Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012

Home

ing development be a particular minimum • lot size in order to preserve neighborhood property values, when in fact well- designed, denser development could enhance those values even more. As in Winnipeg, the question was how to ensure that future development would be consistent with the established character of surrounding areas. To do that, Duluth decided to use "contextual" standards for minimum Jacob Worland _con istr on small s encoura `= overla overlays a DULUTH, MINNESOTA In 2006, Duluth adopted a visionary compre- hensive plan to guide the future of the city and the redevelopment of its waterfront. Two years later it began integrating and updating its 1950s -era zoning code and seven other ordinances to help make that plan a reality. The new code adopted in 2010 is a hybrid code that includes eight new form -based districts targeted to key walkable mixed use areas of the city, including the waterfront and downtown. Since the development code was gaining a more complex district struc- ture in some areas, the city looked for ways to simplify the code in others and eventually decided to consolidate the existing Ri -a, Ri- b, Ri -c, and R -2 zone districts. The three R -1 districts differed only in minimum lot area, . lot width, and setbacks, while the little used R -2 district also allowed construction of two- family structures. ® Contextual standards that require consistency with existing development patterns can be an effective tool for facilitating district consolidations. lot size, minimum lot width, and setbacks in the consolidated R -1 district. Those solutions are shown in the table below. R -i DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Minimum lot area per family (One- family) Minimum lot area per family (Two - family) Minimum lot area per family (Town house) Minimum lot frontage (one- family, two - family, and townhouses) Minimum depth of front yard Minimum width of side yard (one- and two - family) Lot Standards Setbacks, Minimum General Lots with less than 50 ft. frontage and garage As the table illustrates, two different types of contextual standards were used. Minimum lot sizes begin at the lowest size permitted for single- family homes in the earlier code (4,000 square feet in area, 3o feet in width) but are modified upward to reflect the average size of lots developed with that use on the same block face (i.e., all of the lots on the same side of the street between the nearest two intervening cross - streets). The city origi- nally intended to use the same contextual measure for front and side setbacks but later decided to simplify it by only refer- ring to the immediately adjacent lots de- veloped with the same type of structure. While lot size and width is based on the block face, setbacks are based only on adjacent lots. The old Duluth zoning ordinance contained a 30o -foot spacing requirement for two-family structures in single - family districts, as well as an i,800- square -oot minimum size for two- family structures in order to protect the predominant char- acter o (those districts. T os t h e p rovisions carried over into in early drafts of the new code and would have applied in the consolidated R -1 district. However, after discussion only the minimum unit size was retained and the spacing restriction was dropped as unnecessary. City of Duluth, Minnesota The larger of 4,000 -sq. ft. or average of developed i- family lots on the block face The larger of 3,000 sq. ft. or average of developed 2- family lots on the block face 2,50o sq. ft. The larger of3o ft. or average of developed lots with similar uses on the block face The smaller of 25 ft. or average of adjacent developed lots facing the same street The larger of 6 ft. or average of adjacent developed lots facing the same street Combined width of side yards must be at least 12 ft. ZONINGPRACTICE 2.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (page 4