Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-02 Planning Commission Agenda PacketCITY OF CORCORAN Corcoran Planning Commission Agenda June 2, 2016 -7:00 pm 1. Call to Order/ Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval 4. Open Forum 5. Minutes a. Minutes — May 5, 2016* 6. Unfinished Business 7. New Business a. PUBLIC HEARING. Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment (city file 16 -006)* i. Staff Report ii. Open Public Hearing iii. Public Comment iv. Close Hearing v. Commission Discussion & Recommendation b. PUBLIC HEARING. Randahl Construction Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review at 7241 County Road 116. (PID 26- 119 -23 -41 -0002) (City File 16 -012)* i. Staff Report ii. Open Public Hearing iii. Public Comment iv. Close Hearing v. Commission Discussion & Recommendation c. Commission Rotation at Council Meetings* 8. Reports /Information a. Planning Project Update* b. City Council Report* — Council Liaison Keefe c. Other Business 9. Adjournment *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. 5a. CITY OF CORCORAN Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 2016 - 7:00pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on May 5, 2016, at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were: Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Wu, and Vice -chair Schultz. Commissioner Theis arrived at 7:18pm. Absent: Commissioner Ravnholdt. Also present were: City Planner Lindahl, Code Compliance Official Pritchard, and Council Liaison Guenthner 1. Call to Order / Roll Call Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:00pm 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Schultz seconded by Wu to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, and Schultz. (Motion carried 3:0) 4. Open Forum — None 5. Minutes a. Minutes — April 7, 2016 Motion made by Wu seconded by Schultz to approve the minutes as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, and Schultz. (Motion carried 3:0) 6. Unfinished Business — None 7. New Business a. PUBLIC HEARING. Ordinance Amendment for Southeast and Downtown Design Guidelines (city file 15 -021) i. Staff Report — City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Open Public Hearing — Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. iii. Public Comment — None iv. Close Hearing Motion made by Schultz seconded by Wu to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, and Schultz. (Motion carried 3:0) v. Commission Discussion & Recommendation The Commission recommended adding clarifying language to Sec. 3 Subd. (4.) (J.) of the ordinance approving changes to Section 1040.130 (DMU District). Staff clarified the definition of a linear park and will calculate the area to be added to the table on page 27 of the draft Appendix B. Staff reiterated that the Appendices are general guidelines and have been in place since 2004. They also assured the Commission that these guidelines do not replace the Ordinances and that the Council can modify the guidelines and that the guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. Staff explained the "gateway nodes" as key intersections where we want some form of traffic calming. These areas could include signage, streetscaping, landscaping /plantings, and /or other visual cues but not necessarily traffic signals. The Commission discussed the need for safe pedestrian crossings, such as the pedestrian "underpass" and at -grade crossings, as this will be a walkable /bikeable area and access and interconnectivity are important. Also discussed was the location of a Downtown area and that it needed to be accessible by vehicle traffic, therefore, the planned location along the county roads made sense. Design of the structures, including exterior cladding and accents was discussed and the Commission agreed that exterior design was important. The Commission asked if motorized vehicles would be allowed in the parks or on the trails. Staff stated that this would be a separate policy disscussion. Staff clarified that the plan would need cooperation with the County for the county road realignments and that local streets would be constructed by the developer. Motion made by Schultz seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the resolution to amend ordinance 1040.130 with the amendment of language to Sec. 3 Subd. (4.) (J.) to read: Dwelling, Multiple Family with a minimum density of 10 units per net acre, which may include units combining living and working space within the unit, if all units on the same floor of a building are of the same use. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) Motion made by Wu seconded by Schultz to recommend approval of the resolution approving the Findings of Fact. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) Motion made by Schultz seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the resolution to amend the text of Appendix A as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) Motion made by Schultz seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the resolution approving the Findings of Fact. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) Motion made by Wu seconded by Schultz to recommend approval of the resolution to amend the text of Chapter 10 with the addition of linear park area to the table on page 27. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) Motion made by Schultz seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the resolution approving the Findings of Fact. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) b. PUBLIC HEARING. Ordinance Amendment for Private Driveways (City file 16 -003) i. Staff Report — City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Open Public Hearing — Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. iii. Public Comment — None iv. Close Hearing Motion made by Schultz seconded by Wu to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) v. Commission Discussion & Recommendation The Commission asked that the distance and measurement of the apron be defined more clearly in the ordinance. Staff clarified the definition of a private drive. The commission shared concern that the 100' apron requirement is excessive and asked staff to research a standard or best practices to determine an appropriate length. Motion made by Schultz seconded by Theis to recommend approval of the resolution to amend the ordinance 945.020 with the addition of language to Sec. 1 Subd. 20 (A.) (2.) (F.) of the draft ordinance to clarify the distance of the apron is measured from the paved edge of the roadway. The Commission also recommended staff research engineering standards to determine if the 100' distance is appropriate. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) Motion made by Schultz seconded by Theis to recommend approval of the resolution approving the Findings of Fact. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) 8. Reports /Information a. Planning Project Update — Information Only b. City Council Report — Council Liaison Guenthner c. Other Business — None 9. Adjournment Motion made by Theis seconded by Wu to adjourn. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) Meeting adjourned at 8:47pm. Submitted by Mike Pritchard Code Compliance Official Agenda Item: 7.a. • • L A N D F 0 R M From Site to Finis i 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 TO: Corcoran Planning Commission FROM: Anne Hurlburt through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 25, 2016 for the June 2, 2016 Commission Meeting • Tel: 612 - 252 -9070 Fax: 612 - 252 -9077 www.landform.net RE: PUBLIC HEARING. Park Dedication Ordinance Update (City File 16 -006) 60 -DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: N/A 1. Request Consider an update to the park dedication requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 9 of the Corcoran City Code. 2. Background At its March 28 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to conduct a review of the park dedication ordinance to: a) Update the 2011 calculations of park system costs, based on changes in construction costs and any new information about proposed parks and trails available since the 2011 update. b) Update the land value information used in the 2011 analysis with available data for Corcoran and the surrounding market area from city and county assessors. c) Examine the current residential dedication formula to determine whether the percentages of land or equivalent cash dedication are adequate to meet the city's needs. d) Provide an alternative formula to address the concern about the equitable application of residential dedication requirements to land outside the MUSA. Specifically, consider whether the formulas could incorporate a measure of the expected population growth from various types of residential development. Use the results of this exercise to propose a revised formula for consideration by the city. e) Evaluate and recommend the appropriate maximum cash -in -lieu of land fee. f) Determine what ordinance amendments are necessary for conformity with the 2013 state law changes. On April 28, the Council received a report and draft amendments. Copies are attached to this memo. The report sent to the Council has been updated to correct an error in one of the tables, and to include an attachment of Park Dedication Examples (Attachment E) which was provided to the Council at their meeting. The Council directed staff to refer the report and draft amendments to the Parks and Trails Commission for review at its May 17 meeting. Although the Commission did not have a quorum at their meeting, the members present reviewed the report and made positive comments about the d raft. Landform?, Sens iblyG— n° and Site to Finish" are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 3. Draft Ordinance A draft amendment to Section 955.020, Subd. 6, of the City Code has been prepared to reflect the alternative park dedication schedule described in the report to the City Council. Several additional edits have made since the initial draft to ensure clarity. The amendment includes the following changes: • The table of land dedication requirements has been revised to incorporate the percentage requirements listed in Table 9 of the report. • The paragraph immediately following the table has been revised to clarify that the cash -in- lieu of land dedication fee per residential unit is to be paid when the Council determines that land is not needed in the area of the proposed subdivision, and that if a lesser amount of land is needed the cash payment is based on a pro -rata share of the land dedication that would otherwise be required. • The text of Section C, Commercial and industrial land use, would be amended to change the dedication requirement from 5% to 3 %, as described in the report. • A new paragraph (new Section D) has been added to clarify that for mixed use development, park dedication requirements will be pro -rated based on the acres of land devoted to each type of land use. • The text of Section D, Determination of Fair Market Value, would be replaced with new language from the 2013 amendment of Minn. Stat. Section 462.358, Subd. 2b, as follows: "The fair market value of the undeveloped land shall be determined by the City annually based on tax valuation or other relevant data. If the City's calculation of valuation is objected to by the applicant, then the value shall be as negotiated between the City and the applicant, or based on the market value as determined by the City based on an independent appraisal of land in a same or similar land use category." The draft findings of fact resolution incorporates portions of the report in order to document the relationship between the City's Comprehensive Plan and the park dedication requirements —the "essential nexus" that is required by state law. It shows that the city has done the analysis to demonstrate that "the fee or dedication must bear a rough proportionality to the need created by the proposed subdivision or development' as required by Minn. Stat. Section 462.358, Subd. 2b. Changes to the cash in lieu of land fee will also require an amendment to the City's 2016 fee schedule. Annually, when the City updates its fee schedule, the assessor should be consulted on any changes in land values, cost estimates should be updated for inflation, and the cash -in -lieu of land park fee recalculated. Park Dedication Ordinance Update June 2, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting • • 4. Requested Action Staff requests that the Commission hold the public hearing, and then move to recommend City Council approval of the following: a) Ordinance 2016 -XXX, Amending the Text of Chapter 9 of the Corcoran City Code, Entitled Corcoran Subdivision Ordinance b) Resolution 2016 -XXX, Findings of Fact for Adoption the Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Regarding Park Dedication Requirements Attachments: Report to the Corcoran City Council for the April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting with Attachments, Updated May 9, 2016 Draft Ordinance Amendment for Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft Resolution of Findings of Fact Park Dedication Ordinance Update June 2, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item: • • L A N D F 0 R M From Site to Finis i 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Anne Hurlburt through Kendra Lindahl, Landform • Tel: 612 - 252 -9070 Fax: 612 - 252 -9077 www.landform.net DATE: April 20, 2016 for the April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting (Updated May 9, 2016) RE: Park Dedication Ordinance Update (City File 16 -006) 60 -DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: N/A 1. Request Provide feedback to staff on draft amendments to the park dedication requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 9 of the Corcoran City Code, and give direction on the next steps for considering the amendments. 2. Background Corcoran's current park dedication standards were developed in 2011 based on the park and trail system needs identified by the city's Comprehensive Plan. Amendments in December of 2014 addressed specific concerns about the method for calculating density, how park dedication credit would be given for trails and what trail improvements developers must make. Language was also added to clarify that "park dedication is not due for parcels that have previously paid park dedication (land or cash -in- lieu)" Ordinance 2014 -291. At its March 28th meeting, the Council authorized staff to conduct a review of the park dedication ordinance to: a) Update the 2011 calculations of park system costs, based on changes in construction costs and any new information about proposed parks and trails available since the 2011 update. b) Update the land value information used in the 2011 analysis with available data for Corcoran and the surrounding market area from city and county assessors. c) Examine the current residential dedication formula to determine whether the percentages of land or equivalent cash dedication are adequate to meet the city's needs. d) Provide an alternative formula to address the concern about the equitable application of residential dedication requirements to land outside the MUSA. Specifically, consider whether the formulas could incorporate a measure of the expected population growth from various types of residential development. Use the results of this exercise to propose a revised formula for consideration by the city. e) Evaluate and recommend the appropriate maximum cash -in -lieu of land fee. f) Determine what ordinance amendments are necessary for conformity with the 2013 state law changes. State law allows cities to require that a reasonable portion of the buildable land of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use, including parks, recreational Landform?, Sens iblyG— n° and Site to Finish" are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. i • facilities, playgrounds, trails or open space. The city must have a capital improvement budget and a parks and open space plan, upon which the dedication requirements shall be based. Cash in lieu of land dedication is permitted and must be related to the fair market value of the land. The land dedication or fee must be roughly proportional to the need created by the proposed subdivision or development. In 2013 there were amendments to State Law (Minn. Stat. Section 462.358, Subd. 2b) to clarify how cities must calculate park dedication fees. The law previously required fees to be based on the fair market value of land, although fair market value was not defined. The new law defines how it must be calculated on an annual basis, and provides a process for resolving disputes over valuation. 3. Update of 2011 Data and Assumptions on Park Dedication The 2011 park dedication report, on which the current ordinance is based, included assumptions about land values, construction costs, the City's parks plan and future land use and development. This report updates the 2011 analysis, as follows: a) Land Values The City Assessor was consulted on current land values, based on land sales in Corcoran and adjacent communities (MUSA and non -MUSA areas.) Table 1 shows the values used in the 2011 report and the recommended values for the 2016 update. Table 1: Land Value Assumptions 2011 Assumption 2016 Assumption Land Use Land Value per Acre Land Value per Acre Non -MUSA Residential $ 20,000 $ 10,000 Low and Medium Density Residential (MUSA) $ 80,000 $ 80,000 High Density Residential and Commercial /Industrial $ 100,000 $125,000 The assessor noted that land values may differ within the city based on location and factors such as the school district in which the parcel is located. There have been very few recent sales but these are the best estimates that can be made at this time. It will be important to update these assumptions on an annual basis, as required by the state law. Land values are used to calculate the appropriate park fee and are also a factor in projecting the cost to acquire land for parks and trails. b) Construction Costs The 2011 report included an estimate of the cost to acquire and construct the park system envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment A.) Attachment B updates the estimate for 2016. Park facility costs were updated using the Turner Construction cost index which shows an approximate 21 % increase in non - residential construction costs from 2010 to the first quarter of 2016. Trail facilities costs were updated using recent trail planning estimates developed by Hennepin County. Park Dedication Ordinance Update April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16 0 • 0 After reviewing the 2011 cost estimates in detail, it was found that the table included several errors that were corrected on the 2016 update. Construction and land cost estimates were missing for one community park and two open space parks, which led to an understatement of the total park costs. In 2011, the total Park Facilities and Land Cost was estimated at $42,474,750. In 2016, we estimate the cost to be approximately $60,216,200. c) Park Plan Assumptions The 2011 report assumed construction of the parks system identified in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and no changes have been made for this report. None of the facilities identified in the existing plan have been built, so the future needs are assumed to be the same. While the City is currently considering adding parks as part of new design guidelines for the downtown area, those are not yet part of the Comprehensive Plan so are not considered in this updated report. If the Comprehensive Plan is amended to add new facilities, this report will need to be updated to include them. d) Land Development Assumptions The 2011 report used data on developable acreage within the MUSA to estimate the potential amount of park dedication that would be generated by new development, at full build -out of the MUSA area. Since that report was prepared, most of the new development has occurred on lots that existed at that time, so the data from the 2011 report has been carried through to this report, with one exception. The 2011 report assumed that there were 1,240 acres of Rural /Ag Residential land outside the MUSA that could be subdivided to allow a maximum of 632 dwelling units. This appears to significantly overestimate the potential for subdivisions outside the MUSA. Therefore, we have changed the assumption of 632 units to a maximum of 124 (an average of one unit per 10 acres) to avoid overestimating the amount of park dedication that could come from outside the MUSA. d) Population Forecasts The Comprehensive Plan is based on the Metropolitan Council's forecast that Corcoran's population would be 17,600 people by the year 2030. The Council's most recent forecast (adopted May 28, 2014 and updated July 8, 2015) is for a population of 8,900 by 2030, and 11,300 by 2040. This is a significant reduction. If the Metropolitan Council is correct, development and extension of public facilities (including parks) will happen more slowly than the city has previously assumed. It does not change the facilities that would be needed when the development occurs, only the period of time over which they would be needed. The 2011 report assumed that full build -out of the MUSA would generate enough park dedication contributions to develop the park system. The land in the MUSA has the capacity, if it develops at the densities specified in the Comprehensive Plan, to accommodate significantly more development than is expected by the Metropolitan Council forecasts. The next update of the Comprehensive Plan will need to consider the Metropolitan Council's forecast at the time of the update, and this analysis will need to be repeated based on the updated plan. Park Dedication Ordinance Update April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16 4. Current Park Dedication Requirements 0 The current ordinance requires each new development to contribute a percentage of the land to be subdivided, or cash in lieu, to the City's park system. The percentages range from 10% to 14% for residential land and vary by the designation on the City's land use plan. The ordinance recognizes that as the population density increases, there is a higher demand for parks per developed acre. The lowest percentage for residential development applies in the non -MUSA area where new development will be single family detached homes on large lots at the lowest density. The highest percentage applies in areas where housing types are expected to be multiple family residences at the highest allowable densities. Commercial and Industrial land uses are required to dedicate 5% of their land area or cash in lieu. The current ordinance states that "Commercial /Industrial development of land will create approximately five (5) percent of the need for park and recreational land and facilities within the City." Table 2, below, shows the potential cash value of park dedication based on the 2011 report and the current adopted ordinance, and compares it to the cost of the park system as it was estimated at that time. The difference between the potential value of dedication and park cost was small and probably within the margin of error for the cost and land value estimates in the report. Table 2: Current Land Uses and Dedication Requirements, 2011 Costs and Values % Land Land Use Category Acres Dedicated Land Value Cash Value Rural /Ag Residential 1,240 10% $ 20,000 2,480,000 Low Density Residential 2,716 11% $ 80,000 23,900,800 Medium Density Residential 147 12% $ 80,000 1,411,200 Mixed Residential 555 13% $ 80,000 5,772,000 High Density Res. /Mixed Use 386 14% $ 100,000 5,404,000 Commercial and Industrial 728 5% $ 100,000 3,640,000 Total Potential Value of Land or Cash in Lieu $ 42,608,000 Approximate Cost of Park System $ 42,475,000 Difference: $ 133,000 The 2011 report concluded that because the total amount of dedication that could be generated using this fee schedule is approximately equal to the cost of the park and trail system, it provides the "nexus" that the law requires between the needs and the fee. The land value is part of the calculation, so it was deemed to satisfy the requirement that land dedication be related to the fair market value of the land. Park Dedication Ordinance Update April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16 i • Table 3, below, calculates the potential cash value of park dedication based on the 2016 updated land values, and compares it with the approximate cost of the park system based on the updated land and construction costs. There is now a significant ($16.587 million) gap between the value of potential park dedication and the cost of the park system because of the cost increases and the corrections to the 2011 estimates. The City can deal with this gap in a couple of ways. The dedication requirements may be increased to ensure new development contributes enough land and cash to fill the gap; or, the parks plan could be scaled back to a more affordable cost. The latter option is beyond the scope of this report and would need to be addressed as part of the next Comprehensive Plan update. Table 3: Land Uses and Dedication Requirements, 2016 Costs and Values 5. Equity of Current Park Dedication Requirements A key issue with the current formula is whether or not the dedication requirements for the various residential density categories are equitable, particularly for the lowest density residential development outside of the MUSA. The equity issue can be illustrated by comparing two hypothetical subdivisions. The first is a rural subdivision dividing a vacant 20 -acre parcel into 2, 10 -acre building lots (A.) The second is a subdivision of a 20 -acre urban parcel at low density residential into 60 building lots (B, 3 units per acre.) Land values have been updated to the 2016 estimate. Table 4: Hypothetical 20 -Acre Subdivision Example #1 % Land Value, % Land # Per Unit Land Use Category Ac Dedication Land Use Category Acres Dedicated Land Value Cash Value Rural /Ag Residential 1,240 10% $ 10,000 1,240,000 Low Density Residential 2,716 11% $ 80,000 23,900,800 Medium Density Residential 147 12% $ 80,000 1,411,200 Mixed Residential 555 13% $ 80,000 5,772,000 High Density Res. /Mixed Use 386 14% $ 125,000 6,755,000 Commercial and Industrial 728 5% $ 125,000 4,550,000 Total Potential Value of Land or Cash in Lieu $ 43,629,000 Approximate Cost of Park System $ 60,216,200 Difference: $ (16,587,200) 5. Equity of Current Park Dedication Requirements A key issue with the current formula is whether or not the dedication requirements for the various residential density categories are equitable, particularly for the lowest density residential development outside of the MUSA. The equity issue can be illustrated by comparing two hypothetical subdivisions. The first is a rural subdivision dividing a vacant 20 -acre parcel into 2, 10 -acre building lots (A.) The second is a subdivision of a 20 -acre urban parcel at low density residential into 60 building lots (B, 3 units per acre.) Land values have been updated to the 2016 estimate. Table 4: Hypothetical 20 -Acre Subdivision Example #1 % Land Value, Cash Value of # Per Unit Land Use Category Ac Dedication Per Acre Dedication Lots Dedication A Rural /Ag Residential 20 10% $ 10,000 $ 20,000 2 $ 10,000 B Low Density Residential 20 11% $ 80,000 $ 176,000 60 $ 2,933 Park Dedication Ordinance Update 5 April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16 • • • In this example, the rural subdivision (A) would contribute more than three times more per lot for park dedication than the urban example (B.) This suggests that the required percentage dedication should be significantly adjusted to make the per unit contribution more comparable between the two land use categories. There is also an equity issue regarding how the current standards apply to single family developments compared to other housing types such as townhomes or apartments. Density is used as a factor for park dedication requirements as a proxy for estimating the number of dwelling units and thus the demand on the park system by new residents. It may be fairer to consider the need for parks on the basis of population, not simply the number of dwelling units. In the examples in Table 4, above, the expected population (aka "household size ") of each dwelling unit would probably be about the same. Single family household sizes in Corcoran are expected to average about 2.8 persons per dwelling unit. However, townhomes and apartment household sizes would be expected to average approximately 1.9 persons per dwelling unit (based on data from other communities that have significant amounts of multi - family housing types.) Table 5 shows another hypothetical housing development, showing how different household sizes result in different park dedication contributions by population ( "per capita ".) Here we compare subdivision B (single family, 3 units per acres) to a medium density townhome development (C, 6 units per acre.) Table 5: Hypothetical 20 -Acre Subdivision Example #2 Land Use Category Ac Dedication B Low Density Residential 20 11% C Medium Density Residential 20 12% Land Value, Cash Value # Per Unit Per Acre of Dedication Lots Dedication $ 80,000 $ 176,000 60 $ 2,933 $ 80,000 $ 192,000 120 $ 1,600 Per Capita Dedication $ 1,048 $ 842 In this example, the Medium Density multi - family development would contribute a higher cash value of park dedication, but the per -unit dedication would be about 55% of the Low Density project. The per capita dedication would be about 81 % of that for the Low Density project due to the smaller household size in the multi - family project. Making assumptions about household size, the characteristics of the residents and what type of parks facilities they may demand is difficult. Single family homes may initially tend to attract larger households, such as families with children who may play organized sports which generate a lot of need for active park facilities. But those families will age and the children may leave home, reducing the population in those homes. Resident's recreation preferences will change over time as they age and as homes turn over to new residents. Apartments may attract singles, whose demands on parks may be different than those of families. But on the other hand, economic changes may encourage families to occupy multi - family dwellings, making it difficult to predict the park needs of higher density developments. Park Dedication Ordinance Update April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16 0 M In communities like Corcoran with large rural areas, there may be a concern that residents in the rural portion of the community do not benefit from the park system in the same way as the residents of the urban area. Residents may have room for some amenities (such as play equipment or sport courts) on their own property, or may be scattered long distances that make walking to neighborhood parks difficult. However, these rural residents may derive greater benefit from trails than residents in more densely populated areas, and will benefit from the community -wide facilities (for example, athletic fields) that cannot be provided on an individual basis. Conversely, residents in the urban area may live in developments that provide amenities to residents (such as a play structure or a swimming pool) that could replace their use of some public park facilities. One way of dealing with this is to ensure that each new resident contributes equitably to the planned public facilities that they all will share regardless of the private amenities available at their homes. The current ordinance also gives the city discretion to give some credit if developments provide facilities that meet the need for neighborhood parks within a development. 6. Alternative Park Dedication Schedule It appears that some changes to the percentage dedication required for each land use type should be made to ensure that each type of development contributes its proportionate share of park dedication for the new residents it will bring to the community. The percentages of land to be dedication will also need to increase to provide sufficient funding for the planned park system. Table 6 shows the population that could be added to the community in the various residential land use categories, assuming that the lowest density areas are all single family detached units and the highest density areas are all multi - family housing types. A minimum, maximum and average are shown for each category. Table 6: Expected Population Density by Land Use Category Land Use Category HH Size Rural /Ag Residential 2.8 Low Density Residential 2.8 Medium Density Residential 1.9 Mixed Residential 1.9 High Density Residential /Mixed Use 1.9 Units per Acre Min Max Avg Persons per Acre Min Max Avg 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.28 0.28 0.28 3 5 4 8.40 14.00 11.20 5 8 7 9.50 15.20 12.35 8 10 9 15.20 19.00 17.10 10 20 15 19.00 38.00 28.50 For the purpose of long range planning, it may make the most sense in this case to use the minimum population density. The acreage figures used in the park dedication analysis did not appear to include any allowances for undevelopable property, such as wetlands. Also, the Comprehensive Plan assumes that planned park facilities are needed at full build -out of the MUSA, so the development in the MUSA needs to provide sufficient park dedication to fund the system, even if actual development occurs at the low end of the range permitted. Park Dedication Ordinance Update April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16 10 0 Table 7 shows the maximum population at full build -out of the MUSA, using the minimum of the density range allowed in each land use category. Table 7: Expected Population at Build Out, Average Densities Land Use Category Acres Persons per Acre Population Rural /Ag Residential 1,240 0.28 347 Low Density Residential 2,716 8.40 22,814 Medium Density Residential 147 9.50 1,397 Mixed Residential 555 15.20 8,436 High Density Residential /Mixed Use 386 19.00 7,334 i� Each new resident's proportionate share of the park system would be the cost of the park system ($57,205,390 after deducting the 5% share for non - residential development) divided by the population served (40,328) to equal the per capita share: $1,418. The per capita share can then be multiplied by the number of persons per acre to determine the park dedication that must be contributed for each acre of land to be developed. Comparing that amount to the value of the land yields the new percentage of land value to be dedicated in each land use category, shown on Table 8. Table 8: Proposed Dedication by Land Use Category Person Dedication Land Use Category s per Acre per Acre ($1,418 per capita) Land Value per Acre % Land Value Rural /Ag Residential 0.28 397 $ 10,000 4% Low Density Residential 8.40 11,915 $ 80,000 15% Medium Density Residential 9.50 13,476 $ 80,000 17% Mixed Residential 15.20 21,561 $ 80,000 27% High Density Residential /Mixed Use 19.00 26,951 $ 125,000 22% For Commercial /Industrial Development, the % of land value may be calculated by dividing its share of park costs (5% of the total cost, or $3,010,810) by the total acres (728) to yield the contribution per acre ($4,135.) This is approximately 3% of the land value ($4,135 divided by $125,000 per acre.) Table 9 on the next page is the same as Table 3, except that the new percentage land dedication requirements, as were calculated above, have replaced the percentages of the existing ordinance. The total amount of dedication that could be generated is close to the projected cost of the park system. (The difference is due to rounding of calculations.) Park Dedication Ordinance Update 8 April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16 0 El Table 9: Proposed Dedication Requirements with 2016 Costs and Values Land Use Category Acres % Land Dedicated Land Value Cash Value Rural /Ag Residential 1,240 4% $ 10,000 496,000 Low Density Residential 2,716 15% $ 80,000 32,592,000 Medium Density Residential 147 17% $ 80,000 1,999,200 Mixed Residential 555 27% $ 80,000 11,988,000 High Density Residential /Mixed Use 386 22% $ 125,000 10,615,000 Commercial and Industrial 728 3% $ 125,000 2,730,000 Total Potential Value of Land or Cash in Lieu $ 60,420,200 Approximate Cost of Park System $ 60,216,200 Difference: $ 204,000 7. Cash in Lieu of Land Contribution In many cases, the park plan will not call for land to be dedicated in a particular subdivision and the city will request cash in lieu of land. The current ordinance states that: "The City Council may identify a maximum park dedication fee per residential unit. The subdivider shall pay the lesser of the per unit fee or the equivalent cash market value calculated using the table above [the percentage of land value] for residential land use dedication requirements." For 2016, Corcoran's cash park fee is set at $4,000 per unit in the MUSA, and $3,000 outside of the MUSA (Ordinance No. 2015 -312.) In practice, cities often have set this fee by considering what neighboring cities charge. While it may be comfortable to know what the "market" is for park fees, it is probably not defensible given the statutory requirements as it has no relationship to local land values or to the city's park plan. A simple approach would be to set the cash -in -lieu of land fee based on the per capita share of park costs calculated above ($1,418.) The fee for single family units would be $1,418 X 2.8 (the average household size) or $3,970. The fee for multi - family units would be $1,418 X 1.9, or $2,694. The current ordinance states that the current fee is the maximum that may be charged. If the City determines that the per- capita fee is the equitable basis for estimating the demand on the park system, this fee could be set as a minimum, not the maximum. The existing ordinance allows for the fee to be determined on a case -by -case basis requiring that an appraisal of the land be submitted and the cash contribution calculated on the percentage of the land value. This is a sensible approach given the variation in land values, and gives the City and developer some room for negotiation. In the case of small land divisions where the cost of an Park Dedication Ordinance Update 9 April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16 • • • • appraisal might be excessive, the city could waive that requirement and accept the minimum fee based on the per capita share, as described above. 8. Draft Ordinance Amendments A draft amendment to Section 955.020, Subd. 6, of the City Code has been prepared to reflect the alternative park dedication schedule as described above. The amendment would make the following changes: • The table of land use dedication requirements would be revised to incorporate the percentage requirements listed in Table 9, above. • The maximum park dedication fee per residential unit would become the minimum fee. • The text of Section C below the table (commercial and industrial uses) would be amended to match the dedication requirement (3 %) as shown in the amended table. • A new paragraph (new Section D) has been added to clarify that for mixed use development, park dedication requirements will be pro -rated based on the acres of land devoted to each type of land use. • The text of Section D, Determination of Fair Market Value, would be replaced with new language from the 2013 amendment of Minn. Stat. Section 462.358, Subd. 2b, as follows: "The fair market value of the undeveloped land shall be determined by the City annually based on tax valuation or other relevant data. If the City's calculation of valuation is objected to by the applicant, then the value shall be as negotiated between the City and the applicant, or based on the market value as determined by the City based on an independent appraisal of land in a same or similar land use category. " Changes to the cash in lieu of land fee would also require an amendment to Ordinance No. 2015- 312, the ordinance that adopted the City's 2016 fee schedule. Annually, when the City updates its fee schedule, the assessor should be consulted on any changes in land values, cost estimates should be updated for inflation, and the minimum park fee recalculated. 9. Next Steps After the Council has completed its discussion of this report and the draft ordinance amendments, the next steps would be: • Parks and Trails Commission meeting— review report and draft ordinance (tentative date: May 17) • Planning Commission meeting — public hearing on draft ordinance amendment (tentative date: June 2) • City Council adoption of ordinance amendment (tentative date: June 23) Park Dedication Ordinance Update 10 April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16 • Attachments: A. Park Facilities and Land Cost Estimates, 2011 Report B. Park Facilities and Land Cost Estimates, 2016 Update C. Population, Dedication and % of Land Value Calculations D. Draft Amendment to Section 955, Park Dedication E. Park Dedication Examples Park Dedication Ordinance Update April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting UUDdated 5/9/16 • 01 Attachment A: Corcoran Park Dedication Park Facilities and Land Cost Estimates, 2011 Report 2030 Park Facility Needs 2020 Park Facility + Land Costs Existin Parks Future Parks Additonal Needs 2020/2030 Distribution Parks Total # of Existing Park Facilities Total # of Existing Park Acres Total # of Future (2030) Park Facilities Approx. acres per park Future (2030) Park Acres Total # of Additional Parks Total # of Additional Acres 2020 Parks to develop 2030 Parks to develop Neighborhood Parks 0 0 6 7 42 6 42 4 2 Community Parks 2 23 4 25 73 2 50 2 1 Athletic Complex 0 0 1 120 120 1 120 1 0 iLommunity Playfields 1 40 2 15 70 1 30 1 0 Open Space Park 0 0 1 20 60 1 60 1 2 Totals Athletic Complex 1 $2,500,000 5 120 120 $80,000 $9,600,000 Notes: 1. Approximate acres per park are based on park classification range of acres. 2. This estimate is based on a forecast population of 17, 600 by the year 2030. 3. The Rockford School District currently owns the existing Community Playfield Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 1acre (MUSA) and $20,000 (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each land parcel will vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Neighborhood Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilities, picnic shelter, benches, playground, play court, a special amenity such as a mini splash pad, and design fee 3. Community Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilites, picnic shelter, benches, trails, Ig. playground, restroom building, and a special amenity such as a hockey rink/performance area and design fee 4. Athletic Complex Park Cost Estimate would account for 3 full size soccer fields, 4 adult softball fields, youth playfields, tennis court, parking, lighting, fencing, utilities /irrigation, trails, picnic shelter /restrooms /concessions, and design fee 5. Community Play Fields Cost Estimate would account for a combination of play fields and courts of softball/ soccer /basketball /tennis /volleyball, parking, lighting, restrooms, picnic area, and design fee 6. Open Space Park Cost Estimate would account for trails, signage, parking, and natural resource enhancements 7. Cost Estimates are based on current rates as of 2010. 2020 Park Facility + Land Costs 2030 Park Facility + Land Costs Parks Land Cost Facility Costs Inside MUSA Qty Land Cost Acres Required Land + Facility Cost Land Cost Facility Costs On Road Trail (LF) 167,000 Land Cost Land + Facility Cost Inside MUSA # of Parks to develop Unit Cost Facility Cost Approx. acres per park Acres Required Unit Cost Land Cost # of Parks to develop Unit Cost Facility Cost Approx. acres per park Acres Required Unit Cost Land Cost Neighborhood Parks 4 $400,000 $1,600,000 7 28 $80,000 $2,240,000 $3,840,000 2 $400,000 $800,000 7 14 $80,000 $1,120,000 $1,920,000 Community Parks 2 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 25 50 $80,000 $4,000,000 $7,000,000 County Bike Trail (LF) 19,500 $13 $253,500 Athletic Complex 1 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 120 120 $80,000 $9,600,000 $12,100,000 0 130,000 $25 $3,250,0001 60 1 $20,000 $1,060,000 $4,310,000 Community Playfields 1 $500,000 $500,000 15 15 $80,000 $1,200,0001 $1,700,000 0 $8 $112,000 $0 $112,000 Signs (Each) Open Space Park 0 $750 $750 Road Crossings (Each) 1 0 $100,0001 1 $100,000 Outside MUSA Total Trail Development Costs to Year 20301 $15,474,750 Open Space Park 1 $40,0001 $40,0001 20 1 20 1 $20,000 $400,000 $440,000 Total Park Development Costs to Year 20201 $24,640,UUUI Total Park Development Costs to Year 2030 $2,360,000 Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 1acre (MUSA) and $20,000 (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each land parcel will vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Neighborhood Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilities, picnic shelter, benches, playground, play court, a special amenity such as a mini splash pad, and design fee 3. Community Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilites, picnic shelter, benches, trails, Ig. playground, restroom building, and a special amenity such as a hockey rink/performance area and design fee 4. Athletic Complex Park Cost Estimate would account for 3 full size soccer fields, 4 adult softball fields, youth playfields, tennis court, parking, lighting, fencing, utilities /irrigation, trails, picnic shelter /restrooms /concessions, and design fee 5. Community Play Fields Cost Estimate would account for a combination of play fields and courts of softball/ soccer /basketball /tennis /volleyball, parking, lighting, restrooms, picnic area, and design fee 6. Open Space Park Cost Estimate would account for trails, signage, parking, and natural resource enhancements 7. Cost Estimates are based on current rates as of 2010. Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $20,000 /acre (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each parcel may vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Trail Costs are based on a 10' bituminous trail with a 20' wide easement 3. On Road 8 County Bike Trail Costs assume a 50% cost share with County, State Aid, or other participant funding. 4. Above costs are based on purchased easements. Opportunities may exist to obtain less expensive or donated easements. 5. On -road trails assume no acquisition of additional land or easements. Grand Total Park + Trail FacilitWy Costs through 2030 2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs Trails Facility Costs Land Cost 2030 Park Develo ment Costs Inside MUSA Qty Unit Cost Facility Cost Acres Required Unit Cost Land Cost Land + Facility Cost On Road Trail (LF) 167,000 $0 $0 Off Road Trail (LF) 132,000 $25 $3,300,000 61 $80,000 $4,880,000 $8,180,000 Off Road Trail - Gasline (LF) 8,000 $25 $200,000 4 $80,000 $320,000 $520,000 Signs (Each) 50 $100 $5,000 $5,000 Road Crossings (Each) 4 Outside MUSA County Bike Trail (LF) 19,500 $13 $253,500 $253,500 On Road Trail (LF) 82,000 $13 $1,066,000 $1,066,000 Off Road Trail (LF) 130,000 $25 $3,250,0001 60 1 $20,000 $1,060,000 $4,310,000 Off Road Trail - Gasline (LF) 15,500 $25 $387,500 7 $20,000 $140,000 $527,500 Horseback Trail (LF) 14,000 $8 $112,000 $0 $112,000 Signs (Each) 15 $50 $750 $750 Road Crossings (Each) 1 $100,000 $100,0001 1 $100,000 Total Trail Development Costs to Year 20301 $15,474,750 Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $20,000 /acre (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each parcel may vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Trail Costs are based on a 10' bituminous trail with a 20' wide easement 3. On Road 8 County Bike Trail Costs assume a 50% cost share with County, State Aid, or other participant funding. 4. Above costs are based on purchased easements. Opportunities may exist to obtain less expensive or donated easements. 5. On -road trails assume no acquisition of additional land or easements. Grand Total Park + Trail FacilitWy Costs through 2030 System Item Cost 2020 Park Development Costs $24,640,000 2030 Park Develo ment Costs $2,360,000 2030 Trail Development Costs $15,474,750 Grand Total Costs $42,474,750 Attachment A Park Dedication Facilities and Land Cost 2011.x1sx 4/18/2016 Attachment B: Corcoran Park Dedication Park Facilities and Land Cost Estimates, 2016 Update 2030 Park Facility Needs 2030 Trail Existing Parks Future Parks Additonal Needs 2020/2030 Distribution Parks Total # of Existing Park Facilities Total # of Existing Park Acres Total # of Future (2030) Park Facilities Approx. acres per park Total # of Future (2030) Park Acres Total # of Additional Parks Total # of Additional Acres 2020 Parks to develop 2030 Parks to develop Neighborhood Parks 0 0 6 7 42 6 42 4 2 Community Parks 2 23 4 25 73 2 50 2 1 Athletic Complex 0 0 1 120 120 1 120 1 0 Community Playfields 1 40 2 15 70 1 30 1 0 Open Space Park 0 0 1 20 60 1 60 1 2 Totals $80,000 63 $7,630,000 1 365 $1,815,000 302 25 $80,000 Notes: 1. Approximate acres per park are based on park classification range of acres. 2. This estimate is based on a forecast population of 17, 600 by the year 2030. 3. The Rockford School District currently owns the existing Community Playfield Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $20,000 (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each land parcel will vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Neighborhood Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilities, picnic shelter, benches, playground, play court, a special amenity such as a mini splash pad, and design fee 3. Community Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilites, picnic shelter, benches, trails, Ig. playground, restroom building, and a special amenity such as a hockey rink /performance area and design fee 4. Athletic Complex Park Cost Estimate would account for 3 full size soccer fields, 4 adult softball fields, youth playfields, tennis court, parking, lighting, fencing, utilities /irrigation, trails, picnic shelter /restrooms /concessions, and design fee 5. Community Play Fields Cost Estimate would account for a combination of play fields and courts of softball / soccer /basketball /tennis /volleyball, parking, lighting, 201 restrooms, picnic area, and design fee. 2016: added 1 Community Playfield to 2030 Facility and Land Costs. 6. Open Space Park Cost Estimate would account for trails, signage, parking, and natural resource enhancements 7. Cost Estimates are based on current rates as of 2016; Turner Construction cost index for Park Facilities shows an approximate 21 % increase in non - residential construction costs from 2010 to the first quarter of 2016. 8. Added estimate for 2 Open Space Parks in MUSA missing from 2011 estimates. 2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs 2020 Park Facility + Land Costs Facility Costs Land Cost Land + Facility Cost Inside MUSA Qty 2030 Park Facility + Land Costs Facility Cost Acres Required Parks Land Cost Facility Costs 167,000 Land Cost Land + Facility Cost $0 Facility Costs 132,000 $55 Land Cost 61 Land + Facility Cost Inside MUSA # of Parks to develop Unit Cost Facility Cost Approx. acres per park Acres Required Unit Cost Land Cost # of Parks to develop Unit Cost Facility Cost Approx. acres per park Acres Required Unit Cost Land Cost Neighborhood Parks 4 $484,000 $1,936,000 7 28 $80,000 $2,240,000 $4,176,000 2 $484,000 $968,000 7 14 $80,000 $1,120,000 $2,088,000 Community Parks 2 $1,815,000 $3,630,000 25 50 $80,000 $4,000,000 $7,630,000 1 $1,815,000 $1,815,000 25 25 $80,000 $2,000,000 $3,815,000 Athletic Complex 1 $3,025,000 $3,025,000 120 120 $922,500 $80,000 $9,600,0001 $12,625,000 0 $0 $112,000 Road Crossings (Each) 1 $41,000 Community Playfields 1 $605,000 $605,000 15 15 $80,0001 $1,200,0001 $1,805,000 0 Open Space Park 1 1 $48,400 $48,4001 20 1 20 $80,0001 $1,600,0001 $1,648,400 1 1 $48,4001 $48,4001 20 1 0 $80,000 $1,600,000 $1,648,400 Outside MUSA Open Space Park 1 1 $48,4001 $48,4001 20 1 20 1 $10,0001 $200,0001 $248,400 Total Park Development Costs to Year 20201 $27,884,4001 Total Park Development Costs to Year 203OF $7,799,800 Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $20,000 (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each land parcel will vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Neighborhood Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilities, picnic shelter, benches, playground, play court, a special amenity such as a mini splash pad, and design fee 3. Community Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilites, picnic shelter, benches, trails, Ig. playground, restroom building, and a special amenity such as a hockey rink /performance area and design fee 4. Athletic Complex Park Cost Estimate would account for 3 full size soccer fields, 4 adult softball fields, youth playfields, tennis court, parking, lighting, fencing, utilities /irrigation, trails, picnic shelter /restrooms /concessions, and design fee 5. Community Play Fields Cost Estimate would account for a combination of play fields and courts of softball / soccer /basketball /tennis /volleyball, parking, lighting, 201 restrooms, picnic area, and design fee. 2016: added 1 Community Playfield to 2030 Facility and Land Costs. 6. Open Space Park Cost Estimate would account for trails, signage, parking, and natural resource enhancements 7. Cost Estimates are based on current rates as of 2016; Turner Construction cost index for Park Facilities shows an approximate 21 % increase in non - residential construction costs from 2010 to the first quarter of 2016. 8. Added estimate for 2 Open Space Parks in MUSA missing from 2011 estimates. Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $10,000 /acre (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each parcel may vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Trail Costs are based on a 10' bituminous trail with a 20' wide easement 3. On Road & County Bike Trail Costs assume a 50% cost share with County, State Aid, or other participant funding. 4. Above costs are based on purchased easements. Opportunities may exist to obtain less expensive or donated easements. 5. On -road trails assume no acquisition of additional land or easements. 6. Road crossings assume rapid flashing beacon (2 per) and countdown timers on signals (4 per) at an existing signal. 7. On Road trails assume 4- travel lanes to 2 - travel lanes with blackout of existing lines and striping new lines including bicycle lanes. Assumes no signal modifications. 8. Off road trails include associated signage. 9. Costs updated April 2016 using using trail planning estimates developed by Hennepin County. Grand Total Park + Trail Facility Costs through 2030 2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs Trails Facility Costs Land Cost Land + Facility Cost Inside MUSA Qty Unit Cost Facility Cost Acres Required Unit Cost Land Cost On Road Trail LF 167,000 $0 $0 Off Road Trail (LF) 132,000 $55 $7,260,000 61 $80,000 $4,880,000 $12,140,000 Off Road Trail - Gasline LF 8,000 $55 $440,000 4 $80,000 $320,000 $760,000 Road Crossings (Each) 4 $41,000 $164,000 $164,000 Outside MUSA County Bike Trail LF 19,500 $55 $1,072,500 $1,072,500 On Road Trail (LF) 82,000 $20 $1,640,000 $1,640,000 Off Road Trail LF 130,000 $55 $7,150,000 60 $10,000 $530,000 $7,680,000 Off Road Trail - Gasline (LF) 15,500 $55 $852,500 7 $10,000 $70,000 $922,500 Horseback Trail LF 14,000 $8 $112,000 $0 $112,000 Road Crossings (Each) 1 $41,000 $41,0001 1 $41,000 Total Trail Development Costs to Year 20301 $24,532,000 Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $10,000 /acre (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each parcel may vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Trail Costs are based on a 10' bituminous trail with a 20' wide easement 3. On Road & County Bike Trail Costs assume a 50% cost share with County, State Aid, or other participant funding. 4. Above costs are based on purchased easements. Opportunities may exist to obtain less expensive or donated easements. 5. On -road trails assume no acquisition of additional land or easements. 6. Road crossings assume rapid flashing beacon (2 per) and countdown timers on signals (4 per) at an existing signal. 7. On Road trails assume 4- travel lanes to 2 - travel lanes with blackout of existing lines and striping new lines including bicycle lanes. Assumes no signal modifications. 8. Off road trails include associated signage. 9. Costs updated April 2016 using using trail planning estimates developed by Hennepin County. Grand Total Park + Trail Facility Costs through 2030 System Item Cost 2020 Park Development Costs $27,884,400 2030 Park Development Costs $7,799,800 2030 Trail Development Costs $24,532,000 Grand Total Costs $60,216,200 5a. Attachment B Park Dedication Facilities and Land Cost 2016 Update.xlsx 4/18/2016 Attachment C: Corcoran Park Dedication Population, Dedication and % of Land Value Calculations Land Use Category HH Size Minimum Units per Acre Maximum Average Minimum Persons per Acre Maximum Average Population at Build -Out Minimum Maximum Average Rural /Ag Residential 2.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.28 0.28 0.28 347 347 347 Low Density Residential 2.8 3 5 4 8.40 14.00 11.20 22,814 38,024 30,419 Medium Density Residential 1.9 5 8 7 9.50 15.20 12.35 1,397 2,234 1,815 Mixed Residential 1.9 8 10 9 15.20 19.00 17.10 8,436 10,545 9,491 High Density Residential /Mixed Use 1.9 10 20 15 19.00 38.00 28.50 7,334 14,668 11,001 40,328 65,819 53,073 Land Value per Land Use Category Acres Acre Rural /Ag Residential 1,240 $ 10,000 Low Density Residential 2,716 $ 80,000 Medium Density Residential 147 $ 80,000 Mixed Residential 555 $ 80,000 High Density Residential /Mixed Use 386 $ 125,000 Residential Per Capita Share of Park System Cost: $ 1,418 $ Residential Share Park System Estimated Cost (95 %): $ 57,205,390 Dedication Per Acre Percent of Land Value Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average $ 397 $ 243 $ 302 4% 2% 3% $ 11,915 $ 12,168 $ 12,072 15% 15% 15% $ 13,476 $ 13,211 $ 13,312 17% 17% 17% $ 21,561 $ 16,514 $ 18,431 27% 21% 23% $ 26,951 $ 33,027 $ 30,719 22% 26% 25% 869 $ 1,078 Dedication Percentages.xlsx 4/18/2016 Park Dedication Examples City of Corcoran, April 2016 Strehler Estates- Project Data Land Use Category Gross Acres Net Acres Land Value /Acre Total Lots Platted Existing Homes Lots Subject to Dedication Expected Population SFD Rural Ag Residential 80.09 63.4 $ 10,000 (Assumed) Peachtree PUD- Project Data Land Use Category Gross Acres Net Acres Land Value /Acre Total Lots Platted Single Family Multi Family Existing Homes Lots Subject to Dedication Expected Population SFD Expected Population Multi Total Population 4 1 3 8.4 Low Density Residential 103.32 90.45 Park Dedication Calculations Land Only % of Land to be Dedicated: Required Acres: Value Acres to be Dedicated: Land Value Per Unit Land Value Per Capita 75% Cash Only 2.8 Cash in Lieu Fee per Unit Total Cash In Lieu Cash in Lieu per Capita $ 31,984 (Appraisal) 246 226 20 0 246 633 38 671 Park Dedication Calculations Land Only % of Land to be Dedicated: Required Acres: Value Acres to be Dedicated: Land Value Per Unit Land Value Per Capita Cash Only Cash in Lieu Fee per Unit SF 100% Cash in Lieu Fee per Unit Multi 2.8 Total Cash In Lieu 1.9 Cash in Lieu per Capita Combination (based on PUD Plan) Required Acres Acres Dedicated • Land • Cash Cash contribution Attachment E Existing Alternative 10% 4% 4.76 1.90 $ 47,550 $ 19,020 $ 15,850 $ 6,340 $ 5,661 $ 2,264 $ 3,000 $ 3,970 $ 9,000 $ 11,910 $ 1,071 $ 1,418 Existing Alternative 11% 15% 9.95 13.57 $ 318,225 $ 433,943 $ 1,294 $ 1,764 $ 474 $ 647 $ 4,000 $ 3,970 $ 4,000 $ 2,694 $ 984,000 $ 951,100 $ 1,467 $ 1,418 9.95 13.57 2.88 2.88 29% 21% 71% 79% $ 699,170 $ 749,208 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin Draft for Planning Commission Public Hearing State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2016 -XXX Motion By: Seconded By: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE, ENTITLED CORCORAN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Amendments. The text of Section 955.020, Subd. 6 of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by deleting the sken material and adding the underlined material as follows: Subd. 6. Area of Dedicated Land. Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the City for park, trail and open space the percentage of net land area e-r equivalent m.,rvet yall „e in eash identified below: Residential Land Uses Dedication Requirements: Land Use Category Units per acre Percentage of land based on the (Density, Net - Pre- or equivalent market Comprehensive Plan Development) value in ca- Rural/Ag Residential Less than 3 44%A Low Density Residential 3 -5 44% 15% Medium - Density 6 -8 42 tV 17% Residential Mixed Residential 8 -10 44 27% High- Density Residential 10+ 44-94_Z20 and Mixed -Use Commercial and N/A Industrial The City Council aa3Fm ill identify a maximum minim „m park dedication fee per residential unit to be laid in lieu of land dedication when the Council determines that that land is not needed in the area of the proposed subdivision. If the Council determines that land is needed in the subdivision, but in a lesser amount than the required percentage, the Council will require payment of the per unit fee based on a pro -rata share of the land dedication that would otherwise be required. . The sub-d- killer shall pay the lesser .,F the p unit fee or- the equivalent ea maFket value ealeulated using the table above fE)F r-esidential land use d'Qdi At;e en„;reme,�i- Page 1 of 3 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin Draft for Planning Commission Public Hearing State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2016 -XXX &A. The City Council shall review park dedication fee requirements periodically, to ensure that the required fee remains consistent with park and trail system development costs. B. Commercial and industrial land uses: Dedication requirement is five percent (-S-%IOZ of land or equivalent market value in cash. C. Dedication requirements for mixed use development will be pro -rated based on the acres of land devoted to each type of land use. D. Developments that include memory care and assisted living units shall apply the commercial rate to the percentage of memory care and /or assisted living units that are in the project, multiplied by the project net acres. E. Schools, religious institutions and other non - profit organizations: Dedication requirement shall be determined by the City Council based on discussion with the School District or non - profit agency. Recommendations will be based on anticipated use of City park facilities by the school or organization, and shall consider agreements for cooperative use of school recreational facilities. F. Determination of Fair Market Value. T., a ° * °rm;,,° th° f,;r ,Y,-,ry °t r-a1„° of the undeveloped land the lleyel ^r, °r S„hmit c"m" -c"$xr -rcc� c-ci-m° Of ffehMinaff rcr application. The City may th°„ .,ht -,i„ °..; °.., -41 -, .-,l;dl-,t;.,,, A- "th° Deye�°r'r appraisal. if �Y-- and - the Developer -able to agree f-,ir m-�rh °t value the City !`ounc l 1 ,ill -, m1.° the , of fair m-,ry °t .,-,1„°. The fair market value of the undeveloped land shall be determined by the City annually based on tax valuation or other relevant data. If the City's calculation of valuation is objected to by the applicant, then the value shall be as negotiated between the City and the applicant, or based on the market value as determined by the City based on an independent a1212raisal of land in a same or similar land use category. G. Lands Designated On Official Map or Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Where a proposed park, playground, trail or open space area indicated in the City park and trail plan or comprehensive plan is located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision, all or part of the proposed public site shall be designated as such and should be dedicated to the City, based on the area of land dedication required by this ordinance. Page 2 of 3 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin Draft for Planning Commission Public Hearing State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2016 -XXX H. Deviation from Required Dedication. The dedication requirements based on the development's proportional share of the City park system are presumptively appropriate. I. Wetlands and Ponding Areas. Existing wetlands drainage ways accepted by the City shall not be considered in the parkland and /or cash contribution to the City. (Ord. 291, passed 12- 11 -14) Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its publication and passage. VOTING AYE ❑ Guenthner, Ken ❑ Keefe, Mike ❑ LaFave, Tonya ❑ Hank, Pat ❑ Thomas, Ron VOTING NAY ❑ Guenthner, Ken ❑ Keefe, Mike ❑ LaFave, Tonya ❑ Hank, Pat ❑ Thomas, Ron Whereupon, said Ordinance is hereby declared adopted on this day of June, 2016. Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor ATTEST: City Seal Jessica Beise— City Clerk /Administrative Services Coordinator Page 3 of 3 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -XXX Motion By: Seconded By: DRAFT June 25, 2016 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE, ENTITLED CORCORAN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran initiated an amendment to update the Subdivision Ordinance requirements for the dedication of land for park, trail and open space purposes; and WHEREAS, the dedication requirements established by Section 955.020, Subd. 6 of the City Code were reviewed in 2011 and based on the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and the projected costs for acquisition and construction of the planned park system; and WHEREAS, the City has updated the land values and construction cost assumptions on which the dedication requirements are based, and calculated the proportionate share of park system costs that shall be contributed by new developments to ensure that park dedication contributions are fair and adequate to fund the planned park system; and WHEREAS, the results of this analysis are summarized in Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance incorporate revised dedication requirements for the various land use categories of the Comprehensive Plan, clarify how dedication will be calculated for partial dedications of land and mixed land use developments, and include language regarding the determination of fair market value to reflect 2013 changes to Minn. Stat. Section 462.358, Subd. 2b; and WHEREAS, amendments to the 2016 Fee Schedule will also be necessary to adopt new park dedication fees to be paid in lieu of land dedication; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance 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 Subdivision Ordinance text amendment based upon the finding that the proposed amendments would be consistent with State law, City policies and the City's Comprehensive Plan, and compatible with other provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Page 1 of 5 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota VOTING AYE ❑ Guenthner, Ken ❑ Keefe, Mike ❑ LaFave, Tonya ❑ Hank, Pat ❑ Thomas, Ron RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -XXX VOTING NAY ❑ Guenthner, Ken ❑ Keefe, Mike ❑ LaFave, Tonya ❑ Hank, Pat ❑ Thomas, Ron Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 2016. ATTEST: DRAFT June 25, 2016 day of J u ne, Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor City Seal Jessica Beise— City Clerk /Administrative Services Coordinator Page 2 of 5 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota DRAFT June 25, 2016 RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -XXX EXHIBIT A Summary Calculation of Park Dedication Requirements Park dedication requirements are based upon the cost of acquiring and constructing the Parks and Trails system envisioned by the City of Corcoran's Comprehensive Plan. The share of land to be dedicated within new subdivisions, or cash to be paid in lieu of land dedication, is apportioned based on the expected demand generated by the new residents of the community. Park System Costs The components of park system costs are land and park construction costs. The assumptions on average land value are based upon consultations with the City Assessor. Table 1: Land Value Assumptions Land Use Non -MUSA Residential Low and Medium Density Residential (MUSA) High Density Residential and Commercial /Industrial 2011 Assumption Land Value per Acre $ 20,000 $ 80,000 $ 100,000 2016 Assumption Land Value per Acre $ 10,000 $ 80,000 $125,000 In 2011, the cost of acquiring and developing the planned park system was estimated as $42,474,750. In 2016, the cost estimates were updated using the new land value assumptions, the Turner Construction cost index, and recent trail planning estimated from Hennepin County. The 2016 cost estimate for the park system is $60,216,200. Park System Demand New residential development is expected to create 95% of the need for park and recreational land and facilities in Corcoran. Projected demand for parks and trails was estimated for each type of land use, based on the density and type of dwelling units expected to be developed in each land use category of the Comprehensive Plan. Rural /Ag Residential and Low Density Residential developments are assumed to be single family detached dwellings (average household size of 2.8 persons) and the remainder area assumed to be attached dwellings (average household size of 1.9 persons.) Table 2: Expected Population Density by Land Use Category Land Use Category HH Size Units /Acre Persons /Acre Rural /Ag Residential 2.8 0.1 0.28 Low Density Residential 2.8 3 8.40 Medium Density Residential 1.9 5 9.50 Mixed Residential 1.9 8 15.20 High Density Residential /Mixed Use 1.9 10 19.00 Page 3 of 5 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -XXX DRAFT June 25, 2016 Table 3 shows the maximum population at full build -out of the City at the minimum densities projected by the Comprehensive Plan Table 3: Expected Population at Build Out Land Use Category Acres Persons per Acre Population Rural /Ag Residential 1,240 0.28 347 Low Density Residential 2,716 8.40 22,814 Medium Density Residential 147 9.50 1,397 Mixed Residential 555 15.20 8,436 High Density Residential /Mixed Use 386 19.00 7,334 4% Low Density Residential 8.40 40,328 Each new resident's proportionate share of the park system is the cost of the park system ($57,205,390 after deducting the 5% share for non - residential development) divided by the population served (40,328) to equal the per capita share: $1,418. The per capita share was multiplied by the number of persons per acre to determine the park dedication that must be contributed for each acre of land to be developed. Comparing that amount to the value of the land yields the new percentage of land value to be dedicated in each land use category, shown on Table 4. Table 4: Proposed Dedication by Land Use Category For Commercial /Industrial Development, the % of land value was calculated by dividing its share of park costs (5% of the total cost, or $3,010,810) by the total acres of land (728) to yield the contribution per acre ($4,135.) This is approximately 3% of the land value ($4,135 divided by $125,000 per acre.) Table 5 compares the total potential dedication based to the projected cost of the park system. This table demonstrates that the dedication requirements are necessary and sufficient to fund the park system anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 5 Dedication Persons per Acre ($1,418 Land Value % Land Land Use Category per Acre per capita) per Acre Value Rural /Ag Residential 0.28 397 $ 10,000 4% Low Density Residential 8.40 11,915 $ 80,000 13% Medium Density Residential 9.50 13,476 $ 80,000 15% Mixed Residential 15.20 21,561 $ 80,000 24% High Density Residential /Mixed Use 19.00 26,951 $ 125,000 19% For Commercial /Industrial Development, the % of land value was calculated by dividing its share of park costs (5% of the total cost, or $3,010,810) by the total acres of land (728) to yield the contribution per acre ($4,135.) This is approximately 3% of the land value ($4,135 divided by $125,000 per acre.) Table 5 compares the total potential dedication based to the projected cost of the park system. This table demonstrates that the dedication requirements are necessary and sufficient to fund the park system anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 5 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -XXX Table 5: Potential Park Dedication Cash Value Compared to Total Cost DRAFT June 25, 2016 Cash in Lieu of Land Dedication If the City determines that land is not needed in the area of a proposed subdivision, a cash fee in lieu of land dedication may be required. For residential developments, the cash in lieu of land fee has been calculated based on the per capita share of park system costs as calculated above ($1,418.) The fee for single family units shall be $1,418 X 2.8 (the average household size) or $3,970. The fee for multi - family units shall be $1,418 X 1.9, or $2,694. The City will annually update its estimate of land values, as required by state law and as provided by the amended ordinance. The cost estimates and the park dedication formula and fees will be updated and amended as necessary. Page 5 of 5 % Land Land Use Category Acres Dedicated Land Value Cash Value Rural /Ag Residential 1,240 4% $ 10,000 496,000 Low Density Residential 2,716 15% $ 80,000 32,592,000 Medium Density Residential 147 17% $ 80,000 1,999,200 Mixed Residential 555 27% $ 80,000 11,988,000 High Density Residential /Mixed Use 386 22% $ 125,000 10,615,000 2,730,0 Commercial and Industrial 728 3% $ 125,000 00 Total Potential Value of Land or Cash in Lieu $ 60,420,200 Approximate Cost of Park System $ 60,216,200 Difference: $ 204,000 Cash in Lieu of Land Dedication If the City determines that land is not needed in the area of a proposed subdivision, a cash fee in lieu of land dedication may be required. For residential developments, the cash in lieu of land fee has been calculated based on the per capita share of park system costs as calculated above ($1,418.) The fee for single family units shall be $1,418 X 2.8 (the average household size) or $3,970. The fee for multi - family units shall be $1,418 X 1.9, or $2,694. The City will annually update its estimate of land values, as required by state law and as provided by the amended ordinance. The cost estimates and the park dedication formula and fees will be updated and amended as necessary. Page 5 of 5 Agenda Item: 7_b. L A N D F U R M From Site to Finish • 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 TO: Corcoran Planning Commission FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform • Tel: 612 - 252 -9070 Fax: 612 - 252 -9077 www.landform.net DATE: May 25, 2016 for the June 2, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting RE: PUBLIC HEARING. Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for Randahl Construction, Inc. for the 1.01 -acre site at 7241 County Road 116. (PID 26- 119 -23- 41 -0002) (City File 16 -012) 60 -DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: July 4, 2016 Application Request The applicant has requested approval of a conditional use permit and site plan to allow outside storage and a variety of improvements on the site. Randahl Construction has recently purchased the site from Heidi's and is requesting approval of outside storage equipment. 2. Context Level of City Discretion in Decision - Making The City's discretion in approving or denying a conditional use permit amendment is limited to whether or not the proposed request meets the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the conditional use permit amendment. The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan amendment is limited to whether or not the proposed request meets the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the site plan amendment. Background While the previous tenant had outside storage on site, no conditional use permit approval for the outside storage was found in the City records. Heidi's Lifestyle Gardens appears to have been a non - conforming use. The change in ownership and site plan amendment triggers the need for the conditional use permit, which will bring the site into compliance. Zoning and Land Use The property is guided Light Industrial on the 2030 Future Land Use Plan and zoned Light Industrial. The surrounding properties to the north, south and west are guided and zoned the same. The property to the east (across County Road 116) is guided Mixed Use and zoned Downtown Mixed Use. Landfori SensiblyG, e O and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Natural Characteristics of the Site The existing site is fully developed. There are no trees or significant natural resources. 3. Analysis of Request • Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer's comments are incorporated into this staff report. Site Plan The applicant is requesting approval to allow outside storage on this parcel and make improvements to the site and building, including installation of a concrete parking and access area on the east and a fenced, gravel storage area on the west. Randahl Construction, Inc. will use the building for offices and indoor storage of equipment and tools. The site did have outside storage with the former owners (Heidi's Lifestyle Gardens and Cowboy Concrete), but there is no record of City approval for the outside storage. This approval (with conditions in the draft resolution) would bring the site into compliance. Access The existing access to County Road 116 will be maintained. The City submitted the proposed plat to Hennepin County for review. Hennepin County Transportation Department has reviewed the proposed plat and recommends dedication of an additional 27 feet of right -of -way adjacent to County Road 116. The County currently has a 40 -foot '/2 right -of -way adjacent to this parcel. The City only takes right -of -way as part of a subdivision and with the adjacent Custom Filtration plat, the City did not take additional right -of -way. Staff understands that there are long -term plans to improve County Road 116, but we are not recommending taking additional right -of -way with this request. Utilities The property is currently serviced by well and septic. The drainfield location is shown on the Custom Filtration property to the south. In 1998, the City approved a conditional use permit for construction of the Custom Filtration building (Resolution 1998 -13). As part of the original approvals, the landowner provided a 115' x 128' easement in the northeast corner of the Custom Filtration lot for use and maintenance and reconstruction of a drainfield that served this property. This easement was required to protect this septic area from impacts from Custom Filtration improvements. The septic cleanouts should be protected when landscaping is installed to ensure continued access. Randahl Construction CUP and SP (16 -012) June 2, 2016 • Grading • Limited grading is proposed on site to add 6 new concrete parking stalls, to grade the outside storage area and add a concrete valley gutter on the shared property line with Custom Filtration. Custom Filtration constructed a stormwater detention pond on their property to mitigate the increased impervious of their recent expansion. This site drains towards the pond, with some rear lot line drainage going straight to a ditch. The applicant indicates that they have spoken with Custom Filtration and Custom Filtration supports the plan. We have included a condition that the applicant provide written permission from Custom Filtration the proposed drainage impacts are acceptable. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading plan and finds that it is generally in compliance with ordinance requirements. Screening /Landscaping Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance provides standards for landscaping. No changes to the building are allowed, therefore, no new landscaping is required. However, the applicant is requesting a reduced front yard setback for parking and that does require additional landscaping. The applicant has indicated that this is a concept plan. Staff has included a condition that a final landscape plan be provided prior to construction. Outside storage is required to be screened from public streets and adjacent properties. This issue is discussed in more detail in the conditional use section of this report. Parking /Drive Aisles Section 1060.060 of the Zoning Ordinance requires parking and drive aisles to be a minimum of 100 feet from County Road 116 and 10 feet from all other property lines. The required front yard parking setback may be reduced to 50 feet if the applicant provides a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, 2 ornamental trees and 10 understory shrubs per 100 feet of the length of the property line where the flexibility is requested, or preserves the equivalent amount of existing trees and shrubs. These materials must be provided in addition to the minimum landscape requirements. The plans show a 47 -foot setback, but staff has included a condition that the parking comply with the 50 -foot front yard setback, which would be allowed with the landscape plan proposed by the applicant. The parking stalls must be a minimum of 9'x 18.5' and the drive aisles must be a minimum of 26 feet wide. The parking stalls comply but the drive aisle is only 24 feet where 26 is required. This property is only 100 feet wide and does not currently meet parking setbacks or minimum dimensional requirements. The drive aisle and parking locations /dimensions are considered non- conforming uses. Section 1030.010 allows non - conforming uses to be maintained but not expanded. The planned improvements are allowed for this non - conformity. The building includes 1,945 sq. ft. of offices space and 3512 sq. ft. of storage space, which requires 11 parking spaces. The existing site has no designated parking stalls but has been parking up to the Randahl Construction CUP and SP (16- 012) June 2, 2016 • • south and east property lines. The applicant is proposing to build and stripe 6 parking stalls in the front of the building. The parking stalls must be 50 feet from the front lot line. The applicant currently has 5 employees, however, over time that could change or the building could sell. The applicant could: a. Add 5 additional parking stalls in front of the building. This would result in the need to shift the proposed gate further west, b. Install 5 employee parking stalls in the enclosed outside storage area and reserve front 6 stalls for customers. Parking stalls are required to asphalt or concrete, or c. Provide proof of parking for future stalls and preserve that space so that parking could be added if a parking problem is documented. • The Planning Commission should discuss options for how to best meet the parking requirements on this site. Site Lighting No new lighting is proposed. Any lighting that is added must comply with the standards in Section 1060.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. Signage There is an existing sign on site. The applicant has indicated that they intend to swap out the sign panel on the existing sign and modify the surrounding landscaping. No additional signage is proposed. Any additional signage must comply with the requirements in the Sign Ordinance (Chapter 84 of the City Code). Conditional Use Permit The applicant's plan brings the outside storage area into compliance by adding a 6 -foot fence to screen this outside storage area. The Zoning Ordinance allows outside storage accessory to an allowed use as a condition use permit in the Light Industrial district if the following conditions are met: 1. Storage area is blacktop or concrete surfaced unless specifically approved by the City Council. The existing outside storage area is gravel and the existing parking area is gravel. Staff finds that the gravel outside storage area is existing today and would be consistent with the existing use. Gravel storage was recently allowed for Blocks N Rocks (2011) and Satellite Industries (2010) on 75th Avenue for similar uses. The City Council does have discretion to approve a Class 5 (gravel) storage area provided the outside storage area meets all screening and setback requirements. 2. The storage area does not take up parking space or loading space as required for conformity to this Chapter. Randahl Construction CUP and SP (16 -012) 4 June 2, 2016 • The storage area does not take up parking space or loading space needed to meet ordinance requirements. However, the outside storage area could help to meet the minimum parking stall requirements for 5 of the 11 required parking stalls. 3. The storage area is screened from public streets and surrounding properties. The storage area would be screened by 6 -foot wood fence with a metal gate. A wood fence is currently located along a portion of the north property and new fence would connect with this existing fence. Fenced details must be submitted for city review and approval. No fencing is allowed or proposed in front of the building, but a 6 -foot fence can be located on the side and rear lot lines. However, Section 1060.010 (Exterior Storage) requires all exterior storage to be located in the rear or side yard and shall be screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties and public streets and be located 10 feet from the side and rear lot lines. The existing site appears to have gravel up to the side and rear lot lines and has a fence on the north lot line. If the fence is located on the lot line, it will be difficult to ensure that that outside storage is 10 feet from the lot line. When the City approved outside storage for Satellite and Blocks N Rocks, the City allowed the fence on the lot line but required a 10 foot green strip with trees to be planted between the fence and the allowed outside storage area. The plant materials were inspected after 1 year to ensure survivability, but it is difficult to estimate the lifespan of these plant materials within the outside storage areas. If the City wants to ensure that outside storage is 10 feet from the lot line, they may wish to require the fence to be 10 feet from the lot line. The Planning Commission should provide feedback on the fence location • Should the applicant be required to comply with the 10 -foot side and rear yard setback for outside storage by moving the fence in to that setback? • Should the applicant be allowed to build the fence on the property line? The City could find that the previous owner was storing material within the required 10 foot setback and the addition of the fence on the lot line would actually help to bring the existing outside storage into compliance by screening it. 4. Conclusions Staff finds that the standards for a conditional use permit amendment and a site plan amendment have been met or can be addressed with the changes discussed in the staff report. The approval would bring a non - conforming site into conformity. We have included conditions in the draft resolution to address these issues. 5. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment. Randahl Construction CUP and SP (16 -012) June 2, 2016 • • • Attachments 1. Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit amendment and Site Plan amendment 2. Site Aerial Location Map 3. City Engineer's memo dated April 20, 2016 4. Hennepin County email dated April 27, 2016 5. Applicant's Narrative dated April 18, 2016 6. Applicant's civil plans received May 25, 2016 7. Applicant's landscape plans received April 19, 2016 Randahl Construction CUP and SP (16 -012) June 2, 2016 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -xx Motion By: Seconded By: xx, 2016 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR RANDAHL CONSTRUCTION AT 7241 COUNTY ROAD 116 (PID 26- 119 -2 -41 -0002) (CITY FILE 16 -012) WHEREAS, the landowner has requested approval of a conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment to allow expansion of the outside storage area for property legally described as follows: The South 100 feet of the North 275 feet of the East 479 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE '/4) of Section 26, Township 119, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for a conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment, subject to the following conditions: A conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment is approved to allow a new concrete parking lot and access and an enclosed Class 5 outside storage area, in accordance with the application received by the City on April 19, 2016 and revisions received on May 25, 2016, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The existing non - conforming side yard setback on the south for parking and access and the 24 -foot wide access aisle shall be allowed to continue as permitted by Section 1030.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A minimum of 11 parking stalls must be provided. Any change in tenants or site use could trigger a change to the parking requirements and would be revised as part of a site plan /conditional use permit amendment. 4. Employee and customer parking must be on paved, striped parking areas. Parking in gravel storage areas is not permitted. 5. All outside storage must be located within the screened, fenced area approved for outside storage. 6. All outside storage shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the side and rear lot lines. 7. The applicant shall comply with the City Engineer's memo dated April 20, 2016. 8. Prior to beginning the site work, the applicant /landowner must: a. Provide written permission from Custom Filtration that the proposed drainage impacts to the off -site pond are acceptable. Page 1 of 2 City of Corcoran County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -xx xx, 2016 b. Revise the plans to ensure that the landscape plan and civil drawings are consistent and submit for City review and approval. c. Submit a final landscape plan for City review and approval. d. Revise the plans to show compliance with the required 50 -foot setback from the front property line and submit for City review and approval. e. Revise the plans to show compliance with the required 10 -foot side and rear yard setback for outside storage for City review and approval. Record the approving resolution at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. g. Submit fence details for the 6 -foot wood fence that will enclose the outside storage area for review and approval by the City. h. Submit electronic files of the plans to the City in AutoCAD format. Submit a financial guarantee for the proposed work as outlined in Section 1070.050, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and completes the required improvements. VOTING AYE ❑ Guenthner, Ken ❑ Hank, Pat ❑ Keefe, Mike ❑ LaFave,Tonya ❑ Thomas, Ron VOTING NAY ❑ Guenthner, Ken ❑ Hank, Pat ❑ Keefe, Mike ❑ LaFave,Tonya ❑ Thomas, Ron Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xx day of xx 2016. Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor ATTEST: City Seal Jessica Beise — City Clerk /Administrative Services Coordinator Page 2 of 2 1 Hennepin County Property Map .�w Date: 5/24/2016 J spff �?-; �. � • � -- - - � rte. k u i rw PARCEL ID: 2611923410002 OWNER NAME: Rci Llc PARCEL ADDRESS: 7241 Co Rd No 116, Corcoran MN 55340 PROPERTY TYPE: Industrial-Preferred HOMESTEAD: Non - Homestead PARCEL AREA: 1.01 acres, 43,900 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract MARKET VALUE: $199,000 TAX TOTAL: $6,603.64 SALE PRICE: $225,000 SALE DATA: 04/2003 SALE CODE: Rejected 1 inch = 100 feet Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable forany damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2016 Technical Memo Engineer's Memorandum To: Kendra Lindahl, City Planner From: Kent Torve, P.E., City Engineer Date: April 20, 2016 Subject: Randahl Construction Inc. 1. Background WENCK Responsive partner. Exceptional outcomes. Custom Filtration had previously constructed a stormwater detention pond to mitigate increased impervious of the building expansion. This Randahl site drains towards the pond, with some rear lot line drainage going straight to a ditch. 2. Pond • The 2011 Stormwater Modeling shows a total of 112,083 square feet draining to the pond. • The modeling showed 18,292 square feet from Randahl Construction site, which will now increase by 2,412 SF • This is an increase of area to the pond by 2% and will have negligible, if any, impact. 3. Rear Drainage • Rear drainage goes to a ditch which travels north to Larkin Road. 4. Recommendations • Rear Drainage -- Applicant shall not be allowed to store any material (dirt stockpiles, demolition debris, etc.) that will be susceptible to erosion and cause sedimentation to the downstream ditch. • Pond Drainage -- Applicant shall submit documentation (written permission or Right of Entry) from Custom Filtration that the valley gutters, grading, etc. impacting Custom Filtration property are acceptable. Wenck Associates, Inc. 1 1800 Pioneer Creek Center I P.O. Box 249 1 Maple Plain, MN 55359 -0249 Toll Free 800 - 472 -2232 Main 763 - 479 -4200 Email wenckmp @wenck.com Web wenck.com From: Jason D Gottfried To: Michael Pritchard Cc: Robert H. Byers Subject: RE: Project Distribution #16 -012 - Randahl Construction, Inc. - CUP, Site Plan Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 3:33:45 PM Hello Mike, The Hennepin County Plat Review Committee discussed this conditional use permit application for 7241 County Road 116 on Tuesday, April 26th, and have made the following comments to be shared with the applicant: If applicant plans on paving the driveway up to the County Road 116 approach, we request one month notice to our permits dept. in order to allow for us to inspect this location for a possible culvert replacement prior to paving As the County assesses potential future roadway needs, this section of County Road 116 may require widening in the future for a variety of potential improvements. Additionally, this section of roadway has been identified in our Bike Plan to include an off -road trail In order to accommodate these future infrastructure enhancements we are requesting 27' of right - of -way. If this request cannot be granted at this time, we propose the applicant maintain a 27' clear zone of development or objects from the existing County Road right -of -way in order to minimize obstruction for any potential future accommodations. Respectfully, Jason Gottfried Senior Planning Analyst Hennepin County Office: 612- 596 -0394 Email: Jason. Gottfried &hennepin.us Hennepin County Public Works 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340 -3410 From: Michael Pritchard [ mailto :mpritchard(@ci.corcoran.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 9:23 AM To: Ali Durgunoglu <AIi.Durgunoglu(@hennepin.us >; Steve Bray <Steve.Bra)l(@hennepin.us >; Robert H. Byers <Robert.Byers(@hennepin.us >; ileuerPci.loretto.mn.us Cc: Kendra Lindahl Forwardingl <klindahl(@Iandform.net> Subject: Project Distribution #16 -012 - Randahl Construction, Inc. - CUP, Site Plan Please find the attached distribution for: #16 -012 - Randahl Construction, Inc. - CUP, Site Plan. Thank you, Mike Pritchard Code Compliance Official Zoning, Code Enforcement, Permits City of Corcoran 8200 Co Rd 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Direct Line 763 - 400 -7033 m Pritchard (&ci. corcoran. mn. us Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this message from your computer system. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) RANDAHL Narrative 1 Randahl Construction, Inc. 7241 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 e: info@randahlconstruction.com P: (763) 559 -1009 Project: Commercial Building- 7241 County Road 116 Corcoran Date: 4/18/16 a) Nature of Request. The existing building on this 1.01 acre site will be renovated and site improvements include a new concrete or asphalt parking lot, re- siding and re- roofing the exterior of the building, along with a 6' high perimeter fence for the gravel storage area on the west half of the parcel. Randahl Construction is requesting a waiver of the City's paved storage area requirement. b) Impact on adjoining properties and mitigating measures to minimize impact. The adjoining properties will benefit from the lot clean up, 6' high security fence and the building restoration. The drainage between this parcel and the Custom Filtration lot will be improved with the concrete valley gutter. In addition, Custom Filtration is supportive of the proposed drainage improvements including utilizing their property to do so. c) Buildings to be constructed or utilized. The existing building will be used as an office and an indoor storage warehouse for our construction equipment, tools and machines. d) Intended use of buildings and property As stated above this property will be used as an office, warehouse and storage facility. The gravel storage fenced in area, located in the back of the building, will be used to store equipment, trucks, trailers, and backhoes for our many businesses. e) Hours and days of operation. Monday- Friday 6AM -5PM f) Numbers of employees. 5 g) Size of operation, including number of animals, if applicable. NA h) Impact on traffic, including type and amount of traffic, access, and parking provisions Traffic to this site will decrease from the previous use since it will only be Randahl Construction employees and none of the customer traffic that Heidi's Lifestyle Garden had. 1) Impact on septic system and well The impact will be greatly reduced on the septic system and well. Randahl Construction will have between 5 employees compared to Heidi's Lifestyle Garden which had 33 employees along with 3 employees of Cowboy Concrete. 1) Potential environmental impacts and measures to avoid or minimize the potential impacts. The environmental impacts wil I be decreased due to the change in use of this site; from landscape and garden store to office, warehouse and storage area with a decrease in employees and customers. k) Proposed measures to provide buffering from proposed use to adjacent properties. The proposed 6' high security fence will provide a buffer from the proposed use to the adjacent properties. 1) Future expansion plans. None m) Nature of other use in the neighborhood None cI M 4846.37 l �— WEST QUARTER CORNER SEC. 26, TWP. 119, RNG. 23 — O DENOTES: SET IRON PIPE WITH CAP STAMPED DELEO 40341 " G DENOTES: MAGNETIC PK "NAIL • DENOTES: FOUND IRON MONUMENT p DENOTES: GOVERNMENT SECTION CORNER MONUMENT N 89° 54'52" W 5325.38 479.01 North line of the SE1 /4 LARKIN ROAD 1 1 _ 1 I 1 i I I",--- West line of the 1 I East 500.00 feet of the 1 NE1 14 of the SE1 14 p North line of the South 100.00 feet of the North 275.00 feet N I of the NE1 14 of the SE1 14 X I 1 12" dia. Iron Pipe 1 N14 "E 5.43 from , 479.00 ` q Property Corner - i- 1,- a____ - -�� -- j / BUILDING S 89° 54 5 ,�+ -- -__ ___ -_ -_ , -� - -I — rearm — - -- — - - -- - -� „P439.01 woDaFa /- / - -_-- I[ieen oujai i �— soot - - -- �S�ewercDaula MatEIrfei Bins qL= 695.e w - - - I - - - ; -- EAST QUARTER CORNER - CIM SEC. 26, TWP. 119, RNG. 23 Raised Lan ping d - - - -- i� I I I Gravel PatkBg t# I O \ Gravel Perk Lot � . Gravel DAvBwey _ __�_ - - -- 4390 •::i• TOF .EB, ; =r _ n{ and 5 -479 -01- -- -- INV= .73 ,... - , -crop' I/ ••••� I , -'� dia. Iron Pipe- ' -- ` � �y - — - I SKIMMER (RLS 168821 -- -- - - -_` -� i I qP �i TOG B8B.e5 N5 °E 4.55 from- South line of the North 375.00 feet \� - - -. I lNV Nw ° -7 41 Property Come of the NE114 of the SE1 14 8 PWW Parld netbt +te, 115 STORM _ WATER i „F_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ I _ V I BASIN , + :.. � EASEMENT PER 1 i DOC. NO. 6948355 ; f .N�t31 Z If 4 i 1 I 1 l 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET O 40 40 N ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS ASSUMED o o t F m m R °o ({p OCf r MAPPING LEGEND Q UTILITY POLE -O- Q UTILITY PEDESTAL Q �I C I UTILITY METER 1 v TREE 'IF o. BURIED ELECTRIC LINE -v -BUR 1 'mg BURIED TELEPHONE LINE T -BUa BURIED GAS LINE c- y ( OVERHEAD POWER LINE 140.00 ST ORM SEWER PIPE H 0.. EXISTING CONTOURS ----- 1086 - - -- 1 PROPERTY LINE I � it PROPEfY BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION I The South 100 feet of the North 275 feet of the East 479 feet of the Southeast 40 40 Quarter (SE1 /4) of Section 26, Township 119, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota. tip NI � + Southeast Corner Sec. 26, TWP. 119, Rng. 23 - o CtM x EXISTING BUILDING ) EDGE OF GRAVELtu� (6' INSIDE PROP. LINE) N t 000 I Ex, Material Si"' FL= 9P, >.82 6" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE Ex. Gra,,el Pa,k n5 Lot 6' HIGH SECURITY FENCE a (ON PROPERTY LINE) EDGE OF GRAVEL u (6" INSIDE PROP, LINE) 70C 99_.68 INT 9501.73 Eti ',. POND w Fr, C >a.el P2rknq Lot RIPRAP Ex. Pa,_J Prrk i 6 C NLMl 111KIT 8 ,RE: sTE A;C KiE 'CEMENT SEC N BE 'LO D IN ACC Tfmt!CE WITI THE 'EOTECHr!ICAL REI, T WE r COME h Tats PAVEMENT SECTION i 1 Ex. Wood fence Ex. Sewer CIearouts v c 00 p Ex. lch Are I r EXISTING BUILDING 7241 C.R. 116 I�xdRa;�ig I Q■ AREA =5,457 SF Bed ° Sig I O FFE =1003.90 EDGE OF I CONCRETE 47.0' -I 1 a � -^ GAT° E ° , ° a 0EDGE OF ?4.0 .011 CONCRETE riveway x. Gravel ° d ca _ T CONCRETE FL- 1001.97 VALLEY GUTTER 2' CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER - - - - - - -- CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION 5� }�5 1 1 TOC= 1004.01 �+ IfdV 1002.43 I ' 1 1 1 — — — — — — — _UE HANDI:;F`,P P!_RI -JNG SIGN )LING -'.TED DOME PNELS ?GE OF SIDE'W,,LK 7LIC 'NHITE LINE OLIC NHITE DIA'ONALS CENTER —TO— CENTER CHID WHITE )RDEF, LINE TERN �.TIONAL SYt1BOL f 8' _..� 81 _I OF ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBLE ACCESS NO SCALE I I i i i I SCALE. 1 " = 20' NOTES: 1. BASE PLAN USED IS A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY KRAMER, LEAS & DELEO. 2. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UTILITY COMPANIES VIA GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL ONLINE OR BY CALLING 811 OR 1 -800 -252 -1166. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS, THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN AND THE LATEST EDITION OF MNDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. 4. PROPOSED PARKING STALLS = 6 (INCLUDING 1 HANDICAPPED). 5. TOTAL LOT AREA = 43.901 SF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 33,353 SF (76.0 %) EXISTING GRAVEL OUTSIDE LOT TO BE REMOVED = 1,265 SF PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 34,397 SF (78.4 %). ■of E m o c C_ C N � I v eY L 9 f d 3 y 3 � 3 � o�_ N �o N =E� Z 3 O V) W CC N z Q J 0- H J F- z Q Lv H CO II z Q O �O O ~ W Li zz z un W z0 CJ oz Q J O Q O C) LJn ..z 1— O Q cou 0cio� SHEET C i 1 Ex. Wood fence Ex. Sewer CIearouts v c 00 p Ex. lch Are I r EXISTING BUILDING 7241 C.R. 116 I�xdRa;�ig I Q■ AREA =5,457 SF Bed ° Sig I O FFE =1003.90 EDGE OF I CONCRETE 47.0' -I 1 a � -^ GAT° E ° , ° a 0EDGE OF ?4.0 .011 CONCRETE riveway x. Gravel ° d ca _ T CONCRETE FL- 1001.97 VALLEY GUTTER 2' CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER - - - - - - -- CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION 5� }�5 1 1 TOC= 1004.01 �+ IfdV 1002.43 I ' 1 1 1 — — — — — — — _UE HANDI:;F`,P P!_RI -JNG SIGN )LING -'.TED DOME PNELS ?GE OF SIDE'W,,LK 7LIC 'NHITE LINE OLIC NHITE DIA'ONALS CENTER —TO— CENTER CHID WHITE )RDEF, LINE TERN �.TIONAL SYt1BOL f 8' _..� 81 _I OF ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBLE ACCESS NO SCALE I I i i i I SCALE. 1 " = 20' NOTES: 1. BASE PLAN USED IS A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY KRAMER, LEAS & DELEO. 2. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UTILITY COMPANIES VIA GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL ONLINE OR BY CALLING 811 OR 1 -800 -252 -1166. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS, THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN AND THE LATEST EDITION OF MNDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. 4. PROPOSED PARKING STALLS = 6 (INCLUDING 1 HANDICAPPED). 5. TOTAL LOT AREA = 43.901 SF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 33,353 SF (76.0 %) EXISTING GRAVEL OUTSIDE LOT TO BE REMOVED = 1,265 SF PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 34,397 SF (78.4 %). ■of E m o c C_ C N � I v eY L 9 f d 3 y 3 � 3 � o�_ N �o N =E� Z 3 O V) W CC N z Q J 0- H J F- z Q Lv H CO II z Q O �O O ~ W Li zz z un W z0 CJ oz Q J O Q O C) LJn ..z 1— O Q cou 0cio� SHEET C ��- G, .. 0tjt 14 ti.S (,, {,iuF (t /�r4L EXISTING BU ILD i 698 P 1002 0 �F 99bk j 100,.2 100 SILT SOCK SILT SOCK EXISTING BUILDING N �� 7241 C.R,116 AREA =5,457 SIF FFE= 1003.90 � SILT FENCE "1003.;0 —07%�° L 1002 98 C a 1 1 U04 17053, 1003 ,o V 1, 1001.a}�a 'E z_19; 1003;0 0 -1_2% 11000404 001 ^Y a. TOC 9P9c60 , — i � - � `INV 996 73 Go cc a.. -, - -- . -� : '� , . i 77 O 0 z / ® V + s. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE \ — - z SkdTti "✓IER� _ � Z01 SILT FENCE If i N g ��� / - I .. q 1 IOC= 1D0401 ' IN NV= 1002.43 ( ' a, 1" 1 — — — — — — — — — z" }� '­'W" IRl 1 2 F+' SH',D / O� ROCK ENTRANCE DETAIL NO SCALE 1, DIG ' 4°-6" T'E!CH ALONG THE I'iTENDED FENCE LINE. P( ST 2. DRP;E ',LL P(>T'$ INTO THE GR)UND <7 B CK F,IDE OF Tr ENCH 3, L.Y CJT SILT FENCE GN THE _ UPHILL '10C ALOJG THE FENCE 1 LINE, NO BsCK FILL FLO',K DIPECTIEPJ SOIL i B CK FILL TYPICAL SILT FENCE INSTALLATION NO SCALE NOTES: 1. BASE PLAN USED IS A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY KRAMER, LEAS & DELEO. 2, ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UTILITY COMPANIES VIA GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL ONLINE OR BY CALLING 811 OR 1- 800 - 252 -1166. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS, THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN AND THE LATEST EDITION OF MNDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. 4. THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE SHALL BE FOLLOWED FOR THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: A. INSTALL SILT FENCE, SILT SOCK AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. B. PERFORM SITE REMOVALS, GRADING, EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT. MULCH ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE OF PROPOSED PAVEMENT AREAS WITHIN 72 HOURS OF THIS WORK. C. INSTALL AGGREGATE BASE AND CONCRETE PAVEMENT, D. BACKFILL BEHIND CONCRETE AND RESTORE GREEN AREAS PER LANDSCAPE PLAN. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL ADJACENT STREETS; KEEPING THEM CLEAN AND SWEPT OF ALL DIRT AND DEBRIS DURING CONSTRUCTION. I i 1 t 1 i SCALE.- 7 " = 20' I ijAll I I 1 41 1 1 1 C W y C C � M � d Y � � I ro` o a w r� V �J 11 -12 N av _ a eEoo z Z 3 O � to � W D! Z N 0 W Z Q d o J Z O cr O i z Q O I— F_ O O W zz � L z co W ZO O O z W Q J �r1r, _ O Q O C) LLJ Q:� .. z l­— O o FJ� 0 SHEET C -2 I" &d..CH N5DE RAN GARDEN 3 Elijoh Blue Fescue Gross EX5TNG SEPTC TALK �EX5TNG 5EPTC TANK 13 Sher Moixd Wrnrnwaai PARK NG LOT 5 Block Rills Spruce EDGNG RAN GARDEN EDGNG 5 @tnti Dogc*oci 6 Little Bluestem 0000 O 0 6 Joe Pye Weed \ 5 Prairie Blcm-g Star °... x 0 ° 9 Black Eye Susan ® 0 OO 5 New Ergkrd Aster 5 Great Blue Lobel'!a 6 Fox Secge AT GRANTE ROCKS 3 Big Ears Lambs Ear n I Mugu Stwrwocd Con-pact Pine 5 Gold Strike Lady's Montle 3 Elijah Blue Fescue Gross I V2°GRANTE ROCK I Dwarf V irged Burring Bush 2 Silver Mound Worn-wood 3 Elijah Blue Fescue Grass I MW 5heavnod Compact Pine DRY PNER BED BULDING I Silver Marxl Warm and 15 NorUmk d SL,itchgross 3 Gold Strike Lady's Mantle 3 Elijah Blue Fescue Gross 3 Elijah Blue Fescue Grass I Big Ears Larh's Ea 2 COURSE OF LARGE BLOCKS I Mugo 51-enw Compact Pine 3 Elijah Blue Fescue Gross I Big Eons Lomb's Ea EXISTING SIDEWALK PARK NG LOT 5 Block Rills Spruce EDGNG CORD LAWN ICOURSE OF LARGE BLOCKS 3 Proi•ie Dropseed SGN 10 Gold Strike Lcd /5 Mantle MOVE EX5TNG FLAG POLE 2 COURSE OF LARGE BLOCKS LAWN EDGNG m 0000 0000 CORD LAWN ICOURSE OF LARGE BLOCKS 3 Proi•ie Dropseed SGN 10 Gold Strike Lcd /5 Mantle MOVE EX5TNG FLAG POLE 2 COURSE OF LARGE BLOCKS LAWN 7c. wo — �___ CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763.420.2288 — Office 763.420.6056 — Fax E -mail - general(cDci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site - www.ci.corcoran.mn.us MEMO Meeting Date: June 2, 2016 To: Planning Commission From: Brad Martens, City Administrator Re: Commission Rotation at Council Meetings Earlier this year the Council solicited feedback from the commissions on the Council liaison role at commission meetings. Through that discussion the Council has proposed creating a rotating schedule where a member of each commission is assigned to attend Council meetings. The goal is to increase communication between the groups. The role of the commission member at Council meetings would be to review the packet in advance of the meeting, attend the meeting, and be available for questions if requested of the Council. The commission member attending would receive a printed meeting packet as does the City Council. A draft rotating schedule is below, it is requested that the Planning Commission review the proposed schedule and make adjustments as necessary. 6/09/16 6/23/16 7/14/16 7/28/16 8/11/16 8/25/16 Jacobs Ravnholdt Schultz Theis Wu Jacobs Attachments: N/A Agenda Item 8a. L A N D F O R M From Site to Finish • 105 South Fifth Street, MEMORANDUM Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 DATE May 16, 2.0.1.6 TO Brad Martens .. ............................... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cc City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Trails Commission • Tel: 612 - 252 -9070 Fax: 612 - 252 -9077 www.landform.net FROM Kendra Lindahl, City Planner .. ............................... _. RE .....Active Corcoran... Planning.. Applications .................................................................................................................................................. ............................... The following is a summary of project status for current, active projects: 1. Design Guidelines Update for Southeast District /Downtown (city file 15 -021). The City received funding from Hennepin County for this project. The Project Management Team (PMT) includes the city administrator, city planner and Hennepin County staff. The final community open house was held on March 14th. The Parks and Trails Commission recommended approval at their April 19th meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval at a public hearing on May 5th and City Council is expected to adopt on May 26th. 2. Park Place Storage request for Rezoning, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Preliminary Plat (City file 16 -002). The City Council reviewed a sketch plan last year for expansion of the existing mini - storage facility. The applicant has submitted the application, but is working to provide additional information for completeness. The project is on hold while they work through wetland issues. 3. Private Drive Ordinance Amendment (City file 16 -003). The City Council approved an ordinance amendment allowing private drives in the Rural Residential district, subject to certain conditions. However, after adoption the City Council directed staff to revisit this issue and consider an ordinance amendment to eliminate the requirement that private drives off paved roads must be paved. The Planning Commission recommended approval at a public hearing on May 5th and the City Council is expected to take action on May 26th. 4. City- Initiated Park Dedication Ordinance Update (City File 16 -006). Staff was directed to bring back other potential amendments for consideration in 2015, including revisions to clarify whether or not existing homes are subject to park dedication when part of a plat, how to ensure that land dedication in the rural areas is fairly required and a review of our park dedication requirements. The Council authorized this as a priority for 2016. The City Council reviewed the draft ordinance and directed staff to schedule a public hearing. The Parks and Trails Commission will review at their May 17th meeting, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on June 2nd and the City Council will review on June 23rd 5. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow Solar Gardens (city file 16 -008). Staff received a written request and escrow from Potentia Solar, Inc. to consider an amendment to allow solar gardens in the City of Corcoran. They have specifically requested that they be allowed in the UR zoning district, but staff prepared a number of issues for City Council for direction. The Council reviewed the key issues at the March 24th Council meeting and directed staff to schedule a work session. The work session will be held on May 25th from 6:00 — 8:00 pm. The item could then be brought back to the Council for further discussion and, ultimately a public hearing at the Planning Commission and Council action on an ordinance amendment. Landform", SensiblyGreen° and Site to Finish" are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 1 6. Randahl Construction Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Amendment at 7241 CR 116 (City file 16 -012). Randahl Construction has submitted an application for approval of a CUP and site plan amendment for outside storage at the old Heidi's property. The application is scheduled for a public hearing at the June 2nd Planning Commission meeting and action at the June 23rd City Council meeting. 7. Sketch Plan an Open Space and Preservation plat for Roalstad Hills at 21729 CR 10 (PID 16- 119 -23 -31 -0003, 1611923310004 and 1611923420009 ) (city file 16 -014). The applicant has submitted a request for sketch plan review of an 11 -lot OSP plat on 63.6 acres. The application is scheduled for City Council review on May 26th 8. Ravinia 5tn Addition Final Plat, PUD Final Plan and Vacation (City file 16 -015). Lennar has submitted an application for 47 single family home lots and 3 outlots. The item is tentatively schedule for Planning Commission and City Council review in July. 9. Ravinia 6th Addition Final Plat, PUD Final Plan and Vacation (City file 16 -016). Lennar has submitted an application for 23 single family home lots and 2 outlots. The item is tentatively schedule for Planning Commission and City Council review in July. Also, there are a number of projects that have been approved, but are still not filed and closed out: 1. Corcoran Business Park (City file 06 -005). The City Council granted a one year extension to the final plat approval, which expired on April 12, 2011. Staff has spoken to the applicant and is still working to close out this project. Staff has spoken to the applicant and will schedule a meeting when more information is available on the Loretto sewer project. Hope Ministries Conditional Use Permit for Cemetery and Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easement at 19951 Oswald Farm Road (City file 12 -002). Hope Ministries submitted a request for a conditional use permit to allow a cemetery west of the existing church. The application was approved by the City Council on March 22nd and site work had begun. The letter of credit for site improvements has been released but we are holding the escrow pending completion of the approved landscaping. The applicant has indicated that they are considering a site plan amendment application to modify the approved plans. Staff met again with Pastor Brian Lother in December to try to finalize this issue and address some other questions or concerns from him. We hope to be able to wrap this up in the near future. 3. Lano Equipment at 23580 Highway 55 Site Plan Modifications for Cold Storage Building. (31- 119 -23 -34 -0007) (13 -006). This item was approved by the City Council on July 11th. All required improvements have been made. Staff has inspected the landscaping for survivability in May 2016 and provided notice to the applicant, that, once the dead landscaping is replaced, we will release all remaining escrow and letter of credit. 4. Ess Brothers Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for an accessory building at 9350 County Road (PID # 07- 119 -23 -43 -0004) (City File No. 13 -031) The applicant requested approval of a 5,500 square feet detached, accessory building with 20 -foot sidewalls. The City Council approved this item on January 23rd. Staff has inspected the landscaping for survivability in May 2016 and provided notice to the applicant, that we will release all remaining escrow and letter of credit. 5. Sawgrass Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD Development Plan and Rezoning for on Schendel property at 20400 County Road 10 (City file 14 -027). The City Council approved the request on December 11, 2014 and granted the applicant 2 years to apply for the final plat and final PUD development plan. Peachtree Partners did not buy the property, but a different developer could still proceed with the approved plan. The next step would be for a developer to submit a final PUD plan and plat prior to expiration of the approvals on December 11, 2016. 6. Corcoran Public Works Site Plan Amendment and Variance (city file 15 -006). The site plan amendment and variance are to grant after - the -fact approvals for changes to the approved site plan that were made in the field and generally authorized by the subcommittee. The gravel drive and MEMORANDUM storage area that was added on the south area of the fenced yard requires a variance. The item was reviewed and approved in April 2015. Final landscaping and close out issues will occur this spring. 7. Commercial Door Addition at 7670 Commerce Street (City file 15 -010) The City received an application for approval of a building addition, which required a conditional use permit, interim use permit, variance and site plan approval. The project was reviewed at a public hearing at the June 4th Planning Commission meeting and was approved by the City Council on June 25th. The required landscaping will be finalized and constructed after the downtown infrastructure project is completed. The City will release the remaining escrow when the planting is completed. 8. Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a new Verizon Monopole at 23605 Co Rd 50 (PID30- 119-23-21 -0001) (City File 15 -016). Verizon has requested a conditional use permit and site plan for a new telecommunications tower on the Gleason property located at the southwest corner of County Roads 19 & 50. The public hearing was held at the Planning Commission on July 71h and they voted unanimously to recommend approval. The City Council approved this item on July 23rd. The applicant is working to address the conditions of approval and then will apply for a building permit. THE APPROVALS EXPIRE ON JULY 23RD UNLESS AN EXTENSION IS REQUESTED. 9. "Fehn Meadows" Preliminary Plat and Final Plat at 20909 County Road Number 117 (PID # 03- 119 -23 -12 -0002 and PID 03- 119 -23 -13 -0001) (city file no. 15 -018). The applicant is requesting approval of a plat to readjust the lot lines between two parcels to create one lot and one outlot. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 3rd and voted unanimously to recommend approval. The City Council approved the preliminary plat and final plat on October 8th. The next step is for the applicant to address any conditions of approval, submit the mylars for City signature and record the documents at the County. 10. "Strehler Estates" Final Plat (PID 17- 119 -23 -32 -0004) (city file no. 16 -001). The applicant submitted a request for approval of a preliminary plat to create 4 lots and an ordinance amendment to allow a private drive for property at 22900 Strehler Road. The City Council approved both items on October 8th. The final plat was approved by the City Council at the January 28th meeting. The applicant is working to address the conditions of approval and then will record the final plat at Hennepin County. 11. Ravinia 4t' Addition Final Plat, PUD Final Plan and Vacation (City file 16 -004). Lennar has submitted an application for 44 single family homes. This area was originally planned for detached townhomes on 60 -foot wide lots. The applicant is proposing to modify the plan to provide the new Discovery series single family homes on 55 -foot lots. The City Council approved this item on April 28th The applicant is working to address the conditions of approval and then will record the final plat at Hennepin County. MEMORANDUM I CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763.420.2288 — Office 763.420.6056 — Fax E -mail - general(cDci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site - www.ci.corcoran.mn.us MEMO Meeting Date: June 2, 2016 To: Planning Commission From: Brad Martens, City Administrator Re: City Council Report The Planning Commission last met on May 5, 2016. The following is a recap of some of the items discussed at City Council meetings since that time. A full recap can be found by reviewing the approved City Council minutes on the website 171 FVA KWUli1 D • Shaun Irwin — Anderson Insurance and Investment Agency, Inc. o Mr. Irwin provided background on insurance for the City and answered questions of the Council • Solar Ordinance Workshop o Council was notified of the scheduled solar workshop for May 25th beginning at 6:00 pm • 2015 Audit o Andy Berg of Abdo Eick & Meyers presented the results of the 2015 audit which included a clean opinion (best available); Council accepted the 2015 Audit • Compensation Study Survey Results o Council accepted the results of the compensation study and appointed a sub- committee of Mayor Guenthner and Councilmember LaFave to further review the information • Crew Leader Appointment — Brandon Heinz o Appointed Brandon Heinz to the position of Public Works Crew Leader EM May 26, 2016 The following is a list of some of the items that are on the agenda for the May 26`h meeting. This report was completed prior to the meeting taking place: • Public Hearing — Potential Assessment for Dust Control in 2016 • City Initiated Amendment to the Private Drive Ordinance • Corcoran Southeast Plan and Design Guidelines Update • Sign Ordinance Update • Sketch Plan for Roalstad Property • Corcoran Southeast District Market Analysis Attachments: N/A