Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-06-28 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 June 28, 2018 - 7:00 pm 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval 4. Open Forum 5. Presentations a. Resolution honoring Trish Krueger* b. K9 Oath of Office - Zeke 6. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of June 14, 2018 Council Meeting* b. Parks and Trails Commission Resignation – Trish Krueger* c. Establishing an Absentee Ballot Board* d. Resignation Notice – Phillip Medrano* e. Retired Police Department Badges and Patches* 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. Easement Vacation for Portions of Ravinia 7th Addition – Public Hearing* b. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition PUD Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary PUD Development Plan* c. Encore PUD Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary PUD Development Plan* d. Minor Subdivision Ordinance Amendment* e. ROW, Small Cell and DAS Facility Ordinance Update* f. Dog Kennel Ordinance Amendment* 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business a. 2019 Budget Direction* b. Water Service Agreement Amendment* 12. 2018 Council Schedule* 13. Council Liaison Calendar Planning Commission 7/5/18 8/2/18 9/6/18 10/4/18 11/1/18 LaFave Keefe Thomas Bottema Dejewski Parks and Trails Commission 7/17/18 8/21/18 9/18/18 10/16/18 11/20/18 Bottema Available LaFave Keefe Available 14. Adjournment City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-55 Page 1 of 1 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION HONORING OUTGOING COMMISSIONER TRISH KRUEGER WHEREAS, Trish Krueger was appointed to the Parks and Trails Commission in 2007 for an initial term ending December 31, 2010; and WHEREAS, Trish Krueger was successfully re-appointed for three additional terms serving a total of 11 years; and WHEREAS, during her tenure, Trish Krueger served as Vice-Chair for four years and Chair for three years; and WHEREAS, during her tenure on the Parks and Trails Commission, Trish reviewed various development plans, took part in planning the future park system and City as a whole, reviewed the parks budget and staffing plan, and provided direction on a variety of other projects; and WHEREAS, Trish Krueger has elected to end her service on the Parks and Trails Commission effective June 30, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran recognizes the time, energy, dedication, and leadership provided by Trish Krueger. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Corcoran, that the City Council hereby honors Trish Krueger for her distinguished service to the City of Corcoran and residents of the City. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June, 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: City Seal ____________________________________ Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Agenda Item 5a. CITY OF CORCORAN City Council Meeting Minutes June 14, 2018 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran City Council met on June 14, 2018 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were Mayor Thomas, Councilor Dejewski, and Councilor LaFave. Councilor Keefe and Councilor Bottema were excused. Also present were City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise, Director of Public Safety Gottschalk, Director of Public Works Mattson, and City Engineer Torve. 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 MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Dejewski to approve the agenda as amended. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) 4.Open Forum No persons were present for open forum. 5.Presentations No presentations were heard. 6.Consent Agenda a.Draft Minutes of May 24, 2018 Council Meeting b.Resolution 2018-40 Accepting Donation from the Northwest Area Jaycees c.Off-site Charitable Gambling- Northwest Area Jaycees d.Resolution Sponsoring the Northwest Trails Association to Acquire State of Minnesota DNR Funding (2018-2019 Season) e.Master Partnership Contract- State of Minnesota f.Annual Liquor License and Tobacco Renewal g.Floor Scrubber Replacement MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to approve the consent agenda including items 6a, 6c, 6e, 6f, and 6g; excluding items 6b and 6d. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Dejewski to approve Resolution 2018-40 Accepting Donation from the Northwest Area Jaycees. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to approve Resolution 2018-42 Sponsoring the Northwest Trails Association to Acquire the State of Minnesota DNR Funding (2018-2019 Season). 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 Agenda Item 6a. (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 Mayor Thomas noted Planning Commissioner Jennifer Brewington was in attendance and invited her to speak on items related to her Commission. 9. Planning Business No planning business was presented. 10. Unfinished Business No unfinished business was presented. 11. New Business a. Fire Service Comprehensive Growth Plan Director of Public Safety Gottschalk introduced the presentation for the Fire Service Comprehensive Growth Plan. Lane Wintermute, Consulting Division Director for ESCI, presented the findings of the study. He outlined the purpose of the study as assessing current service delivery and infrastructure conditions, providing comparisons to industry standards and best practices, projecting future growth and its effects on service, and evaluating future delivery system needs-- including current and future fire station locations. Wintermute also noted the increase in service demand from Corcoran to the three current consulted fire agencies (Hanover, Loretto, and Rogers) from 176 incidents in 2015 to 323 incidents in 2016- an increase of 54%. He showed a map of the current resource distribution with travel time and noted that travel time is an important measurement for considering the potential of a newly constructed fire station. He then went over response performance standards. In the report, standards from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) were used. The current NFPA standards recommend 80% of the calls be responded to within 14 minutes or less for rural areas and 10 minutes or less for suburban areas. It was recommended to use the suburban standard for areas within the Metropolitan Utilities Service Area (MUSA) and rural standard for areas outside the MUSA. When the study assessed population projections for the City of Corcoran, it estimated 8,900 people by 2030 and 11,300 people by 2040. The ESCI recommended short and mid-term strategies that the City of Corcoran could employ including: establishing response times and standards, enhancing automatic aid systems, standardizing the Standard Operating Guidelines, regionalizing incident command practices, joint apparatus purchasing and planning, shared recruitment and retention efforts, collaborative training, and shared/cross-trained personnel. Potential mid-term improvements the City of Corcoran could employ include: administrative consolidation, operational consolidation, and potential additional regionalized considerations. The study looked at the impact of adding a potential third fire station in Rogers near County Road 116 and Valley Drive. The study found that it would improve coverage to the Northeast corner of Corcoran to some extent, but does not improve 4, 6, 8, and 10 minute coverage in the area of forecasted growth. The study then looked at the impact of adding a potential fire station in Corcoran near County Road 116 and County Road 10 and found that it improved coverage to the central and eastern portion of Corcoran considerably and expands 4, 6, 8, and 10 minute coverage to most of the city. The study then looked at reviewing potential coverage from Maple Grove Fire Stations and found that it improved 4, 6, 8, and 10 minute coverage to some of the city, but much of it was in the 8 and 10 minute range. The study also noted that Maple Grove would not be inclined to enter into a contractual agreement. The study then reviewed potential coverage from Hamel Fire Station and noted that it did not improve 4, 6, 8, or 10 minute coverage except for in a small portion of the city and does not address forecasted future development. Next, the study reviewed potential coverage from Plymouth Fire Station and found that it did not improve 4, 6, 8, or 10 minute coverage and did not address forecasted future development. Wintermute discussed the study’s analysis of available options which included: keeping status quo and continuing the current model, construction of an additional station and continuing to contract with surrounding agencies, and construction of an additional station and implementing a City Fire Department. Some advantages of continuing with the current model is that the cost would remain low for fire protection and medical first response and no additional capital investment would be required. Some disadvantages of continuing with the current model is that response times could continue to increase with increased development and service demand, surrounding departments could require additional funding to accommodate increased service demand, and changing demographics may desire a higher level of service. Advantages of constructing an additional station and contracting with surrounding agencies would be improved coverage in the areas with the highest projected service demand, improved ISO coverage, reduced response times, lower insurance rates, and sustained existing partnerships with Fire Departments. Some disadvantages of constructing an additional station and contracting with surrounding agencies is the cost of construction, the necessity of determining how to staff the station, and the possible renegotiation of contracts with service providers. Wintermute noted that ESCI considers this option to be the preferred option. The Council inquired what this option would look like if implemented and if there were any examples of cities employing this option that could be used to help clarify. Wintermute responded that he could not provide any examples of other cities who use this type of service but explained two different ways it could be implemented. One option is to contract agencies to put a station within the City of Corcoran that would incur the cost, construction, staffing, and operation. Another option is for the City of Corcoran to build the station, enter an agreement with a service provider to staff it, and have the City of Corcoran choose the level of equipment it is willing to provide. The last potential option is to construct a new fire station and implement a City Fire Department. Some advantages would be local control, direct management of the City’s responders, improved ISO coverage, reduced response times, and lower insurance rates. Some disadvantages of this option would be the cost of construction, cost of career personnel, and competing pay with surrounding agencies for Paid On Call staff. The study then noted some other future considerations and challenges including: future staffing and exploration of regional cooperation opportunities. With the ESCI study finding construction of an additional station and continuing to contract with surrounding agencies as the preferred long-term approach, some key considerations are: ensuring the timing of construction to be based on identification of response targets and analysis of current response performance and shortcomings, carefully analyzed plans for staffing, and an estimated two year time frame to sustain 80th percentile in response time. The Council recognized the current contracted agencies and expressed satisfaction with their service. The Council inquired how willing the contracted agencies would be to doing the short-term recommendations. Wintermute acknowledged that the current contracted agencies are interested in providing a high level of service and have shown willingness to implement improvements. The Council noted that most of the calls are in the areas with the longest response time. The Council also noted that most of the calls were EMS medical in nature and inquired if there was a way to address that. Wintermute stated that the City of Corcoran could potentially do an EMS only station or alternative staffing with peak activity in mind, but noted that most smaller communities do not separate their personnel in that way. The Council inquired about level of involvement by communities in construction of a new fire station. Wintermute noted that community expectations can be different depending on where they are from or what they are used to. Staff is looking f or guidance and recommendations for next action steps from the Council. Director of Public Safety Gottschalk recommended a subcommittee to review the study, assess the vision for Corcoran, and provide recommendations to staff. The Council discussed creating a subcommittee and identifying short to long-term goals and assessing what can be achieved. Mayor Thomas called recess at 8:09 pm. The Council reconvened at 8:11 pm. b. 2018 Clean-Up Day Report- 2019 Priorities Director of Public Works Mattson gave a presentation on 2018 Clean-Up Day that occurred on May 5th. He noted that staff and volunteers received 110 vehicle drop-offs over a 4-hour period. Director of Public Works Mattson noted that the goal of the program is to provide residents an opportunity to economically dispose of what they do not want anymore instead of abandoning it on roadsides and harming natural resources. Historically, expenses were covered by charging a nominal fee that covers disposal and recycling expenses, but excludes the cost of staff. The 2018 average cost per vehicle drop-off was $28. As staff looks ahead to 2019, it is anticipated that market pressure will result in increased disposal costs. Staff is looking for Council input for the level of support for the event including potentially increasing drop-off fees to match projected costs or subsidizing projected overage of expenses. Revenue and expenses for 2018 were approximately $3,000. It is anticipated that costs could increase by 25% or $750. The Council inquired what the benefit is for residents to bring their items to the City instead of disposing it themselves. Director of Public Works Mattson responded that it is mostly to save them time and add convenience as many people clean out their belongings in the spring. The Council requested a line-itemed budget before making a decision. c. Municipal State Aid Feasibility Study Director of Public Works Mattson presented on the Municipal State Aid (MSA) Feasibility Study that was directed by Council on March 8th. The goal of the study was to identify bridge eligibility and timing for replacement, review and adjust MSA routes to maximize funding allocations, and develop a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan for MSA funding. The study found a sufficiency rating of 83.8 for the Trail Haven Bridge, 80.8 for the Cain Bridge, 36.9 for the Schutte Bridge, and the Bechtold Bridge was not assessed. The bridge that is currently MSA eligible is Schutte Bridge because bridges are eligible for funding when the sufficiency rating is less than 80. In order to get funding cities must have a construction-ready plan. To be an MSA route, a road has to connected to an existing MSA road or a higher jurisdictional road. Director of Public Works Mattson noted that the City is refocusing their strategy to use MSA funds from paving gravel collector roads located outside the MUSA to identifying street improvement projects located within the developing MUSA boundary. MSA funding is based 50% on population and 50% on construction needs. The Council discussed wanting to see the difference in maintenance costs for gravel versus paved roads before making a decision. Director of Public Works Mattson explained that MSA has a process of penalizing cities that have unused funds. Corcoran received a negative needs adjustment of $19,454.16 in 2017. Cities receive a negative adjustment if their construction fund balance is more than three times their allotment from the beginning of the year and their balance is over $1.5 million. This results in the City of Corcoran attempting to identify State Aid eligible projects valuing $361,491.18 to utilize those funds in 2018 to avoid additional future negative adjustments. Recommendations to use MSA funds are to begin the Schutte Road bridge replacement process in 2019, analyze the Bechtold Road culvert condition by 2019, anticipate a second bridge replacement project within the 5-year CIP, recommend Option 5 modification to MSA map to increase allotment of an estimated $20,000, recommend 2018 Pavement Overlay Program on Larkin Road and Rolling Hills Road, and support general policy of proposed MSA Capital Improvement Plan. d. 2018 Pavement Overlay Program Director of Public Works Mattson gave a presentation on the 2018 Pavement Overlay Program to help spend down some money to avoid being penalized by MSA funding. He shared that staff recommends a Pavement Overlay Project for Larkin Road and Rolling Hills Road. The City received 8 bids for the project and the lowest bidder was GMH Asphalt Corp. at $573,823.75 with engineering and construction testing services an approximate 5% or $30,000 additionally. Staff is requesting a motion to authorize a Notice of Award for the 2018 Pavement Overlay project for Larkin Road and Rolling Hills Road and required testing contract to GMH Asphalt Corp. MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to authorize a Notice of Award for the 2018 Pavement Overlay Project for Larkin Road and Rolling Hill Road and the required testing contract. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) e. City Park Irrigation Plan Director of Public Works Mattson gave a presentation on the City Park Irrigation Plan. T he City received a notice from the Northwest Jaycees for intent to donate funding for an irrigation system for the Meister Field Improvements project. The irrigation system will provide an improved surface condition of the athletic field and reduce the seeding establishment period required before resuming activities. The irrigation work is scheduled to begin in late June with the final ballfield restoration to follow. A drinking fountain serviced by the city’s new downtown water system is also planned for installation as part of the improvement project. The Parks and Trails Commission has recommended acceptance of the donation and approval of the irrigation improvements. Staff is requesting the Council approve the irrigation improvements for Meister Field. The Council inquired if the black dirt will be removed from the field. Director of Public Works Mattson responded that it will be. The Council discussed waiting until the City determines exactly what they want to do with the park. Director of Public Works Mattson acknowledged the concern and suggested that despite changes in the park, the fields will likely stay due to the resources put into them. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Dejewski to approve the irrigation improvements for Meister Field. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) f. Joint Powers Agreement- Brockton Lane Director of Public Works Mattson gave a presentation on the Joint Powers Agreement with Maple Grove for Brockton Lane. With planned developments in this area, both Maple Grove and Corcoran are evaluating maintenance needs. South Brockton Lane will be maintained by Maple Grove and North Brockton Lane will be maintained by Corcoran. Staff has negotiated the agreement and finds the terms favorable. MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by LaFave to approve the Joint Powers Agreement. Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave (Motion carried 3:0) 12. 2017 Council Schedule City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise reviewed the Council schedule. She noted discussions on the 2019 budget, commercial dog kennel amendment, cell tower ordinance, and Encore preliminary plat for the next Council meeting. 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 9:06 pm. ________________________________ Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6b. Council Meeting: June 28, 2018 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Parks and Trails Commission Resignation – Trish Krueger Action Required: Accept Resignation Summary: Long-time Parks and Trails Commission Member Trish Krueger has provided a verbal resignation notice. The City Council should accept the resignation. Staff will advertise the vacancy in the upcoming newsletter. Trish has been a wonderful member of the Parks and Trails Commission and we wish her the best. A resolution honoring her service is recommended for approval later on the agenda. 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. Council Action: Accept the resignation of Trish Krueger from the Parks and Trails Commission effective June 30, 2018. Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item. 6c. Council Meeting: June 28, 2018 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Establishing an Absentee Ballot Board Action Required: Approval Summary: The City is required to have an Absentee Ballot Board to accept or r eject absentee ballots as outlined in statute. City staff members serve on the board and have been trained to review the absentee ballots for both the Primary and General elections. Financial/Budget: N/A 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. 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: Approve the Resolution 2018-45 Establishing an Absentee Ballot Board. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2018-45 Establishing an Absentee Ballot Board. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-45 Page 1 of 1 Motion By: Seconded By: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran is required by Minnesota Statutes 203B.121, Subd. 1 to establish an Absentee Ballot Board effective June 29, 2018 through November 6, 2018; and WHEREAS, this board will bring uniformity in the processing of accepting or rejecting returned absentee ballots in the City of Corcoran; and WHEREAS, the Absentee Ballot Board would consist of a sufficient number of election judges as provided in sections 204B.19 to 204B.22 or city staff trained in the processing of absentee ballots; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Corcoran City Council hereby establishes an Absentee Ballot Board as provided by Minnesota Statures 203B.121. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of the Absentee Ballot Board for the 2018 Primary and General Elections are hereby named as Michelle Friedrich, Michael Pritchard, Joe Rotz, Hope Capp, and Paula Steelman. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June, 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6d. Council Meeting: June 28, 2018 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Resignation Notice – Phillip Medrano Action Required: Approval Summary: Phillip Medrano, Maintenance Operator has issued his resignation notice and has left employment with the City of Corcoran. It is requested that the City Council accept the notice and authorize staff to begin the process to hire a replacement. Financial/Budget: The process to find a replacement will likely take two months. The City will receive a costs savings while the position is vacant. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: Fiscal Responsibility We believe that the prudent stewardship and opportunistic investment of public funds is essential for confidence in government and to position the City for future success. 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: Accept the resignation of Phillip Medrano; authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to find a replacement. Attachments: 1. Resignation Notice – Phillip Medrano STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6e. Council Meeting: June 28, 2018 Prepared By: Director Matt Gottschalk Topic: Retired Police Department Badges and Patches Action Required: Approval Summary: At the September 28, 2017 City Council meeting staff presented an updated badge and patch design to the Council. The Council approved transitioning to the new design s. The Police Department has moved forward with the implementation of the new badges and patches. Officers have been issued the updated patches and badges. After the September 1, 2018 transition deadline officers will no longer be allowed to wear the old patches and badges. Staff intends to keep one of the old-style badges of each rank (Chief, Lieutenant, and Officer) for City historical purposes. The City has no use for the remaining retired badges and few patches. Typically, upon retirement, police officers will have a shadowbox made with their former badges and patches they’ve used throughout their career. With this report, staff is seeking authorization to let the officers keep the old badges and patches assigned to them. Financial/Budget: The new badges and patches have already been implemented. Releasing the retired badges and patches to the officers presents no financial impact to the City. 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. 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. Staff Report—June 28, 2018 Council Meeting Prepared by Director Gottschalk Page 2 Options: 1. Direct staff to allow the officers to personally keep the retired badges and patches formerly assigned to them. 2. Direct staff to collect the retired badges and patches and dispose of them in a different manner. Recommendation: 1. Direct staff to allow the officers to personally keep the retired badges and patches formerly assigned to them. Council Action: Direct staff to allow the officers to personally keep the retired badges and patches formerly assigned to them. Attachments: None STAFF REPORT Agenda Items 7a-b. Council Meeting: June 28, 2018 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Claims as Presented Action Required: Informational Summary: The claims provided in the packet are through June 20 th as the finance staff was out of the office. Due to the early claims date, should any timely claims need payment an additional claims packet will be provided to Council prior to the meeting. AgendaItem 7a-b. CouncilMeetingDate: 6/28/2018 FINANCIALCLAIMS PreparedBy: jrotz CHECKRANGE FUND #500ESCROWCLAIMSAgendaItem: 7a. PaidtoAmountProjectname 500-20400$ 32.25Landform - Ravinia6th16-016 500-20421$ 345.00Landform - Ravinia7thand9thLotLineAdjustment18-019 500-20421$ 34.50Landform - Ravinia7thEasementVacation18-023 500-20436$ 161.25Landform - PulteEncoreEAWandSketchPlan18-004 500-20436$ 516.00Landform - PulteCompPlanAmendment18-007 500-20436$ 5,677.25Landform - PulteEncorePP, PUDandRZ18-016 500-20453$ 1,902.00Landform - FehnMeadows2ndAdditionPP18-017 500-20454$ 1,234.50Landform - EdgewaterCorcoranSketch18-018 500-20455$ 286.50Landform - ShoulakOrdinanceAmendment18-020 500-20456$ 144.25Landform - WillowLLCMinorSubdivision18-022 500-20390$ 415.44WrightHennepinElectric - RaviniaStreetLights Total$ 10,748.94 TotalFund #500 = SeeattachedPaymentsDetail) AgendaItem:7b.ALLOTHERFINANCIALCLAIMS$ 269,501.67TotalChecks SeeattachedCheckDetailRegister) TotalofAutoDeductions TOTALEXPENDITURES FORAPPROVAL$ AutoDeductions / ElectronicFundTransfer / OtherDisbursements DatePaidtoAmount 6/8/2018POSTBOARDSERVICEFEE$ 2.24 6/8/2018STATEOFMNPOSTBOARD$ 90.00 6/8/2018USTRAFFICLIGHTCONTROLCORDS$ 112.00 6/8/20182018ICMA104THANNUALCONFERENCE$ 705.00 6/14/2018PAYPAL *K108NEWS (K9rearseatcamera)$ 50.00 6/19/2018FEDEX385073677$ 29.70 6/19/2018LEERBURG$ 133.51 6/5/2018ACHFileFee$ 15.00 6/7/2018RevtrakSV9T$ 286.76 6/7/2018PaychexCGS, Garnish$ 531.14 6/7/2018NetPayrollPP12$ 45,208.46 6/8/2018PaychexFee$ 353.46 6/8/2018PayrollTaxes$ 16,440.56 6/12/2018PERA$ 12,438.00 6/13/2018StateofMN - MSRS$ 1,880.74 6/13/2018StateofMN - Roth$ 2,231.84 6/13/2018Optum - HSA$ 3,004.55 6/20/2018MNDeptRev - Fueltax$ 59.57 Total$ H:\\CityHallInformation\\CITYGOVERNMENT\\Council, Commissions & Committees\\Council Information\\CouncilClaims\\2018ClaimsWorkbook 06/20/1812:50PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 1 Check Detail Register© June2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment 10100 FarmersState Bank Unpaid ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP E100-41540-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$710.00401749OSAFINANCIALREPORTING FORM Total ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP 710.00 Unpaid ACTIVE911, INC. E100-41951-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$5.80061418SUPPLIES Total ACTIVE911, INC. 5.80 Unpaid ADAMS PESTCONTROL, INC. E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$84.272663810PEST CONTROL E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$99.002667893PEST CONTROL Total ADAMSPESTCONTROL, INC. 183.27 Unpaid AMAZONCAPITALSERVICES E100-41951-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$72.991GG6-FPW4-7CITY I.T. COMPUTER E202-42100-213 PoliceK9$30.441W47-W6CV-POLICE K9 Total AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 103.43 Unpaid BEAUDRYOILCOMPANY E100-43100-212 Motor Fuels$1,373.35862220DIESEL FUEL Total BEAUDRYOILCOMPANY 1,373.35 Unpaid CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON E100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$20.608000014143-4 NATURALGAS - 5754177 E100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$35.108000014143-4 NATURAL GAS Total CENTERPOINTENERGYHOUSTON 55.70 Unpaid CHRISTENSEN BUCK, JESSICA E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$27.25061918MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT Total CHRISTENSEN BUCK, JESSICA 27.25 Unpaid CINTAS - 470 E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$85.184006718373CITY HALLRUGS E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$82.504006718400CITY HALLRUGS E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$93.614006718414PUBLIC WORKS TOWELS E100-42100-223 BuildingRepairSupplies$64.834006718444PD RUGS E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$91.264006718495PW RUGS E100-43100-417 Uniforms$159.484006718534PWUNIFORMS Total CINTAS - 470 576.86 Unpaid COMCAST-INTERNET E100-41941-321 Telephone$72.42060818CITY HALL INTERNET E100-42100-321 Telephone$72.43060818PD INTERNET Total COMCAST-INTERNET 144.85 Unpaid CONCEPTFINANCIALGROUP E100-43100-232 Gravel$6,672.677019GRAVELHAULING E100-43100-232 Gravel$11,022.787028GRAVEL HAULING 06/20/1812:50PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 2 Check Detail Register© June2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment E100-43100-232 Gravel$798.337049GRAVEL HAULING E100-43100-232 Gravel$804.207100GRAVEL HAULING Total CONCEPT FINANCIAL GROUP 19,297.98 Unpaid CROPPRODUCTION SERVICES E100-45200-221 Maintenance Projects$946.6036511790SUPPLIES Total CROPPRODUCTION SERVICES 946.60 Unpaid CULLIGANBOTTLED WATER E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$56.00114X66128808OFFICE WATER Total CULLIGAN BOTTLEDWATER 56.00 Unpaid DELTADENTAL E100-41400-131 EmployerPaidHealth$132.057323207DENTAL INSURANCE E100-42100-131 EmployerPaidHealth$162.757323207DENTAL INSURANCE E100-42102-131 Employer PaidHealth$0.007323207DENTAL INSURANCE E100-43100-131 Employer PaidHealth$124.407323207DENTALINSURANCE G100-20205 Reimbursements$63.007323207DENTAL INSURANCE Total DELTA DENTAL 482.20 Unpaid ECMPUBLISHERS INC E100-41910-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$31.66608066LENNAR-RAVINIA 7THADDITION HEARING Total ECMPUBLISHERS INC 31.66 Unpaid EVOLVINGSOLUTIONSINC E100-41951-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$1,350.0099891ITMANAGED SERVICE - MTH Total EVOLVINGSOLUTIONSINC 1,350.00 Unpaid FEHN COMPANIES E100-43100-232 Gravel$37,573.922744GRAVEL E100-43100-232 Gravel$30,433.722812GRAVEL Total FEHN COMPANIES 68,007.64 Unpaid FPMAILINGSOLUTIONS E100-41941-201 Postage/Shipping$128.85RI103676181QTRLY MAILMETER Total FPMAILING SOLUTIONS 128.85 Unpaid GOTTSCHALK, MATT G100-21709 DependentCareFSAWithhold$800.00REIMBURSEMDEPENDENT CAREFSA E100-42100-321 Telephone$300.00REIMBURSEMCELL PHONE REIMBURSEMENT Total GOTTSCHALK, MATT 1,100.00 Unpaid GRAINGER E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$149.109808796545CITYHALLSUPPLIES Total GRAINGER 149.10 Unpaid HEALTHPARTNERS E100-41300-131 Employer PaidHealth$388.0082075735HEALTH PARTNERS 7/18 INVOICE E100-41400-131 Employer PaidHealth$3,787.8282075735HEALTH PARTNERS7/18INVOICE 06/20/1812:50PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 3 Check Detail Register© June2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment E100-42100-131 Employer PaidHealth$6,366.4282075735HEALTH PARTNERS7/18INVOICE E100-42102-131 Employer PaidHealth$605.9082075735HEALTH PARTNERS 7/18 INVOICE E100-43100-131 Employer PaidHealth$6,773.7982075735HEALTH PARTNERS7/18INVOICE G100-20205 Reimbursements$1,481.5082075735HEALTH PARTNERS 7/18INVOICEHAMILTON G100-20205 Reimbursements$1,849.5082075735HEALTH PARTNERS 7/18INVOICESCHUTTE Total HEALTHPARTNERS 21,252.93 Unpaid HENNCOTAXPAYERSERVICES E100-41900-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$78.75261192311000PROPERTY TAX E100-41900-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$6.81261192311000PROPERTY TAX E100-41900-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$0.48361192314008PROPERTY TAX Total HENNCOTAXPAYER SERVICES 86.04 Unpaid HILLYARD E416-41941-580 Other Equipment$7,300.00603028679HIL56007 SCRUBDUAL DISCTRIDENT FLOOR CLEANER Total HILLYARD 7,300.00 Unpaid HOLIDAYCOMPANIES E100-42100-212 Motor Fuels$351.36060818FUELPURCHASES 1400-003-788-415 Total HOLIDAY COMPANIES 351.36 Unpaid HUNTER, JOSH G100-21709 DependentCareFSAWithhold$1,200.00DEPENDENT DEPENDENT CAREFSAREIMBURSEMENT Total HUNTER, JOSH 1,200.00 Unpaid LANDFORM G500-20400 Ravinia5th & 6th$32.2527453RAVINIA 6TH 16-016 E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$592.5027455ORDINANCE AMENDMENTDOGKENNELS 17-037 E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$200.2527455ORDINANCE AMENDMENTBEESANDCHICKENS 17- 038 E100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$422.2527455ORDINANCE AMENDMENTSMALLCELLS & DAS17- 039 E101-41911-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$690.5027455CORCORAN2040COMPREHENSIVEE 17-001 E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$3,872.2527456CORCORAN PLANNING E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$200.0027456CITY MEETINGS E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$452.5027456TREEPRESERVATION/NATURALPROTECTION ORDINANCE 18-010 E100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$129.0027456SEDISTRICT PLAN AND GUIDELINES UPDATE 18-012 E100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$215.2527456NUISANCEORDINANCE UPDATE18-013 E100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$1,196.2527456DEVELOPMENTRIGHT AND OS&PORDINANCE UPDATE 18-014 E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$307.5027456MINOR SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT18-021 E100-41910-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$286.2527456FINANCIAL GUARANTEEORDINANCE AMENDMENT 18-025 G500-20421 Ravinia 7thAddit - FP17-013$345.0027456RAVINIA7THAND9THLOTLINE ADJUSTMENT 18-019 G500-20421 Ravinia7thAddit - FP17-013$34.5027456RAVINIA 7THEASEMENT VACATION 18-023 G500-20436 PulteEncore - PUDSkch17-029$161.2527456PULTE ENCOREEAW ANDSKETCH PLAN 18-004 G500-20436 PulteEncore - PUDSkch17-029$516.0027456PULTE COMPPLAN AMENDMENT18-007 06/20/1812:50PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 4 Check Detail Register© June2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment G500-20436 PulteEncore - PUDSkch17-029$5,677.2527456PULTE ENCOREPP, PUDANDRZ18-016 G500-20453 FehnMeadows2ndAddPP18-017$1,902.0027456FEHN MEADOWS2ND ADDITION PP18-017 G500-20454 EdgewaterCorcoran Skch18-018$1,234.5027456EDGEWATER CORCORAN SKETCH 18-018 G500-20455 ShoulakOrdinance Amend 18-020$286.5027456SHOULAK ORDINANCEAMENDMENT18-020 G500-20456 WillowLLCMinorSubd18-022$144.2527456WILLOW LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION18-022 Total LANDFORM 18,898.00 Unpaid MARTENS, BRAD G100-21709 DependentCareFSAWithhold$564.00061818DEPENDENT CARE FSA Total MARTENS, BRAD 564.00 Unpaid MENARDS MAPLEGROVE E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$379.5623780SUPPLIES E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$20.5723833SUPPLIES E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$239.4023834SUPPLIES E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$106.3523836SUPPLIES E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$76.6824053SUPPLIES E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$24.9972563SUPPLIES Total MENARDS MAPLE GROVE 847.55 Unpaid MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$305.53P66216SUPPLIES Total MINNESOTAEQUIPMENT 305.53 Unpaid NORTHLANDTRUST SERVICES E311-43100-610 Interest$47,193.75061818CORCO12B E309-47000-610 Interest$2,600.00061818CORCO16A E309-47000-610 Interest$2,330.50061818CORCORAN10A E312-47000-610 Interest$24,640.00061818CORCO16A E601-49400-610 Interest$19,140.51061818CORCO14B E602-49450-610 Interest$23,934.50061818CORCO14B Total NORTHLAND TRUSTSERVICES 119,839.26 Unpaid OFFICEDEPOT E100-41941-200 OfficeSupplies (GENERAL)$93.38150970569001OFFICE SUPPLIES E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$29.42150970569001PARKS & RECREATION E100-41910-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$69.85150970569001OFFICE SUPPLIES E100-41410-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$15.58150970569001ELECTIONS 2018SUPPLIES E100-41410-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$44.49151298649001ELECTIONS 2018SUPPLIES Total OFFICEDEPOT 252.72 Unpaid POSTMASTER E100-41130-351 Newsletter Expenses$1,011.220611182018 NEWSLETTER Total POSTMASTER 1,011.22 Unpaid RUSSELLSECURITYRESOURCE INC E100-42100-223 Building RepairSupplies$24.00A32315BUILDING REPAIR SUPPLIES Total RUSSELL SECURITY RESOURCE INC 24.00 06/20/1812:50PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 5 Check Detail Register© June2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment Unpaid SITE ONELANDSCAPE SUPPLY E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$133.9786394492SUPPLIES Total SITEONELANDSCAPESUPPLY 133.97 Unpaid STREICHER SPOLICEEQUIPMENT E100-42100-417 Uniforms$141.96I1317750UNIFORMS Total STREICHER SPOLICEEQUIPMENT 141.96 Unpaid TEGRETE E100-41941-400 Repairs & Maint Cont (GENERAL$365.0075647MONTHLY CITYHALL CLEANING Total TEGRETE 365.00 Unpaid WRIGHT HENNEPIN COOPELECT E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$47.86061518CTY RD10/116 000-0100-1469 E100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$88.00061518Ballpark: 120-1246-7200 E100-42100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$13.08061518CIVILDEFENSE: 120-1246-8000 E100-42100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$13.74061518Maple Hill Est: 120-1246-8100 E100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$24.50061518SchoolProperty: 120-1247-9600 E100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$601.270615188200CtyRd116: 120-1255-6300 E100-42100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.000615186510 CtyRd116: 150-1680-4662 E601-49400-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$13.7406151819090BassLkRd:150-1687-7510 E100-43100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$27.710615189525Cain Rd: 150-1689-5230 E602-49450-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$127.57061518Brockton Ln: 150-1689-6871 E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$10.12061518Cty 10/MapleHi: 120-1246-7300 E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$22.59061518CTY 10/Treptaus: 120-1246-7400 E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$22.59061518CTY 10/StThomas:120-1246-7500 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.0206151819065 Galloway: 150-1691-8082 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$30.940615186485 Larkspur: 150-1692-0907 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.020615186398 Larkspur: 150-1692-0908 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.0206151819437 LupineLN: 150-1693-0197 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.0206151819389 LupineLN: 150-1693-0199 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.0206151819345 Golden TR: 150-1693-0200 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.020615186310 Steeple LN: 150-1693-0201 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.020615186370Steeple LN: 150-1693-0202 E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$22.59061518Cty 10/Stanchion:120-1246-7600 E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$22.59061518CoRd10 & 50: 120-1246-7700 E100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$11.020615188200 CtyRd116: 120-1246-7800 E100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$13.1706151875th Ave/Hwy116:120-1246-7900 E100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$0.000615188200 CtyRd116: 150-1684-2033 E100-43100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$27.950615189100 CtyRd19: 150-1688-8463 E602-49450-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$65.6506151820120CTY 10LIF:150-1691-6661 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.92061518Bridle/Gleason: 150-1690-5131 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.92061518Bridle/Paddock: 150-1690-5135 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.02061518PaddockLn150-1690-5137 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.92061518Bridle Path: 150-1690-5146 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.92061518Paddock/Bridle: 150-1690-5158 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.920615186471 Carriage: 150-1691-0155 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.92061518Bridle/Steeple: 150-1691-0158 06/20/1812:50PMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 6 Check Detail Register© June2018 Check AmtInvoiceComment G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.92061518Bridle/Bluestem: 150-1691-0168 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.92061518Prairie/Bridle: 150-1691-0174 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.92061518Bridle Path: 150-1691-0177 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.92061518Elderberry Ct: 150-1691-0178 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.0206151866TH/CEDAR: 150-1692-8373 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.02061518Bridle/66th Ave: 150-1692-8374 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$0.000615186629CTY 101: 150-1691-8062 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.0206151819301 Annabelle: 150-1691-8063 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.020615186675 Carriage: 150-1691-8064 G500-20390 RaviniaStreetLights$15.020615186681 Bridle: 150-1691-8066 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.020615186657 Bridle: 150-1691-8079 G500-20390 Ravinia Street Lights$15.0206151819130 Galloway: 150-1691-8080 Total WRIGHT HENNEPINCOOPELECT 1,591.18 Unpaid XCELENERGY E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$34.32594352699STREET LIGHTING9525CAINROAD E100-43100-381 Street/SignalLights$21.90594640304STREET LIGHTING CR19/CR30 Total XCEL ENERGY 56.22 Unpaid ZEPSALES & SERVICE E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$386.609003463972SUPPLIES E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$163.599003463973SUPPLIES Total ZEPSALES & SERVICE 550.19 10100 Farmers State Bank$269,501.67 FundSummary 10100 Farmers State Bank 100GENERALFUND$130,685.57 101LONG-TERMPLANNING FUND$690.50 202 POLICE DONATION FUND$30.44 309 D/S-EQUIPMENT CERTS$4,930.50 3112012BPUBLIC WORKS BONDD/S$47,193.75 3122016ADOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT D/S$24,640.00 416CAPITAL-EQUIPMENT CERTS$7,300.00 500ESCROWHOLDING FUND$10,748.94 601WATER$19,154.25 602 SEWER$24,127.72 269,501.67 CityofCorcoran ConsultantSummary 6/28/2018 NameInvoice DateAmount Due Carson, Clelland & Scherder Landform06/08/18 18,898.00 MetroWestInspection Rolf EricksonEnterprises Wenck Associates Total$ 18,898.00 H:\\CityHallInformation\\CITYGOVERNMENT\\Council, Commissions & Committees\\CouncilInformation\\Council Claims\\2018ClaimsWorkbook vaaae,:Landform CITY OF CORCORAN on.:6-8-18 PAYMENT VOUCHER Address:Landform Suite 513 Paymate Tool: $ 18,898.00 105 South Filth Ave Minneapolis,MN 55401 _ - ---- INV DATE: 07008/18 Fund Department _ Account Description Invaos s Amount 100 41910 300 Corcoran Planning _27456 $ 3,872.25 100 41910 300 City Meetings 27456 $ 200.00 I ,,/100 41910 1___ 300 Annual Codification 100 41910 300 Tree Preservation/Natural Protection Ord.18-010 27456 $ 452.50, 100 41910 300 SE District Plan and Guidelines Update 18-012 - 27456 $ 129.00 100 41910 300 Nuisance Ordinance Update 18-013 27456 $ 215.25 j 100 41910 300 _ Development Right and OS&P Ord.Update 18-014 27456 $ 1,1_96.25 I-' 100 41910 300 Minor Subdivision Amendment 18-021 27456 $ 307.50 100 41910 300 Financial Guarantee Ordinance Amendment 18-025 27456 $ 286.25 100 41910 300 Schulte Initiate Ag Preserve Expiration 17-041 100 41910 I 300 _ Ordinance Amendment Dog Kennels 17-037 27455 $ 592.50''/ 100 41910 300 Ordinance Amendment Bees and Chickens 17-038 27455 $ 200.25 • 100 41910 300 Ordinance Amendment Small Cells&DAS 17-039 27455 $ 422.25 V 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 27455 $ 690.50 100 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 fI MN SOLAR IUP 16-032 7 500 20396 RAVINIA4TH 16-004 500 20400 RAV1NIA6TH 16-016 27453 $ 32.25 f 500 20400 RAVINIA 5TH 16-015 500 20404 LENNAR SCHWALBE PUD 500 20406 RAVINIA 7TH PUD 16-030 500 20407 MOTOR CAFE PUD 16-033 500 20411 SUNRISE SOLAR 17-003 500 20413 RAVINIA 8TH FP AND PUD 17-002 500 20415 !M-I Homes Sketch 17-006 500 20416 Sunrise Solar-17-007 150020418PheasantRidge17-00.9 500 20420 Bass Lake Cross MI Home 17-012 500 20421 Ravinia 7th Addit-FP 17-013 1 500 20421 Ravinia 7th and 9th Lot Line Adjustment 18-019 27456 $ 345.00'J 500 20421 Ravinia 7th Easement Vacation 18-023 27456 $ _ 34.50./ 500 20422 Motley Lot Line Adjust 17-014 _ 500 20423 Bass Lake Est Skch PUD 17-015 500 ( 20424 Schilling Administrative Permit 17-016 500 20425 Gmach Farms Preliminary&Final Plat 17-017 500 20429 Good Dog MN IUP/CHOL 17-021 1 500 20430 Bass Lake Crossing FP,FPUD and DA 17-022 i50020431BassLkCrossLotAdj,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 j 20435 t Red Barn Pet Ret.-CUP 17-028 500 20436 PULTE SKETCH PLAN 17-029 500 20436 Pulte Encore EAW and Sketch plan 18-004 27456 $ 161.25 500 20436 -1 Pulte Comp Plan Amendment 18-007 27456 $ 516.00 IV 500 20436 1 Pulte Encore PP,PUD and RZ 18-016 27456 $ 5,677.2.5{J 500 20440 j FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 17-032 I 500 20443 Pheasant Acres SPA 17-035 500 20442 BASS LAKE EST.FP,PUD 17-036 500 20444 __ SAC Wireless-Sprint 17-040 500 20445 Ravinia 9th FP and PUD 17-042 500 20446 Rush Creek Run PP 18-001 500 20449 Hunter Lot Vacation and Variance 18-002 500 20447 Pheasant Ridge 2nd Addition Sketch Plan 18-003 500 20448 _ Maple Hill Apt PUD Skch 18-005 500 20450 t High 5 Companies CUP 18-006 500 20451 Doboszenski Sons Inc 18-008 H 500 20452 Matter Home Occupation 18-009 500 20453 I Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition PP 18-017 27456 $ 1,902.00J 500 20454 Edgewater Corcoran Skch 18-018 27456 $ 1,234.50 4 500 20455 Shoulak Ordinance Amend 18-020 27456 $ 286.50 Id 500 , 20456 1 Willow LLC Minor Subd 18-022 27456 $ 144.25 I J TOTAL:A 18,898.00 Approved Notes Cheek 0 C) tik 31Yng L A N D F O R M From Site to Finish 105 South Fifth Avenue TeI: 612 252 9470 Suite 513 Fax: 612-252-9077 City of Corcoran E( EII JUN O Q v 2018 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Web: landform.net 8200 County Road 116 2018 Corcoran,MN 55340 BY, INVOICE No.27455 06/05/2018 Corcoran Planning Services CORI 7015.GEN Contract/P0#: For Services Rendered Through 5/31/2018 001 -Corcoran 2040 Comprehensive Plan(city file 17-001) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 4.00 129.00 516.00 Osthus,Emily Terrill 50 79.00 39.50 Shay, Kevin M. 1.75 69.00 120.75 Skog,Layci Blair 25 57.00 14.25 Total Professional Services for.001 690.50 Total Charges for.001 101'1-1191 '3 690.50 037-Ordinance Amendment-Dog Kennels(city file 17-037) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 1.25 129.00 161.25 Shay,Kevin M. 6.25 69.00 431.25 Total Professional Services for.037 592.50 Total Charges for.037 4 1913-300 - $592.50 038-Ordinance Amendment-Bees and Chickens(city file 17-038) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 75 129.00 96.75 Page 1 of 2 Project COR17015.GEN Corcoran Planning Services Invoice 27455 Shay,Kevin M. 1.50 69.00 103.50 Total Professional Services for.038 200.25 Total Charges for.038 00 /i 610 --7CX) —200.25 039-Ordinance Amendment-Small Cells and DAS(city file 17-039) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 1.00 129.00 129.00 Shay,Kevin M. 4.25 69.00 293.25 Total Professional Services for.039 422.25 Total Charges for.039 j Uo _N )9' 3C)3 422.25 Invoice Amount 1,905.50 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.:27455 Invoice Date:6/5/2018 Transaction ID: 11927 Labor Transactions P/E Date Employee Labor Code Work Date Hrs Effort COR17015.GEN..001 Corcoran 2040 Comprehensive Plan(city file 17-001) 05/15/2018 Osthus,Emily Terrill 5/7/2018 0.50 39.50 update maps 5.1 and 5.2 05/15/2018 Skog,Layci Blair 5/8/2018 0.25 14.25 website update 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/2/2018 0.25 32.25 coordinate with Wenck on map updates 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/8/2018 0.50 64.50 Finalize maps for comp plan 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/4/2018 0.50 64.50 map questions for Wenck/send edits to Mike 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/3/2018 1.00 129.00 update parks chapter 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/1/2018 0.25 32.25 mapping questions from Wenck 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/7/2018 1.00 129.00 parks plan edits and mapping changes with Wenck 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/22/2018 0.50 64.50 land use chapter edis 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/22/2018 1.75 120.75 Update land use tables with new data. Total for COR17015.GEN..001 6.50 690.50 COR17015.GEN..037 Ordinance Amendment-Dog Kennels(city file 17-037) 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/11/2018 2.00 138.00 Draft findings of fact resolution.Draft staff report.Make edits to the draft ordinance. 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 0.25 32.25 public hearing notice 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/29/2018 0.50 64.50 PC packet 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/30/2018 0.50 64.50 PC packet 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/23/2018 0.75 51.75 Edit PC documents. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/29/2018 0.25 17.25 Make edits to staff materials.Send to Kendra for review. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/30/2018 2.50 172.50 Revisions to staff materials.Additional edits. 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/10/2018 0.75 51.75 Watch city council meeting video and revise public hearing notice. Total for COR17015.GEN..037 7.50 592.50 COR17015.GEN..038 Ordinance Amendment-Bees and Chickens(city file 17-038) 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/1/2018 1.25 86.25 Make edits to the staff report and ordinance. 6/5/2018 1:46:09 PM 1 of 2 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27455 Invoice Date:6/5/2018 Transaction ID: 11927 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/8/2018 0.25 17.25 Pull together staff packet. 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/8/2018 0.25 32.25 Finalize and send cc report 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/1/2018 0.50 64.50 draft report Total for COR17015.GEN..038 2.25 200.25 COR17015.GEN..039 Ordinance Amendment-Small Cells and DAS(city file 17-039) 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/1/2018 2.00 138.00 Make edits to the staff report and draft ordinance. 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/3/2018 1.25 86.25 Make edits to the ordinance. Talk to Kendra about project.Pull ordinance and policy documents from other cities. 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/10/2018 1.00 69.00 Phone calls to cities to get ROW policy information.Pull information from Plymouth. 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/1/2018 0.50 64.50 review options 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 0.50 64.50 send draft to Mattson for review Total for COR17015.GEN..039 5.25 422.25 Total labor 21.50 1,905.50 6/5/2018 1:46:09 PM 2 of 2 L A N D F O R M From Site to Finish 105 South Fifth Avenue Tel: 612-252 9070 City of Corcoran flECEIVESuite 513 Fax: 61 2-252-9077 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Web: Iandform.net 8200 County Road 116 p p Corcoran,MN 55340 JUN 0 8 2018 INVOICE No.27453 BY: 06/05/2018 Corcoran Planning Services COR16014.GEN Contract/PO#: For Services Rendered Through 5/31/2018 016-Ravinia 6th Addition Final PUD and Plat(city file 16-016) 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 56b—ZOLj W -- $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.:27453 Invoice Date:6/5/2018 Transaction ID: 11925 Labor Transactions P/E Date Employee Labor Code Work Date Hrs Effort COR16014.GEN..016 Ravinia 6th Addition Final PUD and Plat(city file 16-016) 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/30/2018 0.25 32.25 Ravinia landscape follow up Total for COR16014.GEN..016 0.25 32.25 Total labor 0.25 32.25 6/5/2018 1:45:16 PM 1 of 1 L A N D F O R M From Site to Finish ECEIV105 South Fifth Avenue Tel: 612-252 9070 City of Corcoran Suite 513 Fax: 612-252-9017 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Web landform.net 8200 County Road 116 JUN 0 8 2018 Corcoran,MN 55340 INVOICE No.27456 06/05/2018 Corcoran Planning Services COR18016.GEN Contract/PO#: For Services Rendered Through 5/31/2018 004-Pulte Encore EAW and Sketch Plan(city file 18-004) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 1.25 129.00 161.25 Total Professional Services for.004 161.25 Total Charges for.004 56 -2 % 161.25 007-Pulte Comp Plan Amendment(city file 18-007) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 4.00 129.00 516.00 Total Professional Services for.007 516.00 Total Charges for.007 Sob _2 d13‘ 516.00 010-Natural Resource Protection Ordinance(city file 18-010) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 1.50 129.00 193.50 Matze,Mary L 2.00 95.00 190.00 Shay,Kevin M. 1.00 69.00 69.00 Total Professional Services for.010 452.50 Total Charges for.010 v 6- .4)91 o - 452.50 Page 1 of 4 Project COR18016.GEN Corcoran Planning Services Invoice 27456 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 Total Professional Services for.012 129.00 Total Charges for.012 Ob.-(I 1)6 129.00 013-Nuisance Ordinance Update(city file 18-013) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 1.00 129.00 129.00 Shay,Kevin M. 1.25 69.00 86.25 Total Professional Services for.013 215.25 Total Charges for.013 I(+J''y j )(- -363 $ 215.25 014-Development Right and OS&P Ordinance Update(city file 18-014) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 3.50 129.00 451.50 Matze,Mary L 6.75 95.00 641.25 Shay,Kevin M. 1.50 69.00 103.50 Total Professional Services for.014 1,196.25 Total Charges for.014 100-q1,114).34-10 ° $1,196.25 016-Encore PP, PUD and RZ(city file 18-016) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 14.00 129.00 $1,806.00 Matze,Mary L 40.75 95.00 $3,871.25 Total Professional Services for.016 5,677.25 Total Charges for.016 5.C, -14436 $5,677.25 017-Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition PP(city file 18-017) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 5.25 129.00 677.25 Shay,Kevin M. 17.75 69.00 $1,224.75 Total Professional Services for.017 1,902.00 Total Charges for.017 SUU'Z olS"? 1,902.00 Page 2 of 4 Project COR18016.GEN Corcoran Planning Services Invoice 27456 018-Edgewater of Corcoran Sketch Plan(city file 18-018) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 8.50 129.00 $1,096.50 Shay,Kevin M. 2.00 69.00 138.00 Total Professional Services for.018 1,234.50 Total Charges for.018 5.x)-Z''`15`( 1,234.50 019-Ravinia 7th and 9th Lot Line Adjustment(city file 18-019) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 2.00 129.00 258.00 Matze,Mary L 50 95.00 47.50 Osthus,Emily Terrill 50 79.00 39.50 Total Professional Services for.019 500 r2(.31121 345.00 Total Charges for.019 345.00 020-Shoulak Ordinance Amendment(city file 18-020) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 75 129.00 96.75 Shay,Kevin M. 2.75 69.00 189.75 Total Professional Services for.020 286.50 SobTotalChargesfor.020 evNCS 286.50 021 -Willow LLC Minor Subdivision(city file 1j, Z Professional Services 1 Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 75 129.00 96.75 Matze,Mary L 50 95.00 47.50 Total Professional Services for.021 144.25 5'w-0‘45.6S6TotalChargesfor.021 144.25 022-Minor Subdivision Amendment(city file 18- ) (tg-021 Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 2.25 129.00 290.25 Shay,Kevin M.25 69.00 17.25 Total Professional Services for.022 307.50 Total Charges for.022 loo-y y(d-363 307.50 Page 3 of 4 Project COR18016.GEN Corcoran Planning Services Invoice 27456 023-Ravinia 7th Easement Vacation(city file 18-023) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Shay,Kevin M.50 69.00 34.50 Total Professional Services for.023 34.50 Total Charges for.023 34.50sGO—ZvYZ 025-Financial Guarantee Ordinance Amendment(city file 18-025) Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 1.50 129.00 193.50 Matze,Mary L 25 95.00 23.75 Shay,Kevin M. 1.00 69.00 69.00 Total Professional Services for.025 286.25 Total Charges for.025 qt y I 286.25 90-City Business Professional Services Employee Hours Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 29.75 129.00 $3,837.75 Shay,Kevin M.50 69.00 34.50 Total Professional Services for.90 3,872.25 Total Charges for.90 103 A.4I 1 10'30D 3,872.25 MTG-City Meeting Professional Services Employee Rate Amount Lindahl,Kendra S 2.00 100.00 200.00 Total Professional Services for MTG 200.00 Total Charges for MTG 1(au t-1161I v-30C 200.00 Invoice Amount $16,960.25 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.:27456 Invoice Date:6/5/2018 Transaction ID: 11928 Labor Transactions P/E Date Employee Labor Code Work Date Hrs Effort COR18016.GEN..004 Pulte Encore EAW and Sketch Plan(city file 18-004) 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/1/2018 0.25 32.25 update resolution# 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/2/2018 0.50 64.50 update staff report and discuss Maple Grove comments 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 0.50 64.50 additional boardwalk info from Pulte/reschedule parks meeting Total for COR18016.GEN..004 1.25 161.25 COR18016.GEN..007 Pulte Comp Plan Amendment(city file 18-007) 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/11/2018 1.50 193.50 Prep Met Council Submittal 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/21/2018 2.50 322.50 submit to met council Total for COR18016.GEN..007 4.00 516.00 COR18016.GEN..010 Natural Resource Protection Ordinance(city file 18-010) 05/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/9/2018 0.50 47.50 Update staff report 05/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/10/2018 1.50 142.50 UPdate staff report 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/1/2018 0.50 64.50 discuss options 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 0.50 64.50 finalize council report 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/22/2018 0.25 32.25 powerpoint 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/24/2018 0.25 32.25 CC meeting prep 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/21/2018 1.00 69.00 Put together powerpoint for CC meeting. Total for COR18016.GEN..010 4.50 452.50 COR18016.GEN..012 SE District Plan and Guidelines Update(city file 18-012) 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/30/2018 0.50 64.50 DRC meeting 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/30/2018 0.50 64.50 review next steps Total for COR18016.GEN..012 1.00 129.00 COR18016.GEN..013 Nuisance Ordinance Update(city file 18-013) 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/1/2018 0.25 17.25 Make edits to the staff report. 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/10/2018 0.25 17.25 Pull together packet for council. 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/1/2018 0.50 64.50 discuss options 6/5/2018 1:46:55 PM 1 of 6 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27456 Invoice Date:6/5/2018 Transaction ID: 11928 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/22/2018 0.25 32.25 powerpoint 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/24/2018 0.25 32.25 CC meeting prep 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/21/2018 0.75 51.75 Put together powerpoint for CC meeting. Total for COR18016.GEN..013 2.25 215.25 COR18016.GEN..014 Development Right and OS&P Ordinance Update(city file 18-014) 05/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/14/2018 0.25 23.75 Review staff report. 05/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/1/2018 1.00 95.00 Development Rights memo 05/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/11/2018 5.50 522.50 Update staff report.create graphic. 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/1/2018 1.00 129.00 discuss options 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 1.00 129.00 finalize CC report 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/11/2018 1.00 129.00 finalize and CC report 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/22/2018 0.25 32.2.5 powerpoint 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/24/2018 0.25 32.25 CC meeting prep 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/21/2018 1.25 86.25 Put together powerpoint for CC meeting. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/22/2018 0.25 17.25 Revise the CC PowerPoint. Total for COR18016.GEN..014 11.75 1,196.25 COR18016.GEN..016 Encore PP,PUD and RZ(city file 18-016) 05/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/7/2018 6.00 570.00 Review application for completeness. 05/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/8/2018 2.50 237.50 Finalize Parks Commission report. 05/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/9/2018 1.00 95.00 Parks packet. Update staff report. 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/7/2018 1.00 129.00 incomplete letter and parks memo 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/9/2018 1.50 193.50 Drc meeting 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/8/2018 2.00 258.00 Parks packet 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/22/2018 1.00 129.00 review da mou,review new info from applicant 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/23/2018 1.00 129.00 6/5/2018 1:46:55 PM 2 of 6 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27456 Invoice Date:6/5/2018 Transaction ID: 11928 DRC 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/24/2018 1.50 193.50 parks packet 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/25/2018 1.00 129.00 term sheet and other project items 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/29/2018 1.00 129.00 PC report 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/30/2018 4.00 516.00 DRC and packet 05/31/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/18/2018 0.25 23.75 Review Parks Commission schedule 05/31/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/22/2018 2.50 237.50 Update Parks Commission report.PC report.Meet with parks commission. 05/31/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/23/2018 5.75 546.25 Parks commission staff report and Planning Commission staff report.Research bituminous costs 05/31/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/24/2018 6.75 641.25 Update parks commission report.Meet with Kendra.Planning Commission report. 05/31/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/25/2018 6.25 593.75 Planning Commission staff report. 05/31/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/29/2018 3.75 356.25 Parks Commission Powerpoint. Update staff report and prepare resolutions. 05/31/2018 Matze, Mary L 5/30/2018 5.50 522.50 Resolutions and packet. 05/31/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/31/2018 0.50 47.50 Prepare packet and send to city. Total for COR18016.GEN..016 54.75 5,677.25 COR18016.GEN..017 Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition PP(city file 18-017) 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/2/2018 0.25 17.25 Review revised plans for complete items. 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/4/2018 2.75 189.75 Draft parks commission report.Edits after Kendra comments.Draft complete letter. 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/7/2018 1.25 86.25 Read through revised narrative. Updates to the parks commission report. 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/8/2018 1.00 69.00 Make edits to the staff report and pull together packet. 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/8/2018 0.25 32.25 Finalize and send parks report 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/7/2018 0.50 64.50 parks memo 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/4/2018 0.50 64.50 parks report 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/24/2018 1.00 129.00 review county comments/finalize Parks Packet 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/29/2018 1.00 129.00 PC packet/county questions 6/5/2018 1:46:55 PM 3 of 6 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27456 Invoice Date:6/5/2018 Transaction ID: 11928 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/30/2018 2.00 258.00 finalize PC report 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/17/2018 2.75 189.75 Work on draft PC staff report.Make updates to the parks commission report. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/18/2018 1.50 103.50 Work on PC staff report. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/24/2018 1.00 69.00 Read through and chat about hennepin county comments.Make edits to the staff report. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/29/2018 2.50 172.50 Work on resolutions and findings of fact.Parks commission powerpoint. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/30/2018 4.25 293.25 Updates to the staff materials. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/31/2018 0.50 34.50 Make changes to packet and reduce file.Send out. Total for COR18016.GEN..017 23.00 1,902.00 COR18016.GEN..018 Edgewater of Corcoran Sketch Plan(city file 18-018) 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 2.00 258.00 CC report 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/11/2018 2.00 258.00 finalize and send CC report 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/4/2018 0.50 64.50 review additional info and draft complete letter 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/7/2018 1.00 129.00 review plans 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/2/2018 0.50 64.50 set up file/review/draft and send incomplete letter 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/8/2018 1.75 225.75 Sketch plan report 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/22/2018 0.25 32.25 powerpoint 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/24/2018 0.50 64.50 CC meeting prep 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/21/2018 1.50 103.50 Put together powerpoint for CC meeting. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/22/2018 0.50 34.50 Edit the CC PowerPoint. Total for COR18016.GEN..018 10.50 1,234.50 COR18016.GEN..019 Ravinia 7th and 9th Lot Line Adjustment(city file 18.019) 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 1.00 129.00 administrative approval letter 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/11/2018 1.00 129.00 finalize letters and send to applicant 05/31/2018 Osthus,Emily Terrill 5/29/2018 0.50 39.50 copy text in word docs 05/31/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/17/2018 0.50 47.50 6/5/2018 1:46:55 PM 4 of 6 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27456 Invoice Date:6/5/2018 Transaction ID: 11928 Review final plat from applicant. Total for COR18016.GEN..019 3.00 345.00 COR18016.GEN..020 Shoulak Ordinance Amendment(city file 18-020) 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 0.25 32.25 project set up 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/24/2018 0.50 64.50 incomplete letter 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/23/2018 0.25 17.25 Event center research. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/29/2018 1.50 103.50 Event center research work. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/22/2018 1.00 69.00 Event center code research. Total for COR18016.GEN..020 3.50 286.50 COR18016.GEN..021 Willow LLC Minor Subdivision(city file 18-021) 05/15/2018 Lindahl, Kendra S 5/10/2018 0.25 32.25 project set up 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/22/2018 0.25 32.25 incomplete letter 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/30/2018 0.25 32.25 review outstanding items and options with applicant 05/31/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/22/2018 0.50 47.50 Review application for completeness Total for COR18016.GEN..021 1.25 144.25 COR18016.GEN..022 Minor Subdivision Amendment(city file 18-022) 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 0.25 32.25 project set up 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/29/2018 2.00 258.00 PC packet 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/29/2018 0.25 17.25 Review PC report. Total for COR18016.GEN..022 2.50 307.50 COR18016.GEN..023 Ravinia 7th Easement Vacation(city file 18-023) 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/21/2018 0.50 34.50 Complete letter 0.5 Ravinia. Total for COR18016.GEN..023 0.50 34.50 COR18016.GEN..025 Financial Guarantee Ordinance Amendment(city file 18-025) 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/7/2018 1.50 193.50 development process memo 05/15/2018 Matze,Mary L 5/10/2018 0.25 23.75 Proof Dev Process Memo 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/21/2018 0.50 34.50 Put together powerpoint for development process item on CC meeting. 05/31/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/22/2018 0.50 34.50 6/5/2018 1:46:55 PM 5 of 6 Linked Invoice Transactions - Landform Professional Services, LLC Invoice No.:27456 Invoice Date:6/5/2018 Transaction ID: 11928 Revise powerpoint for development process. Total for COR18016.GEN..025 2.75 286.25 COR18016.GEN..90 City Business 05/15/2018 Shay,Kevin M. 5/7/2018 0.50 34.50 Review Kendra project status memo. 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/2/2018 7.00 903.00 office hours/talk to John about development process 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/3/2018 1.00 129.00 calls and emails 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/9/2018 6.50 838.50 Office hours 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 1.00 129.00 update DRC schedule/research development rights for resident 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/11/2018 1.00 129.00 zoning calls and emails 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/1/2018 0.50 64.50 DRC/calls 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/4/2018 2.50 322.50 project status memo and development process memo 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/21/2018 2.50 322.50 dre/zoning calls and emails review resumes 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/22/2018 1.00 129.00 zoning calls/emails 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/23/2018 3.00 387.00 office hours 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/24/2018 0.25 32.25 calls/emails 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/25/2018 1.00 129.00 DRC and PC agendas 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/29/2018 1.00 129.00 PC minutes/zoning calls&emails 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/30/2018 1.50 193.50 office hours Total for COR18016.GEN..90 30.25 3,872.25 COR18016.GEN.MTG City Meeting 05/15/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/10/2018 1.00 100.00 council meeting 05/31/2018 Lindahl,Kendra S 5/24/2018 1.00 100.00 1 CC meeting Total for COR18016.GEN.MTG 2.00 200.00 Total labor 158.75 16,960.25 6/5/2018 1:46:55 PM 6 of 6 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a. Council Meeting: June 28, 2018 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Commission Representatives Action Required: None – Informational Summary: The advisory commission representatives for the June 28th Council meeting are as follows: Planning Commission: Dean Jacobs Parks and Trails Commission: Judy Strehler 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 June 18, 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 has the subcommittee recommendation on bees and is awaiting feedback on chickens. Upon receipt, we will present the subcommittee recommendation to the City Council for direction. 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. Agenda Item 8b. MEMORANDUM 2 5. 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 . A County meeting is scheduled in June and staff is reviewing options. 6. 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 presented the City Council with a work plan and schedule at the May 24th meeting. Staff is preparing an ordinance update for consideration at a public hearing at the August 2nd Planning Commission and August 23rd City Council meeting. 7. 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 presented the City Council with a work plan and schedule at the May 24th meeting. The Council will discuss further at the August 9th Work Session. 8. 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 presented the City Council with a work plan and schedule at the May 24th meeting. Staff is preparing an ordinance update for consideration at a public hearing at the August 2nd Planning Commission and August 23rd City Council meeting. 9. 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 and June 19th, a public hearing at the Planning Commission on June 7th and City Council action on June 28th. 10. Preliminary PUD Development Plan/Rezoning 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. 11. Shoulak Ordinance Amendment (city file 18-020)/Lindblad Ordinance Amendment (city file 18- 024). James Shoulak and Marie Lindblad applied separately for ordinance amendments to allow a type of event center in residential areas. While the individual requests are slightly different, the concept of event centers is similar and staff has notified both applicants that we will process the requests concurrently. Staff is preparing an ordinance update for consideration at a public hearing at the August 2nd Planning Commission and August 23rd City Council meeting. 12. Willow LLC Minor Subdivision at 20801 Larkin Road (city file 18-021) (Incomplete). The applicant is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to split the parcel into two lots. The application is currently incomplete, but is tentatively scheduled for the July 26th City Council meeting. 13. Mino r Subdivision Ordinance Amendment (city file 18-022). This is a City-initiated ordinance amendment to correct an unintended error in the ordinance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their June 7th meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval. The item is scheduled for Council action on June 28th. 14. Ravinia 7th Addition Easement Vacation (city file 18-023). Staff administratively approved a lot line adjustment for Ravinia 7th Addition to correct a boundary overlap with a portion of 9th Addition. The approval was contingent upon City Council approval of the easement vacation. The item is scheduled for a public hearing at the June 28th Council meeting. 15. Ordinance Amendment for Financial Guarantees (city file 18-025). At the May 24th meeting, the City Council directed staff to revert to the previous policy regarding financial guarantees and to amend the ordinance to reduce the required amount from 125% to 100% of the cost of improvements. Staff is MEMORANDUM 3 preparing an ordinance update for consideration at a public hearing at the August 2nd Planning Commission and August 23rd City Council meeting. 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. 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. *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 an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) for approval of 393 single family lots. The City Council reviewed this item at their February 22nd meeting. The City Council adopted the Notice of Decision on the EAW at the May 10th meeting. MEMORANDUM 4 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. *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 presented for Council review at the May 24th meeting and the Council tabled this item. 15. 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). 16. *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 reviewed the sketch plan at the May 24th meeting and indicated support. 17. *Lot Line Adjustment and Plat Modification for Ravinia 7th and 9th Addition (City file 18-019). Lennar 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. 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: June 20, 2018 for the June 28, 2018 City Council Meeting RE: PUBLIC HEARING. Easement Vacation for portions of Ravinia 7th Addition (PID 36- 119-23-13-0031, 36-119-23-13-0032, 36-119-23-13-0033, 36-119-23-13-0042, 36- 119-23-13-0043, 36-119-23-13-0044, 36-119-23-13-0045, 36-119-23-13-0046) (City File 18-023) 60-DAY REVIEW: July 15, 2018 1.Application Request Lennar is requesting vacation of drainage and utility easements over part of Lots 7-9, Block 2 and Lots 1-5, Block 4, Ravinia 7th Addition. 2.Background Lennar submitted a request for a lot line adjustment to Lots 7-9, Block 2 and Lots 1-5, Block 4, Ravinia 7th Addition to correct a drafting error. The lot line adjustment was administratively approved on May 11, 2018. In order to provide a clean title, Lennar is requesting vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements, which do not match the lot lines after the lot line adjustment. New drainage and utility easements will be drafted for recording upon completion of the vacation. 3.Recommendation Move to adopt Resolution 2018-54 approving the easement vacations. Attachments 1.Resolution 2018-54 approving vacation of easements 2.Easement vacation exhibit dated May 16, 2018 3.Engineer’s Memo dated June 18, 2018 Agenda Item: 9a. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-54 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN THE “RAVINIA” SUBDIVISION (CITY FILE 18-023) WHEREAS, U.S. Home Corporation (dba Lennar) (“the applicant”) has requested approval of an easement vacation within the subdivision: WHEREAS, the subdivision will provide new drainage and utility easements adjacent to new lot lines as required by City Code; WHEREAS, the applicant has requested vacation of the existing easements legally described as follows: The drainage and utility easements over, under and across Lots 7 through 9, Block 2 and Lots 1 through 5, Block 4, RAVINIA 7TH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as dedicated on the plat. WHEREAS, the Corcoran City Council considered this item at a duly called Public Hearing; WHEREAS, the City finds that the existing drainage and utility easements are no longer required as the existing lot lines were adjusted; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the following vacation, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must record the resolution approving the vacation at Hennepin County and provide the City of Corcoran with proof of recording. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-54 Page 2 of 2 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Engineer’s Memo Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com To: Kevin Mattson, PE, Director of Public Works From: Kent Torve, PE Date: June 18, 2018 Subject: Ravinia 7th Addition and 9th Addition Plat Revision The City Engineer has reviewed the easement vacation that was proposed due to the lot adjustment at Ravinia 7th Addition and 9th addition and there are no issues. CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763 - 420 -2288 www.ci.corcoran.mn.us Date: d / / o Open Forum: es 'r No p _ e'�`vou are of .speaking on ,tll ignda item, ,you iv1U ,peak at Open Forum Name of Speaker: G r ( PRINT (.'LL' RL Y) Related to Agenda Item: LYq s_o No Agenda Item Number: Are you speaking for the item against the item not applicable Representing: Address:�l , PUBLIC COMMENT CARD Meeting Rules of Conduct: • Fill out and turn In white comment card to a staffinember. • When called upon, approach podium and state name and address. • Indicate Ifrepresenting a group. • Limit remarks to 3 -S minutes. Telephone (optional): Comments: U-mdo�-� Please Approach the Podium to Speak When Called Upon 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 D ATE: June 20, 2018 for the June 28, 2018 City Council Meeting RE: Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD for Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (PID 03-119-23-13-0002) (City File 18-017) 60-DAY REVIEW: July 3, 2018 1.Application Request Chris Rains has submitted a request for a Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD for Fehn Meadows to create 14 new lots from an existing 62.7-acre parcel. 2.Parks and Trails Commission Review The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed this item at their May 29th meeting. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend cash-in-lieu of land to meet the park dedication requirements. 3.Planning Commission Review Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed this item at the regularly scheduled June 7, 2018 meeting. Two people spoke at the public hearing, inquiring about landscaping, the access to the development and flooding. Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat and narrative to request additional flexibility regarding the Shoreland Overlay standards. The revised preliminary plat includes the boundary of the Shoreland Overlay District. The revised narrative includes a request for PUD flexibility from the 25-foot maximum building height standard in the Shoreland Overlay District. The applicant is requesting a 35-foot maximum building height, which is the allowed height in the underlying RR zoning district. The staff report and resolution have been updated to reflect the updated materials. Agenda Item: 9b. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 2 June 28, 2018 4. Context Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning application. The proposed zoning for a property must be consistent 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. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving PUDs. A PUD must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community and surrounding area. The City’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Comprehensive Land Use Regulations. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. Zoning and Land Use The site is guided Rural/Ag Residential and zoned Rural Residential. Surrounding Properties The surrounding properties to the west, south and east are guided Rural/Ag Residential and zoned Rural Residential. The parcel to the north is located in the City of Rogers. Natural Characteristics of the Site The 2040 Comprehensive Plan shows a medium quality wetland on the southern edge of the property that is classified as a shallow marsh and seasonally flooded basin. Various low-quality wetlands are located throughout the site. W etland impacts are proposed to construct the street. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC) reviewed and approved the wetland delineation during the first preliminary plat application. The applicant has submitted the application to ECWMC for review of the planned wetland impacts. The ECWMC review was not complete at the time of this report. The area shown as Outlot A is located in the Greenway Corridor. Portions of the south and west areas of the site are in the Floodplain Overlay District and Shoreland Overlay District. The 100-year flood elevations are shown on the preliminary plat. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 3 June 28, 2018 5. Analysis of Request Rezoning The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR to PUD. The rezoning would allow the applicant flexibility to develop single family housing with smaller lot widths than are typically allowed by the code and to allow a greater setback than is allowed by code. Section 1070.010, Subd. 2 provides four evaluation criteria for the Planning Commission to consider. The applicant’s plan meets these criteria as follows: A. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. Rezoning to a PUD will allow the property to be developed while maintaining the natural features on the site. B. The proposed action meets the purpose and intent of this Ordinance or, in the case of a map amendment, it meets the purpose and intent of the individual district. The proposed action meets the purpose and intent of this Ordinance and of the PUD District, which allows the City to grant flexibility for setbacks and lot width in exchange for a higher quality development. C. There is adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed action. There is adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed action. The developer will be providing a public street to access the proposed development. D. There is an adequate buffer or transition provided between potentially incompatible districts. There is an adequate buffer or transition provided between potentially incompatible districts. This property and the surrounding properties are all guided Rural/Ag Residential which allows single- family development. A 100-foot buffer between County Road 117 and the development is provided to comply with code standards. Open Space and Preservation (OS&P) Plat The proposed OS&P plat requires 25% of the area to be preserved as open space and 50% of the required open space must be upland. The code requires the plat include 15.68 acres of open space and 7.84 acres of the preserved area is required to be upland open space. The plans show 20.33 acres to be preserved as open space, with 11.40 acres shown as qualifying upland (excluding existing wetlands stormwater basins). This complies with the ordinance standards. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 4 June 28, 2018 An OS&P plat with a minimum of 25% of gross land area to be preserved or restored with 50% of the preserved area as upland area, allows for 200% of the existing development rights. The parcel proposed for development currently contains seven development rights. The applicant is allowed 14 development rights using the OS&P plat. The applicant is proposing a plat with 14 single family home lots. Access/Streets The proposed development will have access off County Road 117. As part of this application a 50- foot half right-of-way is being shown for County Road 117, however, Hennepin County will require a 60-foot half right-of-way and dedicated turn lanes. The developer met with the County and is working to address their comments prior to final plat submission. A public street is being dedicated with 60 feet of public right-of-way for access within the development. All the single-family homes will have access off the new public street. A temporary cul- de-sac is provided at the end of the public street between lots 12 and 14. This cul-de-sac would be removed and used as an access when the property to the east develops. Lot Standards The applicant is proposing to create 14 lots. Projects that develop as part of an OS&P plat must comply with standards of the underlying zoning district, but may vary from the underlying zoning district dimensional regulations provided they comply with the OS&P standards. The maximum lot size for an OS&P is twice what is allowed in the underlying RR district. Therefore, the maximum allowable lot size is four acres. OS&P Minimum Lot Width 200 feet Minimum Lot Depth 300 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front (build-to line) Within 75 feet Side 15 feet Rear 25 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet Maximum Impervious Surface 25% The proposed lots on the preliminary plat do not meet the minimum 200-foot lot width standards in the zoning ordinance. The applicant is asking for PUD flexibility from lot width standards. The minimum lot width for the lots provided is 160 feet. The plans show proposed house pads for the 14 lots that meet the setback standards of the zoning ordinance. However, the applicant is asking for PUD flexibility to exceed the maximum build-to setback of 75 feet. The applicant has not indicated how much they wish to exceed the maximum setback, but instead indicated they wish to comply with the underlying RR zoning standard for a 50- foot minimum building setback. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 5 June 28, 2018 Shoreland Overlay Rush Creek is classified as tributary river/stream in Section 1050.020 Subd. 3 of the City Code and is subject the Shoreland Overlay standards. The classification is consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Statute 6120.3300. The Shoreland Overlay for a tributary river/stream extends out 300 feet and is shown on the plans. Varying portions of Lots 8 - 12 are located in the Shoreland Overlay District. When any portion of the lot is located in the Shoreland Overlay the standards below apply to the entire lot: Shoreland Minimum lot width 100 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Ordinary high-water level (OHWL) 100 feet Minimum Septic System Setbacks: Ordinary high-water level (OHWL) 75 feet Minimum bluff setback 30 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 25 feet Maximum Impervious Surface 25% The applicant has not provided building details as this point in the process but has indicated that the structures will not meet the 25-foot maximum building height. Building height is defined as, “The vertical distance to be measured from the grade of a building line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the upper most point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof.” The applicant has provided a revised narrative which includes a request for PUD flexibility from the 25-foot max building height standard in the Shoreland Overlay District. The applicant is requesting a 35-foot max building height to be consistent with the underlying district and open space and preservation standards. The intent of the Shoreland Overlay standards are to, “guide the wide development of public waters shoreland, thus preserving the quality of surface waters, preserving natural resources and providing for the wise utilization of water and related land resources in the City.” With the conditions included in the resolution, staff finds that the requested PUD flexibility meets the intent of the Shoreland Overlay District and the PUD District. Landscaping Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance requires: 1. Residential uses shall provide a minimum of one overstory tree per dwelling unit. Section 940.050 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires: A buffer zone of at least 100 feet shall be provided at the perimeter of the developed area of the site abutting public streets. The buffer zone shall be thickly planted with native grasses, shrubs and trees to minimize land use conflicts. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 6 June 28, 2018 The applicant’s landscape plan shows 15 overstory trees where 14 are required for the residential lots. The trees are generally planted at the edge of the front drainage and utility easement and are evenly spaced along the residential street to create an attractive streetscape. The plans show an additional 16 overstory trees buffering the development from County Road 117 and the neighbor to the east. The plans list the number of trees being planted in the development as seven red maple, five common hackberry, 14 swamp white oak and five vanguard elm. Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that no more than 33% of the required number of trees be of one species. Currently, swamp white oaks make up 45% of the trees being planted. The applicant will need to revise the landscape plan to vary the tree species to meet the Zoning Ordinance. Wetlands Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC) reviewed and approved the wetland delineation during the first preliminary plat application. The applicant has submitted the application to ECWMC for review of the planned wetland impacts. The ECWMC review was not complete at the time of this report. Section 1050.010 of the Zoning Ordinance provides standards for wetlands. The wetlands on site consist of both medium and low-quality wetlands. Medium quality wetlands require a 25-foot average wetland buffer and a 15-foot buffer setback. Low quality wetlands require a 15-foot average wetland buffer and a 15-foot buffer setback. Wetland buffers, setbacks, and buffer monuments are required to be installed when the property is platted. Section 1050.010, Subd. 7 requires wetland buffer monuments to be placed at: 1) Each lot line where it crosses a wetland buffer; 2) where needed to indicate the contour of the buffer; 3) a maximum spacing of 200 feet of wetland edge. Wetland buffer monuments must be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. Where the City and ECWMC differ in standards, the applicant shall comply with the more restrictive standard. Floodplain The floodplain boundary is shown on the plans. No impacts are proposed with the project. Any proposed floodplain fill and mitigation plan must be in compliance with Section 1050.030 of the Zoning Ordinance and must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to construction. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 7 June 28, 2018 Utilities This site is located outside of the MUSA boundary and will be served by individual water wells and septic sites. The applicant submitted a soil test report to shows that the proposed primary and secondary locations for the septic systems will support a standard Type I septic system. The proposed locations for the septic systems meet setback standards for the lots located in the Shoreland Overlay. Storm Water Management The applicant will need to work with the City Engineer to address comments in the May 30, 2018 memo. Any retaining walls or grading changes from the plan will need City approval at building permit stage. Parks and Trails While reviewing the application we used the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Parks and Trails Map. The map shows an on-road trail on County Road 117. The plat shows a 50-foot half right-of-way being dedicated for County Road 117. The County has provided comment on this application, requesting a 60-foot half right-of-way and dedicated turn lanes for the development. The on-road trail could likely be accommodated within the dedicated right-of-way shown, but the County comments will need to be addressed by the developer. The future trail could likely be constructed within the public right-of- way We also used the 2040 Parks and Trails Map from the draft Comprehensive Plan when reviewing this application. While the 2040 Parks and Trails Map has been approved for distribution and jurisdiction comment, it has not been adopted. The map does not show any additional trails. However, there is an off-road trail shown along the creek. When the Parks Commission reviewed the sketch plan for this site, they recommended that the trail ultimately be located south of the creek. Section 955.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires park dedication at the time of platting for land that has not previously provided park dedication, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subd. 2b. Under the current ordinance, park dedication of land is required at 4% of the net pre-development area for Rural/Ag Residential land. Park dedication is only taken for newly created lots. The ordinance would require 2.51 acres of park dedication for the 62.7 acres being platted. Where no park land is shown on the Comprehensive Plan, the City should take cash in lieu of land. For residential developments, the current cash in lieu of land fee has been calculated based on the per capita share of park system costs at $3,970 per single family unit (14 x $3,970 = $55,580). Park dedication is due at the time of final plat recording, based on the adopted fee schedule in place at that time. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 8 June 28, 2018 Preliminary PUD The applicant is proposing a preliminary PUD for the OS&P (Open Space & Preservation) Plat as allowed by Section 940.050(D)(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance, which states: “Variations from the dimensional requirements for lot size, setbacks or impervious surface may be approved with a PUD if the City Council finds that the request is consistent with the PUD standards.” The applicant is requesting flexibility from the 200-foot lot width standard, the maximum 75-foot structure setback standard, and the maximum 25-foot building height. According to Section 1040.140 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission and City Council must make several findings prior to approval of a preliminary development plan. The proposed PUD complies with the standards as follows: A. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan if the Comprehensive Plan is approved. B. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying zoning district. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying zoning district. The PUD will allow the property owner to maximize the number of single family lots while minimizing impacts to the wetlands and natural features on the site. C. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The developer will need to comply with the conditions outlined in the resolution. D. The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and/or operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or phase. The planned development is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or phase. E. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The development includes a mowed trail throughout the common open space for the use of the residents. The common open space, including the trail will be maintained by the HOA. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 9 June 28, 2018 F. The planned development will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The planned development will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. However, the property at 20909 Co Rd No 117, directly to the east, backs up to the proposed development. While some landscaping has been provided on the rear of proposed Lots 3, 4, and 5, additional landscaping may be requested as a benefit for the requested PUD flexibility. This landscaping could be placed to screen the roadway from this parcel to the east. G. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher standards, more efficient and effective uses of streets, utilities and public facilities, it shall maintain and enhance any natural resources within the development, and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations. The development will provide high quality homes and preserve the various wetlands on the site. These homes help diversify the housing available for residents that want to stay in Corcoran and provide a maintenance association that will assist residents with maintenance of common areas. The applicant has not clearly identified the benefit of the PUD. In exchange for flexibility from the minimum lot width, the maximum build-to line, and the maximum building height, the PUD expects a higher level of building design, landscaping or other amenities. • The City Council should discuss items such as additional landscaping if needed to off-set the PUD flexibility requested. Conclusion The staff report noted the outstanding issues that must be addressed and we have included conditions in the attached resolutions to address these issues. 6. Recommendation Adopt the following, as recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Ordinance 2018-367 approving Rezoning from RR to PUD 2. Resolution 2018-47 approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning 3. Resolution 2018-48 approving Preliminary Plat 4. Resolution 2018-49 approving Preliminary PUD Development Plan Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 10 June 28, 2018 Attachments a. Ordinance 2018-367 approving Rezoning from RR to PUD 5. Resolution 2018-47 approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning 6. Resolution 2018-48 approving Preliminary Plat b. Resolution 2018-49 approving Preliminary PUD Development Plan c. Hennepin County Aerial d. Engineer’s Memo dated May 30, 2018 e. Hennepin County Memo dated May 23, 2018 f. Applicant’s revised narrative submitted June 14, 2018 g. Revised Plat submitted June 11, 2018 h. Landscape Plan submitted May 2, 2018 City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-367 Page 1 of 1 Motion By: Seconded By: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED AT (PID 03-119-23-13-0002) (CITY FILE 18-017) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment of the City Code. Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, is hereby amended by changing the classification on the City of Corcoran Zoning Map from RR to PUD with respect to the 62.7-acre site, legally described as follows: Outlot A, Fehn Meadows, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Section 2. Effective Date. This amendment shall take effect upon adoption of the resolution approving the final PUD development plan for this project. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-47 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR REZONING FOR “FEHN MEADOWS 2nd ADDITION” FOR RAINS PROPERTIES, LLC ON THE 62.7-ACRE SITE AT (PID 03-119-23-13-0002) (CITY FILE 18-017) WHEREAS, Rains Properties, LLC (“the applicant”) has requested approval of a preliminary plat for 14 single family homes on a 62.7-acre parcel legally described as: Outlot A, Fehn Meadows, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance rezoning the affected parcel from Rural Residential (RR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does support the request of Rains Properties, LLC for the reclassification of the zoning from RR to PUD for the properties, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. Rezoning to a PUD will allow the property to be developed while maintaining the natural features on the site. 2. The proposed action meets the purpose and intent of this Ordinance or, in the case of a map amendment, it meets the purpose and intent of the individual district and of the PUD District, which allows the City to grant flexibility for setbacks and lot width in exchange for a higher quality development. 3. There is adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed action. The developer will be providing a public street to access the proposed development. 4. There is an adequate buffer or transition provided between potentially incompatible districts. The surrounding districts are compatible with the single-family development. A 100-foot buffer between County Road 117 and the development is provided to comply with code standards. 5. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use classification. 6. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-47 Page 2 of 2 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-48 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “FEHN MEADOWS 2nd ADDITION” FOR RAINS PROPERTIES, LLC ON THE 62.7-ACRE SITE AT (PID 03-119-23-13-0002) (CITY FILE 18- 017) WHEREAS, Rains Properties, LLC (“the applicant”) has requested approval of a preliminary plat for 14 single family homes on a 62.7-acre parcel legally described as: Outlot A, Fehn Meadows, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for a preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. An Open Space and Preservation (OS&P) plat is approved to allow the creation of 14 lots for single family homes, in accordance with the application materials and plans received by the City on April 17, 2018 and revisions received May 2, 2018, June 11, 2018 and June 14, 2018, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The existing 7 development rights are increased to 14 as part of the OS&P plat. The development will use all 14 of the development rights. 3. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the rezoning to PUD and preliminary PUD development plan. 4. The applicant shall comply with all conditions in the City Engineer’s memo dated May 30, 2018. 5. The approval is subject to the review and approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission. The applicant shall comply with any conditions of approval from the watershed. 6. The applicant shall address the comments in the Hennepin County memo dated May 23, 2018. 7. Development standards shall be as approved as part of the PUD. 8. The development shall be subject to all conditions of the preliminary PUD development plan approval. 9. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of a final plat. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-48 Page 2 of 2 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-49 Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN FOR “FEHN MEADOWS 2nd ADDITION” FOR RAINS PROPERTIES, LLC ON THE 62.7-ACRE SITE AT (PID 03-119-23-13-0002) (CITY FILE 18-017) WHEREAS, Rains Properties, LLC (“the applicant”) has requested approval of a preliminary plat for 14 single family homes on a 62.7-acre parcel legally described as: Outlot A, Fehn Meadows, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for a preliminary PUD development plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary PUD development plan is approved to allow the creation of 14 lots for single family homes, in accordance with the application materials and plans received by the City on April 17, 2018 and revisions received May 2, 2018, June 11, 2018 and June 14, 2018, except as amended by this resolution. 2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the requested rezoning and preliminary plat. 3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions in the City Engineer’s memo dated May 30, 2018. 4. The approval is subject to the review and approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission. The applicant shall comply with any conditions of approval from the watershed. 5. The applicant shall address the comments in the Hennepin County memo dated May 23, 2018. 6. The preliminary PUD development plan is approved based on the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 7. All platted residential lots shall comply with the standards in Section 940 of the City Code, except that PUD flexibility is granted for the following: a. The minimum lot width is 160 feet where 200 feet is typically allowed. b. A minimum setback of 50 feet is required where OS&P plats are required to meet a 75-foot build-to (maximum setback) line. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-49 Page 2 of 3 8. Residential Lots 8 through 12 shall comply with the standards in Section 1050.020 of the City Code, except that PUD flexibility is granted to allow a maximum building height of 35 feet where 25 feet is typically allowed, provided that: a. For Lots 8 through 11, the building pad shall not be located in the Shoreland Overlay boundary. b. For Lot 12, the lot does not allow construction of the home outside of the Shoreland Overlay District, therefore, two additional trees shall be planted between the building and Rush Creek. Parking 9. Parking shall be permitted on one side of the local streets and shall be signed in accordance with city standards. Landscaping 10. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide no more than 33% of a single tree species, as required by Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. 11. The HOA shall be responsible for maintenance of all common lots and trails within the open space. 12. The HOA declaration shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to final plat. 13. A preservation, restoration and management plan for all open space land shall be provided with the final plat for review and approval. 14. The developer must prepare a stormwater maintenance easement for review and approval by the City and the easement will be recorded with the final plat. Streets 15. All streets within the development shall be public streets. 16. A temporary cul-de-sac easement shall be submitted with final PUD development plan for review and approval by the City. Wetlands/Shoreland 17. Wetland buffer monuments shall be shown on the plans and installed prior to issuance of building permit. 18. Shoreland buffer monuments shall be installed prior to issuance of building permit. 19. Drainage and utility easements must be provided over all wetlands, wetland buffers and ponds. 20. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on each side of the centerline of any wetland, body of water, watercourse or drainage channel. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-49 Page 3 of 3 Park Dedication 21. Park dedication shall be cash in lieu of land in accordance with the park dedication policy in place when the plat is released for recording. Miscellaneous 22. A final PUD development plan must be submitted with the final plat for review and approval. 23. No signage is proposed or approved at this time. Any signage will require a sign permit and compliance with Chapter 84 of the City Code. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Hennepin County Property Map Date: 5/8/2018 Comments: 1 inch = 800 feet PARCEL ID: 0311923130002 OWNER NAME: Rains Properties Llc PARCEL ADDRESS: 52 Address Unassigned, Corcoran MN 00000 PARCEL AREA: 62.93 acres, 2,741,313 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $625,000 SALE DATA: 04/2017 SALE CODE: Vacant Land ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Farm HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $517,000 TAX TOTAL: $6,319.58 ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Farm HOMESTEAD: Non-homestead MARKET VALUE: $568,000 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 Technical Memo Wenck Associates, Inc. | 1800 Pioneer Creek Center | P.O. Box 249 | Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 Toll Free 800-472-2232 Main 763-479-4200 Email wenckmp@wenck.com Web wenck.com - ENGINEER’S MEMO To: Kevin Mattson, P.E., Public Works Director From: Kent Torve, P.E., City Engineer Date: May 29, 2018 Subject: Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition – Preliminary Plat Review Comments 0.0. Background Rains Properties has submitted plans for a project connecting to CR 117. The development would create 14 lots with a public street Plans are marked “Not For Construction”, and revisions are typically necessary as the project moves through the City process Include a full size sheet of Existing Conditions, including contours and flowlines Watershed permit conditions shall be forwarded to City upon approval Comply with NPDES Construction permit conditions Update plans with most current detail plates 1.0 CSAH 117 Access The development will obtain a County access permit, whose staff report is dated May 23, 2018. Findings include; City will assist in coordinating with County County is requesting turn lanes on CR 117 County is requesting access from a few adjacent parcels upon redevelopment to remove CR 117 access points 2.0 Stormwater HOA will maintain ownership of the stormwater facilities and be responsible for maintenance and replacement Submit an exhibit showing: o Existing drainage locations entering and exiting the site and o Proposed drainage locations entering and exiting the site Drainage areas 2, 10, and 100-year flows Remove exfiltration component from stormwater model Rename model components same as Plan sheets (ponds, basins, etc.) Recommend installing filtration basins after vegetation has been reestablished on site Kevin Mattson, PE Public Works Director May 29, 2018 2 \\MSPFSV02\Studios\Planning & Urban Design Studio\City of Corcoran\COR18017 - Fehn Meadows 2nd PP\2018-05-30 Engineer's Memo Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat Review Comments.docx Submit calculation for ponding depths on catch basins Road slopes less than 0.5% need additional catch basins (STA 20+50 to 27+00) or increase road slope 3.0 Piping Place manholes at alignment changes (bends), for example the draintile connection on Lot 3 shall be manhole Show profiles for storm sewer Pipe under City roads and County ROW shall be RCP HDPE pipe needs to be labeled with material specification. Maintenance access routes cannot be on 3:1 side slope. This may affect easement boundaries. Easements over pipe shall be minimum of twice the pipe depth Recommend to show the curb draintile on utility plan sheets 4.0 Grading Individual lots show grading for the identified building elevations. Changes from the approved plan need City approval at building permit stage. o Lot 14 appears to require a large rear yard cut, any retaining wall needs City review and to be placed outside the drainage and utility easement The freeboard requirements are: o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the HWL o Low Opening is a minimum of one foot above the EOF o Low Floor one foot above HWL EOFs shall be accurately shown and as builts are required. o If higher than pond EOF, the highest downstream point shall be the EOF since this is the controlling elevation Individual lot owners shall not grade in floodplain o Resubmitted plan will be reviewed for floodplain impacts Project Narrative for Fehn Meadows Second Addition Development Project The Fehn site is an interesting site because of all the nuances of zoning, changes in ownership and property lines along with land uses over the last 150 years. All of this contributes to the unique size, shape and design of the new neighborhood. Managing a site to fit with the existing surroundings as well the future use, connections and desired rural nature of a property is a difficult process. One, that to this point has taken about 3 years. We have not only looked at single family development but have also explored creating a permanent wetland conservation easement on this site. But due to regulatory issues, time and the natural flow of water, the conservation wetland is just not a viable option. Over this time, we have developed what we believe to be the best balance of current RR zoning along with the future connection of sidewalks, trails, streets and open space to maintain the rural feel of the area with an OSP. Our goal was to create a neighborhood that felt rural but also had a connection using trails, open space and views of open areas from every lot. I think we have achieved that to the best of our ability. Wether it be from the front, rear or side, 13 lots will have open views. Twelve of the Fourteen lots abut the wetlands, upland open space or Rush Creek. We are asking for the PUD in addition to the OSP because of two reasons. Please let me explain below. We are zoned RR, in RR the code states minimum requirements. LOT AREA 2 ACRES LOT WIDTH 200FT LOT DEPTH 300FT SETBACK Major roads 100ft All other streets 50ft Front porch 40ft Side yard 25ft Rear year 25ft In an OSP these are the minimums 1.Minimum lot size None, so long as 2 septic sites fit on the lot. 2.Maximum lot Area shall not exceed two times the lot area in the zoning district. a.Front setback of home SHALL be within 75ft of front property line. b.Side, internal 15ft c.Side, street 25ft d.Rear 25ft 3.Maximum impervious surface. Within each lot shall be 25 percent 4.Variations from the dimensional requirements for lot size, setbacks or impervious surface may be approved with a PUD if the council finds that request is consistent with PUD standards. Project Narrative for Fehn Meadows Second Addition Development Project Looking at the two descriptions of lot minimums above seem simple. The OSP has no lot size minimums only maximums. Also, no lot width or depth is mentioned at all in the OSP. But, when you read number 4 of the OSP, it states variations from dimensional requirements require a PUD, we become non-compliant because we are zoned RR and the underlying zoning must be complied with. The lots now revert to the 200ft by 300ft minimums. So, the reason we are coming to you with a PUD is because we have five lots that are under 200 ft in width. They are lots 7-11. This was caused mainly because of the curvature of the street. I have attached the lot frontage dimensions for all lots. We also added the mid-lot widths and the averages of all lots. See attached on last page. We can comply with this 200 ft minimum and not need a PUD, if we move lot 10 over to the open space and place it along the southern property line border of the neighboring property in the center of our development. The reason we did not do this is because we were trying to leave a larger open space in the center of the property and a spacer between our lots and the neighbor. If we move this lot, we do not need a PUD. The reason we are asking for the PUD is the layout and feel of the open space although it complies with zoning by adding the lot to that open space. Just does not feel the same as the large open space that we are showing on the Plan. We have all our house pads listed at the 75ft maximum setback. We can comply with that part of the OSP. We would however ask that we be able to comply with the RR zoning which does not have a maximum only a 50 ft minimum. What this means is that we could use the natural rolling nature of the land instead of all homes being 50-75 ft from the lot line. We were hoping for a rural feel with lots of open land rather all homes being placed just off the street creating a barrier to the view of all the open land behind the homes. When you drive through the area you don’t want to see the homes. You want to look past them to all the open land surrounding them. As you can see on the plat, because of the lot layouts and rolling nature the land, the homes will be much more spread out. This will also give us more flexibility to create homes that have more design architecture and less garage doors facing the street. The landscaping has been designed to keep the prairie and wet meadow feel throughout the site. EVERY property is abutted by a wetland of some sort. So, diversity of animal life will be abundant on all the lots. Native vegetation will be allowed on the acreage lots to make the open space feel even larger. The homeowner’s association will encourage the owners to shrink the mowed area of the yards to keep the native feel. The contractor installing the native grasses (probably Prairie Restoration) will as part of the install will provide a written narrative as to the planting care and up keep of the grasses as many areas will have different needs and needs to be laid out at the time of install based on conditions. After establishment of the vegetation the homeowner’s association will take over. The homes to be built will have a prairie-country flair. With the flexibility of the RR setback we will be able to achieve a more rural estate feel rather than the cookie cutter house feel. That will give us the ability to turn the home on the lots to achieve the best design standards possible. We are talking with some custom home builders to design some architectural structure for the site. Project Narrative for Fehn Meadows Second Addition Development Project Supplement to the Narrative. After we submitted the original preliminary plat, we were informed by staff that the property had some unanswered questions surrounding the shoreland district. The shoreland district is the area within 300 ft of the bank of the North Fork Rush Creek. Staff asked us to include the distances and how it affects each lot into the Plat. We have included this info and have found that lots 8-12 are affected to different degrees. Lot 8 and 9 are touching the 300 ft buffer but the building site and pad will not be affected by any of the more restrictive covenants. Lot 10-12 are touching the buffer to different degrees and will be affected as to what type/style of home could be built on the site. This is the stated intent of the Shoreland district in the zoning code. Subd. 4. Land Use. The intent of this overlay district is to guide the wide development of public waters shoreland, thus preserving the quality of surface waters, preserving natural resources and providing for the wise utilization of water Section 1050 (Overlay Districts) Page 176 January 25, 2018 and related land resources in the City. The regulations in this overlay district are intended to manage areas suitable for development of various types as allowed in the underlying zoning district. It is the intent of this overlay district to be used in conjunction with the adopted land use regulations and requirements of this Chapter and over other ordinances, codes and policies. The allowable uses in the Shoreland Management Overlay District shall be as identified in the Zoning Ordinance and reflected on the Zoning Map. As stated above from the city code. The height of building has no bearing as to the stated intent of the shoreland district. A septic can be 75 ft from the water, a house must be 100 ft from the water. But height should have no bearing as to the degradation or quality of surface water, preserving of natural resources or utilization of water. Those are the items stated as to the intent of the code. We are asking that the council allow the affected lots to be able to increase the maximum height from 25 feet to a maximum house height of 35 feet to match the existing homes in the area. We are trying to keep an architectural theme of steep pitched roofs and gables to match the other homes in the area. A 25 feet restriction in this area would require a one level home. Most of these lots due to lot size and location are being sold as 2 story homes with families. We are already having a hard time selling our larger ramblers in Maple Grove and will be even more difficult on this site. The neighboring home site to the east is closer to the water than all our sites will be. The height of that home is already believed to be over the 25ft height restriction. I do not Project Narrative for Fehn Meadows Second Addition Development Project see it affecting in a negative way the use or look of the shoreland district. Especially the stated intent of water quality or natural resources. Keep in mind if we were a church, place of assembly or agricultural structure we would be exempt, and height would not be restricted in the shoreland district. Even though these properties would most likely have more surface runoff. Which would affect the intent of the code. Please see the language as to a variance based on the stated purpose of the code below. E. Variances 1. Variances may only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462, as applicable. A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and the public interest. In considering a variance request, the City Council must also consider whether the property owner has reasonable use of the land without the variance, whether the property is used seasonally or year-round, whether the variance is being requested solely on the basis of economic 2. Section 1050 (Overlay Districts) Page 188 February 09, 2017 considerations, and the characteristics of development of adjacent properties. As stated above Purpose and Intent The intent of this overlay district is to guide the wide development of public waters shoreland, thus preserving the quality of surface waters, preserving natural resources and providing for the wise utilization of water Section 1050 (Overlay Districts) Page 176 January 25, 2018 and related land resources in the City. In conclusion, we ask the council for a variance to change the maximum height from 25 ft to the normal standards of the underlying zoning district. C1.1 PREL I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N CI V I L E N G I N E E R I N G SI T E D E S I G N R A I N S P R O P E R T I E S INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: C h r i s R a i n s 6 1 2 - 5 9 9 - 0 3 7 2 c h r i s @ r a i n s p r o p e r t i e s . c o m 6 2 4 C E N T R A L A V E N U E O S S E O , M N 5 5 3 6 9 LEGEND: MATCH LINE C1.3/C1.4 C1.4 PREL I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N CI V I L E N G I N E E R I N G SI T E D E S I G N R A I N S P R O P E R T I E S INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: C h r i s R a i n s 6 1 2 - 5 9 9 - 0 3 7 2 c h r i s @ r a i n s p r o p e r t i e s . c o m 6 2 4 C E N T R A L A V E N U E O S S E O , M N 5 5 3 6 9 LEGEND: 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D RU S H C R E E K RU S H C R E E K WE T L A N D WE T L A N D TRE E S QT Y CO M M O N N A M E CO N T . SI Z E RE M A R K S 7 RE D M A P L E B& B 2 - 1 / 2 " C A L . S I N G L E , S T R A I G H T L E A D E R AC E R R U B R U M NO B R A N C H E S B E L O W 3 6 " H T . 5 CO M M O N H A C K B E R R Y B& B 2 - 1 / 2 " C A L . S I N G L E , S T R A I G H T L E A D E R CE L T I S O C C I D E N T A L I S NO B R A N C H E S B E L O W 3 6 " H T . 1 4 SW A M P W H I T E O A K B& B 2 - 1 / 2 " C A L . S I N G L E , S T R A I G H T L E A D E R QU E R C U S B I C O L O R NO B R A N C H E S B E L O W 3 6 " H T . 5 VA N G U A R D E L M B& B 2 - 1 / 2 " C A L . S I N G L E , S T R A I G H T L E A D E R UL M U S X ` M O R T O N P L A I N S M A N ` NO B R A N C H E S B E L O W 3 6 " H T . SOD / S E E D QT Y CO M M O N N A M E RE M A R K S 1 , 5 3 6 , 9 8 8 S F ` ` L O W M A I N T E N A N C E T U R F ` ` MN D O T 2 5 1 3 1 1 9 8 , 0 5 6 S F ` ` W E T P R A I R I E ` ` MN D O T 3 4 2 6 2 4 3 5 , 2 0 3 S F ` ` D R Y P R A I R I E G E N E R A L ` ` MN D O T 3 5 2 2 1 PL A N T S C H E D U L E EN G I N E E R I N G An d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C 13 6 0 5 1 s t A v e n u e N o r t h Su i t e 1 0 0 Pl y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 76 3 - 4 1 2 - 4 0 0 0 ( o ) 7 6 3 - 4 1 2 - 4 0 9 0 ( f ) ww w . a e - m n . c o m EN G I N E E R I N G A R C H I T E C T U R E L A N D S U R V E Y I N G EN V I R O N M E N T A L S E R V I C E S L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E 1.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THEPROJECT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A BID TOBECOME COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH SITECONDITIONS.2.ALL ROUGH AND FINISH GRADING TO BE DONE BYOTHERS.3.NO PLANTING SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALLGRADING, BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION, UTILITY WORK& IRRIGATION (IF APPLICABLE) HAS BEENCOMPLETED IN THE AREAS TO BE PLANTED.4.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TOIDENTIFY ALL UNDERGROUND CABLES, CONDUITS,WIRES, ETC., ON THE PROPERTY.5.IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE NUMBEROF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND THE NUMBEROF PLANTS SHOWN IN THE PLANT LIST, THE NUMBEROF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN WILL TAKEPRECEDENCE.6.ALL PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BELOCATED CAREFULLY AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. IFTHE CONTRACTOR BELIEVES AN ERROR HAS BEENMADE REGARDING SPACING OR LOCATION OF THEPLANT MATERIAL INDICATED ON THE PLAN, NOTIFYTHE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TOINSTALLATION.7.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETEMAINTENANCE OF THE PLANT MATERIAL (WATERING,SPRAYING, FERTILIZING, MOWING, ETC.) UNTIL THEWORK HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, BY THE OWNER.8.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLREPAIRS TO PROPERTY DAMAGE FROM PLANTINGOPERATIONS AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.9.ALL NEWLY PLANTED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BEGUARANTEED THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEARSTARTING FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCEESTABLISHED BY THE OWNER.10.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH THE OWNEROR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE ON SITE WHEN THEYFEEL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE ACCORDING TOTHE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. IF ALL WORK ISSATISFACTORY AND COMPLETE ACCORDING TO THECONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, THENTHE OWNER MUST DECLARE THE PROJECTCOMPLETE. THIS DECLARATION WILL CONSTITUTEAS THE BEGINNING OF THE ONE (1) YEARWARRANTEE PERIOD FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL.THE OWNER SHALL PROVIDE A LETTER WITHSIGNATURE STATING THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE.11.WIND BURN OR OTHERWISE DAMAGED PLANTMATERIAL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.12.CONTRACTOR CAN SUBSTITUTE MACHINE MOVEDMATERIAL USING APPROPRIATE SIZE TREE SPADEFOR B & B WITH OWNER APPROVAL.13.THE PRACTICE OF STAKING SHOULD NOT ALLOWNAILS, SCREWS, WIRES, ETC. TO PENETRATE THEOUTER SURFACE OF THE TREES.14.THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEREMOVAL OF ALL TREE STAKES, GUYS, STRAPS ANDTRUNK PROTECTION MEASURES FOLLOWING THECOMPLETION OF THE WARRANTEE PERIOD OR ASDIRECTED BY THE OWNER.15.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TOPROVIDE THE OWNER WITH MAINTENANCEINFORMATION DURING THE GUARANTEE PERIODRELATING TO WATERING, FERTILIZING, PRUNING,PEST CONTROL, AND RELATED ITEMS. THIS WILL BEPREPARED AND DELIVERED TO THE OWNER AFTERPROVISIONAL INSPECTION APPROVAL HAS BEENGIVEN BY THE OWNER AND/OR LANDSCAPEARCHITECT.16.INSTALL CORRUGATED PLASTIC TREE GUARDS,WHITE IN COLOR, WITH THE SIZE OF TUBE 1" DIA.(MIN.) LARGER THAN THE CALIPER OF THE TREE TOBE PROTECTED.17.3" DEPTH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH SHALL BEINSTALLED UNDER ALL TREES AND SHRUBS THATARE ISOLATED FROM GROUNDCOVER AREAS ANDGENERAL SHRUB MASSES.18.CALIPER OF TREES UP TO AND INCLUDING 4" SHALLBE MEASURED AT 6" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, AND 12"ABOVE GROUND LEVEL FOR LARGER SIZES.19.FOR BALLED & BURLAP PLANT MATERIAL, REMOVETHE TOP HALF OF THE BURLAP FROM THE ROOTBALL. WIRE CAGES, STRAPS, ETC. SHALL BEREMOVED FROM THE TOP HALF OF THE ROOTBALLBEFORE INSTALLATION.20.ALL CONTAINER MATERIAL SHALL HAVE BEENGROWN IN CONTAINER FOR A MINIMUM OF 6MONTHS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.21.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ANDINSTALL NURSERY GROWN PLANT MATERIALCONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LATEST EDITION OFANSI Z60.1 STANDARDS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDIN THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS.GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES:1.LANDSCA P E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L E N S U R E T H A T N E W TREES M O V E D O N T O T H E S I T E A R E D U G F R O M S I M I L A R SITES WIT H S I M I L A R S O I L S T O T H E S O I L S O F T H I S PROJECT ( H E A V Y T O H E A V Y , L I G H T T O L I G H T . H E A V Y TO LIGHT S O I L S ) . C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L R E V I E W S O I L CONDITIO N S / T Y P E S W I T H O W N E R / L A N D S C A P E ARCHITE C T P R I O R T O I N S T A L L A T I O N . 2.ALL NEW L Y I N S T A L L E D P L A N T M A T E R I A L S H A L L B E PLANTED I N W E L L - D R A I N E D A R E A S . N O T I F Y T H E LANDSCA P E A R C H I T E C T P R I O R T O I N S T A L L A T I O N I F ANY PLAN T M A T E R I A L I S L O C A T E D I N D R A I N A G E SWALES O R W E T & P O O R L Y D R A I N E D A R E A S . 3.ALL PLAN T I N G S S H A L L R E C E I V E F E R T I L I Z E R A S FOLLOWS : 3.1.SUMM E R A N D F A L L P L A N T I N G : 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 G R A N U L A R (IN SA U C E R A R O U N D P L A N T A T T H E R A T E O F 1 2 O Z . PER 2 - 3 " C A L . T R E E ) . 3.2.SPRI N G P L A N T I N G : 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 G R A N U L A R ( A P P L Y ABOV E R E F E R E N C E D F E R T I L I Z E R A T A R A T E O F 1 2 OZ. P E R 1 - 1 / 2 ” C A L . T R E E O R L A R G E R . 4.ALL PLAN T I N G S S H A L L R E C E I V E A N A M E N D E D S O I L M I X CONSIST I N G O F T H R E E ( 3 ) P A R T S : 4.1.45% A P P R O V E D T O P S O I L ( O N E S I T E P R E F E R R E D ) 4.2.45% O R G A N I C M A T T E R ( T Y P E 1 S P H A G N U M P E A T MOSS F I N E L Y D I V I D E D W I T H A P H O F 3 . 1 - 5 . 0 . ) 4.3.10% S A N D ( F I N E C L E A N M A S O N R Y S A N D ) 5.AREAS TO R E C E I V E S E E D S H A L L H A V E A 6 ” M I N I M U M DEPTH OF T O P S O I L . T O P S O I L S H A L L P R O V I D E F E R T I L E , FRIABLE, N A T U R A L L O A M , S U R F A C E S O I L , R E A S O N A B L Y FREE OF S U B S O I L , C L A Y C L U M P S , B R U S H W E E D S A N D OTHER LI T T E R , A N D F R E E O F R O O T S , S T U M P S , S T O N E LARGER T H A N 1 ” I N A N Y D I M E N S I O N , A N D O T H E R EX T R A N E O U S O R T O X I C M A T T E R H A R M F U L T O P L A N T GR O W T H . 6. A L L A R E A S S P E C I F I E D A S ' L O W M A I N T E N A N C E T U R F SE E D ' T O B E S E E D E D W I T H M N D O T S E E D M I X 2 5 - 1 3 1 A T A R A T E O F 2 2 0 L B S . / A C . W I T H 2 T O N S S H R E D D E D A N D PU N C H E D I N P L A C E S T R A W P E R A C R E . H Y D R O S E E D I N G & M U L C H I N G I S A N A C C E P T A B L E A L T E R N A T E . 7. A L L A R E A S S P E C I F I E D A S ' W E T P R A I R I E ' T O B E S E E D E D WI T H M N D O T S E E D M I X 3 4 - 2 6 2 . B R O A D C A S T , D R I L L AN D / O R H Y D R O S E E D A T A R A T E O F 1 5 L B S . / A C . W I T H 2 TO N S S H R E D D E D A N D P U N C H E D I N P L A C E S T R A W P E R AC R E . S E E D M I X S H A L L B E A B L E T O W I T H S T A N D PE R I O D I C F L O O D I N G . 8. A L L A R E A S S P E C I F I E D A S ' D R Y P R A I R I E G E N E R A L ' T O BE S E E D E D W I T H M N D O T S E E D M I X 3 5 - 2 2 1 A T A R A T E OF 3 7 L B S . / A C . W I T H 2 T O N S S H R E D D E D A N D P U N C H E D IN P L A C E S T R A W P E R A C R E . H Y D R O S E E D I N G & MU L C H I N G I S A N A C C E P T A B L E A L T E R N A T E . 9. C O N T R A C T O R I S R E S P O N S I B L E F O R A L L E R O S I O N CO N T R O L N E E D S T O E S T A B L I S H V I G O R O U S G R O W T H PE R M N D O T 2 0 1 4 S E E D I N G M A N U A L S T A N D A R D S . GENE R A L S O D D I N G , SEED I N G & T O P S O I L N O T E S : DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL1 SE E L 1 . 2 SE E L 1 . 3 SE E L 1 . 2 SE E L 1 . 3 SE E L 1 . 1 SE E L 1 . 2 SE E L 1 . 1 SE E L 1 . 2 LA N D S C A P E P L A N 2 5 Co m m o n H a c k b e r r y 2 - 1 / 2 " C A L . B & B 5 Va n g u a r d E l m 2 - 1 / 2 " C A L . B & B 2 Re d M a p l e 2 - 1 / 2 " C A L . B & B 9 Sw a m p W h i t e O a k 2 - 1 / 2 " C A L . B & B 1 2 3 4 5 WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WETLAND EN G I N E E R I N G An d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C 13 6 0 5 1 s t A v e n u e N o r t h Su i t e 1 0 0 Pl y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 76 3 - 4 1 2 - 4 0 0 0 ( o ) 7 6 3 - 4 1 2 - 4 0 9 0 ( f ) ww w . a e - m n . c o m EN G I N E E R I N G A R C H I T E C T U R E L A N D S U R V E Y I N G EN V I R O N M E N T A L S E R V I C E S L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E MATCHLINE SEE L1.2 MA T C H L I N E S E E L 1 . 2 1 Re d M a p l e 2 - 1 / 2 " C A L . B & B 1 Sw a m p W h i t e O a k 2 - 1 / 2 " C A L . B & B 67 WETLAND WE T L A N D EN G I N E E R I N G An d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C 13 6 0 5 1 s t A v e n u e N o r t h Su i t e 1 0 0 Pl y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 76 3 - 4 1 2 - 4 0 0 0 ( o ) 7 6 3 - 4 1 2 - 4 0 9 0 ( f ) ww w . a e - m n . c o m EN G I N E E R I N G A R C H I T E C T U R E L A N D S U R V E Y I N G EN V I R O N M E N T A L S E R V I C E S L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E MATCHLINE SEE L1.1 MA T C H L I N E S E E L 1 . 1 MA T C H L I N E S E E L 1 . 3 MATCHLINE SEE L1.3 4 Re d M a p l e 2 - 1/2 " C A L . B & B 4 Swamp W h i t e O a k 2 - 1/2 " C A L . B & B 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 RUSH CREEK RU S H C R E E K WETLAND EN G I N E E R I N G An d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C 13 6 0 5 1 s t A v e n u e N o r t h Su i t e 1 0 0 Pl y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 76 3 - 4 1 2 - 4 0 0 0 ( o ) 7 6 3 - 4 1 2 - 4 0 9 0 ( f ) ww w . a e - m n . c o m EN G I N E E R I N G A R C H I T E C T U R E L A N D S U R V E Y I N G EN V I R O N M E N T A L S E R V I C E S L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E MATCHLINE SEE L1.2 MA T C H L I N E S E E L 1 . 2 105 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 D ATE: June 20, 2018 for the June 28, 2018 City Council Meeting RE: Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Development Plan for “Encore” a residential development west of County Road 101 and north of County Road 30 (PID 12-119-23-12-0001, 01-119-23-43-0002, 01-119-23-44-0001, 01-119-23-41-0001) (City File 18-016) 120-DAY REVIEW PERIOD: October 12, 2018 1.Application Request Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC has submitted a request for a Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Development Plan for “Encore” a residential development of 398 homes on 225.9- acres. Due to size limitations, this staff report includes attachments with key plan sheets. A full plan set is available at City Hall. 2.Parks and Trails Commission Review The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed the plans at their May 29, 2018 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval of a combination of land dedication, pavement of trails, construction of the boardwalk to meet the park dedication as follows: a.The developer shall dedicate the open space park as shown. b.The developer shall dedicate the land for the neighborhood park as shown. c.The developer shall be given full credit for the private amenity center (20% of Park Dedication requirement). d.The developer shall dedicate 20-foot easements for all off-road trails and shall be given land dedication credit for the net area of these easements. e.The developer shall construct all trails shown on the plan, except the on-road trails on County Road 101 and Stieg Road. f.The developer shall construct the boardwalk. Final design shall be developed with city staff and may include a railing. g.The developer shall adjust trail and sidewalk alignment and provide connections as recommended by staff. h.As proposed, contribution of land, pavement of trails, and construction of the boardwalk satisfies the requirements for park dedication. If the cost for paving the trails and constructing the boardwalk exceeds the amount of required cash-in-lieu of land, the City shall give a credit to the developer based on the actual cost. Agenda Item: __ 9c. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 2 June 28, 2018 Parks Commission discussed the design of the boardwalk at their June 19, 2018 meeting. They are recommending the following regarding the design of the boardwalk: a. Boardwalk base to be of a composite material b. Railing is preferred. Of “Jidana” style or high-quality cable rail c. 8’ wide, with “bump out” overlook over the wetland The applicant will continue to work with the City on the final design of this boardwalk. 3. Planning Commission Review Planning Commission reviewed the plan on June 7, 2018. The City received one letter about the project and seven people spoke at the public hearing. Residents expressed concern about traffic, landscaping along Hunter’s Ridge and timing of sewer improvements. The developer noted that traffic in a Del Webb project is typically 63% lower than a standard subdivision. The approvals include conditions that require the developer to make a number of street improvements to address the impacts from this development. The Commissioners noted that the City policy is to provide a system of connected streets throughout the City and the connections planned by the applicant balance these connections with traffic calming from the curvilinear streets within the development. Planning Commissioners also discussed proposed architecture and recommended that the developer provide increased architecture on the sides of the homes that are facing a public street or park as required by the City Code. However, the Commission noted some desire to provide flexibility where additional landscaping is provided. Planning Commission recommended that the applicant remove trails from the wetland buffer. Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning and the preliminary plat. Commissioners voted 4-1 (Alan Schultz voted nay) in favor of approving the preliminary development plan, according to staff recommendations. 4. Changes Since Planning Commission Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has met with staff and revised the narrative and plans in response to recommendations of the Planning Commission including: • The architectural treatment of the front façade of the homes has been revised to include vinyl siding and other materials to meet the Code requirements. • The applicant will be providing upgraded garage doors for all the homes, as recommended by staff and Planning Commission. A graphic showing what this looks like is included in the packet. • The applicant has worked with staff to identify architectural upgrades on the sides of the homes that face a public street or park. Staff prepared a graphic showing where the City Code requires upgraded side and rear elevations. Staff and the applicant worked together to prioritize areas where these elevations would be visible versus those areas where they would Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 3 June 28, 2018 be screened by vegetation. The applicant submitted a graphic with their proposed upgrade locations. Staff prepared a 3rd exhibit in response their proposal that modifies the Pulte proposal. Staff recommends approval of the staff exhibit clarifying the location and type of improvements on side/rear elevations. This is discussed later in the staff report (pages 11- 13) • Additional information about the wetland delineation and buffer standards have been provided. Additionally, plans have been revised to significantly reduce the number of trails in the buffer. This request is discussed in further detail on page 15 of this report. 5. Context Background On February 22, 2018, Council reviewed a PUD sketch plan and Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project. Notice of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on March 12, 2018 to allow the public and other governmental agencies to provide usable information to the project proposer. The 30-day comment period for the EAW ended on April 11, 2018. The Council adopted a finding of “no need” for EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) at their May 10th meeting. The applicant will need to comply with the mitigation strategies outlined in the EAW and the items identified in the record of decision. On April 26, 2018, City Council reviewed and approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re- guide the majority of land in the property from a mix of light industrial, high density residential, mixed residential and commercial uses to low-density residential. Portions of the site remain a light industrial and commercial for future development. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was sent to the Metropolitan Council for review and we are awaiting comments. Zoning and Land Use The subject site is located in the Northeast area of the City, which is guided by the Northeast District Design Guidelines. The properties are currently zoned as follows: Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 4 June 28, 2018 PID Zoning Proposed Zoning Change 01-119-23-41-0001 (101 Farms) I-1 Light Industrial PUD 01-119-23-43-0002 (Schober) RSF-2 Single Family Residential 2 PUD 01-119-23-44-0001 (Schober) • I-1 Light Industrial • RSF-2 Single Family Residential 2 • RMF-3 High Density Residential • C-2 Community Commercial • I-1 Light Industrial • PUD • C-1 Neighborhood Commercial 12-119-23-12-0001 (Newman) • UR Urban Reserve • RMF-3 High Density Residential • C-2 Community Commercial • PUD C-2 Community Commercial Surrounding Properties The surrounding properties are guided and zoned as follows: Land Use Zoning Property to the North • Low Density Residential • Light Industrial • Urban Reserve • I-1 Light Industrial Property to the South • Mixed Use • Business Park • Commercial • Urban Reserve • C-2 Community Commercial Property to the East • N/A – Maple Grove • N/A – Maple Grove Property to the West • Low Density Residential • Existing Residential • RSF-2 Single Family Residential 2 • Urban Reserve Natural Characteristics of the Site The 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows several low and medium quality wetlands scattered around the site as well as natural upland areas. A portion of the site has a High-Quality Maple / Basswood Forest on it as well as savanna/pasture. 6. Analysis of Request Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, the detailed comments are included in the attached engineering memo and the approval conditions require compliance with the memo. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 5 June 28, 2018 A. Level of Discretion in Decision Making The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning application. The proposed zoning for a property must be consistent 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. The City’s discretion in approving a preliminary plat is limited to whether the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the City’s subdivision and zoning ordinance and the conditions of preliminary plat approval. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the final plat. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving PUDs. A PUD must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community and surrounding area. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Rezoning The properties in this proposed development have a mix of zoning districts including Light Industrial (I-1), Single Family Residential 2 (RSF-2), High Density Residential (RMF-3) and Community Commercial (C-2). The applicant is requesting that the residential land shown on the site plan be rezoned to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and that a portion of the Community Commercial (C-2) be rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) in the southeast corner of the site, and that a portion of it be rezoned to residential PUD. Small portions of the Light Industrial (I-1) land will be rezoned to residential PUD. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed zoning is included as an attachment. City approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide all of the residential property and the portions of the commercial and industrial land that are being developed as residential to low density residential on April 26, 2018. The requested rezoning would be consistent with the new land use classifications. The Zoning Ordinance has established a PUD zoning district with the purpose of promoting a creative and efficient use of land by providing design flexibility in the development of residential neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas that would not be possible under a conventional zoning district. In this case, the developer is requesting PUD flexibility primarily for lot size and setbacks and architectural standards. The City must review this request for compliance with the PUD standards as follows: 1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The planned unit development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed post-development density of 4 units per acre is within the 3-5 units per acre expected in the Low Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 6 June 28, 2018 Density Residential land use classification and the plan incorporates the trail, park and street connections anticipated within the site. 2. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying zoning district. The planned development of 398 single family homes is consistent with the intent of the RSF-2 and RSF-3 zoning districts, which allows a mix of single and two-family homes. The applicant is requesting approval of PUD zoning for design flexibilit y to allow for modification to the architectural standards, provide a mix of lot sizes and reduced setbacks for this neighborhood at a density consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except that PUD flexibility is requested as noted in the staff report. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer will provide both internal infrastructure needed to support their development, roadway improvements on Stieg Road, and trunk infrastructure improvements that will serve a larger development area and well as increased amenities and better neighborhood design than might be expected in a standard subdivision. 4. The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and/or operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or phase. The planned development is feasible without dependence upon any other subsequent phase. The project has a 4- to 5-year phasing plan and development is contingent upon completion of trunk infrastructure improvements and water service. The initial phase will include the construction of the primary project infrastructure, roadway improvements on County Road 101 at the main entrance and other key public infrastructure improvements. 5. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The developer is providing public trails consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and a strong pedestrian connection to the existing City park. The development includes the construction of all public infrastructure needed to serve this site at the developer’s expense. 6. The planned development will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The planned development is a residential neighborhood developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 7 June 28, 2018 7. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher standards, more efficient and effective uses of streets, utilities and public facilities, it shall maintain and enhance any natural resources within the development, and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations The quality of the site design proposed by the PUD shall substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, install and provide more efficient use of streets, utilities and public facilities than may otherwise be expected and create public benefit that is greater than would otherwise be achieved due to the construction and financing of all related infrastructure improvements. The development will meet the City’s density goals while preserving high quality natural resources, providing trails, amenities and high-quality architecture. The Zoning Ordinance states that “the rezoning of the property defined in the development plan shall not become effective until such time as the City Council approves an ordinance reflecting said amendment, which shall take place at the time that the City Council approves the final development plan.” The Council should approve the rezoning to be effective at such time as the final PUD development plan is adopted. Preliminary PUD Development Plan The PUD offers enhanced flexibility to develop the site through the relaxation of most typical zoning district standards. The PUD allows for a greater variety of land uses, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this flexibility, the City expects a higher level of design and a more sensitive development than might normally be the case. All of the homes proposed in this development will be single-family homes constructed for active seniors. The Encore development is part of the Del Webb development brand, which is an age- restricted community that provides a wide range of property management services and recreational amenities to its seniors. The properties are managed by a homeowners association that provides yard and snow maintenance and are restricted by covenants that require at least one person in the household to be 55 or older. No children are allowed to live in the community. The community is served by a recreational community center. Staff notes that the site plan submitted by the applicant on May 17, 2018 and subsequent updates to the plans slightly vary from the preliminary plat submitted on April 17, 2018, and that the site plan from May 17th is the desired development intent of the applicant. The final plat will need to be updated to be consistent with the site plan for final plat and final PUD submittals. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 8 June 28, 2018 Lot Size and Setbacks The Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of the RSF-3 district is “… to be the primary single- family zoning district for future residential developments. The smaller lot area will make efficient use of the City’s land supply and investment in public utilities and allow the City to efficiently protect and preserve its natural resources such as wetlands and woodlands. In addition, the smaller lot area will help the City meet its density goal for new single-family homes. Single family homes, as well as two- family dwellings are allowed in this district.” The RSF-3 district requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet and a minimum lot width of 65 feet. The plan shows single family residential lots in three sizes: 44-foot wide lots, 50-foot wide lots and 60-foot lots. Proposed lot areas range from 5,718 square feet to 42,773 square feet. The PUD zoning allows flexibility from the standard lot sizes and the applicant has requested PUD flexibility to reduce the minimum lot sizes. While the lot sizes are less than the ordinance allows, the resulting density remains at the low end of the 3-5 units per acre that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates. The plan shows some variation from the standard setback requirements as follows: Single Family PUD Flexibility Minimum Lot Area 7,500 square feet 5,000 sq. ft. (for flexibility--the smallest lot shown is 5,718) Minimum lot width 65 feet at the lot line 44 feet at the setback Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks Front, from major roadways* 100 feet 100 feet Front, From all other streets 20 feet 20 feet Front Porch (≤ 120 square feet) 15 feet 15 feeta Side (living) 10 feet 5 feet Side (garage) 5 feet 5 feet Rear 30 feet 20 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet 35 feet Driveway setback 5 feet 5 feet *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. a – Porches may be allowed to encroach and same on either front set-back on corner lots. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 9 June 28, 2018 The ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 65 feet measured at the lot line. The applicant has provided plans that provide 44-foot lot widths measured at the building setback. Therefore, on many of the parcels shown in the plans lot width at the lot line is smaller than 44 feet. The lots and sizing remain consistent with the concept plan reviewed by the Council. The ordinance requires a 10-foot minimum side yard setback on the home side yard. The applicant has requested PUD flexibility to reduce this setback to 5 feet. This is a fairly common separation in other communities and is consistent with recent approvals for Bass Lake Crossing and Bass Lake Crossing South. While the Zoning Ordinance allows a 20-foot front yard setback, it does so with the understanding that the garages will be setback from the front home elevation, thereby allowing adequate driveway space. Section 1060.060, Subd. 5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the driveway be at least 22 feet in length between the front of the garage and the street, roadway or sidewalk; and “not impede pedestrian or traffic circulation or access to any other dwelling unit, nor shall it adversely affect the ability to provide public utilities or public safety.” It is not clear from the plans provided by the applicant if the driveways comply with this requirement. The site plan provided by the applicant also shows that in some cases driveways may encroach into the 5-foot setback at the lot line. Staff recommends that driveways comply with the 5-foot side yard setback to ensure that driveways remain outside of the City’s drainage and utility easements. Details of the driveway dimensions and setbacks have not been provided by the applicant. Staff has included a condition that the applicant provide details of the driveway and housepads that demonstrate compliance with the setbacks and length as part of the final plat and final PUD plan submission. Lot Standards Section 945.020 provides design standards for lots. Plans generally comply with the standards in this section. Design Requirements The applicant has three widths of homes (34-foot, 45-foot, and 50-foot wide homes) that have the option of being finished with five different architectural styles (Prairie, Heartland, Craftsman, Northern Craftsman, and Euro Country). Each of the homes has several floor plan options and up to 10 different exterior elevations (consistent with the architectural styles). The applicant has provided floor plans and elevations for all combinations except the 34-foot wide home with their submittal. The applicant’s revised narrative provides building elevations for the different products. The applicant will be required to submit the additional elevations and floor plans for the 34-foot wide homes prior to final plat and final PUD plan application. Since the products may change in the course of the build-out, additional home plans may be considered. Any changes or updates to the architectural elevations or plans provided to the City must be approved by City staff to ensure compliance with PUD approvals. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 10 June 28, 2018 The RSF-3 district is subject to the design standards listed in Section 1040.040, Subd. 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility from several of these standards, as noted below. Section 1040.040, Subd. 8, A. Front Elevation Materials: The Ordinance specifies a range of material types (excluding vinyl), and requires a minimum of two different materials. If the applicant wishes to use vinyl siding on the front elevation, they must provide a minimum of three different material types. The code states that no more than 75% of one type of exterior finish be used on the front elevation. The plans provided by the applicant comply the requirements for front elevations. The applicant’s narrative states that all front elevations will have cultured stone, vinyl siding, LP trim, upgraded garage doors, and Fypon accents. The homes include variations of the wall face using pilasters, columns, wainscots, canopies and other architectural elements. Pulte offers customers five different product lines that feature different floor plans per product line, which comply with Section 1040.040, Subd. 8, A 4. This same section states “Homes in proximity to each other shall not look alike in terms of the combination of color of siding, accent and roofing materials. The home under consideration will be compared to the two homes on each side and to the three homes directly facing it.” The applicant will be required to comply with this standard when applying for a building permit for the individual homes. Section 1040.040, Subd. 8, B. Garages: The ordinance allows garages to comprise no more than 55% of the viewable ground floor, and requires that the garage doors be architecturally styled to match the exterior design of the home. The garages shown in the elevations are integrated into the architecture of the building. • The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility to allow the garage to comprise more than 55% of the viewable ground floor. The applicant’s narrative indicates that while seniors do not require increased areas for living space, they still require standard garages with space for two cars and other equipment such as golf carts. A portion of the product line (the 40-foot wide homes) offered will comply with this standard, but most of homes offered will not comply. • Staff recommended approval of this change if upgraded garage doors are added. The intent of the code is to limit the amount of garage that faces the street so that emphasis is placed on the living space of the house where more architectural features / interest is expressed. Since the Planning Commission, the applicant revised their narrative and will provide upgraded garage doors on all homes, as shown in the Example Building Materials Exhibit. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 11 June 28, 2018 Section 1040.040, Subd. 8, C. Roofs: Plans submitted by the applicant will provide asphalt shingles and appear to provide a minimum 12-inch overhang as required by code. No PUD flexibility is requested for the roofs. Section 1040.040, Subd. 8, D. Other Elevations: The ordinance requires equal architectural treatment on all sides of the building when located on or visible from a street or public park. Specifically, the ordinance requires any elevation facing a street or public park to use two different materials or styles that are compatible with the front elevation. Figure 1 shows the locations where equal architectural treatment would be required by code: Figure 1 Required locations for Architectural Upgrades • PUD flexibility is being requested from this standard. The applicant states that it is difficult to incorporate two materials on the rear of the single story, narrower home type and proposes either banding board with shake siding near the roof or banding board with different colored siding above and below the banding board. • Staff agrees that meeting this standard can be difficult with a single level home, but that adding wider window trim and a band board can address this requirement. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 12 June 28, 2018 The applicant has provided a graphic showing the proposed locations of the architectural upgrades, shown below. Figure 2 Architectural Upgrades Proposed by Applicant • Planning Commissioners recommended that a greater effort to provide high quality architectural treatment that is visible to the general public should be made by the applicant and directed staff to work with the applicant to provide a revised plan for architectural upgrades. After the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant met with staff to discuss architectural upgrades. In response to the applicant’s proposal in Figure 2, staff supports some modifications to the standards. Figure 3 shows the locations and treatment that staff feels is reasonable for PUD flexibility and we recommend approval of the upgrades according to the location and standards shown in Figure 3: Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 13 June 28, 2018 Figure 3 Locations for equal architectural treatment and upgraded trim only, as recommended by staff for PUD flexibility Plans comply with the requirements for windows and maximum exposure of the foundation. Homeowners Association The development will have a homeowner’s association (HOA) to maintain the common elements, including the open space areas, development signage and cul-de-sac/island plantings. Additionally, the association will provide full maintenance of the home exterior, including mowing and plowing. A draft of the HOA documents has not been submitted by the applicant. A final draft of the HOA documents shall be submitted for City review and approval with the final PUD development plan application for Phase I. The HOA will provide an access and maintenance agreement to the City for those areas in the public right-of-way that they will maintain. Parking Guest parking is not required for single family homes. Section 1060.060 of the ordinance requires a single stall garage for single family homes. The proposed homes have two-car garages on the 44- and 50-foot wide lots and three-car garages on the other homes. This complies with ordinance requirements. The local streets within the subdivision are 28 feet wide streets within a 50-foot right-of-way. This is adequate to accommodate on-street parking on one side. This is consistent with the City’s engineering design standards and should be adequate to provide guest parking in the other neighborhoods. The developer should provide a parking plan for on-street and off-street parking Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 14 June 28, 2018 throughout the development. The developer should also provide a graphic to confirm that the driveways in front of the homes have a minimum driveway length of 22-feet to accommodate parking in front of the garages. Landscaping The City has no tree preservation requirements. The City does encourage preservation of significant trees particularly those shown on the natural resource inventory. The applicant has completed a tree survey of the 1,952 significant trees on site. The current development proposal preserves 60% of the significant trees. Section 1060.070 of the Zoning Ordinance requires 1 overstory tree for each single-family home and a variety of landscaping along the perimeter of the site, along the streets, within the private park and adjacent to wetlands. The applicant is proposing to plant more than 1,091 new trees in this development. Additional landscaping is proposed near the amenity center and near the entrance of the development. The plan shows overstory trees along each of the public streets in the right-of -way and additional plantings at the 100th Avenue entry off County Road 101. No landscaping is proposed at the entry of Stieg Road. The even spacing and location of the trees creates a desirable tree canopy along the roads, however, staff notes that trees are technically required to be placed in property owner’s yards. Unfortunately, in the past this standard has created conflict with property owners that are unhappy with the type or placement of the trees. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the final placement of trees in compliance with the Engineering Standard Detail Plates. The developer should also provide more detail about the landscaping plan, including the cu-de-sac island plantings. The proposed improvements are generally consistent with ordinance requirements; however, staff recommends that the developer provide a revised landscaping plan that identifies the number, location, species and plant size to ensure compliance with the ordinance and with the EAW requirements that specify native species plantings. Mail Delivery Centralized mailbox locations should be shown on the landscape plans. The location of mailboxes must be approved by the US Postal Service. The applicant will need to provide proof of the approved location to the City. Signage Chapter 84 of the City Code regulates signage. The applicant is showing a monument sign at County Road 101 and proposed 100th Avenue. No signage details have been provided at this time. Staff recommends that the developer submit a master signage plan with sign details for design review by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to approval of the final PUD development plan. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 15 June 28, 2018 Utilities Municipal sewer and water are not currently available to the site and would need to be extended to service the property prior issuance of building permits. The developer is planning to extend trunk sewer from the north into the property and bring a water line into the property from Maple Grove. The City Engineer completed a feasibility study to show how sanitary sewer and municipal water could be extended to the site that is attached to this memo. The City of Corcoran has indicated that the cost to extend municipal utilities to a property should be borne by the property developer. At this time those final costs are unknown, but staff has developed an estimate of those costs with a feasibility study. All improvements within the site will be completed by the developer. All off-site improvements will be completed by the City and financed by the developer. City policy also requires the developer to extend sanitary sewer and water stubs to the property boundaries to allow future extension to surrounding properties. These surrounding properties would not be required to hook up to sewer and water at this time, but it is common practice for the developer to extend utilities to the property line to allow for future extensions. The cost to extend the utilities to the property line would be borne by the developer. Wetlands The developer has completed wetland delineations for the properties, which have been submitted to the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC) for review and approval. Plans are required to comply with wetland buffer and buffer setbacks as required by Section 1050.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has provided an exhibit containing a MNRAM assessment of the wetlands, required buffers and buffer setbacks for Corcoran and for ECWMC, and the range of buffer widths contained the plans. The exhibit demonstrates general compliance with the buffers and buffer setbacks required by Code. However, the applicant is requesting alternative compliance for the buffer average on Wetland #8, which is classified as a high quality wetland. A 50’ average buffer with a minimum buffer of 40’ is required around high-quality wetlands, and the applicant is proposing a 25’ foot buffer on approximately 230’ of the southeast corner of the wetland. Section 1050.010, Subd. 6 allows alternative buffer strips with extraordinary management measures. Council may approve alternative standards based on an assessment of several standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, including size of the parcel, existing roads and utilities, percentage of parcel impacted by wetlands, configuration of wetlands on the parcel, and quality of the affected wetlands. While the code does not allow alternative standards within the natural resource corridors, the applicant is requesting PUD flexibility from this standard. • Staff notes that a large portion of this parcel is covered by wetlands and unbuildable land. Wetland 8 is one of the largest wetlands and the applicant is providing a significant amount of open space on the northeast side of the wetland, consistent with the Natural Resource Corridor map. Furthermore, the wetlands are not consolidated in one area, therefore, the applicant is required to provide a project design that works with the natural features of the site. The proposed alternative buffer area is very limited and should have little impact on the quality of the wetland. The applicant will Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 16 June 28, 2018 be required to provide extraordinary management measures, consistent with 1050.010 Subd. 6 (E-H) of the Zoning Ordinance. A wetland delineation for the Schober property was recently completed, however, plans have not yet been revised to include the final determinations from the delineation. The plans appear to be generally consistent with the buffer requirements for placement of monument signs. The applicant will be required to update plans to reflect appropriate buffers according MNRAM standards and delineated boundaries. Landscape plans will also be required to identify vegetation provided in the buffer strips according to Section 1050.010, Subd. 8 (Buffer Strip Vegetation Performance Standards). The applicant has indicated that they will be purchasing wetland credits. Any impacts to wetland and mitigation plans are subject to review and approval from the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission. The ECWMC is the LGU for the Wetland Conservation Act. The applicant shall be required to comply with any additional buffer requirements identified by ECWMC. The City and ECWMC have different wetland buffer and setback requirements. The applicant must show compliance with the most restrictive standard. All wetlands and buffers must be blanketed by a drainage and utility easement. Wetland Impacts The plan shows that trails are located within the wetland buffer of Wetlands 6, 7, and 8 in areas where it cannot be avoided. The applicant is also proposing a boardwalk across Wetland 7. Although the ordinance does allow trails in the wetland buffer setback area, they are not allowed in the buffer itself. • Given that the buffers are primarily located in the common areas, the developer has requested some trails within the buffer areas. • Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has provided an exhibit that revised the trail location so that they are generally located outside of the buffers except in those areas that the boardwalk crosses or where it is impossible to move the trail. Staff notes that there is a small portion (about 200 ft.) of the northeast corner of Wetland 6 touches the edge of the buffer. While the applicant could move the trail out of the buffer, the trail would encroach on the lots. Staff has drafted a resolution approving the trails in the buffer as shown on the Wetland Buffer Trail Encroachment Exhibit. Council has not approved trails in the buffer in the past, so if Council disagrees, they should amend the resolution and require the applicant to move the trail out of the buffer. Section 1050.010, Subd. 4C states that “structures intended to provide access across a wetland shall be prohibited unless a permit is obtained in conformance with State Regulations”. The applicant will be required to obtain any necessary permits to construct the boardwalk. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources provided comments to the City on April 24, 2018. The applicant will be required to obtain any required permits from the DNR as referenced in the memo. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 17 June 28, 2018 Floodplain The plans show that the property is located within a 100-year flood plain (Zone A on the FEMA Floodplain map). Areas within Zone A that do not have a delineated floodway are classified as being in the General Floodplain District. Section 1050.030 of the Zoning Ordinance provides standards for properties within the Floodplain. It appears that several structures have been placed in the floodplain. The applicant is proposing fill and mitigation in the floodplain. The applicant will need to work with City staff to apply for a FEMA map change. Shoreland The property is not located in a Shoreland Overlay District. Storm Water Management The wetlands on site will be used as infiltration basins to provide stormwater treatment. The developer’s plan is generally in compliance with these regulations, however, the City Engineer’s memo has several comments requesting additional information. The City and the watershed will both review the grading plans for compliance with the applicable regulations. The EAW notes that the applicant must provide all additional stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) for discharges to impaired waters as described in the Construction Permit, as applicable. The developer appears to provide 10-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines and 5-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines for the single-family lots. This is consistent with the engineering design standards; however, plans will need to be updated to clearly demonstrate compliance. Streets It appears that the applicant is proposing to re-align Stieg Road and develop the property with a network of 28-foot wide local streets within a 50-foot right-of-way and 32-foot wide local streets with 60-foot rights-of-way, which is generally consistent with the City Engineering Design Standards. The site entry roads are 80- to 85-foot wide landscaped boulevards. The City will build the Stieg Road re- alignment and the developer will reimburse the City for the cost. Section 945.020, Subd 12 requires that block lengths may not exceed 900 feet or be less than 500 feet as measured from the centerlines of streets, except where topography or other conditions justify a departure from that standard. There are several places where the blocks are either less than 500 feet and some places where the block length exceeds 900 feet. Due to the large number of wetlands and the need to preserve natural resources on site, staff finds the length of the blocks is largely determined by topography and preservation of natural resources. Street names provided generally comply with the City’s approved Street Map. However, the applicant is requesting PUD flexibility for a custom street name where Road 1 is shown (Gene Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 18 June 28, 2018 Street), at the request of the property owner. The applicant should work with staff to finalize unnamed roads shown on the preliminary plat. The applicant is providing several cul-de-sac turn-arounds in the development. In exchange for PUD flexibility they will be maintaining the landscaped center island. Hennepin County provided comments to the City on May 8, 2018. The County notes that the spacing between Stieg Road and proposed 100th Avenue is not sufficient. Additionally, it appears that the County will require the applicant to provide full right and left turns lands at County Road 101 and 100th Avenue, County Road 101 and Stieg, and County Road 116 at Hunters Ridge Road. The County has requested a 65-foot half-section along County Road 101, which is shown on the Preliminary Plat. The developer and City staff are continuing to work with the Council on the final alignment for Stieg Road. The applicant will be required to comply with the conditions in the City Engineer’s memo. Access As noted in the previous section, the main access to the site would be from County Road 101 at proposed 100th Ave on the southeast corner of the site. A secondary access is provided via Stieg Road. Access to phase 4 would be provided on Hunters Ridge. The applicant has provided street stubs to the parcel inset on the northwest corner of the site along 102nd Place, 103rd Avenue, and Kenwood Lane. They’ve also provided street stubs to the south via Kenwood Lane and Road 1. Section 945.020, Subd. 19 requires temporary cul-de-sacs or hammerhead turnarounds until future connections are constructed. Table D103.4 of the Minnesota fire code requires a turnaround on any stub street longer than 150 feet long. Section 945.010, Subd. 19 requires a temporary cul-de-sac when the length exceeds 900 feet or more in length. Current plans are not showing turnarounds on the plans, consistent with the fire code. Plans will be required to be revised to comply with this standard. The applicant shall also be required to install barricades and signage to indication a future road connection, consistent with Section 945.010, Subd.19. A stubbed road is shown south of the proposed dog park that does not provide access to homes. When this phase is proposed for final PUD development, staff will work with the applicant to determine the appropriate terminus. Lighting The property is served by both Wright Hennepin Electric and by Xcel Energy. The applicant is working with the companies to determine how the property will be served. The streetlight design will be developed based on the final determination of the final service provider. Each provider has different lighting design options, and it is staff’s understanding that Wright Hennepin only offers one style. The streetlight design and layout will need to comply with the requirements of Section 1040.040 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Engineering Design Standards. The developer must work with the City to develop standards and revise the plans as needed to provide street lighting as part of the final plat submittal. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 19 June 28, 2018 Public Safety The Public Safety committee reviewed the plans at their May 16, 2018 meeting. Specifically, they are concerned about access on the west side of the development. Staff has included a condition that the applicant continue to work with the Public Safety committee to address their concerns. Parks, Trails and Open Space Section 955.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires park dedication at the time of platting for land that has not previously provided park dedication, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §462.358, Subd. 2b. Sidewalks The applicant shows five-foot wide sidewalks (and in some places the plans show eight-foot wide trails) on one side of the street in the proposed plans as required by ordinance. Parks Plan The plan shows a Neighborhood Park and an OSP park on this property, which is generally shown on the plans. • Neighborhood parks are the most local unit of the park system, providing for the passive and active recreational needs of neighborhood residents. These parks should be accessible to a wide variety of user groups living in the neighborhood. These parks typically do not provide organized athletic programs. • The 2040 Comprehensive Plan notes that “Community Parks serve a wider user group than neighborhood parks, and are often in proximity to secondary schools and other public facilities. These parks seek to preserve unique landscapes and natural areas, and as they have a larger overall size, the programming of passive and active recreation may occur within the same park without conflict.” There are 2 types of Community Parks: Community Playfields and Open Space/Natural Parks. • This area is planned as an Open Space Park. “These parks are characterized by high-quality natural resources that merit preservation and which would be negatively affected by development. They are identified as Open Space and Preservation/Nature Park on the system map. Recreational uses are secondary to the preservation of natural open space and the conservation functions of these areas. Compatible recreational uses include hiking, picnicking and nature study. Open space or natural park sites are typically within the high- quality natural community areas identified in the City’s Natural Resource Inventory. They should be connected by trails to the City’s Natural Resource Corridors and to other parks and will be left in a natural or semi-natural state, with minimal development.” The plan shows dedication of a 9-acre open space park in the center of the site. The land where the park is located is heavily wooded, which makes it ideal for an open space or natural park and less desirable for a community park. The applicant has provided 10 parking spaces along Kenwood Lane on Sheet 5 of the preliminary plat to provide public access to the site. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 20 June 28, 2018 The applicant is showing dedication of 3.96 acres of land as part of the land for the neighborhood/community park on the northern portion of the site. This appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant would like the City to consider constructing a dog park in this neighborhood park as it is a highly desirable amenity for residents. • The City will design the park after it is dedicated to the City, but Council may want to provide some preliminary thoughts on this idea. The City should accept park dedication in the form of land where shown on the maps. The City may accept cash-in-lieu of land if park dedication requirements are not met by the trail dedication. Trails Plan The Park and Trail map in Comprehensive Plan shows an on-road trail on County Road 101, which could be accommodated within the additional right-of-way and would be constructed as part of future County improvements to the street. Additionally, an off-road trail is planned to run north-south through the center of the site and another to extend west where it can ultimately connect to the Hunter Place development and out to County Road 116. The trail connections labeled as “Future Trails” on the preliminary plat and site plan provide critical north-south connections and a connection to the property to the east that would make the proposed plans more consistent with the north-south connection shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that these trails easement be deeded to the City as part of this development and be constructed by the applicant at the time each phase is constructed. Additionally, there are a number of adjustments to the layout of the trails and sidewalks that staff is working on with the developer, specifically: • Staff also notes that the that the trail shown on the north side of Stieg Road could better serve future residents if shifted to the south side of the road. Staff anticipates that there will be a higher demand for residential lots on the south side of the road, and should be relocated there. • The trails and sidewalks along 102nd Place connecting through to Elm Lane jumps across the street in several places. Staff recommends that the developer shift the sidewalks and trails to the south side of 102nd Place between Elm Lane and Jack Pine Lane. Staff also recommends shifting the trail to the west side of Elm Lane south of 99th Place. • The developer has not provided a connecting trail from 101st Place over Outlot F that would support pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent church. Because it is very likely that residents living in the community may want to attend the church, staff recommends incorporating a trail connection from 101st Place over Outlot F that provides connectivity to the church. • The preliminary plat shows a trail on the west of the wetland in Outlot E that connects to the southern boundary of the site along the east side of the wetland on Outlot D, however, this connection is not shown on the site plan received on May 17, 2018. Staff recommends maintaining this important connection. An exhibit showing the location of the recommended adjustments is included as an attachment to the packet. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 21 June 28, 2018 Typically, the City asks the applicant to construct trails shown along roads and to grade land where trails are shown in the Comprehensive Plan for the City to construct, as required by Section 955, Subd. 7 B of the Subdivision Ordinance. When the City does not require the developer to pave the trail, the developer is required to provide finished grading and ground cover for trails within their developments. No credit toward the required dedication shall be given for this work. The same subdivision allows the City to require the developer to pave the off-road trails, and states that the City will be required to reimburse the applicant for the costs of paving the trail. In this case, the City will require the developer to pave the trails and they will be given credit for the cost of the bituminous trail. Based on information provided by City Public Works and nearby communities staff estimates the cost per lineal foot to be $20. Trails shall be paved by the developer as well as part of the PUD. There is a trail crossing over the wetland that is proposed as a boardwalk. The developer has not provided details, but they will be required to construct the boardwalk. The developer estimates that the cost of constructing the boardwalk will be $200 per lineal foot. However, the final cost of constructing the boardwalk will be determined at the time of design. Staff has spoken with several communities that have installed similar features over wetlands and finds that the estimate is consistent with actual costs. Staff is recommending that the applicant be given park dedication credit for the cost of constructing this high-quality amenity. The applicant will work with staff and the Parks and Trails Commission to determine the final design. The Code requires 5-foot wide sidewalks on one side of all public streets. Where a sidewalk is not provided, an 8-foot wide trail is provided. The City requires an 8-foot wide trail in a 20-foot wide easement. The plans comply with this requirement. Park Dedication Requirements Under the current ordinance, park dedication of land is required at 15% of the net pre-development area for land designated Low Density Residential. If the City determines that land is not needed in the area of a proposed subdivision, a cash fee in lieu of land dedication may be required. For residential developments, the cash in lieu of land fee has been calculated based on the per capita share of park system costs at $3,970 per single family unit. The City should generally accept park dedication in the form of land where shown on the maps; however, the City may choose to accept cash or a combination of cash and land. The applicant is requesting that the City give Park Dedication credit for the private amenity center. In this case, the developer is proposing an amenity center that provides a club house that includes a fitness center locker rooms, multi-purpose rooms, a craft room, a community room, and a commercial grade kitchen. Additionally, the narrative states that “Outside amenities will include a pool, fire pit, pickle ball courts, bocce ball courts, a tennis court, and many outside gathering places to knit the activities together.” Section 955, Subd. 8 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows the City to give park dedication credit for private amenities and when the applicant meets the following standards: Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 22 June 28, 2018 1. Such credit may be given only for park areas within the proposed subdivision that are designed on the Parks and Trails Map as Neighborhood Parks. The Parks and Trails Map shows a Community Park and Open Space area in the area of the development. The proposed private amenity center is proposed in a location that is adjacent to the proposed preserved public open space. 2. The facilities proposed for the private parks and facilities shall be in substantial accordance with the provisions of the Parks and Trails Plan, and approved by the City Council. The facilities proposed by the applicant serve the needs of the needs of the senior community that will be constructed by the developer. This will reduce the demand on public parks that would otherwise be needed by the future residents of this development. 3. In no circumstances shall such credit for private facilities exceed 20 percent of the amount required to be dedicated to the public under this chapter. The Council and Parks Commission will consider the proportion of neighborhood park needs provided by the proposed facility, and the proportion of new neighborhood residents to be served by the facility in determining the credit to be given for private park facilities. The total required land dedication for the development is 21.98 net acres. Twenty percent of 21.98 acres is 4.4 acres. The applicant complies with this standard, as they are proposing to dedicate approximately 3.67 acres for the amenity center, which will serve 398 housing units. Because the applicant will be providing a highly-amenitized facility that will meet almost all of the recreational needs of the Encore community, staff recommends providing credit for the full 4.4-acres. The applicant is proposing an additional 15.4 acres of net developable land for public open spaces and parks. Staff notes that approximately 78 acres of 225 acres of land (34%) is undevelopable. A large portion of the undevelopable land is wetlands which are being used as a public space amenity. While this land is not considered as part of the park dedication fees, it is a significant amount of undevelopable space, and the private amenity proposed will complement the undevelopable areas. 4. Yards, court areas, setbacks and other open space required to be maintained by the zoning ordinance shall not be included in the computation of such private open space. The applicant shall provide a final calculation of the acreage to staff prior to land dedication. 5. The private ownership and maintenance of the parks is adequately provided for by written agreement. The applicant will be required to provide details for ownership and maintenance to the City. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 23 June 28, 2018 6. The private parks are restricted for park and recreation purposes by recorded covenants that run with the land in favor of the future owners of property within the subdivision and which cannot be modified without the written consent of the City Council. If the City chose to approve the land dedication for the private facility, they will be required to comply with this standard. 7. The proposed private parks are reasonably adaptable for use for park or recreation purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, drainage, access, and location of the proposed facilities. The proposed private recreation facility functions as a park amenity and could be adapted for public use in the future. Staff finds that the amenity center proposed by Pulte meets most of the recreational needs of this neighborhood and should be given the maximum credit allowed for this amenity center. The following table titled “Park Dedication Analysis” provides the estimated park dedication requirements of land and cash-in-lieu of land. As part of the final PUD development plan and final plat, the applicant will be required to provide the gross and net developable area of all proposed areas to be dedicated as parks and trails to accurately calculate the park dedication fees. Only land located in net developable areas may satisfy requirements for park dedication. Park Dedication Analysis Site Data Estimated net developable area 146.52 acres Park land dedicated: Preserved woods to be dedicated (upland only) and Schober neighborhood park 12.74 net acres Estimated Eligible Trail land dedicated* 2.37 net acres Credit for Private Amenity Center (20% of park dedication requirement) 4.4 net acres (equivalent) Total Land Dedication Proposed 19.51 net Acres (88.7% of the required land) Total required land dedication (15% of 146.52) 21.98 net acres Difference -2.47 acres (11.2% of the required land) Cash in lieu for 398 units $1,580,060 Credit for land -$1,402,666 Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 24 June 28, 2018 *Section 955, Subd. 7 A states that no park dedication credit is given for trails in the public right of way. Trails located in Schober Park or in the dedicated woods may not be included in the net developable total. Typically, cash-in-lieu of land is required to meet park dedication in a fee amount set by council. The per unit fee based on land values is $3,970. If the City determines that land is not needed in the area of a proposed subdivision, a cash fee in lieu of land dedication may be accepted. For residential developments, the cash in lieu of land fee has been calculated based on the per capita share of park system costs at $3,970 per single family unit (398 x $3,970 = $1,580,060). The applicant is providing 88.7% of the required land dedication. Based on the assumptions of the cost of bituminous and the cost of the boardwalk, the park dedication fee is satisfied, as shown in the above table. Staff recommends that the City accept the proposed land and trail dedication, pavement of the trails, and construction of the boardwalk to satisfy park dedication requirements. Staff also recommends that if the cost of paving the trails and constructing the boardwalk exceeds $177,394 (the cash in lieu amount owed) that the City give a credit to the developer based on actual cost to meet the park dedication requirement. Preliminary Plat The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to allow the creation of 398 homes on a 225.9-acre site. The proposed development would have a net density (post-development) of approximately 4 units per acre. This is consistent with the land use plan, which would allow a density of 3-5 units per acre. As discussed before the street layout in the preliminary plat included with the packet is not consistent with the site plan. The developer will be required to submit a final plat that is consistent with the site plan included in the packet. Lot Size The PUD district has no minimum standards for lot size; however, the proposed development would comply with the density requirements permitted by the PUD. Development Phasing The developer plans to develop this project in 4-5 phases. The developer would like to begin work in summer or fall of 2018 and expects completion of the development by 2024. Timing will be contingent upon extension of public infrastructure. The phasing plan may be modified at each stage to better correspond with public improvements. Subtotal (Cash-in-lieu owed) $177,394 Credit for paving off-road trails (assumes $20/ lineal foot) -$84,260 Credit for boardwalk (assumes $200 / lineal foot) -$95,000 Total Cash-in-lieu Owed -$1,866 Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 25 June 28, 2018 The Zoning Ordinance requires that construction begin within 1 year of the rezoning to PUD (which will occur with approval of the final PUD development plan for Phase I, except that the City Council may extend this time period for 1 additional year and the Subdivision Ordinance requires submittal of a final plat application within 1 year of preliminary plat approval unless otherwise approved by the City Council). Through the PUD process, the City has the legal authority to negotiate a phasing plan with the developer. The City does not have this same authority with standard zoning. The Council may approve the attached phasing plan. The phasing plan would be subject to the above standards in the sense that the final plat for the 1st phase of development must be submitted within 2 years. This initial final plat will include all of the property, but phases 2-5 will likely be shown as outlots. The City Council may want to approve the attached phasing plan to ensure an understanding of the project timing. Obviously, the phasing schedule is the developer’s best estimate and is subject to change depending on market conditions and infrastructure timing. Staff recommends that all of the right-of-way for County Road 101 be dedicated with the first final plat. C. Conclusions Staff finds that the proposed plan is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The plan for single family homes provides many of the essential public components of the Comprehensive Plan, including open spaces, tree-lined streets and strong pedestrian connections. These features can establish the public realm of the neighborhood and provide a unique sense of place. The developer is requesting PUD flexibility for: • Reduced lot sizes (area and width), • Reduced setbacks, • Flexibility from the architectural design standards • Trails located within the buffer • Alternative wetland buffer width in a Natural Resource Corridor In return for this flexibility, the developer is providing: • HOA-maintained permanent open space • HOA-maintained landscaping in the cul-de-sac islands and entry monument, • Preservation of a high-quality forest • Sidewalks and trails on all public streets, • Preservation/restoration/enhancement of wetlands, • Financing of trunk infrastructure improvements, • Realignment of Stieg Road • Turn lanes at Stieg Road, 100th Ave, and County Road 116 • A high-amenity senior living community Staff has reviewed the plan for consistency with the applicable standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Staff noted in the staff report Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 26 June 28, 2018 the outstanding that must be addressed and we have included conditions in the attached draft resolutions to address these issues. Next Steps If the application request is approved by the City Council, the applicant would be able to proceed with the Final PUD Development Plan and Final Plat for each phase. 7.Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the following: a.Ordinance 2018-367 approving the rezoning to PUD b.Resolution 2018-47 approving finding of fact for the rezoning c.Resolution 2018-48 approving the preliminary PUD development plan d.Resolution 2018-49 approving the preliminary plat Attachments a.Ordinance 2018-367 approving the rezoning to PUD b.Resolution 2018-47 approving finding of fact for the rezoning c.Resolution 2018-48 approving the preliminary PUD development plan d.Resolution 2018-49 approving the preliminary plat e.Location Map f.Existing and Proposed Zoning Exhibit g.2030 Sanitary Sewer Phasing Map h.2030 Parks and Trails Plan i.Engineer’s Memo dated May 25, 2018 j.Feasibility Study dated May 2018 k.Public Safety Memo dated May 16, 2018 l.Hennepin County Memo dated May 9, 2018 m.Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Memo dated April 24, 2018 n.Recommended Trail Adjustment Exhibit o.Wetland Buffer Trail Encroachment Exhibit received June 20, 2018 p.Wetland Buffer Average Exhibit received June 20, 2018 q.Applicant’s narrative dated April 17, 2018 and revisions received by the City on June 20, 2018 r.Example Building Materials Exhibit for Garage Doors received June 20, 2018 s.Plans dated April 17, 2018 and revisions received on May 8, 2017, May 17, 2018, and May 24, 2018 t.MNRAM comparison tables for Newman and Schober Properties City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-367 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED AT 9975 COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 12-119-23-12- 0001, 01-119-23-43-0002, 01-119-23-44-0001 AND 01-119-23-41-0001) (CITY FILE 18-007) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment of the City Code. Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, is hereby amended by changing the classification on the City of Corcoran Zoning Map from a mix of Light Industrial (I-1), Single Family Residential 2 (RSF-2), High Density Residential (RMF-3), Community Commercial (C-2) and Urban Reserve (UR) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), Community Commercial (C-2), Light Industrial (I-1) and Planned Unit Development (PUD), legally described as follows: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, North Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence South along the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 514 feet; thence at right angles West a distance of 618.65 feet; thence at right angles North a distance of 514 feet to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East along the said North line to the point of beginning. Also, the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The South Two-thirds (2/3) of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) except road, Section 1, Township One Hundred Nineteen (119), Range Twenty-three (23), Town of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The south 292.70 feet of the west 595.12 feet of the north 1/3 of the East 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter, Section 1, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Section 2. Effective Date. This amendment shall take effect upon adoption of the resolution approving the final PUD development plan for this project. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-367 Page 2 of 2 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-47 Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR REZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9975 COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 12-119-23-12-0001, 01-119-23-43-0002, 01-119-23-44-0001 AND 01-119-23-41-0001) (CITY FILE 18-007) WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (“the applicant”) has requested approval to rezoning land on four parcels totaling 225.9 acres legally described as follows: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, North Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence South along the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 514 feet; thence at right angles West a distance of 618.65 feet; thence at right angles North a distance of 514 feet to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East along the said North line to the point of beginning. Also, the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The South Two-thirds (2/3) of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) except road, Section 1, Township One Hundred Nineteen (119), Range Twenty-three (23), Town of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The south 292.70 feet of the west 595.12 feet of the north 1/3 of the East 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter, Section 1, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance rezoning the affected parcels from a mix of Light Industrial (I-1), Single Family Residential 2 (RSF-2), High Density Residential (RMF-3), Community Commercial (C-2) and Urban Reserve (UR) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), Community Commercial (C-2), Light Industrial (I-1) and Planned Unit Development (PUD); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does support the request of Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC for the reclassification of the property, based on the following findings and conditions: City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-47 Page 2 of 3 1. Approval of the rezoning in contingent upon Metropolitan Council review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approved by the City on April 26, 2018. 2. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. Rezoning to a PUD will allow the property to be developed while maintaining the natural features of the site. 3. The proposed action meets the purpose and intent of this Ordinance or, in the case of a map amendment, it meets the purpose and intent of the individual district and of the PUD District, which allows the City to grant flexibility for setbacks, lot size and other elements of the Zoning Ordinance in exchange for a higher quality development. 4. There is adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed action. Future public improvements are planned and the developer will be responsible for paying for improvements in accordance with development agreement. 5. There is an adequate buffer or transition provided between potentially incompatible districts. The surrounding districts are compatible with the single-family development. Furthermore, landscaping planned around the perimeter of the site will provide additional buffering. 6. The development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except that PUD flexibility is requested as noted in the staff report. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer will provide both internal infrastructure needed to support their development, roadway improvements on Stieg Road, and trunk infrastructure improvements that will serve a larger development area and well as increased amenities and better neighborhood design than might be expected in a standard subdivision. 7. The planned development is feasible without dependence upon any other subsequent phase. The project has a 4- to 5-year phasing plan and development is contingent upon completion of trunk infrastructure improvements and water service. The initial phase will include the construction of the primary project infrastructure, roadway improvements on County Road 101 and other key public infrastructure improvement. 8. The quality of the site design proposed by the PUD shall substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, install and provide more efficient use of streets, utilities and public facilities than may otherwise be expected and create public benefit that is greater than would otherwise be achieved due to the construction and financing of all related infrastructure improvements. The development will meet the City’s density goals while preserving high quality natural resources, providing trails, amenities and high-quality architecture. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-47 Page 3 of 3 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-48 Page 1 of 7 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN FOR “ENCORE” FOR PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA LLC ON THE 225.9-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 9975 COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 12-119-23-12-0001, 01-119-23-43-0002, 01- 119-23-44-0001 AND 01-119-23-41-0001) (CITY FILE 18-007) WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (“the applicant”) has requested approval of a preliminary PUD development plan for 398 single family homes on 225.9-acres legally described as: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, North Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence South along the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 514 feet; thence at right angles West a distance of 618.65 feet; thence at right angles North a distance of 514 feet to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East along the said North line to the point of beginning. Also, the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The South Two-thirds (2/3) of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) except road, Section 1, Township One Hundred Nineteen (119), Range Twenty-three (23), Town of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The south 292.70 feet of the west 595.12 feet of the north 1/3 of the East 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter, Section 1, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for a preliminary PUD development plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary PUD development plan is approved to allow the creation of 398 lots for single family homes and 18 outlots, in accordance with the application materials and plans received by the City on April 17, 2018 and revisions received May 5, 2018, May 17, 2018, May 24, 2018, and June 20, 2018 except as amended by this resolution. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-48 Page 2 of 7 2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the requested rezoning and preliminary plat. 3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions in the City Engineer’s memo dated May 25, 2018. 4. The approval is subject to the review of the City Public Safety Committee. The applicant shall work with the City to address any comments from the committee. 5. The approval is subject to the review and approval of wetland delineation and mitigation plans by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission. The applicant shall comply with any conditions of approval from the watershed. 6. The application is subject to review and approval by Hennepin County. The applicant is required to obtain permits and approvals from the County as needed. 7. The application is subject to review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The applicant is required to obtain permits and approvals from the DNR as needed. 8. The extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water is required to serve this site. Approval of this PUD is contingent upon extension of these services by the developer to the site. The initial phase will include the construction of the primary project infrastructure, roadway improvements on County Road 101 at the main entrance and other key public infrastructure improvements. 9. The preliminary PUD development plan is approved based on the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 10. Approval is subject to compliance with the mitigation strategies outlined in the EAW and identified in the record of decision. 11. The applicant shall provide gross density, pre-development density, and post density calculations for land, parks, and trails prior to their final PUD development plan submittal. 12. The final plat and final PUD plan shall be revised to be consistent with the site plan submitted to the City on May 17, 2018. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-48 Page 3 of 7 13. All platted residential lots shall comply with the following: Single Family Detached Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sq. ft. (for flexibility--the smallest lot shown is 5,718) Minimum lot width (measured at front building setback) 44 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks Front, County Road 101 100 feet Front, From all other streets 20 feet Front Porch (≤ 120 square feet) 15 feet Side (living) 5 feet Side (garage)** 5 feet Rear 25 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet Driveway setback 5 feet 14. Mechanical equipment (including air conditioning units) must be located in the side or rear yard. 15. Driveways may not encroach in the drainage and utility easements on the side yards. 16. All garages must have a minimum 22-foot parking area in front of the garage that does not overlap into sidewalks, drives or streets. 17. The applicant shall provide details of the driveway, house pads, and setbacks as part of their final PUD Plan application that demonstrate compliance with the approved PUD standards. Architectural and Design standards 18. The applicant shall provide elevations and architectural styles for the 34-foot wide homes for review and approval by staff prior to final plat and final PUD plan application. 19. Any changes or updates to the architectural elevations or plans provided to the City must be approved by City staff to ensure compliance with PUD approvals. 20. The applicant will be required to provide variation in the combination of color of siding accent and roofing materials, consistent with Section 1040.040, Subd. 8.A.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. 21. All Design Requirements for the RSF-3 district described in Section 1040.050 shall be met, except that PUD flexibility shall be provided to a. Allow the garages on the 34-foot wide homes on the 44-foot and the 50-foot wide homes on the 60-foot lots to exceed more than 55 percent of the viewable ground floor street- City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-48 Page 4 of 7 facing linear building frontage. The 40-foot wide homes on the 50-foot lots shall comply with the garage standards. In exchange for this flexibility: i. Garage door colors shall be compatible with the building colors. ii. Architectural elements shall be added above the garage to de-emphasize the garage doors where possible. iii. Garage doors shall be architecturally styled to match the exterior of the home. b. Allow flexibility from the standard that requires architectural upgrades to all four sides of the building, based on the following conditions: i. The applicant shall provide equal architectural treatment on the elevations of a home that face a public right-of-way or park at the locations shown in the exhibit titled “Approved Locations of Architectural Upgrades” (shown as Figure 3 in the Council staff report). The applicant will be allowed flexibility for materiality on those areas identified for “upgraded trim only”. For example, if three sides of the home face a public right-of-way or park, then equal architectural treatment shall be provided on those three sides of the building as at the level described in the exhibit. ii. The applicant shall provide staff with elevation details for all current home styles prior to submittal of the final PUD development plan. 22. The applicant shall provide copies of the final HOA documents/covenants for City review as part of the final plat application. 23. The developer shall provide centralized mailbox locations. A mailbox plan shall be provided for City review and approval. Parking 24. Parking shall be permitted on one side of the local streets and shall be signed in accordance with city standards. Landscaping and Lighting 25. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the final placement of trees in compliance with the Engineering Standard Detail Plates. A revised landscape plan shall be provided for City Council review prior to approval of the final plat and PUD final plan. Plans shall show details of proposed landscaping in all cul-de-sacs and wetland vegetative buffers. 26. Plans shall be revised to show proposed lighting as well as existing lighting. 27. The applicant shall finalize the fixtures proposed in the submittal and provide detailed specifications that demonstrate compliance with 1060.040 (Lighting) of the Zoning Ordinance. 28. Lawn sprinklers/irrigation systems (if provided) shall all have rain sensors to limit unnecessary watering. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-48 Page 5 of 7 29. The HOA shall be responsible for maintenance of all common lots, cul de sac landscaping and ponds. 30. The applicant shall work with the City to finalize the design of the decorative lighting that will be installed. The applicant shall provide street lights in compliance with City Policy. Wetlands 31. The applicant is granted PUD flexibility for alternative wetland buffer setbacks for Wetland #8 on Outlot E as shown on the Wetland Buffer Average exhibit received by the City on June 21, 2018. As part of the final plat and final PUD submittal, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with 1050.010 Subd. 6 (E-H) of the Zoning Ordinance. 32. The plans shall be revised to identify wetland buffers, buffer setbacks, and monuments as required by Section 1050.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 33. Wetland buffer monuments shall be installed prior to issuance of building permit. 34. Landscape plans shall be revised to incorporate wetland buffer vegetation strips in compliance with Section 1050.10, Subd.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. 35. The developer must install wetland buffer monuments prior to issuance of building permits for adjacent buildings. 36. Trails shall not be located in the wetland buffer areas, except when providing access to the boardwalk and as shown in the Wetland Buffer Trail Encroachment Exhibit received by the City on June 20, 2018. 37. The applicant must obtain any necessary permits from other agencies to install the boardwalk. Drainage/Stormwater Management 38. Drainage and utility easements must be provided over all wetlands, wetland buffers and ponds. 39. A 10-foot drainage & utility easement shall be provided along the perimeter of all lots. 40. Plans shall be revised to show any known drain tiles located on the property. 41. The applicant shall continue to work with the City to address drainage on the northeast portion of the site. Streets, Parking and Utilities 42. All streets within the development shall be public streets. 43. The developer will work with City staff to finalize street names, in compliance with the City’s street naming policy. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-48 Page 6 of 7 44. Utilities shall be stubbed to the property lines for future extension to adjacent properties. The stubs shall be at the developer’s expense. 45. All utility facilities shall be located underground. 46. Temporary turnarounds shall be provided on stubbed streets more than 150 feet in length. 47. Barricades and signage indicating future extension shall be installed, consistent with Section 945.010, Subd. 19 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 48. The applicant shall work with staff to provide the appropriate terminus for Jack Pine Lane south of proposed Schober Park. Park Dedication 49. Park Dedication has been satisfied through contribution of land, construction of the private amenity facility and associated land shown on plans, pavement of trails, and construction of the boardwalk, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall provide a final calculation of the net and gross acreage of land, open space and trails to staff prior to final plan and final PUD plan submittal. b. The developer shall dedicate the open space park as shown on plans. c. The developer shall dedicate the land for the neighborhood park as shown on plans d. The developer shall be given full credit for the private amenity center (20% of Park Dedication requirement) as shown on plans. Additionally: i. The applicant shall provide details for ownership and maintenance to the City prior to approval of final plat and final PUD plan of Phase 1 of the development, ii. The applicant shall record covenants that run with the land in favor of the future owners of property within the subdivision that restrict the use of the land and building to park and recreation purposes. The covenants cannot be modified without the written consent of the City Council. e. The developer shall dedicate 20-foot easements for all off-road trails and shall be given land dedication credit for the net area of these easements f. The developer shall construct all trails shown on the plan, except the on-road trails on County Road 101 and Stieg Road. g. The developer shall construct the boardwalk. Final design shall be developed with city staff and may include a railing. h. The developer shall adjust trail and sidewalk alignment and provide connections as recommended by staff. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-48 Page 7 of 7 i. If the cost for paving the trails and constructing the boardwalk exceeds the amount of required cash-in-lieu of land, the City shall give a credit to the developer based on the actual cost. j. Park dedication shall only be granted for trail easement areas as shown on the Comprehensive Plan and will not be given for trails located within public right-of-way. Miscellaneous 50. A final PUD development plan must be submitted with the final plat for review and approval, consistent with the Site Plan submitted to the City on May 17, 2018. 51. No signage is proposed or approved at this time. A master signage plan with sign details shall be included as part of the final PUD plan submittal. Any signage will require a sign permit and compliance with Chapter 84 of the City Code. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-49 Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “ENCORE” FOR PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA LLC ON THE 225.9-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 9975 COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 12-119-23- 12-0001, 01-119-23-43-0002, 01-119-23-44-0001 AND 01-119-23-41-0001) (CITY FILE 18-007) WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (“the applicant”) has requested approval of a preliminary plat for 398 single family homes on 225.9 -acres parcels legally described as: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, North Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence South along the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 514 feet; thence at right angles West a distance of 618.65 feet; thence at right angles North a distance of 514 feet to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East along the said North line to the point of beginning. Also, the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The South Two-thirds (2/3) of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) except road, Section 1, Township One Hundred Nineteen (119), Range Twenty-three (23), Town of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The south 292.70 feet of the west 595.12 feet of the north 1/3 of the East 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter, Section 1, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for a preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary Plat is approved to allow the creation of 398 lots for single family homes and 18 outlots, in accordance with the application materials and plans received by the City on April 17, 2018 and revisions received May 5, 2018, May 17, 2018, May 24, 2018, and June 20, 2018 except as amended by this resolution. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-49 Page 2 of 3 2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the requested rezoning and preliminary plat. 3. The preliminary plat must be revised to comply with the site plan received by the City on May 17, 2018, the Wetland Buffer Trail Encroachment Exhibit received by the City on June 20, 2018, and revisions must be submitted with the final plat application. 4. The applicant shall comply with all conditions in the City Engineer’s memo dated May 25, 2018. 5. The approval is subject to the review of the City Public Safety Committee. The applicant shall work with the City to address any comments from the committee. 6. The approval is subject to the review and approval of wetland delineation and mitigation plans by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission. The applicant shall comply with any conditions of approval from the watershed. 7. The application is subject to the review and approval by Hennepin County. The applicant is required to obtain permits and approvals from the County as needed. 8. Development standards shall be as approved as part of the PUD. 9. The development shall be subject to all conditions of the preliminary PUD development plan approval. 10. Park dedication shall be as required by the preliminary PUD development plan approval. 11. The extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water is required to serve this site. Approval of this preliminary plat is contingent upon extension of these services to the site. 12. Approval shall expire within two years of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of a final plat. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-49 Page 3 of 3 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Hennepin County Property Map Date: 9/21/2017 Comments: 1 inch = 1,600 feet PARCEL ID: 1211923120001 OWNER NAME: Carol J Newman Trust PARCEL ADDRESS: 9975 Co Rd No 101, Corcoran MN 55340 PARCEL AREA: 112.96 acres, 4,920,472 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2016, PAYABLE 2017 PROPERTY TYPE: Farm HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $716,900 TAX TOTAL: $9,442.12 ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Farm HOMESTEAD: Non-homestead MARKET VALUE: $712,300 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 2017 ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! î î STI E G R D Encore Existing &Proposed Zoning 890 0 890445 Feet Encore Boundary Zoning Districts: UR Urban Reserve RR Rural Residential RSF-1 Single Family Residential 1 RSF-2 Single Family Residential 2 RSF-3 Single and Two Family Residential 3 RMF-1 Medium Density Residential RMF-2 Mixed Residential RMF-3 High Density Residential MP Manufactured Home Park P-I Public / Institutional TCR Transitional Rural Commercial CR Rural Commercial C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Community Commercial DMU Downtown Mixed Use GMU General Mixed Use BP Business District I-1 Light Industrial PUD Planned Unit Development ï Cemetery î ChurchsGolf Course ñ Government Building òñð Public Park City Limit ! !! !! 2030 Metropolitan Urban Service Area Open Water Shoreland Overlay District Parcels Updated January 2018 Adopted June 2011 10 101 ± ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! î î STI E G R D Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning ROAD SCHUTTE GLEASON ROAD JUBERT LAKE MEISTER ROAD O L D S E T T L E R S R D HORSESHOE TRAIL STI E G R D WI L L O W D R I V E HACKAMORE ROAD TR A I L H A V E N R O A D CA I N R O A D OAKDALE DR STREHLER ROAD PIO N E E R T R COUNTY ROAD 117 RO L L L I N G H I L L S R D LARKIN RD (62ND AVE N) TOWNSHIP OF HASSAN CI T Y O F G R E E N F I E L D CI T Y O F M A P L E G R O V E CITY OF MEDINA SCOTT LAKE BE C H T O L D R O A D $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ MORIN LAKE GOOSE LAKE COOK LAKE RUS H C R E E K 2030 Sanitary SewerService Staging Plan 4 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet 2030 Comprehensive Plan Figure 9 City Limit 2030musa Wetlands Sanitary Sewer Service Staging 2010 - 2015 2015 - 2020 2020 - 2025 2025 - 2030 *The staging plan represents a progression of sewer that is based on location of planned Metropolitan Interceptors and where the first sewered growth is anticipated to occur, however the City does not commit to it occurring. Updated October 2013 Adopted June 2011 City ofCORCORAN 19 50 19 10 30 10 116 101 ROAD SCHUTTE GLEASON ROAD JUBERT LAKE MEISTER ROAD O L D S E T T L E R S R D HORSESHOE TRAIL STI E G R D WI L L O W D R I V E TR A I L H A V E N R O A D CA I N R O A D OAKDALE DR STREHLER ROAD PIO N E E R T R COUNTY ROAD 117 RO L L L I N G H I L L S R D LARKIN RD CI T Y O F G R E E N F I E L D CI T Y O F M A P L E G R O V E SCOTT LAKE BE C H T O L D R O A D EiGH EsGH E¢GH IïKL IöKL EiGH E¼GH EsGH MORIN LAKE GOOSE LAKE COOK LAKE RUS H C R E E K OSP OSP OSP OSP T OSP OSP NP CP NP NP OSP NP NP NP OSP OSP OSP NP OSP ASA ASA ASA ASA T June 2, 2011 Parks & Trails Plan I:/504/50408144/GIS/ComPlan/Maps/Final Maps/2030 parks and trails.mxd 4 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet City ofCORCORAN 2030 Comprehensive Plan Figure 12 Existing Parks and Trails Proposed Parks and Trails Regional Trail Proposed County Bike Trail Existing On Road Trail Proposed On Road Trail City Hall/Memorial Park Community Park Existing Ball Fields/School Property Existing Park (Private/Lion's Park) Golf Course Open Water Wetlands Off Road Trail Off Road Trail outside 2030 Development Area Horseback Trail Proposed County Road 50 Natural Gas Pipeline Easement Trail (Potential) ASA - Athletic Search Area City Square OSP/Nature Park Neighborhood Park Trailhead Search Area Greenway Corridor (Bonus Eligible Resource Corridor) ASA OSP NP *Proposed park and trails locations represent the general search areas for parks and trails. The City will work with developers and landowners to identify the exact location and size of parks and trail alignments as development or park acquisition is proposed. City Limit 2030 MUSA Technical Memo Wenck Associates, Inc. | 1800 Pioneer Creek Center | P.O. Box 249 | Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 Toll Free 800-472-2232 Main 763-479-4200 Email wenckmp@wenck.com Web wenck.com - To: Kevin Mattson, PE, Director of Public Works From: Kent Torve, P.E. Nicholas Wyers Rowdy Schmidt Date: May 25, 2018 Subject: Encore – Preliminary Plat Review Comments Pulte Homes has been in discussion with the City of Corcoran for months. As a result, they have submitted preliminary plat and associated plans. Submittal documents dated April 17th, 2018 have been received April 18th, 2017 for the proposed Encore development. Note: A feasibility study is also in process and will identify developer responsibility for improvements that are necessary as a result of Encore. • Provide list of permits required for the project (MPCA, MDH, WMO, City demo, etc.) • Lighting and signage plan to be coordinated with staff The following comments are a result of the first review. Numerous review to be expected as the project moves forward, which is typical. 1.0 Transportation These comments are related to the internal street network. A separate review will be conducted for CSAH 101 turn lanes, Stieg Road and Hunters Ridge. 1.1 Pulte has submitted a revised concept with a few changes to street layout. Future reviews will ensure that street connections and right-of way dedication to parcel limits are consistent with discussion with council. 1.2 The development layout is consistent with 60’ right-of-way for main internal loop, 80’ right-of-way for collectors and entrances off collector roads and 50’ right-of- way for side streets. 1.3 60’ right-of-ways to be required on internal streets where an 8’ trail is constructed. Specifically, Hunter’s Ridge. 1.4 Street radii to be 30’ for commercial to residential and 25’ residential to residential. 1.5 Additional soil borings or other additional geotechnical subsurface information may be requested for design purposes at the proposed wetland crossings. 1.6 Stub streets to have permanent traffic barriers per standard template as provided by City Engineer. 1.7 Verify vertical and horizontal curves meet typical standards including sight distance requirements. Engineer’s Memo May 29, 2018 2 \\MSPFSV02\Studios\Planning & Urban Design Studio\City of Corcoran\COR18016 - Pulte RZ, PUD and PP\2018-06-28 Council Attachments\i. 2018-05-25 Encore Engineering Preliminary Plat Memo.docx 1.8 Pedestrian ramps shall meet current ADA requirements and include information related to cross-slopes, approach grades, truncated dome orientation, and general layout. 1.9 Provide temporary cul-de-sac or turnaround at the end of all permanent or phased dead end streets. 1.10 Stieg Road shows termination at plat boundary line. This is to be reviewed during final plat conditions. 1.11 Trail to be required on south side of Stieg Road. 1.12 Submit sketch showing site lines at Stieg Road and CSAH 101 1.13 Parking to be reviewed. 1.14 Developer responsible for the relocation of existing utilities along Steig road (others) 1.15 Cul de sac design to be coordinated with PW staff 1.16 Irrigation areas to be identified on separate exhibit, including cul de sac islands, boulevards, parks, etc. 2.0 Trails 2.1 Submit a standalone figure identifying locations of trails, sidewalks, and boardwalk. 2.2 Boardwalk to be reviewed for engineering standards based on year round use, safety, and maintenance. 2.3 Trails to be above 100-year flood elevation 2.4 Trails to be outside of wetland buffers 2.5 Width of trails and board walk to be reviewed. 2.6 Trails and sidewalks to meet ADA requirements. 2.7 City experience shows small retaining walls are often necessary for dense developments. Identify potential areas. 3.0 Sewer This parcel is to be serviced from a northeast trunk sewer to be installed by City of Corcoran. MCES meter station located near the City boundary. Design permitting and bidding is under way for potential fall construction start. 3.1 City project requested by applicant to extended to Newman property boundary. 3.2 Developer requested this termination point due to simplify wetland permitting. Plan sets will be coordinated. Engineer’s Memo May 29, 2018 3 \\MSPFSV02\Studios\Planning & Urban Design Studio\City of Corcoran\COR18016 - Pulte RZ, PUD and PP\2018-06-28 Council Attachments\i. 2018-05-25 Encore Engineering Preliminary Plat Memo.docx 3.3 Trunk sewer is consistent with City of Corcoran’s master sewer plan with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3.4 All sanitary sewer to be stubbed to the project limits. 3.5 Lower the lateral line to to pick up existing Hunters Ridge neighborhood. 3.6 Sewer pipe material to be reviewed based on depth of installation 3.7 Acquire easement for Trunk Phase 2 offsite sewer before Encore Phase 4. 3.8 Provide sanitary service to City Parks 4.0 Water This parcel is to be serviced by the City of Maple Grove under the existing contract which has been a discussion item between the City of Corcoran and the City of Maple Grove. 4.1 A 16” PVC watermain is shown on the southeast corner of the site. This is proposed to be constructed by Pulte. Plans will be reviewed along with the connection point near Mama G’s Restaurant. 4.1.1 Metering manhole, meter, and specifications per Maple Grove requirements. 4.2 16” PVC to be extended to the west project boundary. It appears the best route across Wetland 7 is parallel to the boardwalk alignment. To be further reviewed. 4.3 Watermain size to be further reviewed with comp plan. 12” planned to be stubbed to Stieg and Lucht/Scherber property. 4.4 Stub watermain to all project limits. 4.5 Loop watermain on 99th Place cul-de-sac. 4.6 Provide watermain loop on 103rd Place adjacent to Schober Parcel 4.7 Provide watermain loop to 102nd Place to Jackpine Lane through Schober Park 4.8 Run watermain through cul-de-sac north of Stieg Road, end watermain at wetland edge 4.9 Provide water service to City parks. 5.0 Grading and Stormwater The area drains into a central wetland with an ultimate discharge to the west under CR 116. 5.1 Grading may be significantly modified based on stormwater model revisions 5.2 Attachment A provides the City’s stormwater modeling guidelines utilized on other developments, including EOF low opening requirements. 5.3 Offsite stormwater management will be further discussed in feasibility study 5.4 Demolition requires city permit Engineer’s Memo May 29, 2018 4 \\MSPFSV02\Studios\Planning & Urban Design Studio\City of Corcoran\COR18016 - Pulte RZ, PUD and PP\2018-06-28 Council Attachments\i. 2018-05-25 Encore Engineering Preliminary Plat Memo.docx 5.5 Provide appropriate stormwater maintenance access, including width and grade 5.6 Grading easement required at VanBlaricom property as shown (102nd Place) 5.7 As noted in feasibility study, offsite drainage will be reviewed (downstream towards CR 116, north of Stieg, and south of CSAH 30 Stormwater Modeling System is sensitive to runoff volume and both extreme events and extended wet periods of higher groundwater elevations. See Attachment A, some notes added below. 5.8 Submit the electronic model along with updated report. 5.9 Submittal shows the proposed CN is lower than existing CN. Since development increases runoff, the following model changes should be implemented. 5.10 Use soil types of “D” to account for compaction during construction. 5.11 Wetlands shall be modeled as impervious 5.12 Proposed conditions include some off site agricultural and these should be modeled as CN of 80 (commercial) 5.13 Future development will control rates through ponding, however the CN of 80 more accurately represents additional volume to the system. 5.14 Flood routing shall not use abstraction (infiltration). Report utilizes a 0.5 inches per hour value, whereas D soils are 0.06 inches per hour, which under wet conditions and existing local conditions of shallow groundwater should be modeled as 0.0 inches/hour. 5.15 City to manage and model LMOR process as flood plain manager. Stormwater Routing Stieg Road 5.16 More information required on area north of Stieg Road. Additional information needed on large wetland receiving water. 5.17 Stieg Road to be constructed with storm sewer. Ditch flow is to be captured and treatment is required. Design shall be reviewed per MSA standards. General 5.18 Plans show ponds are networked in series. This may be modified to reduce the drainage area of the downstream ponds. 5.19 Incorporate future road at Schober in stormwater calculations and design. 5.20 All wetlands shall have normal water and high water levels shown on plan. 5.21 Future South Commercial Engineer’s Memo May 29, 2018 5 \\MSPFSV02\Studios\Planning & Urban Design Studio\City of Corcoran\COR18016 - Pulte RZ, PUD and PP\2018-06-28 Council Attachments\i. 2018-05-25 Encore Engineering Preliminary Plat Memo.docx 5.22 Additional information is needed south of CSAH 30, to determine if that area should be included in the regional stormwater system. Hunters Ridge 5.23 Incorporate existing storm sewer in the Hunters Ridge cul-de-sac into Encore’s Pond 2W. 6.0 Erosion Control 6.1 City of Corcoran is an MS4 city and site visits to be conducted weekly. 6.2 Compliance with owner’s MS4 permit will be monitored. 7.0 General 7.1 Plans to include most recent City of Corcoran detail plates 7.2 Submit Stieg Road abandonment plan for further review. 7.2.1 A short memo to discuss timing, removal, restoration and vacation of ROW and easements. 7.3 Sheets for northern part of development begin with “S”. Consider renaming Rename sheets “S” to “N” for clarity. 7.4 Show site plan on amenity center information. WENCK File #2294-0033 May 2018 Prepared for: City of Corcoran, MN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Prepared by: WENCK Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 763-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242 Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study May 2018 i T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Background ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Traffic Analysis ................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Recommendations ............................................................................... 2-2 3.0 WATER ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 NE District Interim Development ........................................................... 3-2 3.2 NE District Full Development ................................................................ 3-2 3.3 Pulte Development .............................................................................. 3-3 3.4 Summary ........................................................................................... 3-4 4.0 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Regulatory Overview ........................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Watershed Setting and Land Use ........................................................... 4-1 4.3 Stormwater Management ..................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Findings ............................................................................................. 4-2 5.0 SEWER ........................................................................................................ 5-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 6-1 Table of Contents (Cont.) May 2018 ii T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx FIGURES 1 Pulte Homes (Encore) Development Location 2 Identified Infrastructure Improvements 3 Watershed Map APPENDICES A Water Supply Figures A-1 Just Prior to Water Tower – Average Day Pressure A-2 Just Prior to Water Tower – Peak Hour Pressure A-3 Just Prior to Water Tower – Available Fire Flow A-4 Full Development – Average Day Pressure A-5 Full Development – Peak Hour Pressure A-6 Full Development – Available Fire Flow B Stormwater and Natural Resources Subwatersheds and Overflow Location Stormwater Modeling Guidelines B1 Land Cover Map B2 Ecologically Significant Natural Areas C Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study, November 2017 May 2018 1-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx 1.0 Introduction This feasibility study was prepared to evaluate utility and transportation improvements that will be needed to serve the proposed Pulte Homes (Encore) development, generally located on the northeastern boundary of Corcoran in the vicinity between Stieg Road, CSAH 30 and CSAH 101 (Figure 1). The initial entrance to the development is proposed to be directly across from 100th Avenue North in Maple Grove on CSAH 101. The feasibility study for Encore was completed in two parts. Initially, a trunk sewer feasibility was completed since that was expected to be the highest cost. This portion completes the infrastructure analysis with water supply, transportation, and water resources. An additional study, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed as required by state statute. EAW work focused on environmental items, transportation, and other land use topics. May 2018 2-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx 2.0 Transportation 2.1 BACKGROUND As part of the EAW process, a Traffic Impact Study was completed by the Pulte development team and reviewed by Wenck and City staff. The study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development on the following intersections: • CSAH 30/CSAH 116 • CSAH 30/CSAH 101 • CSAH 116/Hunters Ridge • CSAH 101/100th Avenue N • CSAH 101/Stieg Road • CSAH 30/future access road The study included analysis of the following scenarios: • 2018 existing conditions • 2022 Build conditions • 2024 Build conditions The full Traffic Impact Study is included in the final EAW document (published previously). 2.2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic volume data was collected in January 2018 at the intersections listed above. Traffic volume forecasts were developed for the years 2022 and 2024 that accounted for existing traffic volumes, background traffic growth, and trips generated by the proposed development. Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics, control, and signal timing. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which ranges from A to F. A description of each level of service is shown below. • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. May 2018 2-2 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. The results of the traffic analysis indicated the intersections included in the study are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service through the year 2024. Based on expected volumes at the access locations, the addition of turn lanes was recommended. 2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS In order to accommodate the future traffic volumes with the Pulte development, the improvements listed below and shown in Figure 2 are recommended: • CSAH 101/100th Avenue N intersection - Construct right turn and left turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches of CSAH 101 • CSAH 101/Stieg Road intersection - Construct right turn and left turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches of CSAH 101 • Stieg Road – Realign and improve the roadway using Municipal State Aid standards that include curb and gutter, pavement, and storm sewer. The road will be improved to the property limit of the development. At CSAH 101, construct right turn for a southbound movement. • Hunters Ridge - Reclaim and repave the roadway with concrete curb if this is only access. Improvements implemented after 80% of homes constructed in Phase 4. • CSAH 116/Hunters Ridge intersection - Construct right turn and left turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches of CSAH 116 In addition to the recommended improvements, the following items are noted: May 2018 2-3 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx • No traffic control signals or monetary contribution towards traffic control signals are identified. • The City of Corcoran will coordinate with Hennepin County and Maple Grove on signage or possibly a partial median to discourage southbound left turns onto 100th Ave. N. from southbound CSAH 101, and also at 101st Ave N. May 2018 3-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx 3.0 Water Water supply for the Pulte Development (and for the NE District in general) will be obtained via a planned connection to the Maple Grove water supply system. The connection location is shown on Figure 2. Maple Grove has planned for this connection and has an existing 16- inch water main stubbed from their water main in Alvarado Lane. The stub is installed between two existing homes and extends approximately to the east edge of CSAH 101 ROW. Pulte will need to install a meter manhole at the end of the existing stub, per Maple Grove requirements, and then install new 16-inch water main across CSAH 101 (jacked crossing), then northward along the west side of CSAH 101 ROW until the southeast corner of the Encore Development is reached. From this point, the 16-inch will then be installed approximately westward across the southern edge of Encore Outlot A (commercial), whereupon an Encore street will be reached. Water mains will primarily follow street locations after that point. Final routing will be determined with engineering plan reviews. Under a contract to provide water service, Maple Grove will supply Corcoran with up to a maximum day demand (MDD) of 5 million gallons per day (MGD). At this time, it can be assumed to be split evenly between the NE and SE Districts, this is 2.5 MGD each, or approximately 1,735 gallons per minute (gpm) each. The Maple Grove system pressure at the water main tee in Alvarado Lane is approximately 65 pounds per square inch (psi). Hydraulic analysis of a NE Corcoran water system at full development was conducted using the computer modeling software WaterCAD, which simulates the water system’s response to average and peak demands, water tower levels/refill, and firefighting scenarios. Each condition creates different responses in the water system. The modeling results help to identify and evaluate the various options for future water system infrastructure in the NE District, including pipe and water tower sizing and the estimated timing of water tower construction. After a full development water system was evaluated, the model was then used to evaluate an early-stage development scenario, i.e., the Pulte Development. For the Pulte Development, most of the demands were residential, with a relatively small contribution from commercial/industrial areas. For the residential water demand, an average day demand (ADD) of 350 gallons per day (gpd) per household was utilized, which translates to approximately 0.24 gpm per household. The ratio of MDD to ADD is referred to as the “peaking factor”. Using a peaking factor of 3.25, the MDD is 1,138 gpd per household, or 0.79 gpm per household. The 350 gpd per household does include an allowance for contribution of water demand from commercial/industrial sources. For residential areas, a target fire flow of 1,500 gpm for a 2-hour duration will be used. For commercial/industrial areas, a higher target fire flow of 3,000 gpm for a 3-hour duration will be used. Although new commercial/industrial buildings will be sprinklered and, as such, most of these buildings will ultimately have a lower acceptable target, 3,000 gpm is deemed a reasonable overall target, and allows for some conservatism in this safety-driven parameter. May 2018 3-2 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx 3.1 NE DISTRICT INTERIM DEVELOPMENT The model was utilized to consider an interim development scenario in which the water system was gradually built out from the point of connection to Maple Grove, first with the Pulte Development and then expanding radially in general accordance with the City’s phasing plan. Interim development was also defined as the point at which a City water tower will need to be constructed. Up to this point, early Corcoran development will be relying on Maple Grove’s water storage to meet all City operating conditions, including high- demand times (peak hour demands and fire flow). In summary, the need for the City to construct its own water tower is estimated to occur at an MDD of 1,735 gpm, or approximately 2,200 homes. As noted previously, the 1,735 gpm level also represents half of the water supply that has been agreed to with Maple Grove for the NE and SE Districts combined. At this point of development, fire flows were meeting targets at all locations, but the peak hour pressures were starting to become marginal (dropping below 40 psi) at the highest elevations. Average day pressures, peak hour pressures (on peak day), and available fire flow for this point in time (1,735 gpm MDD and no tower yet) are shown on Figures in Appendix A. Average day pressures range from approximately 55 to 70 psi, and peak hour pressures range from approximately 35 to 50 psi. All fire flows meet the previously-noted targets. Also, a second interconnect between the Maple Grove and Corcoran water systems could also be constructed as soon as the two systems get more fully built out in the areas along either side of CSAH 101 to the north of the Pulte Development. The Maple Grove water model assumed an interconnect approximately one mile north of CSAH 30. This would be used for emergency purposes, ensuring that a water supply would remain available should a problem occur with the primary 16-inch water supply from Maple Grove. 3.2 NE DISTRICT FULL DEVELOPMENT For this scenario, the full development water system was modeled, including the addition of a 1 million gallon (MG) water tower. The hydraulic grade line (HGL) for this tower would likely be set the same as Maple Grove (1110 feet), equaling approximately 65 psi at the base of a 150-foot tower located on a ground elevation of 960 feet. The exact tower elevation should be further studied before the final HGL is selected, especially relative to the timing of Corcoran converting to its own supply versus utilizing the Maple Grove supply. It would be ideal to utilize the 1110 HGL, since matching elevations on either side of the border maximizes the potential for emergency water to go in either direction. Also, it will increase the pressures cited below by approximately 10 psi and thus provide a larger buffer above the recommended minimum pressures. However, for this modeling effort, the HGL was conservatively set at 1083 to better reflect the slightly lower HGL available at the Maple Grove border, which reflects some internal piping headlosses within Maple Grove, i.e., between Maple Grove’s storage tanks and the Maple Grove border. The full development MDD is estimated to be 2,800 gpm, or approximately 3,500 homes. Average day pressures, peak hour pressures (on peak day), and available fire flow for this point in time are shown on Figures in Appendix A. Average day pressures range from approximately 50 to 65 psi, and peak hour pressures range from approximately 40 to 60 psi. These ranges are above the desired minimum pressure of approximately 35 psi and, conversely, do not approach the desired maximum pressure of approximately 100 psi. All fire flows meet the previously- noted targets. May 2018 3-3 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx The tower size was verified using multiple analysis. First, using guidance such as the Ten States Standards, calculations were utilized to evaluate the 1 MG size, which was found to be adequate. A water tower is sized to provide equalization storage and fire flow/emergency storage. While the Maple Grove water supply (or a future City-supplied alternative source, such as City groundwater wells) must be sized to meet the MDD, the peak hour is primarily met by the equalization storage in the tower. Essentially, at times of the day when demands exceed the typical 24-hour-based demand (typically in the mornings and evenings), the tower will provide flow from its equalizing storage to meet these “peak hour” demands. When flows are below the average (typically overnight and mid-day), excess water will flow into the tower and refill it. The second method of verifying the water tower sizing is to utilize the model to run an extended-period simulation (EPS) to look at how the proposed 1 MG tank performs with respect to tank levels. The EPS was run on a full development MDD of 2,800 gpm, for two days in a row, and the tank level over the 48-hour period did not quite reach the point of half empty and fully recovered overnight, in-between these two MDD events. Then, as a conservative check, the EPS was run on the same peak day, but when the lowest tank level was reached, a 3,000 gpm (3 hour) fire flow event was started to verify that the tank would not go empty and that adequate tank level recovery would occur following the fire. This scenario also proved acceptable, as the tower reached 85% empty but never reached fully empty. The same MDD/fire flow scenario with a 0.75 MG tank caused the tank to fully empty, indicating that the 1 MG size is appropriate. 3.3 PULTE DEVELOPMENT Having determined the appropriate pipe sizing and layout for the full development of the NE District, the model was then used to evaluate an early-stage development scenario, i.e., the Pulte Development. Pipes and demand for the areas beyond the Pulte Development boundary were shut off, such that only the Maple Grove water supply connection and the nodes that fall within the Pulte development boundary were active in this model run. The most critical point in the early development would be if the counterclockwise development occurred from J-96 to J-100 to J-101 to J-102 (shown on Figures in Appendix A), and at a point in time before a water main is constructed to loop J-102 back to the 12-inch water main somewhere along the southern development boundary. In essence, this would be several thousand feet of smaller diameter (8-inch) water main, going to a point of relatively high elevation within the development (954 feet). This is viewed as a worst-case scenario, though it is only temporary since a completed loop will eventually be constructed. For comparison, the available fire flows at the following nodes are estimated for “before looping” and “after looping” scenarios: Piping Node Fire Flow Before Looping (gpm) Fire Flow After Looping (gpm) J-100 1,800 2,900 J-101 1,200 2,500 J-102 1,000 2,400 Before looping, the available fire flows at J-101 and J-102 are less than the 1,500 gpm residential target; however, these values are still substantial and are considered acceptable on an interim basis. With looping, the available fire flows will improve to levels that exceed the target. The peak hour pressures at these same nodes were found to be acceptable, ranging from approximately 55 to 65 psi (before and after looping). May 2018 3-4 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx 3.4 SUMMARY Extending water supply from the Maple Grove connection point will provide adequate water supply for the Pulte Development with respect to pressures and available fire flow. As soon as practical, a second (emergency) interconnect between the Maple Grove and Corcoran water systems should also be constructed when the two systems get more fully built out in the areas along either side of CSAH 101 to the north of the Pulte Development to provide looping. The Maple Grove water model assumed an interconnect approximately one mile north of CSAH 30. Longer term, a 1 MG water tower will be needed at an estimated MDD of 1,735 gpm, or approximately 2,200 homes. However, several variables will affect this exact timing, including the City’s actual water demand per household and the actual MDD peaking factor (versus the relatively conservative assumptions herein), actual land use patterns and densities, development rates in the SE versus NE Districts, and the potential timing of implementing the City’s own source(s) of water supply. In addition, preliminary modeling of future interconnection of the SE District to the NE district suggests that the NE tower could be even further delayed (or possibly even eliminated), though there might still be benefits to creating some storage in the NE District and, more importantly, such storage will likely become mandatory at the point the City converts to its own water supply in this area. Since the SE District will eventually be utilizing a booster station in conjunction with its water tower construction, the SE district will be operating as a higher-pressure zone versus the NE District, and a pressure-reducing valve will be required at the point of interconnection to reduce pressure by approximately 20 psi for water feeding into the NE District from the SE District. Also, for the PRV interconnection to be most beneficial, upsizing of the piping segment from J-92 to J-93 to the SE District downtown area (from 12 to 16-inch) may be needed. A more detailed analysis of the potential PRV interconnect should be conducted prior to beginning construction of any of the piping in this segment or the NE water tower itself. The final NE water tower HGL should also be evaluated in more detail. May 2018 4-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx 4.0 Water Resources In this chapter, the stormwater implications of this proposed development are reviewed in light of local and state regulations, watershed features, and potential changes in land use that would occur if development proceeds. 4.1 REGULATORY OVERVIEW Stormwater management in the proposed project area would be guided or directed by Corcoran’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (Local Plan) and the City’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Each of these documents has a larger regulatory context: • The Local Plan reflects the goals, policies and rules of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission’s Third Generation Watershed Management Plan (Commission’s WMP). • The SWPPP is a requirement of the City’s stormwater permit, formally known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The MS4 permit is issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). • Both also include plans to meet pollutant load reductions calculated in the Elm Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. TMDL studies are required for surface waters that are designated as impaired – in other words, those that do not meet one or more state water quality standards. 4.2 WATERSHED SETTING AND LAND USE The proposed development is situated in the Elm Creek watershed, an area drained by Elm, Rush and Diamond Creeks and ultimately by the Mississippi River (Figure 3). The vicinity of the project is drained by Rush Creek, which is impaired by excess E. coli (fecal bacteria), low dissolved oxygen, and excess nutrients, especially phosphorus, that create stream conditions that do not support healthy communities of fish and invertebrates. Elm Creek and the Mississippi River are also impaired, so improvements in the drainage to Rush Creek would also benefit downstream conditions. Land use in the proposed development is a mix of natural, agricultural and residential cover. A large wetland complex lies near the center of the site, wrapping around remnants of maple-basswood forest (Appendix Figures B1 and B2). East and west of the wetland, land has been used for row crops and single-family residences. This pattern is typical of Corcoran, which is still a predominantly agricultural community with scattered low-density residential development and an abundance of wetlands. Development is increasing in the City, however, and the change from agricultural to non-agricultural land use presents opportunities to better manage stormwater runoff. May 2018 4-2 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx 4.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Pulte proposes a 393-unit development on 146 acres, changing the land cover from agricultural/wooded/wetlands to residential. Tentatively, a neighborhood park, trails and a woodland preserve are also included in the plans. Agricultural use of the land would cease, replaced by both pervious and impervious surfaces that would literally change the landscape for stormwater runoff. Although cessation of agriculture generally benefits water quality by reducing export of nutrients and sediment, construction of additional impervious surfaces, such as the roads, driveways and sidewalks in this residential development, may increase the rate and does add volume of stormwater runoff and the load of other pollutants carried to nearby surface waters – namely, the site’s wetlands, Rush Creek, and downstream waters. Improvements to CSAHs 101 and 116 would also slightly increase impervious surface area and, like neighborhood roads and driveways, would require practices to mitigate the impact of impervious stormwater runoff. Stormwater modeling guidelines are in Appendix B, and FEMA floodplain modifications will be necessary. Mitigation is accomplished by aligning development plans with stormwater regulations. Corcoran’s Local Plan, in agreement with the Commission’s WMP, requires that certain development plans be submitted to the City and the Commission for review. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the developer’s plans for stormwater management during and after construction meet the Commission’s rules regarding the volume and rate of stormwater runoff, along with other rules regarding wetland alteration, erosion and sediment control and other aspects of surface water protection. This strict adherence to Commission rules is one of the strategies Corcoran has chosen to also meet its TMDL obligations. The implementation plan for the Elm Creek Watershed TMDL calls on Corcoran to apply these standards when land use changes, a strategy that is expected to have the net result of improving the quality of stormwater runoff. Restoration or improvement of the wetland in the development can also benefit water quality. The details of the restoration and its benefits will be determined as the project moves forward. Complementing the Local Plan, Corcoran’s SWPPP requires plan review, construction site erosion and sediment control, and post-construction stormwater management. Construction site inspections by the City or its authorized staff would begin with land-disturbing activity and end with final stabilization of exposed soils. After construction, the City would enter an agreement with the homeowners’ association or similar group to ensure that stormwater Best Management Practices continue to function as intended. 4.4 FINDINGS • Stormwater improvements are necessary within the development for meeting regulations of the WMO. The Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission’s development rules and standards will apply. • To meet load reduction goals in the Elm Creek Watershed TMDL, the City Local Surface Water Plan identifies that improvements to water resources will occur with May 2018 4-3 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx development. and a wetland restoration project has been shown that will be funded by the developer. • Offsite improvements are estimated to be necessary at CSAH 116 to manage the additional drainage from Encore. • Downstream identification/mitigation of additional volume will need to be studied further. The City will conduct modeling and floodplain boundary modifications as the project moves forward. • Onsite modeling guidelines are in Appendix B along with Encore subwatersheds and discharge points. • FEMA floodplain determinations are necessary. • Drainage south of CSAH 30 near CSAH 101 needs further investigation to show the ultimate drainage pattern. May 2018 5-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx 5.0 Sewer Four different alignments for a NE District trunk sewer (30-inch diameter) were evaluated by Wenck in the Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study, November 2017. To ensure comparability of the options, all four options started from the existing MCES Elm Creek Interceptor meter station and stub located at the northeast corner of Corcoran (Figure 1) and were terminated at a common point, i.e., the east side of CSAH 116 approximately 2,000 feet north of CSAH 30. Option A is the recommended alignment, with a Phase 1 cost of $1.9 million to reach just south of Stieg Road, and an eventual total cost (Phase 1 plus Phase 2) of $3.7 million to reach CSAH 116. These costs include an assumed 30% additional cost for engineering, plus contingency (given that these are feasibility-level costs), but do not include estimated easement costs (permanent and temporary). Option A was recommended because it has the shortest length among the four Phase 1 options (and also for the overall length to CSAH 116) and was the lowest cost, both for Phase 1 and also for the eventual total cost (Phase 1 plus Phase 2). Several other advantages for Option A were also noted. Refer to the November 2017 report for details given in Appendix C. May 2018 6-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The following infrastructure improvements are feasible and necessary to manage the development. These improvements are consistent with similar requirements for Ravinia, and have shown to be necessary for managing the additional population: Transportation • CSAH 101/100th Avenue N intersection - Construct right turn and left turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches of CSAH 101. • CSAH 101/Stieg Road intersection - Construct right turn and left turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches of CSAH 101. • Stieg Road - Improve the roadway using Municipal State Aid standards that include curb and gutter, pavement, and storm sewer. The road will be improved to the property limit of the development. At CSAH 101, construct right turn for a southbound movement. • Hunters Ridge – Due to Hunters Ridge being only access, reclaim and repave the roadway with concrete curb. • CSAH 116/Hunters Ridge intersection - Construct right turn and left turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches of CSAH 116. In addition to the recommended improvements, the following items are noted: • No traffic control signals or monetary contribution towards traffic control signals are identified. • The City of Corcoran will coordinate with Hennepin County and Maple Grove on signing or possibly a median to discourage southbound left turns onto 100th Ave. N. from CSAH 101. This was a condition of the water agreement amendment. Sewer • A prior study of the trunk sewer identified the route and costs for installing the system according to the Master Sewer Plan. Water • Water will be extended from Maple Grove and continued through the development at a capacity according to the Master Water Plan. No water tower or booster station is necessary for this development. Stormwater and Water Resources • Stormwater improvements are necessary within the development for meeting regulations of the WMO. May 2018 6-2 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Infrastructure FS\DRAFT Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study.docx • The City Local Surface Water Plan identifies that improvements to water resources will occur with development, therefore a wetland restoration project will be researched and implemented and funded by developer. • It appears that offsite improvements will be necessary at CSAH 116 to manage the additional drainage from impervious. Downstream impacts and mitigation and floodplain boundary modifications will need to be further studied. • Additional investigation south of CSAH 30 is warranted. Figures Pulte Homes - Encore - Development Boundary Figure 1 #* !H Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e 4567116 4567117 4567101 456730 Country Cir E 98th Pl N 97th Ave DuffneyDr Ro b e r t L a Alvara do L a N Darrel La Hillside Dr R u s h MeadowLa H u n t e rs Rdg W a ln ut G ro v eLaN Dassel La O swaldFarmRd Jackie La Country Rd CR - 1 1 6 101st Ave Tr o y L a 109th Ave N StiegRd Br o c k t o n L a N 97th Ave N CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT 1,000 0 1,000500 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\Pulte Homes Development Location.mxd Date: 5/29/2018 Time: 8:04:04 AM User: shujc0243 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO) Legend Municipal Boundary Proposed Pulte Development Parcels !H Elm Creek Interceptor (Sewer) #*Proposed Water Supply Connection with Maple Grove Identified Infrastructure Improvements Figure 2 #* !H Possible Stormwater Improvements Storm System Discharge EOF Area Wetland Restoration Trunk Water Trunk Sewer Possible Median at 101st Ave Investigate Drainage Direction South of CSAH 30 Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e Roadway Improvements Realign and Improve Stieg Rd to MSA Standards with Trail Construct Left Turn and Right Turn Lanes on CSAH 101 Construct Left Turn and Right Turn Lanes on CSAH 101Construct Left Turn and Right Turn Lanes on CSAH 116 4567116 4567117 4567101 456730 Country Cir E 98th Pl N 97th Ave DuffneyDr Ro b e r t L a Alvara do L a N Darrel La Hillside Dr R u s h MeadowLa H u n t e rs Rdg W a ln ut G ro v eLaN Dassel La O swaldFarmRd Jackie La Country Rd CR - 1 1 6 101st Ave Tr o y L a 109th Ave N StiegRd Br o c k t o n L a N 97th Ave N CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT 1,000 0 1,000500 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\Transportation Improvements.mxd Date: 5/29/2018 Time: 10:42:29 AM User: shujc0243 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO) Legend Municipal Boundary Proposed Pulte Development Roadway Improvements Turn Lane Improvements Parcels Trunk Sewer !H Elm Creek Interceptor (Sewer) Trunk Water Proposed 16'' Existing Maple Grove 16'' #*Proposed Water Supply Connection with Maple Grove Regional Watershed Boundaries Figure 3 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$ $$ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $$ $$ $$$$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $$$$ $ $$$ $$$$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e Crow R Crow R Elm Cr Unknown DNR Minor Watershed Name S Fork Rush Cr S Fork Rush Cr Rush Cr Rush Cr Unknown DNR Minor Watershed Name Diamond Cr Elm Cr U n n a m e d S t r e a m Elm Creek U n n a m e d S tr e a m U n n a m e d S tr e a m Unna m ed Creek Elm Creek Rush C r e e k Rush Cree k , South Fork Un n a m e d St r e a m U n n amed S t r eam U n n a m ed C r e e k Un n a m e d Str e a m U n n a m e d C r e e k N o r t h F o r k C r o w R i v e r M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r - T w i n C i t i e s N o rth ForkCrowRiver Mississippi River-Twin Cities Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e City of Corcoran City of Rogers City of Maple Grove City of Dayton Ci t y o f D a y t o n Ci t y o f R o g e r s CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT 3,500 0 3,5001,750 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\Watershed Map.mxd Date: 5/29/2018 Time: 9:28:16 AM User: shujc0243 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO) Legend Major Watershed Boundary Minor Watershed Boundary $Confluences and Flow Direction Municipal Boundary Proposed Pulte Development Watershed Management Organizations Elm Creek WMO Appendix A Water Modeling Results Partial Development – No Tower Just Prior to Water Tower – Average Day Pressure Figure A-1 !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( J-83J-84J-85 J-89 J-90 J-91 J-95 J-96 J-100 J-101 J-102 J-94J-103 Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e 4567101 Al v a r a d o L a N Darrel La Hil l s i d e D r Hunters Rdg W a l n u t G r o v e L a N Dassel La Os w a l d F a r m R d Country Rd CR - 1 1 6 101st Ave Br o c k t o n L a N Stieg R d 64 69 62 59 63 6061 67 68 66 6 2 63 65 64 12 " 16" 8" 12" CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT 700 0 700350 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\Prior_ADP.mxd Date: 5/29/2018 Time: 9:28:59 AM User: shujc0243 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO) Note: Contours away from pipe junctionsare not necessarily accurate. Legend Municipal Boundary Proposed Pulte Development Parcels Pipe Network 8'' 12'' 16'' !(Pipe Nodes Average Day Pressure (PSI) 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Just Prior to Water Tower – Peak Hour Pressure Figure A-2 !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( J-83J-84J-85 J-89 J-90 J-91 J-95 J-96 J-100 J-101 J-102 J-94J-103 Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e 4567101 Al v a r a d o L a N Darrel La Hil l s i d e D r Hunters Rdg W a l n u t G r o v e L a N Dassel La Os w a l d F a r m R d Country R d CR - 1 1 6 101st Ave Br o c k t o n L a N Stieg R d 52 48 51504948 4 1 4 2 4 7 4 3 4 7 4 4 4 5 4 6 12 " 16" 8" 12" CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT 700 0 700350 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\Prior_PHP.mxd Date: 5/29/2018 Time: 9:30:08 AM User: shujc0243 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO) Note: Contours away from pipe junctionsare not necessarily accurate. Legend Municipal Boundary Proposed Pulte Development Parcels Pipe Network 8'' 12'' 16'' !(Pipe Nodes Peak Hour Pressure (PSI) 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Just Prior to Water Tower – Available Fire Flow Figure A-3 !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( J-83J-84J-85 J-89 J-90 J-91 J-95 J-96 J-100 J-101 J-102 J-94J-103 Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e 4567101 Al v a r a d o L a N Darrel La Hil l s i d e D r Hunters Rdg W a l n u t G r o v e L a N Dassel La Os w a l d F a r m R d Country R d CR - 1 1 6 101st Ave Br o c k t o n L a N Stieg R d 460044004200400038003600340032003000280026002400 4800 4600 12 " 16" 8" 12" CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT 700 0 700350 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\Prior_FF.mxd Date: 5/29/2018 Time: 9:32:00 AM User: shujc0243 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO) Note: Contours away from pipe junctionsare not necessarily accurate. Legend Municipal Boundary Proposed Pulte Development Parcels Pipe Network 8'' 12'' 16'' !(Pipe Nodes Available Fire Flow (GPM) 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 Full NE Buildout with Tower Full Development – Average Day Pressure !( "S !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e 4567101 456730 Meister Rd Mystique D r Gladstone B l v d 101st Ave Br a n d y w i n e R d Tr o y L a Br o c k t o n L a N Schutte Rd Stieg R d CR - 1 1 6 97th Ave N 16" 12 " 16 " 16" 16" 8" 8" 12" 12 " 8" 8" 12 " 16" 12" 12" 12 " 12 " 12" 12 " 12 " 1 MG WaterTower J-83J-84J-85 J-87 J-88 J-89 J-90 J-91 J-92 J-93 J-95 J-96 J-100 J-101 J-102 J-94J-103 66 52 6 2 68 54 66 56 58 60 62 6 4 CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\FD_ADP.mxdDate: 5/29/2018 Time: 9:33:19 AM User: shujc0243 1,200 0 1,200600 Feet ± Figure A-4 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: NAIP) Legend Municipal Boundary Proposed Pulte Development Parcels !(Pipe Nodes "S 1 MG Water Tower PipeNetwork 8'' 12'' 16'' Average Day Pressure (PSI) 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 Full Development – Peak Hour Pressure !( "S !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e 4567101 456730 Meister Rd Mystique D r Gladstone B l v d 101st Ave Br a n d y w i n e R d Tr o y L a Br o c k t o n L a N Schutt e R d Stieg R d CR - 1 1 6 97th Ave N 16 " 12 "16 " 16" 16" 8" 8 " 12" 12 " 8" 8" 12 " 16" 12" 12" 12 " 12 " 12" 12 " 12 " 1 MGWater Tower J-83J-84J-85 J-87 J-88 J-89 J-90 J-91 J-92 J-93 J-95 J-96 J-100 J-101 J-102 J-94J-103 6 0 40 62 42 44 60 46 48 5 4 5 0 5 6 5 2 5 8 CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\FD_PHP.mxdDate: 5/29/2018 Time: 9:33:34 AM User: shujc0243 1,200 0 1,200600 Feet ± Figure A-5 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: NAIP) Legend Municipal Boundary Proposed Pulte Development Parcels !(Pipe Nodes "S 1 MG Water Tower PipeNetwork 8'' 12'' 16'' Peak Hour Pressure (PSI) 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 Full Development – Available Fire Flow !( "S !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e 4567101 456730 Meister Rd Mystique D r Gladstone B l v d 101st Ave Br a n d y w i n e R d Tr o y L a Br o c k t o n L a N Schutte Rd Stieg R d CR - 1 1 6 97th Ave N 2500 2750 3000 3250 2 7 5 0 3500 3750 40 0 0 42 5 0 30 0 0 45 0 0 4 7 5 0 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 16" 12 " 16 " 16" 16" 8" 8" 12" 12 " 8" 8" 12 " 16" 12" 12" 12 " 12 " 12" 12 " 12 " 1 MG WaterTower J-83J-84J-85 J-87 J-88 J-89 J-90 J-91 J-92 J-93 J-95 J-96 J-100 J-101 J-102 J-94J-103 CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\FD_FF.mxdDate: 5/29/2018 Time: 9:35:16 AM User: shujc0243 1,200 0 1,200600 Feet ± Figure A-6 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: NAIP) Legend Municipal Boundary Proposed Pulte Development Parcels !(Pipe Nodes "S 1 MG Water Tower PipeNetwork 8'' 12'' 16'' Available Fire Flow (GPM) 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 Appendix B Stormwater and Natural Resources Subwatersheds and Overflow Location Stormwater Modeling Guidelines Stormwater Guidelines for Development Review Issue Cities changing from rural to urban development are challenged by the additional stormwater generated due to construction of impervious surfaces, along with the offsite infrastructure, or lack thereof, to manage effectively. To standardize the modeling and review process, the guidelines below were created for efficiency. Note: A watershed approval is required per Elm Creek WMO rules, which also reviews flow rates, water quality and volume management. Modeling Watershed Information • Provide an aerial photo of the development that includes the overall watershed and subwatershed boundaries • Provide a summary of the acreage to each discharge point leaving the site. Any increase (or decrease) shall be identified. • Show any floodplain adjacent to project or within the project • Show downstream water bodies and flow paths o Downstream flow paths and water bodies typically need to have elevations, inverts, and condition identified. Subwatersheds A HydroCAD model (typically used) has some inputs that can vary. To minimize review time and effort, the following data shall be utilized. • Electronic model shall be submitted • Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) shall be lowered one category due to the mass grading and compaction of the soils. For example, an existing B soil, shall be modeled as a proposed C soil (unless it remains undisturbed) • Wetlands, filtration basins, and ponds shall be modeled at CN of 98 • Identify peak rates for storm events and proposed shall be equal or less than existing rates. o Note: There are certain conditions where at City’s discretion the off-site conditions require a reduction in flow rate from existing rates. • SWMM (i.e. EPA-, XP-, or PC-) models can be submitted for review, however these increase review time. Model Setup for Outlet Control Structures, NWLs and Infiltration • The model’s flow control structures (OCS, culverts, etc.) shall match the construction plan information. During the plan and model review both may be modified and revised • Individual detail plates are required for each OCS, and individual plates shall have inverts identified • A pond or wetland NWL (and model starting elevation) shall be set at the constructed outlet control elevation. o No live storage shall be utilized below the controlling OCS elevation. o No live storage shall be used for filtration shelves on ponds below controlling OCS elevation • If a pond or wetland has an NWL (wet surface), infiltration shall not be used in flood routing. Stormwater Guidelines for Development Review (cont.) 2 T:\2294-Corcoran\33-Pulte Homes\Stormwater Modeling Guidelines for Development.docx • If a pond has filtration BMP causing drawdown below the NWL, this drawdown elevation shall not be used as the NWL for flood routing. (Filtration has a slower release time and during wet periods is not available as live storage). Construction Plans Catch Basins • Street drainage shall be sufficient to manage the 10-year event • Typical a CB inlet capacity is 2 to 2.5 CFS, and CBs shall be spaced accordingly • Three inches (0.25 feet) of head on a CB will inundate a street centerline (2% slope). • Spacing is 200 to 250 feet using longitudinal street dimensions of 40 feet from road centerline to half the house footprint (assumes rear half of house drains to rear yard). Dimensions equal 10,000 SF. • CBs may be required on both sides of ped ramps to capture flows Natural Drainage Features • Waterbodies receiving urban drainage (wetlands, ditches, gullies) may need to have OCS installed, erosion protection, or reduced flow rates to allow the feature to function over the long term due to more consistent flows from impervious via development • Offsite work may be necessary and City will assist with coordination, easements, etc. HWLs and EOFs • The freeboard requirements are: o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the HWL o Low Opening is a minimum of one foot above the EOF • EOFs shall be accurately shown and as builts are required. The highest point shall be the EOF (for example top of curb) since this is the controlling elevation o In certain instances, channel calculations of the swale may be required to show the EOF has capacity to manage estimated flow o A second pipe may serve as an EOF at City’s discretion Rear Yards • Rear yards or swales less than 2% shall have draintile Typically, every two to three lots will require rear yard CBs. Alternative materials such as “golf course” drains and PVC may be allowed at City’s discretion. Sump Connections • Houses adjoining a wetland or pond do not need individual sump connection • Others are preferred to have a rear yard connection to stormsewer Land Cover Figure B-1 4567101 100th Ave 101st Ave A l v a rado La N Hunte r s R d g Br o c k t o n L a N Stieg R d Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT 400 0 400200 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\Land Cover Map.mxd Date: 5/29/2018 Time: 9:37:06 AM User: shujc0243 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO) Legend Proposed Pulte Development Municipal Boundary Parcels MLCCS 5-10% Impervious 11-25% Impervious 26-50% Impervious 76-100% Impervious Short Grasses Agricultural Land Maintained Tall Grass Tree Plantation Forest Wetland Forest Wetland Shrubs Tall Grasses Wetland Emergent Veg. Dry Tall Grasses Wetland Open Water Ecologically Signficant Natural Areas Figure B-2 4567101 100th Ave 101st Ave A l v a rado La N Hunte r s R d g Br o c k t o n L a N Stieg R d Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Ci t y o f M a p l e G r o v e CITY OF CORCORAN - PULTE DEVELOPMENT 400 0 400200 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\FS\Ecologically Signficant Natural Areas.mxd Date: 5/29/2018 Time: 9:38:02 AM User: shujc0243 MAY 2018 2016 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO) Legend Proposed Pulte Development Municipal Boundary Parcels National Wetlands Inventory Ecologically Signficant Natural Areas Aspen Forest Cattail Marsh Lowland hardwood forest Maple-basswood forest Mesic Prairie Mixed emergenct marsh Mixed hardwood swamp Oak Forest Oak woodland-brushland Tamarack swamp Wet meadow Willow Swamp Appendix C Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study, November 2017 WENCK File #2294-0032 November 2017 Prepared for: City of Corcoran, MN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Prepared by: WENCK Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 763-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242 Pulte Homes Development Infrastructure Feasibility Study November 2017 i T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx Table of Contents 1.0INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1-1 2.0SEWER........................................................................................................2-1 2.1Sewershed Flow and Trunk Sewer Sizing...............................................2-1 2.2Option A Alignment.............................................................................2-2 2.3Option B Alignment.............................................................................2-3 2.4Option C Alignment.............................................................................2-3 2.5Option D Alignment............................................................................2-4 2.6Discussion and Costs...........................................................................2-4 3.0WATER........................................................................................................3-1 4.0STORMWATER.............................................................................................4-1 5.0TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................5-1 6.0FINANCING.................................................................................................6-1 TABLES 1Sewer Depth Summary for Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer 2Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer Costs 3Branch (15-Inch) Trunk Sewer Cost from Phase 1 of Options A or C to Pulte Development FIGURES 1Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer Routing Options 2Sewer Depths for Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer 3Trunk Water Main Routing November 2017 1-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx 1.0 Introduction Pulte Homes has requested a feasibility study for estimated costs for utilities and recommendations for transportation improvements to serve the proposed development generally located a little north of County Road 30 (CR 30) and between CR 116 and CR 101 (Figure 1 shows the development boundary). The initial entrance to the development is proposed to be from CR 101 on the east side of the development, with additional future connections planned, including south to CR 30. This report looks specifically at the feasibility of providing sewer and water service to the proposed development, addressing stormwater, meeting transportation needs for ultimate buildout. Contained in the report are multiple options for trunk sanitary sewer routing. Water main routing is also shown, with water supply provided via connection to the City of Maple Grove water distribution system. The sewer options are much more diverse and involve much larger pipe distances, whereas the connection point to the Maple Grove water system to supply this development is relatively close, limiting the potential options. The trunk sewer options are evaluated and discussed, with development of probable project costs. Preliminary evaluation of stormwater and transportation improvements is also discussed in this report, as well as the anticipated means of financing the utility and transportation improvements. November 2017 2-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx 2.0 Sewer Four alignment options (A, B, C and D) have been identified for serving the Pulte Development with City sewer, as identified on Figure 1. All four options were terminated at a common point (east side of CR 116) to ensure comparability of the options. The four options have various advantages and disadvantages, which are discussed in this section. Based on utility sizing and preliminary sewer invert design, estimates of probable project costs were developed and are discussed herein, including assumptions and unknowns that need to be determined prior to design and construction. 2.1 SEWERSHED FLOW AND TRUNK SEWER SIZING The Pulte Development is located in the east central portion of the NE District of Corcoran. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan envisioned a primary trunk sewer (27, 30 and 33-inch sizes) extending from a connection point to the Metropolitan Council’s Elm Creek Interceptor in the northeastern corner of this district, then generally southwesterly to the vicinity of CR 116 and CR 30, which was to be the connection point for an 18-inch force main that would deliver an average day (full development) flow of 1.89 million gallons per day (MGD) from the SE District to the NE District. This transfer is necessary because the Metropolitan Council’s regional sewer design provided substantially less capacity in their SE District connection (0.6 MGD average day) versus the NE District connection (3.3 MGD average day). With the added flows from other sewersheds (including the Pulte Development), and per the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the 1.89 MGD eventually increases to an estimated 3.4 MGD average flow when the northeast corner’s connection point is reached (i.e., slightly higher, but within 3% of the capacity provided with this Elm Creek Interceptor connection). The 2030 Comprehensive Plan also contemplated several smaller branch sewers of 8 to 12- inch size connecting the “side areas” to the main 27 to 33-inch trunk sewer. Although none of the four route options follow the 2030 Comprehensive Plan exactly, this is expected given the preliminary and conceptual nature of such a plan. However, all four options are intended to be reasonable adaptations of the conceptual layout that provide service to the same areas at similar inverts. The four routes simply provide alternative ways to achieve the same essential results. The Elm Creek Interceptor capacity of 3.3 MGD average day can be matched by utilizing a 30-inch pipe at a slope of approximately 0.001%, which exceeds the Ten States Standards minimum slope of 0.00058%. Eventually, as the pipe travels towards the southwest and flows lessen due to branch sewer connections, the pipe slope can be lessened somewhat (assumed to drop to 0.0008%) to maintain the desired invert at the downstream point (elevation 910 when CR 116 is reached). The higher slope that would be required to decrease to a 27-inch pipe is not desirable in this case, since the target invert would not be met, or even deeper sewer would be required through the northeastern sewer segments in order to meet the same invert at CR 116. Branch sewers are not included in the main analysis herein. As noted above, the typical branch sewer sizes are 8 to 12-inch size, and are much lower cost, especially since Corcoran typically only pays for any “upsizing” beyond an 8-inch, which is considered the “baseline” (minimum) size that the developer would have to construct anyway. Hence, a cost analysis that focusses on just the primary (30-inch) trunk sewer will provide a reliable comparative analysis of the 30-inch sewer routes without adding in all the complexities that would result November 2017 2-2 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx from laying out and estimating costs for all the various branch sewers for each of the four primary options. Where appropriate, more general observations regarding branch sewers are included in the discussion of the four alternatives. All four route options are split into Phase 1 and 2 portions, where Phase 1 is the endpoint for an assumed initial project that will provide sewer service to the Pulte Development. The Phase 2 portions are an assumed follow-on project that would construct the 30-inch trunk sewer segment from the Phase 1 endpoint to the common endpoint noted above (east side of CR 116). The phase endpoints are shown on Figure 1. For this analysis, easement costs were not included in the cost estimates. Given the substantial sewer depths, particularly for Phase 1 (25 to 35 feet or more), a permanent ROW width of 80 feet is anticipated to be needed. Portions of the Phase 2 segments could likely be reduced, given the reduced sewer depths. An additional 60 feet of temporary ROW is also anticipated to be needed for Phase 1 (again, this could likely be reduced for portions of the Phase 2 segments. In portions of all four alignments, the trunk sewer is routed along the edge of wetlands, with the sewer located in the existing (or future) backyards of homes in these areas. Access to the trunk sewer for maintenance or repairs may, in some cases, be more difficult as compared to the sewer segments located within city streets. 2.2 OPTION A ALIGNMENT From the connection point to the Elm Creek Interceptor, the first half of the Phase 1 alignment for Option A goes south along CR 101 (with the east edge of the sewer permanent ROW bordering the west edge of the road ROW), and then turns west to align with the east side of a larger wetland, eventually reaching the endpoint for Phase 1 at the northeast corner of the north-south wetland that bisects the Pulte Development (see Figure 1). This endpoint is approximately 850 feet north of the Pulte Development, and would be the connection point for a smaller (15-inch) branch sewer constructed southward into the Pulte Development, essentially following the route depicted for Option D (again noting that branch sewers are neglected for this primary 30-inch trunk sewer analysis). Trunk sewer lengths and depths, by alignment option and by phase, are shown in Table 1, and are also shown graphically on Figure 2. The average sewer depth for Option A Phase 1 is 30 feet. Stieg Road is crossed in Phase 1, and can presumably be open cut for sewer installation (city gravel road). Phase 2 is shown extending straight west; however, depending on the timing for construction of Phase 2 and whether it is constructed concurrently with a development that borders the north side of the Pulte Development, the exact route might be shifted to align with streets, green spaces, etc. The route then follows a larger wetland, going around the southeast corner thereof and then following the south side thereof, extending westward to the east side of CR 116. This places the sewer along the wetland edge that is in the backyards of homes along the north side of Hunters Ridge. The average sewer depth for Option A Phase 2 is 21 feet, significantly shallower than Phase 1. This alignment assumes that: - Conflicts with major buried utilities (e.g., high-pressure gas mains) do not exist. - Easements will be granted by the property owners that are not within the Pulte Development. November 2017 2-3 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx - Soil conditions are suitable for sanitary sewer construction (appears to be very likely based on review of available private well logs). The probable costs for Option A are $1.9 million for Phase 1 and $1.8 million for Phase 2, with a total cost of $3.7 million. Table 2 shows the breakdown of these total costs and a summary table for the four options. Total costs are also summarized on Figure 1. 2.3 OPTION B ALIGNMENT From the connection point to the Elm Creek Interceptor, the Phase 1 alignment for Option B follows the south and west edges of the smaller wetland in this corner, then turns west and follows the very north edge of Corcoran (see Figure 1). It then follows the property line along the east side of the Jackie Lane Development, around the SE corner thereof, and along the south edge thereof until Stieg Road is reached. It then extends southwest across Stieg Road to a property line, follows that south, and then generally follows along the east side of a larger wetland until the northwest corner of the Pulte Development is reached (the endpoint for Phase 1). Branch sewer would then need to be extended into/through the Pulte development from this Phase 1 endpoint. Trunk sewer lengths and depths are shown in Table 1 and graphically on Figure 2. The average sewer depth for Option B Phase 1 is 22 feet. Stieg Road is crossed in Phase 1, and can presumably be open cut for sewer installation (city gravel road). Phase 2 follows a larger wetland, going around the southeast corner thereof and then following the south side thereof, extending westward to the east side of CR 116. This places the sewer along the wetland edge that is in the backyards of homes along the north side of Hunters Ridge. The average sewer depth for Option B Phase 2 is 14 feet, significantly shallower than Phase 1. This alignment assumes that: - Conflicts with major buried utilities (e.g., high-pressure gas mains) do not exist. - Easements will be granted by the property owners that are not within the Pulte Development. - Soil conditions are suitable for sanitary sewer construction (appears to be very likely based on review of available private well logs). The probable costs for Option B are $3.4 million for Phase 1 and $0.7 million for Phase 2, with a total cost of $4.1 million. Table 2 shows the breakdown of these total costs and a summary table for the four options. Total costs are also summarized on Figure 1. 2.4 OPTION C ALIGNMENT From the connection point to the Elm Creek Interceptor, the alignment goes westward along the south edge of a smaller wetland until a property line is reached, and then turns south to follow the property line (see Figure 1). When a larger wetland is reached, the alignment then has a series of bends to generally align with the west side of this wetland, eventually rejoining the Option A route just before Stieg Road. From this point on, the remainder of the Option C alignment is identical to the Option A alignment described above, and has the same endpoints for Phases 1 and 2. Trunk sewer lengths and depths are shown in Table 1 and graphically on Figure 2. The average sewer depth for Option C Phase 1 is 29 feet. The average sewer depth for Option C Phase 2 is 21 feet, significantly shallower than Phase 1. November 2017 2-4 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx This alignment assumes that: - Conflicts with major buried utilities (e.g., high-pressure gas mains) do not exist. - Easements will be granted by the property owners that are not within the Pulte Development. - Soil conditions are suitable for sanitary sewer construction (appears to be very likely based on review of available private well logs). The probable costs for Option C are $2.3 million for Phase 1 and $1.8 million for Phase 2, with a total cost of $4.1 million. Table 2 shows the breakdown of these total costs and a summary table for the four options. Total costs are also summarized on Figure 1. 2.5 OPTION D ALIGNMENT From the connection point to the Elm Creek Interceptor, the Phase 1 alignment for Option D is identical to the alignment described above for Option A until the endpoint for Option A Phase 1 is reached, i.e., the northeast corner of the north-south wetland that bisects the Pulte Development (see Figure 1). At this point, the Option D alignment explores the possibility of constructing the 30” trunk sewer predominantly along streets in the Pulte Development. Hence, from the northeast corner of the north-south wetland, the Option D alignment follows the east edge of this wetland until the point at which the sewer can join a street alignment within the Pulte development. It continues generally southward, leaving the south side of the Pulte development but following the assumed street location until the intersection of an assumed street that runs westward/northwestward, returning into the western portions of the Pulte Development. Street alignments are generally followed until the northwest corner of the Pulte Development is reached, which is the endpoint for Option D Phase 1. Trunk sewer lengths and depths are shown in Table 1 and graphically on Figure 2. The average sewer depth for Option D Phase 1 is 34 feet. Phase 2 alignment for Option D is identical to that of Option B, i.e., it goes around the southeast corner of a larger wetland and then follows the south side thereof, extending westward to the east side of CR 116. This places the sewer along the wetland edge that is in the backyards of homes along the north side of Hunters Ridge. The average sewer depth for Option D Phase 2 is 14 feet, significantly shallower than Phase 1. This alignment assumes that: - Conflicts with major buried utilities (e.g., high-pressure gas mains) do not exist. - Easements will be granted by the property owners that are not within the Pulte Development. - Soil conditions are suitable for sanitary sewer construction (appears to be very likely based on review of available private well logs). The probable costs for Option D are $4.7 million for Phase 1 and $0.7 million for Phase 2, with a total cost of $5.4 million. Table 2 shows the breakdown of these total costs and a summary table for the four options. Total costs are also summarized on Figure 1. 2.6 DISCUSSION AND COSTS The summary of costs for the four options, by phase and in total, are shown in Table 2. These costs include an assumed 30% additional cost for engineering, as well as contingency for these feasibility-level costs. As noted previously, these costs do not include estimated November 2017 2-5 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx easement costs (permanent and temporary). Based on the comparison of the total costs at the common endpoint at CR 116 (i.e., Phases 1 and 2 combined), the ranking of the options from least expensive to most expensive is as follows: Option A $3.7 Million Option C $4.1 Million Option B $4.1 Million Option D $5.4 Million With the common endpoint, this provides the fairest cost comparison for the long-term primary (30-inch) trunk sewer options. Also of interest is the nearer-term comparison of Phase 1 costs, i.e., the costs to construct enough 30-inch trunk sewer to provide service to the Pulte Development. For Phase 1 only, the ranking of the options from least expensive to most expensive is as follows: Option A $1.9 Million Option C $2.3 Million Option B $3.4 Million Option D $4.7 Million In both cases, Option A is the lowest cost by $0.4 million compared to the second-lowest- cost option. Option D appears to be the least-favorable alignment. It is the longest and deepest route, which translates to the most expensive route. For Phase 1, almost half of the sewer length is deeper than 35 feet, whereas Options A and C are only approximately 10% and 20%, respectively, and Option B has no sewer depths that exceed 35 feet. The deeper sewer depths for Option D are very evident on Figure 2. Lastly, because so much of this alignment option must be constructed in Phase 1 (almost 90% of the total, combined-phase cost), the Phase 1 versus 2 “balance” is highly tilted to Phase 1, meaning a much larger capital investment must be made sooner (as compared to the “more balanced” A & C options). After Option D, the least-favorable alignment is Option B. It is the second-longest route, though its sewer depths are the lowest among the four options (the average depth for Phase 1 is 22 feet). While the shallower depths somewhat offset the costs of a relatively long route, it is still the second-most expensive route in both the total (combined-phase) and Phase 1 rankings. Also, similar to Option D, because so much of this alignment option must be constructed in Phase 1 (almost 85% of the combined-phase cost), the Phase 1 versus 2 “balance” is highly tilted to Phase 1, meaning a much larger capital investment must be made sooner (as compared to the “more balanced” A & C options). In general, as evident on Figure 1, the Option B alignment ends up skewing most of the trunk sewer to the north and west, up against existing development that may not connect to sewer for a long time. In comparison, the other three routes are much more centrally located with respect to new-development areas, making Option B less ideal. Another disadvantage of Option B is that the connecting branch sewer that would be routed back through the Pulte Development would be much deeper (and therefore much more expensive) than the branch sewer that would go south from the Option A or C Phase 1 endpoint. In essence, in order to extend service from the northwest corner of the Pulte Development back to the eastern portion of the Pulte Development, the branch sewer must be constructed through the same higher- elevation ridge in the western portion of the Pulte Development that helps drive up the depths and costs of Option D. Lastly, if the sewer is centered on the property lines of all the parcels on the east and southeast portions of the Jackie Lane Development, then there will November 2017 2-6 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx be far more landowners to negotiate easements with, as compared to the other three options. Alternatively, the sewer could be shifted away from the property line so that easements only fall within the larger parcels, but this would sacrifice more developable land, since property line placement can take advantage of required setback distances. Either way, the close proximity of all the small parcels makes Option B less attractive. Option C is considered the “second best” option. As noted above, its cost is second lowest in both rankings, exceeding Option A by $0.4 million in both cases. Since the Phase 2 alignments for Options A and C are identical, the costs for Phase 2 is the same for both options, and hence the $0.4 million difference is entirely within Phase 1. The average sewer depths are very similar between Options A and C (30 and 29 feet, respectively). However, given the sewer lengths by depth category shown in Table 1, Option C has more deep-sewer segments in Phase 1 (approximately 20% exceeding 35 feet versus 10%). These deeper segments and the slightly longer route result in the $0.4 million higher cost for Option C versus A. As noted previously, the balance between the Phase 1 and 2 costs for Option C is much better than Options B and D, with the Option C Phase 1 cost only slightly higher than the Phase 2 cost. One disadvantage to this alignment is that there is a low-elevation area in the northwestern corner of the Pulte Development that will have sewer inverts that are too low to be served by the branch sewers constructed through the Pulte Development from the eastern side. This would affect approximately 40 homes, which would presumably be grouped into the latest phase of the development sequence. Ideally, the Phase 2 trunk sewer (or enough of Phase 2 sewer to reach this area) would be constructed to provide service to this group of homes prior to reaching this phase of development. The inverts of the trunk sewer will be acceptable for gravity service to these homes, once constructed into this area. Hence, future development of the parcels bordering the north side of the Pulte Development would eventually extend trunk sewer to the low area. If this does not happen before development of the low area is desired, then a small temporary lift station would be required to serve the approximately 40 homes, which the developer would be required to provide at their cost. At the time the trunk sewer is constructed into the low area, the developer would be required to remove the temporary lift station at their cost, and thus convert the services in this area to normal gravity service. Option A is the recommended alignment. It has the shortest length among the four Phase 1 options and also for the overall length to CR 116. As noted above, it has the lowest cost in both rankings, saving $0.4 million over Option C in both cases. Also, as noted previously, the balance between the Option A Phase 1 and 2 costs is much better than Options B and D, with the Option A Phase 1 and 2 costs being almost identical. This alignment has the same disadvantage as Option C with respect to the low-elevation area in the very northwest corner of the Pulte Development (see the discussion under Option C). With Option A recommended, and since the endpoint for Phase 1 is approximately 850 feet north of the Pulte Development, a short branch of offsite 15-inch trunk sewer will need to be constructed to reach the development. The average sewer depth for this segment is 24 feet. The probable cost for this segment is approximately $170,000, excluding estimated easement costs (permanent and temporary) but including an assumed 30% additional cost for engineering and contingency. Pulte will need to extend this 15-inch trunk sewer southward through their development, as other future developments further to the south (i.e., along and across CR 30) will utilize the capacity in this 15-inch trunk sewer. November 2017 3-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx 3.0 Wa ter Water supply for the Pulte Development (and for the NE District in general) will be obtained via a planned connection to the Maple Grove water supply system as shown on Figure 3. Maple Grove has planned for this connection and has an existing 16-inch water main stubbed from their water main in Alvarado Lane, extending between two existing homes to the east side of CR 101. Pulte will need to install a meter manhole at the end of the existing stub, and then install new 16-inch water main across CR 101 (jacked crossing), northward along the west side of CR 101 until the Pulte Development entrance is reached. The 16-inch would then turn west into the Pulte Development and tee into a 12-inch loop to be constructed through the development as shown on Figure 3 (following proposed streets). Note that the proposed 12-inch loop alignment leaves the south side of the Pulte development but follows the assumed street location until the intersection with an assumed street that runs westward/ northwestward, returning into the western portions of the Pulte Development. Lastly, the general direction for connection to a future water tower is noted on Figure 3, and future 12-inch (minimum) water main would need to be installed in this direction with future development(s) to the south. As a possible alternative, depending on the timing and depending on which specific proposed parcels are included in any proposed development(s) on the south side of the Pulte Development, the 16-inch could potentially be routed along streets/property lines/green space through this additional southern development area in order to reduce the length of 16-inch water main. In other words, a more direct connection to the Pulte Development’s 12-inch loop could potentially be constructed, rather than traveling so far northward along CR 101 to reach the Pulte Development entrance. This would also move a major trunk water main further away from a major county roadway, which would also have the advantage of shifting required easements away from the county roadway and into more preferable locations, i.e., within existing city street ROW, etc. Note that some portions of additional development to the south will be an absolute requirement, given that such area will be needed to construct street and sewer/water extensions into the western portion of the Pulte Development. Based on topography in the Pulte Development and the hydraulic grade line of the Maple Grove water distribution system at the connection point, the anticipated normal water pressures in the Pulte Development will be in the range of approximately 55 to 75 pounds per square inch (psi). This range is well above the desired minimum pressure of approximately 35 psi and, conversely, does not approach the desired maximum pressure of approximately 100 psi. Lastly, the preliminary water main sizes shown on Figure 3 should be confirmed by updating Corcoran’s water model for the NE District. Modeling conducted to date has been focused in the SE District, as this is where Corcoran development activity has been occurring to date. The updated modeling would confirm the water main sizes and anticipated pressures under average day and peak hour conditions, and would also provide predicted available fire flows. More generally, it would also facilitate evaluation of the more regional, NE District water main sizing, with determination of expected pressure ranges and fire flows throughout this area. The timing, location, and sizing of the future NE District water tower would also be considered as part of this analysis. November 2017 4-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx 4.0 Stormwater The site will need to fulfill watershed requirements for rate, water quality and volume. It appears that onsite stormwater management is feasible. During the application process, the offsite impacts will be reviewed and, potentially, offsite improvements will need to be implemented. Rate control is typically managed onsite through ponding; however, the additional volume from impervious surfaces may cause impacts off site. November 2017 5-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx 5.0 Transportation The proposed Pulte Homes development includes 250 single family homes and 7.58 acres of commercial development space. The project is located in the northwest quadrant of the CSAH 101/CSAH 30 intersection. The development will initially have one access point on CSAH 101, and also one on CSAH 30 if the commercial area on the south side is included with this development. Additional roadway connections to the north and west possible in the future. Trip Generation The expected new development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Tenth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Since the final land use for the commercial property has not yet been determined, three land use alternatives are presented for comparison purposes. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown below: Weekday Trip Generation for Pulte Homes Development Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Single Family 250 DU 46 139 185 156 92 248 2,360 Commercial Property Alternatives (1) Apartments 200 DU 19 53 72 54 34 88 1,088 (2) Medical/Dental Office 100,000 SF 217 61 278 97 249 346 3,480 (3) General Office 100,000 SF 100 16 116 18 97 115 974 Notes: DU=dwelling units, SF=square feet As shown above, the single family residential portion of the project generates 185 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 248 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 2,360 trips on a daily basis. For the commercial property, the apartment alternative generates the fewest trips while the medical/dental office generates the most. Turn Lanes at Access Points The proposed access points on CSAH 30 and CSAH 101 will likely require the construction of full left and right turn lanes. Hennepin County will have input on the need for turn lanes and will ultimately make the decision at each access point. Access to Hunters Ridge and CR 116 The site plan shows a future access on the west side of the project to Hunters Ridge, which ultimately provides access to CR 116. Once this connection is constructed, a portion of trips November 2017 5-2 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx from the project will use Hunters Ridge to access CR 116. The amount of traffic expected to use this connection is unknown at this time. Additional study is needed to determine the traffic volume expected to use this access point. November 2017 6-1 T:\2294-Corcoran\32-Pulte Sewer\Feasibility Report\No E Version\Pulte Development Infrastructure FS (No E) - Nov 2017.docx 6.0Financing Pulte Homes has approached the City with the commitment of paying for infrastructure (trunk or lateral) and being reimbursed through a credit on its own trunk fees, in addition to other properties that develop and take advantage of the trunk system. 1.Sewer Trunk sewer for the recommended Option A is estimated as $1.9 million for Phase 1 (including the offsite portion of a 15-inch branch sewer) and $1.8 million for Phase 2. This will extend trunk sewer to CR 116 and is of benefit to the City. A typical financing approach is represented by: a.10% escrow = Geotechnical borings, design, surveying, and permitting of an estimated $190,000 occurs at PUD approval, or prior to approval if Pulte is comfortable moving forward prior to approval. b.110% of low bid = occurs prior to the City entering into a construction contract. 2.Water Trunk water from across CR 101 will be installed with the development at developer cost. a.Credit will be given for upsizing from 8-inch. b.Credit will be given for the meter and metering station. 3.Transportation a.CR 101 Turn Lanes i.10% escrow for permitting and design due at development approval. b.CR 30 Turn Lanes i.10% escrow for permitting and design due at development approval. c.100% of low bid is due prior to the City entering into a construction contract. Tables 1 Sewer Depth Summary for Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer 2 Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer Costs 3 Branch (15-Inch) Trunk Sewer Cost from Phase 1 of Options A or C to Pulte Development Table 1. Sewer Depth Summary for Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer PULTE HOMES - 30" TRUNK SEWER Summary of Sewer Depths for Phase 1 (Initial Construction Portion to Serve Pulte Homes) Average Route <15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 Total Depth (ft) A 0 220 472 1501 2010 416 0 0 4619 30 B 735 3295 3093 2401 137 0 0 0 9661 22 C 0 985 429 1526 1540 1098 79 0 5657 29 D 46 234 669 1171 3567 3764 1008 617 11076 34 Summary of Sewer Depths for Phase 2 (From Endpoint of Phase I to Common Endpoint at CR 116) Average Route <15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 Total Depth (ft) A 1047 1112 1448 1027 394 0 0 0 5027 21 B 1047 696 75 3 0 0 0 0 1821 14 C 1047 1112 1448 1027 394 0 0 0 5027 21 D 1038 707 69 7 0 0 0 0 1820 14 Combined Phase Total Average Route <15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 Total Depth (ft) A 1047 1332 1921 2528 2404 416 0 0 9647 25 B 1782 3990 3169 2404 137 0 0 0 11482 20 C 1047 2097 1877 2553 1933 1098 79 0 10684 25 D 1084 941 738 1178 3567 3764 1008 617 12896 31 Total Length in Depth Category (ft) Total Length in Depth Category (ft) Total Length in Depth Category (ft) Table 2. Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer Costs Summary of Four Alignment Options: A B C D Phase 1 $1,900,000 $3,400,000 $2,300,000 $4,700,000 Phase 2 $1,800,000 $700,000 $1,800,000 $700,000 Total $3,700,000 $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $5,400,000 Notes: 1) Phase 1 extends to an endpoint at which service is provided to the Pulte Development. 2) Phase 2 extends from the Phase 1 endpoint to a common endpoint (east side of CR 116). 3) Costs include an additional 30% for design and contingency. 4) No easement costs included. Table 2. Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer Costs Sanitary Sewer 30" Trunk Route A Phase 1 Item #Description Qty Units Unit Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 2 Clearing & Grubbing 2 AC 8,000.00$ 16,000$ 3 Sanitary Sewer (0-15')0 LF 200.00$ -$ 4 Sanitary Sewer (15-20')220 LF 215.00$ 47,236$ 5 Sanitary Sewer (20-25')472 LF 230.00$ 108,605$ 6 Sanitary Sewer (25-30')1501 LF 245.00$ 367,815$ 7 Sanitary Sewer (30-35')2010 LF 260.00$ 522,600$ 8 Sanitary Sewer (35-40')416 LF 280.00$ 116,553$ 9 Sanitary Sewer (40-45')0 LF 300.00$ -$ 10 Sanitary Sewer (45-50')0 LF 325.00$ -$ 11 Sanitary Manholes (60")7 EA 7,000.00$ 49,000$ 12 Sanitary Manholes (72")5 EA 8,500.00$ 42,500$ 13 Sanitary Manhole Depth over 10'241 LF 150.00$ 36,150$ 14 Turf Establishment Uplands 10.4 AC 2,000.00$ 20,738$ 15 Turf Establishment Wetlands 4.0 AC 6,000.00$ 23,845$ 16 Gravel Road Restoration (Stieg Rd)500 SY 10.00$ 5,000$ 17 Erosion Control 4619 LF 6.00$ 27,717$ Subtotal 1,433,759$ Design and Contingency (30%)430,128$ Total 1,863,887$ Sanitary Sewer 30" Trunk Route A Phase 2 Item #Description Qty Units Unit Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 2 Clearing & Grubbing 0.5 AC 8,000.00$ 4,000$ 3 Sanitary Sewer (0-15')1047 LF 200.00$ 209,328$ 4 Sanitary Sewer (15-20')1112 LF 215.00$ 239,039$ 5 Sanitary Sewer (20-25')1448 LF 230.00$ 333,119$ 6 Sanitary Sewer (25-30')1027 LF 245.00$ 251,557$ 7 Sanitary Sewer (30-35')394 LF 260.00$ 102,348$ 8 Sanitary Sewer (35-40')0 LF 280.00$ -$ 9 Sanitary Sewer (40-45')0 LF 300.00$ -$ 10 Sanitary Sewer (45-50')0 LF 325.00$ -$ 11 Sanitary Manholes (60")8 EA 7,000.00$ 56,000$ 12 Sanitary Manholes (72")8 EA 8,500.00$ 68,000$ 13 Sanitary Manhole Depth over 10'170 LF 150.00$ 25,500$ 14 Turf Establishment Uplands 11.0 AC 2,000.00$ 22,042$ 15 Turf Establishment Wetlands 1.9 AC 6,000.00$ 11,669$ 16 Gravel Road Restoration (Stieg Rd)500 SY 10.00$ 5,000$ 17 Erosion Control 5027 LF 6.00$ 30,163$ Subtotal 1,407,766$ Design and Contingency (30%)422,330$ Total 1,830,096$ Combined Phase Total 3,693,982$ Notes: 1) No easement costs included. Table 2. Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer Costs Sanitary Sewer 30" Trunk Route B Phase 1 Item #Description Qty Units Unit Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 2 Clearing & Grubbing 3 AC 8,000.00$ 24,000$ 3 Sanitary Sewer (0-15')735 LF 200.00$ 146,980$ 4 Sanitary Sewer (15-20')3295 LF 215.00$ 708,335$ 5 Sanitary Sewer (20-25')3093 LF 230.00$ 711,480$ 6 Sanitary Sewer (25-30')2401 LF 245.00$ 588,204$ 7 Sanitary Sewer (30-35')137 LF 260.00$ 35,646$ 8 Sanitary Sewer (35-40')0 LF 280.00$ -$ 9 Sanitary Sewer (40-45')0 LF 300.00$ -$ 10 Sanitary Sewer (45-50')0 LF 325.00$ -$ 11 Sanitary Manholes (60")20 EA 7,000.00$ 140,000$ 12 Sanitary Manholes (72")8 EA 8,500.00$ 68,000$ 13 Sanitary Manhole Depth over 10'327 LF 150.00$ 49,050$ 14 Turf Establishment Uplands 20.8 AC 2,000.00$ 41,634$ 15 Turf Establishment Wetlands 3.7 AC 6,000.00$ 22,041$ 16 Gravel Road Restoration (Stieg Rd)500 SY 10.00$ 5,000$ 17 Erosion Control 9661 LF 6.00$ 57,965$ Subtotal 2,648,334$ Design and Contingency (30%)794,500$ Total 3,442,834$ Sanitary Sewer 30" Trunk Route B Phase 2 Item #Description Qty Units Unit Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 2 Clearing & Grubbing 0.5 AC 8,000.00$ 4,000$ 3 Sanitary Sewer (0-15')1047 LF 200.00$ 209,328$ 4 Sanitary Sewer (15-20')696 LF 215.00$ 149,575$ 5 Sanitary Sewer (20-25')75 LF 230.00$ 17,360$ 6 Sanitary Sewer (25-30')3 LF 245.00$ 804$ 7 Sanitary Sewer (30-35')0 LF 260.00$ -$ 8 Sanitary Sewer (35-40')0 LF 280.00$ -$ 9 Sanitary Sewer (40-45')0 LF 300.00$ -$ 10 Sanitary Sewer (45-50')0 LF 325.00$ -$ 11 Sanitary Manholes (60")4 EA 7,000.00$ 28,000$ 12 Sanitary Manholes (72")2 EA 8,500.00$ 17,000$ 13 Sanitary Manhole Depth over 10'22 LF 150.00$ 3,300$ 14 Turf Establishment Uplands 3.9 AC 2,000.00$ 7,818$ 15 Turf Establishment Wetlands 0.7 AC 6,000.00$ 4,139$ 16 Gravel Road Restoration (Stieg Rd)500 SY 10.00$ 5,000$ 17 Erosion Control 1821 LF 6.00$ 10,927$ Subtotal 507,250$ Design and Contingency (30%)152,175$ Total 659,425$ Combined Phase Total 4,102,259$ Notes: 1) No easement costs included. Table 2. Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer Costs Sanitary Sewer 30" Trunk Route C Phase 1 Item #Description Qty Units Unit Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 2 Clearing & Grubbing 4 AC 8,000.00$ 32,000$ 3 Sanitary Sewer (0-15')0 LF 200.00$ -$ 4 Sanitary Sewer (15-20')985 LF 215.00$ 211,849$ 5 Sanitary Sewer (20-25')429 LF 230.00$ 98,584$ 6 Sanitary Sewer (25-30')1526 LF 245.00$ 373,964$ 7 Sanitary Sewer (30-35')1540 LF 260.00$ 400,344$ 8 Sanitary Sewer (35-40')1098 LF 280.00$ 307,515$ 9 Sanitary Sewer (40-45')79 LF 300.00$ 23,617$ 10 Sanitary Sewer (45-50')0 LF 325.00$ -$ 11 Sanitary Manholes (60")9 EA 7,000.00$ 63,000$ 12 Sanitary Manholes (72")7 EA 8,500.00$ 59,500$ 13 Sanitary Manhole Depth over 10'306 LF 150.00$ 45,900$ 14 Turf Establishment Uplands 12.8 AC 2,000.00$ 25,576$ 15 Turf Establishment Wetlands 5.3 AC 6,000.00$ 31,893$ 16 Gravel Road Restoration (Stieg Rd)500 SY 10.00$ 5,000$ 17 Erosion Control 5657 LF 6.00$ 33,943$ Subtotal 1,762,686$ Design and Contingency (30%)528,806$ Total 2,291,491$ Sanitary Sewer 30" Trunk Route C Phase 2 Item #Description Qty Units Unit Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 2 Clearing & Grubbing 0.5 AC 8,000.00$ 4,000$ 3 Sanitary Sewer (0-15')1047 LF 200.00$ 209,328$ 4 Sanitary Sewer (15-20')1112 LF 215.00$ 239,039$ 5 Sanitary Sewer (20-25')1448 LF 230.00$ 333,119$ 6 Sanitary Sewer (25-30')1027 LF 245.00$ 251,557$ 7 Sanitary Sewer (30-35')394 LF 260.00$ 102,348$ 8 Sanitary Sewer (35-40')0 LF 280.00$ -$ 9 Sanitary Sewer (40-45')0 LF 300.00$ -$ 10 Sanitary Sewer (45-50')0 LF 325.00$ -$ 11 Sanitary Manholes (60")8 EA 7,000.00$ 56,000$ 12 Sanitary Manholes (72")8 EA 8,500.00$ 68,000$ 13 Sanitary Manhole Depth over 10'170 LF 150.00$ 25,500$ 14 Turf Establishment Uplands 11.0 AC 2,000.00$ 22,042$ 15 Turf Establishment Wetlands 1.9 AC 6,000.00$ 11,669$ 16 Gravel Road Restoration (Stieg Rd)500 SY 10.00$ 5,000$ 17 Erosion Control 5027 LF 6.00$ 30,163$ Subtotal 1,407,766$ Design and Contingency (30%)422,330$ Total 1,830,096$ Combined Phase Total 4,121,587$ Notes: 1) No easement costs included. Table 2. Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer Costs Sanitary Sewer 30" Trunk Route D Phase 1 Item #Description Qty Units Unit Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 2 Clearing & Grubbing 4 AC 8,000.00$ 32,000$ 3 Sanitary Sewer (0-15')46 LF 200.00$ 9,205$ 4 Sanitary Sewer (15-20')234 LF 215.00$ 50,275$ 5 Sanitary Sewer (20-25')669 LF 230.00$ 153,887$ 6 Sanitary Sewer (25-30')1171 LF 245.00$ 286,888$ 7 Sanitary Sewer (30-35')3567 LF 260.00$ 927,459$ 8 Sanitary Sewer (35-40')3764 LF 280.00$ 1,053,790$ 9 Sanitary Sewer (40-45')1008 LF 300.00$ 302,459$ 10 Sanitary Sewer (45-50')617 LF 325.00$ 200,555$ 11 Sanitary Manholes (60")24 EA 7,000.00$ 168,000$ 12 Sanitary Manholes (72")12 EA 8,500.00$ 102,000$ 13 Sanitary Manhole Depth over 10'873 LF 150.00$ 130,950$ 14 Turf Establishment Uplands 29.0 AC 2,000.00$ 58,034$ 15 Turf Establishment Wetlands 5.1 AC 6,000.00$ 30,724$ 16 Gravel Road Restoration (Stieg Rd)500 SY 10.00$ 5,000$ 17 Erosion Control 11076 LF 6.00$ 66,455$ Subtotal 3,627,682$ Design and Contingency (30%)1,088,305$ Total 4,715,987$ Sanitary Sewer 30" Trunk Route D Phase 2 Item #Description Qty Units Unit Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ 2 Clearing & Grubbing 0.5 AC 8,000.00$ 4,000$ 3 Sanitary Sewer (0-15')1038 LF 200.00$ 207,501$ 4 Sanitary Sewer (15-20')707 LF 215.00$ 151,983$ 5 Sanitary Sewer (20-25')69 LF 230.00$ 15,956$ 6 Sanitary Sewer (25-30')7 LF 245.00$ 1,619$ 7 Sanitary Sewer (30-35')0 LF 260.00$ -$ 8 Sanitary Sewer (35-40')0 LF 280.00$ -$ 9 Sanitary Sewer (40-45')0 LF 300.00$ -$ 10 Sanitary Sewer (45-50')0 LF 325.00$ -$ 11 Sanitary Manholes (60")4 EA 7,000.00$ 28,000$ 12 Sanitary Manholes (72")2 EA 8,500.00$ 17,000$ 13 Sanitary Manhole Depth over 10'22 LF 150.00$ 3,300$ 14 Turf Establishment Uplands 3.9 AC 2,000.00$ 7,815$ 15 Turf Establishment Wetlands 0.7 AC 6,000.00$ 4,137$ 16 Gravel Road Restoration (Stieg Rd)500 SY 10.00$ 5,000$ 17 Erosion Control 1820 LF 6.00$ 10,922$ Subtotal 507,233$ Design and Contingency (30%)152,170$ Total 659,403$ Combined Phase Total 5,375,390$ Notes: 1) No easement costs included. Table 3. Branch (15-Inch) Trunk Sewer Cost from Phase 1 of Options A or C to Pulte Development Sanitary Sewer 15" Branch from Routes A or C Item #Description Qty Units Unit Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000$ 2 Clearing & Grubbing 0 AC 8,000.00$ -$ 3 Sanitary Sewer (0-15')0 LF 60.00$ -$ 4 Sanitary Sewer (15-20')102 LF 80.00$ 8,150$ 5 Sanitary Sewer (20-25')285 LF 100.00$ 28,456$ 6 Sanitary Sewer (25-30')464 LF 120.00$ 55,647$ 7 Sanitary Sewer (30-35')0 LF 150.00$ -$ 8 Sanitary Sewer (35-40')0 LF 190.00$ -$ 9 Sanitary Sewer (40-45')0 LF -$ 10 Sanitary Sewer (45-50')0 LF -$ 11 Sanitary Manholes (48")2 EA 3,000.00$ 6,000$ 12 Sanitary Manholes (60")0 EA 7,000.00$ -$ 13 Sanitary Manhole Depth over 10'29 LF 125.00$ 3,625$ 14 Turf Establishment Uplands 0.8 AC 2,000.00$ 1,522$ 15 Turf Establishment Wetlands 1.0 AC 6,000.00$ 6,026$ 16 Gravel Road Restoration 0 SY 10.00$ -$ 17 Erosion Control 850 LF 6.00$ 5,101$ Subtotal 129,527$ Design and Contingency (30%)38,858$ Total 168,385$ Notes: 1) No easement costs included. Figures 1 Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer Routing Options 2 Sewer Depths for Primary (30-Inch) Trunk Sewer 3 Trunk Water Main Routing 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 De p t h ( f t ) Distance from Elm Creek Sewer Interceptor (ft) FIGURE 2. SEWER DEPTH FOR PRIMARY (30-INCH) TRUNK SEWER A-A' B-B' C-C' D-D' Trunk Water Main Routing Figure 3 Connection to Existing Maple Grove 16'' Watermain with New Meter Manhole Jacked Crossing Under CR 101 4567116 4567101 Future Water Tower in This Direction 97t h P l Br o c k t o n L a N 97th Ave N Hunters Rdg Walnut G r o v e L a N Zi r c o n La CR - 1 1 6 97th Ave 100th Ave A l v a r a d o L a N 101st Ave PULTE HOMES FEASIBILITY STUDY 400 0 400200 Feet ±Path: L:\2294\0033\mxd\Trunk Water Main Routing.mxdDate: 11/7/2017 Time: 10:31:37 PM User: shujc0243 NOV 2017 Legend Proposed Pulte Homes Development Proposed 12'' Proposed 16'' Existing Maple Grove 16'' Parcels Toll Free: 800-472-2232 Email: wenckmp@wenck.com Web: wenck.com Toll Free: 800-472-2232 Email: wenckmp@wenck.com Web: wenck.com CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763.420.2288 E-mail - general@ci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site - www.ci.corcoran.mn.us Memo To: Planning (Planner Lindahl) From: Director of Public Safety Gottschalk Date: May 16, 2018 Re: Pulte Encore Development Public Safety staff has reviewed the latest concept plan for Pulte’s Encore development. Based on observations the group is asking for the following: 1. Align the North and South accesses on Stieg Road to create a four-legged intersection. 2. In the southeast corner provide emergency vehicle access between the cul-de-sac and roadway. (This could take several different forms that fit with the neighborhood, it doesn’t need to be a roadway). 3. In the southwest corner remove the cul-de-sac located on the Hunters Ridge extension and connect the roadways. 4. Improved trails should support a squad car, fire department grass rig, and/or ambulance. Public Safety has some concerns with the southwest portion of the plan containing 120 homes served by only one access. If this proceeds as planned in the concept we believe the following restrictions should be in place while only one access exists: 1. No parking on streets in the development. 2. Construction trailers & equipment removed from streets on weekends and evenings. 3. 1st lift of asphalt completed on all roads in the development and hydrants tested/in service before building permits are issued. This memo serves as a concept review and assumes that all specifications not articulated in the concept meet City standards. Additional fire and building codes will apply. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 15700190003300 7300141006800 255025500 7200122005000 500071002100 7900150007100 6900118004900 109009300-1600 500079002900 8000150007000 660087002100 7400112003800 66007300700 720092002000 16001800200 280082005400 86007000-1600 610074001300 2550260050 29003500600 650081001600 8500148006300 11600136002000 11501400250 61005000-1100 15600169001300 33004000700 415053001150 36504400750 13600154001800 225073005050 620085002300 710084001300 9500113001800365047001050 9500123002800 7600107003100 31504100950 9400122002800 275042001450 048004800 057005700 HAFFTENLAKE JUBERTLAKE LAKEPETER LAKE SARAH SCHAUER LAKE SCHENDELLAKE CROW RIVER É)COUN TY 159 É)COUN TY 117 É)COUN TY 47 É)COUN TY 203 É)COUN TY 117 É)COUN TY 116 É)COUN TY 117 É)COUN TY 116 É)COUN TY 116 89th Ave N Br o c k t o n L n N Ro s e d a l e A v e N County R o a d 1 0 109th Ave N Co u n t y R o a d 1 9 County Road 30 ÉÉMINNESOTA55 ÉÉMINNESOTA55 ÉÉMINNESOTA55 Wright County ROGERS GREENFIELD LORETTO DAYTON MEDINA PLYMOUTH HANOVER INDEPENDENCE MAPLE GROVE CORCORAN %&'(94 $+COUNTY 19 $+COUNTY 101 $+COUNTY 81 $+COUNTY 10 $+COUNTY 101 $+COUNTY 123 $+COUNTY 10 $+COUNTY 101$+COUNTY 19 $+COUNTY 101 $+COUNTY 10 $+COUNTY 19 $+COUNTY 30 $+COUNTY 30 $+COUNTY 50 $+COUNTY 50 $+COUNTY 10 $+COUNTY 30 $+COUNTY 50 $+COUNTY 19 Disclaimer:This map (i) is furnished "AS IS" with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) isfurnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes.Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this map. Publication date: 5/2/2018 Data sources: SRF Consulting ¯0 21Miles Corcoran 2040 Forecasted AADT Preliminary Draft | Hennepin County Public Works Current Volume2040 ForecastGrowth !Hennepin From:Bonin, BJ (DNR) To:Michael Pritchard Cc:Spiegel, Jason (DNR); Drewry, Kate (DNR); Daniels, Jeanne M (DNR) Subject:RE: Project Distribution: 18-016 Encore (Pulte) - Preliminary Plat/PUD, Rezoning Date:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 4:24:21 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Mike: DNR has comments related to the preliminary plat/PUD 18-016 Encore with regards to public waters. · The outlets of ponds #1N and #2N that drain into 27-319w will require DNR Public Waters permits as they appear to be below the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of the basin. · Constructing berms for ponds #1N and #2N may require DNR Public Waters permits if the base of the berm is below the OHWL of 27-319w. · Any grading, including both cutting and filling, for lots on Elm and Fir Lanes that takes place below the OHWL of 27-319w will require a DNR Public Waters permit. · Construction of the trunk sanitary sewer in/under/through 27-319w will require a DNR permit. We recommend that this sewer be installed outside of the basin. · Development plans for the Light Industrial Outlot that includes portions of 27-319w and 27- 318w should be reviewed by the DNR for permit requirements before any work is started. · Dewatering for utility construction will require a DNR Appropriations permit. Please provide a copy of the wetland delineation report for our records. BJ BJ Bonin, PG Support Hydrologist | Ecological and Water Resources – Region 3 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN, 55106 Phone: 651-259-5717 Email: bj.bonin@state.mn.us 1 We Build Consumer Inspired Homes and Communities to Make Lives Better “ENCORE” APPLICATION FOR: PUD Preliminary Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Rezoning CORCORAN, MINNESOTA April 17, 2018 Introduction Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (“Pulte”) is pleased to be submitting this application for PUD Preliminary Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Rezoning. Pulte’s company vision is “Building Consumer Inspired Homes and Communities to Make Lives Better”. We are one of the largest homebuilders in the United States with corporate offices in Atlanta, Georgia. We currently operate under three distinct brands of homebuilding throughout the country: Pulte Homes, Centex Homes, and Del Webb. Pulte’s Minnesota Division has an office in Eden Prairie and sold over 500 homes in the Twin Cities in 2017, all under the Pulte Homes brand. Encore will be the first Del Webb community in the State of Minnesota! Pulte will act as both developer of the property and builder of the homes within Encore. The primary contact for Pulte is: Paul Heuer, Director of Land Planning & Entitlement 7500 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 670 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-229-0722 Paul.Heuer@PulteGroup.com The owners of the properties are: Carol J. Newman Trust 4755 Callahan Mountain Road Springdale, AR 72762 Mary Schober Martin and Joel Martin 19319 Stieg Road Corcoran, MN 55374 101 Farms 10409 County Road 101 Corcoran, MN 55311 2 Property Legal Descriptions & Addresses Legal Description - Newman: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, North Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South along the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 514 feet; thence at right angles West a distance of 618.65 feet; thence at right angles North a distance of 514 feet to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East along the said North line to the point of beginning. Also, the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Address - Newman: 9975 County Road 101 Corcoran, MN 55340 Legal Descriptions - Schober: The S 2/3 of the SE ¼ of Section 01 T 119 R 23 lying westerly of the E 1526.22 feet TH of subject to Stieg Road The E 1526.22 feet of the S 2/3 of the SE ¼ of Section 01 T 119 R 23 subject to Stieg Road and County Road 101 Addresses - Schober: 19319 Stieg Road Corcoran, MN 55374 19301 Stieg Road Corcoran, MN 55374 Legal Description - 101 Farms (portion in Encore) The south 292.70 feet of the west 595.12 feet of the north 1/3 of the East 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter, Section 1, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Address – 101 Farms 10409 County Road 101 Corcoran, MN 55311 Key Facts • Existing zoning is a combination of Urban Reserve (UR), Single Family Residential (RSF-1), High Density Residential (RMF-3), and Community Commercial (C-2) • Proposed zoning - PUD and C-1 • Proposed uses - 2.1-acre commercial outlot and 398 detached villa townhomes with homeowner’s association maintenance and a large private amenity center o 153 of the lots will be 44 feet wide o 181 of the lots will be 50 feet wide – homes with optional basements o 64 of the lots will be 60 feet wide – homes w/basements and 3-car garages 3 • Key property areas (pre-development): • Minimum home setbacks – Loop road o 20 feet front o 5 feet and 5 feet side o 20 feet rear (internal lots) and 25 feet rear (perimeter lots) • Minimum home setbacks – All other streets o 25 feet front o 5 feet and 5 feet side o 20 feet rear (internal lots) and 25 feet rear (perimeter lots) Neighborhood Vision Del Webb is a renowned brand name across the country that exclusively caters to the active adult 55+ market. Del Webb creates extremely popular, high-amenity facilitated lifestyle active adult communities which are highly sought after by cities across the country. We have been searching for a location in the Twin Cities to create our first Del Webb age- restricted community in Minnesota. Many active adult buyers are searching for a neighborhood with the following attributes: single level homes; homeowner’s association yard and snow maintenance; a safe and secure feeling; the attractiveness of a resort; and provides an abundance of social and recreational opportunities. Encore has been designed to cater to these buyers. Within Encore, we have incorporated the traditional Del Webb neighborhood design characteristics which have been a trademark for decades. Our neighborhood vision for Encore includes the following traditional Del Webb design attributes: 1. Entrance experience – At the primary entrance to the neighborhood off County Road 101 (100th Avenue), there will be plentiful open space, a large monument, and robust landscaping. 2. Arrival drive – The arrival drive leads the driver directly from the main entrance to the amenity center. The arrival drive consists of a parkway with a wide, heavily landscaped center median and runs immediately adjacent to a wetland, providing beautiful, open views. There are no driveways on the parkway, creating a feeling of luxury, beauty, safety, and a welcoming sense of arrival into the neighborhood. 3. Amenity center – This buyer expects a private amenity center that caters to their recreational and social needs. We have strategically planned this amenity at a central location overlooking the largest wetland on the property. Based on our experience with 4 creating many Del Webb communities across the country, we will be providing a highly desirable combination of amenities in a luxurious setting. 4. Trails/Open Space – We used the City’s Comprehensive Plan as a guide for preserving valued natural resources (woods), providing land for an active public park, and designing an interconnected public trail system throughout the neighborhood. 5. A feeling of security – It is very important to this buyer that their neighborhood feel safe and secure. This is accomplished by a variety of intentional design approaches such as buffer plantings in key perimeter areas, parkway arrival drive, sidewalks along every street, a private amenity center for homeowners and their guests, etc. 6. Single level villa homes – The active adult buyer oftentimes wants to move into a single level home with no or minimal stairs, homeowner’s association maintained yards/snow removal, and social and recreational opportunities. We will be offering homes and a neighborhood that provides these attributes. Buyers will be able to choose from different product lines of homes, each catering to a different square footage, price point, and location/views. Improvements to the Neighborhood The current neighborhood layout is basically the same as the sketch plan that went before the City Council on the February 22nd City Council meeting. We listened carefully to comments made by City staff and the City Council and have addressed many of the comments. Once we entered the engineering stage, we also studied some areas in more detail and have made some improvements to the plan. For the sake of clarity, we’d like to point out changes to the neighborhood layout: 1. We created more buffer space in the rear yards along the east side of the Hunters Ridge neighborhood. 2. We added a future trail connection from our main entrance to Immanuel United Methodist Church to enable convenient pedestrian access to the church. 3. We eliminated the roundabout near the main entrance, opting instead for a more traditional intersection configuration. 4. We revised the street connections to Stieg Road to provide a continuous loop road around the large wetland. This also results in a much stronger and more attractive secondary entrance into the neighborhood. 5. Due to the change in location of the street connection to the south side of Stieg Road, we made minor changes in location of the street connection to the north side of Stieg Road to line these streets up. 6. We made minor street revisions in the southeast corner of the neighborhood to get the storm water to work. 7. We revised the trails to better match the Comprehensive Plan. 8. We contemplated adjustments to the street connections near Hunters Ridge to discourage potential future “cut through” traffic from County Road 116 to County Road 30. However, City staff correctly pointed out that the needs from the standpoint of fire and public safety must be factored into any such changes. It also became apparent that by making cut through traffic less likely, we also make it more likely that Encore traffic will choose to cut through Hunters Ridge. In the end, no major changes were made to this area. 5 These changes have strengthened the functionality and livability of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. Zoning Existing zoning of the property is a combination of Urban Reserve (UR), Single Family Residential (RSF-1), High Density Residential (RMF-3), and Community Commercial (C-2). The We are requesting to rezone the commercial use property to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and the residential use property to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Park Dedication Comprehensive Plan Guidance The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the woods in the central part of the Newman property as a “High Quality Natural Community” (see brown area in the graphic below). It further defines it as a “Maple/Basswood” forest. In addition, the location of this woods is ideal for a passive public amenity. We are preserving nearly 9 acres of this woods. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies many recreational facilities planned for the general area (see graphic below). A Neighborhood Park (“NP”) and/or Community Park (“CP”) are shown in the below graphic as well as public trails illustrated in orange. 6 The combination of a neighborhood park and wooded open space interconnected by public trails will be a very attractive public amenity for the area. We have incorporated these features into the design of the Encore neighborhood, with convenient access for those outside of the neighborhood. See below graphic. Trails We will be constructing the trails shown in the below graphic (in blue). Future trails constructed by others are also shown to provide context. The total length of public trails to be constructed with Encore is almost 9,500 feet. Sidewalks are shown in red. 7 Schober Park As part of our park dedication, we are dedicating 4.80 acres of land for a City park on the Schober property. Subtracting wetlands and a storm water pond leads to a total upland area of 3.96 acres. It is anticipated that when the adjacent Van Blaricom property develops, additional park dedication will complete the park. Now would be an appropriate time for the City to plan amenities and uses in Schober Park. On our plans we are showing an example illustration of a potential layout of amenities and uses. Through experience in creating many neighborhoods in recent years, it has become apparent that dog parks are a very popular facility for all demographic groups. We highly recommend that the City construct a dog park in this location concurrent with development of Phase 2 or Phase 3 of Encore (2019 or 2020) to serve the broader area. We have recently built a dog park and we have utilized this basic layout in our drawings for Schober Park. We recommend budgeting between $60k and $80k for the dog park. Satisfying Park Dedication Our calculations (see below) indicate that in providing all the features identified in the Comprehensive Plan, we will be dedicating more than required by City ordinance for this application. These properties happen to contain land that the City wishes to preserve for both passive and active recreational uses. We are dedicating a wooded natural resource, active park land, and the construction of public trails. 8 9 Landscape Plan A key component of an attractive Del Webb community is the use of plentiful and attractive landscaping. It is worthwhile to point out some key aspects of the landscape plan. The main entrance and arrival drive have a large amount of landscaping to deliver a resort-like experience. This includes greenery as well as color in the form of perennials and ornamental trees. Another key aspect of the landscape plan is the large landscape buffers along the small commercial lot at the main entrance and buffers against the homes along the arrival drive. These details provide for a special experience. A significant amount of focus is also on the amenity center, utilizing landscaping to create separate “outdoor rooms” and buffering from the public trail to create the right amount of privacy for the homeowners. Another key aspect of our landscape plan is the intentional buffering against the surrounding land uses. For instance, we provided additional buffer space in the rear yards of the home abutting the large Schober commercial property. In this additional space, we are creating berms and landscaping to provide a solid buffer between land uses. Similarly, we are providing landscape buffers along the southern property line of Encore and along Stieg Road. Finally, we have designed the boulevard tree plan to alternate tree species to guard against potential diseases impacting any species of tree. We have made a strong effort to use native plant species to the extent possible. It should be noted that during the great recession, the lack of development activity resulted in many nurseries cutting back on the quantity of new stock they normally would plant every year and even cutting down larger trees and eventually planting new ones. The result of this is that to this day there continues to be an undersupply of adequately sized trees. Unlike many other products, trees cannot quickly be brought to market. This unusual situation means that the availability of specific tree species cannot be counted on and we must continually be flexible on the species of trees that can be acquired. You’ll note that the landscape schedule indicates a specified species and some alternate species to address this temporary market deficiency. Our Homes Pulte Homes is known for the extraordinary steps that we take to ensure that we are designing and building homes that meet the needs and desires of home buyers. We continually reach out to the public and Pulte homeowners to get feedback to improve our home designs. W e call this Life Tested®. We build prototypical rooms and homes in warehouses across the country and pay members of the public to walk through and provide written feedback on the homes. Through this intensive process, we have conceived of and incorporated many innovative home design features such as the Pulte Planning Center, Everyday Entry, Super Laundry, Oversized Pantry, and the Owner’s Retreat. This exhaustive process has played a major part in Pulte’s success in “Building Consumer Inspired Homes and Communities to Make Lives Better”. We will be offering our updated and popular combination of Del Webb homes. Buyers will be able to choose from different product lines of homes with varying sizes, prices, and views/locations. Below is a brief description of the lot and home selections that we envision being offered at Encore. All product lines will offer five different options for architectural facades and will offer various structural options. 10 44-Foot Wide Lots The homes planned for the 44-foot wide lots will be 34-feet wide and range in size from 1,300 to 1,700 square feet. There will be three different floor plans to choose from. These smaller floor plans are very popular for singles/widows/widowers in our active adult neighborhoods. They typically have two bedrooms and a two-car garage and are built slab on grade (no basements). Valuations of these homes are anticipated to be from the high $200k’s to the mid-$300k’s. 50-Foot Wide Lots The homes planned for the 50-foot wide lots will be 40-feet wide and range in size from 1,680 to 1,960 square feet (excluding basements). There will be four different floor plans to choose from. These homes are typically the largest selling product line in our active adult neighborhoods across the country. The homes typically have two bedrooms and a two-car garage, but are versatile and can offer many options such as a third bedroom, a bonus room, and/or a finished basement. Valuations of these homes are anticipated to be from the mid-$300k’s to the low $400k’s. 60-Foot Wide Lots The homes planned for the 60-foot lots will be a similar product line as for the 50-foot wide lots. However, all of homes will have basements and three-car garages. The homes will be 50 feet wide. These lots are placed in the premium locations with the most attractive views. Valuations of these homes are anticipated to be from the high $300k’s to the low $500k’s. Architecture Del Webb has been creating age restricted communities since 1960. Through decades of experience, we have learned that specific home and community characteristics have consistently been desired by the active adult buyer. The homes and community that we have designed in Corcoran meets these desires, though home desires have evolved in small ways and we have adapted our home designs to the ever-changing market. Encore will include the same updated, tried and true Del Webb floor plans that are sold in other markets across the country. The Uniqueness of an Age Restricted Community A small number of municipalities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area adopt architectural design standards. Corcoran is one of those cities. Sometimes we see ordinances that apply only to multifamily buildings, while other ordinances are aimed primarily at single family home architecture. It is apparent in reading City Ordinance 2016-338 that single family homes were in mind while creating these architectural standards. Encore is not a traditional single-family neighborhood and it is worth the exercise of considering the uniqueness of this type of neighborhood regarding architecture. Homes in an age restricted community differ from those in a single-family neighborhood in some significant ways. These factors are critical in how the overall architecture and attractiveness of the home and neighborhood are perceived. Each of these differences is discussed below. 11 1) One story homes vs two story homes – A typical two story single family home displays up to twice the surface area on all four sides of the home than a one-story home (see below graphic). This can sometimes result in large, somewhat blank walls on a two-story single-family home that can be lacking in attractiveness. In effect, there is less opportunity and need to “spice up” the exterior elevations of a one-story home. 2) Narrower homes – Similarly, age restricted homes are typically narrower than two story single family homes for the simple reason that a retired individual or couple needs less space than a family does. The same point as discussed above comes into play on this issue as well. There is less surface area on the fronts and rears of the home and therefore there is less opportunity and need to add architectural elements to the homes (see below graphic). 3) Less side setbacks – Due to the desire of the age restricted buyer to minimize the size of their lawns, the nationwide typical Del Webb side setback is five feet and five feet. This leads to the side elevations of the homes being much less visible than for single-family homes with wider side setbacks. Typical active adult front, side, and rear elevation – gable roof Typical active adult home front, side, and rear elevation – hip roof Typ. single-family home front, side, and rear elev. – for example only; not part of Encore Compliance with Architecture Guidelines We are incorporating elevations of our housing products into this application to have complete transparency on what we will be building in Encore and to allow for approval of all elevations now in lieu of significant administrative effort in approving each individual home over time. Below is a point by point listing of how we are satisfying or dealing with each section of the City’s design standards as outlined in City Ordinance 2016-338. 12 Section 1.A.2 Materials Used Required - Two materials on the front elevations. If vinyl is included, then three different variations in color, style, and/or material is required. Provided – All front elevations will have cultured stone, vinyl siding, LP trim, upgraded garage doors, and Fypon accents. Section 1.A.3 Architectural Elements Required – Front elevation to have doors, windows and variations of the wall face with the use of pilasters or columns, wainscots, canopies, or other architectural elements. Provided – Encore will fully comply with this requirement. Section 1.A.4 Design Required – Front elevations shall be varied with a minimum of five different styles. Provided – Encore will fully comply with this requirement. Our standard Del Webb product lines include five different architectural styles and three or four different floor plans per product line. The five architectural styles for each of our floor plans include Prairie, Heartland, Craftsman, Northern Craftsman, and Euro Country. Section 1.B.1 Garages Required – Garage shall not comprise more than 55% of the viewable ground floor street-facing linear building frontage. Provided – By the nature of active adult housing we cannot satisfy this requirement. Retired couples oftentimes have two cars or one car and a golf cart or small recreational vehicle. They do not have children living in the home and therefore need less living space than families do. Therefore, the ratio of garage space for a retire couple is higher than that of a family. This requirement appears to be aimed at single family homes. All our 40-foot wide homes will comply with this section. However, our 34-foot and 50-foot wide homes will not comply with this section. Per staff recommendation, we will provide upgraded garage doors on all homes (see Example Building Materials exhibit). Section 1.B.2 Garage Design Required – Garage doors shall be architecturally styled (this includes details such as raised panels, accent color, windows, etc.) to match the exterior design of the home. Provided – Encore will fully comply with this requirement. Our base homes will have raised panel garage doors and we offer options for upgrades including windows, hardware, etc. Section 1.C.1 Roofing Material Required – Roofing materials including asphalt shingles, wood shingles, concrete, clay, ceramic tile roofs or residential steel roofing material are required on all roofs. Provided – Encore will fully comply with this requirement with the use of asphalt shingles. Section 1.C.2 Roof Overhangs Required – Overhangs must be a minimum of 12 inches. Provided – Encore will fully comply with this requirement. Section 1.D.1 Equal Architectural Treatment Required – Equal architectural treatment on all sides of the building (materials, articulation, etc.) shall be used for all new residential construction when located on or visible from a street or public park. Each elevation facing a street or public park should use a minimum of 2 different materials and/or styles compatible with the front elevation as described in this Section. All other 13 elevations shall make a good faith effort to demonstrate that elements of the front elevation have been considered for incorporation on these elevations. Provided – As referenced above, there is very little space on the rears of these narrow, single story rear views and therefore there is very little to work with on this requirement. There is also very little need. In addition, some buyers will choose a hip roof, which will display only wall surface area on the first floor. In order to address this requirement, we will provide two options to both side elevations of all homes shown in the Upgraded Elevation Map. Option 1 is adding a banding board and shake siding above the banding board on both side elevations with gable roofs. Option 2 is adding a banding board and having a different siding color above the banding board. We are offering two options to home buyers to provide a variety of appearances. If a home buyer chooses an architectural style that includes a hip roof, then there are no gables on the side elevations and therefore no upgraded side elevations are needed. For upgraded rear elevations, 4 inch vinyl trim will be placed around the rear and both side elevations windows (LP trim is used on all front elevations). Option 1: Banding board and shake siding above banding board (both side elevation) Option 2: Banding board with different colored siding above and below banding board (both side elevations) Section 1.D.2 Windows Required – Each side elevation shall have at least one window or door opening. Provided – Encore will fully comply with this requirement. Section 1.D.3 Foundation Exposure Required – A maximum of 18 inches of the foundation wall may be exposed on any elevation. Provided – Encore will fully comply with this requirement. Encore Architecture Attached to this application you will find our elevations for Encore. A quick summary: 34-foot wide homes – Although a popular and tried and true Del Webb product, we have not built this product line in Minnesota. Therefore, we are in the process of drawing the various elevations and architectural styles fitting for this market area. We have included nine elevations in the application. These elevations will be redrawn to include stone in all front elevations and to include our series of architectural styles for the Twin Cities market. As the additional elevations become available, we anticipate bringing them forward for approval. In total, we will have three floor plans each with five different architectural elevations totaling fifteen elevations. 14 40-foot wide homes – We will have four floor plans each with ten different architectural elevations totaling forty elevations. All twenty elevations are included in this application. 50-foot wide homes – We will have four floor plans each with ten different architectural elevations totaling forty elevations. All twenty elevations are included in this application. Amenities One of the primary hallmarks of a Del Webb community is the elevated level of amenities included in the neighborhood. Encore is no exception. We are providing the same level of amenities as other similar sized Del Webb communities across the nation. Although preliminary architectural design is ongoing, the size of the clubhouse is estimated to be between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet. The below preliminary floor plan shows the various uses within the clubhouse including a fitness center, locker rooms, multi-purpose rooms, a craft room, a community room, and a commercial grade kitchen. An example architectural front elevation of the clubhouse is also shown below. Outside amenities will include a pool, fire pit, pickle ball courts, bocce ball courts, a tennis court, and many outside gathering places to knit the activities together. We have been very thoughtful in the locations, orientations, and transitions experiences throughout the amenity center. An early concept is shown below. Please note that changes will inevitably be made. 15 It should be noted that although a public trail will run along the south edge of the amenity center, we have intentionally designed the private park to be physically and visually separated from the public trail via the use of both landscaping and grade change. We will provide the appropriate level of signing to communicate clearly about where private property begins. An early site line graphic from the public boardwalk to the private amenity center is shown below. Trunk Sewer Pulte Homes remains willing to finance the full cost of extending trunk sewer to and through the Encore neighborhood in conjunction with development of Encore. In effect, we are willing to loan the City this money at our risk. We will enter into a “recapture agreement” with the City which would result in Pulte Homes being reimbursed by the City over time as the City collects sewer impact fees from development of other properties in northeast Corcoran. Recapture agreements are not unusual and have been a useful instrument in dealing with just this type of situation in other jurisdictions across the country. This is like what was agreed to for the Ravinia neighborhood. What this Approach Accomplishes 1. Unlocks other development potential – Currently, all development in northeast Corcoran is being “held hostage” by the industrial properties. Our approach will unlock potential development throughout northeast Corcoran. Development of Encore will result in extending sewer to the properties zoned Business Park and Mixed Use off County Road 30 perhaps as soon as the end of 2018. At the current time, these properties cannot even be considered by prospective buyers, as bringing sewer to these properties will make them development-ready. Development in this area could generate significant real estate taxes for the City. 16 2. Provides another option for solving the septic dilemma – Every City encounters issues with failing septic systems. This can be a very complicated and controversial issue. There are many septic systems to the west and northwest of Encore. It would be very helpful for the City to have the permanent option available for consideration – extension of sanitary sewer. In conjunction with development of Encore, sewer will be brought much closer to some of these rural residential areas (Hunter Ridge, Jackie Lane, Country Circle, Country Road, and Robert Lane). It also brings sewer to Immanuel United Methodist Church and brings it closer to Hope Community Church. 3. No cost or risk to the City – We recognize that the City does not feel comfortable now financing the extension of this trunk sewer. Pulte Homes will finance the extension at our cost and our risk. Active Adult Neighborhood Active adult neighborhoods are not all that common, but they are highly sought after because of the many benefits they bring to a community. What can you expect? • A beautiful, highly sought-after neighborhood • Quality citizens • Positive financial cost/benefit • Energized business climate Benefits of an age restricted neighborhood • Light use of streets, water, wastewater, and police • Disposable income leads to high consumption • Pay their real estate taxes, which will be significant • Contribute to schools, but don’t send students • Greatly reduced rush hour traffic compared to typical residential neighborhoods Social presence • Volunteerism • Civic minded Covenants Del Webb communities, including Encore, are age restricted communities. This buyer seeks out an age restricted community where they can spend time with people of similar ages. We create a declaration that is recorded against all properties within the neighborhood which has specific age requirements for living within the community. Although Encore will be an age restricted community, we must comply with State and Federal law. The primary Federal law that we deal with is nicknamed HOPA. HOPA is the federal Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995. The law creates an exception to the federal Fair Housing Act's general prohibition against discrimination in the sale or lease of housing based on "familial status" and allows an age-restricted community to prohibit children or persons of any age if specific requirements are met. The key specific requirement is that at least 80% of the occupied dwelling units in the community must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of 17 age or older (Age-Qualified Occupant). W e set a goal at higher than 80% of the homes being occupied by 55 or older to ensure that we comply with the Federal law requirement of 80% for an age restricted community. In addition, HOPA requires the homeowner’s association to conduct periodic surveys to validate that the age-restricted community complies with the HOPA 80% Occupancy Requirement. This ensures perpetual compliance with the HOPA law. Another specific restriction is that no children can live within the community. A homeowner’s association will also be a key component of this Del Webb neighborhood. Homeowner dues will pay for ongoing maintenance of the amenities, landscaping, entrance monuments, and staff programming of activities. Phasing & Schedule The following preliminary schedule for development is envisioned based on current information and the below preliminary phasing plan. As development progresses, phase boundaries will be refined. Summer 2018 Preliminary plat approval Fall 2018 City installation of trunk sewer Summer/Fall 2018 Development of Phase 1 2019 Development of Phase 2 2020 Development of Phase 3 2021 Development of Phase 4 2022 Development of Phase 5 (if needed) 2022-2024 Full build out See attached Phasing Plan for details. Planned Unit Development (PUD) We are proposing to rezone the property to a commercial use (Outlot A) and PUD (residential uses). In evaluating a PUD application, the City Council weighs the overall benefits of the proposal versus deviations from City ordinances. Here is a summary of the overall benefits and deviations from ordinances of Encore. Overall benefits: 1. Construction of and financing trunk sewer – At no risk to the City, Pulte is proposing to construct and finance a large amount of trunk sewer which will benefit a far greater area. Pulte is assuming a large amount of cost and risk in doing so ($3.7M estimated in the City feasibility report). 2. Trunk sewer to business park/mixed use/commercial properties – In Phase 1 (2018), we will be extending the trunk sewer to or near the properties at the northwest quadrant of County Road 101 and County Road 30. This opens many high-profile and valuable properties for potential development. 3. Preservation of woods – In compliance with the vision outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, we are preserving over 8 acres of hardwood forest/open space. 4. Dedication of land for future active park – In compliance with the vision outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, we are dedicating 4.8 acres of land for a future active public park. The park can be expanded with development of additional properties in the area. This park land is strategically connected to the preserved woods. 18 5. Public trail system - In compliance with the vision outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, we are constructing a substantial part of a system of public trails in northeast Corcoran. 6. Commercial lot – We are developing the first non-residential property (Outlot A) in northeast Corcoran. 7. Stieg Road realignment – We are realigning Stieg Road near County Road 101, resulting in a perpendicular, safer intersection. It will also produce more functional commercial and industrial properties adjacent to Stieg Road. 8. Stieg Road left turn lane – The current condition on County Road 101 at Stieg Road is that a northbound left turn lane is needed. We are proposing to voluntarily pay for adding this left turn lane. (We will also be constructing a turn lane on County Road 101 at 100th Avenue.) 9. Prestigious Neighborhood – Encore will be a beautiful, prestigious neighborhood with an exceptional level of amenities and beauty. The active adult demographic group is very civic minded and is a light user of public services, resulting in an ideal addition to the City of Corcoran. Following is a summary of the deviations from City ordinances: 1. Lot size and reduced side setbacks – The active adult community typically does not have children living in their homes and therefore do not desire to have a large home or a large yard. In fact, additional yard equates to additional unwanted maintenance cost for the residents through their homeowner’s association dues. We are proposing home sizes, lot sizes, and side setbacks that are typical in sought after Del Webb active adult neighborhoods across the country. 2. Architecture – Due to the unique nature of the active adult home, we are requesting approval of the architecture of the homes planned for this Del Webb neighborhood as presented, which has minor deviations from City guidelines. 3. Trails in wetland buffers – There are a couple of areas where we are requesting trails be constructed within wetland buffers. This is a common practice throughout the Twin Cities area. 4. Air conditioner units – We are requesting an exception to the requirement of not allowing air conditioner units within the side setbacks. We were surprised to hear of this requirement and have not encountered this type of policy before. It is our understanding that the purpose of this requirement is for public safety purposes. There are tens of thousands of homes throughout the Twin Cities area that have similar side setbacks and function well without such a restriction. The restriction creates a number of expensive and clumsy alternations to home plans and standard construction practices. In addition, it pushes the condenser to the rear of the home outside of the master bedroom. Homeowners will not appreciate hearing the condenser turn on and off during the summer months. This submittal includes: • This narrative • Applications • Application fees totaling $33,990 • Preliminary Plat package – plat, engineering, landscape architecture • Preliminary Plat – graphic rendering • Architectural package • Wetland delineation report 19 • Phasing plan • Tax records Architectural Upgrades Side Elevations Option 1: Banding board and shake siding above banding board (both side elevations) Option 2: Banding board with different colored siding above and below banding board (both side elevations) A3-HR2G 2FS.11 A3-CR2G 2FS.11 A3-EC2G 2FS.11 A3-NC2G 2FS.11 A3-PR2M 2FS.11 A3-HR2G 2FS.11 A3-CR2G 2FS.11 A3-EC2G 2FS.11 A3-NC2G 2FS.11 A3-PR2M 2FS.11 A3-HR2G 3FS.11 A3-CR2G 3FS.11 A3-EC2G 3FS.11 A3-NC2G 3FS.11 A3-PR2M 3FS.11 A3-HR2G 3FS.11 A3-CR2G 3FS.11 A3-EC2G 3FS.11 A3-NC2G 3FS.11 A3-PR2M 3FS.11 A3 1-2FS.1 EL E V A T I O N 1 AT T I C V E N T S C H E D U L E VE N T I L A T I O N R E Q U I R E D A N D S U P P L I E D I S B A S E D O N P O T V E N T V A L U E S A N D R I D G E V E N T V A L U E S S H O W N I N T A B L E A B O V E ** C O N T R A C T O R S I N S T A L L I N G V E N T I L A T I O N A R E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R V E R I F Y I N G T H A T V E N T S U S E D W I L L S U P P Y V E N T I L A T I O N T O M E E T C O D E R E Q U I R E ME N T S * S C H E D U L E H A S B E E N C A L C U L A T E D A S S U M I N G E A V E V E N T I L A T I O N A T 5 0 - 6 0 % O F T O T A L A N D R I D G E A T 4 0 - 5 0 % O F T O T A L R E Q U I R E D V E N T I L A T I O N RO O F A R E A " A " SQ F T G 17 0 8 AT / N E A R R I D G E A T / N E A R E A V E VE N T T Y P E SQ . F T . RE Q U I R E D RA N G E SQ . F T . SU P P L I E D PE R C E N T OF T O T A L SU P P L I E D PO T L A R G E (S Q . I N . E A C H ) PO T S M A L L (S Q . I N . E A C H ) RI D G E V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) EA V E V E N T (S Q . I N . E A C H ) CO N T . V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) 61 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 0 0 2 8 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 HIG H - P O T VE N T S O N L Y 2. 2 8 2 . 8 5 2 . 5 4 4 4 . 3 1 6 0 AT E A V E 3. 4 2 2 . 8 5 3 . 1 9 5 5 . 6 9 0 46 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 5. 6 9 5 . 6 9 5 . 7 4 1 0 0 . 0 0 HIG H - RI D G E V E N T 2. 2 8 2 . 8 5 2 . 5 0 4 3 . 9 0 0 0 20 . 0 0 AT E A V E 3. 4 2 2 . 8 5 3 . 1 9 5 6 . 1 0 0 46 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 5. 6 9 5 . 6 9 5 . 6 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 AD D I T I O N A L P O T S V E N T S M A Y B E R E Q U I R E D I F T H E R E I S I N S U F F I C I E N T R I D G E A V A I L A B L E A3 2-2FS.1 EL E V A T I O N 2 AT T I C V E N T S C H E D U L E VE N T I L A T I O N R E Q U I R E D A N D S U P P L I E D I S B A S E D O N P O T V E N T V A L U E S A N D R I D G E V E N T V A L U E S S H O W N I N T A B L E A B O V E ** C O N T R A C T O R S I N S T A L L I N G V E N T I L A T I O N A R E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R V E R I F Y I N G T H A T V E N T S U S E D W I L L S U P P Y V E N T I L A T I O N T O M E E T C O D E R E Q U I R E ME N T S * S C H E D U L E H A S B E E N C A L C U L A T E D A S S U M I N G E A V E V E N T I L A T I O N A T 5 0 - 6 0 % O F T O T A L A N D R I D G E A T 4 0 - 5 0 % O F T O T A L R E Q U I R E D V E N T I L A T I O N RO O F A R E A " A " SQ F T G 17 0 8 AT / N E A R R I D G E A T / N E A R E A V E VE N T T Y P E SQ . F T . RE Q U I R E D RA N G E SQ . F T . SU P P L I E D PE R C E N T OF T O T A L SU P P L I E D PO T L A R G E (S Q . I N . E A C H ) PO T S M A L L (S Q . I N . E A C H ) RI D G E V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) EA V E V E N T (S Q . I N . E A C H ) CO N T . V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) 61 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 0 0 2 8 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 HIG H - P O T VE N T S O N L Y 2. 2 8 2 . 8 5 2 . 5 4 4 4 . 3 1 6 0 AT E A V E 3. 4 2 2 . 8 5 3 . 1 9 5 5 . 6 9 0 46 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 5. 6 9 5 . 6 9 5 . 7 4 1 0 0 . 0 0 HIG H - RI D G E V E N T 2. 2 8 2 . 8 5 2 . 5 0 4 3 . 9 0 0 0 20 . 0 0 AT E A V E 3. 4 2 2 . 8 5 3 . 1 9 5 6 . 1 0 0 46 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 5. 6 9 5 . 6 9 5 . 6 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 AD D I T I O N A L P O T S V E N T S M A Y B E R E Q U I R E D I F T H E R E I S I N S U F F I C I E N T R I D G E A V A I L A B L E A3 3-2FS.1 EL E V A T I O N 3 AT T I C V E N T S C H E D U L E VE N T I L A T I O N R E Q U I R E D A N D S U P P L I E D I S B A S E D O N P O T V E N T V A L U E S A N D R I D G E V E N T V A L U E S S H O W N I N T A B L E A B O V E ** C O N T R A C T O R S I N S T A L L I N G V E N T I L A T I O N A R E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R V E R I F Y I N G T H A T V E N T S U S E D W I L L S U P P Y V E N T I L A T I O N T O M E E T C O D E R E Q U I R E ME N T S * S C H E D U L E H A S B E E N C A L C U L A T E D A S S U M I N G E A V E V E N T I L A T I O N A T 5 0 - 6 0 % O F T O T A L A N D R I D G E A T 4 0 - 5 0 % O F T O T A L R E Q U I R E D V E N T I L A T I O N RO O F A R E A " A " SQ F T G 17 0 8 AT / N E A R R I D G E A T / N E A R E A V E VE N T T Y P E SQ . F T . RE Q U I R E D RA N G E SQ . F T . SU P P L I E D PE R C E N T OF T O T A L SU P P L I E D PO T L A R G E (S Q . I N . E A C H ) PO T S M A L L (S Q . I N . E A C H ) RI D G E V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) EA V E V E N T (S Q . I N . E A C H ) CO N T . V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) 61 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 0 0 2 8 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 HIG H - P O T VE N T S O N L Y 2. 2 8 2 . 8 5 2 . 5 4 4 4 . 3 1 6 0 AT E A V E 3. 4 2 2 . 8 5 3 . 1 9 5 5 . 6 9 0 46 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 5. 6 9 5 . 6 9 5 . 7 4 1 0 0 . 0 0 HIG H - RI D G E V E N T 2. 2 8 2 . 8 5 2 . 5 0 4 3 . 9 0 0 0 20 . 0 0 AT E A V E 3. 4 2 2 . 8 5 3 . 1 9 5 6 . 1 0 0 46 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 5. 6 9 5 . 6 9 5 . 6 9 1 0 0 . 0 0 AD D I T I O N A L P O T S V E N T S M A Y B E R E Q U I R E D I F T H E R E I S I N S U F F I C I E N T R I D G E A V A I L A B L E A3 1-2FS.1 EL E V A T I O N 1 AT T I C V E N T S C H E D U L E VE N T I L A T I O N R E Q U I R E D A N D S U P P L I E D I S B A S E D O N P O T V E N T V A L U E S A N D R I D G E V E N T V A L U E S S H O W N I N T A B L E A B O V E ** C O N T R A C T O R S I N S T A L L I N G V E N T I L A T I O N A R E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R V E R I F Y I N G T H A T V E N T S U S E D W I L L S U P P Y V E N T I L A T I O N T O M E E T C O D E R E Q U I R E ME N T S * S C H E D U L E H A S B E E N C A L C U L A T E D A S S U M I N G E A V E V E N T I L A T I O N A T 5 0 - 6 0 % O F T O T A L A N D R I D G E A T 4 0 - 5 0 % O F T O T A L R E Q U I R E D V E N T I L A T I O N RO O F A R E A " A " SQ F T G 19 8 6 AT / N E A R R I D G E A T / N E A R E A V E VE N T T Y P E SQ . F T . RE Q U I R E D RA N G E SQ . F T . SU P P L I E D PE R C E N T OF T O T A L SU P P L I E D PO T L A R G E (S Q . I N . E A C H ) PO T S M A L L (S Q . I N . E A C H ) RI D G E V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) EA V E V E N T (S Q . I N . E A C H ) CO N T . V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) 61 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 0 0 2 8 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 HIG H - P O T VE N T S O N L Y 2. 6 5 3 . 3 1 2 . 9 7 4 4 . 1 6 7 0 AT E A V E 3. 9 7 3 . 3 1 3 . 7 5 5 5 . 8 4 0 54 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 6. 6 2 6 . 6 2 6 . 7 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 HIG H - RI D G E V E N T 2. 6 5 3 . 3 1 3 . 0 0 4 4 . 4 4 0 0 24 . 0 0 AT E A V E 3. 9 7 3 . 3 1 3 . 7 5 5 5 . 5 6 0 54 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 6. 6 2 6 . 6 2 6 . 7 5 1 0 0 . 0 0 AD D I T I O N A L P O T V E N T S M A Y B E R E Q U I R E D I F T H E R E I S I N S U F F I C I E N T R I D G E A V A I L A B L E A3 2-2FS.1 EL E V A T I O N 2 AT T I C V E N T S C H E D U L E VE N T I L A T I O N R E Q U I R E D A N D S U P P L I E D I S B A S E D O N P O T V E N T V A L U E S A N D R I D G E V E N T V A L U E S S H O W N I N T A B L E A B O V E ** C O N T R A C T O R S I N S T A L L I N G V E N T I L A T I O N A R E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R V E R I F Y I N G T H A T V E N T S U S E D W I L L S U P P Y V E N T I L A T I O N T O M E E T C O D E R E Q U I R E ME N T S * S C H E D U L E H A S B E E N C A L C U L A T E D A S S U M I N G E A V E V E N T I L A T I O N A T 5 0 - 6 0 % O F T O T A L A N D R I D G E A T 4 0 - 5 0 % O F T O T A L R E Q U I R E D V E N T I L A T I O N RO O F A R E A " A " SQ F T G 19 8 6 AT / N E A R R I D G E A T / N E A R E A V E VE N T T Y P E SQ . F T . RE Q U I R E D RA N G E SQ . F T . SU P P L I E D PE R C E N T OF T O T A L SU P P L I E D PO T L A R G E (S Q . I N . E A C H ) PO T S M A L L (S Q . I N . E A C H ) RI D G E V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) EA V E V E N T (S Q . I N . E A C H ) CO N T . V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) 61 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 0 0 2 8 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 HIG H - P O T VE N T S O N L Y 2. 6 5 3 . 3 1 2 . 9 7 4 4 . 1 6 7 0 AT E A V E 3. 9 7 3 . 3 1 3 . 7 5 5 5 . 8 4 0 54 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 6. 6 2 6 . 6 2 6 . 7 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 HIG H - RI D G E V E N T 2. 6 5 3 . 3 1 3 . 0 0 4 4 . 4 4 0 0 24 . 0 0 AT E A V E 3. 9 7 3 . 3 1 3 . 7 5 5 5 . 5 6 0 54 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 6. 6 2 6 . 6 2 6 . 7 5 1 0 0 . 0 0 AD D I T I O N A L P O T V E N T S M A Y B E R E Q U I R E D I F T H E R E I S I N S U F F I C I E N T R I D G E A V A I L A B L E A3 3-2FS.1 EL E V A T I O N 3 AT T I C V E N T S C H E D U L E VE N T I L A T I O N R E Q U I R E D A N D S U P P L I E D I S B A S E D O N P O T V E N T V A L U E S A N D R I D G E V E N T V A L U E S S H O W N I N T A B L E A B O V E ** C O N T R A C T O R S I N S T A L L I N G V E N T I L A T I O N A R E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R V E R I F Y I N G T H A T V E N T S U S E D W I L L S U P P Y V E N T I L A T I O N T O M E E T C O D E R E Q U I R E ME N T S * S C H E D U L E H A S B E E N C A L C U L A T E D A S S U M I N G E A V E V E N T I L A T I O N A T 5 0 - 6 0 % O F T O T A L A N D R I D G E A T 4 0 - 5 0 % O F T O T A L R E Q U I R E D V E N T I L A T I O N RO O F A R E A " A " SQ F T G 19 8 6 AT / N E A R R I D G E A T / N E A R E A V E VE N T T Y P E SQ . F T . RE Q U I R E D RA N G E SQ . F T . SU P P L I E D PE R C E N T OF T O T A L SU P P L I E D PO T L A R G E (S Q . I N . E A C H ) PO T S M A L L (S Q . I N . E A C H ) RI D G E V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) EA V E V E N T (S Q . I N . E A C H ) CO N T . V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) 61 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 0 0 2 8 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 HIG H - P O T VE N T S O N L Y 2. 6 5 3 . 3 1 2 . 9 7 4 4 . 1 6 7 0 AT E A V E 3. 9 7 3 . 3 1 3 . 7 5 5 5 . 8 4 0 54 . 0 0 A3 1-2FS.1 EL E V A T I O N 1 AT T I C V E N T S C H E D U L E VE N T I L A T I O N R E Q U I R E D A N D S U P P L I E D I S B A S E D O N P O T V E N T V A L U E S A N D R I D G E V E N T V A L U E S S H O W N I N T A B L E A B O V E ** C O N T R A C T O R S I N S T A L L I N G V E N T I L A T I O N A R E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R V E R I F Y I N G T H A T V E N T S U S E D W I L L S U P P Y V E N T I L A T I O N T O M E E T C O D E R E Q U I R E ME N T S * S C H E D U L E H A S B E E N C A L C U L A T E D A S S U M I N G E A V E V E N T I L A T I O N A T 5 0 - 6 0 % O F T O T A L A N D R I D G E A T 4 0 - 5 0 % O F T O T A L R E Q U I R E D V E N T I L A T I O N RO O F A R E A " A " SQ F T G 18 0 1 AT / N E A R R I D G E A T / N E A R E A V E VE N T T Y P E SQ . F T . RE Q U I R E D RA N G E SQ . F T . SU P P L I E D PE R C E N T OF T O T A L SU P P L I E D PO T L A R G E (S Q . I N . E A C H ) PO T S M A L L (S Q . I N . E A C H ) RI D G E V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) EA V E V E N T (S Q . I N . E A C H ) CO N T . V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) 61 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 0 0 2 8 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 HIG H - P O T VE N T S O N L Y 2. 4 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 5 4 4 2 . 2 6 6 0 AT E A V E 3. 6 0 3 . 0 0 3 . 4 7 5 7 . 7 4 0 50 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 6. 0 0 6 . 0 0 6 . 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 HIG H - RI D G E V E N T 2. 4 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 6 3 4 3 . 0 5 0 0 21 . 0 0 AT E A V E 3. 6 0 3 . 0 0 3 . 4 7 5 6 . 9 5 0 50 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 6. 0 0 6 . 0 0 6 . 1 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 AD D I T I O N A L P O T V E N T S M A Y B E R E Q U I R E D I F T H E R E I S I N S U F F I C I E N T R I D G E A V A I L A B L E A3 2-2FS.1 EL E V A T I O N 2 AT T I C V E N T S C H E D U L E VE N T I L A T I O N R E Q U I R E D A N D S U P P L I E D I S B A S E D O N P O T V E N T V A L U E S A N D R I D G E V E N T V A L U E S S H O W N I N T A B L E A B O V E ** C O N T R A C T O R S I N S T A L L I N G V E N T I L A T I O N A R E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R V E R I F Y I N G T H A T V E N T S U S E D W I L L S U P P Y V E N T I L A T I O N T O M E E T C O D E R E Q U I R E ME N T S * S C H E D U L E H A S B E E N C A L C U L A T E D A S S U M I N G E A V E V E N T I L A T I O N A T 5 0 - 6 0 % O F T O T A L A N D R I D G E A T 4 0 - 5 0 % O F T O T A L R E Q U I R E D V E N T I L A T I O N RO O F A R E A " A " SQ F T G 18 0 1 AT / N E A R R I D G E A T / N E A R E A V E VE N T T Y P E SQ . F T . RE Q U I R E D RA N G E SQ . F T . SU P P L I E D PE R C E N T OF T O T A L SU P P L I E D PO T L A R G E (S Q . I N . E A C H ) PO T S M A L L (S Q . I N . E A C H ) RI D G E V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) EA V E V E N T (S Q . I N . E A C H ) CO N T . V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) 61 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 0 0 2 8 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 HIG H - P O T VE N T S O N L Y 2. 4 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 5 4 4 2 . 2 6 6 0 AT E A V E 3. 6 0 3 . 0 0 3 . 4 7 5 7 . 7 4 0 50 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 6. 0 0 6 . 0 0 6 . 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 HIG H - RI D G E V E N T 2. 4 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 6 3 4 3 . 0 5 0 0 21 . 0 0 AT E A V E 3. 6 0 3 . 0 0 3 . 4 7 5 6 . 9 5 0 50 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 6. 0 0 6 . 0 0 6 . 1 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 AD D I T I O N A L P O T S V E N T S M A Y B E R E Q U I R E D I F T H E R E I S I N S U F F I C I E N T R I D G E A V A I L A B L E A3 3-2FS.1 EL E V A T I O N 3 AT T I C V E N T S C H E D U L E VE N T I L A T I O N R E Q U I R E D A N D S U P P L I E D I S B A S E D O N P O T V E N T V A L U E S A N D R I D G E V E N T V A L U E S S H O W N I N T A B L E A B O V E ** C O N T R A C T O R S I N S T A L L I N G V E N T I L A T I O N A R E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R V E R I F Y I N G T H A T V E N T S U S E D W I L L S U P P Y V E N T I L A T I O N T O M E E T C O D E R E Q U I R E ME N T S * S C H E D U L E H A S B E E N C A L C U L A T E D A S S U M I N G E A V E V E N T I L A T I O N A T 5 0 - 6 0 % O F T O T A L A N D R I D G E A T 4 0 - 5 0 % O F T O T A L R E Q U I R E D V E N T I L A T I O N RO O F A R E A " A " SQ F T G 18 0 1 AT / N E A R R I D G E A T / N E A R E A V E VE N T T Y P E SQ . F T . RE Q U I R E D RA N G E SQ . F T . SU P P L I E D PE R C E N T OF T O T A L SU P P L I E D PO T L A R G E (S Q . I N . E A C H ) PO T S M A L L (S Q . I N . E A C H ) RI D G E V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) EA V E V E N T (S Q . I N . E A C H ) CO N T . V E N T (S Q . I N . P E R L F ) 61 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 0 0 2 8 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 HIG H - P O T VE N T S O N L Y 2. 4 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 5 4 4 2 . 2 6 6 0 AT E A V E 3. 6 0 3 . 0 0 3 . 4 7 5 7 . 7 4 0 50 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 6. 0 0 6 . 0 0 6 . 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 HIG H - RI D G E V E N T 2. 4 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 6 3 4 3 . 0 5 0 0 21 . 0 0 AT E A V E 3. 6 0 3 . 0 0 3 . 4 7 5 6 . 9 5 0 50 . 0 0 TO T A L (M I N ) 6. 0 0 6 . 0 0 6 . 1 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 AD D I T I O N A L P O T V E N T S M A Y B E R E Q U I R E D I F T H E R E I S I N S U F F I C I E N T R I D G E A V A I L A B L E Garage Doors TCG 8 2-Car Option # 63459 3-Car Option # 63494 2-Car Option # 63459,63453 3-Car Option # 63494,63457 2-Car Option # 63458,63453 3-Car Option # 63493,63457 2-Car Option # 63465 3-Car Option # 63495 2-Car Option # 63465, 63453 3-Car Option # 63495, 63457 CR CR-Windows Base Garage Door Upgrade 2 Garage Door Upgrade 3 -insulated White Painted body color of house Garage Door Upgrade 2 Base Garage Door -Upgraded ENCORE | PULTE HOMES Corcoran , Minnesota CONCEPT PLAN May, 2018SATHRE-BERGQUIST INC.north CO U N T Y R O A D 1 0 1 / B R O C K T O N L A N E N O R T H WETLAND WETLAND PRIVATE AMENITY CENTER ENTRANCE MONUMENT PUBLIC OPEN SPACE SITE DATA 44’ LOTS - 153 50’ LOTS - 181 60’ LOTS - 64 TOTAL - 398 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LEGEND 44’ WIDE LOT 50’ WIDE LOT 60’ WIDE LOT SIDEWALK WETLAND POND TRAIL FUTURE TRAIL HUNTERS RIDGE PUBLIC PARK COUNTY ROAD 30 CO U N T Y R O A D 1 1 6 STIEG R O A D COMMERCIAL OUTLOT A FUTURE COMMERCIAL OUTLOT FUTURE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OUTLOT FUTURE PUBLIC PARK ARRIVAL DRI V E IMMANUEL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH SCHOBER HOMESTEAD Newman Property Wetland ID MNRAM Class.Corcoran WL Class.Avg. Buffer Width Min. Buffer Width Max. Buffer Width Structure Setback Elm Creek Watershed Buffer 1 Manage 3 Low 15'10'20'15'25' 2 Manage 3 Low 15'10'20'15'25' 3 Manage 3 Low 15'10'20'15'25' 4 Manage 2 Medium 25'20'40'15'--- 5 Manage 3 Low 15'10'20'15'25' 6 Manage 1 High 50'40'60'15'--- 7 Manage 2 Medium 25'20'40'15'--- 8 Manage 1 High 50'40'60'15'--- 9 Manage 3 Low 15'10'20'15'25' 10 Manage 3 Low 15'10'20'15'25' 11 Manage 3 Low 15'10'20'15'25' 12 Manage 3 Low 15'10'20'15'25' 13 Manage 2 Medium 25'20'40'15'--- 14 Manage 2 Medium 25'20'40'15'--- 15 Manage 2 Medium 25'20'40'15'--- Ebert Property Wetland ID MNRAM Class.Corcoran WL Class.Avg. Buffer Width Min. Buffer Width Max. Buffer Width Structure Setback Elm Creek Watershed Buffer 1 Manage 3 Low 15'10'20'15'25' 2 Manage 2 Medium 25'20'40'15'--- 3 Manage 2 Medium 25'20'40'15'--- 4 Manage 3 Low 15'10'20'15'25' 5 Manage 2 Medium 25'20'40'15'--- Schober Property Wetland ID MNRAM Class.Corcoran WL Class.Avg. Buffer Width Min. Buffer Width Max. Buffer Width Structure Setback Elm Creek Watershed Buffer 6 Manage 1 High 50'40 60 15 --- 7 Manage 2 Medium 25'20 40 15 --- 16 Manage 2 Medium 25'20 40 15 --- 17 Manage 1 High 50'40 60 15 --- 18 Manage 3 Low 15'10 20 15 25' 19 Manage 1 High 50'40 60 15 --- 20 Manage 1 High 50'40 60 15 --- 21 Manage 3 Low 15'10 20 15 25' 22 Manage 3 Low 15'10 20 15 25' 23 Manage 3 Low 15'10 20 15 25' 24 Manage 3 Low 15'10 20 15 25' 25 Manage 3 Low 15'10 20 15 25' 26 Manage 3 Low 15'10 20 15 25' 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 DATE: June 20, 2018 for the June 28, 2018 City Council Meeting RE: City-Initiated Minor Subdivision Ordinance Amendment (City File 18-022) 60-DAY REVIEW DEADLINE:N/A 1.Request This is a city-initiated update to the Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 9 of the Corcoran City Code) related to the review process of lot line adjustments and minor subdivisions. Staff initially recommended a change in 2016 and the City Council approved the amendment on August 25, 2016 as a more streamlined method of approval for less complicated subdivisions. Staff recently found an error in the ordinance that this amendment will correct. 2.Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 7th to review this request. There was no one present to speak on this item. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. 3.Background The 2016 ordinance amendment was to allow lot line adjustments and minor subdivisions. The amendment includes the following changes: •In cases where no new lots are created and the lot line adjustment meets the standards of the code, lot line adjustments and lot consolidations will be approved administratively. State statutes explicitly exclude lot line adjustments from subdivision standards. Those lot line adjustments that require right-of-way dedication will be required to be reviewed by Council. These are only allowed on parcels that were previously platted or are part of an RLS. Agenda Item: 9d. Lot Line Adjustment: No new lots are created. Minor Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 2 June 28, 2018 • Minnesota State Statutes permit City Councils to approve minor subdivisions of 5 or fewer parcels that are greater than 2 ½ acres in size without platting the subdivision. We have updated the code to allow Council to approve minor subdivisions of 3 or fewer parcels in the Urban Reserve and Rural Residential Zoning Districts by metes and bounds. The RR District standards currently allow a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The minimum lot size must be increased to 2 ½ acres to be consistent with state statutes if a land owner chooses the minor subdivision process rather than the platting process. The minor subdivision process would be applied to subdivisions like the Tombers plat from 2015, where approximately 5 acres of land was subdivided from a 70-acre lot. 4. Analysis The intent of the minor subdivision was to allow properties to simply carve off a parcel without platting, but in the ordinance amendment there was a carryover from the lot line adjustment language that was unintended. Staff recommends the following change to eliminate the requirement that only previously platted parcels are eligible for the minor subdivision: Subd. 1 Criteria. A. A subdivision resulting in the creation of three or fewer lots, tracts or parcels shall be considered a minor subdivision, shall be permitted in the Urban Reserve and Rural Residential Zoning districts and may be exempt from platting provided that the following conditions are met: a. The subdivision shall be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose and intent of this Chapter. b. The lot division shall not cause any structure on the property to be made non-conforming or to be in violation of the Zoning Chapter or any other provisions of the City Code. The lot division shall be part of a previously recorded plat or Registered Land Survey. c. The lot division shall result in no more than 3 lots which are at least 2 ½ acres that meet the minimum dimensional requirements for the zoning district in which the property is located. d. All parcels resulting from the lot division shall have frontage and access on an existing improved street. When right-of-way is required by the City or County, the applicant shall deed or provide easements for such right-of-way. e. The resulting parcels shall generally conform with the shape, character, and area of existing or anticipated land subdivisions in the surrounding areas. f. Any such lot division shall not require any public improvements. g. Any such subdivision shall not result in legal descriptions that are unduly complex. Minor Subdivision: 3 or fewer parcels are created. Minor Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 3 June 28, 2018 h. The applicant shall comply with the park dedication regulations, as required for a plat. i. Prior to issuance of building permits, property irons shall be installed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. j. The applicant warranties that he or she is the owner of the properties subject to the application and has obtained all necessary consent from all other owners and interested parties. B. City Zoning Administrator shall require the subdivision to be processed as a plat in accordance with Sections 930 and 935 of the City Code if the standards of Subd. 1 of this section are not met. This change is consistent with the original intent of the ordinance. 5. Requested Action Move to adopt the following: a. Ordinance 2018-53 approving the revisions to Section 927 of the Subdivision Ordinance b. Resolution 2018-369 approving Findings of Fact c. Ordinance 2018-370 for summary publication Approval of the ordinance and resolution approving the amendment requires a 3/5 vote. Approval of the summary Ordinance requires 4/5 vote. Attachments: a. Ordinance 2018-53 approving the revisions to Section 927 of the Subdivision Ordinance b. Resolution 2018-369 approving Findings of Fact c. Ordinance 2018-370 for summary publication City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-369 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF TITLE IX OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE, ENTITLED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Amendments. The text of Section 927.010 of Title IX: Subdivision Ordinance of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by deleting the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: Subd. 1 Criteria. A. A subdivision resulting in the creation of three or fewer lots, tracts or parcels shall be considered a minor subdivision, shall be permitted in the Urban Reserve and Rural Residential Zoning districts and may be exempt from platting provided that the following conditions are met: a. The subdivision shall be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose and intent of this Chapter. b. The lot division shall not cause any structure on the property to be made non-conforming or to be in violation of the Zoning Chapter or any other provisions of the City Code. The lot division shall be part of a previously recorded plat or Registered Land Survey. c. The lot division shall result in no more than 3 lots which are at least 2 ½ acres that meet the minimum dimensional requirements for the zoning district in which the property is located. d. All parcels resulting from the lot division shall have frontage and access on an existing improved street. When right-of-way is required by the City or County, the applicant shall deed or provide easements for such right-of-way. e. The resulting parcels shall generally conform with the shape, character, and area of existing or anticipated land subdivisions in the surrounding areas. f. Any such lot division shall not require any public improvements. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-369 Page 2 of 2 g. Any such subdivision shall not result in legal descriptions that are unduly complex. h. The applicant shall comply with the park dedication regulations, as required for a plat. i. Prior to issuance of building permits, property irons shall be installed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. j. The applicant warranties that he or she is the owner of the properties subject to the application and has obtained all necessary consent from all other owners and interested parties. B. City Zoning Administrator shall require the subdivision to be processed as a plat in accordance with Sections 930 and 935 of the City Code if the standards of Subd. 1 of this section are not met. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-53 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF TITLE IX OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE, ENTITLED CORCORAN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran initiated an amendment to update the City Code to update the subdivision ordinance standards for minor subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the amendment would be consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendment would be consistent with other City Code standards and City policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed text amendments at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Subdivision Ordinance text amendment, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed changes will bring the subdivision ordinance and existing practices into compliance with State Statutes. 2. The process will be simplified for applicants and the City. 3. Changes will save time and reduce costs for Corcoran landowners. 4. The amendment is consistent with the original intent of the City Council. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-53 Page 2 of 2 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-370 Page 1 of 1 Motion By: Seconded By: CITY OF CORCORAN SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2018-369 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE, ENTITLED CORCORAN ZONING ORDINANCE The text of Chapter 9 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended to modify the standards for Minor Subdivisions. A printed copy of the entire amended Chapter 9 is available for inspection by any person at City Hall during the City Clerk’s regular office hours. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator 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: June 20, 2018 for the June 28, 2018 City Council Meeting RE: City-initiated ROW, Small Cell and DAS Facility Ordinance Update (City File 17-039) 60-Day Review Deadline: N/A 1.Application Request Review draft ordinance updating the City Code to add a new Right-of-Way (ROW) ordinance and make changes to meet the new small cell and distributed antenna system (DAS) telecommunication standards. 2.Background Staff presented information to the City Council at their January 25, 2018 meeting to provide an update on the new telecommunications law. The new law grants wireless service providers access to the public right-of-way to construct, maintain and operate small wireless facilities and wireless support structures. Under the new legislation, the City cannot prohibit the placement of such small wireless facilities or structures to support such facilities in the public right-of-way. However, the City may require a user to obtain a permit from the City. Council directed staff to proceed with an ordinance amendment. Staff drafted the new telecommunications language and Public Works Director Mattson noted that this would be the time to adopt a right-of-way (ROW) ordinance. Therefore, we are including both the adoption of a ROW ordinance and telecommunication standards as part of this ordinance amendment. Adopting a ROW ordinance allows a city to manage its public streets, sidewalks, ditches and utilities. The rights afforded when adopting a ROW ordinance include imposing delay penalties for utility failure to meet deadlines, listing the range of fees chargeable, allowing both permit fees and franchise fees, allowing the denial of a permit and ordering the immediate cessation of ROW work, in most instances. Telecommunication standards for small cell and DAS facilities can be incorporated into the ROW ordinance to accommodate wireless service facilities in compliance with the new state statute. The drafting of the ROW ordinance has extended the schedule and modified the original scope of work, so we are presenting the proposed changes to the Council in advance of a public hearing. Agenda Item: 9e. Ordinance Amendment – Small Cell and DAS (City File 17-039) 2 June 28, 2018 3. Context Staff reviewed the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) informational memo and various cities in the region who are in the process of updating or have updated their right-of-way ordinances and telecommunications ordinance to understand how other communities are handling the new legislation changes. LMC recommends updating or adopting a right-of-way ordinance and making necessary changes to existing telecommunication ordinances. The city sent an email to surrounding cities asking for input on ROW management in urban versus rural areas. Staff received responses from seven cities. The responses are included in the attachments. Our research and the email responses showed that cities in the region do not distinguish between rural and urban street sections in their ROW ordinance; however, some cities do address this through design standards and city policies. Based on this information staff recommends that we adopt an ordinance amendment that creates a ROW ordinance with small cell regulations. Staff's recommendation is attached and includes the following key items: • Establishes a right-of-way ordinance for the City Code as Chapter 52 within Title V – Public Works. • The new right-of-way ordinance will provide standards for telecommunication facilities within the right-of-way ordinance. • Amend the Telecommunication Ordinance in the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance Section 1060.100) to differentiate between small cell facilities and large antenna towers. This would include adding definitions for small wireless facilities and colocation. • While we do believe that the Telecommunications Ordinance (also requires an update to comply with the most recent changes to the Federal Telecommunications Act, there is a less immediate need for those changes and staff recommends a larger update to Section 1060.100 in late 2018 or 2019. Next steps for the city would include: 1. Adoption of the ROW Ordinance 2. Adopt policies outlining management of ROW 4. Recommendation City Council should direct staff to proceed with scheduling a public hearing for the amendment. Planning Commission would hold a public hearing for the ordinance amendment at their August 2nd meeting for Council action on August 23rd. Ordinance Amendment – Small Cell and DAS (City File 17-039) 3 June 28, 2018 Attachments a. Example pictures of small cell and DAS facilities b. City Email Responses c. LMC Small Cell Fact Sheet d. LMC Right-of-Way Memo e. Plymouth Sample ROW Handout f. DRAFT Corcoran Ordinance – For Information Only Small Wireless Facilities Examples 1Page 3 2Page 4 3Page 5 4Page 6 5Page 7 6Page 8 7Page 9 8Page 10 From:Kendra Lindahl, AICP To:Kevin B. Mattson (kmattson@ci.corcoran.mn.us) Cc:"Michael Pritchard (mpritchard@ci.corcoran.mn.us)"; Kevin Shay Subject:FW: ROW Ordinance Information - City Email Survey Date:Wednesday, April 25, 2018 2:05:25 PM Attachments:SECT 707 Right-of-Way Mangement.doc Kevin, The question was more narrowly framed than our previous discussions, but will add this to our background and prepare a draft for your review. Kendra Lindahl, AICP LANDFORM, Principal 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 NOTICE: All drawings, specifications, instruments of service, and other documents, data, or information of any kind, including all electronic files and data ("Documents") attached to or "linked" from this E-mail are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. Your use of the Documents is controlled and restricted by the http://www.landform.net/html/Disclaimer.pdf. By downloading the attached files or by accessing the links contained in this E-mail message, you are agreeing to the http://www.landform.net/html/Disclaimer.pdf.COPYRIGHT © 1994-2015 LANDFORM. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NOTICE: indicated professional registrations are for the state in which the office is located; to obtain information about other state licenses, please contact Human Resources at 612-252-9070. Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Mattson [mailto:kmattson@ci.corcoran.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:59 PM To: Kendra Lindahl, AICP <KLindahl@landform.net> Cc: Michael Pritchard <mpritchard@ci.corcoran.mn.us> Subject: ROW Ordinance Information - City Email Survey Kendra, Hope emailed 24 communities and these are the responses we received back to the following question...Have you developed ordinances on what constitutes public right of way in more rural and less rural areas? Medina If there is true ROW it is ours to fix culverts and whatever belongs to the city . If it is just established ROW it is as far as we have maintained it. In other words if we mow the ditches to a certain point for 7 years or more we have established ROW to that point. That also goes for grading or snow storage. There are rare cases where that does not stand up how the title is written for the property. I'm not a lawyer so I can't elaborate on that . There is always a lot of gray area when it comes to who does what sorry the best I can do. Apple Valley Please see the attached for the City of Apple Valley's Code of Ordinances in relation to ROW. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Minnesota/applevalley/cityofapplevalleyminnesotacodeofordinanc? f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:applevalley_mn Rosemount My suggestion would be that your focus be on the actual right of way, and not focus on urban (curb, gutter, sidewalk, boulevard) or rural (ditches) areas. In taking a quick look I'm assuming that you have a lot or rural type roads where the actual ROW may be a bit 'less defined' than areas that have been platted for development. It would likely be a good idea to develop policies to address how much ROW you would want should an area be platted and new streets be constructed. For example a new local street would have 66' of ROW to be dedicated, that could allow for 28' street from face of curb to face of curb and then you would have .5' from face of curb to the back of curb and then an 18' boulevard on each side where you could have a sidewalk, and private utilities (gas, electric, cable, etc). I wouldn't want to include that in an ordinance however, because that would like limit any flexibility for planning considerations. For the rural areas, you may need to discuss further with some surveyors regarding what is established. Prior Lake (attached) I have attached the Prior Lake City Right-of-Way Management ordinance for your reference. Also the City has the following regulation pertaining to snow removal: 701.100: Remove Snow, Rubbish: It shall be unlawful for any property owner or occupant not to remove snow ice or rubbish from his abutting sidewalks, and it shall be the primary responsibility of said owner or occupant to perform said removal Inver Grove Heights You can review Title 11, Chapter 3 of our city code. We do not differentiate ROW width based on urban or rural. It is determined by the functional classification of the street it serves. In addition, most of the rural areas that are developed are platted. We get an additional ten-foot-wide D+U easement on the perimeter parcels of a subdivision. Orono Here in Orono we expect property owners to install, maintain and replace when necessary their driveway culverts. We maintain the city storm structure and the ditch ways. That said we do help residents out with things like frozen culverts as assets are available. If the city is doing something that necessitates a change in the driveway culvert then we'll upgrade or replace it. Example: during a road project we will often replace driveway culverts as part of the project if we impact them. Hanover Normally if the culvert failed the homeowner was responsible and would pay for repair. If it was a drainage issue or we needed utilities installed, we took care of it. It depends on who initiated the work in all reality. League of MN Cities https://www.lmc.org/media/document/1/regulatingcityrightsofway.pdf?inline=true Hopefully there is something beneficial in this information. Seems to me like there is no real differentiation in the ROW ordinance between rural and urban areas just how policies are applied. Thanks for the help with this! Kevin Mattson, PE Public Works Director City of Corcoran 763-400-7028 www.ci.corcoran.mn.us<http://www.ci.corcoran.mn.us> small cell wireless: unregulated access to public assets? problem: Private wireless and cellular service providers are pushing legislation (HF739/SF561) that would allow unregulated access to public right-of-way for installation of “small cell wireless” equipment and distributed antenna systems. • These for-profit companies would be the only unregulated industry allowed unfettered access to this public asset. • Automatic approval provided by this legislation ties the hands of cities who are responsible for managing these public spaces and considering elements of public health, safety, and aesthetics. • The legislation limits, and in some cases eliminates, cities’ cost recovery options for maintaining the public assets these companies are accessing. • The legislation would supersede many existing zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans that cities have enacted and planned for over the years. “Cities must balance the need to facilitate these emerging technologies with the needs of the local community.” DID YOU KNOW? Wireless is an important part of our state’s communications infrastructure, but it is a complement, not a substitute for high-speed broadband access in Greater Minnesota cities. background: This small cell technology is being deployed in urban areas to address increased data usage and to eventually deploy a new 5G cellular network. league of minnesota citiescity issue fact sheet 2017 ©2017 League of Minnesota Cities. All Rights Reserved. for more information: Laura Ziegler Senior Intergovernmental Relations Liaison Phone: (651) 281-1267 Email: lziegler@lmc.org www.lmc.org/wirelessfacts Without review process With review process league-supported solution: • The League supports making wireless providers telecommunication right-of-way (ROW) users with the same rights and privileges of other ROW users. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West www.lmc.org 9/12/2017 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2017 All Rights Reserved INFORMATION M EMO Regulating City Rights of Way Learn why cities should manage their streets and sidewalks, boulevards, and ditches by enacting a right-of-way ordinance. Understand the powers in state law cities can use by adopting an ordinance, including the authority to regulate utilities and others using rights of way and the ability to better meet utility service lateral locate responsibilities. Links to model ordinances are included. The League thanks James Strommen and Bob Vose, both of the Kennedy and Graven law firm, for their assistance in creating this discussion and models. RELEVANT LINKS: I. Why manage your rights of way Minn. Stat. § 237.162, subd. 3. The right of way (ROW) includes the street and area on either side of the street used to support the use of the street (for example, the sidewalks, shoulders, and ditches) and by statute includes cartways, bicycle lanes, other dedicated rights of way for travel purposes, and utility easements of local governments. It also includes the area below and above the roadway. Minn. Stat. § 237.163, subd. 2 (b). Minn. R. 7819.0050 Right-of-Way Regulation, LMC Model Ordinance. See Section 1.02. Short Form Right-of-Way Regulation, LMC Model Ordinance, Section 1.01 Cities hold rights of way as an asset in trust for its citizens. In order to properly care for and manage that important public asset, cities should adopt ordinances regulating the use of and access to the ROW. Adopting a comprehensive right-of-way management ordinance gives cities full authority to take advantage of powers granted to cities under state law (Minnesota ROW law). Many of the rights available to cities do not apply automatically. Cities must “opt in” by exercising the authority given to them in state law. A recital in the preamble of the ordinance is necessary, and is included in the model right-of-way ordinances provided. The adoption of a ROW ordinance affords cities significant ROW management rights, for instance: Right-of-Way Regulation, LMC Model Ordinance: §1.09 subd. 3 §1.10 (c) §1.13 subd. 6 §1.18 §1.20 subd. 3(a) • Imposing delay penalties for utility failure to meet deadlines. • Listing the range of fees chargeable. • Allowing both permit fees and franchise fees (see also Minn. Stat. § 216B.36). • Allowing the denial of a permit. • Ordering the immediate cessation of ROW work, in most instances. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/12/2017 Regulating City Rights of Way Page 2 II. State statute and state agency rules 1997 Minn. Laws ch. 123 §§ 3-4 (codified as Minn. Stat. §§. 237.162-.163). U.S. West Communications v. Redwood Falls, 558 N.W.2nd 512 (Minn. Ct App. 1997). Following litigation between U.S. West and the City of Redwood Falls in 1997, related to the authority of cities to regulate telecommunication companies using a city’s right-of-way, the Minnesota Legislature adopted comprehensive authority for cities to manage their ROWs (MN ROW law). That legislation resulted from extensive negotiations and discussion between the League of Minnesota Cities and representatives of the public utilities industry. Minn. R. ch.7819. One of the key elements of the legislation was a requirement for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) to adopt ROW rules to help implement aspects of the legislation. The MPUC adopted those rules in 1998 and the model ordinances provided incorporate many key provisions of those rules. Minn. Stat. § 237.162. Minn. Stat. §237.163. Chapter 94, Article 9, 2017 Regular Session. LMC information memo, Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems. The Minnesota Legislature, in the 2017 regular session, amended Minnesota’s ROW law. The amendments made it clear that wireless providers fall within the definition of “telecommunications right-of-way users” entitled to access the right-of-way. The 2017 amendments also created a separate permitting structure for deployment of small wireless technology. III. Features and use of models A. Model ROW ordinance U.S. West Communications v. Redwood Falls, 558 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). A model ordinance originally was developed in 1996 as a cooperative effort between the League and the City Engineers Association of Minnesota. It was adopted, in part, in response to litigation arising from pressures being placed on ROWs by an increasing set of municipal utilities. Right-of-Way Regulation, LMC Model Ordinance Minn. Stat. § 237.162. Minn. Stat. §237.163. Chapter 94, Article 9, 2017 Regular Session. The model imposed comprehensive reasonable regulations on the placement and maintenance of equipment currently within the ROW or to be placed there in the future. Under the regulatory scheme, persons disturbing and obstructing the ROW bear a fair share of the financial responsibility for its ongoing integrity. After the 2017 amendments, the ordinance underwent additional modifications to accommodate wireless providers and created a streamlined deployment process for the collocations of small wireless facilities on most structures deemed wireless support structures located within the ROW (an exemption exists for structures owned, operated or served by a municipal electric). Because of the complexities of the Minnesota ROW law, and the specific exemption for collocations on structures owned, operated or served by municipal electrics, cities should work with their city attorneys in amending or drafting a ROW management ordinance, or a separate Telecom ROW user ordinance. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/12/2017 Regulating City Rights of Way Page 3 Summary Publication of Right of Way Regulation, LMC Model Ordinance. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 4. The model ordinance is quite lengthy. The League and its partners also developed a summary form of the ordinance, which can be used when following statutory guidelines for summary publication. B.Mark and locate Minn. R. 7560.0375. The model ROW ordinance also complies with the rules, adopted in 2005, that require the locating and marking of utility service laterals located within a ROW. The Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety adopted these rules in response to an increased use of “trenchless excavation” by utility installers. The combination of unmarked utility service laterals, combined with trenchless excavation technology, was thought to increase public safety risks. The adopted rules place a heightened burden on cities to make sure that new installations of sewer, water, and other municipal utilities are locatable. The rules further provide additional incentives for cities to adopt more rigorous regulation of contractors undertaking trenchless excavation in the ROW. C.Short form ROW ordinance Short Form Right of Way Regulation, LMC Model Ordinance. The League and its partners also have developed an abbreviated version of a model right-of-way ordinance for those cities that want to do minimal management but still obtain authority under right-of-way rules to enforce street restoration standards. Again, cities should work with their city attorneys to make sure the ordinance adopted works for their community and addresses the changes in Minnesota ROW law for placement of wireless facilities and its accompanying equipment. D.Permits and fees Right-of-Way Regulation, LMC Model Ordinance, §§ 1.09 - .12. Minn. R. 7819.1000. Minn. Stat. §. 237.163, subd. 6. City of Roseville sample, Right of Way Permit Applications and Fee Schedule. City of LeSeuer sample, General Right of Way Permit Application. (general ROW permit) City of Bloomington sample, Telecommunications Right of Way Permit Application. The model ordinance requires a permit to obstruct or excavate in any right- of-way. A city adopting this requirement also has to make its permit fee schedule available to the public. Cities must establish its fee schedule in advance and these fees allow for recovery of the city’s actual costs incurred in managing the public right of way. Other requirements exist concerning allocation of permit fees among users and the use of delay penalties. Additionally, before the 2017 legislative session, the law previously did not address or limit cities’ ability to charge rights-of-way users rent for placing equipment (called collocation) on city owned structures. Common practice involved cities charging rent at a negotiated rate. With the 2017 amendments, cities can continue to charge rent; however, statutory caps now limit the amount of rent allowed for placing small wireless facilities on city owned “wireless support structures” (as defined in statute). RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/12/2017 Regulating City Rights of Way Page 4 Again, if a municipal utility owns, operates or serves the structure upon which the requested collocation will go, a statutory exemption applies allowing rent to be negotiated and not capped. E. Undergrounding Right-of-Way Regulation, LMC Model Ordinance, Section 1.25. Minn. Stat. § 237.162. Minn. Stat. §237.163. Chapter 94, Article 9, 2017 Regular Session. The League recommends cities discuss with their city attorneys how to best regulate the underground placement of facilities (amenable to undergrounding). Most often, undergrounding ordinances, if separate, assume that the city already has adopted a right-of-way ordinance, so definitions and introductory language from the right-of-way ordinance often are omitted. Much of the wireless providers’ equipment does not work underground, which could create issues in light of the 2017 Minnesota Right of Way law amendments that require access to and use of the right-of-way by wireless providers. As a result, cities should seek advice of its city attorney on how to approach small cell deployment in light of other undergrounding requirements. Undergrounding of Utility Facilities in the Right of Way, LMC Model Ordinance One undergrounding ordinance option, in light of the changes to state law, generally requires undergrounding, but allows for exceptions, such as when the circumstances cause undergrounding to be impractical. This type of ordinance best accommodates small cell deployment in primarily undergrounded cities. F. High density corridor designation Minn. R. 7819.0200. The only provision in the ROW ordinance that has a record of non-use by any municipality is the “high density corridor” designation defined in the ROW ordinance. Because a Minnesota Rule requires an extensive hearing process before a ROW area can be designated as a high-density corridor, there has been no use of the rule to date. Right-of-Way Regulation, LMC Model Ordinance. See Section 1.18. With the anticipated significant demand for ROW space for redundant telecommunication, overcrowding may arise. Cities should first attempt to address overcrowding issues under a city’s general ROW management powers in a ROW or a Telecommunications ROW ordinance, if possible. IV. Further assistance James Strommen 612.337.9233 jstrommen@Kennedy- Graven.com. Bob Vose 612-337-9275 rvose@Kennedy-Graven.com Pam Whitmore LMC Staff Attorney 651.281.1224 pwhitmore@lmc.org If explanation is needed for any provision, or if there are any questions on any of the provisions of these model ordinances, please contact the League of Minnesota Cities or James Strommen. Ea s e m e n t s & St r e e t R i g h t -of -Wa y An Easement is a grant of one or more property rights by a property owner for use by the public, a corporation, or another person or enti ty. Right-of-way is land acquired by reservation or dedication intended for public use, and intended to be occupied or which is occupied by a street, trail, railroad, utility, oil or gas pipeline, water line, sanitary sewer, storm sewer or other similar uses. The primary type of right-of-way in the City of Plymouth is street right-of-way. Definitions Purpose Easements grant a specific property right to the entity to which the easement is granted (i.e., regulatory and governmental a gencies and/or private entities). Easements may be established for drainage, access, transportation, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water mains, private utilit ies, trails, drainage ponds, wetlands or other public or private use. Many properties in Plymouth have easements that provide the city & utility companies access for infrastructure improvements a nd maintenance along the perimeter of a lot. Property owners may check their certificate of survey, abstract, or deed for easement and property line information. General Right-of-Way and Easement Guidelines Property owners are required to follow all city zoning laws, ordinances and policies and obtain all necessary permits. Surface landscaping is typically allowed in non-wetland easements. The city discourages planting of trees and shrubs in easements and street rights-of-way that cover public utilities and drainage ways, as these are the most likely locations to be disrupted by future work. compatibility with the easement. Wetland easements are regulated by watershed districts, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Unless the Engineering Division grants prior approval, construction or landscaping shall not change or alter drainage patterns in a drainage way, swale, ditch or other method of storm water conveyance. Property owners are advised to call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 or 1-800-252-1166 to have all utilities located prior to constructing or digging within private easements or public easements and street rights -of-way. Planning Division (763) 509-5450 planning@plymouthmn.gov Community Development Department 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Engineering Division (763) 509-5500 engineering@plymouthmn.gov Public Works Department Ea s e m e n t s & St r e e t R i g h t -of -Wa y Planning Division (763) 509-5450 planning@plymouthmn.gov Community Development Department 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Right-of-way: The erection and/or placement of any structure in the public right-of-way or on city property by any person or group other than the City of Plymouth, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, State of Minnesota, or franchised utility shall require the processi ng of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 21015 of the Zoning Ordinance. Exceptions to this provision include: newsstands, essential services, mailbox structures not exceeding six feet in height, radio receivers and transmitters as an accessory use to essential services, and personal wireless communication antennas located on existing latt ice electrical transmission towers, provided that the use and equipment comply with applicable zoning requirements. General Right-of-Way and Easement Guidelines (cont’d) Structure or Landscaping Removal Landscaping Removal If, for any reason, the city or other authorized agency needs to perform work in an easement, the property owner must remove, at their expense, any structure or landscaping lo- cated within the easement within 30 days of being notified. The city or any other authorized agency is not liable for repair or replacement of any structure or landscaping in the event it is moved, damaged or destroyed by virtue of the law- ful use of the easement. An approved encroachment agreement for construction within an easement does not absolve a property owner of the above responsibilities and shall not be construed as an approval to violate any codes or ordinances of this or any other jurisdiction. Easements: The erection and/or placement of any structure in an easement requires an Encroachment Agreement Application together with City Council approval. City staff will consider factors such as the type and use of the easement and the type and use of the proposed structure when making a decision to recommend approval or denial of the request. An encroachment agreement must be signed by the property o wner prior to coun- cil action. The following structures may be allowed in easements with approval of an Encroachment Agreement Application provided that the y could be easily moved or removed as determined by city staff: Sheds up to 120 square feet (without permanent foundations). Any swimming pool that does not require a building permit. A swimming pool requiring a permit is defined as: any permanent or port- able structure such as a pool, hot tub, or spa located on private property under the control on the homeowner, the use of which is limited to swim- ming or recreational bathing by the owner’s family or invited guests, and having a depth of two feet or more at any point and (a) a surface area of 250 square feet or more, or (b) a volume of 3,250 gallons or more. Retaining walls for landscaping (provided drainage patterns are not affected). Decks (free-standing or attached) that cantilever into the easement . Permanent footings and support posts are not allowed within the easement area. Engineering Division (763) 509-5500 engineering@plymouthmn.gov Public Works Department Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX Motion By: Seconded By: CITY OF CORCORAN AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 52 OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE, ENTITLED CORCORAN RIGHT OF WAY MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (CITY FILE 17-039) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: CHAPTER 52: RIGHT OF WAY MANAGEMENT 52.01. FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND INTENT. To provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and to ensure the integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights of way, the city strives to keep its rights of way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Accordingly, the city hereby enacts this new chapter of this code relating to right of way permits and administration. This chapter imposes reasonable regulation on the placement and maintenance of facilities and equipment currently within its rights of way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this chapter, persons excavating and obstructing the rights of way will bear financial responsibility for their work. Finally, this chapter provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights of way. This chapter shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified in Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the “Act”) and 2017 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 94, Article 9, amending the Act, and the other laws governing applicable rights of the city and users of the right of way. This chapter shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050–7819.9950 and Minnesota Rule, Chapter 7560 where possible. To the extent any provision of this chapter cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. This chapter shall not be interpreted to limit the regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. 52.02. ELECTION TO MANAGE THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY Pursuant to the authority granted to the city under state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the city hereby elects, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 2 Section 237.163 subd. 2(b), to manage rights of way within its jurisdiction. 52.03. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply in this chapter of this code. References hereafter to “sections” are, unless otherwise specified, references to sections in this chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms, whether or not capitalized. Abandoned Facility. A facility no longer in service or physically disconnected from a portion of the operating facility, or from any other facility, that is in use or still carries service. A facility is not abandoned unless declared so by the right of way user. Applicant. Any person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right of way. City. The city of Corcoran, Minnesota. For purposes of section 52.29, city also means the City’s elected officials, officers, employees, and agents. Collocate or Collocation. To install, mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace a small wireless facility on, under, within, or adjacent to an existing wireless support structure or utility pole that is owned privately, or by the city or other governmental unit. Commission. The State Public Utilities Commission. Congested Right of Way. A crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right of way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minnesota Statute, Section 216D.04, Subd. 3, over a continuous length in excess of 500 feet. Construction Performance Bond. Any of the following forms of security provided at permittee’s option: • Individual project bond; • Cash deposit; • Security of a form listed or approved under Minnesota Statute, Section 15.73, Subd. 3; • Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the city; • Self-insurance, in a form acceptable to the city; • A blanket bond for projects within the city, or other form of construction bond, for a time specified and in a form acceptable to the city. Degradation. A decrease in the useful life of the right of way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the right of way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right of way earlier than would be required if the excavation or disturbance did not occur. Degradation Cost. Subject to Minnesota Rule 7819.1100, means the cost to achieve a level of restoration, as determined by the city at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 3 maximum restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. Degradation Fee. The estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the city to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the right of way caused by the excavation, and which equals the degradation cost. Department. The department of public works of the city. Director. The director of the department of public works of the city, or her or his designee. Delay Penalty. The penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right of way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration as established by permit. Emergency. A condition that (1) poses a danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement of facilities in order to restore service to a customer. Equipment. Any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right of way. Excavate. To dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right of way. Excavation permit. The permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may excavate in a right of way. An Excavation permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the right of way described in such permit. Excavation Permit Fee. Money paid to the city by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in Section 52.12. Facility or Facilities. Any tangible asset in the right of way required to provide Utility Service. Hole. An excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement. Local Representative. A local person or persons, or designee of such person or persons, authorized by a registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this chapter. Management Costs. The actual costs the city incurs in managing its rights of way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right of way or small wireless facility permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user facilities during right of way work; determining the adequacy of right of way Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 4 restoration; restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right of way or small wireless facility permits. Management costs do not include payment by a telecommunications right of way user for the use of the right of way, unreasonable fees of a third-party contractor used by the city including fees tied to or based on customer counts, access lines, or revenues generated by the right-of-way or for the city, the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 1997, Chapter 123; Minnesota Statute 237.162 or 237.163; or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the city fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to Section 52.31 of this chapter. Obstruct. To place any tangible object in a right of way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the right of way. Obstruction Permit. The permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may obstruct a right of way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right of way, for the duration specified therein. Obstruction Permit Fee. Money paid to the city by a permittee to cover the costs as provided in Section 52.12. Patch or Patching. A method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A patch is considered full restoration only when the pavement is included in the city’s five-year project plan. Pavement. Any type of improved surface that is within the public right of way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with bituminous, concrete, aggregate, or gravel. Permit. Has the meaning given “right of way permit” in Minnesota Statute 237.162. Permittee. Any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct a right of way has been granted by the city under this chapter. Person. An individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized, whether public or private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for profit or nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate, or political. Registrant. Any person who (1) has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in any right of way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right of way or place its facilities or equipment in the right of way. Restore or Restoration. The process by which an excavated right of way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 5 Restoration Cost. The amount of money paid to the city by a permittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules. Public Right of Way or Right of Way. The area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane, or public sidewalk in which the city has an interest, including other dedicated rights of way for travel purposes and utility easements of the city. A right of way does not include the airwaves above a right of way with regard to cellular or other non-wire telecommunications or broadcast service. Right of Way Permit. Either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this chapter. Right of Way User. (1) A telecommunications right of way user as defined by Minnesota Statute 237.162, Subd. 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility in the right of way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right of way. Service or Utility Service. Includes (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statute 216B.02, Subds. 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right of way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications systems as defined in Minnesota Statute, Chapter 238; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the city; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 308A; and (6) water, and sewer, including service laterals, steam, cooling, or heating services. Service Lateral. An underground facility that is used to transmit, distribute or furnish ‘gas, electricity, communications, or water from a common source to an end-use customer. A service lateral is also an underground facility that is used in the removal of wastewater from a customer’s premises. Small Wireless Facility. A wireless facility that meets both of the following qualifications: (i) each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet in volume or could fit within such an enclosure; and (ii) all other wireless equipment associated with the small wireless facility provided such equipment is, in aggregate, no more than 28 cubic feet in volume, not including electric meters, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation boxes, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff switches, cable, conduit, vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services, and any equipment concealed from public view within or behind an existing structure or concealment. Supplementary Application. An application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right of way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 6 Temporary Surface. The compaction of subbase and aggregate base and replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement only to the edges of the excavation. It is temporary in nature except when the replacement is of pavement included in the city’s two-year plan, in which case it is considered full restoration. Trench. An excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length equal to or greater than the width of the pavement. Telecommunications Right of Way User. A person owning or controlling a facility in the right of way, or seeking to own or control a facility in the right of way that is used or is intended to be used for providing wireless service, or transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this chapter, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minnesota Statute Chapter 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services, a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statute 216B.02, a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minnesota Statute Chapter 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statute Chapter 308A, are not telecommunications right of way users for purposes of this chapter except to the extent such entity is offering wireless service. Utility Pole. A pole that is used in whole or in part to facilitate telecommunications or electric service. Wireless Facility. Equipment at a fixed location that enables the provision of wireless services between user equipment and a wireless service network, including equipment associated with wireless service, a radio transceiver, antenna, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and a small wireless facility, but not including wireless support structures, wireline backhaul facilities, or cables between utility poles or wireless support structures, or not otherwise immediately adjacent to and directly associated with a specific antenna. Wireless Service. Any service using licensed or unlicensed wireless spectrum, including the use of Wi-Fi, whether at a fixed location or by means of a mobile device, that is provided using wireless facilities. Wireless service does not include services regulated under Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including cable service. Wireless Support Structure. A new or existing structure in a right-of-way designed to support or capable of supporting small wireless facilities, as reasonably determined by the city. 52.04. ADMINISTRATION. The public works director is the principal city official responsible for the administration of the rights of way, right of way permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The director may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 7 52.05. REGISTRATION AND RIGHT OF WAY OCCUPANCY. Subd. 1. Registration. Each person who occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right of way or place any equipment or facilities in or on the right of way, including persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease, or assignment, must register with the city. Registration will consist of providing application information. Subd. 2. Registration Prior to Work. No person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any facilities or any part thereof, in any right of way without first being registered with the city. Subd. 3. Exceptions. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a city ordinance permitting persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the right of way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the right of way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits or satisfy any other requirements for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this chapter. However, nothing herein relieves a person from complying with the provisions of the Minnesota Statute Chapter 216D, Gopher One Call Law. 52.06. REGISTRATION INFORMATION. Subd. 1. Information Required. The information provided to the city at the time of registration shall include, but not be limited to: (a) Each registrant’s name, Gopher One-Call registration certificate number, address and email address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. (b) The name, address, and email address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a local representative. The local representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the local representative in an emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. (c) A certificate of insurance or self-insurance: (1) Verifying that an insurance policy has been issued to the registrant by an insurance company licensed to do business in the state of Minnesota, or a form of self-insurance acceptable to the city; (2) Verifying that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the right of way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees, and permittees, and (ii) placement and use of facilities and equipment in the right of way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees, and permittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground facilities, and collapse of property; (3) Naming the city as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 8 provided as to all such coverages; (4) Requiring that the city be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; and (5) Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers’ compensation and umbrella coverage established by the city in amounts sufficient to protect the city and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this chapter. (6) The city may require a copy of the actual insurance policies. (7) If the person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate is required to be filed under state law as recorded and certified to by the secretary of state. (8) A copy of the person’s order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other authorization or approval from the applicable state or federal agency to lawfully operate, where the person is lawfully required to have such authorization or approval from said commission or other state or federal agency. Subd. 2. Notice of Changes. The registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times by providing to the city information as to changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on which the registrant has knowledge of any change. 52.07. FRANCHISES The city may, in addition to the requirements of this article, require any person who has or seeks to have equipment located in any right-of-way to obtain a franchise to the full extent permitted by law, now or hereafter enacted. The terms of any franchise which are in direct conflict with any provisions of this article, whether granted prior or subsequent to enactment to this article (excluding the city's police powers, which shall always be reserved to the city), shall control and supersede the conflicting terms of this article; provided, however, that requirements relating to insurance, sureties, penalties, letters of credit, indemnification or any other security in favor of the city may be cumulative in the sole determination of the city or unless otherwise negotiated by the city and the franchise grantee. All other terms of this article shall be fully applicable to all persons, whether franchised or not. This section is subject to the requirements of Minn. Stats. § 237.163, subd. 7(a)(4). 52.08. PERMIT REQUIREMENT. Subd. 1. Permit Required. Except as otherwise provided in this code, no person may obstruct or excavate any right of way, or install or place facilities in the right of way, without first having obtained the appropriate right of way permit from the city to do so. (a) Excavation Permit. An excavation permit is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the right of way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right of way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. (b) Obstruction Permit. An obstruction permit is required by a registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of right of way by placing equipment described therein on the right of way, to the extent and for the Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 9 duration specified therein. An obstruction permit is not required if a person already possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project. (c) Small Wireless Facility Permit. A small wireless facility permit is required by a registrant to erect or install a wireless support structure, to collocate a small wireless facility, or to otherwise install a small wireless facility in the specified portion or the right of way, to the extent specified therein, provided that such permit shall remain in effect for the length of time the facility is in use, unless lawfully revoked. Subd. 2. Permit Extensions. No person may excavate or obstruct the right of way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless (i) such person makes a supplementary application for another right of way permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. Subd. 3. Delay Penalty. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1000 Subp. 3 and notwithstanding Subd. 2 of this Section, the city shall establish and impose a delay penalty for unreasonable delays in right of way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delay penalty shall be established from time to time by City Council resolution. Subd. 4. Permit Display. Permits issued under this chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the city. 52.09. PERMIT APPLICATIONS. Application for a permit is made to the city. Right of way permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with, the requirements of the following provisions: (a) Registration with the city pursuant to this chapter. (b) Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed facilities. (c) Payment of money due the city for: (1) permit fees, estimated restoration costs, and other management costs; (2) prior obstructions or excavations; (3) any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the city because of applicant’s prior excavations or obstructions of the rights of way or any emergency actions taken by the city; (4) franchise fees or other charges, if applicable. (d) Payment of disputed amounts due the city by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110 percent of the amount owing. (e) Posting an additional or larger construction performance bond for additional facilities when applicant requests an excavation permit to install additional facilities and the city deems the existing construction performance bond inadequate under applicable standards. Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 10 52.10. ISSUANCE OF PERMIT; CONDITIONS. Subd. 1. Permit Issuance. If the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this chapter, the city shall issue a permit. Subd. 2. Conditions. The city may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right of way and its current use. In addition, a permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state, and federal laws, including but not limited to Minnesota Statute 216D.01 - .09 (Gopher One Call Excavation Notice System) and Minnesota Rule, Chapter 7560. Subd. 3. Small Wireless Facility Conditions. In addition to subdivision 2, the erection or installation of a wireless support structure, the collocation of a small wireless facility, or other installation of a small wireless facility in the right-of-way, shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) A small wireless facility shall only be collocated on the particular wireless support structure, under those attachment specifications, and at the height indicated in the applicable permit application. (b) No new wireless support structure installed within the right-of-way shall exceed 50 feet in height without the city’s written authorization, provided that the city may impose a lower height limit in the applicable permit to protect the public health, safety and welfare or to protect the right-of-way and its current use, and further provided that a registrant may replace an existing wireless support structure exceeding 50 feet in height with a structure of the same height subject to such conditions or requirements as may be imposed in the applicable permit. (c) No wireless facility may extend more than 10 feet above its wireless support structure. (d) Where an applicant proposes to install a new wireless support structure in the right-of-way, the city may impose separation requirements between such structure and any existing wireless support structure or other facilities in and around the right-of-way. (e) Where an applicant proposes collocation on a decorative wireless support structure, sign or other structure not intended to support small wireless facilities, the city may impose reasonable requirements to accommodate the particular design, appearance or intended purpose of such structure. (f) Where an applicant proposes to replace a wireless support structure, the city may impose reasonable restocking, replacement, or relocation requirements on the replacement of such structure. Subd. 4. Small Wireless Facility Agreement. A small wireless facility shall only be collocated on a small wireless support structure owned or controlled by the city, or any other city asset in the right-of-way, after the applicant has executed a standard small wireless facility collocation agreement with the city. The standard collocation agreement may require payment of the following: Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 11 (a) Up to $150 per year for rent to collocate on the city structure. (b) $25 per year for maintenance associated with the collocation; (c) A monthly fee for electrical service as follows: 1. $73 per radio node less than or equal to 100 maximum watts; 2. $182 per radio node over 100 maximum watts; or 3. The actual costs of electricity, if the actual cost exceed the foregoing. The standard collocation agreement shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the required small wireless facility permit, provided, however, that the applicant shall not be additionally required to obtain a license or franchise in order to collocate. Issuance of a small wireless facility permit does not supersede, alter or affect any then-existing agreement between the city and applicant. 52.11. ACTION ON SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY PERMIT APPLICATIONS. Subd. 1. Deadline for Action. The city shall approve or deny a small wireless facility permit application within 90 days after filing of such application. The small wireless facility permit, and any associated building permit application, shall be deemed approved if the city fails to approve or deny the application within the review periods established in this section. Subd. 2. Consolidated Applications. An applicant may file a consolidated small wireless facility permit application addressing the proposed collocation of up to 15 small wireless facilities, or a greater number if agreed to by a local government unit, provided that all small wireless facilities in the application: (a) are located within a two-mile radius; (b) consist of substantially similar equipment; and (c) are to be placed on similar types of wireless support structures. In rendering a decision on a consolidated permit application, the city may approve some small wireless facilities and deny others, but may not use denial of one or more permits as a basis to deny all small wireless facilities in the application. Subd. 3. Tolling of Deadline. The 90-day deadline for action on a small wireless facility permit application may be tolled if: (a) The city receives applications from one or more applicants seeking approval of permits for more than 30 small wireless facilities within a seven-day period. In such case, the city may extend the deadline for all such applications by 30 days by informing the affected applicants in writing of such extension. (b) The applicant fails to submit all required documents or information and the city provides written notice of incompleteness to the applicant within 30 days of receipt the application. Upon submission of additional documents or information, the city shall have ten days to notify the applicant in writing of any still-missing information. (c) The city and a small wireless facility applicant agree in writing to toll the review period. Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 12 52.12. PERMIT FEES. Subd. 1. Excavation Permit Fee. The city shall impose an excavation permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: (a) the city management costs; (b) degradation costs, if applicable. Subd. 2. Obstruction Permit Fee. The city shall impose an obstruction permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover the city management costs. Subd 3. Small Wireless Facility Permit Fee. The city shall impose a small wireless facility permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover: (a) management costs, and; (b) city engineering, make-ready, and construction costs associated with collocation of small wireless facilities. Subd. 4. Payment of Permit Fees. No excavation permit or obstruction permit shall be issued without payment of excavation or obstruction permit fees. The city may allow applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. Subd. 5. Non- Refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the city has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 52.23 are not refundable. Subd. 6. Application to Franchises. Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise, management costs may be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right of way user in the franchise. 52.13. INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAYS. Subd. 1. Underground Facility Standards. The permittee shall comply with the following requirements when installing underground facilities: (a) Underground facilities shall, where reasonably possible, be installed outside the paved or surface area in areas with the least potential future conflict. If unable to install outside the surfaced area, the installation shall be as close to the edge of the roadway surface as possible to allow access thereto without unnecessarily disturbing paved areas of the roadway. (b) Public right-of-way alignment and grade shall be maintained. (c) Fiber facilities shall be buried in a proper conduit and at a depth of no less than three feet deep and no more than four feet deep; copper facilities below concrete or bituminous paved roadway surfaces shall be buried no less than three feet deep and no more than four feet deep, and all other copper facilities shall be buried no less than 30 inches deep and no more than four feet deep. (d) All underground facilities which cross streets or hard surfaced driveways shall be bored and installed in conduit when requested by the City. Gas mains and services do not need to be installed in conduit. Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 13 (e) When using trenchless installation methods to cross an area where an existing utility is located or when directed by the City, the permittee shall excavate an observation hole to expose the existing utility prior to crossing such utility to ensure that existing utilities aren’t damaged. When an observation hole must be excavated in an existing pavement section, the pavement must be cut using the coring method. (f) If the project work involves an open cut, the permittee shall install visual tracers 18 inches over buried facilities. If other construction methods are used, substitute location methods may be used upon approval by the City. (g) During plowing or trenching of facilities, a warning tape shall be placed at a depth of 18 inches above copper cables with over 200 pairs and fiber facilities and a locating wire or conductive shield shall be installed above buried telecommunication facilities, except for di-electric cables. (h) All facilities shall be located so as to not interfere with existing and potential future traffic signals and signs. (i) Unless approved by the Director, all above ground appurtenances shall be located no closer than 10 feet to City hydrants, waterline valves, manholes, lift stations, catch basins; not in front of any City or private sign, monument or amenity for facilities or parks; and no closer than two feet from sidewalks and trails. (j) Underground facilities shall not be installed between a hydrant and an auxiliary valve. (k) Underground facilities shall not be installed within five feet of hydrants, waterline valves, lift stations, manholes or catch basins unless approved by the Director. 52.14. RIGHT OF WAY PATCHING AND RESTORATION. Subd. 1. Timing. The work to be done under the excavation permit, and the patching and restoration of the right of way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 52.17. Subd. 2. Patch and Restoration. Permittee shall patch its own work. The city may choose either to have the permittee restore the right of way or to restore the right of way itself. (a) City Restoration. If the city restores the right of way, permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, following such restoration, the pavement settles due to permittee’s improper backfilling, the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with correcting the defective work. (b) Permittee Restoration. If the permittee restores the right of way itself, it shall at the time of application for an excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.3000. (c) Degradation Fee in Lieu of Restoration. In lieu of right of way restoration, a right of way user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However, the right of way user shall remain responsible for patching and the degradation fee shall not Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 14 include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. Subd. 3. Standards. The permittee shall perform excavation, backfilling, patching, and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the city and shall comply with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100. Subd. 4. Duty to Correct Defects. The permittee shall correct defects in patching or restoration performed by permittee or its agents. The permittee upon notification from the city, shall correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the city. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the city, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable under Section 52.17. Subd. 5. Failure to Restore. If the permittee fails to restore the right of way in the manner and to the condition required by the city, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the city, the city at its option may do such work. In that event the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right of way. If permittee fails to pay as required, the city may exercise its rights under the construction performance bond. 52.15. JOINT APPLICATIONS. Subd. 1. Joint application. Registrants may jointly apply for permits to excavate or obstruct the right of way at the same place and time. Subd. 2. Shared fees. Registrants who apply for permits for the same obstruction or excavation, which the city does not perform, may share in the payment of the obstruction or excavation permit fee. In order to obtain a joint permit, registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the same on their applications. Subd. 3. With city projects. Registrants who join in a scheduled obstruction or excavation performed by the city, whether or not it is a joint application by two or more registrants or a single application, are not required to pay the excavation or obstruction and degradation portions of the permit fee, but a permit would still be required. 52.16. SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATIONS. Subd. 1. Limitation on Area. A right of way permit is valid only for the area of the right of way specified in the permit. No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 15 Subd. 2. Limitation on Dates. A right of way permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This supplementary application must be submitted before the permit end date. 52.17. OTHER OBLIGATIONS. Subd. 1. Compliance with Other Laws. Obtaining a right of way permit does not relieve permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the city or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including but not limited to Minnesota Statute 216D.01-.09 (Gopher One Call Excavation Notice System) and Minnesota Rule, Chapter 7560. A permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the right of way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. Subd. 2. Prohibited Work. Except in an emergency, and with the approval of the city, no right of way obstruction or excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. Subd. 3. Interference with Right of Way. A permittee shall not so obstruct a right of way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the right of way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with city parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. Subd. 4. Trenchless excavation. As a condition of all applicable permits, permittees employing trenchless excavation methods, including but not limited to Horizontal Directional Drilling, shall follow all requirements set forth in Minnesota Statute Chapter 216D and Minnesota Rule, Chapter 7560 and shall require potholing or open cutting over existing underground utilities before excavating, as determined by the director. 52.18. DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT. Subd. 1. Reasons for Denial. The city may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this chapter or if the city determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public or when necessary to protect the right of way and its current use. Subd. 2. Procedural Requirements. The denial or revocation of a permit must be made in writing and must document the basis for the denial. The city must notify the applicant or right-of-way user in writing within three business days of the decision to deny or revoke a Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 16 permit. If an application is denied, the right-of-way user may address the reasons for denial identified by the city and resubmit its application. If the application is resubmitted within 30 days of receipt of the notice of denial, no additional application fee shall be imposed. The city must approve or deny the resubmitted application within 30 days after submission. 52.19. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. The excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration, and all other work performed in the right of way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100 and 7819.5000 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minnesota Statutes 237.162 and 237.163. Installation of service laterals shall be performed in accordance with Minnesota Rule, Chapter 7560 and these ordinances. Service lateral installation is further subject to those requirements and conditions set forth by the city in the applicable permits and/or agreements referenced in Section 52.24 Subd. 2 of this ordinance. 52.20. INSPECTION. Subd. 1. Notice of Completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the permittee shall furnish a completion certificate in accordance Minnesota Rule 7819.1300. Subd. 2. Site Inspection. Permittee shall make the work site available to the city and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. Subd 3. Authority of Director. (a) At the time of inspection, the director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety, or well-being of the public. (b) The director may issue an order to the permittee for any work that does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the permittee shall present proof to the director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the director may revoke the permit pursuant to Sec. 52.23. 52.21. WORK DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. Subd. 1. Emergency Situations. Each registrant shall immediately notify the director of any event regarding its facilities that it considers to be an emergency. The registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the emergency. Excavators’ notification to Gopher State One Call regarding an emergency situation does not fulfill this requirement. Within two (2) business days after the occurrence of the emergency, the Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 17 registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith, and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this chapter for the actions it took in response to the emergency. If the city becomes aware of an emergency regarding a registrant’s facilities, the city will attempt to contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected, by the emergency. In any event, the city may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the registrant whose facilities occasioned the emergency. Subd. 2. Non-Emergency Situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, obstructs or excavates a right of way must subsequently obtain a permit and, as a penalty, pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by the city code, deposit with the city the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right of way, and comply with all of the requirements of this chapter. 52.22. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTIFICATION. If the obstruction or excavation of the right of way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, permittee shall notify the city of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. 52.23. REVOCATION OF PERMITS. Subd. 1. Substantial Breach. The city reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any right of way permit without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (a) The violation of any material provision of the right of way permit. (b) An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right of way permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the city or its citizens. (c) Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a right of way permit. (d) The failure to complete the work in a timely manner, unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittee’s control. (e) The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to Sec. 52.20. Subd. 2. Written Notice of Breach. If the city determines that the permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any condition of the permit, the city shall make a written demand upon the permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 18 be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the city, at its discretion, to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. Subd. 3. Response to Notice of Breach. Within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving notification of the breach, permittee shall provide the city with a plan, acceptable to the city, that will cure the breach. Permittee’s failure to so contact the city, or permittee’s failure to timely submit an acceptable plan, or permittee’s failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Subd. 4. Reimbursement of city costs. If a permit is revoked, the permittee shall also reimburse the city for the city’s reasonable costs, including restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with such revocation. 52.24. MAPPING DATA. Subd. 1. Information Required. Each registrant and permittee shall provide mapping information required by the city in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. Within ninety (90) days following completion of any work pursuant to a permit, the permittee shall provide the director accurate maps and drawings certifying the “as-built” location of all equipment installed, owned, and maintained by the permittee. Such maps and drawings shall include the horizontal and vertical location of all facilities and equipment and shall be provided consistent with the city’s electronic mapping system, when practical or as a condition imposed by the director. Failure to provide maps and drawings pursuant to this subsection shall be grounds for revoking the permit holder’s registration. Subd. 2. Service Laterals. All permits issued for the installation or repair of service laterals, other than minor repairs as defined in Minnesota Rule 7560.0150, Subp. 2, shall require the permittee’s use of appropriate means of establishing the horizontal locations of installed service laterals and the service lateral vertical locations in those cases where the director reasonably requires it. Permittees or their subcontractors shall submit to the director evidence satisfactory to the director of the installed service lateral locations. Compliance with this subdivision 2 and with applicable Gopher State One Call law and Minnesota Rules governing service laterals installed after Dec. 31, 2005, shall be a condition of any city approval necessary for: a) payments to contractors working on a public improvement project, including those under Minnesota Statute Chapter 429, and b) city approval under development agreements or other subdivision or site plan approval under Minnesota Statute Chapter 462. The director shall reasonably determine the appropriate method of providing such information to the city. Failure to provide prompt and accurate information on the service laterals installed may result in the revocation of the permit issued for the work or future permits to the offending permittee or its subcontractors. 52.25. LOCATION AND RELOCATION OF FACILITIES. Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 19 Subd. 1. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the Act, with other applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000, and 7819.5100, to the extent the rules do not limit authority otherwise available to cities. Subd. 2. Nuisance. One year after the passage of this chapter, any facilities found in a right of way that have not been registered shall be deemed to be a nuisance. The city may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, abating the nuisance or taking possession of the facilities and restoring the right of way to a useable condition. Subd. 3. Limitation of Space. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, or when necessary to protect the right of way and its current use, the city shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional facilities within the right of way. In making such decisions, the city shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right of way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public’s needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right of way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing facilities in the right of way, and future city plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. 52.26. PRE-EXCAVATION FACILITIES LOCATION. In addition to complying with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 216D.01-.09 (“One Call Excavation Notice System”) before the start date of any right of way excavation, each registrant who has facilities or equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and vertical placement of all said facilities. Any registrant whose facilities are less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its facilities and the best procedure for excavation. 52.27. DAMAGE TO OTHER FACILITIES. When the city does work in the right of way and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a registrant’s facilities to protect it, the city shall notify the local representative as early as is reasonably possible. The costs associated therewith will be billed to that registrant and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any facilities in the right of way which it or its facilities damage. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the facilities of another registrant caused during the city’s response to an emergency occasioned by that registrant’s facilities. 52.28. RIGHT OF WAY VACATION. Reservation of right. If the city vacates a right of way that contains the facilities of a Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 20 registrant, the registrant’s rights in the vacated right of way are governed by Minnesota Rule 7819.3200. 52.29. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY By registering with the city, or by accepting a permit under this chapter, a registrant or permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. 52.30. ABANDONED AND UNUSABLE FACILITIES. Subd. 1. Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue all or a portion of its operations in the city must provide information satisfactory to the city that the registrant’s obligations for its facilities in the right of way under this chapter have been lawfully assumed by another registrant. Subd. 2. Removal. Any registrant who has abandoned facilities in any right of way shall remove it from that right of way if required in conjunction with other right of way repair, excavation, or construction, unless this requirement is waived by the city. 52.31. APPEAL. A right of way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had a permit revoked; (4) believes that the fees imposed are not in conformity with Minnesota Statute 237.163, Subd. 6; or (5) disputes a determination of the director regarding Section 52.23, Subd. 2 of this ordinance may have the denial, revocation, fee imposition, or decision reviewed, upon written request, by the City Council. The City Council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting, provided the right of way user has submitted its appeal with sufficient time to include the appeal as a regular agenda item. A decision by the City Council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. 52.32. RESERVATION OF REGULATORY AND POLICE POWERS A permittee’s rights are subject to the regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinances as necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. 52.33. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Nothing in this chapter precludes the city from requiring a franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. Corcoran ROW_DRAFT 2/1/2018 Page 21 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this XX day of April 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator 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: June 20, 2018 for the June 28, 2018 City Council Meeting RE: City-initiated Dog Kennel Ordinance (City File 17-037) 60-Day Review Deadline: N/A 1.Application Request The Council recently expressed some concern about the number of dog kennels in the community and directed staff to revise the ordinance to eliminate commercial dog kennels as an allowed use in the residential districts and to allow them only in certain commercial districts. 2.Background The Zoning Ordinance currently allows commercial kennels as an Interim Use Permit in the UR and RR zoning districts, as a Conditional Use Permit in the CR (Rural Commercial) district and as a use accessory to a Veterinary Clinic or Animal Hospital conditional use in the C-1 and C-2 districts. The Planning Commission discussed dog kennel standards at the October 5, 2017 and January 4, 2018 meeting and recommended allowing dog kennels in residential areas as a CUP or IUP and adding standards for the use. The City Council discussed dog kennel standards at the January 25, 2018 meeting. Council directed staff to proceed with drafting an amendment to not allow commercial kennels in the residential districts and to allow commercial kennels in the commercial districts, while adding standards for kennels. 3.Planning Commission Review Planning Commission reviewed this item and held a public hearing at their regularly scheduled June 7, 2018 meeting. No one spoke at the public hearing. Commissioners voted 4-1 (Brewington nay) to recommend denial of the proposed changes. The Commissioners indicated that they voted for denial of the draft ordinance amendment because they continue to support their previous recommendation. Agenda Item: 9f. Ordinance Amendment – Dog Kennels (City File 17-037) 2 June 20, 2018 4. Analysis of Request Staff reviewed several cities in the region to understand how other communities address dog kennels. None of the cities limit the number of dog kennels in the community, but they do generally limit the districts where such use is allowed and provide development standards. Limiting the districts where such uses are allowed and/or increasing the development standards could discourage these uses. The following standards are recommended based on Council’s direction to staff: • Amend the ordinance to make commercial dog kennels a conditional use in the C-1 and C-2 districts and keep commercial kennels as a conditional use permit in the CR district. • Amend the ordinance to eliminate commercial dog kennels as a Conditional Home Occupation License (Interim Use) and Conditional Use in the UR and RR districts. • Staff reviewed ordinances for several cities that allow commercial kennels and none of those cities have standards for commercial kennels. Staff recommends that the standards be developed for the specific use based on the CUP standards in Section 1070.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. A review of the current home occupation listings and planning files shows that there are currently four dog kennels in residential districts in town. This amendment would cause these dog kennels to become legal, nonconforming uses. a. Clipperton’s dog kennel at 10800 Trail Haven Road b. Linder dog training at 19508 County Circle East c. Red Barn Retreat pet kennel at 19520 Stieg Road d. Good Dogs Minnesota pet kennel at 10220 Trail Haven Road 5. Recommendation Move to adopt the following: a. Ordinance 2018-365 amending Chapter 81 and 1040 of the City Code. b. Resolution 2018-46 approving findings of fact for Ordinance amendment. c. Summary Ordinance 2018-366 for publication. Approval of the ordinance and findings of fact require a 3/5 vote. Approval of the summary ordinance requires a 4/5 vote. Attachments 1. Ordinance 2018-365 amending Chapter 81 and 1040 of the City Code. 2. Resolution 2018-46 approving findings of fact for Ordinance amendment. 3. Ordinance 2018-366 Approving Summary Publication. City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-365 Motion By: Seconded By: CITY OF CORCORAN AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 81 AND CHAPTER 1040 OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE RELATED TO COMMERCIAL DOG KENNELS (CITY FILE 17-037) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Chapter 81.10. “Kennel Licensing Requirements” (Animal Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by deleting the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: COMMERCIAL KENNEL – The Home Occupation Zoning Ordinance shall govern any commercial activity involving dogs including, but not limited to, breeding, sales, grooming, or boarding. All commercial kennels shall be required to apply for an Interim Use Permit for the Conditional Home Occupation License (CHOL) Conditional Use Permit, as described in the Zoning Ordinance. HOBBY KENNEL LICENSE – Person’s owning four (4) or more dogs over six months of age, whom are not involved in commercial activity must obtain a hobby license. The fee for said license shall be set from time to time by city council resolution. The premises shall have a secure fenced area of at least thirty-five (35) square feet per dog and shelter from the weather. The dogs shall be fed and watered properly so as to maintain a healthy condition. A site inspection by the city councils duly authorized agent shall be done to assure compliance with such standards. SECTION 2. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Chapter 1040.020 Subd. 5. “Urban Reserve District (UR)” (Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by deleting the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: C. Commercial Kennels, subject to Chapter 81 of the City Code. D.C. Development in the 2030 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)(as depicted on the official Zoning Map) prior to availability of municipal sewer and water, subject to the following: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Plan in the adopted Comprehensive Plan, including applicable density goals. 2. The subject property is classified as Mixed Use in the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 of 7 3. The proposed development will not preclude full utilization of the site development potential when municipal infrastructure services are available. 4. The applicant agrees to connect to municipal infrastructure, including, but not limited to: sanitary sewer, water and stormwater, upon its availability to the site. 5. The applicant agrees to pay all area charges and connection fees upon connection to municipal infrastructure. 6. The applicant agrees to put a cash reserve into a third party escrow account for the amount estimated by the City for the fees to be paid upon arrival of municipal infrastructure. The applicant understands that the fees are an estimate only and will enter into a written agreement with the City to pay all fees based on the City fee schedule in place at the time of connection. 7. The applicant will sign an assessment waiver for future assessments for public infrastructure. 8. The applicant will provide a removable on-site septic as a temporary means to address sewer prior to extension of municipal sanitary sewer. 9. The applicant will provide temporary on-site wells or will reach an agreement with an adjacent community to provide a temporary water service to the site until municipal water is provided by the City of Corcoran. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the temporary sewer and water services and these costs shall not be credited against the infrastructure area charges and connection charges due when municipal infrastructure is provided. E.D. Mining and Soil Processing. F.E. Temporary living quarters, subject to the standards in Section 1030.040 (Temporary Structures) of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 3. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Chapter 1040.030 Subd. 5(D). “Rural Residential District (RR)” (Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by deleting the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: D. Commercial Kennel, subject to Chapter 81 of the City Code. Page 3 of 7 SECTION 3. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Chapter 1040.100 Subd. 4. “Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)” (Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by deleting the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: C. Commercial Kennel, subject to Chapter 81 of the City Code. C. D. Commercial recreation and entertainment. D. E. Drive-through businesses, subject to the standards outlined in Section 1060.060, Subd. 12. E.F. Greenhouses and Nurseries, subject to the following: 1. When abutting a residential use or district, the property shall be screened and landscaped in accordance with this Chapter. All structures shall be set back at least 100 feet from any residential property line. 2. On-site storage and use of pesticides and fertilizers shall meet the standards of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 3. Adequate off-street parking is provided on an improved surface as required by this Ordinance. 4. Adequate parking, loading and maneuvering areas shall be provided. 5. Loading areas are fully screened from adjacent residential uses. 6. Not more than 30 percent of the site area shall contain outdoor storage of plants, accessory items and landscaping materials. All other sales and product storage areas must be within an approved building or structure. 7. Hours for retail sale of product to customers shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 8. Lighting shall comply with all ordinance requirements. If more than 25 percent of the greenhouse spaces are to be lit at night, they shall be screened from residential properties by use of a retractable curtain, landscaping, buildings or other methods to prevent light pollution, including sky glow. 9. The site complies with the minimum lot area standards for the district. 10. Sale of accessory items shall be permitted for the business as long as they cover no more than 10 percent of the outside site area. Page 4 of 7 11. The provisions of Section 1070.020 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. F.G. Health clubs and fitness centers less than 5,000 square feet in size. G.H. Hospitals, nursing home and similar care facilities. M.I. Hotel, inns and bed and breakfast establishments H.J. Motor Fuel Stations. 1. That the proximate area and location of space devoted to non- automotive merchandise sales shall be specified in the application and in the conditional use permit. Exterior sales or storage shall be only as allowed by the conditional use permit. 2. The off-street loading space(s) and building access for delivery of goods shall be separate from customer parking and entrances and shall not cause conflicts with customer vehicles and pedestrian movements. 3. Motor fuel facilities shall be installed in accordance with State and City standards. Additionally, adequate space shall be provided to access gas pumps and to allow maneuverability around the pumps. Underground fuel storage tanks are to be positioned to allow adequate access by motor fuel transports and unloading operations which do not conflict with circulation, access and other activities on the site. Fuel pumps shall be installed on pump islands. 4. All buildings, canopies, and pump islands shall be located to comply with the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. 5. All canopy lighting for motor fuel station pump islands shall be recessed or shielded to provide a 90-degree cutoff. Illumination levels for pump islands shall not exceed 30-foot candles. 6. Litter Control. The operation shall be responsible for litter control within 300 feet of the premises and litter control is to occur on a daily basis. Trash receptacles must be provided at a convenient location on site to facilitate litter control. K. L. Towers and Antennas (freestanding) as regulated by Section 1060.100 (Telecommunications Services) of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 5 of 7 L. M. Veterinary clinic, Animal Hospital and related indoor kennel; and pet grooming. SECTION 4. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Chapter 1040.110 Subd. 4. “Community Commercial (C-2)” (Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by deleting the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows: D. Commercial Kennel, subject to Chapter 81 of the City Code. D.E. Commercial recreation and entertainment. E.F. Drive-through businesses, subject to the standards outlined in Section 1060.060, Subd. 12. F.G. Dwelling, Multiple Family G.H. Greenhouses and Nurseries, subject to the following: 1. When abutting a residential use or district, the property shall be screened and landscaped in accordance with this Chapter. All structures shall be set back at least 100 feet from any residential property line. 2. On-site storage and use of pesticides and fertilizers shall meet the standards of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 3. Adequate off-street parking is provided on an improved surface as required by this Ordinance. 4. Adequate parking, loading and maneuvering areas shall be provided. 5. Loading areas are screened from adjacent residential uses. 6. Not more than 30 percent of the site area shall be covered with buildings or other structures. 7. Hours for retail sale of product to customers shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 8. Lighting shall comply with all ordinance requirements. If more than 25 percent of the greenhouse spaces are to be lit at night, they shall be screened from residential properties by use of a retractable curtain, landscaping, buildings or other methods to prevent light pollution, including sky glow. Page 6 of 7 9. The site complies with the minimum lot area standards for the district. 10. Sale of accessory items shall be permitted for the business as long as they cover no more than 10 percent of the outside site area. 11. The provisions of Section 1070.020 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. H.I. Hospitals, nursing home and similar care facilities. I.J. Hotel, inns and bed and breakfast establishments. J.K. Motor Fuel Stations. 1. That the proximate area and location of space devoted to non-automotive merchandise sales shall be specified in the application and in the conditional use permit. Exterior sales or storage shall be only as allowed by the conditional use permit. 2. The off-street loading space(s) and building access for delivery of goods shall be separate from customer parking and entrances and shall not cause conflicts with customer vehicles and pedestrian movements. 3. Motor fuel facilities shall be installed in accordance with State and City standards. Additionally, adequate space shall be provided to access gas pumps and to allow maneuverability around the pumps. Underground fuel storage tanks are to be positioned to allow adequate access by motor fuel transports and unloading operations which do not conflict with circulation, access and other activities on the site. Fuel pumps shall be installed on pump islands. 4. All buildings, canopies, and pump islands shall be located to comply with the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. 5. All canopy lighting for motor fuel station pump islands shall be recessed or shielded to provide a 90-degree cutoff. Illumination levels for pump islands shall not exceed 30-foot candles. 6. Litter Control. The operation shall be responsible for litter control within 300 feet of the premises and litter control is to occur on a daily Page 7 of 7 basis. Trash receptacles must be provided at a convenient location on site to facilitate litter control. K.L. Places of Worship/Assembly. L.M. Towers and Antennas (freestanding) as regulated by Section 1060.100 (Telecommunications Services) of the Zoning Ordinance. M.N. Veterinary clinic, Animal Hospital and related indoor kennel; and pet grooming. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-46 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 81 AND CHAPTER 1040 OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE RELATED TO COMMERCIAL DOG KENNELS (CITY FILE 17-037) WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to update the City Code to not allow commercial kennels as interim use permits in the RR and UR districts and to allow commercial kennels as conditional use permits in the C-1 and C-2 districts, as well as adding standards for operation; and WHEREAS, the amendment would be consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendment would be consistent with other City Code standards and City policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed text amendments at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Dog Kennel Ordinance text amendment based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment would be consistent with State law and the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and compatible with other provisions of the City Code. 2. The amendment would amend the ordinance to allow Commercial Dog Kennels in commercial areas, but not residential areas. 3. The amendment would establish standards to ensure appropriate transitions between the commercial kennel and adjacent commercial uses. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-46 Page 2 of 2 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ___________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 28, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Page 1 of 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2018-366 Motion By: Seconded By: CITY OF CORCORAN SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2018-365 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE (CITY FILE 17-037) The text of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended to amend Chapter 81 and Chapter 1040 to not allow commercial kennels as interim use permits in the RR and UR districts and to allow commercial kennels as conditional use permits in the C-1 and C-2 districts, as well as adding standards for operation. A printed copy of the entire amendment is available for inspection by any person at City Hall during the City Clerk’s regular office hours. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 28th day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11a. Council Meeting: June 28, 2018 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: 2019 Budget Assumptions and Timeline Action Required: Direction Summary: Staff is beginning to prepare the first draft of the 2019 budget. It is requested that the Council provide direction on the following assumptions in order for staff to complete the first draft: Employee Structure and Compensation Assumptions Staffing o Additional Administration Department employee Move time consuming administration processes to new employee (resolutions, ordinances, records management, council packets, data practices, and assistance with hiring processes, elections, audit, communications, etc.); currently responsibility of City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator o Increased duties to City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator (day to day planning supervision, human resources, requests for proposals, communications, finance management, policy/research development, information technology, etc.); change title to Administrative Services Director; pay grade increase o Continue with seasonal recreation coordinator position to support athletic associations; increase to 30 hours per week o Continue with part-time or contract code enforcement assistance planned to begin in fall 2018 o Full year of Detective position and Canine appointment Wages o Cost of living adjustment to wage schedule at 2% Benefits o Assume 10% increase in insurance costs; 70% of increase to be paid by employer Planning Assumptions Incremental increase to planning budget to allow for planning updates as needed Engineering Assumptions Increase of $12,500 primarily due to taking over LGU duties for watershed reviews as required by the Elm Creek Watershed Increased revenue projected for billable hours Fire Assumptions Plan for increases based upon contract language (tax capacity, etc.); projecting 10% increase for 2019 Public Works Assumptions Increase in seal coating, asphalt, and gravel budget to reflect product costs Increase in dust control budget to reduce costs billed Police Assumptions Additional funds for Night-to-Unite event Council/Administration Assumptions Continue funding Bring Your Own Device stipend Increased training for potential newly elected official training Increase to assessor due to additional housing Fee Assumptions Incremental increase to water and sanitary sewer fees to cover costs Building Permit Revenue Assumptions It is recommended to budget for 65 new home permits in 2019 and continue to allocate 23 new home permits annually toward general fund with remaining revenue to be allocated elsewhere “Remaining revenue” mentioned above is estimated at $135,000 Other Initiatives/Thoughts Council has discussed creating a fund to begin paving gravel roads; should that be included? The draft budget will be updated based upon the direction received at the meeting and be presented to the Council at the July 12, 2018 work session. Important budget dates: September 13th: Adopt Preliminary Levy December 13th: Truth-in-Taxation Hearing; approve 2018 Budget and Levy Financial/Budget: Staff will provide budget impact information at the July 12th work session. The Overall tax capacity grew $635,722 or 7.6% which will support a large portion of the proposed budget items 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. Community Safety We will protect the community by maintaining or improving safety through police and fire protection and by investing and maintaining the infrastructure of the City. Fiscal Responsibility We believe that the prudent stewardship and opportunistic investment of public funds is essential for confidence in government and to position the City for future success. 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. 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. Options: 1. Provide staff direction on adjustments to the 2019 budget prior to presenting at the July 12, 2018 works session. Recommendation Provide staff direction on adjustments to the 2019 budget prior to presenting at the July 12, 2018 works session. Council Action: Provide staff direction on adjustments to the 2019 budget prior to presenting at the July 12, 2018 works session. Attachments: 1. 2018 Mission, Vision, Values, Action Steps 2. Draft 10 Year Vision; Three Year Picture STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11b. Council Meeting: June 28, 2018 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Water Service Agreement Amendment Action Required: Approval Summary: Staff has negotiated with the City of Maple Grove to allow for water service to be available for northeast Corcoran. Attached to this report is an amendment to the original water service agreement which would allow service for the proposed Encore development. Additional connections would require further amendments to the agreement. The City of Corcoran is studying other options for water service. Purchasing water from Maple Grove is the only option available for municipal service at this time. Financial/Budget: Costs related to purchasing water are outlined in the original water agreement from 2012. The City must pass on and pay Maple Grove connection fees and purchase water at a rate as outlined in the original agreement. 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. Fiscal Responsibility We believe that the prudent stewardship and opportunistic investment of public funds is essential for confidence in government and to position the City for future success. 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. Options: 1. Approve the contract amendment as presented. 2. Deny the contract amendment. Recommendation Staff has negotiated in good faith to create this agreement. Terms must remain as stated in order to receive water service in northeast Corcoran. Approval is recommended. Council Action: Consider a motion to approve the contract amendment as presented. Attachments: 1. Second Amendment to Contract for Water Service Between the City of Maple Grove and Corcoran CITY OF CORCORAN Mission Statement The City of Corcoran will provide high quality public services in a cost effective, responsible, and professional manner in order to create a preferred environment to live, work, play, and Conduct business. CITY OF CORCORAN Vision Statement The City of Corcoran will become a vibrant community focused around a thriving town center while preserving its natural character and agricultural roots. In order to achieve this vision, the City will seek to work with partners to accomplish the following outcomes: • A variety of housing options for all ages and stages of life existing in cohesion with the natural environment • A well connected parks and trails system with options for year-round recreation and opportunities for residents to connect with nature • A safe and clean community where residents can be proud to live, work, and play • A variety of high quality schools are available to residents and work in cohesion with the City’s vision • A variety of commercial and industrial businesses exist to provide for most services and jobs for the community CITY OF CORCORAN Values Statement The following values are fundamental to the City of Corcoran’s success and the fulfillment of our mission: Honesty, Ethics, Integrity We believe that honesty, ethics, and integrity are the foundation blocks of public trust and confidence. Community Pride and Partnership We believe in creating a strong sense of community through partnerships with civic organizations, school districts, and local businesses. 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. Community Safety We will protect the community by maintaining or improving safety through police and fire protection and by investing and maintaining the infrastructure of the City. Fiscal Responsibility We believe that the prudent stewardship and opportunistic investment of public funds is essential for confidence in government and to position the City for future success. 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. 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. CITY OF CORCORAN 2018 Action Steps In order to be positioned to meet the priorities for 2021, the City of Corcoran has identified the following action steps for 2018: • Purchase park land, parks and trails commission to begin master planning • Designate open space park on west side of Jubert Lake • Redesign downtown/town center plan • Guide comp plan for increased commercial/industrial area west of existing downtown, and in southwest Corcoran • Allocate funds in 2019 budget for paving gravel roads in the future • Complete staff planning for 2018 (canine, detective, part-time recreation coordinator, part-time code compliance ), update capital improvement plan • Plan and budget Crime, Drug, and Safety task force items for 2019 • Review fire service report and consider next steps • Update City code to better enforce code issues • Learn about options for adjusting ordinances to protect trees/natural areas • Ask charter commission to discuss the option of future wards in Corcoran CITY OF CORCORAN 10 Year Vision The City Council has identified the following items as priorities to be achieved by 2028: A public school located in the southeast district Established trail system connecting neighborhoods Fire service/station in the City County Road 116 developed into a boulevard adjacent to the future town center Drug free Corcoran, code compliant city Clean surface water Trees/natural areas protected Same rural character as today Council wards Year round recreation opportunities Upgraded recreation facilities Nature park around Jubert Lake Restaurants Business park along County Road 30 One non-MUSA gravel road paved Compost site Increase commercial tax base/industrial park Maintained high quality service level CITY OF CORCORAN Three Year Picture In order to be positioned to meet the priorities of 2028, the City of Corcoran has identified the following accomplishments to be reached by 2021: Purchase land for athletic complex, master planned recreation facilities completed, full-time recreation employee, begin upgrading city park Designate Jubert Lake area as park space for the future, specifically on the west side Approve housing to add “rooftops” to obtain restaurants; redesign the town center plan Extend water/sewer service through development, plan County Road corridors, market community to businesses, complete 610 extension/Brockton interchange, bring planning services in house, expand commercial/industrial areas in comp plan, establish EDA Dedicated funding source collecting funds to pave gravel roads Decide on city or contracted site for compost site Follow staff plan and capital improvement plan to maintain service levels Select a preferred site for a school in Corcoran, create a joint plan with the Rockford school district, obtain land through a purchase agreement for future development, plan infrastructure Select a preferred site for a fire station, phasing/trigger criteria established, financial plan in place Downtown plan redesigned for planning purposes, town center park land acquired Full-time position focusing solely on code enforcement Crime, Drug, Safety task force work continues implementing recommendations Decisions made on ordinance adjustments to protect trees/natural areas City of Corcoran 2018 City Council Schedule Agenda Item 12. July 12, 2018 Work Session 2019 Budget and Direction for Financial Management Plan July 12, 2018 – Councilmember Dejewski unable to attend Years of Service Recognition – Brad Martens Resolution honoring Kevin Dale – CAA Bring Your Own Device Reimbursement for Council Financial Performance Report Recycling RFP Appointment of Election Judges for the Primary and General Elections Assessor RFP Fire Study Sub-committee and next steps July 26, 2018 – Councilmember Dejewski unable to attend Sheriff Stanek Planning Project Update Code Compliance Quarterly Report Five Year Financial Management Plan Gravel vs. Paved Road Cost Comparison August 9, 2018 Work Session Development Rights Water Supply Options August 9, 2018 – Councilmember Dejewski unable to attend Select Election Canvassing Date – November Special Meeting August 23, 2018 – Councilmember Dejewski unable to attend Years of Service Recognition – Paula Steelman Hennepin County Comp Plan Review letter Planning Project Update 2019 Front End Loader Purchase Nuisance Ordinance amendments Financial Guarantee Requirements Willow LLC Minor Subdivision (tentative) Bee/Chickens Ordinance Subcommittee Update Resolution Honoring 15 Years of the Parks and Trails Commission o Big stuff, members, etc. (began August 14, 2003)