Loading...
02-12-07 PC Agenda e e AGENDA Golden Valley Planning Commission Joint Meeting with the City Council Presentation/Discussion of the 1-394 Corridor Study Draft Final Report Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, February 12, 2007 6pm (Dinner will not be provided) I. Presentation/Discussion of the 1-394 Corridor Study Draft Final Report Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Council Conference Room 7pm I. Approval of minutes January 22, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting II. Reports on meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other meetings III. Other business . Discuss draft Infill Housing report . Discuss rescheduling/cancelling the February 26, 2007 regular Planning Commission meeting IV. Adjournment e ;~~~3~~8~06 (ITY: 763-593-3968) to e~~~~:t;e:~~t~ ~~~~Ples of ~ft~~:~esio;~~ts may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. . Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission and Golden Valley Environmental Commission January 22, 2007 A joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Environmental Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, January 22,2007. Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes called the meeting to order at 6 pm. Those present were Planning GommissionersCera, Eck, Kluchka, McC Schmidgall and Environmental Commissioners Anderson, Baker, Hill and St. Clair. Also present was Director of Planning and Develop n Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, City Engineer Jeff or , E Coordinator AI Lundstrom, Joint Water Commission Consulta tt Administrative AssistanfLisa Wittman. Planning Commissio were absent. Environmental Commissioner Sipala was abse I. Presentation/Discussion of the Water Su Comprehensive Plan He stated the Environme versus the water usage i averages 5 to 6 mil' gall an average day in J . Environmental commercial w water us differe the cust pr .ess re ter Commission on updating prehensive Plan. He explained that there is not a lot e to Met Council requirements and s best practices, demand, usage, growth . Harder explained that he has been workin the Water Supply Plan which is one ele discussed what is going to be in the wa of latitude when putting together w State statutes. He stated that th and supply for the future. has asked about the water usage in the winter m. a typical day in January Golden Valley water per day and approximately 7-8 million gallons on irly typical for a built-out community. Another issue the about is a break down between residential and ned that residential use is approximately 75% of the total nd industrial use is about 25%. Hill asked about the rcial and industrial. Harder said that it is normally the size of efln commercial and that industrial customers use a lot more r versus just the regular domestic use of water. Harde 0 a chart that showed a five year average for the Joint Water Commiss a whole looking at the average per capita water use which is a measure that the DNR and the regulators like to look at to see if a community is a water waster or water conserving type of community. He said that Golden Valley is right at the metro average for gallons per day per capita. . Harder discussed an overview of the water supply plan itself which is done by the JWC and includes the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal. He explained that since the JWC is the water purchaser they are responsible for preparing the water supply plan and submitting the plan for approvals by the various state agencies. He said in terms of the requirements of the water supply plan it is fairly scripted as to what needs to be . . . Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission and Environmental Commission Meeting January 22, 2007 Page 2 included in the plan such as describing the sources, describing water tank storage, how water is supplied to the end users, population changes and conservation efforts. He referred to sustainability and stated that some of the things addressed in sustainability are conservation, climate changes and possible impacts on water supplies, use of fossil fuels and the impact of carbon footprint which is emissions from businesses, trucks and well pumps to name a few. He said another issue regarding the water supply plan is interconnectio neighboring cities and regional issues such as where people might b the natural resources are located in relation. He stated another re . the reliability of the Minneapolis water supply system which is V'f pursuing an interconnection with St. Paul which would be able the entire JWC uses on its peak day, d where ion is c measures ictio sand asures include irriga ion ordinances, new idential water efficiency He said the measures that irrigation system efficiency, . Ilandsc~ping irrigation ordinances! interior/eXterior retrofits and continuing He referred to water conservation best practices and including public education, codes and standards, w consumption based metering and billing. Some targeting irrigation systems efficiency, commerc' home water conservation, ability to restrict I projects, and municipal building interior the JWC is considering including in its considering adoption of a model or . ability to restrict lawn watering, with a water conserving rate str Baker asked what typical would be a base charge, water there is a ce . fe slightly higher rate ~. McCarty asked .' projects. added . 9 rate structures looks like. Harder said there hen for the first 6 or 8 thousand gallons of , 00 gallons and then usage above that would have a ns and there could be a third tier. of gs are included in the commercial water use efficiency like low flow fixtures in office park bathrooms. Schmidgall be used for commercial irrigation. t if 75% of water goes toward residential use why that isn't an area u want to address. Harder said the JWC is trying to avoid issues that me sort of subsidy or the need to go into people's homes. He added that a lot of cation issues are automatically addressed as homes are upgraded. Clancy added that the City is using its available money on an 1/1 program and that conservation issues are more of an educational opportunity for residents when they do upgrades in their homes. Pawluk asked if the City has the ability to restrict lawn watering. Clancy said that Golden Valley's ordinance at one time was essentially in violation with the JWC contract with Minneapolis. However it is no longer in violation. She added that one of the goals with this water supply plan is to have consistency in all three cities. Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission and Environmental Commission Meeting January 22, 2007 Page 3 . Kaisershot asked if there is a residential educational component in the water supply plan. Harder said there are things on the City's website, but nothing new is planned. Pawluk asked if there was a way that. water bills could show residents their current rate versus a rate that they could pay if they were following some of the conservation ideas so that they could see in dollars what they could be saving. Clancy said she didn't think the bills could be defined to that level of detail. Kluchka suggested showing an average . household dollar amount instead. Clancy said she thinks the City could possibly show an average household dollar amount on its bills. She added that she thinks . taff does a good job in the newsletter writing educational articles on storm water' could probably do a better job writing about water conservation issues. . Schmidgall asked about III. Clancy explained that III is inflow sanitary sewer system or clear water going into the sanitary Harder referred to a chart that showed 2001 Daily Wa conserving rate structures and the idea that if cities amount of water sold goes down and the rate go encourage people to cut down on their water co. the most expensive water and because pia those peak days. Hill said that people do lained water uch nservation the he would like to pea days because that is ding to the water used on when the peak days are. Harder talked about the next steps . Technical Committee will start wr' each of the three cities, the JW their specific Comprehensiv and the Environmental C Ian. He said that the JWC n then there will be public hearings in t /.,!an and each city will incorporate it into es stated that both the Planning Commission ee the water supply plan again in the future. . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commis~ion January 22, 2007 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, January 22,2007. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluc Schmidgall. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Planning Consultant Perry Thorvig and Administrative Assistant Li Commissioner Waldhauser was absent. II. January 8, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting I. Approval of minutes Eck referred to the third sentence in the first par should read as follows: The City does "not" requ decks less than 8 inches in height and driv nd stated that it ermits for at-grade patios, . MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera an January 8, 2007 minutes with the animously to approve the on. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Applicant: Purpose: n ordinance regulating outdoor lighting and to amend, language in the current City Code reg.arding outdoor ollowing Sections: r 4, Section 4.60, Subd. 6 (C) r 6, Section 6.39, Subds. G & J ter 11, Section 11.30, Subd. 8 Chapter 11, Section 11.36, Subd. 5 Chapter 11, Section 11.55, Subd. 5(A)(1) Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subd. 5(A)(4) Grimes referred to his staff report and reminded the Planning Commissioners that they (along with the Environmental Commission and the City Council) have been working on this proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance since 2005 and that the next step in the process is this public hearing. He added that Planning Consultant Perry Thorvig is in attendance at this meeting to review the proposed ordinance and answer any questions the Commissioners may have. . Thorvig stated that the two issues this proposed ordinance addresses are over lighting ,and light trespass. He reviewed the ordinance and pointed out that it proposes several . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 2 things including maximum wattage, maximum footcandles, curfew, uniformity and banning certain types of fixtures. He noted that parking lots, gas stations and auto sales lots have special provisions because they are unique. He referred to the non-conforming uses section and explained that non-conforming uses are allowed to stay unless there are complaints or are considered a nuisance. He explained that there. are administrative variances allowed in this ordinance if it is determined by the City Manager that the variance is needed and there is also some flexibility to allow for uplighting. He discussed enforcement of the ordinance and stated that lighting plans will be required to be submitted along with building plans. Thorvig referred to Subdivision 2 of the ordinance and explained t definitions such as cut-off angles, shielding and footcandle. arious Thorvig referred to Subdivision 3 of the ordinance and expl exceptions and issues that the lighting ordinance does not a street lights, temporary construction lighting, lighting i im seasonal lighting. He referred to Subdivision 6 and nonconformities and nuisances. Grimes asked Thorvig to explain light unifor ratio of maximum illumination to minimu level of light is measured. Thorvig stat ground, but not on the darkest part more public, accessible area. d that light uniformity is the er asked where the lowest el of light is measured on the e likely it would be measured in a Eck asked Thorvig to expla' explained different angle definition used in the ordl n for "cutoff". Thorvig drew an example and ererit types of cutoff fixtures. He added that the try standard definition. Kluchka stated that definition shou uage in the ordinance is using a definition, that sser agreed. 2(A) and stated that the word "is" should be the word "are". pe Ie were notified of this public hearing. Grimes stated that this is aring but that a notice will be published in the local paper when it Council for a formal public hearing. Schmidg he doesn't think there is anything out of the ordinary with this proposed ordinance and that it seems consistent with other communities. Kluchka suggested having a definition for "decorative lighting". He referred to Subdivision 7 and stated that the word "non" should be added before the word "R-2" and in Subdivision 9 (A)(1) the last word "and" should be changed to the word "or". He asked what. happens in a situation where a non-residential and a residential property are next to each other. Thorvig said he thinks that there would be an expectation that the commercial property lighting levels would be allowed to be higher. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 22, 2007 . Page 3 Kluchka said he wants the ordinance to be clear. He referred to Subdivision 13(A) and said that the word "architectural" can mean many things and that the last sentence doesn't make sense. Grimes suggested rewriting it to say that floodlights on poles are prohibited. Keysser asked if the Public Safety Department has reviewed this ordinance. Thorvig said they have and they are comfortable with it. Grimes added that the Public Safety Department has agreed that even lighting is more important than high levels of lighting. Keysser opened the public hearing. es but if a enew the Cera referred to Subdivision 7 and asked how it addresses existing Ii explained that existing lighting can stay and be considered legally property owner wants to make changes to their lighting it will ha ordinance. He explained that the non-conforming use langua state statute. Kelsey McDonald stated that the City might want as well as "decorative". . Kluchka agreed that it is important to def said he thinks the ordinance is fine as i is really just temporary lighting. Cer lighting in order to conserve ener regulations don't apply to deco tive" lighting. Schmidgall seasonal decorative" lighting time or date cut off for seasonal no. he ordinance states that the ting. Seeing and hearing no 0 o comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Keysser said he thi stated that "season ordinance bec language that he would lightin like the ce is fine, and should be left as it is written. Kluchka ighting should be defined or removed from the causes problems. Grimes suggested adding I lights can't "bleed" over onto another property. He said rney review the language regarding seasonal decorative that the motion include that the Planning Commission would inion before the ordinance goes to the City Council. happens if a property is legally non-conforming and the City receives es said that if a property is considered legally non-conforming there is can do. . MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval of adopting Section 11.73 Outdoor Lighting Ordinance and amending, adding or deleting language in various sections in the current City Code regarding outdoor lighting. Kluchka voted no. '. . Minute,s of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 4 III. Reports on meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other meetings McCarty stated that on January 23, 2007 the Board of Zoning Appeals will be discussing an interpretation by staff regarding the height of a house currently under construction on June Ave. S. IV. Other business Keysser stated that he will be meeting with City Engineer Jeff Oliver, Gary Johnson and Director of Planning and Development Mark Gri e discuss some of the infill issues the Commissioners have been yi begin writing a report and asking the Commissioners for their' V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8 pm. . . . . . [city letterhead] date The Honorable Linda Loomis, Mayor, City of Golden Valley Council member Freiberg Councilmember Pentel Council member Scanlon Council member Shaffer RE: Report on Subdivision and Housing Dar Mayor Loomis and Council members: In OctoberU'?] of 2006, the City Council re research the interrelated issues of subdivision tear-down housing developments. , the Planning ommlSSlon housing developments, and Please find attached our Report on request, we would be pleased to m Council. Following your preliminary r Report at a Planning 'on meet Development. At your ent n on this Report to the hold a public forum on this e to the City of Golden Valley. Don Keysse , Commissioner Commissioner Le Commissioner John Klutchka Commissioner Dean McCarty Commissioner Steve Schmidgall Commissioner Cathy Waldhauser 'v . . REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SUBDIVISION AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Introduction The City of Golden Valley has had to deal increasi requests, infill housing developments, and tea the last few years. In part, these issues development pressures, increases in land patterns, a market trend towards a prefer desire by families who work in the Minnea downtown and avoid long commute ues of subdivision lopments, over e to housing commuting increased closer to the To a large extent, these trends ar o The Metropolitan Cities of as much o The Twin Ci . into the fo and the conti robust, and is projected to remain so strong dynamic downtown economy, upper income jobs. o , partlc during rush hours, continue to worsen, to expect significant improvements in commuting .s puts increased development pressure on c1oser- , ity to the downtown. o bs, including Golden Valley, are well served by school o be among the best in the state. For ese trends are favorable for the City of Golden Valley. Continued housin evelopment, if managed intelligently, will provide broader opportunities for homeownership by current and future residents, continued healthy growth in the City's tax base, and a continued economic vitality in, and demand for, commercial and retail services. While the City is largely a "built" community, with virtually no raw land, there are several opportunities for redevelopment, including commercial and industrial areas . that will inevitably go through an adaptive reuse phase. In addition, the City has . . . approximately 163 Ln 22~_m lots, out of over 1,000 lots that, at least theoretically under current ordinances, could be subdivided into two or more lots. Furthermore, the City has a number of smaller homes, dating to the 195Q's and 1960's, that are candidates for teardown and redevelopment. Summary and Background of Issues , 3 in 2004 and ~ in of in-fill developments at the rates of these s, and the factors ar it down, and rong incentive ~ a housing The City has had 3 requests for subdivisions in 2006, 4 irJ 2003. Although we do not have firm data on the nu and teardown developments, there is at least a per/ has been increasing in the last couple of years. ~,<. . c described above, make it feasible to purchase aJ'(~){lsting hou build a new and larger one in its place; these~'f1's;Jitlonsalsogiv to property owners of large lots to subdivid~the'ii. lot anc;l sell a ne developer. ' State statutes require that the City conduct ap"uplrc hearing for all subdivision requests, even when the requestm~e~ all statutot"ya,nd code requirements. Each of these public hearings has brou'~ht:sQrTt'e rneasureofcitizen input and concern. In general,. the comments from the\c~mmul!jtYh:aye cent:ered on two aspects of subdivisions, as well as infill devel~Pl11elJ.t$iarref<~te-~rdown developments, both ultimately relating to ~h~(p.erception of l!1c~eill,sed houslf1g density and "massing": A) "Cha(acl:~r of the\~mmUnl~~""': the perception that the newer h~mes, being largerilll'lQ of mqire mode~~i .~tyle than the surrounding homes, adversely impatf:~h~(:~~r~a:er ofth~~-t6mmunity. An example is a 1,500 SF one';' t950's h9rne that is rep11aced by a modern 3,000 SF 2V2 story h, .0 r examp.le is a neighborhood of large lots and smaller homes, re one I J~~ubdlV'i-d~d into two parcels, and a new and larger home is It on the ne~'arcef;\]t:l. both instances, the increased density, smaller \'. " " ',) . ,and larger es arevseen as adversely changing the character of the . unity, both he sense of increased density and in the sense that the me is iscordant architectural element in the surrounding d B) "St ter drainage" - the concern that new. developments, by increasing i permeable surfaces and changing the existing grading, could exacerbate any current problems in the neighborhood with stormwater drainage and basement flooding. Much of the soil in the City is clay, and there are' numerous swampy areas in the City, so to some degree flooding issues are inevitable. But adding impermeable surfaces does have the potential for contributing 0 this problem. . Study Procedures The Planning Commission met on several occasions to discuss this assignment. There was relatively little public commentary at our meetings, even though our meetings and agenda items are posted. It is possible that the recent slowdown metro-wide in housing construction has slowed the rate of subdivision and housing construction in Golden Valley, and therefore. reduced intensity of this controversy, for now . 'But there is little question that ace and pressure of housing construction will reneW in the future. Finally, one of our guiding princi balance between the rights of pro see fit, and to benefit from market their prop~rty, versus. the rights of a practices and to shelt wn prop pts by other cities k, Bloomington, reviewing and The Planning staff assisted us by providing review to manage this issue, including Edina, Hop Minnetonka, and Atlanta (GA). The Public W understanding stormwater l11anagement iss Although the issues of subdivision, infill de are closely linked, we have separated them out nd teardown evelopment r purposes of discussion. . the inherent tension and their property as they lead an enhanced value for tain certain standards and Subdivisions lishes a number of parameters for in an R1 zone, including: (a) a minimum lot size of t frontage, eliminating "Ietterbox" lots. In re rdina es, we noted that some of them (e.g., St. Louis Park) p izes, and none of the inner-ring suburbs require more than a 10, lot size. Some communities also require neighborhood meetings, w at neighborhoods can veto a subdivision request, Under state statutes, is required to hold a public hearing on any subdivision request, at the ng Commission and then the City Council. However,. if the request meets all of the requirements of our ordinance, there is no legal grounds for denying the request. In our opiniqn, the existing subdivision ordinance establishes appropriate parameters and procedures, and strikes a reasonable balance between property... owners' rights and neighborhood rights. . . We do not recommend any changes to the subdivision ordinance. Infill and Teardown Housing 2. because they share new, home in an Rl lIy larger than the nd "massing" that is We have combined these two issues into one discussion, common attributes: the construction of a new, or substantiall district that is perceived by the neighborhood to be subst other homes in the immediate neighborhood, and of a s out of context for the neighborhood. A related issue that has been identified by commu a new home blocking access to the sun for generally, there .is often expressed a sense community through this new development. is the possibility of xt door. More "lost" in the A number of ideas are discussed in the implemented, or attempted, in other communiti 1. munity or neighborhood, .cal significance, where defined, to preserve . 5. ricts within a community or by the neighborhood itself, where tions taken by that neighborhood); ighborhood before development is oper/owner must conduct a hearing , gl eighborhood at least some measure of the characteristics of the development); volumetric measurements (various measurements by limit, the size and scale of a new/rebuilt setback (creating more of an open space in front bf the rve to blunt the massing effect of a new home) 3. . Each of these , while interesting and offering the potential of significantly reducing and slo he rate of development, also has two problems. First, each represents a consi erable logistical and management burden on the City, and on the community. Communities would be requir~d to self-identify and self-organize, and city staff would have a considerable added work load and regulatory complexity in managing these processes. Second, to the extent that neighborhoods and citizens are given some new measure of control over the development rights of a property owner, we felt that this was in conflict with the existing, and historic, rights of property owners to manage their own properties. . . . There are also a range of measures that the City could implement administratively I to slow-down in-fill and teardown developments, including: 1. moratoriums on subdivision, residential demolitions, and building permits (above a certain size); 2. . lengthier building review and permitting processes (esp~cially for demolitions of residential properties); s,.... 3. more expensive permitting fees; .'-'.-> -'. -C->;.:_:.,. _.', :,",_ :.:<~ ....~ee6MMEN~-nQN i '". '\: '<.>,~(((','::, n._~_"_ ;~n'apge.th: zoni~:(:ode ~it~x~f~r~JJ~e here)l. as it relates to building heights h'\~~~lstncts, aSj~,lIows: (a) drop the ability to have a 2V2 story house, and'l,~ve.. t. he h~z..i~./...;h.:t limit simply at 30 feet; (b) adopt the definition of height (below~~~.stat~(in the MN Rules, but establishing this definition as our own definitiohi~,tH~than referencing the MN Rules, so that if the Rules are ever changed,w.~/flave the option of whether or not modify our definition accordlngly: ",' "Height of building" means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, which is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or average of height of the highest gable of a pitched or hop roof" (MN Rules, part 6120.2500) . . . In our opinion, focusing on building heIght, in conjunction with the existing limits on site coverage, allows us to approximate more complicated formulas of Floor/Area ratio (FAR) and volumetric limits, effectively accomplishing the task of limiting the massing of a home without creating an administrative burden on staff. RECOMMENDATION 2 Change the zoning ordinance IIc;itEtl()n] as It relat7~~p;\~ccessory structures, so that (a) no one accessory structure can be IJ"~:~( than 800 sf, and any one property may have no more than at. ,6f~,OOO sf of accessory structures; (b) the roof of any accessory st{re n,:Q~>~e similar in style, design and materials to the roof of the rTJaln!; ructure; l~~'~pe height of any accessory structure is limited to no mQ.fe than 10 feet, rnt~~~red from the floor to the top plates; and (d) anya<:c~essory structure grea~~~>than 120 sf will require a building permit. .. . RECOMMENDATION 3 For any new construction, \whettl~ ,~ new h6U$e .or replacement through a tear-down, if any sidewall )~ 'J()nge.r, thal(l . 35 fa~tl.~hat sid~ wall must be articulated, with a shift of at le~st one fi;>.(.)t ev~ry 35 feet of sidewall. Storm-water Mana~~iryel1t , The City, in most ar~i;Js, is ch~ha~erized by\c.J'a,y soils,. swampy land, and high water tables. This createS Q,n-g9169.)S'sUes of$t6rmwater management. The City is responsible fc;u-' , all.storm \6l:a:tel' once it arrives at the street. However, because of improp~'9radinga,~-c:l. denseqlay soil, a number of properties experience a puddling effect:~fter heavy 'r~inti:llls, ~ere the water stands on the surface and does not drain-immediately to\~l1'E! street. In some instances, storm water can seep into basem~n'ts, again due \to\ improp'er grading. Some homes also have basement water p'r~~~ms due to 1r;high groundwater table. One of the lJf\ti~rly'ng,~toblems is that relatively few R1 properties in the City have rear yard storm\~vlers or catch basins. When the City was initially developed, there was little ttr~lJght given to that, which now contributes to the problem of stormwater retention. The concern about new housing developments exacerbating existing stormwater management problems, due to the increase in impermeable surfaces, is understandable. However, the City has Implemented a method to address this concern. . The City requires a comprehensive Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan ("Grading Plan") for all housing construction and reconstruction. The purpose of the Grading Plan, which is prepared by the applicant's contractor and is reviewed by the City's Public Works staff, is to ensure that stormwater is drained successfully away from the proposed house, and away from neighboring properties, out into the street, where stormwater drains can capture it. This review has proven to be successful, in the opinion of instances, a Grading Plan for a new construction or r improve existing drainage problems, since, over time blocked with debris and non-maintenance, and in properties were not graded properly. Since a new for a Grading Plan, existing problems may a problems caused by the construction are avoi jc Works. In some ruction can actually age systems become tances, the original s the requirement ted, while new The requirement of a Grading Plan approva security deposit for temporary erosion co increasing the incentive for a homeowner to co further The Public Works staff has al developments utilize such tech . manholes to further mitigate potenti . inance, e have stipulated that the a front yard is 50%. However, at this surface area that can be impermeable meowner could pave his/her entire drainage problem. But in practice, and gardens, very few homeowners do Rei dema recom still leave rds that are 50% impermeable. But given the gara s, it is possible to reach that limit. We therefore the 500/0 limit, on the assumption that a 40% maximum or a wide driveway and parking apron. Change the percentage of the front yard that can be covered with an impermeable surface from 50% to 40%. Other than this recommendation, we do not see the need to make further changes in the zoning code or other ordinances as it relates to stormwater management. The current system of requiring detailed Grading Plans, as administered by the City Engineer, seems to work well. . . . Summary of Recommendations