37 C20-2023-045 - Site Plan Lite Phase 2 & Infill Lots Q&A Report — original pdf

Backup

To: From: Chair Hempel Vice Chair Azhar Planning Commission Members Brent Lloyd Development Officer Development Services Department Date: October 18, 2024 Subject: Case No. C20-2023-045 |Response to Questions re: Infill Plats & Site Plan Lite, Pt. 2 To assist the Planning Commission in considering the above-referenced item, this memo provides staff responses to questions sent to us by a commissioner earlier this week. (Each question, quoted from the commissioner’s email, is followed by a staff response.) An interdepartmental staff team will be available to address additional questions at the Planning Commission’s October 22, 2024 meeting. “You mentioned previously, the current draft language is a result of ‘a lot of input Question 1. and discussion from stakeholders that have occurred over the last several months.’ Please let me know which stakeholders have agreed to this draft, specifically which environmental groups or any specifically focused on flood controls?” Response: of the proposal. In general: Staff cannot speak to which stakeholder groups support or oppose the latest version Stakeholders associated with environmental groups have expressed concerns regarding flooding impacts, particularly with respect to the “Site Plan Lite” portion of the proposal. Staff from the Watershed Protect Department have addressed these concerns on several occasions, including at two stakeholder engagement sessions, two Environmental Commission meetings, and a meeting of the Housing & Planning Committee. Stakeholders associated with the infill development community have expressed concerns that the proposal does not sufficiently relax regulations. While differences remain, staff has made numerous changes to address practical concerns raised by these stakeholders. As discussed in the staff report, these changes will help to increase flexibility and reduce costs for residential infill projects while maintaining existing floodplain and water quality protections. “In your previous presentation, you cite this proposal will streamline the Question 2. development process for approximately 3,500 sites. Is that the total universe of which properties could utilize this streamlined process? Or an estimated number who DSD believes will use the streamlined process?” Under the Site Plan Lite (“SP-Lite”) proposal, no engineered drainage analysis or Response: onsite detention facilities would be required for 5-16 projects if: (1) the site is no greater than 0.50 acres; and (2) the applicant provides a topographic drainage plan demonstrating that water flows naturally to the street or storm drain system. Providing engineered drainage analysis and onsite detention facilities can account for at least 30-40% of total costs, so projects that meet these criteria would benefit from a more streamlined review process and cost less to construct. In the staff report provided for the Commission’s August 27 meeting, staff estimated that 3,500 lots may be eligible for review under the modified drainage regulations for Site Plan Lite (“SP-Lite”). This estimate includes the total number of properties that don’t exceed half an acre, which is the cap on using the modified drainage regulations, and which are located within the lower intensity Multi- Family (MF) zones (i.e., MF-1, MF-2, and MF-3).1 Stakeholders who specialize in infill construction have correctly pointed out that, of these 3,500 sites, not all of them will have the drainage patterns required to avoid providing engineered drainage analysis and onsite detention. However, staff believes that a substantial number of properties will qualify, and the proposal will significantly ease barriers to construct this housing type. (See also response to Questions 4-5, below.) “Along those same lines, can you provide an update on the number of building Question 3. permits submitted last year (2023)? Completed? And compare those to the number this year, both submitted and completed? (Thru August or the latest finalized month) Of these, which would fall into this category? I am trying to get a sense of just how big or how insignificant this proposed change is.” In 2023, DSD approved 2,248 building permits for residential structures. This Response: includes single-family structures, two-unit structures, and multi-family structures with 3 or more units. There were 1,672 permits approved for residential structures in 2024 through the end of September. Information is not readily available to show how many of those structures were associated with sites of 4-16 dwelling units and no greater than 0.50 acres. Questions 4-5. “In Part 1 [of the draft ordinance], we are adding the 5-16 units as a 'small project' and basically equating them with the current streamline process for 1-4 units, is that correct? If so, I 1 While these are the zones where 5-16 unit projects are most likely to be constructed, the updated staff report posted for the October 22 meeting identifies additional zoning categories where these projects would also be allowed. 2 think a project that is 4X (4 vs 16) are generally not on the same scope in terms of construction requirements, complexity of building materials, and review of plans by the COA. Am I incorrect in this assumption? If not, why would we keep more stringent reviews for their permits and buildings but lesson the one for drainage? Please help me with that rationale.” The “small project” classification, established in LDC Section 25-5-3 (Small Projects), Response: waives standard notification requirements and provides for reduced fees and submittal requirements. Classifying residential projects of 5-16 units as a small project, together with the other changes proposed by staff, will help to streamline the review process for this project type. However, 5-16 unit projects will continue to be subject to regulations not applicable to 1-4 unit projects, so the review process for these project types will not be the same. The staff proposal creates an intermediate review path between the standard “Residential Review” process used for 1-4 unit projects, which requires no drainage review, and full site plan review. While the staff proposal addresses several aspects of the review process, the proposed code amendments are focused primarily on drainage regulations for several reasons: • Unlike many of the challenges confronting infill development, drainage requirements are specifically addressed by the Land Development Code and cannot be modified solely through administrative changes. • Requiring onsite detention for small-scale residential projects (i.e., “micro-ponds”) is not well-suited to the limited drainage impacts associated with these projects. In many cases, the limited benefit these facilities provide may not justify the construction and maintenance costs. • Drainage regulations were a primary focus of stakeholder input, with evidence indicating that engineered drainage studies and onsite detention can account 30-40% of project costs. “In Part 2 [of the ordinance], we are streamlining the drainage reports/studies the Question 6. new 5/16 projects have to complete. The proposal seeks to limit the sites to those under ¼ acre but then states ' a gross site area.' Is the proposal limited to subdivisions in total of less than ¼ acre? Or is it DSD's intention to allow the subdivision of a lot into 3 new lots of less than ¼ acre each and allow each one individually to follow the streamlined process?” Response: See next page. 3 “Site Plan Lite, Phase 2” is focused on construction of 5 to 16 units on a single lot; no subdivision is required for Site Plan Lite projects because no new lots are being created. Sites under 0.50 acres are not required to provide drainage studies or onsite detention if a topographic drainage plan shows water from the site drains to a street or drainage system. “Infill Plats” focuses on the re-subdivision of residential sites into smaller lots. Under the staff proposal, re-subdividing sites not greater than 11,500 square feet in area requires no drainage review, while sites that are more than 11,500 square feet, but less than one acre, require the same streamlined drainage review required for “Site Plan Lite” projects. Infill Plat Examples: If the “parent lot” does not exceed 11,500 square feet in area and is re-subdivided in into smaller lots, no drainage review or onsite detention is required. If the parent lot is 0.75 acres and is re-subdivided into 3 new lots that are 0.25 acres each, the same streamlined drainage review required for Site Plan Lite projects applies—i.e., a topographic drainage plan demonstrating that water flows to the street or a storm drain system. 4 “In the previous presentation, you state the new 5/16 under ¼ acre have more Question 7. requirements than a 1-4 unit development but not as many as a standard subdivision site plan. What are some of those requirements for the 5/16 that a 1-4 does not have to complete?” Response: variety of zoning and non-zoning regulations not applicable to 1-4 unit projects. Depending on the Since 5-16 unit projects are classified as “multi-family residential,” they trigger a development context, this may include compatibility standards as well as different technical code, parkland, water quality, and utility reviews than required for 1-4 unit projects. “Can you provide some general costs of preparing drainage plans, flooding analysis, Question 8. and other items we exempt the proposed 5/16s from? How big of an incentive is this proposal? And similarly, I am sure there is a range, and it depends on multiple factors, but how much does a retention pond or diversion channel add to a project? Is it 10K or millions?” It’s difficult to determine exact cost estimates due to the range of infill project types Response: affected by drainage regulations. However, evidence provided to staff indicates that engineered drainage studies and onsite detention can account for around 30-40% of project costs for infill development. By providing drainage solutions that do not require engineering or onsite detention, the staff proposal will reduce costs and review times for 5-16 unit projects that meet the applicable criteria. In addition to the proposed code amendments, the Watershed Project Department is initiating changes to Drainage Criteria Manual that will significantly reduce the number of projects required to directly connect to existing storm drains. Compliance with this requirement, which stakeholders flagged as a major concern, is a significant expense for projects located near existing storm drains. “Finally along this line, I tried to read the Drainage Criteria Manual but gave up. How Question 9. much is a 'typical' Regional Stormwater Management Program fee for these sized projects? And have you checked with the Watershed groups to find out what that fiscal impact will do to their budgets?” Response: While a variety of factors affect the total costs associated with RSMP, staff in the Watershed Protection Department estimate that average costs for most 5-16 unit infill projects at approximately $30,000 – $60,000. However, the exact cost varies and could be significantly less for sites with existing onsite detention facilities and/or projects that are not significantly increasing impervious cover. Question 10. “In Part 3, there is a new term introduced under the proposed new subparagraph (6). There is a reference to "residential lot". Whereas in items number 1-5 under Sub (B), the term "lot" is the prevailing term. "Lot" is defined in 25-1-21. I do not find a definition of "Residential Lot". Can you point me to this definition?” Response: to residential uses. “Residential Lot” is not a defined term, but is commonly used to mean a lots limited 5