Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-01-23 - Council Agenda Packet - Part 2
r January 15, 2014 Corcoran City Council 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Dear Corcoran City Council, Thank you for your feedback at the December 12, 2013 Council Meeting on our preliminary sketch plan. We heard your comments and during the past month we have worked with our team, met with your staff, met with the school district, and are scheduled to appear before the Council on January 23 to answer your questions and continue the discussions we were having with you in December. At your January 23, 2014 meeting we would like to discuss with you the following items: Comprehensive Plan Amendment — As was discussed at the last meeting, in order for us to move forward with a development proposal we would need an indication from the Council that there is support for lower density on the Schendel property. At the previous meeting this request stimulated discussion about where the density would go. We have worked with our consultants, namely John Shardlow, to look at the City's overall plan and work with us on ways to reasonably adjust the densities to accommodate fewer units on the Schendel property while maintaining the overall benchmarks of the current plan. Mr. Shardlow will be presenting our ideas to you at the meeting. John's biography is attached as well as an initial narrative from Mr. Shardlow framing the discussion around a future Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Schendel Property. • Market Study — We heard from you and your staff that the Council would like to know more about the market research work that Maxfield Research did on our behalf. To that end we have provided a copy of the market report that Maxfield Research provided us as well as an executive summary done by John Shardlow at Stantec. Mary Bujold of Maxfield Research, the author of this report, will be in attendance to answer your questions. Mary's biography is attached for your information. Coordination with the Rockford School District — One of the items that appeared to be of importance to the City and is also of importance to us, is the desire to have the Rockford School District build a school on their property near the downtown. In discussions with the City staff and others it became clear that there are a number of items that tied the development of the Schendel property with development proposals from the Rockford School District. To that end we have met with and continue to meet with the School District to look for opportunities to jointly plan both sites to best address the City's and School's development goals. Transportation — We understand from looking at your long term plans and listening to you and your staff that there are and will be some issues related to transportation that affect the City's , School District's and our plans. We are working on these issues and plan to present some ideas for how to resolve the more immediate transportation issues and how to phase in possible long term solutions. Schedule — We understand that you take decisions to change the guiding in your comprehensive plan seriously. We believe that development of the Schendel property as single family creates a critical catalyst that is needed to support the development of a school, of the District's premier baseball facility and to help develop demand for the current and future businesses in your downtown. This is a unique opportunity. As we mentioned at our last meeting we do not want to waste the City's time, or our time, if our proposal is not an opportunity that makes sense for the City. Our business is market driven. Our success is dependent on meeting the demands of the marketplace. Our research tells us there is a pent up demand for the product we are proposing for this site. In order for us to best meet the demand we will need to work within a framework that allows us to have the site available for development by the fall of 2014. We know that this may feel like undue pressure but that is our reality. If the Council believes that this is an opportunity worth pursuing we will need to work together on a timeframe that could provide us with the ability to begin development by the fall of 2014. We look forward to seeing you and appreciate the opportunity to continue discussing our development plans with you. Sincerely, Peachtree Partners 2 John W. ShardIOW FAICP Principal -in- Charge tantc Mr. Shardlow has extensive and wide- ranging project experience serving clients in both the public and private sectors. He has frequently been called upon to lead multi - disciplinary teams of consultants in completing large, complicated planning projects. John's skills include project planning for residential, commercial, mixed -use, industrial, and institutional developments; comprehensive and community planning; and preparing redevelopment plans, tax - increment financing plans, subdivision regulations, and environmental assessments. He is a highly experienced facilitator and an expert on innovative community engagement programs. John also frequently provides expert testimony on matters related to planning. John has been involved in planning and zoning education for lawyers, planners, and elected and appointed officials for 34 years. He regularly prepares and teaches seminars through the League of Cities, and has developed and taught classes through Government Training Services. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1978 Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1978 REGISTRATIONS /CERTIFICATIONS Certified Planner, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) College of Fellows, American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP) MEMBERSHIPS Founding Board Member (1982), Sensible Land Use Coalition Member (since 1980), American Planning Association Past Chair (2006 - 2009), Minnesota Chapter, Urban Land Institute Chair, Sustainable Development Council, Urban Land Institute Environment Co- Chair, Regional Council of Mayors Urban Land Institute AWARDS 2011 Sensible Land Use Coalition Mo Dorton Award for Distinguished Service to the Minnesota Land Use Community 2008 City of St. Cloud - International LivCom Awards: Gold Medal for being one of the "Most Livable Cities" with a population of 25,000- 75,000; and an award for "Best Efforts for Planning for the Future" 2007 Lino Lakes 1 -35E Corridor AUAR - Minnesota Environmental Initiative Award for Green Building and Development 2006 Twin Lakes Stakeholder Advisory Panel - Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association Award for Outstanding Project/ Program/ Tool 2006 Master Trainer Award - Government Training Services 2002 Burnsville Heart of the City - Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association Award for Outstanding Project /Program /Tool 1996 St. Cloud Comprehensive Plan - Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association Award for Distinguished Planning * denotes projects completed with other firms Design with community in mind John W. ShardIOW FAICP Principal -in- Charge Pp'„r_r T EXPERIENCE Planning Bottineau LRT Corridor Pre - Planning and Community Engagement Strategy, Twin Cities, Minnesota John led a multi- disciplinary team of consultants who worked with a committee of representatives from the five cities along the fourth LRT line planned to serve the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The process included the creation of a strong shared vision for the corridor and a community engagement plan with strategies and recommendations to engage the large and diverse minority and under - served populations along the corridor. Central Corridor Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Investment Framework, Twin Cities, Minnesota John co -led a multi- disciplinary team of consultants who completed a pioneering process to coordinate the investments of the federal, state, regional, county, local, institutional and private investments along the 11 mile Central Corridor LRT line connecting St. Paul and Minneapolis. This innovative project included a comprehensive inventory of all of the investments needed to realize the ultimate visions for the future of the corridor and included the development of a Corridor Implementation Tool that tracks public and private investments along the corridor. This project was one of the keys to the Twin Cities region winning a $5M HUD Sustainable Cities grant and is being replicated in other TOD corridors throughout the region. Urban Land Institute As the Past Chair of the Minnesota Chapter of ULI, John provides leadership on a broad range of regional land use issues. He works closely with the ULI sponsored Regional Council of Mayors and serves as Co -chair of its Environment Committee. John is also the Chair of the ULI National Sustainable Development Council. * denotes projects completed with other firms Education, Outreach, and Innovation John has committed to improve land use practices, development and community building through education and outreach efforts. He was one of the founding board members of the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC). This group has sponsored informative programs on a broad range of land use topics every month for more than a quarter of a century. John was one of the first faculty members of the Government Training Services (GTS). In this role he developed several courses for citizen planners. For more than 34 years he has taught classes for elected and appointed officials that now number in the thousands. John is a frequent speaker at League of Minnesota Cities programs, Minnesota and national APA conferences and courses approved for continuing education for lawyers, realtors, appraisers, planners and others. He has served as an expert witness in numerous land use disputes representing both government and private property owners and developers. Dakota County Comprehensive Plan John facilitated a major multi jurisdictional visioning effort to guide the County's comprehensive planning process. The process successfully incorporated sustainability and a conservation ethic into future decision making in the County. Government Training Service As a faculty member, John has led seminars in comprehensive planning, planned unit development, and advanced planning and zoning techniques for elected officials for the past 28 years. Regional Conservation Design Framework John was a co- author of this effort for the greater 13- county Twin Cities metropolitan area. He worked through the Minnesota Chapter of the Urban Land Institute to get in unanimously adopted by the Regional Council of Mayors. John W. ShardIOW FAICP Principal -in- Charge NW Quadrant Redevelopment Project, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota John served as principal in charge of this "smart growth opportunity site" as designated by the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council. This project received the Builders Association of the Twin Cities Bennie Award for Best Infill redevelopment Neighborhood project. The study produced concepts that centered on redeveloping the shopping mall and balancing community desires with market realities and Smart Growth principles. The end product included a framework of key design standards and a set of criteria for developer selection. "The High Cost of Sprawl: Urban Land Supply Analysis and Recommendations for Managing Growth" John was the primary author of this document, which was prepared for the Builders Association of the Twin Cities. Continuing efforts on behalf of the Builders Association in regard to future growth options for the Twin Cities, and expansion of the MUSA. St. Cloud Area Joint Planning District Plan, St. Cloud, Minnesota John served as the principal in charge of the landmark St. Cloud regional plan that resulted in a joint plan for the five cities and three counties surrounding St. Cloud. The St. Cloud Area Joint Planning District Plan, completed in spring 2000, was designed to assist these communities in comprehensive planning and growth management efforts for 20 years or more. This project was the first of its kind in both scope and scale outside the Twin Cities metro area. Planning Consultant for 100+ Cities and Counties, Minnesota John has been extensively involved in a wide and diverse range of planning, zoning and development projects, including numerous award- winning projects. His career has been particularly distinguished by innovative and effective models for community participation in complicated and often controversial projects. * denotes projects completed with other firms LCCMR Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan Working with the University of Minnesota Institute on the Environment, John served as a member of the project's Core Management Team and chaired the Land Use Practices Team. This study is the most comprehensive inventory and analysis of Minnesota's natural resources that has ever been produced. Its recommendations present a vision and strategy for natural resource conservation and preservation efforts for the next 50 years. Stantec January 15, 2014 File: 193802592 Attention: Mayor, City Council & City Staff City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, Minnesota 55340 -2113 Dear City Leaders, Reference: Framing the Discussion Regarding the Peachtree Partners Request to discuss a future Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Schendel Property You are facing some big decisions related to this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and there are many things you must consider as you deliberate this matter. I have been involved in preparing and implementing comprehensive plans for Minnesota cities for nearly 40 years. From that experience I would like to share some background and perspective to help you prioritize issues and make the decision that is right for you. Comprehensive Plans vary in their content and focus depending on where the community is in its growth cycle and how far the plan looks in to the future. The City of Corcoran Comprehensive Plan, dated June, 2011 was done at a time before the City had experienced much urbanization and it looked forward to the year 2030. As a result its land use plans were general. The Land Use map, along with the Transportation Plan and other elements were intended to serve as a framework to guide public and private investment. No one should expect that the community will look exactly like this map in the year 2030. Rather as was the case with Plymouth and Maple Grove and all of the communities that have developed before Corcoran the land use pattern that exists in 20 years will reflect a multitude of individual decisions based on the timing of property owners decisions to sell their land, market demand and the quality of development that occurs in the City among others. A community should always scrutinize a request to amend its comprehensive plan and approve changes carefully. But, you should not interpret the comprehensive plan as a rigid and inflexible policy that you are locked in to forever. It is intended to protect public and private investment over time, but comprehensive plans change many, many times during the life of a city. Historical Perspective and the New Normal. Since approximately the 196os the Twin Cities Metropolitan region grew steadily outward. The core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul either lost population, or remained constant in population as the region grew first into the first tier suburbs and then the second and finally third tier cities like Maple Grove. For most of our history that growth rate was moderate and steady at about 15,000 building permits every year. Design with community in mind January 15, 2014 Mayor, City Council & City Staff Page 2 of 3 Mayor and City Council The Metropolitan Council planned for the orderly and contiguous expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Services Line (MUSA) and cities in the path of this expansion prepared local plans to accommodate urban development. Several things combined to change this steady and dependable picture starting around 2002. Our area experienced a major influx of national builders and they were hungry for land. Land prices escalated dramatically and development leaped well beyond the MUSA line into free - standing communities with their own sewer systems located on major highways. By around 2004 the region was issuing 24,000 permits within the seven county area alone and in 2006 the bottom fell out. The region had as much as a seven year supply of developed lots available in some locations and many more on the books. The Housing bust and Great Recession that followed were devastating to our development industry. While the newspapers accurately report that development is starting to come back, it would be a serious mistake not to recognize that nothing has returned to the old normal and almost certainly never will. Candidly, anyone who tells you that they can predict accurately what the new normal will become is kidding themselves. The point in this discussion is that if things had kept on the way they had for the past several decades, Corcoran could be confident that as Maple Grove and Plymouth reached capacity development would simply flow into your community. That assumption is now far less certain for a host of reasons, including our aging population, market preferences for compact, walkable urban living by many young professionals and some empty nesters and the huge transit investments being made in our region. You already know how these forces are affecting the Metropolitan Council's growth forecasts and you understand the regional investment implications of those numbers. The Benefits of Facilitating and Accelerating the Building of the Elementary School. Nothing would do more to attract quality residential development to this area than the building of the elementary school and associated athletic complex. The mutual benefits to the School District and the Peachtree proposal are substantial. Missing the opportunity to build the elementary school in this neighborhood would have long lasting implications. The Market for Townhomes in Corcoran. The Maxfield report provides a great deal of information about this topic. The key takeaway is that there isn't a market for townhomes today and no one can predict with any level of certainty when there will be a demand. A strong case could also be made that there are many locations closer to major transportation corridors that will be more attractive for multiple family residential than the Schendel Property if and when the market conditions change. The Market for Mixed Use and Retail in Corcoran. There are over 4,000,000 sq. ft. of retail space within five miles of Corcoran's boundaries. It would be highly unlikely that the residents of these communities would come to Corcoran to shop. Therefore, Corcoran should assume that the only commercial that can be developed is the amount that can be supported by its population and some people from smaller communities located farther to the west. Urban Land Institute publications state that it takes 5,000 people within a market area to support a neighborhood convenience store. People always over estimate the amount of retail that can be supported by Design with community in mind January 15, 2014 Mayor, City Council & City Staff Page 3 of 3 Mayor and City Council surrounding development. If the City is serious about supporting future mixed use development, or ever achieving a compact and walkable downtown, the single best thing you can do is to help grow rooftops in Corcoran. Summary and Conclusion. The Comprehensive Plan is a guide and not a rigid, prescriptive document. The comprehensive plans in Plymouth and Maple Grove experienced numerous changes throughout their development history and yours will too. Market conditions are slowly improving for residential development, but no one should jump to any conclusions about how that will play out either generally, or specifically in Corcoran. Peachtree Partners are experienced developers with a long and impressive portfolio of successful projects. They are a proven commodity and have a history of fulfilling their responsibilities. The synergy between their proposal and the plans by the Rockford School District is substantial. The developer and the District are committed to working closely with each other and the City. The most successful communities I have worked in have done the hard work of building and maintaining strong working relationships with their school districts. This is a great opportunity to forge that relationship. It is always an option to choose to wait to see if something else comes along. In the past that was a less risky choice as the region grew steadily outward. Today the decision to wait and see is less predictable than it has ever been in my career. Finally, any time you consider a change to your Comprehensive Plan you will be faced with not having all of the answers you would like to have. There is some uncertainty and risk that is simply unavoidable however you choose. My advice is to seize the opportunity to bring a quality development to Corcoran and start building the rooftops that will support your tax base and future services. Leverage this development to facilitate and potentially accelerate the building of the elementary school. I can't think of a single change that would have a more significant and positive impact on your opportunities to grow and prosper. It is our pleasure to assist you and your capable staff and consultants in any way we can through this important process. My best wishes for great success in building your city. Regards, Stantec Consulting, Inc. John W. Shardlow, FAICP Senior Associate Phone: 651967 456o Fax: 6516361311 Design with community in mind Maxfield Research Inc. Research that breaks ground.... neral Background Mary has almost 30 years of experience in real estate research and consulting and is considered a market expert in the field of residential real estate and in market analysis for financial institutions. She regularly testifies as an expert witness for eminent domain, tax appeal and other types of real estate litigation. As President, she heads projects for large -scale land use and redevelopment studies including downtown revitalization for private developers and municipalities as well as private developers and universities on their student housing needs. Mary frequently gives presentations at seminars and workshop sessions on current real estate market topics. Experience Large -Scale Redevelopment Master - Planned Communities Rental Housing Condominium Housing Senior Housing Student Housing Financial Institutions Expert Testimony and Litigation Support Comprehensive Housing Needs Retail Analysis Downtown Revitalization Industrial Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis Maxfield Research Inc. 1221 Nicollet Avenue Suite 218 Minneapolis, MN 55403 www.maxfieldresearch.com Phone: 612-338-0012 Fax: 612 - 904 -7979 E -mail: mbujold @maxfieldresearch.com * JIC 7�i rich fns. Y Mary Bujold President Professional Designation and Appointments Counselors of Real Estate (CRE) CRE Board of Directors — 2 -year term Editor -Real Estate Issues Journal Housing Development Committee - Project for Pride in Living Professional Organizations Counselors of Real Estate (CRE) National Association of Realtors (NAR) Minnesota Association of Realtors (MAR) Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors (MAAR) National Historic Trust — Main Street Center Education Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration Marquette University Masters of Business Administration University of Minnesota 30 years of Experience Offering Solutions to your Real Estate Challenges earch Inc. is a full- service research firm providing timely and e real estate market information and analysis that is critical to the succ four clients. With 30 years of experience in real estate market feasibi ' nd consulting, our expertise enables us to offer solutions to difficult chall We assess the needs of each project, anticipate problems and pro- vide s ons. We work closely with each client assure our research data and analysis provide exactly the infor tion needed in planning and developing new projects. We pro, ' e customized studies designed to deliver strategic framework for each of Tents' objectives to optimize land use and value of their real estate needs. r uloping dynamic relationships and delivering strategic solutions has earned r clients' confidence in our expertise. Our broad experience and varied tomer base includes public, private and institutional clients seeking crucial )rmation in making decisions regarding the latest trends in the real estate ustry. laxfield Research Inc. is a local, regional and international player in the real state consulting industry. ax g, h 1r1[., Our Clients Public Sector — recommendations provide decision makers a guide to future planning. Strategic counsel on market trends and real estate activities assists clients with a value added service Private Sector — provides clients with objective and unbiased advice to position themselves to maximize opportunity and reduce risk Institutional Sector — extensive experience serving broad spectrum of clients with unique organizational needs. Examples of Our Services Residential— Assist with information on multifamily, senior housing, tax credit, master planned communities, residential scenarios and more. Commercial — Analysis for retail, office, industrial and hotel space working with private developers on specific projects Land Use — Highest and best use assessments, redevelopment and development issues, collaborating with planning consultants to provide market data and support land use recommendations. Special— Providing expert testimony and litigation support, economic impact analysis, financial pro- formas, etc. Consulting Services— custom analysis according to specific needs, specified aspects regarding floor plans, unit mix, premium pricing assessments, competitive shopping and more. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 1221 NicolletAvenue Suite 218 Minneapolis, MN 55403 www.maxfieldresearch.com Phone: 612-338-0012 Fax: 612 - 904 -7979 Research that breaksground.... Our Staff Mary Bujold, President Matt Mullins, Vice President & Business Development Joe Hollman, Sr. Research Analyst Brian Smith, Research Analyst Daniel Schwartz, Research Analyst Amanda Janzen, Research Analyst David Sajevic Research Analyst Phyllis Austin Office Manager Stantec To: Corcoran Mayor, City Council & From: John W. Shardlow, FAICP Staff City Hall St. Paul File: Schendel Property Date: January 15, 2014 Reference: Executive Summary of Maxfield Research Market Study Memo The following summary is intended to assist you in your review of the market research report prepared by the Maxfield Research Group. It describes the slides, or groups of slides in the presentation and identifies the key findings from each section. Slide 2 Purpose: To provide decision makers with a succinct assessment of current and potential demand for residential development on the Schendel Property Slide 3 describes the Primary Market Area (PMA) Slide 4 lists the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Schendel property and concludes that its strengths outweigh its weaknesses Several slides review the population growth trends (slides 5,6,7). Largest groups under 20 years old and 25 to 34 (family forming years) FINDINGS (Slides 8 -13): • Incomes are rising within the Primary Market Area • Strong owner occupancy statistics in the PMA; Illustrates the rise in non - traditional families, including households without children and single person households • Comparisons of the relative rankings of the Rockford School District with several other regional school districts • Employment very limited within Corcoran — will not be a major driver of development • Single Family has dominated the market since 2oo6 • Corcoran market very flat since 2005 • Housing prices are rising in the PMA — positive sign • Townhouses and condominiums small percentage of growth in PMA and overwhelming majority of townhomes in Medina. Several slides (14 -29) describe the lot inventory in Corcoran and within the PMA: • 6.6 month supply of available lots — positive indicator P"g lithe@mmrdgylpbD NF4documents \active projects \property search \corcoran \schendel \preliminary sketch plan \meeting with council - 1-23-14\4 - executive summary corcoran market research v2.docx Sta1nc January 15, 2014 Corcoran Mayor, City Council & Staff Page 2 of 2 • Vacant/ Developed lot supply is the lowest since 3Q12. The last time it was this low was 3Q09 • Slide 26 shows summary of where townhome lots are (Medina) and explains that the developer is not marketing them due to stagnant absorption • Single Family vacant lot supply is down by 11% - positive indicator, Townhouse lot inventory is up 4.5% - negative indicator given flat absorption • Townhome starts are down -25% and inventory is down 26% - demand Slides 30 -321 identify all of the competitive subdivisions within the Primary Market Area Slide 33 shows current residential activity in Corcoran Slide 34 presents an excellent summary of residential demand in Corcoran Slides 35 and 36 provide a summary of the relevant sales data in Corcoran Slide 38 shows that resale homes in the Corcoran Market Area is low (4.9 mos versus 6 mos equilibrium) — very positive indicator Slide 39 provides an excellent summary of the lot shortage and market demand The process for determining the market demand for the Schendel Property is shown on slide 41 A summary of all of the key findings is shown on Slides 42, 43 • Growth pushing west from 1494 • Vacant lot inventory for single family lowest in five years • Demand for single family increasing; demand for townhomes stagnant • Most townhome developments within the Primary market Area have been marketing since before the housing bust • Strong existing homes sales market, but inventory low in western Twin Cities suburbs • Base prices for single family homes increasing 3% per year • Lot prices also growing, but mostly in developed communities (Plymouth, Maple Grove) • Buyers need to move further west of 1494 to achieve single family home prices under $300,000 • Schendel Property has the shortest distance to connect to the sanitary sewer main • The proximity of the planned elementary school is a key marketing attribute for the Schendel property DeW@ ithco rdity!05b - jVlgldocuments \active projects \property search \corcoran \schendel \preliminary sketch plan \meeting with council - 1-23-14\4 - executive summary corcoran market research v2.docx 111C. Schendel Property — Single - Family Development Corcoran, Minnesota (Draft Copy -For Discussion) Presented to: EBF Associates I Peachtree Partners Presented by: Mary Bujold I Maxfield Research Inc. November 22, 2013 1221 Nicollet Avenue South, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55403 (612) 338 -0012 Project Scope Provide demand and absorption assessment for new residential subdivision in Corcoran, Minnesota compile infor p o J d growth trends, competitive— Approach properties, lot supply, pipeline and other market factors that will impact the potential demand for and absorption of residential product. Goal Provide decision makers with a succinct assessment the current and potential demand for residential development. Deliverables • Primary Data collection: October and November 2013 • Draft: November 22, 2013 2 ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. Primary Market Area oaytoH -- — Anoka R':rr> Champlin �7Jh wap jl - r M, le s� Crxsorarr Map t" R.,xktord Greenti ld L7 110 New Hope Crystal Ii r. epkndence PI-M rrtth 5fl, ri- �i mine wll� r c5rr w ,r Al_,, L ike , Golden Valley EA C' A Woodland 8•: ....° Minnetonkaitnet�:o�- 3 ➢ Households seeking move -up housing will primarily cross -shop this area for new single - family homes; ➢ Affordability, location and schools are important in that order ➢ Additional demand will come from households moving out of entry - level, first -tier suburban locations to select move -up housing ➢ With prices of new construction on the rise, households, finding affordable new construction usually takes them up to Otsego, Rogers, St. Michael, which is a much greater travel time to the 1 -494 ring than the Schendel property I Rerearch Inr. ms. �'Ort 4 • Strengths — 5-7 minutes to 1 -494 — Proposed neighborhood retail at intersection of 10 and Troy Ln. — Proposed Brockton -94 interchange to the north — Adjacent to Corcoran Park — Planned elementary school across Hwy. 10 • Weaknesses — Uncertain timing for new elementary school — Hwy. 10 realignment (impact ?) • Summary — Strengths exceed weaknesses .�x�'icld :, Ret�earch Inr. Maxfield Research calculated population and household estimates and projections by considering growth between 2000 and 2010, reviewing residential building permits issued between 2000 and 2013, current economic conditions and reviewing previous Met Council projections. ■ The result is that our 2020 projections are: o Based on housing growth trends post- housing bust o Best reflect the current growth trajectory for the Market Area Historic and Projected Household Growth Corcoran Market Area 25 t 20 4. a � 15 a u G+ Q 10 5 0 - P M,A Hennepin Uy. ■ 2000 -2010 2010 -2020 Metro Area i Rerearch Inr. Population growth has been essentially flat in Corcoran; Household growth has been limited; a result of very limited new development. �xfield h inr.. TABLE B -1 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS CORCORAN MARKET AREA 2000 to 2020 Change 2000 -2010 2 Census Estimate Forecast POPULATION Corcoran 5,630 5,379 5,516 7,800 -251 -4.5 2,421 45.0 Independence 3,236 3,504 3,701 4,870 268 8.3 1,366 39.0 Medina 4,005 4,892 5,147 7,700 887 22.1 2,808 57.4 Maple Grove 50,365 61,567 65,108 76,000 11,202 22.2 14,433 23.4 Plymouth 65,894 70,576 73,678 77,000 4,682 7.1 6,424 9.1 Market Area Total 129,130 145,918 153,150 173,370 16,788 13.0 27,452 18.8 Hennepin County 1,116,206 1,152,425 1,193,995 1,311,415 36,219 3.2 158,990 13.8 Twin Cities Metro Area 2,642,062 2,849,567 2,910,136 3,144,000 207,505 7.9 294,433 10.3 HOUSEHOLDS Corcoran 1,784 1,867 1,885 2,700 83 4.7 833 44.2 Independence 1,088 1,241 1,263 1,690 153 14.1 449 36.2 Medina 1,309 1,702 1,825 2,800 393 30.0 1,098 64.5 Maple Grove 17,532 22,867 23,827 30,300 5,335 30.4 7,433 32.5 Plymouth 24,820 28,663 29,496 31,500 3,843 15.5 2,837 9.9 Market Area Total 46,533 56,340 58,296 68,990 9,807 21.1 12,650 22.5 Hennepin County 456,131 475,913 487,276 552,265 19,782 4.3 76,352 16.0 Twin Cities Metro Area 1,021,456 1,117,749 1,144,132 1,293,000 96,293 9.4 175,251 15.7 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Metropolitan Council; Maxfield Research, Inc. �xfield h inr.. Population Age Distribution • Communities in the Market Area are projected to experience strong growth in the Under 20 age group as families with children continue to move into new SF developments • Moderate growth among age 25 to 44 households; first -time homebuyers • Largest age groups numerically indicating more families with children in the area Projected Population Growth by Age Group: 2013 - 2018 Total 75+ 65 to 74 55 to 64 45 to 54 35 to 44 i, 25 to 34 20 to 24 Under 20 -20,0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 ■ Metro Area - Hennepin PMA Sources: ESRI, Inc.; Maxfield Research Inc. 7 50.0 - . fi ld h Inc., Median Incomes expected to rise between 2% and 3% per year in the PMA 2013 Median Income by Age of Householder $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 �' LO °u� o N © $40,000 to C, Lai -4 u °�° N a4 v �U W d 40 ko W W In CO $20,000 N' N o M 00 w '� o �in loll N W CQ W - C) 6_ Total <25 25 -34 35 -44 45 -54 55 -64 65 -74 75+ PMA ■ Hennepin Twin Cities Sources: ESRI, Inc.; Maxfield Research Inc. 8 Highest incomes are in the Primary Market Area $120,000 $100,000 - $80,000 - 2018 Median Income by Age of Householder 0 $60,000 -� N ON 1p V: F'' Ur t? W 00 Q1 to N Cn DO ca pp 540,000 �+ T V, C) N o+ m � W -CO b to v. P 00 00 if� In N O A W O Lft 0c O1 M _. N y M 0 N O O 00 M in $20,000 - - 00 .! ^' W o — � W ra LO W - 00 Oc Totat <25 25 -34 35 -44 45-54 55 -64 65 -74 75+ d PMA ■ Hennepin Twin Cities a xfi�ld wamh Mr.. a Household Tenure • Highest proportion of owners is found in the PMA • Compares most closely to the Metro Area • Hennepin County has higher renter proportions • Highest proportions of owners between ages of 35 and 64 • Overall owner percent • PMA = 80.2% • Hennepin = 64.3% • Metro = 70.0% Sources: Census Bureau 9 100,0 90.0 50.0 70.0 60.0 ° 5a.o v 40.0 a 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Household Tenure by Age of Householder Percentage of Owners in 2010 15 -24 25 -34 35 -44 45 -54 55 -64 65+ Total ■ PMA ■ Hennepin Metro h Mr.. • Compared to Hennepin County and Metro Area, a higher proportion of families with children reside in the Corcoran Market Area • Aging baby boomers are having their children move out of the house • Other Family households (primarily single - parents) stable, but increasing slightly • The CMA shows higher proportions of married couple families with and without children than the Metro Area Sources: Census Bureau; Maxfield Research Inc. 10 100% 90% 80% 0 70% L N 50% 7 0 = 50% 0 c 40° %a a a 30% 20% 10% o% Household Type Comparison 2000 -2010 10% 'i1° 136 14% 13% 15% Other Family 30°6 3336 24'% 24% 25% 27% Married w/o Children NN I N ■ Married w/ Children 10% 1p% s% Other (Roommates) ■ Persons Living Alone Q Q C C O O C c a Z C C d 41 ��x�'icld Rerearch Inr. • SF home builders often promote school districts with high rankings on their websites • School district rankings are based on test scores and consider only "regular" schools, not "alternative" schools. • According to Rockford School District, they are seeing more families come over to Rockford because of new programs being offered and smaller class sizes and greater accessibility to sports. SCHOOL DISTRICT RANKINGS 2013 Sources: National Center for Education Statistics; Minnesota Departmentof Education; ��xi'icld Rerearch Inr. No. of Students Area Twin Cities School Districts Rating Edina 8,295 0.958 Wayzata (Wayzata, Minnetonka, Plymouth) 10,464 0.957 Delano 2,294 0.955 Minnetonka 8,701 0.953 Orono 2,772 0.904 Maple Lake 1,002 0.895 La kevi I I e 11,220 0.885 Eden Prairie 9,744 0.814 Rockford 1,537 0.616 Anoka /Hennepin 39,106 0.616 Hopki ns 7,280 0.608 Osseo (Maple Grove, Osseo) 20,835 0.438 Robbins dale (Eastern Plymouth) 12,036 0.331 Sources: National Center for Education Statistics; Minnesota Departmentof Education; ��xi'icld Rerearch Inr. Employment Growth Trends 0 0 12 The economic downturn caused a decrease in employment from 2005 -2010 Since that time however, job growth has been relatively strong in the Metro Area and the larger west suburban communities have gained back most if not all of the jobs that they lost The overall unemployment rate in the Twin Cities is 4.1% (October 2013) City Corcoran Independence Medina Maple Grove Plymouth Minnetonka St. Louis Park Total Hennepin County Twin Cities Metro EMPLOYMENT GROWTH -WEST SURBURBS 2000 -2020 Estimates I Projection 20001 20051 20101 20131 2020 1,792 1,439 1,063 900 1,900 169 320 587 528 560 3,254 3,864 3,351 4,665 6,200 18,309 30,297 29,877 34,657 42,900 53,491 52,903 46,227 49,749 63,400 51,276 48,781 44,228 46,157 56,000 40,696 41,355 40,485 42,872 50,500 170,987 180,964 167,828 181,541 223,480 Change 2000 -2010 Change 2010 -202C No. I I Pct. I I No. I I Pct. -729 -40.7% 837 78.7 418 247.3% -27 -4.6 97 3.0% 2,849 85.0 11,568 63.2% 13,023 43.6 -7,264 -13.6% 17,173 37.1 -7,048 -13.7% 11,772 26.6 -211 -0.5% 10,015 24.7 -3,159 -1.8% 55,652 33.2 877,246 875,419 805,089 880,177 1,043,420 - 72,157 -8.2% 238,331 29 1,606,263 1,673,672 1,543,872 1,663,984 1,990,000 - 62,391 -3.9% 446,128 28 Source: Metropolitan Council; MN DEED; Maxfield Research Inc. Xfl i{� h Mr.. m 2,500,000 2,000, 000 1,500,000 1,000,000 - - — 500,000 - 0 2000 Total Employment 2000 -2020 2005 2010 2013 2020 Corcoran Market area ■ Hennepin County Sources: Metropolitan Council; MN DEED; Maxfield Research Inc. 13 Twin Cities Metro fi ld h Inc., • Single- family homes have dominated residential construction since 2006 • Increased townhome production occurred in the mid - 2000s due to dramatic increases in SF home prices • Home production decreased due to the housing downturn; production resumed again in 2010 • Multifamily construction in the Corcoran Market Area has primarily been senior housing or rental apartments; in Hennepin County, it has been primarily rental apartments 14 Sources: Census Bureau; Metropolitan Council a N 6000 N N Y_ E 5000 a a E 4000 .4N 3000 2000 6 s 1000 z 0 Residential Construction Hennepin County 2005 through 2013 (Aug.) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Single - Family . Multifamily • i l / ■ i s W—. Inc, Residential Construction Corcorcan Market Area 2005 through 2013 (Aug.) 1000 N 900 =' N 800 — Y_ 700 i 600 E 500 0 2 N 400 300 200 a 100 E ° z 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 v Single- Family ■ Multifamily a N 6000 N N Y_ E 5000 a a E 4000 .4N 3000 2000 6 s 1000 z 0 Residential Construction Hennepin County 2005 through 2013 (Aug.) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Single - Family . Multifamily • i l / ■ i s W—. Inc, Single - Family Multi - Family Total Single - Family Multi - Family Total Single - Family Multi - Family Total * through August 2013 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS CORCORAN MARKET AREA AND HENNEPIN COUNTY 2000 through 2013 City of Corcoran 2005 Permits Units 2006 Permits Units 2007 Permits Units 2008 Permits Units 2009 Permits Units 2010 Permits Units 2011 Permits Units 5 5 0 0 2012 Permits Units 2013* Permits Units 18 18 0 0 11 11 0 0 6 6 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 4 4 0 0 3 3 0 0 2008 Permits Units Hennepin County 2005 Permits Units 2006 Permits Units 2007 Permits Units 2008 Permits Units 2009 Permits Units 709 709 22 539 2010 Permits Units 846 846 24 1,069 Corcoran Market Area 2012 Permits Units 1,340 1,340 43 4,159 2013* Permits Units 2,321 2,321 89 2,547 2,251 2,251 61 2,258 1,370 1,370 44 1,199 906 906 35 661 1,112 1,112 20 2,200 2005 Permits Units 2006 Permits Units 2007 Permits Units 2008 Permits Units 2009 Permits Units 327 327 1 7 2010 Permits Units 432 5 432 18 2011 Permits 468 5 Units 468 91 2012 Permits 564 5 Units 564 161 2013* Permits Units 548 548 12 378 641 641 3 32 471 471 5 56 414 414 7 96 526 1 526 262 560 926 644 673 476 527 421 510 328 334 437 450 473 559 569 725 527 788 Hennepin County 2005 Permits Units 2006 Permits Units 2007 Permits Units 2008 Permits Units 2009 Permits Units 709 709 22 539 2010 Permits Units 846 846 24 1,069 2011 Permits Units 895 895 19 715 2012 Permits Units 1,340 1,340 43 4,159 2013* Permits Units 2,321 2,321 89 2,547 2,251 2,251 61 2,258 1,370 1,370 44 1,199 906 906 35 661 1,112 1,112 20 2,200 2,410 4,868 2,312 4,509 1,414 2,569 941 1,567 731 1,248 870 1,915 914 1,610 1,383 5,499 1,132 3,312 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Maxfield Research Inc. 15 nxfirld wamh Mr. • Prices of resale homes (previously owned) have increased since 2011 • Strong market activity in traditional sales • Traditional sales increasing against distressed sales showing improved market fundamentals 16 e XflKW,a h Mr.. q RESIDENTIAL RESALE HOME PRICING CORCORAN MARKET AREA 2008 through 2013* ALL SALES No. of Sales Price Days on Market Avg. Avg. Year Sales Average Median DOM CDOM BRs Yr. Bit. 2008 1,002 $352,816 $314,900 72 142 4 1985 2009 1,046 $327,549 $290,000 69 135 4 1985 2010 927 $329,257 $290,500 72 134 4 1987 2011 1,014 $316,600 $274,950 81 147 4 1985 2012 1,274 $325,555 $286,750 66 111 4 1984 2013 1,391 $348,848 $314,250 51 82 4 1985 Total /Median 6,654 $328,403 $290,250 71 135 4 1985 % Change '08 -'13 38.8% -1.1% -0.2% -29.2% -42.3% 0.0% 0.0% TRADITIONAL SALES (EXCLUDES DISTRESSED) ** 2009 545 $340,575 $301,000 67 126 4 1985 2010 736 $347,020 $310,000 69 120 4 1985 2011 769 $343,231 $300,000 76 139 4 1985 2012 1,032 $346,386 $303,500 60 102 4 1985 2013 1,194 $366,201 $328,200 45 70 4 1985 Total /Median 4,276 $346,386 $303,500 67 120 4 1985 Change '09 -'13 119.1% 7.5% 9.0% -32.8% -44.4% 0.0% 0.0% * 2013 figures through November 18, 2013 ** Distressed Sales compiled beginning in 2009. Sources: Greater Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors; Maxfield Research, Inc. 16 e XflKW,a h Mr.. q 17 New Construction SF Housing Starts by Price Range -3 Q 11 through 3 Q 13 45% of housing starts priced between $300K & $500K 25% of housing starts priced between $500K & 700K 12% of housing starts priced between $800K & $1 M TH starts 8.2% of total; Condo starts 13.4% of total ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. HOUSING STARTS BY PRICE RANGE CORCORAN MARKET AREA Min Price $0- $200,000- $300,000- $400,000- $500,000- $600,000- $700,000- $800,000- Max Price $199,999 $299,999 $399,999 $499,999 $599,999 $699,999 $799,999 $999,999 Total Single - Family Annual Starts 9 122 233 257 170 99 72 125 1,086 TH /Plex /Other Annual Starts 13 65 10 18 7 2 0 0 115 Condominium Annual Starts 0 25 24 17 17 17 17 69 186 Source: Metrostudy ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. New Construction. • Average price of SF homes has continued to increase (3.2 %); • Average size has risen slightly (0.8 %) • Avg. per square foot sales price essentially stable at $146 -$148, which includes the price of the lot COMPARISON BY HOUSING TYPE CORCORAN MARKET AREA 4Q12 Averages 1Q Averages 2Q Averages 3Q Averages Price Sq. Ft. $ /SF Price Sq. Ft. $ /SF Price Sq. Ft. $ /SF Price Sq. Ft. $ /SF Single - Family $390,691 2,759 $141.16 $395,191 2,751 $146.13 $402,510 2,760 $148.16 $403,157 2,780 $146.03 TH /Plex /Other $270,280 1,918 $138.05 $248,375 1,811 $134.73 $255,782 1,820 $138.00 $262,110 1,745 $147.85 Condominium 1 $467,961 1,578 $291.16 1 $457,399 1,581 $284.19 11 $551,867 1,616 $329.69 $849,168 1,868 $439.02 Source: Metrostud 18 Xfl ii{� h Mr.. m Opp, Market Area Trends - Corcoran Market Area ➢ Finished Vacant Homes decreased to only 42 homes in 2nd Q 2012 all in Maple Grove and Plymouth; this figure rose as construction increased to meet demand, but then decreased again in 2nd Quarter 2013 with strong absorption of new homes ➢ There is an estimated 6.6 mos supply of new homes available, about average to keep pace with demand provided that demand does not increase significantly ➢ Supply is increasing to try to keep up with demand, but demand has been strong resulting in fluctuating availability of housing inventory 350 300 t' 250 0 c 200 c c 150 3 = 100 50 n CMA Housing Inventory and Closings by Quarter 3Qo9 through 3Q13 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 ri X1.11 500 ,,, be C 400 a U 300 c 200 d F11 Mr I r - )warm Inc, 19 IIIIL �Finvac UC — Ann CI ©s Opp, Market Area Trends - Hennepin County ➢ Finished Vacant Home Supply decreased to only 55 homes in 3rd Q 2011, but rose after that as new homes were brought on -line ➢ With new construction, there is an estimate of 6 mos supply of new homes available, about average to keep pace with demand ➢ Rate of Annual Closings has increased with new inventory from a low 475 in 3Q11 to 976 in 3Q13 ➢ Total current inventory estimated at 512 homes 500 450 400 e 350 4. aci 300 a c 250 tw 200 mo 150 100 50 0 a Housing Inventory and Closings by Quarter 3009 through 3Q13 3Q09 4QO9 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 sFhVae tow. L]C —&--Ann Clos 1200 1000 $m 0 a 500 m C 400 5, 200 0 - ' field Corcoran Market Area • Vacant Developed Lot (VDL) supply decreased to only 14.8 mos as of 3Q13; should be closer to 36 months • Lowest supply since 3Q12 at 9.0 mos • Annual starts rose to a high of 691 as of 3Q13 absorbing VDL • Total VDL absorption since 3Q09 in the CMA has been 423 lots; avg. 25 per qtr. • We anticipate VDL absorption to increase as market demand increases 1,400 1,20© 1,000 800 _ d 600 400 i.r F11 21 CMA Vacant Developed Lots and Starts by Quarter 3QO9 through 3Q13 3009 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4811 1Q12 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 � VDL --E—Ann Starts 800 700 600 500 [o VA 400 � c 300 Q 200 100 0 i Rerearch Inr. Hennepin County • Vacant Developed Lot (VDL) inventory decreased to 1,490 lots (16.5 mos supply) as of 3Q13; lowest level on the chart • Annual starts have continued to rise since 3Q11 absorbing VDL • Annual average VDL absorption since 3Q09 in Hennepin County has been 210 lots • Indicates a need for more lots to fill demand 2,500 1'I R 0 1,500 e� 7 C 1,000 500 0 22 Vacant Developed Lots and Starts by Quarter 3QO9 through 3+Q13 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 _ - -WDL Ann starts 12®0 1000 800 R 6]00 R 7 C 4 400 200 0 i Rerearch Inr. 23 Corcoran Market Area • Annual lot deliveries are projected at near 791 lots in the Market Area as of 3Q2013 • Future lot inventory are lots that are platted or in process of being platted • Future lot inventory + Vacant lot inventory / Annual Starts (4.0 years); this is about average, but if demand increases, then this ratio will drop • Single- family market shows a decreasing lot supply and increasing demand 8,000 7,000 5,000 IA 1 5,000 v 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Future Lets and Deliveries by Quarter 3QO9 through 3Q13 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 � Future Lots --W-Ann Lot Del iv 1000 900 800 700 500 500 400 300 200 100 0 a� `a a d 4 J c c xnaRerearch Inr. 24 Hennepin County • Annual lot deliveries are projected at near 900 lots in Hennepin County • Future lot inventory (7,100) + Vacant lot inventory (1,500) / Annual Starts (1,100) (8.0 years) • If demand increases to beyond 1,500 lots annually, years of supply will drop • Market trends indicate a decreasing lot supply and increasing demand Future Lots and Deliveries by Quarter 3Q49 through 3Q13 f.1 T.T.l 1000 900 800 700 y 500 j 0 500 a 0 400 _ 300 a 200 100 0 xna� I�:. Ret�earch Inr. • Vacant Developed Lots in the CMA total about 800 • Future lots (lots platted or in development process) total 1,962 • At the current development pace of 691 annual starts supply of vacant lots is only one year; add in future increases to 4 years • Normal lot supply is between three to five years depending on the pace of absorption 25 City CORCORAN MARKET AREA VDL and Future Lot Inventories 3Q13 Vacant Future Developed Lots Lots Corcoran 4 462 1 ndependence /MP 2 35 Medina 85 548 Plymouth 268 523 Maple Grove 4401 394 Total 7991 1,962 Sources: Metrostudy; Maxfield Research Inc. ��xl"icld i Rerearch Inr. • The townhome subdivisions that have vacant developed lots have been marketing lots generally since `04 and '05 • Most of the future lots are located in Medina • Of the future lots, there are no plans to bring most of these lots to market in the near term because absorption of townhome lots has been very slow since the housing downturn began in '05 -'06 CORCORAN MARKET AREA Townhome VDL and Future Lot Inventories 3Q13 Vacant Future City Developed Lots Lots Corcoran 0 0 Independence /MP 0 35 Medina 0 219 Plymouth 9 0 Ma pl e Grove 16 22 Total 25 276 Sources: Metrostudy; Maxfield Research Inc. Note: Future TH lots in Medina are not being marketed; product planned is targeted to empty- nester /seniors�x�icld 26 ms ms 27 • Months of supply calculated for Townhome Vacant Developed Inventory (Lots) as of 3Q13 is: — 29.7 mos for Maple Grove — 13.5 mos for Plymouth • Average price for new construction for townhomes has decreased by -1.4% over the past three quarters while SF prices have risen by 6.2% in Hennepin County. • These figures indicate that based on current absorption trends, there is sufficient inventory for over two years in Maple Grove and just over one year in Plymouth. • Nearly all townhome developments currently marketing are those that are still trying to sell out from pre- recession starts (i.e. Rush Creek in Maple Grove (2006) and Villas at Rivers Edge in Rogers (2007) • Until the months of supply figures decrease substantially for existing townhome developments and single - family home prices and interest rates rise, the majority of buyers will continue to prefer the single - family product. The only exception to this is the 55+ segment which will continue to look for convenient housing products. • Builders are currently focused on developing single - family homes and because absorption of SF product is strong and lot supply is decreasing, single - family lots are in much higher demand than townhome lots. i Rerearch Inr. • Housing starts and closings have increased over past 24 mos (48.7% and 35.9 %) • Housing inventory is up but demand is up reducing supply • Vacant Developed Lot Supply is down by 11% for single - family, but up by 4.5% for townhomes with no new development; again this indicates that absorption has slowed again for townhome products • As shown, starts for townhomes are down - 25.3 %, closings are down -21.3% and inventory is down by -26.6% across Hennepin County COMPARISON OF MARKET ACTIVITY BY HOUSING PRODUCT TYPE CORCORAN MARKETAREA 28 Starts Closings Housing Inventory Vacant Developed Lots 4Q11 -3Q12 4Q12 -3Q13 % 4Q11 -3Q12 4Q12 -3Q13 % 4Q11.3Q12 I 4Q12.3Q13 I % 4Q11.3Q12 4Q12.3Q13 % Total I Mo. Rate I Total JlMo.Rate Change Total Mo.Ratej Total jMo.Ratej Change Total ISUPPI ylmosl Total Supplylmos► FChange Total Supply(mos) Total I Supplylmosl Change Single - Family TH /Plex /Other Condominium 779 154 0 64.9 12.8 1,086 115 186 90.5 9.6 15.5 39.4% -25.3% 659 183 88 54.9 15.3 7.3 978 144 142 81.5 12 11.8 48.4% -21.3% 61.4% 404 109 83 7.4 7.1 113 512 6.3 80 6.7 127 10.7 26.7% -26.6% 53.0% 1,682 623 22 25.9 48.5 1,490 16.5 -11.4% 651 67.5 4.5% 79 5.1 259.1% Selection Totals 933 77.8 1,387 115.6 48.7% 930 77.5 1,264 105.3 35.9% 596 7.7 719 6.8 20.6% 2,327 29.9 2,220 19.2 -4.6% Source: Metrostudy Rerearch Inr. 28 29 ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. CORCORAN MARKET AREA CORCORAN MARKET AREA AVERAGE FLOOR PLAN PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT AVERAGE FLOOR PLAN PRICE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS Average Floor Plan Price Per Square Foot Average Floor Plan Price I Avg SgFt 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Average 4Q12 -3Q13 %Change Single - Family $144.16 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Average Average %Change 3Q13 Single - Family $390,691 $395,191 $402,510 $403,157 $397,887 $374,668 6.2% 2,772 TH /Plex /Other $270,780 $261,448 $255,782 $262,110 $262,530 $266,220 -1.4% 1,744 Condominiuim $467,961 $457,399 $551,867 $849,168 $581,599 $382,068 52.2% 1,868 Selection Totals $415,301 $406,935 $435,007 $426,317 $420,890 $367,486 14.5% 2,670 Source: Metrostudy 29 ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. CORCORAN MARKET AREA AVERAGE FLOOR PLAN PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT Average Floor Plan Price Per Square Foot I 4Q12 -3Q13 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Average Average %Change Single - Family $144.16 $146.13 $148.16 $147.74 $146.55 $143.84 1.9% TH /Plex /Other $138.05 $141.82 $138.00 $147.85 $141.43 $135.71 4.2% Condominiuim $291.16 $284.19 $329.69 $439.02 $336.02 $208.63 61.1% Selection Totals $199.03 $183.22 $192.77 $166.70 $185.43 $154.67 19.9% Source: Metrostudy 29 ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. COMPETITIVE SINGLE- FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS CURRENTLY MARKETING IN WEST /NORTHWEST SUBURBS CORCORAN MARKET AREA Mo. Sales 80% LTV Net Competitive Properties Pace Lot Price Lot Sizes (Acres) Payment (4.3 %) 31% Income to Qualify Fields of Medina 1126 Jubert Trail Qtr. Active: 4Q12 Builder: Mattamy Location: Medina School District: Wayzata Total Lots: 66 Lot Dimension: 65x128 Units Sold: 62 Avg. Front Ft. 65' 2013 YTD Sold: 52 %Remaining: 6% Units Remaining:4 3.5 $114,000 - $129,900 0.19 - 0.36 $1,524 $1,698 $59,000 - $66,000 Base Home Price $380,000 - $429,000 Home Size 2,457 - 3,495 Price /Sq. Ft. $155 - $123 Elm Creek Highlands 5010 Jewel Lane North Qtr. Active: 4Q11 Builder: Pulte Location: Plymouth School District: Wayzata Total Lots: 77 Lot Dimension: 60' x 150' Units Sold: 49 Avg. Front Ft. 60' 2013 YTD Sold: 35 %Remaining: 36% Units Remaining: 28 3 Lot Price 0.20 0.55 $1,552 $2,172 $60,100 - $84,100 $118,500 - $135,900 Base Home Price $391,990 - $438,990 Home Size 2,495 - 3,058 Price /Sq. Ft. $157.11 - $143.55 Hampton Hills 5095 Juneau Lane North Qtr. Active: 1Q11 Builders: Lennar, Ziglar Location: Plymouth Tri -Star, McDonald Total Lots: 210 Robert Thompson Units Sold: 127 School District: Wayzata 2013 YTD Sold: 60 Lot Dimension: 80'x 110' Units Remaining: 83 Avg. Front Ft. 80' % Remaining: 39% 4 Lot Price 0.2 - 0.74 $1,623 $3,167 $62,825 - $122,594 $122,900 - $240,000 Base Home Price $409,990 - $800,000 Home Size 2,218 - 5,000 Price /Sq. Ft. $184.85 - $160.00 All eenrarru Inr. 30 L d:: j ...:n Competitive Subdi% COMPETITIVE SINGLE- FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS CURRENTLY MARKETING IN WEST /NORTHWEST SUBURBS CORCORAN MARKET AREA Mo. Sales 80% LTV Net Competitive Properties Pace Lot Price Lot Sizes (Acres) Payment (4.3 %) 31% Income to Qualify Creek Ridge 5095 Juneau Lane North Qtr. Active: 20,13 Builder: Ryland Location: Plymouth School District: Wayzata Total Lots: 24 Lot Dimension: Units Sold: 11 Avg. Front Foot: 75' 2013 YTD Sold: 11 % Remaini ng: 54% Units Remaining: 13 No. Homes U /C: 5 No. Homes Occ. 6 2 Lot Price 0.25 - 0.58 $2,218 - $3,380 $135,900 - $152,900 Base Home Price $459,990 - $524,990 Home Size 2,218 - 3,380 Price /Sq.Ft. $207.39 - $155.32 Donegal 8301 Arrowwood Lane Qtr. Active: 1Q13 Builder: Pulte Location: Maple Grove School District: Osseo Total Lots: 139 Lot Dimension: 65'x 150' Units Sold: 10 Avg. Front Foot: 65' 2013 YTD Sold: 10 % Remaini ng: 93% Units Remaining: 129 No. Homes U /C: 7 No. Homes Occ. 2 3 Lot Price 0.22 - 0.51 $1,425 - $2,296 $55,200 - $88,900 $109,900- $199,900 Base Home Price $359,990 - $580,000 Home Size 2,323 - 3,297 Price /Sq. Ft. $154.97 - $175.92 Nature's Crossing (5th Addn.) 11286 Hackberry Lane Qtr. Active: 30,12 Builder: Matta my Location: Dayton School District: Anoka Hennepin Total Lots: 26 Lot Dimension: 65'x 175' Units Sold: 13 Avg. Front Foot: 65' 2013 YTD Sold: 10 % Remai ni ng: 50% Units Remaining: 13 No. Homes U /C: 3 No. Homes Occ: 7 1.5 Lot Price 0.26 - 0.44 $1,663 - $1,841 $64,400 - $71,300 $125,900 - $175,000 Base Home Price $420,000 - $465,000 Home Size 2,195 - 2,742 Price /Sq.Ft. $191.34 - $169.58 Cedar Hollow Hwy. 55 /Hamel Road Qtr. Active: n/a Builder: K Hovnanian Location: Plymouth School District: Wayzata Total Lots: 73 Lot Dimension: 70'x 158 Units Sold:0 Avg. Front Foot:70 2013 YTD Sold: 0 %Remaining: 100% Units Rema i ni ng: 73 No. Homes U /C:0 No. Homes Occ: 0 n/a Lot Price 0.25 - 0.9 $1,683 - $2,772 $65,148 - $107,303 $127,500 - $210,000 Base Home Price $425,000 - $700,000 Home Size 2,900 - 4,100 Price /Sq.Ft. $146.55 - $170.73 Sources: Maxfield Research Inc.; Builder's Association oftheTwin Cities; MetroStudy 31 -._. ' field Inc, St &f'tchael 21 Nature's Crossing k !i Roger!. Champlin 1.apr H are over ''��; "r� D r"+ - H' .. .'.I- Osseo G1G Schendel Property '' " s _ �" B rart4l'r r vrar� Maple P �rF: far�va Donegal Fields of Medina . Rockford Greeiti liel I r , +..�.+ �f Lzi K ± I— Re Re Lx -z,_f Perk, R^ 59ri=- p CR'Sral Bros Loretto Elm Creek Highlands t`,ilf l - 6I r' R -1 1 1 Cedar Hollo Hampton Hills+.- Hope If -0 _ 12 -Crysvd Robbk i 'Ifidepen€teiice P�fmouth Nlaple .rl CR 21 - �la'rn . .5, Avnl tl xna;�. Rerearch Inr. 32 - b Subdivisions Active and Proposed in Corcoran ➢ Largest is the proposed Lennar Gleason Road subdivision with 437 lots between 60' and 75' front feet ➢ Estimated seven -year build out for Lennar subdivision (62 lots annually) ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. 33 CURRENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY CITY OF CORCORAN November 2013 Lot Qtr Ann Qtr Ann Inventory Status Size Price Range Starts Starts Closes Closes Occ Mod Fin Vac U/C VDL Future Total Meadow Creek Estates Act 1Q05 115' $700- $836 1 3 1 2 7 0 0 1 3 0 11 Corcoran Wildlife Preserve Future 265' $390 - $500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 Lennar /Gleason Road 60' Future 60' n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 Lennar /Gleason Road 65' Future 65' n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 172 Lennar /Gleason Road 75' Future 75' n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 243 243 Overlake Bluffs Future 30' $900 $1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 Summerhill Farms Act 1Q05 135' $799 $999 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 0 15 Selection Totals 1 3 1 2 21 0 0 1 4 462 488 Sources: Metrostudy; Maxfield Research Inc. ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. 33 Pricing clustered between $400K and $700K w /psf median of $134 No. of Resales Past 12 months in Market Area Homes Built 2006+ Red Markers Indicate Average Pricing for Subject (2013 Dollars) 1400000 i I Al a2 1200000 ♦ 3 ♦4 ♦5 1000000 •6 •7 r8 u ♦9 800000 a X10 E ° s ♦11 — 0 600000 ♦12 LA -AV — — ♦13 — — — — ♦14 400000 •15 ♦16 ♦17 •18 200000 t19 ♦ 20 0 ♦21 0 10 20 30 40 .50 60 70 80 90 34 Sources: Mpls. Area Assoc. of Realtors; Maxfield Research M14Xnal �h Inr. Median Sales Statistics for 12 Mos Sold Single - Family Homes Built in 2006+ • Low sales of new homes in Corcoran exhibit lack of new development Sources: Mpls. Area Association of Realtors; Maxfield Research Inc. 35 i Rerearch Inr. 12 MOS SALES OF HOMES BUILT 2006 OR LATER PREVIOUSLY OWNED AND NEW CONSTRUCTION CORCORAN MARKET AREA No. of Square Lot Sales Price/ Avg. Yr. City Sales Feet Size Price Sq. Ft. Built Previously Owned Corcoran 1 5,130 92,000 $920,000 $179.34 2006 Medina 8 4,834 46,959 $832,500 $172.22 2007 Independence /Maple Plain 2 5,573 238,938 $773,000 $138.70 2007 Maple Grove 58 4,145 18,463 $534,500 $128.95 2008 Plymouth 27 4,112 16,948 $585,000 $142.27 2009 Total /Average 96 4,759 82,662 $729,000 $152.30 2007 New Construction Corcoran 1 1,580 72,600 $309,601 $195.95 2013 Medina 36 3,926 46,943 $566,161 $144.21 2013 Independence /Maple Plain 2 5,573 248,470 $773,000 $138.70 2007 Maple Grove 133 4,053 15,869 $549,750 $135.64 2012 Plymouth 184 4,237 16,646 $590,326 $139.33 2013 Total 356 3,874 80,106 $557,768 $150.77 2012 Sources: Mpls Area Association of Realtors; Maxfield Research Inc. Sources: Mpls. Area Association of Realtors; Maxfield Research Inc. 35 i Rerearch Inr. 12 mos closed resales in the Corcoran Market Area • Sales of existing homes over the past 12 months show increased activity and higher sales prices. ��xl'icld Rerearch Inr. 36 12 MOS HOMES SOLD PREVIOUSLY OWNED CORCORAN MARKET AREA No. of Square Lot Sales Price/ Avg. Yr. City Sales Feet Size Price Sq. Ft. Built Previously Owned Corcoran 48 2,668 116,485 $314,950 $118.05 1978 Medina 47 4,114 43,484 $637,500 $154.96 1991 Independence 34 3,095 179,252 $434,250 $140.31 1988 Maple Plain 20 2,095 12,832 $193,750 $92.48 1971 Maple Grove 591 2,632 15,535 $301,000 $114.36 1991 Plymouth 625 2,674 25,138 $340,000 $142.27 1985 Total /Average 1,365 2,671 34,311 $327,475 $129.18 1987 Sources: Mpls Area Association of Realtors; Maxfield Research Inc. ��xl'icld Rerearch Inr. 36 12 mos active listings of resales in the Corcoran Market Area • New home listings are down indicating fewer homes on the market (12 mos. Sales — 1,365) (12 mos. Listings — 340) ��xi'icld Rerearch Inr. 37 12 MOS HOMES SOLD PREVIOUSLY OWNED CORCORAN MARKET AREA No. of Square Lot Sales Price/ Avg. Yr. City Sales Feet Size Price Sq. Ft. Built Previously Owned Corcoran 16 3,003 119,155 $377,400 $125.67 1983 Medina 33 5,361 46,959 $925,000 $172.54 2000 Independence 32 3,725 183,592 $667,900 $179.30 1991 Maple Plain 6 2,205 13,635 $267,450 $121.29 1970 Maple Grove 119 2,734 15,865 $364,900 $133.47 1988 Plymouth 134 2,815 26,680 $379,900 $142.27 1986 Total /Average 340 2,909 36,820 $378,650 $137.87 1987 Sources: Mpls Area Association of Realtors; Maxfield Research Inc. ��xi'icld Rerearch Inr. 37 • Months of Supply of Resale Homes in the CMA is low, especially for the larger communities; • Overall average of 4.9 mos is below equilibrium which is 6 mos RESALE HOMES IN THE CMA November 2013 Avg. Mos. City Supply Corcoran 6.0 Independence 9.1 Maple Grove 3.1 Maple Plain 2.7 Medi na 5.5 Plymouth 3.2 Average 4.9 Source: Mpls. Assoc. of Realtors 38 ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. Demand Components ■ Household growth and proportion owners ■ Hsg. lifecyles of major demographic groups ■ Household Incomes ■ Product types I Preferences Demand Calculations ■ Projected HH Growth for Market Area = 10,800 HHs ■ 80% projected to be owner household ■ 70% of demand projected to be for single - family homes ■ Lot shortage exists to meet current demand = 8,839 lots based on current growth trends 39 Demand Drivers • Demographics • Economy & Job Growth • Consumer Choice I Preferences • Supply (i.e. Existing Hsg. Stock) • Availability of Financing /Personal Equity ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. • Process — Neighborhoods may be segmented by Lot Size Front Feet and Builder market position — Avg Sales Pace of SF Comparables • Range between 1.5 and 4 • Accelerating SF Sales Pace in 2013 up to 2 -4 /mo. — Low SF VDLs and Low Future SF Lot Supply in CMA — Existing Resale Sale Base Low (may be limiting factor if too low) — Larger lot widths have been selling a little more rapidly — Modest price points should allow for slightly higher absorption per neighborhood 40 i Rerearch Inr. Schendel Property • Neighborhoods — Up to three neighborhoods — Simultaneously Marketing • 29 dev. w/1,673 lots • Avg. absorption — 54 /mo. In CMA — 238 lots total — Avg. absorption • 1) 1 -2 /mo. (60') • 2) 1 -2 /mo. (65') • 3) 2 -3 /mo. (75' +) — Avg. Total Absorption • 4 -7 /mo. (48 to 84 /year) • Market Capture — 7 % -13% — Estimated Build -Out • Three to Five years Current Buyer Preferences • Lot front feet — 65' to 80' lots • Lot sizes — About 7,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. • No. of Bedrooms — Four • Home Size — 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. on avg. ��x�'icld i Rerearch Inr. r �_(~ � a. R, _ �rl ri _ ■grin Summary ➢ Growth continues to push west and northwest from the 1 -494 ring; ➢ Townhome demand remains relatively stagnant ➢ Very low vacant developed TH lot inventory in the Corcoran Market Area because of very slow sales pace for townhome product (single- family demand much higher) ➢ Most of the TH developments currently marketing have been marketing lots since before the housing slowdown including those in Rogers ➢ Development of townhome product does not generally attract families with children ➢ Master - planned elementary school across the street is a key enhancement to the Schendel property _ ��xdficld i Rerearch Inr. 42 ZL �=(tr � ai i R, itl a ■grin Summary ➢ Growth continues to push west and northwest from the 1 -494 ring; ➢ Vacant Developed Lot inventory for single - family lowest in five years (16 mos) ➢ Demand for new construction single - family is increasing again ➢ Strong existing single - family home sales market, but inventory also low (3.5 mos or less) in most western Twin Cities suburbs ➢ Base prices for new SF construction continue to increase about 3% per year ➢ Lot prices are also increasing, but more rapidly in the developed growth communities such as Plymouth and Maple Grove ➢ This location will be attractive because of ease of connection to 1 -494, lower price points to enhance absorption and new elementary school ➢ In order to obtain SF home prices of $300,000 for new construction requires buyers to move much further west and /or along the 1 -94 Corridor to Rogers and Otsego ➢ Master - planned elementary school across the street is a key enhancement to the Schendel property i Rerearch Inr. 43 Mary Bujold Maxfield Research Inc. 612.904.7977 mbuiold @maxfieldresearch.com 44 ti M www.maxfieldresearch.com LD,q 9 http : / /twitter.com /reaIestatedev https://www.facebook.co es /Maxfield- Research- http://www.linkedin.c om /co mpany /maxfieId- research - � Rerearch Inr. Agenda Item _ L A N D F 0 R M 105 South Fifth Avenue Tel: 612 - 252 -9070 Suite 513 Fax: 612 - 252 -9077 Minneapolis, MN 55401 www.landform.net TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: January 13, 2014 for the January 23, 2014 City Council Meeting RE: Troy Ess (on behalf of Ess Real Estate LLC) request for Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for an accessory building at 9350 County Road 19 (PID # 07- 119 -23 -43 -0004) (City File No. 13 -031) 120 -DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: March 14, 2014 1. Application Request The applicant has requested approval of a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment to allow a 5,500 square foot detached accessory building with 20 -foot sidewalls. 2. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission considered the request at a public hearing on January 2, 2014. Other than the applicant's representative, there was no one present to speak on this item. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. The Commission asked what the setback was between this building and the existing building. Staff noted that there is 10 feet between buildings. The Commission asked if the building would have water. The applicant indicated that the building would not have water. The Commission asked if the Fire Department had reviewed the plans. Staff noted that plans were sent to the Hanover fire chief and no comments were received. 3. Context Background The applicant relocated the Ess Brothers business onto this parcel from the property they own on Highway 55. This property was used for contractor operations in the past and has variance approvals for accessory buildings on site. Zoning and Land Use The property is guided Rural Service /Commercial on the 2030 Future Land Use Map. The property is zoned CR (Rural Commercial). Landform", SensiblyGieen M and Site to Finish- are service marks of Landform Engineering Company. • Surrounding Properties • • 0 The surrounding properties are guided Rural Service /Commercial (west, north, east and south) and Rural /Ag Residential (northwest) on the 2030 Future Land Use Plan and the surrounding properties are zoned CR Rural Commercial (west, north and east) and TCR Transitional Rural Commercial (southwest). Natural Characteristics of the Site There are no significant natural resources on the property and no trees in the area of the proposed accessory building. 4. Analysis of Request 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's discretion in approving or denying a conditional use permit amendment is limited to whether or not the proposed request meets the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the conditional use permit amendment. The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan amendment is limited to whether or not the proposed request meets the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the site plan amendment. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards The applicant is proposing an accessory building with 20 -foot sidewalls where there is a 13 -foot 6- inch maximum and to exceed the total building area with 5,500 square feet where there is a 1000 - square foot maximum. Section 1030.020 Subd. 5(D) allows the landowner to request a conditional use permit to exceed this height limitation if the following conditions are met: 1. The proposed use shall be in conformance with all City regulations. Accessory buildings like this are a permitted use, but the conditional use permit is required to address the larger sidewall height, area of the proposed building and the metal building materials. The proposed building height is approximately 30 feet. The principal building height is approximately 15 feet high. The allowed principal building height is 35 feet per Section 1040.090 Subd. 7 "CR" Rural Commercial District. The principal, proposed building and other accessory buildings are less than allowed. The applicant is a contractor and has indicated that the larger building height and larger door is needed for equipment. The building is located between other existing buildings mitigating the height impact to neighboring properties. Ess SPA and CUPA (13 -031) January 23, 2014 • • • 0 The proposed 5,500 square feet accessory building is an addition to a number of accessory buildings on the property. Section 1030.020 Subd. 4(F) limits accessory buildings to 1,000 square feet; however, Section 1030.020 Subd. 4(D) allows the landowner to request a conditional use permit to construct more than one detached accessory building with a footprint in excess of 120 square feet subject to Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance. The larger building is similar in area to the surrounding accessory buildings on the property and will not increase the impervious surface area. The applicant has indicated that the larger building area is needed to improve operations. All setback requirements have been met. The building is approximately 150 feet from the west property line and County Road 19, 110 feet from the north property line, 495 feet from the west property line and 420 feet from the south property line. There is landscaping indicated, however the new 5,500 square foot building requires a total of 6 trees and 18 shrubs pursuant to Section 1060.70. Staff has included a condition in the approving resolution that the landowner provide a landscape plan to ensure compliance with the ordinance standards. It appears that additional landscaping could be provided along CR 19. There is no wetland impact proposed. 2. A certificate of survey shall be required that identifies all existing structures on site, including buildings, septic sites and wells. In addition, the survey shall include the proposed structure, flood plain, wetlands, and any recorded easements. A certificate of survey has been provided. 3. Applicable criteria as outlined in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance. Staff has reviewed the application for compliance with the general conditional use permit standards in Section 1070.020 and found that those conditions have been met as noted below. Specifically: 1. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. Ess SPA and CUPA (13 -031) January 23, 2014 i i 5. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. 6. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 7. The conditional use and site conforms to performance standards as specified by this Chapter. Staff finds that the proposed accessory building would meet the conditional use permit standards in this section. The building is similar to the size and materials of other accessory buildings in the area. The building will comply with all other ordinance standards and will be compatible with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The building materials standards required by this Section have been met. The applicant is requesting approval to allow the accessory building to be finished with metal siding and roof. The plans show brown wainscoting and roof, mocha tan (light brown) siding and white trim. Section 1060.50 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes building standards for the city and indicates that all accessory buildings with metal siding and roofing may be allowed by with a Certificate of Compliance, provided they: a. meet the standards adopted by the Minnesota State Building Code. b. have been treated with a factory applied color coating system against any fading or degradation. The metal siding and roofing meets both standards. Staff recommends that the metal siding be approved as part of the CUP rather than requiring a separate certificate of compliance application and fee. The certificate of compliance is a tool to allow administrative approval of a metal building if they meet ordinance standards and there is no additional information that would be gained by requiring the certificate of compliance. 5. The proposed building will be compatible with surrounding land uses. The City Code allows metal roofing and siding for accessory buildings in nonresidential areas with a Certificate of Compliance. This property is located in the rural commercial portion of the city and there are a number nearby properties with similar uses. The applicant has indicated that the building will be used for distribution of cast iron, steel, and sealing products. The proposed building would be compatible with other accessory buildings in the area. The City Engineer and the Elm Creek Watershed District have reviewed the plans and have no comments. Ess SPA and CUPA (13 -031) January 23, 2014 5. Conclusions i Staff finds that the standards for a conditional use permit amendment (and certificate of compliance) and site plan amendment have been met or can be addressed with the changes discussed in the staff report. We have included conditions in the draft resolution to address these issues. 6. Recommendation Move to adopt the Resolution approving the conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Attachments 1. Resolution 2014 -03 approving Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site Plan Amendment 2. Aerial Location Map 3. Building Official Comments dated November 25, 2013 4. Survey dated November 20, 2013 5. Plans and other documentation dated November 20, 2013 Ess SPA and CUPA (13 -031) January 23, 2014 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -03 Motion By: Seconded By: January 23, 2014 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TROY ESS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 9350 COUNTY ROAD 19 (PID 07- 119 -23 -43 -0004) CITY FILE (13 -031) WHEREAS, Troy Ess has requested approval of a conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment to allow a new accessory building that exceeds the maximum sidewall height and area on the existing lot legally described as follows: All that part of the South 629.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter, which lies West of the following described line and its extension. Commencing at the Southwest corner of the said Southeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 50 minutes 29 seconds East along the South line thereof, a distance of 109.5 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 31 seconds West to the North line of said South 629.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter and there terminating except the South 22 rods of the East 16 rods of the West 43 rods of said Southeast, Section 7, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment at the 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 for a conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment, subject to the following conditions: A conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment is approved to allow an accessory building, in accordance with the application received by the City on November 20, 2013, except as amended by this resolution. 2. A certificate of compliance to allow metal roof and siding on this accessory building is also approved as part of the conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment. 3. A building permit is required prior to beginning construction. 4. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant /landowner must: a. Submit a landscape plan showing a total of 6 trees and 18 shrubs in compliance with ordinance requirements. The plans must show planting details. b. Record the approving resolution at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. c. The applicant must comply with all conditions in the Metro West Inspections Service's memo dated November 26, 2013. Page 1 of 2 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota January 23, 2014 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -03 d. Electronic files of the plans shall be submitted to the City in AutoCAD format. e. Submit a financial guarantee for the proposed work as outlined in Section 1070.050, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. 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 ❑ Guenthner, Ken ❑ Asleson, Rich ❑ Cossette, Tom ❑ Lynch, Diane ❑ Thomas, Ron VOTING NAY ❑ Guenthner, Ken ❑ Asleson, Rich ❑ Cossette, Tom ❑ Lynch, Diane ❑ Thomas, Ron Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 23rd day of January 2014. ATTEST: Jeanie Heinecke — Clerk Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor Page 2 of 2 City Seal METROMEST INSPECTIOIN SERVICES, Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357 I I -997.70 1009.78 I " 1005.26 I I \9 �I - - - 1006 __ "� / 'p& o0 9d,\ / 10 9.36 I ' \ �Benchmo k: / � = 1007.66 � I f 1008- Neil in Power Pole - -1008- l\ • 1009.38 I North l� of the South 629.00 - ✓ \ 998.44 �Op Elev. =1008 / / " 1006.21 " 1005.36 • L 0205 G 1929 k \ feet the SE 1 4 of SeO7' 7 " 1008 .00 � 101p / south edge of-tr line fits line 1 008.28 89 *50'29 "W 700.58 0.8 ONE .6 <.. X4.5 4.4 I I 1 / _ . 9.9< ^ fence I \ = 1008.85 \ ❑ I ��o j `fence 1J4' I �I�/ 1 ebox E 1 I Floor Elev. Exist. building i outh line o 1009.77 _ 0 = 1008.78 \ I \ ° • 1006.58 \ \ 1008.179 \ h • 10 8.82 °�o 1009.35 • 1006.93 i X088? concrete concrete .1 6.22 F/oOr E/ev. O / 6 / I 1008- 100787 1007 36 1006. ,93 \ - 1005.25 \ - o 1007.55 II I • 1008.64 / / • 1004.62 - Q) > 1001,05 � � I -1008,38 o / m = 1008.12 I �p mound septic area U " 1006,68 • 100 .14� 1009.28 • 1009.58 I o I / • 1005.28 • 1004. "- 24 "CUP 1009.01 I I ( 1012.88 \ = 1008182 1008. 77 / 006 W. INV. = 1001, 69 o.E \ U� i 100766 1 grovel surface E. INV.= 1000.59 I I = 1 09.05 I 0 , I = 101315 " 1013.301 ) �/ " 1007.94 1007.13 / III o I 1012 ' I " 1008.34 61 \ 03.87 " 10 �7 '� / I I �LW8.73 \ " 1008.78 - 1010- _ U 0.8 I 1010. 1 = 1008.66 • 1005.00 " 1004.64 " 1004, 40 _ " 1008.71 � " 1005.85 lt 1009.57 = 1009.21 p = 1009.08 = 1007, 40 00� g3 O X, Floor Elev. z - I \ 1oo4�r o I u, = 1009.86 `� Jr4 concrete I • 1007.84 edge of grovel - l I �o ( / /. •� I � -ate' 70 0' .1 1007.88 • 1006.77 � ".� , °O \ ,00yk2 10069 1004.66 Ij y U / = 1009.29 " 100.9. J2 1 I Exist. building I 1 2.15 \ 60 / -A \ \ y I \ 009.2. ,0011 2 q o 0$ � \ 11 \ N I 'y 10 1006.76 1 °i • 100 I5 c PI OIDOS d 0 catch bas n catch basin 0 3 Floor Elev, j catch basin rim= 1008.39 1008.24 ° rim = 1008.45 in v. = 1003.69 rim v. =1003 71 \ •C o I fofo.l�s I' I I N = 1009.35 r I I o- -ST ST ST st U I I 1009.71 I 1049 31 Bt it din (gI O 1009.41 \ k I I I grovel surfoc I w I 00 = 1008.42 " 1007.63 = 1005.48 cy k V08.74 " 1006.39 \ 1005.26 W 1005.59 -1009.95 �o \ \ I ft ` Exist. building I °� 12 "00 1009.7 \ IN =100 71 4 1 V. \ �► 009.20 cotch basin I I \ concrete surface \ the droin I I = 1009.0 l rim = IV as f loading dock I \ n= 1Q05.25 \ • I I 1009.70 / = 101?. 73 " 1008.99 I \ $�(0 in v. -1 CJS�3. 75 o I o o L J I L/ ,00\ _ J J 100755 \__ 1006_ - \ I �� • 1009.01 1009.4 _� I °o�� ��0� 1006.95 1006.21 = 1006.06 1006. 1009.5 -1008.90 38 c 01 • 1009.61 catch bosin I •I XQ!aocnoil � / goo¢ 0` rim = 1008.29 • 1009.56 I I ° I in v. = 1003.99 1006.48 boxes pfanfer 1 �ST catch bos n • I ,0 1009'97 concrete surface / = 100722 100712 R 1006.77 = 1006.83 • 1009.60 x 1009.26 /St ST rim = 1006.46 O " 1008.43 = 100714 \ ( a 51 1006.56 0 o I 5T Exist. building 0 =1010.2 •1010.71 \ •1008.91 I �j Q catch ba 5 1 Q I I rim =100 0 1010.99 I 0 in v. = 1 06.10 " 1010.1 5' z9"w 25a81 1 .39 catch basin 1009.92 concrete surface g 1010.52 rim = 1009.32 • 1008.86 �`� _ 'oo I• 1010.44 in v. = 1005.32 1 1p°- 25. - I \ I /'fro p- _ 10 . .55 Jcatch basin e \ l / rim = 1009.63 �:�edge of bit. 1 15 "C - � I o � � T W, IN , - 100605 fence 2.3'- in v. = 1005.93 Floor Elev. 1011.06 \ = 1009.61 = 1009.70 q� ' 1006.89 j • 1006.58 E. INV. X03.37 '0 1010.3 =1011 12 fence app south of line of ST ST " 1010.50 • 1010.24\\ ,\• • bituminous surface O b - 15 _&P = 1006.45 catch bosin " 1010.43 I S. 1 N. /N►/1006.51 • 1007.50 U t� \ I rim $1009.13 n v = 1005.63 1010 91 S. INV. = 1007.06 _ 7p7 I -100777 � I 0 rim= 1011.55 = 1010.22 °� I = 100 12 \ p = 1009.84 \ O I in v = 1003.55 I= 1010.29 \ �® 1. .g as I ,o U U k concrete surface r' \ • 1009. rn 1011.31 oo e I = 1010.64 -1010.78 \ I o 30 0 30 60 3 I i o I U = 1 i •1010.96 � =101091 $ � Q ° � l = 1009.�8 I w � � I Scale. 1" 30' 1011.07 concrete surface I o o `I " 1009. I AREA = 798 ACRES 2 i il bu i E ,°• xst. building I �+ 90 - 1010.98 \ I W 264. 00 16 Roos)- • 1010.75 1011.29 ` 1011, 10 • 11011.24 l Exist. building I • 1010.95 709.50 (43 Rods) I _..._... ..._ ..._..._.._..._..._..._..._..._ __ _.. - 1A11,.14 ... _ �._ -. _ _ _ . _ __. __ _ _. _ _- _ _ - - fence ° -1010.87 / • 1009.7 shed ° \ LEGEND y -fence w/ac units I 17.2 IX" o • 1010.671 "/0.01 12 "CMP -ebox j \\ denotes fence ' 1010.46 1011.19 well 6 W. INV. = 1008.68 gas �J ST �� I ��� I E, INV.= 1008.08 meters �1 denotes storm sewer line o. I planter t o \ 11'26 10 101097 M X009 o /� \ -OHE - denotes overhead electric ER\O�tie /� 1009.97 I �� \ denotes sign P o denotes hydrant moil " 1010.81 • 1009 Y box j I 8 ! j a i denotes woods -1010.81 denotes existing contour 1010.83 / 11oto.la5 x 1021,8 denotes existing spot elevation / I Floor Elev. - - • 1011.07 / /�� .,� I 1009.36 �' �� I 1009.75 I i � denotes culvert 1009.99 1009.6 {1010.7 �'� a 40 1 � v © denotes telephone box o I I \ os 96. gate\ 1009.55 0 denotes light pole �� concrete I- bollords \ 0 denotes power pole I \ // O %� °moo ,00� bollordd 965 �' �- denotes guy wire • 1010.87 00 a) • 1010.76 \ qG ��r ' �� I / \ 0.96 I 3 1009.85 = 012.20 1009.49 / 0 010. denotes proposed spot elevation • 1010.78 = 1010.77 = 1011.34 I " 100-9.77 \ a 1 I • 1011,23 0 ���, 1010.75 " 1011.2 09.82 I �, 1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. • 1010.87 • 1010.73 lO ev. / • 1010.90 = 1 70 c All that port of the South 629.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township concrete surface I 2216 E 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies West of the following described I line and its extension: o T sOn - propane -1010.38 • 1010.58 " 1010.71 • 1010.87 I " 1010.99 �A " 1013.26 Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence on on / fill tank " 1011.05 " 1013.13 I 9 ° O�gn pt0 33 1010.47 j assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 50 minutes 29 seconds East along the South = 1010. �9 10115 ,`Ionfer sign -1010.36 underground I line thereof, a distance of 709.5 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to h 011.03: I 'o I be described, • thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 31 seconds West to the North `sign fuel tanks h 1010.69 t 1011.6 ®s catch basin \0�0 a �, I " 1011.0s ZP� 1072- I s� line of said South 629.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter and there terminating sign f� ni v = 1005.86 01,2j, ' planter 101�h a I " 1011.23 " 1011.25 0 ' 1009 except the South 22 rods of the East 16 rods of the West 43 rods of said Southeast \ - o, I Quarter. - - - OHE E� \ T- - - .4e - - � - 2, I0f0.94 cone` ete - - - - - - o =9.� - - - - - - - - 10.64 �- U�0' �/ - 009 =Lh, - 1010- 9 S� t • 1009.43 catch basin of ro catch basin ss, 1100 rim= 1009-99 °AA -MH -San. 3B concrete 1 (as pup in it) rim = 1009.39 h m � in v. = 1005.49 in v. = 1005.29 I Li 0o catch basin i j o Imo. I exist. curb & gutters rim = 1008.45 U) 90° 1 90� 1 % 445.50 N895029 "E 709.50 \ _ LLJ - Hennepin County Monument of South line of the SE--" O the SW corner of the SE 114 of 1/4 of Section 7 r , Section 7, Township 119, Range 23 COUNTY ROAD NO. 10 F l hereby certify that this survey, plan, Requested By.' Certificate of Survey and Topographic Survey on part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township or report was prepared by my or under 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota my direct supervision and that lama Es s B rothers o �s I C1C■ duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Revised: laws of the State of Minnesota. % 5- a4�--p Date: Drawn By. • Scale: Paul E. Otto 11/11/13 M.L.H. lit = 30' License #40062 Date: 11/15/13 Checked By.• P.E.O. • denotes iron monument found www.ottoassociates.com O denotes 112 inch by 14 inch iron pipe 9 West Division Street set and marked by License #40062 TT low Buffalo, MN 55313 (763)682 -4727 SSOCIATES Fax (763)682-3522 Project No. Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. 13-0525 I o 0 rn rn 8' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 'WIN 1) AI I I 8' -0" 1 8' -0" 1 A2 104' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 1 8' -0" 8' -0" � 8' -0" � 8' -0" 1 8' -0" 1 8' -0" I 104' -0" 1 FLOOR PLAN Al SCALE: 3/16" = l' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" -,—F2 �F2 I ,�C C3 26' C3 26' C3 26' f .y � F7 26 `� ,--P? ,-\—P? -R? 26 8' -0" FOOTING SCHEDULE 8' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 10 10 I F2 F2 F1 � C3 26' :: C3 26' C3 26'� ti: 3070 HM i ;, . / \ j P, Cl C2 32'_\ F_ - I I I I 1 104 _10 Q X10 N cn 14 1 1 1 1 F1- C2 32 -� L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - F Cl A F , ' - ''t' �\ r /, ,.. / / / / / / / %G % / / ///l//%Orl/ •, %//�%////i "Ii % / /// �� I'—F2Fll • C3 26' 8' -0" 8' -0" 1 8' -0" COLUMN SCHEDULE I. :I 2 0 O O < C4 [] G a In 0 0 1 I` O O p N vim-) ON 0 0, I. � 4 ��-----:-�- 6 MILL POLY VAPOR BARRIER TYP. WALLS & CEILING KNEE BRACE INT. LINER PANEL TYP. WALLS & CEILING NEW WINDOW, SEESCHEDULE R -25 BATT INSUL. R -19 @ END WALLS DOUBLE ANGLE TRIM AT 8' -0" HIGH CONT. @ PERIMETER INT. LINER PANEL COLUMNS SEE SCHEDULE 2"X8" " BOOK SHELF " GIRTS T -0" O.C. (2"X6" ENDWALLS TREATED 2 "X8" KICK PLATE 2X4 TREATED SPLASH 1" IMBED DEPTH #4 REBAR 24" EA. WAY 'a . . .e . .° .. I ''a _'._n .. .., ....... : `' .' . ', ' . . .T, . OWNERS SUPPLIED BASE + BACK FILL ;t 2 "X6" TREATED HOLD DOWN (TYP) __-- INSUL. BAFFLES - FILL ENTIRE TRUSS SPACE _--- R -40 BLOWN -IN FIBER GLASS INSUL. �__ 2 "X4" PURLINS 24" O.0 PRE -ENGR ROOF TRUSS 4' -0" O.C, #40 -5 -5 LOADING 29 GA. PRO -PANEL II ROOF STEEL ,,,,— METAL DRIP EDGE TRUSS BEARING 120' -0" I \— 2 "X6" SUB FASCIA 6" METAL FASCIA T -0" L SOFFIT 1 (2) 9.5" LVL CONT. HEADER 29 GA. PRO -PANEL II WALL STEEL _ _ T.O ROUGH OPENING Adk 1161 -O" W N r . . * - . • . - •'. I d. < s ' • d • r e' 4 - -I TT=I T� -1 — —I =I I_ SEE SCHEDULE � CROSS SECTION A� SCALE: 1/2" = 1'4" _FINISH FLOOR Adk 100' -0" EBERT CONSTRUCTION EBERT INC. 23350 COUNTY ROAD 10 CORCORAN MN, 55357 (763) 498 -7844 (763) 498 -9951 FAX 800 - 627 -1669 DISCLAIMER THE PLANS FURNISEHD HEREWITH WERE PREPARED UPON REQUEST BY EBERT INC'S DRAWING STAFF, WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED ARCHITECTS OR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, EBERT INC. MAKES NO WARRENTIES WHATSOEVER AS TO THE FITNESS OR MERCHANTABILITY FOR A PURPOSE OR PLACE. USER(S) ON NOTICE THAT RELIANCE UPON SAID PLANS SHALL BE AT THE SOLE KIST OF THE USERS. NO WARRANTIES EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED INCLUDING COMPLIANCE OF THIS PLAN WITH APPLICABLE BUILDING COEDS REQUIRMENTS ARE MADE, EXCEPT THOSE IN WRITTING SIGNED BY THE MAKER. THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF EBERT INC. THIS DOCUMENT IS FURNISHED ON THE CONDITION THAT IT IS NOT TO BE COPIED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS. THIS DOUCMF,NT IS TO BE RETURNED TO EBERT INC. UPON REQUEST (40) 4 00 SIN 4 0 P4 r., W = kr) kn � :; 5 � o p� H H Z°o w �� 1 I NOTES: I 1 NO.I REVISIONS LATEI PROJECT# DATE: 11/14/13 SCALE: DRAWN BY: AS NOTED BWK FLOOR PLAN SHEET Al F1 C3 26' F2 C3 26' I �F2 C3 26' F F2 C3 26' F2 C3 26' I I .I F2 C3 26' F2 C3 26' F2 C3 26' r %: %, '; . 3070 HM II I fl' .�l '; 1. f, -, 1. \ ✓.2076 FIXED WINDOW :fit - �;' \:, : * :: '> ' <� `� I ✓ `' \ s' ;i� TYP. I I �; -....: • .', _.-. _: " , �k . �.. . . �r +., r. •... ; .•.• .'. I I .. : .. < .. •. . :' ., * . . * ... - ' : - - ' - - .' �..,.:: , miiiJ {.. F1 f r ;. 11 ,. • t; . ,. , ..• ... :. r. �,. ... .�.., ,,t, :.r /1 Fr17 ' i .I. :.' ' :t: . :'a. a' ,. 0 � ...'. s r: .: •.... :y • S: .'�. :. •:. �_ .: .. : :.4, ! ..t.., •j F 1 ;. i .• C2 32' ' •,.... • r.`. 4. . . A •. , -- �. i. •r•• - !I : 9 •. :, .. -� I.. - a�a -: ,tea::'- �I • .. • ..~ " .,w '� •. ' ' .. •f :. `i y �. i t,• ... a.. . �..: �, , �. ' .. • .. . , 1. .. • :. ,' 'Al . ' .' . ... .:• .. . .•. +, ,• . ff. .:i:.: ..' ... f: •. ' ;• + .: - .. + ... ... .. "' '• " `` 20' -0" TRUSS TO CONC SLAB .. . • : .' ..'. ,.. .. ...: . .. .. <. ., I. 6 INTERIOR CONCRETE SLAB , • ' . p, . REINFORCED W / #4 REBAR 24 OC .. .. .'s.. ^ " ' ^ OVER OWNERS SUPPLIED BASE - - : i ., 4 .'S 2 O O ° i ... X O di A2 „) N :...... ,, , ' ':�'., ...' -. .. : ,.�•.;y... VERIFY SLOPE WITH GREG EBERT � ., a .� 1 ; '' . ', - „ ;” ... �,.�. * * L &M (EBERT STOCK) CURE &SEAL .' z , �; •'+�: i„ : +. :.`: r. — . ... tl a.:...,� a %.i: ,.. . :':: :: -: '. •; . ,. s. ` �. a a }. : O' .4 e t. ... •4�, `• '. 4 .11. I r ' I. .I .y. . ••.. ... t .. �' ,4:. . I.•.. !•. .� �' ,• . �.- 1 .. ,' , ' 4 4 . `�: :'j•. �'! �. . Vii. Y' ° . . i 1 i` .•. ti. < V. Y' �.. v .. :. . ... ..: :..' .'.'..•.. :..' '.a•.' �. f: t. .. .:.. -I. ,!. Fl - '. d . Yf5 2 2 ,.•.. ' .. C 3 . <.: ': . s> 1 �'� r. ::' a` !• 4 r *' r; ,! . I . ', ,. ':: % :.,..�. ., .... .. .: ': - " 4" •l . •,, 1. d , a .. : .: a •�'l'•'♦ . .7. ` •. i" .' 7 �' . . OL :. }.' ... }'• 4 , • ... t 1. n F� 4 •.v a �. • �' i i, ' at .. ,. .a' `.: .`. o 7 •. . ,.1 i .. ::: .:: w ' :. • ... • .1 �•, .. .. ..•' •. ,• .. . i ... I .,i. �' • !• .. �.� . .. .., - . i. :.;.' . .. 0.y . ., 4 ,. y.. ti'. .. • . . 1 �.• .. ,. .', .. •~ 1' 1 . •'a :l f'. • 1. 1. 3 ± 6 L.'. .. �. :'r '� ... -- .. �: �.. - Y" v ,:.. -4 . .,...,,. ;. :� .: .1, ': .. ", is - .. . •. .: S •. , ... . ,.. .,. • - •" h + 4..:• - 1. `.: i ... :4 . - III 5 3070 HM • I I M fll �C3 26 � C3 26' C3 26' F:1 ��F? ��FJ {. � C3 26' I �F? C3 26' i�F? �{ C3 26 I �F'J `-C3 26' C3 26 I �F'J I � m 8' -0" 1 8' -0" 8' -0" � 8' -0" � 8' -0" 1 8' -0" 1 8' -0" I 104' -0" 1 FLOOR PLAN Al SCALE: 3/16" = l' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" -,—F2 �F2 I ,�C C3 26' C3 26' C3 26' f .y � F7 26 `� ,--P? ,-\—P? -R? 26 8' -0" FOOTING SCHEDULE 8' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 10 10 I F2 F2 F1 � C3 26' :: C3 26' C3 26'� ti: 3070 HM i ;, . / \ j P, Cl C2 32'_\ F_ - I I I I 1 104 _10 Q X10 N cn 14 1 1 1 1 F1- C2 32 -� L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - F Cl A F , ' - ''t' �\ r /, ,.. / / / / / / / %G % / / ///l//%Orl/ •, %//�%////i "Ii % / /// �� I'—F2Fll • C3 26' 8' -0" 8' -0" 1 8' -0" COLUMN SCHEDULE I. :I 2 0 O O < C4 [] G a In 0 0 1 I` O O p N vim-) ON 0 0, I. � 4 ��-----:-�- 6 MILL POLY VAPOR BARRIER TYP. WALLS & CEILING KNEE BRACE INT. LINER PANEL TYP. WALLS & CEILING NEW WINDOW, SEESCHEDULE R -25 BATT INSUL. R -19 @ END WALLS DOUBLE ANGLE TRIM AT 8' -0" HIGH CONT. @ PERIMETER INT. LINER PANEL COLUMNS SEE SCHEDULE 2"X8" " BOOK SHELF " GIRTS T -0" O.C. (2"X6" ENDWALLS TREATED 2 "X8" KICK PLATE 2X4 TREATED SPLASH 1" IMBED DEPTH #4 REBAR 24" EA. WAY 'a . . .e . .° .. I ''a _'._n .. .., ....... : `' .' . ', ' . . .T, . OWNERS SUPPLIED BASE + BACK FILL ;t 2 "X6" TREATED HOLD DOWN (TYP) __-- INSUL. BAFFLES - FILL ENTIRE TRUSS SPACE _--- R -40 BLOWN -IN FIBER GLASS INSUL. �__ 2 "X4" PURLINS 24" O.0 PRE -ENGR ROOF TRUSS 4' -0" O.C, #40 -5 -5 LOADING 29 GA. PRO -PANEL II ROOF STEEL ,,,,— METAL DRIP EDGE TRUSS BEARING 120' -0" I \— 2 "X6" SUB FASCIA 6" METAL FASCIA T -0" L SOFFIT 1 (2) 9.5" LVL CONT. HEADER 29 GA. PRO -PANEL II WALL STEEL _ _ T.O ROUGH OPENING Adk 1161 -O" W N r . . * - . • . - •'. I d. < s ' • d • r e' 4 - -I TT=I T� -1 — —I =I I_ SEE SCHEDULE � CROSS SECTION A� SCALE: 1/2" = 1'4" _FINISH FLOOR Adk 100' -0" EBERT CONSTRUCTION EBERT INC. 23350 COUNTY ROAD 10 CORCORAN MN, 55357 (763) 498 -7844 (763) 498 -9951 FAX 800 - 627 -1669 DISCLAIMER THE PLANS FURNISEHD HEREWITH WERE PREPARED UPON REQUEST BY EBERT INC'S DRAWING STAFF, WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED ARCHITECTS OR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, EBERT INC. MAKES NO WARRENTIES WHATSOEVER AS TO THE FITNESS OR MERCHANTABILITY FOR A PURPOSE OR PLACE. USER(S) ON NOTICE THAT RELIANCE UPON SAID PLANS SHALL BE AT THE SOLE KIST OF THE USERS. NO WARRANTIES EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED INCLUDING COMPLIANCE OF THIS PLAN WITH APPLICABLE BUILDING COEDS REQUIRMENTS ARE MADE, EXCEPT THOSE IN WRITTING SIGNED BY THE MAKER. THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF EBERT INC. THIS DOCUMENT IS FURNISHED ON THE CONDITION THAT IT IS NOT TO BE COPIED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS. THIS DOUCMF,NT IS TO BE RETURNED TO EBERT INC. UPON REQUEST (40) 4 00 SIN 4 0 P4 r., W = kr) kn � :; 5 � o p� H H Z°o w �� 1 I NOTES: I 1 NO.I REVISIONS LATEI PROJECT# DATE: 11/14/13 SCALE: DRAWN BY: AS NOTED BWK FLOOR PLAN SHEET Al EBERT RIDGE VENT CONSTRUCTION 29 GA. PRO -PANEL H ROOF STEEL EBERT INC. 23350 COUNTY ROAD 10 CORCORAN MN, 55357 (763) 498 -7844 (763) 498 -9951 FAX 800 - 627 -1669 DISCLAIMER THE PLANS FURNISEED HEREWITH WERE PREPARED UPON REQUEST BY EBERT INC'S DRAWING STAFF, WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED ARCHITECTS OR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, EBERT INC. MAKES NO WARRENTIES WHATSOEVER AS TO THE FITNESS OR MERCHANTABILITY FOR A PURPOSE OR PLACE. USER(S) ON NOTICE THAT RELIANCE. UPON SAID PLANS SHALL BE AT THE SOLE KIST OF THE USERS. NO WARRANTIES EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED INCLUDING COMPLIANCE OF THIS PLAN WITH APPLICABLE BUILDING COEDS TRUSS BEARING REQUIRMENTS ARE MADE, EXCEPT THOSE IN WRITTING SIGNED BY THE 120' 0" MAKER. THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF EBERT INC. THIS DOCUMENT IS FURNISHED ON THE CONDITION THAT IT IS NOT TO BE COPIED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS. THIS DOUCMENT IS TO BE RETURNED TO EBERT INC. UPON REQUEST T.0 WINDOW • SIN O' O _ _ FINISH FLOOR O 100' -0" 1 WEST ELEVATION � A2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" M RIDGE VENT 29 GA. PRO -PANEL H ROOF STEEL 29 GA. PRO -PANEL H WALL STEEL O oo oo :................. r� 4� �T� M I�■I 01 � TRUSS BEARING 120' -0" NOTES: 2' -0" Q W a 0 0 0 0 0 U i rr No. REVISIONS ATE Ll FINISH FLOOR 100' -0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION PROJECT# DATE: A2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" 11/14/13 SCALE: DRAWN BY: AS NOTED BWK ELEVATIONS SHEET A2 metal sales manufacturing corporation 23350 COUNTY ROAD 10 I CORCORAN / LORETTO, MN 55357 (800) 627.1669 • (763) 498.7844 • FAX (763) 498. 9951 1E3EaT Email gebert@ebertconst.com • www.ebertoonst.corn CONSTRUCTION LIGHT GAUGE PRODUCT COLORS Brite White (39) White (30) Red (24) Patriot Red (73) Burgundy (15) Goldenrod (48) Brown (12) 4- Mocha Tan (22) Burnished Slate (49) Light Stone (63) Forest Green (26) Taupe (74) k7. Ash Grey (25) Zinc Grey (29) Charcoal (17) Black (06) FILE C T- Hawaiian Blue (70) Ocean Blue (35) Dark Blue (21) Color selections are close representations but are limited by processing and viewing conditions. Actual samples are available by request J , All colors provided in MS Colorfast30 coating system. Trim is available in all colors. All colors carry a 30 -year limited point warranty. �� S 314 r— "The Innovators" sib" • Job Pack Classic Rib • Custom Cut • Jobsite Delivery 5/8" 911-1 • Full Line of Accessories t 3511 • Custom Accessories Available Pro Panel II® MS(6Q /2062