1997 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ee ee . . design" look to the land by forcing the use of valuable open space land area to be used for oversized lot areas that mayor may not be appropriate to the land and the marketplace. The minimum lot sizes shown also tend to make it extremely difficult to meet the affordable housing provision under the density bonus standards in Section 4.6 Density Standards. A traditional argument for minimum lot size (other than septic requirements) is to assure buildable lots. The requirements under (1)(A) above do that job. Competent plan review should catch unbuildable lots. Minimum lot sizes are really superfluous in today's world - especially those of the magnitude shown on this table. If a minimum lot size is felt to be absolutely necessary, I suggest that used in the Historic Country Club District of Edina developed 1929 by the Thorpe Brothers Realty Company. This was the first planned community development in the metropolitan Twin Cities, and it is on the National Register of Historic Places for that distinction. I live in that district on a 50 foot wide 6500 square foot lot. I get at least one letter a month from realtors who have clients looking for a home in this district asking me if I would like to sell. This lot size has demonstrated both buildability and an unusually strong market value since 1929 (right through the Great Depression)! There can be no credible argument that such a small lot size would lead to reduced property values. History has proven the opposite to be true. The other police power arguments for larger lot sizes are similarly refuted by this development. Living conditions in this district are healthy, safe and at least as moral as anywhere with larger lot sizes. Under the OSD Development Ordinance, the earlier provision allowing drainfields to be placed in adjacent open space areas would make this size lot feasible even with septic systems. Setback Requirements. The minimum side yard setbacks are generally too large. Again, I think it is important to recognize the difference between minimum health, safety, morals, and welfare needs, and market desires. Anything more than the minimum necessary setback could constitute a taking. Your consultant Randall Arendt suggested separation of 15 feet between structures. I agree. Somehow, this has become a 15 foot side yard setback from side lot lines in Table 1- this means a 30 foot separation between structures (except for the RS zone where 10 foot setback or 20 foot separation is required). I suggest a simple 15 foot separation between structures period with no specific side yard setbac~. This would provide for fire separation, access to light and air, and facilitate lot innovations such as 'Z' lots and zero lot line development. Also the general provision I suggested for a minimum 5 foot setback from all property lines assures an absolute minimum side yard setback on anyone side. If there is any question that these setbacks work, I again refer to the Country Club lots in Edina as a precedent. The typical separation between houses on many of these lots is 13 to 16 feet. My own lot is an example of how this works. I have a 3 foot side yard on the north side of my lot and a 12 foot side yard on the south side. My driveway is in the 12 foot side yard, abutting my neighbor to the south's 3 foot side yard. My neighbor to the north has his driveway in his 12 foot side yard adjacent to my 3 foot side yard. Interestingly, anthropologists have found that neighboring activity increases with distance between the front doors of adjacent homes decreases, and vice-versa. For this reason, side lot setbacks have everything to do with the amount of neighboring activity going on in a given housing development. Closer together is better for promoting neighboring. Also, the better you know your neighbors, the safer you are in your neighborhood. Strangers and criminal activity stand out more. There are many good health-safety-welfare reasons to set a small minimum side yard separation between homes. I know of none supporting the setbacks now embedded in the ordinance. Calling for larger separations than the minimum necessary for police power purposes is technically a taking under the U.S. Constitution. Why risk legal Rationale for OSD changes 3 Sykes