Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-02 Planning Commission Agenda Packet1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval 4.Open Forum – Public Comment Opportunity 5.Minutes a.September 4, 2025 Minutes 6.New Business a.High Point Gardens Site Plan and Interim Use Permit (City File 25-033) b.Rush Creek Golf Course CUP & Site Plan Amendment c.Request for a Variance to Amend Resolution 2006-62 for a second sign at St. John’s Lutheran School at 9141 County Road 101 (PID 13-119-23-11-0011) (City file 25-031) 7.Reports/Information a.Council Update b.Planning Project Update 8.Commissioner Liaison Calendar a.Commissioner Liaison Calendar 9.Adjournment Corcoran Planning Commission Agenda October 2, 2025 7:00 PM *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the Council Chambers Agenda Packet book located by the entrance. The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the City website at www.corcoranmn.gov. 1 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 5.a Council Meeting: October 2, 2025 Prepared By: Seth Gellman. Community Development Administrative Assistant, Topic: September 4, 2025 Minutes Action Required: Approval Council Action Attachments 1. 2025-09-04 Planning Commission Minutes Draft.docx 2 1 Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 2025 – 7:00pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on September 4, 2025, in Corcoran, Minnesota. Five 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 Granicus on the city website. Present: Commissioners Brummond, Hargreaves, Lind, Kozicky, and Zachman were present at the start of the meeting. Also present: Community Development Director Davis McKeown Planner Klingbeil, and Councilmember Vehrenkamp. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Kozicky, to approve the agenda for the September 4th, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, Lind, and Zachman (Motion passed 5:0). 4. Open Forum – Public Comment Opportunity (None). 5. Minutes Motion made by Kozicky, seconded by Lind, to approve the minutes for the August 8th, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, Lind, and Zachman (Motion passed 5:0). 6. New Business a. M&J Creekside Vineyard Site Plan, Interim Use Permit, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 3 2 i. Staff Report Planner Klingbeil presented the Staff Report. ii. Open Public Hearing Diana Birch, 9800 Rush Creek Boulevard, expressed concerns to the commission regarding the project. She said the area is rural and not commercial. She was concerned about the possible waste and runoff that could affect well water and septic systems. Kevin Dale, 9820 Creek View Circle, expressed concerns to the commission regarding the potential noise and light pollution from the property. David Bethke, 9733 Rush Creek Boulevard, stated he was not in favor of the project. He had concerns regarding light pollution, traffic, and other general concerns. He had objections to the amendments needed for the project. iii. Close Public Hearing Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Lind, to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, Lind, and Zachman (Motion passed 5:0). iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation Margaret and John Fernandez, Applicants, addressed some of the concerns that were discussed during public forum. Margaret Fernandez explained the restrictions and regulations that the business would comply with. John Fernandez acknowledged they needed to make some changes through the city but that it was not different from other agriculture businesses in the city. Margaret Fernandez explained further details of the proposed project. Chair Brummond and Community Development Director Davis McKeown discussed the possibility of a variance and what the process would look like. Commissioner Lind asked why a variance was not recommended. Community Development Director McKeown said a variance would be an option but would not be a recommendation by staff. She said there would be too many practical difficulties regarding a variance. Chair Brummond provided some context regarding the agribusiness zoning ordinance and why the city implemented the code. Commissioner Lind said she supports the agribusiness idea but that the project at hand had some issues to be discussed. She asked if the parking lot could be reduced to alleviate concerns about events and traffic. Chair Brummond said it would be difficult to limit capacity. 4 3 Community Development Director said it would be up to the applicant to decrease capacity expectations. Commissioner Kozicky asked what the applicant’s intent was regarding capacity. John Fernandez said patrons were needed for the business, which would include parking. He explained it is a seasonal business model to provide their product to patrons. Margaret Fernandez said people will be able to come and see vineyard operations and limiting capacity would negatively affect business. Commissioner Kozicky said that agribusinesses were important. She said paving a parking lot or even having a gravel lot would be restrictive. Community Development Director Davis McKeown said that the gravel parking lot was a compromise regarding engineering standards agreed upon. Commissioner Hargreaves asked for a definition of a grass geogrid. Planner Klingbeil explained the planned geogrid for the project and used a visual from the staff report. Commissioner Hargreaves asked about concerns regarding too much sound. Community Development Director Davis McKeown said there are enforcement options as well as screening and other items to reduce noise. Commissioner Zachman asked the applicant what the number of patrons would look like to be sustainable. John Fernandez and Margaret Fernandez said they don’t know what the number of patrons might be per day. Chair Brummond asked if there could be a change to the driveway to keep the trees that would need to be removed. Community Development Director Davis McKeown said the current plan was recommended by city public safety and engineering officials. The Commission, staff, and the applicants had a general discussion regarding the pull barn and the issue of a potential variance. Motion made by Brummond, seconded by Kozicky, to recommend approval of M&J Creekside Vineyard Site Plan, Interim Use Permit, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment with a suggestion to save the trees that were to be removed by the driveway. Voting Aye: Brummond, Hargreaves, Kozicky, and Lind Voting Nay: Zachman (Motion passed 4:1). 7. Reports/Information 5 4 a. City Council Report – Council Liason Vehrenkamp b. Planning Project Update – Planner Klingbeil was available for questions. 8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar Calendar unavailable. 9. Adjournment Motion (No motion). The meeting adjourned at 7:28 PM Submitted by Seth Gellman, Community Development Administrative Assistant 6 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 6.a Council Meeting: October 2, 2025 Prepared By: Natalie Davis, Community Development Director Topic: High Point Gardens Site Plan and Interim Use Permit (City File 25-033) Action Required: Summary The applicants, Nathan and Joshua Adams, request site plan approval for High Point Gardens, a state-licensed indoor cannabis cultivation business at their residence at 21020 County Road 10. The application includes an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to waive the parking requirements as their business model does not require the minimum parking otherwise required by code. The applicants are in the final stages of obtaining state approvals for a cannabis microbusiness license. Recommendation If the Planning Commission finds the standards for the IUP are not satisfied, the site plan can still be recommended for approval by adding a condition that the site plan be amended to reflect a 10-space parking lot that meets all City standards and a grading plan be provided for Engineering review. This will also lead to a condition of approval for the applicant to enter into a Site Improvement Performance Agreement for the parking and landscaping improvements. Council Action Attachments 1. 2025-10-02 High Point Gardens Site Plan IUP PC Report.pdf 7 Page 1 of 2 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: October 2, 2025 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: High Point Gardens Site Plan and Interim Use Permit (IUP) (PID 15-119-23-42-0003) (City File No. 25-033) Action Required: Recommendation 60-Day Review Deadline: November 15, 2025 1. Request The applicants, Nathan and Joshua Adams, request site plan approval for state-licensed indoor cannabis cultivation business at their residence at 21020 County Road 10. The application includes an IUP to waive the parking requirements as their business model does not require the minimum parking otherwise required by code. The applicants are in the final stages of obtaining state approvals for a cannabis microbusiness license. 2. Background The City adopted cannabis related ordinances in Chapter 119 of the City Code and Section 1060.120 in January of this year to be in compliance with State law and guidance. As a part of this update, state licensed cannabis cultivation was identified as a permitted use within the Rural Residential zoning district (RR) with the compliance of specific performance standards. The applicant is in the process of obtaining a microbusiness license and is in the stage where a site must be finalized. The City will be required to confirm compliance with zoning standards. This is expected to occur shortly after this application is forwarded to Council. A state-issued cannabis microbusiness license allows the licensee to grow, produce concentrate, manufacture artificially derived cannabinoids, and producing other cannabis or hemp products. While retail can be a part of a microbusiness license, the applicant confirmed that retail is not a part of their business model at this time or location; they are only pursuing licensing for cultivation. 3. Context Figure 1 Site Location 8 Page 2 of 3 Zoning and Land Use The subject property is guided Rural/Ag Residential and is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The property is 5.01 acres, currently zoned RR, and is used for residential purposes. In addition to the single-family home, there are a couple of detached accessory structures, including a workshop and barn, on the parcel. Surrounding Properties All surrounding properties are guided Rural/Ag Residential, located outside of the MUSA, and zoned RR. Surrounding properties include mostly residential properties, and there is an agricultural property immediately south. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Natural Resource Inventory Areas map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan reflects a high-quality maple/basswood upland community along the northern property line of the property. A wetland delineation was not required with this application since no exterior site improvements, other than some new proposed landscaping, are proposed. Hennepin County’s Natural Resource Map shows there is potentially a wetland in the northwest corner of the property. Figure 2 Natural Resources Inventory Areas Map 9 Page 3 of 4 4. Analysis Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, other City Code requirements, City policies. The City Engineer provided comments in the attached Engineering Memo. Approval conditions require compliance with the Memo. The City’s discretion in approving or denying a site plan and IUP is limited to whether the proposal meets the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the application. Figure 3 Hennepin County Natural Resources Map 10 Page 4 of 5 Site Plan The proposal is for a small, indoor cannabis cultivation business to be located within the basement of the existing single-family homes. The total grow space is 458 square feet with an additional dry room of roughly 237 square feet for a total operation footprint of 695 square feet. There is no exterior expansion or site changes proposed at this time other than some additional landscaping. The site plan reflects a driveway that can comfortably fit at least 5 cars in addition to any parking available within the garage. The site plan also indicates the desire to convert the pre-existing barn for cannabis cultivation at a later phase; however, that would be handled as a site plan amendment at that time. They are not seeking approval of this expansion with this initial request. Regardless, staff made the following notes that the applicant will want to consider when they are ready to move forward with an expansion: - The proposed structure for phase 2 does not meet the 100’ setback from all property lines that is required for accessory structures used for cannabis cultivation. - The property is limited to an accessory structure space of 2,438 square feet, and the proposed expansion of the barn would result in a footprint in excess of this limit. This property is not large enough to qualify for a Conditional Use Permit to bypass the footprint limit identified in the Zoning Ordinance as this has a minimum acreage requirement of 10 acres. The applicant’s narrative explains that the business will be managed by the two brothers who live on site. There are no other employees at this time or immediate future, but it is noted there could be employees or interns in the future. Since this is not a retail operation and the cultivation area is located within a private residence, there are no formal hours of operation. The applicants intend to sell their product downstream to licensed cannabis companies, but customers will not be coming to the site. Instead, the applicants will deliver their product to customers directly in their personal vehicles that will be disclosed to the State and City. Their business model means that there will be minimal commercial traffic on site; the immediate anticipated traffic would have already occurred since this is the applicants’ place of residence. Figure 4 Floor Plan 11 Page 5 of 6 Figure 5 Site Plan Building Setbacks The cultivation facility is proposed on a 5.01-acre existing lot of record in the RR. No exterior changes are proposed that would have an impact on setbacks. The existing house where the cannabis cultivation will be located exceeds the following setback requirements for a principal structure in the RR: Setback Requirement Front, County Road 100 ft. Side 25 ft. Rear 25 ft. Access 12 Page 6 of 7 The property has direct access on to County Road 10. No access improvements are required with this site plan. Hennepin County had no comments or concerns regarding the application. Parking For cannabis cultivation inquiries, staff has been utilizing the parking formula identified in City Code for a “Manufacturing, Processing or Fabricating Facility” for guidance on required parking: 8 spaces plus one space for each 2 employees on the largest shift. A minimum of 8 spaces plus one space per 500 square feet of floor area is required. This formula would require at least 10 formal parking spaces on site that meet minimum dimensional and drive aisle requirements. The applicant provided proof of parking for 9 spaces based on staff’s initial calculation. After further staff review, it was determined the actual number would be 10 spaces. The applicant must revise the site plan to show proof of parking for 10 spaces as a condition of approval. Additionally, the Engineering Memo requires the parking spaces be clearly dimensioned on the site plan as a condition of approval The current business model proposed by the applicant suggests this level of parking is unnecessary. There are no employees at this time, and the two businessowners already live and park their vehicles on site. The applicant’s site plan reflects approximate space for at least 5 cars without any improvements in addition to garage parking. Even if there are employees coming to the site in the future, the site plan indicates there is space for at least 3 employees without relying on the public street. No customer traffic will occur, so parking does not need to be provided to accommodate patrons of the business accessing the site. Figure 6 Proof of Parking 13 Page 7 of 8 Section 1060.060, Subd. 10 allows for parking space reductions to be approved as an IUP when it can be demonstrated there is a demand which is less than the required parking formula. This will be discussed further in the IUP section of this report. Lighting No exterior lighting is discussed as a part of this application. However, it is staff’s understanding that lighting may be required for effective security monitoring on the property. A condition of approval is for the applicant to provide specifications of exterior lighting to be utilized and a photometric plan to confirm compliance with Section 1060.040. Landscaping Since a portion of the site is now proposed for non-residential use, the City’s landscaping formula is applied for the portion of the site that will be converted into a cannabis cultivation business. The following formulas are applicable: - One overstory tree per 1,000 square feet of gross building floor area. - One understory shrub for each 300 square feet of building. This results in a requirement for planting one additional overstory tree and three understory shrubs on the site. The property has a significant amount of existing trees, but there are relatively less trees on the west side of the property. Considering the house is located closer to the southwest corner of the site, the site plan proposes the required landscaping to be placed into the southwest corner to offer additional screening for the neighboring property. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the proposed landscaping with an east-west alignment is preferred over having the landscaping run north-south in this corner. The site plan must be revised to reflect the following in regards to landscaping: - A third shrub is required for a total of 4 new plantings based on a cannabis cultivation footprint of 695 square feet. - The species of the proposed plantings must be identified. - The City’s landscaping detail plates must be included in the plan set. - The size of the landscaping at the time of planting must be identified and meet the following minimum standards as outlined in Section 1060.070, Subd. 2(D): Potted/Bare Root or Balled and Burlapped Shade Trees (overstory) 2.5-inch diameter Ornamental Trees (understory) 1.5-inch diameter Evergreen Trees (overstory 4-6 feet high Tall Shrubs and Hedge Material (deciduous or coniferous) 3-4 feet high 14 Page 8 of 9 Since no site improvements other than landscaping are proposed, a Site Improvement Performance Agreement is not required with this application. However, an escrow will be retained as a security for the landscaping based on a landscape contractor’s estimate for the cost and installation of the proposed landscaping. This is called out in the draft resolution. Cannabis Business Performance Standards As part of the most recent cannabis update in City Code, Section 1060.120 was adopted to provide specific performance standards for cannabis businesses. Some of these standards are applicable only to retail. Indoor cultivation businesses must comply with the following: 2. Establishments must implement comprehensive security measures, including but not limited to: a. Security cameras covering all areas of the premises, both interior and exterior. b. Alarm system monitored 24 hours per day, 7 days per week by a licensed security company. c. Secure storage areas for all cannabis products. The cultivation area will be monitored and secured with smart lock technology provided by Wright-Hennepin Co-Op. A copy of the security plan from Wright- Hennepin was provided, and security cameras will be located on each side of the house in order for security monitoring to cover all directions of the premises. Five interior cameras will allow for monitoring of the cultivation areas and spaces leading to the cultivation area entrance. Smart locks will be installed on all doors containing cannabis product, as well as entry points to the premises. All basement level windows will be restricted and permanently closed and locked with normal capabilities with glass break on all of them. The proposed plan is subject to approval by the State, and the final approved plan must also be provided to the City. Copies of the final plan of record for security submitted to the state as well as the information from Wright Hennepin was provided and is available upon request. 3. Adequate ventilation systems must be installed to ensure no order is detectable from the exterior of the building or from adjacent properties. The application indicates exterior odor is not expected due to the small size of the operation. The basement is underground and the space will utilize a HEPA approved, carbon-filter air purifier that will be more than sufficient for the proposed space. There will be no venting, and there will be plastic on the wall and ceiling that will insulate and act as a vapor and odor barrier. The 15 Page 9 of 10 applicants plan includes regular equipment inspections and perimeter checks for odor leaks which are then to be documented in their operations log. Further, they will develop complaint-response protocols, including maintaining an “odor complaint log,” and recognize the importance of maintaining good standing with neighbors on an ongoing basis. To address potential odors related to cannabis waste, organic waste will be stored in sealed containers until time for decomposition. They will utilize composting methods that minimize odor release, and then the waste will be grinded and mixed with other inert material. 4. Establishments must have a plan for the disposal of cannabis waste that complies with state regulations and prevents access by unauthorized individuals. The applicants provide a detailed cannabis waste disposal procedure within the narrative for the application, which is attached to this report. The narrative explains that the cannabis waste will be made unusable and unrecognizable before disposal, tracked in a statewide system, and placed within a sealed and labeled container within a designated, access-controlled waste area within the basement until final disposal within the regulatory storage timeframe of 7-14 days. The intended final disposal method will be to compost all plant trimmings and plant matter deemed unusable. Cannabis waste will be shredded and chopped in a manner that will leave it indistinguishable from ordinary plant matter. It will then be placed on site and mixed with food scraps, yard waste, cardboard, sawdust, used potting soil, and other organic matter to decompose. It is staff’s understanding that this is compliant with state regulations, and the City will receive a copy of all final plans of record as part of the licensing process. 5. The operation of a cannabis business is prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, or 500 feet of a day care, residential treatment facility, or an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by minors, including a playground or athletic field. Based on available data, staff determined the property is not located within 1,000 feet of a school or 500 feet from a licensed day care, residential treatment facility, or public park. 6. Accessory structures utilizes for cultivation operations in the RR district are subject to a minimum setback of 100 feet from all property lines. This standard is not applicable in this instance since the operation will occur within the principal residential structure on the property. However, staff wants 16 Page 10 of 11 to ensure the applicant is aware of this requirement for any future expansion plans. 7. All signage must comply with Corcoran City Code and must not depict cannabis leaves, use slang terms for cannabis, or appeal to minors. No signage is proposed by the applicant. They intend to keep the operation as discrete as possible. Interim Use Permit Section 1060.060, Subd. 10 allows for parking space reductions to be approved as an IUP when it can be demonstrated there is a demand which is less than the required parking formula. Staff believes the documented business plan and residency of the applicants provides the necessary data to reduce the formal parking requirements for this facility to 0 and approve the site plan with parking at this time accommodated by the existing driveway. The applicants’ current business model includes no employees in the immediate future. There is a note that they could hire employees/interns in the future. The site plan shows there are at least 5 parking spaces that can be utilized on the existing driveway in addition to parking provided by the garage. They also provided proof of parking for a total of 9 parking spaces should an expansion be necessary in the future. A condition of approval is for proof of parking on the site plan to reflect 10 spaces based on a cannabis business footprint of 695 square feet. The IUP is drafted to include a requirement that parking demand for the cannabis facility not exceed 5 vehicles at any one time, including the applicants’ vehicles disclosed with the State and City for distribution of their product. Prior to exceeding this limit, the applicant must proceed with a site plan amendment to formalize and expand parking areas as necessary. The IUP would automatically be terminated when parking demand for the cannabis cultivation facility exceeds 5 spaces at any one time. Additionally, the parking requirements will automatically be revisited should the applicants expand their operations in the future as expected. The IUP to reduce formal parking spaces to 0 and approve the site plan with parking relying on the existing driveway must satisfy the following criteria outlined in Section 1070.030, Subd. 3: A. Meet the requirements of a conditional use permit set forth in Section 1070.020, Subd. 3. a. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. 17 Page 11 of 12 Granting an IUP to reduce the parking space requirement for the proposed cannabis facility is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. This property is guided for Rural/Ag Residential and requiring more parking spaces than necessary based on the available data seems counter to the rural character of this area. The site plan shows there is approximate space for at least 5 parking spaces on the current driveway. At the time of this application there are no immediate plans to hire employees or interns. The two operators of this business live on the property, and their vehicles are already parked on site without concern. The site has enough space to accommodate parking without relying on public streets, and there is room to expand parking as needed should the parking demand for the facility exceed 5 cars in the future. 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. An IUP to reduce parking requirements based on the proposed business model will promote and enhance the general public welfare as it will retain natural green space on the property while protecting the rural/ag residential character of the property. There is enough parking for the businessowners to park on site, as well as a small number of employees should they be hired in the future, without creating a detriment or endangering the public health, safety, morals, or comfort of the surrounding area. c. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. Granting an IUP for reduced parking spots based on the documented business model will not be injurious of the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. There is enough space to accommodate anticipated parking demand on site, and the proposed plan keeps the parking in line with what is expected on a residential property. Requiring more parking spaces than necessary may arguably be more injurious to the surrounding vicinity. 18 Page 12 of 13 d. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Granting an IUP to reduce parking space requirements and relying on the existing driveway for parking will not prevent nor discourage the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. e. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. Public facilities and services are not required for a reduction in parking spaces. A condition of an IUP is that parking associated with the cannabis cultivation facility cannot occur on public streets. f. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The IUP for reduced parking and parking within the existing driveway will be in compliance with all RR regulations. g. The conditional use and site conforms to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. The ability to grant a reduction in parking spaces as an IUP is called out as a way to satisfy the parking performance standards. The site is otherwise compliant with all applicable performance standards. There is an existing barn on the property that does not meet the 100’ setback for agricultural structures, nor does it meet the 20’ setback allowed for other accessory structures. However, this structure long pre-dates the current Zoning Ordinance, and is considered legal, non-conforming. Further, no changes to this structure are proposed or approved as a part of this application. While a potential use and expansion of this structure at a later phase of their business is indicated on the site plan, that is not being approved at this time and would be subject to approval of a variance in the future in its current location. B. The use is allowed as an interim use in the respective zoning district. The ability to use an IUP to reduce parking requirements is not restricted to a specific zoning district. Therefore, the IUP is allowed within the RR. 19 Page 13 of 14 C. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. The event that will terminate this use is identifiable with certainty. Staff propose the following sunset clause: 1. The property is sold or transferred to someone not associated with the property at the time of this application. 2. The property is no longer homesteaded. 3. Parking demand for the cannabis cultivation business exceeds 5 parking spaces at any one time, including the personal vehicles of the operators that are disclosed for distribution of product to their customers (licensed cannabis businesses). 4. The cannabis cultivation business ceases. 5. The cannabis cultivation business expands, and the City determines the parking demand will increase. 6. The cannabis cultivation business fails to meet City and State requirements. The Planning Commission is asked to consider whether there are any other potential events that should be included in the sunset clause. D. The use will not impose additional unreasonable costs on the public. Granting an IUP to reduce the required number of parking spaces on the property will not create an additional and unreasonable cost to the public. E. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of the use. Conditions of approval include the following: o No parking on County Road 10 or other public streets is allowed. All parking must be accommodated on site. o If parking demand for the cannabis cultivation business will exceed more than 5 cars at any one time, the applicant must submit a site plan amendment for City approval. Construction of a formal parking lot compliant with all parking performance standards will be required at the applicant’s expense. o The interim use is subject to inspection by City staff once every three years or upon receipt of a parking complaint. The Planning Commission may want to consider if there are other measures that should be recommended to mitigate the impact of granting permission to reduce the required parking for the proposed use. 20 Page 14 of 14 Summary Indoor cultivation of cannabis is a permitted use in the RR subject to a site plan and compliance with performance standards. Staff find that these standards are satisfied with the current proposal. Staff ask the Planning Commission to consider if there are any desired changes to the location of the proposed landscaping required to meet performance standards. If the Commission finds the performance standards outlined in code are not met, the Commission should provide specific findings of fact explaining what standards are not met and why it cannot be addressed with a condition of approval. Technically, the zoning performance standards would require 10 formal parking stalls. While that formula makes sense in an industrial area or for a larger scale operation, this level of parking seems unnecessary for this specific business model. The existing driveway appears more than sufficient for a small cannabis cultivation business within the businessowners residence, and there will be no customer traffic at the site. The City does allow a reduction in parking space requirements to be approved through an IUP. Staff believe the existing driveway, proof of parking for additional spaces, and business model justify reducing the formal parking requirement to 0 and approval of the site plan with parking satisfied with the existing driveway. Staff ask the Planning Commission to consider the proposed sunset clause and if there are any further conditions of approval that should be added to address granting the IUP. If the Planning Commission determines the standards for an IUP are not met, the Commission should provide findings of fact as to what standards cannot be satisfied with a condition of approval. 4. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the following: 1. Draft Resolution Approving the Site Plan and Interim Use Permit If the Planning Commission finds the standards for the IUP are not satisfied, the site plan can still be recommended for approval by adding a condition that the site plan be amended to reflect a 10-space parking lot that meets all City standards and a grading plan be provided for Engineering review. This will also lead to a condition of approval for the applicant to enter into a Site Improvement Performance Agreement for the parking and landscaping improvements. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution Approving the Site Plan and Interim use Permit 2. Application Narrative 3. City Engineering Memo 4. Site Plan 5. Floor Plan 21 City of Corcoran October 23, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025- Page 1 of 6 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A CANNABIS CULTIVATION BUSINESS AT 21020 COUNTY ROAD 10 (PID 15-119-23-42-0003) (CITY FILE 25-033) WHEREAS, Nathan and Joshua Adams (“the applicant”) requested approval of a site plan to allow the operation of “High Point Gardens,” an indoor cannabis cultivation business, on the property legally described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the applicant also requested approval of an interim use permit to reduce the formal parking space requirement to 0; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at a duly called public hearing and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. A site plan and interim use permit are approved to allow the operation of an indoor cannabis cultivation business with approximately 5 parking spaces on the existing driveway as shown on application materials and plans received by the City on September 10, 2025, with additional information received on September 11, 2025, and September 16, 2025, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The applicant must comply with all conditions in the City Engineer’s Memo dated September 16, 2025. 3. An indoor cannabis cultivation business is approved based on compliance with all applicable performance standards in Section 1060.120 of the Zoning Ordinance. Ongoing compliance with these standards is required. 4. An interim use permit is granted to reduce the required formal parking spaces for the business to 0, subject to the following conditions and findings: a. The applicant provided the following data points to justify the reduction in parking requirements: i. The property is the applicant’s place of residence. ii. No customers will come to the site. iii. There are no immediate plans for employees. 22 City of Corcoran October 23, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025- Page 2 of 6 iv. Proof of parking reflects at least 5 parking spaces on the existing driveway that could allow for sufficient parking for the applicant personal vehicles that will be disclosed with the State and City to distribute their product to customers as well as a small number of employees if desired in the future. v. They provided proof of parking for additional spaces should parking demand increase in the future. b. Applicable criteria are satisfied as outlined in Section 1070.030 (Interim Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance: i. The application meets the requirements of a conditional use permit set forth in Section 1070.020, Subd. 3. 1. The reduced parking requirement and reliance on the existing driveway of the residence is consistent with agricultural and rural uses anticipated on this site by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The establishment of the interim use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort of the community. The reduced parking requirement will allow the existing green, natural space to remain while protecting the agricultural and residential character of the area. There is documented space to accommodate the anticipated parking demand of the business. 3. The interim use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. There is documented space to accommodate the anticipated parking demand of the business, and granting the interim use permit will keep the parking on site at this time in line with what is expected on a residential property. 4. The establishment of the interim use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Relying on the existing driveway for the anticipated parking demand will not prevent nor discourage the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding area. 5. Adequate public facilities and services are not required for the interim use. 6. The interim use, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations of the RR district in which it is located. 7. The interim use and site conforms to all other performance standards as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. 23 City of Corcoran October 23, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025- Page 3 of 6 ii. The use is allowed as an interim use of the Rural Residential zoning district. iii. The interim use shall expire immediately after one or more of the following events: 1. The property is sold or transferred to someone not listed as an applicant or property owner on the land use application for this permit. 2. The property is no longer homesteaded. 3. Parking demand for the cannabis cultivation operation exceeds 5 parking spaces at any one time. This includes parking for the personal vehicles of the operators that are disclosed for distribution of product to their customers. 4. The cannabis cultivation business ceases. 5. The cannabis cultivation business expands, and the City determines the parking demand will increase. 6. The cannabis cultivation business fails to meet City and State requirements. iv. The use will not add an unreasonable cost to the public. c. The applicant agrees and is subject to the following conditions: i. No parking on County Road 10 or other public streets is allowed. All parking must be accommodated on site. ii. If parking demand for the cannabis cultivation business is anticipated to exceed more than 5 cars at any one time, the applicant must submit a site plan amendment for City approval. 1. Construction of a formal parking lot compliant with all City parking performance standards will be required at the applicant’s expense. iii. The interim use is subject to inspection by City staff once every three years or upon receipt of a parking complaint. 5. FURTHER, that the following conditions be met prior to recording this resolution with Hennepin County: a. The applicant must provide the City with proof of license approval with the State, and the City must receive a copy of all final plans of record for the state license. b. The site plan must be revised to meet the following conditions: 24 City of Corcoran October 23, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025- Page 4 of 6 i. Proof of parking must show a total of 10 spaces and all parking spaces must be dimensioned. ii. Provide lighting specifications and a photometric plan for any lighting required for effective operation of the security system. Lighting must be compliant with Section 1060.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. iii. Revise the landscaping to reflect 1 overstory tree and three understory shrubs. iv. Identify the species of the landscaping. v. Identify the size of the landscaping at the time of planting. vi. Incorporate the City’s standard detail plate for landscaping into the plan set. c. The applicant must submit a cash security to the City for the cost of landscaping. i. The applicant must provide a landscaping contractor’s estimate for the cost and installation of the proposed landscaping to identify the cash security amount. ii. Once all landscaping is installed per plan and confirmed through an inspection, the escrow security will be reduced to 25% for a period of one year while the landscaping is under warranty. iii. After successful completion of the warranty period, the remaining 25% will be released back to the applicant. 6. FURTHER, this resolution must be recorded with Hennepin County and proof of recording must be provided to the City prior to beginning operations or any site improvements. 7. FURTHER, the project escrow must remain in a positive balance and will not be closed out until all final inspections, including the landscape warranty inspection, are completed to confirm improvements were completed per plan. 8. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and completes the required improvements. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Friedrich, Michelle Friedrich, Michelle Lanterman, Mark Lanterman, Mark Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean 25 City of Corcoran October 23, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025- Page 5 of 6 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of October 2025. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Debra Johnson – City Clerk 26 City of Corcoran October 23, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025- Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT A The South 569.0 Feet of the West 365.45 Feet of the Northwest ¼ of the Southeast ¼ except the East 200.45 Feet of the South 66.0 Feet thereof and West 10.0 Rods (165.0 Feet) of the Southwest ¼ of the Southeast ¼ lying Northerly of County No. 10 all in Section 15, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian. According to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota. 27 Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City Engineer Public Works Director From: Steve Hegland, PE Caleb Kroeze Project: High Point Garden – Site Plan Review Date: September 16, 2025 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. High Point Garden Site Plan dated Sept 2025 Comments: General: 1. The proposed first phase of the development includes a 458 sf facility inside of the existing home with no exterior expansion. A conceptual second phase is shown on the site plan but only the first phase elements were incorporated into this review. 2. The proposed site plan appears to utilize five existing parking areas within the existing gravel area. This includes two stalls in front of the existing house, two stalls in the bump out adjacent to the existing barn and one stall in front of the existing detached garage. 3. The site plan shall be dimensioned to ensure that all of the existing parking stalls meet the necessary size requirements. If proof of parking is provided within the site plan, it shall include showing the necessary drive aisles to access the additional parking areas. 4. With the first phase, no exterior improvements are proposed so no grading plan is necessary. 5. It is assumed that the site plan will be serviced by the private will and septic system. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the existing well and septic system are appropriate for the proposed operations and shall secure all approvals and permits as necessary. Hennepin County will review and permit any modifications to the septic system. Minnesota Department of Health will review and permit private well systems. 6. The proposed project is accessed off of Highway 10. Due to the nature of the business, access and traffic is not anticipated to be an issue. If any permitting for access are necessary, the applicant hall be responsible for submitting and obtaining any required access permits from Hennepin County. End of Comments 28 Revised 03/06/2025 g ht-Hennepin Co-Op.A Security Plan,Veh ichle Dislcosure,Quality lnsurance,Storage and Standard Operati ng P lan lnventory and Accounting and Tax Compliance plans have be included with this, retail doapplication.You wt ll al SO be gett¡ng copi ES from the State AS well.S tnce we are not a sto [e'we not have hours of operation There will be conti nual use of the cu lituation eq uipment.We do not have any additional employees at this time but may h ire employees/interns in the future Our site sits on 5 acres of adjacent properties.Irprivatepropertythatrscoveredwithtrees.There rs maxmu m buffer between IS our nention to sel to any downstream licensed cannabis GOmpan res that are n need a large amount of flower 29 Revised 0310612025 Please attach a briefdescription ofyour proiect/reason for your request appl¡cation is to req uest the waival of the I stall park¡ng minim um requ¡rement.Since we are out of our res¡dent¡al home and with on ly 2 owners/managers there would be no need for I stâlfs.We have provided a site plan that indicates we would be able to add a o stall parki ng plan tn the ¡f need be At rh is point of time there will be no build tng to be constructed ln the future,there may be a potenital to expand and use exterio r structures.Our site plan application will be u pdated whe n/if that comes.We entend to use the existi ng residential structu re to cultivate cannabis.The basement area of the home will cond uct the culivation activies that is secu red with smart lock technology provided by ht-Hennepin Co-Op.S rnce we are not a retail store,we do not have hou rs of operation There wl il be conti nual use of the culitvation equi pment.We do not have any additional employees at this r¡me but may h rre employees/interns ¡n the futu re There will be no m pact to the septic system or well.Ou f site sits on 5 acres of private property that is covered with trees-There is maxt mu m buffer betwee n adjacent properties. Procedures for cannabis waste disposal. It is apart of our quality assurance policy to adhere to the following procedures: Definition of Cannabis Waste Plant material not intended for use (roots, stalks, unusable leaves, failed clones). Contaminated, expired, or recalled cannabis products. Cannabis rendered unusable and unrecognizable prior to disposal. 1. Preparation for Disposal Cannabis waste must be made unusable and unrecognizable from ordinary plant matter before disposal. Grind or shred cannabis. Record gross weight of cannabis waste before and after rendering. Enter wãste into the statewide tracking system (Metrc), including type, weight, date/time, and reason disposal . Storage Prior to Disposal ptace ùnusable cannabis waste in sealed, labeled containers marked "Cannabis Waste - Not for Sale." Store in a designated, access-controlled waste area until finaldisposal. Waste must not exceed regulatory storage timeframes (7-14 days)- Disposal Methods Composting We intend to compost all plant trimmings and plant matter deemed unusable for the ness (ie. Waste). lt will be shredded and chopped in a manner that plant matter. It willthen be placed on site and mixed with food used potting soil, and other organic matter to decompose. wil leave ¡r indisti nguishable from nary scraps,yardwaste cardboard, 30 Revised 03/06/2025 Please attach a brief descrþtion of your projecfreason for your request 4. Security & Oversight - All rendering and disposal activities must be performed or witnessed by at least two author¡zed employees. - Waste handling, storage, and d¡sposal preparation monitored by cont¡nuous video record¡ng. - Maintain custody logs documenting allstaff handling waste from preparat¡on to finaldisposal. - personal cellphone video recordings/photographs with date and time stamps and clear facial views of persons handling product will be created for the purpose of destruction logs. 5. Documentation & Reporting Date and time of disposal. Type of cannabis waste (plant mater¡al, product, etc-). Weight before render¡ng and finalweight after mixing. Disposal method (compost, incineration). Names and signatures of employees present. Disposal events entered into the statewide tracking system within required timelines. Any unusual circumstances (spills, loss, or suspected diversion) reported immediately to the iance Officer. Records kept for a m¡n¡mum of 3-5 years or as required by state law. 31 Revised 03/0612025 Please attach a briefdescription ofyour projectlreason for your request nt¡ng &Odor Control Measu res: to the small natu re of our indoor grow odor shou rd not be a problem externally.The basement IS ried undergrou nd and we ntent to provide the space with H E PA approved,carbon-filtered aÍ purifiers- pu rifiers will have an abi l¡ty to filter areas tar larger than the space they are tn.There will be no of any kind. System The plastic on the wall and ceili ng wil act AS a vapor and odor barrier. ventilation is criticalto maintain airflow, prevent mo¡d, and controltemperature and CO2 levels. ln/Out Exhaust Fan (optional): - Gircular air around the grow room portion of the basement. r Circulation Fans: Oscillating fans keep air moving around plants, strengthen stems, and prevent stagnant zones where insects can land or mold can develop. Four fans placed strategically to, when oscillating, hit the entire canopy. Filtration System Portable Air/Room Purifier: High grade HEPAfilter Helps prevent detection and maintains air quality. Capture dust, spores, and other particulates, protecting both plants and HVAC components. lntegration of Systems + Filtration: ln/Out fan pull/pushes air from grow space+ stale/lroUcold air exits/enters. Moving res optimum environmental conditions. Portable air purifier maintains air quality via high grade HEPA +Humidity Management: Heater/cooler and humidifier/dehumidifier respond automatically sensor readings. r Circulation: Fans prevent dead zones, helping even temperature and humidity distribution. r 1. Source of. Odor in Cannabis Facilities Flowering rooms: Highest terpene emissions, especially late bloom. Drying and curing areas: Concentrated odor release as plant matter dries. Waste handling: Trim, stalks, and discarded biomass can produce lingering snells. Engineering Controls Large HEPA approved, carbon-filtered air purifiers to absorb odor - Grow rooms kept under negative pressure to prevent leaks of untreated air. - Walls and ceiling in the grow room and curing/drying room are insulatted and wrapped in plastic to create a vapor/odor barrier. 32 Revised 03106/2025 Please attâch a brief description rif your proiect/reason for your requesL Administrative & Operational Procedures Monitori ng &Documentation Regu lar equ ipment inspections and perimeter checks for odor leaks Document any leaks in operations log (METRC, FarmRasie) Complaint-response protocots, including maintaining an "odor complaint log" Standard Operating Procedures (SoPs) Clearly define when f¡Iters are replaced,how waste rs stored t and how odor complaints are addressed Waste Management Practices : - Organic waste stored in sealed containers untiltime for decomposition - Composting or disposal methods that minimize odor release- Grind and mix cannabis waste with other inert material. 6. Scheduling & Segregation: - Keeping drying areas isolated with independent filtration. 7. Maintain good standing with neighbors. 33 HI G H P O I N T G A R D E N S S I T E P L A N 21 0 2 0 C O U N T Y R O A D 1 0 , C O R C O R A N , M N NORTH DATE: SEPT 2025 LEGEND: 34 HI G H P O I N T G A R D E N S E X I S T I N G S C R E E N I N G 21 0 2 0 C O U N T Y R O A D 1 0 , C O R C O R A N , M N NORTH DATE: SEPT 2025 VIEW 1 VIEW 1 VIEW 2 VIEW 2 VIEW 3 VIEW 3 VIEW 4 VIEW 4 35 DRY ROOM GROW ROOM TOTAL GROW SPACE = 458' SQ. FT. HIGH POINT GARDENS 09/10/2025 NMAFLOOR LAYOUT - PHASE 1 BATHROOM SHEET 1 36 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 6.b Council Meeting: October 2, 2025 Prepared By: Dwight Klingbeil, Planner Topic: Rush Creek Golf Course CUP & Site Plan Amendment Action Required: Summary Derek Stendahl, on behalf of Rush Creek Golf Course, the applicant, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Plan Amendment to allow a 2,508 sq. ft. addition to the existing principal structure of the parcel to provide additional storage and meeting space for employees of the golf course. Recommendation If the Planning Commission finds that the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit requirements have been satisfied, Staff recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the Site Plan and CUP to allow a 2,508 sq. ft. expansion of the principal structure for the golf course. Council Action Attachments 1. 2025-10-02 Rush Creek Golf Course CUP Site Plan PC Staff Report.pdf 37 Page 1 of 7 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: October 2, 2025 Prepared By: Dwight Klingbeil Topic: Rush Creek Golf Course Site Plan Amendment & Conditional Use Permit (PID 24-119-23-42-0001) (City File No. 25-032) Action Required: Recommendation 1. Application Request Derek Stendahl, on behalf of Rush Creek Golf Course, the applicant, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Plan Amendment to allow a 2,508 sq. ft. addition to the existing principal structure of the parcel to provide additional storage and meeting space for employees of the golf course. 2. Background In 2004, the City of Corcoran approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Amendment, which allowed for the construction of an 1,800 sq. ft. structure as an accessory to the existing 5,622 sq. ft. principal structure. 3. Context Zoning and Land Use The 106.55-acre parcel is one of two parcels that make up the Rush Creek Golf Course. The subject parcel is zoned Public/Institutional (P-I) and guided for Public/Semi-Public uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The P-I district allows golf courses as a conditional use. The property is within the third phase of the 2040 staging plan for municipal services projected between 2030-2035. Surrounding Properties The parcel directly to the east is the other parcel owned and operated by the Rush Creek Golf Course, and is located in Maple Grove. The properties to the north and west are single-family homes, which are currently zoned Urban Reserve, and are located in Figure 1 Site Location Figure 2 Zoning Map 38 Page 2 of 7 the third phase of the 2040 staging plan. The properties immediately north are guided as existing residential whereas the properties to the west are guided for low density residential. The properties south of the subject property are both located in phase 1 of the staging plan, are guided for low density residential, and are zoned RSF-2 (Single Family Residential 2). The southeast parcel is under development as a part of the Fairway Shores Villas at Cook Lake project. The southwest parcel is utilized for agriculture and is currently a part of Maple Hills Estates. Natural Characteristics of the Site According to the 2040 Natural Resource Inventory Areas map, significant portions of the property are located within a Medium-Quality Natural Community. The wetlands occupy much of the northern portion of the parcel. The proposed structure is not within this natural community and is in an upland area of the parcel. 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. Level of Discretion in Decision Making The City’s discretion in approving or denying a CUP and Site Plan Amendment 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 and Site Plan Amendment. Figure 3 Existing Site Layout Figure 4 Proposed Expansion 39 Page 3 of 7 I. Site Plan Amendment The applicant proposes constructing a 2,508 sq. ft. addition to the south side of the existing principal structure. Provisions for site plan modifications are outlined in Section 1070.050 Subd. 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, which classifies structural expansions exceeding 10% of the existing floor area as a major change. Major changes are required to be reviewed and administered in the same manner as a new site plan. Because the proposed 2,508 sq. ft. addition would expand the existing structure by more than 10%, it is considered a major change under this Section of the City Code. Location and Setbacks The maintenance building is required to meet the minimum setback requirements for the P-I Zoning District. These setbacks are as follows: P-I Standards Proposed Front, from all other streets 50 feet 512 feet Side 50 feet 79 feet & ~2,500 feet Rear 50 feet 630 feet Staff reviewed the setbacks of the proposed expansion and found them to be compliant with the minimum setback requirements of the P-I Zoning District. Size The P-I Zoning District has a maximum impervious surface coverage of 70%. The current impervious surface coverage of the 106.55-acre parcel is <1%. The location of the proposed expansion is within the existing parking area and does not increase the impervious surface coverage of the parcel. Staff finds that this standard has been satisfied. Building Height The overall height of the proposed addition is 21.16 feet, is consistent with the existing height of the structure, and does not exceed the 45-foot height limit for the P-I district. Architectural Standards Figure 5 Building Elevation 40 Page 4 of 7 The building plans show the expansion area to be constructed with metal panel siding, metal facia, metal sofit and metal trim to match the existing building materials. The Non- Residential District Standards for building materials allows curtain wall panels of steel, fiberglass and aluminum (non-structural, non-load bearing), provided such panels are fabricated and finished with a durable non-fade surface and their fasteners are of a corrosion resistant design. Additional information will be needed from the applicant to confirm that the proposed metal materials meet this standard. Staff recommends that a condition of approval be included that requires any metal building materials be fabricated and finished with a durable non-fade surface and include fasteners that contain a corrosion resistant design. 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 24 inches on the structure, which complies with this requirement. Parking The proposed expansion area appears to overlap with the existing employee parking area. The applicant has not provided information identifying where this parking would be relocated to after construction. Based on review of historical aerial imagery, staff estimates that the site requires approximately 20 parking stalls. Since a parking plan was not included in the Site Plan application, a condition of approval shall require submission of a parking plan that can accommodate at least 20 stalls and meet the minimum area requirements of Section 1060.060, Subd. 4. of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, Section 1060.060 Subd. 3.B.7. of the Zoning Ordinance states, “When an existing business expands its structure by 10 percent or more or a change in use creates the need for additional parking spaces, the entire parking area shall be upgraded to meet the provisions contained within this subdivision.” Given that the proposed addition represents an expansion of more than 10% of the existing structure, the off-street parking area must be upgraded to meet the standards of Section 1060.060, Subd. 3. These standards require off-street parking areas for non-residential uses to include a perimeter of poured, cast-in-place concrete curb around the entire parking lot and a surface of asphalt, concrete, or other surface as approved by the City Engineer. Figure 6 Existing Parking Conditions 41 Page 5 of 7 Accordingly, a condition of approval shall require the submission of a parking plan confirming that the parking lot will be upgraded to meet the design standards of Section 1060.060 Subd. 3. Landscaping The site is subject to the landscape standards of Section 1060.070, which require: - One overstory tree per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross building floor area or one tree per 50 lineal feet of site perimeter. - One understory shrub for each 300 sq. ft. of building or one tree per 30 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. In practice, the City has historically applied these standards based on the size of the proposed building addition along with screening requirements for associated parking areas. Based on the proposed 2,508 sq. ft. addition, the applicant would be required to provide at least two overstory trees and eight understory shrubs. However, given the substantial existing vegetation present throughout the site, staff finds that the existing vegetation are sufficient for this requirement. Grading and Drainage The existing topography in the building expansion area is relatively flat and contains an existing parking area for employees of the course. The applicant’s grading plan shows a defined swale along the west side of the proposed building to convey runoff around the building and not into it. However, given the existing contours and proposed finished floor elevation, the current plan appears to show that runoff is directed into the side of the structure. The enclosed Engineering Memo details the grading plan review more thoroughly, and a condition of approval shall require compliance with the provisions of this memo. Conditional Use Permit Standards The applicant requests an amendment to the existing CUP to allow for an expansion of the existing structure to provide additional storage and meeting space of employees of the Golf Course. 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. Rush Creek Golf Course is called out as a semi-public facility within the Public/Semi-Public land use category definition in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of this building is consistent with support the continued operations of the golf course. 42 Page 6 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 golf course to properly store additional equipment for course maintenance, and provide for additional space for staff. The CUP for the accessory 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 P-I district. The building would meet or exceed all setback requirements for the P-I 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 accessory structure 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 and equipment 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 expansion 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 expansion to the existing 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. 43 Page 7 of 7 If the CUP is approved with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff, the use and building expansion will comply with the district regulations for the P-I zoning district. 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, particularly related to the parking standards, the use will comply with the performance standards for the site within the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the Site Plan and CUP to allow a 2,508 sq. ft. expansion of the principal structure for the golf course. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2025- Approving the Site Plan & Conditional Use Permit 2. Engineering Memo dated September 24, 2025 3. Existing Conditions Survey 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Building Plans 44 City of Corcoran October 23, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025- Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT 7990 MAPLE HILL ROAD (PID 24-119-23-42-0001) (CITY FILE 25-032) WHEREAS, Rush Creek Golf Club, the applicant, requests approval of a site plan amendment and a conditional use permit to allow a 2,508 sq. ft. addition to the existing principal structure at the property legally described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the site pland and 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 site plan amendment and conditional permit is approved, in accordance with the application received by the City on August 21, 2025, except as amended herein. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the City Engineer’s memo dated September 24, 2025. 3. A conditional use permit is approved to allow a 2,508 sq. ft. expansion to the principal structure for the Golf Course, subject to the following conditions and findings: a. Applicable criteria are satisfied as outlined in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance: i. The proposed addition is consistent with the uses anticipated in the P-I district and does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use does not impact public facilities and capital improvement plans. ii. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or comfort of the general public, as it is an expansion of an existing use. The use is also allowed within the P-I district. The expansion will allow for proper storage of maintenance equipment and meeting space for staff which will benefit the public health, safety, morals, and comfort of the surrounding area. iii. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The expansion of the use is needed for continued and effective operation 45 City of Corcoran October 23, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025- Page 2 of 4 of the existing golf course, and conditions have been proposed to ensure compliance with ordinance standards. iv. The establishment of the expanded use with the enclosed conditions will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. v. Adequate public facilities can be reasonably provided to accommodate the use, and an expansion to the existing building will not impact the demand for services. b. The use shall be subject to the following conditions: i. All metal building materials must be fabricated and finished with a durable non-fade surface and include fasteners that contain a corrosion resistant design. ii. The applicant must submit a parking plan that reflects any necessary upgrades to bring the parking lot into compliance with Section 1060.060 and reflects at least 20 parking spaces. 1. If upgrades are necessary to the parking lot, a Site Improvement Performance Agreement and financial security will be required. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/landowner must complete the following: a. A parking plan must be submitted for final approval by Planning and the City Engineer. b. A grading plan must be submitted for final approval per the City’s Engineer Memo. c. The applicant must provide documentation to confirm the proposed metal material meet the standards outlined in Section 1060.050 Subd. 1.C. d. If parking improvements are required: i. The applicant must submit a contractor’s estimate for the cost of the improvements. ii. The applicant must enter into a Site Improvement Performance Agreement with the City. iii. The applicant must submit a financial security for the estimated cost of the improvements. iv. The Site Improvement Performance Agreement must be recorded at Hennepin County and the landowner must provide proof of recording to the City. 46 City of Corcoran October 23, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025- Page 3 of 4 e. The approving resolution must be recorded at Hennepin County, and the applicant must provide proof of recording to the City. 5. The applicant must maintain a positive escrow balance through the duration of the project. If the escrow balance becomes negative, the applicant must pay any balance due plus a new deposit for anticipated remaining staff time within 30-days of receiving a notice from the City. 6. A final inspection of the project to confirm the building and any parking improvements are constructed to plan is required prior to final reconciliation and release of the escrow account with the City. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Friedrich, Michelle Friedrich, Michelle Lanterman, Mark Lanterman, Mark Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of October 2025. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Debra Johnson – City Clerk 47 City of Corcoran October 23, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025- Page 4 of 4 ATTACHEMENT A That Part Of Southeast Quarter Lying Easterly and Northly Following Commencing At The Northeast Corner Of Lot 1 Block 2 Maple Hill Estates Thence South 12 Degrees 27 Minutes 7 Seconds Along The Easterly Line Thereof and Extends To South Line To Be Described Thence North 0 Degrees 2 Minutes 38 Seconds For A Distance of 216.16 Feet Then 23 Degrees 20 Minutes 10 Seconds West For A Distance Of 1381.07 Feet To The West Line Of Said Southeast Quarter And Said Line There Ending Except Part Platted As Petersens Oak Hill Addition. 48 Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City Engineer Public Works Director From: Steve Hegland, PE Project: Rush Creek Golf Course – Site Plan Review Date: September 24, 2025 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Existing Conditions Survey by Frank Cardarelle Land Surveying Dated 08/20/25 2. Building Addition Survey by Rank Cardarelle Land Surveying Dated 08/25/25 3. Building Plans For Rush Creek Golf Commercial Pole Structure by Mainly Details no date Comments: General: 1. The proposed site plan includes a 50’ x 50’2” expansion to the existing pole shed at the Rush Creek Golf Course Maintenance Shed. 2. The building plans show the proposed parking provided in front of the proposed building expansion. A total of 18 stalls are shown. Aerial imagery shows that the applicant is using the area where the expansion is proposed currently for parking and should confirm if the proposed parking is sufficient for their needs. It is appears that the southern 10 stalls are proposed to be created. New parking stalls shall comply with the City of Corcoran code including being constructed on an approved material. The survey site plan should be consistent with the architectural site plans. 3. The proposed improvements are below the necessary thresholds for a stormwater management plan. 4. The grading plan shall show a defined swale along the west side of the proposed building to convey runoff around the building and not into it. Given the existing contours and proposed finished floor elevation, current plan appears that runoff is directed into the side of the structure. 5. The site plan should confirm if existing fence will be impacted by expansion. 6. It is assumed that the building will be serviced by the existing sewer and water systems and no expansions of those systems are proposed. If expansions are necessary, the applicant shall be responsible for following all applicable codes and regulations. End of Comments 49 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 97 0 97 5 968 96 9 97 1 97 2 97 3 97 4 9 6 6 9 6 7 96 8 96 5 963 964 96696 7 96 0 96 5 9 6 1 9 6 2 9 6 3 9 6 4 966 967 965 9 6 6 96 7 97 0 9 7 5 9 8 0 9 8 5 9 6 8 9 6 9 9 7 1 9 7 2 9 7 3 97 4 97 6 97 7 9 7 8 9 7 9 98 1 98 2 98 3 9 8 4 9 8 6 9 8 7 9 8 8 965 97 0 975 963 964 966 96 7 968 96 9 97 1 972 973 97 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX FRANK CARDARELLE LAND SURVEYING  :OODDALE AVE EDINA MN  %US   EMAILCARDARELLELS#GMAILCOM I HERE%Y CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY :AS PREPARED %Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LA:S OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FRANK R CARDARELLE REG NO  DATE  PREPARED FOR MAINLY DETAILS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GREGG GRATON EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY  MAPLE HILL RD CORCORAN MN  REVISION NƒDATE DRA:N %Y % PASSOLT CHECKED %Y F CARDARELLE DATE  PAGE NR PRO-ECT  E REV   OF  SI=E X X X X X [][][][] 50 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 97 0 97 5 968 96 9 97 1 97 2 97 3 97 4 9 6 6 9 6 7 96 8 96 5 963 964 96696 7 96 0 96 5 9 6 1 9 6 2 9 6 3 9 6 4 966 967 96 8 1.7% 4.9 % 1.1 % 96 7 . 7 967.7 96 7 . 7 967.7 965 9 6 6 96 7 97 0 9 7 5 9 8 0 9 8 5 9 6 8 9 6 9 9 7 1 9 7 2 9 7 3 97 4 97 6 97 7 9 7 8 9 7 9 98 1 98 2 98 3 9 8 4 9 8 6 9 8 7 9 8 8 965 97 0 975 963 964 966 96 7 968 96 9 97 1 972 973 97 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3.4% 3.7% FRANK CARDARELLE LAND SURVEYING  :OODDALE AVE EDINA MN  %US   EMAILCARDARELLELS#GMAILCOM I HERE%Y CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY :AS PREPARED %Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LA:S OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FRANK R CARDARELLE REG NO  DATE  PREPARED FOR MAINLY DETAILS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GREGG GRATON EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY  MAPLE HILL RD CORCORAN MN  REVISION NƒDATE DRA:N %Y % PASSOLT CHECKED %Y F CARDARELLE DATE  PAGE NR PRO-ECT  E REV   OF  SI=E X X X X X [][][][] 51 PROPERTY OWNER / MANAGER CONTACT: Derek Stendahl Phone: 763-255-2931 Cell: Email: derek@rushcreek.com.com ARCHITECT Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC 1710 Douglas Drive Suite 213 Golden Valley, MN 55422 Contact: Gregg S. Graton Phone: 612-382-5682 Email: gregg@mainlydetails.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Contact: Mobile: Email: GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO BE DETERMINED Contact: Joel Ensminger Phone: 320-470-1471 Bus: Email: ensmingeragc@gmail.com PROJECT TEAM-CONTACTS MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR To be determined Contact: Phone: Email: ADDITIONAL CONTACT: Grounds Manager: CONTACT: Spencer Dahlquist Phone: Email: turfgrass@rushcreek.com 1 revisions: Co n d i t i o n a l U s e I s s u e - 0 8 . 1 9 . 2 5 of: drawing no. 2 date:08.19.25 drawing This document is the property of Gregg S. Graton Architect and is intended to be an instrument of service for this project only. No reproduction is allowed without the written consent of Gregg S. Graton Architect. Use infringements will be prosecuted. The contractor is responsible for the verification of all on-site conditions and dimensions. Any and all discrepancies from that indicated by these documents shall be reported to the general contractor/ owner or architect prior to commencement of work. contractor: AGC project P-2025.0016 Contact:Joel Ensminger Office: Mobile:320-470-1471 consultants Ru s h C r e e k G o l f C o u r s e - C o m m e r c i a l P o l e St r u c t u r e Mu l t i - u s e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y 78 0 1 C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 , M a p l e G r o v e , M N 5 5 3 1 1 Architect: Mainly Details, Architectural Design, PLLC. Surveyor: Surveying Civil Engineer: Structural Engineer: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Gregg S. Graton, AIA date: certification no. Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC PH 612-382-5682 Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, MN 55422 3 4 00.00.25 5 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 DATE: SIGNATURE Sharif Hared 40838 Owner: FO R C L I E N T R E V I E W A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y C O S T E S T I M A T I N G O N L Y O N L Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Rush Creek Golf Commercial Pole Structure An addition to an Existing Maintenance Shed Facility, Corcoran, MN SHEET INDEX, LOCATION, REFERENCE T0.0 NOTE (Aerial download) THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL SURVEY This drawing was prepared by the architect for preliminary planning purposes only. Owners surveyor and or General contractor to locate property boundaries , setbacks, utilities and easements. AERIAL SITE LOCATION-DIGRAMS2 ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT SUMMARY 1.EXISTING COMMERCIAL POLE FRAME STRUCTURE. 1.1.112 feet x 50 feet=±5,545 s.f. (as measured from the exterior of pole frame.) 2.PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. 3.50 FOOT x 50 FOOT (2,500 s.f.) ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING. 3.1.Provide a new bay for a Group S Equipment storage garage. 4.REMOVE EXISTING INTERIOR WALL FINISHES AT OFFICE, BREAK-ROOM, RESTROOM, PARTS ROOM. 4.1.REMODEL THESE EXISTING AREAS. 4.1.1. ADD NEW EXTERIOR WALL INSULATION AND INTERIOR WALL FINISHES TO SEPARATE THERMALLY FROM NEW STORAGE AND EXISTING SHOP AREA. 4.1.2.Remodeled restroom to to be Minnesota accessible. 5. Construct a new non-Minnesota accessible restroom at existing space to be remodeled. 6.EXTERIOR FINISHES 6.1.METAL SIDING 6.2.ASPHALT ROOFING SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING. 7. MEP- HVAC,DESIGN BUILD BY CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTORS SUBCONTRACTORS. 8.SITE-WORK 8.1.FENCE-Partially remove existing fence the existing fence at south of existing building. 8.2.Concrete apron and exterior door landings. 8.2.1.5 foot deep sidewalk pitched no greater than 1 4" per foot from existing slab to the exterior. 8.3.Propane tank 8.3.1.Remove and relocate per code. 8.4.ASPHALT COURTYARD BETWEEN BUILDINGS-Work area. 8.4.1.Replace existing asphalt work area. STRUCTURAL- TO BE ISSUED 52 1 revisions: Pr o g r e s s I s s u e - 0 7 . 1 3 . 2 5 of: drawing no. 2 date:07.13.25 drawing This document is the property of Gregg S. Graton Architect and is intended to be an instrument of service for this project only. No reproduction is allowed without the written consent of Gregg S. Graton Architect. Use infringements will be prosecuted. The contractor is responsible for the verification of all on-site conditions and dimensions. Any and all discrepancies from that indicated by these documents shall be reported to the general contractor/ owner or architect prior to commencement of work. contractor: project P-2025.0034 Contact: Office: Mobile: consultants Pa r e n t ' s A u t o R e n o v a t i o n Au t o R e p a i r F a c i l i t y 36 1 0 L y n d a l e A v e . S . M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 9 Architect: Mainly Details, Architectural Design, PLLC. Surveyor: Surveying Civil Engineer: Structural Engineer: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Gregg S. Graton, AIA date: certification no. Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC PH 612-382-5682 Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, MN 55422 3 4 00.00.25 5 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 DATE: SIGNATURE Sharif Hared 40838 00/00/2025 Owner: FO R C L I E N T R E V I E W A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y C O S T E S T I M A T I N G O N L Y O N L Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N EXISTING LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN1 G1.0 EXISTING AND NEW FLOOR PLANS 1 8" SCALE GENERAL NOTES: 1.DIMENSIONS- DUE TO VARIATIONS IN CONSTRUCTION WALL PLANES, FLOOR PLANES AND ROOF PLANES ARE NOT DIMENSIONALLY CONSISTENT AND MUST BE FIELD VERIFIED. NEW LEVEL (1) -FLOOR PLAN2 EXISTING AREA 5,545 S.F. AS MEASURED FROM THE EXTERIOR POLE FRAME AT PERIMETER WALLS OF THE BUILDING. PROPOSED ADDITION AREA 2,884 S.F. AS MEASURED FROM THE EXTERIOR POLE FRAME AT PERIMETER WALLS OF THE BUILDING. 49 ' - 8 " OU T S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M E 111'-71 2" OUTSIDE OF STRUCTURAL FRAME 112'-11 2" OUTSIDE OF EXISTING METAL CORNER 50 ' - 2 " OU T S I D E O F E X I S T I N G M E T A L C O R N E R K-3578BARRINGTONTOILETVITREOUS CHINA K-3578BARRINGTONTOILETVITREOUS CHINA 49 ' - 8 " OU T S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M E 111'-71" 50 ' - 2 " OU T S I D E O F E X I S T I N G M E T A L C O R N E R 111'-71 2" OUTSIDE OF STRUCTURAL FRAME 112'-11 2" OUTSIDE OF EXISTING METAL CORNER 50'-0" OUTSIDE OF NEW METAL CORNER 50 ' - 2 " OU T S I D E O F E X I S T I N G M E T A L C O R N E R 53 EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES METAL PANEL/ SIDING-3-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL P. SIDING-3 METAL FASCIA-4-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL FASCIA-4 ASPHALT ROOFING SHINGLES-2-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL P. ROOF-2 VENTED METAL SOFFIT-5-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL SOFFIT-5 SECURITY LIGHT-8SECURITY LHT-8 PIPE METAL BOLLARDS WITH SLEEVE TO MATCH EXISTING-9, EACH SIDE OF OVERHEAD DOORS B-BOLLARD-9 METAL CONTINUOUS / RIDGE VENT-1-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL. R.VENT-1 METAL GABLE TRIM-6-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL GABLE TRM-6 METAL CORNER TRIM-7-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL CRNR. TRM-7 MAIN LEVEL 1 EL. 100'-0" 11 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 12 4 CONTRACTOR/SUPPLIER TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING ROOF PITCH AND TRUSS HEEL HEIGHT TO MATCH EXISTING PRIOR TO ORDERING AND FABRICATION ROOF PEAK EL. ±21'-2" ±2 1 ' - 2 " TO P O F C O N C R E T E SL A B T O R O O F P E A K ±1 6 ' - 6 " TO P O F C O N C R E T E S L A B TO M I D P O I N T O F R O O F T.O. ROOF TRUSS BEARING EL. ±11'-9 1 4" (CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY) ±4 ' - 1 0 3 / 8 " TO P W A L L T O MI D P O I N T RO O F ASPHALT ROOF VENT-1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF-2 MTL P. SIDING-3 MTL FASCIA-4 MTL. SOFFIT-5 SECURITY LHT-8 MTL CRNR. TRM-7 EXISTING VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST EXISTING VIEW FROM NORTHEAST EXISTING VIEW FROM EAST G2.0 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 18" scale 1 revisions: Co n d i t i o n a l U s e I s s u e - 0 8 . 1 9 . 2 5 of: drawing no. 2 date:08.19.25 drawing This document is the property of Gregg S. Graton Architect and is intended to be an instrument of service for this project only. No reproduction is allowed without the written consent of Gregg S. Graton Architect. Use infringements will be prosecuted. The contractor is responsible for the verification of all on-site conditions and dimensions. Any and all discrepancies from that indicated by these documents shall be reported to the general contractor/ owner or architect prior to commencement of work. contractor: AGC project P-2025.0016 Contact:Joel Ensminger Office: Mobile:320-470-1471 consultants Ru s h C r e e k G o l f C o u r s e - C o m m e r c i a l P o l e St r u c t u r e Mu l t i - u s e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y 78 0 1 C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 , M a p l e G r o v e , M N 5 5 3 1 1 Architect: Mainly Details, Architectural Design, PLLC. Surveyor: Surveying Civil Engineer: Structural Engineer: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Gregg S. Graton, AIA date: certification no. Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC PH 612-382-5682 Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, MN 55422 3 4 00.00.25 5 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 DATE: SIGNATURE Sharif Hared 40838 Owner: FO R C L I E N T R E V I E W A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y C O S T E S T I M A T I N G O N L Y O N L Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION G2.0 1 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING EAST ELEVATION G2.0 2 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING WEST ELEVATION G2.0 4 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION G2.0 3 54 1' - 0 " 1'-0" 1' - 0 " 1'-0" 1' - 0 " 1'-0" 1' - 0 " 1'-0" 25'-1"25'-1" MAIN LEVEL 1 EL. 100'-0" T.O. ROOF TRUSS BEARING EL. ±11'-9 1 4" (CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY) 11 ' - 9 1 / 4 " BOTTOM OF FOOTING ELEVATION EL. 95'-0" 5' - 0 " ±4 ' - 1 0 3 / 8 " TO P W A L L T O MI D P O I N T RO O F 12 4 CONTRACTOR/SUPPLIER TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING ROOF PITCH AND TRUSS HEEL HEIGHT TO MATCH EXISTING PRIOR TO ORDERING AND FABRICATION ROOF PEAK EL. ±21'-2" ±2 1 ' - 2 " TO P O F C O N C R E T E S L A B T O R O O F P E A K 9" VE R I F Y TO MA T C H EX I S T I N G TR U S S HE E L 11 ' - 9 1 / 4 " TO P O F C O N C R E T E S L A B T O BO T T O M O F R O O F T R U S S ±1 6 ' - 8 " TO P O F C O N C R E T E S L A B T O M I D P O I N T O F R O O F 2'-0" G3.0 EXISTING BUILDING SECTIONS 1 revisions: Co n d i t i o n a l U s e I s s u e - 0 8 . 1 9 . 2 5 of: drawing no. 2 date:08.19.25 drawing This document is the property of Gregg S. Graton Architect and is intended to be an instrument of service for this project only. No reproduction is allowed without the written consent of Gregg S. Graton Architect. Use infringements will be prosecuted. The contractor is responsible for the verification of all on-site conditions and dimensions. Any and all discrepancies from that indicated by these documents shall be reported to the general contractor/ owner or architect prior to commencement of work. contractor: AGC project P-2025.0016 Contact:Joel Ensminger Office: Mobile:320-470-1471 consultants Ru s h C r e e k G o l f C o u r s e - C o m m e r c i a l P o l e St r u c t u r e Mu l t i - u s e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y 78 0 1 C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 , M a p l e G r o v e , M N 5 5 3 1 1 Architect: Mainly Details, Architectural Design, PLLC. Surveyor: Surveying Civil Engineer: Structural Engineer: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Gregg S. Graton, AIA date: certification no. Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC PH 612-382-5682 Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, MN 55422 3 4 00.00.25 5 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 DATE: SIGNATURE Sharif Hared 40838 Owner: FO R C L I E N T R E V I E W A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y C O S T E S T I M A T I N G O N L Y O N L Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING EAST - WEST BUILDING CROSS SECTION ( STORAGE AREA) G3.0 1 55 1 revisions: Co n d i t i o n a l U s e I s s u e - 0 8 . 1 9 . 2 5 of: drawing no. 2 date:08.19.25 drawing This document is the property of Gregg S. Graton Architect and is intended to be an instrument of service for this project only. No reproduction is allowed without the written consent of Gregg S. Graton Architect. Use infringements will be prosecuted. The contractor is responsible for the verification of all on-site conditions and dimensions. Any and all discrepancies from that indicated by these documents shall be reported to the general contractor/ owner or architect prior to commencement of work. contractor: AGC project P-2025.0016 Contact:Joel Ensminger Office: Mobile:320-470-1471 consultants Ru s h C r e e k G o l f C o u r s e - C o m m e r c i a l P o l e St r u c t u r e Mu l t i - u s e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y 78 0 1 C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 , M a p l e G r o v e , M N 5 5 3 1 1 Architect: Mainly Details, Architectural Design, PLLC. Surveyor: Surveying Civil Engineer: Structural Engineer: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Gregg S. Graton, AIA date: certification no. Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC PH 612-382-5682 Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, MN 55422 3 4 00.00.25 5 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 DATE: SIGNATURE Sharif Hared 40838 Owner: FO R C L I E N T R E V I E W A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y C O S T E S T I M A T I N G O N L Y O N L Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SP1.0 PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL SURVEY This drawing was prepared by the architect for preliminary planning purposes only. Actual building locations, property boundaries , setbacks, utilities and easements, are to be determined by surveyor. Owner/builder to hire surveyor to locate building setbacks, property lines, utilities and offsets See Site Survey. SITE PLAN DIAGRAM1 GENERAL REFERNCE2 MAINTENANCE SHED COMPOUND EXISTING 120 FOOT LONG x 70 FOOT WIDE BUILDING=8,400 S.F. 11 2 ' - 1 1 2" EX I S T I N G B L D G . 50 ' - 0 " NE W B L D G . 50'-2" EXISTING BLDG. 66'-0" NEW ASPHALT TO REPLACE EXISTING 5'-0" 8' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 9' - 0 " TY P . 18'-0" 26'-0" EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE TO REMAIN SYMBOL SITE PLAN NOTES 1.CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN OR USE OF PUBLIC-RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS APPLIES TO ALL WORK TO BE DONE ON SITE. 2.THE DIGITAL FILE WHICH CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER, SHALL BE USED FOR STAKING, DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND THE DIGITAL FILE SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, AS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS, AND THE DIGITAL FILE SHALL BE COMPARED TO THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS PRIOR TO STAKING. 3.DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 4.EXISTING MAINTENANCE BUILDING TO REMAIN 4.1.PROPOSED ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING 4.1.1.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR NEW 4.2.5 FOOT WIDE CONCRETE WALK ALONG ENTIRE EAST SIDE OF BUILDING. 5.EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE. 5.1.PARTIALLY REMOVE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE AT SOUTH SIDE TO MAKE WAY FOR NEW ADDITION. 6.EXTERIOR PARKING 7.ASPHALT PARKING 7.1.REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT WITH NEW ASPHALT PARKING AREA. 7.2.ONE 9'-0" x 18'-0" EXTERIOR PARKING STALL ON EACH LOT. 7.3.STRIP PER CITY CODE. 7.4.PROPOSED STRIPPED WALKWAY ON ASPHALT 7.5.ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE, 8'x20 FOOT UNLOADING AREA ADJACENT TO 8'x20 FOOT PARKING SPACE 8.PARKING ALONG EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD SIMILAR TO EXISTING. 9.TRASH CONTAINERS 10.RECYCLING CONTAINERS 11.SNOW STORAGE 12.EXISTING PROPANE / NATURAL GAS TANK TO BE REMOVED AND RELOCATED 13.PROPOSED AIR CONDITIONING UNITS 14.PROPOSED ELECTRICAL METERS 15.PROPOSED GAS METERS 16.EXISTING FUEL DISPENSING STATION 17.EXISTING UTILITY / ELECTRICAL POLE TO BE RELOCATED. 18.EXISTING LANDSCAPING MATERIALS BUNKERS 19.EXISTING GATE TO GOLF COURSE 56 1 revisions: Co n d i t i o n a l U s e I s s u e - 0 8 . 1 9 . 2 5 of: drawing no. 2 date:08.19.25 drawing This document is the property of Gregg S. Graton Architect and is intended to be an instrument of service for this project only. No reproduction is allowed without the written consent of Gregg S. Graton Architect. Use infringements will be prosecuted. The contractor is responsible for the verification of all on-site conditions and dimensions. Any and all discrepancies from that indicated by these documents shall be reported to the general contractor/ owner or architect prior to commencement of work. contractor: AGC project P-2025.0016 Contact:Joel Ensminger Office: Mobile:320-470-1471 consultants Ru s h C r e e k G o l f C o u r s e - C o m m e r c i a l P o l e St r u c t u r e Mu l t i - u s e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y 78 0 1 C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 , M a p l e G r o v e , M N 5 5 3 1 1 Architect: Mainly Details, Architectural Design, PLLC. Surveyor: Surveying Civil Engineer: Structural Engineer: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Gregg S. Graton, AIA date: certification no. Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC PH 612-382-5682 Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, MN 55422 3 4 00.00.25 5 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 DATE: SIGNATURE Sharif Hared 40838 Owner: FO R C L I E N T R E V I E W A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y C O S T E S T I M A T I N G O N L Y O N L Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N FLOOR PLAN-Concept 'C2'1 A1.1 'C2'-FLOOR PLAN 14" SCALE Area-7 Group 'B' Occupancy 295 s.f. Table 1004.5 150 s.f. person=295 / 150 =1.96 Occupants Area-6 Group 'B' Occupancy 111 s.f. Table 1004.5 150 s.f. person=111 / 150 =0.74 Occupants Area-1 Group 'S-1' Occupancy 3,063 s.f., repair and storage. Table 1004.5, Equipment Storage area 300 s.f. person=3,063 / 300 =10.21 Occupants Area-2 Group 'S-1' Occupancy 119 s.f. Table 1004.5, Industrial area 100 s.f. person=119 / 100 =1.19 Occupants Area-4 Group 'S-1' Occupancy 264 s.f., Parts storage. Table 1004.5, Equipment Storage area 300 s.f. person=252 / 300 =0.84 Occupants New Addition Area-10 Group 'S-2' Occupancy 1,904 s.f. Table 1004.5, Equipment Storage 100 s.f. person=1,904 / 100 =19.04 Occupants per 2020MNACCESSIBILITY CODE SECTION 1104.3.1 EMPLOYEE WORK AREAS. No exception, Areas greater than 1,000 s.f. shall be required to include and accessible route. Area-8 Group 'A-2' Occupancy 438 s.f., Break Room food and Beverage Consumption. Table 1004.5, Equipment Storage area 15.f. person=438 / 15 =29.2 Occupants Area-3 Group 'S-1' Occupancy 1,041 s.f., repair and storage. Table 1004.5, Equipment Repair Industrial area 100 s.f. person=1,041 / 100 =10.41 Occupants Area-5 Group 'S-1' Occupancy 71 s.f., Storage. Table 1004.5, Storage area 300 s.f. person=76 / 300 =0.25 Occupants Area-9 Group 'S-1' Occupancy 106 s.f., Accessory to storage Table 1004.5, Restrooms accessory to Storage area 300.f. person=111 / 300 =0.37 Occupants K-3578BARRINGTONTOILETVITREOUS CHINA K-3578BARRINGTONTOILETVITREOUS CHINA 100 SHOP CONC. FLR. 100 SPENCER'S OFFICE CONC. FLR. 100 BREAK ROOM CONC. FLR. 100 UNISEX REST ROOM CONC. FLR. 100 STORAGE CONC. FLR. 100 NEW CORRIDOR CONC. FLR. 100 FURNACE / MECHANICAL ROOM CONC. FLR. 100 (4) PERSON OFFICE CONC. FLR. 100 GRINDING ROOM CONC. FLR. 100 PARTS STORAGE CONC. FLR. KEY EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING CONSTRUCTION REMOVE FINISHES, INTERIOR SHEATHING AND INSULATION 100 NEW PAINT SHOP CONC. FLR. NE W 3' x 7 ' I N S U L . MT L . D R . NEW DR. 3'x7' INSUL. METL. DR. NEW DR. 3'x7' DR. EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS TO REMAIN EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION TO BE DEMOLISHED 1 2 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 A A A A A 8 10 12 6a 6a 6a 6b 13 ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO RESTROOMS FROM NEW ADDITION 11 11 11 11 11 6b 1 2 11 9 3' - 0 " NE W OP E N I N G ±1 ' - 9 " 6' - 3 5 / 8 " NE W WI D T H STAIR TO FUTURE STORAGE LOFT ABOVE FIRE RATED SEPARATION ASSEMBLY PER 2020MNBC TABLE 508.4 TWO HOUR RATED SEPARATION WALL BETWEEN GROUP 'S-2' STORAGE AND GROUPS 'B' AND 'S-1' STORAGE. INSTALL FROM TOP OF SLAV TO UNDERSIDE OF ROOF DECKING ABOVE KEYED PLAN NOTES 2 1 EXISTING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR STEEL FRAME WALL SYSTEM / CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN 3 EXISTING WOOD COLUMNS TO BE REMOVED, PROVIDE OR SISTER ON NEW ROOF TRUSS AS REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ROOF TRUSSES SLOPE, HEEL AND PROFILE PRIOR TO ORDERING TRUSSES AND FABRICATION. EXISTING POST LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED UPON DEMOLITION 4 NEW OPENING 5 EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION-EXISTING FRAMING TO REMAIN, REMOVE INTERIOR FINISHES, INTERIOR WALL SHEATHING AND INSULATION. MOLD AND MILDEW MITIGATION AS REQUIRED. 6a NEW 2x4 WOOD FRAMED WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH 5 8" MOLD/MILDEW RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD, USE TREATED PLATES WHEN IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE 6b NEW 2x6 WOOD FRAMED WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH 5 8" MOLD/MILDEW RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD, USE TREATED PLATES WHEN IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE 7 NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES, RELOCATE PLUMBING LINES AND VENT STACK AS REQUIRED PER CODE 8 NEW CABINETS AND COUNTER-TOPS KEYED DEMOLITION PLAN NOTES EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION T BE REMOVEDA EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMN TO BE REMOVED-SEE STRUCTURALB C EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION, EXISTING FRAMING TO REMAIN-REMOVE INTERIOR FINISHES, INTERIOR WALL SHEATHING AND INSULATION. MOLD AND MILDEW MITIGATION AS REQUIRED. D EXISTING PLUMBING TO BE REMOVED, RELOCATE NEW FIXTURES AS SHOWN. E EXISTING CABINETS AND COUNTER TOPS TO BE REMOVED, RELOCATE NEW CABINETS AND COUNTERTOPS AND AS SHOWN. F EXISTING ACOUSTICAL TILE CEILING (ACT) TO BE REMOVED AT AREAS TO BE REMODELED, NEW LIGHTING, AND HVAC VENTS IN THESE AREAS. 9 NEW REFRIGERATORS, PROVIDE ELECTRICAL AS REQUIRED PER CODE 10 NEW MICROWAVES, PROVIDE ELECTRICAL AS REQUIRED PER CODE 11 NEW MOLD RESISTANT ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE (ACT) ABOVE 12 NEW TURF SPRAYER STORAGE 13 NEW TRENCH DRAIN AT TURF SPRAYER STORAGE 14 NEW 5 FOOT WIDE CONCRETE LANDINGS AND APRONS AT ENTIRE EAST ELEVATION, SLOPE AT 14" PER FOOT AWAY FROM BUILDING Area-2 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =1.19 Occupants Group 'S-1' Occupancy =10.21 Occupants INTERIOR WALLS.) OCCUPANT LOAD SUMMARY Area-3 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =10.41 Occupants Area-4 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =0.84 Occupants Area-5 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =0.25 Occupants Area-6 Group 'B' Occupancy =0.74 Occupants Area-7 Group 'B' Occupancy =1.96 Occupants Area-8 Group 'A-2' Occupancy =29.2 Occupants Area-9 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =111 / 300 =0.37 Occupants New Addition Area-10 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =19.04 Occupants per 2020MNACCESSIBILITY CODE SECTION 1104.3.1 EMPLOYEE WORK AREAS. No exception, Areas greater than 1,000 s.f. shall be required to include and accessible route. TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD=93.25 ~94 Existing Building Occupancy =74.21 57 1 revisions: Co n d i t i o n a l U s e I s s u e - 0 8 . 1 9 . 2 5 of: drawing no. 2 date:08.19.25 drawing This document is the property of Gregg S. Graton Architect and is intended to be an instrument of service for this project only. No reproduction is allowed without the written consent of Gregg S. Graton Architect. Use infringements will be prosecuted. The contractor is responsible for the verification of all on-site conditions and dimensions. Any and all discrepancies from that indicated by these documents shall be reported to the general contractor/ owner or architect prior to commencement of work. contractor: AGC project P-2025.0016 Contact:Joel Ensminger Office: Mobile:320-470-1471 consultants Ru s h C r e e k G o l f C o u r s e - C o m m e r c i a l P o l e St r u c t u r e Mu l t i - u s e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y 78 0 1 C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 , M a p l e G r o v e , M N 5 5 3 1 1 Architect: Mainly Details, Architectural Design, PLLC. Surveyor: Surveying Civil Engineer: Structural Engineer: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Gregg S. Graton, AIA date: certification no. Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC PH 612-382-5682 Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, MN 55422 3 4 00.00.25 5 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 DATE: SIGNATURE Sharif Hared 40838 Owner: FO R C L I E N T R E V I E W A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y C O S T E S T I M A T I N G O N L Y O N L Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN-Concept 'C2'1 A1.2 'C2'-LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 14" SCALE Area-11 Group 'S-1' Occupancy 147 s.f., Parts storage. Table 1004.5, Storage area 300 s.f. person=147 / 300 =0.49 Occupants 200 STORAGE LOFT BETWEEN ATTIC FRAMED ROOF TRUSSES TILE. FLR. KEY EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING CONSTRUCTION REMOVE FINISHES, INTERIOR SHEATHING AND INSULATION NEW DR. 3'x7' DR. EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS BELOW EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS BELOW EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION TO BE DEMOLISHED 1 2 6b 6b 6c NEW DOOR TO PARTS STORAGE 11 1 2 STAIR TO FUTURE STORAGE LOFT ABOVE FIRE RATED SEPARATION ASSEMBLY PER 2020MNBC TABLE 508.4 TWO HOUR RATED SEPARATION WALL BETWEEN GROUP 'S-2' STORAGE AND GROUPS 'B' AND 'S-1' STORAGE. INSTALL FROM TOP OF SLAV TO UNDERSIDE OF ROOF DECKING ABOVE UP UP T O F U T U R E ST O R A G E L O F T 6a EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS BELOW KEYED PLAN NOTES 2 1 EXISTING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR STEEL FRAME WALL SYSTEM / CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN 3 EXISTING WOOD COLUMNS TO BE REMOVED, PROVIDE OR SISTER ON NEW ROOF TRUSS AS REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ROOF TRUSSES SLOPE, HEEL AND PROFILE PRIOR TO ORDERING TRUSSES AND FABRICATION. EXISTING POST LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED UPON DEMOLITION 4 NEW OPENING 5 EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION-EXISTING FRAMING TO REMAIN, REMOVE INTERIOR FINISHES, INTERIOR WALL SHEATHING AND INSULATION. MOLD AND MILDEW MITIGATION AS REQUIRED. 6a NEW 2x4 WOOD FRAMED WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH 5 8" MOLD/MILDEW RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD, USE TREATED PLATES WHEN IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE 6b NEW 2x6 WOOD FRAMED WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH 5 8" MOLD/MILDEW RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD, USE TREATED PLATES WHEN IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE 6c TWO HOUR RATED FIRE AREA SEPARATION WALL NEW 2x6 WOOD FRAMED WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH TWO LAYERS OF 5 8" FIRE RATED MOLD/MILDEW RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE, USE TREATED PLATES WHEN IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE-INSTALL FROM TOP OF CONCRETE SLAB TO UNDERSIDE OF ROOF DECKING ABOVE KEYED DEMOLITION PLAN NOTES EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION T BE REMOVEDA EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMN TO BE REMOVED-SEE STRUCTURALB C EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION, EXISTING FRAMING TO REMAIN-REMOVE INTERIOR FINISHES, INTERIOR WALL SHEATHING AND INSULATION. MOLD AND MILDEW MITIGATION AS REQUIRED. D EXISTING PLUMBING TO BE REMOVED, RELOCATE NEW FIXTURES AS SHOWN. E EXISTING CABINETS AND COUNTER TOPS TO BE REMOVED, RELOCATE NEW CABINETS AND COUNTERTOPS AND AS SHOWN. F EXISTING ACOUSTICAL TILE CEILING (ACT) TO BE REMOVED AT AREAS TO BE REMODELED, NEW LIGHTING, AND HVAC VENTS IN THESE AREAS. 7 NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES, RELOCATE PLUMBING LINES AND VENT STACK AS REQUIRED PER CODE 8 NEW CABINETS AND COUNTER-TOPS 9 NEW REFRIGERATORS, PROVIDE ELECTRICAL AS REQUIRED PER CODE 10 NEW MICROWAVES, PROVIDE ELECTRICAL AS REQUIRED PER CODE 11 NEW MOLD RESISTANT ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE (ACT) ABOVE 12 NEW TURF SPRAYER STORAGE 13 NEW TRENCH DRAIN AT TURF SPRAYER STORAGE Area-2 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =1.19 Occupants Group 'S-1' Occupancy =10.21 Occupants BUILDING AREA ±7,664 S.F. (AS MEASURED FROM INSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR WALLS.) OCCUPANT LOAD SUMMARY Area-3 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =10.41 Occupants Area-4 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =0.84 Occupants Area-5 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =0.25 Occupants Area-6 Group 'B' Occupancy =0.74 Occupants Area-7 Group 'B' Occupancy =1.96 Occupants Area-8 Group 'A-2' Occupancy =29.2 Occupants Area-9 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =111 / 300 =0.37 Occupants New Addition Area-10 Group 'S-1' Occupancy =19.04 Occupants per 2020MNACCESSIBILITY CODE SECTION 1104.3.1 EMPLOYEE WORK AREAS. No exception, Areas greater than 1,000 s.f. shall be required to include and accessible route. TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD=93.25 ~94 Existing Building Occupancy =74.21 SUMMARY 58 EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES METAL PANEL/ SIDING-3-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL P. SIDING-3 METAL FASCIA-4-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL FASCIA-4 ASPHALT ROOFING SHINGLES-2-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL P. ROOF-2 VENTED METAL SOFFIT-5-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL SOFFIT-5 SECURITY LIGHT-8SECURITY LHT-8 PIPE METAL BOLLARDS WITH SLEEVE TO MATCH EXISTING-9, EACH SIDE OF OVERHEAD DOORS B-BOLLARD-9 METAL CONTINUOUS / RIDGE VENT-1-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL. R.VENT-1 METAL GABLE TRIM-6-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL GABLE TRM-6 METAL CORNER TRIM-7-(MATCH EXISTING)MTL CRNR. TRM-7 MAIN LEVEL 1 EL. 100'-0" 11 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 12 4 CONTRACTOR/SUPPLIER TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING ROOF PITCH AND TRUSS HEEL HEIGHT TO MATCH EXISTING PRIOR TO ORDERING AND FABRICATION ROOF PEAK EL. ±21'-2" ±2 1 ' - 2 " TO P O F C O N C R E T E SL A B T O R O O F P E A K ±1 6 ' - 6 " TO P O F C O N C R E T E S L A B TO M I D P O I N T O F R O O F T.O. ROOF TRUSS BEARING EL. ±11'-9 1 4" (CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY) ±4 ' - 1 0 3 / 8 " TO P W A L L T O MI D P O I N T RO O F EXISTING CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION 7' - 0 " ASPHALT ROOF VENT-1 ASPHALT SHINGLES ROOF-2 MTL P. SIDING-3 MTL FASCIA-4 MTL. SOFFIT-5 SECURITY LHT-8 MTL CRNR. TRM-7 EXISTING CONSTRUCTIONNEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST EXISTING VIEW FROM NORTHEAST EXISTING VIEW FROM EAST A2.0 NEW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 18" scale 1 revisions: Co n d i t i o n a l U s e I s s u e - 0 8 . 1 9 . 2 5 of: drawing no. 2 date:08.19.25 drawing This document is the property of Gregg S. Graton Architect and is intended to be an instrument of service for this project only. No reproduction is allowed without the written consent of Gregg S. Graton Architect. Use infringements will be prosecuted. The contractor is responsible for the verification of all on-site conditions and dimensions. Any and all discrepancies from that indicated by these documents shall be reported to the general contractor/ owner or architect prior to commencement of work. contractor: AGC project P-2025.0016 Contact:Joel Ensminger Office: Mobile:320-470-1471 consultants Ru s h C r e e k G o l f C o u r s e - C o m m e r c i a l P o l e St r u c t u r e Mu l t i - u s e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y 78 0 1 C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 , M a p l e G r o v e , M N 5 5 3 1 1 Architect: Mainly Details, Architectural Design, PLLC. Surveyor: Surveying Civil Engineer: Structural Engineer: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Gregg S. Graton, AIA date: certification no. Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC PH 612-382-5682 Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, MN 55422 3 4 00.00.25 5 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 00.00.00 DATE: SIGNATURE Sharif Hared 40838 Owner: FO R C L I E N T R E V I E W A N D P R E L I M I N A R Y C O S T E S T I M A T I N G O N L Y O N L Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW SOUTH ELEVATION A2.0 1 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW EAST ELEVATION A2.0 2 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW WEST ELEVATION A2.0 4 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW NORTH ELEVATION A2.0 3 59 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 6.c Council Meeting: October 2, 2025 Prepared By: Seth Gellman. Community Development Administrative Assistant, Kendra Lindahl, Principal Planner Topic: Request for a Variance to Amend Resolution 2006- 62 for a second sign at St. John’s Lutheran School at 9141 County Road 101 (PID 13-119-23-11- 0011) (City file 25-031) Action Required: Approval Summary The applicant, St John’s Lutheran Church and School, has submitted a request for an amendment to an existing sign variance resolution to replace an existing 32 sq. ft. sign with a larger 40 sq. ft. sign and convert it to a dynamic display for the school use on site. Currently, the church and school are on one lot and have an existing variance that allows for two signs. Council Action Attachments 1. 2025-10-02 PC PACKET St. John's Sign Variance_small.pdf 60 Page 1 of 6 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item ___ 0BPlanning Commission Meeting: 1BOctober 2, 2025 2BPrepared By: 3BZeke Peters, AICP 4BTopic: Request for a Variance to Amend Resolution 2006-62 for a second sign at St. John’s Lutheran School at 9141 County Road 101 (PID 13-119-23-11-0011) (City file 25-031) 5BAction Required: 6BRecommendation to City Council Review Deadline: December 10, 2025 1. Request The applicant, St John’s Lutheran Church and School, has submitted a request for an amendment to an existing sign variance resolution to replace an existing 32 sq. ft. sign with a larger 40 sq. ft. sign and convert it to a dynamic display for the school use on site. Currently, the church and school are on one lot and have an existing variance that allows for two signs. 2. Background The church and school are located on the same lot but have two signs. An existing variance was approved in 2006 by Resolution 2006-62. This variance allowed the church and school to retain the existing sign and add a second sign on the north end of the property. The new sign was approved with conditions to ensure compliance with the sign performance standards in place at the time of approval. However, since 2006 the property was rezoned from residential to PI and the sign code has changed to allow dynamic displays in the P-I (Public and Institutional) zoning district. However, Resolution 2006-62 stated in condition 3 that: 3. The freestanding sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size or 6 feet in height and any illumination of such sign shall be external with downward focused lighting on a timer. This means that the second sign is not allowed to be a dynamic display. The applicant is also seeking a modification to this condition to allow this second sign to be replaced with a larger sign. The new sign would be 40 sq. ft. and 8 feet tall. The current code allows one 64 sq. ft. freestanding sign up to 16 feet high. The Church intends to maintain the existing church sign on the site. This sign measures Figure 1 - Example Sign 61 Page 2 of 6 roughly 32 sq. ft. in size and is 11 ft. tall. This means that the combined area of the existing sign and proposed sign would be 72 sq. ft., which exceeds the 64 sq. ft. maximum that would be allowed for one sign on the lot. However, neither sign is larger than what would be allowed for a single sign on the lot. The requested variance would modify the conditions in Resolution 2006-62. 3. Context Zoning and Land Use The 14.12-acre property is guided Public/Semi-Public and zoned Public/Institutional (P-I) with the Shoreland Overlay District touching a small sliver of land on the southeast portions lot. The site is located inside of the 2040 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary. Surrounding Properties The properties to the North, West and South are all guided Existing Residential and zoned UR (Urban Reserve. The properties to the East are located in Maple Grove and are guided and zoned similarly as the Corcoran properties. The present use of the surrounding properties appears to be predominately residential. Natural Characteristics of the Site The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources Inventory Areas Map does not identify any significant natural plant communities within the proposed site. The Hennepin County Natural Resources Map does identify a small wetland on the southeast corner of the map, and this would remain unaffected by this request. Rush Creek is located nearby to the southeast of the property and is the reason why the shoreland overlay briefly touches both properties. 4. Analysis Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision Making The City has a higher level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the variance standards have been met. Figure 2 - Sign Exhibit Plan 62 Page 3 of 6 B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Variance for a Second Sign The applicant has requested an amendment to Resolution 2006-62 and this request will be processed as a new variance. The site currently has two signs, but neither sign is allowed to be a dynamic display per condition 3 of the 2006 variance approval. The City Code has changed and now allows the lot to have one sign, which may include a dynamic display. The 2006 variance request permitted the second sign with restrictions related to static display, lighting and size. The current sign was also restricted in size to a maximum of 32 sq. ft., which was the allowed sign area for the district at the time. The applicant is now requesting 40 sq. ft. for the new sign in order to meet the performance standards for a dynamic display, which limit the dynamic display area to no more than 60% of the sign area. The variance would modify condition 3 of the 2006 variance for both the size and sign type restrictions. A. There are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The existing variance was issued at a time when dynamic displays were not allowed and before the property was rezoned to P-I. Current City Code still limits the property to one freestanding sign but would allow a dynamic display. Updating the sign to a dynamic display would be consistent with the ordinance standards given that the City previously approved a variance to allow the second freestanding sign. The combined areas of the church sign and proposed school sign would be 72 sq. ft. and is more than the total signage allowed of 64 sq. ft. for the one permitted sign on the lot. Neither sign is larger than what would be permitted for a single sign. B. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The conditions upon which the petition is based is unique to this property. The site contains both the church and school, where facilities and parking overlap. This means splitting the parcel to allow a sign on each would not be possible given the shared nature of the uses. The church and school each have separate signs already. After the 2006 variance was approved to allow the second freestanding sign, the ordinance was changed to allow a dynamic display and up to 64 square feet of area for the sign. C. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. 63 Page 4 of 6 The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The property already has two signs, and the two uses have existed together for some time. The variance amendment would simply allow the applicant to update an existing sign to have a dynamic display and modernize the sign. D. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the sign ordinance as Public and Institutional zones are allowed one sign, which may include a dynamic display. The proposed sign complies with the current signage ordinance, and the existing church sign would remain unchanged. E. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance would allow for the dynamic display sign that complies with the current Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the Public and Institutional uses anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. F. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. Staff has no additional conditions beyond the standard conditions and compliance with the current Sign Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. The sign ordinance has a number standards for dynamic displays to ensure that that the sign is not too bright or too distracting. The applicant did not provide enough information to ensure compliance with these standards and we have included this a condition of approval. Specifically, Section 84.04 requires: 7. Dynamic Displays. Dynamic displays as permitted by section 84.05 (Sign Standards) are subject to the following conditions: a. Only one dynamic display sign shall be allowed per lot. b. Dynamic displays are allowed only on freestanding signs. Dynamic displays may occupy no more than 60% of the actual sign area. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic displays even if not used. Only one, contiguous electronic message sign area is allowed on a sign face. c. A dynamic display sign may not change or move more often than once every 6 seconds except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour and minute, date, or temperature information. 64 Page 5 of 6 d. The images and messages displayed and transitioned must be instantaneous or fading. Modes of display which cause the message to flash or blink are prohibited. e. Dynamic displays must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards of this section. f. Electronic message signs must comply with the lighting and brightness standards contained in this section. 8. Lighting and Brightness Standards. In addition to the lighting standards set forth in Section 1060.040 of the Zoning Code, all sign lighting, including LED accent lighting, shall comply with the following standards: a) Except where otherwise stated in this ordinance, signs may be illuminated by artificial light sources on timers and shall be equipped with dimmers. b) No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility. c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle. d) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. e) Signs using an LED (light emitting diode) light source shall not exceed a luminance level of 500 candela per square meter (nits) between sunset and sunrise, and shall not exceed a luminance level of 5,000 candela per square meter between sunrise and sunset. f) Signs using fluorescent, neon, or incandescent light sources shall not exceed 12 watts per square foot of sign surface area. g) All signs with illumination shall be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness to ambient lighting conditions (e.g., dusk) to ensure that the sign's intensity does not exceed 0.3 foot-candle above ambient light levels as measured from 100 feet from the sign's face. 65 Page 6 of 6 h) No illumination involving movement by reason of the lighting arrangement, lighting source, changes in either color or intensity of lighting or other devices shall be permitted. Summary Staff has reviewed the plans with the applicable standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and finds that the variance standards have been met and recommends approval. However, if the Planning Commission finds that the variance standards have not been met, they should recommend denial. 5. Recommendation Move to recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the amendment to the variance. Attachments 1. Draft Resolution Approving the Amendment to Resolution 2006-62 2. Site Location Map 3. Resolution 2006-62 dated October 26, 2006 4. Applicant Narrative received August 12, 2025 5. Sign Plans and Site Exhibits dated August 12, 2025 6. Site Survey dated May 21, 2007 7. Public Comment received through September 23, 2025 66 City of Corcoran October xx, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 2006-62 FOR ST. JOHN’S LUTHERAN SCHOOL SIGNAGE AT 9141 COUNTY ROAD 101 (PID 13-119-23-11-0011) (CITY FILE NO. 25-031) WHEREAS, St. John’s Lutheran School (“the applicant”) is requesting approval to allow a 40 square foot sign with a dynamic display on property legally described as follows: The North 660 feet of the East 660 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 19, North Range 23, west of the 5th Principal Meridian. AND Lots 11, 12, and 13, Block 4, Brandywine Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the record plat thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the variance at a duly called public meeting. 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. The variance to modify the 2nd freestanding sign on the property to 40 square feet and to convert it to a dynamic display is approved in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on August 12, 2025, except as amended by this resolution. 2. This resolution amends Resolution 2006-62 to strike Condition 3. This modification will allow the existing sign to be converted to a dynamic display and to be 40 square feet in size as allowed by the current City Code. 3. The variance to allow the second freestanding sign to be 40 square feet and be converted to a dynamic display, is approved based on the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. The existing variance was issued at a time when dynamic displays were not allowed and before the property was rezoned to P-I. Current City Code still limits the property to one freestanding sign but would allow a dynamic display. Updating the sign to a dynamic display would be consistent with the ordinance standards given that the City previously approved a variance to allow the second freestanding sign. The combined areas of the church sign and proposed school sign would be 72 sq. ft. and is more than the total signage allowed of 64 sq. ft. for the one permitted sign on the lot. Neither sign is larger than what would be permitted for a single sign. b. The conditions upon which the petition is based is unique to this property. The site contains both the church and school, where facilities and parking overlap. This 67 City of Corcoran October xx, 2025 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX Page 2 of 2 means splitting the parcel to allow a sign on each would not be possible given the shared nature of the uses. The church and school each have separate signs already. After the 2006 variance was approved to allow the second freestanding sign, the ordinance was changed to allow a dynamic display and up to 64 square feet of area for the sign. c. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The property already has two signs, and the two uses have existed together for some time. The variance would simply allow the applicant to update an existing sign to have a dynamic display and modernize the sign. d. The variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the sign ordinance as Public and Institutional zones are allowed one sign, which may include a dynamic display. The proposed sign complies with the current signage ordinance and the existing church sign would remain unchanged. e. The variance would allow for the dynamic display sign that complies with the current Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the Public and Institutional uses anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The freestanding sign must comply with all Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance requirements. 5. The applicant must provide information to ensure compliance with Section 84.04 (Subd. 7 and 8) of the sign ordinance. 6. A sign permit for the sign is required prior to beginning construction on the dynamic sign. 7. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and completes the required improvements. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Friedrich, Michelle Friedrich, Michelle Lanterman, Mark Lanterman, Mark Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xx day of October 2025. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Debra Johnson – City Clerk 68 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 9/22/2025 Comments:PARCEL ID: 1311923110011 OWNER NAME: St John's Ev Lutheran Church PARCEL ADDRESS: 9141 Co Rd No 101,Corcoran MN 55340 PARCEL AREA: 14.12 acres, 615,277 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATE: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2024, PAYABLE 2025 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial-Preferred HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $0 TAX TOTAL: $0.00 ASSESSED 2025, PAYABLE 2026 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $0 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2025 1:4,800 69 CITY OF CORCORAN RESOLUTION 2006-62 APPROVING VARIANCE FOR ST. JOHN’S EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF MYSTIQUE DRIVE AND WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 101 WHEREAS, St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church and School has requested approval of a variance from the City’s Sign Ordinance to allow a second freestanding sign on the subject property legally described as follows: The North 660 feet of the East 660 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 19, North Range 23, west of the 5th Principal Meridian. AND Lots 11, 12, and 13, Block 4, Brandywine Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the record plat thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the above listed variance at a duly called Public Meeting and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that is should and hereby does approve the request by St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church and School for a variance from the City’s Sign Ordinance to allow a second freestanding sign on the subject property, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The variance is approved in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on July 17, 2006 and the revised plans received on September 18, 2006, based on the following finding: a. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in territory in which property is situated. b. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. c. That the conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 70 Resolution 2006-62 Page 2 d. The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair the property values within the neighborhood. e. The existing freestanding sign has historic and nostalgic value to the community. f. There were no objections to the sign variance from the community. 2. The freestanding sign must comply with all Zoning Ordinance requirements. 3. The freestanding sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size or 6 feet in height and any illumination of such sign shall be external with downward focused lighting on a timer. 4. No construction shall begin on the freestanding sign until the City has issued a building permit. 5. The temporary sign on the property shall be removed before the building permit for the freestanding sign will be issued. 6. The plans need to be revised to show that sign is not encroaching into the parking lot. Revisions to the parking lot itself will require submittal of a site plan modification for review and approval by the City, prior to issuance of building permits. ADOPTED by the City Council this 26th day of October 2006. VOTING AYE ___ Cossette, Tom ___ Grabowski, Chuck ___ Jacobs, Paul ___ Lymangood, Chuck ___ Thomas, Ron VOTING NAY ___ Cossette, Tom ___ Grabowski, Chuck ___ Jacobs, Paul ___ Lymangood, Chuck ___ Thomas, Ron Tom Cossette, Mayor City Seal 71 Resolution 2006-62 Page 2 ATTEST: Bea Lindberg, City Clerk 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 2 NOTICE: All drawings, specifications, instruments of service, and other documents, data, or information of any kind, including all electronic files and data ("Documents") attached to or "linked" from this E-mail are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. Your use of the Documents is controlled and restricted by the terms of use. By downloading the attached files or by accessing the links contained in this E-mail message, you are agreeing to the terms of use. COPYRIGHT © 1994-2025 LANDFORM. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NOTICE: indicated professional registrations are for the state in which the office is located; to obtain information about other state licenses, please contact Human Resources at 612-252- 9070. Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. From: Tori Kuehne <tori.kuehne@stjlutheran.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 8:37 AM To: Seth Gellman <SGellman@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: In Support of St. John's Lutheran School's Variance Request Dear Members of the Corcoran Planning Commission, I am writing in support of St. John’s Lutheran School’s request for a variance to convert their northern sign to a dynamic sign. A dynamic sign will allow the school to share timely information with families and the broader community more efficiently—highlighting upcoming events, student activities, and community opportunities. This modern communication tool helps strengthen the school’s connection to Corcoran residents and enhances awareness of activities open to the public. The current sign is outdated and does not reflect the quality of the school or the surrounding community. Replacing it with a dynamic sign will not only enhance the appearance of the property but also provide a cleaner, more professional look along the roadway. Additionally, the technology behind dynamic signs is designed to minimize impact on the environment, thus there should be no negative impact to those living near or traveling County Road 101. For these reasons, I believe approving this variance would be a positive step for both St. John’s Lutheran School and the community it serves. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tori Kuehne | Communications & Preschool Director St. John's Lutheran School Corcoran / Maple Grove, MN 763.420.2426 x 32 83 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 7.a Council Meeting: October 2, 2025 Prepared By: Dwight Klingbeil, Planner Topic: Council Update Action Required: Information Only Council Action 84 Page 1 of 3 MEMO Meeting Date: October 2, 2025 To: Planning Commission From: Dwight Klingbeil Re: Planning Project Update Projects/comments in blue italics are new. The following is a status summary of active planning projects: 1. Commercial and Industrial Development Standards (Citywide) (City File 23-023) The purpose of this zoning ordinance amendment is to address and evaluate the allowed uses and use specific standards within commercial and industrial developments. The Council adopted a work plan at the November 20, 2023, regular meeting, and requested the Planning Commission to provide their initial feedback. The Planning Commission discussed this item at the December 5, 2023, meeting and expressed their desire Commercial and Industrial Development Standards address a number of items such as: specific architectural standards, infrastructure investment incentives, encouragement toward sustainable development practices, proper transitions of intensities and height, the permitted and conditional uses of each zoning type, verbiage, and lighting standards. City Staff prepared a survey for current landowners and lessees to express their opinions on items addressed with this update. Staff mailed the online survey invitation to property owners and tenants whose property is either currently zoned, or guided for Commercial, Industrial, or Mixed-Use. The comment period for this survey closed on January 31, 2024. During the February 8, 2024, City Council meeting, Council directed staff to prioritize Rural Commercial (CR) and Transitional Rural Commercial (TCR) district updates for approval by the end of quarter 2. Staff presented feedback from the Planning Commission and results from the Business Community Survey to the City Council at the April 25, 2024, regular Council meeting for further direction. The City Council and Planning Commission discussed the Commercial and Industrial standards during the May 21, 2024, Joint Work Session. 85 Page 2 of 3 A survey invitation for feedback on Rural Commercial Subdivisions was posted to the City’s media pages and mailed out to properties within 500 feet of CR & TCR parcels. Council discussed the results of this survey during the June 27, 2024, meeting. A public hearing for an ordinance amendment removing self-storage/mini-storage from the CR and I-1 districts was held at the July 2, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. After some discussion, the Planning Commission motioned to recommend approval of this ordinance amendment. Council approved the zoning ordinance amendment, removing self-storage/mini-storage from the CR & I-1 districts at the July 25, 2024, meeting. A public hearing to clarify the use of development rights for subdivision in the UR, RR, CR, and TCR districts was held at the August 1, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission motioned unanimously to recommend approval of the draft ordinance. Council approved the Zoning Ordinance Amendment at the August 22, 2024, meeting. 2. Upward Acres Lot Line Adjustment and Easement Vacation (PIDs 17-119-23-13- 0002 & 17-119-23-12-0004) (City File 25-023). Skies Limit LLC requests approval of a Lot Line Adjustment and Easement Vacation to realign the shared property line and Drainage & Utility Easement between 9155 & 9205 Underhill Lane. A public hearing for this item was held during the August 14, 2025, Council meeting. No members of the public spoke on this item, and the request was approved by the Council. 3. Hope Meadows 2nd Addition (PID11-119-23-11-0064) (City File 25-024). Hope Community Development and JP Brooks request approval of a Final Plat and a PUD Amendment for Hope Meadows 2nd Addition. This addition consists of 18 Villa Townhomes and an extension of Hope Way. The applicant requested that this item be tabled and is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings. 4. M&J Creekside Interim Use Permit & Site Plan (PID 08-119-23-23-0017) (City File 25-026). Margaret and John Fernandez request approval of a site plan and interim use permit to allow the operation of a wine tasting room at 23020 County Road 30. The operation would consist of wine sales, production, and processing. The public hearing for this item was held during the September 4, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. After some discussion, the Commission motioned 4:1 to recommend approval of the request as presented by Staff. The applicant requested to table the item from the September 11, 2025, Council meeting, and the item is currently scheduled for the October 23, 2025, Council meeting. 5. Bakke Minor Subdivision (PID 18-119-23-22-0007 & 18-119-23-23-0003) (City File 25-027). David and Debra Bakke request approval of a minor subdivision to combine their two parcels at 23805 and 23865 County Road 10 and split off 5-acres of land surrounding the existing home at 23865 County Road 10. This item is not complete for City review and is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings. 6. Amberly Trail Easement Vacation (PID 01-119-23-31-0103) (City File 25-029). Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC request approval of a trail easement vacation to vacate portions of a trail easement within 10456 Northwood Lane. The public hearing for this item was held during the September 25, 2025, Council meeting. The request was approved after the public hearing closed. 86 Page 3 of 3 7. Phil’s Quality Auto Site Plan & Variance (PID 26-119-23-11-0029) (City File 25- 030). Phil’s Quality Auto request approval of a Site Plan and Variance to allow the expansion of their parking lot within the minimum front yard setback area at 7590 Commerce Street. This item is incomplete for City review and is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings. 8. St. John’s Lutheran School Sign Variance (PID 13-119-23-11-0011) (City File 25- 031). St. John’s Lutheran School request approval of a variance to allow the replacement of the current letter sign for the school with a dynamic display. This item is complete for City review and the public hearing is scheduled for the October 2, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. 9. Rush Creek Golf Course Site Plan & CUP (PID 24-119-23-42-0001) (City File 25- 032). Rush Creek Golf Course request approval of a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment to allow the expansion of an existing maintenance building on site. This item is complete for City review and the public hearing is scheduled for the October 2, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. 10. High Point Gardens Site Plan & IUP (PID 15-119-23-42-0003) (City File 25-033). High Point Gardens request approval of a Site Plan and Interim Use Permit to allow the operation of an indoor cannabis cultivation operation at 21020 County Road 10. This item is complete for City review and the public hearing is scheduled for the October 2, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. 11. Schmids Hidden Valley 3rd Addition (PID 04-119-23-42-0006) (City File 25-034). Michael & Judith Ball request approval of a preliminary plat for a three-lot subdivision at 21900 Oakdale Drive. This item is being reviewed for completeness and is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings. 12. Lano Equipment Concept Plan (PID 31-119-23-34-0007) (City File 25-035). Lano Equipment submitted a concept plan for Council review and feedback of a potential redevelopment of their site located at 23580 State Highway 55. This item is being reviewed for completeness and is not currently scheduled for any upcoming meetings. 87 Commissioner Liaison Calendar Suggested City Council Meeings: 10/9/2025 10/23/2025 11/13/2025 11/24/2025*12/11/2025 12/22/2025* Hargreaves Kozicky Lind Zachman Brummond Hargreaves *Meeting held on Monday due to holiday 88