Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-01 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Corcoran Planning Commission Agenda August 1, 2024 - 7:00 pm 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval 4. Open Forum – Public Comment Opportunity 5. Minutes a. Minutes – July 2, 2024, Meeting* 6. New Business a. Public Hearing. Jay Brown Garage CUP (City File 24-019). i. Staff Report ii. Open Public Hearing iii. Close Public Hearing iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation b. Public Hearing. Rural Commercial Development Rights Zoning Ordinance Amendment (City File 23-023) i. Staff Report ii. Open Public Hearing iii. Close Public Hearing iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation c. Hope Meadows PUD Amendment (City File 24-019) i. Staff Report ii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation 7. Reports/Information a. Other Business b. Planning Project Update* c. City Council Report* – Council Liaison Vehrenkamp 8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 8/8/2024 8/22/2024 9/12/2024 9/26/2024 10/10/2024 10/24/2024 Yang Hargreaves Kozicky Brummond Lind Yang 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: 847 1826 9472 Video Link and Instructions: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8471826 9472 Or visit http://www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 847 1826 9472 *Please note in-person comments will be taken at the scheduled meeting where noted. Comments received via email to the City Planner (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: Agenda Item 5a. Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on July 2, 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, Kozicky, Lind, and Yang. Also present: Community Development Director Davis McKeown, Planning Technician Klingbeil, and Council Liaison Vehrenkamp. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Hargreaves, seconded by Kozicky, to approve the agenda for the July 2, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, Lind, and Yang. (Motion passed 5:0) 4. Appoint Commission Chair and Vice Chair Motion made by Kozicky, seconded by Lind, to appoint Commissioner Brummond to Chair of the Corcoran Planning Commission. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, Lind, and Yang. (Motion passed 5:0) The Planning Commission entered a temporary recess due to technical difficulties. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:07 pm. Motion made by Kozicky, seconded by Hargreaves, to appoint Commissioner Lind to Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, Lind, and Yang. (Motion passed 5:0) 5. Open Forum (none) Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Kozicky, to close the open forum. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, Lind, and Yang. (Motion passed 5:0) 6. Minutes Commissioner Lind indicated that a portion of the discussion regarding the naming of Upward Acres was missing from the draft minutes; Chair Brummond pointed out that the number of Planning Commissioners present was four and not three. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Lind, to approve the June 6, 2024, Planning Commission Minutes with the noted corrections. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, Lind, and Yang. (Motion passed 5:0) 7. New Business – Public Comment Opportunity a. Public Hearing. Self-Storage Zoning Ordinance Amendment. (City File No. 23-023) i. Community Development Director Davis McKeown presented the Staff Report. ii. Public Hearing Motion made by Hargreaves, seconded by Brummond, to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, Lind, and Yang. (Motion passed 5:0) iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Commission discussion included a question regarding approved mini-storage projects; potential learning opportunities to avoid oversaturated uses; identifying problems and comparing with other cities earlier in the process; clarification that the City cannot disallow particular businesses, but rather can disallow land uses; clarification that this use is not allowed in the Transitional Rural Commercial zoning district; and clarification regarding the expiration of existing approvals. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Lind, to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment removing self-storage and mini-storage as a conditional use in the Rural Commercial (CR) and Light Industrial (I-1) zoning districts. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, Lind, and Yang. (Motion passed 5:0) 8. Reports/Information a. Other Business – i. Planning Commission Training – Community Development Director Davis McKeown gave a presentation on city planning and land use, Commissioners were able to ask questions throughout and participated in a planning-related game of Jeopardy at the end of the presentation. b. Planning Project Update* - The Commission discussed the status of the Kariniemi Orchards Preliminary Plat application, and the requirements for an application to expire. c. City Council Report* – City Council report included winter maintenance of the Lake Independence Regional Trail and the trail in Kariniemi Acres. 9. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 7/11/2024 7/25/2024 8/8/2024 8/22/2024 9/12/2024 9/26/2024 Brummond Lind Yang Hargreaves Kozicky Brummond 10. Adjournment Motion made by Hargreaves, seconded by Lind, to adjourn the July 2, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind. (Motion passed 4:0) The meeting adjourned at 9:25 pm. Page 1 of 7 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6a. Planning Commission Meeting: August 1, 2024 Prepared By: Dwight Klingbeil Topic: Jay Brown Garage CUP (PID 05-119-23-41-0006) (City File No. 24-019) Action Required: Recommendation 1. Application Request Jay Brown, the applicant, requests approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow an accessory structure that would exceed an accumulated accessory structure footprint of 3,969 square feet and a sidewall height limit of 10 feet in the side yard at 22355 Oakdale Drive. Properties that are 10-acres or more in the Urban Reserve & Rural Residential District are allowed to exceed the accessory structure footprint via a CUP, and all properties can request deviation from the sidewall height limit for accessory structures via a CUP. 2. Background Zoning Ordinance Amendment On August 24, 2023, the City Council provided informal feedback to Jay Brown, the applicant, regarding a proposed accessory structure at 22355 Oakdale Drive. Part of the request included an accessory structure with a sidewall height of 12 feet 8 inches and overhangs of 12 inches in length. At the time of this meeting, City Code required accessory structures with sidewalls exceeding 12 feet to be constructed with overhangs of at least 24 inches. However, the 12-inch overhang was strongly preferred by the applicant to match the existing accessory structures on the property. Council directed staff to examine options to add more flexibility to the eave and overhang requirements for accessory structures. On October 26, 2023, City Council approved a Zoning Ordinance Amendment which reduced the minimum eave and overhang length to 12 inches, regardless of sidewall height. Lot Consolidation Figure 1 Site Location Page 2 of 7 At the time of the August 24, 2023, Council Meeting, the applicant owned two contiguous parcels on Oakdale Drive, 22355 Oakdale Drive (6.52 acres) and 22323 Oakdale Drive (13.11 acres). The applicant’s request was to construct an additional accessory structure on the 6.52-acre parcel. This would result in the parcel exceeding the allowed accessory structure footprint of 2,906 square feet for a 6.52-acre parcel. Section 1030.020 Subd. 4(E) allows a parcel of 10 or more acres to exceed the maximum allowed accessory structure footprint through a CUP. On August 31, 2023, Jay Brown applied to consolidate his two parcels of land, which resulted in a single 19.63-acre parcel. Consolidation of these two parcels made the property eligible to request a CUP to exceed the by-right accessory structure footprint of 3,969 square feet. 3. Context Zoning and Land Use The property is guided for Rural/Ag Residential and zoned Rural Residential (RR). The western portion of the property appears to be in the Shoreland Overlay District for Rush Creek, which does not include the proposed building site. The property is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The property has an existing single-family home and three existing detached structures with a combined footprint of 4,068 square feet. Surrounding Properties The immediate surrounding properties are zoned RR, guided for Rural/Ag Residential and are located outside of the MUSA. The properties to the west and north are currently used for Agricultural/Ag Residential purposes, while the remaining surrounding properties are currently used for residential uses. Natural Characteristics of the Site A portion of Rush Creek intersects the northwest corner of the property, resulting in part of this property laying in the Shoreland Overlay District. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory Areas map identifies a medium quality wetland community and greenway corridor along this portion of Rush Creek. Additionally, the Hennepin County Natural Resource Map indicates a 100-year floodplain along the entirety of the west half of the site. This map also indicated several wetland complexes on the property. A wetland delineation was conducted by Anderson Figure 2 Natural Resources Inventory Areas map Page 3 of 7 Engineers in June and July of 2024, which found that the southwest corner of the proposed building pad was 72 feet from the nearest wetland edge. This wetland delineation has not yet received formal WCA approval, and the site plan should be updated with the wetland boundary once it is finalized. 4. Analysis Planning staff coordinated review of the request for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, 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, and the approval conditions require compliance with the Memo. The City’s discretion in approving or denying a CUP is limited to whether the proposed request meets the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the CUP. I. Accessory Structure CUP The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage of 780 square feet, with sidewalls of 12 feet 1.125 inches within the side yard of the 19.63-acre parcel. Location and Setbacks The structure is proposed to be placed in the side yard which is allowed. The garage meets the 10-foot minimum separation from the residence. The structure is closest to the front property line to the north with a setback of roughly 70 feet where a 20-foot minimum setback is required. The proposed placement far exceeds the minimum side and rear setbacks (20 feet and 15 feet respectively). Size Section 1030.020 of the Zoning Ordinance allows a property of this size to have an accessory structure footprint of up to 3,969 square feet by-right. However, this section also allows properties over 10 acres to exceed this footprint through a CUP. The applicant requests approval of a fourth accessory structure with a footprint of 780 square feet, which results in an accumulated accessory structure footprint of 4,848 square feet for the property. Building Height Figure 3 Site Plan Page 4 of 7 The building is located in the side yard and is limited to a maximum sidewall height of 10 feet, which may be exceeded through a CUP. The applicant requests a sidewall height of 12 feet 1.125 inches. The building has a total height of roughly 24 feet and does not exceed the 35-foot height limit for the RR district. Architectural Standards The plans show a detached garage with a gambrel roof. The applicant plans to use plywood for the siding for the walls and shingles for the roof. The front elevation illustrates one 11-foot overhead door, and a window above the garage door to provide more natural light into the garage and to provide more architectural interest to the building façade. The left elevation includes a service door and window. The Zoning Ordinance requires eaves (i.e., the underside or soffits on the side) and overhangs (i.e., the edge extending over the front and rear elevations) of at least 12 inches. The applicant is proposing eaves and overhangs of 12 inches on the structure, which complies with this requirement. Grading and Drainage The submitted survey shows the existing drainage around the proposed garage location drains southwest into the low-lying areas on the property. The applicant is proposing to flatten the building pad location and shape the grading around the building to continue draining southwesterly. The Engineering Memo notes that the applicant will need to provide a grading plan with the building permit application. Conditional Use Permit Standards The applicant requests a CUP to exceed the by-right accessory structure footprint of 3,969 square feet as allowed in Section 1030.020, Subd. 4(E). Section 1030.020, Subd. 5 in the Zoning Ordinance allows any accessory building to exceed the allowable sidewall height with a CUP. In order to grant a CUP, the standards of Section 1070.020 Subd. 3 must be met: a. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. The proposed building is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Figure 4 Building Elevation Page 5 of 7 b. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will promote and enhance the public welfare as it will allow the property owner to properly store vehicles on his property rather than relying on exterior storage. The CUP for the additional building would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort of the surrounding neighborhood. The building is proposed to be below the 35-foot maximum building height allowed for principal buildings in the RR district. The building would meet or exceed all setback requirements for the RR district. c. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. Assuming the recommended conditions of approval are adopted, staff does not find reason to believe the CUP for the additional building would be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the surrounding properties for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed use will allow for proper storage of items such as vehicles on the property that will protect the use, enjoyment, and property values of surrounding properties. d. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The surrounding properties are used for a mix of residential and agricultural uses. The proposed building does not preclude improvement or further development of the surrounding properties. e. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. Adequate public facilities are available to accommodate the proposed use. An additional building will not impact the demand for services. f. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. If the CUP is approved with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff, the use will comply with the district regulations for the RR zoning district. Page 6 of 7 g. The conditional use and site conform to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. If the CUP is approved with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff, the use will comply with the performance standards for accessory structures within the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the request for a CUP to exceed the by-right sidewall height of 10 feet in the side yard of the property in allowed by Section 1030.020, Subd. 5(D) subject to the following specific standards: 1. The proposed use shall be in conformance with all City regulations. The proposed use is in conformance with the City regulations. The proposed improvements meet setbacks, the accessory structure footprint if the CUP is approved as outlined in the draft resolution, architectural requirements, and the underlying requirements of the Rural Residential zoning district. A condition of approval included in the draft resolution is that the structure cannot be used for commercial use without a separate approval for a home occupation, nor can it be used as a living space without separate approval of an administrative permit for an accessory dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the land use requirements of the RR zoning district. 2. A certificate of survey shall be required that identifies all existing structures on site, including buildings, septic sites, and wells. In addition, the survey shall include the proposed structure, flood plain, wetlands, and any recorded easements. The applicant submitted a certificate of survey and site plan that show the required features. 3. Applicable criteria as outlined in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance. Staff finds that both the building footprint and sidewall height comply with the CUP standards as outlined above in this report. 4. The building materials standards required by this Section have been met. As noted previously, the applicant proposes to use plywood siding for the walls and shingles for the roof. This satisfies the architectural requirements of Section 1030.020 Subd. 6(B) and Section 1060.050 Subd. 1(D). 5. The proposed building will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Page 7 of 7 The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 5. Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the CUP for a detached garage exceeding the by-right accessory structure footprint of 3,969 square feet and exceeding a sidewall height of 10 feet in the side yard. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution Approving the Conditional Use Permit 2. Engineering Memo dated July 24, 2024 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Site Plan 5. Building Plans City of Corcoran August 22, 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 A DETACHED STRUCTURE FOR JAY BROWN AT 22355 OAKDALE DRIVE (PID 05-119-23-41-0006) (CITY FILE 24-019) WHEREAS, Jay Brown, the landowner, requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory building with a footprint of 780 square feet and a sidewall height of 12 feet 1.125 inches at property legally described as follows: See Attachment A 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 material received by the City on April 30, 2024, and additional information received on May 1, 2024, and June 25, 2024, and as may be amended by this Resolution. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the City Engineer’s memo dated July 24, 2024. 3. A conditional use permit is approved to allow a sidewall height of 12 feet and 1.125 inches in the side yard based on the finding that the standards in Section 1030.020, Subd. 5 (D), have been met. Specifically: a. The use conforms with all City regulations. b. A certificate of survey was provided identifying all structures on the site, septic and well sites, proposed structure location, flood plain, and wetlands. c. Applicable criteria in Section 1070.020 of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied. d. The building materials of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. e. The use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 4. A conditional use permit is approved to allow a 780 square foot accessory building with a sidewall height of 12 feet and 1.125 inches that will result in an accumulated accessory structure footprint of 4,848 square feet on the property based on the findings that the conditional use permit standards in Section 1070.020, Subd. 3 have been met. Specifically: a. The use complies with the Comprehensive Plan. b. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will promote and enhance the public welfare as it will allow the property owner to properly store vehicles on his property rather than relying on exterior storage. The use will not be detrimental City of Corcoran August 22, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2024- Page 2 of 4 to or endanger the public heath, safety, moral or comfort of the general public. The overall proposed building height is below the 35-foot maximum building height allowed in the Rural Residential district for principal buildings. The building meets or exceeds all applicable setbacks for the district. c. The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity, nor will it substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed use will allow for proper storage of items such as vehicles on the property that will protect the use, enjoyment, and property values of surrounding properties. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The surrounding properties are used for a mix of residential and agricultural uses. The proposed building does not preclude improvement or further development of the surrounding properties. e. Existing public facilities and services can accommodate the use. f. The use conforms to the regulations of the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district. g. The use and site conform to performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The structure cannot be used for commercial purposes unless the applicant applies for City approval of a home occupation and such approval is granted. 6. The structure cannot be used as an Accessory Dwelling Unit unless the property owner applies for City Approval through an Administrative Permit and such approval is granted. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/landowner must complete the following: a. A grading plan must be submitted for final approval per the City’s Engineer Memo. b. A notice of decision for the wetland delineation application must be issued by the City’s Wetland Specialist. i. The site plan must be updated so reflect the delineated wetland boundary after City approval of the wetland delineation application. c. The approving resolution must be recorded at Hennepin County. d. The applicant/landowner must provide proof of recording to the City. 8. Prior to release of the escrow account with the City, the project must be completed per plan with a final inspection completed by the City. City of Corcoran August 22, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2024- Page 3 of 4 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Lanterman, Mark Lanterman, Mark Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of August 2024. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jay Tobin – City Administrator City of Corcoran August 22, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2024- Page 4 of 4 ATTACHEMENT A That part of the East 1335.00 feet of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that lies Southerly of the survey line as shown on the plat of the Former County Road No. 30 as recorded in Book 4 of Highway Plats, Page 2, in the office of the County Recorder. Memo To: Natalie Davis McKeown Community Development Director From: Kent Torve, PE City Engineer Steven Hegland, PE Project: Jay Brown Garage CUP Date: July 24, 2024 Document: The Jay Brown Garage CUP grading plan provided by Otto Associates dated 09/27/2023. Existing Drainage The existing drainage in the area of the garage drains to the southwest into the low lying areas within the property. Garage Drainage The garage will create some increased volume, therefore a grading plan is required with the building permit application. · Add spot elevations along the east side of the shed as it appears water may be trapped between the shed and garden which may require a small swale. Wetlands The applicant has submitted wetland delineation which was performed by Anderson Engineers but has not yet received formal WCA approval. The site plan should be updated with the wetland boundary once it is finalized. F.K. A . H C S A H N O . 3 0 , P L A T I I O A K D A L E DR I V E BE C H T O L D A V E . Revised: Project No. Checked By:Scale:Drawn By:Date: Requested By: denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe set and marked by License #40062 denotes iron monument found Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313 (763)682-4727 Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com 9-18-23 Jay Brown K.J.D.1"=100'P.E.O. N Feet 0 100 200 Exhibit Feet 0 40 80 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: N Page 1 of 4 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6b. Planning Commission Meeting: July 2, 2024 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Rural Commercial Subdivision and Development Rights Zoning Ordinance Amendments (City File No. 23-023) Action Required: Recommendation Review Deadline: March 14, 2025 1. Request: As part of the ongoing work plan to update the zoning district standards for commercial and industrial districts, the City evaluated how to apply development rights within the Rural Commercial (CR) and Transitional Rural Commercial (TCR) zoning districts. Staff received direction on June 27, 2024, to move forward with zoning ordinance amendments that memorialize and clarify the current practices of the City’s development rights program. The proposed amendments are consistent with the language discussed during a joint work session with the Planning Commission on May 21, 2024. 2. Analysis: Corcoran uses a development rights program as a method of managing subdivisions and development density in the following areas: 1. Rural areas where municipal services are not planned. 2. Areas within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) where municipal services are planned, but these services are not yet available (such properties are zoned as Urban Reserve). The program was updated a few times since it was implemented in the 1980s, but essentially development rights were assigned at a rate of 1 right per 10 acres. For example, a 20-acre parcel was assigned 2 development rights, which can be used to subdivide the property into 2 buildable lots. The development rights program is unusual as most cities manage density through minimum lot sizes. To achieve a similar density limit of 1 unit per 10 acres, a 10-acre minimum lot size would be required for the zoning district. However, a 10-acre minimum lot size can be inflexible and is not necessary for all uses. With Corcoran’s development rights program, the number of lots created within a subdivision subject to development rights is restricted by the number of development rights available within a plat in addition to a smaller minimum lot size (for example, the Rural Residential district has a minimum Page 2 of 4 lot size of 2-acres). This allows for smaller lots to be created within a subdivision, but then these smaller lots are balanced with larger lots. Historically, the development rights program proved more difficult to administer than a minimum lot size and tracking was challenging due to inconsistent record keeping and practices at City Hall. However, landowners operated under this system for the last 40+ years, and it does allow more flexibility than requiring a significant minimum lot size for all properties and uses within proposed developments. Until 2004, the development rights map was a paper map with handwritten development rights. Parcels in 2003 showed development rights on both Rural Residential and Rural Commercial properties. In 2004, that existing map was digitized and is maintained by staff as properties develop. The program in its current form is manageable with the aid of mapping software and dedicated Planning staff. Section 1070.070 of the Zoning Ordinance provides a process for landowners to appeal the number of development rights on the zoning map and states the following: The Development Rights Map reflects the number of development rights remaining on properties zoned Agricultural and Rural Residential and is intended to show the maximum number of residential units that may be developed per individual property. However, this is inconsistent with the map itself, which shows development rights on property zoned Urban Reserve (UR), Rural Commercial, and Transitional Rural Commercial. Further, there is no longer an Agricultural zoning district. Section 1040.020, Subd. 8 (UR District) and Section 1040.030, Subd. 7 (Rural Residential (RR) District) of the Zoning Ordinance regulates development density as it relates to the Development Rights Map and state the following: This Section identifies the maximum number of residential units or non - residential units that may be developed. The development rights program is intended to preserve a rural residential environment with active agri-businesses. Development rights shall be calculated based on the total lot area and rounded to the nearest whole number. The City’s practice to this point was to apply development rights to residential and non- residential subdivisions based on the language stating the rights apply to both “residential units or non-residential units”. Specific records of the City applying the development rights programs to subdivisions outside of the RR zoning district include: - Doboszenski Subdivision - Public Works Subdivision - Affirmed as part of the Kariniemi Meadows concept discussions. However, a concept plan reviewed in February of this year led to reconsideration of how development rights are utilized within the CR. Feedback was gathered from the Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission at their regular meeting in April, with the general desire communicated to Council that the development rights should be memorialized based on the existing practices. The City Council heard this feedback and directed staff to prepare a draft zoning ordinance amendment that memorialized and clarified the current use of development rights. Additionally, staff was directed to create a survey of different options for feedback from the general public. The draft ordinance amendments were reviewed at the joint work session with the Council and Planning Commission on May 21, 2024. A survey for participation of the general public was made available from May 31 through June 14, 2024. The findings were discussed in length at the City Council meeting on June 27, 2024. The PowerPoint presented to Council is attached to this report for reference. The survey provided depictions and explanations of 6 different options for managing subdivisions within the CR: 1. Continued use of development rights (status quo) 2. A commercial density limit of 1 in 10 acres 3. A commercial density limit of 1 in 5 acres 4. A minimum lot size of 10 acres 5. A minimum lot size of 5 acres 6. A minimum lot size of 2.5 acres The large majority of respondents confirmed a desire for the development rights program to apply to the CR. At the June 27th City Council meeting, Council directed staff to move forward with the draft zoning ordinance amendments discussed at the joint work session that memorialize and clarify the development rights program. Proposed amendments to the CR and TCR are attached to this report. Additionally, there are proposed changes to the Development Rights Map, UR, and RR sections of the Zoning Ordinance for consistency in terminology across the City Code. All the proposed changes regarding development rights memorialize and clarify how the program is applied, and staff believes the updated language will lead to less confusion and debate as the program is continued to be administered. Further, some minor changes are proposed to a couple of the uses within CR and TCR districts (these updates were included in the draft reviewed at the joint work session). Specifically, home daycares are removed from the CR because single-family homes are not a permitted use within the CR, and agriculture is proposed to be permitted in the TCR as staff believes it was an oversight that agriculture is currently not permitted. 3. Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the following: Page 4 of 4 1. Draft Ordinance 2024- to Sections 1040.020, 1040.030, 1040.090, 1040.095, and 1070.070 as it relates to the development rights program. 2. Draft Resolution 2024- with Findings of Fact for the Ordinance Amendments. Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance 2024- to Sections 1040.020, 1040.030, 1040.090, 1040.095, and 1070.070 as it relates to the development rights program. 2. Draft Resolution 2024- with Findings of Fact 3. Rural Commercial Subdivision Survey Findings City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota August 22, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. 2024- Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF SECTIONS 1040.020, 1040.030, 1040.090, 1040.095, AND 1070.070 AS IT RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM (CITY FILE 23-023) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1040.020, Subd. 8 (Urban Reserve Zoning District) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by removing the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: Subd. 8. Density Requirements Development Rights. This Section identifies the maximum number of residential units or non-residential units lots that may be developed. The development rights program is intended to preserve a rural residential environment with active agri-businesses. Development rights shall be calculated based on the total lot area and rounded to the nearest whole number. Development rights shall be as recorded on the official City of Corcoran “Development Rights Map” on file at City Hall. A. Landowners shall be permitted one development right for each 10 acres of land. B. Additional development rights may be granted to landowners that develop the property as part of an Open Space Preservation plat, as permitted by the Subdivision Regulations. C. No lots or outlots shall be allowed to be created without development rights, except in the following circumstances: 1. When approved as part of an Open Space and Preservation (OS&P) Plat as allowed by Section 940 of the Subdivision Ordinance, 2. When approved as part of a clustering option as allowed by Subd. 7 of this Section. SECTION 2. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1040.030, Subd. 7 (Rural Residential Zoning District) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by removing the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: Subd. 7. Density Requirements Development Rights. This Section identifies the maximum number of residential units or non-residential units lots that may be developed. The development rights program is intended to preserve a rural residential environment with active agri-businesses. Development rights shall be calculated based on the total lot area and rounded to the nearest whole number. Development rights shall be as recorded on the official City of Corcoran “Development Rights Map” on file at City Hall. A. Landowners shall be permitted one development right for each 10 acres of land. City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota August 22, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. 2024- Page 2 of 4 B. Additional development rights may be granted to landowners that develop the property as part of an Open Space Preservation plat, as permitted by the Subdivision Regulations. C. No lots or outlots shall be allowed to be created without development rights, except when approved as part of an Open Space and Preservation (OS&P) Plat as allowed by Section 940 of the Subdivision Ordinance. SECTION 3. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1040.090, Subd. 2 (Rural Commercial Zoning District) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined material as follows: Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. A. Automobile Retail (tires, batteries, etc. No body work or repair work). B. Civic Buildings, such as City Hall, libraries, fire stations, etc. C. Day Care Facilities, Home. DC. Day Care Facilities, Commercial. ED. Offices, medical and professional. FE. Retail goods and service uses of a similar nature. SECTION 4. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1040.090, Subd. 7-8 (Rural Commercial Zoning District) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined material as follows: Subd. 7. Development Rights. This Section identifies the maximum number of non- residential lots that may be developed. The development rights program is intended to preserve a rural and agricultural environment with active rural commercial businesses. Development rights were calculated based on the total lot area and rounded to the nearest whole number. Development rights shall be as recorded on the official City of Corcoran “Development Rights Map” on file at City Hall. A. Landowners shall be permitted one development right for each 10 acres of land. B. No lots or outlots shall be allowed to be created without development rights. Subd. 8. Area Requirements. The following minimum requirements shall be met in the CR district. Properties may be subject to special requirements for overlay districts as noted in Section 1050 (Overlay Districts): Minimum lot area 2.5 acres Minimum lot width 100 feet Minimum lot depth 200 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 100 feet City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota August 22, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. 2024- Page 3 of 4 Front, From all other streets 50 feet Side 20 feet Rear 20 feet Adjacent to Residential 50 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage 50% *Major Roadways are state highways and county roads. SECTION 5. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1040.095, Subd. 2 (Transitional Rural Commercial Zoning District) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined material as follows: Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. A. Agriculture and Tree Farms AB. Day Care Facilities, Home. BC. Dwelling, Single Family. CD. Seasonal Produce Stands. DE. Residential Facility in a single-family detached dwelling, serving 6 or fewer individuals and licensed by the State. SECTION 6. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1040.095, Subd. 7-8 (Transitional Rural Commercial Zoning District) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined material as follows: Subd. 7. Development Rights. In order for development rights assigned to properties within this district to be utilized, the property shall first be rezoned to Rural Commercial for consistency with the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 8. Area Requirements: The following minimum requirements shall be met in the TCR district. Properties may be subject to special requirements for overlay districts as noted in Section 1050 (Overlay Districts): Minimum lot area 2.5 acres Minimum lot width 200 feet Minimum lot depth 300 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 100 feet Front, From all other streets 50 feet Side 25 feet Rear 25 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet *Major Roadways are state highways and county roads. SECTION 7. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1070.070 (Development Rights City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota August 22, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. 2024- Page 4 of 4 Map) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined material as follows: Subd. 1. Purpose. The Development Rights Map reflects the number of development rights remaining on properties zoned Agricultural and Urban Reserve, Rural Residential, Rural Commercial, and Transitional Rural Commercial. It and is intended to show the maximum number of residential and non-residential lots units that may be developed per individual property. Subd. 2 Non-transferable. Development rights cannot be transferred, except as allowed by Section 940.050, Subd. 1(B)(5) as part of an Open Space & Preservation Plat. Development rights can be reassigned as part of a lot consolidation, lot line adjustment, or subdivision application. Subd. 2. Maintenance. The number of development rights shown on the map shall be revised to reflect the number of remaining development rights on property following subdivision of the land or paving of the adjacent street. It shall be the duty of the Zoning Administrator to maintain the map as required. Subd. 3. Appeals. Should an objection to the number of development rights remaining on a particular property arise, the property owner may file an appeal to be heard by the City Council. All appeals should be submitted in writing to the Zoning Administrator and should state the calculation error or provide evidence of a record keeping error other justification for justifying the objection. The Council may decide the matter at any regularly scheduled meeting. A property owner may only file a second appeal for the same property if the justification has changed. SECTION 8. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 22nd day of August 2024. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Lanterman, Mark Lanterman, Mark Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: City Seal Jason (Jay) Tobin – City Administrator City of Corcoran August 22, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2024- Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 1040.020, 1040.030, 1040.090, 1040.095, AND 1070.070 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM (CITY FILE NO. 23-023) WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran adopted a moratorium on new applications for subdivision applications within the Rural Commercial and Transitional Rural Commercial zoning districts to complete a study on the use of the City’s development rights program in these districts; and WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran has an interest in minimizing the impact and intensity of commercial development to surrounding rural residential properties; and WHEREAS, commercial density within the Rural Commercial district should be minimized to a similar level of density allowed within the Rural Residential district as both areas are not planned to receive municipal services; and WHEREAS, Staff created a survey that was made available to the general public from May 31, 2024, to June 14, 2024, to gather feedback on the best way to manage commercial development within the Rural Commercial district; and WHEREAS, the large majority of the respondents that participated in the survey indicated a desire to continue applying development rights to Rural Commercial subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance amendments at a duly called Public Hearing and recommended approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does support the amendments to memorialize and clarify the use of development rights throughout the Zoning Ordinance, based on the following findings: 1. The ordinance amendments will allow for a variety of lot sizes within the Rural Commercial district while providing a balanced approach to development at a similar intensity as the surrounding Rural Residential district. 2. The amendments clearly memorialize past and current practices of applying the development rights program within the City. 3. The amendments address previous inconsistencies found within the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The amendments will now provide consistency in terminology throughout the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The ordinance amendments have been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of, and have been found to be consistent with, the City Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. City of Corcoran August 22, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2024- Page 2 of 2 6. The text amendments meet the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as it does not conflict with the outlined purpose and intent in Section 1010.020 of the City Code. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Lanterman, Mark Lanterman, Mark Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of August 2024. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jason (Jay) Tobin - City Administrator Rural Commercial Subdivision Survey Results City Council Regular Meeting June 27, 2024 Survey Collection Design A story map explaining the basics of the development rights program and history as well as explaining the Rural Commercial district (CR) was created. A link was provided at the end of the story map to a visual preference survey providing 6 options to control development within the CR. The survey was made available for 3 weeks from Friday, May 31 through Sunday, June 14. Survey Collection Design Mailed invitations were sent to all properties within 500’ of the CR and Transitional Rural Commercial (TCR) districts. 49 unique addresses Announcements were made on the City’s website and social media accounts to solicit broader participation. Council, Planning Commission, and Parks and Trails Commission members were asked to share the story map/survey with their social networks. A flyer was posted at City Park. Survey Results 36 responses received 6 respondents received a mailed invitation Response rate of about 16.7% 3 respondents owned commercial property within the CR/TCR 3 respondents do not currently live in Corcoran but own property in Corcoran. 2 respondents are currently building a home to reside in Corcoran. 19 respondents lived within the MUSA 16 respondents lived or owned property outside of the MUSA 1913 3 Location of Respondents Residents Within MUSA Residents Outside of MUSA Landowners Outside of MUSA Development Rights 8 respondents stated they had development rights shown on the development rights map. Staff confirmed only 2 of the respondents had property with development rights based on the addresses provided. This suggests more education resources regarding development rights could be helpful for the general public. 2 respondents stated they hoped to subdivide their property in the future. One of these respondents does not currently have development rights to subdivide further. Rural Character Design Features Respondents were asked to rate the importance of 8 design features as they relate to creation/preservation of rural character on a scale of 1(not very important) to 5 (very important). Low Density Large Lot Sizes Open Spaces Dark Sky (minimal lighting) Low Traffic Large Setbacks Green Space Limited Commercial Development 149 131 161 152 150 129 160 138 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Low Density Large Lot Sizes Open Spaces Dark Sky Low Traffic Large Setbacks Green Space Limited Commercial Development Rural Character Design Feature Preference Ratings Rural Character Design Features Design features in order of ranked importance: 1.Open Spaces (161 points) 2.Green Space (160 points) 3.Dark Sky (152 points) 4.Low Traffic (150 points) 5.Low Density (149 points) 6.Limited Commercial Development (138 points) 7.Large Lot Sizes (131 points) 8.Large Setbacks (129 points) What other features define rural character to you? The 3 most common themes that arose included: Quiet / calm environment Presence of farmland at various scales Preservation of natural areas 32 4 Do you believe commercial zones are important to have? Yes No What types of businesses should be in the CR? (check all that apply) 9 21 17 16 21 1 6 11 11 27 11 6 20 9 6 12 19 18 5 13 12 8 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Automobile Retail Day Care Facilities Retail Goods and Services Commercial Kennels Contractors Operations Lumber Yards Motor Fuel Stations Vehicle Sales Place of Worship Accessory Dwelling Units Vertical Farming Restaurants What types of businesses should be in the CR? (check all that apply) Top 5 Uses 1. Greenhouses and Nurseries 2. Restaurants 3. Retail Goods and Services 4. Civic Buildings 5. Motor Fuel Stations Write-in Responses Fire Station Farmers Market Agricultural Coop Anything Farm Related Light Industrial and Retail Library Solar Power Farms What concerns do you have when thinking about commercial development in the rural area? The top 5 common themes: Traffic Noise Development Intensity Visual Aesthetics Environmental Impacts What are the most important regulations for the CR? (check all that apply) 15 24 16 16 16 21 22 14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Lot Size Density Limit Setbacks Maximum Impervious Surface Limit Height Maximum Lighting Landscaping/Screening Parking Requirement What are the most important regulations for the CR? Top 3 Regulations: 1. Density Limit 2. Landscaping/Screening 3. Lighting Write-in responses: -Type of business -Mandatory traffic light at CR 19 and CR 30 -Flexible standards based on use -Regulation of toxic materials and air quality -Water usage -Aquifer contamination prevention -Noise -None -Traffic -Hours Visual Preference Survey 6 options provided: 1. Status Quo (Development Rights) 2. Commercial Density of 1 per 10 Acres 3. Commercial Density of 1 per 5 Acres 4. Minimum Lot Size of 10 Acres 5. Minimum Lot Size of 5 Acres 6. Minimum Lot Size of 2.5 Acres Option 1 – Status Quo (Development Rights Scale of 1 (not very preferred) to 5 (very preferred): - Received 115 points To make the ranked choice data usable, 6 points were assigned to 1st choice, 5 points assigned to 2nd choice, and so on so forth. When respondents had ties among choices (e.g., two 1st choice options), the points were distributed so that every respondent distributed 21 points comparatively among the 6 options (e.g., two 1st place choices were assigned 5.5 points each and 2nd choice treated as 3rd choice). Ranked Choice among all options -19 respondents chose as 1st choice -Received 166 points Option 2 – Commercial Density 1 in 10 Acres Scale of 1 to 5 -96 points Ranked Choice -6 respondents rated this as 1st choice -Received 155 points Option 3 – Commercial Density 1 in 5 Acres Scale of 1 to 5 -69 points Ranked Choice -3 respondents ranked as 1st choice -Received 120 points Option 4 – Minimum Lot Size 10 Acres Scale of 1 to 5 -108 points Ranked Choice -5 respondents ranked as 1st choice -Received 145.5 points Option 5 – Minimum Lot Size 5 Acres Scale of 1 to 5 -75 points Ranked Choice -0 respondents ranked as 1st choice -Received 101.5 points Option 6 – Minimum Lot Size 2.5 Acres Scale of 1 to 5 -74 points Ranked Choice -2 respondents ranked as 1st choice -Received 68 points Visual Preference Survey Results Based on a scale of 1 (not very preferred) to 5 (very preferred), the options are ranked as follows: 1.Option 1 – Status Quo (Development Rights) - 115 points 2.Option 4 – Minimum Lot Size 10 Acres – 108 points 3.Option 2 – Commercial Density 1 in 10 Acres – 96 points 4.Option 5 – Minimum Lot Size 5 Acres – 75 points 5.Option 6 – Minimum Lot Size 2.5 Acres – 74 points 6.Option 3 – Commercial Density 1 in 5 Acres – 69 points Visual Preference Survey Results Ranked Choice - Based on frequency of 1st choice rankings 1. Option 1 – Status Quo (Development Rights) - 19 2. Option 2 – Commercial Density 1 in 10 Acres -6 3. Option 4 – Minimum Lot Size 10 Acres - 5 4. Option 3 - Commercial Density 1 in 5 Acres -3 5. Option 6 – Minimum Lot Size 2.5 Acres -2 6. Option 5 – Minimum Lot Size 5 Acres - 0 Visual Preference Survey Results Ranked Choice - Based on comparative ranking 1. Option 1 – Status Quo (Development Rights) - 166 points 2. Option 2 – Commercial Density 1 in 10 Acres -155 points 3. Option 4 – Minimum Lot Size 10 Acres -145.5 points 4. Option 3 - Commercial Density 1 in 5 Acres - 120 points 5. Option 5 – Minimum Lot Size 5 Acres -101.5 points 6. Option 6 – Minimum Lot Size 2.5 Acres - 68 points Limitations of Study Not a representative sample of the City or the area that is 500’ within the CR and TCR area. Development rights and development standards can be complex topics with several caveats. The story map and visual aids attempted to provide a simplified and engaging format to touch on these topics, but some respondents noted that the topics were difficult to fully grasp. Short survey collection window and response rate from the mailed invitations was fairly low. Limitations of Study More participation from residents living in newer developments within the MUSA than those who live in Rural Residential, particularly nearby the CR and TCR districts. However, removing the responses from those who live within the MUSA did not drastically change the results as shown on the following slides. Ranked choice did not work as anticipated as some respondents used the same ranking for multiple options, but the data was made usable by assigning 21 points to the ranked options comparatively. Visual Preference Survey Results without MUSA participants Scale 1 – 5 1. Option 1 – Status Quo Development Rights - 61 points 2. Option 4 – Minimum Lot Size 10 Acres - 50 points 3. Option 2 – Commercial Density 1 in 10 Acres - 47 points 4. Option 6 – Minimum Lot Size 2.5 Acres -33 points 5. Option 3 – Commercial Density 1 in 5 Acres - 31 points 6. Option 5 – Minimum Lot Size 5 Acres - 27 points Visual Preference Survey Results without MUSA participants Ranked Choice - Based on frequency of 1st choice rankings 1. Option 1 – Status Quo (Development Rights) - 10 2. Option 3 - Commercial Density 1 in 5 Acres -2 2. Option 6 – Minimum Lot Size 2.5 Acres - 2 4. Option 2 – Commercial Density 1 in 10 Acres - 1 4. Option 4 – Minimum Lot Size 10 Acres - 1 6. Option 5 – Minimum Lot Size 5 Acres - 0 Visual Preference Survey Results without MUSA participants Ranked Choice - Based on comparative ranking 1. Option 1 – Status Quo (Development Rights) - 82 points 2. Option 2 – Commercial Density 1 in 10 Acres - 70 points 3. Option 4 – Minimum Lot Size 10 Acres -66.5 points 4. Option 3 - Commercial Density 1 in 5 Acres -53.5 points 5. Option 5 – Minimum Lot Size 5 Acres -46.5 points 6. Option 6 – Minimum Lot Size 2.5 Acres -38.5 points Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share with the City Council as they consider any updates to the CR? No common themes were found. Stop light or round about at 19 & 30! Please consider a thoughtful long-term plan of commercial business zones to drive a town center, and to not have urban sprawl. I prefer the Density per acre to minimum lot size because of the flexibility to accommodate various uses and the topography of the land. 1 per 3 acres would be preferable to minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Thank you for this opportunity. Bellwether has added quality work to the area-protect this area from commercial properties close by Lots of services for elderly. A large and prominent steeple for the new church. I do appreciate that you send this out for input, but this is way above "my pay grade". Wishing you the best at keeping Corcoran rural. This is why we moved here. Since I feel I don't understand this enough to rate the last section I gave it not very and 6th choice. Thanks No City need to move this forward. All good stuff Hold ground on what is decided - It seems the developers come in and get whatever changes they want I think some public spaces would be really nice and rewilding of areas. I thought there were government grants to rewild farmland for carbon sequestration purposes? For public spaces, things like a community center, a library, public parks, a dog park, etc would also be great. I'm going to repeat my previous comment about solar farms, there are great dual land uses for solar now and this could be a great place for community solar projects. Thank you so much for providing this opportunity to comment and also simplifying the process for community participation! Thank you again! Page 1 of 8 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6c. Planning Commission Meeting: August 1, 2024 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Hope Community Development Planned Unit Development Amendment (PIDs 11-119-23-14-0003, 11-119-23-14-0004, 11-119-23-14-0005, and 11-119-23-11-0012) (City File No. 24-025) Action Required: Recommendation Review Deadline: September 21, 2024 Request The applicant, Hope Ministries International, Incorporated, requests approval of amendments to the preliminary Planned Unit Development plan approved for the Hope Community Development at the northwest corner of County Road 116 and County Road 30.This request was submitted with a Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development Plan for the first phase of the development. These applications are reviewed by City Council only, but finals plans are enclosed for reference. 1.Background Hope Community Church is an existing institution located at 19951 Oswald Farm Rd that was initially approved in 2001. Hope Community Church and partnering entities purchased the subject parcels over 20 years ago with a long-term vision to create a campus that would provide places for people of multiple age groups to live, work, dine, and worship. Significant components of this vision include senior housing options as well as medical office space. Since the initial approval of the church, the City approved a daycare and a 498-plot cemetery as accessory uses to the church. In the last couple of years, the Lothers and Figure 1 Site Location Page 2 of 8 Hope Community Church worked with the City to provide land for a water treatment plant and water tower to serve the Northeast District of the City. Moving forward with the original vision for the properties, Hope submitted a concept plan for review by the Council on January 12, 2023. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed for the development proposal, and the City issued a Notice of Decision confirming no need for an Environmental Impact Statement on July 27, 2023. A neighborhood meeting was held at Hope Community Church on Wednesday, October 11, 2023, to engage the surrounding residents as the Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposal moved forward in the City review process. On February 22, 2024, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary PUD Plan, and Preliminary Plat on a unanimous vote to allow 641 housing units and 80,200 square feet of commercial space with additional Zoning Ordinance flexibilities and public benefits identified in Resolution 2024-16, attached to this report for reference. The applicant continues to work with staff to refine the preliminary PUD plans to bring the project into compliance with the approvals granted in February. Additionally, the applicant found an interested party to develop the townhomes and villas – JP Brooks. The proposed house plans are enclosed for reference. Some revisions are needed to the architectural materials to comply with the preliminary PUD plan, but staff believes revisions can be made to meet the architectural requirements in Section 1040.040 and 1040.060. However, other areas of additional flexibility have been identified by the applicant team and staff. At this stage, a PUD Amendment is required to return to Planning Commission for review; this is then forwarded to City Council with the Final Plat/Final PUD application. 2. Analysis Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, other City Code requirements, City policies, and the preliminary approvals. A. Level of Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving a PUD amendment is relatively high. 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. B. PUD Amendments 1. Buffer Yard Requirements A class “D” buffer yard is required on the north and west perimeters of this development, with the exception of the wetland complex and the church parcel. The Page 3 of 8 application did not request flexibility from the buffer yard requirements during the preliminary approval. The PUD ordinance states the following about flexibility requests from screening or buffering standards: 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. After working through the preliminary landscaping plan as well as working with the house plans proposed by JP Brooks, the applicant team determined they are not able to meet the class D buffer around the proposed villas and townhomes on the north end of the site. The applicant’s narrative notes that the buffer yard class D is used to buffer properties within the Urban Reserve from commercial districts. The General Mixed Use (GMU) district is treated as a commercial district due to the potential for commercial uses in addition to residential uses. However, the applicant argues the villas and townhomes on the north end of the site are residential uses that provide a decreased density than other anticipated uses in the GMU, such as residential apartment buildings. Further, this area of the PUD was further revised since the preliminary plat by removing 10 units in this area as provided in the table below: Unit Type Preliminary Approval Proposed Revision Detached Villas 20 22 Twin-home Villas 6 0 Townhome Units 51 45 Total 77 67 The applicant requests the City to consider allowing a class B buffer to be applied along the western and northern perimeter adjacent to the detached villas and a class C buffer to be applied along the north perimeter of the townhomes. This request arguably still meets the intent of the buffer yard requirement based on the uses adjacent to the Urban Reserve district (a class B buffer yard is used for single-family districts which can include twin-homes, and a class C buffer yard is used for mixed residential districts which include townhomes). Staff believes the request is reasonable as screening is provided based on the adjacent uses. The most intense uses in the development that are of the most concern within the GMU are setback at least 172’ feet away from the site perimeter in this area, as provided in the table below. This additional space further offsets the reduced planting requirements with the applicant’s request. Use Approx. distance from north buffer yard Approx. distance from west buffer yard Active Senior Apartment Building 172’ 370’ Page 4 of 8 Senior Housing Apartment Building 350’ N/A – buffer in this area satisfied with wetland Multi-Family F 870’ N/A – buffer in this area satisfied with wetland Commercial Area 1,440’ N/A – buffer flexibility is not requested in this area Figure 2 North/Northwest Project Boundary with Reduced Buffer Yards 2. Setbacks There are a few areas where the applicant requests additional setback flexibility to be approved in order to provide a more high-end floor plan for the villas and townhomes. Specifically, there are a few villas lots that are constrained by the depth between the northern property boundary and the location of Hope Way. The preliminary PUD plan approved a 25’ setback to be applied to both the front and rear yards. The following additional setback flexibility would be required to approve the plan as currently shown: Lot Front Setback Rear Setback Villa 11 23’ 25’ (no additional flexibility requested) Page 5 of 8 Villa 12 23’ 23’ Villa 13 21’ 20.2’ The townhome area also requires an additional setback flexibility. In the northwest corner of the townhome area, the applicant was required to dedicate a road right-of-way (ROW) of 50’ to provide eventual road and utility access to an undeveloped property to the north that otherwise would become landlocked. Under the preliminary approvals, a 25’ front setback would be applied from this ROW. The applicant requests that a 10.4’ setback be approved from this ROW since there are no definite plans for the ROW to be utilized as a roadway which will ultimately serve a limited amount of properties, and the reduced setback will not conflict with utilities. The applicant proposes a fence and landscaping to provide an additional buffer from the road. Figure 3 Northwest Corner of Townhomes with 50' ROW 3. Commercial Parking Lot Landscaping Islands The applicant team worked with staff to create a more unified experience for pedestrians walking within the commercial parking lot. As part of the preliminary PUD plan, flexibility was granted to deviate from the spacing requirements for landscaping islands in favor of lined up islands to allow for pedestrian pathways. The preliminary Page 6 of 8 approvals require that the islands still meet the required sizing requirements outlined in the NE District Plan. Unfortunately, staff overlooked that there is no room to reduce parking stalls further, and the size requirement is based on planting area within the islands. This creates a conflict with the shown pedestrian pathways in some of the islands. For example, there is a 3.5’ pathway shown in some landscaping islands, and a 5’ sidewalk shown in other landscaping islands that are most likely to be utilized by those walking to the site with a stroller or utilizing handicapped parking. Staff believes these pathways should be prioritized and justify deviation from the minimum planting areas called out within the NE District Plan as long as there are still trees and ground cover within these islands. Figure 4 Landscape Islands with Pedestrian Pathways 4. Commercial Area Landscaping Calculation The preliminary PUD plan required that the landscaping for the commercial area be calculated on a lot-by-lot basis. However, this has led to a number of trees that cannot be accommodated. The applicant requests that the commercial area be treated as one site for the landscaping calculations. This will still lead to a significant amount of trees to be utilized throughout the site as approved. This change also makes sense with the shared parking lot and the commercial area will operate as a cohesive site. Page 7 of 8 Conclusion A significant effort was made to call out all the areas where deviations from the underlying code standards would be needed during the preliminary plan in order to make the vision for the area work. However, it was noted during the preliminary application that specific users had not yet been secured. It makes sense that some of these flexibilities came about after discussions with JP Brooks became serious. Further, there were a few conditions of approval that created conflicts that did not become obvious until resubmittal of the preliminary plans. The applicant team has made compromises in an effort to stay within the preliminary approvals, including a reduced unit count and additional parking spaces. A great deal of landscaping will be provided for the site even with the requested reductions. A draft resolution is prepared approving the PUD amendment. A PUD amendment can be a chance to ask for new public benefits. Commission feedback on the extent of the flexibilities requested as well as any thoughts on any additional public benefits are welcomed at this time. A summary of the flexibilities granted, and public benefits already proposed can be found in the attached resolution approving the preliminary PUD plan. 4. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the following: Figure 5 Proposed Commercial Landscaping Calculation Area Page 8 of 8 1.Draft Resolution Approving the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Hope Community. Attachments: 1.Draft Resolution Approving the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Hope Community. 2.Resolution 2024-16 Approving the Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan for “Hope Ministries” 3. Applicant's Narrative dated 06/24/2024 4.PUD Amendment Exhibit 5.Updated Phasing Plan 6.Draft Final Plat 7.First Phase Final Plans 8.House Plans for Villas and Townhomes City of Corcoran August 22, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2024- Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR “HOPE MINISTRIES” ON THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 116 AND COUNTY ROAD 30 (PID 11- 119-23—14-0003, 11-119-23-14-0004, 11-119-23-14-0005, AND 11-119-23-11-0012) (CITY FILE NO. 24-025) WHEREAS, Hope Ministries International, Inc. (“the applicant”) requested approval of a preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan amendment approved for a subdivision on the property legal descried as follows: See Attachment A. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the requested amendment at a duly called public meeting and recommended approval; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a preliminary PUD plan amendment for “Hope Ministries” subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD amendment is approved to modify Resolution 2024-16 approving the preliminary PUD plan for “Hope Ministries” based on the PUD Amendment Exhibit submitted to the City on July 23, 2024, unless otherwise amended by this resolution. 2. The following flexibilities to Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(J) as it relates to buffer yards is granted: a. A class C buffer yard is allowed to be applied along the north property line of the common lot for the townhomes. i. No more than 45 townhomes are allowed to reduce the density in this area. b. A class B buffer yard is allowed to be applied along the north and northwest project boundary adjacent to the detached villa. i. To further reduce the density along the project boundary, 22 detached villas are allowed where 26 villas were previously approved. 3. The following setback flexibilities are granted: a. Front setback of 23’ for Villa Lots 11 and 12. b. Front setback of 21’ for Villa Lot 12. c. Rear Setback of 23’ for Villa Lot 12. d. Rear Setback of 20.2 for Villa Lot 13. e. A 10.4’ front setback from the unimproved right-of-way to be dedicated west of Townhome Building 1. i. A 4’ fence with an opacity of less than 50% with landscaping must be provided to buffer the building from the right-of-way. 4. The planting areas within landscaping islands in the shared commercial parking lot can be reduced to fit a 3.5’-5’ pedestrian pathway as shown in the PUD exhibit. City of Corcoran August 22, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2024- Page 2 of 3 a. Each island must have at least 2 trees with shrubs and ground cover. 5. The commercial area will be treated as one lot for the purposes of calculating the required landscaping for Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(G). 6. The final plans and building permits shall dimension the required setbacks specific to each lot. 7. Details on ground cover and/or shrubs within the landscaping islands shall be shown on the final landscaping plan. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Lanterman, Mark Lanterman, Mark Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 22nd day of August 2024. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jason (Jay) Tobin City of Corcoran August 22, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2024- Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Parcel 1: Lot 1, Block 1, Hope Place, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 2: Lot 1, Block 2, Hope Place, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: Outlot A, Hope Place, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 4: Outlot C, Serenity Meadows, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Abstract Property). Hope Meadows Final PUD application summary , 6-24-24 The following outline summarizes the resubmittal documents in response to the 6-11-24 incomplete letter received from the City of Corcoran . 1. PUD submittal documents are provided along with a response to the June 11, 2024 stormwater memo, and the January 22, 2024 Engineering memo. 2. A new land use application is provided with Hope Ministries as the applicant. This was dropped off at City Hall separately. 3. Both the PUD plan set and the Hope Meadows plan set have been included as a new pdf file. Please let us know if there are any scaling concerns with the new set. 4. The PUD plan set and the Hope Meadows plan set have been updated to meet the 50 ft. setback from the R/W dedication line, and Hope Meadows plans have been updated to meet the 25 ft. setback line from Hunters Ridge and Hope Way. The setback provided from t he Road 1 R/W is 10.4 ft. and will require PUD flexibility in the Amended PUD request, additionally: i. A separate Final PUD amendment plan is included identifying the following requests for deviations from the approved Preliminary PUD: 1. Revise the west and north buffer requirements adjacent to villa townhomes, from Type D to Type B for the residential uses being proposed rather than the old underlying zoning of GMU which requires Type D buffering for commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. The proposed buffer meets the buffer ordinance requirements based on the proposed uses. 2. Revise the north and east buffer requirements for the row townhomes, from Type D to Type C for the residential uses being proposed rather than the old underlying zoning of GMU which requires Type D buffering for commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. The proposed buffer meets the buffer ordinance requirements based on the proposed uses. Additionally, the Type C buffer will reduce the number of plantings and trees in the 50 ft. sewer easement along Highway 116. 3. Revise the front setback to 21 and 23 ft. for villas #11 to #13 , to allow the house pads to slide east and reduce the amount of unused space to the east of villa #13. The desired 22 ft. driveway from garage to sidewalk is still provided with the reduced setbacks. 4. Revise the rear setback to 20 and 23 ft. for villas #12 and #13 , to reduce the unused space to the east of #13 as noted above. The buffer includes a fence to screen the proposed uses and there is a large, wooded area separating the proposed villas from the existing residences to the north. The revised setback helps accommodate larger villa units with three car garages. ii. The density of the proposed project is less than the approved preliminary PUD by six row townhome units and four villa townhome units. Hope Meadows Townhomes June 24, 2024 Page 2 5. Since the Hope Meadow plan updates have just been completed, we will provide an updated cost estimate by 6/28/24. 6. The final plat has been updated to include the entire Hope Community Development project with the requested drainage and utility easements and a platted lot for the existing residence at 19904 Oswald Farm Road. 7. The final plat dedication page has been updated to reflect the existing ownership entities at the time of plat recording. JP Land will purchase the platted lots. 8. An updated phasing plan is included with the resubmittal documents. 9. The density calculations are shown on the PUD site plan and the Hope Meadows site plan. 10. The minimum lot calculations are shown on the Hope Meadows site plan. 11. The landscape buffer calculations are shown on the PUD and Hope Meadows landscape plans. 12. The material percentages are provided with this submittal in a spreadsheet provided by JPB. 13. The location of the air conditioning units are shown on the landscape detail for the row townhomes on page L1.03 . 14. The updated Hope Meadows plans show the Oswald Farm Road connection from the new Hope Way intersection to the existing Oswald Farm Road alignment. 15. The updated Hope Meadows plans include water and sewer profiles for the Haven Avenue alignment. 16. Plan and profile sheets have been provided for all utilities. 17. The site grades are 4:1 or flatter other than 3:1 slopes around the stormwater basins which will include native grasses that do not require mowing. 18. The plans have been updated to show a revised 36” storm pipe crossing at the Hope Way/Highway 116 intersection. The 36” storm pipe will be installed in the future when the multifamily and commercial areas are developed. The 36” storm crossing may be relo cated to the south, closer to the exiting tile crossing at 116 if an easement is secured and coordinated with the Oswald property on the east side of 116. 19. The Hope Meadows stormwater model and the PUD stormwater model have been updated, and the plans match the model. A n exhibit is also included which identifies the culverts on the west side of 116, north of the project. The 100 HWL elevations for overtopping of the driveways is also identified on the exhibit along with the estimated ground elevation (based on lidar data ) at the homesites. 20. The Hope Meadows plan set has been updated to reflect the new layout meeting the 50 ft. and 25 ft. setback dimensions. The revised layout includes four less townhome units, for a total of 45 units. 21. The updated wetland escrow fees have been provided by JPB Land. 1 4 5 2 3 OU T L O T A BL O C K 1 LO T 1 OU T L O T A BL O C K 1 LO T 1 OU T L O T C PA R C E L 3 PA R C E L 2 PA R C E L 1 PA R C E L 4 WE T L A N D L O C A T E D B Y S A M B A T E K O N 0 9 / 2 7 / 2 0 2 2 AN D D E L I N E A T E D B Y S A M B A T E K O N 0 9 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 WE T L A N D L O C A T E D B Y S A M B A T E K ON 0 9 / 2 7 / 2 0 2 2 A N D D E L I N E A T E D BY S A M B A T E K O N 0 9 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 20 3 8 6 96 1 . 3 9 GM >>>>>> >> UE UE UE >> EXISTING POND HWL: 947.48 NWL: 947.00 P O N D 1 2 N H W L : 9 4 7 . 0 8 N W L : 9 4 3 . 5 0 POND 13N HWL:948.56 NWL:946.50 EXISTING CEMETERY SWALE O S W A L D F A R M R O A D HO P E W A Y OSWALD FARM ROAD HUNT E R S R I D G E HU N T E R S R I D G E OS W A L D F A R M R O A D PO N D 5 N HW L : 9 4 0 . 5 3 NW L : 9 3 8 . 5 0 FI L T R A T I O N 6 F HW L : 9 4 0 . 2 0 POND 11N HWL:948.11 NWL:945.60 FILTRATION 11F HWL:948.11 FI L T R A T I O N 1 2 F 2 HW L : 9 4 6 . 8 5 F I L T R A T I O N 1 2 F 1 H W L : 9 4 7 . 0 8 CO U N T Y R O A D # 3 0 COUNTY ROAD #116 HO P E W A Y TOT LOT PO N D 2 N HW L : 9 4 6 . 5 2 NW L : 9 4 4 . 0 0 PO N D 4 N HW L : 9 4 9 . 0 7 NW L : 9 4 4 . 0 0 SENIOR HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING "F" PROPOSED MEDICAL "D" PROPOSED MEDICAL "C" PROPOSED RETAIL "B" 10,100 S.F. FFE=952.35 WATER TOWER 4 STORIES OVER 1 8 UNITS FFE=948.253 U N I T S FF E = 9 5 1 . 0 0 45 UNITS 5.52 ACRES 5.65 ACRES 4.25 ACRES 122 UNITS IL/AL FFE=953 / GFE=942 FUTURE CEMETERY PROPOSED RETAIL "E" 1.2 ACRES 7 UNITS FFE=949.75 7 U N I T S FF E = 9 4 9 . 5 0 / L F E = 9 4 1 . 5 0 7 UNITS FFE=948.50 28 MC Units MC GARDEN ACTIVE SENIOR 110 UNITS FFE=953 GFE=942 21 6 UNI T S FFE=9 5 2 . 2 5 7 U N I T S FF E = 9 5 2 . 5 0 LF E = 9 4 4 . 5 0 FFE=954 GFE=943 FI L T R A T I O N 3 F HW L : 9 4 5 . 7 4 RE Q U I R E D A V G 3 5 ' BU F F E R : 5 1 7 5 1 S F EXISTING WETLAND HWL: 938.55 NWL: 937.88 PR O V I D E D B U F F E R : 57 2 8 1 S F PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY "A" PROPOSED ROWHOMES "J" PROPOSED MEDICAL "D" PROPOSED MEDICAL "C" PROPOSED RETAIL "B" WATER TOWER 4.25 ACRES FUTURE CEMETERY PROPOSED RETAIL "E" 1.2 ACRES PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY "A" PROPOSED MEDICAL "D" 28,800 S.F. (2 STORIES) FFE=952.00 SENIOR HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING "F" PROPOSED MEDICAL "D" PROPOSED MEDICAL "C" PROPOSED RETAIL "B" WATER TOWER 4 STORIES OVER 1 4.25 ACRES 122 UNITS IL/AL FFE=953 / GFE=942 FUTURE CEMETERY PROPOSED RETAIL "E" 1.2 ACRES 28 MC Units MC GARDEN ACTIVE SENIOR 110 UNITS FFE=953 GFE=942 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY "A" SENIOR HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING "F" PROPOSED MEDICAL "D" 28,800 S.F. (2 STORIES) FFE=952.35 PROPOSED MEDICAL "C" 31,300 S.F. (2 STORIES) FFE=952.35 PROPOSED RETAIL "B" PROPOSED VILLAS "I" WATER TOWER 4 STORIES OVER 1 22 UNITS 3.40 ACRES 4.25 ACRES 122 UNITS IL/AL FFE=953 / GFE=942 FUTURE CEMETERY PROPOSED RETAIL "E" 10,000 S.F. FFE=952.35 1.2 ACRES 28 MC Units MC GARDEN ACTIVE SENIOR 110 UNITS FFE=953 GFE=942 146 UNITS 40,380 S.F. FFE=954.00 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY "A" MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING "F" 46,200 S.F. 4 STORIES OVER 1 181 UNITS 50.0' 50.0' 50 . 0 ' 50 . 0 ' 120.0' ROW 10.0' PROPOSED ROW 100.0' EXISTING ROW 15 10 9 12 10 10 20 12 11 18 18 15 1412 11 14 4 10 10 14 7 11 14 128 8 6 30 34 22 29 14 1520 30 11 6.0' 5.0' 28.0' 28.0' 2 8 . 0 ' 1 0 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 1 0 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 5.0' 6.0' 36.0' 6.0' 5.0' 5' TRAIL EASEMENT 15:1 TAPER ON TURN LANE 55:1 TAPER ON THRU LANE 12' LANES 300' TURN LANE W/ 180' TAPER R30 . 0 ' R30 . 0 ' 55:1 TAPER ON THRU LANE 8' PAVED SHOULDER 8 1515 15 15 158 4 23 24 6 14 6 10 10 B A A A A A A C C C D E E E E C C F 7 D&U EASEMENT SWALE PO N D 5 N HW L : 9 4 0 . 3 6 NW L : 9 3 8 . 5 0 FI L T R A T I O N 6 F HW L : 9 3 9 . 9 2 PO N D 4 N HW L : 9 4 6 . 0 3 NW L : 9 4 4 . 0 0 10 11 12 4 2 1 3 2 1 5 8 7 34 6 14 5 6 7 8 9 19 20 22 21 18 HA V E N A V E N U E HA V E N A V E N U E 13 15 16 17 15" RCP IE : 9 3 6 . 7 2 IE : 9 3 7 . 8 2 TE M P O R A R Y FI L T R A T I O N 4 F HW L : 9 4 4 . 9 1 14 G G G G G G G G G G G 12 8 8 15 H H H H H H H H H H REDUCED FRONT SETBACK TO 21.0'. REDUCED REAR SETBACK TO 20.0' REDUCED FRONT SETBACK TO 23.0'. REDUCED REAR SETBACK TO 23.0' REDUCED FRONT SETBACK TO 23.0'. 20.2' 23.0' 25.0' 25 . 0 ' 10 . 4 ' REDUCED SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM 25' to 10.4' PUD FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW 3.5' SIDEWALK WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AREA. PUD FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW 3.5' SIDEWALK WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AREA. PUD FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW 5' SIDEWALK WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AREA. PUD FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW 5' SIDEWALK WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AREA. 21.00' 23.00' 23.00' 25.00' SCALE IN FEET 0 12060 NORTH BUILDING USE TOTAL SF LOT AREA UNITS DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY "A"40,380 SF 4.25 AC (185,159 SF)146 UNITS 34.35 UNITS/AC RETAIL "B"10,100 SF 1.59 AC (69,129 SF)6,540 SF/AC MEDICAL "C" (2 STORIES)31,300 SF 1.13 AC (49,096 SF)13,805 SF/AC MEDICAL "D" (2 STORIES)28,800 SF 6.50 AC (283,173 SF)2,323 SF/AC RETAIL "E"10,000 SF 0.79 AC (34,335 SF)13,164 SF/AC MULTI-FAMILY "F"46,236 SF 5.45 AC (237,202 SF)181 UNITS 33.76 UNITS/AC SENIOR HOUSING +46,007 SF 132 UNITS* ACTIVE SENIOR 23,000 SF 6.96 AC (303,046 SF)110 UNITS 37.37 UNITS/AC VILLAS "I"54,022 SF 12.53 AC (545,608 SF)22 UNITS 1.76 UNITS/AC ROWHOMES "J"55,800 SF 5.38 AC (234,128 SF)45 UNITS 8.36 UNITS/AC** *MEMORY CARE UNITS EXCLUDED **ROWHOMES "J"5,202 SF/UNIT TOTAL COMMERCIAL 80,200 SF 10.01 AC TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 265,445 SF 34.57 AC 638 UNITS 18.46 UNITS/AC CHURCH LOT 566,409 SF 13.00 AC WATER TOWER LOT 303,046 SF 6.95 AC DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY PARKING CODE SENIOR HOUSING: 1.5 PER DWELLING MULTIFAMILY:2 PER DWELLING RETAIL:8 SPACES + 1 PER 200 SF MEDICAL:8 SPACES + 1 PER 200 SF BUILDING USE PARKING REQ.PARKING PROVIDED MULTI-FAMILY "A"291 STALLS 291 STALLS RETAIL "B"50 STALLS 410 STALLS (SHARED*) MEDICAL "C"165 STALLS 417 STALLS (SHARED*) MEDICAL "D"152 STALLS 417 STALLS (SHARED*) RETAIL "E"50 STALLS 417 STALLS (SHARED*) MULTI-FAMILY "F"362 STALLS 363 STALLS SENIOR HOUSING 198 STALLS 174 STALLS (1.43:1) ACTIVE SENIOR 165 STALLS 146 STALLS (1.33:1) TOTAL COMMERCIAL 417 STALLS 415 STALLS TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 1,027 STALLS 984 STALLS *JOINT FACILITIES UTILIZED FOR A 10% REDUCTION PUD FLEXIBILITIES EXHIB THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. PROPOSED EXISTING LEGEND RETAINING WALL WETLAND TREE LINE SAW CUT LINE BOLLARD PARKING STALL COUNT## 1 KEY NOTE HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE PAVING CONCRETE SIDEWALK PAVEMENT BY OTHERS (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) BOUNDARY LINE STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVING LIGHT POLE (BY OTHERS) EASEMENT LINE CONCRETE CURB BUILDING LINE SIGN A.SIGN TYPE "A" B.SIGN TYPE "B" C.SIGN TYPE "C" D.GATEWAY PYLON SIGN E.COMMERCIAL BUILDING SIGNAGE F.OVERHEAD PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNAL G.WETLAND BUFFER ZONE SIGN H.BIKE RACK KEY NOTES 15' POND OUTLET ACCESS 10' POND MAINTENANCE BENCH NO DATE BY CKD APPR SHEET OF Date License # Print Name: 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. DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY PROJECT NO. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REV. COMMENT Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental 24 . 1 S ( L M S T E C H ) | JO H N N I E W O R K M A N , P L A ( M N , W I , T X ) | 7/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 4 3 : 4 4 : 1 5 P M L: \ P R O J E C T S \ 5 1 3 7 2 \ C A D \ E X H I B I T S \ 5 1 3 7 2 - C 3 - S I T E - P U D A M E N D M E N T . D W G :EX H B T P U D A M E N D M E N T © 2021 Sambatek HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CORCORAN, MN PRELIMINARY PUD PLANS 51372 11/22/2023101/12/2024 EJC MCA MCA City Resubmittal 2 01/30/2024 EJC MCA MCA Preliminary Plan Resubmittal 3 06/24/2024 TTP MCA MCA For Hope Meadows and PUD Resolution 4 07/23/2024 TTP MCA MCA Watershed Submittal 2 FN D I P 1 / 2 " OP E N T I P P E D FN D I P 1 / 2 " O P E N FN D I P CA P P E D 2 4 9 9 2 FN D I P CA P P E D 2 4 9 9 2 WE T L A N D L O C A T E D B Y S A M B A T E K O N 0 9 / 2 7 / 2 0 2 2 AN D D E L I N E A T E D B Y S A M B A T E K O N 0 9 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 WE T L A N D L O C A T E D B Y S A M B A T E K ON 0 9 / 2 7 / 2 0 2 2 A N D D E L I N E A T E D BY S A M B A T E K O N 0 9 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 >>>>>> >>UE UE UE >> EXISTING POND HWL: 947.48 NWL: 947.00 P O N D 1 2 N H W L : 9 4 7 . 0 8 N W L : 9 4 3 . 5 0 POND 13N HWL:948.56 NWL:946.50 EXISTING CEMETERY SWALE O S W A L D F A R M R O A D HO P E W A Y OSWALD FARM ROAD HUNTE R S R I D G E HU N T E R S R I D G E OS W A L D F A R M R O A D PO N D 5 N HW L : 9 4 0 . 5 3 NW L : 9 3 8 . 5 0 FI L T R A T I O N 6 F HW L : 9 4 0 . 2 0 POND 11N HWL:948.11 NWL:945.60 FILTRATION 11F HWL:948.11 FI L T R A T I O N 1 2 F 2 HW L : 9 4 6 . 8 5 F I L T R A T I O N 1 2 F 1 H W L : 9 4 7 . 0 8 CO U N T Y R O A D # 3 0 COUNTY ROAD #116 HO P E W A Y TOT LOT PO N D 2 N HW L : 9 4 6 . 5 2 NW L : 9 4 4 . 0 0 PO N D 4 N HW L : 9 4 9 . 0 7 NW L : 9 4 4 . 0 0 SENIOR HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING "F" PROPOSED MEDICAL "D" PROPOSED MEDICAL "C" PROPOSED RETAIL "B" 10,100 S.F. FFE=952.35 WATER TOWER 4 STORIES OVER 1 8 UNITS FFE=948.253 U N I T S FF E = 9 5 1 . 0 0 45 UNITS 5.52 ACRES 5.65 ACRES 4.25 ACRES 122 UNITS IL/AL FFE=953 / GFE=942 FUTURE CEMETERY PROPOSED RETAIL "E" 1.2 ACRES 7 UNITS FFE=949.75 7 U N I T S FF E = 9 4 9 . 5 0 / L F E = 9 4 1 . 5 0 7 UNITS FFE=948.50 28 MC Units MC GARDEN ACTIVE SENIOR 110 UNITS FFE=953 GFE=942 21 6 UNI T S FFE=9 5 2 . 2 5 7 U N I T S FF E = 9 5 2 . 5 0 LF E = 9 4 4 . 5 0 FFE=954 GFE=943 FI L T R A T I O N 3 F HW L : 9 4 5 . 7 4 RE Q U I R E D A V G 3 5 ' BU F F E R : 5 1 7 5 1 S F EXISTING WETLAND HWL: 938.55 NWL: 937.88 PR O V I D E D B U F F E R : 57 2 8 1 S F PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY "A" PROPOSED ROWHOMES "J" PROPOSED MEDICAL "D" PROPOSED MEDICAL "C" PROPOSED RETAIL "B" WATER TOWER 4.25 ACRES FUTURE CEMETERY PROPOSED RETAIL "E" 1.2 ACRES PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY "A" PROPOSED MEDICAL "D" 28,800 S.F. (2 STORIES) FFE=952.00 SENIOR HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING "F" PROPOSED MEDICAL "D" PROPOSED MEDICAL "C" PROPOSED RETAIL "B" WATER TOWER 4 STORIES OVER 1 4.25 ACRES 122 UNITS IL/AL FFE=953 / GFE=942 FUTURE CEMETERY PROPOSED RETAIL "E" 1.2 ACRES 28 MC Units MC GARDEN ACTIVE SENIOR 110 UNITS FFE=953 GFE=942 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY "A" SENIOR HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING "F" PROPOSED MEDICAL "D" 28,800 S.F. (2 STORIES) FFE=952.35 PROPOSED MEDICAL "C" 31,300 S.F. (2 STORIES) FFE=952.35 PROPOSED RETAIL "B" PROPOSED VILLAS "I" WATER TOWER 4 STORIES OVER 1 22 UNITS 3.40 ACRES 4.25 ACRES 122 UNITS IL/AL FFE=953 / GFE=942 FUTURE CEMETERY PROPOSED RETAIL "E" 10,000 S.F. FFE=952.35 1.2 ACRES 28 MC Units MC GARDEN ACTIVE SENIOR 110 UNITS FFE=953 GFE=942 146 UNITS 40,380 S.F. FFE=954.00 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY "A" MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING "F" 46,200 S.F. 4 STORIES OVER 1 181 UNITS 50 . 0 ' 50 . 0 ' ENHANCED LANDSCAPING EN H A N C E D L A N D S C A P I N G ASSUMED TUNNEL BOTTOM 15 FT BELOW PROPOSED STREET ELEVATION T P TP TP TP TP TP TP T P TP T P T P 83 ' 64 ' 96 ' 77' 71' TYPE B BUFFER; 10' WITH 4' FENCE TYPE B BUFFER; 10' WITH 4' FENCE TYPE D BUFFER; 40' NO FENCE TY P E B B U F F E R ; 2 0 ' W I T H 4 ' F E N C E TY P E C B U F F E R ; 4 0 ' N O B E R M O R F E N C E TYP E B B U F F E R ; 10' W I T H 4 ' F E N C E TYPE C BUFFER; 20' WITH 4' FENCE SNOW STORAGE SNOW STORAGE SNOW STORAGE SNOW STORAGE SNOW STORAGE SNOW STORAGE SWALE HO P E W A Y HUNT E R S R I D G E HU N T E R S R I D G E PO N D 5 N HW L : 9 4 0 . 3 6 NW L : 9 3 8 . 5 0 FI L T R A T I O N 6 F HW L : 9 3 9 . 9 2 COUNTY ROAD #116 PO N D 4 N HW L : 9 4 6 . 0 3 NW L : 9 4 4 . 0 0 10 11 12 4 2 1 3 2 1 5 8 7 34 6 ROAD 1 14 5 6 7 8 9 19 20 22 21 18 HA V E N A V E N U E HA V E N A V E N U E 13 15 16 17 TE M P O R A R Y FI L T R A T I O N 4 F HW L : 9 4 4 . 9 1 ENHANCED BUFFER SEE HOPE MEADOWS FINAL PLAT FOR UPDATES TO THIS OVERALL PLAT SCALE IN FEET 0 12060 NORTH NO DATE BY CKD APPR SHEET Date License # Print Name: DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY CHECKED BY 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. PROJECT NO. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REV. COMMENT Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental 24 . 1 S ( L M S T E C H ) | JO H N N I E W O R K M A N , P L A ( M N , W I , T X ) | 7/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 4 6 : 2 5 P M L: \ P R O J E C T S \ 5 1 3 7 2 \ C A D \ S H E E T S \ 5 1 3 7 2 - L 1 - L S C P . D W G :EX H B T P U D A M E N D M E N T © 2021 Sambatek HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CORCORAN, MN PRELIMINARY PUD PLANS 51372 11/22/2023101/12/2024 EJC MCA MCA City Resubmittal 2 01/30/2024 EJC MCA MCA Preliminary Plan Resubmittal 3 06/24/2024 TTP MCA MCA For Hope Meadows and PUD Resolution 4 07/23/2024 TTP MCA MCA Watershed Submittal 2 LEGEND EASEMENT CURB & GUTTER BUILDING RETAINING WALL SIGN PIPE BOLLARD STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE PAVING PROPERTY LIMIT EXISTINGPROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT CALCULATIONS - COMEMRCIAL WETLAND LIMITS TREELINE CONCRETE SIDEWALK S S SANITARY SEWER LANDSCAPE EDING STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FORCEMAIN (SAN.) YARDDRAIN TPTREE PROTECTION FENCE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE TREE TO BE REMOVED D S LS RIPRAP 24 . 1 S ( L M S T E C H ) | JO H N N I E W O R K M A N , P L A ( M N , W I , T X ) | 7/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 4 6 : 2 5 P M L: \ P R O J E C T S \ 5 1 3 7 2 \ C A D \ S H E E T S \ 5 1 3 7 2 - L 1 - L S C P . D W G :EX H B T P U D A M E N D M E N T LANDSCAPE PUD FLEXIBILITY EXHIB CALCULATIONS RETAIL "B,C,D,E"- ONE OVERSTORY TREE PER BUILDING AREA OR PER SITE PERIMETER WHICHEVER IS GREATER((110,300SF/ 1,000) =111 OR (2,768LF/ 50) =56) ONE UNDERSTORY SHRUB PER BUILDING AREA OR PER SITE PERIMETER WHICHEVER IS GREATER((110,300SF/ 300) =368 OR (2,768LF/ 30) =93) ENHANCED SCREENING REQUIREMENTS: (890 / 100 = 8.9) ONE OVERSTORY DECIDUOUS TREE PER 100 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE ONE OVERSTORY CONIFEROUS TREE PER 100 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE 2 ORNAMENTAL TREES PER 100 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE 10 UNDERSTORY SHRUBS PER 100 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE *SHRUB PLACEMENT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTS AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTALS. PROPOSED 144 * 9 9 17 89 REQUIRED 111 368 9 9 17 89 HOPE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLE PHASING PLAN CORCORAN, MINNESOTA UPDATED JUNE 20, 2024 measure 2 3 3 POND PONDPOND POND POND POND EXISTING WETLAND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 1 TOT LOT 1.12 AC. WATER TOWER 1.2 AC. CEMETARY EXPANSION MULTIFAMILY 4-STORY 156 UNITS MULTIFAMILY 4-STORY 184 UNITSSENIOR LIVING 4-STORY 204 UNITS EXISTING HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH 55+ ACTIVE SENIOR 4-STORY 120 UNITS ROW TOWHOMES 44 UNITS COUNTY ROAD 30 CO U N T Y R O A D 1 1 6 OSW A L D F A R M R O A D HUNTERS R I D G E HOPE WAY 100 200 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE 47,000 SQ. FT. PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE 43,200 SQ. FT. PROPOSED RETAIL 10,100 SQ. FT. PROPOSED RETAIL 10,000 SQ. FT. PHASE 1 PHASE 4PHASE 5 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 HOPE MEADOWS ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND LAND SURVEYING SAMBATEK, INC. SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEETS C.R. DOC. NO. I Jared J. Averbeck do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this Plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 . Jared J. Averbeck, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 53642 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _________________, 20___, by Jared J. Averbeck. Notary Public, County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name My Commission Expires CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA This plat of HOPE MEADOWS was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of _______________, 20___ , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2. City Council, City of Corcoran, Minnesota By: Mayor By: Clerk Tom Mckee Michelle Friedrich COUNTY AUDITOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20___ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this _______ day of _________________, 20___. Daniel Rogan, County Auditor By: , Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this _______ day of _________________, 20___. Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By: COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of HOPE MEADOWS was recorded in this office this _______day of _________________, 20___, at ______ o'clock ____ .M. Amber Bougie, County Recorder By: , Deputy KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That the Hope Ministries International, Incorporated, a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, fee owner, of the following described property situated in Hennepin County Minnesota: Lot 1, Block 1, HOPE PLACE SECOND ADDITON and the vacated portions of Oswald Farm Road and Hunters Ridge accrued thereto. AND Outlot C, SERENITY MEADOWS and the vacated portions of Hunters Ridge and Oswald Farm Road accrued thereto. And that Corcoran Investments, LLC a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property situated in Hennepin County Minnesota: Outlot A, HOPE PLACE And that Brian L Lother and Jacqueline Lother, husband and wife, fee owners ,of the following described property situated in Hennepin County Minnesota: Lot 1, Block 1, HOPE PLACE and the vacated portions of Hunters Ridge and Oswald Farm Road accrued thereto. Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as HOPE MEADOWS and does hereby dedicate to the public for the public ways, and the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat. In witness whereof said Hope Ministries International, Incorporated, a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______ day of _________________, 20___. Hope Ministries International, Incorporated SIGNED: By: , as STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _________________, 20___, by _________________. Notary Public, County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name My Commission Expires In witness whereof said Corcoran Investments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______ day of _________________, 20___. Corcoran Investments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company SIGNED: By: , as STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _________________, 20___, by _________________. Notary Public, County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name My Commission Expires In witness whereof said Brian L Lother and Jacqueline Lother, husband and wife, have hereunto set their hands this _______ day of _________________, 20___. Corcoran Investments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ___________________________________ Brian L Lother Jacqueline Lother STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _________________, 20___, by _________________. Notary Public, County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name My Commission Expires OUTLOT B 10 1 WETLAND LOCATED BY SAMBATEK O N 0 9 / 2 7 / 2 0 2 2 A N D D E L I N E A T E D BY SAMBATEK ON 09/15/2022 W E T L A N D L O C A T E D B Y S A M B A T E K ON 09/27/2022 AND DELINEATED B Y S A M B A T E K O N 0 9 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 11 1 OUTLOT C EAST LINE OF THE SE 1/4, OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 119, RANGE 23 SO U T H L I N E O F T H E S E 1 / 4 , O F T H E N E 1 / 4 , SE C T I O N 1 1 , T O W N S H I P 1 1 9 , R A N G E 2 3 COUNTY ROAD NO. 116 OSWALD FARM ROAD Curve Table Curve # C1 C2 Length L=89.04 L=60.80 Radius R=205.00 R=205.00 Delta Δ=24°53'06" Δ=16°59'34" Chord C=88.34 C=60.58 Chord Bearing C.Brg.=N11°19'04"W C.Brg.=N30°55'01"E Line Table Line # L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 Length 35.28 15.00 15.00 40.12 51.58 41.00 31.00 51.00 15.46 55.50 25.59 25.70 Direction S1°07'29"W N88°52'33"W N88°52'33"W S32°22'38"W N29°18'56"E S37°25'59"W S60°25'59"W S81°25'59"W S45°03'44"E S44°10'59"W S81°50'01"E S30°50'01"E HOPE MEADOWS ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND LAND SURVEYING SAMBATEK, INC. SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 10 5 5 10 INSET A SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS INSET A SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS DENOTES 5/8 INCH BY 24 INCH REBAR PIPE SET AND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 53642, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DENOTES 5/8 INCH REBAR MONUMENT FOUND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 53642 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF HOPE PLACE SECOND ADDITION IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF NORTH 01 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST SCALE IN FEET 0 NORTH 16080 C.R. DOC. NO. OUTLOT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 123 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 3 2 1 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HOPE WAY RO A D 1 CO U N T Y R O A D N O . 1 1 6 HUNTERS RIDGE HOPE MEADOWS ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND LAND SURVEYING SAMBATEK, INC. SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS INSET A DENOTES 5/8 INCH BY 24 INCH REBAR PIPE SET AND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 53642, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DENOTES 5/8 INCH REBAR MONUMENT FOUND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 53642 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF HOPE PLACE SECOND ADDITION IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF NORTH 01 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST 0 NORTH SCALE IN FEET 0 NORTH SCALE IN FEET 40 80 BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 10 5 5 10 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: (NOT TO SCALE) C.R. DOC. NO.