HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V-K11 1 Memorandum
~~x~~~~
T0: Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
Nancy Backus, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development
Committee
John Partridge, Planning and Community Development Committee
FROM: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director, Planning & Development Department
CC Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager, Planning & Development Department
DATE: February 8, 2011
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION & INFORMATION: Cluster Subdivisions in Non-Urban
Separator Areas of the City
During the spring and summer of 2009, the Planning and Community Development
Committee discussed the potential development of cluster subdivision regulations for
the City of Auburn as part of the Phase 1 Code Update effort. The City Council
ultimately adopted regulations specified in Chapter 17.26 of the Auburn City Code that
specifically apply to urban separator areas in the City's R-1 zoning designation. At the
conclusion of the Phase 1 Code Update work, the Committee determined to not
proceed with recommending any specific non-urban separator cluster subdivision
regulations and spend more time discussing with staff key issues and concerns for
these types of regulations in the City. As part of the implementation of the Phase 2
Code Update work effort, staff is bringing this topic back to the Committee to renew its
discussion.
As a general reminder, cluster subdivision development is a development arrangement
in which all buildings allowable on a site are concentrated on a portion of the site,
leaving the remainder of the site undeveloped. This contrasts with the conventional land
development and subdivision approach, which is to divide an entire site into lots, each
of which meets minimum zoning lot size requirements and may be used for building
construction. By clustering buildings together on smaller lots rather than spreading
development throughout the site, a developer has greater flexibility to design around
environmental and other constraints, without increasing the development's overall
density. Development standards and review criteria are normally developed to ensure
that lots are consistent with the desired character of the zone, allowing lots to vary in
size and shape, while still adhering to the planned density of the zone. Clustering offers
opportunities to protect and buffer environmentally sensitive areas, to preserve
important site features, to provide recreation areas or natural open space Clustering
also can reduce infrastructure costs for developers and communities since the length of
roads and utility lines are reduced. Cluster development generally refers to residential
developments, although they are sometimes defined to include commercial or industrial
development -please note that the City's previous conversations on the potential for
cluster subdivision regulations outside of urban separators has exclusively focused on
residential developments.
As staff reviewed the materials and information prepared in 2009 for this topic, we were
reminded of the complexity of the conversation that was occurring at that time relative to
issues of density credits, lot size reductions, protection levels for environmentally
sensitive areas and active open space requirements. During this period of discussion
with the Committee staff produced different versions of code language, several
drawings showing how the code language might be applied and also consulted with
representatives of the Code Working Group and developers about the proposed code
language. In the case of the latter action, staff received feedback that the code
language was complex and that more opportunity to achieve allowable on-site density
should be provided.
Staff felt that it might be beneficial as part of the reintroduction of this topic to focus the
discussion on February 14t" around the following key questions:
1. Is the Committee still interested in developing regulations for cluster subdivision
development in non-urban separator areas?
2. Does the Committee concur with staff that the primary goals of cluster subdivision
regulations should be protection of environmentally sensitive areas and the
preservation of on-site density opportunities?
3. If the answer to Question No. 2 is yes, does the Committee believe that these two
goals should be prioritized or should have equal standing? And if there is to be
prioritization, what should be the order of priority?
4. Does the Committee believe that the focus of the cluster subdivision regulations
should be the minimum level of environmental protection around environmentally
sensitive areas achieved through the City's critical areas regulations or a higher level
of protection around environmentally sensitive areas achieved through on-site
density incentives?
5. Does the Committee want the issue of the provision of active open space to
continue to be looked at? If so, does the Committee want to incentivize this provision
by giving density credit opportunity when it is provided as buildable land is likely to
be consumed?
2