The URL can be used to link to this page

02-09-15 Joint PC-CC Agenda AGENDA Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, February 9, 2015 7:45 pm or immediately following the Planning Commission Meeting 1. Subdivision Study's Recommendations for Potential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance Amendments 2. Adjournment � This docum�nC is availabl� i�7 alternate fiorn�ats upor� a 72-hour request. Ple�s�call �; 7b3-593-84Q6{TTY: 763-593-3968}ta n�ake a reqt�est. Ex�rnples of alternate forrnaks y� ' � � �� rnay include large �arint,eiectronic, Br�ille,�audiocassefite, etc. �;��# �_ �� : �� „ag; � ;3'. � :.;:F� �§�a'S 'k�� ,.,� .� . '�., r.'.: ". �,��i� :.: � �:... �` j�� ` ...,, A €;� ��... � Planning Department ?63-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley City Council/Planning Commission Meeting February 9, 2015 Agenda Item Subdivision Study's Recommendations for Potential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance Amendments Prepared By Jeff Miller, HKGi, Project Manager Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary HKGi planning consultants and Staff will be present to discuss with City Council and Planning Commission members the recommendations for potential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance amendments we have identified to address the community's concerns with R-1 residential subdivisions. The following recommendations for Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance amendments will be presented and discussed: • Tree Preservation Ordinance—changes to the maximum tree removal %, structure of standards, and definitions of development phases; • Subdivision Ordinance (Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations)—add requirement for submittal of an existing tree survey with subdivision application; • Subdivision Ordinance (Minimum Subdivision Design Standards)—create a new minimum lot area requirement for new subdivisions in large lot neighborhoods; • R-1 Zoning District Ordinance—change to minimum lot width standard and minimum rear yard setback; • Subdivision Ordinance (Definitions) - change to minimum lot width definition; • Zoning Ordinance (Definitions) - change to minimum lot width definition, and addition of definitions for front, rear, and side lot lines; • Planned Unit Development Ordinance—add minimum lot size requirement. Attached are each of the detailed recommendations (2-5 pages for each recommendation topic) for Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance amendments, including background information. Two maps are attached as supporting information for the Minimum Lot Area Requirement recommendation. Also attached is a Summary of Concerns and Findings table that summarizes the Subdivision Study's recommendations for each of the concerns addressed during the study, including concerns that are not recommended for further study or recommended for further study outside of the Subdivision Study. Based on the input from the joint CC/PC meeting, we will make any necessary revisions to the recommended ordinance amendments. The required public hearings for these proposed ordinance amendments are planned to occur on February 23 at the Planning Commission meeting and March 17 at the City Council meeting. Attachments Summary of Concerns and Findings Table (7 pages) Recommendations (24 pages) Defining Neighborhood Impact Areas Map (1 page) Case Study Analysis Map (1 page) 2 Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns and Findings • . . . • � - • • • • • • • • - � • . • Tree Preservation Some neighborhood The Tree Preservation Ordinance is part of City Code but not Zoning or Subdivision See proposed ordinance residents feel that the Ordinances.A tree preservation plan,including tree inventory,is required to be amendments regarding the current tree preservation submitted or incorporated with a grading,drainage and erosion control plan,which maximum tree removal%and ordinance doesn't result in is required for a Subdivision applicaYion but not a Minor Subdivision/Consolidation addtion of existing tree survey the desired level of tree application.Per the Tree Preservation Ordinance,an individual lot tree preservation requirement. preservation. plan is required for building permit appiicants,however,tree preservation plans for single-family homes are not required to be prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect.Tree preservation plans are reviewed by Engineering and City Forester.Note that while residents may not believe it,developers do want to keep trees.Study considered lowering the maximum %of trees that can be removed before tree repiacement is required and/or amending the dimensional definitions of Significant Tree,Specimen Tree,and Significant Woodland to include smaller trees. It was aiso explored whether a different tree standard could be applied near Theodore Wirth Park and whether the Tree Preservation Ordinance should be moved into the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance. Minimum Lot Area New lots being created, Lot area(density)is currently regulated through the Zoning Code.Minimum lot size See proposed ordinance while meeting the zoning in the R-1 District is 10,000 square feet.Overall in the City,the average lot size for amendment regarding code,are smaller in size than properties in the R-1 Zoning District is about 15,000 square feet.The average lot size minimum lot area for new existing lots. in Tralee is about 27,000,while North Tyrol has an average lot size of 20,000 and subdivisions in large lot South Tyrol an average lot size of 18,000.The map of lot sizes shows that there are neighborhoods. additionai neighborfioods that also have larger lots.Changes to the Zoning Code to address minimum lot sizes need to be broader than just the neighborhoods that have recently experienced subdivisions.Study considered creating a higher minimum lot size for part or al1 of the City.Explored whether changes should occur in either the Zoning or Subdivison Code. 2/5/2015 1 Golden Valley Single Family Residentiai Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns and Findings • • . • • � - • • • • � • • • - � • . � Irregular shaped Existing definitions and Concern was explored as part of Planning Commission study in 2014 but no zoning See proposed ordinance lots standards for lot width may amendments were adopted by the City Council.Planning Commission amendments regarding lot be insufficient for controlling recommendations from that study regarding requiring a minimum dimension to be width definition and standard, the creation of irregular maintained for a certain portion of the lot were evaluated.lack of definitions for and addition of definitions for shaped lots. front,rear,and side lot lines make the application of setback requirements front,rear,and side lot lines. challenging.in particular,the determination of whether a line is a rear or side can make a difference as to how much separation required between homes. Recommend adding a definition for each. House to Lot Sizes of rear yards and Concern was explored as part of study preceding 2008 code changes.2008 R-1 See proposed ordinance Relationship piacement of houses on new ordinance changes inciuded increased side setback requirements based on the amendment regarding rear yard subdivided lots can be height of the home,a new requirement for the articulation of a wall longer than 32 setback. substantially different from feet for any new house,reduction in maximum building height from 30 to 28 feet for those of existing adjacent a pitched roof and 25 feet for a flat roof,and changes to the buiiding height lots. definition and standards. New homes,while meeting Rear yard setback minimum is calculated as 20%of lot depth.Since there is not a the zoning code maximum, fixed standard for lot depth,the resulting rear yard setback minimums vary by lot may have a larger building and can result in small rear yard setbacks.Evaivate the establishment of a fixed coverage than existing minimum for rear yard setback. adjacent lots. A review of existing building coverage in the City found that it is generaliy tied to lot size.The City's current maximum is 30%for lots 10,000 square feet or greater. Excluding the newest lots where the data is not available,the average building coverage in Tralee is around 11%with both North and South Tyrol around 15%. Precedents from other communities found some communities that did not regulate it.Of those that did,the maximum allowed ranged from 20 to 35�0. Further study of building coverage not recommended. Evaivated whether floor area ratio{FAR)could be an approach to address the house to lot relationship.Determined that the variety of lot sizes and shapes would make the development of a FAR very challenging. Not recommended for further study. z/s/zoi5 2 Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns and Findings • • . . • � - � • • • • • • ' - • • . • Use of PUD for Small residential PUDs may Review other cities standards and make recommendation about how large of a See proposed ordinance large lot avoid some zoning project is needed to use the PUD tool for residential subdivisions.Evaluate the amendment regarding addition subdivision restrictions that would establishment of a minimum size for residential PUDs.Consider exceptions under of minimum lot size otherwise regulate the certain circumstances. requirement. development of the lot. Stormwater New subdivisions create An increase in the overall amount of impervious surface is a reafity with additional Recommend further discussion Management additional building pads development.Stormwater management is regulated by Section 4.31 of the City and study involving Planning, whose elevations may not be Code.A stormwater permit is required for any activity defined as a land disturbance Engineering,and Building regulated by 2008 in that section,this includes the construction of homes.Currently,a preliminary Inspections. amendments to R-1 zoning grading plan is prepared as part of the subdivision application materials and is district,especially since considered as part of the public review process.final plans are prepared at the time subdivisions typically involve of application for the Stormwater Permit and the review is handled administratively. major site grading. Stormwater permit applications are reviewed by Enginering and the appropriate watershed management organization. Additional impervious surface and modifications to Concern also addressed by impervious surface limitations.This was explored as part existing drainage patterns of study preceding 2008 code changes.At that time a new 50°/a maximum impervious increases neighborhood risk surfiace coverage was added to the zoning code in the R-1 Zoning District.The Zoning of flooding. Code was also revised to reduce the amount of the front yard that could be covered with concrete,bituminous pavement,or pavers from SO%down to 40%a. The elevation of building pads was also addressed with 2008 amendments to R-1 zoning district.This included a revision to the building height definition that requires the average grade of replacement homes to be within one foot of the previous structure.Given that the 2008 amendment primarily deals with tear downs and replacements of individual single family homes,there still may be an issue with new subdivisions-particularly when entire sites are regraded to make new building pads. However,maintaining a similar grade to the previous structure may be challenging when multiple new building pads need to be established and there is additional stormwater to manage. Any additional review of stormwater regulations should involve Engineering and Building Inspections as well. May be beneficial to have additional discussion about initial site grading as part of new subdivisions-particularly as it relates to building pad elevation. 2/SJ2015 3 Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns and Findings • • • • • � - • � • • � • • ' ' � • . � Cookie-cutter Houses in new subdivisions Difficult to address in Zoning or Subdivision given the variety of housing styles in Not recommended for further appearance/ can be too similar in Golden Valley Neighborhoods. Most appropriate approach may be the use of study.If additional regulations Style too character to each other. residential design guidelines or a neighborhood conservation district to address.This desired by residents,next step different/ wouid involve extensive involvement of residents and likely take many months to after Subdivision Study would Maintaining complete. be exploration of residential housing variety design guidelines or a neighborhood conservation distritt. Quality of Types of building materials The Zoning Code does not currently address the type of exterior building material Not recommended for further construction selected do not fit with used in the City.The City does prohibit in Chapter 4 of the City Code the use of study.If additional regulations surrounding neighborhood. materials that wil!rapidly disintegrate or look unsightly,such as unfinished sheet desired by residents,next step metal or unfinished exposed concreate.There are examples of cities requiring after Subdivision Study would certain types of exterior building materials,such as masonry, brick,stone,stucco, be exploration of residential wood,cement-based siding,and/or glass. design guidelines or a neighborhood conservation Establishment of standards for exterior building materials,which could potentially be district. addressed in Zoning Code or part of residential design guidelines or a neighborhood conservation district. Building Height Contemporary house styles Concern explored as part of study preced+ng 2008 code changes.Height maximum Not recommended for further can be significantly taller and lowered from 30 feet to 28 feet for pitched roof and 25 feet for a flat roof. study. perceived as incompatible Definitions for grade and height were changed. with the scale of existing house styles. 2/5/2015 4 Golden Valley Single Family Residential5ubdivision Study Summary of Concerns and Findings • • . • • � - • � • • • • • ' - • • . • House Spacing Houses in new subdivisions Concern was explored as part of study preceding 2008 code changes.Spacing Not recommended for further placed too close to existing, between houses was primarily addressed by increasing the side yard setbacks and study. adjacent homes. linking the side yard setbacks to the height of the structure.The Project Team did explore whether a minimum building separation requirement could be a potential strategy.However,precedent research did not yield examples of building separation requirements being used for standard single-family residential properties. Precedents found where a minimum buiiding separation was required generally occurred in three situations:1)between principal and accessory structures on a lot; 2)between buildings on properties zoned for multi-family;and 3)in PUDs. Development of a minimum building separation requirement is therefore not recommended.If further study desired,case studies on sample lots should performed as placement of homes on adjacent lots will significantly impact the application of such as requirement. Silt Runoff Inappropriate construction Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure Recommend adoption and practices allowing silt runoff developersJapplicants understand existing rules.Additional code changes not implementation of Construction to occur. proposed at this time. Management Agreement. Inconvenience of Construction is causing Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure Recommend adoption and construction inconveniences for developers/applicants understand existing rules.Additional code changes not impiementation of Construction surrounding neighborhoods. proposed at this time. Management Agreement. Emergency and Access is diminished for Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure Recommend adoption and maintenance Emergency and maintenance developers/applicants understand existing rules.Additional code changes not implementatian of Construction vehicle access vehicles. proposed at this time. Management Agreement. Noise Construction is generating Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure Recommend adoption and noise. developers/applicants understand existing rules.Additional code changes not implementation of Construction proposed at this time. Management Agreement. 2J5J2015 5 Golden Valley Single Family Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns and Findings . • • • • � - • � • • • • • • - • • . • Pubiic Safety Locations of new driveways Driveway locations are evaluated by Engineering based on adopted engineering Not recommended for further decrease safety in standards. If thresholds reached then mitigation measures are required. Evaluation study. neighborhood. based on industry standards.Additional changes would need to involve Engineering. Increased traffic Additional homes increase Traffic impacts from potential development reviewed by Engineering as part of every Not recommended for further traffic on local neighborhood application. Mitigation required when standard traffit thresholds reached. study. streets. Evaluation based on industry standards.in general,impact of a few additional single famiiy homes unlikely to trigger additional measures.Changes would likely be outside of zoning and subdivision ordinances and would need to involve Engineering. Neighborhood New lots and houses differ Not defined in any City plans, policies or regulations.City's diversity of housing styles Further explore neighborhood Character from existing lots and houses could make defiining neighborhood character in terms of zoning standards character as part of upcoming Preservation in scale and style which challenging.Community input indicated that each neighborhood has its own Comprehensive Planning changes the neighborhood's character.Many features beyond house style-such as topography,access to parks Process.If additional existing character. and trails,trees,and open space.Recommend that first step would be to incorporate regulations desired by neighborhood character preservation definitions and goals into the Comprehensive residents, next step would be Plan.A second step could be the creation of residential design guidelines or a exploration of residential design neighborhood conservation district.This would involve extensive involvement of guidelines or a neighborhood residents and likely take many months to complete. conservation district. 2/5/2015 6 Golden Valley Single Fami�y Residential Subdivision Study Summary of Concerns and Findings • . . . • � - • • • • • • • ' - � • . • Neighborhood Neighborhood covenants The establishment of neighborhood covenants has been suggested as an option.The Not recommended for further Covenants possible approach to enable Subdivision Code has a definition of restrictive covenants that states it is a contract study. residents to control new between private parties.While a possible strategy,covenants would have to be development. developed and agreed to by a group of property owners.Each property owner would then be responsible for recording the covenant against their property.Those who did not want to participate would not have to establish a covenant against their property.Covenants have a limitation ofi 30 years so protection of a neighborhood in perpetuity is not guaranteed.Once established,the covenants would need to be enforced through the legal system.This is generally done by surrounding property owners.The City has on a few,limited occasions been a third party to a covenant. If this were to occur then the City wou�d need to participate in the development of the covenant and its enforcement.Covenants are not recommended as a strategy the City should further explore. Wildlife Impacted Amount and variety of Wildlife habitat and movement is being impacted by subdivisions.These impacts are Not recommended for further wildlife diminishing. similar to what occurred when any of the City's neighborhoods were developed.No study. new regulations are proposed to address this issue specifically.Addressing open space and tree preservation shoufd help to add�ess this concern. Boundary Change Current regulations apply Could consider modifications to subdivision regulations but recommend it be Recommend Planning Staff Regulations same public hearing and addressed separately after the subdivision study.Explore creating the ability for review how boundary changes process standards to all!ot boundary changes to occur administratively. should be handled and make a modifications from boundary recommendation to the PC and changes to major CC. subdivisions. Sustainability No zoning or subdivision Likely broader than just this study and should involve multiple commissions.May be Further exploration of related problems identified. most appropriate to reconsider as part of upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. sustainabiltiy should occur as Education will be needed about what City can regulate and what it can not. part of upcoming Comprehensive Planning process. z/s/�ols � Golden Valley Subdivision Study i' ii Q Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments Q� Tree Preservation Subdivision Concern Too many trees removed as part of new subdivisions Ordinance(s) Impacted Buildings &Signs Section 4.32 (Tree Preservation);Subdivision Section 12.50 (Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations) Recommendation Change the maximum of 25%of trees that can be removed without replacement during subdivision (multi-lot development)to requiring replacement for all trees that are removed as part of initial site development, but retain the maximum tree removal thresholds for individual/single-lot development.Simplify the allowable tree removal standards. Revise definitions. Also add a requirement to submit an existing tree survey as part of the Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations application process. Specific Ordinance Amendments 1) Buildings &Signs Section 4.32:Tree Preservation,Subdivision 2. Definitions L��^^�^��Initial Site Development:The process�-��'^^ �„*^�*"^��«;��*^ enerall includes initial site grading; installation of utilities; construction of public streets;construction and grading of drainageways;filling of any areas;grading of the pad area; utility hookups; construction of buildings, parking lots, driveways,storage areas, recreation areas, private streets; and any other activity within the construction area. N.�e-"�,",^��^Individual Lot Development:T"^ ^ .,"^�^:� „+^F��^�^*:-^�:�^ ' • ' '. . The rocess�enerally includes grading of sNecific pads; utility hookups;construction of buildings, parking lots, driveways,storage areas, recreation areas, private streets;and any other activity within the construction area. 2) Buildings &Signs Section 4.32:Tree Preservation,Subdivision 4. Allowable Tree Removal A.1 Single-lot development. a. Single-family or two-family residential,twenty percent(20%) b. Commercial or multi-unit residential,thirty percent(30%) A.2 Subdivision A�4multi-lot development. el. f�.,..1., ..M��.,.J�,....I.,....�....+.. 1 Sinalrif�m�l.,,,.+..,,,F�„,;i.,. .-:,�„ +•�i f .-+ + innoi 1 a � 7 � 7 7��'-"—1T�-��T • � . O h T..,.. ..L.,,�...d....�,1.....,�.,..+ �a.Initial site development,t�••�^+., F:.,,, .,e..,.�.,+��co��ll specimen tree,si�nificant tree, and si�nificant woodland removal shall be miti�ated 1 Golden Vatley Subdivision Study ii�a Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments !!! Tree Preservation �� b.lndividual lot development. a}1�_Single-family or two-family residential,twenty percent (20%) #��_Commercial or multi-unit residential,thirty percent(30%) 3) Subdivision Section 12.50: Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations,Subdivision 2.Components of Application Application for a minor subdivision or consolidation shall be made on forms furnished by the City. A filing fee set by Council resolution shall accompany the application.The applicant shall also furnish fifteen (15)copies of a sketch showing the following: A. North arrow and scale(no smaller than 1"= 100'). B. Overall dimensions of the property and of each internal property division. C. Square footage of the overall property and of each internal property division. D. Location of all public utilities,streets,driveways, and easements, adjacent to or on the property. E_Location and dimensions of any existing buildings, and distances to nearest existing or proposed lot lines on all sides. �F.Size,species, and location of all existin�si�nificant trees specimen trees and s�nificant woodlands located within the proiect limits These si�nificant trees specimen trees,and si�nificant woodlands should be identified in both�raphic and tabular form. �:G.Any other information specific to the particular site and required for the complete evaluation of the application. Such information shall be supplied at the expense of the applicant. Background Information In order to increase tree preservation as part of the residential subdivision process,the Subdivision Study's recommendation is to improve the process and percentage requirement for tree preservation at the time of initial site development as part of the subdivision approval. To improve the process, it is recommended that the City add a requirement for submittal of an existing tree survey as part of a Minor Subdivision/Consolidation application. Similar to the requirement to provide the location and dimensions of existing buildings,this additional requirement would enable PC/CC/public review of the existing significant trees on a proposed subdivision site and an opportunity for CC/PC/public feedback on tree preservation priorities.The details of a tree preservation plan would still be addressed through an administrative review,since a tree preservation plan is submitted as part of a stormwater management plan at the time of a building permit application.To improve the percentage requirement for tree preservation, it is recommended that the maximum percentage of allowable tree removal at the time of initial site development be reduced from 25%to a requirement that all tree removal caused by initial site development require tree replacement.The 20% percent maximum for allowable tree removal at the time of individual lot development would stay in place.This change would reduce the current 40%allowable tree removal to 20%.To simplify the tree preservation standards, it is also recommended that the definitions for Single-Phase Development and Two-Phase Development be replaced with definitions for Initial Site Development and Individual Lot Development. Based on a 2 Golden Valley Subdivision Study iii� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments tQ� Tree Preservation review of other cities'definitions of significant trees and other protected trees,the Subdivision Study finds that Golden Valley's definitions are generally equal to or stronger than other cities and no changes Iare recommended in this regard. The following table shows other cities'Tree Preservation Ordinances to help evaluate the recommendations for improving Golden Valley's ordinance: Precedent Tree Preservation Ordinance Standards City Tree Removal Maximum Definition of Significant Trees Golden Valley For single-family or two-family Significant Tree=minimum 6"diameter for residential: hardwood deciduous trees, minimum 12"diameter for softwood deciduous Single-lot development: maximum of trees, minimum height of 12 feet for 20% coniferous/evergreen trees. Multi-lot development: Specimen Tree=30"or greater diameter • Single-phase development— for hardwood deciduous tree,50 feet maximum of 40% or greater in height for coniferous tree. • Multi-phase development- Significant Woodland =contiguous crown maximum of 25%(initial site cover occupying 500 or greater square development) plus maximum feet, comprised primarily of deciduous of 20% per individual lot trees between 4"and 12" in diameter development or coniferous trees between 4 ft. and 12 ft. in height. Minnetonka Maximum of 35%of site's high priority Significant Tree=8"orgreater DBH for trees or maximum of 25%of a deciduous trees, 15 feet or greater in woodland preservation area can be height for coniferous trees. removed. High Priority Tree= 15"or greater DBH for deciduous trees, 20 feet or greater in height for coniferous trees. Woodland Preservation Area =a remnant woodland ecosystem that is a minimum of 2 acres in size and generally mapped in the MLCCS. Bloomington Maximum of 50%of the total inches in Significant Tree= minimum 12"diameter diameter(DBH)of significant trees. for hardwood deciduous trees, minimum 8" diameter for coniferous/evergreen trees. Burnsville Maximum of 40% removal of Coniferous trees that are 6 ft. or taller, woodland-applies only to deciduous deciduous trees that are 4" in diameter or trees 4"or greater in diameter at 4% greater require a tree removal permit. feet above the ground and coniferous trees 6'feet or taller. Plymouth Developments in residential districts Significant tree may not be defined. may remove or disturb up to 50%of the total inches of significant trees. Any removal or disturbance beyond 3 Golden Valley Subdivision Study iii� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �Q� Tree Preservation this threshold shall require reforestation or restitution. Woodbury Up to 30%of the diameter inches of Significant Tree= minimum 6"diameter for significant trees on any parcel of land hardwood deciduous trees, minimum being developed may be removed 8"diameter for coniferous/evergreen without replacement requirements. trees, minimum 12"diameter for common trees. Specimen Tree=30"or greater diameter for hardwood deciduous tree. Wayzata All property within the City of Applies to any tree more than 32 inches in Wayzata is located within a tree diameter at breast height (DBH). preservation zone. Within the tree preservation zone, it is unlawful for any person(s)to remove any live, healthy tree or trees totaling more than 32 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) per acre in any 12 month period without having first obtained a valid Tree Protection/Removal Permit from the City of Wayzata.The removal rate of parcels which are less than one (1)acre or more than one(1)acre is mathematically proportionate, subject, however,to the maximum density of 32 inches diameter(DBH) for each acre. St. Louis Park No land shall be altered which will Any tree,with the exception of Salix result in the removal or destruction of (Willow), Boxelder,Siberian Elm and Black any significant tree unless the Locust, is considered to be significant under destruction is authorized by a permit the landscaping section of the zoning issued by the city.Approval of a ordinance if it is at least 5 caliper inches for permit for the removal of any deciduous trees and 6 caliper inches for significant tree or for land alteration conifers. Aspen, Cottonwood or Silver which results in tree destruction shall Maple are considered significant if they are be subject to and conditioned upon at least 12 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet the owner or developer replacing the from the ground. loss or reasonably anticipated loss of all live significant trees. Shorewood Developments shall be designed to Any healthy long-lived hardwood preserve large trees where such deciduous tree measuring 8" DBH or preservation would not affect the greater; any healthy softwood deciduous public health, safety or welfare.The tree measuring 12" DBH or greater;or any City may prohibit removal of all or healthy coniferous tree measuring 8'or part of a stand of trees. more in height. Box-elder,cottonwood,and 4 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Qa Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �e Tree Preservation willow trees shall not be considered to be significant trees. Delano Ordinance does not have numerical A healthy tree measuring a minimum of six standards for preserving trees.A tree (6) inches in diameter for deciduous trees, preservation plan must be submitted or a minimum of twelve (12)feet in height to and approved by the City and for coniferous trees. A healthy hardwood implemented in accordance with all tree measuring equal to or greater than subdivisions of five(5)or more lots. thirty(30) inches in diameter and/or a The subdivision tree preservation plan coniferous tree measuring fifty(50)feet or shall follow the preliminary plat/final greater in height. A grouping or cluster of plat review process. Individual lot tree coniferous and/or deciduous trees with preservation plans shall be processed contiguous crown cover, occupying five with the building permit.Tree hundred (500)or more square feet of replacement is required for significant property,which are comprised of trees which were indicated on the deciduous trees between four(4) inches tree preservation plan to be saved but and twelve (12) inches or larger in diameter ultimately were destroyed or or coniferous trees between four(4)feet damaged. and twelve (12)feet or higher in height. Northfield All trees with a DBH of 12 inches or Protected tree= 12"or more in diameter. more shall be retained as a protected tree,to the maximum extent feasible. White Bear No person shal)alter any lot Any healthy, living,deciduous tree larger Lake containing significant and or specimen than eight (8) inches in caliper(excepting trees without first obtaining a site Box Elder and Chinese Elm)and any health, alteration permit. living evergreen tree at least six(6)inches in diameter. Any tree of notable historic association or any tree of extra ordinary value because of its age,size or type. 5 Golden Valley Subdivision Study �i�Q Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �*! Minimum Lot Area �e Subdivision Concern Too small/Too dense/Loss of open space Ordinance(s) Impacted Subdivision Section 12.20,Subdivision 5. Lots Recommendation Create a new minimum lot area requirement for new subdivisions Specific Ordinance Amendments Delete the existing subsection A of Section 12.20, Subdivision 5. Lots: A. Minimum Requirements. All lots shall meet the minimum area and dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located.The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street. Replace it with the following: A. Minimum Requirements. 1. All lots shall meet the minimum area and dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, except that lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District created through subdivision after 2014 must be at least 15,000 square feet if the average of the single-family lots within 250 feet of the subject parcel have an average lot area greater than 18,000 square feet. 2. The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street. Background Information The Subdivision Study Team has explored a number of approaches to address the desire for new lots to be larger and more similar in size to existing surrounding lots. One characteristic influencing the recommended approach is the number and distribution of larger lots throughout the City. As larger lots are not confined to specific geographic neighborhoods, it is recommended that a new minimum lot area, if required, be applied throughout the City.This approach would also apply to situations where two or more lots are combined and then subdivided.The Subdivision Study Team is recommending a new minimum lot area, if required, be located in the Subdivision Ordinance rather than the Zoning Ordinance in an effort to reduce the creation of non-conforming lots. City Staff has continued to evaluate the number of lots that have the potential to be subdivided in the City. Recent analysis has included an examination of floodplain designation and properties that have previously been platted with underlying lots (and therefore are eligible to be built on without needing another subdivision approval). This additional analysis has reduced 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study �� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �� Minimum Lot Area the estimate of subdividable lots to 139.The table below provides a breakdown as to the size of the lots. Lot Area of the Estimated 139 Parcels Possible to Be Subdivided . .. .- 20,000 to 25,000 34 24% 25,000 to 30,000 34 24% 30,000 to 35,000 20 14% 35,000 to 40,000 15 11% 40,000 to 50,000 21 15% 50,000 to 60,000 6 4% 60,000 to 80,000 5 4% More than 80,000 4 3% The first step in determining a new minimum lot area requirement was defining what area around a subject parcel would constitute a lot's surrounding context or neighborhood. A review of the precedents (available at the end of this memo)found the number ranged from 200 to 500 feet.The Subdivision Study Team is recommending in Golden Valley that the surrounding context or neighborhood be defined as 250 feet.This recommendation is based on the current minimum lot size (10,000 square feet) and width (80 feet)which result in a typical lot being 125 feet deep.The 250 foot requirement therefore generally includes the two lots adjacent to the subject parcel on all sides.To show the extent of the different distance requirements, the attached map shows two of the five case studies completed looking at how many lots would be included if the surrounding context or neighborhood boundary was 250 feet, 350 feet, or 500 feet.The analysis found that the size of the boundary did not have a consistent impact on the average lot area for the surrounding context or neighborhood. In some cases, the inclusion of additional properties from a larger boundary lowered the average lot area while in other cases it raised it. With the 250 foot boundary established, the Subdivision Study Team then focused on determining what an appropriate minimum lot area requirement would be.The Subdivision Study Team heard from many people during the community input process that new lots should be required to be a minimum of the average of the surrounding lots. To evaluate the impact of such a regulation the Subdivision Study Team examined 10 subdividable parcels located throughout the City.The analysis is summarized in the table below and the case studies are shown in the attached map. 2 Golden Valley Subdivision Study �i7 Q Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments r�, Minimum Lot Area �a Analysis of Neighborhood Characteristics of Potential Subdividable Lots . - . � - .- . . .. . � . .- .- � � �� . . . . . CS 1 24,747 23 9,432 67,460 25,963 2 1 1 CS 2 21,257 35 8,893 15,109 11,370 2 1 1 CS 3 52,225 24 12,410 58,198 21,824 5 3 2 CS 4 49,998 32 11,823 39,200 19,116 4 3 2 CS 5 43,444 32 12,462 43,427 19,662 4 2 2 CS 6 21,447 39 7,860 25,929 11,707 2 1 1 CS 7 30,031 24 12,502 20,377 15,090 3 2 1 CS 8 46,300 22 13,208 52,178 28,054 4 3 2 CS 9 30,473 22 10,225 35,296 19,880 3 2 1 CS 10 36,228 20 4,940 75,416 23,492 3 2 1 In reviewing the analysis, the Subdivision Study Team determined that the use of the surrounding lots' average as the minimum lot size for any new subdivisions would render most subdivisions impossible.This would be the case whether the lot was in larger lot neighborhoods or in neighborhoods with more modest size lots. In an effort to balance the desire for larger lots from some neighborhood residents with the ability of property owners to subdivide their lots,the Subdivision Study Team recommends the City consider an alternative approach. Rather than using a strict average lot size, this approach would raise the minimum lot area requirement to 15,000 square feet when a lot is in a neighborhood where average lot sizes are greater than 18,000 square feet. 15,000 square feet is recommended for a number of reasons. It is the average lot size across the City and represents a 50% increase in the minimum lot area requirement.The Subdivision Study Team also recognizes that only 50%of the estimated subdividable lots are greater than 30,000 square feet in size. Raising the minimum lot area greater than 15,000 further reduces the potential number of lots that can be subdivided even in half. In addition to determining the new minimum lot area requirement, an average lot size of the surrounding neighborhood that would trigger the new requirement needs to be identified.The Subdivision Study Team explored a range of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet. Given that 15,000 is 3 Golden Valley Subdivision Study oo Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �a Minimum Lot Area the city-wide average lot size, it did not seem like the appropriate trigger for requiring larger lots. However, 20,000 square feet seemed too large given the case studies conducted. Many average lot sizes were just under at 19,000 square feet.The Subdivision Study Team ultimate identified 18,000 square feet as that is the lowest of the neighborhood average lots sizes for Tyrol and Tralee, which are the two neighborhoods most concerned about this issue. In considering a revision to the minimum lot area requirement it is important to recognize that the lot area is only one of the factors that will be used in determining whether a lot can be subdivided. New lots also need to meet minimum lot width requirements, provide access to a public street, and have sufficient buildable area on the lot. Precedents . -. . . -. - . . - . � . Minneapolis Lot area shall not be less than the Single-family and two-family Subdivision Ordinance, greater of(1)the minimum zoning lots,including the Residential development requirements set forth by the zoning subject zoning lot, located in design (Section 598.240) ordinance or(2)the average of the whole or part within 350 feet single-family and two-family zoning or the average of the single- lots, including the subject zoning lot, family and two-family zoning located in whole or part within three lots,including the subject hundred fifty(350)feet or the average zoning lot, located in whole or of the single-family and two-family in part within the same zoning zoning lots, including the subject district within 350 feet, zoning lot, located in whole or in part whichever is greater. within the same zoning district within three hundred fifty(350)feet, whichever is greater,where such average lot area exceeds the minimum zoning requirement by fifty(50) percent or more. Edina Minimum Lot Area—9,000 square [Note:this definition is located Zoning Ordinance, R-1 feet; provided, however,if the lot is in in Subdivision Ordinance] District a neighborhood,as defined in chapter Neighborhood means all lots in 32,which has lots with a median lot the Single Dwelling Unit Similar regulations for area greater than 9,000 square feet, District,as established by Minimum Lot Width and then the minimum lot area shall be chapter 36,which are wholly or Minimum Lot Depth. not less than the median lot area of partially within 500 feet of the the lots in such neighborhood. perimeter of the proposed plat Section 32.73 of Subdivision or subdivision,except: (1)Lots Ordinance identifies used for publicly owned parks, requirements for submittal playgrounds,athletic facilities of a complete list of all lots and golf courses;(2) Lots used which are within the for conditional uses,as neighborhood of the established by chapter 36;or property proposed to be (3)Lots separated from the platted or subdivided, proposed plat or subdivision by including lot areas, lot 4 Golden Valley Subdivision Study �1� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments Q�e Minimum Lot Area . -. . . -� - . . � . � . the right-of-way of either T.H. widths, lot depths, and the 100 or T.H.62. If the means and medians of each neighborhood includes only a dimensional measure. part of a lot,then the whole of that lot shall be included in the neighborhood.As to streets on the perimeter of the proposed plat or subdivision,the 500 feet shall be measured from the common line of the street and the proposed plat or subdivision. Bloomington Lot width for single and two-family Existing lots wholly or partially Zoning Ordinance, residential lots approved by the City within 500 feet of the Exceptions and Additions to after August 31,2006 must meet or perimeter of the proposed Setback and Lot Width exceed 80 percent of the median lot subdivision. Requirements(Section width of existing lots wholly or 19.42) partially within 500 feet of the perimeter of the proposed Although this regulation is subdivision. for lot width,the approach is relevant to Golden Valley's lot area issue. Unlike the other comparable regulations that focus on meeting the average,this regulation is to meet or exceed 80%of the median. Duluth Minimum Lot Area per Family(One- Developed 1-family lots on the Zoning Ordinance, R-1 Family)-The smaller of 4,000 square block face. District feet or average of developed 1-family lots on the block face Similar regulations for Minimum Lot Frontage and Minimum Depth of Front Yard(Structure Setback). Rochester Lot Area and Frontage-The zoning All parcels lying in whole or in Zoning Ordinance, Design administrator may permit as a Type I part within 200 feet of the Modifications(Chapter 60) Design Modification:(1)The boundary of the subject site. development of a single family Only parcels within the same Although this regulation detached dwellings on lots smaller district. permits new lots with lot than those required by the ordinance areas smaller than required in an R-1, R-1x,or R-2 Zoning District if by the zoning district,the consistent in lot area and frontage approach is relevant to with adjacent developed parcels. Golden Valley's lot area issue. Wayzata The lot size that results from a Surrounding neighborhood not Subdivision Ordinance, subdivision or lot combination shall defined. Procedures for Filing and not be dissimilar from adjacent lots or Review, Preliminary Plat, lots found in the surrounding Planning Commission Criteria 5 Golden Valley Subdivision Study i�-iQ Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �'�� Minimum Lot Area �� . -. . . -.- . . � - . � . neighborhood or commercial area. (Section 805.14.E) In addition to the lot size criteria,the Planning Commission Criteria also include criteria regarding adverse impacts on community character/scale/pattern, lot design reflective of the surrounding lots and neighborhood character,and depreciation of values of neighboring properties.Also criteria regarding architectural appearance, scale, mass,construction materials, proportion and scale of roof line,and functional plan of a building must be similar to the characteristics and quality of existing development.Also a reference to architectural guidelines and criteria (Design Standards),which are in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 9). Shoreview The Residential Estate(RE) District is The term"neighborhood"is Zoning Ordinance, established to protect and enhance intended to consist of several Residential Estate District the character of single-dwelling lots with similar development (RE) neighborhoods where lot areas are and aesthetic character. substantially larger than required in This approach targets the R1, Detached Residential District specific lots with a new and to protect mature trees and other zoning district and requires significant natural features that would rezoning. otherwise be lost if more intensive subdivision were to occur.The Each of the alternative minimum lot area is determined by minimum lot areas has the City Council at the time of different minimum lot widths rezoning but is limited to the following and maximum lot coverages. alternatives:20,000 square feet; 40,000 square feet;60,000 square feet;or 80,000 square feet. For example, lots rezoned to a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet show up as RE(20)on the Zoning Map. 6 Golden Valley Subdivision Study ��iQ Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments I!! lot Width �� Subdivision Concern Irregular Shaped Lots—Lot Width Ordinance(s) Impacted Subdivision Section 12.03 (Definitions);Zoning Section 11.03 (Definitions);Zoning Section 11.21 (R-1), Subdivision 6(Buildable Lots), Zoning Section 11.21 (R-2),Subdivision 6(Buildable Lots) Recommendation Amend lot width definitions and R-1/R-2 standards to require that minimum lot width dimension be met from the minimum front yard setback line to the midpoint of the lot depth.The intent of this recommendation is to prevent the creation of irregularities in lot shape in the portion of the lot where a house will most likely be constructed. Specific Ordinance Amendments 1) Subdivision Ordinance Section 12.03: Definitions 56. Lot Measurements: B.Width:The minimum required horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth,a�from the minimum front yard setback line to the midpoint of the building envelope. 2) Zoning Ordinance Section 11.03: Definitions 26.Width of Lot:The minimum required horizontal distance between the side lot lines I measured at right angles to the lot depth,a�from the minimum building setback line to the midpoint of the buildin�envelope in the Residential and R-2 zoning district, or the front property line in the Business and Professional Office orTerminal Warehouse Zoning IDistricts. 3) Zoning Ordinance Section 11.21:Single Family Zoning District (R-1),Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements of this Section,except on those lots located within an approved plat. In the R-1 zoning district a platted lot of a minimum area of ten thousand (10,000)square feet and a minimum width of eighty(80) Ifeet a�from the front setback line to the midpoint of the buildin�envelope shall be required for one (1)single family dwelling. I4) Zoning Ordinance Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2),Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots In the R-2 Residential Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of eleven thousand (11,000) square feet shall be required for any principal structure.A minimum lot width of one hundred I (100)feet a�from the front setback line to the midpoint of the buildin�envelope shall be required. Background Information In 2014,City Staff worked with the Planning Commission on the irregular lot shapes issue and lot width definitions. Staff provided a brief survey of lot width definitions in surrounding communities, including 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study �� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �� Lot Width St. Louis Park, New Hope, Hopkins, Plymouth, Edina,and Minnetonka. Most cities studied require that the minimum lot width dimension be met at the front yard setback line. St. Louis Park's Subdivision Ordinance requires that the minimum lot width dimension be maintained for 1/3 of the lot depth,which is the exception. Based on this study,the Planning Commission suggested that the City Council consider amending the lot width definition/standard to require that new lots meet the minimum lot width dimension at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that width continuously to a point 70 feet into the lot.The intent was to ensure that the minimum lot width is maintained for the front portion of the building envelope.Since new houses are typically constructed up to the minimum front yard setback, PC members felt that it was most important for lots to have sufficient width maintained for the front portion of the building envelope where a house would be placed, adjacent to neighboring houses,and visible from the street. Minimum Lot Width Standards from Surrounding Communities(Staff Survey from May 2014) City Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance St. Louis Park Distance between side lot lines Lot width from zoning at front yard setback maintained for 1/3 of the lot depth New Hope Distance between side lot lines Lot width from zoning but cul- at front yard setback de-sacs have minimum lot width of 40 feet Hopkins Maximum distance between Lot width from zoning side lot lines within the front yard Plymouth Distance between side lot lines Lot width from zoning at front yard setback Edina Distance between side lot lines Lot width from zoning at a depth of 50 feet from the front lot line Minnetonka Lot width from subdivision Width of 110 feet at front yard setback,80 feet at right-of-way (or 65 feet at cul-de-sac) The Subdivision Study's review of lot width standards for irregular shaped lots has found additional examples of minimum lot width standards being applied to a portion of the IoYs depth. In general,these examples fall into two lot width approaches for irregular shaped lots: average lot width (versus a single point measurement), and minimum lot width maintained for a portion of the building envelope where a house will be located.The Planning Commission's original suggestion that new lots meet the minimum lot width dimension at the minimum front yard setback line and maintain that width continuously to a point 70 feet into the lot essentially represents maintaining the minimum lot width for 35 feet,or the front half of the depth of a typical building envelope for a 125-foot deep lot.The depth of the building envelope is calculated by subtracting the front and rear yard setbacks: 125'(lot depth)—35' (front yard setback)—25' (rear yard setback)=65'.Therefore,the front half of the 65' building envelope depth would be 32'. Similar to the Planning Commission's suggestion,the Subdivision Study's recommendation 2 Golden Valley Subdivision Study O� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments Q� Lot Width is to maintain the minimum lot width from the minimum building setback line to the midpoint of the building envelope.The following are some examples of lot width ordinances for irregular shaped lots: Bainbridge Township,OH B. Irregular Lots. Lot width is the distance from one side lot line to the opposite side lot line at the front building line. See Figure 7.1.206C, Measurement of Lot Width;Irregular Lots. Generally,the front building line is the front setback line. However, an alternative front building line may be established on the plat of a subdivision that is more distant than the front setback line from the front lot line. Lot width must be maintained to a depth that is sufficient to accommodate a reasonable building in the context of adjacent and nearby lots. Medina,WA B. The lot width is determined by calculating the average horizontal distance between the side lot lines where the building envelope is located. If a lot has an irregular shape (i.e.: less than two side property lines)or is a corner lot, lot width is determined by calculating the average horizontal distance between the longer dimensional lot lines where the building envelope is located. Hanover, MN 0. IrregularShaped Lots. On lots determined to be irregular in shape (e.g.,triangular),the developer shall demonstrate to the City an ability to properly place principal buildings and accessory structures upon the site which are compatible in size and character to the surrounding area. Portland,OR 33.930.100 Measuring Lot Widths and Depths A.Single-Dwelling zones. In the single-dwelling zones, lot width is measured by placing a rectangle along the minimum front building setback line. Where the setback line is curved,the rectangle is placed on the line between the intersection points of the setback line with the side lot lines. See Figure 930- 20.The rectangle must have a minimum width equal to the minimum lot width specified for the zone in Chapters 33.610 and 33.611.The rectangle must have a minimum depth of 40 feet,or extend to the rear property line,whichever is less.The rectangle must fit entirely within the lot. See Figure 930-20. B.All otherzones. In all other zones, lot widths and depths are measured from the midpoints of opposite lot lines. See Figure 930-15. Borough of River Edge, NJ Lot width. (1)The minimum lot width shall be measured either at the required front yard setback line or at the front lot line as required for the zoning district in which it is situated. For irregularly shaped lots whose sides are not parallel,where the lot width is measured at the required front yard setback line,the street frontage shall not be less than 80%of the minimum lot width required; provided that the lot width measured at the front yard setback line shall be no less than the minimum lot width specified in the Zoning Schedule for the zoning district in which said lot is situated. 3 Golden Valley Subdivision Study �� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �� Lot Width (2) In the case of irregularly shaped lots whose sides are not parallel,where the lot width is measured at the front lot line,the width of the lot measured at the required front yard setback shall not be less than 90%of the required lot width measured at the front lot line. Staten Island, NYC Minimum Lot Width(ZR 23-32 and ZR 107-42J The Zoning Resolution mandates a minimum zoning lot width for each residential district(e.g.,40 feet in an R2 district, 30 feet in an R4A district).Where streets follow a grid pattern it is easy to determine the width of a zoning lot. On Staten Island,where there is no regular pattern to the street network, most streets follow the natural topography of the island or have been defined by private road development. In many instances, zoning lots are irregular or uniquely shaped. In these circumstances,the prior zoning regulations allowed a property owner to calculate the mean lot width,an averaging,to determine the lot width.The Task Force identified several instances where property owners have used this averaging to subdivide zoning lots to build more houses than is normally anticipated.The new regulations require that any new building meet all three of the following minimum lot width requirements. A zoning lot has to: 1. Meet the existing minimum mean lot width (averaging) requirement; 2. Meet the minimum lot width requirement at the street line, and 3. A residence can be located only on a portion of the zoning lot where the minimum lot width requirement is met. In addition,on a corner lot,the minimum lot width requirement has to be met on both of the streets that the lot fronts on. On an L-shaped lot,the minimum lot width requirement can be met at only one of the two street lines; however,a building can be located only on that portion of the zoning lot where the minimum lot width is met. Centennial,CO C. Irregular Lots. Lot width is the distance from one side lot line to the opposite side lot line at the front building line.See Figure 12-3-203C, Measurement of Lot Width;Irregular Lots. Generally,the front building line is the front setback line. However, an alternative front building line may be established on the plat of a subdivision that is more distant than the front setback line from the front lot line. Lot width must be maintained to a depth that is sufficient to accommodate a reasonable building in the context of adjacent and nearby lots. San Diego,CA For irregularly shaped lots,such as pie shaped lots,the lot width is determined by calculating the average lot width for the first 50 feet of lot depth. Waltham, MA 4 Golden Valley Subdivision Study ii_�� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments c�e Lot Width The minimum lot frontage shall be maintained on all lots as a minimum lot width to a point equivalent to the rear fa�ade of the principal building or 50%of the depth of the lot,whichever is greater. Tampa, FL (a) Measurements of lot width and yards. (1)Lot width. The width of a lot shall be measured at the rear of the required front yard and shall be maintained for a depth required to meet fifty(50) percent of the required minimum lot area. 5 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �e Lot Line Definitions Subdivision Contern Irregular lot shapes—lack of lot line definitions Ordinance(s) Impacted Zoning Section 11.03: Definitions Recommendation Create definitions for front, rear, and side lot lines Specific Ordinance Amendments Add the following definitions to Section 11.03:Definitions: • Lot line,front:The front lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated street. In the case of a corner lot, the lot line with the narrower street frontage shall be considered the front lot line. If the dimensions are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner and filed with the City. � Lot line, rear:The rear lot line shall be the boundary of a lot which is most distant from and is, or is approximately, parallel to the front lot line. In the case of a lot with more than four (4) sides, there can be more than one rear lot line. In the case of a triangular shaped lot, the rear lot line shall be a line ten (10)feet in length within the lot at the maximum distance from the front lot line. • Lot line, side:The side lot line shall be any boundary of a lot which is not a front or a rear lot line. Background Information The City Code currently does not define the front, rear, or side lot lines.This has been and can be problematic, particularly for triangular or irregular shaped lots. Assigning the type of lot line is important for the establishment of setbacks. Whether a line is a rear or side can make a difference in how much separation a new house will have from an existing one. An examination of other cities found that most do define the front, rear, and side lots lines.The definitions are fairly similar as can be seen below in the precedent section.These precedents, in conjunction with language in the existing City Code, were used to create the recommended definitions above. One clause that is not commonly seen that would merit further discussion is whether the City wants to specify that there can be more than one rear lot line in the case of an irregular lot with more than 4 sides. This question is being raised due to the shape of the lots in the recent subdivision at 221 Paisley Lane (Paisley Lane Woods). See the next page for examples of irregular shaped lots. 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study �� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments Qe Lot Line Definitions Examples These are two examples of recent lot subdivisions that may be helpful to review as you consider the lot line definitions proposed. ,_ �+�i^.\ «+ .� . � �6 ',� ��\ s w \ ` ` f� � .. . 4' ,'�s� �. _ . \ .\ ".J . �;� �,y . ' ��,. { ., .,, , � . .. �,,� � � �,� �� , �, ,�� '\ z . � � � j -t" x �`a y � .s��`,/��. �^�` 1 �� . , :� i�..8 ,\` �..40�� ''\ .-.>`' i�,,r..�� .,�.0� ��.;' �f , �� i�r �; t�. � \�\ .<, '�i�"^�'* ' a .. ' _ i � �. r i 1 ;r.�si ;� ��. � �� r � �' 1 � � �t .q l � �� A '+ ;� 1� t � �\ . . A ' .'s �' {, 1 '— ,�E � � �''iy�, j �" � —...» — --`', �f� .� ,. � - ,il r Pf � � ; �� ; �__ , . .,�� rt , ;� �� z 4..._.._.._�._ .._.._ P . � .....�_-_�.. �____.'..__ / ... l r � � I 1 j` .. l .. 221 Paisley Lane 221 Sunnyridge Lane Precedents Front Lot Line Apple Vallev: The boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street. In the case of a corner bare lot it shall be that street line designated by the owner and filed with the Zoning Officer which shall hereafter be the front lot line. In the case of a corner lot with an existing building located thereon,the lot line facing the front side of the structure shall hereafter be the front lot line. Bloomin�ton: That boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated street.The owner of a corner lot may select either street lot line as the front lot line. Brooklvn Park: A lot line abutting the right of way of a public street or property or easement line of a private street. On a corner lot,the shortest of the sides abutting the public street shall be the front. If the dimensions of a corner lot are within 10%of being equal,the front lot line shall be that street designated by the owner. Once it has been established,with the address assigned and the principal entrance determined,the front shall not be reversed. Burnsville:That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street,and in the case of a corner lot,the lot line with the shortest dimension on a public street,except that a corner lot in a nonresidential area shall be deemed to have frontage on both streets. 2 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �e Lot Line Definitions Columbia Hei�hts:That boundary of a lot that abuts a public street. In the case of a corner lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal,the front lot line shall be designated by the owner and filed with the city. Edina: means the boundary of a lot having frontage on a street.The owner of a corner lot may select either frontage as the front lot line. Lakeville:The lot line separating a lot from the street right of way along the lot frontage. Minneapolis:A boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated public street, but not an alley. On a corner lot,the front lot line shall be the lot line that is in line with the predominant platting orientation of the block. Minnetonka: a lot line abutting a dedicated public right-of-way. Osseo: The boundary of a lot abutting a street. On a corner lot,the shortest street lot line will be the FRONT LOT LINE. St. Louis Park: means that boundary of a lot which abuts a street. In the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal,the front lot line shall be designated by the owner and filed in the office of the division of inspections. If a parcel has multiple sides on more than two street frontages,the front lot line shall be determined by the zoning administrator. Rear Lot Line Apple Vallev: The boundary of a lot which is opposite the front lot line. If the rear line is less than 10 feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear,the rear lot line shall be a line 10 feet in length within the lot, parallel to,and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Bloomin�ton:That boundary of a lot which is most distant from and is or is approximately parallel to the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten feet in length or if the lot forms a point at the rear,the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Brooklvn Park: The boundary of a lot that is opposite the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear,the rear lot line shall be a line ten feet in length within the lot, connecting the side lot lines and parallel to the front lot line. Burnsville:That boundary of a lot which is opposite the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten feet(10') in length,or if the lot forms a point at the rear,therear lot line shall be a line ten feet (10') in length within the lot, parallel to,and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Columbia Hei�hts: That boundary of a lot that is opposite the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear,the rear lot line shall be a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Edina: Lot line, rear, means the boundary of a lot which is most distant from, and approximately parallel with,the front lot line. 3 Golden Valley Subdivision Study �� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments Qe Lot Line Definitions Lakeville: The lot line opposite and most distant from the lot frontage which connects the side lot lines. Minneapolis: The lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line. In the case of triangular or otherwise irregularly shaped lots, a line ten (10) feet in length entirely within the lot, parallel to and at a maximum distance from the front lot line. Minnetonka: the lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line. In the case of corner lots, the rear lot line shall be determined by the director of planning based upon characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. Osseo:The boundary of a lot which is most distant from and is, or is most nearly, parallel to the front lot line. St. Louis Park: means a lot line not intersecting a front lot line that is most distant from and most closely parallel to the front lot line. For a lot bounded by only three lot lines,the rear lot line shall be a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. Side Lot Line Apple Vallev.Bloomin�ton, Burnsville,Columbia Hei�hts, Edina. Minneapolis,and Osseo: Any boundary of a lot which is not at a front lot line or a rear lot line. Lakeville: Lot lines extending away from the lot frontage, which connects the front and rear lot lines. Minnetonka: any lot line other than a front or rear lot line. St. Louis Park: Lot line,side, means a lot line which intersects with a front lot line. 4 Golden Valley Subdivision Study �� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments , � Rear Yard Setback Subdivision Concern House too big for the lot Ordinance(s) Impacted Zoning Section 11.21(R-1) Recommendation Establish new R-1 minimum rear yard setback Specific Ordinance Amendments 2. Rear Setback.The required rear setback shall be 25 feet*�•��+„�or�o^+��r,o�� „f+�� „� �• Background Information The City Code currently requires the rear yard setback to be 20%of the lot depth.This requirement means that the amount of setback between houses varies depending on the depth of the lot. While it seems the rear yard setback requirement has not been a significant issue, the establishment of a set rear yard setback number would provide residents a specific, consistent number that they can be sure will be required. If the rear yard setback requirement were to be revised, it is recommended that 25 feet be considered. 25 feet is based on what would be required if 20%were to be applied to the minimum lot area allowed by the zoning code. A 10,000 square foot lot with 80 feet of lot width would have a 125 foot depth and be required to have a 25 foot rear yard setback. As you consider a change to the rear yard setback, please note that it is likely that some structures on existing properties will become nonconforming. The amount of impact is unknown as this information is not captured in a database and can only be analyzed on a lot by lot basis. Precedents Many communities have more than one single-family residential district. For this review the single-family district closest to 10,000 square feet from the community was included. . . � � . . Apple Valley R-3 11,000 30' Blaine R-1 10,000 30' Bloomington R-1 11,000 30' Burnsville R-1 10,000 30' Eaga n R-1s/R-1 8,000/12,000 15' Edina R-1 9,000 25' 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study a� Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments �e Rear Yard Setback Hopkins R01B/R-1C 8,000/12,000 30/35 Lakeville RS-3 11,000 30' Minnetonka R-1 22,000 40' Plymouth RSF-3/RSF-2 7,000/12,500 25'/25' St. Louis Park R-1 9,500 25' Wayzata R-3A 9,000 20' 2 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments .�e Planned Unit Development(PUD) Minimum Size Subdivision Concern Use of PUD to bypass subdivision/zoning standards Ordinance(s) Impacted Zoning Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development Recommendation Establish a minimum lot size requirement for eligibility to apply for a Planned Unit Development(PUD) Specific Ordinance Amendments Zoning Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development, Subdivision 3. Standards and Guidelines A. Size.T"^�^ ;� ^^ ^^;�;m��m '^* ��^, Each PUD must have a minimum area of two (2) acres, excludin�areas within a public ri�ht-of-wav, desi�nated wetland or floodplain overlav district, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one or more of the followin�: 1. Unusual physical features of the qropertv itself or of the surroundin� nei�hborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topo�raphic feature of importance to the nei�hborhood or communitv. 2. The propertv is directiv adiacent to or across a ri�ht-of-way from propertv which has been developed previouslv as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previouslv approved development. 3. The propertv is located in a transitional area between different land use cate�ories or it is located on an arterial street as defined in the comprehensive Ip an• Background Information The City's current PUD ordinance does not have a minimum lot size requirement. A brief survey of other metro cities' PUD ordinances found that a number of cities do have PUD minimum lot size requirements, generally ranging from one to two acres, including Crystal, Robbinsdale, Richfield, and Brooklyn Center. The table below summarizes other metro cities' PUD lot size restrictions. City Single Family PUD Restrictions Bloomington No size restrictions for PUDs, though modifications to lot sizes limited Brooklyn Center Minimum of 1 acre with some exceptions Brooklyn Park No size restrictions, though extra scrutiny if less than 3 acres Crystal Minimum of 2 acres with some exceptions Deephaven No size restrictions 1 Golden Valley Subdivision Study Recommendation for Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance Amendments .�a Planned Unit Development(PUD) Minimum Size Eden Prairie No size restrictions Edina ??? Hopkins No size restrictions Maple Grove No size restrictions Minnetonka No size restrictions New Hope No size restrictions Plymouth No size restrictions Richfield Minimum of 1 acre Robbinsdale Minimum of 1.5 acres for residential PUDs St. Louis Park Not allowed in R-1 or R-2 zoning districts Wayzata No size restrictions 2 �:�en� ; ��--� =� ��11��. Defining Neighborhood �� Impact Areas �� ❑ Legend � _ - Subject Parcel 250 � 350 �� 500 �L� � ` � _1 \ i � �_ _� _ `J _ - - � ��T_L[_1Z� I � Pnnt Date:2!1/2015 Sources: -Hennepin County Surveyors 016ce/or ciry or caaen vaney Pmperty Lines(2074)&Aenal Photogrephy(1012). I Public Works DepaAment - rtyo o en a ey ora o er ayers. 7800 Golden Vatley Road GolAen VaNey,MN 55421-4588 7615918030 0 170 360 68U 1,020 1,360 www.goldenvaAeymn.gov Feet � �� -t � � � �� 1�=�--�i� �,_� -_- -�--- � � �- �a ��_ �� . ��1LJ , , ��: j � � ° 'F ?�� -1�` -- ' ��'��'Y� � � � . � ��J ��' '�. ��: �� 4��' .��1(� � � � ,�r' i�_- r �r. � �V��i -� -� ,��`,_�-i�-� _i � �-? '�J�'��_��_ ��-�� ' Case Study Analysis ��-� � � � -,��1�1 7 I �11 L_�-� , � �''�� ^ � Minimum Lot Area a �'� i � 1 �, , i � � ; - _ �'� -,,��— �;�� — 4 i -, a l , . ! I �� ' �� ' �' i�� y�� '' � ��'r,` -. - �� } '�� 1--{i-�- r-'-r � !� - � �-{.-� � ; L ij�t�` , �f��y��f Il;� �— ;-� ;'��, �..� ' � i f-1 F�;`-; � f;i' � �,Y :� _- ��y,�,`� \��f �' � , L n d , ,� `_�f' '�.. j I�--1�� J1�J�..F� � #`�- 1[ '�--�^�� U� `�<<� �,l c ,�;, \�` eg e I � �'�..L'��i � . i , � �` � � � , li . �r �1..L T. � T �� l`l ` ` _ _ ' � �}-/� , '! L;J 'rL+-� v f�, �' �^' yl � �,� _. ,��1�",� $��j. ��- ��T�_ � �l��i ��ll f� ��y �-�� , � ��/�j�, '� `�' -- ubject Parcel __ -- �- - _ T . , � s �;[ ��fs_r+ ! �_�_��`r _� __ �� - `�� , 1 '� � ^ �r" Parcels within 250 feet , � , _ ,��,T �- ��iILfID �I-'-_J 1 �_��- ,��j�j `�l; ��, � ��r � � ��11�L�1.. ,�.y� �'� _a , I :,�� E �Ll� ��,�� --_ �Y� ,-� _ -�� - .�� - - � _ �k _ r--- � �_:y =� �� ,� ;-, �� - � ; :�� , ��;� �� - � _ � _� �,< ✓ -rir � ii � �Q'� � �� -�`� � _ �� } � .� � � � Parcels Estimated to Be Subdivideable . _. X � �� , � , � � r � �� . � ��, - � - r� � � , , �`_�„��, _� � r'�� i,� �??;�, . -�� F� ��,� r �-�, ;-�, �\ . 1� ��' � (�'�� _�-{ R� il � _ Parcel Outlines � � �l ��? �r � �I� _ �L�',� � �-i ��-L�I"�,�� 1 yf� i � {�_ �� (�''!,.(;r� �� I �F '�!1�'I'� �'��.� �j�� 'i��✓� - t A � �.� � ll� �y. f F=a r- _,. k l�� 1��_' r r- ` � �� I-i ��''v ✓<°(, ,-�� ;'r`�,� ��..? �,,-- � v :�� ,�� ,- � � ��`�� t = � �,��, �� , a .. �� _ ��.� ,� �:'- ,, �J'� � 7./� �\�\ 4 rI� '; '.�Z) ti� � ��r-� /��, �,. � ` _ ��=i. ��' �' ,.,._ L /�' �_..�{ti-L� �, � w.._l'�1�1 I � L� . l i I I/ ,.Ili��l.._..� �_ `—Y� i'�� t� —, j _ � r � _*_� T� �_�I i I ,�' L�-�� r- L ~ / � � -_ � � . __ -� '_L�J_LW�- _ 1 � I� �, �- ��. a _� �� j I� il--� I l��'�� '. � 'i� ti-+=iF`� _ � �� -L� � �� _ � � � E `� - _ � �-�� a , � : � _ _ �„ � �� _,_, 4 -� {-; �'-� �`��`�� E�� ; _� � ��:�f�� r�� , �� _��:`,, ;`.,1 �� : : �� : , _ _ � � . . _ � � ,� �{—�}}`��{ �1��/ r _ �T�'�(�� . . 1 , _ . .i .; '�. l��l.f, ..�� I I�i.. '� .._i ',i LLL 1L1.LJJ�� l r ` L .�\� � - �L— _ ___4 �•�� i I„^�` \.\L_ �� , � �I_� L � ' ' � ,�� 1 ��i�,;��.��, �� ',_ � � ��-�__ - �Z; � �,� �� r--__�� _ ., -- - ,�,i T,�_ __ � f�ti,��'� '- � - ' _ `' _ �, , i� -�. _ � `1 � �J � T � -��'� -�;�� .�' �-� ��,� � �-- , ��u;'�' , �; i -�T ' .� [�;� � � - l � . '. `; ' , � -I -„ �--._ ��Y �`-�,��; � � �_ ,, ��ii �_ ~/ ��ly�;� v _i r � ��F I r {> �,� � �� -� � � �� , :. 7�,�-� - ! �:� .� � ,� � _ � � �e� , �. � � — , � � �� ' I 1J � , �" ; ��1� I��t " �H �� __ � � r ��1�I ��~��' __ Tl_L��+ �'r��- ��i� , > � _ --- - - � �; � - T� -- � s- y � ,� ,-��:�� , �, � � , � r , � , � _.�_�� ' ��'� �S�; _ i_(_��_,-_[� !�'�-y—,-� �-,{�� ;��.�.��i m _ . - I , �� I1 � - � 1 1�LL.I,_ �t,.,_I �^�;ti. F �`_'"� �i, � � � � �7� 1]� � �t i�-_ � � LLU �� ' I- I `!`��"�J-�_- �� ,_ �� _� �`— �� 1 ` '�>.; ;�, �� r�� -� � 1� � � __� __ � � _ � � -a — � � � \'S - r-_ I�I- �� - ' ��. CC - � ; 1 � , � , ; , . _,, ��,, C-`��- ,- {��,,��-�r-�t�; -��J - ,.� � - �7�T_� , , } - , - . � ; _< , �� ` �,� „��`'F ' r � p�, � 1 l� ��_�J� , �� } ��'� _�� I I� , � � 'r I - >< ;_ �-� i- � } _ � � � ��_ '�- f�� y �- -r '�' � �� -� , , �- f - �Cj��i L�- t- ��j�.,� �.. 1 L �_ (G � T i � � � _ � < a �� ,� �� r �_ �� -� <<��' , � �j � �, -� � � � J��r r-' � ��1� r 1 r 1 1 r _ r �_ r ' ��`-�`, i -, r� �, ,��; C '_% �7'— i�� f } � �j� � _ , : � �`�- " � �.{ / � �� , 5 � �� Ll � � ��ILTr � ,I� - 1 �_� I l ��-' _ � � � �, _. 1 � � � , �- ` � , � �� r�� r-T-� - ��r ,� ��;- � �s� I f� �i , ~j ��_ �� `�F--7 x � u i , _ � , � , � � ��_��,`_f ;—,1��_'�7L�' ��-- '�' a� � �� ' CLL� i� � ,� � si ,� � �� ''l� p �� LQ�> r� � � ;%; � Ui' JJl '-; L��I�1 -�� s.- Pnnt Date:2/5/2015 -`}�i �xT'�4� : Souroes: i ;-� �� , � -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for c�ry ot Golde�Valley �-� T p �.'�� ,1��( �`-I PropeRy Lines(2014)8 Aenal Photogrephy(2012). I ��, �11�.\ �--, �� j -.� -Cityo/GoldenValleyPo�allothe�layers. Pubfc Works Oepartment / , , � 7800 Golden VaNey Raad r Golden VaMey MN 5 54 21-0588 r V��-� 0 400 800 1,600 2,G00 3,200 763-5938030 ,{ �1 ��/� www.galdemalleymn.gov 1� \\7/ - .�!�l f�r�l._��V.l v Feal