Loading...
7. Discussion Paper on RSF single family district lot size 7 /11. . C ITYOF 7 ....................... _ / 4 CHANHASSEN . , gi 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 `' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 r , II MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: r April 20, 1992 1 SUBJ: , Discussion Paper RSF, Single Family District Lot Size 1 _ BACKGROITND `` 1 On April 13, 1992, the City ty Council raised._ • me ; { uestions regarding the city's single family district lot size requirements. The ci 1 as 1 t rically enforced a 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. Several members o the City ` -council apparently have some concerns I regarding this lot size having stated th they pref t, to increase it. There were also some statements to the effect that there wag a belief that a Planning Commission is reviewing lot sizes. g A ' % T he Planning Commission is ind reviewing lot siz requirements; however, not in the context which was raised by the City Council. In a series of meetings that was started last 1 summer, there have been frequent discussions about the use of planned unit development *districts for single family plats. The primary topic of discussion is that one of the benefits of PUDs is that they prothote : duster developer omitentrating development in a smaller area, leaving a larger area as protecte_d.open spaeee;RUDs are .ever ' generally mowed as win -win situations for both the city and the developer. Normally, the developez.ets a somewhat reduced lot size and commensurately lower land and utility costs, while the city gets higher quality development. Thus, it is in this context that 'eductions in lot size within PUDs only have been considered since it is believed that a.lot area reduction is a requiring inducement to get developers to utilize the PUD. time has the Planning Commission given significant consideration to proposing r fict ai0 ions in lot area standards in normal RSF District development. Much of our focus in the PUD discussions is centered around existing residential PUDs located in Chanhassen. Often times these were sold ta-t ore ucin development costs, but it is questionable whether they ever achieved this goal. They also - -- - -- - - -- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER , l Don Ashworth April 20, 1992 Page 2 resulted in a host of problems for the city as evidenced by the numerous variance requests we receive for decks and other setback violations. Staff is of the opinion that these problems are more of a result of poor control being exercised over these PUDs than problems with the PUD concept itself. In light of this background and of the City Council's request for further information, this paper is being prepared to analyze some of the broader issues pertaining to lot sizes. CHANHASSEN VERSUS METRO AREA LOT AREA STANDARDS With a standard requirement of a minimum of 15,000 square feet, Chanhassen already maintains one of the largest minimum lot areas in the suburban Twin Cities area. The table below provides information on lot area standards of communities in this area or similar to Chanhassen. RSF LOT SIZE SURVEY. CITY LOT SIZE Eden Prairie 13,500 square feet Bloomington Corner lot 15,000 s.f. Interior lot 11,000 s.f. Eagan 12,000 s.f. Burnsville 15,000 s.£ Maple Grove 10,000 s.f. Maplewood 10,000 s.f. Brooklyn Park 10,800 s.f. Chaska 9,000 s.f. Shorewood 20,000 s.f. Excelsior 10,000 s.f. Victoria 12,500 s.f. Minnetonka 22,000 s.f. r Don Ashworth April 20, 1992 Page 3 We should also point out that the density at which Chanhassen develops is generally much lower than comparable communities elsewhere in the Twin Cities. The Metropolitan Council uses a standard rule of thumb of 2.5 single family homes per acre in suburban development when undertaking computations for regional planning programs. In Chanhassen, the effective gross density is considerably lower, being between 1.7 and 2 units an acre. This is partially a factor of our high minimum lot size but is also indicative of the stringent controls we have put in place to the protect the environment. Until the new state wetland protection law was adopted in January, Chanhassen was one of the few communities that protected all the wetland within its borders, thus, significantly lowering the amount of land available for development. We also make significant efforts to protect stands of trees, which again serves to decrease density. Lastly, we have a very active recreation department which has set aside significant portions of many subdivisions to provide for recreational needs. A last factor not directly related to density within a given project, but rather density within the entire city pertains to the huge amount of public and semi -public open space that exists within our community. This category would cover not only our own park system, but the Minnewashta Regional Park, Minnesota River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Bluff Creek Golf Course, and lake surface areas. ENVIRONMENTAL AND URBAN DESIGN COSTS OF SPRAWL Since World War II, "suburban sprawl" has been a derogatory term used to define unregulated, disruptive, and land intensive development. It is often typified by leap frog development wherein parcels are not fully developed to their maximum potential because there is often cheaper land just a little further out. One of the primary goals of the establishment of the Metropolitan Council is to reduce the potential for unregulated sprawl in the Twin Cities area. The costs of sprawl occur not only in regional terms but also in local terms. Sprawl type development is extremely disruptive to the environment. Large amounts of valuable farm land are forever converted to non - productive use, wetlands and water courses are damaged, tree cover is lost, and aquifer recharge areas are paved over. At the same time, there is a real public cost of sprawl. The miles of roads, sewers, and watermain, required to serve a relative small number of units, becomes excessive. Additional school bus routes must be created, time to drive to work and shopping grows significantly, and public dollars expended to maintain all of these facilities is also a major concern. Chanhassen has done a remarkably good job of effectively controlling development while still being able to provide a highly desirable community in which to reside and work. Yet, even here, we have examples of the down side of sprawl development. Without meaning to condemn the lifestyle that it offers those who reside there, Timberwood Estates is a good example of this type of development. In it a huge amount of land is forever tied up with very few housing units. The Council and Planning Commission are aware first hand of the , 1 Don Ashworth April 20, 1992 Page 4 difficulty of incorporating this type of development into the community as it grows outward. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The creation of larger lot sizes is often seen as a panacea for addressing environmental impact of residential development. On the face of it, what could be wrong with larger lots and more lawn area? However, it is an unfortunate fact that what is often true on the surface, in fact, conceals a completely different reality. Larger lot sizes impose considerably greater impact on the environment. First of all, if you assume the same number of units are going to ultimately try to get into our community, land will be gobbled up at a much faster rate with larger lot sizes. Secondly, I would argue that the suburban lawn is hardly the ideal mechanism for preserving trees and wetlands. In virtually every case, we get significant grading to accommodate roads and building pads, as well as tree clearance to create yard areas. The flexibility to design sensitively to protect natural features is significantly diminished when uniformly larger lot sizes are imposed. This is one of the primary reasons staff advocates the use of PUDs for residential districts. Even if the city had an ordinance maintaining an average minimum PUD lot area of 15,000 square feet, I believe that we could do a much better job of concentrating higher densities in open field areas and utilizing significantly larger lots in areas where tree cover and other natural features can be preserved. Uniformly imposing an across the board 20,000 square foot lot for example does not achieve any of these goals. 1 Don Ashworth April 20, 1992 Page 5 COSTS AND OTHER IMPACTS OF LARGER LOTS Raising the lot area from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet would have a number of adverse impacts. First of all there is a direct cost associated with land as well as with the amount of dollars that must be spent to provide services. Raising the lot size from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet would probably increase the cost to the consumer by at least 25 %, if not more. Factors involved include not only the cost of land, but the cost of providing services. While the larger lot sizes may reduce the number of homes in a subdivision, the cost to provide streets, sewer, and water on a linear foot basis is still the same. Thus, these costs are spread over fewer lots. In areas where lots commonly cost $40,000 to $50,000, we would have just added over $10,000 to $12,500 to the price of a lot. Fifteen thousand square foot lots are the historic lot size in Chanhassen, and have been used for the basis of all our assessments for public improvements. When utilities are put through in an area, there is a presumption that "x" number of units can be developed on a parcel of land and it is billed accordingly. "X" in this case are 15,000 square foot lots. Unilaterally raising the standard to 20,000 square feet at this point in time, would certainly raise questions of equity and may in fact result in legal challenges since the property owners have been paying their assessments in the expectation that the city's RSF development densities can be achieved. SUMMARY In summary, staff does not support raising the single family lot areas in Chanhassen. We do not believe that there is any net environmental improve that results from increased lot sizes, in fact, would argue that the reverse is true. There would certainly be a significant increase in cost to the consumer, who after all is a future resident of our community. In Chanhassen, we have come to pride ourselves on having a well planned and developed community that has progressive attitudes towards growth and community protection. Significantly raising the lot size would tend to force many of the developers who work in our community as well as future home buyers to look elsewhere where land costs are more reasonable. Even though my opinion on this issue is quite clear and has been for some time, I still believe there are issues relative to lot size which should be investigated. The Planning Staff continues to support some moderation in lot size to encourage the use of PUD development. We believe that it does not have to be a significant decrease and would anticipate building in sufficient safeguards to prevent the abuses which occurred in past years. Don Ashworth April 20, 1992 Page 6 We also believe that in many cases, lot area is often a misleading standard. Usable or buildable lot area is often a much more significant standard and I believe it should be incorporated into our ordinances. Simply having a 15,000 square foot area does not guarantee that a reasonable residential environment would be created, or even if the home can be accommodated at all. The parcel's utility is often diminished by the presence of wetlands, easements, steep slopes, frontage on major streets and highways, and other measures which detract from its utility. Staff is already working with the Planning Commission to attempt to define what the minimum buildable area should be on a 15,000 square foot lot. Staff will be present to discuss this matter with you further and we are seeking your direction.