Loading...
pc-agenda-jun-08-20       REGULAR MEETING AGENDA    This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the  City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by watching on Comcast cable  channel 16, by streaming on CCXmedia.org, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering the meeting  code 133 279 9272. The public may participate in this meeting during public comment sections by  calling 763‐230‐7454 and following the prompts.  Additional information about monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. For  technical assistance, please contact the City at 763‐593‐8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov.  If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement  consideration.      1. Call to Order    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  May 27, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting    4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendments – Proposed Adjustments to Narrow Lot  Regulations      – End of Televised Portion of Meeting –  To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 133 279 9272      5. Council Liaison Report     6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning  Appeals, and other meetings    7. Other Business    8. Adjournment  June 8, 2020 – 7 pm         REGULAR MEETING MINUTES    This meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by  the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. In accordance with that declaration, beginning on March 16,  2020, all Planning Commission meetings held during the emergency were conducted  electronically. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were  able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on  CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line. The public was able to participate in this  meeting during public comment sections, by dialing the public call‐in line.    1. Call to Order  The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Blum.    Roll Call  Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ryan  Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum,   Commissioners absent: None  Staff present:    Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner   Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist    2. Approval of Agenda  Chair Blum, asked for a motion to approve the agenda.  MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the  agenda of May 27, 2020, as submitted. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.    3. Approval of Minutes  Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from May 11, 2020.   MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the May  11, 2020 meeting minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.    4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment  Applicant: City of Golden Valley  Purpose:  Amending zoning districts to regulate tobacco sales     Myles Campbell, Planner, started his presentation by reminding the group that the Planning  Commission was directed by the City Council to consider new zoning regulations on the sale of  tobacco products. Amendments to the handling of tobacco sales was first raised through a work item  in the City Council’s 2019 goal setting process. The conversation with Planning Commission began at  May 27, 2020 – 7 pm    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  May 27, 2020 – 7 pm       2  their January 13, 2020 meeting. A few more meetings continued this conversation and the main  points in the discussion are as follows:   Commissioners preferred to limit tobacco retailers to the City’s Commercial Zoning District.   Commissioners had a preference to handle tobacco retailers as a restricted use rather than a  conditional use, making its enforcement an administrative rather than Council action.   Commissioners agreed with proximity restrictions between tobacco retailers and uses such as  schools that had large youth populations, but did not see a need to make a similar restriction  between different tobacco retailers.    Commissioners wanted the ordinance to be cognizant of existing retailers and to limit the  economic impacts on those retailers as much as possible while still having meaningful impact  in reducing youth exposure and access to tobacco products.   The topic of proximity restrictions continued through a few meetings. This discussion covered  primarily two elements of the restriction:  o What was the correct distance to set as a buffer in between the tobacco retailer and  another use?  o How should those other uses be defined and referenced in the amended zoning  language?   Use existing zoning districts to restrict proximity   Define a new category of “Youth‐Oriented Facilities”  Based on the continued discussion, staff believes the best option for restricting the location of  tobacco retailers is to create a definition for facilities that have a large amount of youth activity.   The defined specific use has a clearer connection to the purpose of the zoning change and  the action is more clearly justified.    Impacts on commercial land are limited by excluding uses that may be zoned similarly but  have less youth activity   Selected land uses will be just as easy to track as using existing zoning designations.   At the previous Planning Commission meeting, staff proposed draft ordinance language changes  that redefined a Youth‐Oriented Facility and added language to the Commercial Zoning District.  Staff presented a map, illustrating the distance tobacco retailers will need to be from these defined  facilities. Commissioners had concerns about the lack of restrictions around Theo Wirth Park as  well as the effect on current business owners and their potential resale value.  Staff addressed these concerns and is suggesting the definition of a Youth‐Oriented Facility be  amended to read: A school, park, athletic field, or playground. The original definition included the  majority of parks within the City and this amendment adds three new parks that previously didn’t  carry this restriction – Theo Wirth, Paisley Park, and Sochacki Park. Staff responded to concerns  about mitigating the impact on businesses by analyzing the restricted distance. Their original  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  May 27, 2020 – 7 pm       3  recommendation was a 750 foot buffer but reduced that to 500 feet to leave about a city block  distance of separation between uses and thus have less of an impact on existing license holders.  A summary of actions are as follows:    Tobacco retailers become restricted use, only allowed in the City’s Commercial Zoning District.   Youth‐Oriented Facilities are added to the zoning code’s definitions and include schools, parks,  playgrounds, and athletic fields.   A 500‐foot proximity restriction between tobacco retailers and youth‐oriented facilities will be  required for new licensees.   In multi‐use properties, proximity will be measured from the portion of the property occupied  by the retailer.  Staff recommends amending Sections 113‐1 and 113‐92 of the City Code in order to restrict the  sale of tobacco in the city.  Commissioners entered into a discussion regarding this item.   Definition of “park” was discussed as was the cap on tobacco retail stores.   Chair Blum opened the Public Hearing at 7:41pm.  No public comments came in at the time of opening the hearing but the Chair suggested leaving  the line open in case a delayed call came in.   The conversation continued and supported the 500 foot buffer as many members felt the 750  buffer was too restrictive.  Commissioner Baker made a MOTION to approve the recommendations of staff, there was a  second by Commissioner Sadeghi. Staff called a roll call vote:  Ayes: Baker, Blum, Brookins, Pockl, Sadeghi, Segelbaum  Nays: Johnson  Motion carries 6:1  Chair Blum closed the Public Hearing at 7:53pm.          Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 7:55 pm      City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  May 27, 2020 – 7 pm       4  5. Council Liaison Report   Council Member Rosenquist updated the Commission on the Special City Council meeting that was  being held to approve the process for allowing Temporary Outdoor Service Areas in the city. She noted  that some Housing and Redevelopment Authority initiatives were on hold due to COVID‐19.    6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning  Appeals, and other meetings  Planning Manager Zimmerman updated the Commission on the results of the Board of Zoning Appeals  meeting from the previous evening. He reported that information about proposed narrow lot  regulations was posted on the City’s web site and that some public comments were being received via  email in advance in order to help manage the virtual public hearing on June 8.    7. Other Business  Planner Campbell reported that after the recommendations on narrow lot were sent to the City  Council, the next item on the agenda for the Commission would be re‐zonings associated with the  Comprehensive Plan and other zoning updates that need to be addressed.    8. Adjournment  MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Sadeghi and the motion  carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 PM.                                                                                                            ________________________________                                                                                                  Adam Brookins, Secretary  ________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant  `  1      Date:  June 8, 2020  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager    Subject:  Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendments – Proposed Adjustments to  Narrow Lot Regulations      Summary  The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to engage in discussion around the zoning  regulations for narrow lots (generally those under 65 feet in width and specifically for those 50  feet or less in width) and to propose any recommended changes to help mitigate impacts on  surrounding properties. Based on past conversations with Commissioners and subject experts  and with feedback from residents, a public hearing is being held to consider text amendments to  the Zoning Chapter of the City Code.    Background  The following is a summary of the actions taken on this topic to date:  November 14, 2017 – Initial discussion at the Council/Manager meeting on lot divisions  May 14, 2019 – Second Council/Manager discussion on concerns regarding lot divisions  October 10, 2019 – Council/Manager discussion on narrow lots; direction to staff and  Planning Commission to explore possible changes to regulations  October 14, 2019 – Planning Commission discussion of current Golden Valley regulations  October 28, 2019 – Planning Commission discussion of regulations in other cities  November 12, 2019 – Planning Commission panel of realtors  December 9, 2019 – Planning Commission panel of designers/builders  January 2020 – Online Survey targeting single‐family residential property owners  January 16, 2020 – Narrow Lots Public Forum  January 27, 2020 – Planning Commission update on results of Public Forum  February 10, 2020 – Planning Commission update on results of Online Survey; discussion of  side setback and garage issues  March 9, 2020 – Planning Commission discussion of building envelope, side wall articulation,  secondary front yard setback, lot coverage, and impervious percentage issues  May 11, 2020 – Planning Commission review and discussion of draft changes  2    May 2020 – Online Presentation on proposed changes with public comment forms  Staff memos, exhibits, and minutes from these meetings can be view through links on the City’s  Narrow Lots web page: http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/planning/housing/narrow.php    Staff has worked with the Planning Commission to identify proposed changes to eight topics  related to the regulation of narrow lots. All of these are found within the Single‐Family  Residential (R‐1) Zoning District (Section 113‐88 of the City Code). A video presentation  documenting these changes was uploaded to the Narrow Lots page on the City website in May  and advertised via a postcard sent to all single‐family property owners in the city as well as  through the City’s social media. The site includes a comment box to pose questions to staff or to  the Planning Commission and a form to provide public testimony in place of calling‐in to a virtual  meeting. All questions and comments received via this page through June 4 have been  documented in an attachment to this memo (see Narrow Lots Info Session Feedback).    Over the course of this investigation, residents most frequently listed the following concerns  regarding the (re)development of narrow lots:   The height of new homes and the impacts of height on adjacent properties   The size of setbacks and the amount of open space between structures   The impact of new construction on existing residents   The loss of trees, vegetation, and green space   Changes in neighborhood character  At the same time, some property owners and builders expressed that they feared that severe  limitations on narrow lots development could result in the construction of less than desirable  homes.    Staff and the Planning Commission primarily worked to try and address the first two points  above, while also considering generally the impacts to neighborhood character as controlled  through zoning. The City’s regulations around trees, vegetation, stormwater, and construction  are managed through other sections of the City Code, outside of the purview of the Planning  Commission.    Topics to be Addressed  There are eight specific areas of narrow lot regulation that are under consideration for  adjustment as a part of this public hearing:   Side Yard Setbacks   Garage Requirements   Building Envelope Size/Shape  a. Slope  b. Side Wall Height  c. Dormers   Side Wall Articulation   Secondary Front Yard Setbacks  3     Lot Coverage    While the changes to any one of these areas may seem minor, when taken together they can  result in significant alterations to the size, shape, and character of a new home on a narrow lot.    Side Yard Setbacks  Staff recommends adjusting the minimum side yard setback for lots under 50 feet in width by  increasing it to 5 feet. When applying the current regulations, which set side setbacks at 10  percent and 20 percent of the lot width, a side yard setback on a 40 foot lot may be as little as 4  feet. This change would give slightly more yard space along the north or west side of a home –  providing more options for directing surface stormwater flow – and when combined with the side  yard setback to the south or east of the adjacent property would result in 13 to 15 feet of spacing  between structures.    Not allowing a setback of less than 5 feet also addresses an area of concern for the City’s  Inspections Division, which requires additional fireproofing of structures if they are positioned  within 5 feet from the property line.    One consideration in setting this setback side is the width of the building envelope that would  result. For a 50 foot wide lot, the building envelope would be 35 feet; for a 40 foot wide lot, the  building envelope would be only 27 feet. At the May 11 Planning Commission meeting,  Commissioners asked if a 27 foot wide building envelope (and therefore a 27 foot wide home)  was an unusual width and might in fact be encouraging only a 26 foot wide structure. Staff  consulted with the City’s Building Inspectors and discovered that while 27 foot rafters are an  uncommon length, they can be prepared on a custom basis. Even rafter lengths of 26 or 28 are  much more common.    Garage Requirements  Staff recommends adjusting the garage requirements for lots 50 feet in width or less by allowing  homes to be built with a one‐stall garage and by limiting the width of the front wall of a garage to  65 percent of the front façade. Current regulations require two garage stalls be constructed (or  prove that a second stall can legally be added) and set no limits on the amount of the front  façade that can be taken up by a garage wall. These recommended changes match what the City  allows for 50 foot wide single‐family lots in the Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning  District.    Restricting the size of the garage on the front façade allows for greater creativity in design, more  variety in floorplans, and the option of a wider front entry or other non‐garage portion of the  home. It has been the position of the Planning Commission in the past that garage‐dominated  façades are not desired. Other options, such as utilizing a garage space to the rear of the home or  constructing a detached garage, may be possible.    For a 40 foot wide lot maximizing the width of the allowed building envelope, a garage would be  limited to approximately 17.5 feet of width, leaving approximately 9.5 feet of non‐garage façade.  4      Building Envelope Size/Shape  There are three elements of zoning that specifically address the size and shape of the building  envelope (the three dimensional area within which a home can be constructed).    Slope  Staff recommends adjusting the slope of the tent‐shaped building envelope for lots under 65 feet  in width and setting it at a 2:1 ratio to match the regulations applied to other single‐family lots in  the city. Current regulations allow the slope to increase to a 4:1 ratio on narrow lots, resulting in  taller roof peaks and greater shading of adjacent properties. Flattening this slope would impact  the usable second story floor space.    Side Wall Height  Staff also recommends lowering the maximum wall height at the side yard setback line and  setting it at 13 feet for lots 65 feet in width or less. Current regulations allow the wall to extend  to 15 feet.    Reducing the ratio and lowering the side wall height would provide some relief for adjacent  properties by reducing the massing and pushing any new two‐story side wall further from the  property line. It would, however, have a negative impact on the second stories of homes on  narrow lots by reducing available headroom and narrowing floor plans.    Dormers  In order to help compensate for the loss of this usable second story area, staff recommends  allowing dormers on lots 65 feet wide or less to extend outside of the building envelope. If the  height, width, and location of the dormers are successfully managed, they can be an interesting  architectural feature that creates usable second story floor space while still breaking up the  shading the might otherwise fall on an adjacent property.    Staff recommends the following restrictions on dormer location, size, and height:  In general – The total dormer length along one side of a home may be broken into more than one  section. No part of a dormer may extend above the ridge line of the roof.    Shed dormers – The total length along one side of a home is limited to 50 percent of the length of  the main wall below. The front wall of the dormer must be set back at least 2 feet from the plane  of the main wall below. The side walls of the dormer must be set back at least 4 feet from the  front or back wall of the home. The maximum height as measured to the top of the front eave  line is limited to 20 feet above average grade.    5        Gable dormers ‐ The total length along one side of a home is limited to 40 percent of the length  of the main wall below. The front wall of the dormer must be set back at least 2 feet from the  plane of the main wall below. The side walls or furthest extent of the dormer must be set back at  least 4 feet from the front or back wall of the home. The maximum height as measured to the top  of the dormer peak is limited to 25 feet above average grade.      6        Side Wall Articulation  Staff recommends prohibiting any structural elements used to meet the side wall articulation  requirement from extending into the side yard setback for lots 50 feet in width or less, and never  allowing them to extend any closer than 5 feet from side property lines. Current regulations allow  certain elements, such as chimney chases or bay windows, to extend into the side yard setback  area by up to 2 feet, potentially reducing the distance from a structure to a side property line to  as little as 2 feet on a 40 foot wide lot.  7      Eliminating this option helps preserve the distance between the principal structure on a narrow  lot and the side property line and provides more open yard space between structures for  adjacent properties. The side wall articulation requirement would not be dismissed, but  architects/builders would need to find other ways to create articulation when a wall is longer  than 32 feet.    Secondary Front Yard Setbacks  Staff recommends the setback for secondary front yards – or what are commonly viewed as  exterior side yards on corner lots – be allowed to be reduced as lots narrow below 65 feet in  width in order to maintain a building envelope 27 feet wide, which is the minimum building  envelope width recommended above for non‐corner lots. Scaling this secondary front yard  setback to respond to the width of the lot, rather than being set at a fixed amount, was  requested by the Planning Commission during discussion at the May 11 meeting.    For some 50 foot lots, this could result in a secondary front yard setback along a street to the  north or west to be reduced to 13 feet. For some 40 foot lots along the north or west side of a  block, this could result in a secondary front yard setback of only 5 feet; however, staff identified  only eight lots of this type in the city. Corner visibility requirements would remain in effect and  ensure clear sight lines at intersections of streets and alleys.    This change would reduce the number of variances needed to develop existing corner lots that  would otherwise be unbuildable. Up until 1983, a provision in the Zoning Code explicitly carved  out an exception to the 35 foot front yard setback for a secondary front yard in order to preserve  a buildable envelope. This regulation was removed as part of a larger code clean‐up with no  details recorded as to why this particular change was made or if the ramifications were  considered.    At the May 11 meeting, the Planning Commission considered maintaining a 22 foot wide building  envelope (22 feet being the minimum building width allowed). After examining a recent variance  granted for a 40 foot wide corner lot which resulted in a 28 foot wide building envelope, staff is  suggesting this in increased to 27 feet in order to match the building envelope size for non‐corner  lots. Should the Commission choose to a width less than 27 feet, there would likely be challenges  providing garage access from the primary, or shorter, front yard. Hopefully, this would be offset  by the option to provide garage access along the secondary, or longer, front yard.    Lot Coverage  Staff recommends modifying the amount of lot coverage allowed for lots under 6,000 square feet  and setting it at 30 percent, similar to the amount set for lots over 10,000 square feet. Lots  between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet would continue to be allowed to have coverage of 35  percent. Current regulations allow up to 40 percent of some small lots to be covered by building  footprints.    8    Restricting the percentage of a narrow lot covered by structures would reduce the footprint  available to construct a new home and provide additional space for stormwater to be managed.    Comments and Concerns  As of June 4, 47 comments from residents had been submitted through the Narrow Lots web  page. The full text of these comments can be found in the attached document, but in general  they can be summarized in four points:  1. The proposed regulations don’t go far enough in restricting the scale of new development  and protecting adjacent properties. Numerous residents continue to ask that no  development of narrow lots be allowed at all.  2. Open/green/landscaped/natural areas need to be protected and adding density only  hurts this.  3. Certain proposed regulations might be problematic (allowing homes to be built with just a  single‐car garage was the most common concern).  4. A handful stated the City should be promoting diversity in housing and these proposed  regulations seem reasonable for narrow lots.    The proposed changes were shared with a local builder who has designed homes for narrow lots  in Golden Valley. He expressed strong concerns with a few of the recommendations.    First, he was worried about the impact of the change to the building envelope (reducing the  allowed slope and lowering the side wall height) due to the restrictions it would place on the  design of the upper level of these homes. Although the allowance of some dormer space would  help, he believes the protrusion of dormers outside of the building envelope would have a  negative impact on neighboring properties as the massing would continue to loom over them and  perhaps be even more severe.    Second, he was very concerned that creating regulations that encouraged, or even required, a  single‐car garage design would result in homes that were unattractive to buyers. The limitations  on attached garage width, coupled with the current maximum impervious coverage amounts,  could make owning two cars impossible on some properties.    With his permission, staff has included the text of his comments below:    In my opinion, the reduction of buildable width from 28' to 27', along with a rule of a 65% garage to house, will be the biggest negative impact. While the intent of the 65% rule for garage width is to maximize front exposure of house, the net result is actually very little has changed. In my "current rules" elevation using a 20' wide double garage, we have 8' left for entry. In the "proposed rules" elevation using a 27' wide house and 17.5' for garage, we only grew to 9.5' for entry. It does not accomplish diminishing garage dominance unless the design starts to really undersize the garage down to 11'-12' wide. Homeowners will not be interested in a garage that small. 9    I took an upper level of a home we have designed that fits current rules, and revised it to fit the proposed new height restrictions (tent), and tried to use as few dormers as possible. It took me 3 dormers along the side walls, all roughly 18' - 20' long, in order to fit the same 3 bedrooms, 2 baths and a laundry/hallway. I did have to sacrifice room sizes somewhat to get there, but it was doable, so this rule would depend on the limits set for using dormers. Several fairly large ones will be needed. Those 3 dormers however create vertical walls set directly on the minimum setback line. That will not diminish the shading impact much on the neighboring homes.   Staff agrees that the proposed changes would strongly encourage, if not require, some single‐car  households on lots between 40 and 50 feet wide. Similarly, houses on these lots constructed with  a reduced building envelope may be forced to shrink the amount of floor area available on the  upper level and/or utilize fewer bedrooms or baths in their design. These builder comments were  submitted prior to the details of the dormer regulations being unveiled, so they may need to be  revisited given the specific language that is being proposed.    Impacts of Proposed Regulations  While the true impacts of these proposed changes on the construction of homes on narrow lots  may not fully be known until building plans are submitted, evaluated, and implemented, staff  experiences, discussions among Commissioners, and feedback from other professionals provide a  good basis for anticipating what may result.    The adjustment to the side setback requirement is small and would not dramatically impact the  spacing between homes. It would address a concern from Building Inspections staff related to  fireproofing and would maintain a sufficient building envelope width to allow flexibility in home  design.    Imposing new restrictions on the width of garages would only impact homes on 40 foot wide lots,  but should produce more attractive public‐facing façades. Some of the narrowest lots would only  be allowed to have a single‐stall garage, which would likely limit the market for potential buyers.    The changes in the size and shape of the building envelope would have the largest impact,  reducing the height of structures in the portions of a lot closest to the side property line and  breaking up the overall massing of these homes by shifting to a greater use of dormers. It is likely  that the amount of second story floor space would be reduced and it is possible that construction  costs would increase due to the design of more complicated roof lines.    Modifying the side wall articulation requirements would help maintain spacing between homes  on 40 and 50 foot wide lots, but could make designing structures with the proper articulation  more challenging.    Allowing a reduction in the secondary front yard setback would help avoid the need variances on  some corner lots and would allow redevelopment to take place that is consistent with past  practices.  10      Adjusting the amount of lot coverage allowed on smaller lots is mostly a preventative measure as  recent developments on narrow lots have remained just below the proposed limit.    Overall, the proposed changes would continue to allow owners of narrow lots to take advantage  of their right to build, while dialing back on the size and scale of what could be constructed in  order to reduce the impacts to adjacent properties.    Summary of Staff Recommendations  Staff is recommending the following modifications to the zoning regulations, as documented in  the attached underlined/overstruck section of code:  1. Establish a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet, regardless of lot width.  2. Allow lots 50 feet in width or less to construct a home with only a one‐car garage. Limit  the garage to a maximum of 65 percent of the front façade.  3. Set the vertical:horizontal ratio of the building envelope at 2:1 instead of 4:1 for all lots.  4. Lower the side wall height from 15 feet to 13 feet at the side yard setback line for lots 65  feet in width or less.  5. For lots 65 feet in width or less, allow second floor dormers to extend outside of the  building envelope but with restrictions on location, size, and height.  6. Prohibit articulation elements from extending into the side yard setback for lots 50 feet  wide or less.  7. Reduce the secondary front yard setback for corner lots 65 feet in width as needed in  order to maintain a 27 foot wide building envelope.  8. Modify the lot coverage maximum for lots under 6,000 square feet to be 30 percent.    Next Steps  The proposed zoning text amendments are tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City  Council on Tuesday, July 7. The Narrow Lots web page will continue to operate and provide an  option for residents to provide on‐line comments through Wednesday, July 1.    Recommendation  Staff recommends amending the text of the Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District as  detailed in the attached document.    Attachments  Narrow Lots Info Session Feedback (16 pages)  Underline/Overstruck Language for Sec. 113‐88: Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District (10  pages)    Information Session Feedback 1 NARROW LOTS Info Session Feedback Name Address Comment John Gan- non 1532 Boone Ave N Golden Valley, MN 55427 United States If you approve a single car garage it might be worth considering that the drive- way be built double wide rather than rely on a single lane that would most likely be widened at a later date. Very few households have only one car and I have seen paved parking spots down by the street in front of a house. Not a pretty site. Russel Snyder 4124 Poplar Drive Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 United States I do like not requiring a double garage but do not like limiting the front garage to 65% of the facade width. That should be the owners choice. The proposal is really saying you CANNOT have a two car garage. It should be a choice, not mandated either way. You are replacing one bad rule with another bad rule. The reasoning stated was simply aesthetics. That is completely subjective and not like some of the other issues being addressed which can be shown objectively to adversely impact neighbors(shading, drainage, fire protection etc). There are good examples of homes on 40 foot lots in my neighborhood with both single and double car garage fronts. Bruce Still- man 7350 Half Moon Dr Golden Valley , Mn 55427 United States Dear Commission, I have witnessed allowing lots to be split in my nearby neighborhood. Where one home is replaced with two I am Not For Such. Golden Valley mustn’t become a Mpls copycat Skinny and long homes aren’t nearly as beautiful across the landscape. Take a look at what Harold avenue looks like when one of these projects goes thru. Now just imag- ine it all those lots became such. Ick Ick Ick. Please reconsider Once we destroy the neighborhood, we can’t get it back Respectfully submitted Bruce Stillman Information Session Feedback 2 Name Address Comment Pamela Lott 220 Sunnyridge Lane Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States It appears that the Golden Valley city council is determined to ignore the clear wishes of the residents of Golden Valley again despite several forums, question- naires, and public discussions on this topic. The only people who support changing lot size limitations are the builders and developers eager to make quick profit from out charming neighborhoods. PLEASE read the inputs and objections which have been raised time and again by your constituents.. PLEASE follow the example set by Edina to control in- appropriate out of control development by passing sensible lot size and setback rules. In doing so they have preserved the charm and valuation of the homes in Edina. Access to light and air and to the shelter of mature trees have a very real effect on the continuing appreciation of our neighborhoods. Please do not sacrifice the long term goals for a short term benefit! Martina Sailer 307 Sunnyridge Lane Golden Valley, Mn 55422 United States Golden Valley The proposed regulation is not enough. We now live in the shadows of 2 enor- mous homes both squeezed into 40 foot lots. Probably the most outrageous issue is their height - from the back, they are approx. 40 feet high and tower over all other homes in the area. Our grass is no longer green and my husband and 5 year old gave up their annual tomato plant tradition because of lack of sun. Not just the width and lack of setbacks but the height (from all sides!) should be considered with narrow lots. Claire De- Berg 433 Westwood Dr N Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States Dear Golden Valley, I have several items in this vein you must hear concerning the North Tyrol Hills Neighborhood: HEIGHT + SIZE RESTRICTIONS // If someone can build a 25-foot home DIRECTLY on a property line...how is that not a complete abuse of the term “house?” That is more distinguishable as a 25’ fence. Please be mindful of the neighborhood and personhood impacts of homes built to max out height and width restrictions. No one (and I mean not one single person) likes or appreciates the abuse of the land at 312 Meadow Lane in our city. The “builder/vulture” is squatting and seemingly not invest- ed in the community here and is staying only until they can sell it for a profit meanwhile our neighbor has lost her beloved Golden Valley neighborhood ex- perience because of a 25-foot wall of a house/fence built directly to her property line for a profit-motivated build. It’s embarrassing to Golden Valley. Please discover a creative way to protect neighborhood character from overde- velopment by restriction of height and size builds on narrow lots. Continued on next page... Information Session Feedback 3 Name Address Comment SUBDIVISIONS + UNCOUPLING // Stop. This is silly. I moved to GOLDEN VALLEY (from South Minneapolis) and it is precisely because I was no longer interested in the way South Minneapolis operated their neighborhoods (with homes packed together with little regard for nature, noise pollution, wildlife, quality of life and, well, life in general). From what I understand of my neighbor across the street the uncreative plan perpetuated by someone NOT from Golden Valley with NO interest in keeping our neighborhood, community and Golden Valley people or wildlife safe and healthy, the proposed lot subdivision that was proposed at 421 Burntside & 448 Westwood is in direct conflict with how you promised to lead residents. This is madness. Please place thoughtful restrictions on subdivisions + uncouplings + any fu- ture word games meant to shroud what is really being delivered to the land and people in Golden Valley: violence. Violence to the land and the people on it is creeping into the loose codes in our city. One definition of violence is what is being perpetuated already: damage through distortion or unwarranted alter- ation. Please do not allow people to run fr Golden Valley offices on a violence platform...we already have enough of that...it’s uncreative. WHAT I LOVE ABOUT GOLDEN VALLEY // I could also title this section: WHAT IS AT THREAT IN GOLDEN VALLEY. Because the slope has already been prepared by those who came before you and it is getting very slippery as each day passes. If developers are allowed to come to Golden Valley and open up their virtual trench coat to sell us rotten junk in the form of aesthetically tone deaf houses that kill plants, trees, ecosystems and community, imagine the power of goodness that could come from soulful lead- ers who can open up their hearts to us in order to create a more beautiful future! That said...here is what I love about beautiful Golden Valley: I love the space...my neighbors are not on top of me, I’m not on top of them. One of the reasons we moved here was looking ahead to our daughter’s high school graduation party. Truly. Now we have the yard that can bring all these wonderful people to wonderful Golden Valley. I love the architecture...we love modern architecture. Some people say “Mid-Century Modern” but that is redundant because modern architecture means that implicitly. ANYway, we chose our 50s home in order to maintain the beauty of its simplicity and architecture (not to knock it down and rework it in some cheap approach to a dwelling to make a quick buck). Continued on next page... Information Session Feedback 4 Name Address Comment I love the trees...my goodness the trees! I learned more than 20 trees were CUT DOWN to make way for some of these obnoxious, heartless new builds in the name of convenience. It’s embarrassing and wrong. Come on. Everyone knows we need trees. I love the fox...he roams around my neighborhood and let’s me see him on occasion for which I am so grateful. He is joined by buck, turkeys, fawns, does, snapping turtles, geese, hawks, kites, opossum, raccoon, pileated woodpecker, hummingbirds, coyote, butterflies and the myriad songbirds, birds of prey and yard animals hop- ping around. They were here first. I love the traffic...or lack thereof. My son is a scooter maniac. He’s 8. He kicks around the neighborhood on his scooter any chance he gets. With MORE hous- es (and by the looks of the lax hold Golden Valley has on development that could mean 3 houses per LOT!?) that means more traffic, more cars in the streets and more opportunities for my son to be hit or killed while he’s scooting around the neighborhood. It’s just ludicrous. Stop. I love my neighbors...they care and they connect. North Tyrol Hills is not so sprawl- ing that we’re disconnected yet not so close together that we’re apathetic. Please keep the neighbors, the city that voted you in, here. Please keep my son and the other neighborhood children alive. Please let the wildlife live. Please keep our air and nature clean by preserving and planting more trees. Please appreciate the architecture. Please let the land breathe. Make these issues a priority. With respect, Claire DeBerg Information Session Feedback 5 Name Address Comment Susan Eder 1635 KELLY DR Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 United States I am in favor of allowing construction of new homes on narrow lots, and I am in favor of allowing for lots of 40 - 79 feet to be platted from existing lots. I believe this will serve the purpose of providing affordable housing, allow ag- ing residents to downsize within the community, and provide diversity in the housing stock and overall population of Golden Valley. This is in direct align- ment with the City of Golden Valley’s stated equity plan, which was adopted in January 2018. https://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/about/pdf/Equity-Plan-Updat- ed-7-16-18.pdf In addition, this would increase the tax base for the City, which would in turn benefit all residents. This would also increase the stock of modern housing in our City, which will be needed as people move out of Minneapolis and look for a first-ring suburb to live. Our aging population is increasing - over 40% of our residents are over age 55 - and they will need to downsize to stay in this com- munity. In addition, diversifying the housing stock will also allow for inclusion within our suburb by creating housing that is affordable to a larger demograph- ic, which will in turn promote diversity among our neighbors and within the City staff. This zoning change - allowing for lots less than 80 fee wide - would affect me personally. I am interested in dividing my current 164 x 146 lot into a 99 x 146 foot lot and a 65 x 146 foot lot, so that I am able to sell my current 4 Bed 2 Bath home and build a smaller 2 Bed 2 Bath home on the smaller lot, which would afford me the opportunity to age in place. I grew up in Golden Valley, and want to stay here. I imagine there are other property owners like me who would like this opportunity, and I believe that our aging population would benefit from being able to age in place. We are a first-ring suburb of a major metropolitan city, and I believe that we have the opportunity to improve diversity and modernize the housing stock in our City through the promotion of small lots. Whitney Clark 4224 Glencrest Road Golden Valley, MN 55416 United States “Reducing side setbacks further starts to impact floor plans”. This is what the City Planning Manager said for why they did not increase side yard setback by more than one foot. What an atrocious reason- the city does not work for developers so that they can have their desired floor plans, the city works for the current, tax-paying residents. Many residents have spoken that they want lots to be kept larger- please keep it that way; or else come up with a better reason that doesn’t make he City Planning office sound bought and paid for by developers. Information Session Feedback 6 Name Address Comment Katrina Busick 832 Utah Ave S Golden Val- ley, Hennepin 55426 United States When we requested a variance for our property last year we were asked how we would ensure that the aesthetic of the neighborhood wouldn’t be changed by our project. Has this question been asked? An integral part of Golden Valley single family homes is that there is a substantial amount of green space. Has there been any impact study on how this loss of green space will affect wildlife/ insects? How about the added use of public systems like roads and sewers? It goes far beyond aesthetic changes when you look into it, and for us to have to prove due diligence for a second garage stall is understandable, for the city (and developers) to not answer that question, as well as many others is not. Harry Pulver 105 Meadow Lane N orth Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States Please do not make any further changes to lot sizes and setbacks in Golden Valley. If anything, make the lot sizes and set backs larger. Please support your residents wishes. Patricia Lucas Address is 225 Dakota Ave S, golden valley, MN 55416 we are writing here because we see no other option for submitting public tes- timony that is regarding changing lot size regulations. We wish to voice our strong objection to a zoning change of lot size. Lot size is what keeps our neigh- borhood in its pastoral manner. Decreasing lot size does not contribute enough to density issues. Instead it allows developers to maximize dollars at the expense of homeowners quality of life. Let’s work to increase a tax base and provide housing for more people with other more, appropriate measures; as urban plan- ners can study to solve this issue. Giant houses right next to each other are ugly and negatively create a picture of excess and a lack of respect for nature. Patricia and John Lucas John Broadhurst n/a Looking at the narrow lot problem, I would like to suggest a requirement sim- ilar to the English “ancient lights” rule. That says that a new building must nor subtend an angle of more than 45 degrees from the sill of the the window of lowest occupied room off an existing building. (garages, store rooms therefore not included). This avoids a narrow but tall building badly blocking light from an existing building. but avoids having to specify an absolute height. for new construcyion Daniel Sheran 3339 Lee Ave N Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States When the 80 feet wide limitation was enacted, the City of Golden Valley either knew or should have known of its impact on future development. The un- derlying rationale for opposing development on small lots is even more valid today. Those reasons include environmental impact; quality of life issues; traffic congestion; economic strain on existing water, gas and sewage systems; noise pollution; interference with existing homeowners views and sunlight exposure (among many other reasons). Inviting a law that allows development on small lots could also invite costly litigation from angry residents. The City has a duty to promote and protect the general health and welfare of its residents. Allowing development on small lots is a breach of that duty. Information Session Feedback 7 Name Address Comment Dan Browdie 7001 Olson MemorialHigh- way Golden Valley, MN 55427 United States Hello. We are against any zoning change that allows structures to be built closer to the property line or larger or taller than is currently code. This includes total footprint of the structure and garage and driveway. We have a lot next to us and are concerned that any change to the code will result in a structure closer and larger then is currently allowed. Thank you, Dan and Kim Browdie Mary Sanderlin 2565 Vale Crest Road Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States These seem well thought out. I don’t have any particular reservations. It seems that some residents really dislike the “oddball” house on the street and would favor some regulation. Philosophically speaking I am of the opinion that Golden Valley needs to have a variety of housing options. Some people love a big yard, some don’t. We should have all kinds of options available. Bruce Pap- pas 20 Ardmore Dr Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States I would encourage the Planning Commission to limit houses on narrow lots to one story, per the suggestion of the builder during the public forum. It’s hard for a layperson to understand what the suggestions will do to create housing that is in keeping with surrounding buildings. But I would encourage you to create such a document. I also encourage you to consider replatting all of the affected areas, so that own- ers commit to making their lots into one or putting their multiple lots on the tax records as such. Staff Response: Bruce, Thank you for offering your comments. While the proposed changes would not prohibit a second story on these narrow lots, they would make constructing a full second story much more difficult – especially on lots as narrow as 50 or 40 feet wide. If you’ve followed along with the extensive discussion that has been conducted at Planning Commission meetings, you’ll recall that the costs of con- struction tend to be such that creating a larger footprint to gain square footage is disproportionately more expensive than building up to gain square footage. Therefore, the Commissioners have tried to craft solutions that allow for some second story height while trying to reduce impacts on neighboring properties. I encourage you to watch the informational video and tune in to the Planning Commission public hearing on June 8 for more. Individual property owners are certainly welcome to replat their properties in order to create 80 (or 100) foot lots, rather than owning two 40 (or 50) foot lots. They are already identified this way by Hennepin County for tax purposes, but I have yet to find anyone interested in limiting their future options by going through an “official” replatting. The City does not have the ability to force any- one to take this action. Information Session Feedback 8 Name Address Comment Karen Hills 6533 Winsdale St Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 United States I am concerned about the height of new builds on narrow lots. A house being built next door to us is going to block out sun and make us feel more boxed in by the new build. I also wonder if there is any concern of how the new house fits into the neighborhood. Ours is rather modest with a mix of houses of all ages and styles. Does a “mcmansion” fit into the neighborhood? Will it affect taxes and property values? Of course, maybe a “fancy” new house might encourage the neighborhood to keep their properties in better shape. Information Session Feedback 9 Name Address Comment Stephen Glomb 4116 Beverly Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States If the city cannot prevent existing lots from being split into two narrow lots, then the city should at least put in place some measures to ensure that these new homes 1) respect the size/scale of the lots on which they sit, 2) are nor nega- tively impacting the surrounding homes on the block, or in the neighborhood, 3) ensure accessibility to all types of buyers to increase the diversity of Golden Valley neighborhoods, and 4) protect existing residents’ rights to things like privacy, sunlight, etc. The modifications to the code that are being proposed are extremely minor, and will not accomplish these objectives, nor will they prevent unfortunate and irreversible outcomes like what we’ve seen on Meadow Lane, and in other areas of the City. The number one concern among survey respondents was the “impact of con- struction on directly abutting properties,” and the modest restrictions that are currently being proposed will do little to prevent builders from coming into North Tyrol, splitting large lots in half, and then building two of the biggest houses that they possibly can in order to increase their profits. The unfortunate situation we’ve all seen unfold on Meadow Lane is going to be repeated over and over again, and all of this planning and discussion will be for naught if these minor revisions are approved and codified. The Planning Commission has an opportunity to propose a stricter zoning code for these narrow lots that will allow current residents to develop their narrow lot properties, while at the same time, protect neighboring residents from the ill effects of over-building and development. Specifically, I encourage you to reconsider the current proposal around side yard setbacks and increase them to ensure a more reasonable amount of space between homes on narrow lots. Add- ing one additional foot on one side isn’t going to accomplish anything. Similarly, I would encourage you to consider absolute height limits on homes to ensure that builders aren’t simply building “up”, since they can’t built “out” (the builder that you invited to give testimony on your panel made a public recommenda- tion that Golden Valley not allow two story homes on narrow lots; it seems as though you’ve chosen to ignore this recommendation). After reading literally every single open-ended comment contained in the Public Input Report, the prevailing neighborhood sentiment is clear; Golden Valley residents want protection from overbuilding on narrow lots, and they are frustrated that developers have gotten away with ruining our neighborhoods with their profit-driven projects. I feel that the proposed recommendations show more concern for the interests of builders and developers of the communi- ty than they do for the Golden Valley residents who have been living and paying taxes in this City for decades. Information Session Feedback 10 Name Address Comment Dan Leavitt 436 Westwood Drive N Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States My main concern continues to be that this is being driven by developers, build- ers, and realtors that are simply interested in maximizing profits. Most if not all do not live in Golden Valley or the neighborhoods that are being impacted. I could be more understanding if a homeowner remodeling their home wanted this but that does not seem to be the case. We continue to live in a great city and I think there are plenty of people who would be looking for a large lot to build on and not one that was subdivided. In fact I know this is true as we have had numerous new homes build in the past few years on lots that could have been subdivided but were not. Amy Le 105 Westwood Drive South Golden Valley, MN 55416 United States I am perplexed by the disconnect between resident input and the proposal. I attended multiple open meetings that the committee and council, respectively, hosted, and completed and reviewed the resident survey. What is now, finally, presented in these recommendation is not a reflection of the majority of resi- dents perspective and seems disappointing in its minimalist approach to con- cerns and wishes. Amanda Zweerink 400 WEST- WOOD DR S GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55416-3347 United States My family and I moved to North Tyrol Hills in Golden Valley three years ago from South Minneapolis, where the homes are too close together, and getting closer by the day thanks to developers who are cramming enormous homes onto tiny lots. We loved the space we found in North Tyrol, the sense of priva- cy, the individual character of the mid-century homes. Since we’ve moved in, the neighborhood has started changing in ways that sadden us. Developers are starting to take over in the same way we saw in S. MPLS — also, neighborhoods like Linden Hills and Edina are beyond belief in terms of enormous houses on tiny lots. I do not want my neighborhood to become like those. I do not want my neighbor’s home demolished and an enormous home tossed up that leaves my house in a shadow and kills my grass. I do not want to look out across my front lawn and see two enormous homes where there was once one. I’m be- ing dramatic because I believe that the wimpy narrow lot restrictions the city council is considering now will lead us down this path. I believe developers and tax dollars are driving decisions, and that the city council is not interested in preserving the character of our neighborhoods, the very reason why so many people desire to live here! I urge you to look at these restrictions again, and make them more aggressively in favor of homeowners and not developers. Casey Pavek 109 Maddaus Lane Golden Valley, MN 55416 United States Let’s welcome new build families into our neighborhood, not shun them for the appearance of their home, or their decision to buy or build what they want. Kinda feels like high school, and there’s some club that they can’t join. John Mag- ers 105 Westwood Drive South Golden Valley, MN 55416 United States I am disappointed and concerned by the lack of representation of resident input on the recommendations, Many of us invested time to learn, listen, and share our perspective as residents. The proposal favors developers’ input over ours and makes the process feel disingenuous. I honestly cannot see how the committee got from the various sources of input it sought to this set of recommendation, For those of us who took it seriously and have taken time to seek and to consid- er multiple stakeholder positions and different perspectives and who believed elected and appointed officials were honoring the process and their electorate’s input, this is disappointing at best. Information Session Feedback 11 Name Address Comment Eva Jensen 4010 Roanoke Circle Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States The narrow lot subdivision that is now deemed allowable within Tyrol Hills, based on historic property registrations is a surprise that has the potential to significantly and negatively impact residents on adjacent properties. In addition, the negative impact on the highly valued quality and historic design of Tyrol Hills is certain (values documented and confirmed in the 2005-6 neighborhood surveys and meetings). In order to mitigate these impacts, it is crucial to in- crease side-yard setbacks and height restrictions on construction and remodels on small lots. It is crucial to stop the practice of “grandfathering” in exceptions that allow building codes to be violated. Air-space rights, natural light rights, and privacy rights must be valued and protected by codes that are developed and adopted. Alexandra Cervenka 4205 Beverly av Golden Valley , MN 55422 United States Definitely disapprove on dividing lots and building on narrow lots ugly build- ings! ( Meadow lane N) Jeff Hanscom 212 Natchez ave n Golden valley, Mn 55422 United States Please put moratorium on reducing current lot size in Golden Valley. Heather Fraser 115 Maddaus Ln Golden Valley, MN 55416 United States --Do not allow regular building setbacks on corner lots less than 60 feet wide. If this makes a narrow corner lot unbuildable, it will need to remain as part of the adjoining lot. --40-foot lots platted “back in the day” should have homes built on them that are no larger or more massed than moderate homes of that time would have been. --It’s unnecessary to mandate a single-car garage for narrow lots. That’s not the problem. --No more than 2 building permits per 40-foot lot per year, per block, for blocks that include 40-foot lots. This will help preserve the quiet of the neighborhood for other residents. --Side yards must be at least 5 feet and must total at least 17 feet. So 5/12, 6/11, 7/10, 8/9, etc. Kent John- son 324 Sunnyridge Ln Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States Ideally I would like current lot sizes to stay intact. By creating two or more narrow lots on an existing lot only adds to detract from the ambiance of this beautiful neighborhood. Obviously a developer wants to maximize their profits. They finish and move on. They don’t live here. Let’s try and keep the integrity of this neighborhood. It’s one of the reasons most of us moved here and why this neighborhood is in high demand. Information Session Feedback 12 Name Address Comment David Knaeble 227 Sunnyridge Lane Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States To PC and CC - As a resident of Golden Valley, a Professional Civil Engineer, a Licensed Real- tor and having done a couple of small development projects in the west metro, I have some concerns regarding the proposed code revisions for small lots in Golden Valley. I think the current codes that are in place do a great job of bal- ancing the rights of the property owners to remodel or build a modest house on their property while limiting the impacts to the surrounding houses and neigh- borhood. Regarding the specific recommended code revisions, the one I am most con- cerned with is the current recommendation to limit the ability to build a two car garage on the front of a house on the small 40’ wide lots. In my experience, this would be very detrimental to the value of the property and would be undesir- able for most buyers. Most people looking to either buy a home or build a home will not even consider a house unless it has a two car garage. The other concern I have are about the suggested revisions is the recommended change to not allow the City required side house bump-out in the setback. This can greatly impact the amount of living space that people could have on their property. I am not a builder or a house designer, but I know that this would be very detrimental to a person or family who was looking to remodel or build a house on one of the small lots. Before any decisions are made regarding the code changes, I would recommend that you know exactly what type of house would fit on these lots after any of these changes are implemented. The City would not want to inadvertently limit the ability for a current resident to be able to remodel or build a home in this City and require them to do that in another surrounding community. Thanks, David Knaeble Debra Whalen 4116 Glencrest Road Golden Valley, MN 55416 United States Lot size must have height and width proportional balance. Far too many homes are constructed/remodeled beyond proportion to lot size and existing neighbor- ing structures. I live next to one of these teardown reconstructs. Reduced natu- ral light and airflow, not to mention excess roof run off and height has negative- ly affected our property enjoyment and possibly value. Please consider the fabric of the existing home structures when ruling on new height width restrictions, our community is counting on it. Valerie Dahlman 117 Meadow Ln So Golden Valley, MN 55416 United States PLEASE do not allow narrow/smaller lots in North Tyrol. We have lived here for almost 40 years and consider the heavily treed, large, irregular lots to be a big part of the beauty of this area. It is heartbreaking to see older homes leveled and 2 (or more) homes going up on the same lot. Thank you for hearing and honor- ing my voice and the voices of so many of our neighbors. Information Session Feedback 13 Name Address Comment Heidi An- nexstad 4009 Roanoke Circle Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States I appreciate your efforts to increase side yard minimums and would encourage you to consider a six foot minimum. In close quarters, every foot makes a differ- ence. One wonderful thing about GV and particularly the North Tyrol area where I live is the huge variety of architectural styles, including modest mid-centu- ry ramblers, cottage-style 2 stories, and some very fine modernist houses. I’m concerned that the emphasis on dormer windows for additional mass will lead developers to build very uniform, many-dormered houses (as in the Meadow Lane/Sunnyridge area). Is there any way we can continue to encourage architec- tural diversity, perhaps by offering incentives for smaller, bolder houses? Con- sider the Rapson house on Glenwood between Meadow Lane & Ardmore. STUART Kaufman 15 westwood drive south GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55416 United States I am a resident of North Tyrol neighborhood of Golden Valley for the past 26 years. We residents enjoy a bucolic setting within minutes of downtown Min- neapolis. We are a neighborly group and seem to get along well together. We do not want lots to be made smaller, and new large homes built on smaller lots, which would change the character of our neighborhood. I am against any changes in zoning that permit building on lots smaller than the current stan- dard. To increase population density requires apartment buildings in neighborhoods zoned for apartments. We have many areas of Golden Valley where those buildings can and are being built. I am against zoning changes that will change the housing density in North Tyrol. Sincerely,, etc, Stuart Kaufman jennifer Rubin 615 parkview terrace golden valley, mn 55416 United States As a senior citizen and someone who has lived here for 35 years, it has been a hardship to have so many warm seasons ruined by construction noise, flat tires, lost trees, greenspace, lost skyline and natural light (even GV building height regulations ingnored), difficult street parking and navigating my own driveway due to vehicle congestion, and, not least, surging taxation. Residential properties in Tyrol Hills, which began in the late 1930s, were designed to be in harmony with Wirth Park, the wildlife, and the ecology of this unusual corner of the metropolitan region. There is a big difference between thoughtful and elegant design versus the ostentatious, almost palatial, residences being developed on yards that are not palatial in size or, in many cases, on divided lots for the devel- opers and speculators to create even more wealth when they purchase a proper- ty instead of a traditional home purchase. Information Session Feedback 14 Name Address Comment STUART Kaufman 15 westwood drive south GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55416 United States Having just seen the video of the 9 zoning elements, I need to amend my previous comments. How about NOT allowing larger homes to be built on the small lots that are currently build on? The new homes would have to be built on a similar percentage of the lot as the previous older home is built on. John Lehman 104 Maddaus Lane Golden Valley, MN 55416 United States Please do not allow the division of lots in North Tyrol. We bought here due to its charm, space, nature, and proximity to the city. We have lived here four years and I regularly walk and run the neigh- borhood. I have not seen a single instance of dividing lots/narrow lots have a positive impact on aesthetics or property values. Please fight to protect the integrity of our neighborhood. It would be an irreversible travesty to permit this. We pay A LOT in property taxes, and I hope and pray that these requests to eliminate and/or prohibit narrow lots do not fall on deaf ears. The highest earners, highest tax paying residents in our neighborhood feel the same way. Please protect what we paid for. Thank you. Cindy Wit- tkowske 1827 Toledo ave n Golden Valley, mn 55422 United States I am not in favor of narrow city lots. Our streets are already too busy with cars. More development=more demand on city services, water etc. Although narrow lots may offer increased tax revenue, I don’t believe it would be enough to justify squeezing more housing into a tiny lot and changing the appeal of Golden Valley. Neal Kielar 4121 Beverly Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States This process is a sham, from the inadequate communications and poorly con- structed survey to the inappropriate developments the city already has allowed in many neighborhoods. We see these monstrosity houses every day and witness the damage they’ve done to existing neighbors, the excessive loss of tree cover and other environmental harms. The pro-developer bias is so palpable that it should lead people to wonder what money is changing hands to slide these changes through. The mayor, many council members and the plan- ning staff already have decided that money trumps quality of life and communi- ty character. David Welter 2800 Kyle Ave- nue North n/a n/a, Minnesota Golden Valley United States I live next door to a narrow lot, I do not want to see a McMansion built on it. I do feel for the current residents not having a garage and other things. But I do not want a new house over shadowing my house. Information Session Feedback 15 Name Address Comment Barbara Klaas 309 Meadow Ln S Golden Valley, MN 55416 United States Please, don’t allow building and plot divisions that take away the light coming into existing homes. Not only is space between houses important, especially given the characteristics of lots and houses as currently spaced, but also the height of new housing in retaliation to surrounding houses. I understand that current owners have rights, given the property specifications for their property, but any new development or construction must Take into consideration the loss of light and privacy of the houses abutting the site. Brian Taylor 4113 Beverly Ave Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States I oppose any adjustments to current city lots sizes. Predatory builders must be kept out of our beautiful, unique neighborhoods. Let them build their ugly McMansions somewhere else, not here Jon Mehus 4121 Beverly Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States Based on your conclusions, once again you ignore the residents who actually live in the community. I must remind you the planning commission doesn’t give a damn about bettering our neighborhood. When the city invited developers & realtors to speak to the planning council, every member was there. It was ex- tremely important to hear the viewpoints of these people. When the community was invited to express our concerns, you couldn’t be BOTHERED to show up, oh I’m sorry, two of you did. Its a rigged & dirty city hall, you care only about the developers & the pockets they can fill. When the community showed up,& there were more than 80 of us, we wanted something that actually will have an impact. You chose to ignore us & any input we had. These houses that they are proposing & building are too big for these small lots. they unfairly infringe on housing that is already there. Rebecca Goldberg 4113 Beverly Ave Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 United States Don’t allow predatory builders to invade Golden Valley. vicki mcginty 4500 sunset ridge Gv, Mn 55416 United States I can only think that with all of the meetings and input and concerns it must be so clear that so very few are NOT against the small lots, I truly do not know what else could be said. The neighborhood is desirable because of what we are not what we would be. Thank you for listening to all of us passionate souls. Information Session Feedback 16 Name Address Comment Jon Mcaab 501 Burntside Dr Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States I feel that Golden Valley with North Tyrol Hills in particular is very well orga- nized and dense enough. There really is not enough resources to warrant dens urban living in this neighborhood. If it were more mixed use with businesses and options for walkable work life balance, it could make sense for more density in housing and buildings. It is not setup that way. It is a respite from dense urban living. Let’s keep it that way. Let’s keep it with room to breath. Let’s keep it with nature. Let’s keep it from becoming too developed. The wildlife will not have a place to be and the water runoff will not have any natural places to go. It’ll detract from our living experience and force the city to come up with expensive ways to deal with the added water runoff. I don’t think north Tyrol needs more density than it already has. Emma Charleswo- rth-Seiler 6610 GLEN- WOOD AVE- NUE GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 United States From reading the Community Input Report, it seems that many of the concerns with allowing development of narrow lots is the impact it will have on neigh- boring houses (crowding, sunlight, construction noise, etc). Much of this could be addressed if the zoning codes included regulations for house size on these lots. In particular, I would highly suggest considering changing codes to allow tiny homes on wheels in these spaces. These dwellings are typically just 12-30 feet long and 13.5 feet tall which would address the issue of crowding space and blocking sunlight from neighbors. They are almost always already constructed, so there would be no construction nuisance. They are single family homes and the lots would not be in danger of being developed by people intending to sell large houses or changing the “character” of the neighborhood with monochro- matic mansions. In addition, allowing tiny homes in Golden Valley would be a first for the Twin Cities area and would put our city at the forefront of a growing movement. There are many people with tiny homes on wheels who would love to live near the cities in a community like ours. I’m happy to share further information on specific zoning and building code recommendations for change if the interest arises. There are many other cities across the country that have changed their zoning requirements and building codes to legalize tiny homes. mark stan- ley 213 janalyn circle golden valley, mn 55416 United States please consider more space between houses on small lots, and more restrictions on height. the current proposed changes do little to address this communities concerns. Information Session Feedback 1 Info Session Feedback Name Address Comment Steven Shapiro 219 Meadow Lane N Minneapolis, MN 55422 United States I support take an active role in controlling micro-subdivision which leads to houses that a very oversized for their lots. Developers are very adept at regrad- ing lots to make houses that meet the letter of the zoning code from the front, but very much skirt the spirit of the code from the sides and back. Meadow Lane North has atleast three examples of the this extensive regrading to put big houses into small spaces. There has been much concern about “McMansions” in the past. McMansions are houses greatly overized for their lots These micro-subdivisions are their own form of McMansions because they are also grossly oversized for their micro lots and deserve as much regulations of a traditional McMansion Paul Schneck 122 Burntside Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States My view of the plans is that they cater too much to the input of the realtors and builders, and not enough to the interests of the people who plan on continu- ing to make Tyrol the place where they live. We need to protect the beauty and integrity of our neighborhood and what makes it unique. We do not need to sacrifice all of that so builders and realtors can make money. Barbara Lund 4010 Roanoke Circle Golden Valley , MN 55422 United States 1-The city needs to STOP allowing exceptions and variances!!! No more grand- father in -- this is a manipulative process. 2-The side yard setbacks MUST be increased ! 3-Focus on protection of air, sunlight, and privacy rights for neighbors. 4- Protect and honor nature--mature trees, planting trees, and open space. 5-Limit and reduce height allowance of contruction--NO DORMERS!! 6- Information Session Feedback 2 Name Address Comment Carrie Schneider 416 Westwood Drive N Golden Valley, MN 55422 United States I absolutely do not agree with narrowing lots. Our North Tyrol Hills neighbor- hood is amazing because of the lot sizes and space that we have between houses. It’s why we moved here and why we fell in love with the neighborhood. North Tyrol Hills would NOT be the same if you let people and builders profit off of dividing lots. THEY WILL NOT LIVE HERE and only care about the money. The rest of us suffer from the loss of trees. The loss of space. The loss of the tran- quility we purchased our homes for. We would have stayed in South Minneap- olis if we wanted to be living on top of people. Let’s care about the environment and stop allowing profits and selfishness to infiltrate our neighborhoods. I abso- lutely disagree with allowing this horrific practice continue—think about it—the people diving won’t live here. They won’t have the impact is their decision to live with, just their greedy money in their banks. I 100% feel that the neighborhood we live in will only remain this gorgeous one-of-a-kind area to live in if we keep these amazing large lots and keep the neighborhood charming and full of green space and trees. We could be one of those houses to divide our lot, but we would NEVER DO THAT, because we know it will destroy the integrity of the entire neighborhood we live in. We are not that selfish and greedy. Please, do not allow people to destroy more for profit. Keep our neighborhoods the ones we all fell in love with. Keep them for the people that live here, not the ones that are leaving. Please do not allow lot splitting. Save the trees. Save the beautiful homes. Save our neighborhood. Brian Schneider 416 Westwood Dr N Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 United States I don’t think there’s a need for more narrow lots in North Tyrol Hills or any- where for that matter. There are already so many small lots in so many cities and neighborhoods around the metro. Why can’t we preserve some of the larger lot areas where there are less houses close together and more green space? Why allow this just for developers or owners looking to sell their property who only care about increased profits? There are already good profits to be made when selling or flipping a house. This could bring down property values for those of us still living in the neighborhood by increased congestion of people, car traf- fic, and street parking. This seems to only be about making more money off the land and not caring so much about the consequences. Notice how I emphasized more money and not just starting to make a profit. I don’t think I’ve heard a good argument for adjusting the narrow lot regulations. Base your judgement on there being very few positive points for only a select group of people and far more negative points for the vast majority of us who want to keep our neighbor- hood spread out, numerous old growth trees, and neighbors not almost within reach of the next house. I appreciate your time and trust you to make the right ethical decision to not adjust the city’s narrow lot regulations to allow for nar- row lots. Information Session Feedback 3 Name Address Comment Ashley Raak 119 Edgewood Ave N Golden Valley, MN 55427 United States Overall, the proposed adjustments seem okay. The more we can tighten the rules on narrow lots, the better. I’m all in favor of more emphasis on yard/green space on lots vs home. A lot of this could be avoided if we stopped allowing builders/investors/home- owners to sell lots and then replace one home with 2 or 3. You’re making our city more dense, which takes away from the allure and what’s special about Golden Valley. If I wanted to live on top of my neighbors, I’d move to Minne- apolis or St Louis Park. Plus, it breaks my heart to see a perfectly good home be torn down so some cookie cutter nonsense can go in its place. I’ve seen this a lot, especially in my neighborhood Sec. 113-88. - Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District is to provide for detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses. (b) District Established. Lots shall be established within the R-1 Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 113-29. The district established and/or any subsequent changes to such district shall be reflected in the Official Zoning Map of the City as provided in Section 113-56. (c) Principal Uses. The following principal uses shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning District: (1) Single-family dwellings, consistent with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy (2) Residential facilities serving six or fewer persons (3) Foster family homes; and (4) Essential services, Class I. (d) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning District: (1) When the property owner resides in the dwelling, rental of single sleeping rooms to not more than two people for lodging purposes only; and (2) In-home child care licensed by the State. (3) Home occupations, as governed by the following requirements: a. The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes. b. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the operation of the home occupation. c. There shall be no outside storage or display of signage or anything related to or indicative of the home occupation. d. An accessory structure, including a garage, shall not be used for a home occupation. e. A permitted home occupation shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights, odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical, radio, or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety, enjoyment, and general welfare of the surrounding residential neighborhood. f. No physical products shall be displayed or sold on the premises those incidental to the permitted home occupation. g. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permitted for residential purposes. h. Clients, deliveries, and other business activity where persons come to the home shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. i. No more than 20 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling shall be used for the home occupation. j. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the driveway of the property where the home occupation operates. k. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight client trips per day and serve no more than two clients or customers at a time. l. There shall only be one outside employee allowed on the premises at which a home occupation is located. m. All other applicable City, State, and Federal licenses, codes and regulations shall be met. n. The following uses are prohibited home occupations: 1. Repair, service, building, rebuilding or painting of autos, trucks, boats, and other vehicles 2. Repair and service of items that cannot be carried by one person and repair and service of any item involving an internal combustion engine or motor 3. Retail sales 4. Medical/dental clinic or similar 5. Restaurants or cafes 6. Animal hospital 7. Veterinary clinic 8. Stable or kennel 9. Funeral home, mortuary, or columbarium; and 10. Sale or repair of firearms. (e) Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in this chapter: (1) Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons; and (2) Group foster family homes. (f) Principal Structures. Principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: (1) Setback Requirements. The following setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the dwelling or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stairs and stair landings of up to 25 square feet in size and for accessible ramps. a. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front lot line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot line along a street right-of- way line. This requirement shall not reduce the building envelope on any corner lot to less than 27 feet in width. b. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 25 feet. c. Side Setbacks. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: 1. In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in height shall be 15 feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point 15 feet directly above the side setback line (see figure below). 2. In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in height shall be 12.5 feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point 15 feet directly above the side setback line (see figure below). 3. In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 1513 feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be 10 percent of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be 20 percent of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). In no case shall a side setback be less than 5 feet. The side setback for any portion of a structure greater than 1513 feet in height measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 42:1 beginning at a point 1513 feet directly above the side setback line (see figure below). d. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter front lot line. e. Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the height limitation shall constitute the building envelope (see figures below). No portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope, except for: 1. Cornices and eaves, no more than 30 inches 2. For lots greater than 50 feet in width, Bbay windows or chimney chases, no more than 24 inches but no closer than 5 feet from the side property line 3. Chimneys, vents, or antennas 4. Stairs and stair landings up to 25 square feet in size; or 5. Accessible ramps.; or 6. For lots 65 feet in width or less, dormers, subject to the following requirements: a. In general. The total dormer length along one side of a structure may be broken into more than one section. No portion of any dormer shall extend above the ridge line of the roof. b. Shed dormer. A dormer with a flat eave line that runs parallel to the primary roof line. i. The total length of all shed dormers along one side of a structure is limited to 50 percent of the length of the main wall below. ii. The front wall of a shed dormer shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the plane of the main wall below. iii. The side walls of a shed dormer shall be set back a minimum of four feet from the plane of the main wall below on each end of the structure. iv. The maximum height of a shed dormer shall be 20 feet as measured from the average grade to the front eave line of the dormer. c. Gable dormer. A dormer with a peaked roof. i. The total length of all gable dormers along one side of a structure is limited to 40 percent of the length of the main wall below. ii. The front wall of a gable dormer shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the plane of the main wall below. iii. The side walls or furthest extent of a gable dormer shall be set back a minimum of four feet from the plane of the main wall below on each end of the structure. iv. The maximum height of a gable dormer shall be 25 feet as measured from the average grade to the dormer peak. (2) Height Restrictions. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District with a building height exceeding 28 feet as measured from the average grade at the front building line. The average grade for a new structure shall be no more than one foot higher than the average grade that previously existed on the lot. (3) Structure Width Requirement. No principal structure shall be less than 22 feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls. (4) Side Wall Articulation. For any new construction, whether a new dwelling, addition, or replacement through a tear-down, any resulting side wall longer than 32 feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least two feet in depth, for at least eight feet in length, for every 32 feet of wall. (5) Decks. Decks over eight inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure in the side and rear yards. (6) Kitchens. No more than one kitchen and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwelling unit. (7) Manufactured Homes. All manufactured or modular homes must meet the provisions of the zoning and building codes. (g) Accessory Structures. Accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: (1) Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District: a. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback than the principal structure. b. Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from the front lot line. c. Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five feet from a side or rear lot line. d. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. e. Separation Between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. f. Alleys. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five feet from an alley. g. Fences. For the purposes of setbacks, fences are not considered structures. (2) Height Restrictions. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District with a height in excess of one story, which is 10 feet from the floor to the top horizontal component of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened (known as the "top plate"). For the purposes of this regulation, the height of a shed roof shall be measured to the top plate. (3) Area Limitations. Each lot is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. No one detached accessory structure may be larger than 800 square feet in area and any accessory structure over 200 square feet in area requires a building permit. No accessory structure shall occupy a footprint larger than that of the principal structure. (4) Zoning Permits. The following shall require a zoning permit to ensure a conforming location on the lot: a. Fences b. Patios c. Any accessory structures less than 200 square feet in area; and d. Decks and platforms that do not require a building permit. (5) Garage Provisions. Garages in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: a. Minimum Garage Stalls. For lots greater than 50 feet wide, Nno building permit shall be issued for a single-family dwelling not having a two-stall garage unless the registered survey submitted at the time of the application for the building permit reflects the necessary area and setback requirements for a future two-stall (minimum) garage. Lots 50 feet in width or less may be constructed with one garage stall. b. Maximum Garage Width. For lots 50 feet in width or less, the width of the front wall of an attached garage shall not exceed 65 percent of the width of the dwelling's front facade. For purposes of this subsection, a dwelling's front facade means that portion of the dwelling's building facing a front lot line that includes any front wall of a garage and provides vehicular access to the garage. 1. Measurement of Front Facade. The width of the front facade shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the dwelling's exterior side walls at the front facade's widest point. 2. Measurement of Front Garage Wall. For purposes of this subsection, the front wall of a garage shall be the wall of the garage facing the front lot line, including any door providing vehicular access to the garage. The width of the front wall shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the exterior or outermost location of the garage's two side walls at their intersection with the garage's front wall. (6) Roof Style. Gambrel and mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory structure with a footprint of more than 200 square feet. (7) Decks. Freestanding decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory structures. (8) Garden Structures. Garden structures shall be located no closer than five feet to any lot line. Garden structures shall not exceed 10 feet in height. (9) Play Structures. Play structures shall be located no closer than five feet to any lot line. Play structures shall not exceed 10 feet in height. (10) Swimming Pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the lot line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above-ground pools shall meet setback requirements. (11) Photovoltaic Modules. Freestanding photovoltaic modules, including solar panels and other photovoltaic energy receivers, which are in excess of three square feet shall meet the same setback, location, and height requirements for accessory structures. (12) Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall be prohibited in a front yard. (h) Temporary Storage Units. Temporary storage units in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: (1) Duration. Temporary storage units shall not be stored on a lot for more than 14 days. (2) Location. Temporary storage units shall be stored on a hard surface and be located completely on private property. (i) Pre-1982 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 Zoning District prior to January 1, 1982, the following structure setbacks shall be in effect: (1) Front Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than 25 feet to the front lot line. (2) Side Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than three feet to the side lot line. (3) Rear Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than 10 feet to the rear lot line. (4) Accessory structures. The structure setback for accessory structures shall be no closer than three feet to the side or rear Lot lines. At the discretion of the City Manager or his/her designee, a property owner may be required to move an accessory structure if it is located in a public easement area. (j) Pre-April 15, 2015, Structures, Building Permits and Applications. For all structures constructed and building permits issued or applied therefor in the R-1 Zoning District prior to April 15, 2015, if the height and side setbacks were deemed by the City to be compliant with the zoning code at the time a building permit was issued or applied therefor, the height and location shall be deemed conforming to current zoning code. However, in all cases, new construction and additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the zoning code. (k) 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 10,000 square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet at the front setback line shall be required for one single-family dwelling. (l) Lot Coverage. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning District shall have lot coverage of more than 30 percent for a lot or parcel over 10,000 square feet or greater in area, 35 percent for a lot or parcel betweengreater than 56,000 square feet and less than 9,99910,000 square feet in area and 430 percent for a lot or parcel less than 56,000 square feet or less in area. This requirement excludes swimming pools. (m) Impervious Surfaces. The total amount of impervious surfaces on any lot shall not exceed 50 percent of the area. (n) Paved Areas. Paved areas in the R-1 Zoning District, including those constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers, are governed by the following provisions: (1) Driveways. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be paved. (2) Setbacks. Paved areas shall be set back three feet from a lot line, except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement. (3) Coverage. No more than 40 percent of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. (4) Street Access. Each lot may have only one street curb cut access, except the following lots may have up to two street curb cut accesses: a. A lot that contains two legally constructed garages. b. A lot of a resident who requires additional driveway access qualifying for a reduced class rate for homestead property as defined by Minn. Stats. § 273.13, subd. 22, Class 1b.