Today, the Zoning Ordinance includes five one-family residential development options: the Preservation Option, the Subdivision Open Space Plan Option, the One-Family Cluster Option, the Residential Unit Development (RUD) Option and the Open Space Preservation Option. The options are primarily for one-family detached dwellings with the exception of the One-Family Clustering Option and the RUD Option that also permits attached one-family dwellings.

These options permit the reduction of minimum lot area, minimum lot width and required setbacks when natural features and open space are preserved. These reductions can permit a developer to cluster their dwelling units and thus reduce the length of roads and utility lines to reduce development costs. The use of any of the options is voluntary.

Preservation Option – This option can be used in the RA, R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. The maximum density is based on net lot. The minimum lot area and lot width may be reduced by the same percentage as the percent of additional woodlands, wetlands and habitat areas that are permanently preserved. Some setback reductions are permitted. The use of this option requires Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval of the Preservation Option Concept Plan after which standard site plan or platting requirements must be followed.

Subdivision Open Space Plan Option – This option can be used in the RA, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. The maximum density is based on net lot. The minimum lot area and lot width may be reduced by the same percentage as the percent of open space set aside. A minimum of 4 acres of open space is required with at least 2 acres of it to be available for active recreation. Some setback reductions are permitted. The use of this option requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation and City Council approval of the Preservation Option Concept Plan, after which standard site plan or platting requirements must be followed.

One-Family Cluster Option – This option can be used in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. The maximum density is based on net lot area. Detached and attached one-family cluster dwellings are permitted when:

• The site is less than 360 feet deep and the site fronts on a major road; or
• The development of the site using standard Ordinance requirements would destroy natural features and one of the following apply:
  • The site has an unusual shape;
  • The site is generally of unbuildable soils;
  • Severe topography limits road construction unless the site is mass graded; or
  • 50% of site is regulated woodlands or wetlands and the qualifying areas must be preserved and equal at least 50% of the net site area.

Standard site plan requirements apply. The Planning Commission is the approving body.

The RUD Option (not to be confused with the PUD option) can be used in the RA, R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts on sites of 80 acres and larger. Maximum density is based on the gross site area including all wetlands. The minimum lot area can be reduced to 12,000 square feet and the minimum lot width can be reduced to 90 feet in all districts. Yard requirements also may be reduced. City Council is the approving body and they may allow greater density, permit smaller lots and permit smaller setbacks if they find that the proposed deviation(s), meet certain requirements.

The Planning Commission reviews an RUD plan and makes a recommendation on it to the City Council for preliminary approval. Final approval is effective with the recording of an RUD agreement between the developer and the City. The agreement will include all approved deviations to the Zoning Ordinance. After the agreement is approved, standard site plan or platting requirements must be followed.

Open Space Preservation Option is an option required by the State of Michigan. This option can be used in the RA, R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts. The maximum density is based on net lot area. At least 20 percent of the area that could be developed using conventional zoning requirements must be natural features and must be preserved. The minimum lot area and lot width may be reduced Standard site plan or platting requirements must be followed.

Planner Spencer continued by stating that Master Plan Objectives and Implementation Strategies included several statements: Protecting the character of the southwest quadrant is a goal of the Master Plan for Land Use adopted in 2008. To further that goal, the amended Master Plan includes the following objectives: To provide legally defensible development options that maintain the semi-rural character of the southwestern area of the City;" and To maintain the areas existing low density residential development and natural features preservation patterns.

The Plan further identified several strategies to accomplish these objectives including:

• Encourage the use of residential development options to preserve open space and natural features.
• Seek additional development options that would optimize development without destroying natural features.
• Review the City’s residential development options, such as the One Family Cluster Option, to permit greater flexibility for development of challenging properties, such as the southeast corner of Ten Mile and Beck Roads.
• Review Ordinance requirements to develop alternative forms of access to permit greater flexibility for development on challenging properties.

After completing our research, staff offers the following proposed zoning ordinance text amendments.

For the RUD option, staff proposes to increase the number of parcels that could use the option by decreasing the minimum lot size from 80 acres to 20 acres. An additional 16 or so undeveloped parcels could potentially use this option if this amendment is approved. In addition, the proposed amendment contains a definition of recreation area that includes minimum area and depth dimensions to exclude the use of small landscape strip areas for open space credit.

The proposed changes to Section 2403, the One-Family Cluster Option, would permit use of this option on parcels with a depth of 600 feet instead of 300 feet, include additional access, building orientation and driveway design flexibility and permit a reduction of setbacks on parcels of less than 10 acres in area.

In order to simplify the residential development options and to still provide a mechanism to encourage clustering and preservation, the Preservation Option and Subdivision Open Space Plan Option are proposed to be removed and merged with a modified Open Space Preservation Option.

The Open Space Preservation option would continue to not require City Council approval to use the option.

The changes proposed include:

• Allowing the use of the option in the R-4 District (currently the Subdivision Open Space Plan option can be used in R-4);
• Reducing the qualifying preservation/open space area from 20 percent to any amount (as permitted with the Preservation Option);
• Requiring approval subject to the Special Land Use approval conditions of Section 2516.2 when less than 20 percent of the site is preserved;
• Including recreation areas as qualifying open space (permitted in the Subdivision Open Space option);
• Including wetland buffers (setback areas) as qualifying open space;
• Defining recreation areas as permanently protected areas of at least one-half acre in area and with a length of not more than three times its width and do not require them to be maintained in an undeveloped state;
• Increasing the permitted minimum lot area reduction from up to 33.9 percent to up to 44.9 percent when an equal percentage of the site is preserved;
• Increasing the permitted minimum lot width reduction up to 25 percent when double the percentage of the site is preserved (i.e. 30 percent of site preserved permits a 15 percent lot width reduction); and
• Redefining qualifying open space buffers from major roads to stipulate that they must be at least 50 feet in width and be in addition to normal setbacks.

Merging these options will simplify the ordinance and make clustering to preserve open space easier to use and understand.

Planner Spencer concluded the proposed amendments will further the implementation of the Master Plan objectives by simplifying the residential development options, permitting greater development flexibility on challenging properties, provide greater lot area and lot width reduction incentives and encourage the use of the residential development options to further the preservation of open space and natural features.

Chair Pehrson turned the matter over to the Planning Commission for further discussion or recommendation.

Member Baratta stated that when talking about standard site plan planning requirements as being a qualifier and as being part of the Walkable Sub-Committee, we obviously deal with requirements for sidewalks and trails. Member Baratta asked if our current ordinance requires sidewalks in new subdivisions.

Planner Spencer answered Member Barrata in saying yes, it does.

Member Baratta asked if a recreational space, which is qualified as an open space, whether that would include a sidewalk.

Planner Spencer stated that open space could include a sidewalk.

Member Baratta asked whether trails would be included.

Planner Spencer answered that a trail could be included in the open space.

Member Gutman made a motion to set a Public Hearing for June 23, 2010 for Text Amendment 18.243 Related to Residential Options.

Motion made by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch.

Deputy Director McBeth stated that the term for this dual membership is typically in one-year increments. A Commission member will serve as a dual or joint member on the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission. Member Cassis has served in this capacity for the last two years. Prior to tonight’s meeting, Member Cassis indicated that he would be willing to step aside if another Planning Commission member would like to serve in this capacity. However, if no one else came forward, Member Cassis had indicated that he would volunteer for this position again.

Member Gutman stated that Member Cassis is doing a fantastic job in representing the Planning Commission and suggested that Member Cassis continue as our liaison for next year.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lynch: