NESNA

We are grateful to Mike Harper for this latest summary of the subject.    Ed

ZONING DECISIONS WILL AFFECT NEIGHBORHOOD

With the 2008 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Northfield now complete and approved by the City Council on November 14th, planners are turning their efforts to the enactment of a new Land Development Code.  A “Land Development Code Advisory Group” has been formed and is meeting with members of the City staff and the City’s paid consultants.  The 18 – member Advisory Group includes three neighborhood homeowners, as well as residents of other neighborhoods  and people who represent developers, downtown businesses, and other interests.

The Advisory Group’s discussions center on a draft Land Development Code.  The Code will ultimately be a massive document, most of which will be highly technical and of interest primarily to builders who will need to assure that their projects are “up to Code.”  However, certain less technical provisions are likely to be of more general interest, at least to residents of the East Side neighborhood.  At first glance, two sets of provisions promise to be of particular relevance:

“Infill” and neighborhood compatibility

The East Side neighborhood will be zoned B-R1, a new term that basically includes the existing R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones.  Any development in a B-R1 zone, including development of new subdivisions as well as “infill” development, will be subject to the “Development Standards” to be set forth in Article 5 of the Code.  The Development Standards include, for example, set-back requirements, height limits, provisions for wetland preservation, and landscaping, screening and buffering standards.

In addition to the Development Standards that will apply to all B-R1 zoned land, the draft Code provides that “all new development or structures with a total expansion of 25% [presumably, this means a 25% or greater increase in the footprint of an existing building], whether as a single expansion or as a series of expansions, shall be subject to the infill compatibility standards established in Section __.”  See draft Code, Section 4.3.2. At this stage in the drafting process, most cross-references have been left blank; regarding the compatibility standards, we’re left with a blank cross-reference and a footnote: “We will have infill compatibility standards for single lots (where one home is constructed on a single lot) and multiple lots (where several lots are redeveloped.”

Despite the blank cross-reference in Section 4.3.2, there is in fact a Development Standard titled “Neighborhood Compatibility Standards.”  See draft Code, Section 5.5.  The purpose and intent of Section 5.5 is “to protect the character of existing residential neighborhoods in instances where there is a proposed infill development or a redevelopment.”  See draft Code, Section 5.5.1.  Section 5.5 is far from complete, but since it is of great significance to the East Side neighborhood, I’m including the relevant parts as annex 1 to this article.

Map 4.4 and the “College Development District”

Currently, if college-owned land is within a district zoned residential, the college must comply with the standards generally applicable within that district.  To the extent that college lands have been zoned a “College Development District,” different and generally more permissive standards apply.  If  the draft Code were adopted in its present form, the rules would change.  Briefly, here’s what would happen:

The Code will include an “Official Zoning Map,” the certified copy of which will be kept on file with the City Clerk.  See draft Code, Section 4.1.  All land within the City will be placed within districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map.  The Official Zoning Map has not yet been produced, even in draft form.  However, a map that is part of the Comprehensive Plan has been circulated to the Advisory Committee.  This map shows all of the land that is currently owned by Carleton College as being within an “educational district.”  Section 4.4.2(A) of the draft Code states that, “the [College Development and Transition] Zone generally includes the area described in [the Official Zoning Map] as the Educational District Zone.”  So, as things stand, if the existing map were adopted without change as the Official Zoning Map,land within the East Side Neighborhood that is currently zoned R-1 or R-2 but is owned by Carleton would be re-zoned as “College Development and Transition Zone.”  This would apparently occur without an application by Carleton and without any opportunity for a public hearing, beyond the public hearing that will precede adoption of the new Land Development Code.

The impact of the re-zoning of college – owned land would be reduced somewhat by Section 4.4.2(B) of the draft Code, which defines a “Perimeter Transition Area,” (a “PTA”) which is a 300 – foot wide area at the boundaries of the College Development and Transition Zone. The width of the PTA may be reduced to 150 feet “if the  … applicant engages the neighborhood in a collaborative planning effort to determine an appropriate approach to blending the new development into the character of the surrounding neighborhood.”  Three hundred feet is approximately the width of a block in the East Side neighborhood. Development within the PTA is to be subject to more specific and detailed standards than development within the balance of the College Development and Transition Zone, and “all buildings constructed or expanded within a PTA after the effective date of this [Land Development Code] shall be subject to the neighborhood compatibility standards of Section __.”  Here again, the cross-reference is omitted from the draft language, but presumably the reference will be to Section 5.5.  Because if the importance of the provision for a College Development and Transition Zone, I’m attaching Section 4.4.2  as annex 2 to this article.

Nothing Has Been Decided

I discussed the work of the Advisory Group with Dan Olson, our Northfield City Planner, as I was writing this article.  Dan emphasized that the first draft of the Official Zoning Map has not yet been circulated and that draft Code is in the very early stages of development.  He acknowledges that plenty of work remains to be done before the Advisory Group adjourns and a draft is presented to the Planning Commission.  Dan hopes that this can be accomplished in January.  Dan expects the Planning Commission to take an active interest in the Code, and the plan is for the Code to come before the City Council with a recommendation to adopt by about May 1, 2009.

I know that our neighbors who are serving on the Land Development Code Advisory Group are aware of the potential impact of the neighborhood compatibility standards and the possible expansion of the College Development and Transition Zone beyond current boundaries.  Certainly, these will be among their most pressing concern s as the meetings continue.  In the event that disagreements should develop over the details of these and other provisions, there will be opportunities for public discussion when the draft Code is presented to the Planning Commission and later, to the City Council.  In the meantime, neighbors who have questions about the process or concerns about specific provisions should feel free to contact Dan directly at 507-645-3056.

Annex 1

5.5              Neighborhood Compatibility Standards

5.5.1        Purpose and Intent

The purpose of the regulations within this section is to protect the character of existing residential neighborhoods in instances where there is a proposed infill development or a redevelopment project.

5.5.2        Applicability

(A)             Except where exempted by Section [__], these standards shall apply to the development, expansion, or redevelopment of uses in the B-R1 and F-NC [trailer park] districts.
(B)              For the purposes of these standards, “expansion” shall mean the expansion of the floor area of the ground floor by more than 20 percent of the floor area that existed at the effect date of this LDC [Land Development Code].
(C)             For the purposes of these standards:
(1)               “Adjacent” shall mean a condition where on lot abuts or is located directly across a street, alley, right-of-way, easement, public trail, or public greenway from another lot; and
(2)               “Block Face” shall mean all lots that have frontage on the same street as the subject lot between intersecting street.

5.5.3        Exemptions

The following forms of development shall be except from the standards of this section:

(A)             Accessory buildings
(B)              Development subject to an approved master plan, development agreement, or planned unit development protected by a OPD district; and
(C)             Existing nonresidential or mixed-use development lawfully established prior to the effective date of this LDC;
(D)             A change of use, with no structural changes, this is permitted in the base zoning district; and
(E)              The complete redevelopment of an entire block where all existing structures are removed.  Such redevelopment shall be subject to the standards of the applicable zoning district.

5.5.4        Standards for all Development9 10

(A)             All development subject to this section shall comply with the standards of this subsection.
(B)              Compliance with these standards shall be shown in the zoning certificate application for uses in the B-R1 district or site plan review for uses in the F-NC district.
(C)             Design Standards

(1)               Setback and Build-to Lines

(a)          For new development or expansion of an existing building, the applicant shall demonstrate how the proposed building will (in order of priority):
(i)                  Meet the average front setbacks of residential buildings along the same block face; or
(ii)                Meet the build-to line of the B-R1 or B-NC district, whichever is adjacent to the site.

(2)               Building Orientation                         All residential development shall be located parallel to the associated street or be consistent with existing development patterns rather than being sited at unconventional angles, unless irregular lot layouts require alternative orientations.  Such alternative orientations shall be subject to approval by the City Planner.
(3)               Building Height and Massing

(a)          No principal building shall be constructed which is more than 20 percent taller or shorter than the average height of principal building along the block face.
(b)         No principal building shall be constructed where the front façade is more than 20 percent wider or narrower than the average width of principal buildings along the block face.
(c)          The roof type shall generally reflect the predominant roof types of the buildings along the same block face (e.g., the building should not have a mansard roof where the predominant roof type is a gable).

(4)               Window and Door Openings

(a)          Windows and doors on the front facades shall be of the same orientation (vertical versus horizontal) and of  similar proportions as the typical structure on the block face.
(b)         The percentage of window and door openings (sometimes referred to as façade voids) shall be within ten percent of the average percentage of window and door openings found on existing buildings along the same block face.

(5)               Porches

Where the majority of buildings along the same block face have porches, the building subject to this subsection shall also include a porch that has a width and depth generally similar to the average width and depth of porches along the same block face.

Annex 2

4.4.2     College Development and Transition District (S-CT)

(A)             Purpose

The purpose of the College Development and Transition (S-CT) zoning district is to allow for growth and development of colleges while protecting the larger community, nearby neighborhoods, and the environment from impacts accompanying major new development.  Development in the S-CT District shall be designed for a mix of college-related, integrated uses as specified below, linked by pedestrian ways, bikeways, and other transportation systems.  Development in these districts shall also encourage reduced auto use, mitigate environmental impacts, conserve energy resources and achieve visual continuity in the siting and scale of buildings.  The S-CT Zone generally includes the area described in the Comprehensive Plan Framework and Pattern Map (Map 4.4) as the Educational District Zone.

(B)             S-CT District Standards

(1)               Applicability

(a)          For the purpose of this section, the Internal Development
Area (IDA) shall mean all college properties contiguous only to other college owned properties that are zone S-CT and do not fall within the buffer area that defines that Perimeter Transition Area (PTA).

(b)        For the purpose of this section, the Perimeter Transition
(PTA) shall be defined as a 300-foot wide area at the
boundaries of the S-CT zoning district.  Where applicable, this area shall be measured from the midpoint of public rights-of-way adjoining the edge of college properties.  If a public ROW adjoining the college property edge (with no adjoining buildings) is wider than 200 feet, and contains no existing or planned buildings, then no PTA standards shall be applied and the area may develop consistent with the IDA standards.

( c)        In order to reflect this differing level of impact on non-        college properties, the IDA development standards shall be more general and flexible, while the PTA standards shall be more specific and detailed.  When applying this zoning to college-owned properties, the S-CT zoning  district shall extend to the midpoint of public ROWs adjoining those properties.

(2)    Neighborhood Compatibility

(a)               All building constructed or expanded within a PTA after the effective date of this LDC shall be subject to the neighborhood compatibility standards of Section [__].
(b)               The 300-foot distance established for the PTA may be reduced to 150-feet if the property owner and/or applicant engages the neighborhood in a collaborative planning effort to determine an appropriate approach to blending the new development into the character of the surrounding neighborhood.  The applicant shall be required to notify the City Planner of any activities related to the collaborative planning effort.

(3)    Additional Design Standards

(a)               In addition to the standards established for the S-CT district in this article, all development shall be subject to all other applicable standards in Article 5.
(b)               Unless alternative standards are explicitly established below, all relevant standards and provisions of the LDC shall apply.
(c)               Within PTAs, surface parking lots shall not be located immediately adjacent to or across a street from properties zoned and developed as single family residential properties without appropriate buffers as may be required by section [__].
(d)               No parking facilities within PTAs shall be located less than the average setback for existing buildings and/or parking lots on adjoining properties.  Surface parking lots within PTAs that adjoin public streets shall be landscape or otherwise screened with structures to minimize views of parking from the street and adjoining properties.
(e)               Within PTAs, new athletic field shall not be exempt from the lighting standards established in Section [__] With the exception that, after 11:00 PM, such facilities may not utilize the exemption for public recreational activities.
(f)                 Screening of mechanical equipment, utility systems, solid waste and loading areas within PTAs, shall be subject to the screening requirements of Section [__].
(g)               Within PTAs, landscaping shall be provided so as to ensure compatibility with adjoining and facing properties.  Landscaping shall also include appropriate design and management of stormwater.

( C)    Development Review Procedure Requirements

For development review within the S-CT, the following additional requirements shall apply:

(1)               A (current) campus master plan shall be submitted to the City Planner prior to any zoning map amendment submittal.  Such campus master plans shall be viewed as illustrative in nature and may be updated, in whole or in part, at any time.  Only properties included as part of a college campus in a campus master plan may be included in the S-CT District.
(2)               Approval of individual buildings and development within an IDA area of an S-CT zoning district shall be subject to a Type 2 review procedure as established in Section [__].
(3)               Approval of individual buildings and development within an PTA area of an S-CT zoning district shall be subject to the Type 3 review procedure as established in Section [__].

***