Council considers Lothar comprehensive‑plan amendment after neighbors urge denial

Property owners Brian and Jackie Lothar asked the Corcoran City Council to amend the comprehensive plan guidance for their 9.87‑acre parcel at 10110 County Road 116 from “existing residential” to “conservation residential,” a change the applicants say would permit subdivision at a lower density once municipal sewer and water are available.

Planning staff recommended approval of Resolution 2025‑31, stating the change would have a minimal effect on the city’s overall density calculations in the MUSA and would enable subdivision at a low density (the conservation‑residential category in the city’s plan anticipates 2–3 units per acre). Planning staff also noted that the property was shown with a future access on a 2020 “ghost plat” related to the city’s water treatment plant acquisition and that sewer and water stubs are in place near the site.

At the Planning Commission earlier in March the commission voted 3–1 to recommend denial and suggested a different approach: creating a new lower‑density land‑use category that would be city‑driven rather than an application‑driven change. Planning staff and consultants warned that establishing a 1–2 units‑per‑acre category would be difficult to implement in the MUSA and could create long‑term maintenance and infrastructure viability issues.

At the council meeting the applicants said the property was envisioned for future access when the city purchased the adjacent well and water treatment site and that they seek a more protective, lower‑density option now rather than risk higher densities required by future regional planning. Neighbors from Hunters Ridge asked the council to deny the amendment, saying the change would primarily benefit the applicant, would increase local density in an area already subject to nearby development, and that a road connection for safety could be provided without enabling a subdivision. One neighbor urged the council not to change rules “so they can maximize their profit.”

Council member discussion acknowledged the competing policy considerations: the city’s obligation to meet Met Council density targets, the practical difficulty of creating new very‑low‑density categories inside the MUSA, and neighbors’ desire to preserve local character. A motion to approve Resolution 2025‑31 was made, but the council paused for public comment; the transcript ends after several residents spoke and before a final council vote was recorded in the transcript.

Because the record shows public comment and a Planning Commission split recommendation, the application remained before the council for deliberation; the council had not recorded a final vote on the amendment in the provided transcript.