HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Discussion Related to a New, Small Lot Residential Zoning District
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Commission Regular Meeting: June 23, 2020
Tentative City Council Meeting: To Be Determined
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion related to a new, small lot
residential zoning district
AGENDA SECTION:
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 6.a.
ATTACHMENTS: None APPROVED BY: KL
RECOMMENDED ACTION: This is a discussion item. Staff is seeking feedback from the
Commission in the development of this amendment.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission and staff have discussed the creation of a new zoning district or text
amendment that reflects the lot and building standards contained within the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) agreements of the vast majority of subdivisions that have taken place recently. This change would
allow developers to eliminate the Planned Unit Development rezoning from approvals predicated on the
subdivision meeting the new standards. This is the first time the adoption of a new residential zoning
district is being formally discussed by the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff is looking for feedback
before drafting a more formal amendment to the zoning ordinance. Staff has researched other
communities’ zoning ordinances to understand how other communities have accommodated the type of
development that is currently being driven by the market.
BACKGROUND
The Planned Unit Development process has been used extensively by developers and the City to allow for
flexibility related to lot standards contained within the zoning ordinance, in exchange the City is able to get
some concessions from the developer such as enhanced landscaping, higher quality exterior building
materials, or other components that result in a better overall development. Additionally, many times the
PUD process is used as a way to accommodate existing topography or other natural features that might
otherwise be lost if a developer adheres to the lot standards contained within the zoning ordinance.
When researching other communities to identify ways they accommodate smaller lots like those being
developed in Rosemount, staff found that some cities have been utilizing the PUD process similarly to the
way Rosemount has been using it with a minimal amount of residential districts contained within the
zoning ordinance. Other communities, such as those contained within the attached ordinance
comparison, have amended their zoning ordinance to include additional zoning districts with lots and
building standards that are generally consistent with those approved through the PUD process here in
Rosemount.
DISCUSSION
Legal Authority Zoning ordinance text amendments are considered legislative actions, and the Planning
Commission is given a lot of discretion when making a recommendation to Council. Because staff is
looking for discussion and feedback, the Planning Commission does not need to take any action at this
time.
2
Planned Unit Developments The benefit of a new zoning category is that if the developer meets the
standards of the district they would not need a variance or a PUD. The ordinance would clearly articulate
what the dimensional requirements the City is desiring for new neighborhoods and there would not be
variation between new neighborhoods except under a variance situation.
The negative associated with creation of a new district is the reduction in the City’s ability to require
additional enhancements to the project through the development process. In general, staff believes the
current process allows for more landscaping in cases where there are major collector or arterial roads,
architectural enhancements along front elevations, and in some cases additional sidewalks or trails installed
by the developer. While many of the recent projects contain the same conditions of approval, some
projects have conditions tailored to the property which may have unique characteristics not typically found
on other sites. In other words, the PUD process permits flexibility to the developer but also to the City.
While staff understands that this issue raises a question about modifying other sections of the ordinance to
reflect the standards the City would like to incorporate into neighborhoods, it is often the unique attributes
of the land or development pattern, or the location of the site which warrant the non-traditional
conditions of approval.
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Staff conducted research into other communities’ zoning ordinances to compare not only the lot standards
within different residential zoning districts but also the number of residential zoning districts in different
communities. What staff found was that there are cities (for example Woodbury and Maple Grove) that
are similar to Rosemount in that they have a limited number of residential districts and utilize the PUD
process to allow development that is consistent with that seen in Rosemount. Other cities created
additional residential zoning districts with lot standards similar to those in developments like Greystone,
Meadow Ridge, and Prestwick Place. The table below offers a comparison of three cities’ lot standards in
their smaller lot residential districts as well as an example from a Planned Unit Development here in
Rosemount.
Standard Eagan Lakeville Plymouth Rosemount
Greystone
Lot Area 8,000 sf Corner – 8,400 sf
Interior – 10,200 sf 7,000 sf Corner - 10,400 sq. ft.
Interior - 8,600 sq. ft.
Lot Width 65 feet Corner – 85 feet
Interior – 70 feet 65 feet 60 ft.
Setbacks
Front – 30 feet
Side – 10/5 (principle/acc.)
Rear – 15 feet
Front – 20 feet
Side – 7 feet
Rear – 30 feet
Front – 25 feet
Side – 8 feet
Rear – 25 feet
Front - 25 feet
Side – 7.5 feet
Rear – 30 feet
Lot Coverage 20% or 2,000 sf* 40% 35% 30%-40%
*Eagan uses “building coverage” vs. lot coverage or impervious area
The deviations from the lot standards in the R1 zoning district that developers have been requesting with
single-family detached residential planned unit developments are consistent with those contained within
3
the zoning ordinance of other cities. Because most development has been taking place on sites that were
cropland, the need for the PUD process to accommodate topography and natural areas hasn’t always been
present, but that isn’t to say the PUD process hasn’t been useful for developments such as Bella Vista and
Meadow Ridge to maintain natural features. If the Commission feels that a new, separate zoning district
should be created, staff is suggesting the following standards:
Lot Area 8,000 square feet
Lot Width 60 or 65 feet
Setbacks
Front – 25 feet
Side – 7.5 feet
Rear – 30 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 30% - 40%
Permitted, conditional, and interim uses would be similar to those contained within the existing single-
family detached residential districts. Staff needs to have a longer conversation with Engineering regarding
maximum lot coverage standards and may end up recommending a tiered system.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission is being asked to discuss a proposed change to the zoning ordinance that would
create a new residential zoning district that contains lot standards that are consistent with those found in
the PUD agreements of recent subdivisions. Feedback received will be incorporated into a draft zoning
ordinance text amendment that will be brought back before the Planning Commission for a formal review.