8.1 SR 10-18-2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Why We Need to Update Our Current Land Development Regulations Ease of Use Every Elk River resident, business owner, or developer should be able to navigate and understand the Code of Ordinances without the assistance of an attorney or member of city staff. One significant factor that detracts from the user -friendliness of Elk River's land develop- ment regulations is its organization. Land development regulations should be organized in a manner that makes it straightforward to use and administer. User-friendly regulations use tables and graphics when appropriate, and order sections based on how frequently they are used and referenced. Elk River's current land development regulations are not structured to allow developers or members of the public to find relevant information rapidly. For instance, Division 2 - Administration and Enforcement, which defines the city's permit procedures and requirements, and Division 5 - Supplemental Regulations, which includes regulations for specific uses such as accessory buildings and personal solar panels, are at the beginning of Article VI - Zoning. Meanwhile, Divisions 6, 7, and 8, which list the allowable uses, setbacks, and lot sizes for different districts, come toward the end of Article VI - Zoning. Most code users seek to know the permitted uses and dimensional standards for their site of interest before understanding detailed proce- dures on permitting processes or regulations for specific uses, and so the city's existing format requires most code users to sift through the first several articles before finding the information they need to get started. The organiza- tion and user -friendliness of Article VI - Zoning could be improved if the permitted use and dimensional regulations in each district were presented together in a tabular format at the article's beginning. Further, the structure of information within the Divisions of Article VI - Zoning is not intuitive and may require many code users to look back and forth between different subsections to locate relevant information. For instance, a site plan review and permit process for applications in the Downtown District is defined in Section 30-1026 (g), while the procedure is not clearly enumerated in Division 2 - Administration and Enforcement, which contains the submittal requirements and procedures for condi- tional use permits and variances. Further, the application requirements for site plans in the Downtown District are not clearly and objectively listed, while the information is defined for conditional use permits in Division 2. The code's user -friendliness would be strengthened if the permit procedures were organized together within one division and if application requirements and procedures were clearly and consistently listed. Development Standards and Use Specific Provisions Development standards and use specific provisions are scattered throughout Article VI - Zoning. The structure of the development standards and use specific provisions should be reorganized to reduce excessive cross refer- encing, improve readability, and be more user friendly. In addition to restructuring these sections, the city should enhance and modernize existing standards and estab- lish additional standards in order to align with the vision, goals, and recommendations of this plan and to reflect current best practices. For example, Division 5 lists parking minimums for permitted uses, however, the section does not enumerate tools such as shared parking, an essential tool in realizing the outlot development detailed in the Economic Development Plan. Another barrier to realizing outlot development is the city's minimum parking requirements. For example, the minimum amount of parking required for a retail store is 1 space for every 200 square feet of floor area. The national average minimum requirement, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers, is 1 space for every 250 square feet of floor area. Although this difference may seem marginal, when extrapolated out to a potential development, it could have big impacts on the develop- ment potential of a piece of property. For example, a typical grocery store has around 40,000 square feet of floor area and would therefore require 200 parking spaces based on Elk River's existing minimum requirement. The industry standard however would require only 160 parking spaces. Elk River requires that parking spaces be nine feet wide and 20 feet long, or 180 square feet. Therefore, Elk River would require the typical grocery store to dedicate 36,000 square feet of land area to parking while the industry standard would require only 27,360, an 8,640 square foot difference. Not only does this excessive requirement limit the development potential of a property, it also negatively impacts stormwater absorption and can lead to urban heat island issues. 128 I97MITI ad907C1OWN I AVE9101Wo Implementation Plan • Elk River Comprehensive Plan