HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Action Form dated June 22, 2010 ITEM # 28
DATE: 06-22-10
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
BACKGROUND:
Since the early 2000's, community members and the City have shown interest in an
approach to residential development that more fully respects and protects the natural
environment. In 2006 the City Council held an educational workshop on this subject
that was attended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and many other community
members. The City's stormwater consultant, Pat Sauer of the Iowa Association of
Municipal Utilities, and landscape architect Doug Adams, who has previously designed
several conservation subdivisions, presented principles and examples of low impact
development and conservation subdivisions. The Ada Hayden Park watershed was
recognized as one area that would particularly benefit under this approach.
Soon thereafter, Story County Land LLC made the first of several proposals to develop
a subdivision immediately west of the park within the Hayden Lake watershed.
Although their Rose Prairie proposal followed many conservation subdivision principles,
the City Council ultimately chose not to approve the subdivision, either within or outside
the City limits. Story County Land appealed the Council's decision in court, and also
recorded a "declaration of horizontal property regime," which allows the developer to
proceed with construction of the residences as condominium units. Council then
directed staff to initiate negotiations with the Rose Prairie developers in an attempt to
reach a settlement in the case.
In order to accomplish that settlement, several steps were needed. The first step has
already been accomplished, as the LUPP has been changed to Urban Residential for
the Rose Prairie area. The next step is to annex the property to bring it into the City.
The property will then need to be rezoned and a subdivision plat approved. An
agreement for installation of infrastructure must also be completed. Negotiations on
these last steps are currently nearing completion.
With residential development imminent within the Hayden Lake watershed, staff has
worked over the last several months to draft a conservation subdivision ordinance for
the City. Pat Sauer has provided invaluable technical expertise in this effort to create a
development mechanism that protects the water quality of Ada Hayden Lake.
Several strategies have been identified to accomplish this goal, most of which involve
protection of the watershed surrounding the lake. Experts have indicated that the best
control of the watershed would come through the imposition of City development
standards on the area. These standards include storm water runoff quality controls and
sanitary sewer collection and treatment standards. In addition, education on fertilizer
1
use and — as other communities have learned — limitations through homeowners'
associations or restrictive covenants on some types of fertilizers have also protected or
improved surface and ground water quality. Finally, conservation subdivision
regulations can also require the implementation of "best management practices" on the
layout design and the infrastructure built to serve residential development within the
watershed.
As staff developed a draft ordinance over the past several months, input was needed
from the developers who control land in the north growth area. Staff desired to identify
an appropriate balance between governmental regulation and the private sector's
economic ability to develop their land. This was done through meetings with the
developers to discuss the language and intent of the draft ordinance. These discussions
included the Rose Prairie developers, as well as the owners of developable land to the
south (Hunziker) and the east (Friedrich/Johansen) of Rose Prairie.
To facilitate this analysis, the developers to the south and east had an engineering draft
subdivision lay-outs for their properties to show how they would comply with the draft
ordinance. After discussing those proposals, City staff used those drawings as a base
to modify the lay-outs to show City staff's interpretation of the draft code. Those
drawings were then used as a discussion point to better understand the impacts of the
draft ordinance. At the final meeting, it was agreed that key issues would be laid before
the Commission and the City Council for consideration before a final ordinance is
adopted.
The Council is now being asked to review the attached draft Conservation Subdivision
Ordinance. Possible alternatives are also presented in two key areas.
Conservation Subdivision
The purpose of a conservation subdivision is to strike a balance between well-designed
residential development, meaningful open space conservation, and natural resource
protection. With the close proximity and important resource that Ada Hayden Lake is to
the City, it was determined that the best way to not only protect but to enhance this area
is through adoption of a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance. While this ordinance
might later be considered for application anywhere in the community, the
immediate intent is to require compliance with this ordinance only for future
residential subdivision development in the undeveloped areas of Ada Hayden
Watershed north of Bloomington Road.
The statement of intent contained in the proposed ordinance is as follows:
The intent of Conservation Design Development is to preserve the existing
natural features of the site, to preserve the natural drainage features and
hydrologic characteristics of the landscape, and to reduce the impacts of
development on the landscape; and
2
1 . To maintain and protect in perpetuity Ames area natural character by
preserving these important landscape elements including but not limited to
those areas containing unique and environmentally sensitive natural
features as prairie, woodlands, stream buffers and corridors,
drainageways, wetlands, floodplains, ridgetops, steep slopes, critical
species habitat, and by setting them aside from development,
2. To promote interconnected greenways and environmental corridors
throughout Ames;
3. To provide commonly-owned open space and conservation areas for
passive and/or active recreational use by residents of the development
and, where specified, the larger community;
4. To permit various means for owning conservation areas, preserved
landscape elements, and to protect such areas from development in
perpetuity;
5. To provide greater flexibility in site dwellings and other development
features than would be permitted by the application of standard use
regulations in order to minimize the disturbance of natural landscape
elements and sensitive areas, scenic quality, and overall aesthetic value
of the landscape;
6. To protect and restore environmentally sensitive areas and biological
diversity, minimize disturbance to existing soils, vegetation, and maintain
environmental corridors; and
7. To preserve significant archaeological sites, historic buildings and their
settings.
In reviewing the draft ordinance with developers, issues were identified which require
direction from the Council prior to finalizing an ordinance. These issues pertain to
a) open space and b) lots adjacent to open space.
Open Space
Appropriate amounts and uses for open space is a key component of a conservation
subdivision. Natural areas such as prairie land, creeks, and wooded areas should be
preserved as open space. Land reserved for the natural treatment of stormwater is
another vital component of open space.
Open space is currently defined in City Code under Section 29.201(129), as follows..
"Open Space means useable open space designed and intended for the use of all
residents of a residential development, including space dedicated to the public."
In the attached Conservation Subdivision Ordinance, open space is further expanded by
adding "conservation area." Conservation area is defined as "Land within a
conservation subdivision that has been dedicated through conservation easement,
reserved, and restricted in perpetuity from further development and is set aside for
protecting environmentally sensitive areas and/or for providing a means for managing
stormwater. It shall be substantially free of structures, but may contain historic
3
structures and archaeological sites as indicated on the approved development plan.
This area may include recreational areas such as shared use paths, play fields, or
community gardens." It is important to note that conservation areas as defined can be
counted towards meeting the open space requirement in the ordinance.
In considering the amount of open space needed to accomplish the purposes of a
conservation subdivision, staff has identified the following three options:
1 . Open Space Option #1 — Minimum 25% required open space: This option for
open space would require a minimum of 25% open space be provided within the
overall subdivision. This would include conservation areas, but would not include
rig hts-of-way.(Staff and Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendations)
2. Open Space Option #2 — Alternative percentage of open space: This option
would require that some percentage of open space less than or greater than 25%
be provided within the overall subdivision. Again, this would include conservation
area, but would not include rights-of-way.
3. Open Space Option #3 — No specified minimum open space requirement:
This option would not specify a minimum amount of open space. Rather, the
applicant would need to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision contained
sufficient open space to meet the stated intent and performance criteria within
the ordinance.
Lots Abutting Open Space
In the intent statement of the attached Conservation Subdivision Ordinance, it is stated
that one purpose of the ordinance is to promote interconnected greenways and
environmental corridors throughout Ames. An additional benefit to abutting open space
is the fact that it creates the illusion of large lots while creating conservation areas. In
considering the amount of required lots abutting open space in a conservation
subdivision, staff has identified the following three options:
1. Lots Abutting Open Space Option #1 — Required percentage: This option would
set the number of lots that must abut open space at 80%. This means that 80%
of the lots in the subdivisions would need to have open space abutting the
property. The ordinance does allow for the abutment to include open space that
is across a roadway to fulfill the requirement. (Staff and Planning & Zoning
Commission Recommendations)
2. Lots Abutting Open Space Option #2 — All lots: This option would require all lots
to abut open space. Again, the ordinance allows for the abutment to include
open space that is across a road way to fulfill the requirement.
3. Lots Abutting Open Space Option #3 — No requirement: This option would not
have any requirements for lots to abut open space.
4
Applicable City laws and policies related to this proposal, along with possible findings of
fact and a possible Conclusion, are identified in Attachment A.
• Recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. At its meeting of
June 16, 2010, with a vote of 7-0, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Conservation Subdivision
Ordinance and incorporate the recommendations regarding the 25% minimum
open space and 80% minimum lots abutting open space, as shown above.
At this meeting the Commission received the following public input:
Ery Klaas spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance.
Catherine Scott spoke and suggested that the ordinance not require a minimum
percentage for open space and let the site determine what the minimum should
be. She also suggested that staff think about considering if there should be a
maximum.
Kurt Friedrich said he is supportive of where the ordinance is heading, but would
like flexibility with the open space requirement. He also asked the Commission to
consider a recommendation to allow flexibility with regard to urban density
requirement as it relates to specific pieces of land. The proposed ordinance still
has the urban density requirement of 3.75 units per acre, which he thinks is a
conflict within this area and within a conservation development with providing a
variety of housing choices, which is one of the goals of the LUPP.
Roger Hamblin said this ordinance has been coming together for a number of
years and agrees with the direction for where it is going. He spoke in agreement
with the City's concern about the density with the Friedrich's property because it
isn't conducive to try to get the density as high as you can for this area if we are
trying to conserve and protect the natural areas. He spoke in appreciation for
staff showing maps of the proposed conservation subdivision developments,
which gave the audience a better visualization for what may happen in these
areas and showing how the developments can affect the surrounding properties
and the water run-off.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can adopt the proposed ordinance incorporating the 25% minimum
open space requirement, and the requirement that 80% of lots must abut open
space, based upon the staff's findings and recommended conclusions.
2. The City Council can direct staff to revise the ordinance to incorporating one of the
alternative open space target options and one of the open space abutment options
as described in this report.
5
3. The City Council can choose to not adopt the proposed ordinance.
4. The City Council can refer this back to staff for additional information.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff believes that the proposed ordinance strikes an appropriate balance between
meeting projected population needs and meeting other environmental, aesthetic and
recreational goals of the Land Use Policy Plan.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Council act in accordance with Alternative
1, which is to adopt the proposed ordinance incorporating the 25% minimum
open space requirement, and the requirement that 80% of lots must abut open
space.
The Council should understand that, because of the need for open space and
conservation areas, a Conservation Subdivision could require more gross acres
to develop than a standard subdivision. Therefore, the more conservation
subdivisions are developed, the greater the area that will be needed to
accommodate our future population growth target. However, in order to protect
valuable natural resources such as the Hayden Lake watershed, the goal of
environmental protection should take precedence over the goal of efficient
development within this watershed. The potential impacts of conservation
subdivisions on land capacity is correlated to the densities realized in conservation
subdivisions, as further explained in Attachment B.
At least one of the developers staff communicated with during the development of this
ordinance feels a strong need for lower or no density requirements to achieve their
development objectives. Staff believes that a discussion to change density requirements
is a broader land use planning issue and, therefore, should be considered outside the
context of the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance. In fact, the Planning & Zoning
Commission made a separate motion on June 16th requesting that the Council
separately address the density issue as soon as possible.
6
ATTACHMENT A
Applicable Laws and Policies
With Possible Findings and Conclusion
Applicable laws, goals and policies applicable to this proposal include, but are not
limited to, the following: (verbatim language is shown in italics, other references are
paraphrased).-
Ames Municipal Code.
Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code contains the subdivision standards for the City of
Ames.
Division IV of the Subdivision code specify Design and Improvement Standards
applicable to all subdivisions (i.e., site design, landscaping standards, street design,
water supply, sanitary sewer requirements, electrical distribution & street lighting
improvements, storm water management, soil erosion & sedimentation control, and
improvement guarantees.)
SUDAS Standards have been adopted by reference and are also applicable to
subdivisions.
The Definition section of the Subdivision code is contained in Section 23.201.
Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP)
Goal No. 1 states, "Recognizing that additional population and economic growth is
likely, it is the goal of Ames to plan for and manage growth within the context of the
community's capacity and preferences. It is the further goal of the community to
manage its growth so that it is more sustainable, predictable and assures quality of life."
• Obiective 1 C. Ames seeks to manage a population and employment base that can
be supported by the community's capacity for growth. A population base of 60,000—
62,000 and an employment base of up to 34,000 is targeted within the City.
Additionally, it is estimated that the population in the combined City and
unincorporated Planning Area could be as much as 67,000 and the employment
base could be as much as 38,000 by the year 2030.
Goal No. 2 states, "In preparing for the target population and employment growth, it is
the goal of Ames to assure the adequate provision and availability of developable land.
It is the further goal of the community to guide the character, location and compatibility
of growth with the area's natural resources and rural areas."
• Objective 2A. Ames seeks to provide between 3,000 and 3,500 acres of additional
developable land within the present City and Planning Area by the year 2030. Since
the potential demand exceeds the supply within the current corporate limits,
7
alternate sources shall be sought by the community through limited intensification of
existing areas while concentrating on the annexation and development of new areas.
The use of existing and new areas should be selective rather than general.
• Objective 2B. Ames seeks to assure the availability of sufficient suitable land
resources to accommodate the range of land uses that are planned to meet growth.
Sufficient land resources shall be sought to eliminate market constraints.
• Objective 2C. Ames seeks a development process that achieves greater
compatibility among new and existing development.
• Objective 2D. Ames seeks a development process that that achieves greater
conservation of natural resources and compatibility between development and the
environment.
Goal No. 3 states, "It is the goal of Ames to assure that it is an "environmentally-friendly"
community and that all goals and objectives are integrated with this common goal. In
continuing to serve as a concentrated area for human habitat and economic activity,
Ames seeks to be compatible with its ecological systems in creating an environmentally
sustainable community."
• Objective 3A. Ames seeks to provide a biodiversity through the inclusion of plant
and animal habitats. Their inclusion shall be provided through such methods as
conservation management, protection, replacement, etc.
• Objective 3B. Ames seeks to maintain and enhance the value of its stream corridors
as drainageways and flood management areas, plant and animal habitats,
recreational and scenic areas, and pathways for linking the overall community.
Page 32 of the LUPP addresses environmentally sensitive areas, as follows:
Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The designation involves floodprone areas, wetlands,
waterbodies and designated natural resources that should be protected from
detrimental use. Included are areas previously identified as "Floodway" and
"Floodplain",- plus selective natural resources from the "Natural Resources Inventory".
Areas designated "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" may or may not be suitable for
development. In the event that development is determined to be appropriate, special
requirements may be necessary to ensure environmental compatibility.
Ames Urban Fringe Plan
Page 28-29 of the Ames Urban Fringe Plan addresses the following applicable land use
designations
Priority Transition Residential (PTR)
PTR Policy 1: This land use designation includes all single-family residential land
uses/developments that involve minimum average net densities of 3.75 units per acre.
Rural Transitional Residential (RTR)
8
RTR Policy 1: This land use designation includes all single-family and two-family
residential land uses/developments that involve average net densities between one unit
per acre and 3.75 units per acre. (Relates to RUTA Goal 3.2)
Staff has determined that the following findings support adoption of this conservation
subdivision ordinance:
1. The City of Ames has adopted policies pertaining to projected populations, and
seeks to ensure sufficient land areas to serve projected populations. Accordingly,
the City has specified minimum density targets in suburban residential zones and in
the Ames Urban Fringe.
2. The average gross density achievable under a conservation subdivision has been
shown in some cases to be less than the average gross density in standard
subdivisions already built in the City.
3. The City has adopted policies pertaining to the protection of the environment, to
maintain and enhance the value of stream corridors as drainageways and flood
management and as areas for plant and animal habitats, recreational and scenic
areas, and pathways for link the overall community, and to otherwise assure
compatibility with ecological systems in creating an environmentally sustainable
community.
4. The proposed ordinance includes measures for conservation of natural features
intended, in part, to enhance stream corridors and drainage ways as natural areas
for flood management, to provide access to open areas, to restore environmentally
sensitive areas and biodiversity, to promote interconnected greenways and
environmental corridors throughout the City of Ames.
Based upon these findings, the proposed ordinance will likely reduce achievable gross
densities of some subdivisions, which may eventually require review of, and possible
amendments to, the City's targeted growth and/or density strategies. However, goals
pertaining to population and density must be balanced against other adopted goals
pertaining to sustainability and the environment. The proposed conservation subdivision
standards are consistent with and further the stated environmental goals and policies of
the City's Land Use Policy Plan.
9
ATTACHMENT B
Density Issues
The City currently regulates the net density of residential subdivisions in both the zoning
code and the Ames Urban Fringe Plan. Attachment A includes pertinent goal and policy
statements from the Land Use Policy Plan and the Fringe Plan pertaining to population
and density. It is evident from that language that the City intended to achieve targeted
densities in specified areas of the City and in its fringe in order to accommodate its
targeted populations (as well as to ensure efficiencies in land use and delivery of urban
services). It is noteworthy that the stated densities are net densities rather than gross
densities, which means that the Plan anticipated that certain land features were
expected to be excluded from the targeted residential areas and that targeted
population could still be accommodated in the balance of those areas.
At the time the plan was developed, however, it is unlikely that we expected to net out of
the calculation as much land area as would be required for a conservation subdivision.
Indeed, the gross density achieved under standard subdivisions is approximately 2.57
units per acre, whereas the gross density for the proposed Rose Prairie subdivision is
about 1.7 units per acre. In other words, while the targeted net densities would be the
same for both standard and conservation subdivisions, the actual number of units
achieved on the total land area (i.e., the gross density) could be significantly less for
conservation subdivisions. In effect, conservation subdivisions could require more
land to meet projected population housing needs than standard subdivisions.
10