HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-27 - Council Agenda Packet - Part 2Agenda Item: _
L A N D F 0 R M
From Site to Finish
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
TO: Corcoran City Council
FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform
DATE: March 20, 2014 for the March 27, 2014 City Council Meeting
•
Tel: 612- 252 -9070
Fax: 612 - 252 -9077
www.landform.net
RE: PUBLIC HEARING. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Sketch Plan for
Peachtree Partners, LLC for 103 -acre Schendel property at 20400 County Road 10
(PID 23- 119 -23 -42 -0003) (City File 14 -005)
60 -DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: April 22, 2014
Application Request
Peachtree Partners, LLC has submitted a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the
2030 Future Land Use Map and the Sanitary Sewer Phasing Plan, as well as a PUD sketch plan
review for approximately 231 single family detached homes on 103.3 acres. The Comprehensive
Plan Amendment requires a public hearing.
This concept plan is below the 250 single family home threshold needed to trigger a mandatory
EAW (environmental assessment worksheet). No EAW is required.
2. Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at their
March 6, 2014 meeting. In addition to the applicant, three residents spoke on this item.
One resident questioned whether the City could require an EAW. Staff noted that the site does not
meet the standards for a mandatory EAW, however, the City could order an EAW if they found the
potential for significant environmental impacts.
A resident suggested that a ghost plat should be prepared by the applicant for the properties to the
north. Staff noted that this is not required by the ordinance.
Two residents requested that streets and utilities be stubbed to the north. Staff noted that the
developer will be required to stub infrastructure to surrounding properties.
Residents expressed concerns about the tree removal and asked if it complied with the City tree
preservation ordinance. Staff noted that the City does not have a tree preservation ordinance, but
that the City encourages the preservation of significant natural resources where possible.
A resident requested that at least 10% of the site be preserved for multifamily residential housing
Landform, SensiblyGreen and Site to Flnish� are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
•
•
•
A resident asked where we would make up the lost density if the reguiding were proposed. Staff
noted that the developer proposed a couple of options. Staff suggests that increasing the amount of
density expected in the mixed use areas is their preference of those options.
A resident expressed concern about the loss of parkland due to the road realignment. Staff notes
that the Comprehensive Plan showed this road realignment and associated park loss as part of the
County Road 10 realignment.
Chuck Lymangood provided a complete packet of information. The two page summary is attached
to this report, but the full content is available at City Hall.
The Planning Commission discussed the Comprehensive Plan and PUD sketch plan after hearing
the testimony.
The Planning Commission voted 3 -2 (Jacobs and Tice voted nay) to recommend approval of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission also provided comments on the sketch plan.
3. Parks and Trail Commission Review
The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed the PUD sketch plan at their March 18th meeting and
provided the following non - binding, advisory comments:
• The Commission was unsure whether natural areas within the development should be
accepted as park and maintained by the City or whether they should be controlled and
maintained by a homeowners association.
• The Commission found the trail plan within the development to be generally acceptable.
• The Commission agreed that the City Park is not sufficient in size to become an athletic
complex and that the future athletic complex should be located on the Roehlke property of
which the City has a purchase agreement.
• The Commission agreed that park dedication in the form of fees is preferred to land
acquisition to allow for improvements to the park as well as possible funds to purchase the
Roehlke property.
• The Commission discussed the proposed location of the entrance to the proposed
development and asked staff to look into if it could be shifted to the east to minimize the
impacts to the City Park.
• The Commission stated the importance of Meister field and that if the field were to be
removed a temporary field would need to be constructed to meet the needs of the athletic
association. It was also discussed that it takes two years to establish a field.
• The Commission stated that if a cul -de -sac was built to serve the existing properties at the
County Road 10 /County Road 50 intersection trail connections should also be provided.
In addition to the applicant, one resident spoke on this item.
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005)
March 27, 2014
•
4. Context
Background
0
The applicant presented conceptually to the City Council on December 12, 2013 and January 23,
2014 to get feedback on the concepts prior to formal submittal. At the City Council's direction, the
applicant also had several meetings with city staff /consultants to review the Comprehensive Plan
goals and identify issues. This plan is the result of those collaborative discussions. Staff finds that,
other than the land use plan amendment requested, the applicant did incorporate most of the
Comprehensive Plan goals into this PUD sketch plan.
Zoning and Land Use
The property is currently guided High Density Residential and zoned RMF -3 (High Density
Residential) and UR (Urban Reserve).
Surrounding Properties
The surrounding properties to the west are guided Low Density Residential and Mixed Residential
and zoned UR. The properties to the north are guided Mixed Residential and High Density
Residential and zoned UR. The properties to the east are guided Medium Density Residential and
Public /Semi - Public and are zoned UR and P -1 (Public Institutional). The four parcels to the south
(and north of County Road 10) are guided Commercial and zoned C -1 (neighborhood commercial).
The property to the south across County Road 10 is guided Parks /Open Space and Public /Semi-
Public and zoned P -1 and UR.
Natural Resources
The submittal package includes a natural resource inventory and the applicant has generally done a
nice job of preserving the natural resources on the north. The applicant has generally preserved this
land as an outlot. However, staff notes that the forested area on the east side of the property is
identified by the City as medium quality woodlands with a high value due to the proximity to creek
and is proposed to be removed by the applicant who identifies it as low quality. Staff is concerned
about the removal of what the City has identified as medium /high quality natural resources. The
applicant has provided a woodlands analysis that the City currently reviewing and will evaluate prior
to the formal application.
5. Analysis of Request
Level of Discretion in Decision Making
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a land use guide plan
amendment. The land use plan is a major element of the comprehensive plan. The land use plan is
the city's long -range planning tool that indicates what type of development should occur on all land
within the City. In other words, it is the City's plan for how it wants to direct future development and
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005)
March 27, 2014
•
•
0
growth. The City Council may guide property as it deems necessary to protect and promote the
general health, safety and welfare of the community.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
This parcel is part of one of only three areas in the Comprehensive Plan guided for High Density
Residential. The Comprehensive Plan states that:
"The purpose of this land use district is to accommodate the development of multiplex and
low- to high -rise apartment buildings and condominiums. Development will occur at a density
of 10+ units per acre. Architecture, landscaping, open space, resident recreational areas,
and surface water retention features are important in high density residential areas to ensure
that development is appropriate and consistent with the community's character and
environmental best practices. Ideally, streets and buildings will be designed around
pedestrians to accommodate alternative transportation use such as bicycles and transit.
High density residential developments in excess of 10 units per acre will require Planned Unit
Development approval to ensure necessary standards are achieved. This High Density
Residential category is located in the northern part of the downtown area and will provide a
strong residential base to support an expanded downtown. High Density Residential is also
located adjacent to the mixed use areas on the east side of County Road 116."
The Comprehensive Plan was developed to emphasize density in key areas of the City so that larger
portions of the City could remain at a lower density and still meet our Metropolitan Council density
requirements of a minimum of 3 units per acre.
The request from the developer is allow development of a single family neighborhood with a planned
density of approximately 3.34 units per acre. This would require that that property be reguided
through a Comprehensive Plan amendment from High Density Residential (10+ units per acre) to
Low Density Residential (3 -5 units per acre). This requires a Super- Majority (4/5) vote of the City
Council and the request must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. The Metropolitan
Council will review the plan amendment to ensure that the City's density goals are met.
Typically, the Metropolitan Council will require cities who propose to reduce the density on one
parcel to make it up on another to ensure that density goals are met. If that continues to be the
policy, the City Council must consider that issue when reviewing this request. The Peachtree
Partners, LLC team has suggested in their narrative (and prior presentations to the City Council) that
the density could be shifted to a number of other areas. Staff finds that the most desirable option
would be to increase the density in the mixed use areas of the City.
The majority of the property is located in phase I of the 2030 Sanitary Sewer Service Staging Plan
meaning it is planned to receive municipal sewer and water between 2010 -2015. A small piece of
the western portion of the site is in Phase III planned to get service between 2020 -2025. While not
specifically requested by the applicant, this phasing map should also be amended if the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment were approved by the City.
The Comprehensive Plan is a living document and when the City finds evidence to support a change
to the plan, the City Council has the discretion to make a change. The City should consider the
following issues when reviewing a comprehensive plan amendment request:
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005) 4
March 27, 2014
• e
.. i
i
• The extent to which the location criteria of applicable existing or proposed land use plan
classifications are satisfied.
• Evidence submitted by the applicant demonstrating the reason(s) that the plan should be
changed, including, but not limited to, whether new information has become available since
the Comprehensive Plan was adopted that supports re- examination of the plan, or that
existing or proposed development offers new opportunities or constraints that were not
previously considered by the plan.
• Whether or not the change is needed to allow reasonable development of the site.
• The relationship of the proposed amendment to the supply and demand for particular land
uses within the city and the immediate vicinity of the site.
• A demonstration by the applicant that the proposed amendment has merit beyond the
interests of the proponent.
• The possible impacts of the amendment on all specific elements of the Comprehensive Plan
as may be applicable, including, but not limited to:
• Transportation
• Sanitary sewer, including existing and proposed sanitary sewer flows as compared to
the adopted plan;
• Housing, including the extent to which the proposal contributes to the City's adopted
housing goals;
• Surface water, including compliance with the City's goals for water quality as well as
water quantity management;
• Water supply;
• Parks and open space; and
• Consideration of the impact of the proposed amendment upon current and future special
assessments and utility area charges, future property tax assessments or other fiscal
impacts upon the City.
This is a policy decision for the City Council. The City should evaluate all of these issues when
considering the decision. The City should consider the appropriate land uses for this site based on
the land use needs in the community, the infrastructure improvements that could be facilitated by
this development (including transportation improvements, storm water improvements, sewer and
water extensions and park improvements) and land use transitions.
Action to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be contingent upon Metropolitan
Council review of the amendment. The City must allow 60 days for adjacent jurisdictions to review
and provide comment and cannot submit the application to the Metropolitan Council until that 60 day
period expires on April 21, 2014 or until all jurisdictions respond. We have not yet heard from the
City of Rogers, the City of Greenfield or the Rockford School district. The other affected jurisdictions
have responded that that they have reviewed the request and have no comment.
If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved, staff would prepare an application for
Metropolitan Council review. Staff is still discussing with Metropolitan Council staff whether the units
lost on this site would need to be reassigned immediately or whether action could be delayed until
the City has more time to analyze the options. We expect to have an update at the meeting.
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005)
March 27, 2014
• �71
•
PUD Sketch Plan
•
The sketch plan shows 231 single family lots on 103.3 acres (approximately 69.1 net acres). The
proposed density is 3.34 units per acre (net, post - development).
Natural Resources
The submittal package includes a natural resource inventory and the applicant has generally done a
nice job of preserving the natural resources on the north. The applicant has generally preserved this
land as an outlot. However, staff notes that the forested area on the east side of the property is
identified by the City as medium quality woodloods with a high value due to the proximity to creek
and is proposed to be removed by the applicant who identifies it as low quality. Staff is concerned
about the removal of what the City has identified as medium /high quality natural resources. The
applicant provided a Woodland Evaluation report to support their contention that the woodlands
should be reclassified.
The City Engineer has reviewed the materials and prepared a written response, which is attached to
this report. In summary, the City finds that while we support the reclassification of the ecological
status from B/C to CD or D, but due to the location within the Rush Creek corridor the woodland
retains a High value ranking.
Floodplain
The north central portion of the site includes two floodplain areas. These area are generally in the
open space area, but would be subject to the standards in Section 1050 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Shoreland
A small portion of the site in the western portion of the site is in the Shoreland Overlay District for a
tributary to Rush Creek and would be subject to the Shoreland Overlay District standards in Section
1050 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Lot Size
The sketch plan shows 55- to 70 -foot wide lots with lots as small as 5,500 square feet. No lot areas
are provided at this time.
The RSF -3 zoning district typically requires 7,500 square foot minimum lot size and 65 -foot minimum
lot width. The PUD zoning allows flexibility from the standard lot sizes and the applicant has
requested PUD flexibility to reduce the minimum lot sizes, setbacks and other development factors.
These are very preliminary concepts at this stage.
Housing Styles
All of the homes in the development will be single family detached homes. The developer has
indicated that they have not chosen a builder or builders for this project. They have provided some
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005)
March 27, 2014
0
examples of the types of homes that will be provided, but no specific house plans have been
chosen.
0
The City Zoning Ordinance that was adopted in 2011 has design standards for single family homes.
It is unclear whether the proposed homes will meet these standards or PUD flexibility will be
requested.
Utilities
Municipal sewer and water are not currently available to the site and would need to be extended to
service the property prior issuance of building permits. The City Engineer has completed a
preliminary study as part of the downtown TIF planning efforts and notes that sanitary sewer and
water could be extended to the site. However, as part of a formal development application, the City
Engineer will complete a feasibility study at the developer's cost.
All utility facilities, including but not limited to telephone, CATV, natural gas and electric power, shall
be located underground.
Wetlands
The wetland delineation was approved by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission
( ECWMC). ECWMC is the LGU for the Wetland Conservation Act and they will review and approve
any proposed wetland impacts. If mitigation occurs, a mitigation plan must be submitted for review
and approval and Elm Creek Watershed District approval must be obtained.
The subject wetlands are not all ranked on the National Resource Communities Quality Rankings
map, but the large wetland on the east is ranked as medium quality and the applicant has called it
low quality. Therefore, the applicant has completed a MNRAM report for the City review as outlined
in Section 1050.010, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Wenck has reviewed the report, which
classifies all of the wetlands as Medium or High.
The sketch plan does not identify wetland buffers or setbacks, but these will be required with the
preliminary plat. All wetlands must be blanketed by a drainage and utility easement.
Ponding /Drainage
The proposed sketch plan identifies a number of ponds throughout the site. The ponding must
provide treatment and rate control. The ponds will need to be blanketed by a drainage and utility
easement. Maintenance of the ponds will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association.
The ponds and wetlands are all located in outlots.
Staff is aware of existing drainage problems north of this site. The City would initiate a feasibility
study to evaluate the issues and identify those improvements that must be made with a formal
application. The feasibility study would be financed by the applicant.
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005)
March 27, 2014
•
Transportation /Access
•
•
0
Development of this site will require several complicated transportation and right -of -way decisions
that need to be guided by City Council. These are based on the direction provided by the City in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan. These issues are detailed in the attached memo from the City Engineer.
County Road 10 is a collector street that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates being realigned to
Meister Road to the north. The applicant is showing the existing County Road 10 roadbed being
reclaimed for landscaping, except in areas needed to provide access to the existing properties south
of County Road 10, including one single family home and the proposed Rockford varsity baseball
field. This is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; however, the applicant would need
to work closely with the City to determine the timing and extent of County Road 10 modifications.
The Comprehensive Plan also shows a local street connection from the old County Road 10 to
County Road 50. The plans show the road on the west side of the city park, but the applicant has
shown it on the east side of the City Park. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and has
less impact on the total park area loss than the original alignment proposed by the City and allows
continued shared uses between the City and school properties.
It is important to reiterate that this plan assumes that County Road 10 will be realigned per the
adopted Comprehensive Plan. This project is driving the need for these improvements and would
be responsible for sharing in the cost of the improvements. The City Engineer would complete a
feasibility study to determine improvements, including timing, costs and financial implications.
• The City Council will need to discuss this policy decision and provide direction on the
willingness to proceed with the realignment process in order for this development to proceed.
The remainder of the local streets within the development are shown with tree -lined boulevards and
landscaped island in one the cul de sacs. These local streets are located in 50 -foot rights -of -way,
which are generally consistent with the City Engineering Design Standards.
The plan includes many local streets with cul de sacs. The Subdivision Ordinance states that "In the
municipal urban service boundary, block lengths shall not exceed 900 feet nor be less than 500 feet,
measured from the centerlines of streets, except where topography or other conditions justify a
departure from that standard." The concept may exceed these standards, but final distances shall
be reviewed with the preliminary plat.
Street connections are shown to adjoining properties, but no future connection is shown to the north.
A street connection (and utility stubs) should be provided for future extension to the north when
development occurs. The City Engineer's memo includes a graphic showing the conceptual
alignment.
Staff recommends that islands be provided within the cul de sacs to allow snow storage. The
maintenance of such center islands shall become the responsibility of a Homeowners Association
for the subdivision. The pavement width between the outside curb of the turn - around and such
island shall be a minimum of 28 feet wide. Based on City standard details, the cul -de -sac radius
shall be 50 feet from center to the face of curb.
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005) f
March 27, 2014
•
0
•
0
The Subdivision Ordinance requires street lights to be installed at all intersections and at other
locations, as required by the City Engineer. All street lights within new subdivisions in the urban area
shall be on ornamental poles with underground electrical service, and shall conform to City lighting
standards.
Landscaping
A landscape plan has not been submitted at this time. Street trees are provided on the public
streets. The development will need to comply with the one overstory tree per unit requirement. A
tree preservation plan will also need to be submitted for review and approval.
Signage
No signage is being proposed at this time. If development signage is to be provided a signage plan
with sign details must be submitted for review and approval with the preliminary plat.
Parks, Trails and Sidewalks
The applicant is showing a series of sidewalks and trails throughout the site. The Comprehensive
Plan includes the 2030 Parks & Trails Plan shows an off -road trail on the north side of the site
winding through the site and connecting to the existing city park. The concept plan is generally
consistent with these trail locations.
This natural resource corridor is shown as preserved with a trail corridor. The City's Comprehensive
Plan encourages preservation of this corridor but does not recommend the land be taken as public
park. The trail easement would provide access to this area. However, the applicant has indicated
that they would like the City to consider accepting this open space as public park and granting park
dedication credit. Staff recommends that the land be preserved and owned /maintained by the
Homeowners Association.
Park dedication shall only be granted for trail easement areas as shown on the Comprehensive Plan
and will not be given for trails located within public right -of -way. The developer is required to provide
finished grading and ground cover for all park, playground, trail and public open spaces within their
developments. No credit toward the required dedication shall be given for this work. Trails shall be
paved by the developer as well as part of the PUD.
The Parks & Trails Plan also shows an on -road trail on County Road 10; however, if County Road is
relocated as planned, this trail may not be required. The City will evaluate this trail as part of the
transportation feasibility study.
The sidewalk locations should be reevaluated to ensure a convenient pedestrian route and future
extensions to the west, north and east along the planned road connections.
Under the current ordinance, park dedication for this concept is required at 11 % of the net (pre -
development) land area. In this case, the sketch plan shows approximately 90 net acres, which
would require park dedication of 9.9 net acres. Credit would be given for dedication of public park
and public trail easements shown on the Comprehensive Plan.
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005)
March 27, 2014
•
•
The plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which shows a planned expansion of the
existing city park site to the site through acquisition of land from this property. This area is shown on
the Comprehensive Plan as an athletic park search area. The Comprehensive Plan showed 4
potential athletic park search areas and notes that the city would ideally choose one 120 -acre site.
The City should consider whether this site is the preferred option for an athletic park. Since
the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted, the City has acquired 12 acres of the
Roehlke property in western Corcoran for a new public works facility and has an option on an
additional 126 acres from the Roehlke's for an athletic park. The Roehlke property, like this
site, is shown in one of the four athletic park search areas. The City will need to choose one
site upon which to develop this complex. Staff finds that the Roehlke property, with its
proximity to the new Public Works facility, may be more desirable for an athletic park.
The City should discuss whether or not the applicant's plan, which seems to reduce the total
park area due the new road alignment, is adequate for the city park land in this area. The
City should evaluate whether or not some of the required park dedication should be provided
in the form of land to expand this park.
• As noted above, the loss of the park land is consistent with what was shown in the
Transportation Plan. However, the Council should discuss whether or not the amount
of land remaining is adequate for this park or whether additional land should be
dedicated to result in no net loss of park land (or expansion of the park).
• At the Planning Commission meeting, a commissioner asked whether or not the
developer would be responsible for the cost of park improvement removal as a result
of the road improvements required by the City. The City Attorney has indicated that
the City cannot require the developer to pay for the loss of equipment due to a
required relocation of a public street.
The City should generally accept park dedication in the form of land where shown on the maps;
however, if new information is available the city may choose to accept cash or a combination of cash
and land. The City may accept cash -in -lieu of land at 11 % of the value of the land with a maximum
rate of $4,000 per unit for each new unit located inside of the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service
Area). The City has a high level of discretion regarding park dedication on this site.
Next Steps
If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved, the applicant would proceed with the following
next steps:
a. Rezoning to PUD
b. Preliminary Plat
C. Preliminary PUD Development Plan
d. Final Plat
e. Final PUD Development Plan
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005) 10
March 27, 2014
i x3
Summary
.. i
i
The City has a high level of discretion when considering a comprehensive plan amendment. Items
that should be considered:
a. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Goals. The lost density on this site could be
shifted to other parcels to maintain the planned population and density goals. If the Council
finds that this site is not the most appropriate for high density residential, they may
recommend approval of the change.
b. County Road 10 Realignment to Meister Road as shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
This project will trigger the need for this city project and other related transportation
improvements.
C. Park Dedication. The change to the land use designation will result in less park dedication
being required on this site. However, if the density is shifted to another site, this dedication
would be collected when those parcels develop. This is primarily a cash flow issue.
d. Park Dedication. The City must consider whether or not the City Park should be expanded
as shown on both the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Guidelines adopted as part of the
Zoning Ordinance or whether the possible acquisition of additional property near public
works addresses the athletic park needs. The City should provide clear direction on this
issue with the sketch plan.
e. Utility fees. Development of this site will require extension of municipal sewer and water to
the site and would generally require payment of both area charges and connection charges.
The area charges would remain the same regardless of land use, but the total number of
connection charges will be significantly reduced on this site if the reguiding is approved due
to a reduced number of units. Again, this is more of a cash flow issue if the density is shifted
to other parcels.
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is a policy issue for the City Council; therefore, staff has not
provided a recommendation. We have outlined the key issues that should be considered.
If the City Council finds that the developer's arguments for the reguiding (including information about
the housing market, the opportunity to build momentum for development in Corcoran, the
opportunity to initiate a number of planned infrastructure improvements, etc.) were compelling, they
should recommend approval of the request.
If the City Council finds that the applicant did not make a compelling case for the amendment or that
the existing land use is appropriate for this site and is willing to wait for the market to support this
desired land use, they should recommend denial of the request.
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005) 11
March 27, 2014
•
•
6. Action
The City Council should choose one of the following options:
a. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
b. Recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
0
The applicant is also requesting comments on this PUD sketch plan. Any comments given by the
City are advisory in nature and non - binding. The applicant will consider the comments from the City
when they prepare their formal submittal for preliminary plat and PUD development plan approval.
Attachments
a. Resolution Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment
b. Draft Resolution Denying Comprehensive Plan Amendment
c. City Engineer's Memo dated February 19, 2014
d. City Engineer's Memo dated March 18, 2014
e. 2030 Sanitary Sewer Phasing Map
f. Applicant's Comprehensive Plan narrative dated February 10, 2014
g. Applicant's PUD Sketch Plan narrative and graphics dated February 12, 2014
h. Woodland Evaluation dated March 4, 2014
i. MNRAM (Wetland Study) dated March 6, 2014
j. Applicant's Narrative Supplement dated March 20, 2014
k. Materials from Chuck Lymangood dated March 6, 2014
Peachtree Partners, LLC LUGPA and PUD Sketch Plan (14 -005) 12
March 27, 2014
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -14
Motion By:
Seconded By:
March 27, 2014
APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
20400 COUNTY ROAD 10 (PID 23- 119 -23 -42 -0003) (CITY FILE 14 -005)
WHEREAS, the Peachtree Partners, LLC has requested a land use guide plan amendment to
change the approximately 103 -acre parcel from High Density Residential to Low Density
Residential, legally described as follows:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, Peachtree Partners, LLC has also requested a change to the Sanitary Sewer
Phasing Plan for the western portion of the site;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the requested amendments at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for a
comprehensive plan amendment for the above referenced parcel, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
The property is located within the urban service area where municipal sewer and water
are available.
2. The property is located adjacent to Rush Creek and has a number of identified natural
resources. The reguiding to Low Density Residential would be consistent with the
locational criteria that anticipate this land use for development within or adjacent to
environmentally sensitive areas to reduce development impacts to these areas.
3. There are adequate areas in the city to accommodate the higher density land uses,
including the Mixed Use areas where more residential density could be planned to
ensure that the City meets its density goals.
4. The applicant has submitted new information to support this change, including
information to suggest that there is limited market demand for high density housing
styles in Corcoran at this time. The land use change would allow development to occur
much sooner than if the land use remained high density.
5. Development of the site as low density residential now would facilitate other planned
infrastructure improvements, including stormwater improvements, sanitary sewer
extension, municipal water extension and transportation improvements that will have
regional benefits.
6. Surrounding land uses are either compatible with the proposed change in classification.
Page 1 of 4
City of Corcoran March 27, 2014
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -14
7. With the planned infrastructure improvements developed with this project, there is
adequate public infrastructure planned to serve the site.
8. The modification of the Sanitary Sewer Phasing Map to include the entire property in
Phase I would have no significant fiscal impact on the City.
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 27th day of March 2014.
ATTEST:
Jeanie Heinecke — Clerk
Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor
Page 2 of 4
City Seal
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -14
ATTACHMENT A
DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
March 27, 2014
Tract A:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County,
Minnesota which lies North of Hennepin County Road #10 which was formerly called the
Minneapolis Monticello road, excepting therefrom the following described parcels (Parcels 1
through 7):
Parcel 1: The East 471.40 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range
23.
Parcel 2: The West 518.60 feet of the East 990.00 feet of the South 792.00 feet of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23.
Parcel 3: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23
described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of said
Section 23; thence East a distance of 1289.70 feet; thence North 2 degrees 7 minutes West a
distance of 111.70 feet; thence North 28 degrees 53 minutes East a distance of 200.00 feet;
thence South 77 degrees 8 minutes East a distance of 108.90 feet; thence South 28 degrees
and 53 minutes West to a point in the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter distant 5.80 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter said last described point being the point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence North 28 degrees 53 minutes East a distance of 280.63 feet; thence South 69
degrees and 32 minutes East a distance of 125.00 feet; thence South 28 degrees and 53
minutes West a distance of 230.20 feet to the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter; thence West 141.37 feet to the actual point of beginning.
Parcel 4: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23,
Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a
point in the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 147.17 feet
East of the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North
28 degrees 53 minutes East a distance of 230.30 feet; thence South 69 degrees and 32 minutes
East a distance of 73.90 feet to a line running parallel with the East line of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and distant 330.00 feet East of the Southwest corner of the
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence South parallel with the East line of said
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 174.80 feet; thence West 182.83 feet
to the point of beginning.
Parcel 5: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23,
Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at a point in the South line of the
Southeast Quarter distant 1289.70 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence North 2
degrees 7 minutes West a distance of 111.70 feet; thence North 28 degrees 53 minutes East a
distance of 3.74 feet to the center line of County Road #10 and to the actual point of beginning
of land to be described; thence continuing North 28 degrees 53 minutes East a distance of
196.26 feet; thence North 47 degrees 52 minutes West a distance of 147.95 feet; thence South
45 degrees 53 minutes West a distance of 180.05 feet to the center line of County Road #10;
thence Southeasterly along said center line a distance of 205.00 feet more or less to actual
point of beginning.
Page 3 of 4
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -14
March 27, 2014
Parcel 6: Commencing in the center line of County Road at a point North 2 degrees 7 minutes
West 111.70 feet from a point 1289.70 feet East from the Southwest corner of the Southwest
Quarter; thence North 28 degrees 53 minutes East 200.00 feet; thence North 47 degrees 52
minutes West 147.95 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing North 47 degrees
52 minutes West 78.20 feet; thence South 45 degrees 53 minutes West to the center line of the
road; thence Southeasterly along said center line to an intersection with a line bearing South 45
degrees 53 minutes West from the point of beginning; thence North 45 degrees 53 minutes East
to beginning; all in Section 23, Township 119, Range 23.
Parcel 7: Commencing in the center line of County Road at a point North 2 degrees 7 minutes
West 111.70 feet from a point 1289.70 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 23; thence North 28 degrees 53 minutes East 200.00 feet; thence South 77
degrees 08 minutes East 108.90 feet; thence South 28 degrees 53 minutes West 200.00 feet to
center of County Road; thence Northwesterly along center line to point of beginning.
Tract B:
The East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, Except: That part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter which lies South
of the centerline of Hennepin County Road Number 10, And except: That part of the Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 23; thence on an assumed
bearing of South 00 degrees 29 minutes 12 seconds East, along the East line of said Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter 125.85 feet, to the point of beginning; thence South 89
degrees 30 minutes 48 seconds West 300.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 29 minutes 12
seconds East, parallel with said East line, 575.70 feet to the intersection with the survey line as
shown and delineated on Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 10, Plat 8; thence
Southeasterly, along said survey line, to the intersection with said East line; thence Northerly,
along said East line, 905.74 feet to the point of beginning.
Tract C:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section Twenty -three (23),
Township One Hundred Nineteen (119), Range Twenty -three (23), Hennepin County,
Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the South line of the Southeast Quarter
(SE1 /4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) distant 147.17 feet East of the Southwest corner of
said Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4); thence North 28 degrees 53
minutes East a distance of 230.30 feet; thence South 69 degrees 32 minutes East a distance of
73.90 feet to a line running parallel with the East line of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the
Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) and distant 330.00 feet East of the Southwest corner of the
Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4); thence South parallel with the East
line of said Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) a distance of 174.80
feet; thence West 182.83 feet to the point of beginning.
Tract D:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119,
Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying West of the center line of County Highway No.
10.
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Abstract Property
Page 4 of 4
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -14
Motion By:
Seconded By:
March 27, 2014
DENYING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20400
COUNTY ROAD 10 (PID 23- 119 -23 -42 -0003) (CITY FILE 14 -005)
WHEREAS, the Peachtree Partners, LLC has requested a land use guide plan amendment to
change the approximately 103 -acre parcel from High Density Residential to Low Density
Residential, legally described as follows:
See Attachment A
WHEREAS, Peachtree Partners, LLC has also requested a change to the Sanitary Sewer
Phasing Plan for the western portion of the site;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the requested amendments at a duly called
Public Hearing and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request for a
comprehensive plan amendment for the above referenced parcel, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing land use classification is not consistent with the High Density Residential
location criteria.
2. The applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating compelling reasons that the plan
should be changed, or new information that supports re- examination of the plan, or
evidence the proposed development offers new opportunities that were not previously
considered by the plan.
3. The applicant has not shown that change is needed to allow reasonable development of
the site.
4. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment has merit beyond the
interests of the proponent.
5. The amendment will trigger numerous infrastructure improvements that will require City
investment and have significant fiscal impacts upon the City.
6. The plan does not provide park dedication as anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 1 of 4
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
VOTING AYE
❑ Guenthner, Ken
❑ Asleson, Rich
❑ Cossette, Tom
❑ Lynch, Diane
❑ Thomas, Ron
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -14
VOTING NAY
❑ Guenthner, Ken
❑ Asleson, Rich
❑ Cossette, Tom
❑ Lynch, Diane
❑ Thomas, Ron
March 27, 2014
Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 27th day of March 2014.
ATTEST:
Jeanie Heinecke — Clerk
Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor
Page 2 of 4
City Seal
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -14
ATTACHMENT A
DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
March 27, 2014
Tract A:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County,
Minnesota which lies North of Hennepin County Road #10 which was formerly called the
Minneapolis Monticello road, excepting therefrom the following described parcels (Parcels 1
through 7):
Parcel 1: The East 471.40 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range
23.
Parcel 2: The West 518.60 feet of the East 990.00 feet of the South 792.00 feet of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23.
Parcel 3: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23
described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of said
Section 23; thence East a distance of 1289.70 feet; thence North 2 degrees 7 minutes West a
distance of 111.70 feet; thence North 28 degrees 53 minutes East a distance of 200.00 feet;
thence South 77 degrees 8 minutes East a distance of 108.90 feet; thence South 28 degrees
and 53 minutes West to a point in the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter distant 5.80 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter said last described point being the point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence North 28 degrees 53 minutes East a distance of 280.63 feet; thence South 69
degrees and 32 minutes East a distance of 125.00 feet; thence South 28 degrees and 53
minutes West a distance of 230.20 feet to the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter; thence West 141.37 feet to the actual point of beginning.
Parcel 4: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23,
Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a
point in the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 147.17 feet
East of the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North
28 degrees 53 minutes East a distance of 230.30 feet; thence South 69 degrees and 32 minutes
East a distance of 73.90 feet to a line running parallel with the East line of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and distant 330.00 feet East of the Southwest corner of the
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence South parallel with the East line of said
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 174.80 feet; thence West 182.83 feet
to the point of beginning.
Parcel 5: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23,
Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at a point in the South line of the
Southeast Quarter distant 1289.70 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence North 2
degrees 7 minutes West a distance of 111.70 feet; thence North 28 degrees 53 minutes East a
distance of 3.74 feet to the center line of County Road #10 and to the actual point of beginning
of land to be described; thence continuing North 28 degrees 53 minutes East a distance of
196.26 feet; thence North 47 degrees 52 minutes West a distance of 147.95 feet; thence South
45 degrees 53 minutes West a distance of 180.05 feet to the center line of County Road #10;
thence Southeasterly along said center line a distance of 205.00 feet more or less to actual
point of beginning.
Page 3 of 4
City of Corcoran
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -14
March 27, 2014
Parcel 6: Commencing in the center line of County Road at a point North 2 degrees 7 minutes
West 111.70 feet from a point 1289.70 feet East from the Southwest corner of the Southwest
Quarter; thence North 28 degrees 53 minutes East 200.00 feet; thence North 47 degrees 52
minutes West 147.95 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing North 47 degrees
52 minutes West 78.20 feet; thence South 45 degrees 53 minutes West to the center line of the
road; thence Southeasterly along said center line to an intersection with a line bearing South 45
degrees 53 minutes West from the point of beginning; thence North 45 degrees 53 minutes East
to beginning; all in Section 23, Township 119, Range 23.
Parcel 7: Commencing in the center line of County Road at a point North 2 degrees 7 minutes
West 111.70 feet from a point 1289.70 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 23; thence North 28 degrees 53 minutes East 200.00 feet; thence South 77
degrees 08 minutes East 108.90 feet; thence South 28 degrees 53 minutes West 200.00 feet to
center of County Road; thence Northwesterly along center line to point of beginning.
Tract B:
The East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, Except: That part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter which lies South
of the centerline of Hennepin County Road Number 10, And except: That part of the Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 23; thence on an assumed
bearing of South 00 degrees 29 minutes 12 seconds East, along the East line of said Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter 125.85 feet, to the point of beginning; thence South 89
degrees 30 minutes 48 seconds West 300.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 29 minutes 12
seconds East, parallel with said East line, 575.70 feet to the intersection with the survey line as
shown and delineated on Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 10, Plat 8; thence
Southeasterly, along said survey line, to the intersection with said East line; thence Northerly,
along said East line, 905.74 feet to the point of beginning.
Tract C:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section Twenty -three (23),
Township One Hundred Nineteen (119), Range Twenty -three (23), Hennepin County,
Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the South line of the Southeast Quarter
(SE1 /4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) distant 147.17 feet East of the Southwest corner of
said Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4); thence North 28 degrees 53
minutes East a distance of 230.30 feet; thence South 69 degrees 32 minutes East a distance of
73.90 feet to a line running parallel with the East line of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the
Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) and distant 330.00 feet East of the Southwest corner of the
Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4); thence South parallel with the East
line of said Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) a distance of 174.80
feet; thence West 182.83 feet to the point of beginning.
Tract D:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 119,
Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying West of the center line of County Highway No.
10.
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Abstract Property
Page 4 of 4
Wenck
TO: Kendra Lindahl, City Planner
FROM: Kent Torve, P.E.
DATE: February 19, 2014
SUBJECT: Schendel Sketch Plan Review
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Ctr.
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359 -0249
(763) 479 -4200
Fax (763) 479 -4242
E -mail: wenckmp @wenck.com
1.0 Background
The project is located west of CSAH 116 and north of the 10150 split. This area has been
exposed to sewer and water from the 2012 utility project creating the opportunity for
urban development.
2.0 Transportation
The primary issue for the site is the ultimate alignment of CSAH 10 and how the
development timing affects the infrastructure improvements.
A summary of items being discussed and studied by staff include:
• City transportation plan shows CSAH 10 moved to Meister Road
• County staff has reviewed the concept of moving CSAH 10
• Use of abandoned CSAH 10
• Project would allow the removal of the "Y" intersection at 10150 split
• Provide for future connection at CSAH 16
Findings
The list of items will create modifications to the sketch plan along with several
complicated transportation and ROW decisions that need to be guided by Council.
The property will need a north access, which is shown on the attached "City Grid ". This
north access may be dedication of "half ROW" until future development occurs to
finalize the connection to CSAH 116.
3.0 Sewer
Sewer currently terminates at CSAH 116. The project has a few options for service:
Concept No. One Construct an internal system consistent with Master Plans,
however install a lift station to pump sewage to the CSAH 116
manhole.
Concept No. Two Install the lift station on Schendel property to service the
Downtown project also. (Currently the Downtown area would be
serviced from a lift station in the Park).
The concepts would be further developed with estimated costs as part of a feasibility
study that incorporates the existing studies on Downtown.
4.0 Water
Water pressure modeling would be performed to analyze pressures at the high point of
the development. The model was initially executed as part of the Downtown TIF studies,
and would be executed in additional detail.
Looping would need to occur and routes would be reviewed as part of the feasibility
study.
5.0 Stormwater
The site drains to the north, and urbanization would require rates be controlled to existing
conditions. Impervious surfaces would create additional volume which may require off
site improvements to the north.
6.0 Recommendations
The project requires significant infrastructure improvements and modifications to move
forward. It is recommended to require the following:
• Transportation Feasibility
This feasibility study would develop options and costs. The benefit to the property
will be presented along with "subdistrict" and regional transportation issues to
identify the developments participation.
• Sewer and Water Feasibility Study
This study would focus on options and costs for servicing the development with
sewer as "stand alone" or with moving the Downtown Lift Station. Water
modeling would be performed for the area in more detail.
• Stormwater Feasibility
This is a fairly straightforward review of topography, off site channels, and
concepts of additional improvements and easements necessary for conveying
stormwater to the large wetland east of CSAH 116, north of City Hall.
Sewer Master Plan
1 i P i
_a-
s
a.
k
r
f -
f I
J A
-aim
SE -AJ
2010 Aerial Photograph (Source: Mn GEO)
1,500 750 0 11,500 N
Feet
lath: L:\2294\10\mxd \2013 E,"g Plan \Trunk Sanitary Sewer.mxd
znnmzT,»o ,0,1 inn Ilcc. cn Irmaz
CITY OF CORCORAN
Trunk Sanitary Sewer
Legend
Sanitary Sewer Service Area Sewer Node
® Municipal Boundary > Sanitary Sewer Lines
Sewer Subdistricts > As -Built Sanitary Sewer
T Y ] 4
e �
f A
SE_B ,3
6
-R�
iT6
IL
lib
1f'
I'
wit: Sri
1
1
'a
Wenck
JUN 2013
A
Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionals
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Maple Plain, MN 55359 -0429
Figure 1
www.wenck.com
1- 800 - 472 -2232
Transportation Plan
with "City Grid" System
CITY OF CORCORAN
JUNE 2010
Larkin Road Alignment
Wenck Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center
Environmental Engineers Maple Plain, MN 55359 -0429
Figure 2
t Were
Engineers • Scientists
Business Professionals
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Kendra Lindahl, City Planner
FROM: Wes Boll, Wenck Associates, Inc.
DATE: March 18, 2013
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359 -0249
(800) 472 -2232
(763) 479 -4200
Fax (763) 479 -4242
wenckmp @wenck.com
www.wenck.com
SUBJECT: Schendel Property Wetland Functional Assessment Report and Woodland /Forest
Evaluation
This technical memorandum is prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc. (Wenck) to provide a review of
evaluation of woodland /forest areas and wetlands located on the Schendel property in the City of
Corcoran.
The evaluations were prepared for Peachtree Partners by Stantec Consulting ( Stantec). The submitted
documents included a March 4, 2014 letter providing a summary report of the conditions of the
woodland /forest areas on the site and comparing the current conditions to the qualitative rank given to
the site during a Natural Resources Inventory conducted in 2001. A wetland Functional Assessment
Report which summarized a MnRAM analysis conducted on the site based on current conditions
classified the wetlands according to the City's classification system for wetlands.
Woodland /Forest Analysis
The woodland area on the Schendel property was identified during the 2001 Natural Resource Inventory
as Site 28 "Maple- Basswood Forest ". This woodland community was assigned a Local Rank score of
"High ", due to its location within the South Rush Creek Corridor, and a lower Ecological Status score of
"B /C ", based on the nature of disturbance and the presence of exotic species (buckthorn).
The letter summarizing current conditions documents that the site would more appropriately be
classified as a young elm- ash - basswood forest. The letter also states that due to the lack of mature
trees, the prevalence of invasive and nonnative shrubs, and the lack of native species in the ground
cover, that the qualitative rank for the site would more appropriately be low to very low (CD to D). Of
the two stands of forest evaluated on the site, the north stand was said to be of a higher quality with a
better potential for restoration.
Summary
Based on the photos contained in the document, the letter appears to accurately describe the current
condition of the site. The photos and letter support the applicant's opinion for reclassification of the
Ecological Status of the woodland /forest community. However, the vegetation community would retain
its "High" ranking according to the 2001 Natural Resource Inventory due to its location within the South
Rush Creek Corridor.
\ \mspfsv02.lps.local \studios \planning & infrastructure studio \city of corcoran \cor14005 - schendel comp plan and pud sketch plan \2014 -03 -20 wenck functional assessment_ technical
memo.docx
Wetland Analysis
Stantec completed a functional assessment on 11 wetlands that were delineated on the subject
property using MnRAM 3.4. The applicant prepared the MnRAM to classify the wetlands according to
the City's classification system. As required by the City Zoning Ordinance, the report provided the
results from the analysis using the latest version of MnRAM.
Section 1020.020 of the City Ordinance demonstrates that wetlands are to be ranked as high, medium,
or low quality based on the functional level ranking of six selected categories from the MnRAM analysis:
Floral Diversity /Integrity, Flood /Stormwater Attenuation, Water Quality Protection, Wildlife and /or
Fishery Habitat, and Aesthetic /Recreation. Table 1 below illustrates the functional ranking in each of
these categories and the appropriate City Classification according to the results of the MnRAM
conducted by Stantec.
Table 1 -MnRAM Analysis Results
Summary
According to the MnRAM analysis, as documented in the report dated March 5, 2014, the wetlands on
the site are all classified as Medium or High according to the City's classification system. The rankings
were influenced by categories other than vegetation, since as shown above, the categories ranking
mostly "low" were vegetative diversity and aesthetics /recreation /education /cultural. However the
categories of habitat, Stormwater attenuation, and downstream water quality bring the final ranking
into "Medium" or "High ".
\ \mspfsv02. Ips. local \Studios \P Ian ning & Infrastructure Studio \City of Corcoran \COR14005 - SchendeI Comp Plan and PUD Sketch Plan \2014 -03 -20 V _ J; ► e n c k
memo.docx V Y
City
MnRAM
Maint. of
Maint. Of
Aesthetics/
Classification
Vegetative
Char. of
Char.
Recreation/
Downstream
System
Type (Eggers
Diversity/
Wildlife
Fish
Education/
Flood /Stormwater/
Water
(2014
Wetland ID
I& Reed )
Integrity
Habitat
Habitat
lCultural
Attenuation
Quality
MnRAM
A
Wet meadow
Low
Moderate
NA
Low
Moderate
High
Medium
B
Wet meadow
Low
Moderate
NA
Low
Moderate
High
Medium
C
Shallow marsh
High
High
High
Low
Moderate
High
High
Seasonally
D
Iflooded basin
Low
High
NA
I Low
Moderate
High
High
E
Wet meadow
Low
High
NA
Low
Moderate
High
High
Seasonally
F T1
flooded flat
Low
Moderate
NA
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Medium
F T2
Wet meadow
Moderate
High
NA
Low
Moderate
High
High
G
Wet meadow
Low
High
NA
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Medium
Seasonally
flooded
H
flood lain
Low
Moderate
NA
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Medium
Seasonally
Site 3
flooded basin
Low
I Moderate
INA
I Low
High
I Hi h
Medium
Seasonally
Site 4
flooded flat
Low
Moderate
N
Low
Moderate
High
Medium
Summary
According to the MnRAM analysis, as documented in the report dated March 5, 2014, the wetlands on
the site are all classified as Medium or High according to the City's classification system. The rankings
were influenced by categories other than vegetation, since as shown above, the categories ranking
mostly "low" were vegetative diversity and aesthetics /recreation /education /cultural. However the
categories of habitat, Stormwater attenuation, and downstream water quality bring the final ranking
into "Medium" or "High ".
\ \mspfsv02. Ips. local \Studios \P Ian ning & Infrastructure Studio \City of Corcoran \COR14005 - SchendeI Comp Plan and PUD Sketch Plan \2014 -03 -20 V _ J; ► e n c k
memo.docx V Y
C1
j
i
Ii f ail- 1
rf ,A 1
1
T]
1
w i
z 1
LLLI
�:A 1
F = —
U 1
•.r ' 4 •'�i1� �•. -
z�
1 Ir
0
Q
O
W
CIO
r
LU
j r JUBERT {�� it
LAKE z
1
1
7 -i r
MORIN
LAKE
0
_h
=% 111
ST�FG
Rp
E
i
i
W
o ` j o
r HUTT - (D
ROAD 1 w
Q 1 Q
i o
1
O _ MEISTER R AD - O
z `' GOOSE' �,
�x' cRFFk •••••11
1
� 1
j (COOK
-LAKE
1
F LARKIN RD 1
TE
1
J
O SE L IGLEASO N ROAD
� 1
1111- IIIIIIIIRMA
. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 m 1 1 m■ 1 m 1 1 m 1 1 m 1 1 m 1 1 m rum" m 1 1 m 1 1 m 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1■ 7
Figure 9
7T.
2030 Sanitary Sewer
Service Staging Plan
2030 Comprehensive Plan
N
W � E
S
3,000 1,500 0 3,000 Feet
L� 11 �•
City Limit
2030musa
Wetlands
Sanitary Sewer Service Staging
2010 - 2015
2015 - 2020
2020 - 2025
2025 - 2030
'The staging plan represents a progression of sewer that is based on location
of planned Metropolitan Interceptors and where the first sewered growth
is anticipated to occur, however the City does not commit to it occurring.
Updated October 2013
Adopted June 2011
4 chtree
Pars
Date: 2/5/2014
To: City of Corcoran
From: Peachtree Partners
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application
Request: To amend the Comprehensive Plan by changing the High Density Land Use & Mixed
Residential Density guiding for the Schendel property to Low Density Residential.
Background: Peachtree Partners LLC (background information attached) is proposing to develop the
Schendel property along CR 10 north of CR 50 in Corcoran, see attached plan. Our request is to develop
this property as a detached single family neighborhood with lot widths ranging from 60' -75' feet. Under
the City's updated net density calculation the net density proposed would be just over 3 units per acre.
In order to develop at this density the property would need to be guided and zoned for low density
residential development. We believe there are a number of important reasons why rezoning this
property as requested is beneficial to the City.
Prior to making this application we had preliminary discussions with the City Council to see if the City
would consider changing the guide plan from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential. At
these two meetings a number of questions were asked and Peachtree Partners provided the Council
with relevant information related to an eventual Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. Much of
that information is summarized in this narrative.
Reasons for Changing the Guiding of the Schendel Property from High Density Residential to Low
Density Residential.
Summary — Development will provide a critical catalyst for additional future residential and commercial
development in the City as well as a possible elementary school. Residential development within and
around the area guided as a future Corcoran downtown area is needed to spur the kind of growth and
development that the City would like to see in its downtown. Without adding rooftops there will likely
not be any meaningful commercial development within the City, beyond what already exists.
Currently, the marketplace does not support the amount and type of high density development guided
on the Schendel property, this is likely true of other areas of the City as well. With the Schendel
property the City has a willing seller and buyer and an opportunity to create a catalyst for development
in and around the downtown area.
Timing — Timing is everything. No matter what a property is guided, if there is not a willing seller and
buyer, development will not occur. While this may appear obvious, many times development is
impeded by property owners who are not ready to have their property develop. The Schendel site is a
great example of a property ready to be developed. Once development starts on this site there is likely
to be a number of beneficial spillover effects into the surrounding area. This would not occur without a
willing seller.
Provision of Sewer and Water into the City — It is our understanding that the City desires to serve the
existing downtown properties and a potential new elementary school with sewer and water service. The
location of the Schendel site is such that development of the site will aid in serving both the school and
the downtown area with sewer and water services. Development of the Schendel site will result in both
financial aid(area charges) and locational assistance (utilities will run through this site).
Market Demand — Currently there is very little demand for high density attached residential housing in
the market area. However, there is significant demand for detached single family housing. We are land
developers and not builders and generally seek to design a neighborhood that meets the market
demand. To that end we have built several neighborhoods with multi - family housing and would do the
same on the Schendel site if there were a market for that product.
Relatively close to the Schendel site, primarily in Plymouth and Maple Grove, there has been significant
detached single family development activity. This has been occurring primarily in the Wayzata School
District. Properties in the Rockford School District have in comparison seen little development activity.
It is critical that the first major residential development in the Rockford School District in the City of
Corcoran be successful. In order to realize success, we need to offer a housing type that is in significant
demand. Currently, and for the foreseeable future, the demand is for detached single family housing on
60' -75' wide lots for first time and first time move up buyers.
Impact of Amendment on Neighboring Properties — Currently the Schendel property is surrounded by
large lot residential, rural agriculture and open space. While the development footprint may be similar
between High and Low Density Residential Development the overall impact to surrounding properties is
likely less with Low Density Residential development versus High Density Residential Development.
School — The potential school site across existing County Road 10 from the Schendel property presents
an important and unique opportunity for the City and the region. There is a natural affinity between
detached single family housing and an elementary school. This affinity is due to the large number of
elementary school children that typically live in detached single family homes.
The Rockford ISD 833 Superintendent has publicly stated his support for a low density neighborhood on
the Schendel site. He recognizes that over time a neighborhood on the Schendel site could likely bring
the critical number of additional children into the district that is needed to initiate the development of a
school in the eastern portion of the district. This school would likely be located on the Rockford ISD
833's property adjacent to the Schendel site.
2
Much of the area to be developed around the future Corcoran downtown is within the Rockford School
District. Therefore, it is important that the first major residential project within this area of the City be
successful.
Catalyst - The timing is right for a low density single family neighborhood in this area. Changing the
guiding to take advantage of this opportunity will be a catalyst for more development in the downtown
area. Development of the Schendel site will also assist the City in completing safety improvements to
the intersection of CR 10 and CR 50. It will also likely be the impetus for a longer term solution to
realign CR 10, a longterm City goal.
How can the Comprehensive Plan Amendment be accomplished? In order to approve this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment the City will need to reallocate some density into other locations
within the City. We provided the City Council with a variety of methods for accomplishing this density
transfer.
They included:
1. Adding additional single family areas outside of the existing MUSA.
2. Changing the guiding for select Low Density Residential Area to Medium Density Residential.
3. Adding a residential component to the area guided Commercial, and lastly
4. Increasing the amount of residential within the Mixed Use Areas.
Our recommendation to the City was to consider increasing the mix of residential in the Mixed Use areas
(Option 4). This is a simple change, does not affect the Land Use Plan and better reflects the type of
development that will likely occur in these areas. This could also allow the City to transfer additional
density beyond what is needed for the Schendel site in case other properties need flexibility to develop
at lower densities while waiting for the market for higher density development to recover. We will be
happy to provide more information on these options if desired.
Related Rezoning: A majority Schendel property is zoned RMF -3 a small portion of the property is
zoned UR. We will be requesting Planning Unit Development (PUD) zoning over the entire property.
Request restated: Our request is for the City to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change
the High Density Land Use & Mixed Residential guiding for the Schendel property to Low Density
Residential.
3
Peachtree
Partners
Attachment A
Peachtme
Part
Terry Forbord - Peter Pflaum - David Newman
Over 100 years collective experience (Residential and Commercial)
Expertise includes:
• Management
• Strategic planning
• Homebuilding
• Marketing
• Brokerage
• Sales
• Legal
• Site selection & acquisition
• Site design
• Land development
• Zoning & entitlements
• Lobbying
• Financial reporting & financing
• Asset & investment management
• Due diligence
• Homeowners associations
Peachtree
Partners
Terry Forbord
• St Cloud State University
• Developed over 5,000 residential lots in the Twin Cities
• 1986 -1988 - Scottland Companies - VP Residential Division: Managed day -to -day operations
including; Product development, brokerage, entitlements, budget, profits, marketing and sales
• 1988 -1999 - Lundgren Bros. Development — President: Directed the day -to -day operations
including; Management of $76- million real estate portfolio (1999 dollars), site acquisition,
budgeting, financing, entitlements, marketing, public relations, physical site activities
• 1999 -2007 - Laurent Development Company — Principal /President: Created unique master -
planned communities throughout the greater Minneapolis /St Paul metropolitan area. Directed
all day to day operations. Developed two award - winning communities:
• Dancing Waters in Woodbury
• A 450 acre, 1,148 unit mixed -use master - planned community
• Awarded "Best New Neighborhood" for 2004 -2005
• Territory in Credit River
• A 700 acre, 276 single family homesite, master - planned luxury community
• Awarded "Best New Neighborhood" for 2006 -2007
FForbord Land Company LLC - 4960 Sussex Place, Shorewood, MN 55331
(612) 868 -2483 tforbord@forbordusa.com
Peachtree
Terry Forbord continued...
• 2008 — 2009 - GMAC ResCap - Senior Asset Manager: Responsible for participation,
management and disposition of 3.5 Billion in residential NPL /REO properties across U.S.
• 2009 -2011 - Mountain Real Estate Group - Senior Asset & Investment Manager: Responsible
for management and disposition of residential NPL /REO properties across the U.S. Participated in
the direct acquisition, management and disposition of $768 - Million UPB of assets including
homes, finished lots, partially completed developments, and raw land parcels
• 1998 to Present - President/ Owner of Forbord Land Company: Offering
complete real estate and development management and consulting services,
providing strategies and tactics for businesses, partnerships and individuals 4
• Terry is a licensed Real Estate Broker
Teff 1,fixy
er
_ A J
6*7
Forbord Land Company LLC - 4960 Sussex Place, Shorewood, MN 55331
612 868 -2483 tforbord@forbordusa.com
4 ) @ bordusa.com
f
r
0
Peachtree
Parbies
Peter Pflaum
• Occidental College and University of Minnesota, MBA.
• Developed over 8,300 residential lots in the Twin Cities
• 10 lot subdivisions to 1,800 units of mixed use housing
• Former CEO / President of Lundgren Bros. Construction Inc.
• Principal owner of Lundgren Bros and on its Board of Directors for 30 years
• Annual sales volume exceeded $120,000,000 under his direction
• Land acquisition and development of approximately 6,200 lots in over 140 subdivisions
• in 1999 - Sold the company to U.S. Home Corporation. At that time Lundgren Bros:
• Was the largest private residential builder in the State of Minnesota
• Had built and sold approximately 3000 homes
• LENNAR Corp. acquired U5 Home Corp and is one of the largest public home builders in the
county
• In 2000 named President of the Minnesota Land Division of LENNAR Corp.
• Managed all land acquisition and development activities for both Lundgren Bros. and Orrin
Thompson Homes
• Acquired and developed land at the rate of about 800 to 1,000 units a year
• In 2002, Peter started his own company, Plum Investment Company Inc. specializing in real
estate acquisition and development. During this time he has developed 2,100 lots with David
Newman
• Peter is a licensed Real Estate broker
Plum Investment Company - 18070 Breezy Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391
(612) 849 -6352 ppflaum @me.com
Peachtree
Partners
David Newman
• University of Minnesota and William Mitchell College of Law
• Developed over 2,000 residential lots in a variety of markets
• Owner/President of Bancor - 15 year old residential land development company.
• A licensed attorney. While in private practice representing parties involved real estate:
• Home builders
• Civil engineers
• Developers
• Provided legal representation to cities including the cities of Fridley and Zimmerman for 10 years
• 8 years as a member of the Fridley School Board
3 years as the Chairman of the Fridley Planning Commission
• 1990 joined a major twin cities custom homebuilder. Since then he has been actively involved in
residential land development
• Dave is a licensed Real Estate Broker
BaI1cor The Bancor Group, Inc. 1521 94th Lane N. E. Blaine, MN 55449
763- 792 -8975 Dave@ bancor rou .com
Peachtree
Parbiers
Peter Pflaum & David Newman
Collectively Plum and Bancor were principals of:
• Wild Meadows in Medina
• A 350 acre conservation community consisting of 150
single family homesites clustered around 200 acres of protected space
• Bailey's Arbor in Woodbury
• A 235 acre residential neighborhood consisting of 845
single family and multi - family homes
Locust Mills in Wayzata
• A 70 acre community consisting of 47 single family homesites
designed around 45 acres of protected open space
• Awarded "Residential Development of the Year"
by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in 2007
• Partnered with Carlson family in the development
of Woodland Cove in Minnetrista
• A 488 acre community on Lake Minnetonka
• All approvals have been obtained for a 1071 mixed use community
• Awarded "Residential Development of the Year"
by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in 2012
a
i� • - taw
BAILEYS 5
ARBOR
wolfs -aIs rf'nr��
...�.... a u .'evil
—6N HALSTEAO'S BAY '�
QProject Site Boundary
QStaging Boundaries
Wetlands
Rural /Ag Residential
Existing Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Mixed Residential
High Density Residential
Rural Service /Commercial
Commercial
Mixed Use
Business Park
Light Industrial
Public /Semi - Public
Parks /Open Space
Golf Course
Agricultural Preserve (Date of Expiration)
Open Water
I, I I j i
Schendel Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request
' ;2/22n009
LARKIN ROAD
<� emo��—N44
0
1,500
rcUSN CREEK
3,000 Feet
— 02.07.2014 — V: \1938\ active \193802580 \GIS\ Projects \Future Land Use Change.mxd Sta ntec
6
Date: February 12, 2014
To: City of Corcoran
From: Peachtree Partners, LLC
Re: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Sketch Plan Submittal
Background:
Attached is a PUD sketch plan submittal for the Schendel Property. Prior to preparing the sketch plan
for this site, we studied the City's planning and engineering documents and held several meetings with
the City Staff, Rockford School District and the City Council. From the research and meetings we learned
the following:
1. The City's longterm plan is to move County Road 10 to Meister Road (Comprehensive Plan—
Transportation Plan).
2. Even if existing County Road 10 is not vacated, improving the safety of the existing intersection
of County Road 10 and County Road 50 is a priority.
3. The City would like an internal street system within the Schendel site that provides a connection
through the site that accommodates the vacation of County Road 10 (Southeast District
Guidelines Plan).
4. The City identified a greenway corridor along the east side of the property and an extended
greenway corridor along the north side of the property (Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Trails
Plan).
5. Street connectivity — there is a desire for a potential street connection to CR 116 (Southeast
District Guidelines Plan).
6. The City's Park Plans identify several Athletic Search Areas (ASA) as options for locating a more
significant park facility. One area is across from the Schendel property. We learned the City has
not yet fully discussed where this will be located but the City does have an option on other
property located in western Corcoran that could serve this purpose.
7. Based on our request the City is now considering changing the land use of the property from
High Density Residential to Low Density Residential. Current market conditions (lack of demand
for high density development) as well as the synergy between single family neighborhoods and
elementary school are factors in that consideration.
1
Existing Site Attributes:
Once we understood more about the City's goals for the property, we evaluated how the site could be
developed. First we identified the natural resources on the site, evaluated the general quality of those
features, and prioritized what areas to protect and enhance while still providing a critical amount of
development area to create a successful detached single family neighborhood. See Attachment - 5.
• Drainage Patterns - The majority of the Schendel site drains to a large wetland near the east
side of the property. We anticipate designing and constructing storm water ponds near this
wetland. These ponds will meet water quality and quantity requirements of the City as well as
the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission. In addition we anticipate altering the
outlet from the wetland as necessary to restore the wetland and to maximize the efficient
storage of storm water prior to discharging it from the site.
• Woodlands - The woodland areas were evaluated. The large stand of trees along the eastern
boundary was determined to be poor quality and the woods along the northern boundary was
of moderate quality with some hardwoods.
• Wetlands — A wetland delineation was conducted on the site and approved by the regulatory
agencies. This delineation identified 11 wetlands totaling 10.73 acres on the property. Most of
the wetlands are in poor condition and are being farmed and /or are dominated by invasive
vegetation. Although of a low and medium quality, we identified two large wetlands along the
east side of the property as good candidates for restoration. In talking with the watershed
commission, there was significant interest in completing this restoration.
Four of the wetlands, approximately 1.1 acres, are being impacted for development, at the same
time the large wetland complex in the east, totaling almost 7 acres, is being restored and made
into a significant amenity for the neighborhood.
Overall of the 10.73 acres of wetlands, 9.63 acres are being protected and /or restored including
the only high quality wetland on the site. In addition there will be a protective buffer around
each wetland as required by the City and Watershed.
Compliance with City Plans:
After evaluating the physical characteristics of the site, we referenced the City's overall plans to see
which elements could be incorporated into the sketch plan.
Parks & Trails Plan —The City identified a greenway corridor along the east side of the property
which links to an extended greenway corridor along the north side of the property. Our sketch
plan weaves these corridors into the neighborhood and provides trails that link the
neighborhood to the greenways, the restored wetland complex to the east, preserved woods to
the north, and the City /School properties to the southwest.
2
The guidelines in the zoning ordinance also contemplates the potential for a larger park complex
in this area. However, between the existing School and City properties there is a significant
amount of potential for recreation area shared between the City and School. Additionally, it is
our understanding that the City may be considering other areas for a regional park facility. As a
result, the focus of our design is on the trails, greenway corridors and preservation of other
natural resources, which will supplement the School /City properties.
Figure 1— 2030 Parks and Trails Plan
Figure 2 - Southeast District Guide Plan
• Transportation Plan — As previously mentioned we understand that the rerouting of County
Road 10 is a City goal. Our sketch plan is consistent with this goal and therefore shows County
Road 10 being vacated. The sketch plan also provides internal street connections as well as a
connection to CR 116 which, was also indicated on the Southeast District Guide Plan, while at
the same time providing an opportunity for improving the safety of the County Road 10 and
County Road 50 intersection as contemplated in both the zoning and transportation plans.
a
111elatpr Rd
Pq
yyi��Me Rtl F`- P
u
`a `p
� Llf 47
J ugtr
Figure 1 - 2030 Transportation Plan
3
f 3
�
,
t Y
t
j"
Figure 1— 2030 Parks and Trails Plan
Figure 2 - Southeast District Guide Plan
• Transportation Plan — As previously mentioned we understand that the rerouting of County
Road 10 is a City goal. Our sketch plan is consistent with this goal and therefore shows County
Road 10 being vacated. The sketch plan also provides internal street connections as well as a
connection to CR 116 which, was also indicated on the Southeast District Guide Plan, while at
the same time providing an opportunity for improving the safety of the County Road 10 and
County Road 50 intersection as contemplated in both the zoning and transportation plans.
a
111elatpr Rd
Pq
yyi��Me Rtl F`- P
u
`a `p
� Llf 47
J ugtr
Figure 1 - 2030 Transportation Plan
3
Features of the Sketch Plan
After studying the City's plans and the natural features of the site we used our own experience in
creating attractive and livable neighborhoods to design the layout shown in the sketch plan.
The sketch plan contains the following key features:
1. Sense of Entry — It is important for us to create a special sense of entry into our neighborhoods.
This is accomplished with the use of entry monumentation, landscaping, view corridors, and use
of open space vs. placing homes at the entry to the neighborhood.
2. Trails — Trails have long been one of the most desired amenities within any neighborhood. We
have created a meaningful trail and sidewalk system that links the Schendel neighborhood to
the natural amenities in and around the property as well as to the Park and School properties to
the west. Connecting these features creates a high value trail system for the public.
3. Curvilinear Design— Long rows of straight streets is generally not what consumers like when
they experience a neighborhood. They prefer a more undulating streetscape with varying views.
You'll note that our sketch plan incorporates curvilinear streets to add beauty and interest. This
also calms traffic which creates safer streets.
4. Cul -de -sacs - In some cities the public works department frowns on cul -de -sacs because they
take a little longer to plow, although we have not found this to be a universal response. On the
other hand most homebuyers value cul -de -sacs because there is less traffic, safer for children
and quieter. Plain and simple cul -de -sacs add value and are desired by many
customers. Including them within neighborhoods adds value for the City, the developer and the
neighborhood.
5. View Corridors — When possible, we like to integrate views of natural features as one drives
through the neighborhood. One way this is accomplished is by removing home sites (lots) to
allow openings for these views. Another technique is to design streets so they come close to
these amenities. The sketch plan incorporates view corridors from the entry as well as in two
locations along the large restored wetland.
6. Buffers - We strategically increased the depth of lots where either a ball field currently exists or
where a future ball field may be constructed. In addition, we provided additional landscaping in
these areas as a buffer between the homes and the ball fields.
When reviewing the sketch plan you will see how we incorporated the key attributes listed above as
well as the City's goals. Below we describe in more detail a few of the specific features of the site and
other considerations of the design.
Entrance off County Road 50 and City Park at Entrance — As mentioned previously, it is very
important to have a sense of arrival into a neighborhood. After studying the alternatives for a
safe entrance from CR 50, there appears to be only once reasonable alternative. This is the
entrance as shown that runs through the existing City Park and Ball field.
4
We understand that this may have a short term impact on the Park but we also believe that we
can work together in creating additional park improvements that could ultimately increase the
functionality and usability of this City Park.
This entrance was designed as a permanent fix of the County Road 10 and County Road 50
intersection but, with some modification, could also be used as an interim solution to the
County Road 10/50 intersection until the County Road 10 vacation occurs.
• Exception Parcel — A ghost plat is shown for the exception parcel in the northwest portion of the
site.
• School Property - We have met with the school on several occasions to discuss the interplay of
the sites, evaluate options for accessing the school, and to look for ways to maximize
connections between the sites. While this process is ongoing, it appears that their proposed
location for a Varsity ball field can be accommodated. We developed a number of feasible
options to maximize the connectivity and efficiency of City /School site. Some included not
treating the City /School property line as a barrier.
• Access to exception parcels — We show how the two exception parcels on County Road 10 can
be provided access if they are not acquired by the City or others.
• Access to Park - We show the main access to the City park from County Road 50. Our analysis of
various future configurations of the City /School site indicates that these properties will be best
served by access from County Road 50.
• Access to proposed Ballfield — If the Rockford School District constructs a varsity ball field on
the northern portion of the Rockford School District property as planned, the impact of the ball
field on the Schendel sketch plan is manageable. We have designed some buffer space and
landscaping as a screen between the nearest homes and the ball field. In addition, we think it
would be prudent for the City to consider reasonable limitations on hours of operation, lighting,
use of loud speakers, etc. when giving approval.
If CR 10 is vacated and the ball field is located in the north, a revision to the parking lot entrance
for the ball field may need to be contemplated. Ultimately, we believe that use of the school
property is best served with all access coming off of CR 50.
Specific Requested PUD Provisions
While our PUD Sketch Plan likely has more detail and precision than typical sketch plans, it is important
to remember this is only a sketch plan. After hearing the feedback from the City and prior to preparing
a preliminary plat we will once again refine this plan and layout. Among other things the exact lotting
patterns, the size of the lots, types of lots, and overall number of lots will likely change as we prepare a
preliminary plat.
5
Below are some of the specific PUD standards we have contemplated. As we move forward with
preliminary plans these will be refined and additional standards or exceptions may be added.
• Minimum Lot Area- 5,500 square feet
• Front Yard Set -Back - 25'
• Rear Yard Set -Back — 25'
• Side Yard Set -Back Minimum — 5'
• Minimum Width at Front Set -Back — 55'
• Minimum Lot Depth — 100'
• Encroachment in Front Yard Set -Back for Porch — 8'
• Encroachment in Side Yard Set -Back on corner lot for Porch — 8'
• Driveways may be allowed to encroach into side yards with Architectural Control Committee
approval
• Shared driveways may be allowed
• Decks allowed in the rear yard set - backs, but not closer than 15' and not in drainage and utility
easements
• 28 foot wide streets within 50 feet of right -of -way
• No structural setbacks or landscape buffers along County Road 10 (Due to County Road 10 being
vacated in the future)
• 50% impervious in Shoreland Overlay District
• 55' lots widths in Shoreland Overlay District
• Maximum Principal Building Height 35' in Shoreland Overlay District
Compatibility with Surrounding Areas
• To the west - We have been working collaboratively with the City of Corcoran and Rockford
Independent School District (ISD) 833 to plan for the elimination and vacation of existing County
Road 10 immediately adjacent to the site and for its realignment to another location as
conceptually shown in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Vacation of this road creates
opportunities for synergies between the Schendel neighborhood and the Corcoran City Park, as
well as a potential elementary school currently envisioned for the school site. Removing the
barrier of County Road 10 will enable safe and convenient access for the families living in the
Schendel neighborhood to use the park, open space, and to gain access to the future school.
These various land uses — single family homes, parks, open space, and an elementary school —
are not only highly compatible, but to a large degree these land uses depend and thrive on each
other. In accordance with this compatibility, we have provided multiple trail connections from
the Schendel site to the park /school. The City's Land Use Plan guides these properties for Parks
and Open Space. It should be noted that one single family property lies within the park /school
property. This use is compatible with the uses planned for Schendel.
11
• To the north — Rush Creek runs through properties directly to the north of the Schendel site.
Much of the area between Schendel and Rush Creek consists of wetlands and flood plain and is
therefore undevelopable. Due to the unbuildable nature of these areas, much of it has remained
wooded and therefore has been identified on the City's Comprehensive Plan as potential
greenway corridor. A small amount of land to the northwest of the site contains upland areas
which may be developable. The Land Use Plan identifies these properties as Mixed Residential,
which is compatible with the uses planned for Schendel. A moderate amount of land to the
northeast of Schendel also contains upland areas which may be developable. The Land Use Plan
guides these properties as Mixed and High Density Residential, which is compatible with the
uses planned for Schendel, particularly since there will be an open space buffer between a
majority of the property to the north and the Schendel site.
• To the east — A number of existing, large lot single family properties lie to the east of Schendel.
The Land Use Plan guides these properties as Medium Density Residential. This use is
compatible with the uses planned for Schendel.
• To the southeast — A church owns property which is located along the southeast corner of the
Schendel property. The actual church and associated parking lot lie further to the southeast. We
do not know what the church plans to do with the portion of their land located immediately
adjacent to Schendel. Historically, churches are integral components of residential
neighborhoods and are considered compatible uses.
• To the south —A few commercial properties currently exist along County Road 10 near the
intersection with County Road 50. They consist of vacant lots, a deteriorating building, another
building utilized for storage, and a bar. The Land Use Plan guides these properties as
Commercial. This is a relatively small area that exists prior to development. Adjacent buyers will
be aware of the uses and zoning that exists in this location.
Other Considerations
• Access to Sewer and Water Services
Sanitary Sewer — In 2012 the City extended trunk sanitary sewer from the Maple Grove
boundary to County Road 116, a short distance north of County Road 10. This places the sewer
close to the Schendel site. We will work with the City Engineer to determine the best route to
bring sewer from the Schendel site to the existing trunk sewer.
We anticipate installing a lift (pumping) station near the north property line of Schendel, just
north of the large wetland on the east side of the property. This is the lowest point on the
Schendel site. From there, we anticipate pumping wastewater to the existing trunk sewer along
County Road 116.
Sanitary sewer will be extended from the lift station through the Schendel site to the City park
property on the southwest side of existing County Road 10. It is our understanding that this will
enable a potential elementary school and the downtown businesses to be served with sanitary
sewer.
7
Water Main - In 2012 the City extended trunk water main from the Maple Grove boundary to
County Road 116, a short distance north of County Road 10. This places the water system close
to the Schendel site. We will work with the City Engineer to determine the best route to bring
water from the Schendel site to the existing trunk water main.
Water main will be extended through the Schendel site to the City park property on the
southwest side of existing County Road 10. It is our understanding that this will enable a
potential elementary school and the downtown businesses to be served with potable water.
• Density & Area Facts - Area and density calculations are shown on the sketch plan.
• Park Dedication — We have incorporated the City's plans for greenway corridors through the
Schendel property and plan to construct trails to link these corridors with each other. These
corridors are the critical first sections of a City -wide system along natural resources flowing
through the community. We anticipate that a portion of our park dedication will be satisfied
through dedication of these corridors and construction of the associated trails. Any additional
park dedication obligations are anticipated to be satisfied by payment of park dedication fees.
As mentioned above we believe we should collaborate with the City to create a more robust City
Park along CR 50 at the intersection of CR 10 and CR 50.
• Representative Style of Structure — Since we do not yet have a specific builder or builders in
mind for this development we attached a representative sample of structures from a variety of
builders that generally look like the homes we expect to be built within this neighborhood.
• Declarations - This neighborhood will have a Homeowner's Association that will maintain
common elements within the neighborhood. The Association will also enforce any other
provisions of the declarations such as architectural controls and use of the common property.
Attachments
The following exhibits accompany this narrative:
• Attachment - 1 - Location Map — Seven County Metro
• Attachment - 2 - Location Map — City Location
• Attachment - 3 - Half Section Plat Map
• Attachment - 4 - Site Aerial Photo - Aerial photo of Schendel site and the surrounding
property
• Attachment - 5 - Existing Natural Resources - Map of the natural features, topography, and
wetlands
• Attachment - 6 - Planned Unit Development (PUD Sketch Plan)
• Attachment - 7 - Representative Examples of Possible Home Styles
We look forward to discussing our plans for the Schendel property with you.
M
Location Map - Twin Cities Seven County Area
Corcoran, Minnesota
/ 8 4 0 8 Miles
N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
February 7, 2014
4 Stantec
V:\ 1938\ active \193802580 \GIS \Projects \Metro Location.mxd
Project Site
City Limit
Open Water
Wetlands
Schendel City Location
- 02.07.2 014 - V: \1938\ active \193802580 \GIS \Projects \CityLocation.mxd L Stant(Sc
en
N
It
C)
Ll!
(i3
CORCORAN - 52
Ta¢�SanueaOryiaVretA
SU M�
32 39 42 41
SEC. 261119 R_23
33 34 43
P. map I a —ao. deeefw iavAs W4 u femWW'FS I$• w10
rMr�p+eem%W.ware*WFWW VOOdmAU"fftw fa airyprnWer r m sia
7-vow mexf
Off m✓+cY a rd Om morarad lme»iams.. S7QPYiiICAHTG!- ENNEPIN CQUNi`1' 70f7
Schendel - Half Section Plat Map
cc
_ I=
N
0
L6i
— 02.07.2014 — V: \1938\ active \193802580 \GIS \Projects \Half Section Location.mxd � Stantee
LEGEND • hFTEASNQ i8 i C f 9IXGAY
• TAX WCl f r (ASTRICTWUNWY
-- -1-MCI AL 9d1NLW3Y
500 1,000 Feet
0
— 02.07.2014 — V: \1938\ active \193802580 \GIS \Projects \Half Section Location.mxd � Stantee
Q Project Site
Schendel Site Aerial Photo
500 1,000 Feet
- 02.07.201 F - V:\ 1938\ active \193502580 \GIS \Projects \SiteAerial.mxd 1 �j Stantec
0 200 500
Schendel Existing Natural Resources
- 02.12.2014 - PrQject #- 19380258o 00 Sta ntec
Zoning & Lot Information
Current Zoning - RMF -3 High Density Residential
Proposed Zoning - PUD Planned Unit Development
Proposed Minimum Lot Width = 65'
Proposed Minimum Lot Depth - 120'
Proposed Setbacks
Front = 25'
Side= 5' and 10'
Rear = 30'
Proposed Right -of -way = 50'
Gross Density
Property Area = 103.3 acres
Proposed Number of Lots = 231
Gross Density = 2.24 units /acre
i
%SSG
•..........
Net Density %
Property Area = 103.3 acres t, ,
Wetlands Not Impacted by Development = 9.6 ac
Wetland Buffer Not Impacted by Development = 2.6 ac
Flood Plain without Wetlands and Buffer = 1.7 ac
Ponds In Open Space = 2.2 ac r
Right -of -way = 15.6 ac `"
20' Wide Trail Easement = 2.5 ac
Net Developable Acreage = 69.1 ac
Net Density = 3.34 units /acre
L -
Residential Lot
-Flood
Plain
Wetland
Open Space
Sidewalk
,00
Trail
rrrrrrrrrrrrrr Future Trail
Schendel - PUD Sketch Plan
- 02.12.2014 -
'•i.rrrrru MA rurrr i
y � •
t r
New driveway a
existing home
Future trail conn
Rebecca Park Trail (CR 50)
? -..
a
— Entrance Monument
0-%
%0
V
N
C
--- -�
U
a�
l
® Stantec
Schendel- Representative Examples of Possible Home Styles
L
02.1 1.2014
Partners
Stantec
March 4, 2014
File: 193802592
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2335 Highway 36 West
St. Paul MN 55113
Tel: (651) 636 -4600
Fax: (651) 636-1311
Attention: Paul Heuer, P.E.
Dear Paul,
Reference: Schendel Site Woodland /Forest Evaluation
This letter provides a brief summary report of the evaluation of woodland /forest areas at the Schendel
property in Corcoran, Minnesota with specific focus on the ecology of these areas.
The City of Corcoran conducted a Natural Resources Inventory project in 2001 to evaluate natural areas on
a city -wide basis. That effort included field visitation of select natural areas. Sherri Buss of Bonestroo
completed the Natural Resources Inventory and included the woodland areas on the Schendel property,
along with two other woodlands to the north, as Site 28 "Maple- basswood Forest ", giving similar "B /C"
qualitative ranks and descriptions to all maple- basswood forest areas in Site 28.
More recently, in October 2013 and February 2014, Natural Resource Scientist Ben Meyer and I visited the
woodland areas on the Schendel property to conduct afield evaluation of the natural community type and
overall quality of these areas. Both Ben and I have conducted natural areas inventories for over 15 years. In
addition I served as the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) County Biological Survey
Plant Ecologist for Watonwan and Faribault counties in Minnesota.
Overall observations made by Ben Meyer and me indicate that the woodland areas have a history of
significant disturbance. In previous decades, these areas were more open (as indicated on the 1947 air
photo) and grazed (indicated through air photos, fencing on site, and through the plant species present at
the site which indicate grazing and subsequent release from grazing).
The majority of woodland areas are dominated by early successional native trees (American elm, boxelder,
green ash dominant) as well as invasive /nonnative shrubs (gooseberry, which indicates heavy grazing, as
well as the nonnative European buckthorn). The canopy cover varies from approximately 50 -100 %,
depending on the area, with most trees under 12 inches in diameter. The exception is the woodland on the
north- center area, which includes some larger bur oak (evident in the historic air photo), as well as some
sugar maple. The nonnative shrub European buckthorn is present at significantly high levels, approximately
75 -90%+ of the shrub layer in most areas. Ground layer species observed also indicate past grazing and
disturbance, including the agricultural weed burdock, as well as the non - natives smooth brome, reed canary
grass and motherwort.
Design with community in mind
(3
March 4, 2014
Attn: Paul Heuer
Page 2 of 10
Reference: Schendel Site Woodland /Forest Evaluation
According to classification and qualitative ranking guidelines used by the MN DNR Biological Survey, the
woodlands present at the Schendel site do not fit the parameters of any native forest recognized in their
upland forest classification system (Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: Easter Broadleaf Forest). Due
to past land disturbance, the majority of this woodland area is best classified as a young elm- ash - basswood
forest. The lack of mature trees, excessive prevalence of invasive /nonnative shrubs, and the lack of native
ground cover result in a low qualitative rank for this site, collectively low to very low (CD to D). Of the two
large stands on the site (east boundary and north boundary), the north stand is higher quality and has
better potential for restoration.
I have included some supporting site photos at the end of this letter report.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Respectfully,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
(Z51d�-w
'7Z
Paul Bockenstedt
Ecologist /Project Manager
Phone: (651) 604 -4812
Fax: (651) 636 -1311
Paul.Bockenstedt@stantee.com
Attachment: Captioned site photos
c. Paul Heuer; Ben Meyer
pjb v: \1938\ active \1938o2592 \reports \environmental \woodland evaluation_feb 2o14 \schendel woodland evaluation letter report—pjb -3- 3- 14.docx
Design with community in mind
(3
March 4, 2014
Attn: Paul Heuer
Page 3 of 10
Reference: Schendel Site Woodland /Forest Evaluation
Schendel site with approximate photo locations (shown with yellow numerals)
Design with community in mind
5
March 4, 2014
Attn: Paul Heuer
Page 4 of 10
Reference: Schendel Site Woodland /Forest Evaluation
1947 HISTORIC AIR PHOTO
Schendel Woodland Evaluation - Approximate photo locations
1947 historic air photo No scale.
Approximate photo locations shown in yellow.
Design with community in mind
(3
March 4, 2014
Attn: Paul Heuer
Page 5 of 10
Reference: Schendel Site Woodland /Forest Evaluation
CAPTIONED SITE PHOTOS:
Photo location 1(looking ENE) — Trees /shrubs in picture include American elm with a dense shrub layer
of the nonnative, invasive European buckthorn. The nonnative reed canary grass is dominant on the
woodland edge (foreground area). Standing dead American elm are common throughout the site. October
2013.
Design with community in mind
5
March 4, 2014
Attn: Paul Heuer
Page 6 of 10
Reference: Schendel Site Woodland /Forest Evaluation
February 2014 — photos taken between points 1 & 3. Scattered mature bur oak with dense second growth
of elm (many of which are dead) and a dense shrub layer of European buckthorn)
Design with community in mind
5
March 4, 2014
Attn: Paul Heuer
Page 7 of 10
Reference: Schendel Site Woodland /Forest Evaluation
Photo location 2 — Canopy includes green ash, sugar maple, American elm, with bur oak occurring
occasionally to the SW of this photo location. Note the ground layer (green) of the nonnative, invasive
European buckthorn.
Design with community in mind
(3
March 4, 2014
Attn: Paul Heuer
Page 8 of 10
Reference: Schendel Site Woodland /Forest Evaluation
Photopoint 3, looking west. Note the thick layer of European buckthorn
Photopoint 4, looking northwest along edge of wetland. Green ash, American elm, boxelder common
trees; along with the invasive nonnative European buckthorn (green leaves) in shrub layer.
Design with community in mind
AE1
March 4, 2014
Attn: Paul Heuer
Page 9 of 10
Reference: Schendel Site Woodland /Forest Evaluation
Photopoint 5, looking NE. Canopy trees dominated by boxelder with American elm and green ash aslo
common. The invasive, nonnative European buckthorn is common here in the shrub layer. The nonnative
reed canary grass is dominant in the wetland area in the foreground.
Photopoing 5, looking NW (on west side of wetland) — scattered American elm (many of which are dead)
and boxelder trees occur with a thick layer of nonnative, invasive European buckthorn.
Design with community in mind
(3
March 4, 2014
Attn: Paul Heuer
Page 10 of 10
Reference: Schendel Site Woodland /Forest Evaluation
Photos from woodlands on southeast side of site are characterized by scattered, adventive native trees
(primarily green ash, boxelder, American elm) with a typically thick to extremely thick layer of the
nonnative, invasive European buckthorn.
Design with community in mind
Functional Assessment Report
Schendel Property
Corcoran, MN
Stantec
Prepared for:
Peachtree Partners
Prepared by:
Ben Meyer, MS, PWS, WDC
March 5, 2014
Stantec
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Schendel Property
HENNEPIN COUNTY
March 5, 2014
Prepared for:
Peachtree Partners
Terry Forbord
4960 Sussex Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
952.470.5151
tforbord @forbordusa.com
Prepared By:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2335 West Hwy 36
St. Paul, MN 55113
651.636.4600
ben.meyer@stantee.com
Project Number: 193802592
This document entitled Functional Assessment Report was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for
the account of Peachtree Partners. The material in it reflects Stantec's best judgment in light of the
information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any
reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting
Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third parry as a result of decisions
made or actions based on this report.
Prepared by
(signature)
Benjamin L. Meyer, M.S., PWS, WDC
Stantec
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Summary
At the request of Peachtree Partners, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) completed a
functional assessment on all the delineated wetlands on a 104 acre property located in the SE 1/4
Section 23, Township 119N, Range 23W located in Corcoran in Hennepin County, Minnesota
(Figure 1). The site is north and east of County Road 1o, just north of the intersection with
County Road 50.
The general project site, wetland boundaries and classifications are shown on Figure 2.
Introduction
Stantec performed a field investigation of the site on October 18 and 22, 2013 and delineated 11
wetlands within the 104 acre parcel located in Corcoran.
Study Methods
Utilizing data from the wetland delineation field data, wetland classifications were created using
the MnRAM 3.4 database:
Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology of Evaluating Wetland Functions. Board of Water
and Soil Resources, Version 3.4, November 2010
http: / /www.bwsr. state. mn.us /wetlands /mnram /index.html
A classification report summary was run for each wetland in MnRAM. These automatically
generated classifications were taken from the report to fill in the table below. The City of
Corcoran Zoning Ordinance defines three (3) wetland classifications: High, Medium and Low.
The rankings used a "best fit" approach based on the city classification's definitions, where
wetlands are ranked based on the functional level ranking in most categories (see example
below).
Wetland A for example was ranked High for hydrology, Moderate for stormwater, High for
downstream water quality, Moderate for maintenance of wetland water quality, Moderate for
wildlife habitat and Low for vegetation diversity and was therefore given a Medium ranking.
The MnRAM generated classifications were then paired with the city quality ranking system and
then summarized in Table 1.
Stantec
mb v: \1938 \active \193802592 \permits \wetland permits \mnram data \schendel mnram report.docx
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Results
Table 1 MnRAM and Wetland Classification Summary.
Wetland
ID
Type (Eggers &
Reed)
MnRAM
Vegetative
Diversity/integrity
MnRAM
Summary
City
Classification
System
A
Wet meadow
Low
Manage 2
Medium
B
Wet meadow
Low
Manage 2
Medium
C
Shallow marsh
High
Preserve
High
D
Seasonally
flooded basin
Low
Manage 1
High
E
Wet meadow
Low
Manage 1
High
F T1
Seasonally
flooded flat
Low
Manage 1
Medium
F T2
Wet meadow
Moderate
Preserve
High
G
Wet meadow
Low
Manage 1
Medium
H
Seasonally
flooded
floodplain
Low
Manage 2
Medium
Site 3
Seasonally
flooded basin
Low
Manage 2
Medium
Site 4
Seasonally
flooded flat
Low
Manage 2
Medium
Discussion
Using the city classification system, wetlands on the site fell into the Medium and High
categories. Although the majority of the wetlands assessed came out Low for the vegetation
ranking, several other parameters assessed may have led to the higher ranking outcomes.
Wetlands B and E are within designated Floodplain. Wetland A and H are within the city
Shoreland Overlay District. All of these criteria increase the quality ranking in the MnRAM
system.
The wetland locations and city classification are shown on the attached Figure 1.
Stantec
mb v: \1938\ active \193802592 \permits \wetland permits \mnram data \schendel mnram report.docx 2
R
�
E
E
�
�
�
�
�
E
E
�
�
�
�
�
�
El um 1:1 ❑ : ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
§
/
/
/
2
§
\
3
\
2
�
n
/
/
\
\
\
\
ƒ
/
0
7
0
o
!
!
0
!
0
!
!
0
/k
2
I
2
2
�
\ \}
0
0
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
� t ,
I
_
_
_
_
�
\
j
0
/
0
0
0
0
0
0
% / $
_
_
_
_
.
�
6
o
o
-
c
c
c
a
a
c
6
y
7/$
�
.
.
J\
ƒ
E\
@
E§
E
GG
§
S
G
S
y
8/
/
2
y}
C:)
•/
� �
.
.
\
a
!
j
!
j
!
j
j
j
0
0
2
70
2
°
?
2
\
7
}
\
m
0
\
\
\
}
�
§
_
L
LL
E
_
�
ƒ
ƒ
co
{
$_
!
0
0
0
0
0
`
_
_
`
#
\
S
§
m
A
\
$
@
A
$
@
A
\
q
A
/
//
LL
LL
L.
LL
E
/
N
N
n
C
\
>
E
E&
&
&
E
&
E
&
k
C
/
&
S,
0
2
3
0
<
m
J
m
§•a
a
2
2
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
I
E
/
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
±
�ƒ
Q
f
$
g
g
@
+
9
*
9
f
§
\
\
\
9
9
9
9
9
9
\
\
\
\
j
§
\
\
§
\
\
\
\
\
§
§
\
\
\+
a
a
/
a
ƒ
ƒ
a
a
a
c
§
\
\
\
§
\
\
\
\
\
@
g
9
W
+
9
IF
9
f
E
9
9
9
§
9
9
9
§
°
/§
q
q
n
q
q
q
§
n
§
n
)
)
§
§
CN
/
$
T
T
k
§
§
§
$
$
\
(
(
(
CN
04
(
04
(
04
§
/
/
/
2
§
\
3
\
2
�
n
/
/
\
\
\
\
ƒ
/
+ ❑ ❑
w��
f
a
Ek
LO
\ \\ K \
t ,
\6cc� }
��y o
\\ / \
%\k §
n
y
%
/
/
\
\
\
/
ƒ
/
a
a
LO
ƒ
� \�
�
\
\
\
R
/ \ @
G S
®
C14
\
/
2
§
E
/
w
/
E
e
§
3
§
�
\
2
�
�
w
§
o
�
)
a
§
»
E
%
`
�
(
/ /
LL
E
C,
_>
&
�\
)
/
ƒ
Q
n
y
%
/
/
\
\
\
/
ƒ
/
K
\
\
\
\
/
®
C14
\
/
2
§
w
/
e
§
3
\
»
�
/
w
§
o
)
/
\
E
%
`
n
y
%
/
/
\
\
\
/
ƒ
/
0
00
a
O
N
a
O
i
w
a
c
a
a
a
n
a
a
n
a
0 0
a
a
¢
a
a
¢
a
a
Q
a
a
Q
o
a
Q
a
a
Q
a
a
Q
o
a
Q
a
a
Q
a
a
Q
o.
a
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Z
z
Z
z
O z ,L
@
@
U
L
O
L
O
V
D)
C
"@O
"a)
'@O
'O
'a)
_m
_O
_m
_m
O)
N
m
m
O)
O)
O)
s
2
2
2
2
2
O
O
O
2
2
2
Q
N
N
N
a)
N
@
a)
@
@
@
w
N
N
f6
N
N
N
N
N
\ S
s
'O
o
m
'O
O
'O
O
'O
O
N
'O
O
N
a
p
"O
O
N
"O
p
D1
=
a)
U
p
a)
"O
p
Ln
p p
L
O
L
O
L
p_1
L
O)
L
O_)
L
O)
@
L
m
U
O
=
_
=
2
2
@
O
2
a)
O
a)
O
a)
O
=
a0
YV
W
a
O
@
C
O
O
7 7
N
7
7 0
7
7
7 7
3 7
00
=
p
p0
O
O
pp
-0-0
pp
-p -p
U
vv
C C
m
O
�oa
C C
O
O
C C
C C
N
C C
N
C C
C
C C
C C
O
C C
N N
N
p N
C
L
N
C C
��
L
N
L
C C
N N
C G
N N
N
V
_
@ @
CL CL
as
C
@
T
N
@
@
E
C
@
T
@ @
171-
as
@
E
C
@
Q
@
E
°�
@ @
D.D.
@ @
as
(V
U
m C,
'O
N
y
'p
@ @
,
y
-0
y
S's
SA
L L
O) O)
j
p y
O
o
L L
01 O)
O
�
O
L L
CA 01
L L
0) d1
?,
7 7
O O
.@+
@
E
v
@
7 7
O O
v
d
@
v
7 7
O O
7 7
O O
°-
0 0
0 0
0 0
x
2-2
L\L\
°
a s
7
o
)?
L`
0
w
7
0
E: E:
FL E:
a
O
E
m m
o
H
m E
m
o
LL
m m
m
o
y
a
m m
m m
C C
O O
C
C O
O .�.
.N
C
O
C
C C
0 0
C
O
C
O
C C
O O
C C
O O
N N
N N
@
a
p)
N C
N
N
@
p _
N rn
N N
N
N
@
N
N
N N
N N
U) N
N N
-p
N 2
a
`
'D
d N
N
a
-p
`
d d
N@
CL CL
a) a)
O
O
a) C
a
a)
O
O
as
N N
@
O
O
a
a)
as
m m
CL CL
a) a)
x
ocl
E:
co
O
00
O
O
00
o0
Q
O
m
O
U
O
O
W
O
4
O
U'
O
2
O
M
O
V
O
4
N
O
O
co
N
O
co
N
O
M
N
O
M
N
O
M
N
O
co
N
O
M
N
O
Cl)
N
O
CO
N
O
M
N
O
M
N
co
N
M
N
Cl)
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
Cl)
N
M
N
Cl)
N
co
N
O
M
M
M
M
M
M
m
M
CA
M
CA
U
O
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
�
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
y
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
O
N
O
N
O
N
o
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
Q
m
U
9
w
L�
9
2
0?
v
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
o
O
O
2
Cl)
N
Cl)
N
M
N
M
N
Cl)
N
co
N
Cl)
N
Cl)
N
M
N
Cl)
N
co
N
M
M
Cl)
M
Cl)
M
co
M
M
co
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
M
M
M
M
M
W
M
M
M
M
M
n
n
n
n
04
n
04
r
�
ti
04
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
00
a
O
N
a
O
i
o m m
c c c c c
o 0 bhp
m n) @ o o O ns
Zi N N Q O 0_ o O. O. Q) a)
L
O O 07 X O X O X X X O
�+ 2 W W W W W
O �o
o �
0 0 a) (D a) 0 a) aD
° is m is m is is m m
O� O O to _m O O O O O O _O
a) a) o O a o 0 O
U_ U_ U_ U_ O U_ U_ U_ U_ a)
O a a a a 6 a a a a
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d o Z Z Z z Z Z Z z
c c C C C C c c c C
O O O O O O O O O O
O O a) a) a) ' O a) a) a) N 0 0 ' a) a) a) a) N a) ' a) m ' a) a)
�v N mp) N P p) N O)2 0 21 2) 21 N 2p) @ m O N 21 2) N 2) 2) 0 O)p) 0 mp)
1l�.ii1 V _C _C C_ c_ C_ C_ c_ C_ C_ C_ Co ca N O w' LLL LL L LL L 9.0 L LL L LL LL LLL LLL L.0 L
EAU EN0 ENO ENU y ENU EyU EU�a) ENU ENU EN0
r�., cs o ._ a) o ._ O o ._ m o ._ m o ._ o o ._ o o ._ o o ._ o o ._ O o ._ o
�l Ceti 00Q� 00w 00w 00w 0 U0of U0W 0 0 w U0w U0w 000�
`1v
as ns as m as m as m a) as
U U U U
a a a a a a a .a a . .0
a a
a a a a a a a a a a a
O a a a a a a a a a a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U z z z z z z z z z z z
V
ti
N
r1 w U J J J J J J J J J J J
st L 4 L L L 9 L L
co co a) U U a) co U U co
O ;,p .a .a 6 'a .a N 'a 'a 'a .a
L
° ° z z z z z z z z z
a) a) d 0 0 0 d m 0 a)
�Y m as m as as n) m as as
.2 .0 •a U L .0 .2 •U .2 .2 a U •U a .2 .2 •U n •0
z a ° ¢ z ° ° a ° ¢ ° ° ¢ ° ¢ ° ¢ ° a
z z a z a z z ¢ zzz. z
"O "O L L L -0 L -O -O -0 L
O O O O _O _0) O O O O O O)
U 2 x x x 2 z
Q m U w 4 Y x 1? v 4
N
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
M M M Cl) co M M Cl) M Cl) Cl)
N N N N N N N N N N N
Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) M M M M m Cl) Cl)
N N N N N N N N N N N
O CA CA W CA CA CA W Cn Cn CA CA d,
•p f� fq fN h fq N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N
R
Q m U D w 4 (.P x o? v LL O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i
0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0
M Cl) r) m Cl) M M Cl) A Cl) M
2 N N N N N N N N N N N
Cl) Cl) co M Cl) co M Cl) M M M
N N N N N N N N N N N
� CA CA CA CA CA � W CA Cn � CA �
N N N N N N N N N N N �
'U4. A
5
wV,4F
if A
A 41
S
#r Vl
lit
M
Channel
6 .
_WA�& 7
All
—F;Fe1ie--qqa P-a
Stantec Consulting
2335 Highway 36 W
StanteC Saint Paul, VIN 55113
tel 651.636.4600
fax 651.636.1311
Image Source: U.S. Geological Survey (2012)
-,w
4
�y
0
CPR
4WIL
WOW
mill i
LXFOP
G
City Classification
M gh
-_T edium
j Property Boundary
my o Parcels
150 300 600
I Feet 4b
4jrf'J1jPI;M
The inf --- ti—inthl—ph-b-n—piled
.,t.nt...t.fff,.m. rityf.-re.-d 1.
Figure 1. Wetland Classification I.Y,-t t—hange.ith.ut notice. S.Inte. makes
,, ep,,wntatin,,,,,r,nties,,,rimplied,
_t. _mPI.�nes,timeIine-,rnght,
SCHENDEL SITE, CORCORAN, MN o the =l`fc'such information.
March 2014 \\Usl291-fOl\workgroup\1938\active\193802592\GIS\Projects\fig1 wetlnd—class.mxd
March 20, 2014
Peachtree
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Corcoran
8200 County Road 116
Corcoran, Minnesota 55340
Re: Schendel
Partners
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Over the last several weeks we have heard additional questions about the townhome market that lead
us to believe that we have not adequately addressed this issue. Consequently we are writing so that this
additional information may be considered when you consider our applications at your meeting on
March 27tH
First let me be clear that we are NOT saying that there is no market for townhomes in Corcoran. As we
have noted though, the market is very thin. By this we acknowledge that in some locations townhomes
are being built in the metro area, but this is occurring only at the best locations. This is not to say that
there are not other sites in Corcoran where some amount of townhomes might be marketable.
However for townhomes to work on a site, that site needs to be near other amenities such as shopping
and services. The Schendel site does not meet these requirements.
This also leads into the "chicken or egg' set of questions. That is, once downtown Corcoran develops
could there be a market from some townhomes on Schendel. Certainly there could be, but downtown
Corcoran is not going to develop until there is a customer base, so as we have suggested, the first step in
your vision of downtown Corcoran becoming a reality is to first have rooftops and families that will
support your desired commercial and retail development. With the Schendel property the City has a
willing seller and a capable developer that will start the process of creating rooftops, but that will only
happen if the site is able to provide a product that the market currently demands.
The other difficulty with this particular site is the school district. While we like the Rockford schools and
they have been very supportive, the truth is this school district doesn't have the reputation that some of
the other districts in your city have. As we all know, this will be the first large scale residential
community in the Rockford School District in Corcoran. It is important to everyone that this be
successful. We believe the best way to make sure this happens is to develop single family home sites for
the first and second time homebuyer that are very competitively priced.
159194 th Lane NE, Minneapolis MN-763.792.8974 -Pagel
A question we have heard is couldn't we include some small amount of twin homes or townhomes on
the site. This of course seems like a simple solution and we would do it if we thought it made sense.
There are three reasons why we have not proposed this:
1. First and foremost, while this does not directly affect the city, our financing is conditioned upon
receiving approvals for single family homes. Our lender is not confident in the strength for
multi - family products on this site.
2. For any type of higher density to work there needs to be enough units that critical mass is
achieved. First for the builder so that there are economies of scale both from a marketing
perspective as well as construction. But this is also true for the homeowners association. The
attraction of multi - family living for many buyers is the feature of "maintenance free living'.
However in order for this to work there need to be enough units to spread the overhead cost
among enough units so that the costs are not excessive. What the necessary number of units
would be in order to achieve critical mass we are not certain of and would depend on the type
of product, but what we are certain of is that the minimum number of units necessary to
achieve critical mass is far greater than the numbers we have heard suggested. Unfortunately,
for the reasons noted above we don't believe there is a market on the Schendel site to support
this.
3. Second by incorporating multifamily we now include the requirements of a common interest
community. This increases the level of legal work, complexity and restrictions for such a small
number of units.
4. We are experienced townhome developers. As we have mentioned in the past, we developed
over 600 townhome lots for Centex Homes at Bailey's Arbor in Woodbury. If we believed at all
that there was a townhome market on the Schendel site we would be pursuing it. Overall the
investment in just creating this community (excluding the actual homes) will be far in excess
$10,000,000. This is a major investment in Corcoran and we want to be certain it doesn't fail.
Finally, we can talk to all the experts we want, but ultimately it depends on the buyer, who in our case is
the homebuilder. Recently we met with a well- respected national homebuilder that we have a very
good relationship with, who has been aggressive in acquiring sites in the Twin Cities and is building
townhomes. What he told us was that yes he would be very interested in building single family homes
on the Schendel site and NO, he has no interest in building townhomes on the site. Ultimately this is the
true indication of the market.
We look forward to your consideration of our applications on March 27th and hope this additional
information will assist you. In the meantime if you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact us.
Sincerely,
David P Newman
President, Peachtree Partners LLC.
159194 th Lane NE, Minneapolis MN-763.792.8974 - Page 2:rr,
Partwm
Summary of Comprehensive Plan Impacts
Schendel Property Application
Corcoran Planning Commission
March 6, 2014
Chuck Lymangood
Loss of City Park
® Proposed takeover of current City Park by School District
® Deduces rather than increases Park land in down town area due to
application
• Proposal is to commute to western Corcoran for recreation
Isolation of proposal violates Comp Plan interconnectedness standards
• Connecting neighborhoods and trails is a recurring theme in the Comp
Plan
• Both Planning staff and Engineering reports recommend connection to the
NW of site
® Without connection, how will future households to the north get to the
school? No trail or street proposed connections eµs+
® Reduces access points to the property to the Northw&
• Needlessly adds to congestion on County Roads
Single Family land use not consistent with current Comp Plan
• Plan calls for life cycle diverse housing types
• Low density residential specifically identified as a buffer from rural areas
to more developed ones
• Affordability issues as outlined in the Comp Plan have been ignored
• New development is not to have negative impacts on existing residents
• Single family requires a larger footprint for development
• Larger footprint with requested units eliminates identified high quality
natural resource area on eastern portion of site
• Extra long cul -de -sac is required due to housing type and requested units
• Extra long cul -de -sacs are a health and safety issue
Where do the units go?
® Housing units are not lost, they must be reassigned (Lake Elmo)
• Proposal to shift units to mixed use areas has undesirable consequences;
increased tax burden, further loss of potential park and open space areas
Negative impacts to adopted transportation plan
• Proposed vacation of current County Road 10, plan calls for retaining as a
city street
• Needlessly isolates and negatively impacts current resident
• Entry access to existing County Road 50 needlessly reduces current city
park
• County Road 50 is proposed to be rerouted to Larkin
Applicant's narrative with respect to market is not compelling
• Narrative is refuted by national statistics
Narrative is not supported by neighboring communities recent land
approvals
• Narrative is not supported by actual local sales data
Application is not consistent with adopted Park Plan, Transportation Plan,
Natural Resource Inventory or several other aspects of the Comp Plan as
outlined above.
In essence these impacts when viewed together results not in a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but a de facto Comprehensive Plan
rewrite. It is being done on the fly, without proper study, under time
constraints and without proper public input.
It reverses the intent of Comprehensive Planning. Rather than have a
document adopted by the community for developers to abide by, we are being
force fed the developer's and other outsider's vision for our community.