2006_1016_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case # 10000B-Ob Page 2.2 propos�d house to comply will be to increase �he side setback or to r�design the roofto switch from an expased gable facing the side to a hip rnof or sarne at�er raaf design. Lat Width The propased lot width standards c�ange the assumptians on which new lots can be created. Historicaliy, Blaomington has required that all lots meet a citywide, minimu� lot widt� {80 feet). This approach has been u�npopular with neighbors of recent subdi�isions in areas where most existing lats are much wider than tkte r�iraimuzn. In recent years, the concerns have become more pronduneed as t�e size of homes have grawn si�;nificantly whi�e the rninimum Iot size has remained constant. The �ro�osed sfiandards assume that in addition to the mini�u�n cirywide lot width standard (SO feet), lois shouid alsa re£�ect the width of e�isting iots in the surro�rnding r�eigkzbo:r�ood �p to a rt�aximum of I20 fee� in width. Ti�e City ofEdina has applied a similar, "prevailing iat width" apprnach. Whilu the change is a signif eartt po�icy shift �'or Bloomington, it also has very tangible impacts that deserve discussion. As a test, staff has applied the standards against several recent subdivisions tn see how many Iats could be crea�ed. The attached table and �naps summari�e the results of the test. In most cases, fewer Iots would result. While the result nf fe�wer lots would likely be popular wiih neighboring properCy orrvners, there are valid concerns as well. Concerns about the "prevailing lot width" approach incl�de: • It �ay result in decreased prop�rty �a(ues for owners o� large lots that are currently subdividabie. •�ewer new iots and k�aXxzes will be created in the City. • New lots will be larger c�n average and therefore nnore expensive. Costs will be passed on to buyers. New homes will cosi mnre. • The standards will fail the test of counter simplicity. It'a custorr�er at the front counter asks a p�anner whether a gi�en parcel can be subdi�ided, an answer may be impossible to provide over ti�e counter. It may require a great deal o�'research to gather the lot widths of surrounding Lats and determine the median. Tl�ere rnay be disputes in cases where a foot or iwo here and �here rn�az�s the difference bei-vveen having or not having atz additional lot. S�r�eyors may need to be ernployed to reaeh a eonclusion. That adds direct casts and tim� costs to the subdivision prQCess. Those casts wilI again be passed an to buyers. Tree Preservatio� Staff helieves tk�ere are bath advan�ges and disadvantages ta t�e proposed tree pres�r�ation standards tha� must be weig�ed against one another. Advantages include: More existing trees will be preserved and new trees plantect, aithough the r�u�nbers may not be substantial. Over the last �ve years, Bloorr�ington has been averagir�g 20 new single family building perrr�its per year. Giver� t�at some ofthose building pe�its are far tearclowns on existing lots, approxitnaiely 15 new single fa�ily lots were created per year. Some of these Iots would aIready comply. Others wauld likely mak� adjustmenis in b�itding location to comply or comply by planting replacement trees an-sit�. Es�ablishr�ent af uniform standards will "set tlZe bar" £or tree preser�ation up front and reduce plat by pla� negotiatinn/disc�assion an tree remaval. Both developers and neighboring property ownecs wiil have a better sense at t�e sta�t af the praeess af Gkely auteomes. TZeport to the Planning Com�nission July 13, 2006 Division af City Planning