Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-08-26 Council Work Session Agenda Packet
Council Work Session Agenda August 26, 2021 - 5:30 pm 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Developer Roundtable* 3. Unscheduled Items 4. Adjournment *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the Council Chambers Agenda Packet book located by the entrance. The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the City website at www.corcoranmn.gov. HYBRID MEETING OPTION AVAILABLE The public is invited to attend the regular Council meetings at City Hall. Meeting Via Telephone/Other Electronic Means Call-in Instructions: +1 312 626 6799 US Enter Meeting ID: 841 5587 6803 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment Sections in the meeting. Video Link and Instructions: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84155876803 visit http://www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 841 5587 6803 Participants can utilize the Raise Hand function to be recognized to speak during the Public Comment sections in the meeting. Participant video feeds will be muted. In-person comments will be received first, with the hybrid electronic means option following. For more information on options to provide public comment visit: www.corcoranmn.gov From:David Pattberg To:Kendra Lindahl, AICP Subject:Re: Corcoran work session Date:Thursday, August 26, 2021 12:47:13 PM Kendra - Here are my thoughts and questions: Why does the City want to preserve Open Space? (Public Amenity or Private Amenity) The answer to this WHY should drive the ordinance Honestly, I am not sure why the City would want to preserve open space unless the Public (i.e. City) controls, maintains and enjoys. As a developer, I would try to put this open space in rear yards of homes to get higher lot premiums and limit the public access to this area as much as possible. I would expect you will get developments similar to the plan (Example 40-Acre Subdivision: 25% Open Space Preserved - Double Loaded Street) It sounds like this discussion is to try to have this Zoning Classification be optional but will it really be optional? Or if there is a significant natural resource that the City wants to preserve - will the City require the developer to preserve (whether or not the developer goes with the smaller lot idea)? Keeping in mind most of the the time the underlying seller and thus the developer will want to maximize land value, thus some property that the City would like to be preserved might not use this classification. At one point in the write up, it was discussed that a Developer could do Attached Townhomes as a use to help get the density for the off-set open space. Just be clear that the economic viability of Townhomes changes drastically with market conditions. The building code is making townhomes much more expensive and that is why we are not seeing as many new townhomes being built vs 10-15 years ago. Regarding Setback and driveway lengths: It would be a bold move, but I think any setbacks are restrictive. Maybe explore not having any required setbacks. I know many subdivisions in other parts of the Country have zero setbacks. A creative land planner can really maximize the site and give a good product. Keep in mind a developer/builder still needs to deliver something to the market that can sell. But no driveway and zero setbacks give ultimate creative freedom to be innovative. (I can give some examples if needed) Specific comments on the Ordinance Language: 941.040 - Procedure: Subd. 1.B.1. Resource Inventory - Is this resource inventory required for all Plats (not just Urban Conservation Plats)? Because this resource inventory sounds like it will take time and money to gather. It does not specifically detail what a vegetation inventory includes but I am assuming a Tree Inventory and a Plant Inventory. If not required for all Plats, some developers might not use this Urban Conservation Plat just to avoid the inventories. 941.050 - Development Standards: Subd. 1.A.2 - I would not require 'no more than two non-contiguous piece' because any particular development application might have great natural resources even though they might not be contiguous. 941.050 : Subd. 1.B.2.b - states that developers must provide trails, but then Paragraph 4 says the trail easement may get park dedication and what about the cost of the trail - park fee credit? I would encourage consistency on this question - do they get park credit for trail easement and cost of construction or not? 941.050 : Subd. 1.B.8 - I can't think of reason why ownership would stay with an individual. I would suggest owned by the City or a HOA. 941.050 : Subd. 1.D.6 - Why would lots need to be 'fronted'? Would rear-loaded (i.e. Alley Loaded) be an option? 941.050 : Subd. 1.D.7 - 50' wide trail corridor seems excessive 941.060 : Subd. 1.A - Same Park Dedication credit question. "May" implies a negotiation which can cause confusion. 941.060 : Subd. 1.B.11 - I would suggest not requiring City Approval to amend the HOA docs. I would think the City could get all of the needed protection written in the Easement Agreement including maintenance requirements, inspection rights, ability to enforce maintenance, etc. Then the Association can amend HOA docs as needed without asking the City. The City of St Michael has a similar ordinance that allows smaller lots for some additional open space. I know a few projects have been approved and are starting to develop under their ordinance, it might be worth asking St Michael if they feel like the ordinance is getting them what they wanted. Answers to Questions: Is the streamlined development process (preliminary and final plat) with built-in design flexibility (reduced side and rear setback, no minimum lot size and no garage face limitation) valuable for developers? I am hesitant to give a hard no to this answer, but I am having a hard time thinking of an option that 'giving' away 25% of the developable land would be worth enough. Is the requirement for 25% open space preservation something developers would support? This number seems very high. Also it will be a lot of land for a future HOA to maintain, manage, etc. (Maybe the HOA could leave it in crops and it could generate a little cash for the HOA.) Is preservation of significant natural features reasonable within the context of the ordinance? I am not sure how to answer this. Would the existing ordinances already preserve these natural features? If so, then my answer would be no. Our draft requires a minimum 20-acre parcel size to be eligible for the urban cluster subdivision – is that the right size? I don't understand why, if the ordinance is optional, there would be a need or benefit to have a minimum parcel size Are there any other items that should be included to incentivize developer to use this option? The site plans didn't specifically explore this option, but I would suggest allowing more units (as well as design flexibility). Smaller lots are worth less in the market, but getting more lots could incentive the developer to preserve open space. What changes would you recommend that the Council consider making this ordinance more appealing to developers? Give clear direction on how Park Fees will be credited (i.e. Trail Easement and Trail Construction) Be clear on if this ordinance is truly optional or not (such as maybe the City will not allow PUDs and the developer would need to use this ordinance to get flexibility, etc) If the City Council priority is preservation of open space in the MUSA, are there other tools that could be used to incentivize developers to preserve open space? I can't think of anything else, other than my random throughout this email. I hope this helps. Good luck - ... Dave On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:22 PM Kendra Lindahl, AICP <KLindahl@landform.net> wrote: All, Thank you for agreeing to participate in our work session next week (or weigh in with comments, David) at 5:30 at corcoran city hall. I am attaching the work session packet for you to review. I look forward to a robust conversation with you and the council about the best way to preserve open space in the MUSA. https://corcoranmn.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=17939670 Staff has provided alternatives and this is the council’s preferred approach, but they are looking for feedback about whether it is something that developers will use. Please give me a call if you have questions or want to chat before Thursday. Enjoy the weekend! Kendra Lindahl, AICP Principal Landform Phone: 612-638-0225 Sent from my iPhone 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 2 TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: August 18, 2021 for the August 26, 2021 City Council Work Session RE: Developer Roundtable. Residential Zoning District Ordinance Updates for Urban Conservation Subdivisions (city file 21-011) REVIEW DEADLINE: N/A 1.Description of Request The Council directed staff to prepare revisions to the Urban Conservation Subdivision draft ordinance and schedule a developer roundtable to get feedback on the concept. Staff reached out to eight development companies who are not currently working in Corcoran. Steph Griffin from Sotarra, Todd Stutz from Robert Thomas Homes and Jason Osberg from Creative Communities, LLC agreed to participate in person. Dave Pattberg from Centra Homes is not able to attend the meeting, but agreed to review the draft ordinance and provide feedback. Staff will share his comments at the work session. 2. Background The Council held a work session on March 25th and discussed a number of ordinance updates that they would like to see and developed a list of their four top priorities: a.Revisions to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance b.Urban cluster development c.Buffers/Transitions to residential districts d.Removal of conditional uses The Council directed staff to bring back options for the urban cluster development and directed Council members Nichols and Thomas to create a PUD subcommittee and bring back options at a future meeting. At the April 22nd Work Session staff presented options for the City Council consider for tools to either preserve significant natural features or open space. The Council indicated a desire to use incentives rather than require preservation of natural resources and open space areas. The Council directed staff to prepare an urban conservation subdivision to preserve open space. The council debated whether different housing types would be allowed within a district, how much open space should be preserved and what types of flexibility would be offered to incentivize preservation of open space. Staff was directed to bring back examples of how development might look with different levels of preservation. Urban Conservation Subdivision (city file 21-011) 2 August 26, 2021 On June 10th, the City held a joint work session with the City Council and Planning Commission to review an updated draft ordinance. There was a robust conversation and differing opinions about the best way to preserve meaningful open space in the MUSA. There was discussion about why this could not be handled by a PUD and whether this is needed. City Council directed staff to schedule a developer roundtable with local developers to gather feedback on the proposal and revise the ordinance to require preservation of significant natural resources, incentivize the open space as public space and provide a 25% open space option for review at the next work session. 3. Analysis In order to give a sense of what impact different open space preservation requirements would have on development, staff prepared six development exhibits: • A standard subdivision meeting the RSF-2 standards • A subdivision with 20% open space • A subdivision with 25% open space (new since last meeting) • A subdivision with 30% open space • A subdivision with 40% open space • A subdivision with 50% open space The plans are based on a hypothetical 40-acre parcel in the Low Density Residential Land Use category, which requires 3-5 units per net acre. The plans include wetlands typical for a Corcoran parcel. Based on the direction from the Council, the plans only count upland open space toward meeting the open space requirements. Each plan stubs streets to adjacent parcels as required by the City Code. The exhibits show that preservation of open space will require smaller lots or a change in unit type. It seems likely that development with more than 30% open space will require attached housing in order to meet the minimum density goals adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Draft Ordinance The draft ordinance was developed based on a variety of sources that were discussed at the April and June Council Work Sessions. In order to maintain consistency in the Code, the format is similar to the OS&P (Open Space & Preservation Plat) in Section 940. The new ordinance would follow the OS&P section and would be a new Section 941 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff has drafted an urban conservation subdivision that allows all development in the Low Density Residential land use category to be eligible for the urban conservation subdivision. The land must continue to meet the density goals in the comprehensive plan, which means all that of the required density for a project is now on less land. Metropolitan Council staff confirmed that if the open space preservation is an option for development and not an overlay that is requires land to be preserved, it cannot be deducted from the land area when calculating density. Land in the LDR category would be zoned RSF-2 (single family residential) or RSF-3 (single and two- family residential) and these districts are eligible districts in this draft of the urban conservation Urban Conservation Subdivision (city file 21-011) 3 August 26, 2021 subdivision. While other residential land use categories could be added, the mass of buildings needed in Medium Density Residential, Mixed Residential and High Density Residential areas to meet density requirements could result in buildings taller than the Council indicated was desirable. At the June work session the Planning Commission and Council were not in favor of that change. The Council did provide some direction to allow different housing types than would typically be allowed in the zoning district, so the draft language builds that in with some limitations. The ordinance is drafted to allow standard RSF-2 development but also allow two-family dwellings (twin homes) as a permitted use in the RSF-2 district if it is part of a conservation subdivision. The RSF-3 district continues allow standard RSF-3 development plus two-family homes as a permitted use and townhomes as a conditional use. Two-family homes are a conditional use in RSF-3 in the standard ordinance and townhomes are not allowed but would be permitted as an incentive for developers to preserve open space (See Section 941.051, Subd 1.E. of the draft). • Developer feedback is requested. It reduces City discretion, but may incentivize developers to use the program. The draft ordinance was revised after the June work session to reduce the required open space from 30% to 25% open space preservation. Open space must be based on the total gross land area. The open space must be a permanent conservation easement. In the OS&P plats, the easements must be temporary so that they could be developed in the future should municipal sewer and water become available; however, these urban conservation subdivisions will be in the MUSA and will have municipal utilities. The draft requires permanent conservation easements. • The developers will be asked to provide feedback on the different open space requirements. The draft ordinance requires a minimum of 20 acres in order to be eligible for this process. A minimum acreage was a common theme in many cluster ordinances in order to ensure that meaningful open space is preserved. • There was support for this option, but Council requested developer feedback on this as a requirement. Following the June work session, the draft was revised to include a requirement that when the Natural Resource Map shows natural features these features must be preserved in the open space area and that park dedication credit may be granted for the open space. There are some challenges to both of these items: a) What if the natural features on site are not contiguous? Will the City need to negotiate with developers during the concept plan phase to identify the priority natural resources? b) If we accept open space as park land, we forfeit the opportunity to collect park dedication fees. Our park dedication fees are based on the area of park land shown on the Park Map in the Comprehensive Plan, so accepting land that is not on the Comprehensive Plan map had budget implications: 1) it requires the City to maintain park land that was not included in the park plan and 2) it gives up park dedication fees that were anticipated to be collected. However, these impacts could be mitigated by recalculating park dedication fees to reflect the new land acquisition Urban Conservation Subdivision (city file 21-011) 4 August 26, 2021 • Council requested developer feedback on this as a requirement. The draft has no minimum lot size proposed, but simply requires that the setback requirements be met. Our work show that lots would need to be approximately 5,800 sq. ft. and 45 feet wide to meet the minimum density goal of 3 units per acre with 30% open space. There was mixed reactions from the Council and Planning Commission on whether minimum standards should be required. The new draft was revised to require only 25% open space preservation. • The Council requested developer feedback on this flexibility in exchange for open space. The draft includes minimum setbacks of 20 feet for the front and rear lot lines and 5 foot side lot lines. The 20-foot front setback is the current minimum in the RSF-2 and RSF-3 districts, but the side is 5- and 10-feet (15 feet between buildings) and the rear is 30 feet. The 5-foot side yard is typical in the marketplace and staff believes it is needed to meet the density goals. The proposed 20-foot rear yard is proposed to allow more development flexibility. All parts of the structure including decks and patios are required to meet that setback. • Developer feedback is requested. Some of the example ordinances we reviewed require additional architectural standards, however, the Zoning Ordinance already provides architectural standards for residential development and we propose to require compliance with those standards. The language would not require single family and two- family homes to comply with this standard: The garage shall not comprise more than 55 percent of the viewable ground floor street-facing linear building frontage. This standard is based on the measurement of the entire garage structure and not on a measurement of the garage door or doors only. Corner lots are exempt from this requirement on one street elevation. The Urban Cluster developments will have smaller lots and homes will be dominated by the garage doors by necessity and could not comply with this requirement. • Developer feedback on this proposed change is requested. Summary This revised draft is provided for discussion. We have proposed: • A 25% open space requirement which could allow a development with lots similar in size to the smallest lots in Bass Lake Crossing South or a mix or single family home, two-family homes and townhomes depending on the district. We have limited this option to the single family zoning districts for RSF-2 and RSF-3 because we think the other residential zoning districts would result in larger building than the Council stated as desirable. • The draft requires open space to be in a permanent conservation easement. Urban Conservation Subdivision (city file 21-011) 5 August 26, 2021 • Allows the City to accept the open space as park land and give credit regardless of whether or not it is shown on the Comprehensive Plan. • Allows the developer to provide public trails in the open space and get park dedication credit regardless of whether those trails are shown on the Comprehensive Plan. • The draft requires preservation natural features shown on Natural Resource Inventory Map (map 1-7 in the Comprehensive Plan). • Benefits to the developer: o Streamlined development process requires only a preliminary and final plat. No PUD, variance or CUP is required. o Side yard setbacks reduced to five feet and rear to 20 feet. o Allows single family homes and twinhomes by right in RSF-2 and RSF-3 districts. May allows townhomes with a conditional use permit. The developer panel will provide feedback for discussion with the Council. 4. Requested Action Provide direction for staff on draft urban conservation subdivision. Attachments 1. Land Use Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Natural Resource Map 4. Zoning Map with Natural Resource and Greenway Corridor Overlay 5. Development Cluster Alternatives Exhibit 6. DRAFT Section 941 - Urban Conservation Subdivision 7. Questions for Developers ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !City of GreenfieldCityofMapleGroveCity of Medina City of Rogers Bechtold RdPion e e r T r l TrailHavenRdCounty Road 116County Road 30 Schutte Rd Oakdale Dr County Road 10 Horseshoe Trl C o u n t y R o a d 5 0 Larsen Rd Willow DrHunterRdCounty Road 19Homestead Trl Cain RdRolling Hills RdCountry Rd Mohawk DrLarkin RdFoxline DrStrehler Rd Dassel Ln OldSettlersRd Stieg R d Kalk RdMeister Rd Maple Hill Rd93rd Ave N Tessmer Rd Blue Bonnet DrJubertLn456710 456750 456719 456730 4567116 4567101 4567117 Brockton Ln N109th Ave N 4567101 ")55 Hackamore Rd MorinLake ScottLake JubertLake GooseLake CookLake R u sh CreekRushCreek South F o rk R u sh Creek SouthForkRu shC reekThe method and timing of regional wastewater service to be determined through future study. 6/21/2022 6/21/2022 1/25/2026 1/25/2026 1/22/2023 6/21/2022 4/28/2021 1/22/2023 1/22/2023 1/21/2021 10/2020 12/13/22 4/27/2022 4/27/2022 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet ± Path: \\MSPFSV02\DesignDepot\Library\Software\GIS\Client\City of Corcoran\City wide maps\2040 Future Land Use.mxd Date: 6/16/2020 Time: 10:58:05 AM User: KShay Rural/Ag Residential Existing Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Residential High Density Residential Rural Service/Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Business Park Light Industrial Public/Semi-Public Parks/Open Space Agricultural Preserve (Date of Expiration) Open Water Municipal Boundary 2040 MUSA Future MUSA Expansion Area ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Future Study Area Parcel Boundaries Streams Lake/Open Water Wetlands Map 2-12040 Future Land Use Source:Revised National Wetland Inventory (MN DNR, 2009-2014) !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!î î î s s òñð òñð ñ ñ ï ï î î s ñ ï ROAD SCHUTTE GLEASON ROAD JUBERT LAKE MEISTER ROAD O L D S E T T L E R S R D HORSESHOE TRAIL STIE G R D WILLOW DRIVEHACKAMORE ROADTRAIL HAVEN ROADCAIN ROADOAKDALE DR STREHLER ROAD PIO N E E R T R COUNTY ROAD 117 ROLLLING HILLS RDLARKIN RD TOWNSHIP OF HASSAN CITY OF GREENFIELDCITY OF MAPLE GROVESCOTT LAKEBECHTOLD ROAD$+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ MORIN LAKE GOOSE LAKE COOK LAKE RUS H C R E E K Official Zoning Map 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet Zoning Districts: UR Urban Reserve RR Rural Residential RSF-1 Single Family Residential 1 RSF-2 Single Family Residential 2 RSF-3 Single and Two Family Residential 3 RMF-1 Medium Density Residential RMF-2 Mixed Residential RMF-3 High Density Residential MP Manufactured Home Park P-I Public / Institutional TCR Transitional Rural Commercial CR Rural Commercial C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Community Commercial DMU Downtown Mixed Use GMU General Mixed Use BP Business District I-1 Light Industrial PUD Planned Unit Development ï Cemetery î ChurchsGolf Course ñ Government Building òñð Public Park !! !!!2040 Metropolitan Urban Service Area City Limit Open Water Shoreland Overlay District Adopted June 2011 19 10 30 116 101 50 19 10 ± Updated September 2020 City of GreenfieldCityofMapleGroveCity of Medina City of Rogers Bechtold RdPion e e r T r l TrailHavenRdCounty Road 116County Road 30 Schutte Rd Oakdale Dr County Road 10 Horseshoe Trl Co u n t y R o a d 5 0 Larsen Rd Willow DrHunterRdCounty Road 19Homestead Trl Cain RdRolling Hills RdCountry Rd Mohawk DrLarkin RdFoxline DrStrehler Rd Dassel Ln OldSettlersRd Stieg R d Kalk RdMeister Rd Maple Hill Rd93rd Ave N Tessmer Rd Blue Bonnet DrJubertLn456710 456750 456719 456730 4567116 4567101 4567117 Brockton Ln N109th Ave N 4567101 ")55 Hackamore Rd Morin Lake Scott Lake Jubert Lake Goose Lake Cook Lake R u s h C reekRushCreek South F o r k R u sh Creek SouthForkR u sh C r eek2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\100\2040CompPlan\Natural Resource Inventory Areas.mxd Date: 1/7/2019 Time: 1:10:39 PM User: ShuJC0243 ^_Natural Community !(Rare Species OccurenceHigh Quality Natural Community Natural Plant Communities WetlandsWet PrairieEmergentShrubFloodplain ForestOpen WaterFlood Plain (Reed Canary Dominant) UplandsSavanna/PastureMaple/BasswoodOak ForestDisturbed WoodlandOld FieldMunicipal BoundaryParcel BoundariesStreamsLake/Open Water Map 1-7Natural Resource Inventory Areas Note: Due to limitations of map scale, distribution and proportion of NaturalCommunity types within each colored area are approximate.Source:Natural Plant Communities, Rare Species Occurence (Natural Resource Inventory andManagement Plan, Nov. 2001, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates) 27 City of GreenfieldCityofMapleGroveCity of Medina City of Rogers Bechtold RdPion e e r T r l TrailHavenRdCounty Road 116County Road 30 Schutte Rd Oakdale Dr County Road 10 Horseshoe Trl C o u n t y R o a d 5 0 Larsen Rd Willow DrHunterRdCounty Road 19Homestead Trl Cain RdRolling Hills RdCountry Rd Mohawk DrLarkin RdFoxline DrStrehler Rd Dassel Ln OldSettlersRd Stieg R d Kalk RdMeister Rd Maple Hill Rd93rd Ave N Tessmer Rd Blue Bonnet DrJubertLn456710 456750 456719 456730 4567116 4567101 4567117 Brockton Ln N109th Ave N 4567101 ")55 Hackamore Rd MorinLake ScottLake JubertLake GooseLake CookLake R u s h CreekRushCreek South F o rk R u sh Creek SouthForkRu shC reek2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet ± Path: C:\Users\LPSRemote\OneDrive - LPS\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\Natural Resource Inventory Areas_F25AED83-8124-4AEE-BAD5-E81AF61AC007\v108\Natural Resource Inventory Areas.mxd Date: 8/18/2021 Time: 3:14:33 PM User: LPSRemote Greenway Corridor Municipal Boundary Streams Lake/Open Water Parcel Boundaries ^_Natural Community !(Rare Species Occurence High Quality Natural Community Natural Plant Communities Wetlands Wet Prairie Emergent Shrub Floodplain Forest Open Water Flood Plain (Reed Canary Dominant) Uplands Savanna/Pasture Maple/Basswood Oak Forest Disturbed Woodland Old Field Map 1-7Natural Resource Inventory Areas Note: Due to limitations of map scale, distribution and proportion of NaturalCommunity types within each colored area are approximate. Source:Natural Plant Communities, Rare Species Occurence (Natural Resource Inventory andManagement Plan, Nov. 2001, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates) Area and Density Data Site Area - Gross 40.3 ac Site Area - Net Density (Post Development - Gross area less wetlands, buffers, ROW, easements) 23.0 ac # of Lots 77 Subdivision Net Density 3.3 units / ac Lot Data Minimum Lot Area 11,000 sq ft Minimum Lot Width 80 ft Minimum Lot Depth 137.5 ft Setback - Front 20 ft Setback - Rear 30 ft Setback - Side 7.5 ft Setback - Wetland Buffer 15 ft Unit Type: Single Family Buildable Area: 5,687 sq ft (65’x87.5’) Lot Line Setback LinesRSF-2 - Lot size 80' x 137.5' = 11,000 sq. ft. 65'87.5'45'85'20% - Lot size 55' x 135' = 7,425 sq. ft. 30% - Lot size 45' x 130' = 5,850 sq. ft. 35'80'40% - Unit Size 28' x 55' 28'55'50% - Unit size 32' x 36'32'36'Legend Stormwater (10% of developable area) Av e r a g e W e t l a n d B u f f e r Average Wetland BufferAverage Wetland Buff e r Wetland Wetland Wetland ROW Existing ROW Street ConnectionStreet ConnectionTyp.60’Street ConnectionStreet Connection Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD • Corcoran, MN 06.10.2021 Example 40-Acre Subdivision: RSF-2 District Preserved Open Space (20% gross area) Area and Density Data Site Area - Gross 40.3 ac # of Lots 78 Site Area - Net Density (Post Development - Gross area less wetlands, buffers, ROW, easements) 22.9 ac Net Density 3.3 units / ac Lot Data Minimum Lot Area 7,425 sq ft Minimum Lot Width 55 ft Minimum Lot Depth 135 ft Setback - Front 20 ft Setback - Rear 30 ft Setback - Side 5 ft Setback - Wetland Buffer 15 ft Unit Type: Single Family Buildable Area: 3,825 sq ft (45’x85’) Lot Line Setback Lines Example Unit RSF-2 - Lot size 80' x 137.5' = 11,000 sq. ft. 65'87.5'45'85'20% - Lot size 55' x 135' = 7,425 sq. ft. 30% - Lot size 45' x 130' = 5,850 sq. ft. 35'80'40% - Unit Size 28' x 55' 28'55'50% - Unit size 32' x 36'32'36'Legend Stormwater (10% of developable area) Development Area* (Gross area less wetlands, buffers, & open space) 22.9 ac Development Area Density 3.4 units / ac *Development Area Av e r a g e W e t l a n d B u f f e r Average Wetland BufferAverage Wetland Buff e r Wetland 20% Open Space Wetland Wetland ROW Street ConnectionStreet ConnectionStreet Connection Typ.60’Street ConnectionExisting ROW Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD • Corcoran, MN 06.10.2021 Example 40-Acre Subdivision: 20% Open Space Preserved Preserved Open Space (25% gross area) Area and Density Data Site Area - Gross 40.3 ac # of Lots 73 Site Area - Net Density (Post Development - Gross area less wetlands, buffers, ROW, easements) 23.8 ac Net Density 3.1 units / ac Lot Data Minimum Lot Area 7,425 sq ft Minimum Lot Width 55 ft Minimum Lot Depth 135 ft Setback - Front 20 ft Setback - Rear 30 ft Setback - Side 5 ft Setback - Wetland Buffer 15 ft Unit Type: Single Family Buildable Area: 3,825 sq ft (45’x85’) Lot Line Setback Lines Example Unit RSF-2 - Lot size 80' x 137.5' = 11,000 sq. ft. 65'87.5'45'85'20% - Lot size 55' x 135' = 7,425 sq. ft. 30% - Lot size 45' x 130' = 5,850 sq. ft. 35'80'40% - Unit Size 28' x 55' 28'55'50% - Unit size 32' x 36'32'36'Legend Stormwater (10% of developable area) Development Area* (Gross area less wetlands, buffers, & open space) 20.9 ac Development Area Density 3.5 units / ac *Development Area Open Space # Lots overlooking open space *24 % of total 33% * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * Av e r a g e W e t l a n d B u f f e r Average Wetland BufferAverage Wetland Buff e r Wetland 25% Open Space Wetland Wetland ROW Street ConnectionStreet ConnectionStreet Connection Typ.60’Street ConnectionExisting ROW Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD • Corcoran, MN 08.03.2021 Example 40-Acre Subdivision: 25% Open Space Preserved Area and Density Data Site Area - Gross 40.3 ac # of Lots 77 Site Area - Net Density (Post Development - Gross area less wetlands, buffers, ROW, easements) 25.2 ac Net Density 3.1 units / ac Development Area* (Gross area less wetlands, buffers, & open space) 20.9 ac Development Area Density 3.7 units / ac *Development Area Lot Data Minimum Lot Area 7,425 sq ft Minimum Lot Width 55 ft Minimum Lot Depth 135 ft Setback - Front 20 ft Setback - Rear 30 ft Setback - Side 5 ft Setback - Wetland Buffer 15 ft Open Space # Lots overlooking open space *25 % of total 32% Unit Type: Single Family Buildable Area: 3,825 sq ft (45’x85’) Lot Line Setback Lines Example Unit RSF-2 - Lot size 80' x 137.5' = 11,000 sq. ft. 65'87.5'45'85'20% - Lot size 55' x 135' = 7,425 sq. ft. 30% - Lot size 45' x 130' = 5,850 sq. ft. 35'80'40% - Unit Size 28' x 55' 28'55'50% - Unit size 32' x 36'32'36'Preserved Open Space (25% gross area) Legend Stormwater (10% of developable area) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** **** Av e r a g e W e t l a n d B u f f e r Average Wetland BufferAverage Wetland Buff e r Wetland 25% Open Space Wetland Wetland ROW Street ConnectionStreet ConnectionTyp.60’Street ConnectionExisting ROW Street Connection Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD • Corcoran, MN 08.03.2021 Example 40-Acre Subdivision: 25% Open Space Preserved - Double Loaded Street Example Unit Elevation XX XX-XX-XXXX XX-XX-XXXX XX-XX-XXXX XX-XX-XXXX-XX-XX2016 WINGATE "E"XXXXXXXXXXFINAL REDLINESP.C. CHANGESLAST REVISEDFINAL PREPDEC. CHANGESDATE:DRAWN BY:BUYER:ADDITION:BLOCK:LOT:JOB#:GENERAL NOTES:THESE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ANDTHE CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TOTHE PLANS ARE THE EXCLUSIVECOPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OFM/I HOMES AND ARE PROTECTED BY UNITEDSTATES COPYRIGHT LAW. ANYUNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESEPLANS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.COPYRIGHT3-PIECE FRIEZE DETAIL SCALE: 1"=1'-0" (18"x24") SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" (18"x24")SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" (18"x24") SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" (18"x24") WINGATE ELEVATION E-STONEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Preserved Open Space (30% gross area) Area and Density Data Site Area - Gross 40.3 ac # of Lots 78 Site Area - Net Density (Post Development - Gross area less wetlands, buffers, ROW, easements) 24.3 ac Net Density 3.2 units / ac Lot Data Minimum Lot Area 5,850 sq ft Minimum Lot Width 45 ft Minimum Lot Depth 130 ft Setback - Front 20 ft Setback - Rear 30 ft Setback - Side 5 ft Setback - Wetland Buffer 15 ft Unit Type: Single Family Buildable Area: 2,800 sq ft (35’x80’) Lot Line Setback Lines RSF-2 - Lot size 80' x 137.5' = 11,000 sq. ft. 65'87.5'45'85'20% - Lot size 55' x 135' = 7,425 sq. ft. 30% - Lot size 45' x 130' = 5,850 sq. ft. 35'80'40% - Unit Size 28' x 55' 28'55'50% - Unit size 32' x 36'32'36'Legend Stormwater (10% of developable area) Development Area* (Gross area less wetlands, buffers, & open space) 19.3 ac Development Area Density 4.0 units / ac *Development Area Av e r a g e W e t l a n d B u f f e r Average Wetland BufferAverage Wetland Buff e r Wetland 30% Open Space Wetland Wetland ROW Street ConnectionStreet ConnectionStreet Connection Typ.60’Street ConnectionExisting ROW Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD • Corcoran, MN 06.10.2021 Example 40-Acre Subdivision: 30% Open Space Preserved Preserved Open Space (40% gross area) Area and Density Data Site Area - Gross 40.3 ac # of Lots 83 Site Area - Net Density (Post Development - Gross area less wetlands, buffers, ROW, easements) 26.5 ac Net Density 3.1 units / ac Lot Data Setback - Front 25 ft Setback - Rear 30 ft Setback - Side 20 ft (distance between buildings) Setback - Wetland Buffer 15 ft Unit Type: Townhome Buildable Area: 1,540 sq ft (28’x55’) RSF-2 - Lot size 80' x 137.5' = 11,000 sq. ft.65'87.5'45'85'20% - Lot size 55' x 135' = 7,425 sq. ft. 30% - Lot size 45' x 130' = 5,850 sq. ft. 35'80'40% - Unit Size 28' x 55' 28'55'50% - Unit size 32' x 36'32'36'Legend Stormwater (10% of developable area) Development Area* (Gross Area less wetlands, buffers, & open space) 14.8 ac Development Area Density 5.6 units / ac *Development Area Example Unit Plan View for 4-plex Av e r a g e W e t l a n d B u f f e r Average Wetland BufferAverage Wetland Buff e r Wetland 40% Open Space Wetland Wetland ROW Street ConnectionStreet ConnectionTyp.60’Street ConnectionExisting ROW Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD • Corcoran, MN 06.10.2021 Example 40-Acre Subdivision: 40% Open Space Preserved Preserved Open Space (50% gross area) Area and Density Data Site Area - Gross 40.3 ac # of Lots 84 Site Area - Net Density (Post Development - Gross area less wetlands, buffers, ROW, easements) 27.1 ac Net Density 3.1 units / ac Lot Data Setback - Front 25 ft Setback - Rear 30 ft Setback - Side 30 ft (distance between buildings) Setback - Wetland Buffer 15 ft Unit Type: Townhome Buildable Area: 1,152 sq ft (32’x36’) RSF-2 - Lot size 80' x 137.5' = 11,000 sq. ft.65'87.5'45'85'20% - Lot size 55' x 135' = 7,425 sq. ft.30% - Lot size 45' x 130' = 5,850 sq. ft.35'80'40% - Unit Size 28' x 55' 28'55'50% - Unit size 32' x 36'32'36'Legend Stormwater (10% of developable area) Development Area * (Gross Area less wetlands, buffers, & open space) 11.3 ac Development Area Density 7.4 units / ac *Development Area Example Unit Elevation LENNAR.COM 952-373-0485 16305 36th Ave. N Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 A B Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifi er of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Twin Cities #1 Builder – awarded by The Builder’s Association of the Twin Cities. Copyright © 2020 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – Lennar Sales Corp. Seller’s broker. U.S. Home Corporation, BC001413 Construction License. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. Seller’s broker. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. BC736565, BC700385 Construction Licenses. (10195) 7/20 The Revere Av e r a g e W e t l a n d B u f f e r Average Wetland BufferAverage Wetland Buff e r Wetland 50% Open Space Wetland Wetland ROWStreet ConnectionTyp.60’Street ConnectionExisting ROW Private Drive 28’ Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD • Corcoran, MN 06.10.2021 Example 40-Acre Subdivision: 50% Open Space Preserved 1 SECTION 941 – URBAN CONSERVATION PLATS 941.010 – Purpose of Division. The purpose of the urban conservation ordinance is to preserve open space in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Urban conservation plats provide developers with added flexibility in designing plats and incentives to voluntarily protect, preserve, enhance or restore open space and natural resources on their property. 941.020 – Objectives of Division and Definitions. Subd. 1. The objectives of this division are to: A. Preserve open space for the benefit of Corcoran residents. B. Preserve natural resources as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. C. Preserve permanent natural habitat and vegetated corridors for the shelter and movement of diverse wildlife. D. Allow greater flexibility in the design of residential developments in order to create a more esthetically pleasing visual impact than standard development, particularly along arterial roadways and with respect to abutting properties. E. Provide economic incentives to land owners to preserve, protect and/or restore high quality woodlots and other identified natural resources areas. F. Accomplish the objectives of the comprehensive plan in a voluntary manner through the use of incentives. G. Preserve views to the open space from each building unit and from off-site vantage points to the maximum possible. H. Locate neighborhood recreational open spaces such that they are an integral part of the neighborhood, are suitable for the projected demographic makeup of residents, are at an elevation appropriate to their intended recreational use, have boundaries that are clearly defined and are accessible to all neighborhood residents from a public street or trail. I. Locate lots to preserve woodlands, farmland or other natural features or character, including places of historic, archeological or cultural value. Preserve natural resources as identified in the Comprehensive Plan to the maximum extent possible in a contiguous, connected configuration. Natural open spaces may include, but are not limited to, fields, wetlands, slopes, bluffs, woods, lakes, ponds, streams, shore lands, and other environmentally sensitive areas. 2 941.030 Application Standards. Subd.1. Urban conservation plats are subject to the standards in this section, which provide design and development incentives in exchange for preservation open space. Subd 2. All land designated as Low Density Residential on the 2040 Future Land Use map is eligible to apply for an urban conservation plat. Subd 3. Any urban conservation plat can develop in phases based on the approved plat. 941.040 – Procedure. Subd. 1. Urban conservation developments shall be approved through the subdivision process. All procedures for a standard subdivision as provided in Section 930 and Section 935 of the Subdivision Ordinance shall be followed for each type of urban conservation plat applications, with the addition of the following: A. A pre-application meeting with the City in order for all parties to be made fully aware of any procedures, policies, or other issues regarding the plat. B. Preliminary Plat. Following the pre-application meeting with the City, the applicant shall submit a preliminary plat. All information required to be submitted in Section 930 is required to be submitted with any urban conservation application, with the addition of the following: 1. A resource inventory presented on an aerial photograph at a scale of no less than one inch equals 200 feet, including the following: a. Vegetation inventory identifying the general cover types defining boundaries of woodland areas and identifying stand-alone trees of a size and species identified in the City preservation and restoration standards as significant. b. Trees or wooded areas to be removed for streets, drives, buildings, drainage or other purposes shall be identified. c. Visual resources, showing views onto the tract from surrounding streets and public areas, as well as views within the tract. d. Description of the historic character of buildings and structures, historically important landscapes, and known archeological features. e. Context, including general outlines of existing buildings, land uses, and natural features such as water bodies or wooded areas, streets and property boundaries within 100 feet of the tract. 2. A calculation of the proposed open space or preservation in the plat. 3 3. A narrative from the applicant as to the rationale behind the proposed layout and open space. 4. An itemized list of all documents, agreements and actions necessary to be completed prior to recording of the plat, including land area to be protected with a conservation easement as open space or park dedication, the number and size of lots. This shall include all applicable homeowners' association documents (if any), including bylaws, deed restrictions, covenants, and proposed conservation easements, prepared or approved by the holder of the conservation easement. 5. If a conditional use permit is required for the project, it shall be reviewed and processed concurrently with the preliminary plat. C. Final Plat. Following approval of a preliminary plat, the applicant shall submit a final plat application. All information required to be submitted in Section 935 is required to be submitted and will be processed according to the standards in Section 935. 941.050 – Development Standards. Subd. 1. Urban conservation or restoration plats shall comply with the following minimum standards: A. Land area. 1. To be eligible for an urban conservation plat a minimum of 20 acres is required. 2. Under an urban conservation plat a minimum of 25% percent of the gross land area (of no more than two non-contiguous pieces) of the development site shall be dedicated as preserved open space. Unless deeded to the City as public park, open space must be protected by a conservation easement or deed restrictions in favor of the City. The preserved upland areas may include wetlands or other water features but only upland area will be used to calculate the 25% land area requirement. B. Open space development standards. Open space to be preserved within an urban conservation plan shall meet the following criteria: 1. When the Natural Resource Inventory Map in the Comprehensive Plan identifies a natural feature, that must be part of the preserved open space area. The required open space must include the area of the natural resource shown on the map. Where multiple natural areas existing on the site, the applicant shall maximize the preservation of the highest quality wooded area. 2. Open space required to be preserved to meet the urban conservation plat requirements may be used to meet the park dedication requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance under the following circumstances: 4 a. The land is preserving significant natural features as shown on the Natural Resources Map, the land is shown as park land in the Comprehensive Plan or the City chooses to accept the land as park land. b. The developer must provide trails for public use within the open space. c. In areas where there is no existing natural resource, the developer must restore the area with native plantings or trees. 3. Where open space is not deeded to the public, the developer shall provide public access to the open space for all members of the association. 4. Where trails are provided for public use, the developer shall provide a trail easement to the City. Park dedication may be granted for the net trail easement area. 5. Open space shall be in a contiguous, connected configuration including or adjacent to existing natural areas or parks. Open space that is divided by a local street shall be considered contiguous. 6. Open space shall be maintained free of noxious weeds, litter or debris. 7. Open spaces shall be protected by the placement of a permanent conservation easement, covenant or deed restriction in favor of the City over the open space. 8. Open space shall be owned by an individual, a homeowners' association, the City or other legal entity that will use the land for open space purposes pursuant to a conservation. In the case of private ownership of open space where public access is desired, such as a trail crossing or other public purpose, the City shall require that a public easement be provided over the open space area. 9. A preservation, restoration and management plan agreeable to the City shall be prepared and filed for open space land. This plan shall include areas proposed for interim agricultural uses as well restoration plans should agriculture cease on the site. a. The City Council may, at its discretion, require financial guarantees of performance of restoration, seeding, cutting or planting. b. Where land remains in the ownership of the developer or an association, the City may inspect the property at any time to ensure that provisions of the management plan are being implemented. C. Municipal Utilities. All development must be serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water. D. Dimensional regulations and Development standards. The dimensional regulations for open space preservation plats must comply with the following standards: 5 1. Minimum lot size. There is no minimum lot size. The applicant must provide information to show that homes can comply with the setbacks in the following section. 2. Building setbacks. The minimum building setbacks for all principal structures (including decks and porches) shall be as follows: a. Front (all property lines abutting a street): 20 feet (unless adjacent to a Major Roadway, which has minimum setback of 100 feet). Driveways must provide a minimum of 22 feet between the right-of-way and garage. b. Side: 5 feet. c. Rear: 20 feet. 3. Street standards. Street standards shall comply with Section 945 (Design Standards) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 4. Accessory structures (such as gazebos, benches and play equipment) for the benefit of the neighborhood shall be allowed on preserved open space lots without a principal structure as approved by the City Council through a Site Plan application. Such structures shall be maintained by the HOA unless the land have been deed to and accepted by the City as public park. 5. Development must comply with the Design Requirements in Section 1040.040, Subd. 8 and Section 1040.060 Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance, except that the garage standards in Section 1040.040, Subd. 8.B.1 shall not apply. 6. All lots shall front a paved street, internal to the site. 7. Connect individual home sites with pedestrian corridors or sidewalks to larger open spaces and places of destination on-site and off-site. Open spaces should be accessible to pedestrians at roughly 1,200-foot intervals along public roadways. Pedestrian corridors between lots shall be at least 50 feet in width and buffered from view of adjacent properties. 8. Landscape common areas and street rights-of-way with native vegetation with high wildlife conservation value. E. Permitted Uses. In addition to the uses permitted in the applicable zoning district the following are permitted: 1. In the RSF-2 district: a. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses allowed in the RSF-2 district and two-family dwellings. b. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses allowed in the RSF-2 district. 6 c. Conditional Uses. Conditional allowed in the RSF-2 district, subject the conditional use process and standards in the ordinance. d. Interim Uses. Permitted uses allowed in the RSF-2 district, subject the interim use process and standards in the ordinance. e. Administrative Permit Uses. Permitted uses allowed in the RSF-2 district subject the administrative permit process and standards in the ordinance. 2. In the RSF-3 district: a. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses allowed in the RSF-3 district and two-family dwellings. b. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses allowed in the RSF-3 district. c. Conditional Uses. Conditional allowed in the RSF-3 district, subject the conditional use process and standards in the ordinance and Single-Family Attached Dwellings with no more than six (6) dwelling units per structure in a row (and no back to back townhome units). d. Interim Uses. Permitted uses allowed in the RSF-3 district, subject the interim use process and standards in the ordinance. e. Administrative Permit Uses. Permitted uses allowed in the RSF-3 district subject the administrative permit process and standards in the ordinance. 941.060 – Ownership of Common Areas. Subd. 1. Operation and maintenance requirements for residential subdivision common open space facilities shall be as provided in this division. Where certain land areas or structures are provided within the subdivision for private recreational use or as common service facilities, the owner of such land and buildings shall provide covenants as approved by the City to ensure their continued operation and maintenance to a predetermined reasonable standard. These common areas may be placed under the ownership of one of the following, depending upon which is more appropriate in the discretion of the city: A. City Park. Dedicated to the public where a community-wide use would be anticipated. This may be used to satisfy the park dedication requirements. B. Homeowners' associations. A homeowners' association shall be established to maintain all preserved open space and recreational facilities, except in cases where the land is dedicated to the City for public purposes. Such homeowners' association management agreements shall be established prior to the sale of any lots. Homeowners' association management agreements shall include the following: 1. The agreement shall include a legal description of the common lands, facilities and open space or conservation areas. 2. Membership in the association shall be mandatory for all purchasers of homes in the development and their successors. 7 3. The agreement shall include restrictions placed upon the use and enjoyment of the lands or facilities, including the persons or entities entitled to enforce the restrictions. 4. The agreement shall include a mechanism for resolving disputes among the owners or association members. 5. The agreement shall provide standards for scheduled maintenance of open spaces, buildings and facilities. The association must be responsible for liability insurance and local taxes, 6. The agreement shall provide a plan guaranteeing continuing maintenance of open spaces that shall be submitted to the city council as part of the data requirements for an open space development. 7. The agreement shall include a mechanism to assess and enforce the common expenses for the land or facilities, including upkeep and maintenance expenses, real estate taxes and insurance premiums. 8. The agreement shall include the conditions and timing of the transfer of ownership and control of land or facilities to the association or the common ownership. 9. The homeowners must pay their pro rata share of associated costs and the assessment levied by the association shall become a lien on the property in accordance with the law; and 10. The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changed circumstances and needs 11. Any proposed change in the articles of association or incorporation shall require the prior written approval of the City. 12. Any other matters the developer or City deems appropriate shall be included. Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 1 DATE August 18, 2021 TO Developer Roundtable Participants CC Corcoran City Council, Brad Martens FROM Kendra Lindahl RE Draft Corcoran Urban Conservation Subdivision Thank you for agreeing to participate in the developer roundtable with Corcoran City Council on August 26th. The Council is requesting feedback on a potential new ordinance to allow urban conservation subdivision with design flexibility by right. We look forward to the discussion next week and some of the questions the City is requesting feedback on is as follows: 1. Is the streamlined development process (preliminary and final plat) with built-in design flexibility (reduced side and rear setback, no minimum lot size and no garage face limitation) valuable for developers? 2. Is the requirement for 25% open space preservation something developers would support? 3. Is preservation of significant natural features reasonable within the context of the ordinance? 4. Our draft requires a minimum 20-acre parcel size to be eligible for the urban cluster subdivision – is that the right size? 5. Are there any other items that should be included to incentivize developer to use this option? 6. What changes would you recommend that the Council consider making this ordinance more appealing to developers? 7. If the City Council priority is preservation of open space in the MUSA, are there other tools that could be used to incentivize developers to preserve open space? MEMO