3.3 r-Q
• � Item # 3.3.
�
City of
Elk River MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner. t
DATE: February 13, 2001
SUBJECT: Case No. OA 01-01
Request by the City of Elk River to Amend the Cluster Subdivision
Ordinance
Request
Consider a request by the City of Elk River to amend the cluster subdivision
ordinance
Attachments
• Existing ordinance
• Design standards — Liberty on the Lake
Overview
It has been about 1 year since the City adopted the cluster ordinance. Since its
adoption we have approved four cluster developments: Windsor Park, Rolling
Hills, Whitetail Ridge and Meadowwoods Village. Preliminary application for a
fifth development, Ridges at Rice Lake, is before the Commission this month.
With each new development, staff, the City Council and the Planning
Commission have noted or commented on sections of the ordinance that could
be fine-tuned. At the December 12th workshop the Commission discussed staff
and Council comments and offered their own. I would like to reiterate staff,
Council and the Commission's comments below:
• Leap frog development —the cluster ordinance seems to be encouraging
development of agricultural property at the far corners of the City. The
density bonus for the agricultural district may be too high.
• Quality of open space —the quality of the preserved open space is lower
• than what was anticipated. The ordinance could be adjusted so that higher
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • TDD & Phone (763)441-7420 • Fax(763)441-7425
Memo to Planning Commission/OA 01-01
February 13,2001
Page 2
. quality usable open space is preserved. One option might be to include a
certain percentage of"buildable area" as part of the preserved open
space; another option would be to include portions of the shoreline
ordinance's section on design criteria for PUDs.
• The ordinance should include a clear mechanism for the City to say "no,
this property is not suitable for cluster development".
• Accessory structures on open space — When open space is left as outlots,
which is how open space is currently being platted, building permits can
not be issued for those lots. Platting open space as a lot would allow the
homeowners association to pull building permits for the construction of
accessory structures, if the covenants and deed restrictions allow.
• We need to better define the term "architectural theme". Should it include
items such as landscaping, signage, lighting and accessory structures.
Design standards, similar to those approved as part of a PUD, could also
be used.
• We need to clarify the density bonus calculation formula
• In order to give developments a more pedestrian feel, front yard setbacks
• could be reduced to 20 feet.
• Eliminate architectural themes as a bonus; make them a requirement.
Responses to Comments
The following ideas on how to address the above concerns are offered for the
Commission's consideration. Staff will take the Commission's comments and
incorporate them into a formal ordinance amendment next month.
Leap frog development
One method to discourage leap frog development would be to reduce the
density bonus in the agricultural district. Currently the density formula for the
agricultural district is to divide the size of the property to be developed by 10
then multiply by 2.15 (120 ac. / 10) x 2.15 = 25.8 or 26 lots. If the density
bonus were lowered, there would be less incentive to develop the agricultural
land.
Another method might be to limit the use of cluster development to within a
certain distance of existing platted property. Property, in order to be platted as
a cluster development, would have to be within a 1/2 mile or a mile of an
.
existing plat.
S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\OA0101.DOC
Memo to Planning Commission/OA 01-01
February 13, 2001
Page 3
• The ordinance could also be amended to eliminate the cluster option in the
Al district. This would limit open space development to the RI District south
of County Road 33.
Quality of open space
One way to preserve higher quality open space would be to include a certain
percentage of"buildable area" as open space. Buildable area is defined as
gross land area less the land that includes floodways, hydric and restrictive
soils, lands with slopes greater than 33%, wetlands, and areas that can not
accommodate septic systems. Currently the percent of open space is based
on "eligible land". Eligible land includes all land except type 3, 4 and 5
wetlands, street right-of-way and areas occupied by streams, rivers or lakes.
Eligible land is much less restrictive than buildable land.
When determining percentage of open space at least a certain percentage
(25% -50%) of the total open space must be buildable area, the remaining
could be eligible land. The ordinance could also be amended to give the City
the option of requiring that shoreland and areas along streams be included as
preserved open space.
Architectural Theme
•
We need to better define what type of standards the city would like included
as architectural themes. As an example of what other developments are
doing, I have attached the design standards for a cluster development in
Stillwater called "Liberty on the Lake". Another method to address the issue of
architectural standards is to make them a requirement and eliminate them as
an optional bonus feature.
Front Yard Setback
This issue is related to the architectural theme. Often, when designing open
space developments, a pedestrian friendly environment is desired. This can
be made more difficult with the standard 30 foot front yard setback, which is
what is currently required in our ordinance. In order to allow more flexibility
and allow for additional tree preservation, the front yard setback could be
reduced to 20 feet. This would bring the house closer to the street while still
allowing adequate space for off street parking.
Density Bonus Calculations
It is currently not clear how the 5% density bonus should be calculated,
whether it is based on zoning district density or the open space density. The
•
S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\OA0101.DOC
Memo to Planning Commission/OA 01-01
February 13,2001
Page 4
• intention was that it should be based on the zoning district density, and the
following formula should be included to make it clear:
R1 a district - eligible land 24 ac.
Density bonus: (24/2.5) x .05 = .48
In this example each 5% density bonus would be worth .48 lots
Al district - eligible land 42 ac.
Density bonus: (42/10) x .05 = .21
In this example each 5% density bonus would be worth .21 lots
Accessory Structures on Open Space
In order to issue building permits, the property has to be platted. Building
permits cannot be issued for outlots. Therefore, the open space lots should
be platted and not left as outlots.
Suitability of Property for Open Space Development
There has been some discussion regarding the City's ability to say no, this
piece of property is not suitable for cluster development. By tightening the
standards for acceptable open space and controlling the "leap frog" affect of
developing distant parcels, the City will be able to justify saying "no" to a
• cluster development proposal. Strict interpretation of the design standards for
open space and lot design guidelines will also limit what parcels would be
suitable for open space development.
•
S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\OA0101.DOC