City of Northfield

Mr. Dan Olson, Planner

801 Washington St.
Northfield, MN 55057

Dear Dan,

The following are suggestion and changes that I believe need to be made to the LDR.
This document is too critical to the long-term development and growth of Northfield to
rush to get it done without reviewing all concerns. I apologize for the lateness of these
questions but with being out of town for work most of January- March it made it difficult
to stay on top of the process. If you could comment on my concerns I would appreciate it.
I would also like to have this circulated to the members of the committee because they
may have some of the same concerns I have after they have had an opportunity to review
my comments.

In reviewing the newly presented documents I noticed the lines are not numbered like the
previous document. So I will be using the category and item numbers to reference my
concerns.

2.9.4 Bed & Breakfasts. (E.) states no more the 4- guest rooms. This seems very low to
try and make it profitable. I would think ten would be the high end for the number of
rooms. The last sentence is a good one to keep.

2.9.6 Day Care facilities: (b) this requires that the dropping off of children must be done
in the driveway. I understand why and the safety of this but I don’t believe this should be
in the LDR. Day care licensing and smart parents should be regulating this not this
document.

2.11.4 Construction Dumpster: Here we are trying to regulate where dumpsters should be
placed. The construction industry needs to have the ability to use the public ROW due to
the small size of lots in Northfield
(1.) This states placing it on the side yard. This could create major problems due to
most of the side yard set backs are 8’. This is not practical a location.
This needs to state that when ever possible place the dumpster on rear yard of private
property away from adjoining lots.
It maybe more practical to place a time limit on the dumpster. It may remain on site
during construction and up to 15 days prior to and after construction. If construction is
halted for any reason the 15-day rule applies.

Table 3.2-1 Residential District Site Development Standards:

Under R1-B: This states that the front yard set back maybe 20’ I think this is okay except
at the front of the garage. If you park a truck in the driveway it will block the sidewalk. I
think this should read. If the front of the house is set back at a 20’ the garage front must
be a minimum of 25’or 30’ setback.
Max Lot Depth: under R1-B: States the maximum may only be 150’ deep. I don’t
believe this needs to be there. There are many times you have an odd shaped lot at a
corner or curve that ends up being 150’ – 200’ deep. This will be self-regulated by
density requirements.
Under R1-B lot width: The 50’-75’ is to narrow, this needs to be increased to 90’ or even
100’. When lots occur on curved streets you will have wider fronts lines and narrower
rear lines. Most lots today should have at least 80’ width.
Under R1-B two family dwelling lot width. This should be increased to at least 100’.
Three family dwelling width should increase to 125'.

Last item on the chart under R1-B states that all floors must be 18” above the sidewalk.
This won’t work if you want to create a handicap accessible area. The floor heights are
typically set by the grade around the house. A better way to state this is that floor heights
must comply with the building code.

3.2.3 C2-B District site development standard:

Lot size and width seems too large.
(B.) Lot width minimum at 60’ width is very wide, a business condo like The Crossings
have zero lot lines and then you would want a 20’ lot width.

3.3.2 –2 (e) (iii & iv) seasonal sales display areas in off street parking.
This section won’t allow a store to reduce the number of parking stalls below standards
when using a temporary structure. This seems a bit restrictive for such a short period of
time. This could force a business to increase the parking lot and create more hard surface.
Not a good thing. Or the business looses sales and has to close. Not a good thing.

3.3.4 (L) Vacant buildings. Under the glass sections it states you must keep glass in the
openings. I know why this is here but it’s hard to comply when the windows keep getting
broken out and the owner wants to put plywood in place to cover the openings.
Would the installation of wire mesh be allowed? Something needs to be permitted to
protect the glass that’s being required.

3.4.4 & 3.4.5 These seem to have a lot of controls built into them. Has Jay Jasnoch
commented on these? Will all of these control make all the buildings look alike?

3.6.4 5: Tree & shrub size listed here seems too large. A 2.5” tree is very expensive and
it most cases a 2” tree after 3-4 years is the same size as the 2.5” and there is
greater failure rate w/ the 2.5”. After the tree dies they don’t get replaced. The
shrub size of 18” tall is too large also 12” shrub is fine. If you plant to large of a
shrub they out grow the planting area to quickly.
It also describes ground cover to be planted that will reach 75% of its size in the first
year. This will cause over grown beds in just a few years. It could state 75% growth at
three years. When these beds get over grown that doesn’t look good either.
3.6.5 E. 1. Max amount of paving on single family at 30% is to low. This needs to be
35%-38% . With a three car garage you need the extra width.

4. This parking reg is confusing and too restrictive. I read this as I can’t have
my son park his car on the side of my house during the winter when he can’t park on the
street. Or I will have all three of my kid’s park in the street in the summer because I can’t
have them parking in the paved area I have on the side of my house. This is not very
clear. It seems like it’s saying you can only park in front or on the side which has the
street if your on a corner lot. Interior lots no parking on the side of your garage.

3.6.6 Tree inventory. This section needs to address the scenario where trees need to be
removed to allow for grade changes during development grading. It also needs to
address trees that are existing that the city does allow or want planted in the city.
Box elder, buckthorn etc. I think we are missing appendix A to address this
question.

3.6.14 Does this apply to the city of Northfield also? They are a great offender of this.

3.7.5 (B.) With this exemption could I install an over sized sign with my name on it
carved in stone for a new building? This seems a little undefined. Should it say that these
need to be approved by staff or be part of the design review since it’s part of the building.

3.7.5 (D.) Vehicle sign, this doesn’t seem appropriate in the LDR, it should be
eliminated. The Dominos car can’t have it’s sign so customers will know who’s
in their driveway. Not a good thing.

3.8.3 (E.) This states that I can’t have my car in my driveway with a for sale sign on it.
This is very restrictive and needs to be removed or have a time frame added. No more
then 30 days. Shouldn’t this be in city ordinance not in the LDR?

3.8.5 Parking table 3.8-1 some of these need to be revisited. Most require what I think
is too much parking. A nursing home requires 1 space for every 2 beds, do these
residents drive that they need the spaces?
Medical or dental seems to low 5 space for every 1000 SF.
I know when we built Heritage Dental they want and need more parking but couldn’t
have it.
Banquet halls, bars, seem high with 1 space for every 2 people.
There maybe more but I’m not familiar with all of these business.

Parking table 3.8-2 This is too restrictive: in the case where you may own two adjoining
lots, use one for the building and the other for the parking. In this case you wouldn’t want
any setback to try and maximize the parking spaces.
3.9 B 2. Sidewalks on both sides of local streets. This is a big change. I believe this is
not needed. In our new developments the homeowners have no complaints with the
sidewalk on one side. This gives buyers the option, sidewalk or no sidewalk on
their lot. This needs to be changed. Everyone pays for the sidewalk; the cost gets
divided among all of the lots.
B-3 should also be deleted if the above is changed.
3.10 D. This states the sidewalk must be 7’ from back of curb. If the boulevard is
narrower then 12’ you can’t get the 7’, should this be written to say that in
boulevards less then 12’ you must have city approval? Boulevards will get smaller
as the lots get smaller.

3.10.4 #2 This specs installing a Cat #5 wire for phone or TV. This maybe outdated
before this gets published. It could read install the most modern or current cable?

3.10.4 C 1.
This states that the developer pays for all expenses the city may incur. This should also
address that the city will reimburse the sub divider all expenses associated with the
design, engineering and cost associated over sizing of pipes for future expansion.

#2. This states the city at its sole discretion may choose to install the improvements. This
seems to one sided. The city needs to provide cause when this would apply.

#3. This is very restrictive. The developer needs to have the right to proceed with site
prep and grading after preliminary plat. Our construction season is to short to have to
wait until final plat. THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

E. #2 Engineer can grant reduction in guarantee in section what? It would be good to

know this?

The last portion of this section deals with the financial workings of development. If this is
accepted it will eliminate the small developer/builder that has built Northfield and keep
Northfield’s growth under control. These small developers are typically easier to work
with and care about Northfield because they live here. This section needs more discussion
with the business it impacts.

H: Warranty: The erosion control warranty should be reduced to two years. Vegetation
will be established with in two years. Beside the developer has the SWPP permit that
must be maintained until the last lot is sold.

3.11.3 A-2 This description is very narrow. We maybe entering a time when some new
creative street layouts will becoming along to restart housing and development. The
terms grid pattern or modified grid are fine but we should add, acceptable variation or
alternative.

3.11.3 A-3 How can the sentence that even a street built to city standards may not be
accepted. I can’t believe you can have that sentence in this without some back up.
3.11.3-10 Alleys/privates streets
(ii) must be made from concrete. This needs to be changed to be the same as streets there
is no reason that these need to be more expensive and made differently then a city street.

3.11-3 Street width table: I don’t know for sure but the street widths listed here appear to
be wider then what our current code calls for. If so why are we going back to this
when we are trying to make more compact developments and reduce the size of
streets to control traffic and reduce urban sprawl.

3.11.3 Street surface: in the sentence when it states that the portion outside of the street
surface shall be sodded please add or vegetation that is accepted by the city. There maybe
an area where the developer or city may want to install plantings for a different street
scape.

3.11.4 street grading (b) is the number 5 % correct or should it be .05?

(c) is the number 7% correct or should it be .07 ?

3.11.4 ( c) This needs to have an added sentence that states any extra costs or costs
associated with pipe over sizing for future development shall be paid to the
developer by the city and assess to the future developed site.
3.11.5 (d) add after cat 5 wire or most up to date wire.

3.11.6 (F) 4. will not accept land with more then a 12% slope. I think this should be
removed. The city has the option to accept or deny what will be submitted.
There maybe a special feature that would be a great asset for a park for hiking,
biking, climbing that we don’t know about, why eliminate now? River or
creek shore land could be more then 12%.

3.13.1 A. 1. WS-O I would like to see the set backs in the downtown area reduced to
what reflects what our buildings actually are. I do believe the city has the right
with in the city to set these set backs. Set backs would be 20’ –50’ depending on
the area.

Thanks for reviewing this Dan.

Call or e-mail if you have questions.

Thanks
Steve Schmidt