Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-07 Planning Commission Agenda Packet CITY OF CORCORAN *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. Corcoran Planning Commission Agenda June 7, 2018 - 7:00 pm 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval 4. Open Forum 5. Minutes a. Minutes – April 5, 2018* 6. New Business a. PUBLIC HEARING. Encore PUD Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Development Plan for a residential development west of County Road 101 and north of County Road 30 (city file 18-016)* i. Staff Report ii. Open Public Hearing iii. Close Hearing iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation b. PUBLIC HEARING. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition PUD Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Development Plan for a residential development (city file 18-017)* i. Staff Report ii. Open Public Hearing iii. Close Hearing iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation c. PUBLIC HEARING. Commercial Kennel Amendment (city file 17-037)* i. Staff Report ii. Open Public Hearing iii. Close Hearing iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation d. PUBLIC HEARING. Minor Subdivision Ordinance Amendment (city file 18-022)* v. Staff Report vi. Open Public Hearing vii. Close Hearing viii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation 7. Reports/Information a. Planning Project Update* b. City Council Report* – Council Liaison Dejewski c. Consider Cancelling or Resceduling July 5th meeting d. Other Business 8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 6/14 6/28 7/12 7/26 8/9 8/23 Russell Jacobs Schultz Theis Wu Russell 9. Adjournment CITY OF CORCORAN Corcoran Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2018 - 7:00 pm The Corcoran Planning Commission met on April 5, 2018 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were: Chair Dean Jacobs, Vice-chair Schultz, Commissioner Russell, Commissioner Wu, and Commissioner Theis. Also present were: Administrator Martens, Planner Lindahl, Code Compliance Official Pritchard, and Council Liaison Thomas. 1.Call to Order / Roll Call Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:00pm 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval Motion made by Schultz seconded by Russell to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) 4.Open Forum – None 5.Minutes a.Minutes – March 1, 2018 Motion made by Theis seconded by Russell to approve the minutes as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) 6.New Business a.PUBLIC HEARING. Rush Creek Run Preliminary Plat (city file 18-001) i.Staff Report – Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii.Open Public Hearing – Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. Dave Strebel, 7260 Jubert La., inquired about the driveway location for Lot 2, Block 1. Linda Bell, 7695 Rolling Hills Rd., asked about wetland impacts, and street improvement, as well as if the lots could be further subdivided. Gene Kissner, 22105 Co Rd 50, asked about driveway locations and number of lots. Paul Otto, (Applicant Representative) stated he was available for questions. iii.Close Hearing Motion made by Wu seconded by Russell to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) iv.Commission Discussion & Recommendation – Staff addressed questions raised during the public hearing. Staff clarified that wetlands would have minimal impact, for a driveway crossing on Lot 2, Block 2; lots could not be further subdivided as no development rights would remain; and that no driveways were proposed on County Road 50. The Commission discussed the removal of the horse trail and trail alignment, wetland buffer requirements, as well as floodplain clarification. They also discussed a possible cross access agreement; staff shared that they felt it was not appropriate and that a separate access should be provided. Motion made by Wu seconded by Schultz to recommend approval of the resolution with a correction to Lot 2 Block 1 on page 3. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) b.PUBLIC HEARING. High 5 Companies, Inc. Conditional Use Permit for Motor Vehicle Sales at 7523 Commerce Street (city file 18-006) i.Staff Report – Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. v.Open Public Hearing – Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. None 5a. ii. Close Hearing Motion made by Russell seconded by Wu to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) iii. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – The Commission asked questions of the applicant, Adam Fernandez, High 5 Companies, Inc. and discussed the building and use of the property. The applicant clarified that he is not the property owner, but rather a renter and that the property would be used as an office only, but that the parking areas are required for a state vehicle dealer’s license. Condition 4c of the resolution was discussed regarding the language of “vehicles” vs. “buses” and whether or not this mattered for the state license approval. The applicant was to follow-up with the state for clarification prior to the Council meeting. Motion made by Schultz seconded by Russell to recommend approval of the resolution as presented with clarification of vehicles vs. buses. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) c. PUBLIC HEARING. Pulte Comp Plan Amendment for “Encore” (city file 18-007) i. Staff Report – Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. Paul Heuer, Pulte Homes (applicant) gave a brief presentation. ii. Open Public Hearing – Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. Dennis Stieg, 19320 Stieg Rd., shared concerns regarding the land use changes, especially removing commercial use. He stated that commercial uses had double the tax base as residential and required less services. He also stated that the area was prime location for commercial uses due to its proximity to freeway and highway access. He inquired about trails and a regional connector. Bill Egeberg, 9905 Alvarado La. Maple Grove, inquired about the type of commercial and shared that he preferred residential. Di Sicora, 6410 Elm St., asked if the applicant’s presentation would be available on the City website. Larry Van Blaricom, 20910 Hidden Ponds Dr., stated that he was an owner of the property west of the proposed development and wanted more information. iii. Close Hearing Motion made by Russell seconded by Theis to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – The Commission asked staff to respond to questions raised during the public hearing. Staff stated that a northerly trail connection was proposed with the concept and that information on the meeting would be available on the City’s website. v. The Commission discussed the industrial and commercial areas ab the amount of land converted to residential as well as tax implications, density, transportation, and land use of the properties to the south, along Co Rd 30. The Commission discussed the age restrictions and inquired about home pricing. Paul Heuer, Pulte Homes, stated that the homes would range from $340,000 - $580,000. Motion made by Russell seconded by Theis to recommend approval of the resolution as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Theis, and Schultz. Voting Nay: Wu. (Motion carried 4:1) d. Variance and Site Plan Amendment for Accessory Building Expansion and Bus Parking at 9520 County Road 19 (city file 18-008) vi. Staff Report – Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. i. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – The Commission discussed the gravel lot, dust control, landscaping and screening, as well as future expansion. Motion made by Schultz seconded by Theis to recommend approval of the resolution as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) e. PUBLIC HEARING. 2040 Comprehensive Plan (city file 17-001) i. Staff Report – Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Open Public Hearing – Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Rd., stated that he had requested and is still requesting that the area around his property, north of Hackamore Rd, West of Co Rd 101 be reguided to Mixed Use. iii. Close Hearing Motion made by Russell seconded by Wu to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) iv. Commission Discussion & Recommendation – The Commission discussed Mr. Hoglund’s request as well as market demand and the location within Wayzata School District. They discussed the proposed land use changes including the Schuttes’ request to medium density residential as opposed to industrial and Dahlheimers’ request to move up in the sewer staging plan. The Commission also discussed high density and affordable housing as well as the Town Center. Motion made by Russell seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the resolution as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) 7. Reports/Information a. Planning Project Update – Information only b. City Council Report – Mayor Thomas updated the Commission on City Council activities. c. Other Business – None 8. Commissioner Liaison Calendar City Council Meetings 4/12 4/26 5/10 5/24 6/14 6/28 Jacobs Schultz Theis Wu Russell Jacobs 9. Adjournment Motion made by Russell seconded by Wu to adjourn. Voting Aye: Russell, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) Meeting adjourned at 10:20pm. Submitted by Mike Pritchard Code Compliance Official 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 Planning Commission FROM: Mary Matze through Kendra Lindahl, Landform D ATE: May 30, 2018 for the June 7, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting RE: PUBLIC HEARING. 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: Incomplete (Pending completion of wetland delineation) 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:6a.__ Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 2 June 7, 2018 3. 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: 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 • C-1 Neighborhood Commercial • C-2 Community Commercial • I-1 Light Industrial • PUD • C-1 Neighborhood Commercial 12-119-23-12-0001 (Newman) • UR Urban Reserve • C-1 Neighborhood Commercial • C-2 Community Commercial • PUD • C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Surrounding Properties The surrounding properties are guided and zoned as follows: Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 3 June 7, 2018 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 a number of 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. 4. 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. 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 Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 4 June 7, 2018 The properties in this proposed development have a mix of zoning districts including Light Industrial (I-1), Single Family Residential 2 (RSF-2), Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) 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 Outlot A be rezoned from Community Commercial (C-2) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1). Outlot B will remain Light Industrial (I-1). City approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide all of the residential property to low density residential on April 28, 2018. The requested rezonings would be consistent with the new land use classifications. The Zoning Ordinance has established a PUD zoning district and the purpose of the PUD district, is to promote 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 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 flexibility 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. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 5 June 7, 2018 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. 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 Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 6 June 7, 2018 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 the preliminary plat vary slightly, and that the site plan 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. 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 all other streets 20 feet 20 feet Front Porch (≤ 120 square feet) 15 feet 15 feeta Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 7 June 7, 2018 Single Family PUD Flexibility 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 a – Porches may be allowed to encroach and same on either front set-back on corner lots. 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. Staff notes that this is a fairly common separation in other communities and is consistent with recent approvals for Bass Lake Crossing and Bass Lake Crossing South. However, in order to ensure that the 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement remains clear on each side of the house, we have included a condition that no accessory structures or equipment (such as air conditioning units, chimney, etc.) be allowed to encroach into this 5-foot setback. Staff notes that any lot frontage on a street is considered a front yard and must meet the front yard setback requirements. It appears that there are a few lots with smaller setbacks than required and this must be corrected as part of the final PUD application. 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. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 8 June 7, 2018 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 floorplan 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. Staff has included a sample of the elevations with this packet. 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. 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: The Ordinance specifies a range of material types, and requires a minimum of two different materials. The front elevation is not allowed more than 75% of one type of exterior finish other than brick, stucco or stone. • The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility from this standard. The basic customer package offers cement board siding as the primary material on the homes. Vinyl siding is not used on any of their home products. Customers have the option of adding stone on the front elevation. A portion of the customers will also be given the opportunity to upgrade their garage doors to include windows. • The Commission should discuss this request. The City recently loosened these development standards, but this is a further departure. Is the Commission comfortable allowing only lap siding on the front of homes? If not, the Commission should add a requirement that either brick or stone be added as an accent or a different style of LP siding (such as board and batten or shakes) be added to meet this requirement. The plans provided by the applicant comply with other requirements for front elevations including 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 complies 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 Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 9 June 7, 2018 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 the majority of homes offered will not comply. • Staff recommends approval of this change only 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. 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. • PUD flexibility is being requested from this standard. The applicant states that it is difficult to incorporate two materials on the rear of the 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. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the City prior to submittal of the final PUD plan to develop a plan that staff recommends and the Council can approve. The applicant has provided a graphic showing the proposed locations of the architectural upgrades, titled “Architectural Upgrade Map”. Staff notes that the graphic only shows architectural upgrades on the eastern half of the development and that no architectural Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 10 June 7, 2018 upgrades are proposed at any of the intersections west of Outlot E or near Schober park. It is not clear why the homes on intersections at the western half of the development would not be provided the architectural upgrades on the elevations visible from the street. Schober park is proposed as a neighborhood park that is not wooded and homes will be more visible from this park. • Planning Commission should discuss whether the proposed architectural treatments meet the intent of the ordinance and if PUD flexibility for these standards as proposed by the applicant is appropriate. • As noted previously, staff recommends that upgrades be provided as required by ordinance. Planning Commission could find that a greater effort to provide high quality architectural treatment that is visible to the general public should be made by the applicant. If they find that a higher treatment would be appropriate, staff recommends PUD flexibility to allow upgrades on only those elevations that face the street or park, not necessarily on all four sides of the home as required by ordinance. 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 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. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 11 June 7, 2018 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. Mail Delivery One centralized mailbox location 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. 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. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 12 June 7, 2018 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 a wetland delineation and report for the Newman property but has not completed a delineation and report for the rest of the site. A MNRAM assessment for all of properties must be submitted to the City per Section 1050.010 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance. The plans appear to provide a 25-foot buffer around the wetlands in the site, consistent with the standards for buffer averaging for Medium quality wetlands and a 15-foot buffer setback. Once MNRAM assessment and a wetland delineation have been completed the applicant will be required to but the actual buffers must be dimensioned on the plans. 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. 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. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 13 June 7, 2018 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. 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 a number of comments requesting additional information. The City and the watershed will both review the grading plans for compliance with the applicable regulations. 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 a number of 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. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 14 June 7, 2018 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 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 A street lighting plan has not been included with this submittal. 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. Public Safety Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 15 June 7, 2018 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. 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 Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 16 June 7, 2018 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 the Commission 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. 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, Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 17 June 7, 2018 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: 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. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 18 June 7, 2018 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. 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. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 19 June 7, 2018 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 Subtotal (Cash-in-lieu owed) $177,394 Credit for paving off-road trails (assumes $20/ lineal foot) -$84,260 Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 20 June 7, 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. 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 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) 21 June 7, 2018 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 (staff does not recommend approval of this request) 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 the outstanding that must be addressed and we have included conditions in the attached draft resolutions to address these issues. Encore RZ, PP and PUD (city file 18-016) 22 June 7, 2018 Next Steps The application is tentatively scheduled for City Council action on June 28, 2018. 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. 5. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following: a. Resolution approving the preliminary plat b. Resolution approving the preliminary PUD development plan c. Ordinance approving the rezoning to PUD d. Resolution approving finding of fact for the rezoning Attachments a. Ordinance approving the rezoning to PUD b. Resolution approving findings of fact for the rezoning c. Resolution approving the preliminary plat d. Resolution approving the preliminary PUD development plan e. Location Map f. Zoning Map g. 2030 Sanitary Sewer Phasing Map h. 2030 Parks and Trails Plan i. Recommended Trail Adjustment Exhibit j. Engineer’s Memo dated May 25, 2018 k. Feasibility Study dated May 2018 l. Public Safety Memo dated May 16, 2018 m. Hennepin County Memo dated May 9, 2018 n. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Memo dated April 24, 2018 o. Applicant’s narrative dated April 17, 2018, received on May 24, 2018 p. Plans dated April 17, 2018 and revisions received on May 8, 2017, May 17, 2018, and May 24, 2018 City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-xx 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), Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), Community Commercial (C-2) and Urban Reserve (UR) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), 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. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-xx Page 2 of 2 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 June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx 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), Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), Community Commercial (C-2) and Urban Reserve (UR) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), 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, based on the following findings and conditions: City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx 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. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Dejewski, Brian Dejewski, Brian City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx Page 3 of 3 Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xx day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX Page 1 of 2 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, and May 24, 2018 except as amended by this resolution. City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX Page 2 of 2 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 May 24th site plan and 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. 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. 11. 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. 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 June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx 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 City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx Page 2 of 7 by the City on April 17, 2018 and revisions received May 5, 2018, May 17, 2018, and May 24, 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 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 the 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. 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 City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx Page 3 of 7 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 County Road 10 50 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. All garages must have a minimum 22-foot parking area in front of the garage that does not overlap into sidewalks, drives or streets. 16. Structures, mechanical equipment and driveways may not encroach in the drainage and utility easements on the side and rear yards. 17. The applicant shall provide details of the driveway, housepads, 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. 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. 20. 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 more than 75% of the finish material to be cement board siding. The applicant will be required to incorporate brick or stone or a different style of LP siding such as board and batten or shakes, as an accent material. b. 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-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. City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx Page 4 of 7 iii. Garage doors shall be architecturally styled to match the exterior of the home. a. 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. 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. ii. The applicant shall work with staff to develop elevation details for all current home styles prior to submittal of the final PUD development plan. 21. The applicant shall provide copies of the final HOA documents/covenants for City review as part of the final plat application. 22. The developer shall provide centralized mailbox locations. A mailbox plan shall be provided for City review and approval. Parking 23. Parking shall be permitted on one side of the local streets and shall be signed in accordance with city standards. Landscaping and Lighting 24. 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. 25. Plans shall be revised to show proposed lighting as well as existing lighting. 26. 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. 27. Lawn sprinklers/irrigation systems (if provided) shall all have rain sensors to limit unnecessary watering. 28. The HOA shall be responsible for maintenance of all common lots. 29. 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 30. An approved wetland delineation and wetland replacement plan for all parcels included in the development and shall be provided to the City prior to the PUD final development plan submittal. City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx Page 5 of 7 31. The plans shall be revised to identify wetland buffers, buffer setbacks, and monuments as required by Section 1050.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 32. Wetland buffer monuments shall be installed prior to issuance of building permit. 33. Landscape plans shall be revised to incorporate wetland buffer vegetation strips in compliance with Section 1050.10, Subd.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. 34. The developer must install wetland buffer monuments prior to issuance of building permits for adjacent buildings. 35. Except to provide access to the boardwalk, trails shall not be located in the wetland buffer areas. 36. The applicant must obtain any necessary permits from other agencies to install the boardwalk. Drainage/Stormwater Management 37. Drainage and utility easements must be provided over all wetlands, wetland buffers and ponds. 38. A 10-foot drainage & utility easement shall be provided along the perimeter of all lots. 39. Plans shall be revised to show any known drain tiles located on the property. 40. The applicant shall continue to work with the City to address drainage on the northeast portion of the site. Streets, Parking and Utilities 41. All streets within the development shall be public streets. 42. The developer will work with City staff to finalize street names, in compliance with the City’s street naming policy. 43. Utilities shall be stubbed to the property lines for future extension to adjacent properties. The stubs shall be at the developer’s expense. 44. All utility facilities shall be located underground. 45. Temporary turnarounds shall be provided on stubbed streets more than 150 feet in length. 46. Barricades and signage indicating future extension shall be installed, consistent with Section 945.010, Subd. 19 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 47. The applicant shall work with staff to provide the appropriate terminus for Jack Pine Lane south of proposed Schober Park. Park Dedication City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx Page 6 of 7 48. 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. 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. City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx Page 7 of 7 Miscellaneous 49. 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. 50. 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 xxnd 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 î s s òñð òñð ñ ñ ï ï î î s ñ 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 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 $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ MORIN LAKE GOOSE LAKE COOK LAKE RUS H C R E E K Official Zoning Map43,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet ï Cemetery î ChurchsGolf Course ñ Government Building òñð Public Park ! !! !! 2030 Metropolitan Urban Service Area City Limit Open Water Shoreland Overlay District 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 Updated August 2015 Adopted June 2011 19 10 30 116 101 50 19 10 City ofCORCORAN 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\2018-05-25 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. 3.3 Trunk sewer is consistent with City of Corcoran’s master sewer plan with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Engineer’s Memo May 29, 2018 3 \\MSPFSV02\Studios\Planning & Urban Design Studio\City of Corcoran\COR18016 - Pulte RZ, PUD and PP\2018-05-25 Encore Engineering Preliminary Plat Memo.docx 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 5.5 Provide appropriate stormwater maintenance access, including width and grade 5.6 Grading easement required at VanBlaricom property as shown (102nd Place) Engineer’s Memo May 29, 2018 4 \\MSPFSV02\Studios\Planning & Urban Design Studio\City of Corcoran\COR18016 - Pulte RZ, PUD and PP\2018-05-25 Encore Engineering Preliminary Plat Memo.docx 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 5.22 Additional information is needed south of CSAH 30, to determine if that area should be included in the regional stormwater system. Engineer’s Memo May 29, 2018 5 \\MSPFSV02\Studios\Planning & Urban Design Studio\City of Corcoran\COR18016 - Pulte RZ, PUD and PP\2018-05-25 Encore Engineering Preliminary Plat Memo.docx 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. 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 fronts of all homes in Encore will have SmartSide LP cement board exterior siding. 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, including vinyl Provided – We will not be using vinyl siding on any of the front elevations of the homes. The fronts of all homes will have SmartSide LP cement board exterior siding. Home buyers will also have a variety of options that would impact the architecture of the home. For instance, based on historical option rates, we anticipate over 40% of our active adult customers will choose an option of adding cultured stone on the front elevation and over 10% of our active adult customers will choose an option of an upgraded garage door with windows and/or specialized garage hardware. 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. 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 13 materials and/or styles compatible with the front elevation as described in this Section. All other 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. Therefore, we are focusing on highly visible side elevations that have a gable roof. Some buyers will choose a hip roof, which will display little wall surface area. We will add one of the below options to both side elevations of all highly visible homes. Highly visible homes are the thirteen homes identified in the attached 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 in the high visibility areas. If a home buyer chooses an architectural style that includes a hip roof, then there is little exposed wall surface and therefore no additional architectural option will be needed. 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. We will be drawing these same elevations with stone, as well as additional elevations as well. As the additional elevations become available, we anticipate bringing them forward for approval, perhaps at the final plat approval for the first addition. In total, we will have three floor plans each with ten different architectural elevations totaling thirty elevations. 14 40-foot wide homes – We will have four floor plans each with ten different architectural elevations totaling forty elevations. All forty 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 forty 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 16 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. 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 17 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 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. 18 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. 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. Total park dedication – We are proposing to dedicate nearly a value of nearly $400k more than required in the form of woods, active park land, and public trails to be constructed with Encore. 7. Commercial lot – We are developing the first non-residential property (Outlot A) in northeast Corcoran. 8. 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. 9. 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.) 10. 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. 19 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. This submittal includes: • This narrative • Applications • Application fees totaling $33,990 • Preliminary Plat package – plat, engineering, landscape architecture • Preliminary Plat – graphic rendering • Architectural Upgrades Map • Architectural elevations • Wetland delineation report • Phasing plan • Tax records 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 ENCORE | PULTE HOMES Corcoran , Minnesota CONCEPT PLAN April, 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 Architectural Upgrades for High Visibility Locations 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 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 PUBLIC COMMENT CARD CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763 - 420 -2288 www.ci.corcoran.mn.us Meeting Rules of Con duct. /�/ 1 Open Forum: Yes o No Date: �`. F IfjyrJtr nvt sn krn r Oil �/rI f1yLr rterrr, vO11 wall sperm Ali t)pen F"c�rurn • Fill out and turn in white comment AIM Name of Speaker. card to a staffmcmbcr. q, RIAU Item Number: - • When called upon, approach podium Related to Agenda Ite Yes r No Agenda Ite and state name and address. akin for the item _against the item not applicable • Indicate ifrepresenting a group. Are you speaking g •Limit remarks to 3 -S minutes. Representing: ,JA) S �� Telephone (optional): Ala °S6� Address: p Comments: 4' ��� — Y� �v\ ��n �r�Y�Ce 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 Planning Commission FROM: Kevin Shay through Kendra Lindahl, Landform D ATE: May 30, 2018 for the June 7, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting RE: PUBLIC HEARING. 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.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. Agenda Item: 6b. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 2 June 7, 2018 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. Wetland 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. 4. 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. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 3 June 7, 2018 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 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 is meeting with the County 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. Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 4 June 7, 2018 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% Additionally, Lots 8 - 12 must meet Shoreland standards for a river (Rush Creek): 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 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. • The Planning Commission should discuss to what extent the flexibility should be granted and what the benefit would be to the City. 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: Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 5 June 7, 2018 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. 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) 6 June 7, 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) 7 June 7, 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 and the maximum 75-foot structure setback standard. 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) 8 June 7, 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 and the maximum build-to line, the PUD expects a higher level of building design, landscaping or other amenities. • The Planning Commission should discuss and a make a recommendation. The Commission could add conditions, 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. 5. Recommendation Move to recommend approval of the following: 1. Draft Ordinance approving Rezoning from RR to PUD 2. Draft Resolution approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning 3. Draft Resolution approving Preliminary PUD Development Plan 4. Draft Resolution approving Preliminary Plat Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (18-017) 9 June 7, 2018 Attachments a. Draft Ordinance approving Rezoning from RR to PUD b. Draft Resolution approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning c. Draft Resolution approving Preliminary PUD Development Plan d. Draft Resolution approving Preliminary Plat e. Hennepin County Aerial f. Engineer’s Memo dated May 30, 2018 g. Hennepin County Memo dated May 23, 2018 h. Applicant’s narrative submitted May 2, 2018 i. Revised Plat submitted May 2, 2018 j. Landscape Plan submitted May 2, 2018 City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-xx 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 xx day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX 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 xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX 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 xx day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__ 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, 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. 8. Lots 8 through 12 must show compliance with the following Shoreland Overlay standards: City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__ Page 2 of 3 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% 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 17. Wetland buffer monuments shall be 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 xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__ 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 xx day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__ 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, 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 of the 14 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 xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__ 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 xx 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 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 Planning Commission FROM: Kevin Shay through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 30, 2018 for the June 7, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting RE: PUBLIC HEARING. 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 Planning Commission discussed dog kennel standards at the October 5, 2017 and January 5, 2018 meeting. 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. 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. 3. 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. Agenda Item: 6.c. Ordinance Amendment – Dog Kennels (City File 17-037) 2 May 30, 2018 • 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 4. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following: a. Ordinance Amendment b. Resolution approving findings of fact for Ordinance amendment Attachments 1. Draft Ordinance Amendment 2. Draft Resolution Approving Findings of Fact City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-xx 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 xx day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__ 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 xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__ Page 2 of 2 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xx 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 Planning Commission FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 29, 2018 for the June 7, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting RE: PUBLIC HEARING. 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. 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. • 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. Agenda Item: 6.d._ Lot Line Adjustment: No new lots are created. Minor Subdivision: 3 or fewer parcels are created. Minor Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 2 June 7, 2018 3. 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 Ordinance Amendment 3 June 7, 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. 4. Requested Action Move to recommended approval of the following: a. Ordinance approving the revisions to Section 927 of the Subdivision Ordinance b. Resolution approving Findings of Fact Attachments: a. Ordinance approving the revisions to Section 927 of the Subdivision Ordinance b. Resolution approving Findings of Fact City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-___ 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 xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2018-___ 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 xx day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__ 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; 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 xx, 2018 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__ Page 2 of 2 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this xx day of June 2018. ________________________________ Ron Thomas - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 1 MEMORANDUM 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net DATE May 7, 2018 TO Brad Martens CC City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Trails Commission FROM Kendra Lindahl, City Planner RE Active Corcoran Planning Applications Projects/Comments in blue italics are new Project marked with an * have moved from active to approved The following is a summary of project status for current, active projects: 1.2040 Corcoran Comprehensive Plan (City file 17-001). This year-long process was kicked off with a joint City Council/Commission work session on March 16th followed by three community open houses/events and several commission meetings and Council work sessions. The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed at their March 20th meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 5th and on April 26th the City Council approved the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for distribution to adjacent jurisdictions for comment. The adjacent jurisdictions have six months to review and comment and then Corcoran will send to the Metropolitan Council to review for compliance with regional systems. 2.Dog Kennel Ordinance Update (City file 17-037). The Council directed the Planning Commission to review the Kennel standards in the ordinance and make a recommendation about whether any changes are needed. The Commission discussed the item at their October 5th meeting and asked that it be placed on a future meeting agenda for more discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this at the January 4th meeting and their recommendation was presented to the Council at the January 25th meeting for consideration. At their January 25th meeting, Council considered the Commission’s recommendation, but instead directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance that only allows kennels in commercial zoning districts and schedule for a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and Council action in June. 3.Animal Ordinance (city file 17-038). The City has received questions about allowing animals in commercial areas, specifically bees and chickens. The Council considered this item at their January 25th meeting and established a subcommittee to review the issues and bring back a recommendation to the City Council. Staff will present the subcommittee recommendation at the May 24th Council meeting. 4.Right-of-Way, Small Cell and DAS Ordinance Amendment (City file 17-039). Minnesota’s telecommunications right-of-way user state law (SF1456), regarding small wireless facilities, was signed into law on May 30, 2017. It grants wireless service providers access to the public right-of-wa y to construct, maintain and operate small wireless facilities and wireless support structures. Various sections of the city and zoning code need to be amended to be consistent with state law. At their January 25th meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance and schedule for a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and Council action. Staff is expanding this effort to include the creation of a ROW ordinance and will present options to the Council at the June 28th meeting. 5.EAW and Sketch Plan for “Encore” (PID 1211923120001, 0111923430002 & 0111923440001) (city file 18-004). Pulte has submitted a revised sketch plan and is working with the City to prepare Agenda Item ____ 7a MEMORANDUM 2 an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) for approval of 393 single family lots. The City Council reviewed this item at their February 22nd meeting. The EAW is currently out for public review. The 30-day comment period ends on April 11th. The City Council will take action on the EAW at the May 10th meeting. 6. Natural Resource Protection Ordinance (city file 18-010). The Council directed staff to look at options to preserve trees and natural resources to maintain the rural character of the community in both rural and urban areas. Staff with gather information for Council review at the May meeting. 7. Southeast District Master Plan and Design Guidelines update (city file 18-012). The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan anticipates significant changes to the transportation network that make it necessary to update this plan, which is adopted as Appendix B of the Zoning Ordinance. At the April 26th meeting, the Council authorized staff to begin this work. 8. Nuisance Ordinance ordinance/process update (city file 18-013). The Council has directed staff to be more proactive in the Code Enforcement efforts. Review of the ordinance and policies suggests that updates are needed in several areas. Staff will present the City Council with a work plan and schedule at the May 24th meeting. 9. Development Rights and OS&P ordinance updates (city file 18-014). One of the implementation strategies from the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan was to consider amendments to the OS&P ordinance to better reflect City goals. The Council is also considering changes to the development rights program. Staff will present a work plan and schedule at the May 24th Council meeting. 10. Discussion of the Development Process and Financial Guarantees for Land Use. The Council approved a change in City policy for financial guarantees for the Bass Lake Crossing South development and asked for a more comprehensive discussion to better understand the development process, financial guarantees and options. Staff will provide information at the May 24th Council meeting. 11. Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Development Plan for “Encore” (PID 1211923120001, 0111923430002 & 0111923440001) (city file 18-016). Pulte has submitted a request for approval of “Encore”, Minnesota’s first Del Webb community. The item is scheduled for Parks and Trails Commission review on May 15th, a public hearing at the Planning Commission on June 7th and City Council action on June 28th. 12. Preliminary PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Plat for Fehn Meadows 2nd Addition (City file 18-017). Chris Rains submitted a request for a 14 lot OS&P plat on County Road 117. The item is scheduled for Parks and Trails Commission review on May 15th, a public hearing at the Planning Commission on June 7th and City Council action on June 28th. 13. Sketch Plan for “Edgewater of Corcoran” at 19220 County Road 10 (PID 25-119-23-14-0003 and 25-119-23-14-0002) (City file 18-018). Trek Development, Inc. has submitted a sketch plan for a residential development with a senior living continuum of care complex, apartment and single family homes. The Council will review the sketch plan at the May 24th meeting. 14. Lot Line Adjustment and Plat Modification for Ravinia 7th and 9th Addition (City file 18-019). Lennar has submitted a plat modification for Ravinia 9th Addition and a series of lot line adjustment for Ravinia 7th Addition. There was a slight overlap in the Ravinia 7th and 9th Addition plats, which requires some adjustment to approximately 9 lots. The City Code allows these changes to be administratively approved. Also, there are several projects that have been approved, but are still not filed and closed out: 1. Corcoran Business Park (City file 06-005). The City Council granted a one-year extension to the final plat approval, which expired on April 12, 2011. Staff has spoken to the applicant and is still working to close out this project. Staff has spoken to the applicant and will schedule a meeting when more information is available on the Loretto sewer project. MEMORANDUM 3 2. Hope Ministries Conditional Use Permit for Cemetery and Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easement at 19951 Oswald Farm Road (City file 12-002). Hope Ministries submitted a request for a conditional use permit to allow a cemetery west of the existing church. The application was approved by the City Council on March 22nd and site work had begun. The letter of credit for site improvements has been released, but we are holding the escrow pending completion of the approved landscaping. The applicant has indicated that they are considering a site plan amendment application to modify the approved plans. Staff met again with Pastor Brian Lother in July 2017 to discuss the outstanding issues and future expansion plans on the property. 3. Sawgrass Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD Development Plan and Rezoning for Schendel property at 20400 County Road 10 (City file 14-027). The City Council approved the request on December 11, 2014 and granted the applicant 2 years to apply for the final plat and final PUD development plan. Peachtree Partners did not buy the property, but a different developer could still proceed with the approved plan. On December 9, 2016, the applicant submitted a written request to extend the approvals for an additional year. Staff recommended that this request be reviewed by the City Council, but adequate time was not provided to place this on a Council agenda prior to expiration. Staff administratively approved an extension until February 28, 2017 so that this request for extension could be considered at the February 23, 2017 Council meeting. At that meeting, the City Council approved a one year extension. The City Council approved another one year extension at the January 25, 2018 meeting. 4. Commercial Door Addition at 7670 Commerce Street (City file 15-010) The City received an application for approval of a building addition, which required a conditional use permit, interim use permit, variance and site plan approval. The project was reviewed at a public hearing at the June 4th Planning Commission meeting and was approved by the City Council on June 25th. The required landscaping will be finalized and constructed after the downtown infrastructure project is completed. The City will release the remaining escrow when the planting is completed. 5. Private Drive Ordinance Amendment (City file 16-003). The City Council approved an ordinance amendment allowing private drives in the Rural Residential district, subject to certain conditions. However, after adoption the City Council directed staff to revisit this issue and consider an ordinance amendment to eliminate the requirement that private drives off paved roads must be paved. The City Council approved the amendment on May 26th. The Council also identified additional issues that should be reviewed and discussed at a future date. 6. *Preliminary Plat for “Rush Creek Run” at 7320 Rolling Hills Road (PID 28-119-23-22-0003) (city file 18-001). A request by Linda and John Whisney for a preliminary plat to create 6 lots. The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed at their March 20th meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 5th and the City Council approved the request on April 26th. 7. OS&P Sketch Plan for “Pheasant Ridge 2nd Addition” at 10000 Ebert Road PID 03-119-23-31- 0003, 03-119-23-43-0005, 03-119-23-41-0002) (City File 18-003). Tony Bolduc has submitted a request for sketch plan review of an OS&P plat with 30 lots (2 with existing homes) and 4 outlots. The City Council reviewed the request at the February 22nd meeting and provided comments. 8. Maple Hill Apartments PUD Sketch Plan at 7401 Maple Hill Road (PID 25-119-23-24-0005) (City file 18-005). The Council reviewed the PUD sketch plan at their February 22nd meeting and offered feedback to the applicant. 9. *High 5 Companies Conditional Use Permit at 7523 Commerce Street (PID 26-119-23-14-0025) (city file 18-006). The applicant is requesting a CUP to allow auto sales at the site. No vehicles will be stored on site. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the April 5th meeting and the Council approved at the April 26th meeting. 10. *Pulte Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Encore (PID 01-119-23-43-0002 and 01-119-23-44- 0001) (city file 18-007). The applicant has submitted a request to reclassify the property to Low Density Residential. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the April 5th meeting and the Council approved at the April 26th meeting. MEMORANDUM 4 11. *Doboszenski request for Site Plan and Variance at 9520 CR 19 (PID 07-119-23-42-0007) (city file 18-008). The applicant is requesting approval for an addition to the accessory building and after-the- fact approval for bus storage in the front yard. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the April 5th meeting and the Council approved at the April 26th meeting. 12. *Patrick Matter request for Special Home Occupation for vehicle sales/repair at 19320 Mystique Drive (PID 12-119-23-43-0015) (city file 18-009). Notice of request was sent to neighbors within 350 feet. The Council approved at the April 26th meeting. 13. *Annual Codification (18-015). This is an administrative effort to update the City Code document to include all the 2017 amendments approved by the City Council. The update was completed and the new code is current through January 25, 2018 (available online or at city hall). 7b. CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763.420.2288 – Office 763.420.6056 – Fax E-mail - general@ci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site - www.ci.corcoran.mn.us MEMO Meeting Date: June 7, 2018 To: Planning Commission From: Brad Martens, City Administrator Re: City Council Report ______________________________________________________________________ The Planning Commission last met on April 5, 2018. The following is a recap of some of the items discussed at City Council meetings since that time. A full recap can be found by reviewing the approved City Council minutes on the website April 12, 2018 Council Meeting Annual Fire Department Reports o Heard annual updates from the Hanover, Loretto, and Rogers Fire Departments Public Hearing – Proposed Property Tax Abatement; Sale of 2018A Bonds o Held the public hearing; approved resolutions to proceed with the sale of bonds for the purchase of 20400 County Road 50 2018 Dust Control Program o Reviewed the proposed 2018 plan; approved a resolution calling for a public hearing for May 10, 2018 2018 Pavement Overlay Project o Authorized plans and specifications for the 2018 pavement overlay project for Larking Road and Rolling Hills Road Discussion on Compensation for Commissioners o Discussed merits for compensation; declined making changes at this time Playground Provider Selection and Budget o Selected St. Croix Recreation as the playground provider for the Ravinia neighborhood park and authorized staff to execute contracts; approved a budget of up to $85,000 for playground equipment 7c.  2017 Surplus Allocation o Directed staff to place 2017 surplus above the budgeted $60,000 into the long range planning fund  County Road 10/Larkin Road Intersection o Discussed possible safety considerations; no action taken April 26, 2018 Council Meeting  Site Plan and Variance for 9520 County Road 19 o Approved the site plan and variance for a building addition at Dobosz enski & Sons  Conditional Use Permit for High 5 Companies, Inc. at 7525 Commerce Street o Approved the conditional use permit as presented  Special Home Occupation for Patrick Matter at 19320 Mystique Drive o Approved the special home occupation license with an amendment regarding numbers of trips allowed  Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Encore o Approved the comprehensive plan amendment for the proposed Encore development (approximately 400 units on 220 acres) to allow a low density residential development  Preliminary Plat for Rush Creek Run o Approved the preliminary plat to create six new lots along Rolling Hills Road south of CR 50  2040 Comprehensive Plan o Approved the Comprehensive Plan update; initiated the six month review period for adjacent communities; Council thanked staff and all those that participated in the update  Proposal to Update Appendix B of the Zoning Ordinance o Approved a work plan to complete an update to the Southeast District Plan related to the Comprehensive Plan Update  Fir Lane Turn Lane Improvement Project o Awarded the project as recommended contingent upon receiving escrow funds from the developer  Proposed City Council Work Sessions o Directed staff to poll the Council on available dates for work sessions and preferences on topics May 10, 2018 Council Meeting  2017 Audit o Heard an audit presentation from Justin Nilson of Abdo, Eick & Meyers; accepted the audit as presented; thanked staff for their hard work 7c.  Consideration of EAW – Encore o Approved the resolution declaring no need for an environmen tal impact statement  Awarding the Sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A o Tammy Omdal of Northland Securities presented information related to the bond sale which came in with favorable bids at a true interest cost of 2.98%; awarded the sale of bonds as presented  Interfund Transfer o Approved the transfer of $250,000 of park dedication funds to the land purchase fund for the school district property at 20400 County Road 50  Public Hearing – 2018 Dust Control Project o Held the public hearing; approved the 2018 dust control program as presented  2018 Pavement Overlay Program o Accepted plans and authorized staff to bid the 2018 project for Larkin Road and Rolling Hills Road May 24, 2018 Council Meeting  City Council Work Sessions o Scheduled work sessions for July 12th and August 9th prior to the regular City Council meeting  Letter of Intent Not to Execute Purchase Agreement – 23185 County Road 10 o Directed staff to send the letter as drafted  PUD Sketch Plan for Edgewater of Corcoran o Received a presentation for a proposed development at 19220 County Road 10 for a 200 unit senior continuum of care complex to be operated by Saint Therese, a 125 unit senior market rate apartment complex, and 19 single family homes; Council provided favorable feedback on the project with some modifications  Nuisance Ordinance Updates o Provided direction to update the ordinances to allow for citations as part of the abatement process and to proceed with mitigation after the first notice  Corcoran Development Process and Alternatives o Directed staff to require letter of credit or cash for developments and to reduce the requirement to 100% of the project costs  Work Plan for Amendments to Development Rights and Open Space & Preservation Plats o Discussed options; tabled the discussion to a future work session  Natural Resource Protection Options o Directed staff to make no changes at this time 7c.  Preliminary Evaluation of Corcoran Water Supply Development o Approved a proposal to evaluate preliminary development of a Corcoran water supply system  Gambling Ordinance Amendment Request o Directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment to allow for raffle events Attachments: None