Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-05-24 Council Agenda Packet
*Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the website at www.ci.corcoran.mn.us. Corcoran City Council Agenda May 24, 2018 - 7:00 pm 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval 4. Open Forum 5. Presentations 6. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of May 10, 2018 Council Meeting* b. City Council Work Sessions* c. Letter of Intent Not to Execute Purchase Agreement – 23185 County Road 10* d. Resolution Accepting Firearm Safety Donations* 7. Claims as Presented a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500)* b. All Other Financial Claims* 8. Staff Reports / Memos / Commissions a. Commission Representatives* b. Planning Project Update* 9. Planning Business a. PUD Sketch Plan for Edgewater of Corcoran* b. Nuisance Ordinance Updates* c. Corcoran Development Process and Alternatives* d. Work Plan for Amendments to Development Rights and Open Space & Preservation Plats* e. Natural Resource Protection Options* 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business a. Preliminary Evaluation of Corcoran Water Supply Development* b. Gambling Ordinance Amendment Request* 12. 2018 Council Schedule* 13. Council Liaison Calendar Planning Commission 5/3/18 6/7/18 7/5/18 8/2/18 9/6/18 10/4/18 Bottema Dejewski LaFave Keefe Thomas Bottema Parks and Trails Commission 5/29/18 6/19/18 7/17/18 8/21/18 9/18/18 10/16/18 Keefe Available Bottema Available LaFave Keefe 14. Adjournment CITY OF CORCORAN City Council Meeting Minutes May 10, 2018 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran City Council met on May 10, 2018 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were Mayor Thomas, Councilor Dejewski, and Councilor LaFave. Excused were Councilor Bottema and Councilor Keefe. Also present were City Administrator Martens, City Planner Lindahl, City Engineer Torve, Public Works Superintendent Meister and Public Safety Director Gottschalk. 1.Call to Order / Roll Call Mayor Thomas called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2.Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Thomas invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Agenda Approval City Administrator Martens noted a corrected typo in the April 26, 2018 Council Minutes, an updated resolution for 11a, and added 11e, to update the Council on the maintenance operator position. MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to approve the agenda as amended. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) 4.Open Forum No persons were present to speak. 5.Presentations a. 2017 Audit – Justin Nilson, Abdo Eick & Meyers Justin Nilson, Audit Manager for the City of Corcoran, gave a presentation on the financial audit for Corcoran in 2017. He noted that the auditor’s responsibility is to give an opinion on how the City is managing its finances. He explained that the auditor prepares the City’s financial statements and shared a finding that the City has insufficient collateral coverage. Nilson discussed last year’s recommendation of updating financial guidelines. This was completed by the City of Corcoran in 2017 due to auditor recommendations. During this year’s audit, it was discovered that the City is holding approximately 80% of its cash and investments in accounts earning an interest rate below 0.05%, resulting in an approximate 0.13% average rate of return in 2017. Nilson recommends the City of Corcoran consider its investing needs and possibly increase returns by diversifying some of its cash into other types of investments authorized under Minnesota statutes. Nilson presented a graph of the general fund balance over the past 5 years. He noted that in 2018 the balance was $4,520,261. This is a $1,193,323 or 35.87% increase from a balance of $3,326,938 in 2017. He also noted that $460,031, or 10.1%, of the total fund balance was assigned for long range planning. The Council inquired if other cities had a similar amount of unrestricted funds. Nilson stated that their recommendation is 40-50% with the minimum being 35% leaving the City of Corcoran within those guidelines at 36.7%. Nilson then compared what the City budgeted in the general fund to what was actually found. The City had budgeted $3,987,106 for revenue and received $4,486,454, resulting in a surplus of $499,348. The City Agenda Item 6a. budgeted $4,014,228 for expenditures and actually spent $4,200,392, resulting in additional spending of $186,164. The difference between the received revenues and expenditures, as well as an additional $10,000 from other financing sources, left the City a surplus of $323,184. The Council noted that it is a challenge to estimate how much a City is going to grow and be able to monitor those changes and inquired if the auditor had any recommendations on how to best do that. Nilson responded that long-range planning is comparative and it requires looking at all the funds and the entire picture. He also noted that budgeting conservatively is good practice. Nilson then went over the general fund breakdown of revenues and transfers. The largest portion of revenue came from taxes, licenses/permits, other revenue, intergovernmental, and charges for services. The largest portion of expenditure came from public safety, public works, general governmental expenses, and transfers. The Special Revenue Fund has increased from $61,619 in 2016 to $141,037 in 2017, resulting in an increase of $79,418 or 128.89%. Some sources of income that comprise the Special Revenue fund are reserve donations, police donations, firearms safety training donations, DWI forfeiture, drug forfeiture, truck safety donations, and lawful gambling. Nilson presented the City’s Debt Service Funds with a total of $7,456,000 in outstanding debt and $1,645,473 in remaining interest payments. Capital Project Funds were $3,402,760 in 2016 and $2,103,069 in 2017, resulting in a decrease of $1,299,691 or -38.2%. Major expenditures were the Downtown Improvement Project and Hackamore Upgrades Project. Nonmajor expenditures were Park Capital, Capital Equipment, Shannon Lane, wetland restoration, asphalt maintenance, and the Public Works Facility. The Downtown Improvement Fund decreased $1,514,485 during the year as a result of capital outlay expenditures. The decrease in the Hackamore Upgrade Fund was due to capital outlay expenditures related to the Hackamore Road Upgrade project exceeding current year sources. The increase in the Park Capital Fund was due to Park Dedication Fund revenue. Nilson also noted that the Water Fund increased $276,928 or 19.89% from $1,392,120 in 2016 to $1,669,048 in 2017 and the Sewer Fund increased $62,434 or 12.17% from $513,099 in 2016 to $575,533 in 2017. Lastly, Nilson presented the ratio analysis and found that the City of Corcoran had 54% debt to assets; $1,973 debt per capita; $687 taxes per capita; $762 current expenditures per capita; and $333 capital expenditures per capita. He noted that some of these numbers are higher than other cities due to the City of Corcoran being in the early stages of developing new infrastructure. The Council inquired about the 35% minimum maintenance of the Fund Balance and asked if there were any additional recommendations on how to manage that number. Nilson responded that although 35% is on the lower end, it is not incorrect for a City to operate around that number due to the City’s priorities. He did not have any recommendations but did note that some cities start a Capital Improvement Fund as their city grows bigger and suggested this would be a positive item to budget for. The Council inquired if the auditing company had full cooperation from the staff. Nilson stated that there was full cooperation and staff was great to work with. City Administrator Martens acknowledged and appreciated the work that staff did in assisting the auditor. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Dejewski to accept the Audit as presented. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave. (Motion carried 3:0) 6. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of April 26, 2018 Council Meeting b. Cancellation of Special Assessment and Certain Fees- 20175 County Road 50 MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to approve the consent agenda consisting of items 6a and 6b. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) 7. Claims as Presented a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500) MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Dejewski to approve escrow claims as presented. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) b. All Other Financial Claims MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Dejewski to approve all other claims as presented. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) 8. Staff Reports / Memos/Commissions a. Commissioner Representatives The Council acknowledged Planning Commission Representative Dorothy Theis. 9. Planning Business a. Consideration of EAW - Encore (18-004) City Planner Lindahl gave a verbal presentation of considering the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Encore development. She explained that the final step in the EAW process is to determine what to do with the findings. She noted that EAWs are mandatory for residential developments with more than 250 homes for a city the size of Corcoran. The intent of the EAW is to identify potential environmental impacts and then adopt mitigation strategies that could be included in conditions for future approval. If the EAW identifies significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, then it is required to order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which gives you additional alternatives. After reviewing the findings for an EAW , the Council decides if they want to request additional information about the EAW, make a finding of “no need” for an EIS, or order an EIS. Based on the review of the EAW dated March 5th, staff recommends finding a “no need” for an EIS. The Council asked City Planner Lindahl to walk through the process of an EIS. City Planner Lindahl explained that the EIS is similar to the EAW except that it does not identify new impacts and rather finds alternative mitigation strategies for the findings in the EAW. The Council noted surprise that there was no concern about the impact on adjacent wetlands. City Planner Lindahl noted that most cities in the Metro area have rules for identifying mitigation strategies and solutions to everything outlined in the EAW so it is less impactful in the Metro than it would be in more rural areas that did not have mitigation strategies outlined. She noted that there was not anything in the EAW that did not already come up in the feasibility study or other planning reviews. She also noted that if the wetland was impacted, the City would have to comply with the Wetland Conservation Act. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Dejewski to approve Resolution 2018-31 declaring finding of “no need” for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based upon the review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) dated March 5, 2018 for the “Encore” Project proposed Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC at 9975 County Road 101. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) 10. Unfinished Business No unfinished business was presented. 11. New Business a. Awarding the Sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A City Administrator Martens noted that at the April 12th, 2018 Council meeting a resolution was approved providing the issuance and sale of bonds for the purchase of 20400 County Road 50, as well as the 2018-2019 Capital Improvement Plan. The amount was for approximately $1,865,000. In advance of the sale, a rating call was held with Moody’s Investor Services who upgraded the City’s rating from an A1 to Aa3 due to improved financial position, reserves growing healthily relative to the budget, growing tax base, favorable location within the Twin Cities Metro area, above average wealth levels, a moderate debt burden, and a moderate pension burden. Tammy Omdal from Northland Securities gave a bond sale summary. She stated that on May 10th Northland Securities took bids on behalf of the City of Corcoran. They received two bids and chose the lower bid. She noted that the bonds are being sold to finance park land acquisition and equipment totaling $1,835,000; which was $30,000 lower than previously estimated. She explained that the bids were paid with premium meaning the buyer of the bonds is paying the City of Corcoran more to have larger coupons on the bond which has a favorable impact on the City. The estimated interest rate with the lower rating was 3.12% and is now down to 2.98%. The Council inquired how many bids were received the last time there was a bond sale. Tammy Omdal responded 3 or 4. She explained that this was a smaller size in the marketplace and that the federal tax bill passed last December had implications on the tax exempt market. The Council verified that it was a steady increase in the Reserve Fund that gave a better rating. Omdal responded that was correct and there was a positive trend noted over a period of time. She noted that future challenges are the nominal size of the Reserve Fund and monitoring the Reserve Fund so it does not go below the current amount. MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to accept Resolution 2018-37 awarding the sale of General Obligation Bonds Series 2018A, in the aggregate principal amount of $1,835,000; fixing their form and specifications; directing their execution and delivery; and providing for their payment. Voting Aye: Thomas Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) b. Interfund Transfer City Administrator Martens stated that the final step related to the bond sale is to approve transferring $250,000 from the Park Dedication Fund to the Capital Fund related to the purchase of 20400 County Road 50. MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to approve Resolution 2018-29 authorizing an interfund transfer of $250,000 from the Park Dedication Fund to the Capital Fund. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) c. Public Hearing- 2018 Dust Control Project City Administrator Martens gave a presentation on the 2018 Dust Control Project. He explained that Dust Control was an annual project to apply chloride product on 27 of the 34 miles of gravel road in Corcoran. The project cost $109,950 or $0.75 per linear foot which is subsidized by the city based upon different types of roads. Collector roads and neighborhood roads connected to collector roads are subsidized $0.24 per linear foot and neighborhood roads accessing paved roads are subsidized $0.60 per linear foot. He noted that the percentage of the project to be assessed has been reduced over time with incremental budget adjustments. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. Tom Spiczka, 9103 Cain Road, addressed the Council and discussed having to pay for general road improvements throughout the City regardless of the level of personal use and inquired why property owners bear sole financial responsibility when other residents also use those roads. Stan Littlefield, 7100 Old Settlers Road, addressed the Council and inquired if the City did annual inspections to assess whether the application of chloride product was necessary. He noted that in previous years dust control was applied when it was not needed and stated that by only applying it when necessary would save money. Judith Herwig, 9410 Fox Valley Drive, addressed the Council and raised concerns about the numerous frost boils on her road that have not been fixed in a long time. She also inquired about whether every house on the road would be billed the same. Kari Heitke, 22201 Homestead Trail, addressed the Council and asked why her property was now on the dust control list when it was not in previous years. She also inquired about how payment was going to be divided. Dennis Covington, 7131 Old Settlers Road, addressed the Council and stated that dust control should be a maintenance issue and be evaluated on an every year basis. MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) City Administrator Martens responded that evaluating the roads on an annual basis would be a possibility and the City had not previously discussed doing so. City Administrator Martens also explained that each property is billed on whether they are collector roads or neighborhood roads. He noted that if an individual lives on a gravel road that has portions that are paved they could be billed for a half-unit or quarter-unit. City Administrator Martens explained that Homestead Trail between Willow Drive and Rolling Hills Road was added for the first time this year and that access is the determining factor on whether certain properties will be included in dust control. The Council discussed treating dust control as a maintenance item and noted that the topic had been addressed at previous meetings. The Council noted that high-traffic gravel roads that produce a lot of dust have been considered for paving. The Council also noted that it has tried to find a balance between conflicting opinions by subsidizing more every year. The Council acknowledged that giving Public Works more authority to determine the necessity of dust control on individual roads could be a possibility. Public Works Superintendent Meister explained that roads that are new to the dust control list are likely there because residents requested the application. He also expressed reluctance on giving Public Works the authority to decide which roads to apply dust control due to the subjective nature of that decision and the likelihood that some residents will express dissatisfaction with the decision. He also noted that despite the roads being in fair condition currently, the decrease in quality during the summer months and many residents on roads that were applied for dust control request a second application. The Council noted that they are doing comprehensive analysis on the roads in Corcoran and their maintenance needs and once that is completed they will have a more informed decision on how to manage and maintain certain roads. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Dejewski to accept Resolution 2018-38 ordering improvement of dust control treatments to be applied to city streets in 2018. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) d. 2018 Pavement Overlay Program- Accept plans/specs, authorize bids City Administrator Martens gave a presentation on the 2018 Pavement Overlay Program. He stated that the Council approved a feasibility study to develop a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Municipal State Aid (MSA) funding. One goal of this study was to review options for project work that was warranted and eligible for MSA construction funds that could be completed in 2018 to draw down the construction account balance below $1.5 million. He noted that during preliminary analysis, it was evident that completion of an enhanced pavement overlay project on previously constructed MSA projects were prime candidates. Two roads under consideration are Larkin Road from Old Settlers Road to County Road 116 and Rolling Hills Road from north of Horseshoe Trail to County Road 50. The estimated project cost was updated to $518,000 for construction. The Larkin Road estimate was $222,000 and the Rolling Hills Road estimate was $296,000. All costs are eligible for MSA reimbursement. The engineering and testing estimate is $35,000 and the lab and field testing that is required for MSA projects will be subcontracted through Wenck. The anticipated schedule is to accept the plan and authorize the bid at the May 10th Council meeting, open the bid on June 5th, award the bid on June 14th, and do construction July-October. MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to direct staff to authorize bids for the 2018 Pavement Overlay Program. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) e. Maintenance Operator Update City Administrator Martens noted that the resignation notice of a maintenance operator from the last meeting was rescinded and that Philip Medrano will remain with Corcoran Public Works. 12. 2018 Council Schedule City Administrator Martens reviewed the upcoming schedule. 13. Council Liaison Calendar The Council liaison calendar was not reviewed, but was available in the Council packet. 14. Adjournment MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Dejewski to adjourn. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) Meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. ________________________________ Brad Martens – City Administrator STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6b. Council Meeting: May 24, 2018 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: City Council Work Sessions Action Required: Schedule Work Sessions Summary: The City Council has directed staff to schedule monthly work sessions due to the increase in complex development reviews and policy considerations. After polling members, it appears as though the first meeting of the month works for both July and August. Staff recommends scheduling meetings as follows: July 12th 5:45 pm – 6:45 pm August 9th 5:45 pm – 6:45 pm The meetings are open to the public. Staff will arrange for light snacks and beverages to be available for Council and staff. Once scheduled, staff will draft agendas to include 2019 budget, City staffing structure, ordinance amendments, City Hall remodel, etc. Financial/Budget: Minor costs associated with snacks and beverages will be incorporated into the existing budget. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: Efficient and Effective Service Delivery We believe providing services to residents and businesses in an efficient and effective manner makes government easier to work with and creates a business friendly environment. Responsible Decision Making We believe it is the responsibility of the City to address difficult issues now in order to avoid larger more difficult issues in the future. Transparency We believe that open an honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry. Processes and decision making should include opportunities to educate citizens and receive feedback. Council Action: Schedule City Council work sessions at 5:45 pm on July 12, 2018, and August 9, 2018. Attachments: None. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6c. Council Meeting: May 24, 2018 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Letter of Intent Not to Execute Purchase Agreement – 23185 County Road 10 Action Required: Approve Letter Summary: In April 2017, the City Council directed staff to coordinate an amendment to the existing purchase agreement for the property at 23185 County Road 10, known as the Roehlke property. The purchase agreement was in place for the purchase of athletic space and the term was extended to fall 2018 Recently, the City Council has approved purchasing the Rockford School District property at 20400 County Road 50 with a scheduled closing date of June 1, 2018. Due to that purchase taking place, Council has asked staff to draft a letter to the owners of the Roehlke property informing them of the City’s intent not to purchase the property. Attached to this report is that letter which will be mailed following the closing of the property at 20400 County Road 50. Financial/Budget: Costs related to purchasing property for athletic space have been incorporated into the Five Year Financial Management Plan. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: Efficient and Effective Service Delivery We believe providing services to residents and businesses in an efficient and effective manner makes government easier to work with and creates a business friendly environment. Responsible Decision Making We believe it is the responsibility of the City to address difficult issues now in order to avoid larger more difficult issues in the future. Council Action: Direct staff to send letter of intent not to executed purchase agreement as presented. Attachments: Letter of Intent Not to Execute Purchase Agreement – 23185 County Road 10 A Hidden Gem Waiting To Be Discovered www.ci.corcoran.mn.us 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Phone: 763-420-2288 Administrative Offices Public Works Offices 9100 County Road 19 Corcoran, MN 55357 Phone: 763-420-2652 Phone: 763-420-8966 Police Department Offices 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 June 1, 2018 Robert M. Pearson 13005 Main Street Rogers, MN 55374 Re: Wesley and Eileen Roehlke Farm Property Option Mr. Pearson, As you are aware, the City of Corcoran has a purchase agreement with options for the property at 23185 County Road 10. This purchase agreement was approved in 2012 and amended in 2017 to extend the terms by one year. The City of Corcoran has recently obtained property at 20400 County Road 50 and has determined that the purchase of 23185 County Road 10 is no longer required. Please accept this letter as the City’s intent not to purchase the property. The City sincerely appreciates the efforts that have been made on behalf of the Roehlke family. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, Brad Martens City Administrator City of Corcoran May 24, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-39 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE CORCORAN POLICE FIREARMS SAFETY PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, does hereby find as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran supports the efforts of the 37th Annual Corcoran Police Firearms Safety Program; and WHEREAS, the 2018 training team consisted of Lieutenant Ryan Burns, Officers Steve Warren, Duane Hochstetler, Pete Ekenberg, Chad Dickie, Police Administrative Assistant Paula Steelman and members of the Corcoran Police Reserves, Public Works Superintendent Pat Meister and Public Works Staff, Minnesota DNR Conservation Officer Tim Maass, Community Volunteers Brent Anderson, Paul Schutte, Dean Hochstetler, Mark Bauer, Dave Kramer, Val Nybo, Mike Nybo, Justin White, George Gmach, Lee Pauman, Dustin Hochstetler, Amy Anderson, Carrie White, Josh Steelman, Cody Steelman, Adam Noreen; and WHEREAS, the following donors have made a contribution to the City of Corcoran to be utilized in support of the Corcoran Firearms Safety program; Farmers State Bank of Hamel $ 550 Corcoran Lions $ 750 Hamel Lions $ 1,000 Northwest Area Jaycees $ 1,000 Maple Grove Lions $ 1,000 Hanover Athletic Association $ 1,000 Armand Brachman $ 3,000 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Corcoran acknowledges the outstanding efforts by the Fire Arms Safety Committee, and the generosity of all donors and graciously accepts the financial donations as listed above. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Agenda Item 6d. City of Corcoran May 24, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-39 Page 2 of 2 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 24th day of May, 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Brad Martens – City Administrator AgendaItem 7a-b. CouncilMeetingDate: 5/24/2018 FINANCIALCLAIMS Prepared By: jrotz CHECKRANGE FUND #500ESCROWCLAIMSAgendaItem: 7a. Paid toAmountProject name 500-20440$ 4,419.50Fidelity NationalTitleGroup - FidelityNationalTitle17-032escrowrefund 500-20400$ 32.25Landform - Ravinia5th16-015 500-20430$ 741.75Landform - BassLakeCrossingFP, FPUD, andDA17-022 500-20442$ 64.50Landform - BassLakeEstates FP, PUD17-036 500-20416$ 692.50Landform - Sunrise Solar 17-007 500-20445$ 225.75Landform - Ravinia9th FPandPUD17-042 500-20421$ 129.00Landform - Ravinia7thand9thLotLineAdjustment18-019 500-20436$ 806.25Landform - PulteEncoreEAWandsketchplan18-004 500-20436$ 553.25Landform - Pulte CompPlan Amendment 18-007 500-20436$ 32.25Landform - PulteEncorePP, PUD andRZ18-016 500-20446$ 426.50Landform - RushCreek RunPP18-001 500-20447$ 193.50Landform - Pheasant Ridge2ndAddition sketch plan18-003 500-20450$ 230.50Landform - High5CompaniesCUP 18-006 500-20451$ 576.25Landform - Doboszenski SonsInc. 18-008 500-20452$ 801.00Landform - MatterHomeOccupation 18-009 500-20453$ 370.50Landform - Fehn Meadows2ndAdditionPP18-017 500-20416$ 2,040.00LorettoFireDepartment - SunriseSolar17-007IllegalFire 500-20422$ 1,031.25Motley, Steve - MotleyLotLineAdjustment17-014escrowrefund 500-20390$ 1.54WrightHennepin CoopElectric - RavinaStreet Lights Total$ 13,368.04 TotalFund #500 = 13,368.04 SeeattachedPaymentsDetail) AgendaItem:7b.ALLOTHERFINANCIAL CLAIMS$ 83,150.30$ 96,518.34Total Checks SeeattachedCheck DetailRegister) TotalofAutoDeductions 77,665.59 TOTALEXPENDITURES FORAPPROVAL$ 174,183.93 AutoDeductions / Electronic FundTransfer / OtherDisbursements DatePaid toAmount 5/8/2018Corcoran PetCareCenter$ 97.19 5/14/2018KwikTrip - Farmington, MN$ 36.80 5/14/2018KwikTrip - Farmington, MN$ 38.05 5/4/2018ACH FileFee$ 15.00 5/8/2018Revtrak SV9T$ 116.90 5/10/2018Net Payroll PP10$ 42,368.74 5/10/2018PaychexCGS, Garnish$ 531.14 5/11/2018Paychex Fee$ 345.34 5/11/2018Payroll Taxes$ 15,228.16 5/14/2018ReturnItem$ 60.00 5/14/2018ReturnItemCharge$ 4.00 5/14/2018PERA$ 11,774.10 5/15/2018State of MN - MSRS$ 1,825.78 5/15/2018State ofMN - Roth$ 2,231.84 5/15/2018Optum - HSA$ 3,004.55 5/11/2018NorthlandTrust - WireFee$ (12.00) Total$ H:\\CityHallInformation\\CITYGOVERNMENT\\Council, Commissions & Committees\\CouncilInformation\\CouncilClaims\\2018ClaimsWorkbook 05/16/183:20PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 1 Check Detail Register© May 2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment 10100 FarmersState Bank Unpaid ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP E100-41540-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$5,250.00400809AUDIT SERVICES Total ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP 5,250.00 Unpaid AMAZONCAPITALSERVICES E100-42100-200 OfficeSupplies (GENERAL)$44.4014M9-GPPG-FOFFICE SUPPLIES E100-42100-200 OfficeSupplies (GENERAL)$38.50194V-D9D1-T9OFFICE SUPPLIES E100-41951-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$41.55194V-D9D1-T9CITY IT - COMPUTER E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$178.061XLQ-TYLL-7PPW OPERATING SUPPLIES Total AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 302.51 Unpaid B & DPLUMBING HEATING & AC E100-43100-223 BuildingRepairSupplies$900.00112653SERVICE CALL Total B & DPLUMBING HEATING & AC 900.00 Unpaid BEAUDRY OIL COMPANY E100-43100-212 MotorFuels$2.50858183DIESEL E100-42100-212 Motor Fuels$1,385.19859525SQUAD FUEL E100-43100-212 Motor Fuels$47.68859525GASOLINE E100-41920-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$33.53859525GASOLINE E100-43100-212 Motor Fuels$1,751.40859526DIESEL Total BEAUDRYOIL COMPANY 3,220.30 Unpaid BLACKFIRECREATIVE E202-42100-213 PoliceK9$500.0026532018 POLICE K9 E416-42100-550 MotorVehicles$1,497.5126532018 CIPSQUADBUILDUP Total BLACKFIRE CREATIVE 1,997.51 Unpaid CANVASSOLUTIONS INC E100-41951-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$410.001202008242CANVAS SUBSCRIPTION ANNUAL Total CANVAS SOLUTIONS INC 410.00 Unpaid CDWGOVERNMENT E100-41951-207 ComputerSupplies$84.44MMC7900COMPUTER SUPPLIES E100-41951-207 ComputerSupplies$84.63MMC7901COMPUTER SUPPLIES Total CDWGOVERNMENT 169.07 Unpaid CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON E100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$85.918000014143-4 NATURALGAS - 5754177 E100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$36.788000014143-4 NATURALGAS - 5754460 E100-43100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$724.829884559-7-041NATURALGAS-9100 Total CENTERPOINTENERGYHOUSTON 847.51 Unpaid CINTAS - 470 E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$0.00PUBLIC WORKS TOWELS E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$49.944005776350PW RUGS E100-42100-223 Building RepairSupplies$64.834005776361PD RUGS 05/16/183:20PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 2 Check Detail Register© May 2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$82.504005776369CITYHALLRUGS E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$85.184005776384CITYHALLRUGS E100-43100-417 Uniforms$159.484005776405PWUNIFORMS E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$91.264005955273PW RUGS E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$85.184005955291CITY HALLRUGS E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$93.614005955317PUBLIC WORKS TOWELS E100-42100-223 BuildingRepairSupplies$64.834005955325PD RUGS E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$82.504005955329CITYHALLRUGS E100-43100-417 Uniforms$159.484005955385PWUNIFORMS Total CINTAS - 470 1,018.79 Unpaid COMCAST-INTERNET E100-41941-321 Telephone$72.42051118CITY HALL INTERNET E100-42100-321 Telephone$72.43051118PD INTERNET Total COMCAST-INTERNET 144.85 Unpaid CORCORAN LOCKER E204-42100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$100.004847HOTDOGS - FIREARMSAFETY Total CORCORANLOCKER 100.00 Unpaid CORNERSTONE FORD-CHRYSLER E100-42100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$106.7216215834/1SQUADREPAIR Total CORNERSTONE FORD-CHRYSLER 106.72 Unpaid CULLIGANBOTTLED WATER E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$56.00114X65773000OFFICE WATER Total CULLIGAN BOTTLEDWATER 56.00 Unpaid ECMPUBLISHERS INC E100-43100-228 DustControl$50.14595797DUSTCONTROL HEARING Total ECMPUBLISHERS INC 50.14 Unpaid ELMCREEK WATERSHEDMGMTCOMM E100-41900-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$120.00234RECOVERYEXPENSE Total ELMCREEK WATERSHED MGMT COMM 120.00 Unpaid EVOLVINGSOLUTIONSINC E100-41951-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$1,350.0099746ITMANAGEDSERVICE - MONTHLY Total EVOLVINGSOLUTIONSINC 1,350.00 Unpaid FARNIOK, CORREY E100-42100-208 TrainingandInstruction$323.40050818AIRFARE FOR IACPCONFERENCE Total FARNIOK, CORREY 323.40 Unpaid FERGUSONENTERPRISES E601-49400-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$59.985636734SUPPLIES Total FERGUSON ENTERPRISES 59.98 Unpaid FERGUSONWATERWORKS 05/16/183:20PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 3 Check Detail Register© May 2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment E601-49400-215 WaterMeters$833.080280467METERS Total FERGUSONWATERWORKS 833.08 Unpaid FIDELITYNATIONAL TITLEGROUP G500-20440 FidelityNational Title17-032$4,419.50051118ESCROW REFUND Total FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP 4,419.50 Unpaid FLOW RIGHTPLUMBING E100-43100-223 Building RepairSupplies$740.001833PLUMBING REPAIR/TESTING - RPZTESTING REQUIREDANNUALLY Total FLOW RIGHTPLUMBING 740.00 Unpaid GALLAGHERBENEFITSERVICES INC E100-41540-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$3,600.00143860ENGAGEMENT: 2018 GASB45 Total GALLAGHER BENEFITSERVICES INC 3,600.00 Unpaid GRAINGER E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$125.129777649915SUPPLIES Total GRAINGER 125.12 Unpaid HANOVER, CITYOF E100-42200-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$16,029.102018-22018 FIREPROTECTION - 2NDQTR Total HANOVER, CITYOF 16,029.10 Unpaid HEALTHPARTNERS E100-41300-131 Employer PaidHealth$388.0081187790HEALTH PARTNERS 6/18 INVOICE E100-41400-131 EmployerPaidHealth$3,787.8281187790HEALTH PARTNERS 6/18INVOICE E100-42100-131 EmployerPaidHealth$6,366.4281187790HEALTH PARTNERS 6/18INVOICE E100-42102-131 EmployerPaidHealth$605.9081187790HEALTH PARTNERS 6/18 INVOICE E100-43100-131 EmployerPaidHealth$6,773.7981187790HEALTH PARTNERS 6/18INVOICE G100-20205 Reimbursements$1,481.5081187790HEALTH PARTNERS 6/18INVOICE HAMILTON G100-20205 Reimbursements$1,849.5081187790HEALTH PARTNERS 6/18INVOICE SCHUTTE Total HEALTHPARTNERS 21,252.93 Unpaid HENN COSHERIFF-MC129 E100-42100-301 Prisoner$111.001000110103PRISONER FEES - BOOKING/HOUSING E100-42100-323 Radio Units$1,080.811000110277RADIO FEES/MDC E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$162.081000110352RADIO FEES - PUBLICWORKS E100-42100-301 Prisoner$436.501000110559PRISONERFEES - BOOKING/HOUSING E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)($152.48)OA-1816RADIOFEES - PUBLIC WORKS Total HENNCOSHERIFF-MC129 1,637.91 Unpaid HOLIDAYCOMPANIES E100-42100-212 Motor Fuels$218.67051018SQUADFUEL1400-003-788-415 Total HOLIDAY COMPANIES 218.67 Unpaid JOEROTZ E100-41400-208 Training and Instruction$1,166.00051018TRAINING - CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 05/16/183:20PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 4 Check Detail Register© May 2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment Total JOEROTZ 1,166.00 Unpaid KUDOS AWARDS INC E204-42100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$62.080509188" X10" WALNUT FINISH PLAQUEWITHBLACK/GOLD PLATE Total KUDOS AWARDS INC 62.08 Unpaid L3COMMUNICATIONS MOBILE-VISIO E100-41951-207 ComputerSupplies$494.000316968-INEXTENDED MAINTENANCEAGREEMENT Total L3COMMUNICATIONS MOBILE-VISIO 494.00 Unpaid LANDFORM G500-20400 Ravinia5th & 6th$32.2527342RAVINIA 5TH 16-015 G500-20430 BassLkCross FP, FPUD, 17-022$741.7527343BASSLAKE CROSSING FP, FPUD, AND DA17-022 G500-20442 Bass LakeEst. FP, PUD17-036$64.5027343BASSLAKE ESTATESFP, PUD17-036 E100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$69.0027343ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DOG KENNELS17-037 E100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$153.0027343ORDINANCE AMENDMENT BEES ANDCHICKENS 17- 038 E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$544.5027343ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SMALLCELLS & DAS17- 039 E101-41911-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$167.0027343CORCORAN 2040 COMPREHENSIVE 17-001 G500-20416 Sunrise Solar - 17-007$692.5027343SUNRISE SOLAR 17-007 G500-20445 Ravinia9thFPandPUD17-042$225.7527343RAVINIA 9TH FPANDPUD17-042 G500-20421 Ravinia7thAddit - FP17-013$129.0027344RAVINIA 7THAND9THLOTLINEADJUSTMENT18-019 G500-20436 PulteEncore - PUDSkch17-029$806.2527344PULTE ENCOREEAW ANDSKETCH PLAN 18-004 G500-20436 PulteEncore - PUDSkch17-029$553.2527344PULTE COMPPLAN AMENDMENT18-007 G500-20436 PulteEncore - PUDSkch 17-029$32.2527344PULTE ENCORE PP, PUD, AND RZ18-016 E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$6,007.5027344CORCORAN PLANNING E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$200.0027344CITY MEETINGS E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$1,245.5027344ANNUALCODIFICATION E100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$135.7527344TREE PRESERVATION/NATURAL PROTECTION ORDINANCE 18-010 E100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$168.5027344SEDISTRICT PLAN AND GUIDELINES UPDATE 18-012 E100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$842.2527344NUISANCEORDINANCE UPDATE18-013 E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$738.0027344DEVELOPMENT RIGHTANDOS&PORDINANCE UPDATE 18-014 G500-20446 Rush CreekRunWhisney 18-001$426.5027344RUSHCREEK RUNPP18-001 G500-20447 PheasantRidge 2ndSkch18-003$193.5027344PHEASANT RIDGE2ND ADDITION SKETCHPLAN18- 003 G500-20450 High5CompaniesCUP 18-006$230.5027344HIGH 5COMPANIES CUP18-006 G500-20451 DoboszenskiSonsInc18-008$576.2527344DOBOSZENSKI SONSINC 18-008 G500-20452 Matter HomeOccupation 18-009$801.0027344MATTER HOMEOCCUPATION18-009 G500-20453 FehnMeadows2ndAddPP18-017$370.5027344FEHNMEADOWS 2NDADDITION PP18-017 Total LANDFORM 16,146.75 Unpaid LORETTOFIREDEPARTMENT G500-20416 SunriseSolar - 17-007$2,040.002-2227EXTINGUISH ILLEGALFIRECOUNTYROADS50 & 19 Total LORETTO FIREDEPARTMENT 2,040.00 05/16/183:20PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 5 Check Detail Register© May 2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment Unpaid MATTSON, KEVIN E100-43100-321 Telephone$50.00050418TELEPHONE REIMBURSEMENT E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$56.68050418MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT Total MATTSON, KEVIN 106.68 Unpaid METROPOLITAN COUNCILENVIRO E602-49450-312 MCESSewageTreatment$1,130.050001082925MATERIAL TREATMENT Total METROPOLITAN COUNCILENVIRO 1,130.05 Unpaid MILLERCHEVROLET E100-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$11.01CVW153006REPAIR PARTS Total MILLERCHEVROLET 11.01 Unpaid MNCITY/COUNTY MGMTASSOC E100-41300-433 DuesandMemberships$131.99MARTENS-20MCMAMEMBERSHIP FEE Total MNCITY/COUNTYMGMT ASSOC 131.99 Unpaid MOTLEY, STEVE G500-20422 Motley LotLineAdjust 17-014$1,031.25ESCROW REFESCROW REFUND Total MOTLEY, STEVE 1,031.25 Unpaid M-RSIGNCOINC E100-43100-226 SignRepairMaterials$452.05199584SIGN SUPPLIES Total M-RSIGNCOINC 452.05 Unpaid NAPA AUTO PARTS - CORCORAN E100-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$206.74172890SUPPLIES E100-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$81.00173034SUPPLIES Total NAPAAUTO PARTS - CORCORAN 287.74 Unpaid SECRETARY OFSTATE E100-41400-433 DuesandMemberships$120.00FRIEDRICHNOTARY APPLICATION Total SECRETARY OF STATE 120.00 Unpaid SNSTEAM SALES E204-42100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$792.00142203n2 FLEECEPULLOVERSWITH LOGOS Total SNSTEAMSALES 792.00 Unpaid STREICHER SPOLICEEQUIPMENT E100-42100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$371.96I1312390SUPPLIES E100-42100-417 Uniforms$84.99I1313839UNIFORMS Total STREICHER SPOLICEEQUIPMENT 456.95 Unpaid SUBURBAN TIREWHOLESALE INC E100-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$383.8010153371TIRES Total SUBURBANTIREWHOLESALE INC 383.80 Unpaid SUNLIFEFINANCIAL E100-41300-131 Employer PaidHealth$25.90237687-2018-0EMPLOYER PAID HEALTH 05/16/183:20PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 6 Check Detail Register© May 2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment E100-41400-131 Employer PaidHealth$28.40237687-2018-0EMPLOYER PAID HEALTH E100-41920-131 Employer PaidHealth$25.90237687-2018-0EMPLOYER PAID HEALTH E100-42100-131 Employer PaidHealth$374.80237687-2018-0EMPLOYER PAID HEALTH E100-43100-131 EmployerPaidHealth$78.10237687-2018-0EMPLOYER PAIDHEALTH E100-42102-131 EmployerPaidHealth$55.15237687-2018-0EMPLOYER PAIDHEALTH G100-20205 Reimbursements$2.50237687-2018-0EMPLOYER PAIDHEALTH COBRA G100-21716 ShortTermDisability$649.54237687-2018-0SHORT TERMDISABILITY G100-21717 LongTerm Disability$365.69237687-2018-0SHORTTERM DISABILITY Total SUNLIFEFINANCIAL 1,605.98 Unpaid USBANKCORP EQUIPMENTFINANCE E100-41951-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$317.00356734053COPIER LEASE Total USBANKCORP EQUIPMENTFINANCE 317.00 Unpaid VERIZON WIRELESS E100-42100-323 RadioUnits$245.079806125276RADIO UNITS E100-42100-321 Telephone$335.729806125276CELL SERVICE Total VERIZONWIRELESS 580.79 Unpaid WARREN, STEVE E204-42100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$1,344.92050218FIREARMSSAFETY SUPPLIES Total WARREN, STEVE 1,344.92 Unpaid WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE E100-43232-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$242.00810640CLEAN UP DAY Total WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 242.00 Unpaid WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS E100-41941-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$2,146.5057743ARCHITECT FEES Total WOLD ARCHITECTSAND ENGINEERS 2,146.50 Unpaid WRIGHT HENNEPIN COOPELECT E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$0.00051418CTYRD10/116 000-0100-1469 E100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.00051418Ballpark: 120-1246-7200 E100-42100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.30051418CIVIL DEFENSE: 120-1246-8000 E100-42100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.30051418Maple HillEst: 120-1246-8100 E100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.00051418School Property: 120-1247-9600 E100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.000514188200 CtyRd116: 120-1255-6300 E100-42100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$99.510514186510 CtyRd116: 150-1680-4662 E601-49400-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.0005141819090 Bass LkRd:150-1687-7510 E100-43100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.000514189525Cain Rd: 150-1689-5230 E602-49450-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.30051418Brockton Ln: 150-1689-6871 E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$0.00051418Cty10/Maple Hi: 120-1246-7300 E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$0.00051418CTY 10/Treptaus: 120-1246-7400 E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$0.00051418CTY 10/StThomas:120-1246-7500 E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$0.00051418Cty10/Stanchion:120-1246-7600 E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$0.00051418Co Rd10 & 50: 120-1246-7700 E100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.000514188200 CtyRd116: 120-1246-7800 E100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.0005141875th Ave/Hwy 116:120-1246-7900 05/16/183:20PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 7 Check Detail Register© May 2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment E100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.000514188200 CtyRd116: 150-1684-2033 E100-43100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$27.950514189100 CtyRd19: 150-1688-8463 E602-49450-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.3005141820120 CTY10LIF:150-1691-6661 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.00051418Bridle/Gleason: 150-1690-5131 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.00051418Bridle/Paddock: 150-1690-5135 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.00051418Paddock Ln150-1690-5137 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.00051418Bridle Path: 150-1690-5146 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$0.00051418Paddock/Bridle: 150-1690-5158 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$0.000514186471Carriage: 150-1691-0155 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$0.00051418Bridle/Steeple: 150-1691-0158 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.00051418Bridle/Bluestem: 150-1691-0168 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.00051418Prairie/Bridle: 150-1691-0174 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.00051418Bridle Path: 150-1691-0177 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.00051418Elderberry Ct: 150-1691-0178 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.0005141866TH/CEDAR: 150-1692-8373 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$0.00051418Bridle/66th Ave: 150-1692-8374 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$0.000514186629 CTY 101: 150-1691-8062 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$0.0005141819301 Annabelle: 150-1691-8063 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.000514186675 Carriage: 150-1691-8064 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.000514186681Bridle: 150-1691-8066 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.000514186657Bridle: 150-1691-8079 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.0005141819130 Galloway: 150-1691-8080 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$0.0005141819065 Galloway: 150-1691-8082 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$1.540514186485 Larkspur: 150-1692-0907 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$0.000514186398 Larkspur: 150-1692-0908 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.0005141819437 Lupine LN: 150-1693-0197 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.0005141819389 Lupine LN: 150-1693-0199 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.0005141819345 Golden TR: 150-1693-0200 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.000514186310 Steeple LN: 150-1693-0201 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$0.000514186370SteepleLN: 150-1693-0202 Total WRIGHT HENNEPINCOOPELECT 130.20 Unpaid XCELENERGY E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$34.10590548866STREET LIGHTING 9525 CAINROAD E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$21.41590815985STREET LIGHTING CR19/CR30 Total XCEL ENERGY 55.51 10100 Farmers State Bank$96,518.34 05/16/183:20PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 8 Check Detail Register© May 2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment FundSummary 10100 Farmers State Bank 100GENERALFUND$76,663.08 101LONG-TERMPLANNING FUND$167.00 202POLICE DONATION FUND$500.00 204FIREARMS SAFETY$2,299.00 416 CAPITAL-EQUIPMENT CERTS$1,497.51 500 ESCROWHOLDING FUND$13,368.04 601WATER$893.06 602SEWER$1,130.65 96,518.34 CityofCorcoran ConsultantSummary 5/24/2018 NameInvoice DateAmount Due Carson, Clelland & Scherder Landform05/10/18 16,146.75 MetroWestInspection Rolf EricksonEnterprises Wenck Associates Total$ 16,146.75 H:\\CityHallInformation\\CITYGOVERNMENT\\Council, Commissions & Committees\\CouncilInformation\\Council Claims\\2018ClaimsWorkbook Vendor:Landform CITY OF CORCORAN De.:5-10-18 PAYMENT VOUCHER Address:Landform Suite 513 Payment Tots: $ 16,146.75 ' 105 South Fifth Ave Minneapolis,MN 55401 INV DATE: 06/09/18 Fund Department Account Description Invoice a Amount 100 41910 300 Corcoran Planning 27344 $ 6,007.50 ' 100 41910 300 City Meetings 27344 $ 200.00 100 41910 300 Annual Codification 27344 $ 1,245.50 , 100 41910 300 Tree PreservatioNNatural Protection Ord.18-010 27344 $ 135.75 100 41910 300 SE District Plan and Guidelines Update 18-012 27344 $ 168.50 ' 100 41910 300 Nuisance Ordinance Update 18-013 27344 I$ 842.25 100 41910 300 Development Right and OS&P Ord.Update 18-014 27344 $ 738.00 100 41910 300 Schulte Initiate Ag Preserve Expiration 17-041 100 41910 300 Ordinance Amendment Dog Kennels 17-037 27343 $ 69.00 ' 100 41910 300 Ordinance Amendment Bees and Chickens 17-038 _ 27343 ,$ 153.00 100 41910 300 Ordinance Amendment Small Cells&DAS 17-039 27343 $ 544.50 100 41910 300 Sign Ordinance-Dynamic Sign 17-033 100 41910 300 Mayers Ag Preserve 17-019 101 41911 300 CORCORAN 2040 COMPREHENSIVE 17-001 27343 $ 167.00 100 41910 300 SOLAR GARDEN MORATORIUM 17-018 _ 100 41910 300 HENNEPIN COUNTY WEATHER STATION 500 20376 PARK PLACE STORAGE 16-027 500 20376 PARK PLACE STORAGE 17-034 500 20389 STREHLER ESTATES 16-001 500 20392 _ MN SOLAR IUP 16-032 500 20396 RAVINIA 4TH 16-004 500 20400 RAVINIA 6TH 16-016 500 20400 RAVINIA 5TH 16-015 27342 $ 32.25 500 20404 LENNAR SCHWALBE PUD 500 20406 RAVINIA 7TH PUD 16-030 500 20407 MOTOR CAFE PUD 16-033 500 20409 WILLOW BROOK 16-035 500 20411 _ SUNRISE SOLAR 17-003 500 20413 RAVINIA 8TH FP AND PUD 17-002 500 20414 Gmach Sketch 17-004 500 20415 M-I Homes Sketch 17-006 500 20416 Sunrise Solar-17-007 27343 I$ 692.50 500 20418 Pheasant Ridge 17-009 500 20420 Bass Lake Cross MI Home 17-012 500 20421 Ravinia 7th Addit-FP 17-013 500 20421 Ravinia 7th and 9th Lot Line Adjustment 18-019 27344 $ 129.00 ' 500 20422 Motley Lot Line Adjust 17-014 500 20423 Bass Lake Est Skch PUD 17-015 500 20424 Schilling Administrative Permit 17-016 4 500 20425 Gmach Farms Preliminary&Final Plat 17-017 500 20429 Good Dog MN IUP/CHOL 17-021 500 20430 Bass Lake Crossing FP,FPUD and DA 17-022 _ 27343 $ 741.75 500 20431 Bass Lk Cross Lot Adj,17-023 500 20432 HALES CORNER 2ND ADD.17-025 500 20433 BASS LAKE EST CPA,PP,RZ PUD 17-024 500 20434 HOPPE LOT COMBO 17-027 500 20435 Red Barn Pet Ret.-CUP 17-028 1 500 20436 PULTE SKETCH PLAN 17-029 500 20436 Pulte Encore EAW and Sketch plan 18-004 27344 $ 806.25 500 20436 Pulte Comp Plan Amendment 18-007 27344 $ 553.25 500 20436 L Pulte Encore PP,PUD and RZ 18-016 27344 $ 32.25 500 20440 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 17-032 500 20443 j Pheasant Acres SPA 17-035 500 20442 BASS LAKE EST.FP,PUD 17-036 27343 $ 64.50 500 20444 I SAC Wireless-Sprint 17-040 i 500 20445 _ Ravinia 9th FP and PUD 17-042 27343 $ 225.75 500 20446 Rush Creek Run PP 18-001 27344 $ 426.50 500 20449 Hunter Lot Vacation and Variance 18-002 500 20447 Pheasant Ridge 2nd Addition Sketch Plan 18-003 27344 $ 193.50 ' 500 20448 Maple Hill Apt PUD Skch 18-005 500 20450 High 5 Companies CUP 18-006 27344 $ 230.50 500 20451 Doboszenski Sons Inc 18-008 27344 $ 576.25 500 20452 Matter Home Occupation 18-009 27344 $ 801.00 500 20453 Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition PP 18-017 27344 4$ 370.50 ' TOTAL: $ 16,146.75 Approved Nobs Clack a . 3 1LC( A L A N D F O R M From Site to Finish 105 South Fifth Avenue Tel: 612-252-9070 Suite 513 Fax: 612-252-9077 City of Corcoran V 2,t-j13. Minneapolis,MN 55401 Web: landform.net 8200 County Road 116 i` M 73 Corcoran,MN 55340 INVOICE No.27342 05/07/2018 Corcoran Planning Services COR16014.GEN Contract/PO#: For Services Rendered Through 4/30/2018 015-Ravinia 5th Addition Final PUD and Plat(city file 16-015) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl, Kendra S 25 129.00 32.25 Total Professional Services for.015 32.25 Total Charges for.015 32.25 Invoice Amount 32.25 Please remit to: Landform, 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Please include invoice number on remittance. Page 1 of 1 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27342 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID: 11809 Labor Transactions PIE Date Employee Labor Code Work Date Hrs Effort COR16014.GEN..015 Ravinia 5th Addition Final PUD and Plat(city file 16-015) 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/27/2018 0.25 32.25 landscape entry modification at Hackamore Total for COR16014.GEN..015 0.25 32.25 Total labor 0.25 32.25 5/7/2018 7:53:49 AM 1 of 1 L A N D F O R M From Site to Finish 105 South Fifth Avenue Tel: 612-252-9070 Suite 513 Fax: 612-252-9077 City of Corcoran Minneapolis,MN 55401 Web: Iandforrn.net 8200 County Road 116 y Corcoran,MN 55340 f INVOICE No.27343 05/07/2018 Corcoran Planning Services COR17015.GEN Contract/PO#: For Services Rendered Through 4/30/2018 001 =Corcoran 2040 Comprehensive Plan(city file 17-001) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 1.00 129.00 129.00 Matze, Mary L 25 95.00 23.75 Skog,Layci Blair 25 57.00 14.25 Total Professional Services for.001 167.00 Total Charges for.001 167.00 007 Sunrise Solar-CR 50(city file 17-007) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 5.00 129.00 645.00 Maize,Mary L 50 95.00 47.50 Total Professional Services for.007 692.50 Total Charges for.007 692.50 022 4,Bass Lake Crossing FP,FPUD and DA(city file 17-022) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 5.75 129.00 741.75 Total Professional Services for.022 741.75 Total Charges for.022 741.75 Page 1 of 2 Project COR17015.GEN Corcoran Planning Services Invoice 27343 036-Bass Lake Estates FP and Final PUD(city file 17-036) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl, Kendra S 50 129.00 64.50 Total Professional Services for.036 64.50 Total Charges for.036 64.50 037-Ordinance Amendment-Dog Kennels(city file 17-037) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Shay,Kevin M. 1.00 69.00 69.00 Total Professional Services for.037 69.00 Total Charges for.037 69.00 038-Ordinance Amendment-Bees and Chickens(city file 17-038) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 25 129.00 32.25 Shay,Kevin M. 1.75 69.00 120.75 Total Professional Services for.038 153.00 Total Charges for.038 153.00 039-Ordinance Amendment-Small Cells and DAS(city file 17-039) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl, Kendra S 2.75 129.00 354.75 Shay,Kevin M. 2.75 69.00 189.75 Total Professional Services for.039 544.50 Total Charges for.039 544.50 042-Ravinia 9th FP and Final PUD(city file 17-042) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 1.75 129.00 225.75 Total Professional Services for.042 225.75 Total Charges for.042 225.75 Invoice Amount 2,658.00 Please remit to: Landform, 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Please include invoice number on remittance. Page 2 of 2 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27343 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID:11810 Labor Transactions P/E Date Employee Labor Code Work Date Hrs Effort COR17015.GEN..001 Corcoran 2040 Comprehensive Plan(city file 17-001) 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/5/2018 0.25 23.75 Powerpoint 04/15/2018 Skog,Layci Blair 4/11/2018 0.25 14.25 website update 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/2/2018 0.25 32.25 talk to met council about comp plan preliminary review and amendment deadline 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/5/2018 0.25 32.25 PC prep 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 0.50 64.50 CC packet Total for COR17015.GEN..001 1.50 167.00 COR17015.GEN..007 Sunrise Solar-CR 50(city file 17-007) 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/3/2018 0.50 47.50 Coordinate updated plan sheets with EOR. Update memo. 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/2/2018 0.25 32.25 coordinate on pre-con 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/3/2018 0.25 32.25 prep for pre con 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/4/2018 1.00 129.00 pre-con 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/9/2018 0.50 64.50 Bonding for SIPA discussions 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/10/2018 1.00 129.00 review financial guarantees and outstanding issues 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/12/2018 0.50 64.50 revisions from applicant 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/13/2018 0.25 32.25 review additional materials 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 0.25 32.25 talk to city attorney about bond and finalize with Mike 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/19/2018 0.25 32.25 bonding 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/20/2018 0.25 32.25 coordinate with mike on permits 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/26/2018 0.25 32.25 final approvals for easements and ECWMC 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/30/2018 0.25 32.25 coordinate with staff on site work Total for COR17015.GEN..007 5.50 692.50 COR17015.GEN..022 Bass Lake Crossing FP,FPUD and DA(city file 17-022) 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/2/2018 1.00 129.00 discuss architectural standards with Rask/review landscape revisions and provide comments/review easements from attorney 5/7/2018 7:54:36 AM 1 of 3 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27343 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID: 11810 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/4/2018 0.25 32.25 review architecture with MP 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/5/2018 0.25 32.25 additional info from MI/set up architecture meeting 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/11/2018 1.00 129.00 meeting with applicant re:architecture and outstanding items 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/12/2018 0.50 64.50 street lighting 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 1.00 129.00 revised legals/DA,talk to city attorney and Rask 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/17/2018 1.00 129.00 update documents with new legals 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/24/2018 0.50 64.50 additional revisions from applicant to DA and resolutions to change the company name 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/27/2018 0.25 32.25 filing final docs Total for COR17015.GEN..022 5.75 741.75 COR17015.GEN..036 Bass Lake Estates FP and Final PUD(city file 17-036) 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/2/2018 0.25 32.25 revised plans from the applicant 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/6/2018 0.25 32.25 receipt and filing of final plat proof of recording Total for COR17015.GEN..036 0.50 64.50 COR17015.GEN..037 Ordinance Amendment-Dog Kennels(city file 17-037) 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/4/2018 1.00 69.00 Call cities to get information on approval conditions of commercial kennels. Total for COR17015.GEN..037 1.00 69.00 COR17015.GEN..038 Ordinance Amendment-Bees and Chickens(city file 17-038) 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/24/2018 0.25 32.25 review Elk river ordinance 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/18/2018 0.50 34.50 Make edits to the draft bee ordinance. 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/23/2018 0.50 34.50 Draft staff report. 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/25/2018 0.25 17.25 read through elk river bee amendment report. 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/30/2018 0.50 34.50 Edits to the staff report. Total for COR17015.GEN..038 2.00 153.00 COR17015.GEN..039 Ordinance Amendment-Small Cells and DAS(city file 17-039) 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/4/2018 1.00 129.00 meeting with KM and MP about public ROW ordinance 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/9/2018 0.25 32.25 ordinance update 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/23/2018 0.50 34.50 5/7/2018 7:54:36 AM 2 of 3 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27343 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID:11810 Work on draft ordinance. 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/26/2018 0.75 51.75 Start draft of staff report. 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/30/2018 1.50 103.50 Work on staff report. 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/18/2018 1.00 129.00 discuss options with Kevin and Mike 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/19/2018 0.50 64.50 follow up/next steps Total for COR17015.GEN..039 5.50 544.50 COR17015.GEN..042 Ravinia 9th FP and Final PUD(city file 17-042) 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/2/2018 0.50 64.50 ravinia park and Ravinia 7th Landscape revisions 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/3/2018 0.25 32.25 pond maintenance agreement question 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/4/2018 0.25 32.25 follow up on replat and stomiwater questions 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 0.25 32.25 talk to paul about next steps 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/17/2018 0.25 32.25 talk to Paul about next steps 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/20/2018 0.25 32.25 questions from MP about next steps Total for COR17015.GEN..042 1.75 225.75 Total labor 23.50 2,658.00 5/7/2018 7:54:36 AM 3 of 3 L A N D F O R M From Site to Finish 105 South Fifth Avenue Tel: 612-252-9070 Suite 513 Fax: 612-252-9077 City of Corcoran a s4 IJ =1 Minneapolis,MN 55401 Web: landform.net 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran,MN 55340 INVOICE No.27344 05/07/2018 Corcoran Planning Services CORI 8016.GEN Contract/P0#: For Services Rendered Through 4/30/2018 001 -Rush Creek Run PP(city file 18-001) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 1.50 129.00 193.50 Matze,Mary L 1.00 95.00 95.00 Shay,Kevin M. 2.00 69.00 138.00 Total Professional Services for.001 426.50 Total Charges for.001 426.50 003-Pheasant Ridge 2nd Addition Sketch Plan(city file 18-003) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl, Kendra S 1.50 129.00 193.50 Total Professional Services for.003 193.50 Total Charges for.003 193.50 004;Pulte Encore EAW and Sketch Plan(city file 18-004) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 6.25 129.00 806.25 Total Professional Services for.004 806.25 Total Charges for.004 806.25 Page 1 of 4 Project COR18016.GEN Corcoran Planning Services Invoice 27344 006-High 5 Companies CUP(city file 18-006) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl, Kendra S 75 129.00 96.75 Matze, Mary L 50 95.00 47.50 Shay,Kevin M. 1.25 69.00 86.25 Total Professional Services for.006 230.50 Total Charges for.006 230.50 007-Pulte Comp Plan Amendment(city file 18-007) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 3.00 129.00 387.00 Matze, Mary L 1.75 95.00 166.25 Total Professional Services for.007 553.25 Total Charges for.007 553.25 008-Doboszenski SP and VAR(city file 18-008) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 2.75 129.00 354.75 Matze,Mary L 1.50 95.00 142.50 Osthus, Emily Terrill 1.00 79.00 79.00 Total Professional Services for.008 576.25 Total Charges for.008 576.25 009:Matter Special Home Occupation(city file 18-009) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 3.00 129.00 387.00 Shay, Kevin M. 6.00 69.00 414.00 Total Professional Services for.009 801.00 Total Charges for.009 801.00 010-Natural Resource Protection Ordinance(city file 18-010) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 50 129.00 64.50 Matze,Mary L 75 95.00 71.25 Total Professional Services for.010 135.75 Total Charges for.010 135.75 Page 2 of 4 Project COR18016.GEN Corcoran Planning Services Invoice 27344 012-SE District Plan and Guidelines Update(city file 18-012) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl, Kendra S 1.00 129.00 129.00 Osthus, Emily Terrill 50 79.00 39.50 Total Professional Services for.012 168.50 Total Charges for.012 168.50 013-Nuisance Ordinance Update(city file 18-013) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 2.25 129.00 290.25 Shay,Kevin M. 8.00 69.00 552.00 Total Professional Services for.013 842.25 Total Charges for.013 842.25 014-Development Right and OS&P Ordinance Update(city file 18-014) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 75 129.00 96.75 Matze,Mary L 6.75 95.00 641.25 Total Professional Services for.014 738.00 Total Charges for.014 738.00 015-Annual Codification Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl, Kendra S 2.00 129.00 258.00 Osthus, Emily Terrill 12.50 79.00 987.50 Total Professional Services for.015 1,245.50 Total Charges for.015 1,245.50 016+Encore PP,PUD and RZ(city file 18-016) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl, Kendra S 25 129.00 32.25 Total Professional Services for.016 32.25 Total Charges for.016 32.25 017-Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition PP(city file 18-017) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl, Kendra S 1.00 129.00 129.00 Page 3 of 4 Project COR18016.GEN Corcoran Planning Services Invoice 27344 Shay, Kevin M. 3.50 69.00 241.50 Total Professional Services for.017 370.50 Total Charges for.017 370.50 019-Ravinia 7th and 9th Lot Line Adjustment(city file 18-019) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 1.00 129.00 129.00 Total Professional Services for.019 129.00 Total Charges for.019 129.00 90-City Business Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 41.75 129.00 $5,385.75 Matze,Mary L 6.00 95.00 570.00 Shay,Kevin M.75 69.00 51.75 Total Professional Services for.90 6,007.50 Total Charges for.90 6,007.50 MTG-City Meeting Professional Services Employee Rate Amount Lindahl, Kendra S 100.00 200.00 Total Professional Services for MTG 200.00 Total Charges for MTG 200.00 Invoice Amount $13,456.50 Please remit to: Landform, 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Please include invoice number on remittance. Page 4 of 4 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27344 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID: 11811 Labor Transactions P/E Date Employee Labor Code Work Date Hrs Effort COR18016.GEN..001 Rush Creek Run PP(city file 18-001) 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/4/2018 1.00 95.00 Powerpoint for 4/5 PC meeting 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/13/2018 0.50 34.50 Draft CC report. 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/4/2018 0.25 32.25 review comments from ECWMC 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/5/2018 0.25 32.25 PC prep 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 0.25 32.25 CC packet 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/17/2018 0.25 32.25 finalize and send CC packet 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/26/2018 0.50 64.50 prep for CC meeting 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/16/2018 1.00 69.00 Make edits to the staff report and narrative. 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/19/2018 0.50 34.50 Discuss updates to planning projects with Kendra. Total for COR18016.GEN..001 4.50 426.50 COR18016.GEN..003 Pheasant Ridge 2nd Addition Sketch Plan(city file 18-003) 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/17/2018 0.25 32.25 review plans for Pheasant Ridge 2nd PP 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/4/2018 0.25 32.25 find Pheasant Ridge easement agreement for Tony's finance person 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/18/2018 1.00 129.00 Pheasant Ridge 2nd PP presubmittal meeting Total for COR18016.GEN..003 1.50 193.50 COR18016.GEN..004 Pulte Encore EAW and Sketch Plan(city file 18-004) 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/5/2018 0.25 32.25 agency comments 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/9/2018 0.25 32.25 questions from applicant on next steps 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/11/2018 0.25 32.25 review additional comments 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/12/2018 0.50 64.50 review all comments and forward to applicant 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/3/2018 0.25 32.25 review MPCA comments 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/4/2018 0.25 32.25 agency EAW comments 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 0.25 32.25 talk to city engineer about traffic issues 5/7/2018 7:55:51 AM 1 of 7 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27344 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID:11811 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/17/2018 1.25 161.25 draft CC packet/set up new file for PP application 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/18/2018 1.00 129.00 DRC meeting 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/19/2018 1.00 129.00 record of deicsion 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/27/2018 0.50 64.50 update ROD 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/30/2018 0.50 64.50 update staff report and ROD Total for COR18016.GEN..004 6.25 806.25 COR18016.GEN..006 High 5 Companies CUP(city file 18-006) 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/4/2018 0.50 47.50 Powerpoint. 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/13/2018 0.50 34.50 Make edits to the report and resolution. 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/5/2018 0.25 32.25 PC prep 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 0.25 32.25 CC packet 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/17/2018 0.25 32.25 finalize and send CC packet 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/16/2018 0.75 51.75 Make edits to the staff report and narrative. Total for COR18016.GEN..006 2.50 230.50 COR18016.GEN..007 Pulte Comp Plan Amendment(city file 18-007) 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/4/2018 1.00 95.00 Powerpoint 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/12/2018 0.75 71.25 Update staff report and resolution.fix LU map. 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/5/2018 0.50 64.50 PC prep 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 0.50 64.50 CC packet 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/24/2018 0.25 32.25 questions about CC meeting presentation 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/26/2018 0.50 64.50 prep for CC meeting 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/27/2018 1.00 129.00 coordinate with MC,start pulling materials for MC submittal 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/30/2018 0.25 32.25 talk to Met Council about process Total for COR18016.GEN..007 4.75 553.25 COR18016.GEN..008 Doboszenski SP and VAR(city file 18-008) 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/4/2018 0.50 47.50 5/7/2018 7:55:51 AM 2 of 7 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27344 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID: 11811 Powerpoint. 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/12/2018 0.50 47.50 Update staff report and resolution 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/5/2018 0.50 64.50 PC prep 04/30/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/25/2018 0.50 47.50 Photo exhibit 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/25/2018 0.50 64.50 DRC discussion of CC meeting approach 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/26/2018 1.00 129.00 prep for CC meeting 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 0.50 64.50 CC packet 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/19/2018 0.25 32.25 call from Resident 04/30/2018 Osthus,Emily Terrill 4/25/2018 1.00 79.00 Doboszenski and Sons,Inc CUP tree recommendations Total for COR18016.GEN..008 5.25 576.25 COR18016.GEN..009 Matter Special Home Occupation(city file 18-009) 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/2/2018 0.50 34.50 make a map of comments for home occupation. 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/3/2018 1.75 120.75 draft notification letter and send to applicant.Draft staff report and resolution. 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/4/2018 1.50 103.50 Draft staff report and resolution. 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/13/2018 1.50 103.50 Make edits to the staff report and resolution. 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/2/2018 0.50 64.50 review public comments/discuss next steps with city attorney 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/4/2018 0.25 32.25 follow up 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 0.50 64.50 CC packet 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/17/2018 0.25 32.25 finalize and send CC packet 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/23/2018 0.25 32.25 additional comments to city 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/25/2018 0.25 32.25 discuss resident inquiries 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/26/2018 1.00 129.00 prep for council meeting 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/16/2018 0.75 51.75 Make edits to the staff report and narrative. Total for COR18016.GEN..009 9.00 801.00 5/7/2018 7:55:51 AM 3 of 7 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27344 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID: 11811 COR18016.GEN..010 Natural Resource Protection Ordinance(city file 18-010) 04/30/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/27/2018 0.75 71.25 Staff report 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/30/2018 0.50 64.50 review options Total for COR18016.GEN..010 1.25 135.75 COR18016.GEN..012 SE District Plan and Guidelines Update(city file 18-012) 04/15/2018 Osthus,Emily Terrill 4/11/2018 0.50 39.50 sketchup building notes 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/17/2018 1.00 129.00 work plan and CC packet Total for COR18016.GEN..012 1.50 168.50 COR18016.GEN..013 Nuisance Ordinance Update(city file 18-013) 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/12/2018 1.00 69.00 Gather nuisance ordinances from various cities. 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/13/2018 0.75 51.75 Work on spreadsheet and read through ordinances. 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/12/2018 0.25 32.25 project set up 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/17/2018 0.50 64.50 share research with Mike 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/18/2018 0.50 64.50 discuss options with Mike 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/19/2018 0.50 64.50 follow on next steps 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/24/2018 0.50 64.50 nuisance ordinance 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/17/2018 1.75 120.75 Read through adjacent city ordinances. 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/23/2018 3.50 241.50 draft staff report with recommendation. 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/24/2018 0.75 51.75 Edits to the staff report. 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/30/2018 0.25 17.25 Edits to the staff report. Total for COR18016.GEN..013 10.25 842.25 COR18016.GEN..014 Development Right and OS&P Ordinance Update(city file 18-014) 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/12/2018 0.50 64.50 review project with Mary 04/30/2018 Matze, Mary L 4/30/2018 6.50 617.50 Memo 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/30/2018 0.25 32.25 discuss key issues with Mary 04/30/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/27/2018 0.25 23.75 5/7/2018 7:55:51 AM 4 of 7 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27344 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID: 11811 OS&P Staff report. Total for CORI 8016.GEN..014 7.50 738.00 COR18016.GEN..015 Annual Codification 04/15/2018 Osthus,Emily Terrill 4/11/2018 1.00 79.00 code review 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/12/2018 0.50 64.50 gather materials from Mike and set up project 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/26/2018 0.25 32.25 editing 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/27/2018 1.00 129.00 final edits 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/30/2018 0.25 32.25 send updated document to City 04/30/2018 Osthus,Emily Terrill 4/25/2018 1.75 138.25 code update 04/30/2018 Osthus,Emily Terrill 4/26/2018 3.75 296.25 review and updates 04/30/2018 Osthus,Emily Terrill 4/27/2018 3.50 276.50 edits 04/30/2018 Osthus,Emily Terrill 4/30/2018 2.50 197.50 formatting issues-global revision of subheading indents Total for COR18016.GEN..015 14.50 1,245.50 COR18016.GEN..016 Encore PP,PUD and RZ(city file 18-016) 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/23/2018 0.25 32.25 project set up Total for COR18016.GEN..016 0.25 32.25 COR18016.GEN..017 Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition PP(city file 18-017) 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/23/2018 0.25 32.25 project set up 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/24/2018 0.25 32.25 ECWMC comments 04/30/2018 Lindahl, Kendra S 4/26/2018 0.25 32.25 review for completeness 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/27/2018 0.25 32.25 send incomplete letter 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/25/2018 1.50 103.50 Review application for completeness. 04/30/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/26/2018 2.00 138.00 Discuss project application and draft incomplete letter. Total for COR18016.GEN..017 4.50 370.50 COR18016.GEN..019 Ravinia 7th and 9th Lot Line Adjustment(city file 18-019) 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/9/2018 0.50 64.50 replat the 7th and 9th addition. talk to Paul and City Attorney 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/11/2018 0.50 64.50 5/7/2018 7:55:51 AM 5 of 7 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27344 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID: 11811 discuss plat modification and follow up with Lennar Total for COR18016.GEN..019 1.00 129.00 COR18016.GEN..90 City Business 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/5/2018 0.50 47.50 SIPA 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/6/2018 0.75 71.25 SIPA 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/9/2018 2.50 237.50 SIPA update 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/10/2018 1.50 142.50 SIPA revisions 04/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 4/12/2018 0.75 71.25 Discuss OS&P project and Natural Resource protection with Kendra. 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/9/2018 0.50 34.50 Go over PC updates for city projects. 04/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 4/12/2018 0.25 17.25 Go over upcoming Corcoran projects and deadlines. 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/2/2018 0.50 64.50 zoning calls/emails 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/3/2018 1.00 129.00 DRC agenda 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/4/2018 3.50 451.50 office hours 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/5/2018 1.00 129.00 zoning calls/emails 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/6/2018 1.00 129.00 calls and emails 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/9/2018 2.00 258.00 DRC agenda/zoning calls and emails/SIPA template 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/10/2018 1.50 193.50 zoning calls and emails/SIPA draft 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/11/2018 6.00 774.00 office hours 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/12/2018 1.00 129.00 zoning calls and emails 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/13/2018 1.00 129.00 calls and emails,planning project updates 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/25/2018 7.25 935.25 office hours 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/26/2018 0.25 32.25 zoning calls/emails 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/30/2018 0.25 32.25 zoning calls and emails 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/16/2018 1.00 129.00 calls and emails/dre agenda 5/7/2018 7:55:51 AM 6 of 7 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27344 Invoice Date:5/7/2018 Transaction ID: 11811 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/17/2018 1.00 129.00 calls and emails 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/18/2018 4.50 580.50 office hours 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/19/2018 3.00 387.00 calls/emails 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/20/2018 4.00 516.00 plat monitoring report to MC/zoning calls and emails 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/23/2018 1.00 129.00 DRC agenda/zoning calls and emails 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/24/2018 1.00 129.00 zoning calls and emails Total for COR18016.GEN..90 48.50 6,007.50 COR18016.GEN.MTG City Meeting 04/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/5/2018 1.00 100.00 PC meeting 04/30/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 4/26/2018 1.00 100.00 council meeting Total for COR18016.GEN.MTG 2.00 200.00 Total labor 125.00 13,456.50 5/7/2018 7:55:51 AM 7 of 7 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a. Council Meeting: May 24, 2018 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Commission Representatives Action Required: None – Informational Summary: The advisory commission representatives for the May 24th Council meeting are as follows: Planning Commission: Meredith Wu Parks and Trails Commission: Val Nybo Financial/Budget: N/A Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: Transparency We believe that open an honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry. Processes and decision making should include opportunities to educate citizens and receive feedback. Options: N/A Recommendation N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: N/A Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 1 MEMORANDUM 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net DATE May 7, 2018 TO Brad Martens CC City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Trails Commission FROM Kendra Lindahl, City Planner RE Active Corcoran Planning Applications Projects/Comments in blue italics are new Project marked with an * have moved from active to approved The following is a summary of project status for current, active projects: 1.2040 Corcoran Comprehensive Plan (City file 17-001). This year-long process was kicked off with a joint City Council/Commission work session on March 16th followed by three community open houses/events and several commission meetings and Council work sessions. The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed at their March 20th meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 5th and on April 26th the City Council approved the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for distribution to adjacent jurisdictions for comment. The adjacent jurisdictions have six months to review and comment and then Corcoran will send to the Metropolitan Council to review for compliance with regional systems. 2.Dog Kennel Ordinance Update (City file 17-037). The Council directed the Planning Commission to review the Kennel standards in the ordinance and make a recommendation about whether any changes are needed. The Commission discussed the item at their October 5th meeting and asked that it be placed on a future meeting agenda for more discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this at the January 4th meeting and their recommendation was presented to the Council at the January 25th meeting for consideration. At their January 25th meeting, Council considered the Commission’s recommendation, but instead directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance that only allows kennels in commercial zoning districts and schedule for a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and Council action in June. 3.Animal Ordinance (city file 17-038). The City has received questions about allowing animals in commercial areas, specifically bees and chickens. The Council considered this item at their January 25th meeting and established a subcommittee to review the issues and bring back a recommendation to the City Council. Staff will present the subcommittee recommendation at the May 24th Council meeting. 4.Right-of-Way, Small Cell and DAS Ordinance Amendment (City file 17-039). Minnesota’s telecommunications right-of-way user state law (SF1456), regarding small wireless facilities, was signed into law on May 30, 2017. It grants wireless service providers access to the public right-of-wa y to construct, maintain and operate small wireless facilities and wireless support structures. Various sections of the city and zoning code need to be amended to be consistent with state law. At their January 25th meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance and schedule for a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and Council action. Staff is expanding this effort to include the creation of a ROW ordinance and will present options to the Council at the June 28th meeting. 5.EAW and Sketch Plan for “Encore” (PID 1211923120001, 0111923430002 & 0111923440001) (city file 18-004). Pulte has submitted a revised sketch plan and is working with the City to prepare Agenda Item 8b. MEMORANDUM 2 an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) for approval of 393 single family lots. The City Council reviewed this item at their February 22nd meeting. The EAW is currently out for public review. The 30-day comment period ends on April 11th. The City Council will take action on the EAW at the May 10th meeting. 6. Natural Resource Protection Ordinance (city file 18-010). The Council directed staff to look at options to preserve trees and natural resources to maintain the rural character of the community in both rural and urban areas. Staff with gather information for Council review at the May meeting. 7. Southeast District Master Plan and Design Guidelines update (city file 18-012). The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan anticipates significant changes to the transportation network that make it necessary to update this plan, which is adopted as Appendix B of the Zoning Ordinance. At the April 26th meeting, the Council authorized staff to begin this work. 8. Nuisance Ordinance ordinance/process update (city file 18-013). The Council has directed staff to be more proactive in the Code Enforcement efforts. Review of the ordinance and policies suggests that updates are needed in several areas. Staff will present the City Council with a work plan and schedule at the May 24th meeting. 9. Development Rights and OS&P ordinance updates (city file 18-014). One of the implementation strategies from the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan was to consider amendments to the OS&P ordinance to better reflect City goals. The Council is also considering changes to the development rights program. Staff will present a work plan and schedule at the May 24th Council meeting. 10. Discussion of the Development Process and Financial Guarantees for Land Use. The Council approved a change in City policy for financial guarantees for the Bass Lake Crossing South development and asked for a more comprehensive discussion to better understand the development process, financial guarantees and options. Staff will provide information at the May 24th Council meeting. 11. Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Development Plan for “Encore” (PID 1211923120001, 0111923430002 & 0111923440001) (city file 18-016). Pulte has submitted a request for approval of “Encore”, Minnesota’s first Del Webb community. The item is scheduled for Parks and Trails Commission review on May 15th, a public hearing at the Planning Commission on June 7th and City Council action on June 28th. 12. Preliminary PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Plat for Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (City file 18-017). Chris Rains submitted a request for a 14 lot OS&P plat on County Road 117. The item is scheduled for Parks and Trails Commission review on May 15th, a public hearing at the Planning Commission on June 7th and City Council action on June 28th. 13. Sketch Plan for “Edgewater of Corcoran” at 19220 County Road 10 (PID 25-119-23-14-0003 and 25-119-23-14-0002) (City file 18-018). Trek Development, Inc. has submitted a sketch plan for a residential development with a senior living continuum of care complex, apartment and single family homes. The Council will review the sketch plan at the May 24th meeting. 14. Lot Line Adjustment and Plat Modification for Ravinia 7th and 9th Addition (City file 18-019). Lennar has submitted a plat modification for Ravinia 9th Addition and a series of lot line adjustment for Ravinia 7th Addition. There was a slight overlap in the Ravinia 7th and 9th Addition plats, which requires some adjustment to approximately 9 lots. The City Code allows these changes to be administratively approved. Also, there are several 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. MEMORANDUM 3 2. 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 July 2017 to discuss the outstanding issues and future expansion plans on the property. 3. Sawgrass Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD Development Plan and Rezoning for 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. On December 9, 2016, the applicant submitted a written request to extend the approvals for an additional year. Staff recommended that this request be reviewed by the City Council, but adequate time was not provided to place this on a Council agenda prior to expiration. Staff administratively approved an extension until February 28, 2017 so that this request for extension could be considered at the February 23, 2017 Council meeting. At that meeting, the City Council approved a one year extension. The City Council approved another one year extension at the January 25, 2018 meeting. 4. 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. 5. 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 City Council approved the amendment on May 26th. The Council also identified additional issues that should be reviewed and discussed at a future date. 6. *Preliminary Plat for “Rush Creek Run” at 7320 Rolling Hills Road (PID 28-119-23-22-0003) (city file 18-001). A request by Linda and John Whisney for a preliminary plat to create 6 lots. The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed at their March 20th meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 5th and the City Council approved the request on April 26th. 7. OS&P Sketch Plan for “Pheasant Ridge 2nd Addition” at 10000 Ebert Road PID 03-119-23-31- 0003, 03-119-23-43-0005, 03-119-23-41-0002) (City File 18-003). Tony Bolduc has submitted a request for sketch plan review of an OS&P plat with 30 lots (2 with existing homes) and 4 outlots. The City Council reviewed the request at the February 22nd meeting and provided comments. 8. Maple Hill Apartments PUD Sketch Plan at 7401 Maple Hill Road (PID 25-119-23-24-0005) (City file 18-005). The Council reviewed the PUD sketch plan at their February 22nd meeting and offered feedback to the applicant. 9. *High 5 Companies Conditional Use Permit at 7523 Commerce Street (PID 26-119-23-14-0025) (city file 18-006). The applicant is requesting a CUP to allow auto sales at the site. No vehicles will be stored on site. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the April 5th meeting and the Council approved at the April 26th meeting. 10. *Pulte Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Encore (PID 01-119-23-43-0002 and 01-119-23-44- 0001) (city file 18-007). The applicant has submitted a request to reclassify the property to Low Density Residential. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the April 5th meeting and the Council approved at the April 26th meeting. MEMORANDUM 4 11. *Doboszenski request for Site Plan and Variance at 9520 CR 19 (PID 07-119-23-42-0007) (city file 18-008). The applicant is requesting approval for an addition to the accessory building and after-the- fact approval for bus storage in the front yard. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the April 5th meeting and the Council approved at the April 26th meeting. 12. *Patrick Matter request for Special Home Occupation for vehicle sales/repair at 19320 Mystique Drive (PID 12-119-23-43-0015) (city file 18-009). Notice of request was sent to neighbors within 350 feet. The Council approved at the April 26th meeting. 13. *Annual Codification (18-015). This is an administrative effort to update the City Code document to include all the 2017 amendments approved by the City Council. The update was completed and the new code is current through January 25, 2018 (available online or at city hall). 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel:612-252-9070 Fax:612-252-9077 www.landform.net Landform®, SensiblyGreen®and Site to Finish®areregistered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. TO:Corcoran City Council FROM:Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE:May 11,2018 for the May 24, 2018 City Council Meeting RE:PUD Sketch Plan for Edgewater of Corcoran (PID 25-119-23-14-0003 and 25-119- 23-14-0002) (city file 18-018) 60-DAY REVIEW DEADLINE:July 3,2018 1.Application Request Trek Development, Inc. and Hunter Homes, LLC have submitted a request to the City to review a Planned Unit Development (PUD) sketch plan for a 200-unit senior continuum of care complex, a 125-unit market rate apartment and 19 single family homeson 31.21 gross acres at19220 CR 10. While not part of the written request, the sketch plan shows the Metropolitan Council parcel (2511923140004) being replatted as Outlot B. If that parcel is proposed to be replatted, the Metropolitan Council must sign the application to be part of the preliminary plat application. 2.Context Zoning and Land Use The project site is guided Mixed Residential which is planned to be developed at 8-10 units per acre and zoned RSF-3(Single and Two Family Residential).The land use and zoning are inconsistent, and would need to be resolved prior to development.The property is also located in the Southeast District and is subject to the Southeast District Plan and Design Guidelines(Appendix B of the Zoning Ordinance). Surrounding Properties The property to the south is Lions Park, which is guided Mixed Use and zoned PUD and the planned Bass Lake Crossing South, which is guided Low Density Residential and Light Industrial and zoned PUD. The property to the west is guided Low Density Residential, zoned PUD and is being developed as Bass Lake Crossing. The property to the north is vacant land guided Low Density Residential and zoned RSF-2 (Single Family Residential 2). The property to the west is located in the City of Maple Grove, is guided for low-medium density residential and is planned for single family home development by the applicant. Agenda Item: 9a. Edgewater of Corcoran PUD Sketch Plan (18-018)2 May 24, 2018 Natural Characteristics of the Site There are a number of trees on site, but the Comprehensive Plan does not identify any ecologically significant features. There are wetlands and floodplain areas on site near Cook Lake. The bulk of the site is located in the Shoreland Overlay District for Cook Lake. 3.Analysis of Request Land Use and Zoning The project site is guided Mixed Residential, which is planned to be developed at 8-10 units per acre,and zoned RSF-3 (Single and Two Family Residential). The land use and zoning are inconsistent, and would need to be resolved prior to development. The plan shows 344 units on 31.21 acres, which is a gross density of 11.02 units per acre. The applicant has not provided any information about net density, but staff estimates it to be 15-17units per acre. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the land be reclassified from Mixed Residential (8-10 units per acre) to High Density Residential (10+ units per acre). The property would to need to be re-zoned from RSF-3,which does not allow multiple-family dwellings,to RMF-2 or PUD.Three-story multiple-family dwellings are permitted uses in the RMF-2 (Mixed Residential) or the RMF-3 (High Density Residential) zoning districts. The RMF-2 district is compatible with the Mixed Residential land use, but only the RMF-3 zoning is compatible with the High Density land use. The applicant will be requesting to rezone the property to PUD with RMF-3 zoning district as the underlying standards. If the applicant proceeds with a formal application, they will also be requesting to plat the property. The City has a high level of discretion in approving or denying a land use guide plan amendment. The land use plan is a major element of the comprehensive plan. The land use plan is the city’s long- range planning tool that indicates what type of development should occur on all land within the City. In other words, it is the City’s plan for how it wants to direct future development and growth. The City Council may guide property as it deems necessary to protect and promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning application. The proposed zoning for a property must beconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City must deny the rezoning application. The Zoning Ordinance and Map are the enforcement tools used to implement the goals and standards set in the Comprehensive Plan. Sketch Plan The applicant’s sketch plan shows 74th Avenue extending from Bass Lake Crossing through this project as a loop that connects to County Road 10. The 19 single family homes are located north of 74th Avenue and the multi-family units are south of this street. Edgewater of Corcoran PUD Sketch Plan (18-018)3 May 24, 2018 The applicant’s narrative states that Charles Cudd Co. would develop the single family homes,but did not provide any information about the developer or owner/operator for the apartment or continuum of care senior complex. Staff notes that Section 1060.050 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes general building standards for residential uses, including the types of materials that are permittedand Section 1040.040, Subd. 8 establishes residential design standards and Section 1040.070, Subd. 8 establishes multi-family standards.At this stage of the process we do not have enough information to evaluate compliance, but the applicant is aware of these standards. Additionally, staff notes that Appendix B of the Zoning Ordinance establishes Southeast District Design Guidelines. The concept plans do not provide significant detail to determine whether they are consistent with these and other Design Guideline requirements, however, photos provided by theapplicant for the single family product appear to demonstrate high quality design. Density The proposed pre-development gross density for the development appears to be 11.02units/gross acreand the net density appears to 15-17 units per acre.The applicant has not yet providedpre- andpost-net density calculations for the site. Setbacks Staff recommends that development standards be established for the ease of the City and Developer ifthe project progresses.The table below compares the requested setbacks to the zoning standards: Proposed RMF-3 (Apartment)RSF-2 (Single Family) Minimum lot area 31.21 acres 1 Acre 6,000 sq. ft. Minimum lot width 1,300+feet 150 feet 60 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* Unknown 100 feet 100 feet Front, From all other streets Unknown 50 feet 25 feet Side Unknown 25 feet 10 feet Rear Unknown 25 feet 25 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 4 stories 35 feet or 3 stories 25 feet in Shoreland 35 feet or 3 stories 25 feet in Shoreland Setback from OHW of Cook Lake <150 feet 150 feet 150 feet Staff notes that there is a 100-foot setback from County Road 10.Council has indicated in previous discussions the importance of a larger setback to maintain the rural feel of the community.Section 1060.070, Subd. K and J of the Zoning Ordinance allows the 100-foot setback to be reduced to a 60- foot building setback and 50-foot parking setback if additional landscaping is provided adjacent to the County Road. Edgewater of Corcoran PUD Sketch Plan (18-018)4 May 24, 2018 Landscaping No landscape plan was provided with the concept plan, but staff notes that a well-designed landscape is an important part of this project to ensure transitions between potentially conflicting land uses.We will review the landscape plan with the development plan submittal for compliance with the ordinance standards. The developer may wish to provide an upgraded landscape plan as one of the PUD benefits. Transportation The planned extension of 74th Avenue is shown as a 60-foot right-of-way with a 32-foot wide street. It appears that sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street.The sidewalks would connect to the north-south trail being constructed partially on this property as part of the Bass Lake Crossing project. There are numerous driveways shown onto 74th Avenue, some of which are located along curves. Sight lines on the road will need to be reviewedas part of the plat applicationto ensure engineering and safety standards are met. The cul de sac is shown as a 50-foot right-of-way with a 28-foot wide street. At the end of the cul de sac is a private drive serving 3 homes. The ordinance allows private drives only in the Rural Residential district subject to certain standards.The Council could allow the private drives by PUD if desired, but the private drive must meet all public safety standards. As part of the development plan, the County will request an additional right-of-way from this property for County Road 10to allow for a 120-foot right-of-way.This is consistent what has been requested by the County in the past.Additionally, the County will likely request a 5-foot trail easement on each side of the County right-of -way. Public Safety The public safety committee would require a paved fire access road around the multi-family structures. Fire access must be provided for any homes on a private drive. Stormwater The City Engineer’s memo dated May 11, 2018 notes that in recent developments in this area show that stormwater management is feasible, but the development plans will need to convey stormwater toward Cook Lake while preventing bluff and lakeshore erosion.The applicant will need to meet Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC)rules and City regulations. Wetlands There are wetlands shown on the site plan. Awetland delineation and wetland mitigation plan has not been provided to the City, but will be required with a formal application. ECWMC is the LGU for the Wetland Conservation Act and they will review and approve the delineation. Edgewater of Corcoran PUD Sketch Plan (18-018)5 May 24, 2018 The wetlands on the north areranked on the National Resource Communities Quality Rankings map as mediumquality. There are wetlands identified in the southeast corner of the site is not currently ranked on the Natural Resource Communities Quality Rankings map and it appears that the applicant is proposing to fill this wetland.When development is proposed,it must identify wetland buffers,setbacks, or proposed wetland fill. If mitigation occurs, a mitigation plan must be submitted for review and approval and Elm Creek Watershed District approval must be obtained. All wetlands must be blanketed by a drainage andutility easement. Utilities Sewer and water will be extended to serve the site. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) owns property in the middle of the site for a lift station;however,construction has not been initiated. The plans show this parcel as Outlot B, but if the parcel is intended to be replatted MCES must be part of the preliminary plat application.There is a temporary easement to this parcel from the south and a permanent easement from the west. Both must be clearly shown on the plans. Access to the future lift station must be provided with the plat application and easementdocuments will be required to be recorded with the finalplat.The development will be required to bring a City forcemain through the property from Brockton/101 (Lennar forcemain) and connect to City manhole for conveyance to MCES Lift Station.There is an existing drainage and utility easement in the northwest corner of this site that was dedicated with the Bass Lake Crossing plat and it must be shown on the plans. The developer is also proposing to develop the adjacent property in Maple Grove. An agreement between the City of Corcoran and the City of Maple Grove would be necessary for any low area in Maple Grove to be accommodated by Corcoran. The Corcoran water system requires abooster station on site. The plans show this booster station in Maple Grove. If Maple Grove does not agree to that location, it must be relocated onto this site. The developer must complete water modeling with the preliminary plat application to ensure adequate water pressure and fire flows would be provided. The developer may be required to relocate water mains. Parks and Trails The Comprehensive Plan shows an off-road trail on the west property line. This trail will be built by Bass Lake Crossing as part of their developmentand a portion of the trail is on this site. This existing trail easement must be shown on the plans. No other park land dedication is shown on this site. Therefore, the City should accept cash-in-lieu of land to meet the park dedication requirements. Proposed PUD The applicant has provided a proposal to rezone the property from RSF-3 to PUD with RMF-3 as the underlying zoning district. The application materials do not specifically what PUD flexibility is requested, but it appears that the request includes: 1.Setback flexibility. No dimensions are provided, but the plan does not appear to meet the 100-foot setback from County Road 10 (or the 60-foot building and 50-foot parking setback Edgewater of Corcoran PUD Sketch Plan (18-018)6 May 24, 2018 allowed with increased landscaping). It also appears that the single family homes would be requesting some setback flexibility. 2.Shoreland setback flexibility. There is a 150-foot setback from the OWHL of Cook Lake. Two of the lots encroach into this setback and require flexibility. 3.Increased building height. The zoning code allows a requested a maximum building height of three stories or 35 feet. However, the shoreland overlay district limits all buildings to a maximum height of 25 feet. The multi-family buildings range from 2-4 stories and up to 50 feet in height. 4.Impervious surface area. The shoreland ordinance limits sites to a maximum of 25% of the lot area. The applicant indicates that that are 33%-34% impervious. Final calculationsand detailshave been provided with the sketch plan. 5.Private drive. To allow a private drive off a cul de sac to serve three homes.The ordinance allows private drives only in the Rural Residential district subject to certain standards. The Council should provide feedback on the applicant’s narrative and whether there are additional issues to be addressed or items that would not be desirable in this PUD. The applicant would take those comments under advisement as they prepare a formal submittal. Next Steps If the applicant chooses to proceed with the application, they would need to submit applications for: •Comprehensive Plan Amendment •Rezoning to PUD •Preliminary Plat •Preliminary PUD Development Plan Then the applicant would submit applications for: •Final Plat •Final PUD Development Plan Summary While this is not the formal application, the Council should provide direction to the applicant so that they can decide whether to proceed with formal application. •This is the gateway to the City and careful consideration should be given to how this property developments. Is this concept reflective of the City’s vision? •The Southeast District Plan anticipates multi-family housing in the Town Center where it can support the Downtown Core commercial businesses. The 2017 “Market Potential Analysis for the Corcoran Commercial Core” completed by Maxfield Research & Consulting identified a demand for 247 units of multi-family housing (market rate and senior) between now and 2030. Allowing multi-family housing on this site could affect the City’s ability to attract this type of housing in the Town Center. Is this site preferable to the Town Center for multi- family? Edgewater of Corcoran PUD Sketch Plan (18-018)7 May 24, 2018 •Does the Council see PUD benefits in exchange for the PUD flexibility requested? 4.Action The applicant is requesting comments on this sketch plan. Any comments given by the City Council are advisory in nature and non-binding. While the comments are non-binding, the applicant will consider the comments from the City Council when they prepare their formal submittal. Attachments a.Aerial Location Map b.2040 Park & Trail Map c.Memo from City Engineer dated May 11, 2018 d.Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Review e.Applicant’s Narrative dated April 26, 2018 f.Site Graphics dated April 26, 2018 g.Existing Trail Easement – dedicated with Bass Lake Crossing h.Existing Drainage Easement – dedicated with Bass Lake Crossing Hennepin County Property Map Date: 5/10/2018 Comments: 1 inch = 800 feet PARCEL ID: 2511923140003 OWNER NAME: Albert Schommer Estate PARCEL ADDRESS: 19220 Co Rd No 10, Corcoran MN 55340 PARCEL AREA: 27.31 acres, 1,189,445 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $408,500 TAX TOTAL: $5,776.20 ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $414,000 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 for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2018 Ci t y o f G r e e n f i e l d City of Maple Grove City of Medina City of Rogers % Trailhead MorinLake ScottLake JubertLake CookLake 456710 456750 456719 456730 Co u n t y R o a d 1 1 6 D St Oakdale Dr B r i d l e P a t h J e f f r e y L n Abilene Ln Tr a i l L n HuntersRdg County Road 30 H e a t h e r Ln Pion e e r T r l Trail Haven Rd County Road 10 Horseshoe Trl Ro b e r t L n H o r s e s h o e BendDr Co u n t y R o a d 5 0 Larsen Rd GleasonP k w y Wi l l o w D r Hunter R d Co u n t y R o a d 1 9 Homestead Trl Ma p l e H i l l R d Ca i n R d Ro l l i n g H i l l s R d S u n d a n c e Rd Country Rd Mo h a w k D r ElmSt Larkin Rd Fo x l i n e D r Strehler Rd C ai n P l 6 5 t h Pl N Dassel Ln O l d S e t t l e r s Rd Stieg R d Be c h t o l d R d Ka l k R d Schutte Rd Meister Rd F o x V a l l e y Dr M y s t i q u e Dr H a g e Dr 93rd Ave N Schutte Pl S un ny HillL n B r a n d y w i n e R d Chisholm T r l Tessmer Rd HighBluffLn WinchesterTrl JubertLn R u s h Creek RushCreek Count y D i t c h N u m b er Sixteen Cou ntyDitc h N u mberThree SouthFor k R u s h C r e e k NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP ASA ASA ASA ASA ASA OSP OSP OSP OSP OSP OSP OSP OSP OSP OSP OSP 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\100\2040CompPlan\Parks and Trails Map.mxd Date: 5/7/2018 Time: 11:31:40 AM User: shujc0243 Map 5-1Parks and Trails Plan Existing Parks and Trails Regional Trail Existing On Road Trail Community Park Trailhead Private Park/Open Space Proposed Parks and Trails Proposed On Road Trail Proposed Off Road Trail Proposed Off Road Trail outside 2040 Development Area Neighborhood Park Community Park Greenway Corridor Municipal Boundaries 2040 MUSA Parcel Boundaries Streams Lake/Open Water Wetlands NP Engineer’s Memo Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com To: Kendra Lindahl, AICP, City Planner From: Kent Torve, P.E., City Engineer Date: May 11, 2018 Subject: Edgewater Development 0.0 Background Applicant has submitted a concept for the Schommer parcel north of CR 10, adjacent to the Maple Grove border. Initial engineering and Public Works comments are in the following comments. 1.0 Transportation 1.1 Brockton Access The access at Brockton Road (Old 101) is consistent with City’s transportation plan. Maple Grove development will access the developments entrance road also. A turn lane or other improvements may be required by the County. 1.2 Street Network Access appears to be on curves of the east/west road, and sight lines have not been reviewed. Adjustments may be necessary. 2.0 Water Booster Station The City water system shows a booster station near the connection to Maple Grove water. This plan shows the building in Maple Grove, and if this is not feasible the station should remain near this location. Water modeling would be executed at developers cost to analyze pressures and fire flows for upper floors of building. Water main relocation may be necessary and would be performed at developer cost. Kendra Lindahl Engineer’s Memo May 11, 2018 2 3.0 Sewer MCES owns property for a lift station adjacent to the parcel, howeverconstruction has not been initiated. Bids have been opened in 2018. The development will be required to bring a City forcemain through theproperty from Brockton/101 (Lennar forcemain) and connect to City manholefor conveyance to MCES Lift Station. This is necessary since Lennar had“temporary” route until the Schommer property developed. An agreement with Maple Grove would be necessary if any Maple Grovesewer flows were accommodated by Corcoran for low areas. 4.0 Stormwater Recent developments in this area show that stormwater management isfeasible. Applicant will comply with the Elm Creek Watershed rules and Cityreview of the system also. One potential issue is the route and method to convey stormwater down thebluff towards Cook Lake and adequate energy dissipation to preventlakeshore erosion. From:Fick, Daniel To:Michael Pritchard; Kevin Mattson; Brad Martens Cc:Just, Molly; Erickson, Darcy; Clancy, Jeannine; Colvin, Kyle; Dentz, Scott Subject:Trek Edgewater Development-MCES Review Date:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 4:30:14 PM Attachments:image001.png Mike: These reflect the initial review comments and concerns we have with the plans as submitted under the PUD application. Some of these are significant and impact both the regional system as well as local City infrastructure. MCES has reviewed the submittal for Trek’s Edgewater PUD including site plans and offer the following initial comments: 1. The plan appears to be placing utilities in the MCES permanent easement. The plan(s) do not provide sufficient detail to evaluate the impact that these proposed utilities will have on the regional interceptor forcemain. The placement of any utilities will require an encroachment agreement with the MCES. MCES also plans to construct a second forcemain in the same easement and needs to maintain a clear corridor in the Permanent Easement for operational and maintenance purposes. 2. It is unclear how access is being provided to the proposed MCES Lift Station. The access is not specifically identified and there appears to be conflicts with a proposed trail and a proposed lot. The MCES easement appears to run through the back yard of Lot 16 of Area 3 in very close proximity to the home building pad. 3. Normal driveway accesses should be as near perpendicular as possible to the road. The plan shows the MCES access drive connection with the proposed roadway at a skewed angle. 4. No grading contours, elevations or roadway grades are shown. MCES and the City should have concerns about depth of cutting/filling over our respective forcemains. 5. The plan shows flows from the Nelson property (Maple Grove) being conveyed to L80. Since L80 was designed to convey only Corcoran flow, areas served outside of Corcoran via L80 and downstream interceptors represent a loss of capacity available to Corcoran. 6. This development appears to build over 500 sac units. This represents a significant portion of the 0.6MGD average day capacity that was provided in the MCES system for SE Corcoran. 7. The development does not appear to address the rerouting of the Lion’s Park forcemain to L80 which was mutually agreed by the City and MCES as an interim connection. 8. The development plan shows a direct connection to the L80 wet well. This is not allowed. The sewer connection serving this area will need to occur at a city MH upstream of the proposed lift station. 9. Looking at the lot arrangement there may be an opportunity to relocate the proposed L80 lift station to a mutually advantageous location, depending on site grading. This could clear up the sight lines to Cook Lake and avoid a steep access road to L80. Re-engineering would be needed but MCES is open to the possibility. We look forward to meeting with you and City staff to discuss our comments in person next Wednesday. May we also suggest that Brad Martens and Kevin Mattson be in attendance. Dan Fick Principal Engineer daniel.fick@metc.state.mn.us P: 651.602.1061 | F: 651.602.1083 390 Robert Street North | St. Paul, MN | 55101 | metrocouncil.org DATE PROJECT # PROJECT STATUS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 2018 BKBM Engineers All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. C KEY PLAN Corcoran, Minnesota 55340 18180.20 Concept Edgewater Development Revisions No.Description Date 2018-04-26 WH TJC CONCEPT PHASE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.1 CORCORAN - EDGE OF WATER AND SETBACKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 3 3 5 5 5 14 DATE PROJECT # PROJECT STATUS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 2018 BKBM Engineers All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. C KEY PLAN Corcoran, Minnesota 55340 18180.20 Concept Edgewater Development Revisions No.Description Date 2018-04-26 WH TJC CONCEPT PHASE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C2.1 CORCORAN IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS CORCORAN UTILITY LAYOUT C3.1 DATE PROJECT # PROJECT STATUS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 2018 BKBM Engineers All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. C KEY PLAN Corcoran, Minnesota 55340 18180.20 Concept Edgewater Development Revisions No.Description Date 2018-04-26 WH TJC CONCEPT PHASE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kevin Shay through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 11, 2018 for the May 24, 2018 City Council Meeting RE: Discussion of Nuisance Ordinance Amendment (City File 18-013) 60-Day Review Deadline: N/A 1.Application Request The Council recently directed staff to be more active in code enforcement in the community. Staff believes that to be most effective in these efforts, some changes to the existing City Code and our code enforcement procedures is needed. The report is intended to facilitate a Council discussion and gather feedback for staff to proceed with these changes. 2.Background The City Council discussed code enforcement standards at their February 9, 2017 and August 10, 2017 meetings. 3.Context The nuisance code is currently broken into four parts that include general provisions, weeds, open burning and noise. These four parts provide their own definitions, standards and enforcement procedures which provide challenges for staff. The general provision part provides overall nuisance standards for the common nuisances. City Code Section 82.03 provides a listing of the general nuisances: a.“The maintenance of a condition, which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any considerable number of members of the public; b.Obstructions and excavations affecting the ordinary use of a public street, alley, sidewalk or other public property, except by a public agency or private contractor approved by the Public Works Director; c.In accordance with city code governing junk vehicles there shall be no collection of unused or unusable motor vehicle bodies, parts and engines and related accessories, with the exception of appropriately licensed pioneer, classic or collector vehicles as defined in M.S. § 168.10; d.The pollution of any public or private well or cistern, any public stream, lake, canal or body of water by effluent, garbage, rubbish or other noxious substances; Agenda Item: 9b. Ordinance Amendment – Nuisances (City File 18-013) 2 May 24, 2018 e. Any noxious weeds or any other vegetation which endangers public health, safety or welfare, or which is contraband within the meaning of state or federal laws; f. The emitting or production of dense smoke, noxious fumes, gasses, cinders or sparks in quantities that tend to unreasonably annoy, injure or endanger the safety, health, comfort or repose of any considerable number of members of the public; g. The accumulation of disused furniture, appliances, machinery, automobiles and parts thereof, accumulations, which may become a harborage for rats, snakes or vermin or which may be conducive to fire, or which endangers the health, safety or welfare of the public; h. The existence of any manufactured home, building or portion of a building which has stood with an incomplete exterior shell for longer than three years; or any building or a portion thereof which is: 1. Open to entry by persons without the use of tools or ladders; 2. A structure with multiple exterior housing code or building code violations; 3. A structure containing unfinished additions or partitions or any other unfinished structure; and 4. A dangerous structure, meaning any structure which is potentially dangerous to persons or property including, but not limited to a structure in danger of partial or complete collapse, or a structure which has parts such as porches, stairs, ramps and floors or roofs which are accessible and which are either collapsed, in danger of collapsing or not able to carry their designed weight. i. The existence of refuse or garbage, noxious substances or hazardous wastes, accumulated, piled, left, deposited, buried or discharged upon, or in, or flowing from any property, structure or vehicle, except for refuse or garbage deposited at places designated and provided for that purpose by the city. j. Creating a loud, unpleasant, raucous or prolonged noise so as to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of persons residing in any residential area. Exceptions are construction activity shall be permitted during the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Emergency work, resulting in loud or otherwise disturbing noise between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM if a permit is received from the city for said work.” The City’s Code Enforcement program has operated under a complaint based or reactionary policy on enforcement procedures. Currently, all enforcement actions are predicated by a complaint. Furthermore, staff takes a soft approach and the process is slow and in many cases, can take many months and many efforts to gain compliance. The current Code enforcement process: 1. A complaint is received and entered into the system. 2. A site visit is conducted; this includes taking photos and notes of the property/subject of the complaint. (This may take between 1-3 days or more depending on severity of complaint and workload.) 3. After an initial site visit is conducted, the information is brought back to the office and the findings are entered into the system. At this point a file is set up. Ordinance Amendment – Nuisances (City File 18-013) 3 May 24, 2018 4. A letter indicating the violation(s), remedy for compliance, and a timeline for compliance is written and sent to the property owner/resident. Typically, for general nuisances, a 30-day deadline is given. 5. If the property owner/resident has not called with a plan of action or scheduled the abatement, or if the complaint has not been satisfied within these 30 days, a second notice is sent, typically with a 15-day notice. 6. If the complaint is still not satisfied, the item would be forwarded to the City Attorney. A summary and all photos and a timeline are submitted. However, forwarding these items to the City Attorney’s office is expensive, so the City has instead continued to work with and exhaust all resources before forwarding to the Attorney. 7. If the case is forwarded to the Attorney, the property owner/resident is formally charged and a court date is set. The matter will go before a judge, and many times the judge will allow multiple continuances for many different reasons. This process can take several months, including multiple court appearances and site visits. When the Attorney is involved, and criminal charges are sought it becomes a lengthy and sometimes expensive process and costs are not recouped by the City. 4. Analysis of Request Staff reviewed several cities in the region to understand how other communities address code enforcement. Dayton, Maple Grove, Ramsey and Staples have well organized nuisance code sections that were used as examples. The following standards are recommended based on staff’s research of similar city standards and the initial direction given by council: • Amend the ordinance to provide consistent standards for all nuisances by eliminating the individual subparts. • Amend the ordinance to include additional actions constituting a nuisance. These will include exterior storage, construction materials, parking vs. storage, trailers and firewood. Some of these items are currently addressed in the Zoning Ordinance, but staff recommends that they all be consolidated into Chapter 82. • Amend the ordinance to condense definitions into one section and include the necessary definitions associated with added nuisances. • Move the nuisance language related to trailers from Section 1060.010 of the zoning ordinance to Chapter 82. The City Council should be prepared to discuss the following questions: 1. Do you want abatement or citations to become part of the process? Abatement and citations could be included in the process to create a stricter timeline with defined deadlines. This would be a more assertive approach for staff. 2. When providing notice of a nuisance, is one chance or multiple desired? Ordinance Amendment – Nuisances (City File 18-013) 4 May 24, 2018 As noted above, the current process includes multiple notices and can include a lengthy process. Changing the process to a single notice is a more aggressive code enforcement stance and will incur less staff time and a shorter process. 3. Is complaint based enforcement or active enforcement the desired way to proceed? Complaint based enforcement reacts to nuisances based on complaints from residents to remedy a nuisance. This requires less staff time than active enforcement but does not allow for staff enforce a nuisance unless a complaint is filed. The City currently operates on a complaint based system rather than actively looking for code enforcement violations. 4. When should council get involved? The code can be amended to allow the council to abate nuisances as alternative to the staff process. This would be done through an adoption of a resolution stating that a nuisance exists on the subject property and would require the property owner to abate the nuisance according to the resolution. If the Council does not think the proposed changes are needed or that other changes are needed, they should provide direction to staff. 5. Recommendation City Council should direct staff to proceed with drafting an amendment to the Corcoran City Code. The ordinance amendment could be scheduled for the July or August Planning Commission and Council meetings. Attachments a. LMC Public Nuisance Memo Pages 1-7 145 University Ave. West www.lmc.org 8/25/2017 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2017 All Rights Reserved This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. INFORMATION M EMO Public Nuisances Defines public and private nuisances, giving common examples such as weeds, smoke, noise, animals and more. Examines tools cities can use to effectively and fairly prevent nuisances or eliminate nuisance conditions when they occur. Evaluates complaint versus inspection enforcement options. Links to a model nuisance ordinance. RELEVANT LINKS: I. Considering community nuisances Nuisances impact a community’s livability. Minnesota cities provide for and protect the general welfare of its residents. This can include the prevention or abatement of various nuisance activities. In addition, state statutes provide cities the specific authority to abate nuisances within their jurisdictions. Although it may seem relatively simple in theory, nuisance enforcement is much more difficult in practice. When adopting local regulations, cities need to consider many things, such as: • Is the conduct or activity really a nuisance? • Does that type of activity negatively impact the entire community or only certain individuals? • Will we actively investigate nuisance conditions, or will we rely on resident complaints? • How will we address an individual’s rights when the city investigates or removes nuisance conditions? • What resources do we have (or need) to enforce our ordinances? Enforcement can be difficult, even in the most obvious situations. The “nuisance” owner may honestly have no idea that the use of his or her property is negatively impacting the community. Nuisance owners often have their own questions, such as: • Why am I required to shovel the sidewalk in front of my property? • Who are you to tell me how loud I can play my music? • Why should my neighbors care how many cars I park on my property? • Don’t you need a warrant to enter my property? • These are questions city officials should be prepared to answer. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/25/2017 Public Nuisances Page 2 II. What is a nuisance? Minn. Stat. § 561.01. Matter v. Nelson, 478 N.W.2d 211 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). See Public Nuisances, LMC Model Ordinance. As defined by statute, a nuisance is anything injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, or that obstructs the free use and comfortable use of life or property. Nuisance laws attempt to balance the competing interests and uses of property. As such, nuisance regulations commonly address neighborhood and land use issues, such as zoning, building codes, and fire codes, as well as more general quality-of-life concerns. City ordinances tend to provide a more detailed definition for nuisance conditions within a jurisdiction. Highview N. Apts. v. County of Ramsey, 323 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. 1982). Nuisances can spring up in a variety of ways. A nuisance may be created by: • An intentional act. • Negligent conduct. • An ultra-hazardous activity. • A violation of state statute. • A violation of city ordinance. • Any other wrongful (or “tortious”) activity. Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen’s Club, Inc., 624 N.W.2d 796. (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). 28A Minn. Prac., Elements of an Action § 18:1-2 (2016). With nuisances, a person’s intent is often immaterial; the person’s motive or intent doesn’t necessarily enter into the analysis of whether the condition or conduct is a nuisance. While nuisances may often include negligent conduct, determining whether an individual failed to exercise due care is not always critical. Consequence, rather than intent or care, is the primary concern. See Part V – Common nuisances. Nuisances may occur when someone fails to do something that is required. For example, the failure to cut one’s grass may become a nuisance. Nuisances can also occur when people do something they shouldn’t. Common examples of these action-based nuisances are: vehicle noise; accumulation of garbage or other junk; and parking an excessive number of vehicles at one location. See LMC information memo, Zoning Guide for Cities. Often, the location and its surroundings are critical in determining if a nuisance exists. Something considered a nuisance in a higher density, residential area may be appropriate in an industrial zone (or in another city altogether). III. Creation and classification Nuisances can generally be categorized as follows: RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/25/2017 Public Nuisances Page 3 A. Nuisance per se Robinson v. Westman, 224 Minn. 105, 29 N.W. 1 (1947). State v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 310 Minn. 535, 246 N.W.2d 692 (1976). See Part IV – A – 2 – Injunctions and abatements. A “nuisance per se” (or “nuisance at law”) is an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under all circumstances, regardless of the actual location or its surroundings. In the case of a nuisance per se, the right to relief is established more simply through proof of the act itself. For example, conduct specifically prohibited by state statute or local ordinance would be a nuisance per se. B. Nuisance in fact Olsen v. City of Minneapolis, 263 Minn. 1, 115 N.W.2d 734 (1962). A “nuisance in fact” is an act, occupation, or structure that becomes a nuisance based upon its relationship to its surroundings, its location, or the manner in which it is performed or operated. C. Ordinance classifications See Public Nuisances, LMC Model Ordinance. See Part IV – Public vs. private nuisances. When defining nuisance activities, it is quite common for city ordinances to classify nuisances with the following general classifications. Such classifications separate nuisances by the harms that they cause, but also upon the broad police powers a city has to remedy such situations. It is quite possible for each category to include both per se and in fact nuisances. 1. Against the peace Certain actions can be categorized as a “nuisance against the peace.” These and similar conditions can create fire, traffic, or other safety hazards: • Snow, ice, or other obstructions impacting city streets and sidewalks. • Trees or other materials blocking traffic or sightlines. • Unnecessary or excessive noises and vibrations. • Accumulation of old machinery, appliances, motor vehicles, and the like. 2. Against the quality of life Some activities impact more generally upon a community’s “quality of life”: Minn. Stat. § 609.72. • Disorderly conduct. • Use and/or sale of drugs and alcohol. • Prostitution. • Loud music. • Barking dogs or animal fighting. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/25/2017 Public Nuisances Page 4 3. Affecting morals Some are categorized due to the detrimental impact on community morals: Minn. Stat. § 609.755. Minn. Stat. § 609.322. Minn. Stat. ch. 340A. • Use of illegal gambling devices. • Houses of prostitution. • Illegal sale or production of alcoholic beverages. 4. Affecting public health Some activities are nuisances because they impact public health: Minn. Stat. §§ 18.76-.91. • Accumulation of rotting food, household wastes, and other refuse. • Animals running at large. • Noxious weeds. IV. Public vs. private nuisances In evaluating how it will respond to nuisances a city must first decide whether something is a public or private nuisance. Handbook, City Regulatory Functions. Excelsior Baking Co. v. City of Northfield, 247 Minn. 387, 77 N.W.2d 188 (1956). Public nuisances affect a considerable number of people; they violate public rights and produce a common or general injury, or they injure or annoy the portion of the public that comes into contact with them. Because they harm the general public, they can be addressed through city action. Hill v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 260 Minn. 315, 109 N.W.2d 749 (1961). A private nuisance, on the other hand, produces damages or injuries to only one person or a few people. As such, the prevention or abatement of a private nuisance is generally the responsibility of the individual injured, not the city. Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164, 53 N.W. 1072 (1893). Minn. Stat. § 609.74. See Part VII – Remedies. Nuisances can be both public and private. For example, a tree on private property could overhang both the public right of way and the adjoining private property. Public nuisances are generally remedied by criminal prosecution or injunction or abatement actions. Private nuisances are typically remedied by a private civil action. When the city receives a nuisance complaint, alleging some harmful or inappropriate conduct, city officials should consider the following questions: • Is the activity actually a nuisance (as provided in state law or as defined in the city ordinances)? • If it is a nuisance, is it a public or private nuisance? • If it is a public nuisance, what enforcement actions should be used? RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/25/2017 Public Nuisances Page 5 A. Public nuisances Victor E. Schwartz & Phil Goldberg, The Law of Public Nuisance: Maintaining Rational Boundaries on a Rational Tort, 45 Washburn L.J. 541 (2006). Public nuisance laws have developed over centuries of English and U.S. court decisions (common law). In addition, state and local governments determine through state statutes and/or local ordinances what are considered nuisance activities for a particular jurisdiction. Nuisance laws have evolved over time and will continue to do so. With more and more people living and working closely in our cities, individuals have a greater opportunity to impact the living conditions of their neighbors. Changes in industrial and commercial practices also lead to different beliefs on what are appropriate uses of property, real and personal, and what is not proper. Kelsey v. Chicago R.I. & P.R. Co., 264 Minn. 49, 117 N.W.2d 559 (1962). Public nuisances negatively impact a community—perhaps the city at large, or an otherwise significant area such as a neighborhood. Public nuisance laws address both intentional acts and negligent conduct. 1. Statutory criminal offenses Minn. Stat. § 609.74. State statutes provide that a person is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance (a misdemeanor offense) when he or she, by an affirmative action or upon a failure to act, does any of the following: State v. Nelson, 189 Minn. 87, 248 N.W. 751 (1933). • Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public. • Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage any public highway, right-of-way, or waters used by the public. • Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law to be a public nuisance and for which no sentence is specifically provided. Minn. Stat. § 609.745. Both the person in control of the real property where a public nuisance is maintained, as well as a property owner who rents property with knowledge of the nuisance conditions, may be guilty of a misdemeanor. Statutory nuisance violations can be enforced through criminal prosecutions. 2. Injunctions and abatements Minn. Stat. §§ 617.80-.87. In addition to possible criminal prosecutions, the state statutes also provide a mechanism for obtaining temporary or permanent injunctions or orders for abatement of certain defined public nuisance activities. An injunction is an order that requires a person to stop doing something that harms (e.g., refraining from loud noises, odors, etc.); an abatement order would require a harmful condition to be removed from the property (e,g., cutting weeds, draining stagnant water, etc.). RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/25/2017 Public Nuisances Page 6 Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 617.80, subd. 2. For purposes of statutory injunction or abatement proceedings, a public nuisance exists upon proof of one or more separate incidents committed within the previous 12 months either within a building or upon the land surrounding the structure of: Minn. Stat. § 340A.401 (unlicensed sales). Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, subd. 2(1) (persons under 21 years of age). Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6. •Prostitution or prostitution-related activity. •The unlawful sale, possession, storage, delivery, giving, manufacture, cultivation, or use of controlled substances. •Selling alcohol without a commercial license and/or the unlawful sales or gifts of alcohol to persons under 21 years of age, when multiple violations occur during the same behavioral incident when the building is not occupied by the owner or a tenant, lessee, or occupant. •The unlawful use or possession of a dangerous weapon. Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2. In addition, for purposes of injunction or abatement, a public nuisance also exists upon proof of two or more separate behavioral incidents committed within the previous 12 months within a building (or upon the land surrounding the structure) of: See P art IV – A – 1 – Statutory criminal offenses. Minn. Stat. § 609.745. Minn. Stat. § 340A.401. Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, subd. 2(1). •Gambling or gambling-related activities. •Maintaining a public nuisance as defined by Minn. Stat. § 609.74, clause (1) or (3). •Permitting a nuisance to occur in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.745. •The sale of alcoholic beverages without commercial license. •The unlawful sale or gifts of alcoholic beverages to an individual under 21 years of age. •The violation by a commercial enterprise of state or local licensing regulations, state statute, or local ordinance prohibiting the maintenance of a public nuisance. Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2(c). To obtain an injunction or abatement order, proof of each element of the conduct constituting the nuisance must be established by clear and convincing evidence. 3.Court decisions 35 Dunnell Minn. Digest Nuisances §§ 4.00-.15 (4th ed. 1997). Minnesota courts have found, among others, the following specific circumstances to be nuisances: •Accumulation of filth. •Noise. •Offensive odors. •Automobile wrecking. •Houses of prostitution. •The operation of steam shovels. •Hazardous buildings. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/25/2017 Public Nuisances Page 7 • Three or more people obstructing the free passage of sidewalk traffic. • Icy sidewalks or driveways. • A building overhanging a public street. • Stockyards, slaughtering houses, and rendering works. • Gases and gas odors, including those emanating from gas plants, petroleum tanks, and engines. • Smoke, dirt, and cinders emitted from chimneys and smoke stacks. • Obstructions or pollution of public streets or waters. • Discharge of water and sewage unto adjacent lands. • Cesspools. 4. Local regulation See Part VI – Municipal regulations. In addition to the statutory and the common law authorities, cities have the ability to define and establish through local ordinances additional nuisance conduct—so long as it is able to demonstrate that the condition or activity is a public nuisance. B. Private nuisances Minn. Stat. § 561.01. Minnesota House Research Dept., Minnesota’s Public and Private Nuisance Laws (July 2008). Holmberg v. Bergin, 285 Minn. 250, 172 N.W.2d 739 (1969). Similar to public nuisances, a private nuisance is anything injurious to health, or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, interfering with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. An activity does not need to be unlawful to be a nuisance; for example, a tree overhanging into a neighbor’s yard may become a private nuisance. Hill v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 260 Minn. 315, 109 N.W.2d 749 (1961). A private nuisance harms few persons. As such, the responsibility for prevention or abatement is the responsibility of those harmed and is not a proper ground for city actions. In contrast to public nuisances, which are redressed by state prosecution or abatement actions, private nuisances are only addressed by the individuals harmed through private actions. C. Creating a private duty Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Park, 279 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1979). Even though cities do not generally play a role in abating private nuisances, in limited circumstances it is possible for a city to assume a duty and subsequent responsibilities in protecting or preventing private harms from occurring. For such a private duty to exist, an individual will need to demonstrate that: • The city had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition. • There was reasonable reliance by those subject to the council’s representation and conduct and the reliance was based on specific actions or representations which caused the person harmed to forgo other means of protection. 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform D ATE: May 9, 2018 for the May 24, 2018 City Council Meeting RE: Corcoran Development Process and Alternatives 60-Day Review Ends:N/A 1.Application Request The City Council recently modified City policy regarding financial guarantees for the Bass Lake Crossings South project, which triggered a discussion about the City process, how it compares to other cities and what alternatives exist for the City. This report is intended to outline Corcoran’s existing development process and provide alternatives for Council consideration. 2.Analysis The development process in the City is outlined in the City Code and is based largely the statutory limitations provided by the State. The key steps in the Corcoran development process are as follows: a.Pre-application meeting between applicant and city staff (optional) b.Applicant submits application (for zoning or subdivision approval). Application forms, application calendar (with application deadline and meeting dates), fee schedule and checklists of required materials are available online, at city hall or from staff at the preapplication meeting. These application checklists outline all of the items that are required for a complete application. •Not all cities have an application deadline. In some cities, the developer can submit an application at any time to get into the pipeline. The benefit to this approach is that there is no commitment to Commission or Council meetings and can allow the City to work with the developer to address issues before scheduling them for a meeting and can better manage agendas by sliding items to the next meeting if the agenda is too full. •The downside for developers is that there is no commitment to meeting dates and leaves questions about when they could get development approval. Agenda Item: 9c. Development Process 2 May 24, 2018 c. Staff reviews the application for completeness and within 15 days provides a letter either stating that the application is complete or noting that the application is incomplete and what is needed to make the application complete. • There is an important distinction between complete and correct. For example, the applicant may submit a landscape plan (which makes the application complete), but the plan does not meet ordinance requirements (which makes it incorrect). In that case, the application is deemed complete but not correct. • If an incomplete letter is sent, the applicant is provided a deadline to meet to stay on the schedule. • The applicant will resubmit plans until the application is deemed complete. • The complete letter will note the tentative approval schedule. Determination of application completeness is a key step in the review process and is required by Minnesota State Statutes. The statutes outline the amount of time cities are allowed to review projects. It is often referred to as “The 60-day Rule”. This refers to a state law that requires cities to approve or deny a written request relating to zoning within 60 days after the application has been deemed “complete” or the request becomes deemed approved. The underlying purpose of the rule is to keep governmental agencies from taking too long in deciding land use issues. Minnesota courts generally demand strict compliance with the rule (MN Statute §462.358, Subd. 3b and MN Statute §15.99). The law does allow cities to give itself an additional 60 days (up to a total of 120 days) to consider an application if it provides written notice with the reason for the extension. Any additional extensions must be negotiated with the applicant. However, Subdivisions are treated differently from zoning applications: The city has 120 days to act on a preliminary plat and 60 days to act on a final plat. If the City does not act on a preliminary plat within 120 days, the applicant may demand a certificate of approval and proceed with a final plat application. If the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat, the City must approve. d. Scheduled review process. The City has an established application deadline and associated meeting dates to meet all required notification timelines. The process takes approximately 2 months and it varies based on the type of application: • Preliminary plat is reviewed by the Parks and Trails Commission, the Planning Commission holds a Public Hearing, the Council takes action. • Final plat requires Council review only. • Variances require Planning Commission review and Council action. • Conditional Use Permits/Interim Use Permits/Preliminary PUD Development Plans require a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council action. • Site plans and final PUD development plans require Planning Commission review and City Council action. • There a few administrative (staff) approvals for minor modifications or special home occupations. e. A development contract is approved by the Council when the final plat is approved or, for projects that do not include public improvements, a Site Improvement Performance Development Process 3 May 24, 2018 Agreement (SIPA). This outlines the improvements that the developer is required to complete and provides a financial guarantee for the improvements. • The City Code allows the City at its discretion to accept a Letter of Credit, Cash Escrow, Cash or Performance Bond for 125% the cost of the improvements to guarantee the work. • Until recently, the only accepted the first three for private improvements. The City did accept a performance bond for public construction projects as the circumstances are different when we are the owner responsible for contractor payments. • The purpose of the financial guarantee is to protect the City by ensuring that the projects are completed in accordance with the approvals and, if not, provides a method for the City to complete the improvements. • The model development agreement with the City Attorney, engineer and planner, the City policy only authorizes cash or a letter of credit as it easiest for the City should we need to collect on it. A performance bond does not specifically set aside funds for the project, but simply ensures that sufficient assets exist to support a potential claim in an amount up to the total of the performance bond. It is our City Attorney’s opinion that a performance bond simply gives the City the right to sue to collect and make improvements that are not completed by the developer. It does not give the City access to the funds immediately to correct a deficiency and takes significantly more time to access the funds than a letter of credit or cash. It is easier for the City to collect on the letter of credit because a letter of credit is a source of dedicated funds that the City can collect as needed. We would accept a warranty bond for warranty work after the improvements are completed. A performance bond is normally used only where the City is contracting with a company to complete work. The performance bond guarantees the work, but the City would also have the ability to withhold payments. The ability to access the funds to guarantee the work in a timely manner is important. While rare, if the developer fails to complete the required work or fails to complete it correctly, the development contract outlines the process where the City notifies the applicant of the defect and the required corrections. The developer has 30 days to make the correction. If the work is not completed as required, the City can cash the letter of credit and complete the work. The City Planner and City Attorney are not familiar with other cities that allow a performance bond rather than a letter of credit or cash guarantees for a development contract for the reasons outlined above. The applicant prefers the bond, because it is less expensive for them to get a bond and it does not affect their bonding ability. The development community is aware that the City allowed Bass Lake Crossing South to provide a performance bond and now at least two other developers have requested to do the same. Staff recommends that the City not accept a performance bond as financial guarantee for development work for the reasons discussed previously as we do not believe it provides Development Process 4 May 24, 2018 the City with the protection that the standard methods provide (letter of credit, cash, cash escrow). The Council should review the following options and provide direction to staff: a. Continue to accept Performance Bonds at the developer’s discretion (per recent council action) b. Go back to previous City Policy and only accept performance bonds from contractors performing on a City project If the City Council thinks the financial guarantee requirements are onerous for developers, staff offers an alternative: The City could amend the City Code to continue to allow only letter of credit, cash or cash escrow, but reduce the required amount from 125% of the cost of the improvements to 100% of the cost of the improvements. As the City usually has to draw on this guarantee to finish projects, not complete them in their entirety that would be adequate to protect the City and provide less of a burden on developers. f. The approving resolutions include a number of conditions that must be addressed at various stages (prior release of the final plat for recording, prior to issuance of building permit or prior to release of the escrow or financial guarantee). • The 60-day rule makes it difficult to work with the applicant to address all outstanding issues between the submittal and City Council action, therefore, the approving resolutions typically include a number of conditions that must be addressed. • The developer can begin working on those items at any time, but typically does not begin addressing the conditions until after Council action. • There are often several rounds of resubmissions from the applicant and review from the City. Most of these relate to engineering issues. • The alternative would be not to send the project to the Council until all revisions are completed and approved. The benefit to this approach is the Council would approve the final plan set and the developer could quickly begin site work. The downside is that the typical rounds of plan revisions could not occur within the 60/120 window and the developer would be required to provide the City with extensions to complete the review or face a recommendation for denial. g. Staff prepares a letter to the applicant outlining the items that must be recorded at Hennepin County. This includes all resolutions, development agreements, HOA documents, easements, maintenance agreements, etc. h. Prior to being allowed to begin grading, the developer must execute the development agreement (or SIPA), provide the financial guaranteed to the City and receive notice from the city that they many proceed (typically after a preconstruction meeting with the City Engineer). i. Prior to beginning any site work (public or private infrastructure, buildings, etc.), the developer must provide the city with proof that all documents have been recorded at Hennepin County as required. Development Process 5 May 24, 2018 j. The developer will submit a building permit for new construction, additions and remodels to City Hall. • City Staff will review for completeness and zoning compliance and forward to the building official for review typically within 1-3 business days. • The Building Official will review within 5-7 business days and either: i. Issue comments noting missing or deficient items ii. Approve the permit and send back to City staff for issuance • Staff will calculate the building permit fee based on the adopted fee schedule and let the applicant know the permit is available to pick up. • Work can begin when the permit is on site. • The applicant will contact the Building Official to schedule inspections as required. The issued permit includes an inspection noted required inspections. • After the final inspection, a certificate of occupancy will be issued. k. The City contracts with Wenck to complete on-site inspections for grading and infrastructure work to ensure compliance with the approved plans. l. As work is completed, the developer may ask for a reduction in the financial guarantee. City planning and engineering staff will conduct an inspection to ensure that the work is completed according to plan and then will reduce the guarantee. Since historically the City accepted letters of credit, the City Clerk drafts a letter with the reduced amount required and sends it to the financial institution. They will then provide a new letter of credit to the city in the reduced amount and the City will send the original letter of credit to the financial institution upon receipt of the new item. m. Upon completion of all work, the City may release the entire financial guarantee except that a portion equal to 25% of the original amount must be retained for a 2-year warranty period for all public water and sewer infrastructure, for a one-year warranty period for streets and one growing season for landscaping. • Upon completion of the warranty period, staff will inspect to ensure it meets specification and then either require replacement/repair or release the guarantee. Summary The development process in Corcoran is very similar to the development process in other cities and is based largely on timelines established by the State. The submittal schedule timeline does result in approvals with many conditions that have to be addressed prior to construction, but is often used because it gives everyone a clear understanding of the process and complies with the 60-day rule. The City does have discretion in what they will accept as a financial guarantee and what percentage is required. As noted earlier, staff recommends the previous policy of not accepting performance bonds, but would support a reduction in the amount from 125% to 100% of the cost of improvements. Development Process 6 May 24, 2018 The development review process for subdivision and zoning applications is limited by the statutory timeline, which results in applicants having to address approval conditions after the Council approval. This can be a several week delay between approval and beginning construction, but could be reduced by the applicant if all items are addressed in the first submittal. If it is the City Council’s desire to streamline the development process for developers: a. They could make some applications where the Council has limited discretion (site plans) an administrative staff approval. If it meets the Code requirements it must be approved. b. The Code currently requires the Final PUD Development Plan to go the Planning Commission for review. The application is required to be submitted with the final plat, which only goes to the City Council. The Council could modify the Code to eliminate that the Planning Commission meeting, which is not required by the Statutes. c. The Council could add a 2nd meeting each month for the Commissions, which would allow planning items to be processed more frequently. This would also mean that planning items would be placed on both Council agendas rather than just the 4th Thursday of the month. This certainly has additional costs related to staff time to prepare for and staff two extra meetings each month. 3. Action The City Council should provide staff with direction regarding any ordinance or policy changes desired. 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Mary Matze through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 11, 2018 for the May 24, 2018 City Council Meeting RE: Work Plan for Amendments to Development Rights and Open Space & Preservation Plats (City File 18-014) 60-DAY REVIEW DEADLINE:N/A 1. Background Corcoran uses a development rights program as a method of managing development density in rural areas and Metropolitan Urban Service Areas (MUSA) where municipal services are planned but have not yet been provided. Council asked staff to review the development rights policy and the Open Space & Preservation Plat ordinance to understand opportunities for making it easier for property owners to develop their land. 2. Analysis Development Rights Program Corcoran’s development rights program was developed with the intention of managing development in rural areas and areas where municipal services are planned but have not yet been provided. Within the MUSA, developments that are planned for City services are restricted according to minimum lot sizes provisioned by the Zoning Ordinance and density standards identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The number of lots created outside the MUSA that are not planned for City services are restricted by the number of development rights. However, because the sanitary sewer phasing plan is a 20+ year extension to serve the MUSA area, the Code does allow an interim solution for landowners in the Urban Reserve (UR) zoning district with development rights to cluster development in advance of sewer extension. Historically, the development rights program has been more difficult to administer than a minimum lot size and tracking has been a challenge over the years due to inconsistent record-keeping at City Hall. Over the years numerous property owners have disputed development rights assignments because the number is incorrect on the map, or development rights were transferred between property owners without being tracked at City Hall. However, we believe that current development map is as accurate as possible and the City Code provides an appeal process if a landowner can show that the map is in error. Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 9d. Natural Resource Protection Memo 2 May 24, 2018 Streets The development rights program was seen in part as a tool to incentivize property owners to construct and pave streets. While installation of a gravel road makes it easier for the property owner to develop their land, it comes at a significant annual cost to the City. Annual costs of maintaining gravel roads is higher than annual maintenance of paved roads. However, when paved roads need improvements, it is not clear if the annual maintenance costs of gravel roads outweigh the cost of improving paved roads. The City is studying the overall costs of gravel and paved roads this summer. Staff anticipates that this study will provide insight that may inform whether or not the City wishes to require land owners to pave roads when subdividing property. • Is it the Council’s goal to pave roads in Rural Residential areas? Does the current policy of incentivizing higher density (more lots) for subdivisions that provide paved roads still make sense? Council may wish to discuss this after the study is completed to inform their decision. Density and Lot sizes The Rural Residential areas are designated by Metropolitan Council as Diversified Rural, which allows development at 1 unit per 10 acres. This density minimum is consistent with the current policy for Rural Residential subdivisions with paved streets. The Zoning Ordinance allows property owners served by unpaved streets to develop their property at a rate of 1 unit per 30 acres and those properties served by paved streets to develop at 1 unit per 10 acres. If a property owner with an unpaved street wishes to pave a street, they may do so to increase the number of development rights. If Council wishes to update the policy to allow all land owners to develop at 1 unit per 10 regardless of whether or not roads are paved, consistent with Metropolitan Council policy, they would have two options to achieve this strategy: a. All land owners to develop at 1 unit per 10 regardless of whether or not roads are paved. b. Create a minimum lot size for the Rural Residential and Urban Reserve District. Lot sizes clearly defines for staff, landowners and developers the minimum standards for development. A 10-acre minimum lot size clearly identifies how much land is needed for subdivision. This program is much easier to administer and understand. However, there are a number of challenges to updating the current policy: a. Updating the density standard in the development rights map would significantly change the policy that has been in place for the last 30 years. The program has some challenges, but landowners in rural Corcoran have made decisions based on this program. Changing it to a minimum lot size or minimum program would create winners and losers by allow large lot property owners that have not previously developed land to develop land at a greater density than their neighbors that subdivided property under the old policy (which allowed only one lot per 30 acres). Natural Resource Protection Memo 3 May 24, 2018 b. Changing to a minimum lot size standard may allow landowners to further develop land that was planned as open space. The City allows developers to cluster homes on smaller lots without a conservation or deed restriction on the large lot intended as permanent open space. Allowing a minimum 10-acre lot size (consistent with Met Council density requirements) may result in increased density in the rural area and inefficient development that disrupts natural resource communities and prevents the city from providing sewered services in the future. Clustered development Council could revisit incentives for clustered development in exchange for development rights. The City currently incentivizes clustered development through the Open Space & Preservation Ordinance. However, there are a number of considerations that Council should discuss related to the standards in that Ordinance. Open Space & Preservation Ordinance In 2004, the City adopted an Open Space & Preservation (OS&P) Ordinance that increased development rights in exchange for the preservation of Open Space. The original OS&P Ordinance was seen as a way to preserve natural resources and farmland. This ordinance was updated in 2011 by a subcommittee to make it easier for property owners to develop their land, and removed many requirements for preservation of natural resources. Current staff was not a part of these discussions. The current Ordinance allows property owners to increase their development rights if they develop under the City’s Open Space & Preservation (OS&P) Ordinance. Under this Ordinance the developer may double or triple the number of units allowed on a site. The current ordinance requires that only 25% of the land on the property be preserved (permanently or temporarily) as open space, with 50% of the dedicated land identified as buildable. The 2011 Ordinance allows OS&P plats for land in greenway corridors, land with natural resources, or areas that are identified as “target areas” by the City. The ordinance also allows Council to approve OS&P plats if permanent preservation or restoration is proposed. The ordinance states that preservation and restoration areas shall follow the City’s adopted Design Standards for Preservation and Restoration lands. However, staff notes that while these items have been on the City’s work plan, the City has not: • Developed Design Standards for Preservation and Restoration; • Identified target areas for OS&P Plats. Updates to the OS&P Ordinance in 2011 eliminated standards that encouraged / required: • Permanent open space preservation • Preservation of natural resources • Smaller lot sizes (which allows more land to be preserved) • Higher levels of architectural design Natural Resource Protection Memo 4 May 24, 2018 • Higher landscaping standards The 2011 OS&P updates focused instead on incentivizing construction of common well and septic. Essentially, without strong preservation and restoration standards, the OS&P standards allow an increased number of development rights without the benefits of meaningful natural resource protection. While the City wants to make land development easier, natural resource protection seems to be very important as well. Because Design Standards and Target Areas have not been developed, the City has accepted OS&P plats whenever requested by a subdivider. No management standards for natural resources, no buffer requirements (except for Shoreland and Wetland), no architectural standards, and no HOA standards have been enforced by the City. • Council should discuss whether or not the OS&P standards are achieving desired natural resource protection or if the OS&P plat is simply giving land owners more opportunities to develop their land. • Council should also discuss whether identifying OS&P target areas is still relevant and if Design Standards for Preservation and Restoration should be prioritized on the 2018 or 2019 Work Plan. Flexible Design Guidelines The current OS&P Ordinance does not comply with the Metropolitan Council policies for the Diversified Rural Areas, which does not allow for permanent preservation of land. The OS&P ordinance allows land to be temporarily or permanently preserved, and the developer is essentially allowed to develop at a greater density than 1 unit per 10 acres. While the Metropolitan Council’s policies support increased clustered density, they do not support permanent preservation of land. Metropolitan Council allows increased density via a “Flexible Development” policy. The reasoning behind this is that if the property owner chooses to subdivide the property with temporary preservation, further development of land is possible on the land in the future. This strategy gives the community and land owners the option to allow land to be preserved for future development and immediate preservation of natural resources. To mitigate the potential for increased density in the rural area, the City could consider adopting Metropolitan Council’s “Flexible Residential” design standards that allow for rural and large lot properties to develop at greater densities than 4 units per 40 acres (or 1 unit per 10 acres) by requiring subdivision designs that preserve land for future development. This strategy gives the community flexibility in that it: a. protects natural resources in the immediate future (until services can be provided); b. preserves land for more urban development in the future, if needed; c. gives the property owner an opportunity to develop the land at a higher density However, if this strategy is used the Metropolitan Council requires that communities develop ordinances that limit development to 25% of the developable land, reserving the other 75% of that Natural Resource Protection Memo 5 May 24, 2018 land as open space that could be developed in the future. This is significantly more land that is preserved than under the 2004 and 2011 OS&P Ordinances. The following table compares the amount of land and the number of units that could be developed on a 40-acre lot according to the 2004 and 2011 OS&P Ordinances, and what could be developed under the Flexible design standards: Unbuildable Acres Buildable Acres Total Required Preservation (Acres) Required Buildable Land to be Preserved (Acres) Units 2004 10 30 20 5 4.6 2011 10 30 10 5 6 Flexible 10 30 23.5 22.5 Unlimited / Determined by City Staff has included a graphic as an attachment showing a graphic demonstrating the above numbers. Additionally, changing the program will require that the City comply with the density standards (4 lots per 40 acres) for the Diversified Rural areas. Density bonuses would be required to comply with Met Council’s Flexible Design policies. If Council desires to improve the OS&P Ordinance to allow for increased development and preservation of natural resources, staff recommends updating the ordinance so that it achieves increased temporary preservation of land, strengthens design standards, and increases density bonuses for higher levels of design and natural resource management. This could be a modified form of the flexible design guidelines that requires less preservation of buildable land than the current Met Council policy, but more buildable land than currently preserved under the OS&P ordinance. Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the following items: a. Are paved streets still a priority for the Council? • Both the development rights program and the OS&P program require paved streets to maximize the development potential of a site. A landowner gets 1 per 10 acres if they are on a paved road and 1 per 30 acres if they are on a gravel road. The Council could simply shift to 1 per 10 acres regardless of whether or not a street is paved. • An OS&P development requires paved streets in the development and the Council policy is to require paved access to the site as well. Is this still a priority? The Council could eliminate the requirement for paved streets or clarify that they will only require pavement within the OS&P development not leading up to it. Natural Resource Protection Memo 6 May 24, 2018 b. What are the concerns about the current OS&P ordinance? • The ordinance was drafted in 2004 and we had two OSP developments (Summerhill and Meadow Creek Estates). The recession happened, the ordinance was revised and now we have our first OSP proposal since 2005. We should be careful to separate the impacts of the recession from the ordinance standards. • Should roads be paved? • Are we giving density bonuses for the right things? • Should we give more density bonuses? • Are the design standards sufficient? • The design standards have a build-to line of 75 feet to keep structures closer to the street which would make it more cost effective for residents to connect to sewer and water in the future. Does that make sense given the timeline for possible future sewer service? (the original OS&P ordinance had standard setback requirements) • A PUD is required if a developer strays from the standards. c. What are the Council’s goals for the OS&P ordinance? • Originally, it was created to preserve natural resources and rural character. Is that still the goal? If not, what is the goal of the Ordinance? The Council could provide direction to staff regarding specific ordinance amendments or ask for additional information to be brought back to a future work session. 3. Action Provide feedback to staff about the issues related to development rights and cluster developments. Direct staff about how the Council wants to proceed. Attachments 1. Design and Density Bonus Comparison 2004 and 2011 OSP Standards 2. Buildable land graphic 3. Flexible residential development handout from Met Council Natural Resource Protection Memo 7 May 24, 2018 Design and Density Bonus Comparison 2004 and 2011 OSP Standards 2004 OSP Plat Current Code OSP Plat (2011 Update) Flexible Design Requirements Bonus ranges 5%-15% per action (150% max) 150%-300% Determined by City Qualifying land Rural Residential and Urban Preserve All in Rural Residential and Urban Preserve, but prioritizes • Land with Greenway or Natural Resources by right • Other land may be approved by Council for permanent preservation Diversified Rural areas and as allowed by the City Minimum of land required to be preserved 20 Acres No minimum 75% Percent of land required to be dedicated as open space 50% (permanent) 25% (permanent or temporary) 0 Percent buildable required as part of open space 25% 50% Bonus based on: • Public access • Park dedication • Providing additional land preservation • Preservation of Historic Buildings • Architectural covenants for building, landscaping, lighting and creation of a central meeting place • Natural resource preservation • Natural resource preservation along public streets • Permanent preservation vs. temporary preservation • Septic Services (Private vs. Community) • TBD Natural Resource Protection Memo 8 May 24, 2018 Design and Density Bonus Comparison 2004 and 2011 OSP Standards 2004 OSP Plat Current Code OSP Plat (2011 Update) Flexible Design Requirements Bonus ranges 5%-15% per action (150% max) 150%-300% Determined by City Open space management standards Yes Land owners must follow “Design Standards for Preservation and Restoration”. Standards have not yet been developed or adopted by Council HOA Standards Yes None Lot Standards Lot width 100 feet 200-300 feet, smaller lots allowed as part of PUD Front Setbacks 50 feet 75-foot build-to line 100-foot setback along major streetways Buffer zone 100 feet around lot None Maximum impervious 25% None (except according to Shoreland Overlay District standards) Design standards (emphasis on focal point, preservation of natural features, open space accessibility to residents, pedestrian corridors, native landscaping) Yes None Architectural standards Yes None Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 05.24.2018 Development Rights and OS&P • Corcoran, MN Buildable Area Required Buildable Land to be Preserved Total Required Preservation Unbuildable Land 2004 OS&P 2011 OS&P Flexible Residential Requirements 1 Flexible Residential Development Ordinance Guidelines for the Diversified Rural Area August 2008 Background The 2030 Regional Development Framework (RDF)i indicates that land use patterns in Diversified Rural Area Communities “include a mix of a limited amount of large-lot residential and clustered housing with agriculture and other uses” (RDF p. 27). The RDF further states the communities in the Diversified Rural Area should preserve areas where post-2030 growth can be provided with cost-effective and efficient urban infrastructure and accommodate growth without prematurely requiring the provision of regional urban services. In addition, the 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan (WRMPP) identifies areas for post-2030 wastewater investment and service. These areas are described in the text of the document as well as illustrated in Appendix E on a map titled Regional Wastewater System Long-Term Service Areas. The existing regional wastewater treatment plants and the broader infrastructure efficiency of contiguous sewered development are predicated on a residential density ii of three units per acre or greater (WRMPP p. 54). The Council’s planning strategies for Diversified Rural Areas call for communities in those areas to have land use plans that “[a]ccomodate growth not to exceed forecasts and clustered development not to exceed 1 unit per 10 acres” (RDF p. 32). However, the results of a recent study of “flexible residential development ordinances” employed in Diversified Rural Area communities show that some communities have implemented ordinances that permit activities that are in conflict with metropolitan system plans.iii Density bonuses, large-lot development, and open space preservation ordinances sometimes permit residential development at densities that will severely limit the ability of some communities to achieve (in the future) the minimum density requirement of at least three units per net developable residential acre that is necessary for future cost-effective and efficient regional wastewater treatment services. The Council has developed guidelines for flexible residential development ordinances applied in communities in the Diversified Rural Area and identified as a Long-Term Service Area (LTSA) for regional wastewater services. These areas are essentially staging areas for future urbanization, and so development ordinances and land use patterns should reflect as much and not preclude future development on appropriate lands in those areas. A purpose of flexible residential development ordinances in these areas should be to preserve land for post-2030 growth and to accommodate the future extension of regional urban services. Communities should study and assess their landscapes to refine their development priorities. There may be areas within the community that contain an abundance of sensitive natural resources or that the community has identified as a greenway or conservation corridor. These areas may not be most suitable for future urbanization as the capability of the land to support development is low and constrained. In these cases, open space development or cluster development may be adapted to protect those resources to meet the community’s goals. These guidelines are not intended to replace the work that has been done by numerous communities and organizations in developing flexible development ordinances. Rather, these guidelines are intended to be used along with those methods and standards for the varying types of flexible development ordinances. Page 2 Guidelines for Flexible Residential Development Ordinances iv Areas immediately beyond the current urban services boundary within the LTSA are considered temporarily rural. Residential development ordinances in these areas should limit densities to one unit per 10 acres, or allow the clustering of dwellings in a manner that will reserve land for future sewered development, in addition to protecting any sensitive resources that may exist. Ordinances providing for residential clustering in the above- described areas should take the following guidelines in consideration when developing or adapting flexible residential ordinances for these areas. 1. Provide a purpose within the ordinance that describes the need to reserve land resources for efficient future urbanization when appropriate infrastructure is available to support that development. Defining the purpose and intent of any ordinance provides the local unit of government with a basis for the regulations that follow. Clearly stating that a purpose of the flexible residential development ordinance is to reserve land resources for future development will allow potential applicants to better understand the regulations as they apply to individual properties. The local unit of government may also wish to apply aspects of an open space ordinance to other areas within the community that have different characteristics that they wish to set aside or protect; this distinction should also be stated and defined within the purpose section of the ordinance. 2. Describe the characteristics of the land required for future urbanization and seek to reserve tracts of land in a size and configuration capable of supporting future development (for example, non-hydric soils, location in relation to existing development, etc.). The ordinance should define the lands that are considered “buildable,” as these lands are considered the most suitable for development. Removing lands that are restricted due to federal and state regulations, as well as any features that the local government has defined for protection or conservation, will allow the community to preserve sensitive natural features and to ensure the availability of land to accommodate future development. Density bonuses are commonly used by local communities as a means to encourage developers to use a non- conventional development ordinance. However, without specifying the types of lands that are required for future development, many communities have inadvertently encouraged large-lot development in which the private lots often consume most of the developable land and leave little remaining developable acreage available for future development. The lots within the development are often too large to efficiently extend urban-level services to the development. 3. Allow no more than 25% of the developable land in a project to be developed. For the purposes of future urbanization, larger future urbanization parcels should be reserved, limiting the cluster to a development area that a covers a minority of the area. To ensure that land is available for future development, the local unit of government should specify the maximum amount of developable land that is allowed to be used for the initial residential development. For the purposes of future urbanization, communities should limit the initial development envelope to no more than 25% of the total buildable area of the project parcel. 4. Require that the parcel(s) set aside for future urbanization be covered by a temporary development agreement or deed restriction, rather than a permanent conservation easement or other permanent restriction. In a typical open space development, with the purpose of long-term preservation of natural resources, communities usually ensure the long-term maintenance and protection of sensitive natural resources through the placement of a permanent conservation easement that is often conveyed to a trust or public entity. When seeking to reserve land for future development, however, the community should not place permanent restrictions on the capability of the land to be developed. Instead, communities should place on the future urbanization parcel temporary development agreements or deed restrictions that contain “triggers” for the removal of such restrictions. The restrictions prevent the land from being developed before urban services are available. The ordinance should also detail the “triggers,” or conditions, under which such restrictions would be removed and the parcel made available for development. Such conditions may include the rezoning of the parcel, a change in the comprehensive plan, and the provision of urban infrastructure and utilities, among others deemed appropriate by the local unit of government. Page 3 Portions of the development that are designated as undevelopable or are to be set aside for recreational use or conservation purposes, on the other hand, should be either dedicated to the public or covered with a permanent conservation easement or permanent deed restriction. 5. Provide for the rezoning of the future urbanization parcel to a residential zoning classification at densities consistent with Council policy at such time that urban services are available to the parcel. To ensure the efficient utilization of urban services, communities should allow for the rezoning of the future urbanization parcel to densities that, at a minimum, are consistent with Council policy. This rezoning should only occur in conjunction with or after the provision of urban services, when the land is served by the infrastructure required to support higher density uses. 6. Encourage the use of community wastewater treatment systems to serve the temporary cluster and to allow for smaller lot sizes within the development. Clustering homes on smaller lots facilitates the connection of those homes to future sewer services and ensures that these services are being efficiently and economically utilized. These small lot sizes, however, are often too small to provide the necessary space for individual sewage treatment systems on each lot, in addition to a back-up site in case of primary system failure. Using a community treatment system resolves that issue: by employing a shared drainfield located in a common open space area, individual lots no longer need to be large enough to accommodate two on-site septic treatment sites. The use of smaller lot sizes will not only facilitate future connection to sewer services, once they become available, but also will reserve more developable land for future development. i This memorandum references the online versions of the 2030 Regional Development Framework (as amended through December 14, 2006), the 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan (with revised forecasts as of January 9, 2008), and the Local Planning Handbook. ii The Council defines “residential density” as the “number of dwelling units per net residential acre of land” (WRMPP p. 111). For planning purposes, the Council uses a standard calculation of net developable acres and net density to measure a community’s capacity to accommodate residential development. The minimum density requirement is three units per net developable residential acre. Net residential acreage is calculated by subtracting from gross acres wetlands and water bodies, public parks and open spaces, arterial road right-of-way, and natural and other resources mapped and protected by local ordinances and in the comprehensive plan update. (Local Planning Handbook p. 3-5) iii Under Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858, subdivision 1 and 473.865, subdivision 2, a local governmental unit cannot adopt any official control of fiscal device which is in conflict with its local comprehensive plans “or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans.” Official controls are: ordinances and rules which control the physical development of a city, county, or town, or any part thereof or any detail thereof and implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Official controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes, and official maps. (Minn. Stat. § 473.852, subd. 9) The “metropolitan system plans” are the “transportation portion of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the policy plans, and capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater service, transportation, and regional recreation open space.” (Minn. Stat. § 473.852, subd. 8) iv Minn. Stat. § 473.854 authorizes the Council to “prepare and adopt guidelines and procedures relating to the requirements of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 [the Metropolitan Land Planning Act] which will provide assistance to local governmental units in accomplishing the provisions of [the Act].” 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Mary Matze through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 11, 2018 for the May 24, 2018 City Council Meeting RE: Natural Resource Protection Options (City file 18-010) 60-DAY REVIEW DEADLINE:N/A 1.Background Council asked staff to provide options for protecting natural resources in the community with the purpose of maintaining Corcoran’s rural character. 2.Analysis Communities use different types of tools to protect natural resources. Communities often use a combination of approaches that either incentivize preservation of natural resources or limit removal of natural resources. Following is a discussion of the different approaches and policy tools that communities use to protect natural resources: Planning for Natural Resource Preservation The Comprehensive Plan sets the vision for natural resource protection in the City. As part of the Comprehensive Plan process, the City performed an inventory of natural resources in the city. The findings of this inventory are shown on the “Natural Resource Inventory Map”. The Map shows wetlands and woodlands in the City, and identifies whether the resource qualifies as a high quality natural resource area. The Comprehensive Plan currently gives the City the discretion whether to acquire the land containing natural resources via parkland dedication during the subdivision process if those areas are identified as park search areas. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan does not have a goal that explicitly supports natural resource protection for purposes other than park dedication in the City. However, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update explicitly supports natural resource protection in the Growth Management Goals and Policies. •Council could choose to adopt ordinances that would protect natural resource communities through development. Density As a City develops and grows, communities find that they must balance the desire for growth with the desire to protect natural resources. Some communities manage natural resource protection Agenda Item: 9e. Natural Resource Protection Memo 2 May 24, 2018 through incentivizing density and concentration of development. Larger lot sizes and building setbacks require more land than smaller lot sizes and smaller setbacks. Therefore, if communities incentivize or require development of smaller lots in the MUSA areas that are planned for City services, less land is required for larger numbers of people, which preserves natural resources. Supporting smaller lot sizes within MUSA areas and large lots (over 10 acres) in rural areas is a very effective way of preserving natural resources. In the past, the Council has shied away from smaller lot sizes and has supported larger setbacks (100-feet from County roads). Larger setbacks decrease the number of lots that can be developed on a parcel. The difference between a 60-foot setback and a 100-foot setback is very difficult for the average person to discern. While a larger setback may achieve a more rural feel, the difference in the setback size does not effectively preserve natural resources. However, reducing the setback would allow several additional lots to be developed. Council could consider studying opportunities to reduce lot sizes or provide design standards for small lot sizes that would incentivize high quality design and landscaping or screening that would provide privacy and enhance the appearance of the City. Cluster / Open Space Ordinances Cluster and open space preservation ordinances are written either to incentivize or require preservation of natural resources in rural areas. In exchange for preservation of a site’s natural features, ordinances typically allow clustered homes on smaller-sized lots or a higher number of units than would typically be allowed under a standard ordinance. The below figure shows how cluster / open space preserve natural resources and maintain a rural feel: Natural Resource Protection Memo 3 May 24, 2018 Corcoran currently has an option for developers to plat lots using an Open Space and Preservation Ordinance (OS&P Plats), which is an incentive-based ordinance. Under Corcoran’s OS&P standards, land subdivided through an OS&P plat increases the development rights for each parcel in relation to land in preservation and to the amount of land being preserved. The OS&P requirements do not have provisions for tree preservation, planting standards in the open space areas, or grading. OS&P plats are typically approved in Rural Residential areas, not in the MUSA (although they are allowed in the Urban Reserve zoning district). In the past, Corcoran has required that OS&P developers follow design standards that prioritize the natural resources that are preserved. However, in 2011 the ordinance was amended to remove these design standards to make it easier for rural property owners to develop their land. These changes also limited the amount of open space required to be preserved and eliminated density bonuses for extraordinary natural resource protection, which ultimately gave the City less control over natural resource protection in rural Corcoran. Wetlands, Lakes, and Streams Wetlands, Lakes, and Streams are currently protected under state and federal laws. The City’s Zoning Ordinance includes provisions to protect lakes and streams through their Shoreland Overlay Ordinance. Developers must provide buffers and buffer setbacks for wetlands, lakes and streams as part of a development. Tree Preservation Many communities in the seven-county metro area limit tree removal both during the subdivision process and on land that is being redeveloped. Ordinances typically limit the percentage of trees allowed, and require tree replacement, monetary mitigation or a combination if the allowable percentage of tree removal is exceeded. This type of ordinance provision is the most common and often the most effective method of preserving trees in a community. The following table provides a summary of ordinance standards for tree preservation in nearby communities: City Preservation Required (Y/N) Percent of Trees allowed to be removed Size of Trees included in Preservation Percentage Replacement required? Mitigation Maple Grove Y 30%, new subdivision 40%-70%, if not part of subdivision, depending on the zoning district 8” DBH Y Y Plymouth Y 50-70%, depending on the district 8” DBH – deciduous 4” DBH – coniferous Y Y Medina Y 10-15%, new subdivision 5-20%, if not part of subdivision depending on the lot size 8” DBH – deciduous 4” DBH – coniferous Y ? Natural Resource Protection Memo 4 May 24, 2018 Corcoran requires developers to provide a tree survey during the subdivision process. However, without a tree preservation ordinance in place, the City cannot restrict tree removal on the property. The required tree survey is a significant cost to the developer and however, the Ordinances do not require developers to preserve the trees shown on the plan. Without a tree preservation ordinance, the City cannot force developers to preserve trees. The tree preservation plan is an important negotiation tool as part of PUD. If the City chose to enact a tree preservation ordinance, this survey would be essential to tree preservation and mitigation for losses on a site. Grading Council members have expressed concern about site grading that eliminates existing site contours and vegetation to flatten sites for development. Communities in the Twin Cities region often have bluff preservation ordinances that limit development on steep slopes (typically slopes with a grade over 18%, as defined by the DNR’s Shoreland Overlay standards). However, Corcoran does not have any slopes that would be considered so steep that they are unbuildable or considered a defining feature of the area. We are not familiar of any examples of communities that limit grading on sites outside these protected steep slope areas. It is staff’s experience that developers typically limit grading to the extent feasible while maximizing the development on site due to the high cost of earthwork on the site. If there are specific properties that have topography that is considered worthy of preservation, the City should evaluate the proposed land use on the site to determine if the land use is appropriate for those sites. Staff reviewed the topography in the area to see if there are parts of the City that may have more value. The community is relatively flat; however, staff notes that there appears to be more hills in the southwest portion of the City near Lake Jubert. There may be areas that are technically defined as having steep slopes, however, an in-depth analysis of the contours would be required to fully understand exactly where they are located in the City. Conclusion Corcoran has “set the table” for protection of natural resources, but so far has taken an approach that incentivizes preservation of natural resources, rather than requiring preservation. This approach is development friendly, but does not necessarily achieve the level of natural resource protection that may be desired by the City. If Council would like to see more emphasis on natural resource protection, they should explore the following: 1. Natural resource protection through the subdivision process. The City could evaluate how to incorporate stronger requirements to preserve natural resources through the platting process. 2. Reducing lot sizes and setbacks, incentivizing reduced lot sizes, and methods for mitigating impacts from reduced lot sizes through screening and landscaping. 3. Evaluate design and natural resource protection standards in the OS&P Ordinance. 4. Explore developing a tree preservation ordinance that would require a certain percentage of trees to be preserved through development. Natural Resource Protection Memo 5 May 24, 2018 The Council should discuss how they would like to proceed. They should provide direction to staff about whether they are interested in ordinance updates and what type of ordinance options should be presented. 3. Action Provide direction to staff on how the Council would like to proceed. Technical Memo Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com To:Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From:Matt Bowers, Wenck Associates, Inc. Kent Torve, Wenck Associates, Inc. Date:May 17, 2018 Subject:Preliminary Evaluation of Corcoran Water Supply Development Southeast Corcoran has been developing using water supplied under agreement with Maple Grove. The Pulte development (if approved) will expand use with a connection in northeast Corcoran. The current draft Comprehensive Plan and its predecessor both discussed utilizing Maple Grove as the initial water supply for these areas, but also discussed the potential for an eventual development of Corcoran’s own water supply. The timing of such a transition has not been evaluated and is clearly influenced by several factors. We recommend that the City authorize a preliminary evaluation of those factors as guidance for Council, to be conducted during 2018. The following tasks would be included in this effort: Process Meet with City staff and the DNR to discuss their long-term view regarding the regulatory process, local aquifers, and schedule for beginning a City supply. Meet with neighboring cities to discuss potential water supply partnerships or collaboration, including Rogers, Dayton, and Medina. Aquifer Analysis Review any readily-available information from adjacent cities that utilize the same probable aquifer, such as well yields, water quality, level of treatment, etc. This is important information to create the phased buildout of a system, location of treatment plant(s), approximating number of wells in a “well field” to achieve a certain supply, etc. Contract Snapshot and System Costs The water contract allows for an average day flow of approximately 1.75 million gallons per day (MGD). Water use records show approximately 170 gallons per day (gpd) for Ravinia, therefore the contract would allow connection for the equivalent of “10,000 homes”. (Note: commercial land use has fairly similar water demands to residential, so the benchmark of equivalent homes is applicable. A high end industrial user would require its own analysis on demands to the system and beyond the scope of this study.) The attached Table was created to show the current “lot count” in the City (includes Pulte) and how it compares to the contract amount for Maple Grove. The City is currently “10% along” in its water contract. Item 11a. Mr. Kevin MattsonPublic Works DirectorCity of CorcoranMay 17, 2018 2 \\wenck.local\wenckspace\Vol1\0846 Loretto\VFDs\Technical Memo - VFDs for Distr Sys Pumps.docx Wenck will provide estimated system costs for the phased implementation using a few scenarios for population served (1,000, 2,500, 5,000). This is a high-level infrastructure cost summary for wells/pumphouses, raw water lines, and centralized water treatment plants. The City’s financial consultant (Northland) could use this information if further financial modeling is desired to review acceptable debt loads, impact to monthly user rates, etc. This modeling would allow Council to view risk and timing of a City system. Deliverable The deliverable will be an Engineer’s Report that includes the process, regulatory requirements, timeline, and infrastructure costs for use by the City in reviewing potential investment points into a water supply system. Cost Cost for this technical memorandum is $5,000. Assumes no travel expense meetings (to DNR, Met Council, etc.) Table 1. Snapshot of City's Water Supply Timeline 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%Maple Grove Contract Use Average (GPD)0 1,700,000 GPD Average Peak (GPD)0 5,000,000 GPD Peak Includes Pulte Houses/REU 0 1,040 10,000 REU Total MG Fees 0 $2.4M $23M Simple math, using current fees. Note: There are two components to water system, Corcoran builds water tower and trunk lines. The MG contract is for supply and treatment. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11b. Council Meeting: May 24, 2018 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Gambling Ordinance Amendment Request Action Required: Direction Summary: The City of Corcoran has received a request from Dan Falstad of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to amend the City’s gambling ordinance to allow for singular events such as gun raffles to take place in Corcoran. Current ordinance states “No organization conducting lawful gambling activities within the City may do so simultaneously with another organization at the same location within the City.” This means that since there is already a license holder for pull tabs at the Stanchion, 10/50 Club, and Mama G’s, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation cannot hold an event at that location. The request is to amend the ordinance to allow a small number of these events to take place annually in addition to the existing license holder. Staff contacted the Northwest Area Jaycees as they hold licenses in the City. In general there was support for the proposed changes as long as they don’t impede what they are currently doing or proposing to do in the future. Staff finds the request acceptable. The City Council should direct staff whether or not to make an ordinance amendment to allow the requested activity. Financial/Budget: Minor costs would be incurred to update the ordinance related to a legal review and required publication if approved. Potential fees related to allowing the activities would likely cover any costs incurred. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: Community Pride and Partnership We believe in creating a strong sense of community through partnerships with civic organizations, school districts, and local businesses. Options: 1. Direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment to allow for raffle events as requested. 2. Direct staff to make no changes. Page 2 Recommendation: Staff finds the request to be reasonable and recommends the Council direct staff to draft an amendment. Staff will work with existing license holders to ensure no conflicts are created. Council Action: Direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment to allow for raffle events as requested. Attachments: 1. Gambling Ordinance 116-1 CHAPTER 116:LAWFUL GAMBLING 116.01:PURPOSE The City of Corcoran desires to regulate gambling within its jurisdiction, pursuant to its authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 349, and exercise its right to impose additional restrictions on gambling within the City, in order to ensure integrity of operations, and to provide for the use of net profits only for lawful purposes. 116.02:PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW ADOPTED The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 349, as it shall be amended from time to time, are hereby adopted and made a part of this Ordinance as if set out in full. 116.03:116.03: PERMIT REQUIRED, ELIGIBILITY No person, otherwise exempt from licensing by the Gambling Control Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 349.166, shall conduct lawful gambling within the City without first obtaining a permit to do so under this Chapter of the City Code. Eligible applicant organizations for such a permit must meet all of the following requirements: A.An eligible organizationmust meet all of the qualifications of Minnesota Statute Section 349.16, subd. 2; and B.An applicant organization must be a religious, fraternal, veterans, or other non-profit organization which conducts the lawful gambling exclusively on the premises owned or leased by the organization; and C.All of the organization’s owners, managers, employees, agents, or interested parties are free of felony convictions, convictions of a crime involving gambling, and other convictions for offenses which relate directly to such person’s ability, capacity, or fitness to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of the gambling activities contemplated; and D.An organization, along with any of its owners, managers, employees, agents, or interested parties mustnot have been denied licensure or had a license revoked, cancelled, or suspended by the Gambling Control Board or any municipality within one year prior to making the application; and 116-2 E.An organization’s proposal must be consistent with the City’s comprehensive development plan and must not have an unreasonably detrimental effect upon other persons or properties in the vicinity of the organization; and F.An eligible organization and all of the organization’s owners, managers, employees, agents, or interested parties must not owe delinquent local, state, or federal taxes, and may not be delinquent on any other City bill; and G.An organization must have fully, truthfully, and accurately completed and submitted a valid application for a permit under this Chapter made on the forms provided by the city clerk and paid all applicable fees, as determined from time to time by separate resolution, to the City. 116.04:PREMISES PERMIT, CITY APPROVAL REQUIRED An applicant, not exempt under Minnesota Statute Section 349.166, seeking to conduct lawful gambling within the City must obtain a valid premises permit from the Gambling Control Board with a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit. The owner of the premises for which a premises permit is sought must comply with all the requirements of Minnesota Statute Section 349.18 in renting or using the premises for lawful gambling. 116.05:PREMISES PERMIT, CONDITIONS DETERMINING APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL In determining whether to approve or disapprove a premises permit or renewal of the same, the City Council shall review all of the considerations outlined in Section 116.03 of this Chapter and any other relevant considerations. An eligible applicant for approval of a premises permit must also maintain its headquarters or business office within the City’s trade area and have maintained the same in that location for at least two years prior to the date of the application. The City’s trade area shall be defined as the City of Corcoran and each city contiguous to the City of Corcoran. An eligible applicant must also maintain at least 15 active members, as defined by Minnesota Statute Section 349.12, subd. 2, who are residents of the City’s trade area each pending application for a premises permit or renewal of the same shall be approved or disapproved by resolution of the City Council within 60 days of receipt of a complete application. 116.06:LOCAL INVESTIGATION,FEE The City may conduct an investigation prior to making a decision whether to issue or renew or decline to issue or renew any permit pursuant to Sections 116.03 and 116.04. In the event of such an investigation, the City may collect an investigation fee in an amount determined and amended from time to time by separate ordinance. As a part of this investigation, an applicant for a permitpursuant to Sections 116.03 or 116.04 must cooperate fully with the City in 116-3 supplying all information required in this Chapter. Further, such an applicant and all of its owners, managers, employees, agents, and interested parties also must consent to a criminal history and driver’s license check conducted by the chief of police or his/her designee. Failure of any applicant or listed interested party to so consent shall result in a denial of the license application. 116.07:CONTRIBUTION OF NET PROFITS Any organization that is granted a permit to conduct lawful gambling within the City pursuant to Sections 116.03 and 116.04 must contribute ten percent of the organization’s net profits derived from lawful gambling conducted at the premises within the City’s trade area to a fund administered and regulated by the City. This contribution shall be made without costs to such fund and shall be for disbursement by the City of the receipts for lawful purposes, or police, fire, and other emergency or public safety related services, equipment and training, excluding pension obligations. For purposes of this Section, net profits are gross profits less amounts expended for allowable expenses and paid in taxes assessed on lawful gambling.Payments to the fund shall be calculated annually following each fiscal year ending June 30. Annual payments shall be submitted together with verifiable supporting documentation, not later than the twentieth day of the month following the end of the annual period. Failure to comply with this Section shall be grounds for revocation of a permit or permission granted pursuant to Sections 116.03 and 116.04. 116.08:TRADE AREA EXPENDITURES Every organization conducting lawful gambling within the City shall expend a minimum of fifty percent of its lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area of the City, as defined in Section 116.05. This Section shall apply only to lawful purpose expenditures of gross profits derived from lawful gambling conducted at the premises within the City. Annually, every organization conducting lawful gambling within the City must file with the City a report documenting compliance with this Section. In addition, every organization must submit a report to the City each July listing all lawful purpose expenditures from July 1 through June 30 of the preceding year. Failure to comply with this Section shall be grounds for revocation of a permit or permission granted pursuant to Sections 116.03and 116.04. 116.09:ONE ORGANIZATION PERMITTED PER LOCATION No organization conducting lawful gambling activities within the City may do so simultaneously with another organization at the same location within the City. 116.10:PENALTIES, SUSPENSION AND REVOCATIONPROCEDURE A violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be a misdemeanor and grounds for denial, suspension, or revocation of a permit issued under this Chapter. Nothing in this Chapter shall preclude the City from enforcing this Ordinanceby means of any appropriate legal action. 116-4 Prior to suspending or revoking a permit issued under this Chapter, the City shall hold a hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 14 (Administrative Procedure). The City shall serve notice of the hearing on the permit holder either personally, on the person identified as the owner or responsible party in the application for a permit or via United States first class mail, postage prepaid or by United States registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed with the last known address of the permit holder to whom notice is intended to be given. After a hearing to take action on a permit, the City Council may suspend or revoke the permit if the Council finds that probable cause exists as to a violation of this Ordinance. 116.11:REPORTING REQUIREMENT Every organization permitted to conduct lawful gambling under this Ordinance or for which the City has granted approval of a premises permit shall file with the city clerk all records and reports which must be filed with the Gambling Control Board. The records and reports must be filed with the city clerk at the same time that they are filed with the Gambling Control Board. This reporting requirement remains an ongoing obligation for all organizations which conduct lawful gambling activities within the City. 116.12:SEVERABILITY Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared severable from every other section, provision, or part to the extent that if any section, provision,or part of the Ordinance shall be held to be invalid, such holding(s) shall not invalidate any other section, provision, or part thereof. 116.13:EFFECTIVE DATE Upon proper ratification by the City Council, this ordinance shall become effective on March 1, 2016. (Ord. 313, passed 01-14-16) City of Corcoran 2018 City Council Schedule Agenda Item 12. June 14, 2018 – Brad unable to attend Resolution accepting Jaycees donations (N2U/park) City Park Irrigation Plan Clean-up day report, discuss 2019 priorities Fire Service Comprehensive Growth Plan Pavement Overlay Program – Award project Municipal State Aid Feasibility Study Water Service Agreement Amendment Joint Powers Agreement -Old Brockton Lane June 28, 2018 – Councilmember Dejewski unable to attend Planning Project Update 2019 Budget – City Council priorities and direction to staff Commercial Kennel Amendment Small Cell Tower and DAC Telecommunications Ordinance Encore Preliminary Plat Fehn Meadows Preliminary Plat Bee/Chickens Ordinance Subcommittee update July 12, 2018 Work Session 2019 budget July 12, 2018 – Councilmember Dejewski unable to attend Years of Service Recognition – Brad Martens Resolution honoring Kevin Dale - CAA Financial Performance Report Recycling RFP Overview of costs of a gravel road vs. a paved road (improvement and maintenance) Appointment of Election Judges for the Primary and General Elections July 26, 2018 – Councilmember Dejewski unable to attend Planning Project Update Code Compliance Quarterly Report Five Year Financial Management Plan August 9, 2018 Work Session TBD