wetland delineation for this site (as well as the Maple Grove property to the west
under the same ownership) was completed in January 2023. Five wetlands were
confirmed on the
site. Only one
wetland is
proposed to be
filled in – Wetland
4 in the center of
the site.
The remaining
wetlands will be
subject to the
Wetland Overlay
district (Section
1050.010). This
includes wetland
buffers, wetland
buffer monument
signs, and an
additional 15’
structure setback
from the edge of
the buffer (a 5’
setback is applied
for roads and
parking lots). The
size of the buffer
is dependent on
the quality of the
wetland. The
City’s Natural
Resources
Community
Quality Ranking
map is based on the City’s quality assessment of known wetlands within the City.
Wetlands not shown on this map are assumed to be of medium quality; however, there
is a process to confirm wetland quality through Minnesota Rapid Assessment
Methodology (MNRAM) should the applicant decide wetland quality on the site needs to
be re-evaluated.
Figure 10 Wetland Delineation
Page 27 of 37
Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 are shown on the City’s map as medium quality wetlands.
This area is also shown as within the greenway corridor. The other wetlands on the site
that are not proposed to be filled in are assumed to be medium quality as well. The
applicant went through the MNRAM process to confirm that Wetland 5 in the southwest
corner of the site is low quality.
The following buffer requirements will be applied:
Requirement Medium Quality Low Quality
Wetland Buffer Average Width 25 feet 15 feet
Wetland Buffer Width (Min.) 20 feet 10 feet
Wetland Buffer Width (Max.) 40 feet 20 feet
Structure Setback from Buffer 15 feet 15 feet
Total Buffer and Structure
Setback (Average)
40 feet 30 feet
However, it is noted that the Elm Creet Watershed’s average wetland buffer width
requirement for a low-quality wetland is 25’ with a minimum width of 10’. The plans must
comply with this average requirement as well as the City’s standard.
In addition to buffer widths, a permanent wetland buffer monument is required at each
lot line that crosses a wetland buffer and where needed to indicate the contour of the
buffer. The maximum spacing between signs is 200 feet of wetland edge.
The proposed buffer width for Wetland 1 exceeds the requirements for a medium quality
wetland. Staff notes that there are portions of the public trail and retaining wall #3 are
located within this buffer, which is not allowed. A condition of approval includes that the
Figure 11 Natural Resource Community Quality Ranking
Page 28 of 37
buffers be reduced as allowable in order to locate the trail and retaining wall #3 at least
5’ outside of the buffer, which is the setback used for streets and parking lots (the height
of retaining wall #3 ranges from 1’ to 3.5’ so it does not meet the City’s definition of a
structure). The buffer monument signs will need to be revised once the buffer is revised.
Currently, it appears up to 2 locations along the northern half of the wetland complex
exceed the 200’ maximum spacing, and a sign is also needed where Wetland 1 crosses
the northeast boundary of Corcoran.
The buffer width on Wetland 2 also appears to exceed the medium quality buffer width
standards. It does not appear the excessive width will reduce the average buffer width
to below 25’. The wetland buffer monument signs comply with the City’s standard.
The buffer widths on Wetland 3 comply with the standards as do the wetland buffer
monument signs. However, the portion of the trail that goes into the wetland buffer must
be relocated (or the buffer reduced) to outside of the wetland buffer.
Wetland 5 also has an excessive buffer width in some areas. Along the southern
property line, the space between the two monument signs exceeds 200’, so an
additional sign along this property line is required. Additionally, it appears there is a
change in the contour along the northwest boundary of the wetland where an additional
monument buffer is needed.
The Wetland Buffer plan shows areas to be seeded as well as tree preservations areas.
As a condition of approval in the draft resolution, the City’s wetland specialist will
provide final approval on the seeding mix, and an inspection with the City’s wetland
specialist will confirm whether the buffer areas with existing vegetation satisfy the buffer
planting requirements. In the event the existing buffer/tree preservation areas do not
qualify as undisturbed buffers, the applicant must revise the wetland buffer plan to
establish buffers as determined by the City’s specialist.
Landscaping
Per Section 1060.070, dwelling units shall provide a minimum of 1 overstory tree. This
means 75 overstory trees must be planted within the new development. The landscape
plan notes that 102 overstory trees are provided in addition to 11 understory trees. The
trees primarily appear to be located within the public right-of-way (ROW). The trees
should be relocated out of the ROW and at least 3 feet from the property line. A variety
of tree species are proposed, and all are below the 33% maximum for any one species.
Shrubs are also proposed around the entrance/monument sign for the development.
This project will be subject to the newly adopted buffer yard requirements along the
west and south boundary line. To the west, a PUD based on the RSF-3 district is
proposed. To the south is another PUD that is also most similar to the RSF-3 district
standards. This means that along these shared boundaries, the side and rear setbacks
must be maintained equivalent to the rear setback. No additional buffer plantings are
required in the setback. However, it is unclear what setback should be maintained. The
Page 29 of 37
underlying RSF-3 district has a setback of 30’. However, the applicant requests a rear
setback of 25’. Bass Lake Crossing was also approved with a 25’ rear setback. Staff
believes a 25’ setback requirement for any applicable side and rear setbacks makes
sense; however, the Planning Commission should provide feedback on this. If the
Planning Commission agrees with 25’, then the plan complies along the applicable
development boundaries.
Buffer yard areas are placed in a conservation easement. However, since there is no
vegetation in this area, staff believe it makes sense for the PUD approval resolution to
limit the use of these areas. Staff provides a condition that Lots 1-14 of Block 1 and Lots
9-12 of Block 5 are subject to a 25’ rear setback (as no side lot lines abut the
neighboring developments) that must comply with the use provisions of buffer yards as
outlined in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(J)(i). Within this area, plantings are allowed.
However, no passive recreation, paths, storage containers, lighting fixtures, raised
planting beds, or any permanent structures are allowed. Temporary structures, such as
benches. Stormwater and bio-retention ponds are also allowed to encroach up to a
maximum of 10’ of the required buffer yard.
Streets/Access
The primary access into the development will be provided by an extension of Fir Lane
N. The southwest and northwest portions of the site provide additional connections to
the property to the west for eventual access to Maple Hill Road. These additional
connections were deemed necessary by Public Safety for long-term emergency
planning.
Roadways are terminated at the shared property boundary with the proposed Chastek
Family Farm development. If the Chastek Family Farm development does not occur on
a shared timeline, temporary turnarounds, easements, and other modifications to
drainage may be necessary.
Sidewalks
The plans show a sidewalk (as shown in
blue in Figure 6) on one side of the road
for most of the internal public streets as
required within the MUSA in Corcoran.
However, sidewalks will need to be
extended up to the cul-de-sac of Street C,
Street D, and Street E. The internal
connection to the off-road trail is provided
by the sidewalk on Street C.
Parking
Section 1060.060, Subd. 9 requires 2
parking spaces for a single-family home. Figure 12 Plan with Sidewalks in Blue
Page 30 of 37
The plans submitted indicate a 25’ driveway in addition to garages for each lot. This
combination provides more than 2 parking spaces for each home. Per the Engineering
Memo, all roads shall be signed “no parking” on one side, and no parking signs are also
required within all cul-de-sacs.
Utilities
The Engineering Memo provides detailed utility comments. Trunk sewer is available on
site. Water pressure and supply are adequate to serve the site. The applicant is
required to comply with the requirements outlined in the Engineering Memo.
Easements
Drainage and utility (D&U) easements are required over all outlots, wetlands, wetland
buffers, the 100-year floodplain, and at the perimeter of lot lines. Per the Engineering
Memo, additional D&U easements may be required for the storm sewer on Lot 8 of
Block 4 as well as based on the review of updated sites plans. Easements must be
provided over all storm sewer pipes that are not located in the ROW. These easements
must be shown on the plat as well as the utility plan to ensure they are of adequate size.
Easements are also required over all maintenance routes to ponds, inlets, and outlets.
The plan set must be revised so that all existing and proposed D&U easements and
wetland buffer zones are shown and clearly identified on all plan drawings. Site
improvements or items placed within the City ROW or easements will require an
encroachment agreement.
An existing easement for limited access exists for this property across the adjacent
parcel. If this access is no longer necessary for this property, the easement should be
terminated.
Grading and Stormwater
The Engineering Memo provides a number of additional items related to grading and
stormwater that must be addressed with the final plat submittal. The project will require
preparation and compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plant (SWPPP),
and an erosion control plan will be reviewed during the final plat review. Grading to the
west property line relies on the Chastek Family Farm development to collect and
manage stormwater. If the adjacent development does not proceed on a shared
timeline, this development shall be responsible for all management of stormwater which
could impact lot layout or require easements to be obtained from adjacent land.
Lighting
Street lighting locations are not currently shown on the development plans. Final
location will be reviewed and determined with the small utility permit, per the
Engineering Memo. Per staff’s most recent understanding of the electrical company
boundaries, Wright Hennepin will provide the street lighting for this development.
Page 31 of 37
Lighting must comply with the lighting requirements of Section 1060.040 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Sign
The City’s sign ordinance allows
residential subdivision of more
than 6 lots up to 2 monument
signs of up to 6’ tall with a sign
copy area of 32 sq. ft. All signs
must be setback 10 feet from all
property lines. The area around
freestanding signs shall be
landscaped with plantings and
maintained in such a manner to
accent and enhance the sign.
The site plan and landscaping
plan confirm compliance with
the setback and landscaping
requirements. Additional details
on the design and size of the
sign were not provided. A
permanent sign permit will be
required where compliance with Chapter 84 of the City Code will be confirmed.
Off-Road Trail
The 2040 Parks and Trails Map provides guidance to the City for acquiring land for
parks and trails. No parks are shown within the vicinity of this project. A proposed off-
Figure 14 2040 Parks and Trails Plan
Figure 13 Sign in Site Plan
Figure 15 2040 Parks and Trails Plan
Page 32 of 37
road trail is shown starting in the northwest corner of the project boundary to the
southeast portion of the site near Cook Lake.
The applicant’s plans show an off-road trail starting in the northwest corner of the
project boundary connecting to the trail proposed to be dedicated on the western
property with Chastek Family Farm, moving along the northern boundary, turning to the
south to follow the wetland complex of Cook Lake, tying into the trail previously
dedicated as part of Cook Lake Highlands in the southeast portion of the site, which
ultimately connects to the existing trail through Bass Lake Crossing. For off-road trails,
the City policy is to require an 8’ wide trail in a 20’ easement. However, City records
indicate there is a 10’ wide trail at Bass Lake Crossing. The City Engineering memo
explains this connection will need to be revised. There will need to be a transition
between the two different widths of trail.
The proposed trail alignment is different than what is shown on the 2040 Parks and
Trails map, but staff believes it makes sense for the trail to follow Cook Lake as much
as possible. It is possible the final trail location for Chastek Family Farm will need to
move compared to what is currently shown on the plans for that development. The final
trail connection to the Chastek Family Farm development will need to align.
There are a few areas where the trail is proposed to be located in a required
wetland/shoreland buffer.
However, only
“interpretive” trails can be
located within required
buffers. Bituminous trails
are not permitted in these
areas. Further, trails within
floodplain do not count
towards park dedication.
The applicant will be
required to locate the trail
outside of the required
buffers. Staff recommends
that the applicant consider
reducing the buffer in
these areas to the
minimum allowed and
averaging the buffer by
increasing the width
elsewhere as allowed by
the City Code. It may be
that there will be a few lots
Figure 16 Trail Corridor Shown in Light Blue
Page 33 of 37
with a trail easement in their backyard in order to provide a trail connection while
meeting the buffer requirements.
The City of Maple Grove reached out and requested the City consider a trail easement
from the end of cul-de-sac on Street C up to the border between Corcoran and Maple
Grove. At one point, Maple Grove was considering a trail system around Cook Lake,
and this easement would keep that option open. Staff estimates this would add roughly
80’ of a trail corridor (estimated 1600 square feet). Staff does not believe it would make
sense for this trail to be constructed at this time as Maple Grove has no concrete plans
to move forward with this trail system at this time. Such a trail would require the City of
Maple Grove to purchase property, and there are terrain challenges in the area.
However, staff believes the request is reasonable and could prove to be a nice amenity
if a larger trail system is provided. This additional segment of trail easement would have
a minimal impact on the park dedication estimate. The Parks and Trails Commission
recommended the additional trail easement be required on a 6-1 vote.
The developer is responsible for “making certain improvements for park, playground,
trail, and public open space purposes, including, but not limited to, finished grading, and
ground cover for all park, playground, trail, and public open spaces within their
developments. No credit towards the required dedication shall be given for this work.
The City reserves the right to pave the trails or require the developer to pave off-road
trails. Should the City require the developer to pave the trails, the City will reimburse the
Developer for the costs for paving the trail per the adopted fee schedule.”
Park Dedication
The applicant’s plans currently reflect an off-road trail easement of approximately 1.01
acres to be dedicated to the City. Additionally, the additional trail easement to the City of
Maple Grove boundary would add an estimated .04 acres. This is a preliminary
estimate. The exact dimensions of the trail easement area may be adjusted as the net
acreage of the easement is confirmed and the alignment is finalized.
Park Dedication Calculation
The preliminary plat includes a total site area of 40.56 acres. Park dedication is based
on the net land area which is defined as the gross land area minus wetlands, areas
below the 100-year ordinary high-water level, and right-of-way or easements for existing
public streets. The plans indicate a net land area of 30.9 acres.
The current park dedication ordinance requires 10% of the land area (or the market
value of that land) for a low-density residential development. In this case, the developer
would be required to dedicate the following:
- 10% of 30.90 acres = 3.09 acres
Assuming the final alignment consists of only upland, a trail corridor of 1.05 acres would
provide roughly 33.98% of the required park dedication. The final park dedication
Page 34 of 37
calculation will be based on the final land area calculations provided with the final plat.
The remaining portion of the park dedication requirement will be handled as cash-in-lieu
of land.
The 2024 fee schedule provides that the park dedication fee for a single-family unit is
$5,954. Park dedication is based on the adopted fee schedule in place at the time of the
final plat, but for discussion purposes, the anticipated formula is as follows:
- 75 single-family units x $5,954 = $446,550
- Less 33.98% = $151,737.69
- Remaining Estimated Cash Due = $294,812.31
E. Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat requests approval of 75 lots and 5 outlots to be built over three
phases. The City does not typically allow the creation of unbuildable outlots unless there
is an open space, stormwater, or wetland component to the outlot. This applies to this
plat. Outlot A is not ideal as the road connection in this area makes the outlot an odd
shape and size. However, staff do not see an alternative and the proposed road
network makes sense. Ensured ongoing maintenance of all outlots will be the
responsibility of the Homeowners Association. The approval conditions noted in the staff
report and Engineering Memo may result in changes to the lot layout. If the preliminary
PUD development plan is approved, then the preliminary plat will comply with the City’s
standards.
F. Summary of Discussion Items
1. CPA request to re-guide the land from Low Density Residential to Conservation
Residential.
a. This is a policy choice where the City has a high degree of discretion.
What is the Planning Commission’s feedback?
2. Rezoning from RSF-2 to PUD.
a. This is a policy choice where the City has a high degree of discretion.
What is the Planning Commission’s feedback?
3. Preliminary PUD Plan
a. Proposed lot standards
b. Open space requirement
i. Should the excess wetland buffers proposed be reduced in favor of
more open space outside of a wetland buffer? Or are enhanced
wetland buffers preferred?
ii. Should the portion of the trail corridor that is above and beyond
what was contemplated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and
allows the trail to run along the wetland complex of Cook Lake,
count towards the open space requirement?
Page 35 of 37
iii. The City Council can accept the proposed open space plan as-is
without requiring additional land. Should this approach be
considered? The expanded trail corridor and wetland buffers could
provide justification to deviate from the minimum 12% requirement.
c. Public Benefits
i. Proposed benefits from applicant’s narrative that staff did not find
satisfied:
1. Internal trail connections.
ii. Proposed benefits from applicant’s narrative that staff finds
satisfied:
1. Natural resources and features retained.
i. Applicant’s tree preservation plan proposes 90% of
significant trees on the Corcoran site to be preserved,
most of which are located within a high-quality
Maple/Basswood community found on the City’s Natural
Resources Inventory Areas map.
ii. However, City staff strongly believe the current
stormwater design will conflict with the tree preservation
goals.
iii. Staff estimates 68% tree preservation may be a more
reasonable goal that meets the City’s goals while setting
the development up for success.
iv. The Planning Commission should provide feedback on
the amount of tree preservation.
2. Use of preferred trees in landscaping
3. Higher architectural standards
i. The applicant submitted 6 example elevations.
ii. Additional information is needed to confirm compliance
with the underlying design standards.
iii. However, the proposed mix of colors, materials, and
architectural features suggest a wide variety of options
will be made available throughout the neighborhood to an
extent that exceeds the required code.
iv. The Planning Commission should provide feedback.
4. Lot size variety
5. Larger tree sizes
i. The policy calls for a minimum 4” diameter for at least
25% of the required overstory trees.
ii. Applicant proposes committing to a minimum of 3”
diameter and will utilize more than 3” where possible.
The application proposes this size for all shade trees.
iii. Applicant narrative and a local expert in the field attest to
the fact that MN tree growers do not offer more than a 3”
Page 36 of 37
caliper tree. Additionally, the best practice for long-term
viability of trees is to transplant trees that are no larger
than 3”.
iv. Staff believe this is a fair reason to depart and update the
PUD Public Benefit policy.
v. What are the Planning Commission’s thoughts?
6. Collaboration with adjoining landowners
7. Visual termini
i. Does the Planning Commission find the entrance
monument as you enter the site from Fir Lane N qualifies
as a visual terminus providing neighborhood identity even
if it is not located at the end of a street?
8. Extraordinary environmental protection
i. Several wetland buffer widths exceed the minimum
widths and averages required by the City Code.
ii. If the Planning Commission prefers the enhanced
wetland buffer widths over providing additional open
space outside of a wetland buffer, then these buffers
would satisfy this public benefit.
iii. Proposed benefits outside of the PUD Public Benefit Policy
1. 25’ Front Setback
2. HOA to utilize one company for land and snow removal and
one company for sanitation to minimize traffic in the long-
term.
iv. What are the Planning Commission’s thoughts on the proposed lot
standards in exchange for the proposed public benefits?
d. Landscaping
i. Buffer yard ordinance
1. PUDs are considered RSF-3 districts for the purposes of the
Buffer Yard table. The table indicates RSF-3 districts must
maintain a perimeter equivalent to the rear setback when
abutting other RSF-3 districts. No plantings are required
within this setback area.
2. The rear setback in the RSF-3 is typically 30’, but Bass Lake
Crossing has a rear setback of 25’, which is also proposed
by this development.
3. Does a 25’ setback for the buffer yard meet the intent of the
buffer yard ordinance?
4. Instead of preserving the space under a conservation
easement where there are no plants, staff believe the PUD
approvals can clarify this area is subject to the buffer yard
requirements.
4. Preliminary Plat
Page 37 of 37
a. If all other requests are approved, the preliminary plat complies with the
applicable ordinances and requirements. The requirements of the staff
report and engineering memo may result in some changes to the lot
layout, but a significant departure is not anticipated.
G. Conclusion
Staff reviewed the plan for consistency with the application standards outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance (as well as other
City Code provisions). The staff report discusses the outstanding issues that must be
addressed, and conditions are included in the enclosed resolutions to address these
issues. The Planning Commission may recommend modification of these conditions.
The City has discretion when reviewing a CPA and PUD. The Planning Commission
may find that the standards for one or more components of the application have not
been met and may vote to recommend denial of the project. Should the project be
recommended for denial, findings of fact should be provided to staff to forward to the
City Council.
4. Recommendation
Move to recommend approval of the following:
a. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment
b. Draft Ordinance 2024-xxx Rezoning to PUD
c. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning
d. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Preliminary PUD Development Plan
e. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Preliminary Plat
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2. Draft Ordinance 2024-xxx Rezoning to PUD
3. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning
4. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Preliminary PUD Development Plan
5. Draft Resolution 2024-xx Approving Preliminary Plat
6. City Engineer’s Memo – Civil Review
7. City Engineer’s Memo – Stormwater Review
8. Public Safety Memo
9. Applicant’s Narrative
10. Plans dated 4/26/2024.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 3
Motion By:
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR “FAIRWAY
SHORES VILLAS AT COOK LAKE” AT THE PROPERTY NORTH OF FIR LANE AND EAST
OF COOK LAKE (PID 25-119-23-11-0001)
(CITY FILE NO. 24-006)
WHEREAS, Bergeron Development (“the applicant”) requests approval of an amendment to the
2040 Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation of approximately 40.56 acres from
“Low Density Residential” to “Conservation Residential” on the property described as follows:
See Attachment A.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the requested amendment at a duly called Public
Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a
comprehensive plan amendment for the above referenced parcel, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed amendment will allow development opportunities on the site that were not
previously considered in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed amendment will allow for a lower density of development along the
shoreland of Cook Lake and preserve a significant portion of an identified high-value
Maple/Basswood natural community.
3. Reclassifying the site is needed to allow reasonable development of the site that responds
to current market conditions.
4. The proposed amendment has merit beyond the interests of the proponents as the lower
density will better preserve and protect the shoreland of Cook Lake.
5. With the planned infrastructure improvements proposed with this project, there is
adequate public infrastructure planned to serve the site.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 3
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 119, Range 23.
(Torrens Property)
Torrens Certificate No. 1017215
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 2
Motion By:
Seconded By:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE TO
CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED NORTH OF FIR LANE AND EAST OF COOK LAKE
(PID 25-119-23-11-0001)
(CITY FILE NO. 24-006)
THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Amendment of the City Code. Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran,
Minnesota, is hereby amended by changing the classification of the City of Corcoran Zoning Map
from Single-Family Residential (RSF-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), on property legally
described as follows:
See Attachment A
Section 2. This amendment shall take effect upon adoption of the resolution approving the
final PUD plan for this project.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Ordinance is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 119, Range 23.
(Torrens Property)
Torrens Certificate No. 1017215
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 3
Motion By:
Seconded By:
APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR REZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF
FIR LANE AND EAST OF COOK LAKE (PID 25-119-23-11-0001)
(CITY FILE NO. 24-006)
WHEREAS, Bergeron Development (the “applicant”) requests approval to rezone 40.56 acres
legally described as follows:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing and
recommends approval, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an ordinance rezoning the affected parcel from Single-
Family Residential (RSF-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does support the request for reclassification
of the property, based on the following findings and conditions:
1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The land is
guided for Conservation Residential which allows for single-family development at a
density of 2 to 3 units per acre. The planned development is consistent with the land use
guidance.
2. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying zoning
district. The underlying zoning district will revert to Single-Family Residential (RSF-3)
with the rezoning request to Planned Unit Development. The planned development,
consisting entirely of single-family homes, is consistent with the purpose and intent of
the RSF-3 district.
3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance. The PUD allows the applicant to request flexibility from the
performance standards in the ordinance in exchange for a high-quality development than
might otherwise be expected.
4. The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition, and
arrangement that its construction, marketing, and/or operation is feasible as a complete
unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or phase. There are design
components of this development that are reliant on an adjacent development that is
proposed. However, the plans can be revised as necessary should the adjacent
development not move forward on a shared timeline.
5. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets and
other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned
development. The proposed PUD is coming in at a density less than what was initially
expected for this area when the City last updated the Parks and Trails plan in the 2040
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 3
Comprehensive Plan. No off-site improvements are needed for this development as
determined through an infrastructure feasibility study. Trunk sewer is available on site.
Water pressure and supply are adequate to serve the site.
6. The planned development will not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment
of the neighboring property. The planned development will provide a compatible use to
the existing and proposed residential uses to the north, west, and south. The proposed
design of the neighborhood is meant to improve public access in the vicinity of Cook
Lake.
7. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall substantially
enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher standards, more efficient
and effective uses of streets, utilities, and public facilities. It shall maintain and enhance
natural resources within the development and create a public benefit that is greater than
what would have been achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning
regulations.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 119, Range 23.
(Torrens Property)
Torrens Certificate No. 1017215
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 7
Motion By:
Seconded By:
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR “FAIRWAY
SHORES VILLAS AT COOK LAKE” LOCATED NORTH OF FIR LANE AND EAST OF COOK
LAKE (PID 25-119-23-11-0001)
(CITY FILE NO. 24-006)
WHEREAS, Bergeron Development (the “applicant”) requests approval of “Fairway Shores Villas
at Cook Lakes” a single-family residential subdivision on the property legally described as follows:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and
recommends approval, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby approves the request for
preliminary PUD plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. A preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan is approved for “Fairway Shores Villas
at Cook Lake”, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on
February 20, 2024, and revisions received April 10, 2024, April 12, 2024, April 23, 2024,
and April 26, 2024, except as amended by this resolution.
1. The preliminary PUD plan is approved based on the finding that the proposed project is
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the PUD standards in the ordinance.
2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the requested rezoning and
preliminary plat (Ordinance 2024- and Resolution 2024- ).
2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Public Safety memo dated March
6, 2024.
3. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo for civil
review dated April 23, 2024.
4. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo for
stormwater review dated April 23, 2024.
5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Infrastructure Feasibility Study dated
September 2023.
6. The development is subject to review and approval by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources. The applicant is required to secure all permits and approvals from the
DNR.
7. The development is subject to review and approval by the Elm Creet Watershed. The
applicant is required to secure all permits and approvals from the watershed.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 7
8. Should the adjacent development not move forward on a shared timeline, the plans
for this development are subject to modifications as approved by the City Engineer.
This may include temporary turnarounds, easements, and other modifications to
drainage.
9. All uses (allowed, accessory, conditional, interim, or administrative permit) identified in the
single-family residential zoning districts (RSF-1, RSF-2, and RSF-3) are permitted uses
within this PUD, subject to the standards in Section 1040.040, 1040.045, and 1040.050.
10. PUD flexibility is granted for the following lot standards to apply within this PUD. These
standards will prevail over conflict standards in the RSF-3 district and Shoreland Overlay
District:
Minimum Lot Area 6,875 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 55 feet
Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks
- Front 25 feet
- Front (porch less than 120 sq. ft.) 15 feet
- Side 7.5 feet
- Rear 25 feet
Maximum Principal Building Height 25 feet
Impervious Surface Coverage 45%
11. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer will:
a. Preserve 68% of the trees on the site.
b. Primarily use tree and shrub species as listed on the preferred trees list in the City’s
Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (Appendix C).
c. Provide higher architectural standards as described and depicted in the applicant’s
narrative while meeting, if not exceeding, the requirements outlined in Section
1040.040, Subd. 8.
d. Provide lot size variety with at least 48% of the lots to exceed a lot width of 75’ and
at least 72% of the lots to exceed a lot area of 7,500 square feet.
e. Commit to planting all the shade trees in the development at a minimum diameter of
3”.
f. Ongoing collaboration with adjoining landowners.
g. Provide a visual terminus (the proposed entrance monument sign) on Fir Lane as
residents enter the development to provide neighborhood identity.
12. A 25-foot rear setback must be applied to Lots 1-14, Block 1 and Lots 9-12, Block 5 to
comply with the City’s buffer yard ordinance in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(J) of the Zoning
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 3 of 7
Ordinance. This setback is subject to the use limitations outlined in Section 1060.070,
Subd. 2(J)(1)(i) and applies to accessory structures as well as the principal dwelling.
13. Park dedication shall be satisfied by a combination of land and cash-in-lieu of land for the
PUD. Park dedication will be based on the park dedication ordinance in place at the time
the final plat is approved.
a. Park dedication is required based on the finding that the development will add 75
new single-family homes to the City.
b. Residents of the development will need access to nearby existing and future trails
that do not exist today as guided by the Comprehensive Plan.
c. The developer will receive park dedication credit for the portion of the trail easement
that is not located in a wetland, wetland buffer, or the public right-of-way.
d. Cash-in-lieu of land will be used only for the acquisition and development of parks
recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open spaces based on the
approved park plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. Park dedication funds will be collected at the time of the final plat in accordance with
the City Code requirements adopted at the time the final plat is approved.
14. All overstory deciduous trees must be at least 3” in diameter at the time of planting.
15. A Homeowners Association will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of all outlots,
common areas, and sidewalks in the development.
a. Association documents must be provided for review and approval with the final
PUD application.
16. All permanent wetland buffer monument signs must be erected along wetland buffer lines
as required by Section 1050.010, Subd. 7 of the Zoning Ordinance.
a. Wetland buffer signs must be purchased from the City.
b. Wetland buffer signs must be installed on treated 4x4 wooden posts.
c. Wetland buffer signs must be installed prior to issuance of building permits.
d. Wetland buffer sign locations must be revised as wetland buffer widths are finalized.
e. The installation of the wetland monument buffer signs according to the approved
plan must be certified by a registered land surveyor.
f. Wetland buffers must be planted and inspected by the City prior to issuance of
building permits unless an alternative timeline is approved by the City.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 4 of 7
g. The existing wetland buffers proposed to remain are subject to an inspection by the
City’s Wetland Specialist to confirm these areas are undisturbed and are in
acceptable condition prior to submittal of the final plat application.
h. For buffers to be established, a plan identifying the establishment and maintenance
procedures shall be provided at the time of Final Plat. The City’s Wetland Specialist
will provide final approval for the seeding mix to be utilized in the wetland buffer.
17. A permanent sign permit is required for the proposed entrance monument.
a. The entrance monument must comply with Chapter 82 of the City Code.
18. All house elevations must be submitted with building permits with dimensions and building
material percentages to confirm compliance with Section 1040.040, Subd. 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
19. Prior to submittal of the PUD final plan and final plat, revised preliminary plans must
address the following:
a. All plans must be consistent.
i. Existing and proposed drainage and utility easements shall be shown and
clearly labeled on all plans.
ii. Wetland buffer zones shall be clearly identified and labeled.
b. The MNRAM for Wetland 5 must be provided to confirm it is a low-quality wetland.
c. The plans must be revised to confirm the standard of 12% open space is satisfied
based on the pre-development net acres.
d. Sidewalks must be extended up to the cul-de-sac of Streets C, D, and E.
e. An additional trail easement must be shown on the preliminary plat from the cul-de-
sac of Street C to the east project boundary which is also the border of the City of
Maple Grove and the City of Corcoran.
i. The additional segment of the trail easement that is not wetland, wetland
buffer, floodplain, or within the City’s right-of-way will count towards park
dedication.
ii. The developer will not be responsible for constructing this portion of the trail.
f. The proposed off-road trail location and wetland buffer widths must be revised to
relocate the trail at least 5’ outside of the wetland buffers for Wetland 1 and Wetland
3.
g. The trail connection between this development and Bass Lake Crossing must
provide a transition from a trail width of 8’ to the existing trail width of 10’ in Bass
Lake Crossing.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 5 of 7
h. The final trail alignment to the property to the west will require further coordination.
The final locations must align, which may require additional adjustments.
i. Proposed retaining wall #3 shall be relocated outside of the buffer for Wetland 1, or
the buffer in this area must be reduced to the retaining wall is at least 5’ outside of
the buffer.
j. Drainage and utility easements are required over all outlots, wetlands, wetland
buffers, the 100-year floodplain, and at the perimeter of lot lines. Additional
easements are required as outlined in the Engineering Memo.
k. The landscaping plan must be revised to show the proposed trees outside of the
City’s public right-of-way and at least 3’ away from all property lines.
l. Streetlighting must be shown on the development plans.
i. Final locations will be approved with the small utility permit.
ii. Lighting must comply with Section 1060.040 of the Zoning Ordinance.
20. The development shall comply with the City’s requirements regarding fire access, fire
protection and fire flow calculations, the location of fire hydrant, fire department connections
and fire lane signage.
21. The new public streets shall follow the City’s street naming policy.
22. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed
within the City rights-of-way or easements.
23. All utility facilities, including but not limited to telephone, CATV, natural gas, and electric
power, shall be located underground. Underground service connections to the street
property line of each platted lot shall be installed at the subdivider’s expense.
24. Mechanical equipment (including air conditioning units) must be located in the side or rear
yard and must be located a minimum of 5’ from the property line.
25. All garages must have a minimum 22-foot parking area in front of the garage that does not
overlap into sidewalks, drives, or streets.
26. Lawn sprinklers/irrigation systems (if provided) shall all have rain sensors to limit
unnecessary watering.
27. All landscaping in rear yards and common areas shall be planted and inspected by the City
within one year of issuance of a building permit.
28. Trees in the front yard shall be planted prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for
single-family homes unless an alternative timeline is approved by the City.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 6 of 7
29. If trees marked for preservation are removed during construction, the applicant shall be
required to provide an equivalent caliper inch replacement for the lost trees.
30. The plans must show centralized mailbox locations. These mailbox locations shall be
approved by the US Postal Service and proof of approved locations provided to the City.
31. Prior to release of final plat for recording, the applicant must enter into the following:
a. A Development Agreement, including a financial guarantee to protect the work.
b. A stormwater maintenance agreement.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT A
The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 119, Range 23.
(Torrens Property)
Torrens Certificate No. 1017215
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 1 of 3
Motion By:
Seconded By:
APPROVING PRELIMIINARY PLAT FOR “FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS AT COOK LAKE”
LOCATED NORTH OF FIR LANE AND EAST OF COOK LAKE (PID 25-119-23-11-0001)
(CITY FILE NO. 24-006)
WHEREAS, Bergeron Development (the “applicant”) requests approval of “Fairway Shores Villas
at Cook Lake” a single-family residential subdivision on the property legally described as follows:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and
recommends approval, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby approves the request for
preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions:
1. A preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan is approved for “Fairway Shores Villas
at Cook Lake”, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on
February 20, 2024, and revisions received April 10, 2024, April 12, 2024, April 23, 2024,
and April 26, 2024, except as amended by this resolution.
2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the preliminary PUD plan for
“Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake”. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of
the preliminary PUD plan approval (Resolution 2024-).
3. The preliminary plat must be revised per the requirements as noted in Resolution 2024-.
4. Park dedication is due as required by the PUD approvals, prior to the release of the final
plat for recording.
5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo for Civil
Review, dated April 23, 2024.
6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo for
stormwater, dated April 23, 2024.
7. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has
filed a complete application for approval of the final plat.
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 2 of 3
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
McKee, Tom McKee, Tom
Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon
Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy
Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of May 2024.
________________________________
Tom McKee - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________ City Seal
Michelle Friedrich – City Clerk
City of Corcoran May 23, 2024
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 119, Range 23.
(Torrens Property)
Torrens Certificate No. 1017215
Memo
To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer
Steve Hegland, PE
Project: Fairway Shores Pre-Plat Civil Review Date: April 23, 2024
Exhibits:
This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents:
1. Fairway Shores Pre-Plat Plans revision dated 04/04/2024.
Comments:
General:
1. Consistent with the review process, a comment response letter shall be provided in which the
applicant provides a written response to each of the items below.
2. In addition to engineering comments, the proposed plans are subject to review by planning, zoning,
and land-use and shall meet other applicable codes of the City of Corcoran.
3. Final approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission must be attained before any
site grading or activity may commence.
4. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed within the
City ROW or easements.
5. Update any Corcoran Standard detail plate references to the 2024 revision.
6. The development shall comply with the conditions and requirements as outlined in the Infrastructure
Feasibility Study for the development.
Plat:
1. Show scale and north arrow on sheets 7 and 8, “Preliminary Site and Utility Plan”.
2. Confirm that sufficient drainage and utility easement is provided for storm sewer on Block 4 Lot 8.
3. Outlots shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easements.
4. Show easements on site and utility plans. Additional easements may be necessary based on the
review of updated plans. The required easements could impact lot placement and layout depending
on the location and depth of utilities.
Erosion Control/SWPPP
1. Preparation of and compliance with a SWPPP shall be required for construction.
2. Erosion control plan will be reviewed during final plat review.
April 23, 2024
Fairway Shores
Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran
Page 2 of 3
Transportation
1. All roads shall be signed no parking on one side of the roadway with no parking signs required within
all cul-de-sacs. Final no parking and stop sign locations to be coordinated at time of final plat.
2. All pedestrian ramps shall be ADA compliant and detailed designs shall be provided for all landings
showing elevations in compliance with those requirements.
3. Street grades shall be reviewed during final plat review once profiles have been provided.
4. Review connection to bituminous trail from Bass Lake Crossings development. Record plans show
existing trial as 10’ wide which will need to be transitioned to with proposed trail.
5. Provide B618 curb in areas adjacent to greenspaces and around radius of intersections.
6. Trail alignment in NW corner of the site shall align with adjacent development.
7. Roadways are terminated at shared property boundary with proposed development to the west. If
development does not occur, temporary turnarounds and easements and modifications to the
drainage maybe necessary with this development.
8. The pedestrian corridors were reviewed vs the pedestrian crosswalk policy. Where the trail crosses
Street C, curb extensions should be incorporated due to the mid-block crossing. ADA compliant
pedestrian landings will be required at all pedestrian crossings and intersections.
9. Sidewalk shall be extended into cul-de-sacs
10. Development will have singular access point in the SW until the adjacent parcel to the west develops
to complete the roadway connections.
11. An existing easement for limited access exists for this property across the adjacent parcel. If no
longer necessary for this development, the easement should be terminated.
12. Provide street draintile, including appropriate cleanouts. See City Standard Details for draintile
information.
Site Plans
1. The existing and proposed drainage and utility easements shown shall be clearly labeled on all plan
drawings. The wetland buffer zones shall also be clearly identified and labeled.
2. Street lighting locations will be shown on the development plans. Final location will be reviewed and
determined with the small utility permit.
Grading /Stormwater
1. Rational calculations shall be provided to confirm all pipe sizes and inlet capacity at the time of final
plat.
2. Storm pipe size, rim and invert information shall be shown on plans.
3. All drainage swales shall maintain a minimum of 2% slope and all slopes should be 4:1 or flatter
unless approved by the city engineer.
4. All walls higher than 4’ shall be designed by a certified engineer and the design and certification of
those walls shall be provided to the city.
5. Provide top and bottom spot elevations for all retaining walls on grading sheets.
6. Adjust wetland buffer so retaining wall 3 is not in the buffer.
7. Easements shall be provided over all storm sewer pipes not in ROW. Easements shall be shown on
the utility plan to ensure they are adequate. Easement will be required over all maintenance routes to
ponds, inlet and outlets.
April 23, 2024
Fairway Shores
Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran
Page 3 of 3
8. Sumps will be required in all storm structures with drops in of 18” or greater as well as the last
accessible structures prior to stormwater basins.
9. Wetland buffer signage shall be clearly identified and labeled.
10. The grading plans shall clearly identify whether designated wetland buffers within the site are to
utilize existing vegetation or if new vegetation will be established for the buffers. If existing vegetation
is to be utilized, the vegetation shall be approved by the City Wetland specialist. For buffers to be
established, a plan identifying the establishment and maintenance procedures shall be provided at
the time of Final Plat.
11. Display NWL and HWL for all wetlands and ponds on stormwater plans and grading plans.
12. All pond access routes to storm sewer infrastructure to be 12’ wide.
13. Review drainage swale at northern property line to confirm 2% grade is maintained throughout the
swale.
14. Provide profiles for all storm sewer for final plat review.
15. Grading to west property line relies on adjacent development to collect and manage stormwater. If
adjacent development does not proceed on shared timeline, development shall be responsible for all
management of stormwater which could impact lot layout or require easements to be obtained from
adjacent land.
16. Specify trash guards and rip rap for flared ends where necessary.
Watermain/Sanitary Sewer
1. Plan and profiles for all utilities shall be provided at the time of final plat submittals.
2. Valve locations to be reviewed at time of final plat. Generally, valves shall be located at all
intersection as one less valve than the number of legs. Valves should typically be located out from the
end radius points unless specific circumstances don’t allow.
3. Hydrant spacing to be reviewed by public safety at time of final plat.
4. Include plan notes that connection to existing manholes are to be core drilled and will use a watertight
boot.
5. Coordinate water connections with adjacent development.
6. Watermain along Street A should be reduced at connection and be 8” through the site.
7. Grading in rear of Lot 13 Block 2 appears to be cutting over watermain. Profile must be provided to
ensure adequate cover is maintained and if not, grading shall be adjusted to ensure adequate cover.
8. Plans shall provide details in how existing sanitary manholes will be adjusted. Many of the
adjustments will require additional manhole sections to be added.
9. Show profile for existing trunk watermain along the rear yards of Blocks 2 and 4. There appears that
additional fill is being placed over the watermain which may require a portion of the watermain to be
reinstalled with the development to ensure it is accessible.
End of Comments
Memo
To: Kevin Mattson, PE Public Works
Director City of Corcoran
From: Kent Torve, PE, City Engineer
Steve Hegland, PE, Client Manager
Project: Stormwater Comments Fairway Shores
Villas at Cook Lake Development
Project
Date: 4/23/2024
Exhibits:
This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents:
· Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake Civil Plans by Carlson McCain dated 2/20/2024
· Stormwater Management Plan for Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake by Carlson McCain dated
2/20/2024
Comments:
General:
· Final approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC) must be attained
before any site grading or activity may begin.
o City needs to authorize submittal to ECWMC.
· The City strongly recommends the equalizer channel and pipe be removed for the stormwater ponds
and a filter bench adjacent to the BMP be incorporated.
Adjacent Development
1. If the adjacent development to the west does not proceed or does not have the same construction
timing, then Fairway Shores must obtain an easement or other permission to install and manage the
property line drainage with this development.
Cook Lake Zone A Floodplain
2. The HEC-HMS model for ECWMC shows a BFE of 943.6
3. Show and label floodplain on plan sheets.
Stormsewer and Outlet Structures (OCS)
4. Provide callouts for stormsewer elevations, sizes, slopes, materials, etc.
5. The current design discharges the majority of the site into a central wetland that flows down a natural
channel to a culvert under the trail and Cook Lake. This will be unstable over the long term, therefore
the main BMP discharge should be routed down to Cook Lake via stormsewer and drop manholes or
through a natural channel reconstruction while also providing a 12-inch diversion pipe to provide
hydrology to the wetland. Prior to discharge at Cook Lake, a stilling basin needs to be constructed to
dissipate energy.
a. Trail crossing shall be above the 10-year elevation at the trail culvert.
April 23, 2024
Fairway Shores
Kevin Mattson
Page 2 of 2
6. Draintile discharge from the two filtration basins should be separated, or alternatively upsize the main
draintile downstream of combination location.
Ponds/BMPs
7. EOFs shall be 1 ft above the HWL.
8. Raise the berm between Pond 100 and FB 101 to be above the 10-year HWL.
9. Use City standard detail for filtration basin cross section.
Drainage Maps
10. Ensure drainage area maps have the correct scale.
Modeling
11. Start all ponds at the lowest controlling outlet, instead of the drawdown elevation.
12. Use the NRCS Web Soil Survey to determine HSGs.
13. Provide a HydroCAD model that matches plans. For example:
a. In Pond P100, the 15” outlet pipe to P101 has an outlet elevation of 961.50, which is below
the filtration basin bottom.
b. The equalizer pipe between FB 101 and FB 102 has an elevation of 961.0 on the plans and
962.0 in the HydroCAD.
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF CORCORAN
8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340
763.420.2288
E-mail - general@corcoranmn.gov / Web Site – www.corcoranmn.gov
Memo
To: Planning (Planners Lindahl and Davis McKeown)
From: Lieutenant Burns
Date: March 6, 2024
Re: City File 24-006 Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake Preliminary Plat and PUD
A Public Safety plan review meeting was held on March 6, 2024, to review the submitted application
for the Northeast Industrial Concept Plan. In attendance were the following: Police Chief Gottschalk,
Lieutenant Burns, Fire Chief Leuer, Deputy Fire Marshall Skow, Building Official Rosenau,
Construction Services Supervisor Pritchard, Permit Technician Zuther, and Planner Davis McKeown.
The comments below are based on the preliminary review of the preliminary plat and are intended as
initial feedback. Further plan review will need to be completed as construction plans are finalized.
1. Cul-de-sacs need to be built to City Specifications.
2. Street C and Street B need to connect to Chastek property to the west.
3. Fire hydrants will require sign-off by Public Works and the Fire Chief.
Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake
Development Narrative
Revised 4/10/24.
Property: Leuer Parcel in Corcoran/Maple Grove
PID: 25-119-23-11-0001 40.56 Acres
PID: 30-119-22-20-0002 16.54 Acres
Property Owners: Catherine & Peter Leuer
Developer-Bergeron Homes & Development, Inc.
Mike Bergeron: 612-388-2553 bergeronhomes@hotmail.com
Concept Sketch Plans: Carlson McCain
Brian Krystofiak: 763-489-7905 bkrystofiak@carlsonmccain.com
Proposed Zoning: PUD (Shoreland Development)
• Lots: 75 Single Family Lots (20 lots are 55’ wide, 55 lots are larger)
§ 55’ Minimum Lot Width
§ 125’ Minimum Lot Depth
§ Except Lot 1, Block 1
§ 6,875 sf Minimum Lot Area
§ 9,405 sf Average Lot Area
§ 13,454 sf Largest Lot Area
§ Front Yard Set Back: 25’
§ Side Yard Set Back: 7.5 each Side, 15’ Total
§ Side Yard Setback Corner Lot: 25’
§ Rear Yard Setback: 25’
§ 5’ Concrete Walks
§ 8’ Paved Trail
Bergeron Homes & Development, Inc would like to create a luxury villa community with 75
single-family one-story villa style homes on a combined 57.1 (40.56 & 16.54) acres of land
located along Cook Lake NE, also bordering Rush Creek Golf Course, and the Bass Lake
Crossing villa development. The entrance for this development will be at the end of Fir Ln
in the Bass Lake Crossings neighborhood. The neighborhood will include walking trails,
green spaces, and sidewalks around the development. There will be a custom
neighborhood monument with landscaping located in Outlot E, on the east side as you
enter Fairway Shores Villas.
The proposed development would consist of detached Luxury villa style homes. We will
have several different floor plans and numerous different front elevations to choose from.
Floor plans will be a minimum of 1650 square feet on the main level, with the lower levels
completed. The finished square footage will be 2600-3400. Therefore, be a welcome
addition to the City of Corcoran’s tax base.
The Villa style homes will be just like the villas we are currently building in our “Timbers
Edge” Development in Plymouth. The exteriors will be fully sided with James Hardie siding
or LP Smart Side. There will be a mix of siding textures for the fronts, using shakes, board &
batten, lap siding and adding real stone accents, in addition to concrete front porches and
30-year architectural shingles. We like to mix up the colors, textures, and lines on a home
to make each home look a little different. On Corner lots, we do 4-sided architecture.
There will be a Master HOA with rules & regulations that all residence will adhere to. This
master association will oversee the monumentation, mailboxes, landscape, retention
basins and other common elements.
Zoning:
We are asking for the rezoning to continue building our villa style homes. They
are in high demand for residences seeking low maintenance living with a smaller
footprint. Villa style homes within a PUD promote a sense of community by
clustering residences around shared amenities such as parks, walking trails,
and green spaces. This type of development layout, in addition to adding a front
porch on each home, encourages social interaction among residences creating
a tight knit neighborhood atmosphere.
This proposed Villa development aims to cater to residents seeking a
combination of comfortable single-story living, low maintenance lifestyle and
community amenities such as walking trails & greenspace. We will have a
variety of home styles and lot sizes. There will a monthly HOA fee for snow
removal & lawn mowing. So, all the residents need to do is enjoy it.
Bass Lake Crossings is a similar development to the south of this property.
Rush Creek Golf Course is to the north; Cook Lake runs along the east and a
possible development to the west that sounds somewhat like ours. The impacts
on the surrounding properties will be minimal. It’s fairly secluded by Rush Creek
Golf Course and Cook Lake. 16 acres of Cook Lake is part of the purchase of the
development property.
The Villa style developments primarily attract retired people. Some even leave
to go south for the winters. The trips per day per household are much lower than
the 2 story developments attracting predominantly young families, that go to
and from work, children’s activities, etc. The HOA will also limit traffic by using
one company for lawn or snow and another for sanitation, so they all come on
the same day cutting down on traffic.
This site is primarily open rolling farmland with minimal existing trees. The
existing trees will be kept in the designated open space areas. The retention
pond will capture and treat stormwater. Environmental Impacts are minimal.
Only one wetland will be filled (Wetland #5, it’s 0.15 in size and MnRAM rating of
low) the rest will be preserved. Pictured below.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
The proposed site, Fairway Shores Villas has shoreland restrictions. The flexibility of a PUD
to maximize lot count to take advantage of the views of Cook Lake and Rush Creek Golf
Course. Our concept plan for this property needed to address building height
requirements from the Shoreland Overlay District. The lot sizes in the RSF-2 zoning
wouldn’t allow us to come close to the units per acre requirement. The PUD is the best fit
for our villa style homes. Varying lot sizes to accommodate the several villa styles along
with the one level to meet the height requirements for the Shoreland Overlay District.
Corcoran PUD Public Benefits Policy.
Criteria #11 Internal Trail Connections-The trail connection for the development
connects to the existing trail, south of the property. It will run all the way to the north end
of the development, turn to the west and stub into the Chastek land for a future
connection. When the trail runs to the north end of the development, it connects to the
sidewalk proposed in the interior of the development. Making a full loop around the
neighborhood, and scenic views of Cook Lake to the east of the trail.
Criteria #16 Natural Resources -The proposed development was designed around the
natural resources that were existing in, and around wetland #2, including the trees around
it.
Criteria #19. Use of Preferred Trees in Landscaping- We have changed our Landscape
plan to include trees & shrubs from the Northeast District Plan.
Criteria #21. Higher Architectural standards. All homes in this proposed development
will have the entire exterior siding with either James Hardie or LP Smartside. Each siding
company offers 20+ prefinished colors. The majority, if not all the homes will include a
stamped concrete front porch. We use real stone accents, 30-year Architectural shingles,
and designer embellishments. On homes with corner lots, those homes will have added
interest from all viewable sides.
Criteria # 22. Lot Size Varity. Over 10% of the lots are 65’ wide or larger. We have 52 out
of 75 lots that are over 7500 Square feet.
Criteria #23. Larger Tree Sizes. We have made tree size changes to go from 2.5”
overstory trees, to 3” or larger Trees depending on availability. 3” are available currently,
but over that is tough to find in our market. We would like to use 4” if possible, at the time
of planting. We have also increased our 6’ Evergreen trees to 6-8’, also depending on the
availability at the time of planting.
We held an Open House at our Model Home In our “Villas at Timbers Edge” neighborhood
in Plymouth on November 2nd. We thought it would be helpful to show neighbors exactly
what we plan to build and how our current development looks. In attendance, we had
Mathew Sumers, the President of the Bass Lake Crossings neighborhood. Lynn Alberts,
Treasurer of the Bass Lake Crossings Neighborhood, and Mary Munsterteiger, a Realtor
from the Bass Lake Crossings neighborhood. Natalie Davis with the City of Corcoran also
attended. We were pleased to hear all the positive comments and feedback on our
project.
Concept Elevations
This message was sent from outside of the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
From:Dan Sanford
To:Natalie Davis
Cc:bergeronhomes@hotmail.com
Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 11:57:13 AM
Hello Natalie,
This is Dan Sanford at Grove Nursery,9650 Trail Haven Rd. Corcoran. I recently reviewed a landscape
plan with Mike Bergeron of Bergeron Homes. The project name is Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake.
Mike shared with me that you are the planner for this project. I just wanted to offer a few
observations that I have with the current landscape plan. Mike had mentioned that the overstory
tree’s for the boulevard are suppose to be 4” caliper tree’s? I have concerns in planting this size
trees for mainly 2 reasons,
1. Availability- The majority of tree growers in Minnesota do not offer a 4” caliper tree, typically
the largest offered is 3”caliper.
2. Transplant success- It has also been our experience that the larger the tree transplanted the
higher the risk of transplant failure. We would recommend 3” caliper maximum for the best
expectation of long term tree viability.
Feel free to reach out or even stop by the nursery at your convenience so I can answer any questions
you may have.
Best Regards!
Dan Sanford
GROVE NURSERY
dan@grovenursery.com
Phone: 763-420-4202
Cell: 612-685-3176
B A S S L A
K
E
C R O S S I N
G
1 S T A D D
I
T
I
O
N
RUSH
C
R
E
E
K
G
O
L
F
C
O
U
R
S
E
CO
O
K
L
A
K
E
CH
A
S
T
E
K
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake
Corcoran, Minnesota
VICINITY MAP
SITE
COVER
1
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_cover.dwgSave Date:04/26/24
14
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
JJO
2/20/24
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.
25063
BJK
#10789
2. 4/26/24 Rev. Shts. 9-11 Per City Comments
OWNER:
OW
N
E
R
:
OWNER:
OWNER:
OW
N
E
R
:
OWNER:
OWNER:
OWNER:
CO
O
K
L
A
K
E
FI
R
L
A
N
E
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\survey\preplat\10789_excon.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Thomas R. Balluff, L.S.I hereby certify that this survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #: 2/20/24 40361
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
FILE NO:
Revisions:
14
2NJS/BJS
2/20/24
2687
LEGEND
STREET C STREET
C
STREET
C
B
STR
E
E
T
A
ST
R
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
D
STRE
E
T
E
OWNER:
OW
N
E
R
:
OWNER:
OWNER:
OW
N
E
R
:
OWNER:
OWNER:
OWNER:
CO
O
K
L
A
K
E
ST
R
E
E
T
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\survey\preplat\10789_preplat index.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
PRELIMINARY PLAT INDEX
Thomas R. Balluff, L.S.I hereby certify that this survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #: 2/20/24 40361
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
FILE NO:14
3NJS
2/20/24
2687
LEGEND
SEE SHEET 5
SEE SHEET 4
SITE DATA
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 per City Comments
OWNER:OWNER:
OWNER:
CO
O
K
L
A
K
E
ST.
B
FI
R
L
A
N
E
STR
E
E
T
E
ST
R
E
E
T
A
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\survey\preplat\10789_preplat.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Thomas R. Balluff, L.S.I hereby certify that this survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #: 2/20/24 40361
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
FILE NO:
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 per City Comments
14
4NJS
2/20/24
2687
OW
N
E
R
:
OW
N
E
R
:
OWNER:OWNER:
OWNER:
CO
O
K
L
A
K
E
STREET C
STREET C
ST
R
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
D
STREET
C
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\survey\preplat\10789_preplat.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Thomas R. Balluff, L.S.I hereby certify that this survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #: 2/20/24 40361
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
FILE NO:14
5NJS
2/20/24
2687
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 per City Comments
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_site.dwgSave Date:04/10/24
14
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
JJO
2/20/24
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.
25063
BJK
#10789
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
PRELIMINARY SITE &
UTILITY PLAN INDEX
6
SITE PLAN LEGEND
SHORELAND
TIER 1 (320')
SHORELAND
TIER 2 (320')
SHORELAND
TIER 3 (360')
OHW
(942.37)
OHW
(942.37)
SHORELAND
TIER 1 (320')
SHORELAND
TIER 2 (320')
SHORELAND
TIER 3 (360')
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_site.dwgSave Date:04/09/24
14
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
JJO
2/20/24
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.
25063
BJK
#10789
PRELIMINARY SITE &
UTILITY PLAN
7
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_site.dwgSave Date:04/09/24
14
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
JJO
2/20/24
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.
25063
BJK
#10789
PRELIMINARY SITE &
UTILITY PLAN
8
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_gr.dwgSave Date:04/26/24
14
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
JJO
2/20/24
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.
25063
BJK
#10789
GRADING INDEX
9
WETLAND FILL SUMMARY
PROPOSED WETLAND BUFFER
1-MEDIUM
3-MEDIUM
2-MEDIUM
5-LOW
WETLAND 1
MEDIUM
WETLAND 1
MEDIUM
WETLAND 3
MEDIUM
WETLAND 2
MEDIUM
WETLAND 5
LOW
SHORELAND
TIER 1 (320')
SHORELAND
TIER 2 (320')
SHORELAND
TIER 3 (360')OHW
(942.37)
OHW
(942.37)
SHORELAND
TIER 1 (320')
SHORELAND
TIER 2 (320')SHORELAND
TIER 3 (360')
2. 4/26/24 Rev. Wetland 1 Per City Comments
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_gr.dwgSave Date:04/26/24
14
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
JJO
2/20/24
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.
25063
BJK
#10789
PRELIMINARY GRADING
& EROSION CONTROL PLAN
102. 4/26/24 Rev. Wetland 1 Per City Comments
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_gr.dwgSave Date:04/26/24
14
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
JJO
2/20/24
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.
25063
BJK
#10789
PRELIMINARY GRADING
& EROSION CONTROL PLAN
112. 4/26/24 Rev. Wetland 1 Per City Comments
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_detail.dwgSave Date:03/15/24
14
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
JJO
2/20/24
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.
25063
BJK
#10789
DETAILS
12
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_detail.dwgSave Date:03/15/24
14
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
JJO
2/20/24
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.
25063
BJK
#10789
FRA
M
E
CU
R
B
FR
A
M
E
DETAILS
13
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_detail.dwgSave Date:03/15/24
14
Revisions:
1. 4/4/24 Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
JJO
2/20/24
Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.
25063
BJK
#10789
968
966
964
962
960
962
968
966
964
962
968
966
964
968
966
964
962
960
RETAINING WALL PROFILES
14
962
968
966
964
962
968
966
964
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\landscape\10789_landscape.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1
EXISTING GRADE
GUY WIRE WITH WEBBING
FLAGGING- ONE PER WIRE
PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE SPEC.)
MINIMUM 1/2 WIDTH OF ROOT BALL
4"-6" SHREDDED BARK
MULCH
UNDISTURBED OR STABILIZED
SUBSOIL
NOTE: GUY ASSEMBLY OPTIONAL BUT
CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FULL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING TREE
IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE
DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD
GUY ASSEMBLY- 16"
POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE
(40 MIL) 1-1/2" WIDE STRAP (TYP)
DOUBLE STRAND 10 GA. WIRE, 2-7"
ROLLED STEEL POSTS (MnDOT 3401)
@ 180° O.C. (SEE STAKING DIAGRAM)
COORDINATE
STAKING TO INSURE
UNIFORM
ORIENTATION OF GUY
LINES AND STAKES
2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/OR
DEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT A LEADER. DO
NOT PAINT CUTS.
4. PLACE PLANT IN PLANTING HOLE WITH
BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT.
BACKFILL WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE
TOP OF ROOTBALL, WATER PLANT. REMOVE
TOP 1/3
OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO
HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM TOP
1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE.
3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL
OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL.
INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR
UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE.
6. WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL
VOIDS.
5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH
BACKFILL SOIL.
7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF
INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BE
SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE
ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE.
8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF
THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL
MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE.
1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE
PRIOR TO PLANTING
PLAN
TREE WRAP
BACKFILL MIX
PAINTED FLUORESCENT ORANGE
WHITE FLAGGING (TYP.)
DOUBLE STRAND 12 GAUGE WIRE
8" 2-PLY NYLON STRAPS
8' STEEL TEE POST-
4 INCHES HARDWOOD MULCH
FROM TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL
REMOVE BURLAP & ROPE
UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL
4 INCH DEEP SAUCER
NOTE: SEE PLANTING NOTES FOR THE TYPE OF MULCH MATERIAL TO USE.
12"
6"
2'
(
M
I
N
.
)
6"
6"3 REQUIRED AT 120
2'
(
M
I
N
.
)
6"12"
UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL
( SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES
FOR TYPE OF MULCH )
REMOVE BURLAP & ROPE
FROM TOP 1/3 OF BALL
IF SHRUB IS B & B, THEN
BACKFILL MIX
4 INCHES MULCH
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
11
KC
6
RB
6
HL
4
RM
9
BL
5
FM
10
HB
12
WO
5
RM
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\landscape\10789_landscape.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
4
FM
5
SB
6
CA
5
WP
6
BH
10
AE
4
BL
5
RM
1
VBC
3
JSG
3
KFG
4
RTD
3
SPG
3
KFG
19
DLB
7
SCS
13
LRS
4
SPG
9
DBH
3
KFG
16
DLB
3
SPG
3
JSG
3
RTD
3
KFG
SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CONTAINER
TREES
RM 14 Acer rubrum `Northwood`Northwood Red Maple 2.5" Cal.B&B
FM 9 Acer x freemanii `Sienna`Sienna Glen Maple 2.5" Cal.B&B
RB 6 Betula nigra
Clump Form, 2.5" Cal Equivalent River Birch Multi-Trunk 10` Ht.B&B
HB 10 Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry 2.5" Cal.B&B
HL 6 Gleditsia triacanthos inermis `Harve`Northern Acclaim Thornless Honey Locust 2.5" Cal.B&B
KC 11 Gymnocladus dioica `Espresso`Kentucky Coffeetree 2.5" Cal.B&B
WO 12 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak 2.5" Cal.B&B
BL 13 Tilia americana `Boulevard`Boulevard Linden 2.5" Cal.B&B
AE 10 Ulmus americana `Princeton`American Elm 2.5" Cal.B&B
CONIFEROUS TREES
BH 6 Picea glauca densata Black Hills Spruce 6` Ht.B&B
WP 5 Pinus strobus White Pine 6` Ht.B&B
ORNAMENTAL TREES
SB 5 Amelanchier x grandiflora `Autumn Brilliance`
Clump Form, 1.5" Cal Equivalent Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry 7` Ht.B&B
CA 6 Malus x `Prairifire`
Red Flowers Prairifire Crabapple 1.5" Cal.B&B
SHRUBS
RTD 7 Cornus sericea `Alleman`s Compact`Dwarf Red Twig Dogwood #5 Cont.
DBH 9 Diervilla lonicera Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle #5 Cont.
SPG 10 Spiraea x bumalda `Goldflame`
Gold Foliage, Red Flowers Goldflame Spirea #5 Cont.
VBC 1 Viburnum trilobum `Bailey Compact`
Red Fall Color Bailey`s Compact American Cranberry Bush #5 Cont.
EVERGREEN SHRUBS
JSG 6 Juniperus chinensis `Sea Green`Sea Green Juniper #5 Cont.
GRASSES
KFG 12 Calamagrostis x acutiflora `Karl Foerster`Feather Reed Grass #3 Cont.
PERENNIALS
DLB 35 Hemerocallis x `Baja`
Red Flowers Baja Daylily #1 Cont.
LRS 13 Perovskia atriplicifolia `Little Spire`Little Spire Russian Sage #1 Cont.
SCS 7 Sedum spectabile `Autumn Joy`Stonecrop #1 Cont.
GROUND COVERS
ROCK 507 sf Rock Mulch
Non-Woven Geotextile Incidental 1.5" Trap Rock Mulch 4" Depth
TI 135,095 sf
Type I - Turf Seed Mix
Refer to notes for acceptable seeding methods
Seeding Rate 180 lb/ac
MnDOT Seed Mix 25-151 seed
TII 73,799 sf
Type II - Stormwater Seed Mix
Refer to notes for acceptable seeding
methods. Seeding Rate 52.0 lb/ac
MnDOT Seed Mix 33-261 seed
TIII 220,613 sf
Type III - Native Seed Mix
Refer to notes for acceptable seeding
methods. Seeding Rate 50.0 lb/ac
MnDOT Seed Mix 35-241 seed
PLANT SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLAN
L3BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\landscape\10789_landscape.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_tree.dwgSave Date:04/10/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City Comments
2.04/23/24 - Per Owner Comments
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
T1
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
4
VICINITY MAP
SITE
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_tree.dwgSave Date:04/10/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City Comments
2.04/23/24 - Per Owner Comments
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
T2
4
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_tree.dwgSave Date:04/10/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City Comments
2.04/23/24 - Per Owner Comments
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
T3
4
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_tree.dwgSave Date:04/10/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City Comments
2.04/23/24 - Per Owner Comments
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
TREE INVENTORY
T4
4
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\landscape\10789_landscape.dwgSave Date:04/10/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City Comments
2.04/23/24 - Per Owner Comments
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1
EXISTING GRADE
GUY WIRE WITH WEBBING
FLAGGING- ONE PER WIRE
PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE SPEC.)
MINIMUM 1/2 WIDTH OF ROOT BALL
4"-6" SHREDDED BARK
MULCH
UNDISTURBED OR STABILIZED
SUBSOIL
NOTE: GUY ASSEMBLY OPTIONAL BUT
CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FULL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING TREE
IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE
DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD
GUY ASSEMBLY- 16"
POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE
(40 MIL) 1-1/2" WIDE STRAP (TYP)
DOUBLE STRAND 10 GA. WIRE, 2-7"
ROLLED STEEL POSTS (MnDOT 3401)
@ 180° O.C. (SEE STAKING DIAGRAM)
COORDINATE
STAKING TO INSURE
UNIFORM
ORIENTATION OF GUY
LINES AND STAKES
2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/OR
DEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT A LEADER. DO
NOT PAINT CUTS.
4. PLACE PLANT IN PLANTING HOLE WITH
BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT.
BACKFILL WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE
TOP OF ROOTBALL, WATER PLANT. REMOVE
TOP 1/3
OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO
HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM TOP
1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE.
3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL
OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL.
INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR
UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE.
6. WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL
VOIDS.
5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH
BACKFILL SOIL.
7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF
INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BE
SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE
ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE.
8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF
THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL
MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE.
1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE
PRIOR TO PLANTING
PLAN
TREE WRAP
BACKFILL MIX
PAINTED FLUORESCENT ORANGE
WHITE FLAGGING (TYP.)
DOUBLE STRAND 12 GAUGE WIRE
8" 2-PLY NYLON STRAPS
8' STEEL TEE POST-
4 INCHES HARDWOOD MULCH
FROM TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL
REMOVE BURLAP & ROPE
UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL
4 INCH DEEP SAUCER
NOTE: SEE PLANTING NOTES FOR THE TYPE OF MULCH MATERIAL TO USE.
12"
6"
2'
(
M
I
N
.
)
6"
6"3 REQUIRED AT 120
2'
(
M
I
N
.
)
6"12"
UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL
( SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES
FOR TYPE OF MULCH )
REMOVE BURLAP & ROPE
FROM TOP 1/3 OF BALL
IF SHRUB IS B & B, THEN
BACKFILL MIX
4 INCHES MULCH
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_buffer exhibit.dwgSave Date:04/10/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City CommentsPrint Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
1
WETLAND BUFFER PLAN
1
A. Where acceptable natural vegetation exists in buffer strip areas, the
retention of such vegetation in an undisturbed state is preferred. A buffer
strip has acceptable natural vegetation if it:
1. Has a continuous, dense layer of perennial grasses that have been
uncultivated or unbroken for at least 10 consecutive years, or
2. Has an overstory of trees and/or shrubs with at least 80 percent
canopy closure that have been uncultivated or unbroken for at least
10 consecutive years, or
3. Contains a mixture of the plant communities described in (1) and (2)
above, that have been uncultivated or unbroken for at least 10
consecutive years.
B. Notwithstanding the above performance standards, the City may
determine existing buffer vegetation to be unacceptable if:
1. It is composed of undesirable plant species (including, but not limited
to reed canary grass, common buckthorn, purple loosestrife, leafy
spurge and noxious weeds), or
2. It is lacking a layer of organic thatch or duff, or
3. Has topography that tends to channelize the flow of surface runoff, or
4. For some other reason it is unlikely to retain nutrients and sediment.
C. Where buffer areas, or a portion thereof, are not vegetated or have been
cultivated or otherwise disturbed within 10 years of the permit
application, such areas shall be re-planted and maintained according to
each of the following standards:
1. The soil in wetland buffer strips shall be amended, as necessary, to
ensure that the soil has an organic content of not less than 10 percent
and not more than 20 percent.
2. Buffer zones shall be planted with a seed mix containing 100 percent
perennial native plant species, except for a one-time planting of an
annual nurse or cover crop such as oats or rye.
3. The seed mix to be used shall consist of at least 12 pounds pure live
seed (PLS) per acre of native prairie grass seed and 5 pounds PLS per
acre of native forbs. Native prairie grass and native forb mixes shall
contain no fewer than 4 and 5 species respectively.
4. The annual nurse or cover crop shall be applied at a rate of 20 pounds
per acre.
5. Native shrubs may be substituted for forbs. Such shrubs may be bare
root seedlings and shall be planted at a rate of 60 plants per acre.
Shrubs shall be distributed so as to provide a natural appearance and
shall not be planted in rows.
6. Any ground cover or shrub plantings installed in buffer areas are
independent of landscaping requirements set forth elsewhere in the
City Code and City policy.
7. Native prairie grasses and forbs shall be planted by a qualified
contractor using a drill designed for native prairie grass seedlings,
such as a Truax or Nesbitt Native Grass Drill or a John Deere 1550
Power-Till Seeder.
8. No fertilizer shall be used in establishing new buffer zones, except on
highly disturbed sites when deemed necessary to establish acceptable
buffer vegetation and then limited to amounts indicated by an
accredited soil testing laboratory.
9. All seeded areas shall be mulched immediately with clean straw at a
rate of 1.5 tons per acre. Mulch shall be anchored with a disk or
tackifier. On slopes that are steeper than 3:1, additional soil
stabilization materials such as straw mat or coconut fiber mat shall be
used, as specified in the MnDOT Seeding Manual 2000, or most recent
MnDOT manual.
10.Buffer zones (both natural and created) shall be protected by silt
fence during construction and the fence shall remain in place until the
area crop is established.
11.Applicants may obtain from the City a set of standard seeding and
planting specifications for buffer zones that meet all City
requirements.
D. During the first 2 years, the developer shall replant any buffer vegetation
that does not survive. After 2 years, if the condition of the buffer area
changes through natural processes not caused by the property owner, the
owner shall not be required to reestablish the buffer area to meet the
standards established in this subdivision.
11
KC
6
HB
6
HL
4
RM
9
BL
5
FM
12
RL
5
RM
10
HS
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\landscape\10789_landscape.dwgSave Date:04/10/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City Comments
2.04/23/24 - Per Owner Comments
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
4
FM
5
SB
6
CA
5
WP
6
BH
10
AE
4
BL
5
RM
1
VBC
3
JSG
3
KFG
4
RTD
3
GLS
3
KFG
19
DLB
7
SCS
13
LRS
4
GLS
9
DBH
3
KFG
16
DLB
3
GLS
3
JSG
3
RTD
3
KFG
SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CONTAINER
TREES
RM 14 Acer rubrum `Northwood`Northwood Red Maple 3-4" Cal.B&B
FM 9 Acer x freemanii `Sienna`Sienna Glen Maple 3-4" Cal.B&B
HB 6 Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry 3-4" Cal.B&B
HS 10 Gleditsia triacanthos 'Skycole'Skyline Honeylocust 3-4" Cal.B&B
HL 6 Gleditsia triacanthos inermis `Harve`Northern Acclaim Thornless Honey Locust 3-4" Cal.B&B
KC 11 Gymnocladus dioica `Espresso`Kentucky Coffeetree 3-4" Cal.B&B
RL 12 Tilia americana 'Redmond'Redmond Linden 3-4" Cal.B&B
BL 13 Tilia americana `Boulevard`Boulevard Linden 3-4" Cal.B&B
AE 10 Ulmus americana `Princeton`American Elm 3-4" Cal.B&B
CONIFEROUS TREES
BH 6 Picea glauca densata Black Hills Spruce 6-8` Ht.B&B
WP 5 Pinus strobus White Pine 6-8` Ht.B&B
ORNAMENTAL TREES
SB 5 Amelanchier x grandiflora `Autumn Brilliance`
Clump Form, 1.5" Cal Equivalent Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry 7` Ht.B&B
CA 6 Malus x `Prairifire`
Red Flowers Prairifire Crabapple 1.5" Cal.B&B
SHRUBS
RTD 7 Cornus sericea `Alleman`s Compact`Dwarf Red Twig Dogwood #5 Cont.
DBH 9 Diervilla lonicera Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle #5 Cont.
GLS 10 Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'Gro-Low Sumac #5 Cont.
VBC 1 Viburnum trilobum `Bailey Compact`
Red Fall Color Bailey`s Compact American Cranberry Bush #5 Cont.
EVERGREEN SHRUBS
JSG 6 Juniperus chinensis `Sea Green`Sea Green Juniper #5 Cont.
GRASSES
KFG 12 Calamagrostis x acutiflora `Karl Foerster`Feather Reed Grass #3 Cont.
PERENNIALS
DLB 35 Hemerocallis x `Baja`
Red Flowers Baja Daylily #1 Cont.
LRS 13 Perovskia atriplicifolia `Little Spire`Little Spire Russian Sage #1 Cont.
SCS 7 Sedum spectabile `Autumn Joy`Stonecrop #1 Cont.
GROUND COVERS
ROCK 507 sf Rock Mulch
Non-Woven Geotextile Incidental 1.5" Trap Rock Mulch 4" Depth
TI 135,095 sf
Type I - Turf Seed Mix
Refer to notes for acceptable seeding methods
Seeding Rate 180 lb/ac
MnDOT Seed Mix 25-151 seed
TII 73,799 sf
Type II - Stormwater Seed Mix
Refer to notes for acceptable seeding
methods. Seeding Rate 52.0 lb/ac
MnDOT Seed Mix 33-261 seed
TIII 220,613 sf
Type III - Native Seed Mix
Refer to notes for acceptable seeding
methods. Seeding Rate 50.0 lb/ac
MnDOT Seed Mix 35-241 seed
PLANT SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLAN
L3BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\landscape\10789_landscape.dwgSave Date:04/10/24
3
Revisions:
1.04/04/24 - Per City Comments
2.04/23/24 - Per Owner Comments
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
Drawn:
Designed:
Date:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota 2/20/24
RJR
2/20/24
Ryan J. Ruttger, RLA
56346
RJR
#10789
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
WETLAND
WETLAND
WETLAND
WE
T
L
A
N
D
STREET C STREET
C
STREET
C
B
STR
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
D
STRE
E
T
E
ST
R
E
E
T
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\survey\fairway shores open space exbt.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
PUD OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT
I hereby certify that this survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
FILE NO:
Revisions:
1
1C#
04/04/2024
2687
SITE DATA
POND
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
IN
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
AR
E
A
INFILTR
A
T
I
O
N
AREAPOND
I
N
G
AREA
10
0
Y
R
H
W
L
10
0
Y
R
H
W
L
100 Y
R
H
W
L
OH
W
10
0
0
'
S
H
O
R
E
L
A
N
D
T
I
E
R
B A S S L A
K
E
C R O S S I N
G
1 S T A D D
I
T
I
O
N
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
of
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\engineering\prelim plans\10789_phasing.dwgSave Date:04/10/24
1
Revisions:
#10789
Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake
Corcoran, Minnesota
PHASEING PLAN
1
VICINITY MAP
SITE
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
PHA
S
E
I
PHA
S
E
I
I
PHA
S
E
I
I
I
PHA
S
E
I
I
STREET C STREET
C
STREET
C
B
STR
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
D
STRE
E
T
E
ST
R
E
E
T
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\survey\10789_sba density exbt.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
PRE DEVELOPMENT NET
DENSITY EXHIBIT
I hereby certify that this survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
FILE NO:
Revisions:
3
1C#
04/04/2024
2687
SITE DATA
OH
W
WETLAND
WETLAND
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
WETLAND
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
10
0
0
'
S
H
O
R
E
L
A
N
D
T
I
E
R
STREET C STREET
C
STREET
C
B
STR
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
D
STRE
E
T
E
ST
R
E
E
T
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\survey\10789_sba density exbt.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
POST DEVELOPMENT NET
DENSITY EXHIBIT
I hereby certify that this survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
FILE NO:
Revisions:
3
2C#
04/04/2024
2687
POND
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
IN
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
AR
E
A
INFILTR
A
T
I
O
N
AREA
POND
I
N
G
AREA
10
0
Y
R
H
W
L
10
0
Y
R
H
W
L
100 Y
R
H
W
L
OH
W
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
WETLAND
WETLAND
WE
T
L
A
N
D
SITE DATA
10
0
0
'
S
H
O
R
E
L
A
N
D
T
I
E
R
STREET C STREET
C
STREET
C
B
STR
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
D
STRE
E
T
E
ST
R
E
E
T
f:\jobs\10781 - 10800\10789 - leuer parcel\cad c3d\survey\10789_sba density exbt.dwgSave Date:04/04/24
BERGERON DEVELOPMENT
2605 Campus Drive
Plymouth, MN 55446
of
FAIRWAY SHORES VILLAS
AT COOK LAKE
Corcoran, Minnesota
MET COUNSIL NET
DENSITY EXHIBIT
I hereby certify that this survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:License #:
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
FILE NO:
Revisions:
3
3C#
04/04/2024
2687
10
0
Y
R
H
W
L
10
0
Y
R
H
W
L
100 Y
R
H
W
L
OH
W
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
WETLAND
WETLAND
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
SITE DATA
10
0
0
'
S
H
O
R
E
L
A
N
D
T
I
E
R
8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340
763-420-2288 www.corcoranmn.gov
MEMO
Meeting Date: May 2, 2024
To: Planning Commission
From: Natalie Davis McKeown, Planner
Re: Commercial and Industrial Update Discussion (City File 23-023)
______________________________________________________________________
Summary
This is a continuation of a discussion regarding the updates to the commercial and
industrial districts. It was determined at the last Planning Commission meeting that it
may be best to review the table of uses one page at a time. The Planning Commission
is asked to discuss the first page of the table of uses at their May 2nd meeting. The
following questions should be kept in mind:
- Where is there room for simplification?
- What uses are missing from the table?
- Where does it or does it not make sense for a use to be included in one district over
another?
- What uses should or should not be permitted versus a conditional/interim use?
When considering the differences between districts, it will be important to keep the
purpose and intent of each district in mind. The purpose statements of each district are
provided subsequently for reference.
CR (Rural Commercial)
- Purpose. This district is the existing Burschville area located at the intersection of
County Road 19 and County Road 10. The intent of this district is to provide a mix of
neighborhood commercial uses and rural industrial, such as contractor’s yards and
similar uses that do not require municipal water or sanitary sewer services. Municipal
sewer and water will not be provided to this area.
TCR (Transitional Rural Commercial)
8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340
763-420-2288 www.corcoranmn.gov
- Purpose. The Transitional Rural Commercial District (TCR) represents transition areas
that have been identified as practical and general suitable for future development as part
of the Rural Commercial District. The purposes of the TCR District is to provide a holding
zone until a landowner makes application for development, at which time the City may
rezone the affected property to CR, consistent with the land use plan. Residential land
uses will be allowed to continue pending future redevelopment consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)
- Purpose. The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) District is to allow single
and multi-use commercial buildings containing convenience retail and service
commercial uses at major intersections on small neighborhood scale sites where public
sewer is available and sites are designated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The
district is intended to accommodate the basic needs of neighborhoods that would not
otherwise have convenient access to retail areas in the City. Due to the proximity to
residential neighborhoods new buildings shall appear to have similar scale and design
elements as the neighboring buildings. Businesses requiring exterior storage for
processing retail sales or wholesale activities are not permitted in this district. New
development within this district will be allowed only when a full range of municipal
services and facilities are available to serve the area.
C-2 (Community Commercial)
- Purpose. This district is intended to provide for a variety of retail and service businesses
serving the region, which are oriented towards motorists and require high volumes of
traffic and visibility from major roads. The service area for this area will extend beyond
the boundaries of Corcoran. New development within this district will be allowed only
when a full range of municipal services and facilities are available to serve the area.
BP (Business Park)
- Purpose. The intent of this district is to provide for the establishment of campus
developments with a variety of office, low-impact manufacturing, or assembly of a variety
of products that create no exterior noise, glare, or fumes. Uses allowed in this district are
limited to those that are compatible with lower intensity residential and business uses
and which have limited amounts of outside storage. Developments in this district will
provide a number of amenities, including architectural controls, landscaping,
preservation of natural features, etc. New development within this district will be allowed
only when a full range of municipal services and facilities are available to serve the area.
I-1 (Light Industrial)
- Purpose. The purpose of the I-1, Light Industrial District is providing for the
establishment of warehousing and light industrial development. The overall character of
the I-1 District is intended to have a low impact manufacturing/warehouse character.
Industrial uses allowed in this district shall be limited to those which can compatibly exist
adjacent to both lower intensity business uses and high intensity manufacturing uses
and which have limited amounts of truck traffic. Because I-1 may abut residential uses
the I-1 uses are regulated in height, lot coverage, setbacks, landscaping, loading, and
use type so as to facilitate compatibility between these uses and residential
8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340
763-420-2288 www.corcoranmn.gov
development. New development within this district will be allowed only when a full range
of municipal services and facilities are available to serve the area.
DMU (Downtown Mixed Use)
- Purpose. The purpose of the Downtown Mixed Use District is to provide for the orderly
and integrated development of a high quality downtown. The Downtown Mixed Use
District applies to those properties classified as Mixed Use on the 2040 Future Land Use
Plan and located on the east side of County Road 116 on both side of County Road 10.
The Downtown Mixed Use District will provide for the establishment of a community focal
point which is a blend of cultural, civic, entertainment, commercial, retail, residential, and
office uses as defined and guided by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Residential multi-
family uses shall be developed at a minimum of ten units per acre or greater. New
development within this district will be allowed only when a full range of municipal
services and facilities are available to serve the area.
GMU (General Mixed Use)
- Purpose. The purpose of the General Mixed Use District (GMU) is to provide an area for
compact, inter-connected, walkable, mixed-use development along key community
corridors and to support high quality development and site flexibility due to the unique
site conditions in theses areas. The mixture of land uses within the district is essential to
establishing the level of vitality and intensity needed to support retail and service uses. A
combination of retail, office, service, and residential uses are encouraged although not
required. Buildings may also be entirely one use. The placement of the building and the
relationship of the building, parking, landscaping, and pedestrian spaces is essential to
creating the pedestrian-friendly environment envisioned for the GMU District. The
standards in this Section are reinforced within the Design Guidelines contained in
Appendix A. New development within this district will be allowed only when a full range
of municipal services and facilities are available to serve the area.
The General Mixed Use District applies to those properties classified as Mixed Use on
the 2040 Future Land Use Plan and adjacent to County Road 30. The character of the
General Mixed Use District shall reflect high quality design due to the high visibility of
these areas at the gateway to the City at County 30. Although development in this
mixed-use district will be more auto-oriented in design than the Downtown Mixed Use
District, pedestrian connections and amenities will still be required to provide
connections to existing and future planned areas, sidewalks, and trails and to provide for
safe pedestrian circulation within the site. Landscaping, and architectural details shall be
used to unify sites within the General Mixed Use District.
Attachments
1. Table of Uses – Commercial and Industrial Districts
CR TCR C‐1C‐2BPI‐1 DMU GMU
Accessory buildings and structures for a use
accessory to the principal commercial or
business use provded such structure does
not exceed 30% of the gross floor space of
the principal use.AP AP
Accessory Dwelling Unit not exceeding 960
sq ft.AP* AP*
Accessory structutres AU AU AU AU AU AU AU AU
Accessory uses incidental and customary to
uses allowed in this Section AU AU AU AU AU AU AU AU
Adult Entertainment Business, subject to
Chapter 113 CU
Allowed Home Occupations as regulated by
Section 1030.100 AU AU
Assisted living facility C CC
Automobile Retail (tires, batteries, etc. No
body work or repair work).PC*C
Automotive detailing shops.P
Bakery, retail.PP PP
Banks, savings and loan, credit unions and
other financial institutions, with or without
drive‐through.PPP
Banks, savings and loands, credit unitons
without drive‐through.PP
Barbers, Beauty Shops and similar personal
service uses.PP PP
Car Washes C* C*
Civic Buildings, such as City Hall, libraries,
fire stations, etc.P PPPPPP
Commercial Kennel, subject to Chapter 81 CCC
Commercial printing establishments.PP
Commercial recreation and entertainment
(not to exceed 5,000 square feet).C
Commercial recreation and entertainment.CC
P ‐ Permitted Uses AU ‐ Accessory Uses C ‐ Conditional Uses.
I ‐ Interim Uses AP ‐ Administrative Permit * ‐ Subject to additional district standards
CR ‐ Rural Commercial TCR ‐ Transitional Rural Commercial C‐1 ‐ Neighborhood Commercial
C‐2 ‐ Community Commercial BP ‐ Business Park I‐1 ‐ Light Industrial
DMU ‐ Downtown Mixed Use GMU ‐ General Mixed Use
Table of Uses
CR TCR C‐1C‐2BPI‐1 DMU GMU
P ‐ Permitted Uses AU ‐ Accessory Uses C ‐ Conditional Uses.
I ‐ Interim Uses AP ‐ Administrative Permit * ‐ Subject to additional district standards
CR ‐ Rural Commercial TCR ‐ Transitional Rural Commercial C‐1 ‐ Neighborhood Commercial
C‐2 ‐ Community Commercial BP ‐ Business Park I‐1 ‐ Light Industrial
DMU ‐ Downtown Mixed Use GMU ‐ General Mixed Use
Table of Uses
Conditional Home Occupation License
(CHOL) as allowed by Section 1030.100.I
Conference centers and reception halls P
Contractors operations P
Contractors Operations, including accessory
outside storage.C
Copy/Print Shop PPP
Day Care Facilities, County licensed, 12 or
fewer individuals AU AU AU AU
Day Care Facilities, State licensed, as
defined by statute PPPP PP
Day Care, Commercial. PC
Department Stores P
Drive‐through businesses, subject to
Section 1060.060, Subd. 12 CC C
Drive‐through lanes serving permitted or
conditional uses, except for restaurants, for
which drive‐through lanes are not allowed
in the DMU. C*
Drug Stores, Variety Stores, etc. P
Dry cleaning and laundry pick up,incidental
pressing and repair without dry cleaning
processing.PP PP
Dwelling, Single‐Family Detached P
Dwelling, Attached P
Dwelling, Detached P
Dwelling, Multiple Family C
Dwelling, Multiple Family with a minimum
density of 10 units per net acre, which may
include units combining living and working
space within the unit, if all units on the
same floor of a building are the same.PP
Dwelling, Senior P
Equipment rental PU
Essential services and structures.P
Essential Services, as allowed by Section
1030.090.AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP
Farmers Market II
CR TCR C‐1C‐2BPI‐1 DMU GMU
P ‐ Permitted Uses AU ‐ Accessory Uses C ‐ Conditional Uses.
I ‐ Interim Uses AP ‐ Administrative Permit * ‐ Subject to additional district standards
CR ‐ Rural Commercial TCR ‐ Transitional Rural Commercial C‐1 ‐ Neighborhood Commercial
C‐2 ‐ Community Commercial BP ‐ Business Park I‐1 ‐ Light Industrial
DMU ‐ Downtown Mixed Use GMU ‐ General Mixed Use
Table of Uses
Fences as regulated by Section 1060 AU
Funeral Homes and Mortuaries PCC
Greenhouses and Nurseries C* C* C*
Grocery Stores (not to exceed 50,000
square feet).P
Hardware Stores.P
Health clubs and fitness centers C
Health clubs and fitness centers less than
5000 sq ft.C C
Hobby and Craft Stores P
Home Furniture and Home Furnishing
Stores.P
Hospitals, nuring home and similar care
facilities CC
Hotels, inns and bed and breakfast
establishments.C C PP
Household Applicance Stores. P
Indoor sports and recreation (commercial)
provided the structure and use is located at
least 100 feet from any residential zoning
district.P
Keeping of Animals, subject to Chapter 81 AU AU AU AU AU AU AU AU
Laboratories/research facilities.CPP
Land reclamation, mining and soil
processing I
Laundromats.P
Liquor ‐ Off‐sale/On‐sale.P
Lumber yards/building material sales.CP
Manufacturing or assembly of products
that produce no exterior noise, glare,
fumes, obnoxious products, by products or
wastes or creates other objectionable
impact on the environment.PP
Mini Storage/Self Storage Facilities. C* C*
Motor Fuel Stations.C* C* C* C
Motor Vehicle, Boat or Equipment Repair. C* C*
Motor Vehicle, Boat or Equipment Sales. C* C*
CR TCR C‐1C‐2BPI‐1 DMU GMU
P ‐ Permitted Uses AU ‐ Accessory Uses C ‐ Conditional Uses.
I ‐ Interim Uses AP ‐ Administrative Permit * ‐ Subject to additional district standards
CR ‐ Rural Commercial TCR ‐ Transitional Rural Commercial C‐1 ‐ Neighborhood Commercial
C‐2 ‐ Community Commercial BP ‐ Business Park I‐1 ‐ Light Industrial
DMU ‐ Downtown Mixed Use GMU ‐ General Mixed Use
Table of Uses
Museum C C
Nursing Home C C
Office/Warehouse PP
Offices, medical and professional.P PPPP PP
Open or outdoor services, sales and
equipment rental. C
Outdoor seating accessory to a resturant AU
Outdoor seating within public ROW or
public open space AU*
Outside Storage, accessory to an allowed
use C*
Outside Storage, as a principal use I*
Parking as a principal use I*
Place of Worship/Assembly CC C
Play and recreational facilities, including
swimming pools and tennis courts, for use
of the property owner and guests.AU
Printing and publishing.P
Public open space plaza, square or other
related uses.AU
Public parking ramp.P
Publlic and Private Clubs and Lodges. PP
Radio and television stations or studios PP
Recycling facility‐indoor P
Residential Facility in a single family
detached dwelling, serving 6 or fewer
individuals and licensed by the State P
Restaurants and cafes without drive‐
through PPP
Retail goods and service uses of a similar
nature within a fully enclosed building
(without a drive‐through and not to exceed
50,000 square feet).P
Retail goods and service uses of a similar
nature within a fully enclosed building
(without drive‐through)PPP
Retail goods and service uses of a similar
nature.PP
CR TCR C‐1C‐2BPI‐1 DMU GMU
P ‐ Permitted Uses AU ‐ Accessory Uses C ‐ Conditional Uses.
I ‐ Interim Uses AP ‐ Administrative Permit * ‐ Subject to additional district standards
CR ‐ Rural Commercial TCR ‐ Transitional Rural Commercial C‐1 ‐ Neighborhood Commercial
C‐2 ‐ Community Commercial BP ‐ Business Park I‐1 ‐ Light Industrial
DMU ‐ Downtown Mixed Use GMU ‐ General Mixed Use
Table of Uses
Retail sales related to the processing of
product on site so long as it does not
exceed 30% of the floor space of the
principal building.AU
School facility, leasing space.IU
Schools, Private C
Seasonal Outdoor Retail Sales. AP* AP AP* AP*
Seasonal Produce Stands P
Signs as regulated by the City Code. AU
Special Home Occupations as allowed by
Section 1030.100 AP
Sporting Goods and similar retail sales P
Street Vendors I
Structured parking. AU
Tailoring services, shoe repair and similar
services.P
Taverns PP PP
Technical, vocational, business and
college/univeristy satellite
facilities/schools.P
Temporary structures, subject to Section
1030.040 AP & IIIAU & II
Tenant restaurants, cafeterias, and retail
services limited to tenants of the building,
provided that they be essentially limited to
providing service to the uses of the
permitted use, and that no signs or other
evidence of these uses are visible from the
exterior of the building. AU AU
Theatre CC
Towers and Antennas (freestanding) as
regulated by Section 1060.100. CCCC C
Towers and Antennas, subject to Section
1060.100, only when co‐located on an
existing structure AP AP AP* AP AP AP
Trade Schools, Seminaries and other Higher
Education Facilities C
Veterinary clinic, Animal Hospital and
related indoor kennel; and pet grooming CCCC
CR TCR C‐1C‐2BPI‐1 DMU GMU
P ‐ Permitted Uses AU ‐ Accessory Uses C ‐ Conditional Uses.
I ‐ Interim Uses AP ‐ Administrative Permit * ‐ Subject to additional district standards
CR ‐ Rural Commercial TCR ‐ Transitional Rural Commercial C‐1 ‐ Neighborhood Commercial
C‐2 ‐ Community Commercial BP ‐ Business Park I‐1 ‐ Light Industrial
DMU ‐ Downtown Mixed Use GMU ‐ General Mixed Use
Table of Uses
Warehousing and indoor storage used in
conjunction with offices or manufacturing
facilities.P
Warehousing/distribution and indoor
storage P
Wholesale Showrooms PP
Page 1 of 4
Agenda Item 7b.
8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340
763-420-2288 www.corcoranmn.gov
MEMO
Meeting Date: April 25, 2024
To: Planning Commission
From: Dwight Klingbeil, Planning Technician
Re: Planning Project Update
Projects/comments in blue italics are new.
The following is a status summary of active planning projects:
1.Kwik Trip CUP, Lot Line Adjustment, and Site Plan (PID 12-119-23-14-0006; 12-119-
23-14- 0004) (City File 23-006)
Kwik Trip Inc. submitted a Site Plan, Lot Line Adjustment and CUP application for the
two parcels north of Mama G’s in early 2023. A feasibility study was required to
evaluate the infrastructure needs of the project. The feasibility study has been
distributed to the applicant. The applicant resubmitted application materials for this
item. Staff is currently reviewing these materials for completeness and the item is not
currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings.
2.Commercial and Industrial Development Standards (Citywide) (City File 23-023)
The purpose of this zoning ordinance amendment is to address and evaluate the
allowed uses and use specific standards within commercial and industrial
developments. The Council adopted a work plan at the November 20, 2023, regular
meeting, and requested the Planning Commission to provide their initial feedback. The
Planning Commission discussed this item at the December 5, 2023, meeting and
expressed their desire Commercial and Industrial Development Standards address a
number of items such as: specific architectural standards, infrastructure investment
incentives, encouragement toward sustainable development practices, proper
transitions of intensities and height, the permitted and conditional uses of each zoning
type, verbiage, and lighting standards City Staff prepared a survey for current
landowners and lessees to express their opinions on items addressed with this
update. Staff mailed the online survey invitation to property owners and tenants whose
property is either currently zoned, or guided for Commercial, Industrial, or Mixed-Use.
The comment period for this survey closed on January 31, 2024. Staff is reviewing the
responses in preparation for the draft update to the Commercial and Industrial
Page 2 of 4
7b.
Standards. During the February 8, 2024, City Council meeting, Council directed staff to
prioritize Rural Commercial (CR) and Transitional Rural Commercial (TCR) district
updates for approval by the end of quarter 2. The Planning Commission reviewed and
discussed the Commercial and Industrial Standards at the April 1, 2024, Planning
Commission meeting. Staff will present feedback from the Planning Commission and
results from the Business Community Survey to the City Council at the April 25, 2024,
regular Council meeting for further direction.
3. 3019 Addition Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary
Plat (PID 07-119-23-14-0003) (City File 23-027)
Craig Scherber & Associates LLC applied for a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Residential and Commercial Development on the
property at PID 07-119-23-14-0003. The application includes 15 commercial lots and 4
single-family residential lots. The applicant received Council feedback on a concept
version of this proposal at the February 8, 2024, meeting. A feasibility study is underway
to evaluate the infrastructure needs of the project. This item is not currently scheduled for
any upcoming meetings.
4. Hope Community Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary
PUD, Preliminary Plat (PIDs 11-119-23-14-0003, 11-119-23-14-0005, 11-119-23-
14-0006, and 11-119-23-11-0012) (City File 23-028).
Hope Community Church submitted application materials for a Preliminary Plat,
Preliminary PUD, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow for a
mixed-use development around Hope Community Church. The proposed
development includes medical offices, retail space, market rate apartments,
townhomes, senior villas, and assisted living units. The Planning Commission
recommended approval after the public hearing was held for this item during the
February 1, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. During the February 22, 2024,
regular Meeting, the Council voted to approve this item with additional conditions.
5. Khacholing Center Place of Worship CHOL IUP (PID 06-119-23-13-0002) (City
File 23- 029)
Lobsang Yeshi & Nga Thi Ngoc Nguyen, of the Khacholing Center, applied for a
Interim Use Permit to hold regular religious classes within a room at 23360 Oakdale
Drive. The Public Hearing for this item was held during the March 12, 2024, Planning
Commission meeting. After the public testimony, the Commission motioned to
recommend denial of this item. The applicant has withdrawn their application, this item
is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings.
6. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Final Plat & Final PUD (PID 32-119-23-43-0005, 32-
119-23-43-0006, 32-119-23-43-0013)(City File 23-030).
Contour Development LLC applied for a Final Plat and a Final PUD at 6210 Pioneer
Trail. The application consists of 0 lots and 3 outlots. This application is incomplete for
City review and is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings.
7. Tavera 6 Final Plat & Final PUD (PID 35-119-23-11-0003) (City File 23-032).
Lennar submitted application materials for the Final Plat and Final PUD for Tavera 6th
Addition, and staff is reviewing the materials for completeness. Lennar also requests
an easement vacation from the Drainage & Utility easement over outlots A, B, C, J and
K of Tavera 4, to allow the platting of Tavera 6. This item was approved by Council
during the March 28, 2024, regular City Council meeting.
Page 3 of 4
7b.
8. Chastek Farm Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD, Rezoning (PID 25-119-23-12-0002)
(City File 23-034).
Trek Real Estate & Development, Inc. submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat,
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Rezoning of the Chastek Farm
located at 7600 Maple Hill Road. The request is to allow the development of 117
single-family for-sale lots on the 38.16-acre site. 101 of these lots would have a width
of 55 feet, and the remaining 16 would have a width of 65 feet. This item is complete
for City review and has been scheduled for the May 2, 2024, Planning Commission
Meeting.
9. Heather Meadows 3rd Addition Preliminary Plat/OS&P (PIDs 05-119-23-31-0001 &
088-119-23- 22-0011) (City File 24-002).
Mark and Markus Lee, of ML Unlimited LLC, submitted a preliminary plat application to
create 12 single-family lots and 2 outlots at 22901 Oakdale Drive. The proposal
includes platting the two existing homes on Oakdale Drive and extending Heather
Lane southward to plat 10 additional lots. To satisfy the requirements of the Open
Space & Preservation density bonuses, this proposal includes the preservation of
44.8-acres of open space in two outlots. This item is complete for City review and the
public hearing is scheduled for the May 2, 2024, Planning Commission meeting.
10. 610 Extension Business Park Concept Plan (PID 12-119-23-23-0001) (City File 24-003).
United Properties submitted a Concept Plan application to develop a business park at
the Oswald Farm, located at 19510 County Road 30. The narrative provided by the
applicant describes the proposed business park to range from 864,000 - 1,017,500 sq
ft on the 76.89-acre parcel. The applicant submitted revised plans which indicate two
128,000 sq ft buildings, and two 168,000 sq ft buildings. This item is tentatively
scheduled for the May 23, 2024, City Council meeting.
11. Tavera 4 Vacation (PID 35-119-23-44-0115 & 35-119-23-44-0116) (City File 24-004).
Lennar has submitted an application for an easement vacation of a Drainage & Utility
easement on Block 2, Lots 10 and 11. Council approved the request at the March 28,
2024, meeting.
12. Scharber Garage CUP (PID 31-119-23-14-0009) (City File 24-005).
James Scharber has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of
an accessory structure with sidewalls that exceed 10 feet in height in the side yard of
6650 Pioneer Trail. The public hearing for this item was held during the April 4, 2024,
Planning Commission meeting. Council approved this item at the April 24, 2024,
Regular Meeting.
13. Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD, Rezoning
& Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PID 25-119-23-11-0001) (City File 24-006).
Bergeron Development submitted an application for Fairway Shores Villas at Cook
Lake, located at PID 25-119-23-11-0001. The application includes a preliminary plat, a
preliminary PUD, a rezoning, and a Comprehensive Plan to allow for the development
of 75 single family villas. This item is complete for City review and is scheduled for the
May 2, 2024, Planning Commission meeting.
14. Red Barn Pet Retreat Final Plat (PID 01-119-23-44-0045) (City File 24-007).
RAM General Contracting, Inc. submitted a Final Plat and Variance application for Red
Barn Pet Retreat on Outlot A of Bellwether 2nd Addition. The proposed final plat
includes one lot for Red Barn Pet Retreat and one outlot for future development. The
applicant also requests approval of a variance to allow development prior to the
Page 4 of 4
7b.
availability of municipal services on the property. The public hearing for the variance
request was held during the April 4, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. After some
discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested
variance. Council approved this item at the April 24, 2024, Regular Meeting.
15. Tonka Auto CUP (PID 26-119-23-12-0004) (City File 24-008).
Jake Hautman submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to allow the operation of
an auto repair business, Tonka Auto, at 20201 County Road 50. The application is
incomplete for city review and is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings.
16. Corcoran Industrial Northeast (PID 01-119-23-11-0001)(City File 24-010).
Hemple Real Estate is seeking Council feedback on conceptual light industrial
development at 10585 County Road 101. The plan includes 2 primary industrial
buildings ranging from 200,200 to 342,000 sq ft on a 78.85-acre site. The applicant
received informal feedback from the Council during the March 28, 2024, Council
meeting. This item is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings.
17. Rush Creek Reserve 4 (PID 23-119-23-44-0021)(City File 24-011).
M/I Homes of Minneapolis submitted applications materials for the final plat and final
PUD for Rush Creek Reserve 4. The request is to vacate the drainage & utility
easement and to allow the development of 51 villa lots over Outlot F of Rush Creek
Reserve 2. This item is complete for city review and is scheduled for the May 23, 2024,
City Council meeting.
18. Conservation Residential Ordinance Amendment (City File 24-012).
The City will process a Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Amendment as a follow up to
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a “Conservation Residential” land use
designation processed for the Woodland Hills application. The Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is currently under review with the Metropolitan Council. Once approved,
staff will move forward with scheduling the meeting dates for the ordinance
amendments, potentially as soon as July.
19. Heitke Lot Line Adjustment (PID 28-119-23-33-0001 & 28-119-23-34-0001)(City File 24-013).
Dan Heitke submitted application materials for a lot line adjustment between the
properties at 7000 Rolling Hills Road, and Outlot A of Heitke Farm. This item is
incomplete for City review and is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings.
20. Erickson Garage CUP (PID 34-119-23-24-0003)(City File 24-014).
Brad Erickson submitted application materials for Conditional Use Permit to allow the
construction of an accessory building with sidewalls that exceed 10’ in the front yard of
21150 Horseshoe Trail. This item is still being reviewed for completeness and is not
currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings.
21. Upward Acres Preliminary Plat (PID 17-119-23-13-0001) (City File 24-015).
Skies Limit LLC. submitted an application for a preliminary plat to allow the
development of 6 single-family lots at 22625 County Road 10. This item is still being
reviewed for completeness and is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings.
22. M&J Creekside Vineyard Tasting Room COHL (PID 08-119-23-23-0017)(City File 24-016).
Margaret & John Fernandez submitted an application for a Conditional Home
Occupation License to allow the operation of a wine tasting room at 23020 County
Road 30. This item is still being reviewed for completeness and is not currently
scheduled for any upcoming meetings.