PL PACKET 07192022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Page 4 1 a single-family community. He believed that reducing the setbacks to that extent would be 2 the wrong way to go if the intention is to keep the housing stock valuable. 3 4 Chair Socha recalled from previous discussions that the community is a suburb, and they have 5 smaller typical lot sizes that other suburbs. She asked if that is accurate. She noted that if the 6 lot sizes are smaller, there would seem to be a reason to preserve the greenspace that they 7 have. She asked if there are trends in surrounding cities to reduce setbacks to allow for 8 expansion. Mr. Grittman replied that Saint Anthony was developed with 8,000 to 9,000 9 square foot lot size range, which is smaller than some of the other communities which he 10 believed use 10,000 to 11,000 during their main development period. He stated that there are 11 some other communities, such as Saint Louis Park, that have smaller lots of about 6,000 12 square feet. He stated that 10,000 to 12,000 square foot lots become more common as the 13 legacy standard for second ring suburban areas. He commented that there is a trend in moving 14 that backward as developers continue to seek 60-foot lots, 7,000 to 8,000 square feet in size in 15 attempt to provide affordability to buyers. He referenced a recent conversation with a 16 developer proposing a project 25 miles from the metro that stated 65-foot lots are needed to 17 provide affordability and those homes still started at $450,000. He stated that many 18 communities are beginning to rethink setbacks, and some have considered allowing accessory 19 dwelling units. He noted that the Council has stated that it is not interested in pursuing 20 accessory dwelling units. He commented that many of the communities that developed in the 21 20s and 30s have struggled to find a way to keep their single-family neighborhoods vital, 22 noting that at some time there is a point where the housing stock needs to be updated and 23 invested in to suit the needs of families. 24 25 Commissioner Erickson commented that it seems that Edina, Minneapolis, and Golden Valley 26 have perhaps changed their setbacks as he notices more older homes being torn down and new 27 homes constructed. He commented that his neighborhood was primarily constructed in the 28 60s and the homes are perhaps above the average square footage but are not large. He stated 29 that does not leave many options for younger families with more than two children and 30 therefore believes something should be done. He stated that the issue that would give him the 31 most pause would be the scenario related to the front setback as that would change the 32 character when driving down the street. He noted that he would be interested in obtaining 33 examples where that has been done. Mr. Grittman commented that he is confident that he 34 could find such examples to share. He agreed that there would be a visual impact to that 35 change. 36 37 Chair Socha recalled a requirement related to average setback and asked if that would remain 38 or whether that would be changed as well. Mr. Grittman replied that if the front setback were 39 changed, that requirement would also need to be removed or changed. 40 41 Commissioner Rude commented that if a home would be allowed to expand in the backyard, 42 he would want to see a height restriction to minimize impacts to neighboring properties. He 43 commented that the new generation does not have interest in yard work or gardens and 44 therefore there is a trend to have bigger homes on smaller lots. He was unsure if that would 45 be done through an addition but rather tearing down the home and building a new home on the