Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Packet 032619City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission City Hall 2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue Tuesday, March 26, 2019 7:00 p.m. A G E N D A A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. B. ROLL CALL: John Larkin ____ Tom Williams ____ Colin Stemper ____ Matthew Kotelnicki ____ Hawa Samatar ____ Scott Wilson ____ Joel Gerich ____ Council Liaison Harris ____ Staff Liaison Markon ____ C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 26, 2019 D. AGENDA 1. Consider changes to 2040 Comprehensive Plan E. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS F. ADJOURN G. WORKSHOP 1. Discuss building height regulations Next meeting: April 23, 2019 If you have a disability and need accommodation in order to attend this meeting, please notify City Hall 48 hours in advance between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at 651-792-7600. We will be happy to help. City of Falcon Heights City Hall 2077 Larpenteur Avenue West Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Colin Stemper at 7:00 PM. B. ROLL CALL: Present: Williams, Stemper, Gerich, Wilson Absent: Larkin, Samatar, Kotelnicki Staff and Council Liaisons: Markon, Harris C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 22, 2019 The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent. D. AGENDA 1. An Introduction and Description of the New Zoning Permit Code for Fences Community Development Coordinator Justin Markon described the changes that have been made to the new Falcon Heights street zoning permit code for fences to more closely follow State guidelines (see the document “Code changes, Public Hearing Notice” that accompanies these minutes and are included on the Falcon Heights website). Joel Gerich mentioned that homeowners may not be willing to loose the lawn area cut off by the new 30 foot traffic visibility triangle rule. No further significant discussion was offered. 2. Study of Code for Alleys Council Liaison Harris recommended that an additional meeting be held or a study be conducted by Staff to review current code used for fences in alleys, for possible code issues. 3. Public Hearing Colin Stemper opened the Public Hearing to the public in attendance, requesting comments regarding the changes to the fence zoning permit code. When no comments were heard or provided by the public, Colin Stemper closed the Public Hearing. The new street zoning permit code for fences was approved by unanimous consent, with a recommendation that the code for alleys be reviewed by Staff. E. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS No new information or announcements were provided. F. ADJOURN Adjourned at 7:20 PM. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Families, Fields and Fair __________________________ The City That Soars! Item Consider changes to 2040 Comprehensive Plan Description The City received the first comments from the Metropolitan Council in mid- February regarding the 2040 Comprehensive Plan submittal. City staff, Roseville Engineering, and our consultants from WSB discussed the feedback and are preparing updates to the Plan. Staff felt one aspect of the plan that should be discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council pertains to density and mixed use developments. The Metropolitan Council would like to see more information about our plans for mixed use (MU), including the percentage of share of uses and overall density of the land use category. Currently, the City has stipulated one MU category in the Comprehensive Plan: MU-Residential. In the submitted Plan, the MU-Residential land use stipulates that: “These areas are comprised of a mix of both residential and commercial uses, either in horizontal or vertical mixture. The density will be a minimum of 12 units per acre (a minimum of 15 units per acre within ½ mile of Snelling Avenue) and a maximum of 46 units per acre with an anticipated minimum of 75% comprised of housing. The remaining 25% shall be a variety of commercial and office space.” This information needs to be updated in a couple ways. First, the Met Council noted in their review that areas within ½ mile of a bus rapid transit line (A line in Falcon Heights) require 15 residential units per acre for redevelopment. WSB updated the Plan to include this information. Next, an expected share of land uses for the mixed use category needs to be more defined. This share is spread out over the entire land use category, rather than parcel by parcel or building by building. In our plan, most of the redevelopment opportunities identified between now and 2040 are of a mixed-use nature, 35.4 acres, concentrated in the Snelling/Larpenteur corner and along Larpenteur Ave west to Cleveland Ave. The Metropolitan Council requires that we identify what mix of uses we plan for over this entire area. Meeting Date March 26, 2019 Agenda Item D1 Attachment Met Council comments Submitted By Justin Markon, Community Development Coordinator WSB shared the following information about mixed use land use designations in other communities: ARDEN HILLS 100 acres of possible redevelopment into Community Mixed-Use Community Mixed Use (CMU) – areas designated for a broad range of retail, shopping, services, and office space to meet the needs of the community and surrounding areas. This area may also include medium to high density housing with a potential density of nine (9) to twenty (20) units per acre. The expected share of uses within this area are as follows: 10% to 50% Light Industrial; 10% to 100% Retail; 10% to 100% Office; 10% to 50% High Density Residential; and 0% to 25% Medium Density Residential ROSEVILLE 170.91 acres of possible redevelopment into Community Mixed-Use Density: 10–36 dwelling units/acre Uses: Medium- to high-density residential, commercial, office, civic, parks and open space Residential requirement: 10% Scale/Intensity: medium Transportation considerations: sidewalks, trails, multi- modal facilities, connections between uses, and connections to transit stops Community Mixed-Use areas are intended to contain a mix of complementary uses that may include housing, office, civic, commercial, park, and open space uses. Community Mixed-Use areas organize uses into a cohesive district, neighborhood, or corridor, connecting uses in common structures and with sidewalks and trails, and using density, structured parking, shared parking, and other approaches to create green space and public places within the areas. The mix of land uses may include medium- and high-density residential, office, community business, institutional, and parks and open space uses. Residential land uses will account for at least 10% of the overall mixed-use area. The mix of uses may be in a common site, development area, or building. Individual developments may consist of a mix of two or more complementary uses that are compatible and connected to surrounding land-use patterns. To ensure that the desired mix of uses and connections are achieved, a more detailed small-area plan, master plan, and/or area-specific design principles is required to guide individual developments within the overall mixed-use area. Both examples illustrate a lower threshold for residency in mixed-use categories. Staff feel that an appropriate share for MU-Residential in our Comprehensive Plan is as follows: The Mixed Use Residential designation will have a mix of 50 to 90% residential, 25% to 50% commercial, and 0% to 25% office over the entire acreage of the MU- Residential area. It should also be noted that Comprehensive Plan land use categories and Zoning Code districts are different planning pieces. Land use categories guide the overall look of a community while districts apply to specific parcels that help reach the land use goals. Other comments from the Metropolitan Council are included in the following pages. Budget Impact No impact Attachment(s) • Other comments from the Met Council Action(s) Requested Staff recommend discussion and a recommended decision on mixed use language for resubmittal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Metropolitan Council Comments Comments received from the Metropolitan Council regarding incomplete 2040 Comprehensive Plan Dated February 8, 2019 Future Land Use The Plan needs to include a more legible Future Land Use Map. The legend uses identical colors for several of the land uses, including the following: Commercial Core and Medium Density Residential; Park and Recreation and Institutional (Golf Course); and, State Fair Grounds and Institutional (University). The map needs to be revised so that the different land uses can be differentiated. A map with different colors is included in this attachment. Table 14 provides a Future Land Use Table, but it also needs to show expected total acres for redevelopment for each 10-year planning period (now-2020, 2021-2030, and 2031-2040). The Table currently only shows 2040 totals, while the Plan discusses and identifies areas for potential redevelopment, such as in Figure 9. The acreages of those properties and in which decade they are expected to develop should be detailed in your Future Land Use table. This will also help satisfy some requirements identified elsewhere in this letter, such as with density calculations and housing requirements. WSB provided the following table to address potential redevelopment. Table 12: Potential Redevelopment by Decade Now - 2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 Total Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Mixed-Use Residential (35.4 ac.) 1.3 100% 4.5 50.0% 6.8 100% 12.6 73.7% Limited Business 0 0.0% 4.5 50.0% 0 0% 4.5 26.3% Total 1.3 100% 9.0 100% 6.8 100% 17.1 100% Forecasts As noted in the Land Use comments above, the Plan must include a description and inventory of land supply for future development and redevelopment. Since the City has no forecasted household growth between 2017 to 2040, no extensive discussion is needed beyond that found on page 14. However, the current population estimate (2017) has exceeded the City's 2020 forecasts and the Employment estimate (2017) is far below the City's 2020 Forecast. The City may wish to consider a formal forecast change request to increase Population and/or decrease Employment forecasts to better represent future conditions and their plans for potential redevelopment along some of the corridors. Metropolitan Council Comments Parks Include a capital Improvement Program (CIP) for parks and open space facilities as part of the Implementation Chapter, Chapter 7. • Although a CIP is referenced on page 86, the focus is on the City's “biennial pavement management program to maintain its local streets.” There are no parks or open space facility- focused projects included in Appendix A -'Falcon Heights Street Improvement CIP – 11/26/18", nor are there any other park-related CIP details in the Plan. • If the City does not use a Capital Improvement Plan to budget for parks and open space facilities, it needs to describe how these facilities are/will be operated and maintained. o Consider including language from the Funding section of the Falcon Heights Parks Improvement Study (pages 39-44). Staff made the following addition to the Plan: Due to the limited amount of park and recreation facilities in the City, there is no established Capital Improvement Plan. Furthermore, two of the three parks maintained by the City are on land leased by the University of Minnesota. Currently, the only capital improvement opportunity is the park building in Community Park. The building is reaching the end of its usable life. In the next three years, the City will determine the best course of action to address the building. Improvements may include rehabilitation or a completely new building. Funding for these improvements may come from bond issue, park dedication funds, general fund, grants, private donations, or some combination thereof. In other parks, the City will continue to make improvements that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). WSB included the following information regarding implementation: Ordinances are a powerful tool for implementing the Comprehensive Plan since they provide the legal framework for evaluating projects and implementing many policies. The City currently uses a number of ordinances to regulate development and other activities, including, but not limited to: • Zoning (Figure 8 on page 36 and Table 11 on page 35) – regulates the use, type, and style of development throughout the City. • Subdivision – regulates the subdivision and consolidation of land. • Water Supply – To be described by Roseville Public Works • SSTS – To be Described by Roseville Public Works • Storm Water Management - provides regulations for controlling runoff and erosion from development and development activities throughout the City. Ordinances require periodic evaluation to ensure they are meeting the City’s vision, Metropolitan Council requirements, Watershed District regulations, and State Statutes. State law requires the official controls to be amended to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Metropolitan Council Comments Metropolitan Council Comments REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Families, Fields and Fair __________________________ The City That Soars! Item Discuss building height regulations Description One of the goals for 2019 is to begin cleaning up old or outdated sections of City Code, which began with the fence regulations at the February meeting. Another section of code that may require clarification is building height as it is defined and regulated in the zoning code. Falcon Heights Section 113-3 – Definitions (Zoning): Building height means the vertical distance between the lowest grade level at the building line and the uppermost point on the roof. MN State Building Code definitions: HEIGHT, BUILDING. The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. Falcon Heights Section 113-174 – R-1 district regulations: (e)(1) – No structure or building shall exceed two stories or 25 feet in height aboveground level, whichever is lesser in height, except as provided in section 113-243. (chimneys, flagpoles, antennae) A comparison of regulations from other nearby cities is attached. If changes to the existing code are suggested, a Public Hearing would be scheduled for the April 23 Planning Commission meeting. Budget Impact No impact Meeting Date March 26, 2019 Agenda Item G1 Attachment Submitted By Justin Markon, Community Development Coordinator Building height comparisons Attachment(s) • Comparison of height regulations Action(s) Requested Staff request discussion and direction on how to move forward with regulation of building heights in the City’s residential districts. Building Height Comparisons Building Height Comparisons Roseville City Code – Chapter 10 – Zoning Code 1001.10 – DEFINITIONS BUILDING HEIGHT: The vertical dimension measured from the average elevation of the approved grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the roof in the case of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, and to the midpoint of the ridge of a gable, hip, or gambrel roof. (For purposes of this definition, the average height shall be calculated by using the highest ridge and its attendant eave. The eave point used shall be where the roof line crosses the side wall.) In the case of alterations, additions or replacement of existing buildings, height shall be measured from the natural grade prior to construction. Little Canada City Code – Chapter 9 – Zoning Code 902 – DEFINITIONS 9. Building Height. A distance to be measured from the mean ground level to the top of a flat roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to the uppermost point on all other roof types. Lauderdale City Code – Title 10 – Zoning Code Chapter 2 – DEFINITIONS HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE: The vertical distance from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of a lot covered by a building, to the highest point for flat roofs; to the deck line of mansard roofs; and to the mean height between eaves and ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs. St. Paul City Code – Title VIII – Zoning Code Chapter 60, Article II – 60.200 – GENERAL DEFINITIONS Building height. The vertical distance measured from the established grade to the highest point of the roof surface for flat and shed roofs; to the break line of mansard roofs; and to the average height between eaves and ridge for gable, gambrel, and hip roofs. Where a building is located on sloping terrain, the height may be measured from the average ground level of the grade at the building wall. The existing grade of the property shall not be raised around a new building or foundation in order to comply with the height requirements of this code. When there is a dormer built into the roof, the height is measured to the midpoint of the dormer roof if the dormer(s) roof width exceeds fifty (50) percent or more of the building roof width on the side where the dormer(s) is located. St. Anthony City Code – Chapter 152 – Zoning Code Section 152.008 – DEFINITIONS BUILDING HEIGHT. The vertical distance measured from the elevation of the lot grade at the building setback line, to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the top of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. Building Height Comparisons Building Height Comparisons Table Falcon Heights Roseville Little Canada St. Paul St. Anthony Low-density res (R1) Two stories or 25 ft, whichever lesser 30 ft Two and one-half stories or 30 ft, whichever lesser Three stories or 30 ft Two stories or 25 ft Med-density res (R2-3) Three stories or 30 ft, whichever lesser 30 ft – two- family 35 ft – attached Three stories or 36 ft, whichever lesser Three stories or 40 ft Two stories or 25 ft High-density res (R4) Three stories or 30 ft, whichever lesser 35 ft – attached 45 ft – multifamily Three stories or 36 ft, whichever lesser Three stories or 40 ft Three stories or 35 ft Mixed-use res Four stories or 40 ft, whichever lesser 35 ft – specific areas 65 ft – all other areas 55 ft Neighborhood bus (B1) Two stories or 24 ft 35 ft Three stories or 36 ft, whichever lesser Three stories or 30 ft Three stories or 35 ft Limited bus (B2) Two stories or 24 ft (Three stories or 35 ft by CUP or PUD) Three stories or 36 ft, whichever lesser 30 ft plus height exceeding setback Community bus (B3) Three stories or 35 ft 40 ft Three stories or 36 ft, whichever lesser 30 ft plus height exceeding setback Lauderdale R1 height requirement: Two stories or 25 ft, whichever is higher